NHTSA opens preliminary probe into more than 870,000 GM vehicles

[jfoj]

Unfortunately these engnies do not have a track record of "wearing out", they fail.

My 6.0l is in the process of "wearing out" it has 275,000 miles and counting.

Bearings or camshaft and lifter problems. The camshaft and lifter problems are somewhat salvageable, bearing failure usually requires engine, oil lines and radiator replacement. Either of these repairs are extensive, expensive if not under warranty and may have considerable downtime.

Want to start the engine and allow it to idle to warm or cool cabin off, no problem, do these 3 things:

1. Check the engine oil with the dipstick every 2nd fill up
2. Change the oil at 50% of the OLM, approximately 3000 miles
3. Run something other than 0W20 engine oil, either 5W30 or 0W40.
4. In the colder months make sure you can make at least a daily or every few day 30+ minute drive to try and warm the oil up enough to "cook out" some of the fuel in the oil.

The 4 things above are far cheaper and easier than camshaft and lifter or engine replacement.

 

[jfoj]

You sure like to type a lot and not really say much.

There are a few grains truth that you're parroting, but you're failing to grasp the orders of magnitude differences.

Excessive warmup is bad, but its not the cause, or a real contributing factor, to the issue of the NHTSA investigation.

Yes, fuel dilution is happening (excessive warm-up absolutely makes that worse), and that is a bad thing, but that's a chronic condition,,, the bearing failure issue that's going on is an acute condition.

What you're saying is like if a doctor was treating a gunshot wound of a smoker that got shot in the chest with 12 ga shotgun, yeah the cigarette smoking didn't help his health much, but maybe the doctor should focus more on the shotgun wound before going off on the dangers of cigarette smoking.

Likewise, GM needs to fix the low oil pressure/ bearing fault issue before going off on fuel dilution. Because while oil fuel dilation is bad, it doesn't cause low milage bearing failures ( go do a oil analysis on pretty much anything carbureted, any old car or tuck, even your lawn mower, I'll bet you'll be astonished by the amount of fuel in the oil).
...

AntonM, you clearly are missing the point.

If you have ever driven the L87 6.2l in one these trucks with the 10 speed automatic, especially on the highway and monitored the engine loading and lack of downshifting going on, you would CLEARLY realize how much of a Low RPM/High Torque load these engines are being subject to on every drive. At 75 MPH on the highway the engine never exceeds 1600 RPM unless pulling a farly steep grade or passing around traffic.

Fresh 0w20 oil with the oil pump configuration in this engine may be borderline suficient for this Low RPM/High Torque loading, but once the 0W20 oil has started to become fuel contamined, all bets are off. Add to this LSPI with the loading these engines are under and you are just going to hammer the bearings out of the bottom end of the engine. Run the engine constantly 2 quarts low on oil until the oil light comes on. Well this is your failure condition.

If you cannot grasp this, I do not know what to tell you.

 

[Vladimir2306]

By the way, an interesting thought. Engines break down on cars before the 25th year restyle. I haven't heard of them breaking down yet, although 24-year-old models have broken down at 100-1000 miles. Does this mean that GM has found the cause and has already solved it for model year 25? It's just that now they are silent, fearing legal risks

 

[jfoj]

That's the Million Dollar question.

What is going to happen with the 2025 model year vehicles? Did anything change, did GM figure this out, did GM change/solve anything, did GM change any of the vehicle programming or alerts, or are these the same basic parts in the same engines with the same programming?

Will we probably need to wait another 2-3 months before we see if the same problems show up on the 2025 models?

I'm not so confident anything has changed yet, but this is just a guess based on the lack of information or action on this issue.

 

[Antonm]

AntonM, you clearly are missing the point.

If you have ever driven the L87 6.2l in one these trucks with the 10 speed automatic, especially on the highway and monitored the engine loading and lack of downshifting going on, you would CLEARLY realize how much of a Low RPM/High Torque load these engines are being subject to on every drive. At 75 MPH on the highway the engine never exceeds 1600 RPM unless pulling a farly steep grade or passing around traffic.

Fresh 0w20 oil with the oil pump configuration in this engine may be borderline suficient for this Low RPM/High Torque loading, but once the 0W20 oil has started to become fuel contamined, all bets are off. Add to this LSPI with the loading these engines are under and you are just going to hammer the bearings out of the bottom end of the engine. Run the engine constantly 2 quarts low on oil until the oil light comes on. Well this is your failure condition.

If you cannot grasp this, I do not know what to tell you.

And you clearly don't a have a freaking clue about what the hell you're parroting.

With enough oil pressure, the thin oil could work, it doesn't have enough oil pressure, and its breaking as a result.

LSPI is a non -issue (complete non -issue, doesn't matter at all) in these engines for two reasons , one they're naturally aspirated, and two every freaking oil you can buy now is API SP rated, meaning the calcium content in the oil is so low that even in engines that would otherwise suffer from LPSI are OK with it.

Here's an article from SAE international (again real engineers with peer reviewed publications, not random internet people that think they know what they're talking about like you), take a quick read .

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2016-01-0718/

And here's the API (again real engineers, not people like you) explaining why the new API SP oil spec is a thing.

404 Page Not Found

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Our more than 600 corporate members, from the largest major oil company to the smallest of independents, come from all segments of the industry.

www.api.org

Bottom line, you've demonstrated numerous times that you have no clue what you're talking about (although you do have grains of truth in the stuff you parrot) and your long winded posts that say nothing only make the people that read them dumber and more misinformed than before they read them.
...

 

[jfoj]

AntonM,

Again, you do not understand.

LSPI does happen on NA engines. All the discussion and testing is always on turbo engines because it is more predictable and repeatable on turbo engines. When testing and trying to change only 1 variable at a time, a platform that has a higher perpensity for LSPI is a much better choice.

As for the calcium being basically removed from the oil, you are correct, calcium was found to be a contibutor to LSPI. BUT, there is now awareness that fuel in the oil, fuel dilution of the oil IS a big problem and IS a big contributor to LSPI which the engineering community missed on round one.

Search the newer API standard SN Plus. BUT NOTE, again the INDUSTRY is missing the boat and they keep focusing on turbocharged engines, because this is where the problem is more prevasive. The problem with the 6.2l is the EXTREME Low RPM/High Torque loading and it is also aggrevated by the fact that many owners are also running Regular fuel rather than Premium fuel.

Unfortunately the 6.2l is a perfect storm for self destruction. Since the 10 speeds have showed up the problem has been even more prevalent due to the Low RPM/High Torque loading on the 6.2l.

 

[KMeloney]

I agree. Plus... I am more than willing to accept the wear (if there is any) to not suffer driving my ass in a frozen vehicle for even 10 seconds. Just No.

Agreed!

Has anyone in this thread stated that the whole “warming the car up first is bad” thing is specifically a problem to the 6.2? (If so, I missed it.) Or, is this a “bad” practice for all gas engines? Because I’ve never heard such a thing before this thread — ever.

I’m not saying that it’s BS. I’m trying to learn and understand more about it. But yes, I’m skeptical about it.

 

[jfoj]

It is bad for any engine.

The 6.2l is just a perfect storm for failures the way the drivetrain has been implemented.

Even the Auto Stop/Start is not good for the oil, but they trade off oil contamination for the less fuel consumed while at idle and not moving. I am surprised the EPA did not outlaw the remote start feature.

 

[KMeloney]

It is bad for any engine.

The 6.2l is just a perfect storm for failures the way the drivetrain has been implemented.

Even the Auto Stop/Start is not good for the oil, but they trade off oil contamination for the less fuel consumed while at idle and not moving. I am surprised the EPA did not outlaw the remote start feature.

And I’m equally surprised that I’ve NEVER heard of this [remote start warm up] being more harmful than good, let alone downright bad. I’ve had a supercharged Mustang, a Z06, and other cars and SUVs through the years, and don’t know why I’ve never heard this.

 

[Fless]

Gentlemen, let's keep this discussion civil. Thanks for making the forum a place to discuss, but not a place to argue. Fine line there...