I am actually trying to find one at the moment. My contention is this. The UIM is the part that failed. Heat is the cause? Oh well, that'* the EGR system'* job, to carry hot exhaust gas. The EGR system is always hot. The UIM cannot withstand this heat and therefor failed. Not the other way around. There was no malfunction in the EGR system.

Just out of curiosity, could you look at your warranty and post for us whatever it says about covering/not covering the EGR system and anything subsequently damaged by it?

I mean, the possibility exists that they wrote a warranty that specifically excludes paying for an intake manifold. After-market warranties can be written to exclude lots of things. In general, the engine and tranny are the main parts you want covered, so typically you'd see this type of repair covered if you have a warranty. If your warranty company is seriously trying to deny covering a legitimate problem that their warranty should cover, you really ought to go to *SMALL CLAIMS COURT* instead of seeking an attorney. For example, my attorney would tell you not to hire him and to instead go to small claims court.

I personally think you (and everyone else that has tried) will get nowhere trying to push a "design flaw" argument, so long as there is no recall from General Motors. From every case I've seen, it'* easier to just play stupid and say "My engine broke, the engine is under warranty, fix it."

But before we get into that, would you post for us what your warranty says is covered -vs- is not covered?

The only warranty I've ever bought on a car was a GM bumper-to-bumper warranty on my Bonneville, and it more than paid for itself. It was never any hassle, either. My wife'* car had a short used warranty, either 30 or 90 days, and we never needed it, nor would we have used up an aftermarket warranty as the only thing that failed if we had one was the battery cables.

In small claims court, you don't need an attorney, you state your case -vs- they state their case, and a judge decides what to do. You don't have any requirement to actually prove anything, whereas in a civil court case you generally have to prove things to get a judgement, and in most states the losing party must pay the winning party'* attorney'* fees and court costs, which can be extravagant. That part right there keeps cases like yours out of the courts system, mostly by design, and puts them over into small claims, where it really belongs. You'd be way better served in small claims for a case like this than in civil court.

Small claims is a good idea. They're not likely to want to send their legal department to where you live. It'll be cheaper for them to pay for the repairs.

You should tell them you're filing a claim in INSERT YOUR COUNTY HERE. And that you have several GM experts to side your case already.

Wow, I just read this post tonight and am amazed at what the dealer said about this! What a group of morons they must be! When you said the engine has an audible cold ticking noise and coolant consumption, it would have ended right there at the dealer I work for.

Because this was an aftermarket warranty, we would have told the extended warranty company that there was coolant intermixing with the oil and caused internal engine damage and the car will need a new GM crate engine. They would have sent an inspector, and he would have snapped a picture of the milk shake goo on the bottom of the oil fill cap and that would have been it. You would have had a brand spanking new GM engine....with a 5 year/50,000 mile GM warranty. It'* all in how you word it with the extended warranty companies.

By the way, GM redesigned the lower intake manifold on the 99+ model years. It uses a smaller diameter stove pipe that is supposed to help address the problem of the upper manifold melting. The bulletin you were refering to only goes up to 98.

I have a 2001 manufactured GM upper intake manifold right here beside me that will prove GM did NOT fix the problem. And this isn't the only one.

And there will be MANY more here. The redesign for the fix is a MYTH as far as we're concerned on this Forum.

I know it'* not a fix, I never said it was. But it is not a myth, they really did redesign the LIM with a smaller stove pipe. I was just stating that the bulletin does not apply to 99+ model years.

I've been gearing up for my next move, I'm not sure yet what it'* going to be. I want that inspector'* report, I think that is what is making their case. He took photos and stated something about the EGR system "overheating" or melting something, and when I talk to the dealership they agree with me and say the upper failed and subsequently plugged everything with goo. After hearing that the warranty company refused to cover anything, he wrote me up a bare minimum quote of $2700CA. If I had that kind of money on hand I would trade in this Bonnie with a down payment on a newer SSEi.

The actual wording that this jerk is using from the contract is in a place called section E, which is a description of all the items and causes that are not covered by this warranty. The section is so long you get the impression that there are less things covered by the warranty than are excluded by this section. It goes over things like floods, volcanoes, acts of terrorism, modifications done to the vehicle, etc., and when you get near the end it simply states "Emissions System" along with items like body parts and clutch parts bla bla. There is another provision in this section regarding no coverage to a covered item which was caused by a non-covered item.

The part played by the dealer didn't help me at all by disregarding the obvious problem of a composite component too near a heat generating item. They wanted to say that the converter was partially blocked was the reason for the failure and changed their tune when I started discussing it with the service rep. Then this "independent inspector" comes along and gives a totally different story about how the EGR system "overheated". I would say that there would be a simple answer to this. I need to see the plenum and check if it had "melted" at the point of contact with the stovepipe evidenced by a obvious distortion of the material, or had actually became weak over time as shown by an ashy, brittle appearance. I need all the facts I can get before I go further, methinks.

I agree, I believe this may have to be handled by small claims court. Although I am looking for them to cover repairs in the neighborhood of $4000CA (about $3700US) I wonder if that is still considered a small claim. This is what the dealer described as a "permanent fix" replacing everything that was affected.(which only includes the CAT as an emissions part)

And again, I wholeheartedly thank all of you who have contributed and I am still working to beat down goliath with my stones like the proverbial David. I just need a few more stones!

For Pete'* sake, I could get a used L67 and tranny plus PCU with less than $2k and make it an SSEi!!!