LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Brief History:
During a 2001 Caterpillar dealer video conference regarding 3196 aftercooler defects, Cat representatives described the magnitude of the problem to their dealers, “We fully expect that fifty percent of these cores will in fact leak by two thousand hours.” The prognosis – one hundred percent failure rate was anticipated. Some failures occurred within fifty operating hours. Court documents indicate that “of four thousand six hundred and three 3196 engines in the stream of commerce, four thousand one hundred and seven had admittedly defective aftercoolers.” Other documents describe a failure rate of “eighty to ninety percent on about four thousand engines in the field.” The failure rate of aftercooler cores was so high that Caterpillar authorized Modine, the aftercooler manufacturer, to release newly designed aftercoolers prior to completing product design verification testing.
In 2002, Cat engineers experimented with the concept of replacing the problematic tube and fin type aftercoolers with more robust bar-plate design aftercoolers – similar to those installed on C18 engines. Rumor has it; the multi-billion dollar corporate conglomerate wasn’t willing to reach into its deep pockets in order to pay for the expensive upgrades. Rather than affect a real cure, Cat decided upon a band-aid and bubble gum approach - eight band-aids to be exact. During a ten year period, Caterpillar engineers redesigned the tube and fin aftercoolers eight times. Cats’ attorneys allow that design changes to the aftercoolers weren’t due to an inherent design defect; they were simply “quality improvements” because Caterpillar was unhappy with the useful lives of the aftercoolers. Indeed, Cat wasn’t happy with the aftercoolers. In the 2001 dealer video conference a Cat rep confides to a dealer, “It’s our intent by the time we are done by the program that we will have every engine in the field with a suitable robust design to be able to allow that aftercooler to live like it’s supposed to live.” Were the design changes quality improvements, or were they initiated because the aftercoolers did not live like they were supposed to live? The latter would imply that the aftercoolers were, in fact, defective. Most design changes implemented were to the core mounting hardware, rather than to the actual core itself. In a company memorandum to Caterpillar, Modine representatives warned that such changes to the containment unit might exacerbate the problem by creating “a negative effect with respect to vibration and would induce stress.” Band–aids and bubble gum are not a permanent cure. They only serve as a temporary fix. After ten years of band-aids and bubble gum, aftercoolers on 3196 and C12 engines still have not been validated by the manufacturer. Even the “latest and greatest” aftercooler version continues to fail in the field causing catastrophic engine failure.
Cats’ pompous and arrogant attorneys “deny that any substantial number of 3176B, 3176C, 3196, C-12, or C 12 marine engines contain defects, known or unknown, related to their aftercoolers.” Despite the problematic history of 3196 engines, a 2007 Caterpillar advertisement had this to say about the 3196 - “Imagine the ideal engine for 40-60 foot (12-18m) commercial craft; reliable with a proven marine track record.” Apparently, Caterpillar executives consider a “fifty percent core failure rate by two thousand hours” and “eighty – ninety percent failure rate on four thousand engines in the field” - a “reliable and proven marine track record.” On November 09, 2007 Cats’ attorneys offered the following explanation to the court concerning 3196 engine failures. “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 of them will develop some sort of aftercooler-related problem.” Again, there were four thousand one hundred and seven aftercooler failures reported of four thousand six hundred and three 3196 engines in the stream of commerce. I may be a little rusty at math, but my calculations indicate a failure rate of slightly more than eighty-nine percent. I wouldn’t exactly describe the situation as “from time to time one of them will develop a problem.”
In my mind at least, this class-action is more than a simple product defect lawsuit. Cats' actions stink of corporate greed, product misrepresentation, and consumer fraud. In Caterpillars’ corporate mission statement the company prides itself with superlatives such as “integrity”, and “the highest standard of ethical behavior.” The company states, “We align our actions with our words and deliver what we promise.” Customer satisfaction, customer support, product service, reliability, integrity and commitment, are high standards for a company in the business of selling lemons.
Defendant Caterpillars’ attorneys are quick to paint a different picture. They claim Cat has stepped up to the plate time and again for its customers, bent over backwards, or “went substantially beyond its obligations to satisfy its customers concerns.” Cat hasn’t stepped up to the plate. Instead, Cats’ attorneys postponed trial scheduled for October 08, 2008 until January 2009. Perhaps four and a half years of deliberations wasn’t enough time for Cats’ expensive legal team to prepare for trial. Cat can run but it can’t hide. Eventually, the long arm of Michigan federal court will reach out, grasp Cat by the tail, and put an end to its silly “cat and mouse” game. Meanwhile, thousands of otherwise loyal and trusting Caterpillar customers wait patiently on the sidelines for the frustration and nightmare of Caterpillar ownership to end.
Some might dismiss this class-action as an attempt by the class representative or his/our legal team to pad their pockets. This is far from the truth. During the past several years, I have heard from 3196 and C12 engine owners across the country and throughout the world that have been forced to make financial sacrifices due to ongoing engine failures. This includes marine and non-marine engine owners, individuals and corporate entities, and government agencies. Many engine owners, like me, depend upon their engines for their livelihood. As a commercial fisherman, I was sidelined three times during a four year period because of my defective Caterpillar engine. Caterpillar owners deserve better.
This January, class members are looking to the Michigan federal court for a proper and timely resolution to our long standing engine issues. Thank you Class Representative Jim Jaikins for your passion and devotion to this concern, for the thousands of personal hours and thousands of dollars you have invested, for stepping up to the plate on behalf of class members, for taking charge, and for doing the right thing when others refused.
Individuals desiring more information about the class-action can visit my website: http://www.catdefect.com-a.googlepages.com/home
I will try to keep my site updated if and when new information becomes available.Storm
- Home
- Forum
-
Fishing Reports
- Alabama Fishing Reports
- Alaska Fishing Reports
- Canada Fishing Reports
- California Fishing Reports
- Central America Fishing Reports
- Connecticut Fishing Reports
- Delaware Fishing Reports
- Florida Fishing Reports
- Georgia Fishing Reports
- Hawaii Fishing Reports
- Louisiana Fishing Reports
- Maine Fishing Reports
- Maryland Fishing Reports
- Massachusetts Fishing Reports
- Mississippi Fishing Reports
- Mexico Fishing Reports
- New Hampshire Fishing Reports
- New Jersey Fishing Reports
- New York Fishing Reports
- North Carolina Fishing Reports
- Oregon Fishing Reports
- Rhode Island Fishing Reports
- South Carolina Fishing Reports
- Texas Fishing Reports
- Virginia Fishing Reports
- Washington Fishing Reports
- Directory
- Media
- Resources
- Contact Us
- Advertising
- What's New?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Younger
