Recall faulty ECU's for years 91-95 3000GT and Stealth

[Vital Velocity]

Originally Posted by ProwlerGT

Well now that you are making it personal whoever you are you look ignorant for saying fires underneath the dashboard are not safety hazards as well as stalling out in traffic and that is what you are saying if you have read this entire thread. Its easy for you to talk about sputtering cause yes we can all see how you can sputter along to the shoulder of the road if need be, but these fires that HAVE HAPPENED and the STALLING out that have HAPPENED are indeed safety issues. I don't know how much more in the face it can get than if the ECU and dash catches fire and/or the car STALLS out and you also in those situations LOSE CONTROL OF THE CAR how that is not a safety issue. All you are doing (and I thank you for it) is providing me with what the other side will defend and make argument with. So good counter arguments for us to expect.

I could certainly argue that the tranny case leaking is no big deal cause it could be sealed up with some good sealant, but you don't see me trying to take down issue and I admit up front if it was beyond the case leaking at the outer seals then I don't know about it..... but if it was indeed that in summary then yes.... some good sealant. DO I want to go there? NO. Cause I agree with the tranny case recall for it having been designed/built wrong to begin with JUST AS THE ECU'S WERE DESIGNED AND BUILT WITH CERTAIN CAPACITORS THAT WERE KNOWN TO BE CHEAP CRAP TO BEGIN WITH. It is a design flaw and yes I'm saying the type of capacitor used was included in the design otherwise it would not have been built with such.

Re-read what your responce to me was and you will see the statement that you look ignorant when you talk like that is justified. I did not say YOU WERE ignorant, simply that you look it when conducting yourself in such a manner.
Also you just said above that i was helping you by giving you statements that you could hear from "the other side" and then you say i am not helping?



Do you know how many 3s's were built between 91-95? If you were to look at the number of 3s's built vs those that caught fire that were 100% stock and did the ratio the number would be low, VERY LOW. If its an individual case and your car caught on fire you may able to try to sue Mitsubishi, however their lawyers get paid alot more than yours do so you will most likely loose.

You are just fishing for justification as to why mitsubishi should replace a 12 year old part for free because it is annoying to track down when faulty.

P.S. Alot of times the transfer case recall does indeed mean some sealant and a refill of fluid, they dont always replace the unit.

[ProwlerGT]

You have no real way of knowing how many stock car's caught fire due to the ECU and eventually that is what this thread will capture when I build a data input web page to capture such info. The fact that I've heard about it at least 3 times tells me there are more than we think, but again thats speculation and why I intend to collect data in a consistent manner later on.

I guess you are helping. I can be wrong and you can be right. Too early to argue and perhaps thats why I may seem like i'm conducting myself ignorantly or just not making sense even. ha haaaaaa comedy aye... comedy. Sarcasm or seriousness or mixture of both? Hmm.. Up for debate.

I'm not worried about whose lawyers are paid more. I'd never pursue legal action unless counsel thought they'd have a case they could win with given evidence on contingency or pro bono. I believe I've said this before. I would also probably call a minimum of 50 lawyers who specialize in this type of stuff at such time that all evidence/data is collected in its entirety to the best of my knowledge.

My car never caught on fire due to ECU, but I've read at least 3 other reports of those whose have. My car did however catch on fire unbeknownst to me due to a HUMAN having leaned on and severed some wires which caused electrical instability and feedback and/or surge causing my radiator fan to spin out of control and melt its mount point as well as the oil pressure wiring harness melted internally. I certainly wouldn't blame Mitsu for that. I am not unreasonable. I do have a problem with figuring out where you or people that think like you separate the white, gray, and black areas. I see safety issues and others do too, but you don't.... why is that? lol - Just the way it is.

As far as "fishing" for reasons to replace an old part due to simple ANNOYANCE goes, in fact since you started chiming in these past few posts was the first time I've mentioned annoyance. I too realize annoyance is a weak argument, but it doesn't hurt my case building either. Prior to this waste of energy its been about the safety issue and still is. If people can sue Mitsu due to a fire coming from the ECU then don't we have a reason to want a recall too? Isn't that a safety issue sir? Isn't stalling out in busy traffic and then re-stalling after every repeated attempt to restart the car a safety issue while the 18 and 20 wheelers bear down on the stalled vehicle? Can you answer those questions? Do ya want to? Do you think those fire and traffic situations I cite are unreasonable possibilities?

[Lear70]

Originally Posted by Vital Velocity

When wheels lock up the car becomes totally uncontrolable and can put the car into a spine, endangering the driver and everone around them...

When you talk like above, you look really ignorant.

Ignorant?

Hmmm... what's a "spine" as it relates to a car?

Something about a biblical reference and a splinter -vs- a plank... maybe it's just me.

Personally, I think if the fire under the dash can be proven in more than just one or two isolated cases, this is a slam-dunk with a good attorney. That plus the sputtering, hesitation, and stalling of a car as you pull into a busy intersection would more than scare Mitsubishi into a liability minimization mode.

[Vital Velocity]

Originally Posted by Lear70

Ignorant?

Hmmm... what's a "spine" as it relates to a car?

Something about a biblical reference and a splinter -vs- a plank... maybe it's just me.

Personally, I think if the fire under the dash can be proven in more than just one or two isolated cases, this is a slam-dunk with a good attorney. That plus the sputtering, hesitation, and stalling of a car as you pull into a busy intersection would more than scare Mitsubishi into a liability minimization mode.

You got me on the spline part, i already saw that and clicked edit but the 3si server froze on me. Sucks lol

[Vital Velocity]

Originally Posted by ProwlerGT

I'm not worried about whose lawyers are paid more. I'd never pursue legal action unless counsel thought they'd have a case they could win with given evidence on contingency or pro bono. I believe I've said this before. I would also probably call a minimum of 50 lawyers who specialize in this type of stuff at such time that all evidence/data is collected in its entirety to the best of my knowledge.

I do have a problem with figuring out where you or people that think like you separate the white, gray, and black areas. I see safety issues and others do too, but you don't.... why is that? lol - Just the way it is.

As far as "fishing" for reasons to replace an old part due to simple ANNOYANCE goes, in fact since you started chiming in these past few posts was the first time I've mentioned annoyance. I too realize annoyance is a weak argument, but it doesn't hurt my case building either. Prior to this waste of energy its been about the safety issue and still is. If people can sue Mitsu due to a fire coming from the ECU then don't we have a reason to want a recall too? Isn't that a safety issue sir? Isn't stalling out in busy traffic and then re-stalling after every repeated attempt to restart the car a safety issue while the 18 and 20 wheelers bear down on the stalled vehicle? Can you answer those questions? Do ya want to? Do you think those fire and traffic situations I cite are unreasonable possibilities?

If you were to call 50 lawyers and told them the numbers of cars that have caught on fire vs the number of cars in production ( keep in mind you need to include the base, the sl, the vr4, the base stealth, the es stealth, the rt stealth and the rt/tt stealth ) they would laugh at you.

White, grey and black; let me go ahead and put out so you can better understand it. You have a used car, its somewhere between 12-17 years old, a part fails, tough shit-fix it or go buy a new car with a warranty.

You are fishing for reasons to have a 12-17 year old part replaced. 3 cars of a knowsn 10,000+ members, and the people on this board are the minority of 3s owners. Even if you have 100, 200, 300 you still have a weak arguement based on ratios. Not enough caught on fire to cause a safety issue ( it was not a common thing ) for mitsu to recall. If 40% of the cars were catching on fire yes then it is an issue.

If a a TT 3s blows a turbo and hesitates, wouldnt that be the same safety issue if you put the same 18 wheel behind it? What about a timing belt tensioner, if it fails and your motor shuts down, isnt that a safety issue. All these examples are crazy to argue, because it is a used car and thing will break.

[StealthCRF]

all i was saying is that YOU HAVE NEVER SHOWN ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT SAYS ANY ECU HAS EVER CAUSED A FIRE.... what you've heard is hearsay and that counts for ZERO in court.

and the ECU only controls the engine not the car. w/ ecu failure you can still stop and steer and use signals. loss of power is not a safety issue. You are expected to drive within the limits of your vehicle, if your vehicle is 10+ years old and has hesitation symptoms then you should not be pulling out in front of cars with out enough clearance. Trust me, mitsu has gotten very liberal on recalls, the 08 lancer had a recall before they were even sent to market and it was not NHTSA mandated... just a precaucion to strengthen door latches on rear doors in FREAK accidents.

[Sabotage]

I didn't read the whole thread, I'll look it over when I have more free time.
I'll add this, in case anyone cares..

One night I had some trouble with my 92 VR-4, it wouldn't start but would turn over. It was getting fuel but no fire. I took the ECU out & looked it over. The ECU Capacitors had leaked. Instead of getting it repaired or buying a new one I found a great deal on another 92 ECU. I received it & it had been modified/upgraded. I put it in & my car had problems as described in the first post.
Right now one of our fellow forum members has it & is going to test it out for me.

I can't see them doing a recall but that would be sweet.

[Lear70]

The only thing I could see you winning a recall fight on is the fact that they are known to leak over time with heat and that they're not a recommended service item anywhere in the book.

At least all your other items such as brakes, clutch, master and slave cylinders, water pump, oil pump, timing belt, tensioners, etc are all covered somewhere in the book as an "inspect and replace as necessary".

The ECU isn't and is known to fail in almost EVERY car over time, as do other computers with those caps in them. That means they should have at LEAST added it to the service check at some point, and didn't.

One more nail in the coffin to whoever decides to go after them...

[Kibwe Walker]

I have a 93 and my ecu has never been touched in 14 years until this past friday.

My caps were in perfect condition and nothing is wrong with it 184k+ miles on the girl and still purs like a LION.

Would be interested on the actual number of people that have trouble with their ECU's.

[FastOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Kibwe Walker

I have a 93 and my ecu has never been touched in 14 years until this past friday.

My caps were in perfect condition and nothing is wrong with it 184k+ miles on the girl and still purs like a LION.

Would be interested on the actual number of people that have trouble with their ECU's.

People who live in high humitity and high heat seam to have more issues.