Joined:
Dec 2022
Posts:
5036
EE: 0% (0)
MI, USA
Posted: Today 12:53:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CTYC313][Edited]
Not familiar with the channel, but I find the topic interesting. I know a lot of people pointed to this as evidence that the oil viscosity was a problem and the change was supposed to fix it. GM Changed the Oil. Engines Keep FAILING. |
|
Originally Posted By CTYC313: Not familiar with the channel, but I find the topic interesting. I know a lot of people pointed to this as evidence that the oil viscosity was a problem and the change was supposed to fix it.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-lVNS2j0qc |
| GM is trying to sell Marvel Mystery Oil, lol. |
"I would live this war one day at a time, and I promised myself that if I survived, I would find a small farm somewhere in the Pennsylvania countryside and spend the remainder of my life in quiet and peace.” - Richard Winters
|
Originally Posted By Foxtrot08: No. GM issued the wrong fix for the issue. The root cause stayed the same. They never did. So they designed a new engine and started the financial engineering required to hide the loss in the EV program.  All of this caused by a desire to save 10% on crank machining. I just pulled all of that out of my ass, but if it happened exactly like that I wouldn't be shocked. |
|
Originally Posted By xd341: A bright GM engineer identified the problem early on, then spent a year trying to explain it to retards in management, then after the retards in management realized just how big of a cluster fuck it was they spent a year trying to come up with a financially palatable solution. They never did. So they designed a new engine and started the financial engineering required to hide the loss in the EV program. All of this caused by a desire to save 10% on crank machining. I just pulled all of that out of my ass, but if it happened exactly like that I wouldn't be shocked. 
|
Wake up, wake up and smell the ashes.
|
Originally Posted By CTYC313: Not familiar with the channel, but I find the topic interesting. I know a lot of people pointed to this as evidence that the oil viscosity was a problem and the change was supposed to fix it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-lVNS2j0qcI have been watching Lake's channel for a while. I think he's legit. |
|
Originally Posted By Orion10182011: The problem was supplier quality. The oil change was a bandaid not a "fix". Ya, they have to bring the crankshaft back in house as the OEM cant seem to solve it. A lot of the OEMs have sold out to holding companies the past 15 years and they have been gutted. |
|
Originally Posted By Foxtrot08: No. GM issued the wrong fix for the issue. The root cause stayed the same. Originally Posted By Foxtrot08: Originally Posted By jough43: So potentially GM determined the wrong root cause? No. GM issued the wrong fix for the issue. The root cause stayed the same. |
Tertium non datur
|
Originally Posted By jough43: So potentially GM determined the wrong root cause? They know exactly what the problem is, they know exactly why it happened, they know exactly how to fix it and they know almost exactly how much it would cost. They will not do it. And if they do, most likely forced, as hyundai group has proven. They will still make money on it. Welcome to the new normal in the automotive world. |
Twitter ID: @GattoSeh
|
Originally Posted By xd341: Nobody that has ever machined and built an engine thought that oil viscosity would solve the problem. Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By CTYC313: Not familiar with the channel, but I find the topic interesting. I know a lot of people pointed to this as evidence that the oil viscosity was a problem and the change was supposed to fix it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-lVNS2j0qc |
Tertium non datur
|
Originally Posted By xd341: A bright GM engineer identified the problem early on, then spent a year trying to explain it to retards in management, then after the retards in management realized just how big of a cluster fuck it was they spent a year trying to come up with a financially palatable solution. They never did. So they designed a new engine and started the financial engineering required to hide the loss in the EV program. All of this caused by a desire to save 10% on crank machining. I just pulled all of that out of my ass, but if it happened exactly like that I wouldn't be shocked. Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By Foxtrot08: No. GM issued the wrong fix for the issue. The root cause stayed the same. They never did. So they designed a new engine and started the financial engineering required to hide the loss in the EV program. All of this caused by a desire to save 10% on crank machining. I just pulled all of that out of my ass, but if it happened exactly like that I wouldn't be shocked. |
Tertium non datur
| My dad's 2022 1500 5.3 with 22k overheated due to...wait for it...."bad head castings," which the dealer said was a known problem. I've rebuilt and repaired GM engines made from the early 60's through 2005 and never seen a bad head casting. How colossally does GM have to fuck this up where they shit the bed on something they've been doing well for 60 years??? |
|
Originally Posted By RhinelandArms: Ya, they have to bring the crankshaft back in house as the OEM cant seem to solve it. A lot of the OEMs have sold out to holding companies the past 15 years and they have been gutted. They know how, they just won't do it. Too much money. |
Twitter ID: @GattoSeh
|
Friend of mine bought and "built" a big ass jacked up Sierra Denali a few years ago. He is now in the process of offloading it before SHTF. I'm seeing more and more of these trucks (and Tahoes/Suburbans) with the little Duramax. If I was buying a GMC truck I'd be looking at that engine and nothing else. Problem is you can't get a good transmission with any of the options. |
|
Originally Posted By Czechers: My dad's 2022 1500 5.3 with 22k overheated due to...wait for it...."bad head castings," which the dealer said was a known problem. I've rebuilt and repaired GM engines made from the early 60's through 2005 and never seen a bad head casting. How colossally does GM have to fuck this up where they shit the bed on something they've been doing well for 60 years??? They haven’t been doing it well for 60 years. Castech 706…… |
Seriously... unTex the Mex..
|
Originally Posted By xd341: A bright GM engineer identified the problem early on, then spent a year trying to explain it to retards in management, then after the retards in management realized just how big of a cluster fuck it was they spent a year trying to come up with a financially palatable solution. They never did. So they designed a new engine and started the financial engineering required to hide the loss in the EV program. All of this caused by a desire to save 10% on crank machining. I just pulled all of that out of my ass, but if it happened exactly like that I wouldn't be shocked. Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By Foxtrot08: No. GM issued the wrong fix for the issue. The root cause stayed the same. They never did. So they designed a new engine and started the financial engineering required to hide the loss in the EV program. All of this caused by a desire to save 10% on crank machining. I just pulled all of that out of my ass, but if it happened exactly like that I wouldn't be shocked. Sounds plausible, you must have some inside information. Several years ago Harley-Davidson had a problem with a new engine, the metal sleeve for the cylinders was coming loose and beating the hell out of the heads. The head gasket would get damaged and then ingested. Instead of issuing a recall with a proper repair they instead redesigned the head gasket with a piece of sheet metal laminated to the cylinder side. It didn't stop the sleeve from sliding but it stopped the head gasket ingestion, gotta know the bean counters were involved in that band-aid. |
Life's battles don't always go to the stronger or faster man. In the end, the one who wins is the one who thinks he can! - SCI, NRA
Team Ranstad
Team Ranstad
|
Originally Posted By mancat: Friend of mine bought and "built" a big ass jacked up Sierra Denali a few years ago. He is now in the process of offloading it before SHTF. I'm seeing more and more of these trucks (and Tahoes/Suburbans) with the little Duramax. If I was buying a GMC truck I'd be looking at that engine and nothing else. Problem is you can't get a good transmission with any of the options. L o l Do some research before... nightmare to do any work on... that is if the oil pump belt makes it that long |
|
They can change oil vis all they want, but until final finish machining on rod and main journals is corrected eliminating wave rolling the problem will not go away. This is not some new discovery, this is piss poor quality control on full display with a lack of knowledge that has been available for many, many years. Eliminate journal wave rolling and then perfect oil vis working with coated bearings. The final result should be amazing. |
I started with nothing, and I still have most of it
|
Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: How many made-in-China parts in the engine? ETA- it's kind of unfair to say, but being involved in powertrain operations in the automotive industry, I have to say sometimes Mexico does OK compared to the US. For GM, it's the people at General Motors Global Propulsion Systems that was the problem. |
To err is human, to forgive was not SAC policy.
NorCal call sign "Dystopia"
NorCal call sign "Dystopia"
|
Originally Posted By Czechers: My dad's 2022 1500 5.3 with 22k overheated due to...wait for it...."bad head castings," which the dealer said was a known problem. I've rebuilt and repaired GM engines made from the early 60's through 2005 and never seen a bad head casting. How colossally does GM have to fuck this up where they shit the bed on something they've been doing well for 60 years??? Never seen a bad head casting? It was a thing on 2004 5.3 Chevys. I had one. Cracks allowing coolant into oil. Was a certain casting number. Aluminum heads. |
|
Originally Posted By Jeffg: The change to thicker oil was only a band aid and they knew it wasn't going to fix the problem. GM knew they could only make so many replacement engines per month so they were trying to buy some time. They shouldn't be allowed to make anything until they are made. Odd that they have plenty of engines for shit rolling off the line they haven't sold yet.... |
|
Originally Posted By Alacrity: Was it a remedy, or was it cover? Originally Posted By Alacrity: Originally Posted By Foxtrot08: Originally Posted By jough43: So potentially GM determined the wrong root cause? No. GM issued the wrong fix for the issue. The root cause stayed the same. 100% a cover. You know this more than me lol. |
Direction, not intention, determines destination.
Integrity is the essence of everything successful.
Integrity is the essence of everything successful.
|
Originally Posted By Jeffg: The change to thicker oil was only a band aid and they knew it wasn't going to fix the problem. GM knew they could only make so many replacement engines per month so they were trying to buy some time. This is the correct answer. They have no way of making engines quick enough to solve this problem so thicker oil was a bandaid to buy time and it's not working. Guy I know had a ~3800 truck and it ate the cam and the dealer told him maybe 6 months to get a motor. |
Joined:
Dec 2022
Posts:
5038
EE: 0% (0)
MI, USA
|
Originally Posted By xd341: Nobody that has ever machined and built an engine thought that oil viscosity would solve the problem. Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By CTYC313: Not familiar with the channel, but I find the topic interesting. I know a lot of people pointed to this as evidence that the oil viscosity was a problem and the change was supposed to fix it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-lVNS2j0qcI agree. I just found it humorous when people would use this as a justification for them using a different grade of oil in their own vehicles than was specified. |
|
Originally Posted By jough43: Never seen a bad head casting? It was a thing on 2004 5.3 Chevys. I had one. Cracks allowing coolant into oil. Was a certain casting number. Aluminum heads. Ford also had bad heads in the explorer around the early 90's I think. I think they were 4.0L. When I worked at the dealer if you had an explorer consuming coolant they would send the heads out to a machine shop to deck and pressure test. They would pass, come back, and reinstall them. Truck comes back in a few months the same issue then would get a new set of heads. |
|
Originally Posted By Badlatitude: They shouldn't be allowed to make anything until they are made. Odd that they have plenty of engines for shit rolling off the line they haven't sold yet.... GM cares about the engines they have money invested in(aka the ones in the plant).....they don't care about the engines once they are sold. That's the simple answer here. |
|
Originally Posted By Alacrity: Was it a remedy, or was it cover? So I guess that falls under "cover" You are in this industry....how in the blue fuck do you make millions of the same part, a part you've been making in some form, for 75 years...and fuck it up his bad? Surface finish and profile tolerances aren't a new thing. |
|
Originally Posted By TinSpinner: Sounds plausible, you must have some inside information. Several years ago Harley-Davidson had a problem with a new engine, the metal sleeve for the cylinders was coming loose and beating the hell out of the heads. The head gasket would get damaged and then ingested. Instead of issuing a recall with a proper repair they instead redesigned the head gasket with a piece of sheet metal laminated to the cylinder side. It didn't stop the sleeve from sliding but it stopped the head gasket ingestion, gotta know the bean counters were involved in that band-aid.  Do you have a moment to discuss valve seat to guide concentricity?   
|
|
Originally Posted By Crash1433: GM cares about the engines they have money invested in(aka the ones in the plant).....they don't care about the engines once they are sold. That's the simple answer here. |
|
Originally Posted By Alacrity: In GD, viscosity is the root of all evil and mechanical/intellectual failure Originally Posted By Alacrity: Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By CTYC313: Not familiar with the channel, but I find the topic interesting. I know a lot of people pointed to this as evidence that the oil viscosity was a problem and the change was supposed to fix it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-lVNS2j0qcJust run some 20w-50 in that ol boy, son! |
|
Originally Posted By perfectsilence: Just run some 20w-50 in that ol boy, son!
|
|
Originally Posted By TaxPayer77: Pre-AFM/DOD LS engines will outlive us all. There’s something screwy with the oil pumps. If it’s missed they will self destruct. Fun thing is there’s also a problem with the oil pressure sending unit. So people think it’s the sending unit and continue to drive with no oil pressure. This has happened a few times at work. The old TBI engines were the most durable I’ve ever seen. They don’t make enough power to hurt themselves. They did have bad valve seals that would leak after shutdown. Checking for blue tailpipe smoke after sitting a few hours. I don’t know much about other engines but have big respect for the old boring TBI small block. |