No one who remembers the appalling slapped-together assembly of cars of the 60s and 70s would deny that today’s vehicles are better quality. Yet the current unprecedented number of recall campaigns appears to give the lie to this fact. In 1966, some 800,000 vehicles were recalled for rectification; in 2000 we had 24m, up from 17m as recently as 1998. Even given the substantial increase in sales, this is going to take some explanation to the many owners inconvenienced by having to traipse back to the dealer for rectification again and again. By Bert Wyatt

Take the new Ford small SUV, Escape, barely a year into its life, and already the subject of half-a-dozen separate recalls. Ford in particular has been battered by recall after recall. With well over 6m vehicles recalled in 1999, 7.5m in 2000, and 2001 ominously looking worse, nothing seems to go right these days. Aside from the damaging calamity of successive Firestone tyre recalls, Ford’s much-vaunted 2002 Explorer, after several launch delays, has already been marred by two recalls (55,000 vehicles involved), one of them particularly inexcusable. Apparently, no one took into account that the new model was slightly wider than the old one, with the result that tyres were being cut by a sharp edge on one short stretch of the assembly line.

To stave off another court-ordered recall, Ford scurried to settle a claim on 5m faulty ignition switches at a cost estimated to be around $1 billion. When it was pointed out that, despite its denials of culpability, Ford had already

“In the belief that any recall was bad publicity, manufacturers used to avoid that drastic step, even against the dictates of common sense. “

settled hundreds of wrongful death suits caused by vehicles stalling, the judge claimed that Ford were “living in an Alice in Wonderland dreamland for denying that the switches were defective”. Claim after claim is thudding on to Ford’s desk, across the whole spectrum of models. The launch delay of the exciting (and expensive) new Thunderbird was just one more public relations disaster.

General Motors and Chrysler have little to crow about, either, with nearly 6m recalls in 2000 for GM and more than 6.5m for Chrysler. Early in 2000, GM were forced to issue a recall notice on 6,000 2002 model (yes, they do get ahead of themselves sometimes) SUVs found to have a faulty suspension part. Owners were warned that under no circumstances were they to drive the vehicle, which would be towed in. Loan vehicles were provided. In the belief that any recall was bad publicity, manufacturers used to avoid that drastic step, even against the dictates of common sense. There was the celebrated case of the Ford Pinto, which was liable to burst into flames when rearended.

Less publicised, although equally serious, was the GM C/K full-size pickup, afflicted with a similar problem. Fixing it on the production line in both cases would have cost peanuts. The carmakers’ resistance to a recall and the consequent awful publicity cost them millions.

The subsequent increase in recalls has been accompanied by a more aggressive stance by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, with its beefed up inspection and supervisory capability. Customers’ attitudes, too, have changed. Although more discriminating, they now tend to judge recalls in a positive light, with the automaker seen as anxious to improve its product, even after purchase. Not surprisingly, manufacturers have sought to implicate their suppliers, a notable example being the unseemly brawl between Ford and Firestone. Fortunately, matters do not usually reach such epic proportions, but the complexities of vehicle assembly make a perfect breeding ground for arguments as to who is to blame.

GM’s ‘Risk and Reward’ programme holds suppliers responsible for quality and even design. Should the supplier achieve his ‘Warranty Commitment’ then he is rewarded; if he fails, he pays. In three out of four cases, the supplier has to pay, seeming to confirm the validity of the carmakers’ claims.

“Determined not to be scapegoats, suppliers point accusingly at the recent blitz on pricing. “

Determined not to be scapegoats, suppliers point accusingly at the recent blitz on pricing. One Tier 1 supplier, who naturally wishes to remain anonymous, lays the blame squarely at the feet of the manufacturers in their relentless drive for cost reduction.

There follows the predictable response from carmakers that this is an excuse not borne out by the facts, but still the pressure on costs remains. Ford group vice-president Richard Parry-Jones, in a recent hardhitting speech, said: “My message to suppliers is this: Work with us on improving quality – cost and profits will correct themselves. I will do anything I can to help you out on quality.”

Echoing the Pinto disaster, one senior GM executive conceded: “Yes, there are certain items where the priorities are cost, cost and cost – such as glass and steel. But if you take generators, for instance, our priority is undeniably quality, and we have written evidence to prove it. There’s no percentage in saving money on supply, only for it to be spent on warranty.” For their part, Tier 1 suppliers are constantly being exhorted to demand better quality from their own suppliers. So not just Tier 1 suppliers but Tiers 2 and 3 come under the spotlight. These companies lower down the supply chain continue to play a more active role in component supply, so responsibility for defects can often rest with them.

In no other industry is the topic bandied about in such a public manner. It may be comforting to have visible evidence of the manufacturers’ anxiety to improve quality, but conversely the prominence given to recall campaigns may engender public disquiet.