http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtm...O_AUDIOSS.html

"Cliff" wrote in message
...


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtm...O_AUDIOSS.html


Just two days ago I finally decided after 52 years of purchasing GM only
that my 2000 GMC would be the last GM I would purchase. This came after a
long exchange of emails with GM regarding the DEXCOOL disaster and their
refusal to take any blame or provide any assurance of doing so in the
future.
I urge anyone with DEXCOOL concerns to express them by an email to GM.

Jack Hayes

Jack Hayes wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message
...


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtm...O_AUDIOSS.html


Just two days ago I finally decided after 52 years of purchasing GM only
that my 2000 GMC would be the last GM I would purchase. This came after a
long exchange of emails with GM regarding the DEXCOOL disaster and their
refusal to take any blame or provide any assurance of doing so in the
future.
I urge anyone with DEXCOOL concerns to express them by an email to GM.

Jack Hayes



I've got a 2002 GMC.

So what to do about the Dexcool? Replace w/ normal coolant?

Jack,

Could you explain or supply links about the DEXCOOL problem?

TMT

"kurgan" wrote in
oups.com:


Jack Hayes wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message
...


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtm...s/20050220_AUT
O_AUDIOSS.html


Just two days ago I finally decided after 52 years of purchasing GM
only that my 2000 GMC would be the last GM I would purchase. This
came after a long exchange of emails with GM regarding the DEXCOOL
disaster and their refusal to take any blame or provide any assurance
of doing so in the future.
I urge anyone with DEXCOOL concerns to express them by an email to
GM.

Jack Hayes



I've got a 2002 GMC.

So what to do about the Dexcool? Replace w/ normal coolant?


NO. NO. NO. All coolants are ethylene glycol based. The difference
between them is the corrosion inhibitor additives they are mixed with.
There is a study that shows that mixing regular coolant with Dexcool
causes some sort of reaction with aluminum, causing it to react and
corrode badly. The corroded aluminum ands up throughout the system,
creating all sorts of trouble.

It's doubtful that even a good flush can remove all of the Dexcool.
Apparently it only takes a small amount of coolant mixing to create the
problem.

I wonder how many coolant systems have been ruined by those ten minute
oil change places topping off the coolant with the wrong type.

--

Dan

D Murphy wrote:

Just two days ago I finally decided after 52 years of purchasing GM
only that my 2000 GMC would be the last GM I would purchase. This
came after a long exchange of emails with GM regarding the DEXCOOL
disaster and their refusal to take any blame or provide any assurance
of doing so in the future.
I urge anyone with DEXCOOL concerns to express them by an email to
GM.

Jack Hayes



I've got a 2002 GMC.

So what to do about the Dexcool? Replace w/ normal coolant?


NO. NO. NO. All coolants are ethylene glycol based. The difference
between them is the corrosion inhibitor additives they are mixed with.
There is a study that shows that mixing regular coolant with Dexcool
causes some sort of reaction with aluminum, causing it to react and
corrode badly. The corroded aluminum ands up throughout the system,
creating all sorts of trouble.



Wow.

That's almost unbelievable that GM would do something like that. Then
again . . .


thanks for the information (seriously),

K. Gringioni.

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"kurgan" wrote in
oups.com:


Jack Hayes wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message
...


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtm...s/20050220_AUT
O_AUDIOSS.html


Just two days ago I finally decided after 52 years of purchasing GM
only that my 2000 GMC would be the last GM I would purchase. This
came after a long exchange of emails with GM regarding the DEXCOOL
disaster and their refusal to take any blame or provide any assurance
of doing so in the future.
I urge anyone with DEXCOOL concerns to express them by an email to
GM.

Jack Hayes



I've got a 2002 GMC.

So what to do about the Dexcool? Replace w/ normal coolant?


NO. NO. NO. All coolants are ethylene glycol based. The difference
between them is the corrosion inhibitor additives they are mixed with.
There is a study that shows that mixing regular coolant with Dexcool
causes some sort of reaction with aluminum, causing it to react and
corrode badly. The corroded aluminum ands up throughout the system,
creating all sorts of trouble.

It's doubtful that even a good flush can remove all of the Dexcool.
Apparently it only takes a small amount of coolant mixing to create the
problem.

I wonder how many coolant systems have been ruined by those ten minute
oil change places topping off the coolant with the wrong type.


There's ethylene glycol and then there's propylene glycol....both have
corrosion inhibitors...and with either one, our 98 chev 6 cyl vortec has
been prone to developing leaks.

Some bad mixes happened in the design stages what with dis-similar metals
contacting one another, IMO.

****ing potmetal fittings.....

--

SVL

On 21 Feb 2006 21:14:20 -0800, "kurgan"
wrote:
Wow.
That's almost unbelievable that GM would do something like that. Then
again . . .
==========================
Let me tell you about my Feiro. Main wire bundle [rear engine
car so included power leads] went directly over the cat conveter.

Dim bulbs specified small oil filter with no anti-drainback
valve. Burned out a lot of engines. Changed to small oil filter
with anti drain back valve -- end of problem? Not quite --- some
one decided to "upgrade to bigger [longer] oil filter. To save
money specified one with no anti drainback valve!!! Burned out a
bunch more engines. Changed specs to long filter with anti-drain
back valve -- end of problem??


for information about "death wish"see
http://www.answers.com/topic/death-wish


Uncle George

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:04:50 -0500, "Jack Hayes"
wrote:

DEXCOOL

[
"This coolant is designed to remain in your vehicle for 5 years or 150,000
miles, whichever occurs first, if you add .. only add DEX-COOL extended life
coolant".
]

IOW, Not a good idea to replace it with something else.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:04:50 -0500, "Jack Hayes"
wrote:

DEXCOOL

[
Introduction:
Equilon (owned by Texaco® and Shell®) markets a European coolant technology
(OAT) that consists of ethylene glycol inhibited with a combination of sebacic
acid and 2-ethylhexanoic acid supplemented with tolyltriazole. It was originally
called "Long Life", but a lawsuit brought by Warren Oil, who markets a fully
formulated coolant under the brand name "LongLife®) forced the retraction of
that term form the DEXCOOL, Texaco and Caterpillar® packaging. The combination
of a mono and dibasic carboxylic acids permitted Texaco to obtain a patent on
the specific combination. Other companies have obtained similar patents, by
varying the mixture somewhat and by using similar, but not exactly the same,
chemistry.

General Motors® has been using this coolant technology in their cars and light
trucks since the start-of-production of the 1996 model year vehicles (except
Saturn®, which began in 1997). GMC® medium trucks equipped with Caterpillar
engines, have been getting a nitrite-added form of DEXCOOL (NOAT) to insure
protection against wet sleeve liner cavitation-erosion.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Can DEXCOOL organic acid antifreeze be mixed with ethylene glycol antifreeze?
It is ethylene glycol based antifreeze! The concern with mixing comes from the
fact that there are very different chemical inhibitor packages in use. Most
leading technologies will work very well when used as intended, typically at 50%
in good quality water. If the coolants become mixed with DEXCOOL, however, one
study showed a possible aluminum corrosion problem in certain situations. The
other question is a concern for dilution of the protection packages. At what mix
is the there too little of either inhibitor to protect the engine? As a
precaution, both GM and Caterpillar instruct that contaminated systems must be
maintained as if they contained only conventional coolant.

How long will it last?
Uncontaminated, the engine manufacturers instruct that it may be kept in service
for 5 years or 150,000 miles in cars. In trucks, Caterpillar and GM currently
recommend that the nitrited version of the coolant be run 300,000 miles or 2
years, re-inhibited with a nitrite-tolyltriazole "extender", and run to a total
of 600,000 miles.

Are there different brands that meet the spec?
Yes. Any brand displaying the DEXCOOL trademark meet the spec, others
advertising compatibility are from the same family of coolants.

How can a customer tell if he has DEXCOOL?
If the customer owns a GM car and has orange coolant, then its DEXCOOL! In GM
trucks the coolant is "orange- red", indicating that it contains nitrite. Orange
coolant in Daimler-Chrysler® vehicles is NOT Dexcool. (Daimler Chrysler owners
with orange color factory coolant should consult their owners' handbooks).

Does it protect aluminum?
Yes, even though it contains no silicate, the primary aluminum protector in
conventional antifreezes, published data shows that it protects aluminum.
]
http://www.penray.com/bulletins/dexcool.htm

On 22 Feb 2006 04:48:15 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

I wonder how many coolant systems have been ruined by those ten minute
oil change places topping off the coolant with the wrong type.

Watch out for those "oil flushes" too !!!
Avoid, avoid, avoid IMHO.
150,000 miles - no problems.
Got talked into one ... leaked oil like a sieve there after. I think
it ate much of the gasketing .... expensive to replace.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:49:08 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On 21 Feb 2006 21:14:20 -0800, "kurgan"
wrote:
Wow.
That's almost unbelievable that GM would do something like that. Then
again . . .
==========================
Let me tell you about my Feiro. Main wire bundle [rear engine
car so included power leads] went directly over the cat conveter.

Had a shifter cable there .... idled to warmup in much cold & snow ....
no more cable OR gearshift ....
--
Cliff

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:49:08 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

Dim bulbs

GM Used to make their headlamps in Anderson, IN.
They made a hole in them as a near final step.
They would then fill with water & slosh on the actual bulb, thus
failing ....
Nobody knew the reason for that hole AFAIK.

BTW, It was an ex-employee (toolmaker/designer) of
that very plant that sent me the link that started this thread.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:04:50 -0500, "Jack Hayes"
wrote:


DEXCOOL


[
"This coolant is designed to remain in your vehicle for 5 years or 150,000
miles, whichever occurs first, if you add .. only add DEX-COOL extended life
coolant".
]

IOW, Not a good idea to replace it with something else.


But thats been common knowledge for donkeys years .. mixing coolants is
trouble



--
Eat well , stay fit , and die healthy .

"Cliff" wrote in message
...


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtm...O_AUDIOSS.html


Hi Jack again; Just do a Google Search with "dexcool problems" as the
search string and see how many hits you get.

I got 563. If you just search on "dexcool" you get thousands of hits.

Jack

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jack,

Could you explain or supply links about the DEXCOOL problem?

TMT


Go to Google.

Type DEXCOOL in the window.

Hit Enter.

13,300 hits in 0.10 seconds.

Hit Favorites

Hit Add

Click OK

Use Google when you want to find out about something.

HTH

Steve

ff wrote:


My "87 Toyota has red coolant. The same coolant for 140,000 miles. No
problems.



Ya, but that's a Toyota.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:06:30 GMT, zadoc wrote:

Of course, why stop at that? We now have these neat little micro
identification chips that can be implanted in products.

And people.
--
Cliff

zadoc wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:33:53 +1100, myal
wrote in :

|Cliff wrote:
| On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:04:50 -0500, "Jack Hayes"
| wrote:
|
|
|DEXCOOL
|
|
| [
| "This coolant is designed to remain in your vehicle for 5 years or 150,000
| miles, whichever occurs first, if you add .. only add DEX-COOL extended life
| coolant".
| ]
|
| IOW, Not a good idea to replace it with something else.
|
|
|But thats been common knowledge for donkeys years .. mixing coolants is
|trouble

Zadoc comment starts

Not known to me. Here in Australia have never used anything but
dihydrogen monoxide, H20, commonly known as "water". :-)

In the US, where it got cold in winter, used various brands of
antifreeze and never had any trouble.

Anyone want an idea for a conspiracy novel? Lots of newer cars
use a computer for engine control. How about a brand "
A" vehicle that advises the owner to only have it serviced by a
brand "A" dealer every 5,000 miles or so.

It shouldn't be much trouble to program the computer so that if
this isn't done at the prescribed intervals something drastic
happens to the engine. :-)

Of course, why stop at that? We now have these neat little micro
identification chips that can be implanted in products. The
brand "A" manufacturer specifies that only original equipment
brand "A" oil filters, batteries, tires, windscreen wipers, etc.
be used.

So if the owner tries to substitute a cheaper brand "X" battery
[for example] it won't have the proper chip code and the car
that is not "original brand X" equipment, it won't return the
proper identification code and again something drastic happens.

Hmm, how could this be done? It should be possible for the
computer to check for the proper ID codes on various components,
but how could it then sabotage the engine?

Of course probably no need to do this. If the operation of the
vehicle is entirely dependent on the computer and its programs,
one would assume that the computer would be expensive to replace.
So after the computer detects a substituted "brand X" product it
does a quick check to see if the warranty on the car or on the
computer is expired, and, if so, it destroys itself a few days
later.

Now, of course, am not suggesting that any reputable company
would be actually do such a thing, but it could be the basis for
an interesting conspiracy novel. :-)

/ Zadoc comment ends
Cheers,


since ford brung out their first alloy head here and the japs were using
aloy blocks and heads , and these loverly coloure coolants became popular .

its been known among the bush mechanic types that if you mix your
coolants , you stand a chance of them reacting and eating the alloy in
the motor .

Just like its common knowledge that putting a high detergent oil into an
old motor *can* not always ,but sometimes , dislodge all the crap built
up on the insides and give you a sump full of jelly .

I have had it happen to me , cost me a motor .



--
Eat well , stay fit , and die healthy .

"zadoc" wrote in message
...

snipped


Of course, why stop at that? We now have these neat little micro
identification chips that can be implanted in products. The
brand "A" manufacturer specifies that only original equipment
brand "A" oil filters, batteries, tires, windscreen wipers, etc.
be used.

So if the owner tries to substitute a cheaper brand "X" battery
[for example] it won't have the proper chip code and the car
that is not "original brand X" equipment, it won't return the
proper identification code and again something drastic happens.

Pretty straightforward stuff. The printer manufacturers have been doing
this for years to discourage aftermarket ink cartridges.

In article ,
zadoc wrote:

Anyone want an idea for a conspiracy novel? Lots of newer cars
use a computer for engine control. How about a brand "
A" vehicle that advises the owner to only have it serviced by a
brand "A" dealer every 5,000 miles or so.

Not gonna make the best seller list...

Magnusson-Moss warranty act pretty much takes care of such
shenanigans in the U.S. at least.

In misc.survivalism gfulton wrote:
Sure would be easy for the manufacturer to program the powertrain
cont. computer to reject input from an aftermarket sensor and create a
trouble code, though. I'm no big conspiracy theorist, but wouldn't put this
past them.

The car makers don't have to get THAT fancy, their control of patents
allows them to regulate the level of aftermarket competition to their
heart's desire.

They could use such a regime as a patent enforcement measure, where
sensors have some sort of crypto signature that is verified by the engine
controller - a bad signature results in a "no start" situation.

And car makers could get governments to help them to a richer gravy train
by lobbying for aircraft-style maintenance requirements as a condition of
licensing your car; that is all vehicles have an onboard maintenance log
embedded in the engine controller which can only be written to by a
licensed repair facility; as part of pre-registration renewal "safety and
emission inspection", the log is verified by the inspection station as
being up-to-date.

Embedded chips in general are a scary technology; what if for instance
every device connected to the power grid had to be "authorized"; where for
instance machine tools could only be connected to a " commercial "
electric service and where connecting an un-authorized device leads to
immediate diconnection of your electricity?

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

From: address IS Valid.

- -
Rex Burkheimer
WM Automotive
Fort Worth TX

aarcuda69062 wrote:
In article ,
zadoc wrote:

Anyone want an idea for a conspiracy novel? Lots of newer cars
use a computer for engine control. How about a brand "
A" vehicle that advises the owner to only have it serviced by a
brand "A" dealer every 5,000 miles or so.

Not gonna make the best seller list...

Magnusson-Moss warranty act pretty much takes care of such
shenanigans in the U.S. at least.

MM just says equal quality aftermarket parts cannot void the warranty.

currently, there is no law requiring automakers to make repair
information available to the aftermarket. They are "voluntarily"
providing a trickle of information under a sort of gentleman's agreement
- with predictable results.
There is legislation before congress now to require automakers to
make repair information available to the aftermarket, so the public will
have a choice of repair options. Known as Right to Repair, I urge you
to ask your representatives to support it.
Automakers are saying "No need, everything is hunky-dory".
Independent shops are saying "Ford/GM/Chrysler?BMW will not release the
information I need to repair your car, so you have to go back to the
dealer - and pay $100/hour"

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:18:17 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Embedded chips in general are a scary technology

One wonders how many are in those bombs & suchlike that the US exports.
--
Cliff

In article ,
Rex B wrote:

- -
Rex Burkheimer
WM Automotive
Fort Worth TX

aarcuda69062 wrote:
In article ,
zadoc wrote:

Anyone want an idea for a conspiracy novel? Lots of newer cars
use a computer for engine control. How about a brand "
A" vehicle that advises the owner to only have it serviced by a
brand "A" dealer every 5,000 miles or so.

Not gonna make the best seller list...

Magnusson-Moss warranty act pretty much takes care of such
shenanigans in the U.S. at least.

MM just says equal quality aftermarket parts cannot void the warranty.

No, that isn't "just" what M-M says.
The Magnusson-Moss warranty act says warranty coverage may not be
conditioned upon the use of only the vehicle manufacturer's parts
unless the parts are provided free of charge.
Pretty much takes the wind out of the premise of zadoc's original
post.

currently, there is no law requiring automakers to make repair
information available to the aftermarket. They are "voluntarily"
providing a trickle of information under a sort of gentleman's agreement
- with predictable results.
There is legislation before congress now to require automakers to
make repair information available to the aftermarket, so the public will
have a choice of repair options. Known as Right to Repair, I urge you
to ask your representatives to support it.
Automakers are saying "No need, everything is hunky-dory".
Independent shops are saying "Ford/GM/Chrysler?BMW will not release the
information I need to repair your car, so you have to go back to the
dealer - and pay $100/hour"

Won't release or; as useful as a screen door on a submarine?
Call Jim Linder at Linder Technical Service in Indianapolis, ask
him about the VW Passat owned by "Earl" of Earl's Fittings...
Classic slapstick where even the OEM couldn't make up there mind
about the definition of a DTC.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:38:41 -0500, Cliff
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtm...O_AUDIOSS.html
==========================
I have been on the road for a while, and am just now plowing
thorough the last of the mail, mainly the back issues of an
alarmist rag called the Wall Street Journal.

The Thursday 16 Feb 2006 issue is particularly appropriate for
this thread as it discusses GMC, default and derivatives. Several
interesting items were discovered.

(1) GMC has about 30 Billion dollars in known *bonded* debt.

(2) The article was not clear if this included GMAC.

(3) Reading between the lines, GM's total debt including
unsecured items such as accounts payable and pension obligations,
co signed debt likely to default such as Delphi, and unknown
special purpose entities ala Enron, is much higher.

(3) As best as can be estimated there is about 200 billion
dollars of credit derivatives based on GMC default/bankruptcy.

(4) Because of the approximately 7X ratio of derivatives to
actual GM bonds and the way most credit derivative contracts are
written, even a hint that GM is nearing bankruptcy could cause
bond market chaos, as the traders attempt to cover what is
operationally a "short sale."

Which leads into an article on page A2 "Wall Street Is Cleaning
Derivative Mess," which details the following points:

(1) There are 14 major operators of what are in fact OTB
parimutuels handling derivatives rather than bets on
flesh-and-blood horse races.

(2) There is almost no regulation or tracking in the normally
accepted sense of the word.

(3) There is very active trading of the derivatives on both
sides, so that it is impossible for one party to tell who the
other party in a credit-default swap actually is at any moment.
Thus a GM bond holder may think they are "insured" against
default because of the financial stability of their derivative
correspondent, while in actuality the initial derivative
correspondent may have sold their side [of the derivative] to a
marginally [or even non- ] credit worthy institution/individual.

(4) The 14 derivative parimutuels are very lax in their "back
office" operations and there appears to be little or no
verification by the derivative contract participants that such a
contract actually exists.

(5) There appears to be nothing to prevent an "insider," such as
a corporate officer or banker (or their foreign representative),
from buying credit swap derivatives knowing their corporation is
about to default, thus making a 900% return.

FWIW, the credit swap derivatives currently indicate the odds of
a GM default/bankruptcy are about 9:1 *AGAINST*

While not directly related to GMC's problems and more in the
nature of a canary in a mine that just "keeled over" , "How the
BlackRock, Merrill Pact Unfolded," which details how Merrill,
Lynch & Company is bailing from mutual fund management, and
removing their name from a series of mutual funds they sold and
managed. What does Merrill know that we don't?

Uncle George

F. George McDuffee wrote:

(5) There appears to be nothing to prevent an "insider," such as
a corporate officer or banker (or their foreign representative),
from buying credit swap derivatives knowing their corporation is
about to default, thus making a 900% return.



There are laws against such things, but they are rarely enforced.


Unless you're stupid, like Martha Stewart, and make it obvious.



thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:38:41 -0500, Cliff
wrote:

While not directly related to GMC's problems and more in the
nature of a canary in a mine that just "keeled over" , "How the
BlackRock, Merrill Pact Unfolded," which details how Merrill,
Lynch & Company is bailing from mutual fund management, and
removing their name from a series of mutual funds they sold and
managed. What does Merrill know that we don't?

Mmmm, dontcha just love 'dem unregulated hedge funds and derivatives? That's
real capitalism. That's Reaganomincs come home to roost.

As one employed in the service of pharmaceutical companies, I think my best
play is to get a commission on sales of venlafaxine and barbiturates...the
latter are also good for committing suicide.

Every problem is an opportunity in disguise.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 03:24:16 GMT, Ignoramus12893
wrote:

I am a little surprised about the assumption made in the subject line
of this thread, that somehow GM's bankruptcy will "end" GM. It will
likely not end it, the main thing that will change is ownership of the
company -- it would pass to its lenders. It is likely to continue as
an automotive company, less burdened by debt, pension obligations and
union contracts. Whether that is a good thing, depends on the POV, but
clearly the effect of all that would amount to less than would true
liquidation of the company.
=======================
Too true -- generations of lawyers, copy machine repair men,
etc.yet unborn will retire on this.

At one time it was believed reports of the "undead" that sucked
life from the living were simply folk tales from Translyvania.
We now know better. These exist and are called Chapter 11
corporations....

Uncle George