Ok, when did GM changed the head gasket on their 3.4 and other
motors? My 2000 venture had the problem. I want to know if later
model years minivan have the same problems
So, I am looking for two things:
1) OFFICIAL confirmation that they actually changed its design.
Something credible, please.
2) Is there any recent report that the fix (new design) works?
Can someone help?
The design was not the problem, the material inside, that replaced asbestos,
was the problem. GM, Toyota, Honda, Chrysler; Ford etc. all had numerous
gasket problems after the feds banned asbestos without allowing the gasket
manufactures time to develop a proper substitute. Do a search of Ford V
Raybestos the gasket manufacture for all the details, but every gasket
manufacture ahs improved the gaskets that they are provide to the engine
Mike - you've beaten this to death, and you're still wrong. For one - it is
the design that is flawed. The design includes the materials specified.
What ever replaced asbestos was a specified material - that is a design
issue. Get over it.
Yes, the other manufacturers did have similar issues - but not for 10
freakin' years. '03 and '04 model year GM's are still experiencing the same
gasket problems as earlier 90's vintage vehicles. That's far past any
reasonable tolerance for developing substitute materials. You are right -
you have to *search* to find the same problems with the other manufacturers.
GM is the big hold out company when it comes to prolonging this consumer rip
No opinion Mike. Read what I wrote again and provide something that even
remotely resembles a valid argument against it. No one has ever disputed
the fact that manufacturers were caught by the asbestos ban - the issue, as
it has been stated here many times, is that GM stands pretty much alone in
how long after the ban they continue to have gasket problems.
Poor Mr. Hunter probably isn't even collecting a paycheck or other
favors from GM for his endless boosterism. Certainly there are folks
on the 'net who do so, but he strikes me as a freelancer who makes
excuses for GM no matter what.
Mike's certainly the last of the great defenders of GM, but what he doesn't
realize is that there are a lot of us out here like myself who really do
like GM products, but we don't put blinders on with respect to their
problems. Some of the GM issues are things that people like myself have
elected to live with as just a part of the way things are - really no
different than any other manufacturer. They all have their bug-a-boo's.
Some of the things aren't so easy to just live with - at least to the point
that even a steadfast GM advocate admits that they should rightfully have
done something to correct an issue by now. The intake gasket issue falls
into the later category in my opinion.
Agreed Mike. But one must concede that those gasket problems are a
fairly serious issue, or at least can quickly lead to very serious
Fortunately, my GM engine isn't at risk for that. I worry for those
that it is though.
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:41:41 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
I'm not defending anybody, I am simply presenting the proper facts
concerning gasket failures that happen to most every manufacture, not only
If could have been worse had the gasket manufacture prevailed. The gasket
manufactures argued in court that any engine damaged by a leaking head
gasket was 'owner neglect!' The head gasket did not fail catastrophically,
but over time. As the material inside began to shrink the metal cover was
consumed by the combustion process and the gasket would begin to weep
coolant into the engine. Any owner who provided the proper preventive
maintenance SHOULD have noticed the coolant loss and had the vehicle
inspected for the cause.. If they had done so the casket could have been
replaced long before there was damage to the engine. They were willing to
cover the cost of gasket replacement but not any resulting engine failure
caused by coolant contamination of the oil. The out of court settlement
place 80% of the cost on the gasket manufactures and their insurance
companies and 20% on the engine manufactures. Each manufacture provide
warranty extension, based on which gasket using which material in place of
asbestos, for a specific time and or milage.
I completely agree. GM had more than enough time to redesign a better
solution. It is almost as if they WANTED the design to remain crappy.
Maybe they realized, even if quite by accident, that the failures were
in large part happening after warranty and thus were providing some
great repair revenue. Yes, that is a conspiracy theory, not a
conspiracy fact. But you have to wonder why such a quality problem
would be allowed to persist.
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.