1998 BUICK LESABRE Complaints

AFTER TAKING THE VEHICLE TO DEALER FOR A RECALL REPAIRS, VEHICLE WAS CUTTING OFF, AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WAS ON. VEHICLE IDLED ROUGHLY. CONSUMER TOLD MECHANIC THAT THIS PROBLEM DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO BRINGING IT IN FOR THE RECALL REPAIRS, AND WAS TOLD THAT IT WOULD GO AWAY ON ITS OWN. *AK THE VEHICLE TRANSMISSION FAILED . *NM

CONSUMER WAS CONCERNED ABOUT REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE MANUFACTURER. CONSUMER RECEIVED RECALL NOTICE 96V116000 CONCERNING INTAKE MANIFOLD FAILURE. CONSUMER HAD RECALL REPAIRS DONE. HOWEVER, RECALL REPAIRS FAILED. CONSUMER INFORMED THE MECHANIC THAT THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED MORE THAN ONCE, AND HAD NOT BEEN RESOLVED. *AK

WHILE DRIVING VEHICLE STALLED. CONSUMER PULLED OVER, AND HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED. DEALERSHIP WAS NOTIFIED, BUT DID NOT RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. *AK

REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST FOR INTAKE MANIFOLD REPLACEMENT.*MR THE VEHICLE FUEL REGULATOR FAILED AND CAUSED THE MANIFOLD TO RUPTURE. THE CONSUMER LATER RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE AND REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT N THE AMOUNT OF $1438.06. THE CONSUMER ONLY RECEIVED REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $160.17 FOR THE REGULATORS. THE CONSUMER FEELS THAT SINCE THE REGULATORS CAUSED THE MANIFOLD TO RUPTURE THAT THE MANUFACTURER SHOULD REIMBURSE HIM FOR THEM AS WELL. *NM

PROBLEMS WITH FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR ON 1998 BUICK LESABRE.*MR THE FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR WAS REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECALL V1082. WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE STALLED AND WOULD NOT RESTART. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE SERVICE DEALER WHERE IT WAS DETERRMINED THAT THE UPPER INTAKE MANIFOLD HAD FAILED AND COOLANT WAS FLOWING INTO THE CYLINDERS. THE CONSUMER FEELS THE MANIFOLD SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECALLED AND REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT. *NM

PROBLEMS REGARDING A 1998 BUICK LESABRE. *MR RECALL# 04V090000. THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN TO THE DEALERS THREE TIMES. THE FUEL REGULATOR WAS REPLACED. THE VEHICLE DIED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS IN MOTION, THE BATTERY CABLE WAS LOOSE AND THE PCM NEEDED CALIBRATING, AND THE STARTER WAS BAD. *SC *JB

COMPLAINT REGARDING A REPAIR INVOICE BUCS38787. *MR THE CONSUMER STATED THAT GM DECIDED THAT BURNING A HOLE THROUGH THE INTAKE THAT WAS DRIVEN 69K MILES WAS NORMAL MAINTENANCE AND WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR ADJUSTMENT BY GM. *SC *JB

REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING SERVICES PERFORMED ON VEHICLE. *MR RECALL# 04V090000. THE VEHICLE DIED AT INTERSECTIONS AND WAS SLUGGLISH DUE TO A POSSIBLE FUEL PROBLEM. *SC (DAUGHTER ON BEHALF OF MOTHER RUBY TYNER) THE CONSUMER HAD OVER $300.00 WORTH OF REPAIRS DONE BEFORER SHE RECEIVED THE RECALL NOTICE. *JB

THE INTAKE MANIFOLD AND THE EXHAUST SYSTEM WERE A MANUFACTURER'S DESIGN FLAW. WHEN THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER, THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD THAT THE TUBING WAS TOO SMALL, CAUSING THE TUBING TO RUPTURE. *AK THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS WORN THROUGH. *SC *JB

WHILE DRIVING SERVICE ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON. THEN, VEHICLE DECELERATED FOLLOWED BY HEAT AND VENTILATION FAILURES. THIS WAS DUE TO ENGINE INTAKE MANIFOLD MALFUNCTIONING. THE MANIFOLD WASN'T DESIGNED CORRECTLY BY THE FACTORY ENGINEER, WHICH CAUSED THE ENGINE TO MISFIRE. DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSTIC TEST SHOWED COOLANT LEAKING. CYLINDER REPLACED, AND LOWER INTAKE MANIFOLD IMPROVED DESIGN, PER BULLETIN 010601007A. ALSO, COOLANT AND FLUID PLUGS WERE REPLACED.*AK *NM