5.7L Chevy is a sludger too??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: jdog
gm realy mesed up whin they stoped using the good old 350!


Gotta disagree. The 350 was common, adequate, simple, and cheap, but not a truly great engine. The LSx is probably going to go down as a truly fantastic design. And the LSx doesn't have the very issue we're talking about- this IS a "good old 350" problem.
 
X 10 on the LS family being an improvement.

The GMC lineup got huge increases in durability and fuel economy, and with far more power.
 
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
Well, if that's the case, why is Amsoil calling it a sludge prone motor? The intake leaks were prevalent in the 5.7L Vortec engines with the plastic intake manifolds. The earlier 5.7s with the aluminum intakes did not have high failures of intake gaskets.
All engines will sludge with lack of maintenance but you don't call it sludge-prone for that reason.


Amsoil is calling it a 'sludge-prone motor' to cover their keister.

If you say and engine is sludge prone, and don't recommend long OCI's on it, you don't have to pay out if someone neglects the engine and toasts it.

350's are generic work engines - cheap and common as dirt. Therefore, people treat them as such - just run them until they quit. That's why you see lots of sludged up ones.....
 
Originally Posted By: JT1
All this talk about sludge and no pics? This is not the BITOG that I once knew!

Been doing this for 25yrs. Not the majic it once was.
 
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
From a cost-to-repair standpoint the 350 was better. I think long-term durability goes to the LSx engine family.


+1
We regularly see trucks at work with the newer style LSx engines with over 200k and still running great.
They applied some new technology to the old concept and really got the best of both worlds.
 
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
From a cost-to-repair standpoint the 350 was better. I think long-term durability goes to the LSx engine family.


As others have stated, I think that was really just because they were common as dirt. Parts were cheap. Same goes for the old Ford Windsor engines now; parts are dirt cheap because of the volume of them made.
 
Originally Posted By: cronk
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
From a cost-to-repair standpoint the 350 was better. I think long-term durability goes to the LSx engine family.


+1
We regularly see trucks at work with the newer style LSx engines with over 200k and still running great.
They applied some new technology to the old concept and really got the best of both worlds.



The LSx really has very little, if anything in common with the old SBC other than they both have pushrods and eight cylinders, lol
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: cronk
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
From a cost-to-repair standpoint the 350 was better. I think long-term durability goes to the LSx engine family.


+1
We regularly see trucks at work with the newer style LSx engines with over 200k and still running great.
They applied some new technology to the old concept and really got the best of both worlds.



The LSx really has very little, if anything in common with the old SBC other than they both have pushrods and eight cylinders, lol
wink.gif



Gotta hand it to you OVKL -- you've found the paradoxical formula for hitting a homer at the same time as you swing and miss.
wink.gif
IMO, a large part of why the LS series engines are as good as they are is the fundamental "basic genetic heritage" that they share with their elder forebears -- eight cylinders and the tightly compact pushrod OHV architecture and the low rpm/torque advantage that comes with those features.
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: cronk
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
From a cost-to-repair standpoint the 350 was better. I think long-term durability goes to the LSx engine family.


+1
We regularly see trucks at work with the newer style LSx engines with over 200k and still running great.
They applied some new technology to the old concept and really got the best of both worlds.



The LSx really has very little, if anything in common with the old SBC other than they both have pushrods and eight cylinders, lol
wink.gif



Gotta hand it to you OVKL -- you've found the paradoxical formula for hitting a homer at the same time as you swing and miss.
wink.gif
IMO, a large part of why the LS series engines are as good as they are is the fundamental "basic genetic heritage" that they share with their elder forebears -- eight cylinders and the tightly compact pushrod OHV architecture and the low rpm/torque advantage that comes with those features.


HAHAHAH, well, that is definitely one way of looking at it. Of course other pushrod engines like the Ford Windsor and Mopar HEMI come to mind when talking about such traits as well. It is a design that really has stood the test of time. And I applaud GM (and Chrysler) for continuing to improve it.
 
For reference, I did changed the original intake gasket on my 'burb this spring (1993 350 TBI) The engine had about 220K miles on it at the time, and the gasket was starting to leak externally at the front. In any case, my engine was very clean inside, no sludge. This vehicle has always seen regular oil changes, dino for most of it's miles, synthetic for maybe 1/3 of the miles.
 
Last edited:
The SBC was never known as a slugger and in '87 it got upgrades, one-piece rear main seal, PC valve seals, better valve cover seal, that would lower oil consumption and make the PCV more effective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

buster
  • Locked
Reasons for Oil Consumption
2
Replies
33
Views
18K
jetman
Back
Top Bottom