Gasket failure: again!

Page 3 of 4  
Are you a WWII vet as well? Not many of us left
mike hunt


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Really? What method did you use to true the wooden spoked wheels?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Soaking them in glycerin works well ;)
mike hunt
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
On Sat, 20 May 2006 16:19:37 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You foget to say in my opinion. ;)
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

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 shit canned.

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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's funny as well. LOL
mike hunt
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IOWs, you have nothing to refute it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No need, the available record does that on its own. Do a search,WBMA
mike hunt
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

and
are
***
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

to
date
two
paint
makes
Would somebody please give the robot a bump - it's stuck in repeat mode again.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:25:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

No joke.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.