Last post on Jan 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM
You are in the Pontiac Bonneville
What is this discussion about?
Pontiac Bonneville, Sedan
Feb 11, 2003 (8:08 am)
Evandro-Which issue? My point is- We are talking about 3 different coolant leaks causes. (And the Montana never used a 3.8L engine. The last 3.8 GM Van was the 1995 TransSpot which did not use the Series II that went into the Bonneville.)
oldram51--If yours was a gasket leak then why did you repalce $500 worth of Lower Intake Manifold and Upper Intake Manifold (Plenum)? Again my question is--why is the majority of the posts Bonneville related when the engines went in to other cars and are the same as the Grand Prix? Could it be the water in Kansas (GP) is better the water in Missouri/Mich (Bonn)?
John325--The 1999 Manifolds are not the same as the 1995-1998, so the degradation issue is not there. And don't remember any posts in quanity about gasket leaks.
Lets try some math. I believe Pontiac sells less then 100,000 Bonnevilles as year, of which some (20%?) are supercharged so do not use the Upper Plenum. 1998 Grand Prix sales were about 130,000+ of which some were 3.1 V6s and some were supercharged. 4years at 100,000 and one year at 130,000 is 530,000 (Very High). 2,800 Pontiac dealers. 300 work days per year. 3(+) years of repairs. A 2-3 per day average dosen't look sustainable.
Just raises more questions then it answers.
Feb 11, 2003 (9:38 am)
You need to reread my post and your references, I think there is some confussion. The "something wrong in the intake manifold" is the degradation of the Upper Intake Manifold in the EGR area. It effects Series IIs from 1995-1998. "There's no TSB covering more recent cars" because the part was redesigned and the problem dosen't effect them. "see the mechanic's opinion" clealy points out the changes, he says nothing about the changes not fixing the problem.
"The proof..is my..", your Upper Manifold was replaced for an external leak not degradation that effected the 1995-1998s. I have seen friends who had their 2000-2001s fixed with just a gasket. So therfore your Upper Manifold MUST have been bad.
Leak 1- Degradation 1995-1998
Leak 2-Upper Intake Manifold Gasket
Leak 3-Upper Intake Manifold
It is possible oldram51 has discovered leak 4 but hasen't posted enough infomation.
GM's 36/36 warranty will catch most of the 2000-2002s with Gasket or Manifold problems (3/50 for Gasket and 7/70 for Manifold in California Emissions Warranty states).
And if it was just a question of profits, wouldn't GM be better doing a $500 repair then offering $3,000+ in rebates?
Since none of us designned or built our cars, it is the age old question of when does it stop being the manufacturers problem and become the owners.
ADDITION: you added a second link while I was responding. Ian talks about what I have been saying about the changed lower manifold, and what it should do. And he goes on to talk about the external leak which as I have been saying is a different leak on your car.
#988 of 2268 Montanafan
Feb 11, 2003 (9:52 am)
If the redesigned lower manifold solves all the problems, then why did my Bonneville leaked? The dealer didn't write the cause of the leak in the receipt, so I think that neither I nor you can say that it wasn't a warped upper intake manifold. If the thinner EGR pipe just decreases the frequency of warpage, who's to say that the new manifold in my car won't warp again when it's out of warranty? I can't answer these questions, neither can you and GM hasn't answered them to my satisfaction.
Come on, it is not acceptable that a 15 month old car with just 17000mls on it has any engine problem. Whatever problem it was, manifold warpage or gasket, it's just not acceptable that it hasn't been addressed once and for all since '95.
Why can't the Series II be as bullet-proof as the Series I or as most GM transmissions? Why shouldn't I expect the same level of quality in the Series II as in these two examples?
It's about customer satisfaction. My bottom line becomes GM's when the time comes to replace the Bonneville. Enough said.
#989 of 2268 I agree evandro
Feb 11, 2003 (10:25 am)
I'll try and discribe my problem better. We started noticing a coolant loss shortly after we bought the car with about 55,000 mls. It was always worse in colder weather. It recently started going through coolant more rapidly, coincidently we had a run of very cold temps. We didn't replace the lower manifold we only removed it, cleaned it and reinstalled with new gaskets. The plenum was warped and deteriorating and full of sludge. We also replaced the pcv valve and need to replace the M.A.P. sensor. As I said before we did a complete computer check of the engine systems and everything looked good and it seems to be running fine. Obviously I could have saved myself some greif if I had done this sooner but we didn't know until recently what the problem was. There were never any obvious coolant leaks or any visible in the engine oil, so we assumed it was evaporating off the engine and until recently the amount lost wasn't large so we just kept refilling when it got low.
Feb 11, 2003 (11:28 am)
Read the posts. Where does anyone say the revised lower intake manifold solves ALL problems. It only addresses the DEGRADATION of the upper manifold on 1995-1998. They don't WARP they rot out an inside wall to a coolant passage. The fact that no one with a 1999 has reported this degradation indicates that it is a possible fix.
I have clasified your manifold as a possible leak source. I have been trying to clarify things by pointing out that there are THREE possible DIFFERENT leak issues involved in our talks. If owners want GM to accept any responsability, shouldn't the issue be identified? We could say that GM sucks (as some do) but where does that take us. We could say GM sealing technology leaves alot to be desired, and we would be closer. If we say that the design of the 1995-1998 lower intake manifolds leads to failure during the mandated California Emissions Warranty period therefore the California Air Resousres board should force a recall or extended warranty, then we have something we can work with. Identify issue, and resolution.
It would be great if our cars never had problems, but as we were recently shown so tragicly, even the best man made items can suffer failures.
I find it perfectly accetable that a failure shows up at 17,000. In fact I hope it would. Isn't that why there is a warranty? Defects in workmanship or materials, that is what a warranty is to cover. The world has settled on 36/36 as being an acceptable time for the blame to rest with the manufacturer. I would rather have it at 17,000 then 57,000 or 87,000 or 107,000.
Perhaps for the recent cars we need to find out if checking and retorquing the manifold bolts keep things strait.
We are all here for the same reason, to share and share alike. Our common thread is our car. What better way to relate. But we need to keep our focus on the correct spot.
oldram51, per the links evandro provided, you have not fixed your problem because you didn't replace the lower intake manifold. How could the dealer not sell you this revised part if they are so experienced in its replacement and know that GM recommends it?
#991 of 2268 Great question!!!
Feb 11, 2003 (12:52 pm)
I guess i missed the need for replacing that from your earlier posts. If in fact they are doing 2-3 of these a day I definatly should have been told that. Which makes me wonder if GM is trying to keep the scope of this problem as low key as possible. Could you please tell me what happens to or what the problem is with the lower manifold as I did not catch that from earlier posts. Also how long do I have before problems resurface? Thanks!
#992 of 2268 Thanks for '99 answer - Warranty Problems (montanafan/evandro)
Feb 11, 2003 (1:13 pm)
Thanks for your answer on the 99 Bonneville. I knew that prior year models had problems, but did not hear of any when I purchased the '99 at 1 year old, w/ 17k miles on it. My mechanic, non-GM I might add, is very aware of the 3800 engine problems. I hope I skate through without the manifold problems. Obviously if it does happen, I'm well beyond the warranty period.
In regards to new car problems, I kind of side w/ Evandro. There's something about a newer car that has terrible problems before even reaching 50k. My mechanic has always advised me to buy Toyota or Honda. And you know, you always hear about them going 200-300k miles without many problems at all.
I took a chance w/ another GM product 18 mos ago, a 2002 Buick Rendezvous, and so far have had my transmission, awd transfer case, & rack and pinion steering changed in the last 30 days, not to mention other more minor-type items. When you fork out $30k for a car, you just don't think these kinds of defects will creep-up. But as you said, thank goodness for the warranty.
When a problem is persistent through a number of years, eg, Chrysler transmissions, GM 3800 engines, Ford Wiring, or whatever, you'd think these huge companies would take some responsiblity and get these things fixed. Perhaps that's asking too much. I know Chrysler still uses the crappy transmissions in their vans that have been going-out for 10-15 years. You wonder how they can do this in good conscience.
I'm pretty sure the next car I purchase will be in the Toyota or Honda families. Our American corporations seem to be more concerned w/ their profits than customer satisfaction. Just my .02. Btw, thanks again for your reply on the '99.
Feb 11, 2003 (2:02 pm)
evandro has done all the research here. Follow his links to see the pictures of the revised lower manifold and read the bulletin. Not having the updated manifold puts you at risk of the degradation but who knows how long. As you noticed, does this mean that the dealership is doing 2-3 per day wrong? GM put out the bulletin so they can't tell dealers not to sell the parts.
John325--American car companies might seam to worry more about thier profits because Americans do. Dosen't any American company have to wonder how Wall St and Main St will react to their every move? Perhaps Toyota/Honda would be different companies if they had a $19 Billion unfunded pension liability. Or was required to put over $3 billion in to the pension fund in 2003. Or if they spent over $500 million per year on healthcare for retirees. You are starting to see the rapid new model introduction take a little toll on the Toyota/Honda reputations.
#994 of 2268 Montanafan
Feb 11, 2003 (2:11 pm)
I agree with you in some points, but I don't think that I should identify the issue in order to raise hell at the Renaissance Center. There definitely is something rotten in Denmark and it smells like anti-freeze...
Having said this, I wouldn't blindly fork my hard earned money on either a Honda or a Toyota just because the legend is that they run for hundreds of thousands of miles flawlesly. As legendary as it sounds, it just cannot be true.
I always try to avoid 1st year model cars exactly because of that. However, the Series II has been out there for years and so has the Bonneville. I never took my Bonneville to the dealer for any repair whatsoever. That a badly designed flimsy plastic part spoils my ownership experience in such an amazing car is a certificate of stupidity to GM brass.