Catastrophic engine failure unknown oil,K&N filter

[benjamming]

Originally Posted By: cfromc
My theory is that a combination of factors killed this engine. There was poor filtration by the filter and/or a loose fitting in the intake tract, the oil was not changed anywhere close to every 3K, the radiator was not providing enough cooling, the oil was run extremely low (2-3 quarts low), the engine suffered additional stress due to the oversize tires, and the engine was routinely flogged to high RPM while mudding.

The interior and exterior of the vehicle, while not a factor in this theory, certainly give the impression of an abused vehicle.


Wow. Are you really stating that oversized tires are a factor relative to running 3 qts low on oil?

I would have thought that a warranty claims investigator (I believe that title is correct) would not consider the interior or exterior of a vehicle on whether to deny or grant a warranty claim. However, I think that you are only saying this to prove that he was mudding in the pickup & not as a general statement of this vehicle was never washed or cleaned so they probably don't take care of the maintenance. Right?

If it can be proven that the vehicle was run 3 quarts low of fluid, how is the warranty not immediately denied barring massive oil leaks from other faulty components that are under warranty? Did the low oil light not come on?

 

[cfromc]

Originally Posted By: benjamming
Originally Posted By: cfromc
My theory is that a combination of factors killed this engine. There was poor filtration by the filter and/or a loose fitting in the intake tract, the oil was not changed anywhere close to every 3K, the radiator was not providing enough cooling, the oil was run extremely low (2-3 quarts low), the engine suffered additional stress due to the oversize tires, and the engine was routinely flogged to high RPM while mudding.

The interior and exterior of the vehicle, while not a factor in this theory, certainly give the impression of an abused vehicle.


Wow. Are you really stating that oversized tires are a factor relative to running 3 qts low on oil?

I would have thought that a warranty claims investigator (I believe that title is correct) would not consider the interior or exterior of a vehicle on whether to deny or grant a warranty claim. However, I think that you are only saying this to prove that he was mudding in the pickup & not as a general statement of this vehicle was never washed or cleaned so they probably don't take care of the maintenance. Right?

If it can be proven that the vehicle was run 3 quarts low of fluid, how is the warranty not immediately denied barring massive oil leaks from other faulty components that are under warranty? Did the low oil light not come on?


"Wow. Are you really stating that oversized tires are a factor relative to running 3 qts low on oil?"
No, not at all. Oversize tires can, and will, increase the stress on a transmission and to a lesser extent to the engine. I don't believe that was a direct factor in this failure.

"I would have thought that a warranty claims investigator (I believe that title is correct) would not consider the interior or exterior of a vehicle on whether to deny or grant a warranty claim."
While I don't work directly for any manufacturer I can tell you from prior experience that a claims investigator does consider the interior and exterior of a vehicle in certain situations. The oversize mudder tires, lift kit, and excessive amount of mud inside and outside of the vehicle, including on the engine, definitely points to an off-road adventure in the mud.

"However, I think that you are only saying this to prove that he was mudding in the pickup & not as a general statement of this vehicle was never washed or cleaned so they probably don't take care of the maintenance. Right?"
Exactly

"If it can be proven that the vehicle was run 3 quarts low of fluid, how is the warranty not immediately denied barring massive oil leaks from other faulty components that are under warranty? Did the low oil light not come on?"
I can tell you that in my opinion, most manufacturers would quickly deny this claim. My job was to go beyond that knee-jerk denial and delve a little deeper. Same result this time but with a little more back-up information. The owner's written statement was that two quarts of oil were added after the failure and that no light came on. The owner, however, was not driving the vehicle at the time of failure. After the failure occurred the owner attempted to "fix" the problem by adding the oil. This vehicle does have an oil level indicator and an oil pressure switch. Both would have had to fail for no warning to occur.

For me coming in after the fact I am a little restricted as to what I can and can't do. I would have liked to pull the information from the PCM with regards to what happened just before failure. But I think it is too late for that.

 

[02zx9r]

Well good luck with the investigation, would like to know the final outcome, or as much as you can divulge

 

[cfromc]

Originally Posted By: Geonerd
Can you sneak some juicy photographs of the death and destruction?

I'd love to but I'd rather not. This is still an open matter. Just imagine a con-rod in about five pieces at the big end. Piston slapped the head and bent a valve or two. A lot of metal in the pan including some big chunks. A filter that certainly does not look like it has 700 miles on it - more like 7,000 or more. And a truck full of mud inside and out. Oh, and a BIG K&N that looks like it was dipped in mud.

 

[cfromc]

Originally Posted By: 02zx9r
Well good luck with the investigation, would like to know the final outcome, or as much as you can divulge


Its coming to a close now. I'm not comfortable proving hydrolock but I think that's what put the nail in the coffin. Offically lack of maintenance and excessive ingestion of dirt/sand due to aftermarket air intake and filter. The two together were a one-two punch with the water the knockout uppercut.

There were a couple of other things based on the owner's statements and the internals of the engine that I can't say anything about but that do support the finding of lack of maintenance.

 

[pcfxer]

Originally Posted By: cfromc
Originally Posted By: river_rat
I can't see how lubrication factors into a rod shattering.
IMO, it was either abused, or more likely, typical GM quality control.


Oh boy, here we go with "typical GM quality control". Get real, GM has some of the highest quality in the industry.

If you can't see how lubrication factors into a rod failure I suggest you read up on the subject.

I'll withhold the result of my investigation until a few more opinions come in.


Connecting rods, block and cracked cylinder in my neighbour's Solstice GXP...typical GM, three manual transmission replacement among three friends with Cobalts/G5s...no change in oil, transmission on the factory line...typical GM, Pontiac Solstice GXP fouled plugs in six months and 10,000KM...typical GM, piston slap that is heard 300ft away from neighbour's Corvette...no changes made at factory to correct problem...typical GM, bushings in front suspension need replacement after 50,000km no change at factory to correct problem...typical GM.

Safety issue with Honda...60 vehicles determined to be affected, ALL within ONE YEAR are voluntarily recalled. 30,000 vehicles by GM affected...recalled "as necessary".

Yeah "Here we go with typical GM quality" again. Too bad they bring it on themselves. I remember them "rebuilding" themselves in the 80s, 90s and early millenia. Surrrree like I believe them THIS time around.

 

[pcfxer]

Originally Posted By: cfromc
Well, I guess I don't put much into Consumer Reports. I work in the real world and am an ASE Master Tech on the side as a hobby. I have access to the data of over 1,000,000 warranty and extended service contract claims a year. Part of my job is analyzing the claims to identify trends, etc. I won't say who I work for, but it is not GM. I understand there are lemons, you don't think every manufacturer has lemons? Look at the multitude of problems Toyota is having right now. But all this talk is really not relevent to this UOA. Can we just leave it out of it?

This vehicle has had a hard life from what I can see. There are a few mods like lift-kit, oversize mudder tires, and a cold air induction system with a big K&N filter on the end, and a few other things likely not related to this failure. The K&N is dark brown/gray and there is mud on the intake system, under the engine and all over the rest of the vehicle, including the interior. Ingestion of unfiltered or poorly filtered air would seem to be the reason for the high silicon. There was plently of dirt and sand to go around. The engine blew up when it was 3 quarts low. The owner put 2 quarts in to see if that would help, of course it didn't. The bearing and some other internals were severly overheated. This is likely due to the lack of oil and because the radiator was significantly blocked with caked-on mud. The oil sample was taken with the alleged 2 fresh quarts of oil in it and about 1.5-2 quarts of the "old" oil.

Based on the low viscocity, low flashpoint, condition of the oil filter, and evidence of sludge in the engine, I assume there has been a lack of maintenance. The bearings that "survived" are scored, worn out, overheated, and some are badly gouged.

My theory is that a combination of factors killed this engine. There was poor filtration by the filter and/or a loose fitting in the intake tract, the oil was not changed anywhere close to every 3K, the radiator was not providing enough cooling, the oil was run extremely low (2-3 quarts low), the engine suffered additional stress due to the oversize tires, and the engine was routinely flogged to high RPM while mudding.

The interior and exterior of the vehicle, while not a factor in this theory, certainly give the impression of an abused vehicle.

It's actually surprising it made it as far as it did. The owner said he put two quarts of oil in yet when it came in to the shop the oil was still a little below the "add" indicator. The failure point appears to be the main bearing, which looked horribly worn, dry, overheated, and was a twisted piece of metal by that point.

I cannot disclose certain aspects of this situation but I welcome other views, theories, etc. I'll answer as many questions as I can.


I don't get it. The owner is clearly a RICER.

Cost of intake: $300, ROI far, far away and hard to see the BENEFITS.

Cost of oil 15 oil changes: $300, ROI, short AND long term benefits.

 

[Rickey]

But it had a Xw20 Wt oil in it that should have increased the durability by ten fold.

Rickey.

 

[cfromc]

Originally Posted By: pcfxer
Originally Posted By: cfromc
Originally Posted By: river_rat
I can't see how lubrication factors into a rod shattering.
IMO, it was either abused, or more likely, typical GM quality control.


Oh boy, here we go with "typical GM quality control". Get real, GM has some of the highest quality in the industry.

If you can't see how lubrication factors into a rod failure I suggest you read up on the subject.

I'll withhold the result of my investigation until a few more opinions come in.


Connecting rods, block and cracked cylinder in my neighbour's Solstice GXP...typical GM, three manual transmission replacement among three friends with Cobalts/G5s...no change in oil, transmission on the factory line...typical GM, Pontiac Solstice GXP fouled plugs in six months and 10,000KM...typical GM, piston slap that is heard 300ft away from neighbour's Corvette...no changes made at factory to correct problem...typical GM, bushings in front suspension need replacement after 50,000km no change at factory to correct problem...typical GM.

Safety issue with Honda...60 vehicles determined to be affected, ALL within ONE YEAR are voluntarily recalled. 30,000 vehicles by GM affected...recalled "as necessary".

Yeah "Here we go with typical GM quality" again. Too bad they bring it on themselves. I remember them "rebuilding" themselves in the 80s, 90s and early millenia. Surrrree like I believe them THIS time around.


I've seen engine failures to every single make: Mercedes, Porche, Lamborghini, Nissan, Toyota, Audi, Honda, Jaguar, Bentley, Ford, Chrysler, Kia, etc., etc. Some caused by the customer, some by faulty parts or assembly. No manufacturer is immune.

I'm done, I'll never post something like this again. It just brings out a bunch of useless posts. What possesses someone to post a bunch of blather that is not in any way related to the topic? START YOUR OWN BASHING POST NEXT TIME!

 

[cfromc]

Originally Posted By: Rickey
But it had a Xw20 Wt oil in it that should have increased the durability by ten fold.

Rickey.


I doubt it had 5W-20 in it. I think it was a cheap 5W-30 that was left in too long and thinned out.

 

[AEHaas]

I was in on one Mercedes engine where one rod and piston were destroyed from water ingestion. Water does not compress well.

aehaas

 

[GMFan]

Even a top tier synthetic will not lubricate with sand and dirt...and water was an added nail to the coffin. Water is perhaps the worst lubricant. People think if they use a synthetic it gives them protection against abuse (assuming he used Castrol Syntec as he claims). I agree that it looks like Valvoline bulk with that low Calcium #

I'd say multiple no nos met together and made a perfect storm to tank this engine.

Ironically, I witnessed some guys beater throw a rod in a parking lot near my work. The engine just revved in a horrible clatter and there was a smoke show. Oil was pouring out the underside of the engine. A painful thing to see.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: cfromc
[

I've seen engine failures to every single make: Mercedes, Porche, Lamborghini, Nissan, Toyota, Audi, Honda, Jaguar, Bentley, Ford, Chrysler, Kia, etc., etc. Some caused by the customer, some by faulty parts or assembly. No manufacturer is immune.

I'm done, I'll never post something like this again. It just brings out a bunch of useless posts. What possesses someone to post a bunch of blather that is not in any way related to the topic? START YOUR OWN BASHING POST NEXT TIME!


Many of us understand your frustration. Thank you for posting an interesting puzzle. Sorry it didn't work out better.

 

[cchase]

Thanks for posting this cfromc.

I hope you'll consider posting interesting things like this in the future. Maybe next time just don't mention the make or model, the anti-GM crowd is a little too loud in here it seems.

 

[JohnBrowning]

Well first I think the additives are low becuase they bonded to the parts under extreme heat and pressure and since the heat and pressure did not stop until the engine failed that is still where the EP additives are on the parts.

GM does not have very good quality control I worked for them and one of my jobs was quality control. I was one of the guys that tore into engines and transmission returned under warranty.In fact GM towards the end of my time with them hired the then retired head of Toyota's quality control department as a contractor like I was not a direct hire! So lets stop with the puffed out chest pound GM rules. I think their track record speaks for itself. A company building vehicles that people want to buy does not need a tax payer bail out!So lets pull our heads out of the sand. If I can give Toyota a hard time I fail to see why you GM people cannot be intellectually honest and tell the truth with out bias! I know that is asking for a lot from public schooled people used to believing everything they are told but trust me you can do it if you chose too!

Assumuing the injectors did not load a cylinder with fuel and hydro lock the engine then I think we have to assume one of two things happened. A)Oil pump stoped working or B) the rod was manufactured improperly. Their is a reason machine shops magnaflux stock rods and shot peen them. In the past GM,Ford and Dodge where natorious for having cracked rods. So in order to prevent a lot of build up failures machine shops just started to always magnaflux stock rods. You might have a cracked rod and still get 100,000+ miles out of it.

Also what 3.5 GM engine are you talking about? Most trucks came with either a 4.3V6 or some form of 5.7V8. They not used the old stove bolt and steamer I6's for some time.

 

[JohnBrowning]

The over sized tires should not have been much of a factor having owned a 4 cylinder Toyota 4Runner from 1986 that weight 5066lbs. and i ran 33-43 inch tires on it inthe south and when I moved up north I had two sets 31's for HWY and 33's for off roading. The RPM's should be limited with a sequietal reve limter which should not make it possibly to over rev the engine. High RPM use though does require one to keep on top of oil not only that you have enough but that it is a high quality oil with lots of additives in it. High reeving is usualy seen on the cylinder head area and cams if over head cam. You see it all the time in the after market import tunner market.

The silicone ingested due to bad filtration combined with lack of lube oil in the pan and OCI's too far out definately created a nasty mess! No one gets sludge with 3000 mile intervals even with SM oil!

I still do not see this as a lubrication issue in the manner that we often think of. The oil did not fail the owner failed to do proper maintence.He did a modification in this case to his filtration and reaped what he sowed! I am always preaching about sticking with paper air filters!

 

[JohnBrowning]

Plenty of people on this site run K&N air filters or something like them. They never want to hear how bad they are. They just keep their head in the sand and march to what ever marketing is telling them! Sure sometimes they work well but I am not a sometimes type of guy! Paper always works. If it get loaded with sand you pop it out dump the sand and put it backin.....Seeinghow K&N style and oil bath filtration was the norm for cars it took something drastic to get them gone! It waas paper that allowed so many more engines to make it past 50,000 all those years ago!

 

[cchase]

Originally Posted By: JohnBrowning
GM does not have very good quality control I worked for them and one of my jobs was quality control.


I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself... is irony the right word?

 

[Rickey]

JB you are so full of sludge.

"Assuming the injectors did not load a cylinder with fuel and hydro lock the engine then I think we have to assume one of two things happened."

I believe that the reference made here was actually aimed at water/debris ingested through the air filter.
Good day.

Rickey.

 

[cfromc]

Originally Posted By: cchase
Originally Posted By: JohnBrowning
GM does not have very good quality control I worked for them and one of my jobs was quality control.


I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself... is irony the right word?


That's by far the best post out of the last few.

JohnBrowning get off your pompous condescending high horse. I don't think you know half of what you say you know. Your first post makes you seem clueless. The mentions I made about GM were in response to posts that had nothing to do with the subject at hand, not an effort to pump up my chest for GM. I did not start this thread with any intention of making a position about GM, positive or negative.

The 3.5L has been used in Chevrolet and GMC trucks for a few years now. Crawl out from the rock.

Your three assumptions are weak. Can you tell me what you are basing them on? ...Nevermind, I really don't get anything positive out of your posts.