markzeronine

I am sure he doesn't read the responses, you saw how long it took for him to have someone write out a statement saying nothing is wrong/something was wrong but we're not going to do anything about it.

Thanks again azdan!

atljar

Im not sure where the master "list" is being housed, but you can add me to it. 54k Miles, 2006 Z. Darrin Morgan did my heads... triple the allowed spec.

red2012

I lost all respect for Tadge after reading this, not that I had much before.

GB1099

Although I'm not a Z06 owner I really feel for you guys that do and have this issue. My last car (a Mercedes SL) had loads of known issues and I (along with thousands of owners) spent incredible amounts of time and $$ fixing failures on that active suspension.

One part (an SBC braking module) was so bad that the manufacturer (MB) pinned it on Bosch (they made the module) and ultimately extended the warranty on that part for 10 years regardless of miles.

Mine went out at the 9 year 8 month mark and was replaced at no charge at the MB dealer....(would have cost me $3-4K).

I think GM should get with the "supplier of these heads" and hold them responsible. But as far as the customer is concerned, just take it to your dealer and get it fixed like any other recall.

Good luck on your class action lawsuit...... think you have a good case and I hope you win.

Josh B.

Jason900rr

You can add mine to the list. Jason900rr 07 Z06 39,500 miles

BoostedEBZ06

Sigh......

reasonable suspicion

More due to the initial improper machining of the heads resulting in the excessive wear of the guides, which Gm has admitted to?

Thanks Dan for getting this started!

BearZ06

This is waaay out of his control and is why he handed it off. The official GM response on this was made a while back. What could he really say? His future and retirement at GM could have been jeopardized by saying the wrong thing. Put yourself in his shoes. I am not defending GM here, what they have done is wrong.

CGZO6

This is just sad.

markzeronine

It's true, really any questions that are asked on here are pointless unless it gives him a chance to brag about something good or hint at the next big thing to come. I've only seen his response to 2 or 3 negative questions and the answers are typical run around responses.

Kurac

As a past 06 Z owner, I purchased an extended warranty to avoid any potential issues. Tadge's response is unfortunate. I thought of potentially getting back into a C6Z, but not now, and most likely won't be getting back into a Corvette anytime soon now that the C7Z hasn't been living up to the hype. 2 strikes....

jvp

I'm going to lock this thread for the time being. I'll unlock it as soon as I've cleared some thing up internally. Stand by.

jvp

OK, I've opened the thread after doing some "hijack" post-pruning. I'd strongly encourage folks to keep the legal threats and chatter to the appropriate sections of the forum, which isn't "Ask Tadge".

AZDANZ06

There is no "threat" of legal action, it is happening. I started a thread on the main Z06 Forum, so this will be the last post from me in here.

Frankie2blue

This is all just about what I figured he would say about this issue. They more than likely had their lawyers help write that response which is really why it took more time. I have lost respect for them and as far as I am concerned have little interest in anything Tadge has to say on anything from this point on. This sounds like more of a PR campaign than answering a question. They have certainly lost me as a future customer because of their handing of this issue after being a lifelong GM customer and being raised in a GM family, my father having been a senior process electroplating engineer for his life. He would be saddened to see this going on if he were around now. Fortunately he worked when it was a company of greater integrity and higher standards.

Mark2009

Bingo! He just threw the wiggle test under the bus (altho certain GM regions already refused to perform it). We're now collectively more on our own than ever.

No doubt Linamar is the one doing the CMM testing

KLLRVET

mt 2006 heads failed....long before the range you spoke of

Tony1M

Considering the content of the three "answers" from GM's spokesman so far, those among us who are fully conscious might be speculating that the purpose of this forum, from GM's perspective, was at the very least to somehow PROMOTE (increase) sales of the Corvette model, rather than by really helping out present owners of older vehicles.

In other words, GM may very well have had a question. "How can we sell more Corvettes that have in them more engines from that fantastic engine plant?" And their possible answer: "Allow a GM 'technical' spokesman to 'answer questions' that members of 'that Corvette forum' might have about Corvettes."

And one also might speculate that by perhaps being able to accomodate some of the desires of potential buyers of present and future generations of Corvettes for certain features, options, size increase or decrease, more power, less power, more colours, better radio, etc., GM could sell more and more Corvettes to more and more future customers.

But regardless of what intention GM had in participating in this forum, I wonder how GM thinks their intentions are being met so far -- a very big ?

BTW, I completely agree with the above notion that GM's answer to the original engine question was either writttn by, or under the direct apporval/censorship of, GM's lawyers, and provided in language the "common man" would easily and clearly understand. (And in that latter regard, for the 3 questions answered so far, Mission Accomplished!)

JShort

Being a Supplier Quality Engineer working in the mechanical/machining realm myself (also the owner of a C6 Z06), this situation is an exact scenario in which I've spent my career fixing. I can say that his (Tadge) answer is exactly what many of you have been already saying: It's a drafted PR statement that has the legal department written all over it. If GM has not shared any true root cause analysis data on this issue yet, it's almost certian that they know this is a liability they are responsible for and are doing everything possible to mitigate the potential effect. Receiving conflicting information from GM on numerous occasions over the years regarding the LS7 valve issue further aids my thoughts on this issue.

I find it amazing how GM tries to make this issue out to be much more complicated than it is. Being a Supplier Quality Engineer, I manage many machining suppliers. 98% of the time, finding the root cause for an issue is rarely difficult. You can't tell me that GM doesn't know exactly what the issue is here with the amount of resources and money they have. I'm sure they have much smarter and more educated people working for them than me.

When a good buddy of mine (and hundreds of others) had a transmission failure in his 2006 Nissan Pathfinder due to improper welding from a radiator supplier, they formed a class action suit against Nissan. A year and a half later, he got a check in the mail for over $8k as a result. In that case, hundreds of Pathfinder owners had costly transmission repairs that fell on them when the vehicle was just outside of the warranty period.

The bottom line here is the company (GM in this case) and how they choose to handle a supplier-related (or design) issue that has made it to the end customer resulting in performance and reliability issues. The company that I work for (Fortune 500) wouldn't stand for such customer service as GM has displayed here. Very sad for all of us.