Mine too. But it still runs like a raped ape
I'm hoping that it'll last 'till this winter when the heads and cam go in. Then it'll get new Yella Terra rockers for considerably less than $800

 

Both of our LS1 cars still have the stock rotors on them With no warpage

 

of course brake warping also has a lot to do with braking habbits

 

I have to agree with this statement as well.. I have 17,500 on my car w/ stock brakes and rotors (I checked them when I first changed the oil) and I have 0 problems w/ the brake rotors.. I guess because I am not screaming 130 + down the road and Slam on the brakes either to a Complete stop....

Now to get back on topic, if I ever run across bearings in my oil pan (on the drain plug) then my car will be going down to local dealer to change the rocker arms!!

Charlie

 

Mine is fine also.I think brake warpage depends a lot also on how the wheels are tightned.If you don't tighten your lugs in a star pattern when re-installing wheels then you will warp rotors.Maybe it's just the newer cars?

 

The rotor warpage isn't just the F-bodies, and it isn't just my driving. I can run some basic replacement rotors from Napa and have no problems, so it definately isn't me. I have yet to do 130 mph in any car, so no chance of my having done that either. I also am very aware of how to install and remove wheels.

Someone brought up another problem that GM hasn't and won't do anything about and that is the piston slap in newer LS1's. No we all don't have that problem, but it is a chronic problem with certain years. Look what GM did for the 80's pickups w/the fuel tank law suit. They did nothing except fight it in court, and won. Look at Ford, they only had a recall on the Firestones because of so much media attention and because of lawsuits.

The point I'm making is that GM and any other manufacturer isn't your buddy looking out for you and your investment (aka car). They couldn't give a rats tail about you if you'll cost them money and they aren't legally obligated to do something. Why do you think they had to pass the magnuson/moss act? Because they'll look for anyway to not have to do warranty work. I've had to deal with this. They play the odds if they have a known problem and they bet that not enough people will back someone else up or do something about a problem. This thread goes to show they are usually right.

 

Greed4Speed's post made me think of what "Jack" (the Narrator) did for a living in the movie/book "Fight Club".

He worked for a major auto manufacturer and said...

Yes, this came from a Hollywood movie, but I wonder how accurate it is? I'll bet it is surprisingly accurate, if not dead-on to how the real car companies determine a recall (on a basic level, of course).

 

Some of you need to learn the difference between a TSB and a recall. Recalls are done for safety purposes 99 percent of the time. TSBs are tech service bulletins letting you know that there is a possible issue with your car. You cant expect GM to fix every tiny little fault on your unwarrantied, 5 year old LS1. Be thankful they even issue TSBs. Its not like they have to.

 

Some of you need to learn the difference between a TSB and a recall. Recalls are done for safety purposes 99 percent of the time. TSBs are tech service bulletins letting you know that there is a possible issue with your car. You cant expect GM to fix every tiny little fault on your unwarrantied, 5 year old LS1. Be thankful they even issue TSBs. Its not like they have to.Some of you need to learn the difference between a TSB and a recall. Recalls are done for safety purposes 99 percent of the time. TSBs are tech service bulletins letting you know that there is a possible issue with your car. You cant expect GM to fix every tiny little fault on your unwarrantied, 5 year old LS1. Be thankful they even issue TSBs. Its not like they have to.

I would totally agree with this. It is a problem, and they do try and fix it, and it does make people mad, but.. there are quality parts and inferior parts.
If you are building a 1000 horse race car, would you put a factory 10 bolt rear end in it, and then get mad when it breaks?
It is upsetting to think that your factory car has inferior parts on it from the manufaturer, but that is why there are after market parts for it. I am just as guilty as the next guy for getting upset, but those are just the facts of life i guess.

 

They also do recalls for other reasons. Ford had a recall on trucks for the ignition switch, this wasn't safety related, they were cheap POS units that broke easily. Ford also had that recall on the Cobras because they were "under powered". Tell me that was a safety issue.

I am well aware of the difference between a TSB and a recall.

 

actually we do have a problem with clutches and rear ends but they go untouched also

 

In your example the problem isn't any kind of defect, it is abuse. Some parts just can't take the abuse handed out by the owner of the car, that is what the aftermarket is for. By your definition, the M21 transmission that came in a 1970 Chevelle would be defective because it just happened to be the weakest part of the drivetrain. The M6 in a modern Camaro or Firebird is in reality a much stronger unit than was served up in a 1970 big-block Chevelle. Where do you draw the line?

Piston slap is a reality of modern low-friction engine design. A lot of engines slap when cold, it just so happens that GM made the GENIII V8 so quiet that the only really distinct sound that they make in the first two minutes of operation is a little slap sound. It isn't a defect and it has no effect on durability, performance, or longevity.

The fuel tank issue is primarily media-made situation. The vehicles in question are not defective and have been found not defective in numerous court cases. At the same time GM was building trucks with fuel tanks on the frame (that can easily pass the federal standards set for them without leakage) Ford was making trucks with fuel tanks inside the cab a design that is clearly less safe because of the higher death rate in those vehicles. In fact, the GM C/K Trucks that you speak of have a lower death rate from fire than any car from the same time period. GM went to court and won because it was right, not because they bought their way out of it. As I remember, Nightline had to issue an apology after their "expose`" on the fuel tanks was found to be libel against GM because of the use of incendiary devices and removal of the gas cap to ensure a fire.

 

1. The recall on ignition switches was definitely a safety issue. People's houses were being burned down while they slept and cars were bursting into flames while sitting in parking lots and garages. Nooooooo, that isn't a safety issue! The ignition switches were covered under a saftey recall.

2. Ford NEVER RECALLED Cobras for the "under power" condition. They notified the owners of a "special service policy" that is basically a TSB with an owner mailing to let the owners know about the issue and if they have a problem to bring the car in for repair. It was not a recall.

 

That's right... Keep believing what the media tells you... Car companies want all of their customers dead, and all of their family members who drive the vehicles that they design and build, they want them dead too.

It is hardly as cut and dried as they made it sound in "Fight Club" by a longshot. Ask me how I know.....

In reality, it is just not humanly possible to build 100% of products as complex as a car with zero defects. Toyota still has over 100 defects per 100 cars built. So if anyone could do it, they could - the reality is it just can't be done. Safety defects are actually rare and usually very minor and involving a relatively small number of vehicles. Occasionally they are larger issues that are expensive and onerous to fix.