 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / May 2006Gasket failure: again!
All right Just learned that my intake gasket is failing again on my 2000 Venture. This is the second time; GM changed it at 1/2 cost (500$ CND) 2 years ago. The dealer told my wife that there is nothing that they will do for us, do and they will not help pay for this crap. The service manager basically said: "Listen, this is a 6 year old van. It has 108 K Km (60 Kmiles), what do you expect?!" Well,. Bloody GM. What can I do? We have been polite, respectful of the service manager, explained that this is not normal, that we do not abuse the van, it has been always maintained at the dealership... so what can I do? Any help wouold be appreciated. Cheers It is out of warranty. That means you pay. Next time buy something that won't let you down as much. >All right > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Cheers get it fixed, research the internet,contact consumer organisation, CAA APA build a file, and take your chance at the small claim court. > It is out of warranty. That means you pay. Next time buy something > that won't let you down as much. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >>Cheers > get it fixed, research the internet,contact consumer > organisation, CAA APA build a file, and take your chance at the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>> >>>Cheers I was thinking. Is there a product I can use to fix, even if temporally, this leaking? Thanks > I was thinking. Is there a product I can use to fix, even if > temporally, this leaking? No. The early stages of the gasket failure don't present big problems though. Keep an eye on the coolant level and keep it topped off. Watch your motor oil for any signs of water in the oil. You can actually go quite a long time on these gaskets when they begin to fail.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net BAD advice, change the gasket now. Gasket failures are not generally catastrophic and give plenty of notice before they fail and cause future damage from contaminated oil. We in the fleet service business were first to encounter failing gaskets back then because many fleet vehicles accumulate mileage quickly. The head gasket failures we saw led to the engine manufactures becoming aware of the problem before dealer warranty claims heated up. We noticed extraordinary coolant consumption, tested the engines and changed head gaskets long before any internal damage occurred. We soon noticed the replacement gaskets were failing as well. It was at that point the non asbestos material; became suspect and was changed. The problem for engine manufactures and their customers was there were four different materials use to replace asbestos initially, two worked and two did not over time. One failed comparably quickly, in the 20/30 thousand mile range like the material used in Toyota head gasket, resulting in gaskets failing for customers while still in warranty. The other however lasted much longer with failures occurring in the 60/80 thousands mile range. Thus out of warranty and the reason the gasket manufacture were taken to court by Ford and other engine manufactures, since the gasket makers said the resulting damage causes by a failed gasket was the owner neglect and poor preventive maintance in failing to replace the gasket. mike hunt >> I was thinking. Is there a product I can use to fix, even if >> temporally, this leaking? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > quite > a long time on these gaskets when they begin to fail. > BAD advice, change the gasket now. Gasket failures are not generally > catastrophic and give plenty of notice before they fail and cause future > damage from contaminated oil. Not bad advice at all Mike. Real world advice. > We in the fleet service business were first to encounter failing gaskets > back then because many fleet vehicles accumulate mileage quickly. The head [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > failing as well. It was at that point the non asbestos material; became > suspect and was changed. You should stick to running the business Mike. The gasket failures in question are intake manifold gaskets and not head gaskets. > The problem for engine manufactures and their customers was there were four > different materials use to replace asbestos initially, two worked and two [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > makers said the resulting damage causes by a failed gasket was the owner > neglect and poor preventive maintance in failing to replace the gasket. And GM's gaskets are still failing today. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net You mean like my neighbors Toyota, with the bad tranny? ;) mike hunt > It is out of warranty. That means you pay. Next time buy something > that won't let you down as much. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >>Cheers I mean if there is something big that is likely to burn you after warranty, make a different purchase choice. Applies to any particular problem item, no matter the brand. The gasket failure that GM has had is something that people should have just plain avoided buying vehicles that have the affected engines. That's a LOT of vehicles to avoid! GM doesn't DESERVE to have people spend good money on products with such a serious problem. On the other hand, go ahead and buy other GM products that don't have the big problems, and don't by rice that has big problems either. Don't know for sure, but I have had independent mechanics tell me there was a stretch not all that long ago that a lot of Dodge (Chrysler) trannies were pure reliability nightmares. Had I been considering one of their products at the time, I would have checked into those claims much further before spending my hard earned cash on one. >You mean like my neighbors Toyota, with the bad tranny? ;) > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>> >>>Cheers Don't know for sure, but I have had > independent mechanics tell me there was a stretch not all that long > ago that a lot of Dodge (Chrysler) trannies were pure reliability > nightmares. Had I been considering one of their products at the time, > I would have checked into those claims much further before spending my > hard earned cash on one. Right. Some of them failed very early. Ford went through the same situation on some of their transmissions, particularly in the minivans. If you know about this sort of defect, you should probably avoid the car. GM had some problems with their 440T4 Metric transmission, but they were probably not as serious as the Ford and Chrysler issues. The 440T4 has evolved and, I guess, is pretty dependable now. > It is out of warranty. That means you pay. Next time buy something > that won't let you down as much. Unfortunately, a lot of people bought this engine option not knowing the problems that it carried with it. I believe that both the design of this engine's sealing surfaces AND the composition of the original gaskets both had a little to do with this, and have heard that new gaskets are available that are much better than the originals. Sgt Silicon is normally right, though. If it is out of warranty, you are probably out of luck. The dealership BS line (that it is a 6 year old van, what do you expect) is crap. That is no time at all, nor mileage either, for a modern vehicle. I wouldn't buy anything from them anymore, even if just because of that attitude. They KNOW there was a problem here, but legally they are not required to do anything about it, nor are you likely to get any sympathy from GM. There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition . GM like most every other manufacture, Ford, Chrysler, Honda Toyota etal, fell victim to the government ban on the use of asbestos without allowing the companies that actually manufacture gaskets time to develop a proper replacement material. All of the manufactures offered extended warranties on 'gasket related problems, but like all warranties they have a limit. Apparently that particular vehicle has exceed the warranty limit on time or mileage. The person people should be mad at is their congressman mike hunt >> It is out of warranty. That means you pay. Next time buy something >> that won't let you down as much. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > do > anything about it, nor are you likely to get any sympathy from GM. > There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition . > GM like most every other manufacture, Ford, Chrysler, Honda Toyota etal, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Apparently that particular vehicle has exceed the warranty limit on time or > mileage. The person people should be mad at is their congressman And the excuse for vehicles as recent at 2003, 2004 model years experiencing this very same problem is exactly what Mike? Your tired explanation lost its validity about 12 years ago. All of the manufacturers *except* GM have gotten past the initial change over problems - years ago. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net You contention might make sense but then how would that explain why the asbestos gaskets of prior years did not fail? ;) mike hunt >> There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition >> . [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have > gotten past the initial change over problems - years ago. > You contention might make sense but then how would that explain why the > asbestos gaskets of prior years did not fail? ;) Strawman argument Mike. My point has been (for months now in response to your canned line about gaskets) simply that GM cars still have gasket problems and other manufacturers have long ago gotten around them. You can put your head in the sand all you wish, but GM wears egg on their face for this one. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net You forgot to say in my opinion because that is all it is, the facts say otherwise. mike hunt >> You contention might make sense but then how would that explain why the >> asbestos gaskets of prior years did not fail? ;) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > put your head in the sand all you wish, but GM wears egg on their face for > this one. > You forgot to say in my opinion because that is all it is, the facts say > otherwise. You are indeed funny Mike. What do you do, close your eyes to what is going on to this very day with GM motors? Do you actually read any of the posts here about people with gasket problems? Can robots read? Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > You contention might make sense but then how would that explain why the > asbestos gaskets of prior years did not fail? ;) > > mike hunt Intake (and other) gasket failures on this family of engines date back to the 1980 model year, when it was introduced. > Intake (and other) gasket failures on this family of engines date > back to the 1980 model year, when it was introduced. Damn sure did. Long before asbestos became an issue. That is why I think this engine series had some special sealing problems. >> You contention might make sense but then how would that explain why the >> asbestos gaskets of prior years did not fail? ;) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Intake (and other) gasket failures on this family of engines date >back to the 1980 model year, when it was introduced. Gentlemen, We're talking a 3100 or 3400 V-6 I'm assuming? The first generation of that family (iron block/iron head 2.8L) seemed to seal OK. The worst issue I saw with those engines as far as leaks was rocker cover gaskets. From what I remember (and I'll admit it has been awhile since I've worked on one - I avoid them like the plague) 1987 was the start of the problems - when GM went to aluminum heads on that engine family.(the Gen II version). Works on more than a few late 80s-early 90s cars with those engines with leaking intake manifolds. When I bought my 1994 Regal I looked around to find one with the 3800 engine just because of the known sealing problems with the 3.1/3.4 engines. The 3800 in my Regal is the last year of the Gen. I 3800 - it has a plastic upper intake, but not of the same design as the Gen. II 3800s that we all know and love until they decide to burn antifreeze. I had a chance to buy a really cherry 1995 Regal, but I passed it up only because I knew it had the Gen. II 3800. To the original poster: all I can say is shop around for the best price you can find on a repair, then ditch that van as quickly as you can. If you need a van, you may have to look at the foreign stuff - you know the problems with the GMs, the Ford Winstar is a known piece of crap and Chrysler can't seem to keep transmissions together in theirs. If you do go foreign, avoid Mazda (I could tell you some real horror stories about the MPV). Regards, Bill Bowen Sacramento, CA . . > >Intake (and other) gasket failures on this family of engines date > >back to the 1980 model year, when it was introduced. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > worst issue I saw with those engines as far as leaks was rocker cover > gaskets. And intake gaskets and front cover gaskets. > From what I remember (and I'll admit it has been awhile since I've > worked on one - I avoid them like the plague) 1987 was the start of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > antifreeze. I had a chance to buy a really cherry 1995 Regal, but I > passed it up only because I knew it had the Gen. II 3800. Both the Gen I and Gen II Buick engines use the same feeble intake gasket design as the 3100/3400, failures just aren't as readily apparent because the coolant passages are not at the ends of the cylinder heads like the 3100/3400, in addition to the Gen II plastic intake burn out problem, Gen I intake plenums have been known to fail also, just not as frequent as the Gen II. > To the original poster: all I can say is shop around for the best > price you can find on a repair, then ditch that van as quickly as you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > . . > To the original poster: all I can say is shop around for the > best [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > some real > horror stories about the MPV). Good advice. Thanks. I went and looked at a Ioy Sienna... Any issues with those I should know about?? > Gentlemen, > > We're talking a 3100 or 3400 V-6 I'm assuming? The first generation > of that family (iron block/iron head 2.8L) seemed to seal OK. The > worst issue I saw with those engines as far as leaks was rocker cover > gaskets. No, they also had lots of intake manifold gasket leaks, and front cover gasket leaks (as was mentioned by another poster). They've been a lousy line of engines from the get-go as far as intake gasket failures. Again, I've worked on them since they were introduced. Ian >> Gentlemen, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Ian Ian, I'm not doubting what you are saying: just going by my own experiences. We probably work on a quite different product mix. As has often been said "your milage may vary" Of course then again nothing leaks oil like an old Harley V-Twin. Regards, Bill Bowen Sacramento, CA > >> Gentlemen, > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Of course then again nothing leaks oil like an old Harley V-Twin. Those chain oilers were totally misunderstood... With all the talk about the 3.4 gasket problems, does anybody know if they fixed it for model year 2004? I've got a 2004 Impala base model, bought new 2 years ago. It's already got 81,000km on it and so far no problem with the motor. I hope to keep it at least 6 years, or 300,000km. Is the new 2006 3.5 motor the same as the 3.4? "StarWolf" <SPAMsjoanis@videotron.caSPAM> wrote in message > I've got a 2004 Impala base model, bought new 2 years ago. It's already > got > 81,000km on it and so far no problem with the motor. I hope to keep it at > least 6 years, or 300,000km. Crap shoot. Most will, but there will always be some failures. Gasket problems related to the ban on asbestos has been corrected. If you have a concern you should take quick note of any coolant consumption and do an occasional pressure test, as part of any good preventive maintance regimen. mike hunt > With all the talk about the 3.4 gasket problems, does anybody know if they > fixed it for model year 2004? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is the new 2006 3.5 motor the same as the 3.4? > With all the talk about the 3.4 gasket problems, does anybody know if they > fixed it for model year 2004? > > I've got a 2004 Impala base model, bought new 2 years ago. It's already got > 81,000km on it and so far no problem with the motor. I hope to keep it at > least 6 years, or 300,000km. So keep it. Just keep an eye on it. Every time you change the oil, take a quick look for any signs of gasket failure. You'll see the coolant seepage under the manifold if the gaskets are breaking down. > Is the new 2006 3.5 motor the same as the 3.4? No. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Are you that stupid? >You contention might make sense but then how would that explain why the >asbestos gaskets of prior years did not fail? ;) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> have >> gotten past the initial change over problems - years ago. > You contention might make sense but then how would that explain why > the asbestos gaskets of prior years did not fail? ;) Actually, they did! That line of engine has "always" had intake manifold gasket failures! When they first introduced the engine, I was working on them replacing intake gaskets (the old asbestos ones) for the same problem we have today, coolant leaking into the engine. You need to bone up on your engine history a bit....or else just keep quiet! Ian I thing you need to bone up on your engine history a bit....or else just keep quiet! ;) mike hunt >> You contention might make sense but then how would that explain why >> the asbestos gaskets of prior years did not fail? ;) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ian He just ignores such logic, therefore he has about ZERO credibility. >> There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition . >> GM like most every other manufacture, Ford, Chrysler, Honda Toyota etal, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >its validity about 12 years ago. All of the manufacturers *except* GM have >gotten past the initial change over problems - years ago. > There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition . Actually, the gaskets are quite feeble. > GM like most every other manufacture, Ford, Chrysler, Honda Toyota etal, > fell victim to the government ban on the use of asbestos without allowing > the companies that actually manufacture gaskets time to develop a proper > replacement material. Hog wash. > All of the manufactures offered extended warranties > on 'gasket related problems, but like all warranties they have a limit. Yeah, 3/36 unless you bought the extended warranty. > Apparently that particular vehicle has exceed the warranty limit on time or > mileage. The person people should be mad at is their congressman Is he also a bean counter at GM? You forgot to say in my opinion, because you have not idea what you are talking about LOL mike >> There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition >> . [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Is he also a bean counter at GM? > You forgot to say in my opinion, because you have not idea what you are > talking about LOL I have "not" idea what I'm talking about? I bet that you couldn't even point to the place on an engine where these parts go. That is likely, the engines on most car today are completely covered. LOL mike hunt >> You forgot to say in my opinion, because you have not idea what you are >> talking about LOL [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I bet that you couldn't even point to the place on an engine > where these parts go. > That is likely, the engines on most car today are completely covered. LOL Actually, no they are not. But I'm certain that removal of the cover, if there were one would pose a challenge for you. Pretty sad when all one knows about cars is what is published in Automotive News. That's funny coming from a guy who was still in diapers at a time when I was building and driving race cars. LOL mike hunt >> That is likely, the engines on most car today are completely covered. >> LOL [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Pretty sad when all one knows about cars is what is published in > Automotive News. > That's funny coming from a guy who was still in diapers at a time when I > was building and driving race cars. LOL Pal, from one who I'm sure is older than you and who is not going to tire people with a bunch of been there done that, you sound like a total idiot. Roy > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Pretty sad when all one knows about cars is what is published in >> Automotive News. Are you a WWII vet as well? Not many of us left mike hunt >> That's funny coming from a guy who was still in diapers at a time when I >> was building and driving race cars. LOL [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Roy >> mike hunt > That's funny coming from a guy who was still in diapers at a time when I was > building and driving race cars. LOL > > mike hunt Really? What method did you use to true the wooden spoked wheels? Soaking them in glycerin works well ;) mike hunt >> That's funny coming from a guy who was still in diapers at a time when I >> was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Really? > What method did you use to true the wooden spoked wheels? > There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition . > GM like most every other manufacture, Ford, Chrysler, Honda Toyota etal, > fell victim to the government ban on the use of asbestos without allowing > the companies that actually manufacture gaskets time to develop a proper > replacement material. You just contradicted yourself. There WAS something wrong with those gaskets, and you know it. GM had the worst problems, Dodge had none at all, AFAIK. Ford had few, but did have the plastic plenum pendejada DUH the government ban on the use of asbestos without allowing the companies that actually manufacture gaskets time to develop a proper replacement material WAS the problem. Better do a bit more research if that is what you believe about who had gasket problems. ;) mike hunt >> There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition >> . [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > gaskets, and you know it. GM had the worst problems, Dodge had none at > all, AFAIK. Ford had few, but did have the plastic plenum pendejada Mike, you make such a damn fool out of yourself continuing to sing that same old song, when it flies in the face of the fact that GM is the only one who had it last so long. >There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition . >GM like most every other manufacture, Ford, Chrysler, Honda Toyota etal, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> do >> anything about it, nor are you likely to get any sympathy from GM. You foget to say in my opinion. ;) mike hunt > Mike, you make such a damn fool out of yourself continuing to sing > that same old song, when it flies in the face of the fact that GM is [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >>> do >>> anything about it, nor are you likely to get any sympathy from GM. >There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition . >GM like most every other manufacture, Ford, Chrysler, Honda Toyota etal, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >mike hunt Oh c'mon..... GM designed the product, spec'd the components, TESTED the product, marketed the product, and took the money for the product. I'm reminded of the Ford story where the PINTO had a defective gas tank. FORD concluded it would be cheaper to fight the lawsuits than to fix the problem.... Then, there's the infamous FIRESTONE tire debacle, where they tried to blame the drivers for their tire failure. And, now, Mike Hunt would blame the congress for GMs gasket prob. ( which UAW local do they belong to ?? ) <rj> The may be your opinion but the facts disagree with your assumption. The problem was that some of the four new, untested materials, used in the gaskets did not meet the specs set by GM, Ford, Toyota etal. That my friend is why the gasket manufactures settled with the engine manufactures prior to the case going to court. The same was true of Firestone tires. Congress and the EPA were the cause of the gasket problems, just as they were for paint blowing off cars for a number of years.. If you will do a search you will find the Pinto was, in the end, found by the government to exceed federal standards and actually did so better than any of the competitors in its class like similar sized Chrysler, Toyotas and Datsun models and no worse than many above its class like a full size Chevy. ;) mike hunt >>There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition . >>GM like most every other manufacture, Ford, Chrysler, Honda Toyota etal, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > <rj> > The may be your opinion but the facts disagree with your assumption. The > problem was that some of the four new, untested materials, used in the > gaskets did not meet the specs set by GM, Ford, Toyota etal. That my friend > is why the gasket manufactures settled with the engine manufactures prior to > the case going to court. Interesting... The gasket manufacturers settled with the engine manufacturers yet are _now buying the exact same gaskets_ that failed prior to the settlement, and are/were using them at the OEM -and- as service replacement parts. Ex post facto, mind you... Meanwhile, companies much smaller than GM have managed to produce gaskets that don't fail. > The same was true of Firestone tires. Except that the tires in question were replaced under recall, the inflation pressures were upped to a realistic number and the twin I-beam front suspension was sh.t canned. > Congress > and the EPA were the cause of the gasket problems, just as they were for > paint blowing off cars for a number of years.. But not -all- paint "blew" off of cars. All of the gaskets that GM used on the engines in question (which pretty much includes all GM "V" type engines with a wet intake manifold) will fail. > If you will do a search you will find the Pinto was, in the end, found by > the government to exceed federal standards and actually did so better than > any of the competitors in its class like similar sized Chrysler, Toyotas and > Datsun models and no worse than many above its class like a full size Chevy. Yet Ford no longer engages in the practice of using the roof of the fuel tank as the floor of the truck. Then again, government standards and common sense are mutually exclusive. That's funny as well. LOL mike hunt >> The may be your opinion but the facts disagree with your assumption. The >> problem was that some of the four new, untested materials, used in the [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Then again, government standards and common sense are mutually > exclusive. > That's funny as well. LOL IOWs, you have nothing to refute it. No need, the available record does that on its own. Do a search,WBMA mike hunt >> That's funny as well. LOL > > IOWs, you have nothing to refute it. > There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition . > GM like most every other manufacture, Ford, Chrysler, Honda Toyota etal, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > mike hunt Get angry with your Congressman for taking action on hazardous materials? Hah. You're a fool. GM dragged its heels on this and then, rather than being prepared for a ban on asbestos, had to make a change in a hurry and made bad choices. Other manufacturers had teething problems with non-asbestos gaskets but GM's problems dragged on because they did a bad job. They also couldn't have been looking at repair records or they would have more quickly realized they had a problem. Putting bad gaskets in engines for a decade or so? There's no excuse for that. > >> It is out of warranty. That means you pay. Next time buy something > >> that won't let you down as much. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > do > > anything about it, nor are you likely to get any sympathy from GM. Engine manufactures do not make gasket, gasket manufactures make gaskets to meet the engine manufactures specifications . The government ban, on a date certain, did not allow sufficient time to develop a single suitable replacement that was capable of meeting the specs. Four were developed, two worked. Just as happened with the date certain implementation of new paint regulations, Ford, Toyota, Honda, GM etal, as well as the gasket manufactures, and their customers became the victims as a result. Whether you agree with those facts is immaterial to the facts on record. That makes you the fool.. mike hunt >> There was nothing wrong with the gaskets design or the surface condition >> . [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > or > so? There's no excuse for that. > Engine manufactures do not make gasket, gasket manufactures make gaskets to > meet the engine manufactures specifications . The government ban, on a date [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you agree with those facts is immaterial to the facts on record. That makes > you the fool.. Would somebody please give the robot a bump - it's stuck in repeat mode again. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> Engine manufactures do not make gasket, gasket manufactures make gaskets >to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Would somebody please give the robot a bump - it's stuck in repeat mode >again. No joke. Fact are facts, they are verifiable by anybody willing to do a proper search. They do not change simply because somebody has a different opinion of the facts. Do a search as I did of the court case settlement with Ford and the gasket manufactures, the findings and fact are there for all to read. LOL mike hunt >>> Engine manufactures do not make gasket, gasket manufactures make gaskets >>to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No joke. >gaskets but GM's problems dragged on because they did a bad job. They also >couldn't have been looking at repair records or they would have more quickly >realized they had a problem. Putting bad gaskets in engines for a decade or >so? There's no excuse for that. For the sake of argument, let us assume for a moment, that GM has been looking at those repair records. Let us also assume that they did notice the "problem." If those assumptions are true, combined with that we know that others have found ways to solve the problem with material switch-over. What does that suggest of GM? Perhaps they saw customer problem as money making opportunity for service centers? >> It is out of warranty. That means you pay. Next time buy something >> that won't let you down as much. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >crap. >That is no time at all, nor mileage either, for a modern vehicle. I agree. If they think that is such a riteous position, I wonder if they would be willing to express it to a potential customer out on the sales floor. Remember, that isn't just one replacement in that 6 years, it's 2 replacements! So basically, in a 6 year period, the vehicle required the factory install that they all get, one replacement, then ANOTHER replacement! Yeah, I'm sure that wouldn't bother any potential customers. When's the next one, at 8 years? >I wouldn't buy anything from them anymore, even if just because of that >attitude. >They KNOW there was a problem here, but legally they are not required to do >anything about it, nor are you likely to get any sympathy from GM. > It is out of warranty. That means you pay. Next time buy something > that won't let you down as much. Not necessarily. I had a second gasket go on a 2000 Venture out of warranty and my dealer got it "goodwilled". The problem was found before there was any engine damage, so it wasn't a hugely expensive repair. Sometimes if it is a known issue and your dealer will go to bat for you, you can get it paid for. Jane >>All right >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >>Cheers > All right > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Cheers I am curious, did you buy it from this dealer? >> All right >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I am curious, did you buy it from this dealer? No I did not as I wasn in another city. I moved 1 month after and have been going to this dealership ever since. I am out of luck. Man this bites! But really, it should last more than 2 years! Got it repaired in 2004. Shouldn't have they have used a new gasket, or a new design? I have found that there is a class action suit here in Canada against GM. I am completing papers to join this suit. > No I did not as I wasn in another city. I moved 1 month after and > have been going to this dealership ever since. I am out of luck. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I have found that there is a class action suit here in Canada > against GM. I am completing papers to join this suit. Joining a class action suit won't help you a bit. But... the lawyers will get richer. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net One does not 'join' a class action, one can only exempt themselves from the 'class'. Only a judge can declare the case before him as a 'class' action. At that point everyone in the class become a plaintive and entitled to a percent of the award, if any.. If the class does not prevail you are forever bared from further litigation. You can opt out of the class, by petition, and bring your own litigation before a court if you so choose mike hunt >> No I did not as I wasn in another city. I moved 1 month after and >> have been going to this dealership ever since. I am out of luck. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Joining a class action suit won't help you a bit. But... the lawyers will > get richer. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.