[ember1205]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

So... They are going to leave a motor full of metal shavings and damage to a sleeve because they want to save money even though it will wipe out the new motor in a week. Makes sense, right?

Heck, next you probably say they solder the pistons back together and run the used oil through a coffee filter then pour it back in the motor to save some money too.

And, last I checked, the techs are factory trained. Some specialize in certain areas. I had a friend that was a certified tech at a Caddy dealer and all he did was rebuild trannys.

I guess somehow they can't train people to rebuild motors because they never ever go bad under warranty, or need to be repaired period and the shop manuals that tell you all the steps to do it are really there for show...

You are operating on the assumption that the motor is "full of shavings". I am not. I am looking at from the perspective that the only way to know if there are ANY shavings in the motor is to completely tear it down. And, without "obvious evidence" of the need to, GM wouldn't approve it. Alternatively, if there were strong evidence to dig that deep, GM may well just go ahead and approve a motor swap as it may be cheaper for THEM.

With regard to a tech doing only one specific thing (like rebuilding transmissions), that only is found at very busy dealerships in large metro areas. And pretty much no dealership out there is going to keep a tech that does nothing but rebuild motors. As soon as that tech has built even the SLIGHTEST reputation for being good at that, they will be off to run their own engine building business...

[NYJets12]

Originally Posted by SirJangle

I really don't care what the math is. The bottom line is that they KNOW it's an issue and should take care of it BEFORE it happens. I don't give a damn about their math or how many vehicles it may impact. I'd be severely pissed if I paid for a brand new vehicle and had this issue knowing that they knew about it and rolled the dice with MY money. And, I don't want to hear that's what the warranty is for. The warranty is for unforeseen issues and/or imperfections that happen with a mass-produced vehicle. This is something they KNOW about and they should be proactive instead of reactive. I'm tired of this BS that a multi-billion dollar corporation's money is more important than mine.

There is no good news here. And, GM's history of hedging their bets is why a lot of consumers have lost faith in the brand.

Peace & Progress

Kia and Toyota are sucky to in 2012-14 ( could be off a year or two)Kia was getting oil in the engines in cars less than 2 years old they knew it, when a customer brought it in they charge $600-$700 To look at it then $7000 for a new engine ( google it).
Remember Toyota saying the stuck gas pedal was because of the floor mat, ( believe that I got a bridge in Brooklyn for you.
And I just seen 2020 Toyota’s got issues with the battery draining but are saying they don’t got a clue what it’s from ( notice a pattern)
Seems like Kia doesn’t wanna honor the warranty and Toyota makes stuff up so they don’t either.

[SirJangle]

Originally Posted by NYJets12

Kia and Toyota are sucky to in 2012-14 ( could be off a year or two)Kia was getting oil in the engines in cars less than 2 years old they knew it, when a customer brought it in they charge $600-$700 To look at it then $7000 for a new engine ( google it).
Remember Toyota saying the stuck gas pedal was because of the floor mat, ( believe that I got a bridge in Brooklyn for you.
And I just seen 2020 Toyota’s got issues with the battery draining but are saying they don’t got a clue what it’s from ( notice a pattern)
Seems like Kia doesn’t wanna honor the warranty and Toyota makes stuff up so they don’t either.

I really don't understand the tit-for-tat here. So, 2+ wrongs make a right? The issue is that GM knows about this issue and their approach to said issue. I've never excused "bad" behavior by any manufacturer. My opinions and stance are based on my experiences. And, in my experience, the import has been far more reliable and the customer service far more superior. Others' experiences may and will vary. All I know is that I don't like or appreciate it when greedy corporations try to take advantage of people.

Peace & Progress

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by SirJangle

I really don't understand the tit-for-tat here. So, 2+ wrongs make a right? The issue is that GM knows about this issue and their approach to said issue. I've never excused "bad" behavior by any manufacturer. My opinions and stance are based on my experiences. And, in my experience, the import has been far more reliable and the customer service far more superior. Others' experiences may and will vary. All I know is that I don't like or appreciate it when greedy corporations try to take of advantage of people.



Peace & Progress

Corporations are there to make a profit. They do things based on that goal.

Again, realize that 99% of the buyers don't even know what a TSB is(heck, some people don't know the difference between it and a recall in this thread), and not all engines fail. As a corporation, they are going to approach this in the most cost-effective manner, which seems to be just replacing the failed engines for now. It could change. Could turn into a full-scale recall, for all we know.

Can't piss people off if they don't even know what's wrong in the first place. Forums only represent a tiny minority of car owners.

Is it the most ethical approach? IMO as long as they honour the warranty, it's ethical enough. Not that corporations tend to care about that a lot.

Sent from toaster or something

[SirJangle]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

Corporations are there to make a profit. They do things based on that goal.

Again, realize that 99% of the buyers don't even know what a TSB is(heck, some people don't know the difference between it and a recall in this thread), and not all engines fail. As a corporation, they are going to approach this in the most cost-effective manner, which seems to be just replacing the failed engines for now. It could change. Could turn into a full-scale recall, for all we know.

Can't piss people off if they don't even know what's wrong in the first place. Forums only represent a tiny minority of car owners.

Is it the most ethical approach? IMO as long as they honour the warranty, it's ethical enough. Not that corporations tend to care about that a lot.

Sent from toaster or something

I agree for the most part but making a profit doesn't excuse responsibility. I guess that's the real question here... what's the level of responsibility and to what extent? I don't know the answer. All I know is that it would be extremely disappointing to buy any vehicle and have this happen after just a few hundred miles. I wouldn't care what the outcome was as it would probably push me away from the brand forever. Is that an overreaction? IDK but it's my money so, it's my choice.

Peace & Progress

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by SirJangle

I agree for the most part but making a profit doesn't excuse responsibility. I guess that's the real question here... what's the level of responsibility and to what extent? I don't know the answer. All I know is that it would be extremely disappointing to buy any vehicle and have this happen after just a few hundred miles. I wouldn't care what the outcome was as it would probably push me away from the brand forever. Is that an overreaction? IDK but it's my money so, it's my choice.

Peace & Progress

You have to define "responsibility", though. Corporations are not "responsible" to fix problems that don't actually exist, especially when they are not related to consumer safety. The brakes might not work? Yeah, that has to be proactively dealt with. The valve spring might break? That doesn't justify the cost to "repairing" x number of engines proactively, especially if their evaluation to-date shows that the problem will only manifest in a small percentage of the engines.

Businesses exist to make money. Period. Any business that does not keep that fact front and center, and act fiscally responsible at all turns, ceases to exist.

[SirJangle]

Originally Posted by ember1205

You have to define "responsibility", though. Corporations are not "responsible" to fix problems that don't actually exist, especially when they are not related to consumer safety. The brakes might not work? Yeah, that has to be proactively dealt with. The valve spring might break? That doesn't justify the cost to "repairing" x number of engines proactively, especially if their evaluation to-date shows that the problem will only manifest in a small percentage of the engines.

Businesses exist to make money. Period. Any business that does not keep that fact front and center, and act fiscally responsible at all turns, ceases to exist.

I concur thus the reason I asked what's the level of responsibility and to what extent? The only point that I'll add is that businesses that ignore customer service/satisfaction also cease to exist.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by SirJangle

I agree for the most part but making a profit doesn't excuse responsibility.

And GM isn't ducking its responsibility. It's fixing the problems where the appear.

All I know is that it would be extremely disappointing to buy any vehicle and have this happen after just a few hundred miles. I wouldn't care what the outcome was as it would probably push me away from the brand forever.

And this is where the "tit for tat," as you call it, comes in. Please tell us what brand you would switch to that would replace all engines proactively in a batch of cars that have had a few valve springs break. Because I can tell you the number of manufacturers that would approach the problem that way: zero. Every one would do what GM is doing now. Every. Single. One. So switch brands if you want, but just know that you're going from frying pan to fire.

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by ember1205

You are operating on the assumption that the motor is "full of shavings". I am not. I am looking at from the perspective that the only way to know if there are ANY shavings in the motor is to completely tear it down. And, without "obvious evidence" of the need to, GM wouldn't approve it. Alternatively, if there were strong evidence to dig that deep, GM may well just go ahead and approve a motor swap as it may be cheaper for THEM.

With regard to a tech doing only one specific thing (like rebuilding transmissions), that only is found at very busy dealerships in large metro areas. And pretty much no dealership out there is going to keep a tech that does nothing but rebuild motors. As soon as that tech has built even the SLIGHTEST reputation for being good at that, they will be off to run their own engine building business...

If it just nicked up the top of the piston/head just swap it out. It's doubtful that is the case though. If you drop a valve, it will make a mess.

Just look at the pic Gearhead posted. You actually think ANYONE with a brain would swap a piston and head into that motor and give a warranty?

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

If it just nicked up the top of the piston/head just swap it out. It's doubtful that is the case though. If you drop a valve, it will make a mess.

Just look at the pic Gearhead posted. You actually think ANYONE with a brain would swap a piston and head into that motor and give a warranty?

We're not talking about being smart and logical, though... We're talking about bean counters.

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by ember1205

We're not talking about being smart and logical, though... We're talking about bean counters.

i guess you're right...

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

i guess you're right...

Don't misinterpret me... I fully agree with and support your view on this. No technician / mechanic / builder in their right mind would do a par swap on significant damage and simply call it good. They can only operate with the limits of GM will support them on, though.

[GearheadSS]

Originally Posted by ember1205

We're not talking about being smart and logical, though... We're talking about bean counters.

To be fair, GM told us to put a new motor in. They did not say to try anything else first. The technician logged the aftermath of the failure and GM immediately said to put a new engine in.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by GearheadSS

To be fair, GM told us to put a new motor in. They did not say to try anything else first. The technician logged the aftermath of the failure and GM immediately said to put a new engine in.

Good to know that, at least for certain situations, GM understands that a straight-up replacement is the appropriate resolution. And I would suspect that part of achieving that is/was due to the attention to detail, skill, and knowledge of the technician diagnosing the problem in the first place. There's definitely a need for good skill on the dealership side to start the process off correctly in the first place.