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
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, 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"
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 ?? )
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.
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
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..
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
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?
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?
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.