Welcome to Cool Profit$ Magazine Online

Home - Air Conditioning - Antifreeze - Enviro/Global Warming

Draft—DEX 2007, Part 3a:
General Motors DEX-COOL Memos

by John R. Hess with additions from Mole Snoopster
To appear in March 2007 Cool Profit$ Magazine
© 2007 All Rights Reserved

New! Would you like to respond or add to something mentioned in this article? You can do so now by using our new "Comment" section at the bottom. Feel free to use it, but please keep your remarks relative to the subject. (Vulgarities, spam or libelous, denigrating comments will be deleted.)

DEX-COOL® Class Action lawsuits filed against General Motors have produced the expected ton of evidence. Among that stack, however, are several internal, documents that appear to be from GM's own Quality Control groups. For some reason, these somewhat embarrassing papers not only ended up as evidence, but evidence in the public domain.

Get the FREE goHTSN.com newsletter!
Enter your e-mail address here:

To help ameliorate the sliding confidence in DEX at the service shop and technician level, GM began reaching out 2001 to auto service organizations, like NARSA. At meetings with cooling system technicians, they recommended specific parts and procedures to help stem the tide of severe problems in certain DEX-charged vehicles. Below are evidentiary quotes from behind the scenes efforts that undoubtedly led to that outreach. Mole and I believe them to be valuable to both cooling system service technicians and vehicle owners. Much of misinterpretation and confusion about DEX problems can be corrected by reading the contents of these documents. They are in no particular date order.

1. From a March 2000 meeting presentation titled:
Cooling System Corrosion S/T, and subtitle: Dex-Cool Field Action Proposal, GM Brand Quality - Truck, 3-17-2000
Here's GM's own determination of "Contributing Causes":
"• Root cause appears to be operation of the vehicle (usually 20,000 miles) with an underfilled (sic) cooling system.
• An underfilled radiator leaves portions of the engine exposed to air and coolant vapors on the cool down, therefore prone to corrosion.
• S/T Plants (especially Moraine) had been underfilling systems. (JD Power sufficiency plan item led to a PAD change on 8-31-99)
• This action does no address prior customer concerns
• Unlike green coolant, corrosion particles float and rise to the top with DEX-COOL.
• Radiator Cap design/durability is suspect
• Radiator cap orientation promotes air entrapment and inhibits function
• Minimal capacity of the recovery system
• High underhood temperature of S/T products
• Little customer warning to condition
• S/T products are a high lease demographic"

2. Cynicism at GM:
Apparently, from one of these meetings' presentations, a somewhat cynical employee had prepared two slides comparing what Ford was just going through with their Taurus-coolant debacle to what he/she didn't want to see happen to GM in the next year or two.
Slide one:
"What We Don't Need
Automotive News 3-00 (March 2000)
"Ford throws cash as gasket"
 — Extends warranty
 — Reimburses
 — Replaces Engine/gaskets
 — Buys back damaged vehicles
 — $3000 Certificates
• Ford Taurus also had Coolant Recall"

Slide two:
"What We Don't Need
• Automotive News 3-02 (March 2002)
• GM Throws Cash at Dex-Cool
• S/T Corrosion Issue Escalates
• 150,000 miles not feasible
• Buybacks, Reimbursements increase
• Back to Green Coolant"

3. This presentation panel pointed out some fairly strong customer dissatisfaction. As "Regional Service Managers Input," it's coming from their own people!
"• S/T Coolant Corrosion is one of the major customer dissatisfiers (sic) currently in the field
• Administration of expense varies due to lack of uniform direction
•  Service businesses and dealer loosing faith in Dex-Cool as a product"

4. One slide contains 3 bulleted thoughts on the financial burden DEX laid on GM's Warranty Plan: two define the problem and one delivers a solution:
"General Motors Protection Plan
• Financial warranty staff request to allow payment for coolant flush outside of the warranty period for vehicles with Dex-Cool.
• Both MIC and the Financial staff did not forecast this expense in their accruals and consequently they don't want to have it added to their respective accounts.
• My suggestion would be to expedite a customer satisfaction policy to provide this service to all customers. That includes all customers, provide the correct dealer and customer notification and clearly define the coverage and procedure for the dealer."

5. Speaking of Customer Satisfaction Policy above, how about a $23.2M "Proposed Action" to handle a Full Recall for just '98-'99 S/T vehicles:
"1998-1999 S/T equipped with 4.3L Engine Preventative Worst Case:
Proposed Action: Issue Customer Satisfaction Recall now. Inspect for full coolant, top off as required.
Inspect:               1998 = 421,146 Vehicles
                            1999 = 364,000 Vehicles (Est)
                                        785,146 Vehicles
                                       x $28.71 (0.2 hrs X 56.87 National Ave Labor
                                    $22,541,541  Rate + 17.34 Cap and Coolant
19% Top Off Reqd:          149,178  Vehicles
                                             x $4.35 Material 

Grand Total:              $22,541,541 Inspection Cost
                                         648,924.30 Top Off Cost

6. Here's one from a June 29, 2000 Project Summary that explains rust in B Model car cooling systems.
"Determine what's affecting other models and why:
1996 Model B cars (Impala, Caprice, Roadmaster):
Coolant recovery bottles and system architecture were altered for the 1996 model year coincident with the introduction of DEX-COOL. Poor design de-aeration bottle, location of coolant return line in the heads, and a change to the de-aeration line design to increase heater performance, all combine to create iron oxide contamination on the 1996 models. 
These models went out of production at the end of the 1996 model run."

7. Here they mention that all contamination is not the same in makeup, but it's created by the same condition.
"Determine what's affecting other models and why:
W/U equipped with 3.1L/3.4L V6:
The 3.1L and 3.4L engine families that use a Sundram drop center cap mounted at an angle, and a non-pressurized coolant recovery bottle (W cars and U vans) also exhibit coolant contamination of the radiator cap and radiator neck.
The makeup of the contaminant is different than the S/T model.
Ten samples from W/U models were analyzed in 2 separate GM labs. The results do not indicate any strong correlation between samples.
The root cause is determined to be the same as the S/T: operation for an extended period of time with a low level of coolant."

8. They must be fairly sure that the pressure cap will alleviate the problem.
"Evaluate cooling system modifications to achieve a permanent repair to the S/S issue:
A Stant spring center cap appears to provide the most cost-effective recommendation to address the S/T contamination issue given lead times, relative risk and product lifecycles."

9. Here's more on the pressure cap situation. Plus, they're giving good advice to their test lab personnel.
Discontinue use of Sundram drop center radiator caps mounted at an angle.
Modify durability test cycles to incorporate vehicles running lifecycle with low level of coolant in radiator.
Develop backup plan to replace DEX-COOL in the event marketplace perception deteriorates further.
Discontinue use of stopleak pellets in GM plants."

10. Internal survey results show a startling amount of contamination on the radiator cap.
"Models Affected
Survey: A random survey of 343 1996 and 1997 4.3L equipped S/T trucks was conducted in the last 6 months of 1996. Percent of vehicles with Low/Moderate contamination or greater, as measured on radiator cap:
Moraine Facility: 1996 = 37%; 1997 = 36.2%
Linden Facility: 1996 = 17%; 1997 29%"

11. More of the same, but it eliminates the mystery of how the coolant get low in S/T Blazers.
"Determine the "red X" on S/T w/4.3L:
When a Sundram Drop center design radiator cap is mounted at an angle, the design is sensitive to allowing debris to get under the valve and keep it open. Once this occurs, the valve will fail "open" and additional coolant will be lost more rapidly.
Iron oxide as the result of extended operation with a low level of coolant and a failed "open" radiator cap, is the root cause of the S/T coolant corrosion issue."

There's more, but I may not add it until this next print edition of Cool Profit$ Magazine is published. If I add material, I'll notify subscribers to the free goHTSN.com newsletter.

End of Part 3b. Check this site often as it is still a work in progress. Here's links to the
follow-up  DEX-COOL articles:
¤ DEX-COOL 2007®, Forward (Read first, please)
DEX 2007, Part 1: Revising A Less-Than-Accurate Report
¤ DEX 2007, Part 1a: 5.7L V8 Engine Sludge and Gasket Change
¤ DEX 2007, Part 2: Revising Continues, But What's 2-EHA?
¤ DEX 2007, Part 3: Now It’s All Up To The Judges and Juries
¤ DEX 2007, Part 3a: General Motors DEX-COOL Memos
© 2007 All Rights Reserved

The comments system is currently being upgraded so comments are not available at the moment. I hope to have them operational soon.