Bad News for Some C6 Z06 Owners

[teamzr1]

Over the years, some owners found their C6 Z06 LS7s to have prematurely worn valve guides.
The valve guide issue has been known for some time now, and even GM has acknowledged the issue after tracing the problem to one of its suppliers.

That hasn’t stopped some Corvette owners from finding relief in the Courts.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a group of 17 Corvette owners who alleged General Motors had defects in the 2006-2013 Corvette Z06 engines.
The plaintiffs had filed an appeal to the Central District Court of California, who had previously granted summary judgment in the case to General Motors LLC.
The owners say they purchased Chevrolet Corvette Z06s, and they allege that valve guides in the vehicle’s LS7 engines contained design and manufacturing defects that caused damages.

In the appeal, the court said the Summary Judgment ruling for General Motors was appropriate because the Plaintiffs failed to produce admissible evidence that their vehicles actually contained the alleged valve guide defects, as their expert declarations were filed past the required deadline according to the three-judge panel who heard the appeal.

 

[HJG]

I wonder if it's the guide itself or a bad surface finish on the valve causing the issue.

 

[Roscobbc]

I would have thought that issues such as this would have been resolved by the cars owners ages ago. Makes one wonder how many cars in the UK were sourced via authorised UK dealers and dealt with (presuming the faults occurred during the manufacturers three year warranty) - seem to recall that 'ALL' C6 Z06's (whether UK supplied or personal imports) were subject of the no-cost correction of the roof de-lamination issue.

 

[teamzr1]

Another class action lawsuit against GM in 2015 and those owners also claimed the valve guides were out of spec and defective

General Motors is facing a defect automotive class action lawsuit filed by a group of Corvette owners who allege the company was aware that model years 2006-2014 Z06s have excessive valve guide wear that leads to engine failure and repairs.

According to the complaint, there are over 70 claims including violations of the RICO Act, unjust enrichment, negligence and consumer fraud. Specifically, the lawsuit asserts that GM broadly advertised the 7.0 liter V8 engine, used in the Chevrolet Corvette 427 and Chevrolet Corvette Z06 cars from 2006 through 2014, as high quality and durable.

However, design and manufacturing defects of the engine make it prone to mechanical failure.

Despite being aware of the defects, the plaintiffs contend that GM has so far refused to issue a recall. “

GM has taken no steps to correct the deficiencies in the subject engine,” the drivers claim.
“Despite GM's repeated assurances that the subject engines were performing as designed, the engines fail at a high rate.”

According to the lawsuit, the drivers have incurred significant expenses for inspection and repairs of the cars.
Even cars with extremely low mileage have shown a high degree of wear.

The lawsuit notes that despite being aware of a number of complaints about the alleged defects, GM insisted that "valve train noise" was an inherent feature of the engine and that they weren’t defective.

Further, the lawsuit contends that as a result of the customer complaints, GM developed and implemented an investigation technique known as the "wiggle method," as a way to determine whether the valve guides were out of specification.
Using this test, a high proportion of owners or lessees of the affected cars had out of specification valve guides, according to the complaint.

“When GM determined that its adopted test would lead to more repair and investigations than it wished to perform, the test was summarily rejected,” the lawsuit states.
“In dealing with multiple complaints concerning the subject engine in the class vehicles, GM acted, at all times, to deflect criticisms, defer investigations and repairs, and minimized the extent of the problems.” GM has yet to come up with a solution to the alleged problem, the plaintiffs assert.

The plaintiffs are represented by Andre E Jardini of Knapp Petersen and Clarke.
The case is Pilgrim et al. v. General Motors Company LLC, case number 2:15-cv-08047 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

 

[Stingray]

When I was a lad car owners were lucky if their car made it to 3 years/30,000 miles.

Nowadays people get grumpy if their car needs anything more than an oil change in 10 years/100,000 miles.

Somehow people are willing to suck up hefty depreciation (sunk cost) but kick up a fuss at any repair bill.

And then you get the situation where manufacturers can make a small fortune from selling "extended warranty"!

 

[Roscobbc]

When I was a lad car owners were lucky if their car made it to 3 years/30,000 miles.

Nowadays people get grumpy if their car needs anything more than an oil change in 10 years/100,000 miles.

Somehow people are willing to suck up hefty depreciation (sunk cost) but kick up a fuss at any repair bill.

And then you get the situation where manufacturers can make a small fortune from selling "extended warranty"!

'Thinking' people would actually look at the cost of buying a car new and running it for as long as one can without having to spend too much money on it, effectively getting your 'moneys worth'.......typically so many people sell their cars after three year when the warranty runs out. That (depending on useage) could be 15000 miles or 50000 miles. Either car if serviced and looked after properly should be able to last at least 80 or 90 thousand miles, perhaps sigmificantly more before major items need replacing. That could be a further 3 or 4 years for the new owner or as much as 10 to 15 years. Keeping a car for 15 years as a daily driver is an interesting concept which perhaps few will do.
An electric car should really last longer (with far fewer parts possibly less effected by wear).........the 'elephant in the room' is the batteries..........

 

[CaptainK]

My daily driver is 14 years old currently. Not that I daily drive at all now due to working from home. As you said Roscobbc, buying a new car is expensive, especially if you repeat it every 3 years. I just buy an "older" car as my daily and use it for as long as possible.

I can see why a lot of "non car people" would like the idea of "rent a car for 3 years", as they know what they are paying and can budget for it etc, and that with the warranty things will get fixed for them and most of the time the service stuff and road tax is included in that 3 year deal. So they don't need to worry.

I must confess, a while back when I was thinking of an electric car for the commute (before working from home), I was thinking about "rent a car for 3 years" deals as I was unsure about the depreciation of electric cars and the issues with the batteries. Its not like changing the spark plugs, leads, oil and filter etc myself at home.

 

[Roscobbc]

For the last 12 years or so (and several times with differing employers in the past) I have 'enjoyed' the use of company cars. The 'real deal' is for the company to contract hire a vehicle for you (or offer a subsidised employee facility). The 'hire' will be for a projected mileage per annum and for a set period, say three or 4 years. You can choose full maintenance options so all servicing, out of warranty repairs (if applicable) and tyre replacement, are included as are RFL and MOT's all you need to do is get insurance and put fuel in the car.
The great think about this is that you'll get a new car, fixed payments (which hopefully you can budget for) and no worries, simply replacing with another new vehicle at the end of the contract. Oddly the monthly hire costs work out less expensive pro-rata or more expensive 'premium' vehicles than many cheaper European/Far Eastern cars........the reason why? - residual values (or used value) of the 'premium' vehicles (so BMW, Audi, VW, Merc etc) when sold-off by the hire company at auction will tend to be far higher than many other cars (service costs/frequency/parts costs also have a bearing) and will generally translate as cheaper monthly hire costs.
Tesla Model 3's are the hot tip currently as 'the'csr to hire - BIK benefits for the user and major tax incentives for the employer makes what is a quite expensive elctric car more attractive to use.......

 

[CaptainK]

More recently, just before I had it confirmed we could stay working from home - I was considering the Tesla Model 3 "hire" as part of my company's discount employee car hire facility. But now, it would just be a waste of my money and a Model 3 to just have it sat on my driveway doing not a lot.

 

[Adtheman]

For the last 12 years or so (and several times with differing employers in the past) I have 'enjoyed' the use of company cars. The 'real deal' is for the company to contract hire a vehicle for you (or offer a subsidised employee facility). The 'hire' will be for a projected mileage per annum and for a set period, say three or 4 years. You can choose full maintenance options so all servicing, out of warranty repairs (if applicable) and tyre replacement, are included as are RFL and MOT's all you need to do is get insurance and put fuel in the car.
The great think about this is that you'll get a new car, fixed payments (which hopefully you can budget for) and no worries, simply replacing with another new vehicle at the end of the contract. Oddly the monthly hire costs work out less expensive pro-rata or more expensive 'premium' vehicles than many cheaper European/Far Eastern cars........the reason why? - residual values (or used value) of the 'premium' vehicles (so BMW, Audi, VW, Merc etc) when sold-off by the hire company at auction will tend to be far higher than many other cars (service costs/frequency/parts costs also have a bearing) and will generally translate as cheaper monthly hire costs.
Tesla Model 3's are the hot tip currently as 'the'csr to hire - BIK benefits for the user and major tax incentives for the employer makes what is a quite expensive elctric car more attractive to use.......

just had my model 3 delivered a couple of weeks ago, doesn't float the boat like a corvette, but its cheap as chips to run virtually no BIK and will keep up with anything apart from the most exotic supercars. One of the best cars ive ever owned.

 

[teamzr1]

Guy blows up his Tesla as it would cost $17,000 to replace the bad battery
A disgruntled Finnish Tesla owner has detonated his electric vehicle - along with an effigy of Tesla founder Elon Musk
to protest the cost of a replacement battery.

Tuomas Katainen blew up his 2013 Tesla S Model 2012 with 66lbs of dynamite after its battery failed, and he was faced with the £17,000 ($22,000) repair bill.

Owner blows up his Tesla

 

[Roscobbc]

Guy blows up his Tesla as it would cost $17,000 to replace the bad battery
A disgruntled Finnish Tesla owner has detonated his electric vehicle - along with an effigy of Tesla founder Elon Musk
to protest the cost of a replacement battery.

Tuomas Katainen blew up his 2013 Tesla S Model 2012 with 66lbs of dynamite after its battery failed, and he was faced with the £17,000 ($22,000) repair bill.

Owner blows up his Tesla

The real benefit regarding contract hire (including maintenance) is that a failed battery (providing its not caused by incorrect use by the hiree) will not cost you anything to replace - the vehicle may be registered to you or your employer but it is usual owned by the hire company and therefore their responsibilty. Irrespective of who owns the vehicle the manufacturers extended battery warranty should cover batteries unless it past their set mileage limits. Having said all that it would be interesting how battery damage is handled following flood damage. The final plus point about contract hire (providing you have the 'right' contract) is that if the car is damaged beyond repair or stolen and not recovered the contract hire company are obliged to provide you with a replacement vehicles to the same spec'!

 

[CaptainK]

I saw that video of the guy blowing up his Tesla a few days back. It did amuse me.

But yes, the batteries are still of a concern, which is the reason why I'd "hire" an electric car, so that every few years I'd get a new one with newer battery tech and so forth. All a moot point now though, as I do bugger all mileage nowadays and it'd be far cheaper to use my C3 than pay the hire costs for a Model 3.

 

[craigyboy]

I dont know anyone in the UK who has addressed this issue. I advised someone people in the club back in 2013 about this and was totally ignored lol I was told there is no problem with the LS7

the fix is get new heads fitted. 1st thing I would do if I got a Z06

 

[Roscobbc]

I dont know anyone in the UK who has addressed this issue. I advised someone people in the club back in 2013 about this and was totally ignored lol I was told there is no problem with the LS7

the fix is get new heads fitted. 1st thing I would do if I got a Z06

Unless (of course) a previous owner had documentation proving otherwise.......?

 

[Tattooboy]

Standard 2006 C6 Z06 here, and yep, you guessed, standard heads and still no issues !!!! Shocker

 

[teamzr1]

The heads for the LS7 do not need to be replaced but reworked

Issues were a bad batch of valve guides, so only certain years were effected

The other problem common for C6 Z06 owners to find bearing when they change the engine oil.
Ill design of rockers cause as seen in bottom image compared to a good lifter in top image.

Notice how the rocker no longer sits square on top of the valve stem and due to loss of roller bearing how cocked rocker sits.
If rockers are working correctly, then they did not have the also bad batch of rockers



Good ones :