Some GM 1.5 turbos not doing too well ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: adriano
Sorry for my bad english

We had the some cracked pistons problems here in europe too with the 1.6 sidi engine (LWC). This engine, u can find in europe on Opel cascada, astra and insignia.

A lot of 1.6l engine failure, On this failure cars gm put a new engine

GM recommended oil on the 1.6 sidi in 5w30 dexos 2, and 98 octane gasoline, 95 octane is not recommanded.

Even with dexos 2 and gasoline 98 octane (premium fuel) there were engines broken! So for me the problem comes from the engine design. It is ridiculous that in a modern engine is not recommanded to put gasoline 95 octane at risk that your engine breaks!. (98 octane fuel is more expensive than 95 octane)


And GM just started selling the 1.6L engine in the US, but in a very low volume application.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: adriano
Sorry for my bad english

We had the some cracked pistons problems here in europe too with the 1.6 sidi engine (LWC). This engine, u can find in europe on Opel cascada, astra and insignia.

A lot of 1.6l engine failure, On this failure cars gm put a new engine

GM recommended oil on the 1.6 sidi in 5w30 dexos 2, and 98 octane gasoline, 95 octane is not recommanded.

Even with dexos 2 and gasoline 98 octane (premium fuel) there were engines broken! So for me the problem comes from the engine design. It is ridiculous that in a modern engine is not recommanded to put gasoline 95 octane at risk that your engine breaks!. (98 octane fuel is more expensive than 95 octane)


And GM just started selling the 1.6L engine in the US, but in a very low volume application.


This is really very worrying about gm sidi engine and the future reliability! i ve an Opel insignia 1.6 sidi and i'am not very optimistic about engine reliability .
What i find in a british Opel Corsa forum about the GM 1.0 and 1.4 SIDI ENGINE is also very scary :
"Over 2 weeks ago I tweeted VX HQ that I was experiencing pinking even with high octane 97 Ron and I've read it can cause serious engine damage.

They never replied..

A few days ago I lost some power and experienced misfiring and vibration at low revs (I downheartedly suspected a cracked piston).
While dropping mine off at the VX main dealer a few guys were pushing a Corsa into the workshop.
When I asked "what's the problem" one said it was a 1L Turbo with low compression on a cylinder.

Six hours later they confirmed mine also has low compression on a cylinder.
This is pretty upsetting as this was a very smooth and quiet engine and felt like it would have lasted a long time.
I think this could've been easily avoided with a remap or firmware update?
Now I'm paying £259 a week to hire a dual control car while this is being sorted out.

UPDATE: After 3 weeks in the dealer's workshop and emailing photo's of a cracked piston to HQ they decided it needs a new engine"
"Sorry to hear everyone's problems. It's as if the public are doing their testing. I sold mine when she was repaired. She had a cylinder head gasket go, timing chain cover with a hairline crack, oil pump and heat exchanger gaskets go. I've now got a Japanese model"


"I gather the new GM Camaro had similar problems with it's new 2.0T. That was a small engine which replaced a big V8. It suffered pre-ignition and resulted in piston failures. The fix was a different type of spark plug, different lubricant and remap AFAIK.

The more I hear about the problems with the 1.0T the more I accept that it is a design flaw.

What concerns me is that VX doesn't appear to know what the issue is. By supplying a short engine as a replacement means the dealer will have to keep the fuel injection system, ECU etc from the car. It may well be these items causing the problem and the replacement engine will be damaged in the same way as the original.

I've not suffered this at all on my 1.4T which has done 24K miles running on various fuels including cheap supermarket upto shell vpower. I thought the 1.0T and 1.4T had very similar fuel injection, turbo and piston components so I'm curious as to what is causing this knocking noise on the 1.0T."
 
I would stay away from the GM 1.5 engine. It appears there are a lot of problems and I would not want to be stuck with something that might drop a piston in the middle of a vacation or anywhere for that matter. I never could figure out why GM has to make so many changes to their engines and transmissions. They seem to use the consumer as a guinea pig.
 
I wonder why? Maybe they should quit making engines smaller and smaller and get back to putting a REAL engine under the hood...these blender motors are getting ridiculously small...
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies

They did all that durability testing in prototypes and engine development, and now this is discovered.


It's my belief that GM skimps on durability testing, and they always have. They use the Milford testing grounds and simulate a "complete lifecycle". GM is accepting of faults other manufacturers are not.

Ford made a huge deal out of the Ecoboost durability testing, because they actually did it in places like Death Valley, Florida, Canada, Alaska, the Rocky Mountains and so on.

GM, on the other hand, experienced a rash of balancer chain failures that were easily predictable with even a half hearted attempt at testing. Instead, they rely on the warranty system to handle the inevitable problems.

The proof is in the end result. Where Toyota trucks have the best "real world" long term reliability, followed by Ford, and a more distant GM and Ram.
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
I wonder why? Maybe they should quit making engines smaller and smaller and get back to putting a REAL engine under the hood...these blender motors are getting ridiculously small...


I've been testing, operating and racing turbocharged engines for decades now. Properly designed, and operated, conventional turbocharged engines hold up quite well. Just look at the Volvo turbo cars from decades ago. 300K was the norm, unmolested. Same with Saab and others.

However, there does seem to be a rash of unusual and unforeseen issues related to direct injection, high compression and the use of low quality fuel along with thin oils, tuning, and dare I say it, extended oil change intervals. The Ford 3.5 EB engine is a wonderful engine with frequent, synthetic oil changes and the use of quality fuels. Failure to follow the best procedures is asking for expensive repairs though.
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: grampi
I wonder why? Maybe they should quit making engines smaller and smaller and get back to putting a REAL engine under the hood...these blender motors are getting ridiculously small...


I've been testing, operating and racing turbocharged engines for decades now. Properly designed, and operated, conventional turbocharged engines hold up quite well. Just look at the Volvo turbo cars from decades ago. 300K was the norm, unmolested. Same with Saab and others.

However, there does seem to be a rash of unusual and unforeseen issues related to direct injection, high compression and the use of low quality fuel along with thin oils, tuning, and dare I say it, extended oil change intervals. The Ford 3.5 EB engine is a wonderful engine with frequent, synthetic oil changes and the use of quality fuels. Failure to follow the best procedures is asking for expensive repairs though.


I don't doubt you at all. I simply don't like what seems like a concerted effort by all of the automakers to completely replace all of the big cubic inch motors with these tiny blender motors. Some of us like big V-8s...
 
I traded a perfectly nice 2017 Mustang with the port-injected 3.7 N.A. V6 for a 2018 Mustang 2.3 Ecoboost. I've decided, in an attempt to avoid post-warranty headaches, to use quality (but non-boutique) synthetic oils, ignore the Maintenance Minder & change it every 5,000 miles, and use 93 octane top tier fuel. If it still fails, lesson learned.

The Focus ST's 2.0 has proven to be a reliable TGDI powerplant, when boneheads don't add boneheaded mods to it. Hopefully the 2.3 proves to be similar.
 
Originally Posted By: WylieCoyote
I traded a perfectly nice 2017 Mustang with the port-injected 3.7 N.A. V6 for a 2018 Mustang 2.3 Ecoboost. I've decided, in an attempt to avoid post-warranty headaches, to use quality (but non-boutique) synthetic oils, ignore the Maintenance Minder & change it every 5,000 miles, and use 93 octane top tier fuel. If it still fails, lesson learned.

The Focus ST's 2.0 has proven to be a reliable TGDI powerplant, when boneheads don't add boneheaded mods to it. Hopefully the 2.3 proves to be similar.


It’s very likely that you will have an excellent result. That’s a very tough engine and it’s well proven in other vehicles.
 
Originally Posted By: WylieCoyote
I traded a perfectly nice 2017 Mustang with the port-injected 3.7 N.A. V6 for a 2018 Mustang 2.3 Ecoboost. I've decided, in an attempt to avoid post-warranty headaches, to use quality (but non-boutique) synthetic oils, ignore the Maintenance Minder & change it every 5,000 miles, and use 93 octane top tier fuel. If it still fails, lesson learned.

The Focus ST's 2.0 has proven to be a reliable TGDI powerplant, when boneheads don't add boneheaded mods to it. Hopefully the 2.3 proves to be similar.


We have a 2017 Explorer with the 2.3 EB engine, though yours has some more power I believe. It's been a great engine, After the ff change at 2,000 miles and the dealer conventional change 3,200 mi later(5,200 mi on ff & dealer oil) I've been using "plain vanilla" Mobil 1 5W-30, except one change with Motorcraft 5W-30 blend, with great UOA results with up to 7,000 OCI. In fact this past winter here in NJ we ran it over 6,200 miles through very cold temps with lots of remote starts and the wear metals were really good. Even the minor fuel dilution did not affect the wear in the UOA, though it did shear into the upper range of a 20 weight oil. There was no noticeable difference in fuel dilution or wear using 87 vs 93 octane. Though the 93 octane does provide some more get up and go power. I did an OC with the Motorcraft 5W-30 blend for ~4,300 mi, while the wear metals were still fine it really sheared well in to the 20 weight range, this was in the Fall. This engine has a lot more useful power than the 4.6 V-8 in our 2005 Explorer and gets 10 mpg better
grin.gif
.

Whimsey
 
It seems some manufactures just don't have the GDI/Turbo combo down yet. The Euro automakers seem to have the most success IMO, with Ford being the exception.
 
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
I appreciate my simple, port injected, naturally aspirated, super reliable engines a little more every day.


Which is exactly why I love GM's LS1...
 
I think a good thing to do to minimize the probability of SPI damaging a downsized DI turbo gasoline engine would be to not allow the engine to lug at high boost pressure below 2000 rpm. The game manufacturers have to play in order to meet ever tighter CAFE standards is to use a small displacement engine at high load at low rpm to get through the Federal Test Procedure. So they make the transmission hold a higher gear to keep the engine speed down. Drivers in lugging situations should manually downshift the transmission 1 or 2 gears to get the engine speed above 2000 rpm to lower the manifold pressure required to keep up with traffic.
 
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
I appreciate my simple, port injected, naturally aspirated, super reliable engines a little more every day.


Which is exactly why I love GM's LS1...


I still like mine. It's 16 years old, has 268k miles on it, and still gets 26 mpg on the highway, 19 mpg average. I've thrashed it a lot, and it has started to burn 1 quart of oil per 1000 miles, but it's still good for easy cruising on the highway and errands around town. Still no mechanical noises from the engine.
 
IMHO. this is what we had in the 70s. smog regs are going faster than the technically to support them.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
I appreciate my simple, port injected, naturally aspirated, super reliable engines a little more every day.


Which is exactly why I love GM's LS1...


I still like mine. It's 16 years old, has 268k miles on it, and still gets 26 mpg on the highway, 19 mpg average. I've thrashed it a lot, and it has started to burn 1 quart of oil per 1000 miles, but it's still good for easy cruising on the highway and errands around town. Still no mechanical noises from the engine.


The LS1s are pretty much bullet proof...
 
A short time ago I purchased a 2014 CPO Buick Regal turbo with great enthusiasm. The 2.0L turbocharged engine was a performance champion, but my satisfaction turned to gall when Icould not find a solution to the pre-ignition at low speeds. I used the recommended oil at the recommended intervals and would not consider non-premium gasoline, but to no avail. The dealer suggested that I live with it because the noise is normal. I say the engine is flawed by design and GM won't admit it. I also worried about burning a hole in the piston during prolonged pinging. I recently traded the car for a 2011 Lucerne with a normally-aspirated cam-in-block V6. It doesn't ping at any speed.
 
Some of these issues are why I wanted to lease first to see how the 1.5 holds up in the Equinox. This way if I have no issues I will feel better keeping it....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
MG HS
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
97prizm
Klutch9
Explorer 2.3 turbo… no turbo noise for you!
Replies
13
Views
2K
Whimsey
B
Help me chose one HPL oil for both my cars
Replies
9
Views
1K
Jpc1623
J
GM LFV oil filters - 1.5 dohc T-GDI
Replies
8
Views
862
Jpc1623
ls1mike
2023 1.5/CVT Malibu Rental car.
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
zzyzzx
Back
Top