[Z06] Class Action Against GM !!??
10-21-2015, 11:21 PM
#181
Team Owner
Member Since: Aug 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,841
Received 522 Likes
on
342 Posts
St. Jude Donor '10
However, I am an operations/risk management consultant and a large part of that work is O&M manual review and development.
If anyone thinks that GM can print something and then say "Oh its a paper manual, we really didn't mean that" or "we didn't know better and now have a new method" and not be held accountable for it...that person is only fooling themselves.
I sat through several mediations in the last couple of weeks and what was written vs operational execution was an area that was highly focused on. Manuals and testing methods change for sure...but when it happens in the middle of a product failure event, eyebrows will be raised and it won't be good for GM.
They have mishandled this thing from the start.
I was part of the original group...
excuse GM
10-21-2015, 11:36 PM
#183
Team Owner
I pretty much stopped arguing with people in these threads all of which haven't had to lay out a penny.
so what do all you naysayers have to say about all the C7 issues or is that just hype too and not really happening?
10-22-2015, 12:58 AM
#184
Drifting
So are you saying nobody should ever need a warranty - that things should never break? 
I assume he is talking about having to pay for an extended warranty, which also covers more than just heads. I'm sure he saved a lot more by purchasing the warranty than by not buying it. I have to disagree that he should be reimbursed for buying an extended warranty.
I assume he is talking about having to pay for an extended warranty, which also covers more than just heads. I'm sure he saved a lot more by purchasing the warranty than by not buying it. I have to disagree that he should be reimbursed for buying an extended warranty.PS I was just trying to interpret his remark so don't kill the messenger
10-22-2015, 01:29 AM
#185
Le Mans Master
I sold mine as soon as engines started to pop, my brother didn't and sure enough his engine blew, he did get it fixed under warranty, and now drives a 15 Z and is having his own issues with that car no way I'll be buying a GM until they start producing cars that aren't flawed, I went with a Gen 5 Vipe TA instead.
I'm sick of the Tadge azz kissers, me is just a crooked politician to me, you won't catch him doing racing corvettes at the track like Ralph Guiles does, Ralph talks the talk and walks the walk, while Tadge just says "do the math", Ed wilburn literally makes me want to go to sleep when I hear him talk, they need new blood in the program, who actually car about the consumers who aren't waxers and cars and coffee regulars.... Hell I don't even drink coffee, this is a cars and coffee meet right across the street from me, I went by ther once and just saw a bunch of 60-70 year old men..... Not my scene.
I'm sick of the Tadge azz kissers, me is just a crooked politician to me, you won't catch him doing racing corvettes at the track like Ralph Guiles does, Ralph talks the talk and walks the walk, while Tadge just says "do the math", Ed wilburn literally makes me want to go to sleep when I hear him talk, they need new blood in the program, who actually car about the consumers who aren't waxers and cars and coffee regulars.... Hell I don't even drink coffee, this is a cars and coffee meet right across the street from me, I went by ther once and just saw a bunch of 60-70 year old men..... Not my scene.
10-22-2015, 02:26 AM
#186
Racer
It would be great if the situation shifted to where GM has to produce the evidence that there's not a problem - rather than customers having to try and produce evidence that there IS a problem, while having such limited resources and access to info and stats that only GM has. Now, I'm an idiot when it comes to lawsuits - so who the hell knows if that's how all this works or not.
Either way - thanks a ton for getting the ball rolling, AZDANZ06!!! I would have gotten in touch with you about this when you first started it up, but amazingly - my motor hasn't grenaded itself yet, even though I was at the service limit about 50k miles ago. So I didn't see how I could be of much use. I'm waiting for it to blow up and get it replaced under warranty before I go and do anything else with the heads.
The following users liked this post:
AZDANZ06 (10-22-2015)
The following users liked this post:
AZDANZ06 (10-22-2015)
10-22-2015, 10:58 AM
#188
Burning Brakes
Typically, AZDANZ06 is distorting some facts and downright fabricating others.
No matter what measurement procedure is used, GM has never advocated on-engine testing of stem-to-valve clearance. The factory method has always been to remove the heads, first.
The aftermarket is where the on-engine wiggle test was developed.
I not really changed my "stance".
More than a year ago, soon after I tried an on-engine wiggle-test myself, I decided it was inaccurate and have maintained that position since then. Initially, I tried to "improve" its accuracy by fooling with the indicator set-up but that didn't gain much. At that point, I developed a different test procedure using different equipment. I went to great lengths, both on forums and in writing done for another web site to advocate my own "on-engine" measurement method using a "test indicator" rather than a dial indicator. While this "Heads on Test" may not be as accurate as measuring the clearance with the heads off the engine using GM's revised measuring technique, it is more accurate than the old "wiggle test."
In the meeting I had with GM Powertrain in late March 2015, their Inspection Department staff proved to me that the wiggle test, done on or off the engine, was inaccurate. They proved that with 1) a coordinate measuring machine and 2) the new factory method for measuring guide clearance.
There is little doubt in my mind that the inaccuracy of the wiggle test is, in part, responsible for a number of head repairs or replacements which were not necessary. There were likely a fair amount of valves which wiggle tested with more than .0037 clearance but which had actual clearance less than that. Of that set of valves with less than .0037-in clearance, there was likely a bunch of them which actually were inside the production range.
Now...this is not to say that there is not a problem with concentricity of seats and guides in some LS7 cylinder heads, but it is to say that some methods used to detect guide wear caused by that lack of concentricity are prone to error.
As for GM changing the factory method of measuring stem-to-guide clearance, that was done the first week in March 2015. I have a printed copy of the bulletin on the desk in front of me as I key in this post. As best I can determine, your class action lawsuit was just filed and it's, now, late October. The decision to change the procedure was likely made in January or February, long before your suit was filed.
Sadly, as is too often the case, "AZDANZ06," you don't know what you're talking about. Technicians at dealerships do not use paper service manuals. They haven't for a number of years. Paper manuals still exist only because Federal Law requires that that car companies publish them. GM Dealership service departments use GM Electronic Service Information (ESI or just "SI"). It's an on-line service to which all GM dealers must subscribe. SI was changed in March to reflect the change in guide clearance measurement procedure. It now requires a micrometer and a hole gauge which is a more accurate way to measure guide clearance than is the "wiggle test". The new procedure is not just for LS7s, too. The procedure for all the Gen V8s was changed.
Just curious, you say above that making such a change is "fraudulent". How so?
Indeed the indicator reads high numbers but that means little without being able to view the indicator set-up. The video is so bad a viewer can't do that.
But here's a news flash: if the guide clearance is really large, a wiggle test will likely confirm that. What the wiggle test cannot do is accurately measure stem-to-guide clearance when the clearance is close to the production or service maximums.
"AZDANZ06, you just gotta be smarter than that. Just because you find something on a Google search doesn't mean it's accurate. I grant you, people have been using the wiggle test for years but that doesn't mean it's accurate, either. GM's recent research into wiggle testing proves that. Also in front of me are the results of GM's Inspection Department research comparing wiggle testing to dial bore measurements and to CMM measurements. The facts show, conclusively, that wiggle testing is inaccurate.
Lastly, of course, you are entitled to file a lawsuit. You are entitled to express your opinions here on CF, but...you don't get to make stuff up. In regards to posts you've made elsewhere about my level of expertise, as usual, you have little or no factual information.
Yep. I am a technical writer.
I, also, have a degree in automotive service technology and am a former service technician who has worked in both the dealer and independent garage environment.
It is true, I have never worked as a machinist in the cylinder head service field, but In the process of writing about cylinder heads for a number of years, I have either worked with or interviewed more cylinder head experts than you have ever met.
Here's a partial list:
DeGroff Cylinder Head Service
West Coast Cylinder Heads
Texas Speed and Performance
Katech, Inc.
Lingenfelter Performance Engineering.
Airflow Research
Mamomotorsports
GM Powertrain Engineers who developed the LS7 head
No matter what measurement procedure is used, GM has never advocated on-engine testing of stem-to-valve clearance. The factory method has always been to remove the heads, first.
The aftermarket is where the on-engine wiggle test was developed.
I not really changed my "stance".
More than a year ago, soon after I tried an on-engine wiggle-test myself, I decided it was inaccurate and have maintained that position since then. Initially, I tried to "improve" its accuracy by fooling with the indicator set-up but that didn't gain much. At that point, I developed a different test procedure using different equipment. I went to great lengths, both on forums and in writing done for another web site to advocate my own "on-engine" measurement method using a "test indicator" rather than a dial indicator. While this "Heads on Test" may not be as accurate as measuring the clearance with the heads off the engine using GM's revised measuring technique, it is more accurate than the old "wiggle test."
In the meeting I had with GM Powertrain in late March 2015, their Inspection Department staff proved to me that the wiggle test, done on or off the engine, was inaccurate. They proved that with 1) a coordinate measuring machine and 2) the new factory method for measuring guide clearance.
There is little doubt in my mind that the inaccuracy of the wiggle test is, in part, responsible for a number of head repairs or replacements which were not necessary. There were likely a fair amount of valves which wiggle tested with more than .0037 clearance but which had actual clearance less than that. Of that set of valves with less than .0037-in clearance, there was likely a bunch of them which actually were inside the production range.
Now...this is not to say that there is not a problem with concentricity of seats and guides in some LS7 cylinder heads, but it is to say that some methods used to detect guide wear caused by that lack of concentricity are prone to error.
As for GM changing the factory method of measuring stem-to-guide clearance, that was done the first week in March 2015. I have a printed copy of the bulletin on the desk in front of me as I key in this post. As best I can determine, your class action lawsuit was just filed and it's, now, late October. The decision to change the procedure was likely made in January or February, long before your suit was filed.
Sadly, as is too often the case, "AZDANZ06," you don't know what you're talking about. Technicians at dealerships do not use paper service manuals. They haven't for a number of years. Paper manuals still exist only because Federal Law requires that that car companies publish them. GM Dealership service departments use GM Electronic Service Information (ESI or just "SI"). It's an on-line service to which all GM dealers must subscribe. SI was changed in March to reflect the change in guide clearance measurement procedure. It now requires a micrometer and a hole gauge which is a more accurate way to measure guide clearance than is the "wiggle test". The new procedure is not just for LS7s, too. The procedure for all the Gen V8s was changed.
Just curious, you say above that making such a change is "fraudulent". How so?
Indeed the indicator reads high numbers but that means little without being able to view the indicator set-up. The video is so bad a viewer can't do that.
But here's a news flash: if the guide clearance is really large, a wiggle test will likely confirm that. What the wiggle test cannot do is accurately measure stem-to-guide clearance when the clearance is close to the production or service maximums.
"AZDANZ06, you just gotta be smarter than that. Just because you find something on a Google search doesn't mean it's accurate. I grant you, people have been using the wiggle test for years but that doesn't mean it's accurate, either. GM's recent research into wiggle testing proves that. Also in front of me are the results of GM's Inspection Department research comparing wiggle testing to dial bore measurements and to CMM measurements. The facts show, conclusively, that wiggle testing is inaccurate.
Lastly, of course, you are entitled to file a lawsuit. You are entitled to express your opinions here on CF, but...you don't get to make stuff up. In regards to posts you've made elsewhere about my level of expertise, as usual, you have little or no factual information.
Yep. I am a technical writer.
I, also, have a degree in automotive service technology and am a former service technician who has worked in both the dealer and independent garage environment.
It is true, I have never worked as a machinist in the cylinder head service field, but In the process of writing about cylinder heads for a number of years, I have either worked with or interviewed more cylinder head experts than you have ever met.
Here's a partial list:
DeGroff Cylinder Head Service
West Coast Cylinder Heads
Texas Speed and Performance
Katech, Inc.
Lingenfelter Performance Engineering.
Airflow Research
Mamomotorsports
GM Powertrain Engineers who developed the LS7 head
Seems his motivation was to some how preclude GM from using worthless data in support of this claim.
GM may be run by a bunch of *** Holzz but there not stupid..
Last edited by Vette @ 71; 10-22-2015 at 11:06 AM.
The following users liked this post:
JWingo (10-24-2015)
10-22-2015, 11:02 AM
#189
Team Owner
Member Since: Aug 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,841
Received 522 Likes
on
342 Posts
St. Jude Donor '10
The problem with the bankruptcy is it was filed in 2009. GM continued to produce the Z06 thru 2013. I don't know when the BK was final, but my guess is that GM would still be responsible for any cars produced after the BK.... Z28 Camaros included if they are having this issue.
10-22-2015, 11:39 AM
#191
Team Owner
I'm not an automotive technical writer. I do not work in the automotive industry.
However, I am an operations/risk management consultant and a large part of that work is O&M manual review and development.
If anyone thinks that GM can print something and then say "Oh its a paper manual, we really didn't mean that" or "we didn't know better and now have a new method" and not be held accountable for it...that person is only fooling themselves.
I sat through several mediations in the last couple of weeks and what was written vs operational execution was an area that was highly focused on. Manuals and testing methods change for sure...but when it happens in the middle of a product failure event, eyebrows will be raised and it won't be good for GM.
They have mishandled this thing from the start.
However, I am an operations/risk management consultant and a large part of that work is O&M manual review and development.
If anyone thinks that GM can print something and then say "Oh its a paper manual, we really didn't mean that" or "we didn't know better and now have a new method" and not be held accountable for it...that person is only fooling themselves.
I sat through several mediations in the last couple of weeks and what was written vs operational execution was an area that was highly focused on. Manuals and testing methods change for sure...but when it happens in the middle of a product failure event, eyebrows will be raised and it won't be good for GM.
They have mishandled this thing from the start.
10-22-2015, 03:34 PM
#193
Drifting
In the meeting I had with GM Powertrain in late March 2015, their Inspection Department staff proved to me that the wiggle test, done on or off the engine, was inaccurate. They proved that with 1) a coordinate measuring machine and 2) the new factory method for measuring guide clearance.
As for GM changing the factory method of measuring stem-to-guide clearance, that was done the first week in March 2015. I have a printed copy of the bulletin on the desk in front of me as I key in this post. As best I can determine, your class action lawsuit was just filed and it's, now, late October. The decision to change the procedure was likely made in January or February, long before your suit was filed.
As for GM changing the factory method of measuring stem-to-guide clearance, that was done the first week in March 2015. I have a printed copy of the bulletin on the desk in front of me as I key in this post. As best I can determine, your class action lawsuit was just filed and it's, now, late October. The decision to change the procedure was likely made in January or February, long before your suit was filed.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...ead-issue.html
Jason at Katech also said GM was aware of the pending suit at his meeting with GM. So the suit is now officially filed in October, but it is very clear that GM knew this was coming and made the test changes the beginning of March.
10-22-2015, 09:29 PM
#195
Team Owner
Did your engine drop a valve, or was the failure due to some other defect? I believe the class action law suit is about the valve problem, and not other engine problems.
10-22-2015, 09:58 PM
#196
I do think GM will"loose" this case if it ever went to trial. They will realize this and offer a settlement of some sort. Lot more damages to a company than just money. Damage to an "image" can be much worse. That is what GM ... I hope... Will place a priority on.
Protect your flagship GM!
Protect your flagship GM!
10-22-2015, 11:20 PM
#198
My failure was the titanium coatings that came off of my handbuilt motor and then ruined my camshaft and the rest of the engine. Seems there are several of these on this site for the 427 Vettes in 2013.
10-23-2015, 08:43 AM
#199
Burning Brakes
10-23-2015, 08:47 AM
#200
Burning Brakes
was just a part of class action with my Ford F150- these were the results besides the lawyers receiving $5.2M. I have a feeling that if settled there will be stipulations similar to these.
Partial Reimbursement For Spark Plug Replacements Prior To 120,000 Miles
Every Class Member who spent more than $300 in parts and labor to replace eight spark plugs (or $37.50 per replaced spark plug) in a Vehicle with less than 120,000 miles will be eligible for reimbursement (in the form of a check) on a percentage of the amount you paid over $300. The amount of reimbursement will depend upon the cost incurred by the Class Member, and by the documentation that the Class Member provides.
Example 1: Class Member Pays More Than $300 and Less Than $500 to Replace 8 Spark Plugs - If a Class Member paid between $300 and $500 for eight replaced plugs, Ford will reimburse the Class Member 20% of the actual amount paid that is in excess of $300 (or 20% of the amount in excess of $37.50 per replaced plug). For example, if a Class Member paid $400 to replace 8 plugs ($50 per replaced plug), that Class Member (upon submission of a properly documented claim) would be entitled to $20.
Example 2: Class Member Pays At Least $500 and Less Than $1,000 to Replace 8 Spark Plugs - If a Class Member paid at least $500 and less than $1,000 for eight replaced plugs, Ford will reimburse the Class Member $5.00 per replaced plug plus 50% of the actual amount paid that is in excess of $500 (or $5.00 per replaced plug plus 50% of the amount in excess of $62.50 per replaced plug). For example, if a Class Member pays $850 to replace eight plugs ($106.25 per replaced plug), that Class Member (upon submission of a properly documented claim) would be entitled to $215.
Example 3: Class Member Pays $1,000 or More to Replace 8 Spark Plugs - If a Class Member paid $1,000 or more for eight replaced plugs, Ford will reimburse the Class Member $36.25 per replaced plug plus 75% of the actual amount paid that is in excess of $1,000 (or $36.25 per replaced plug plus 75% of the amount in excess of $125 per replaced plug). For example, if a Class Member pays $2,000 to replace 8 plugs ($250 per replaced plug), that Class Member (upon submission of a properly documented claim) would be entitled to $1,040.
Partial Reimbursement For Spark Plug Replacements Prior To 120,000 Miles
Every Class Member who spent more than $300 in parts and labor to replace eight spark plugs (or $37.50 per replaced spark plug) in a Vehicle with less than 120,000 miles will be eligible for reimbursement (in the form of a check) on a percentage of the amount you paid over $300. The amount of reimbursement will depend upon the cost incurred by the Class Member, and by the documentation that the Class Member provides.
Example 1: Class Member Pays More Than $300 and Less Than $500 to Replace 8 Spark Plugs - If a Class Member paid between $300 and $500 for eight replaced plugs, Ford will reimburse the Class Member 20% of the actual amount paid that is in excess of $300 (or 20% of the amount in excess of $37.50 per replaced plug). For example, if a Class Member paid $400 to replace 8 plugs ($50 per replaced plug), that Class Member (upon submission of a properly documented claim) would be entitled to $20.
Example 2: Class Member Pays At Least $500 and Less Than $1,000 to Replace 8 Spark Plugs - If a Class Member paid at least $500 and less than $1,000 for eight replaced plugs, Ford will reimburse the Class Member $5.00 per replaced plug plus 50% of the actual amount paid that is in excess of $500 (or $5.00 per replaced plug plus 50% of the amount in excess of $62.50 per replaced plug). For example, if a Class Member pays $850 to replace eight plugs ($106.25 per replaced plug), that Class Member (upon submission of a properly documented claim) would be entitled to $215.
Example 3: Class Member Pays $1,000 or More to Replace 8 Spark Plugs - If a Class Member paid $1,000 or more for eight replaced plugs, Ford will reimburse the Class Member $36.25 per replaced plug plus 75% of the actual amount paid that is in excess of $1,000 (or $36.25 per replaced plug plus 75% of the amount in excess of $125 per replaced plug). For example, if a Class Member pays $2,000 to replace 8 plugs ($250 per replaced plug), that Class Member (upon submission of a properly documented claim) would be entitled to $1,040.