more Saturn complaints (casting flaws cause cracked heads)

On Apr 17, 12:51 pm, Brian > wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:34:53 -0400, "Steve" m>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Brian" > wrote in messagenews:irle049ot6lonmhkd42krhonem812otp6l@4ax .com...
> >> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:48:02 -0400, "marx404" > wrote:
>
> >>>Steve I'm sure that most here already know of the many issues the 1.9L
> >>>engine had, but it's not an epidemic, trust me. The 1.9 in question hasn't
>
> >> What issues do the 1.9's have ???? I just bought a 95 SL1 with 146,000 and it runs good.
> >> What can I look forward to in the future ???
>
> >> Thanks
> >> Brian
>
> > The main issue, as far as I am aware, is the casting flaw that caused oil and coolant to mix either in the oil
> >crankcase or the coolant system. If your SL has over 100,000 miles, chances are this flaw has either been caught and
> >corrected or (more likely) your engine did not suffer from this flaw. There are other, less serious, problems such as
> >wrong plug gapping and fuel pump but, again, your car has either had them and they've been fixed or your car never had
> >them. I would expect that as long as you ensure your SL gets regular maintenance (especially timing chain replacement),
> >the only problems you can expect are those endemic to all older cars.
>
> Does the timing chain break ???? I would figure a chain would last the life of the car, unlike
> belts.......

It's not a scheduled maintenance item like a belt, but it doesn't last
forever. Chain breakage has been a problem for some owners due to
problems with the timing chain tensioner system. Clean oil is
essential for the timing chain tensioner on older Saturns to work
properly.

Generally you should replace the chain and the tensioner every 100,000
miles. If you have a 1995 with 146K miles then chances are the
previous owner already replaced the chain once.

On Apr 17, 8:25 pm, satyr > wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:52:40 -0700, SMS >
> wrote:

> >Saturn has some nice vehicles now, but those looking for a vehicle to
> >keep for a long period of time would be advised to be wary.
>
> Consumer Reports shows that Saturns generally range from a little
> worse than average (Ion, Vue) to a lot worse than average (Relay,
> Sky). GM managed to start a cult with Saturn, but no one is drinking
> the Cool-Ade anymore.

Judging from this thread, at least a couple of people still are
drinking it. BTW, it's Kool-Aid. Still, I think that Misterfact should
direct his energy to more worthwhile projects. Trying to convince
people to not buy Saturns based on what happened with the casting flaw
so many years ago, is not going to be a very productive use of his
time.

I haven't seen any new Saturns around my area. The dealership near me
closed up shop several years ago, and I think people are reluctant to
buy vehicles when there is no dealer close by. The current Saturns are
probably no worse than other GM vehicles, but other than trucks, who's
buying anything from GM? The local GM (Chevy) dealer in my town closed
up unexpectedly one day, and eventually they sold the building and a
huge Whole Foods went in. In March 2008, Toyota sold 40,487 Camrys,
and Saturn sold 6,241 Auras, and that was a 12.9% increase for Saturn.

On Apr 16, 5:48 pm, "marx404" > wrote:
> Steve I'm sure that most here already know of the many issues the 1.9L
> engine had, but it's not an epidemic, trust me. The 1.9 in question hasn't
> been made in ...um over 6 years, so what is the point of Mr. Fag slamming
> Saturn on this (and everything else) ? Nevermind, he is a troll and has no
> life. Either Mr. Fag is a disgruntled customer or ex-employee and a retard
> (no insult to the retarded) My point is Mr. Fag isn't welcome to troll here.
> Don't feed the troll.

I'm not sure which is worse; "Misterfact" repeatedly posting about his
problem with his Saturn years after he experienced it, or a current
Saturn salesperson calling a former Saturn owner a fag and a retard.

At least Al Clapsaddle had some class.

"Brian" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:34:53 -0400, "Steve"
> m>
> wrote:
>
>>"Brian" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:48:02 -0400, "marx404" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Steve I'm sure that most here already know of the many issues the 1.9L
>>>>engine had, but it's not an epidemic, trust me. The 1.9 in question
>>>>hasn't
>>>
>>> What issues do the 1.9's have ???? I just bought a 95 SL1 with 146,000
>>> and it runs good.
>>> What can I look forward to in the future ???
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Brian
>>
>> The main issue, as far as I am aware, is the casting flaw that caused
>> oil and coolant to mix either in the oil
>>crankcase or the coolant system. If your SL has over 100,000 miles,
>>chances are this flaw has either been caught and
>>corrected or (more likely) your engine did not suffer from this flaw.
>>There are other, less serious, problems such as
>>wrong plug gapping and fuel pump but, again, your car has either had them
>>and they've been fixed or your car never had
>>them. I would expect that as long as you ensure your SL gets regular
>>maintenance (especially timing chain replacement),
>>the only problems you can expect are those endemic to all older cars.
>>
>
> Does the timing chain break ???? I would figure a chain would last the
> life of the car, unlike
> belts.......
>
> Brian

I do not completely disagree with the replies DLR or SMS, but feel that
timing chain replacement is not necessary as preventative maintenance on an
engine that receives regular changes of good quality oil. I agree that
excessively extended oil change intervals can lead to tensioner seizure and
loose chains that can wear on the chain case and that inadequate lubrication
can accelerate chain wear. IMHO the likelihood of catastrophic failure of
the chain is relatively slight on an engine that has received regular oil
changes. IMHO a loose chain caused by wear or tensioner failure will be
audible long before failure but does require careful listening as part of
operational maintenance. I would change the chain any time the head needs
to be removed.

Just my .02 YMMV

"Private" > wrote in message
...

> I do not completely disagree with the replies DLR or SMS, but feel that
> timing chain replacement is not necessary as preventative maintenance on
> an engine that receives regular changes of good quality oil. I agree that
> excessively extended oil change intervals can lead to tensioner seizure
> and loose chains that can wear on the chain case and that inadequate
> lubrication can accelerate chain wear. IMHO the likelihood of
> catastrophic failure of the chain is relatively slight on an engine that
> has received regular oil changes. IMHO a loose chain caused by wear or
> tensioner failure will be audible long before failure but does require
> careful listening as part of operational maintenance. I would change the
> chain any time the head needs to be removed.

Yes, it's true that an owner that pays attention to the noise that a loose
chain makes could just wait for the noise prior to changing it, rather than
replace it at a periodic interval.

I'm not sure what "good quality oil" is. All oil except some Amsoil products
are API certified. However "regular" _is_ very important as the chain
tensioner operation depends on the tensioner bore not becoming contaminated
with varnish.

Steve wrote:

> The main issue, as far as I am aware, is the casting flaw that caused oil and coolant to mix either in the oil
> crankcase or the coolant system. If your SL has over 100,000 miles, chances are this flaw has either been caught and
> corrected or (more likely) your engine did not suffer from this flaw. There are other, less serious, problems such as
> wrong plug gapping and fuel pump but, again, your car has either had them and they've been fixed or your car never had
> them. I would expect that as long as you ensure your SL gets regular maintenance (especially timing chain replacement),
> the only problems you can expect are those endemic to all older cars.

Timing chain replacement is often neglected because there is no fixed
service interval for replacement. It's a wear item, and a lot of owners
have gotten in trouble by neglecting the chain (and related tensioning
components), often because the "life of the car" timing chain story was
presented to them at the time of purchase and they actually believed it.
Combine this with the personal anecdotes of 200K miles on a chain, and
it's a recipe for disaster (a large percentage of vehicle owners could
also get 200K miles from a belt, but is it worth the risk?).

If you ask a dealer's service department or independent mechanic whether
the chain needs replacement, the owner is likely to get an affirmative
answer because a) if they say no and the chain breaks or slips soon
after the owner inquires about it then the owner will claim that they're
liable, b) they want the money from the repair job, or c) the chain
really needs replacing.

Chains versus belts is one area where I'm not a retro-grouch. The reason
for going to belts is a) they're quieter, b) they're more suitable for
longer runs than are the norm on newer engines, c) it's easy and
inexpensive to replace them on a routine basis, d) they're more
reliable, and of course e) they're less costly for the manufacturer.

marx404 wrote:
> quote...Marx404 is trying to sell Saturns...yada yada yada..
>
> SMS, if that is all that you derive out of my being here you are sadly
> mistaken.

While I don't like what "Misterfact" does either, you're statement of "I
work for Saturn and not a word of this unreadable garbage is true" is
just as bad, simply because you are clearly lying, as other posters have
already pointed out.

In fact, the casting flaw that caused the cracked heads is well known,
and admitted by Saturn. Many owners were not compensated by GM because
the recall program (or whatever they called it) had unreasonable time
and mileage limits. Since the cracked head was caused by a manufacturing
flaw and not anything that the owners did to their vehicle, their should
not have been any limitation in terms of time or miles. If the flaw was
rare then it wouldn't have cost GM much to fix all vehicles affected.

It's always annoying when a manufacturer knows of a flaw in a product
that remain latent for beyond the warranty terms, so that only those
owners "lucky" enough to have the problem manifest itself during the
warranty are able to get it repaired at no cost.

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
> "Private" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I do not completely disagree with the replies DLR or SMS, but feel that
>> timing chain replacement is not necessary as preventative maintenance on
>> an engine that receives regular changes of good quality oil. I agree
>> that excessively extended oil change intervals can lead to tensioner
>> seizure and loose chains that can wear on the chain case and that
>> inadequate lubrication can accelerate chain wear. IMHO the likelihood of
>> catastrophic failure of the chain is relatively slight on an engine that
>> has received regular oil changes. IMHO a loose chain caused by wear or
>> tensioner failure will be audible long before failure but does require
>> careful listening as part of operational maintenance. I would change the
>> chain any time the head needs to be removed.
>
> Yes, it's true that an owner that pays attention to the noise that a loose
> chain makes could just wait for the noise prior to changing it, rather
> than replace it at a periodic interval.

IMHO, operation & driving style makes a huge differece in engine longevity.
Giving an engine a short idle (and low RPM operation for the first few
minutes until temperature normalizes) after startup allows oil to circulate
fully and helps to avoid scuffing and premature wear. Avoiding high RPM
(and 'spirited')operation will result in lower stresses and loadings on all
engine parts. IMHO, wear on all engine components is significantly higher
at 4,000 RPM than at 3,000 (and much much higher at 5,000). IMHO, S series
saturns make their best volumetric efficiency, and fuel ecconomy / HP
produced at 2,400 RPM and will give their best and longest service if they
are opperated as close to this speed as much as possible..

> I'm not sure what "good quality oil" is. All oil except some Amsoil
> products are API certified. However "regular" _is_ very important as the
> chain tensioner operation depends on the tensioner bore not becoming
> contaminated with varnish.

One would think that all API certified oils should have similar quality and
performance, but IMHE they just don't. I keep careful records of oil
consumption and have noted significant variation in consumption rates with
different brands, and further that while price is often an predictor of
consumption rate, some top price and name brand oils have relatively poorer
performance. Good record keeping is necessary to determine the brands that
your engine likes the best. Of course it is worth noting that the by far
the worst performing oil that will cause the fastest and most expensive
repair bill is the 'low level on dipstick'.

No mechanical component lasts forever, but gentle operation and careful
observation to sounds combined with regular maintenance and oil changes will
significantly increase service life. Maintenance is always a compromise
between smaller (but still very expensive) repairs before failure vs.
possible larger repairs later. In general I belong to the 'drive it until
it breaks' school of thought as this prevents performing a lot of
unnecessary repair, however when repairs are necessary I like to repair or
recondition everything at that time. Replacing a timing chain is a lot of
work and by the time the replacement is necessary ISTM that the head will
probably benefit from a valve regrind and new valve guides and while the
head is off it is not that much more work to drop the pan and do the rings
and roll in new bearings. If a new clutch is needed then this may be a good
time to do all the engine work while the engine is out.

Buying a used car is always a crap shoot as there is seldom any complete
record of maintenance and the young seller always claims to be a careful and
mature driver who never abused the car or drove it in an overly 'spirited'
manner. All that a new owner can do is to immediately change all fluids
(particularly coolant and transmission), perform all maintenance on a
regular schedule and then monitor (and record carefully)performance (and
sounds), operate gently and hope for the best. It is always easier to get
long service life from a machine that is purchased new and maintained and
operated carefully throughout its service life.

On Apr 18, 11:08*pm, BläBlä
. s!rcre4p.c0m> wrote:

> In all the time I've been here no one ever respected Scharf and his
> knowledge was always lifted from other peoples post and distorted in the
> process, including mine.
> .
> .
> .
> lol internet trolls...

Indeed. Just like old times.

On Apr 16, 7:48*pm, "marx404" > wrote:
> Steve I'm sure that most here already know of the many issues the 1.9L
> engine had, but it's not an epidemic, trust me. The 1.9 in question hasn't
> been made in ...um over 6 years, so what is the point of Mr. Fag slamming
> Saturn on this (and everything else) ? Nevermind, he is a troll and has no
> life. Either Mr. Fag is a disgruntled customer or ex-employee and *a retard
> (no insult to the retarded) My point is Mr. Fag isn't welcome to troll here.
> Don't feed the troll.
>
> --
> marx404
>
> _________________"Steve" m> wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "marx404" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> more Mr. Fag.....
>
> >> Please do not feed this troll.
>
> > * *Good advice!
>
> >> I work for Saturn and not a word of this unreadable garbage is true as
> >> those who own a Saturn already know.
>
> > * *Are you implying that you believe that Saturn engines have not had a
> > "cracked head" problem? If so, I would suggest you need to talk to your
> > dealer's service department and/ or more customers. If you are implying
> > that "MisterFact" is grossly exaggerating and possibly lying outright
> > about GM's handling of the problem, then I'm inclined to agree with you.
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The fact is: Saturn corporation has a long history of hiding EPIDEMIC
defects. They withold defect information as long as they can so they
can get as many customers as they can to drive their car over the
warranty period.

Not only that- you should not expect every Saturn dealer and repair
facility to warn you of epidemic defects which they have seen from
other owners who brought their car into their shop. Some will warn
you.

If you don't like the complaints that I receive from owners- take it
up with them. If you don't like the messenger- SHOOT ME!