Cat Lawsuit Update - Feb. 3, 09'

[Storm]

The class-action presses forward.

After about a month of apparent inactivity in the courtroom, the silence has been broken and Tweety is singing like a ..... bird. Maybe Granny came home and gave poor ol' puddy a thrashing. I thought the silence was bad news for the class-action. Instead, it seems Cat's attorneys dispensed with sooo much BS during November and December, they just needed some time to change their briefs.

The latest 254 pages of court documents should be a good read. I'll have some updates soon.

Storm

[marlin magnet]

Thanks Storm for the update.
Looking forward to the highlights of the report.

[Storm]

Latest court documents filed January 29, 2009 were a lot of reading, mostly exhibits which I have already referenced in the past.

I did make some observations. As I sometimes like to point out, Cat makes a practice of blaming its customers rather than accepting responsibility for its defective products. The following was taken from the written deposition of a Caterpillar representative. First, let me put this somewhat in context. There is a meeting between Modine (after-cooler manufacturer) and Caterpillar. During the meeting, Cat stresses the importance of manufacturing a more robust after-cooler. Keep in mind that Cat is struggling with the after-cooler problem and; based upon evidence of salt in oil, there is an estimated 80% aftercooler failure rate on 4,000 engines in the field. At this meeting, there was discussion about the possibility of replacing the tube and fin after-cooler with the bar-plate design after-cooler. The bar-plate design could have been in production by March 2002.

During the deposition,the Cat rep has been asked for a simple, straight-forward definition of the term "robust."

Here's the Cat reps definition of robust: "Say I design a framing hammer and somebody decides to go out and split logs on a wedge. If I know my hammer is potentially going to be used in that application I've got to design that hammer so that it can take that kind of "abuse" environment. And so that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to come up with a design that even if people "take it a little farther than what I'd call the normal application of the product," that we're going to stand up and deliver what they expect."

Q. "And when we're talking about robustness we're talking about it not failing, correct?"

A. "I want to have a design that's not sensitive to those "borderline abusive" applications."

What I see when I read that statement is backpeddling. Somebody trying to place the blame where it doesn't belong. Despite thousands of known failures with 3196 engines, the salesaman that sold me my engine told me that the problem with my engine was probably "insufficient air getting to the engine." What a crock.

Here is another of my observations from a document filed January 29, 2009. This document is a deposition of a SeaRay boat representative. The document describes a phone call between the representative of SeaRay and a representative of Caterpillar. At issue is replacement of the defective aftercoolers. In the document, Cat rep tells SeaRay rep that replacement of the after-cooler is a ten hour process. SeaRay rep points out that the process takes longer, is more involved, with some of their boats because the after-cooler is inaccessible. This requires sending a SeaRay tech to partially disassemble the boat.

Here's my thoughts. 3196 and C12 after-coolers are supposed to be removed, cleaned, pressure tested, and re-installed every 1,000 hours as part of scheduled maintenance. According to Cat, its a ten hour process to remove and replace an after-cooler. Obviously, the process takes longer if you have to remove, clean, test, and re-assemble the core. Certain maintenance items in my maintenance manual suggest replacement at 250 hours or one year. That equates to 20 hours per month or 5 hours per week of engine use. I'm a commercial boat owner. I don't know about the rest of the world, but my job requires a lot more time investment than five hours per week. Cat describes 3196 engines as; "the ideal engine for 40-60 foot commercial craft." The necessity to spend ten hours removing and replacing my after-cooler every nine months of use isn't a situation I would exactly describe as "ideal." Particularly, since I don't know of any other manufacturers that require the same from their customers. Since 3196 engines were released to the marine market 14 years ago, owners have been required to do periodic oil samples to test for high iron, high sodium, high chromium, high aluminum, and for other trace metals and minerals. This isn't only necessary as preventative maintenance, it's necessary because engine vibration, thermal stress, and condensation are responsible for destroying the engine internals. I guess maintenance of the after-cooler every 1,000 hours and periodic oil samples should be considered a small price for the privilege of Caterpillar engine ownership.

In my opinion, 3196 engines are not suitable engines for pleasure craft, let alone commercial craft. Cat attorneys add the following disclaimer about the engines. "It is appropriate here to recall that thousands of engines falling within the class description are in use every day in harsh marine environments. It is likely that from time to time one or another of them will develop some sort of after-cooler related problem." Maybe Cat engineers should have given some thought to designing a seawater cooled after-cooler that can be used in a marine environment. I received an email some time ago from an individual in Romania that wanted to learn more about problems that afflict C12 engines. Apparently, he owns one hundred oil trucks equipped with C12 engines. He said he was planning to scrap the engines and replace them with something different. My question to Caterpillar is, if not in a boat or an oil truck, in what application are these engines suitable?

Storm