GM did not request a delay but IEE did and it was granted. For updates, check this link:
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchResults?prodType=V&searchType=PROD&targetCategory=A&searchCriteria.model=SKY&stats=216053%2C4%2C2%2C173%2C64%2CSKY&makeStats=&jsonBaseURL=%2Fdownloads%2Ffolders%2F&searchCriteria.model_yr=2007&searchCriteria.make=SATURN&searchCriteria.prod_ids=216053You just need to click on the investigations tab after the page loads.
Today, NHTSA posted IEE's response. Here is my summary of it.
Well hell, that was quick. After my email last night there are 4 new documents on the NHTSA site this morning. These all have to do with the IEE response to the Office of Defect Investigation (ODI) at NHTSA. I'm going over the documents now and trying to make heads or tails of them.
What I've determined is that the four documents are:
1. Response letter from IEE
2. Attachment to that letter that includes tables showing make/model/years of all cars with IEE productions as OEM equipment.
3. Additional letter from IEE informing ODI of corrections and addional information to the attached tables of document 2.
4. Attachment to second response letter that is an updated version of document 2.
Document one is the most informative.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM534134/INRL-DP16001-64471P.pdfIt describes the two types of systems IEE produced. One is the OCS and the other is BodySense. They both work very differently. The OCS product is what was used in our cars. OCS was an entire system of the sensor mat, cable, interconnector, Hot-met (no idea what this is), Electronics, and Software including algorithm and calibration). However, the OC Sensor Mat was also sold separately as a component, not a system.
Both the whole system and the OC mat were sold to Lear. GM, Hyundai and Kia all received the complete OCS system. Continental received just the OC mat and then used it in their own complete OCS system which they then supplied to BMW, Nissan and Suzuki.
The great thing about this response is there are illustrations and break downs of what made each sensor mat different in each car and what groups they belong to. If you have ever wondered about what makes our mat unique, check out this document! As suspected, while our mats are different than the CTS, the basic principles are the same. From this document:
The OCS development is an interactive process. The overall seat design, geometry and vehicle environment affect the pressure that an occupant or child seat places on different parts of the seat. As a result, each OCS must be designed for the unique seating environment within each vehicle model, requiring the occupant classification system manufacturer to utilize different sensor mats, calibrations, and algorithms to properly classify occupants. The placement of the sensors, and the amount of pressure each sensor will recognize for an occupant, will vary among the different seat designs and car design.
They use three mats as examples, the Cadillac CTS mat, the Buick Regal mat, and the Kappa Mat. The Cadillac mat had 3D mesh and taped side-wing sensors. The Regal mat had no 3D Mesh but the Kappa mat does have a 3D mesh. Both the Regal and Kappa mats have no taped side-wing sensors. However, there is no mention that the overall construction process and general operation of the sensors and their matrix is vastly different from one car to the next, only the layout of the sensors and the calibration and algorithms for each application. No general difference between the designed operation of the mat is noted.
This piece of the document though is VERY interesting:
The IEE OCS incorporated into MY 2007-2010 Saturn Sky and 2006-2010 Pontiac Solstice vehicles, were designed and developed for these vehicles' unique seating design, geometry vehicle environment, car design and program specifications. IEE developed the OCS in partnership with General Motors and Lear Corp. ("Lear"), General Motors' seating supplier for the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky vehicles, to meet the distinctive requirements and specifications for that vehicle platform as defined by General Motors. The testing for the final integration, including durability testing, of the system into the seat and airbag system in the vehicle was the responsibility of General Motors, as the vehicle manufacturer, and the responsibility of the seat manufacturer. [Emphasis by the editor]
IEE clearly places the blame of any durability issues of the mat squarely on GM and Lear.
The document then goes on to explain this second document:
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM534136/INRD-DP16001-64472P.PDFWhat this table shows is each manufacturer, the models, the IEE Project number, IEE Part Numbers, Model year and Manufacturer part number of something IEE made. If anyone here wants to help out, I need to know what these GM part numbers are. They are all for the Kappa platform:
25828680
25855978
10345300
25817110
I'm assuming these go from newest number to oldest since 25828680 is listed for the convertibles and then again for the coupe. I am also assuming that these are the individual part numbers for the mats themselves. The part number I have been using is for the finished seat assembly from Lear and this part number has never changed. Looking at one of the pictures from my document (I believe this was TomatoSoup's mat) I do see part number 25855978 on the mat controller. This would confirm that this was a GM part number for the Sensor Mat itself but since that part was never sold separately from the finished lower seat foam assembly, GM never had it in their database of OEM parts. So this progression of mat part numbers shows that there were SOME changes to the mat over the course of production but what those changes were is still unknown.
This document though includes BMW, Kia, Suzuki, Nissan, Hyundai, GM, Lear, Mobis, and Autoliv-Korea. It looks to be a list of everyone who got IEE parts, the models and model year the parts were meant for. However, it appears that in some instances the data is incomplete (and noted as such) or the model years are perhaps when the production started as there is only one model year listed for certain manufacturers/models. Look at the document in the link above and you'll see what I mean.
There are a couple of things we can take away from these documents though:
First is that IEE is the maker of the sensor mats in our cars. While we knew that going into this, there was never any official documentation or reference linking IEE to Lear to the Kappa. We knew IEE sold to Lear for the CTS, we knew Lear made the assemblies for the Kappa, but never an official link between the two. This document is that official link.
Second, IEE included everyone who got these kinds of mats, whether it was only the mat itself or the whole OCS assembly. Kia, GM, BMW, Mini, and Suzuki are ALL on this list and ALL have had recalls for a failing mat. Even though IEE is adamant about each mat assembly being different, I feel this works in favor of a recall for the Kappa. Some of their designs, both complete OCS systems and OC mats alone, have failed and been recalled in other platforms. Because not EVERY platform these mats have been installed in has failed, it means failure rates will need to be evaluated from one make and model to another in order to determine in THAT SPECIFIC application has a failure issue. We've seen that ours does, no question. So just because our mat is unique to our car doesn't mean that it can't suffer the same failures as other IEE mats have seen.
Third, since durability testing was not IEE's responsibility and falls on GM instead, if GM did not detect a problem with the mat design they would not have forwarded that information to IEE for correction. Ergo, if GM states that they did inform IEE of necessary updates to the mat, then GM would have had to had known that there was a problem with the mat's failing. If GM didn't inform IEE of a potential problem, then this falls back on GM's failure to properly detect and rectify the issue (coming from the standpoint that there IS an issue of course). Since in other recalls it has been noted that manufacturers have reported issues and worked with IEE to rectify similar issues, the precedence is set that if NHTSA or GM decide this is an issue, GM needs to work with IEE for a proper solution.
Well, one response received, now we wait to hear from GM.
