GMC Terrain, Equinox, and SRX Forum banner

1 - 20 of 114 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
Some questions:

1.) Where is the "Settlement Agreement"?

2.) What do they consider the date of the "Production Change"? The Order and the website seem to raise some doubt with their language. The Order says "model year 2013 vehicles manufactured after the "Production Change". This could imply that some 2013 units might be excluded. The website uses the clearer language "the date when new vehicles were considered 2014 models" ... which is 2014 model year units built in 2013, meaning ALL 2013's would be included.

UPDATE: “Production Change” refers to the introduction of the new “525” piston rings in May of 2013. So if there were any 2013 models built after that date (and there probably were), it appears they will be excluded.

3.) There are already (3) existing Special Adjustment Coverages (SCAs) in effect that will remain for 2010 vehicles (10 years or 120,000 miles), 2011 vehicles (7.5 years, 120,000 miles), and 2012 vehicles (7.5 years, 120,000 miles). This new Class Action only adds a 4th SCA for 2013 model year vehicles which will follow the 2011/2012 coverages, so what good is this class action really? It only seems to help *some owners* of the 2013 model year Equinox and Terrains.

4.) How much time have these owners actually had to prove their engines are suffering from the Oil Consumption problem and need new pistons installed?

5.) If you've previously received *any* reimbursement for oil consumption issues, will you be included in this Action? It doesn't appear so... your VIN will be filtered out when they build the Class List.

6.) If you previously paid for piston repairs within the time limits above for your model year vehicle, will GM reimburse you? Only with proper documentation (receipts) ... but even if you no longer own the vehicle!

7.) If you suffered a total engine failure, will you will be excluded from this Action? It appears so. I guess they're pointing to the Owner's Manual where it says you should be checking your oil level morning, noon, and night (because, you know - you shouldn't trust *any* engine to *not* consume a quart+ every 2000 miles)

8.) Is this Action only for US owners? It appears so...

Also just had this thought: If you are included in the Class List (by VIN#), but find you don’t qualify based on time or mileage limits, maybe you should “opt-out” because once you’re included in the Action, you can never bring any future action for the same problem.

And maybe that’s what this is actually all about: getting everybody’s name on the Action to get all the liability erased, knowing that only a fraction of plaintiffs will actually be paid (by the time this thing gets finalized after all the “extensions” and “continuations” ). The "Class Representatives", by the way, (those plaintiffs who filed the initial actions against GM), are each being paid up to $4500 for their "contributions", so they've already represented that they will NOT opt-out (of course).

9.) Attorneys' fees are apparently capped at $3.5 MILLION! So what’s that to each firm lawyer ... enough cash for a nice brand new high-end vehicle, for sure. No scrimpin’ and scraping to replace damaged pistons for any of *them*!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Do you know, what is the 525 piston ring "fix" and did the fix work?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
Do you know, what is the 525 piston ring "fix" and did the fix work?
I’m just guessing here, but I *believe* the 525 piston ring “fix” was simply the introduction of redesigned piston rings into the production stream at the Plant.

Did it work? Not entirely sure, but it *seems* like it did. All of the failures seem to fall in model years 2010-2013. If there are any failures in subsequent years, they seem to be few and far between, and then who knows what the actual circumstances were. Did some bad rings creep back into the production stream somehow, or was there improper maintenance performed? Just speculating, really...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
And it would be interesting to know what percentage of these are having an issue. My mom has a 2012 Nox 2.4 and still has no problem. She has about 80K on the vehicle now. And though she is 82 now, she is not a light foot on the peddle and travels a couple times a year in the Nox to see other folks in the family.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
And it would be interesting to know what percentage of these are having an issue. My mom has a 2012 Nox 2.4 and still has no problem. She has about 80K on the vehicle now. And though she is 82 now, she is not a light foot on the peddle and travels a couple times a year in the Nox to see other folks in the family.
Well, the *new* 2013 SCA (alone) is allegedly worth upwards of $45 Million, so if you take out $5 Million for lawyers' and administrators' fees, that leaves $40 Million. At $1500/repair, that's 27,000 repairs. At $3,000, ~13,500 repairs. What's that ... 5-10% of 2013's built? Just a rough guess...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
Was just reading more of that 155-page "Settlement Agreement" and unearthed more tidbits:

10.) If more than 2% of Class Members "Opt-Out" of this Agreement, GM can withdraw from the Settlement - and that's the end of it! The three existing SCA's will live on, but the new one for the 2013's (which has VERY limited scope in terms of actual vehicles affected anyway), and which is being introduced in this Agreement, will be dropped.

GM's lawyers presumably put this language in there because their goal is to get *everybody* included (WHETHER THEY BENEFIT OR NOT) on this Agreement so the book on the "Oil Consumption Litigation" can be closed FOREVER. If too many people Opt-Out, that will leave a large number of owners free to sue GM individually - a litigation nightmare, and probably FAR more costly to GM in the long run.

I cannot stress the following statement more, though:

IF YOU RECEIVE A LETTER SAYING YOUR VEHICLE HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT, THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL GET ANY BENEFIT AT ALL FROM THE SETTLEMENT! YOU'LL STILL NEED TO JUMP THROUGH THE HOOPS WITH THE TERMS OF THE SCA's FOR YOUR MODEL YEAR, INCLUDING THE "CONSUMPTION TEST" (AGAIN), ETC. BEFORE YOU RECEIVE ANY RELIEF. AND IF YOU DON'T QUALIFY DUE TO THE TIME AND MILEAGE LIMITS OF YOUR SCA, THEN YOU NEED TO OPT-OUT (in writing) TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHT TO BRING YOUR OWN ACTION IN COURT LATER ON.

DON'T LET THEM COUNT YOU IN THIS AGREEMENT IF YOU WON'T BENEFIT FROM IT!

Ideally, from GM's perspective - the "ultimate" scenario is they only pay the 13 Original Plaintiffs (the people who brought this Action), their $4500 each, plus the Class Counsel and Administrative fees ... and everybody else they pay NOTHING! Of course, realistically - that's not going to happen, but the closer to that, the better.


11.) It appears there is language in this Settlement that not only says (several times) that GM has admitted no wrongdoing or fault (etc.), but also that the Settlement cannot be used as Evidence in any other Litigation (or to Certify a Class ... which is apparently not a good thing for GM). But I really wonder, if this is in fact that case, how "iron-clad" this representation is. I mean - you can *say* you've done nothing wrong and are admitting to *nothing*, but if you're paying out millions of dollars in a legal Action, I can't see how that cannot be used as at least "supporting evidence" in a subsequent and separate litigation. Lawyers cite other cases all the time as examples of legal precedent.

MAYBE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS A CLASS MEMBER NEEDS TO OBJECT TO THE USE OF THIS LANGUAGE IN THE SETTLEMENT, but keep in mind that if you Opt-Out first, you lose your right to OBJECT. In fact, it's unclear whether you can do BOTH!

I don't think anybody is saying GM did anything "malicious" here, but they definitely did something "wrong", and it's their "fault" (and no one else's).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
I just got my notice in the mail today. My 2011 Nox only has 64k miles buts it is beyond the 7.5 yrs so I am guessing I will opt out. Honestly I am going to get rid of it as soon as possible. All of these issues have really made me a bit leery of the vehicle. I know I have the timing chain issue but since my VIN wasnt included in the extended coverage I am sort of dead in the water. I am babying it and changing the oil frequently but if it blows I essentially have a 9 thousand dollar paperweight. I tried to trade up the other day and the guy at the lot said he wont even put any of them on his lot from those years because of the issues. I like the vehicle too which makes this suck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
I just got my notice in the mail today. My 2011 Nox only has 64k miles buts it is beyond the 7.5 yrs so I am guessing I will opt out.
Huh? I thought they were mailing out the notices in October - after the Preliminary Settlement was Finalized?

Who was the notice from?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
Huh? I thought they were mailing out the notices in October - after the Preliminary Settlement was Finalized?

Who was the notice from?

2.4 Liter Oil Consumption Litigation
c/o Analytics Consulting LLC
PO Box 2003
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Does it say anything about a “Final Approval Hearing” on October 4th?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
See Attachment.
Does it give instructions as to whether you'll benefit, how to determine *definitively* whether you *can* benefit, or how to OPT-OUT?

And does it give a website or phone number to call?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,983 Posts
I got the notice in the mail yesterday.
But does not apply... we have the 3.6 V6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I got the paper in the mail yesterday and I have a 11 terrain 2.4 ecotec.
My terran is still under excessive oil consumption warranty until 120,000 miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
See Attachment.
Does it give instructions as to whether you'll benefit, how to determine *definitively* whether you *can* benefit, or how to OPT-OUT?

And does it give a website or phone number to call?
Looks like anyone who paid for repairs can submit a claim and get their money back. So unless that's the case, I'm guessing people would want to opt out. It also states that gm will perform oil consumption tests for free and repair if needed but only within the given timeline (7.6 yrs or 120k miles) so my 12' I've never paid for repairs or got tested so I'm sol and should opt out?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
I got the notice in the mail yesterday.
But does not apply... we have the 3.6 V6.
LOL! GM was supposed to generate the VIN list and turn it over to IHS/Polk - who was supposed to generate the mailing list from Dept of Motor Vehicle records, and turn this information over to Analytics Consulting for mailing.

It would appear the process failed right at the very beginning ... with GM.

Sounds familiar...LOL!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
I got the paper in the mail yesterday and I have a 11 terrain 2.4 ecotec.
My terran is still under excessive oil consumption warranty until 120,000 miles.
It’s really about calendar time right now (for 2012 owners), not mileage. 2011 owners (who seem to be getting screwed here ... they should have 8.5 years, not 7.5) ...are probably out of luck - unless they paid out-of-pocket (within SCA timing constraints) and are applying for reimbursement (with receipts). Owners may have less than 120,000 miles on their vehicles, but GM can deny you coverage based on the time limitation.

So the question remains: what is the starting date being used to determine eligibility for coverage under the existing SCAs? If it’s the “put-into-service” date (which it likely is), then a 2012 would have to have been “put-into-service” in 2012, no sooner than January 29th ... in order to have the Consumption Test started on this Monday, July 29th, within 7.5 years.

A 2010 model, however, is being given *10* years (maybe because they were the very first ones), so those *might* be covered through the end of 2019 and into 2020 ...*IF* they don’t get burned by the mileage limitation (which is probably the bigger concern for *them*), OR the engines didn’t completely fail, in which case GM will deny coverage *that* way.

And another question would be: Does the The Consumption Test need to be completed and failed within the SCA time constraints, or is it good enough just to have it *started*?

Maybe someone can chime in with more specifics in The Letter , or even post it here (with names, addresses, VIN#, and any other personally-identifying information removed)?

To me - this whole “Class Action Settlement” thing looks like GM’s attempt to turn an automobile production disaster into a public relations victory by giving the *appearance* that they’re fixing a lot of these defective engines - when in fact all they’re doing is paying off the 13 original Class Action plaintiffs, plus *maybe* a few other owners who *might* be lucky enough to avoid the minefield of disqualifyers to get their pistons and rings replaced (mostly 2013 owners)... only to later see their timing chains and/or catalytic converters fail anyway - for which there is no coverage.

All three of these major repairs (pistons/rings, timing chain/tensioners/guides, and catalytic converters) should’ve been included in the Original Action, and all owners of 2010-2013 Equinox/Terrains should’ve been given up to 150,000 miles with *NO* calendar constraints - because that’s *at least* as long as these three sets of components should’ve lasted ... had GM never installed the bad piston rings in the first place!

Either the Original Plaintiffs made a big gaffe in filing their Complaint, or GM - through “negotiation” - whittled it down to what it became, promising them a guaranteed payment in return (the $4500)...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Just got my law suit notice 2 days ago too. 2.4 Liter Oil Consumption Litigation, C/O Analytics Consulting LLC.
My 2013 nox was built in November 2012. The changeover date for the rings and piston assembly's was in May of 2013. So based upon the settlement of 7.6 years or 120,00 miles from the in service date, I guess I get about year or so before the SCA runs out on my vehicle. The resultant issue mentioned by tallguy240 above causes the vehicles to be like the VW diesels as far as retained value goes. Pretty sad as my vehicle only has 40,000 miles on it and is not burning oil yet. Notice I said yet. Opting out is isn't much better because of the way the SCA is structured. I think I am done with GM.
 
1 - 20 of 114 Posts
Top