GM: Possible pitfalls could derail rebound

You're the one who does not get it Mike. When the problems first surfaced, they were a materials problem. Over 10 years later, when GM continues to have the same problem for lack of a design improvement, it's a design flaw.

You're right, I've never tried putting a GM automatic in reverse at speed. Question remains, with GM's stupid "parking brake" NOT a proper "emergency brake" let's say I have a base brake failure. How do I stop the damned car? Answer the question. We all know who knows about cars and who doesn't.

nate

Mike hunt wrote:

Since that is a question, only in your mind, you have to be the one to answer that question. If it were me, and my hydraulic brakes failed, I would use simply use the one that is designed to be used in an emergency, the parking brake. ;)

And how do I do that, since I can't modulate it? Simply step on it and ride it out when the rear wheels lock up? Slam it to the floor briefly, kick it again, hope that the car is not too out of shape at that point and then try to use it properly? (assuming that I have the presence of mind to actually do that in a panic situation)

Admit it, GM is letting idiots tell them what to do, some focus group probably said that oh my God, having to reach down to use a lever to release the parking brake is too hard, and this is the half baked "solution" that they came up with. Never mind that foot operated parking brakes are crap to begin with, but again, the focus groups probably say that cupholders and a fold down armrest are more important than a proper emergency brake (never mind that Porsche solved this problem decades ago by putting the lever on the left hand side.)

If you think that this push on, push off abortion was actually DESIGNED to be used in an emergency, that speaks volumes about how much you actually know about cars and driving. (as in, less than is contained in this post.)

Of course, in real life, my parking brake is out of adjustment more often than not, so what would really happen is the foot pedal would go to the floor and the car would kinda sorta slow down and if I was in heavy traffic I'd either sail down the shoulder for a good long way, or if there is no shoulder probably hit someone/thing.

nate

Mike hunt wrote:

You appear to be a bit slow but you certainly are entitled to your own opinion however your information is not correct. The basic design of gaskets has been the same for years. Except for configuring a gasket for individual application the basic way to build the gasket has not changed in years, the only thing that has changed is the material used in gaskets. If you doubt that take a look at the head gasket on a prewar car. The head gaskets that failed did not have a change in the way they were built, the "design" as you call it did not change and the specifications did not change before asbestos or after asbestos when the were made with alternate materials.. The same gasket worked fine with asbestos and two of the four material used after asbestos was ban, did not work, it's that simple. The vehicle manufactures had no control over the material the gasket manufacturer used to meet their specs. If you still do not understand that's your problem

Mike - you have continued to demonstrate your ignorance on this point for months now. The gasket issue at hand is not a head gasket issue. It's not an asbestos issue. It's the issue with the intake manifold gaskets. The aftermarket succeeded in supplying a superior gasket, while GM was still shoving the same old stock into their 3.1's and 3.4's. They had over a decade to make good on that particular problem and simply did not. Take your repeated carping of the same old tired line - which is irrelevant by the way, and tell it to the wall.

When I teach a class at a race track, or teach a school at a university, I am compensated handsomely. I doubt' you could afford one of my classes.

There are driving schools where one can learn how to properly operate an automobile and its equipment. Bob Bondurant operates schools at race tracks around the country, they are a great place to learn defensive driving as well. I sent all of my children and grand children to his schools. A bit expensive, but one saves on insurance as well as "saving" their a$$ down the road. ;)

Pics or it didn't happen. The more you post the more I think that you may have never looked under a hood in your entire life.

nate

There's your problem moron, it is not a head gasket being discussed ! GM's don't have the head gasket failure that Fords are famous for. GM's problem was with the intake gaskets failing. It is you that doesn't know what they are talking about as the gasket IS NOT of a conventional manufacturing process as all previous gaskets were. It is made out of plastic, YES PLASTIC, and it is a piece of shit design. Whay are you in a GM newsgroup anyway, you are a Ford man ?

The head

More bullshit from Mike Hunt ! Toyota was the only one that I know of that addressed the gasket problem. They issued a recall for the head gasket problem. Cna you name any other manufacturer that had a recall for gaskets. I know Chrysler covered them under warranty. I know GM did NOTHING if the car was out of warranty. That's why people get pissed at American vehicle manufacturers. Ten years later and GM has still done NOTHING to address teh problem, including making a better gasket.

The person you should be

Duh you continue to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about, a gasket, is a gasket and my reference has been to gaskets of all types and the MATERIALS used in their construction. I previously referred to some worked and some did not, dummy

contrary to what you choose to believe GM had a recall on the intake manifolds as well, if your vehicle did not qualify because of mileage of age that your problem.

Newer intake manifolds do not requires the heat resistance of the gaskets of old. Intake manifolds today contain air, not the fuel mix that needed to be kept heated when engines used carburetors. Why any sensible person would judge how all the renditions of a vehicle of a particular brand, albeit it good or bad, by one that they may have owned is somewhat foolish at best, in any event. Why are you always disparaging GM in a GM NG if you no longer buy GM products, is the better question one might ask LOL

You keep going around in circles. You are entitled to you own opinion no matter how convoluted it may be. Read previous posts as to who actually had what problems and what warranties were issued and why, WBMA. Trying to enlighten you apparently is a waist of time, you prefer to believe what you want to believe. Bye, bye.

You are free to believe whatever you choose. I could not care less what you choose to believe LOL

Ya right LOL

Mike - your repeated attempts to sound informed on this are an utter failure. GM did not experience head gasket failures. If this were a materials problem of the sort you keep babbling about, they would have. But - they did not. They experienced intake gasket problems because they continued to use the same gasket desing for over 10 years despite the near

100% failure rate of these gaskets. It is not a materials problem.

I might not be informed on the matter of a recall but I do not remember any recall on the 3.1 and 3.4 for intake gaskets. Please provide proof of this statement. These manifold gaskets failed anywhere from 20,000 miles on up, and GM did not universally stand behind them. At best, owners with 40,000 miles were sometimes fortunate enough to get a Goodwill contribution out of GM, but even that was not a warranty - did not cover the costs, and was dependent upon the dealer persuading GM to do so.

What do you call newer? This was a problem throughout the life of the 60 degree engine. It most certainly was true of the newer engines. 3.1 and

3.4 engines built right up to the end suffered this gasket failure.

Mike - you continue to throw out irrelevant points. Please do some research on the GM intake gasket problems. You'll make yourself look less foolish.

Perfect. Can't deal with the facts, can you Mike? No problem - as one prolifically rhetorical poster is known to say - you're entitled to your opinion.

Well, I believe that you are full of shit and 95% of what you post is complete fabrication.

If you don't care, why do you keep responding?

nate

You keep presenting the same convaluted opinion. I'm not going to continue banter back and force with you over the same subject, you are free to believe whatever you choose. What you choose to believe is wrong. As I posted before, when I owned my fleet service business we submit many a claim to every manufacturer the made cars in the US for several years. They all were paid under warranty or extended warranties for defected gaskets and covered the claims we submitted. If you had a complaint and could not collect it has to be that you were outside the warranty or extended warranty time and mileage parameters. What I have presented are facts not opinions, if you want to continue to believe otherwise that up to you...

Simply to remind you I don't care what you think, so why do you continue to tell we what you think LOL

If you don't care, why do you keep responding?

nate