Occasionally
Perhaps, but I seem to recall it as having a reputation as "the Venerable Iron Duke". Have you a cite or any documentation in support of these claims?
From Wiki: The Iron Duke is often confused with Chevrolet's Stovebolt derived 153 from the 1960s Chevy II, but the engines are entirely different - the Iron Duke's intake manifold is on the passenger side, as opposed to the driver side.
No, I wasnt. I know that there were a series of them that had this problem. Perhaps not all Iron Dukes had this issue, but a lot of them did.
No matter who made them, GM sourced them and rubber stamped them.
These are not my claims. This is history.
You can google it as easily as can anyone else.
I do not know how long this particular series was foisted upon the public, but there were many many of these that cracked.
When I contacted GM regarding my particular auto, they lied and claimed mine was not subject to this failure.. (Which it was). And when it failed, they just denied responsibility.
Now, there were factory specially cast high performance blocks that were offered for racing, even in this period, and AFAIK these blocks were no involved.
So you couldn't find a link either? But seriously, I wasn't able to readily uncover support for that claim (or a Deere connection), but did offer a URL which (you are, despite your redacting, free and welcome to correct if in error), although outlines major aspects of this long term production engine's history, doesn't broach that issue. In any case I believe it to be the claimants responsibility to provide at least minimal support for such a disputed assertion, particularly in light of both my supplied link and also the rather unlikely (possible) implication that most of these powerplants suffered from this same otherwise unaddressed defect.
A single bad production run would not be inconsistent with that affirmation, a potential 80% might.
Again you don't present many germane details but with respect to how you may have been treated by GM, I find you to be at least as credible and in fact agree with you much of the time. Did you consider initiating, or joining an existing, class action suit (assuming the issue was of large enough scope)?
With the exception of the aforementioned contended defect (and your particular incident with the manufacturer) the Wiki link provides better coverage of that aspect and most if not every other point recounted in this thread.
Of course I found links. You would have too had you spent a little time at it.
Really? Dedicated time would be required to locate ANY evidence of something claimed to be so all encompassing?
I now see conclusively that you're an unmitigated bullshit artist, pure and simple. I had previously taken you slightly more seriously, a mistake in judgment I'll not make again. It's quite easily understood how and why even GM saw through your transparent facade and didn't fall victim to your pathetically feeble attempt at a deceitful scheme.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required