Toyota Quality

Page 2 of 3  


You would be correct if the gasket problems effected all vehicles across the board.
But the problem was confined to a select few brands and a select few engines within those brands.
The fact that the aftermarket was able to respond with better design gaskets in shorter time than the OEMs and their suppliers pretty much proves you wrong.
FYI, asbestos gaskets are still available, nothing was "banned."
FYI, non asbestos gaskets were in common use long before the current crop of problems appeared.
All you know to respond with is the current sales pitch from the guilty parties. Enough already.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Get real you don't know what you are talking about. Vehicle manufactories do not make gasket, OEM as well as after market gaskets, are made by the same companies. Not all engines, or gaskets, are made in the US
It was fleets service shops like mine that first became aware of the trouble with none asbestos gaskets. I was deposed by the court to testify in the Ford case against the gasket manufacturers
The fact is there were four different materials that were use to replace asbestos, two of which to worked, and two did not work. One of the two failed as early as 20,000 miles and the gaskets were replaced under warranty. The other failed much later, at around 70,000 miles and thus out of warranty. Toyota had plenty of head gasket failures, under warranty, on engines assembled in the US.
That was a problem for the vehicle manufacturers because the gasket manufacturers argued it was owner negligence. If owners properly maintained their vehicle, they would have discovered a degrading gasket long before the antifreeze contaminated the oil and destroyed the engine. It was Fords legal challenge that led to the gasket manufacturers settling out of court and ageing to pay 80% of the costs of the repairs for all the vehicle manufactures.
wrote:

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

Actually, I do.

Where/when did I say that they did?

So what? Are you stupid enough to believe that there aren't multiple product lines that fit the same application? Do you know who was the OE supplier to GM for the V-8 and V-6 intake manifold gaskets? (hint, their plant is about 14 miles from where I'm sitting right now)

That is -SO- profound.

Then it shouldn't be a problem to provide a link to that case which would certainly include your testimony.

And those four are?

And Mitsubishi had many more failures than Toyota on engines [that were] produced in Japan. Your claims are less than anecdotal.

Which Ford engine is it that you're rambling on about in this GM newsgroup?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What part of, "Fords legal challenge that led to the gasket manufacturers settling OUT OF COURT and agreeing to pay 80% of the costs of the repairs for ALL of the vehicle manufactures," did you not understand, dummy?
You are free to believe whatever you choose, no natter how convoluted that belief may be. What I posted is factual whether you chose to agree or not is immaterial. One can not enlighten one who does not wish to be enlightened LOL
wrote:

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

How can you be as old as you are and a supposed industry insider and not know that an out of court settlement has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with what is going to cost the least.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You finally got it. The Ford case was specifically about head gaskets.
The gasket manufactures by settling out of court and excepting responsibly for all of the gasket cases pending before the court, avoided the need to spend millions defending all of the other pending gasket litigation which became moot.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That may be your opinion, but it is factually incorrect. The gasket companies clearly showed the court that casket failures were NEVER catastrophic, but gradual. That is why they blamed owner negligence as the cause of the engine failures.
Their pointed to the fact that the failure of the gasket was a result of the material in certain gaskets was shrinking, over time, and pulling away from the metal cladding. When that occurred heat was no longer being drawn away. Once the cladding burned away the coolant would mist into the cylinder resulting in gradual loss of coolant.
The loss of coolant SHOULD have been detected, if the vehicle was properly maintained, and the failing gasket could have been changed long before any significant damage to the engine occurred. In our case that was exactly what we discovered was occurring and we were changing gaskets before and significant damage to the engine occurred and we notified the vehicle manufacture(s) of those engine is which it was occurring.
In their opinion the Gasket warranty should only cover the cost of its replacement. They pointed the number of gaskets claims, they paid to the various vehicle manufactures, that WERE replaced before any engine damage occurred.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:29:01 -0500, "Mike Hunter"

Don't know the details of reimbursement, but the main issue here is not doing a recall. Basically what you're saying is the customer has to anticipate a gasket failure, and won't get over his sense of impending doom that until the gasket is actually failing and putting coolant in the oil. Then go begging to the dealer with coolant in your bearings and lifters. Bad, bad, bad. No way to live with a car. You slice it how you want to. BTW, the gaskets were plastic-clad. The metal clad gaskets weren't produced until 2006. Made for the '97 forward models. By scouring the Bonneville forum I found that they work fine on the 95-96 models too - just ignore they overhang the block- but GM would give you the old plastic garbage if you told them it was a 95-96. I just told the parts guy to give me the '97 gasket and made sure it was the aluminum clad. Didn't bother discussing anything with him after I commented that I was hoping GM would pull out of its trouble. He answered by ragging on the union instead of talking about car quality. Dickhead. Still hope GM can pull out though. I need my supply of cheap used Chevys.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The fact remains is one did the proper preventive maintenance they should have detected the gradual coolant loss.
GM did extend the warranty for out of warranty vehicles after the out of court settlement. What more did you expect it to do?
wrote:

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

You can't detect where the coolant loss is occurring on a 3800 without disassembling the upper _and_ lower intake manifolds from the engine. THAT is not preventive maintenance.

Bullshit! I referred lots of people to the dealer for satisfaction and they were turned down. If they got anything goodwilled, it was a packet of ground up walnutshell and ginger which only caused further problems like clogged heater cores.

Make good on their fuck up?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If the engine was consuming coolant a pressure test was all that was needed to determine that their was coolant leaking into the engine, dummy.
If one was turned down by a GM dealership it was because the were over the time/mileage limit of the extended warranty. Why would ANY dealership turn down ANY warranty claim that would be paid by ANY manufacture, dummy?
wrote:

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

You can't SEE coolant leaking into an engine until you disassemble the engine DUMMY.
Every GM vehicle I've ever seen and worked on has rubber coolant hoses, these hoses have give meaning the actual pressure reading on the tester gauge will drop whether there is a leak or there isn't a leak.
If you don't see coolant leaking externally as such would be the case on the 3.1L, 3.4L, 4.3L, 5.0L, 5.7L engines when the gaskets fail, then the only choice the technician has is to disassemble DUMMY!
Now, prove how smart you are, explain WHY the 3800 does not exhibit external leakage when the intake manifold gaskets fail and leak coolant.

When you say "extended warranty" you mean in fact the extended warranty offered for extra cost, don't you?
Why should the vehicle owner (customer) have to bet against themselves to get remedy on a problem that shouldn't have happened to begin with?

Because it won't effect their CSI if it wasn't bought there. Because they think they can get the job customer pay. Because they don't want to take the 33% labor time hit- warranty vs. customer pay. Because the dealership has excessive warranty claims and they're subject to audit. Because the customer hasn't returned there for LOFs, tires, brakes, tune-ups, etc. so the service department adopts a cut off my nose to spite my face attitude.
An insider like you should know these reasons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've owned several GM vechicles with the 3.8 engine, totally several hundred thousand miles on them, easlily.
Never had a problem with them in any manner.
****************************************************************
The 3.8 or the 3800? There is a difference. I had two cars (83 Buick, 83 Olds) with the 3.8 and both engines had to be rebuilt and the rebuilds also crapped out in less than 40,000 miles. That, IMO, is a rather piss poor rating of reliability.
I had two cars with the 3800 and they are OK. Other problems with the cars, but the engine is good. One had the transmission rebuilt though, as well as other parts falling apart.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
1983? Shouldn't you be posting in an antique or classic car NG?
wrote in message

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

I go along with Ed on the 3.8. Nice engine with plenty of torque where it counted. Low parts count, great fuel economy on 87 octane.
Had one in '92 Park Ave. (125K), '96 Regal (130K) and '01 LeSabre (147K). More recently in a GMC truck. Buick initiated recalled '92 for a #1 bearing replacement and the '01 for a plenum reseal. Total 'out of commission' time for both cars was three days. (Not bad for about 400K of driving). Each of these cars was running well when sold to private parties.
My neighbor's Avalon sludged up and he was without a car for a week. Another neighbor had a valve timing tensioner guide fail on an Infiniti and that trashed the engine (over a week out of commission.)
Buick mailed letters on both recalls and dealer followed up with a phone call to schedule the job. Dealer provided a loaner for the bearing job.
This year we seriously considered an ES350 to replace the LeSabre. Took a hard look at the LaCrosse, liked what we saw and bought it-- nice quiet ride and the electronics systems integration makes the 2010 Lexus look like it was designed by amateurs!
The 3.6L VVT engine is well mannered and much quieter than the old 3.8. Not sure I like the complexity of the 3.6 -- time will tell.
-- pj
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:24:51 -0800, pj fired up the etcha-a-sketch and scratched out:

My neighbor just recently got rid of her '94 Bonneville with the 3.8. It eventually formed a crack in the block as a result of the mechanic forgetting to fill up the oil after a change. (The car had over 200K miles.)
She would have kept it, since the mechanic was going to replace the engine, but felt it was time for a change after fifteen years.
--
perfectreign
www.perfectreign.com || www.ecmplace.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe the fact that GM eventually installed low coolant sensors in the radiator tank would give YOU a clue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I guess for the same reason they have a parking brake light. Apparently not everyone is smart enough to check the coolant level on occasion, or to disengage the parking brake every time before driving. LOL
wrote:

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

I never take the cap off, I just look at the level in the overflow container. There is a line on it to show "full"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And that's the problem. If there is a leak into the cooling system such as a failed gasket or burned thru upper plenum, air will be sucked back into the cooling system instead of coolant from the overflow bottle defeating the purpose of the translucent overflow bottle.
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.