There is a totally different mentality to aircraft maintenance than auto, farm, etc. type maintenance. It is really important to diagnose quality control issues. Just because some modules ran for hundreds of hours, does not mean you can ignore the fact that a number of them had a critical problem, and It is very important how that is all deal with. To sell me modules and have me flying them, that reason says can, or a certain percentage certainly will, fail if I fly into cold weather, is definitely problematic. When I say that here is data that makes me uncomfortable, that is very different from saying it just doesn't sound like a real engine. In my flying career there have been times when I made a flight because I wanted to believe something that was irrational. Somehow I managed to survive those times, but I know how strong the tendency is to put reason aside and act on what we want to be true. The simple point I'm trying to make here is the trap one finds themselves in, where they could be flying a module that works great to start up and get in the air but would shut down if one flew into colder air. If it is rational to say that with some of these components this can and will happen, then that needs to be acknowledged. So why don't the manufacturers diagnose the problem, redesign the component, take all the problematic designs out of service and replace them with something that will work without having a known and proven defect?
It also brings out the reality how everything is designed and tested for the warm balmy climates. I had an old chevy that was made without windshield defrosters! And folks down south would say, "Whats wrong with that?"