MotorVehicle Consumer Group
Federal Auto or Volvo?
NHTSA (USA)
Consumer
Complaints
Other Defective Motor Vehicles
 |
Volvo parent company hid important
information |
|
BY pleading ignorance of the Service Bulletin dated November 1985, Federal Auto is implying that the Volvo parent company had hid important information (pertaining to the need to replace the 34mm calipers with those measuring 38 mm in diameter) from them.
When shown the Service Bulletin dated November 1995, the After Sales Manager of Federal Auto had testified, "This is the first time I'm looking at this document."
Though agreeing that there had been a similar bulletin about the rear calipers with 34 mm diameter pistons having "been superceded by rear calipers with 38 mm diameter pistons", he however insisted that that particular bulletin was dated November 1989, adding "There's no service bulletin dated November 1985."
Besides the dispute about the date of the Service Bulletin there is also the matter of the brochure issued by the company which had extolled "the triangular split, dual-circuit braking system" of their Volvo 760 GLE as "brakes you can always rely on" since this system "maintains both an 80% braking effect and course stability even if one brake circuit fails".
Prior to this the brochure had stated,"With more and more cars on the roads every year it has become absolutely vital that a car utilises every possible piece of advanced technology to make it safer. Volvo is among the leaders in this area, and the Volvo 760 GLE epitomizes that philosophy".
Very impressive. Unfortunately, it doesn't ring true in the light of the 1984 recall of 5,800 units of this same model for defective brakes. The summary of the defect reads: "The brake warning switch may have components that have been improperly manufactured. Brake fluid may seep from the switch without triggering the brake warning switch. Consequences of defect: Loss of brake fluid may cause a loss in braking power, possibly resulting in an accident."
If the defects in 760's "superior brake system" were serious enough to warrant a recall in 1984, , then why did the company still publish and distribute the said brochure even in August 1985?
And, why did the salesman at Federal Auto similarly praise this model's so-called "superior" brakes in mid-August 1985 when Mr. Lim had called at their showroom? Wasn't he aware of the 1984 mass recall of this particular model?
If he was, can this be regarded as a case of "misrepresentation of (material) facts"?
And, if he wasn't, then why wasn't he (someone in the frontline of the company's marketing team) kept up-to-date on such important developments?
Can this be construed as a case of a parent (foreign) company purposely keeping important information from its Malaysian agent
This website is sponsored by the MotorVehicle Consumer Group
Source: Consumers'
Association of Penang, Malaysia
April 1998 Vol 28 No.6
Disclaimer: All the information printed on this website are to be used for your personal entertainment viewing only. Most of the information gathered here are compilation from the Consumer Association of Penang publication. We are not affiliated with Volvo and Consumer Association of Penang or with any other automobile manufacturers.