Gasket failure: again!

He just ignores such logic, therefore he has about ZERO credibility.

Are you that stupid?

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

. .

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.

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 ?? )

And intake gaskets and front cover gaskets.

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.

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

You foget to say in my opinion. ;)

mike hunt

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.

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

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

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

You forgot to say in my opinion, because you have not idea what you are talking about LOL

mike

You forgot to say in my opinion because that is all it is, the facts say otherwise.

mike hunt

That's funny as well. LOL

mike hunt

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.

IOWs, you have nothing to refute it.

Not bad advice at all Mike. Real world advice.

You should stick to running the business Mike. The gasket failures in question are intake manifold gaskets and not head gaskets.

And GM's gaskets are still failing today.