Interesting Auto News Article on Widespread Engine Failures

[MrkofXcellence]

I’m attaching a link to an Automotive News article from today that goes a little more in-depth than normal about the industrywide uptick in engine failures that we are seeing now. I found it enlightening. You have to make a free profile to read it (then refresh the page). Automotive News is a pretty good read.

Link: https://www.autonews.com/manufacturing/an-spiraling-engine-defects-1201/

 

[grasscutter]

I think you have to have a paid subscription to read the article, but the first paragraph was interesting.

 

[ripcord]

I was able to read the whole article. It pretty much repeats what what many folks around here have been saying for a long time. Thin oils, poor 3rd party parts, "swarf" left behind after machining, manufacturing defects, small displacement high power designs, ect.

 

[Escape08]

I was able to read the whole article. It pretty much repeats what what many folks around here have been saying for a long time. Thin oils, poor 3rd party parts, "swarf" left behind after machining, manufacturing defects, small displacement high power designs, ect.

Longer OCI

 

[MrkofXcellence]

The part that was interesting to me, if it is true, is that the engines (and their tolerances) are designed around the thin oils, not the other way around. When that new small block comes out in the ‘27 Silverado they better have this taken care of.

 

[kschachn]

The part that was interesting to me, if it is true, is that the engines (and their tolerances) are designed around the thin oils, not the other way around. When that new small block comes out in the ‘27 Silverado they better have this taken care of.

Good old tolerances.

But yes, engines can have design changes to help tolerate lower viscosity oils without excessive wear. But that doesn't mean a higher viscosity oil can't be used or is detrimental to operation, or causes more wear.

 

[Marcozi]

Good old tolerances.

But yes, engines can have design changes to help tolerate lower viscosity oils without excessive wear. But that doesn't mean a higher viscosity oil can't be used or is detrimental to operation, or causes more wear.

Yup! The latest version of the BMW 3l TDGI engine, B58TU3, uses 0w12 oil! And I thought using a 0w20 in the B58 was bad!

 

[Number_35]

Good old tolerances.

But yes, engines can have design changes to help tolerate lower viscosity oils without excessive wear. But that doesn't mean a higher viscosity oil can't be used or is detrimental to operation, or causes more wear.

I was under the misconception, cleared up here on BITOG in a different thread, that due to more precise machining techniques newer engines had "tighter tolerances", which I took to mean that the clearances were reduced (w.r.t. older engines) which meant that thin oils were required for proper lubrication.

In fact, the tighter tolerances meant that clearance was the same, but that there was less variation in the specified dimension.

Let's take a Chevy small-block engine with a bore of 4.000" - a 327 or a 350.

Back in 1969 (a model year in which both engines were offered), the spec may have been 4.000" +/- 0.0005". (I'm making up that tolerance.)

Let's say that with modern CNC machining, a 327 or 350 manufactured now would have the same nominal 4.000" bore, but with a tolerance of +/- 0.0001". (Again, I've made up the tolerance.)

But in any case, the reduced variation would not reduce the clearance (thus mandating a thinner oil).

 

[Pablo]

I was able to read the whole article. It pretty much repeats what what many folks around here have been saying for a long time. Thin oils, poor 3rd party parts, "swarf" left behind after machining, manufacturing defects, small displacement high power designs, ect.

How did you hack in? Post a few key quotes please.

 

[50yr Street Mech]

Longer OCI's, direct injection, fuel dilution, turbos, poor engineering. I'll keep my MPI beaters running as long as possible.

 

[henni]

After reading the full article, asked gemini to summarize it;

Advanced engines, downsized for better fuel economy and emissions while maintaining power, operate under higher pressures and temperatures, increasing stress on components like bearings, connecting rods, and crankshafts. Thinner synthetic oils, specified to reduce friction and boost efficiency, create minimal separation between moving parts, making them vulnerable to even tiny contaminants like metal swarf or debris from machining. Improper cleaning after production, tighter tolerances, and changes in bearing materials further amplify risks, leading to bearing wear, seizures, and rod failures often within low mileage

 

[kschachn]

I was under the misconception, cleared up here on BITOG in a different thread, that due to more precise machining techniques newer engines had "tighter tolerances", which I took to mean that the clearances were reduced (w.r.t. older engines) which meant that thin oils were required for proper lubrication.

In fact, the tighter tolerances meant that clearance was the same, but that there was less variation in the specified dimension.

Let's take a Chevy small-block engine with a bore of 4.000" - a 327 or a 350.

Back in 1969 (a model year in which both engines were offered), the spec may have been 4.000" +/- 0.0005". (I'm making up that tolerance.)

Let's say that with modern CNC machining, a 327 or 350 manufactured now would have the same nominal 4.000" bore, but with a tolerance of +/- 0.0001". (Again, I've made up the tolerance.)

But in any case, the reduced variation would not reduce the clearance (thus mandating a thinner oil).

Clearances in engines have remained substantially similar for many years. Bearing width can be increased to accommodate lower viscosity oils.

Either way no engine requires a low viscosity oil for proper lubrication.

 

[Cujet]

There is essentially no difference in bearing clearances over the years. Heck, even my Lycoming aircraft engine which specs straight 50 viscosity oil, or straight 60 in the summer, uses 0.0015 inches rod bearing clearance. The very same as my new F150 truck and Jaguar cars.

 

[ripcord]

Longer OCI

Oil change intervals weren't mentioned at all

 

[ripcord]

How did you hack in? Post a few key quotes please.

I didn't hack in. It just opened for me. Henni's post a few items up summarized it pretty well.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/members/henni.45990/

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Clearances in engines have remained substantially similar for many years. Bearing width can be increased to accommodate lower viscosity oils.

Either way no engine requires a low viscosity oil for proper lubrication.

Yep. For example it seems BMW moved to wider bearings with their current engine line up.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Auto News is a industry publication, so it sounds a lot like preaching to the choir - blame on someone else. Higher engine pressures and temperatures are known - so it simply means you need to design to those values.

Back in the day when you decided to make 600HP in your small block chevy and then blew the 2 bolt mains out the bottom, no one was confused or surprised.

 

[loneryder]

Clearances in engines have remained substantially similar for many years. Bearing width can be increased to accommodate lower viscosity oils.

Either way no engine requires a low viscosity oil for proper lubrication.

Yes you can only shrink clearances so much.

 

[D60]

"The automotive industry’s decades-long push for cleaner, more fuel-efficient engines has created an unintended consequence: Today’s advanced motors are far less tolerant of manufacturing imperfections that older engines could survive"

What frustrates me to no end is that our policy makers who want to engineer from a Congressional office have no concept of the bird's eye view here: they push for high MPG today with no thought of longevity. Their virtue signaling necessitates that it's better to get 42 mpg TODAY and simply replace your unreliable vehicle every four years.

Zero thought is given to the "carbon footprint" of tooling up to build 3x as many vehicles, much less the carbon footprint of replacing engines ad nauseum.

Those replacement engines require raw materials. They require factories to build them. Those factories must have workers drive to them. Then the replacement engines must be transported throughout the country. At the dealerships more people must drive there to install them, using time, materials and electricity that would otherwise be dedicated to other "normal, necessary" work, and dealerships may need to pull OT if the backlog is too great.

Now your new, virtue-signaling engine is installed. Cool!! The old engine has created unnecessary waste oil and coolant which must be disposed of. That must be transported to a disposal facility.

The new engine requires fresh oil and coolant, which again was made in a factory that had to have workers drive to it, and then be transported to dealers by last-mile delivery. Note most of these are petroleum products kinda like gas -- ya know, that thing we're working so hard to preserve with our virtue signaling??

Technically each new engine requires test driving -- in the case of first hand accounts of the Tundra 3.4, quite likely MULTIPLE test drives. In case no one noticed, test drives technically use gasoline for no other purpose than to drive around.

Now you've got an engine core. Please don't delude yourself into thinking it's mostly recycled. A lot of it will simply wind up in a landfill. But even then it must be transported to a landfill.

Some cores will be transported to an inspection facility where workers must drive to inspect said engines. Presumably said inspection facilities have lighting and computers for data recording, so they use electricity.

Now sure, some metal portions of cores are recycled. So, they must be transported to a facility that can melt them down, typically using HUGE amounts of electricity or gas to do so. Here again, workers must drive to said facilities -- even if we ship it offshore, using energy to power the slow boats.

But none of these thoughts fit the narrative, so we prefer to just focus on that which is 2" in front of our nose -- my vehicle is EPA rated for XX MPG and that's ALL that matters! Yay happy happy joy joy!!

We should implement CAFL: Corporate Average Fleet Life, weighted in conjunction with CAFE

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

"The automotive industry’s decades-long push for cleaner, more fuel-efficient engines has created an unintended consequence: Today’s advanced motors are far less tolerant of manufacturing imperfections that older engines could survive"

What frustrates me to no end is that our policy makers who want to engineer from a Congressional office have no concept of the bird's eye view here: they push for high MPG today with no thought of longevity. Their virtue signaling necessitates that it's better to get 42 mpg TODAY and simply replace your unreliable vehicle every four years.

Zero thought is given to the "carbon footprint" of tooling up to build 3x as many vehicles, much less the carbon footprint of replacing engines ad nauseum.

Those replacement engines require raw materials. They require factories to build them. Those factories must have workers drive to them. Then the replacement engines must be transported throughout the country. At the dealerships more people must drive there to install them, using time, materials and electricity that would otherwise be dedicated to other "normal, necessary" work, and dealerships may need to pull OT if the backlog is too great.

Now your new, virtue-signaling engine is installed. Cool!! The old engine has created unnecessary waste oil and coolant which must be disposed of. That must be transported to a disposal facility.

The new engine requires fresh oil and coolant, which again was made in a factory that had to have workers drive to it, and then be transported to dealers by last-mile delivery. Note most of these are petroleum products kinda like gas -- ya know, that thing we're working so hard to preserve with our virtue signaling??

Technically each new engine requires test driving -- in the case of first hand accounts of the Tundra 3.4, quite likely MULTIPLE test drives. In case no one noticed, test drives technically use gasoline for no other purpose than to drive around.

Now you've got an engine core. Please don't delude yourself into thinking it's mostly recycled. A lot of it will simply wind up in a landfill. But even then it must be transported to a landfill.

Some cores will be transported to an inspection facility where workers must drive to inspect said engines. Presumably said inspection facilities have lighting and computers for data recording, so they use electricity.

Now sure, some metal portions of cores are recycled. So, they must be transported to a facility that can melt them down, typically using HUGE amounts of electricity or gas to do so. Here again, workers must drive to said facilities -- even if we ship it offshore, using energy to power the slow boats.

But none of these thoughts fit the narrative, so we prefer to just focus on that which is 2" in front of our nose -- my vehicle is EPA rated for XX MPG and that's ALL that matters! Yay happy happy joy joy!!

We should implement CAFL: Corporate Average Fleet Life, weighted in conjunction with CAFE

Not true but continue to believe whatever fits your preconceived notion of how things work