LSPI - Do we have the “Solution”, or it is still a project in the making?

Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
1,957
Location
FL
It seems as though GF5/SN+ And GF6/SP have addressed this issue, and as far as I know, those two are in the forefront of the research- together with some Euro manufacturers. Question is,...Are the oils carrying those approvals the ones that guarantee the peace of mind based on the confidence that “there are no oil related failures”, or are we in that portion of the road where we have a “patch” to solve the problem, but not the confidence of, say, XKmiles OCI, regardless of the oil ?

thanks
 
As above: it’s called manufacturers stop calling for 87octane in turbo motors running two gears too high.
they need premium fuel and a downshift programmed in as soon as a ping is sensed. Setting the shift mapping to hold the high gear For fuel economy At low speed high load scenarios Just sets up the scenario. I would rather have a transmission that seems too eager to downshift than LSPI.
 
they need premium fuel and a downshift programmed in as soon as a ping is sensed. Setting the shift mapping to hold the high gear For fuel economy At low speed high load scenarios Just sets up the scenario. I would rather have a transmission that seems too eager to downshift than LSPI.
Unfortunately there isn’t a snowballs chance in hell of that happening. CAFE is ruthless and it’s only going to get worse.
 
It's why the auto makers want to do away with 87 octane. They know Bubba Dumb will fill his $48K Silverado with 87 octane gas no matter if it requires 93 octane and break the piston ring lands.... as a result.
And if you think GM is the only one wanting 87 octane to go away, think again.


 
Well when it costs less than 20cents more to make 93 than 87 but they charge $0.60-$1.00 more...

Also lugging isnt LSPI. might want to read up on LSPI.
 
Maybe they need to have a special tank of high octane that gets introduced when the conditions for LSPI are occurring, this way the owners would only need to top up the special 1 gallon tank with 94 octane once a year? oh yeah, this would be so easy to introduce~ *** was I thinking??
 
Well when it costs less than 20cents more to make 93 than 87 but they charge $0.60-$1.00 more...

Also lugging isnt LSPI. might want to read up on LSPI.
This. I ran ethanol free 91 octane exclusively when it was 10-15 cents more per gallon. But at the current 60 cents per gallon increase where I live, it doesn't pencil out compared to 87, unless I'm towing.
 
Maybe they need to have a special tank of high octane that gets introduced when the conditions for LSPI are occurring, this way the owners would only need to top up the special 1 gallon tank with 94 octane once a year? oh yeah, this would be so easy to introduce~ *** was I thinking??
This sounds like a nightmare honestly.
 
Not to start a fight(this is a sensitive topic in the Ecoboost groups), but why not run a catch can so that a huge portion of the oil doesn't even see the combustion chamber in the first place? It won't stop it all, but it stops a huge portion of it. My F150 with 92k miles and minimal oil/blow by build up in the intercooler or manifold. I actually just scoped my valves the other day while replacing the throttle body and they are pretty dang clean which tells me not much is getting in there.

This is not a solution for all people, but for those in the know and maintain their vehicle, which I am sure most of you do.
 
Back
Top