Engine failure - Owner/manufacturer responsibility

[More Power]

>SUBJECT: GMC Duramax Engine Failure
>
>Your input is requested. I own a 2002 GMC HD 2500 Sierra with a Duramax engine. The truck has 71K miles and two 100Kmile warranties (the original factory and the GMPP extended warranty for 100K and five years). The cost of that GMPP Extended Warranty was $2398.00. The truck has been well maintained and serviced regularly. The truck has a performance chip added after market.
>
>Over the past several months I have notice strange noises in the engine. The sound was similar to that occurring when climbing a hill with a heavy load. The sound would only last for a short period of time and then go away.
>
>Three weeks ago I was traveling between Dallas and Albuquerque, driving at about 70 MPH in cruise control. The noise occurred several times over a two hour period. All instruments indicated a totally normal operation. Thirty five miles east of town the noise returned. This time it did not go away and escalated into a very loud rattling noise, again all instruments indicated normal operation, when the engine sounded like it had exploded, it locked up, the engine temperature instantaneously pegged. I immediately knocked the gear shift from drive to neutral and drifted to the side of the road. The engine would not turn over and sounded like a dead battery - something was binding.
>
>The vehicle was towed into a GMC shop, where it sat for three weeks. The initial feedback from the GMC tech was that he believed it to be a broken cam and that a compression check revealed less than 100psi on all eight cylinders. After three weeks GM agreed to tear it down and inspect the engine. Upon tear down GM states that the engine glow plugs were melted, there are metal shavings in all cylinders and the injectors, and the pistons and cylinders are scorched. GM then stated that the engine appeared to have been fuel starved causing over heating. What is ignored here is that a diesel runs cooler when fuel starved, not hotter.
>
>GM now states: "Upon inspection and diagnosis of the engine by GMC, General Motors has determined that the engine failure is the direct result of the after market performance enhancing computer chip installed on the vehicle. Therefore, we are denying this request to perform engine repairs under the terms of the General Motors Protection Plan or any other General Motors Warranty."
>
>My question is, do you have any information or feedback that will aid in my battle with GM?
>
>Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. I have been a loyal GM person since my first 1937 Chevy and I have never experienced anything like this. I have even worked for GM (Electronics Division) for several years and consulted on the design and implementation of Security Systems for GM facilities around the world.
>
>Name removed.

Hello,

Aside from a couple of their conclusions being incorrect about heat and "fuel starvation", GM is within its authority to void an engine warranty when an aftermarket performance enhancing product has been used that could cause or contribute to an engine or powertrain failure.

I would contact the vendor/manufacturer of the performance product, and determine what their obligation is in this instance.

I would also point out that I have seen gasoline contamination cause the same sorts of engine damage in a diesel engine that you are reporting (burned glow plug tips and thermal stress cracks on the pistons). I would rule out a fuel contamination issue as part of the diagnostic process. If a fuel station pump was mislabeled or if someone else partially filled your tank with gasoline, there may be some shared liability.

One or two defective injectors could cause thermal damage in the affected cylinder(s). A gasoline issue would affect all eight cylinders more or less the same. This is an important distinction to discover. An overloaded truck that is run too hard with a performance product could also affect all eight cylinders in varying degrees (way too excessive EGT's).

Let me know what develops,

Jim

[Turbo Al]

First off -- OUCH -- to have gone the extra mile and gotten the added warrenty and still no consideration from GM really hurts.

Second it does sound like gas was mixed in the fuel somehow -- this happened to me at on of my regular fuel stops. I was filling up and noticed the smell of gas! Double checked the pump label -- diesel -- smelled the nozzle, smelled like gas. Stopped pumping at about $5 bucks and went in and complained. Lady told me no one else had complained so I must be wrong -- O K goodby -- never to return.

It would be really interesting to back up take the chip out and then see what story GM would come up with.

Alan

[rickdlance]

I accidentally put about 12 gallon of gas in my otherwise full tank once. I drove aproximately 1/2 of it out. I took it to 2 differant dealers complaining about the performance and both changed the fuel filter. The second dealer cut the filter open and noticed the smell. They dropped the tank and drained it and I have put over 100,000 miles on it since then with no other problems. I hope this will help.

[jim659]

I really don't think you have a legal leg to stand on with this one. Most warranty papers state on them that any aftermarket additions to the truck will void whatever part of the truck it directly effects. (a chip void the motor, a torque converter the tranny etc.) I know because I have a highly modified 01 cummins and I had it at the dealers for some small thing unrelated to the motor. A few days after I got the truck back I was getting rid of all my scoth lock conecters and soldering them all , when I got to the VP44 (injection pump) there was a warranty voided sticker on my harness conection. As soon as you start to modify your truck when it is still under warranty you mind as well just keep repeating I am my own warranty station. I'm really sorry to hear about your truck but would'nt count on fighting a giant like GMC. Hope you catch a break and it gets covered.

Jim Shaw

[ynot]

A couple quick notes. Fuel starving adds heat, hence the old adage "fuel cools". Second, gas in diesel MAY aid in detonation, depending on the amount, but ALWAYS LOWERS the cetane level. Gas of any octane rating will never have the BTU's of any diesel, including #1 and kerosene. That's why it won't fire without an external ignition source. Diesel fires from compression only. Gas WILL run very dry tho. It has basically no lubricity affects. Third, get a lawyer familiar with the Magnusson-Moss warranty act. GM will have to prove that the "chip" caused the failure in court. You DO NOT have to prove that it didn't. Most aftermarket suppliers would be more than happy to furnish oodles of documents and testimonials about their product. If they didn't, sales would crash and companies would fold after every little mishap, now that computers and other such means of communication are so prevalent. There are no secrets anymore. 1000 positive sales still won't equal 3 bad ones, so you should be "protected" by all sorts of people stepping up. Don't be afraid to make waves. Good luck...T

[More Power]

GM has said that gasoline will produce symptoms of low power, poor starts and general poor engine running, and they also say that it won't harm a diesel engine - for all the reasons stated in a previous post. It would make sense that the cetane/octane thing would support that.

However, I've received a few emails from DP members through the years who reported just the opposite is true - in their cases at least.

In one, a member carefully rebuilt his 6.2, using all the methods and hardware we've learned helps these engines perform. Soon afterward, he mistakenly filled an already half full tank with gasoline (mislabeled pump). This resulted in melting all eight glow plugs and producing thermal stress cracks on all eight pistons. He had not driven all that far before the engine began exhibiting problems. He was bummed....

Regarding Magnuson-Moss, I've read a few industry reports through the years that suggests this law was designed more for the manufacturers of aftermarket parts than for consumers. And, arbitration panels who decide these cases tend to favor auto manufacturers 90% of the time.

Anytime you notice an engine or powertrain performance problem, return the system to stock, then make another evaluation. And, always install gauges that allow you to monitor the EGT. And finally, know that a performance product could complicate a warranty dispute.

There are many dealers out there who will install performance products for you, some dealer service managers look the other way, and some service managers are sticklers for the fine print. Talking to your service manager before making any changes might help you avoid a warranty denial, or know what can be modified without creating a situation.

MP

[ynot]

You are right on all accounts, MP. I should have been a little clearer. Magnusson-Moss was a class action for the manufacturers, but the end result was for the owner, who obviously will have the final "problem" if there's a failure. That's why they SHOULD step up in cases like this. It doesn't mean they always do, but their reputation rides on the "word of mouth" that the customer throws out there. Tho most companies have some sort of magazine add or whatever, at this point pretty much NO ONE will by a product without checking the "boards" first, which is GREAT for us. Feedback makes for a better and safer product, period... The gas thing: Gas is more FLAMMABLE than diesel. Wore out old Chevy's with 8.5/1 pistons use to "diesel" on straight gas if the cylinders were too hot with lower octane fuels. All octane does is to help control the detonation point of fuel. The higher the number, the less the likelihood of early detonation or "pre-ignition knock", hence the multiple knock sensors all over late models. Tho the BTU's of gas are much lower, it is more flammable so it burns quicker and faster. Gas in fuel will fire much faster, greatly advancing timing, (i.e. piston cracks and scoring) and also burns much quicker (i.e. uncontrollable burn times and rate [power (heat energy) comes from two things. Efficiency and duration of the burn. More power is generated from a LONGER, more complete burn than from a shorter, sudden burst of cylinder pressure. That's why gassers are using multi-spark ignitions now, and HIGH horse diesels have much lower compression than their "stock horse power" counterparts. Push the piston with slightly less force, but push much longer after TDC, burning more of the available fuel] which actually work to push the piston down backwards fighting against flywheel momentum and rotation). Just like with injection point timing, over-advancing it thru any means results in less power and more heat and wear. Maximizing timing so that the burn starts BTDC, continues to burn well after TDC, and burns (close as possible to) completely, is critical to efficiency, longevity, and emissions. Gas CANNOT be controlled in a compression-only engine. Timing with compression-only gas can vary as much as 50+ degrees, just by varying the temp of the cylinder it fires in. You can use high octane unleaded in an emergency situation in the winter to lower waxing temp (gelling) up to about 4 percent, but any more than that will hurt performance and kill the injectors (add an ounce of tranny fluid for every gallon of gas to keep lubricity up in the injectors). GM is nuts if they actually think gas won't hurt a diesel. I

[Amianthus]

HEY YNOT! How are you doing? It's been a long time. Staying outta trouble, are ya? Drop me a line some time.

MP, for advice, I can only say that he should be able to get his money back for the extended warranty, since he hasn't gotten into the extended coverage period.
He may have luck using the MM act to get satisfaction from GM. But he's really got to do his homework. Right now is when he really needs to start collecting objective evidence. Get the fuel analyzed. Get the "chip" looked at to make sure that it isn't faulty and caused the failure. Getting the oil analyzed might also be a good idea.

Personally, I don't believe that the fault is with GM. The unit was probably fine before it was modified. The mods are probably what caused the failure. And that being the case, he's probably sunk. I haven't seen an aftermarket manufacturer replace an engine yet from the failure it's product caused.

I truly do wish him the best of luck. It sucks to be in the position he's in.