GM issues stop delivery on L87

Don't be shy....pick that fight. If people just shy away from stating what they believe in and what the real data shows, only the vocals ones with no data or knowledge get their point out there and then it becomes fact. From reading the comments on most of your "controversial" videos, I think most agree with you. The negatives will always be there and be more vocal and throw little tantrums and then lash out at how fast you talk because they have no data. That's just a weakness on their part. State the facts and back it up with your knowledge.

All I know is that compared to what I did on my vehicles back in the eighties for maintenance to what I do now, these modern systems are damn good. Changing starters, alternators, fuel pumps, etc. were every weekend chores. Now? We just drive the hell out of them
 
I kinda get why Tim doesn't want this fight. Like he said, it's like politics. You can bring up all the facts and figures you want but they just scream, "Fake News!" and ignore it. They have the excuse now to just go with their beliefs and attack anyone who says different.

You might get some of the viewers to agree with you but it going to feel more like you're feeding the "Maury-Machine". I have very few points online that I will "Die on that hill" for. It's just not worth it.
 
Saddle Tramp said:
I kinda get why Tim doesn't want this fight. Like he said, it's like politics. You can bring up all the facts and figures you want but they just scream, "Fake News!" and ignore it.
Click to expand...

For me it comes down to this. What are the facts and figures and who's providing them? If engineers...sorry, no. You lost me already as they're not an independent source.

Not the truck world at all but many companies have been sued for planned obsolescence, cough Apple, some of them larger than any vehicle manufacturer. So, it happens, that's a fact. There are some really interesting questions out there that just don't have good answers. Why do US engines call for thinner oil when the exact same engine in a country with no EPA or CAFE standards call for thicker oil? That's shady. However, I trust an engineer or an oil engineer to have a spin that makes it sound not shady. They work together.

Then there's greed. They want to sell a lot of trucks and they want to make a truck that lasts. Where do those opposed thoughts and ideals cross? Do we blindly accept that they are doing everything they can to sell you the longest lasting most reliable truck?

I don't have an answer, just questions. Having questions does not put me in the 5%. Neither does not trusting a paid manufacturers engineer to tow the company line. I've towed the company line in every one I've been associated with. We argue like hell behind the scenes but when a decision is made... Go forward together.
 
chaseydog said:
I've been changing my oil at 5000 intervals and have sent 3 samples in for testing. All three came back with the suggestion that I could run longer intervals.
Click to expand...
Dusdaddy said:
Don't be shy....pick that fight. If people just shy away from stating what they believe in and what the real data shows, only the vocals ones with no data or knowledge get their point out there and then it becomes fact. From reading the comments on most of your "controversial" videos, I think most agree with you. The negatives will always be there and be more vocal and throw little tantrums and then lash out at how fast you talk because they have no data. That's just a weakness on their part. State the facts and back it up with your knowledge.

All I know is that compared to what I did on my vehicles back in the eighties for maintenance to what I do now, these modern systems are damn good. Changing starters, alternators, fuel pumps, etc. were every weekend chores. Now? We just drive the hell out of them
Click to expand...
I’m out of town all week. I’ll sit on this idea. It could be a great truck news recap topic.
 
Fightnfire said:
For me it comes down to this. What are the facts and figures and who's providing them? If engineers...sorry, no. You lost me already as they're not an independent source.

Not the truck world at all but many companies have been sued for planned obsolescence, cough Apple, some of them larger than any vehicle manufacturer. So, it happens, that's a fact. There are some really interesting questions out there that just don't have good answers. Why do US engines call for thinner oil when the exact same engine in a country with no EPA or CAFE standards call for thicker oil? That's shady. However, I trust an engineer or an oil engineer to have a spin that makes it sound not shady. They work together.

Then there's greed. They want to sell a lot of trucks and they want to make a truck that lasts. Where do those opposed thoughts and ideals cross? Do we blindly accept that they are doing everything they can to sell you the longest lasting most reliable truck?

I don't have an answer, just questions. Having questions does not put me in the 5%. Neither does not trusting a paid manufacturers engineer to tow the company line. I've towed the company line in every one I've been associated with. We argue like hell behind the scenes but when a decision is made... Go forward together.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree you are in the 5%. LOL. Seriously though. You laid out that there’s nothing or nobody I could interview or talk with that you’d agree with it IF they didn’t match their views. That’s an impossible task for me and one I just don’t see any benefit to pursuing.
 
testerdahl said:
Oh I agree you are in the 5%. LOL. Seriously though. You laid out that there’s nothing or nobody I could interview or talk with that you’d agree with it IF they didn’t match their views. That’s an impossible task for me and one I just don’t see any benefit to pursuing.
Click to expand...
I think there's a conversation to be had with a GM engineer on the issue and especially the oil change from 0w20 to 0w40. Why did they go with 20 vs 40 out of the gate? Isn't the change admission by them that 0w40 offers better protection? Another conversation with someone about the oil requirements in the US vs. Outside. My guess is GM won't talk to you about anything regarding the recall? I would watch these videos but I don't know if I would fully trust a GM engineer on the topic, still want to hear from them of course.

Am I crazy to even see the conflict of interest in wanting to sell the most trucks possible and also wanting to make a truck that lasts? Maybe, I don't know.
 
Fightnfire said:
I think there's a conversation to be had with a GM engineer on the issue and especially the oil change from 0w20 to 0w40. Why did they go with 20 vs 40 out of the gate? Isn't the change admission by them that 0w40 offers better protection? Another conversation with someone about the oil requirements in the US vs. Outside. My guess is GM won't talk to you about anything regarding the recall? I would watch these videos but I don't know if I would fully trust a GM engineer on the topic, still want to hear from them of course.

Am I crazy to even see the conflict of interest in wanting to sell the most trucks possible and also wanting to make a truck that lasts? Maybe, I don't know.
Click to expand...
Yeah the odds of them commenting through the official GM channels is about zero. IF I happen to be at an event in the future with an engineer in person, I can ask. That could be a year out and it could be a tough challenge for me to remember.

I also wonder, like you said, if anyone will believe whatever the answer is: would anyone believe him/her?
 
I found this today in a Facebook group. I find it really suspect. Apparently, GM reversed its decision to go to 040 because we ran out of that oil???

"Great video to watch. At around the 23-24 minute mark Lake Speed talks about how there isn’t enough 0w40 to go around for these engines which is likely one of several reasons why GM rescinded the 0w40 recommendation. He recommends using a 5w30 since 0w40 shears down to a 30 wt anyways. He mentions a customer of his doing oil analyses on his 24 Silverado switching back and forth between 0w20 and 5w30. The tests showed 5w30 produced less wear metals than the 0w20. "

 
testerdahl said:
I found this today in a Facebook group. I find it really suspect. Apparently, GM reversed its decision to go to 040 because we ran out of that oil???

"Great video to watch. At around the 23-24 minute mark Lake Speed talks about how there isn’t enough 0w40 to go around for these engines which is likely one of several reasons why GM rescinded the 0w40 recommendation. He recommends using a 5w30 since 0w40 shears down to a 30 wt anyways. He mentions a customer of his doing oil analyses on his 24 Silverado switching back and forth between 0w20 and 5w30. The tests showed 5w30 produced less wear metals than the 0w20. "

Click to expand...
I saw the claim about GM reversing the decision. Could you confirm with your contacts at GM? This would be a weird change and also would further undermine the company's credibility. It's making me ask myself, why should I trust your fix if you keep flip flopping between solutions? I think it would also create more questions about the oil recommendations by manufacturers on top of what the original switch created.
 
TheDo114 said:
I saw the claim about GM reversing the decision. Could you confirm with your contacts at GM? This would be a weird change and also would further undermine the company's credibility. It's making me ask myself, why should I trust your fix if you keep flip flopping between solutions? I think it would also create more questions about the oil recommendations by manufacturers on top of what the original switch created.
Click to expand...
I'll try. Honestly, GM PR has seen a lot of changes lately and I'm not sure who to ask anymore. Also, getting answers has been like pulling teeth.
 
TheDo114 said:
I saw the claim about GM reversing the decision. Could you confirm with your contacts at GM? This would be a weird change and also would further undermine the company's credibility. It's making me ask myself, why should I trust your fix if you keep flip flopping between solutions? I think it would also create more questions about the oil recommendations by manufacturers on top of what the original switch created.
Click to expand...

After sorting through the docs on the NHTSA site, it appears it changed right after May 8th which was the last mention of inspection and changing the oil. Instructions for inspection and oil viscosity change were included with recall# NV252494001 in April and then NV252494002 came out in May with the engine change instructions only. It would be interesting to hear why the change occurred. Is it because of push back on the oil viscosity change for just these L87 and not all L87? Or, like some engineers have already stated, the oil won't help if the parts are made wrong to begin with?
 

Attachments

Nothing back from GM, not unusual.

I ran across this today. Interesting thought that nobody has brought up: the extra fuel costs. Do we know exactly how much? No we don't. It could be 1 or it could be a .5 or .25. Either way it could cost owners more in fuel.

MSN

www.msn.com
 
Dusdaddy said:
After sorting through the docs on the NHTSA site, it appears it changed right after May 8th which was the last mention of inspection and changing the oil. Instructions for inspection and oil viscosity change were included with recall# NV252494001 in April and then NV252494002 came out in May with the engine change instructions only. It would be interesting to hear why the change occurred. Is it because of push back on the oil viscosity change for just these L87 and not all L87? Or, like some engineers have already stated, the oil won't help if the parts are made wrong to begin with?
Click to expand...
I read that as a replacement of a different bulletin: "This bulletin is being revised to update the parts table."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top