You would be correct if the gasket problems effected all vehicles across
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
You can't SEE coolant leaking into an engine until you disassemble the
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.
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.
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
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.
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:24:51 -0800, pj fired up the etcha-a-sketch and
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
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.
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
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.
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.