Class Action against GM for Piston Slap

[jeepster]

http://www.classcounsel.com./news/gm.htm

 

Green & Jigarjian LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit Against General Motors for Defect in Engine Resulting in Excessive Engine Noise Caused by Piston Slap

 

Green & Jigarjian LLP has filed a lawsuit on behalf of owners of General Motors vehicles who purchased or leased a 1999-2003 model with a 3.1, 3.4, 4.8, 5.3, 5.7 (LSI), 6.0, or 8.1 liter engine (includes but is not limited to the following models: Cadillac Escalade, Chevy Camaro, Chevy Corvette, Chevy Silverardo, Chevy Tahoe, Chevy Suburban, GM Denali and Yukon, Oldsmobile Alero, Pontiac Trans Am) and whose vehicles produce “Piston Slap.” Piston Slap is a loud knocking noise produced during and shortly after engine start-up caused by the engine pistons knocking against the cylinder walls as a result of excessive clearance between the piston and cylinder wall.

 

 

In 1999, GM redesigned certain engines with shorter pistons to reduce friction between the piston and cylinder wall. However, shortening the piston reduces its stability within the cylinder and requires a reduction in tolerance (i.e., clearance) between the piston and cylinder wall. GM did not adjust the tolerance in these engines. As a result, these engines produce a loud knocking noise, called piston slap, caused by the piston moving side-to-side and hitting the cylinder wall during its up-and-downward motion. In addition to the loud knocking noise, piston slapping results in excess engine wear, increased oil consumption, and poor fuel mileage. Rather than fix the problem, GM has modified what it considers acceptable engine noise and oil consumption levels.

 

If you own or lease a 1999-2003 GM vehicle with one of the engines listed above and your engine produces piston slap, and would like to discuss your rights, please direct your inquiries to Monica S. Herman at (415) 477-6700 or by email: [email protected]

 

Green & Jigarjian LLP is a San Francisco law firm that handles class actions and complex litigation. To learn more about our national class action attorneys, visit us on the web at www.classcounsel.com.

 

-----------------------

 

I've been in the dealership a few times from this as soon as we bought the truck new. It's been documented here a few times about many people expereincing anything from ticking noises to what mine sounds like (it sounds like a diesel at idle until warmed up and then down to the ticking).

[seadoons]

I will definately make sure my name is included on this one!

[Randy M]

Does this affect the 2004 models?

[mdub]

Does this affect the 2004 models?

Not yet... GM supposedly fixed this problem on '03 and up models. It only took them four years to address the problem.

 

Too bad there isn't a class action for "clunking" drivetrains on brand new $30-50k vehicles -- GM has let that problem go much longer.

 

Too bad it takes a class action lawsuit for GM to recognize quality issues -- it's no wonder it takes 0% financing to sell vehicles.

[GM GIMP]

My prediction:

 

Litigation on this case plus the settlement will cost GM

several billion dollars.

 

The lawyers involved will make millions if not billions.

We will receive some sort of coupon for $500 toward

the purchase of a new GM vehicle.

 

Class action lawsuites help nobody involved other

than lawyers.

 

SCUMBAGS!!!

[GM GIMP]

Oh, I forgot this one.

 

BOTTOMFEEDERS!!!

[gave20]

BOTTOMFEEDERS!!!

 

shoot them all. It's a shame we live in a society where nearly all activities and transactions deal directly with or could be associated with lawyers. The're more important the doctors, since the doctors need them to avoid malpractice. sickening

[MCourson]

Class actions suits. People think that GM is going to pay. No, the consumer is going to be doing the paying.

[jhm]

There are lots of these class action suits against GM for this issue. By june the court is supposed to rule on joining them all together. I BET GM settles out of court. They want to save face. If you got a slapper you might as well get in unless you are planning to sue on your own.

[gnutruk]

BOTTOMFEEDERS!!!

 

shoot them all. It's a shame we live in a society where nearly all activities and transactions deal directly with or could be associated with lawyers. The're more important the doctors, since the doctors need them to avoid malpractice. sickening

Actually, Gm greatly prefers to manage their quality problems through lawyers and the courts, because;

 

1) This will wind up costing GM nothing. The system that the corporations have created ("The best Government that Money can Buy") allows them to utilize court judgements that go against them to their advantage. This is done through tax deferral and avoidance clauses in the federal tax codes, and the tax codes of the various states where GM has major operations. Because of the tax advantages that GM can avail itself of, not even the shareholders will suffer any losses.

 

2) GM maintains an enormous legal apparatus, which is itself a major "profit center," and is a net contributor to the bottom line of the parent corporation. GM's legal machine, like the legal machines of ALL the major corporations, functions as a sort of "police force" against threats and problems that might arise in its dealings with its suppliers, its labor unions, its dealership networks, its customers, etc. ON BALANCE, the GM legal apparatus wins far more cases -- and thus saves far more money -- than it loses. The ability to win more frequently is a consequence of GM’s enormous financial deep pockets. GM can (and does) hire the best legal power there is, and this is why they prevail more often than not.

To be sure, sometimes they lose. But that risk, too, is just part of the game. Nobody, and no corporation, wins all the time. That’s just life. Undeniably, however, the bigger the corporation -- and the more powerful its political/economic/financial connections in Washington DC -- the more likely it is to come away with the brass ring.

 

3) Even the smallest risk that GM may lose will immediately initiate a “cost coverage” program. In vehicle pricing, parts pricing, supplier and labor contract negotiations, GM will already have started to “make up” the potential future shortfall. By the time any court-ordered judgment will be issued against GM, they will already have brought in that much extra, or even more.

Most of us have experienced a variation on this phenomenon. If the CEO of a major oil corporation -- say, Exxon/Mobil -- comes into work one morning with a pimple of his a$$, the price of gas rises. If the Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia sneezes, the price of gas rises. If an oil futures trader on the London Energy Exchange has a slightly stale crumpet with his morning tea, the price of gas rises. You get the picture. EVERY SINGLE “SETBACK,” no matter what its nature, becomes a “reason” to raise prices.

 

4) It is very difficult for most ordinary American citizens to comprehend just how gigantic a corporation GM really is. Most of us merely have knowledge of its “public” face, usually in the form of the smiling salesman down at the local dealership. But GM is so huge, it pumps out so many of those engines, that it is actually cheaper to save a nickel during production than lose a court case later. GM (and all the other manufacturers) know perfectly well what they are going to be sued about in the future, and they just simply do not care. Or rather, they care about something else entirely. They are even fairly well able to predict just when in the future a class-action suit will arise. You can bet your dog that GM’s managers were having brain-storming sessions about the knocking engines already ten or twelve years ago, when these engines were first brought forth onto the drawing board. The engineers, the GM house lawyers, and the bean-counters got together, and, WORKING AS A TEAM, under the orders of their superiors, developed an approach that, on balance, would add the most to the bottom line. Future lawsuits arising as a result of their decisions were considered acceptable.

 

5) Only competition in the market ever creates problems for the mega-giant corporations. When the Japanese started bringing in good small cars starting in the mid-1970’s, Detroit took a big hit, losing significant market share. ONLY those kinds of broad-scale, historical changes affect the corporations. Those sorts of transformations are the ones that induce the big, structural changes in the fundamental ways the corporations do business. They constitute the source of the pressures that initiate multi-trillion dollar investment programs in plant, production methodologies, product, etc. For example, we are currently seeing GM (and the other vehicle manufacturers) stampeding into China, pouring enormous resources into the creation of means of production (assembly lines, supplier networks, integrated business-information technology processes, etc.) and, perhaps most significantly, into the emplacement and deepening of political/economic RELATIONSHIPS with the indigenous Chinese business and governmental elites. THAT is the kind of thing that makes a difference, not diddly-squat lawsuits.

Court-ordered payments in class-action suits such as this one are tiny in comparison. Put comparatively, the total dollar-amount payout, if GM loses this suit, will be the equivalent loss of no more than if you were to misplace your weekly pocket change.

 

If I find time later this evening, I’ll discuss a few more factors.

 

gnutruk

[tfpary]

 

It just as gnutruk stated, basically, GM is in business to make money, and manufacturing cars and trucks is a sideline, a means to an end. Do they care that the 4l60E is a piece of crap in my truck? Not one bit. I work at a manufacturer of a "high end" product (as marketed and percieved by the consumer). It is rather humorous to read buletin boards just like this one, aimed at the market our products are in. People get way bent out of shape about the darndest things, and make statements and suppositions that are so far from the reality that their posts are passed around at the plant and laughed at. As a consumer the first thing that anybody should be taught is that the company making your favorite product is in business to make money, NOT to make YOU happy or produce YOUR version of a product, or make the BEST product that they can.

[mdub]

It just as gnutruk stated, basically, GM is in business to make money, and manufacturing cars and trucks is a sideline, a means to an end. Do they care that the 4l60E is a piece of crap in my truck? Not one bit. I work at a manufacturer of a "high end" product (as marketed and percieved by the consumer). It is rather humorous to read buletin boards just like this one, aimed at the market our products are in. People get way bent out of shape about the darndest things, and make statements and suppositions that are so far from the reality that their posts are passed around at the plant and laughed at. As a consumer the first thing that anybody should be taught is that the company making your favorite product is in business to make money, NOT to make YOU happy or produce YOUR version of a product, or make the BEST product that they can.

Wow, that's about as cynical and sad as it gets.

 

I also work for a company that makes "high end" products, however the customer is the primary focus, and we take unbelievable steps to delight customers, primarily through the design and manufacuture of superior qualtiy products at the most competitive price. We understand that taking this approach naturally causes repeat sales, and high profit naturally results. We understand that we'll occasionally have warranty issues, and we expect to take a loss on those issues, understanding that we'll make it up on subsequent and word of mouth increased sales, and repeat business.

 

Modern text books written about Quality and Manufacturing teach that quality issues are most important opportunities rather than problems -- if handled responsibly, a quality issue can actually earn the respect of customers rather than chase them away. Obviously, the key to making this philosphy work is to identify problems early, and take immediate corrective action, otherwise warranty issues would kill a company that is willing to take a responsible approach.

 

Based on my personal experience, and what I've studied, GM and others still don't get this common-sense approach. Until companies GET IT, they will continue to trudge along as they did in the '70s and '80s with their blindly loyal fans. Meanwhile, other companies that do GET IT have many opportunities to attract disgruntled consumers.

 

Perhaps this is just more humorous material for y'all to pass around the office, but if manufacturing companies (GM included) wish to remain competitive, they need to wake up to some very simple Quality concepts. It's unlikely that myself, those involved in these 'class action suits', and every one of their relatives and friends will be among the BLIND followers giving GM another chance anytime soon.

[GM GIMP]

3) Even the smallest risk that GM may lose will immediately initiate a “cost coverage” program. In vehicle pricing, parts pricing, supplier and labor contract negotiations, GM will already have started to “make up” the potential future shortfall. By the time any court-ordered judgment will be issued against GM, they will already have brought in that much extra, or even more.

Most of us have experienced a variation on this phenomenon. If the CEO of a major oil corporation -- say, Exxon/Mobil -- comes into work one morning with a pimple of his a$$, the price of gas rises. If the Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia sneezes, the price of gas rises. If an oil futures trader on the London Energy Exchange has a slightly stale crumpet with his morning tea, the price of gas rises. You get the picture. EVERY SINGLE “SETBACK,” no matter what its nature, becomes a “reason” to raise prices.

5) Only competition in the market ever creates problems for the mega-giant corporations. When the Japanese started bringing in good small cars starting in the mid-1970’s, Detroit took a big hit, losing significant market share. ONLY those kinds of broad-scale, historical changes affect the corporations. Those sorts of transformations are the ones that induce the big, structural changes in the fundamental ways the corporations do business. They constitute the source of the pressures that initiate multi-trillion dollar investment programs in plant, production methodologies, product, etc. For example, we are currently seeing GM (and the other vehicle manufacturers) stampeding into China, pouring enormous resources into the creation of means of production (assembly lines, supplier networks, integrated business-information technology processes, etc.) and, perhaps most significantly, into the emplacement and deepening of political/economic RELATIONSHIPS with the indigenous Chinese business and governmental elites. THAT is the kind of thing that makes a difference, not diddly-squat lawsuits.

Court-ordered payments in class-action suits such as this one are tiny in comparison. Put comparatively, the total dollar-amount payout, if GM loses this suit, will be the equivalent loss of no more than if you were to misplace your weekly pocket change.

I understand corporate greed and how profit is the only real driving force for GM as well as any other corporation to exist. However, the principles are still as basic

for GM as they are for Mom and Pop's Grocery.

 

1. If you don't satisfy your customers you will eventually suffer. Competition

will take all of your business away if they can. If GM has this problem of knocking

engines and their planners think they can cover this with tax writeoffs, they are

making a tremendous mistake. These lawsuits will be well publicized and will

send customers running to other manufacturers.

 

2. The oil companies are a different story entirely. If we don't have petroleum,

we can't survive. These companies don't have true competition as they all process

the same product. If the price of crude oil goes up, all they do is pass the

additional cost to the consumer, period. If GM or any other corporation that

has to build a quality product and maintain a good reputation has too many

cost increases, legal or otherwise, they cannot just pass the cost to the consumer. Other companies like Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, or Nissan have deep pockets too

and, If they have fewer problems, can sell a cheaper and or better product.

 

3. Therefore, even a problem such as a didley lawsuit can cause major problems

if it happens often enough that the consumer loses confidence. GM should take

this very seriously and solve this little problem before it gets to be part of a

huge problem that a "cost coverage program" cannot begin to solve.

Almost a whole working generation has passed since the Japanese nearly

ruined our entire auto industry. All they did was build a more reliable product

and the lowly consumer went for it.

LESSON LEARNED: THE CONSUMER RULES!!!

[gnutruk]

 

 

 

 

I understand corporate greed and how profit is the only real driving force for GM as well as any other corporation to exist. However, the principles are still as basic

for GM as they are for Mom and Pop's Grocery.

 

1. If you don't satisfy your customers you will eventually suffer. Competition

will take all of your business away if they can. If GM has this problem of knocking

engines and their planners think they can cover this with tax writeoffs, they are

making a tremendous mistake. These lawsuits will be well publicized and will

send customers running to other manufacturers.

 

2. The oil companies are a different story entirely. If we don't have petroleum,

we can't survive. These companies don't have true competition as they all process

the same product. If the price of crude oil goes up, all they do is pass the

additional cost to the consumer, period. If GM or any other corporation that

has to build a quality product and maintain a good reputation has too many

cost increases, legal or otherwise, they cannot just pass the cost to the consumer. Other companies like Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, or Nissan have deep pockets too

and, If they have fewer problems, can sell a cheaper and or better product.

 

3. Therefore, even a problem such as a didley lawsuit can cause major problems

if it happens often enough that the consumer loses confidence. GM should take

this very seriously and solve this little problem before it gets to be part of a

huge problem that a "cost coverage program" cannot begin to solve.

Almost a whole working generation has passed since the Japanese nearly

ruined our entire auto industry. All they did was build a more reliable product

and the lowly consumer went for it.

LESSON LEARNED: THE CONSUMER RULES!!!

GM Gimp wrote : "These lawsuits will be well publicized and will

send customers running to other manufacturers."

 

Yeah, sure, and meanwhile, the customers from the other companies have gotten fed up with being ripped off over there, and they're fleeing in the opposite direction. The two herds of running customers can wave to each other as they pass.

 

All major corporations are forced to service their primary customers, and that customer IS NOT the end-use consumer (you and me). Rather, the primary customer of GM, as it is for all the major corps, are the great financial institutions -- the investment banks, the big Brokerage Houses, the big institutional stockholders. The needs of those groups are what the top executives of GM, etc., wake up in the morning worrying about.

 

The General Motors Corp. represents an enormous concentration of capital -- embedded capital, if you will. The first and most important "product" that is produced by that capital is . . . more capital!! Also known as "profit."

 

 

GM Gimp wrote : "The oil companies are a different story entirely."

 

No. The oil companies are simply a different sector within a single whole. They do business exactly the same way as the manufacturing corps. Only the form of the "product" is different, and that difference is merely superficial. In both cases, oil and autos, the totality of their business processes are mediated through the key financial institutions in New York, London, Tokyo. Stock value makes the wheel of commerce turn.

 

 

GM Gimp wrote : "LESSON LEARNED: THE CONSUMER RULES!!! "

 

As a sentiment, this is a very pleasant, even charming, fairy tale. Ideologically, it is very comfortable to believe in, since doing so will make one's life less vexing.

 

In the US business system the chimera of Consumer Sovreignity is given constant lip-service. Small companies actually do need to pay heed to it, to a certain degree. But for the mega-corps it's a joke. Or, more precisely, a smoke-screen, behind which they merrily continue their policies of complete fixation on the bottom line. Inculcating the belief that the Consumer Rules has been an important and quite useful tool -- going on about one hundred years now , ever since the development of modern advertising (propaganda) techniques. The ideology that the Consumer Rules provides very important efficiencies in the preparation (softening up) of consumer psychology, and which the mega-corps have latched onto. Since we believe the propaganda that the Consumer Rules, we tend to be more easily manipulated when the corps say -- as they do constantly -- that they only care about our needs. For some reason, in America more that most other countries, the overwhelming majority of us fall for that pap. People in many other nations (but not most other nations by a long shot) are not as gullible.

 

gnutruk

[grimm2420]

I have an '04 and my truck already sounds "dieselish" at startup. Then it ticks all the time when its warm. Is this the same problem we're talking about? i only have about 3500 miles so far.