When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
It depends on modifications made to the car and the type of failure and whether or not the driver abused the vehicle. Abuse could be shifting to third from fourth when attempting to upshift to fifth. That could result in a mechanical over rev which is the responsibility of the driver Vs GM.
Keep the car stock and don't f up and they will cover the engine. My C6Z dropped a valve going down the front straight at the Glen. I called the dealer from the track and they told me to get it there as soon as possible. GM covered replacing the engine.
Bill
Hey Bill:
Let me pick your brain a little more. Seven weeks hence and I am still waiting for my car. I think I may be offered a buyback or have confidence that I can get a buyback through the BBB.
The question is what is next? Obviously I would get an M7 and there seem to be a lot of 17's in showrooms with great deals. I didn't opt for the Z07 package on my last car because I was concerned about a rough street ride. Was your car a Z07 and what is your opinion about the ride quality on the street?
I test drove a grand sport with Z07 and the 20 min drive seemed more comfortable than my M7 2017 Z06 non Z07. Could be that I was just too excited but for a few moments I was really paying attention to the ride comfort, even drove over lane separator to see how bad the bumps are.
I would say it's not bad but test drive one or rent one so you can to be 100% sure.
St. Jude Vendor Donor '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11
Today, we tested all day on track in 58deg F with our dual intercoolers in a new C7 Z06 with M7 trans, and mild build up to 719 Rwhp and we never got over 190 water temp. Oil around 240 F.
IN addition to our Dual intercooler kit, we had our LG Radiator, external oil cooler and our aero extractor hood.
It was a full day testing, burned through 2 tanks of fuel and wore out a set of OEM run flat tires.
Chassis has full LG suspension package with our Coil overs aero package with our Wing etc. this is our "Tuner Challenge C7"
Let me pick your brain a little more. Seven weeks hence and I am still waiting for my car. I think I may be offered a buyback or have confidence that I can get a buyback through the BBB.
The question is what is next? Obviously I would get an M7 and there seem to be a lot of 17's in showrooms with great deals. I didn't opt for the Z07 package on my last car because I was concerned about a rough street ride. Was your car a Z07 and what is your opinion about the ride quality on the street?
Larry
Larry,
My 15 is a Z07 car. It is hard to compare between the non Z07 and Z07 ride quality since I purchased it I have only ridden in Z07 cars. Even my track students with C7s have been driving Z07s.
Before I did the mag ride update the car was pretty harsh on small bumps on the street. The kind of bumps you get when they overlap pavement patches, have small pot holes, etc. After the update I noticed there is less harshness. The car still handles well but the suspension dampens the shock of hitting those irregularities.
However, that is all subjective and your butt meter may tell you different things than my butt meter tells me. I have had the luxury of driving on some fairly smooth roads compared to roads in the Northern part of the country that are affected by poor maintenance, frost heave and large potholes galore.
Attached is the Order issued today by Judge Gayles in the Vazquez v. GM case pending in the federal court in Miami. This is the Z06 overheating class action litigation. GM had moved to dismiss all five asserted claims. GM was successful on only two of the claims. Below is a summary of the ruling on the various claims in the sequence addressed by the Court.
A. The Warranty Claims:
Claim 4 (Breach of warranty under Florida law):
This Claim asserted that GM’s failure to remedy the vehicle’s defects constituted a breach of the express limited warranty. GM argued that the limited warranty covered only manufacturing defects. The Court ruled that “The Court finds sufficient ambiguity in the warranty language to make dismissal of the claims at this stage premature.”
Claim 1 (Violation of Federal Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act):
The Court stated, “claims under the Magnuson–Moss Act stand or fall with [a plaintiff’s] express and implied warranty claims under state law.” The Court the ruled “[b]ecause the Court has determined that it cannot dismiss Plaintiffs’ state law claim for breach of express warranty, the Court likewise declines to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Magnuson–Moss claim."
B. The Fraud Claims:
Claim 3 (Fraudulent Concealment):
GM had moved to dismiss this claim several grounds, including Florida’s “economic loss” rule, which precludes tort (e.g., fraud) actions if the only loss is economic. (By way of explanation of this legal point, contract law is designed to enforce the expectancy interests of the parties, whereas tort law imposes a duty of reasonable care and thereby encourages citizens to avoid causing physical harm to others.) The Court dismissed this Claim, ruling that “[t]he parties agree that Plaintiffs’ damages are purely economic. Fraudulent concealment claims in the products liability sphere that seek to recover only economic damages are clearly barred by Florida’s economic loss rule.”
Claim 2 (Violation of the Florida Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act):
GM moved to dismiss this Claim because it was not pled with the particularity required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). In rejecting GM’s challenge, the Court ruled “[a]s described above, Plaintiffs allege numerous specific representations, the precise marketing materials in which those representations were contained, and the manner in which the representations allegedly misled Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers. Plaintiffs have offered GM sufficiently detailed notice of the precise misconduct Plaintiffs allege, including the what, when, where, and how of the alleged deceptive conduct. This is all that Rule 9(b) requires.”
C. The Unjust Enrichment Claim (Claim 5):
This claim dealt with GM being unjustly enriched by the sale of the Z06s with their problems. Under Florida law, “unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy and is, therefore, not available where there is an adequate legal remedy” – i.e., a contract remedy. The Court concluded that “[b]ecause there is an express warranty governing the subject matter at issue here, Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims must be dismissed.”
Overall, a good ruling for the plaintiffs – and thus for Z06 owners. GM will have to defend the two warranty claims and one of the fraud claims. While GM can be expected later to challenge the claims on summary judgment to avoid a trial, the ruling should enhance the chances for a settlement.
Last edited by wjresq; 01-24-2018 at 12:42 AM.
Reason: typo
Attached is the Order issued today by Judge Gayles in the Vazquez v. GM case pending in the federal court in Miami. This is the Z06 overheating class action litigation. GM had moved to dismiss all five asserted claims. GM was successful on only two of the claims. Below is a summary of the ruling on the various claims in the sequence addressed by the Court.
A. The Warranty Claims:
Claim 4 (Breach of warranty under Florida law):
This Claim asserted that GM’s failure to remedy the vehicle’s defects constituted a breach of the express limited warranty. GM argued that the limited warranty covered only manufacturing defects. The Court ruled that “The Court finds sufficient ambiguity in the warranty language to make dismissal of the claims at this stage premature.”
Claim 1 (Violation of Federal Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act):
The Court stated, “claims under the Magnuson–Moss Act stand or fall with [a plaintiff’s] express and implied warranty claims under state law.” The Court the ruled “[b]ecause the Court has determined that it cannot dismiss Plaintiffs’ state law claim for breach of express warranty, the Court likewise declines to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Magnuson–Moss claim."
B. The Fraud Claims:
Claim 3 (Fraudulent Concealment):
GM had moved to dismiss this claim several grounds, including Florida’s “economic loss” rule, which precludes tort (e.g., fraud) actions if the only loss is economic. (By way of explanation of this legal point, contract law is designed to enforce the expectancy interests of the parties, whereas tort law which imposes a duty of reasonable care and thereby encourages citizens to avoid causing physical harm to others.) The Court dismissed this Claim, ruling that “[t]he parties agree that Plaintiffs’ damages are purely economic. Fraudulent concealment claims in the products liability sphere that seek to recover only economic damages are clearly barred by Florida’s economic loss rule.”
Claim 2 (Violation of the Florida Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act):
GM moved to dismiss this Claim because it was not pled with the particularity required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). In rejecting GM’s challenge, the Court ruled “[a]s described above, Plaintiffs allege numerous specific representations, the precise marketing materials in which those representations were contained, and the manner in which the representations allegedly misled Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers. Plaintiffs have offered GM sufficiently detailed notice of the precise misconduct Plaintiffs allege, including the what, when, where, and how of the alleged deceptive conduct. This is all that Rule 9(b) requires.”
C. The Unjust Enrichment Claim (Claim 5):
This claim dealt with GM being unjustly enriched by the sale of the Z06s with their problems. Under Florida law, “unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy and is, therefore, not available where there is an adequate legal remedy” – i.e., a contract remedy. The Court concluded that “[b]ecause there is an express warranty governing the subject matter at issue here, Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims must be dismissed.”
Overall, a good ruling for the plaintiffs – and thus for Z06 owners. GM will have to defend the two warranty claims and one of the fraud claims. While GM can be expected later to challenge the claims on summary judgment to avoid a trial, the ruling should enhance the chances for a settlement.
WJ, thanks for the progress summary. Hopefully GM steps up to resolve or remedy the issue as previously suggested. But “hope” has nothing to do with it. Maybe we’ll have a resolution before the C8 debuts.
WJ, thanks for the progress summary. Hopefully GM steps up to resolve or remedy the issue as previously suggested. But “hope” has nothing to do with it. Maybe we’ll have a resolution before the C8 debuts.
As of last week, the entries on the Florida docket index for the case showed efforts by GM to move the various cases to the Detroit federal court and consolidate them there. That will probably happen.
I wonder if following can be added or be another case:
1, Cabin gets hot after 60 to 90 min of normal driving, pretty uncomfortable and passenger will think the car got AC problem or such. I don't think other similar sports cars have problem like this. Doesn't make sense that it's winter and you have to turn on the AC. (And maybe AC will overwork and fail early, uses more gas etc but I haven't read more threads about it)
2, So many owners reported many of fluids are under filled from the factory, isn't this a big problem. You get a new car and the fluids are under filled, can cause damages or worse. Owned many news cars and this is the first! It's incomplete and they still ship it out to dealers and sell it.
3, The same for alignment, many owners didn't know that it's way off from factory, then it messed up their tires, not many miles on the tires and then have to get a new set and a new alignment. Owned many new cars before and the alignment was always fine. The car is just not finished, why do they insist on selling unfinished products?
Personal and subjective preferences... I'd take a GT3 or Turbo S but the Z06 gives you so much for the buck it's a no brainer. Porsche's build & materials quality and performance engineering in chassis & drivertrain is IMO still a level or so better but the gap has significantly lessened.
The only thing I image is the residual valor of the Porsche is higher than the z06.
[QUOTE=LG Motorsports;1596360353]HI Guys, Our Intercooler system has been tested on track the way it should have been tested. At 103 Deg F Texas heat.
We have installed our Dual Intercooler kit over and over with great success. The temperature exiting the factory intercooler is right at 220 F. So try cooling the car with 220 degree air passing through the radiator rather than ambient air. Can't be done when high performance driving on the track OR on the street.
For the A6 and A8 C7 cars, we add our second trans cooler kit on the passenger rear PLUS we add a high capacity Transmission Oil pan on either version, A6 or A8 to help the transmission. We also add our LG Super cool radiator with a special fan package, Plus add another second engine radiator like the one GM added. We also add an external oil cooler
Bottom line, problem solved for track or hard street use. We also add our Aero Hood that doubles the louver size plus adds a"wicker bill " at the leading edge to help suck the air out from behind the radiator package for track use. it adds down force PLUS reduces drag and helps engine cooling.
We have entered an event coming up in a week in florida and we are using our Dual intercooler package on an M7 C7 Z06 that will run 3 events. First will be a standing 1/2 mile run. the car must run with all the aero devices installed, same as the road courses. Next we goto Daytona on the 24 hour track and set best times plus a 20 minute average time session.
Next we goto Sebring and do the same as Daytona, timed laps plus a 20 minute timed session averaging the times.
The winner of the 3 part event will get to take the car to Nurburgring in the early summer.
Our C7 Z06 with M7 put down 719 rear wheel hp on the stock GM Blower. We had no intake air temp increase during the dyno runs. I believe that this is now the highest HP C7 Z07 produced using stock GM blower on 93 octane pump gas. and we did this with Stock cylinder heads and stock throttle body . We should see 780 Rear wheel hp when we dyno with E 85.
The point of this is that we not only beat the over heating issue, we now have returned the C7 to a car that can add significant Horsepower with no issues on track.
HI Guys, Our Intercooler system has been tested on track the way it should have been tested. At 103 Deg F Texas heat.
We have installed our Dual Intercooler kit over and over with great success. The temperature exiting the factory intercooler is right at 220 F. So try cooling the car with 220 degree air passing through the radiator rather than ambient air. Can't be done when high performance driving on the track OR on the street.
For the A6 and A8 C7 cars, we add our second trans cooler kit on the passenger rear PLUS we add a high capacity Transmission Oil pan on either version, A6 or A8 to help the transmission. We also add our LG Super cool radiator with a special fan package, Plus add another second engine radiator like the one GM added. We also add an external oil cooler
Bottom line, problem solved for track or hard street use. We also add our Aero Hood that doubles the louver size plus adds a"wicker bill " at the leading edge to help suck the air out from behind the radiator package for track use. it adds down force PLUS reduces drag and helps engine cooling.
We have entered an event coming up in a week in florida and we are using our Dual intercooler package on an M7 C7 Z06 that will run 3 events. First will be a standing 1/2 mile run. the car must run with all the aero devices installed, same as the road courses. Next we goto Daytona on the 24 hour track and set best times plus a 20 minute average time session.
Next we goto Sebring and do the same as Daytona, timed laps plus a 20 minute timed session averaging the times.
The winner of the 3 part event will get to take the car to Nurburgring in the early summer.
Our C7 Z06 with M7 put down 719 rear wheel hp on the stock GM Blower. We had no intake air temp increase during the dyno runs. I believe that this is now the highest HP C7 Z07 produced using stock GM blower on 93 octane pump gas. and we did this with Stock cylinder heads and stock throttle body . We should see 780 Rear wheel hp when we dyno with E 85.
The point of this is that we not only beat the over heating issue, we now have returned the C7 to a car that can add significant Horsepower with no issues on track.
There isn't much new information here, but I found this additional link. There are a couple of grills that can be added to the Z51 model that are for the Z06 model.
I installed the GM radiator upgrade on my 2015 Z06 M7. I ran for three track days this past weekend and experienced nothing even close to overheating issues. This was my first track session with the car so I can't say for sure the upgrade was the reason I had no issues. I am an experienced driver at this track so I did push the car through multiple sessions.
St. Jude Vendor Donor '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11
Originally Posted by cmichels1999
I installed the GM radiator upgrade on my 2015 Z06 M7. I ran for three track days this past weekend and experienced nothing even close to overheating issues. This was my first track session with the car so I can't say for sure the upgrade was the reason I had no issues. I am an experienced driver at this track so I did push the car through multiple sessions.
With all due respect, I Not sure what track you were on but I can tell you from watching so many C7 Z06 puttering around in limp mode on track it is almost embarrassing.
Did you log your runs? What we find is that when a car approaches the limit of overheating, the PCM pulls timing and reduces the throttle opening to stave off going into limp mode.
So the reality is that the power and performance is reduced by the PCM to avoid the dreaded "Limp Home Mode" Reduced power mode. Any car that has been into the dealer has had their PCM "Updated" by GM without your knowledge. They just do it.
You should monitor your Intake air temp, throttle position "Commanded" vs Actual opening and your timing to see what is really happening, other than just "not hitting" close to the reduced power.
Full performance is not possible lap after lap when the car's computer interferes with what the driver commands vs what it will let you do. (sounds like Government)
01-14-2018, 06:25 PM
