Men they dont make gm the way they used to !wait what am i writing lol ,they did similar in the past .they had cam issue on the 305 .because the dept was for a 350 not a 305 .hahaha
Oil Film & GM's Spun Beariings: What Went Wrong?
- Thread starter FetchFar
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
Men they dont make gm the way they used to !wait what am i writing lol ,they did similar in the past .they had cam issue on the 305 .because the dept was for a 350 not a 305 .hahaha
Sorry to randomly butt in... But what version/years of the 305 had that cam issue? We have an 89 Camaro with the 305 TBI - is that one that was known to have problems? And, if so, what precautions and such could one make do try to keep the issue from arising?
Men they dont make gm the way they used to !wait what am i writing lol ,they did similar in the past .they had cam issue on the 305 .because the dept was for a 350 not a 305 .hahaha
Sorry to randomly butt in... But what version/years of the 305 had that cam issue? We have an 89 Camaro with the 305 TBI - is that one that was known to have problems? And, if so, what precautions and such could one make do try to keep the issue from arising?
Me too. I read in car magazines (paid advertising) how quiet, fuel efficient and smooth these new four cylinder engines are from GM. But when they are compared to others, the Malibu 2.5 came in last due to a noisy, harsh sounding engine and second lowest of 6 cars in fuel efficiency and also one of the slower 0-60 times to boot (Motor Trend mid size shootout). To be one if not the last manufacturer to go the 5w20 route, I thought GM would have no issues.
*off topic* What does Honda do to get such low wear metals consistently with their 4 cylinders on 0-5w20 oils? I mean, I am very interested in a 2014 Accord 4 cylinder and I have been nothing but a Chevy driver for 31 years, and A Toyota driver for 11 years.
GM runs I think 0-5w20 in their V8 trucks now too. I hope their testing procedures really do mimic real world driving as their trucks are the bread and butter of the company. That would be a big problem if engines were becoming issues.
Originally Posted By: Ram01
I thought GM did extensive real world testing on these motors
*off topic* What does Honda do to get such low wear metals consistently with their 4 cylinders on 0-5w20 oils? I mean, I am very interested in a 2014 Accord 4 cylinder and I have been nothing but a Chevy driver for 31 years, and A Toyota driver for 11 years.
GM runs I think 0-5w20 in their V8 trucks now too. I hope their testing procedures really do mimic real world driving as their trucks are the bread and butter of the company. That would be a big problem if engines were becoming issues.
Originally Posted By: Ram01
I thought GM did extensive real world testing on these motors
Originally Posted By: Tzu
*off topic* What does Honda do to get such low wear metals consistently with their 4 cylinders on 0-5w20 oils? I mean, I am very interested in a 2014 Accord 4 cylinder and I have been nothing but a Chevy driver for 31 years, and A Toyota driver for 11 years.
Don't confuse low ppm found in an UOA with actual wear. Just because an UOA returns a low value doesn't mean it has any lower wear rate than another engine.
*off topic* What does Honda do to get such low wear metals consistently with their 4 cylinders on 0-5w20 oils? I mean, I am very interested in a 2014 Accord 4 cylinder and I have been nothing but a Chevy driver for 31 years, and A Toyota driver for 11 years.
Don't confuse low ppm found in an UOA with actual wear. Just because an UOA returns a low value doesn't mean it has any lower wear rate than another engine.
There was a poster here that had a Buick GN, it had a engine blown into bits and pieces and the UOA was good.
Nha the 305 i talk aboit was first gen (basicly when usa went crazy about fuel economy and went 55 mile per hour on a 75 mile per hour highway)in the 70s .and the ods of any having a living engine like that is so rare i bet that even broken they would probably keep it broken since today it would be worth a lot i bet in some model
Originally Posted By: Trav
There was a poster here that had a Buick GN, it had a engine blown into bits and pieces and the UOA was good.
That was BuickGN. He had a lot of actual teardown experience compared to 90%+ of the members here. His half a piston in the pan UOA was impressive!
Another cool BuickGN factoid was that of all the oils he tried (syn and conventional) the only oil that would keep his 650HP 3.8L engine together was 20W50.
There was a poster here that had a Buick GN, it had a engine blown into bits and pieces and the UOA was good.
That was BuickGN. He had a lot of actual teardown experience compared to 90%+ of the members here. His half a piston in the pan UOA was impressive!
Another cool BuickGN factoid was that of all the oils he tried (syn and conventional) the only oil that would keep his 650HP 3.8L engine together was 20W50.
Honda doesnt think like other corp.if it take watchemacallit to make they car a better bang for the $ they will slap on watchemacallit and call it a day.now a day honda is on the efficiency side of thing more then on the performamce side,but they know how to go fast .take a acura integra type r 1998 around a track for the lol of it.ya insanelly fast even bone stock.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Zaedock
[Another cool BuickGN factoid was that of all the oils he tried (syn and conventional) the only oil that would keep his 650HP 3.8L engine together was 20W50.
^^This. Plus he told me in a pm that upon engine tear downs,conventional oils showed less wear than synths. He also said that thicker oils (20W50 for example) protected the bottom ends better than thin oils. BuickGN knew his stuff!
[Another cool BuickGN factoid was that of all the oils he tried (syn and conventional) the only oil that would keep his 650HP 3.8L engine together was 20W50.
^^This. Plus he told me in a pm that upon engine tear downs,conventional oils showed less wear than synths. He also said that thicker oils (20W50 for example) protected the bottom ends better than thin oils. BuickGN knew his stuff!
Gm maybe done for me might have to go honda
Originally Posted By: Ram01
I thought GM did extensive real world testing on these motors
Every major car maker does extensive testing on their engines. Problem is, no matter what tests are used, they still may not mimic reality closely enough. The second problem is that manufacturers might run the test engine until the breaking point, but at what mileage does the manufacturer consider a fair breaking point?
I thought GM did extensive real world testing on these motors
Every major car maker does extensive testing on their engines. Problem is, no matter what tests are used, they still may not mimic reality closely enough. The second problem is that manufacturers might run the test engine until the breaking point, but at what mileage does the manufacturer consider a fair breaking point?
Originally Posted By: Tzu
off topic* What does Honda do to get such low wear metals consistently with their 4 cylinders on 0-5w20 oils? I mean, I am very interested in a 2014 Accord 4 cylinder
In a few of their papers, Honda have mentioned that they are going to increase bearing sizes, and reduce clearances as they move to 16 grade oils...in other words, they are finding that they desire more durability from the bottom end as they go thinner
(Also means that they are getting more fuel efficiency out of more boundary/mixed in the cylinder and valvetrain than they will lose in the higher friction bottom end).
off topic* What does Honda do to get such low wear metals consistently with their 4 cylinders on 0-5w20 oils? I mean, I am very interested in a 2014 Accord 4 cylinder
In a few of their papers, Honda have mentioned that they are going to increase bearing sizes, and reduce clearances as they move to 16 grade oils...in other words, they are finding that they desire more durability from the bottom end as they go thinner
(Also means that they are getting more fuel efficiency out of more boundary/mixed in the cylinder and valvetrain than they will lose in the higher friction bottom end).
Honda probably know something we dont (oil are likely to get rid of some stuff used today to make space for graphene
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
And, if so, what precautions and such could one make do try to keep the issue from arising?
I should hope the issue was fixed by 1989, but that's hard to say. Even a few years earlier there were issues, for sure. If there was a way to keep this issue from arising, I wish I had known it back then. Back then, it was just treated as a matter of course and something that would eventually have to be fixed. It was (and is) a cheap fix in those engines, if it ever arises.
And, if so, what precautions and such could one make do try to keep the issue from arising?
I should hope the issue was fixed by 1989, but that's hard to say. Even a few years earlier there were issues, for sure. If there was a way to keep this issue from arising, I wish I had known it back then. Back then, it was just treated as a matter of course and something that would eventually have to be fixed. It was (and is) a cheap fix in those engines, if it ever arises.
Originally Posted By: Trav
There was a poster here that had a Buick GN, it had a engine blown into bits and pieces and the UOA was good.
People here still look to a UOA for far more than it tells you.
They can be misleading if not very carefully evaluated...
There was a poster here that had a Buick GN, it had a engine blown into bits and pieces and the UOA was good.
People here still look to a UOA for far more than it tells you.
They can be misleading if not very carefully evaluated...
Thats why unless i am looking for something specific like coolant or fuel i don't bother.
I rather spend the money the UOA cost on something more beneficial. $20 will get a dino user into synthetic with a better filter instead of trying to milk the last mile out of dino with a UOA.
I rather spend the money the UOA cost on something more beneficial. $20 will get a dino user into synthetic with a better filter instead of trying to milk the last mile out of dino with a UOA.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Thats why unless i am looking for something specific like coolant or fuel i don't bother.
I rather spend the money the UOA cost on something more beneficial. $20 will get a dino user into synthetic with a better filter instead of trying to milk the last mile out of dino with a UOA.
^^^Could not agree more with the above!!!!!!!
Thats why unless i am looking for something specific like coolant or fuel i don't bother.
I rather spend the money the UOA cost on something more beneficial. $20 will get a dino user into synthetic with a better filter instead of trying to milk the last mile out of dino with a UOA.
^^^Could not agree more with the above!!!!!!!
Can GM recover ?????????
Not the best reporting from C&D. If they wanted to learn about an engine problem, they should have talked to the Engine Chief Engineer, not the Vehicle Chief Engineer. It sounds like a problem with tolerance control on the bearing thickness, leading to inadequate crush at assembly. Maybe oil film thickness is insufficient at the high end of the bearing clearance tolerance range, leading to metal-metal contact with the journal. Then the bearing spins because there is inadequate clamp load on it. Here's a rare case where 30-weight oil might allow the bearing to live where a 20-weight wouldn't.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
