Have you had a waterpump fail? - Page 3 - Pontiac Solstice Forum
View Poll Results: Have you had a waterpump fail on your Solstice? (please also chose NA or GXP as well)
No.....don't jinx me!! (I'm under 50,000miles) 45 39.13%
No....I'm on borrowed time (I have over 50,000 miles) 20 17.39%
Yes (My car had less then 60,000 miles when it happend) 37 32.17%
Yes...(My car had between 60,000 and 100,000 miles) 10 8.70%
Yes....(My car had over 100,000 when the waterpump failed) 2 1.74%
NA - Normally Aspirated 28 24.35%
GXP - turbo 47 40.87%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 115. You may not vote on this poll

 1Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-08-2014, 09:42 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
The_Ghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Waterford, MI
Posts: 3,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by joybill44 View Post
According to the poll, there are 23 reported pump failures out of almost 27,000 members. Doesn't sound that bad to me.
Wow…... Astounding…. The numbers are very flawed. It was a quick poll I should have put together better, but can’t because of the way polls are setup on this forum. Many forums have the ability to setup 2 part questions, this one does not. Furthermore, it’s impossible to get 27,000 members to vote. So you can’t judge it off of that. All you can judge from is the people that have voted, not the total number of members. That’s like saying there are 2.3billion people in the US and because 2billion didn’t vote in the last election, they’re republican….. Get it? It just doesn’t make sense.
The people that haven’t had a failure yet are under 60k (for the most part). The numbers are going to be flawed as well because of this. I’m willing to bet that WP failure is around 80% (GXP in particular) between 55k-70k. It’s just that nobody but GM has that data. And it’s impossible to obtain in a forum such as this. If there was a way to send mass emails and have everyone participate, it would be different, but there isn’t. Only those that have voted can be counted.

It was a pathetic attempt at a poll on my part.

**** So since this poll is so flawed, I’m asking the admin to lock it. ****

____________________________________________

Solo Street Race exhaust
Fujita CAI
ASAP T2 stripes and badging
Windrestrictor V2 lighted in white
Windrestrictor lighted door sills lighted in white
DDM Works IC Piping
Undercar LEDs in white to match Windrestrictor

ZZPerformance dyno tuned - 286HP, 317ft/lbs of torque at 23psi of boost.

Last edited by The_Ghost; 12-08-2014 at 09:46 AM.
The_Ghost is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-08-2014, 09:51 AM
Member
 
kwtoxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyfromVA View Post
According to the poll here; 60% haven't had a water pump failure yet. Perhaps the common failure, may not be that common after all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey View Post
I don't mean this nearly as harshly as it will probably appear, but that's an absurd conclusion!

First, who'd agree that 40% premature failure is acceptable? If you say that 60% haven't had a water pump failure yet, you're also saying that 40% have -- and you're saying that a 40% failure rate is acceptable.

Aside from that: Look at the numbers in the poll -- which, no offense, has serious flaws of its own that make the results virtually meaningless:
* 25 of the respondents who haven't have a WP failure have <50,000 miles on their car, and I'd bet that many of them have substantially less than 50k
* 17 had a failure at >50k miles -- and there was no provision for indicating that you've had more than one WP failure (as has my car)
* The number of NA & GXP cars totals up to 44 -- while the responses in the "Yes" and "No" options total up to 58. With no provision for one voter to indicate that they've had more than one failure, and presumably the poll software won't allow the same voter to vote more than once, shouldn't the number of responses be the same as the total number of NA & GXP cars combined?

The low number of responses -- either Yes OR No responses -- would probably be considered statistically meaningless when you consider that there are supposedly something like 23-24,000 members of this forum (which seems like an impossibly, unbelievably high number -- but I've seen it somewhere).

Even if the number of forum members was 2300 -- not 23,000 -- 44 cars being reported on or 58 total responses is statistically meaningless.

And finally, here's a thought I'm sure has some merit:
* MANY Solstice owners have sold their car -- and many of them have done so due to the problems they had with it. With water pump failure appearing to be one of the most frequent problems Solstice owner's -- including ones who are current forum members, but certainly also including many who aren't -- have had, doesn't it stand to reason that water pump failures have occurred to FORMER members, and have almost certainly been instrumental in causing the sale of a lot of Solstices?

And isn't it virtually certain that many former owners who sold their car due at least in part to water pump failure are no longer forum members -- and thus didn't participate in the poll?

The anecdotal evidence that many -- too many -- Solstice water pumps fail at an unacceptably premature mileage -- relative to how many miles water pumps typically last in ALL vehicles -- is overwhelming.

Just because it hasn't happened to YOUR car doesn't mean that it hasn't happened to FAR more cars than it should have, based on industry norms.
Your reply doesn't really apply to KellyfromVA's post without extrapolations and assumptions.

FWIW, KellyfromVA never said a 40% failure rate was acceptable. More specifically, he never said anything about what is or is not acceptable for a failure rate so it is incorrect to try to debate something that does not exist in his statements.

KellyfromVA only suggested that based on a 60% non-failure rate, perhaps water pump failures weren't as common as people think. I don't see any major problem in his statement. In fact, it is based on a qualitative judgement that by its very nature is open-ended. Your reply has lots of detail, but it doesn't really refute his general statement. I thought I'd point this out as I've had people do the same thing with some of my statements.

As for your feedback, I generally agree with much of what you say. Of note, for the number of registered forum members, yes, it is a general number based on forum information, which comes with the caveat not considering now former members, active versus inactive members, banned members, etc. Even so, forum numbers are high enough that it appears that a large sample population would still remain after accounting for those member caveats, from which good poll participation would give a reasonable answer to many of these questions. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much member participation in this poll and as such, statistically speaking, there is not enough statistical power to draw any significant conclusions on specific failure rates or mileages.

The use of a positive/negative outcome poll itself is a biased population sampling method that can often skews results, which is very problematic and open to discreditation without a large amount of population participation. If people really want to get an estimate without that bias and at a lower sampling rate, a randomized population sampling technique is needed. One way to do this, for example, is to generate a list of forum members, randomly select a number of them (e.g., 200), PM them and ask them to fill out a poll only open to them (or answer a series of basic questions). If 150 people from the notification participate in full for the poll (or answer all questions), then there will be some good data there. If not enough people participate, select another 200 people in that list randomly and do the same thing (PM and ask for participation), until you finally get at least 150 people who participate. If doing questions, they should be simple and not use language that has inferences (e.g., jinx me, borrowed time, etc).





I said this before and I'll say it again for the thread, anecdotally, everyone I've seen post here (and myself) seem to agree that the solstice has an abnormally high water pump failure rate. People aren't disagreeing with that.

There has been a long debate about relative rate of failure and at what mileage it occurs. It is because some people feel there is lots of data, other people feel that there is not enough data from which to drawn detailed conclusions. Statistics can tell people the power (or lack of power) behind the data, but it isn't easy for people to understand and for some it doesn't really matter to them and their conclusions, so the debate goes on.
kwtoxman is offline  
post #33 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-08-2014, 09:59 AM
Moderator
 
rob the elder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Parker Colorado, USA, directly above the center of the earth
Posts: 15,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey View Post
I don't mean this nearly as harshly as it will probably appear, but that's an absurd conclusion!

First, who'd agree that 40% premature failure is acceptable? If you say that 60% haven't had a water pump failure yet, you're also saying that 40% have -- and you're saying that a 40% failure rate is acceptable.

Aside from that: Look at the numbers in the poll -- which, no offense, has serious flaws of its own that make the results virtually meaningless:
* 25 of the respondents who haven't have a WP failure have <50,000 miles on their car, and I'd bet that many of them have substantially less than 50k
* 17 had a failure at >50k miles -- and there was no provision for indicating that you've had more than one WP failure (as has my car)
* The number of NA & GXP cars totals up to 44 -- while the responses in the "Yes" and "No" options total up to 58. With no provision for one voter to indicate that they've had more than one failure, and presumably the poll software won't allow the same voter to vote more than once, shouldn't the number of responses be the same as the total number of NA & GXP cars combined?

The low number of responses -- either Yes OR No responses -- would probably be considered statistically meaningless when you consider that there are supposedly something like 23-24,000 members of this forum (which seems like an impossibly, unbelievably high number -- but I've seen it somewhere).

Even if the number of forum members was 2300 -- not 23,000 -- 44 cars being reported on or 58 total responses is statistically meaningless.

And finally, here's a thought I'm sure has some merit:
* MANY Solstice owners have sold their car -- and many of them have done so due to the problems they had with it. With water pump failure appearing to be one of the most frequent problems Solstice owner's -- including ones who are current forum members, but certainly also including many who aren't -- have had, doesn't it stand to reason that water pump failures have occurred to FORMER members, and have almost certainly been instrumental in causing the sale of a lot of Solstices?

And isn't it virtually certain that many former owners who sold their car due at least in part to water pump failure are no longer forum members -- and thus didn't participate in the poll?

The anecdotal evidence that many -- too many -- Solstice water pumps fail at an unacceptably premature mileage -- relative to how many miles water pumps typically last in ALL vehicles -- is overwhelming.

Just because it hasn't happened to YOUR car doesn't mean that it hasn't happened to FAR more cars than it should have, based on industry norms.
First, my reading of his comment is that he did not draw a conclusion he asked a question. You appear to have concluded from reading his question that it was a conclusion and further that his conclusion was in error. So maybe your conclusion about his conclusion is in error?

You argue, in my opinion correctly, that the size and methods for this "poll" do not lend themselves to drawing any meaningful conclusions, yet you then appear to be upset about the "40%" failure rate?

Your statement that "many of the many" have sold their cars due to problems with their cars is the height of . .. well meaningless hyperbole . .

First, the situation with the water pump is what it is. Sorry yours has failed.
Sorry again that it has failed more than once. Sell the car and you will feel better.

The interesting statistic for me is not that "many " have sold their car, it’s that a lot of original owners still own and love their cars 7 and 8 years after buying them. "Many" very much enjoy their ownership of the cars and are happy to do what little maintenance is necessary to keep them running.

Every water pump is going to fail. Eventually. If you are having a bad experience, then the obvious answer is to sell the car and move on to something that makes you happy.

Rob the Elder

Punisher's Daddy
Green Dragon's chief mechanic
Carol's husband for 50 years

Secretary Rocky Mountain Solstice and Sky Club
Punisher's story
https://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/f62/punisher-65168/
Punisher thread index
https://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/f...ml#post1765649
https://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/f...ml#post2067289

rob the elder is offline  
post #34 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-08-2014, 10:03 AM
Member
 
kwtoxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Ghost View Post
And it’s impossible to obtain in a forum such as this. If there was a way to send mass emails and have everyone participate, it would be different, but there isn’t. Only those that have voted can be counted.
Just to point out, there are ways to get a random population sampling from a forum (or from any population for that matter), my earlier post above is one example. (I'm not saying to do it or that it is easy)


Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Ghost View Post
It was a pathetic attempt at a poll on my part.

**** So since this poll is so flawed, I’m asking the admin to lock it. ****
I wouldn't call a poll pathetic. One usually can't draw a whole lot of detailed information from any poll, but imo it can still have some qualitative value. To put it another way, it may not be a Michaelangelo painting, but even a basic painting has merit to some people in some ways.

At the very least this thread can be a repository for in this case people who detail water pump problems or replacement (it's been previously posted in a bunch of threads all over the forum). I plan to check the thread from time to time to see how many people post about having water pump replacements.

Last edited by kwtoxman; 12-08-2014 at 10:06 AM.
kwtoxman is offline  
post #35 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-08-2014, 11:30 AM
Member
 
Carey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 192
Garage
I give up

Quote:
Originally Posted by joybill44 View Post
According to the poll, there are 23 reported pump failures out of almost 27,000 members. Doesn't sound that bad to me.
Apparently, common sense and logic are unwelcome here.

23 failures out of 27,000 members DOES sound amazingly low -- if you assume that the reason the other 26,977 members didn't report a WP failure is because they:
* Are all CURRENT members of the forum; and/or
* ALL own a Solstice (MANY members have never owned one, while many have owned one and sold it but didn't unsubscribe from the forum, and are thus not around to have participated in the poll; etc.)
* Etc.

The notion that there are 27,000 ACTIVE members of this forum is absurd. Find out how many forum members have posted even one time in the last 6 months. THAT's a FAR more meaningful number than the supposed total membership.

I have a Yahoo Group I use as my mailing list for the concert series I run. It has FAR more members than the number of them who have come to even one of our concerts in the last 5 years -- much less the last 6-12 months.

But it takes effort -- not much, but more than a lot of people are apparently willing to put out -- to unsubscribe from the list/group. It takes NO effort to ignore/delete the emails I send, so that's what many of them choose to do vs. actually unsubscribing.

I'm SURE that applies to MANY of the supposed 27,000 members of this forum.
Carey is offline  
post #36 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-08-2014, 03:00 PM
Member
 
KellyfromVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey View Post
I don't mean this nearly as harshly as it will probably appear, but that's an absurd conclusion!


The low number of responses -- either Yes OR No responses -- would probably be considered statistically meaningless when you consider that there are supposedly something like 23-24,000 members of this forum (which seems like an impossibly, unbelievably high number -- but I've seen it somewhere).


Just because it hasn't happened to YOUR car doesn't mean that it hasn't happened to FAR more cars than it should have, based on industry norms.
To use your reasoning Carey, one would think that if the number of 23+,000 members here outraged by premature water pump failures would be indeed higher, the response rate to even this unscientific poll should have been higher, regardless of the sample. As I recall, your waterpump hasn't even failed, yet you've recently provided more drama-posts about cooling system and pump paranoia than anyone. As with anything on discussion boards, I suspect the concerns and complaints about premature water pump failure (sub 50,000 miles), are actually a prime example of a vocal (or in your case, a paranoid) minority.

To answer the other question about how many miles I have currently; my 07 GXP now has 62,380.7 miles on the original water pump. In my view 50,000+ miles for a maintenance item requiring replacement, isn't unexpected. Time will tell how many miles I'll ultimately get, but rest assured I will honestly report the result when the clock stops.

1954 MG Magnette ZA
1971 Triumph TR6 (Supercharged)
2007 Pontiac Solstice GXP Conv
2015 Ford F350 4X4
2014 Jaguar XF Sport
2015 Alfa Romeo 4C
2012 Fiat 500 Sport
1971 Corvette Conv.
KellyfromVA is offline  
post #37 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-08-2014, 03:43 PM
Member
 
TomatoSoup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 6,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyfromVA View Post
To use your reasoning Carey, one would think that if the number of 23+,000 members here outraged by premature water pump failures would be indeed higher, the response rate to even this unscientific poll should have been higher, regardless of the sample. As I recall, your waterpump hasn't even failed, yet you've recently provided more drama-posts about cooling system and pump paranoia than anyone. As with anything on discussion boards, I suspect the concerns and complaints about premature water pump failure (sub 50,000 miles), are actually a prime example of a vocal (or in your case, a paranoid) minority.
Er, open mouth, extract foot . Ahem...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey View Post
[...] -- and there was no provision for indicating that you've had more than one WP failure (as has my car) [...]

Owner of "Campbelle", a Brazen 2008 GXP ... with mods piling up...
TomatoSoup is offline  
post #38 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-08-2014, 03:46 PM
Member
 
Oceansol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 221
yeah, I think Carey's had 3 water pump failures. Ouch.
Oceansol is offline  
post #39 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-08-2014, 05:32 PM
Member
 
KellyfromVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 333
Point made, that being said: I still believe Carey, or anyone who's pump failed in less than 50,000 miles is the exception, not the rule. Even this little unscientific poll seems to indicate that. I suspect that with the loss of three water pumps, there may be more to the story that isn't being told..

1954 MG Magnette ZA
1971 Triumph TR6 (Supercharged)
2007 Pontiac Solstice GXP Conv
2015 Ford F350 4X4
2014 Jaguar XF Sport
2015 Alfa Romeo 4C
2012 Fiat 500 Sport
1971 Corvette Conv.
KellyfromVA is offline  
post #40 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-08-2014, 05:49 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
The_Ghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Waterford, MI
Posts: 3,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyfromVA View Post
In my view 50,000+ miles for a maintenance item requiring replacement, isn't unexpected.
Um...I disagree. 3 of my cars that I've owned have had way more then 100k on them with no waterpump failure. My first was a Fiero with over 180k on it. Second was a 2.0L Plymouth Laser RS (turbo) that had over 160k on it when I sold it to a neighbor that drove it another 50k and NEVER had the wp replaced. My third was my Mustang....over 160k on it with no wp. Ask a dealer, a wp isn't considered "maintenance item"....thus the reason they warranty them in extended warranties. Maintenance items are those things that will wear out quickly like brakes, shocks, clutchs (again, none of my cars EVER needed a clutch either!). I disagree that 50-75k is normal for "most" waterpumps.

On the other hand, I also believe that Carey is a MAJOR exception to the rule with 3 wps. Have you done a carfax on your car Carey to see what else has been done? Has the car been in an accident? Has the motor been replaced? Something has led to the 3rd failure. I believe you just got your car this year. Do you know the PO? Maybe he dogged on it, running each shift to 5k. I don't expect my 2nd wp to last to 100k as I don't baby my car. This car was built to drive hard (like my previous cars I mentioned) and I drive it that way. Just Saturday night I had a Magnum SRT8 that wanted to race...I obliged... There are many valid points in this thread....but bottom line, whether a few want to admit it or not, there is a wp issue with these cars. I can't wait till those of you that think there isn't get to that magic mileage number and then eat crow when your pump fails.....

____________________________________________

Solo Street Race exhaust
Fujita CAI
ASAP T2 stripes and badging
Windrestrictor V2 lighted in white
Windrestrictor lighted door sills lighted in white
DDM Works IC Piping
Undercar LEDs in white to match Windrestrictor

ZZPerformance dyno tuned - 286HP, 317ft/lbs of torque at 23psi of boost.
The_Ghost is offline  
post #41 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-08-2014, 07:08 PM
Member
 
vzzp0c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: QUEBEC
Posts: 223
Voted,no failiure at42,546
vzzp0c is offline  
post #42 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-09-2014, 06:14 AM
Member
 
roxer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NC
Posts: 772
Garage
Not yet, but it's starting to look like it. Looks like antifreeze around the right front of the block. 30,675 miles so far.

.
2002 Isuzu Rodeo Sport 3.2L 4x4 - Still kicking!
2007 Mysterious Solstice GXP (女妖 - Banshee) - Manual - MODS LISTED HERE
2008 Polar Sky Redline (白影 - White Shadow) - Auto - Fully Loaded

roxer is offline  
post #43 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-09-2014, 08:52 AM
Member
 
KellyfromVA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 333
If it makes anyone feel better; remember in the late 90's, Honda recommended that owners replace the water pump at the 60K maximum timing belt replacement interval. In many instances, more than I bet the percentage of premature Ecotec water pump failures because of the high amount of Accords sold, the water pump would fail and take out the timing belt, potentially ruining the engine (interference engine). The cost to replace the timing belt and water pump in 90's dollars? $700-$800.

1954 MG Magnette ZA
1971 Triumph TR6 (Supercharged)
2007 Pontiac Solstice GXP Conv
2015 Ford F350 4X4
2014 Jaguar XF Sport
2015 Alfa Romeo 4C
2012 Fiat 500 Sport
1971 Corvette Conv.
KellyfromVA is offline  
post #44 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-09-2014, 09:43 AM
Member
 
Oceansol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 221
Might be jinxing myself here, but since the dealer performed a "pressure test" on my GXP's cooling system several weeks ago, I've not smelled coolant nor had the low coolant warning light come on. Is it possible that the pressure test somehow re-seated the WP gaskets? I'm not sure if the pressure used in the pressure test is higher than running pressure....
Oceansol is offline  
post #45 of 72 (permalink) Old 12-09-2014, 10:49 AM
Member
 
roxer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NC
Posts: 772
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyfromVA View Post
If it makes anyone feel better; remember in the late 90's, Honda recommended that owners replace the water pump at the 60K maximum timing belt replacement interval...
Kind of the same for Isuzu's 3.2L and changing out the water pump with the timing belt. I have to admit I did it, saved me $500 later in the labor arena. I'll do it again when I hit another 100k.

.
2002 Isuzu Rodeo Sport 3.2L 4x4 - Still kicking!
2007 Mysterious Solstice GXP (女妖 - Banshee) - Manual - MODS LISTED HERE
2008 Polar Sky Redline (白影 - White Shadow) - Auto - Fully Loaded

roxer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Pontiac Solstice Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome