1988 PONTIAC FIERO — Problems, Recalls & Safety Data

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1988 PONTIAC FIERO. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, THE CONTACT OBSERVED THAT OIL WAS LEAKING ONTO THE VAL COVER OF THE ENGINE. HE WAS CONCERNED THAT OIL WOULD DRIP ONTO THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER AND CAUSE A FIRE. THERE WERE NO WARNING INDICATORS PRIOR TO THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER AND THEY STATED THAT THE VAL COVER AND DRIP SHIELD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL, ALTHOUGH THE FAILURES WERE IDENTICAL. THE RECALL NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 106,986.

DEAR NHTSA, I AM WRITING IN REGARDS TO AN ISSUE I AM HAVING WITH GM ABOUT NECESSARY RECALL WORK ON AN 1988 PONTIAC FIERO WHILE REPAIRING SOME ITEMS ON THIS AUTO, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE IS AN OUTSTANDING RECALL ON THIS MAKE/MODEL OF VEHICLE. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE UNIVERSITY GM DEALERSHIP IN DURHAM, NC AND REQUESTED INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECALL ON DECEMBER 16, 2006. THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN OFFICIALLY FROM GM WHETHER OR NOT THE RECALL WORK HAS BEEN DONE EVEN AFTER TWO MONTHS OF HAVING THE VEHICLE. THEY ONLY RECENTLY EVEN ORDERED THE RECALL KIT ONLY TO THEN FIND OUT THE PARTS IN THAT KIT WERE ALREADY INSTALLED IN THE VEHICLE. NOW, THEY ARE TELLING ME THERE IS NOTHING MORE THEY CAN DO AND THAT THEIR POSITION IS THAT THE RECALL WORK APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND SO THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER THEY WILL DO. I WOULD LIKE TO BOTH LODGE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THEIR INACTION AND INABILITY TO OFFICIALLY CONFIRM THIS VEHICLE'S RECALL WORK HAS BEEN DONE AND ALSO REQUEST YOUR ASSISTANCE IN GETTING THIS INFORMATION FROM GM. I THINK GM AND THIS DEALERSHIP HAVE NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING IN PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION, PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RECALL, AND I AM EXTREMELY DISPLEASED ABOUT THE TREATMENT WE HAVE RECEIVED. THIS VEHICLE, THOUGH OLD, WAS REFURBISHED INTO GOOD WORKING ORDER AND IS CURRENTLY ENSURED FOR AN AS-IS VALUE OF $3000. IT IS OUR FAMILY'S SECOND VEHICLE AND WE HAVE BEEN WITHOUT IT FOR 2 MONTHS NOW, A MAJOR INCONVENIENCE AND ISSUE FOR OUR FAMILY. I DO NOT BELIEVE GM AND THIS DEALERSHIP INACTION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STIPULATIONS OF THE RECALL. I AM ULTIMATELY ONLY INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THIS VEHICLE IS SAFE AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION SHOWING THAT. CAN YOU PLEASE HELP REMEDY THIS SITUATION? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU. *JB

DEAR NHTSA, I AM WRITING IN REGARDS TO AN ISSUE I AM HAVING WITH GM ABOUT NECESSARY RECALL WORK ON AN 1988 PONTIAC FIERO WHILE REPAIRING SOME ITEMS ON THIS AUTO, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE IS AN OUTSTANDING RECALL ON THIS MAKE/MODEL OF VEHICLE. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE UNIVERSITY GM DEALERSHIP IN DURHAM, NC AND REQUESTED INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECALL ON DECEMBER 16, 2006. THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN OFFICIALLY FROM GM WHETHER OR NOT THE RECALL WORK HAS BEEN DONE EVEN AFTER TWO MONTHS OF HAVING THE VEHICLE. THEY ONLY RECENTLY EVEN ORDERED THE RECALL KIT ONLY TO THEN FIND OUT THE PARTS IN THAT KIT WERE ALREADY INSTALLED IN THE VEHICLE. NOW, THEY ARE TELLING ME THERE IS NOTHING MORE THEY CAN DO AND THAT THEIR POSITION IS THAT THE RECALL WORK APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND SO THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER THEY WILL DO. I WOULD LIKE TO BOTH LODGE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THEIR INACTION AND INABILITY TO OFFICIALLY CONFIRM THIS VEHICLE'S RECALL WORK HAS BEEN DONE AND ALSO REQUEST YOUR ASSISTANCE IN GETTING THIS INFORMATION FROM GM. I THINK GM AND THIS DEALERSHIP HAVE NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING IN PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION, PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RECALL, AND I AM EXTREMELY DISPLEASED ABOUT THE TREATMENT WE HAVE RECEIVED. THIS VEHICLE, THOUGH OLD, WAS REFURBISHED INTO GOOD WORKING ORDER AND IS CURRENTLY ENSURED FOR AN AS-IS VALUE OF $3000. IT IS OUR FAMILY'S SECOND VEHICLE AND WE HAVE BEEN WITHOUT IT FOR 2 MONTHS NOW, A MAJOR INCONVENIENCE AND ISSUE FOR OUR FAMILY. I DO NOT BELIEVE GM AND THIS DEALERSHIP INACTION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STIPULATIONS OF THE RECALL. I AM ULTIMATELY ONLY INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THIS VEHICLE IS SAFE AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION SHOWING THAT. CAN YOU PLEASE HELP REMEDY THIS SITUATION? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU. *JB

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THERE WERE SEVERAL ENGINE PROBLEMS WITH THE VEHICLE. THE ENGINE BECAME LOUD AND WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THE EXHAUST MANIFOLD NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. AS A RESULT OF THE HEAT FROM THE EXHAUST MANIFOLD, THE BELT TENSIONER, WATER PUMP, STARTER (REPLACED FOUR TIMES), VALVE COVER GASKET (REPLACED TWICE), OIL PRESSURE SENDING UNIT, HEATER HOSES, RADIATOR HOSES, AND RADIATOR FAN MOTOR WERE REPLACED. LAST WEEK THE CONTACT RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM THE DEALER CONCERNING A RECALL NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID # 89V232000 ON THE ENGINE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO REPLACED THE EXHAUST MANIFOLD, ADDED AN EXHAUST MANIFOLD HEAT SHIELD, REMOVED DUST SHIELDS FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT, AND REPLACED A PART OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE. THE RECALL REMEDY AUTHORIZED THE DEALER TO REPLACE ALL OF THE PARTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY REPLACED BY THE CONTACT AS A RESULT OF DAMAGE SUSTAINED BY THE DEFECTIVE EXHAUST MANIFOLD AND DUST SHIELD. HOWEVER, THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE PARTS REPLACED PRIOR TO THE NOTIFICATION. THE CONTACT INQUIRED PREVIOUSLY WITH BOTH THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER AND WAS INFORMED THERE WAS NO RECALL CONCERNING THE VEHICLE. THERE WAS NEVER AN OFFICIAL RECEIPT OF THIS 1989 RECALL UNTIL LAST WEEK. *AK UPDATED 04/11/06.

RECALLS 89V232000 AND 90V104000. CONSUMER CONTACTED MANUFACTURER ABOUT ABOVE RECALLS MENTIONED ON THE INTERNET. MANUFACTURER TOLD HIM THAT THE RECALLS WERE OVER, AND VEHICLE HAD ALREADY BEEN SERVICED. HOWEVER, CONSUMER'S VEHICLE WAS HAVING THE SAME ANTIFREEZE LEAKING AND ENGINE PROBLEMS. *AK