LSPI engine damage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Messages
1,286
Location
Douglas County, Colorado
Has anyone on this board actually had a DI engine in a vehicle in thier possession, that had damage directly attributable to LSPI? I would like to hear about your experience.
 
I just saw a video from Lubrizol on the topic. In it, they say that one of the way that OEM's have been combating LSPI up to this point is by programming the engine to pump excess fuel into the cylinder, which has a cooling effect to prevent the issue. This may be one of the reasons why we haven't heard that the problem is widespread.

I do have the 3.5L V6 Ecoboost. Apart from it being horrific on fuel economy I haven't had any damage. Maybe it's been tuned to use extra fuel - between that and deposits on the intake valves, I would guess that's the reason for the fuel economy issues.
 
Originally Posted By: Solarent
I just saw a video from Lubrizol on the topic. In it, they say that one of the way that OEM's have been combating LSPI up to this point is by programming the engine to pump excess fuel into the cylinder, which has a cooling effect to prevent the issue. This may be one of the reasons why we haven't heard that the problem is widespread.

I do have the 3.5L V6 Ecoboost. Apart from it being horrific on fuel economy I haven't had any damage. Maybe it's been tuned to use extra fuel - between that and deposits on the intake valves, I would guess that's the reason for the fuel economy issues.

Interesting.

Also, engines for North America are tuned differently in general... they are tuned to run richer in order to achieve the required emissions standards. This results in some fuel dilution, but as a side effect, it may also help combat LSPI.

I wonder if LSPI damage is more common in other markets where engines run a leaner mixture.
 
I've had a 2017 Sonata rental that would pull hard at around 1,200 rpm under load and not shift if you were steady on the throttle. Driving that way and holding it in 6th gear in cruise control by moving the shift lever to the left taking it out of the "D" position would get highway mileage from 37-43 mpg. It felt like a struggle but I drove it that way for the mileage thinking the engine control system would take care of itself. Still, you only get mileage like that driving carefully and paying attention to the flow of traffic on the freeway. This car did the rest. I was really impressed.
 
Saw this coming a mile away.

Garbage fuel and super high compression in a general use vehicle =
poor result. Even with stratified charge producing inj programming.

Most all drivers around me drive like slugs so their motors probably all have stuck rings and charcoaled intakes.

I barely get by with 87 in my Nissan which is well under 10:1 with port injection. Though that puppy has good (read HIGH_ cyl pressure at the upper torque peak due to good breathing up there. So high com ratio is more for efficiency at the lower torque peak - IF you don't ping/knock down there.

I Gotta throw in 93 or 91 on top of the 87 often times in the rogue to get the engine to wake up and to keep it from pinging at light throttle low rpm "LUGGING" cruise.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Has anyone on this board actually had a DI engine in a vehicle in thier possession, that had damage directly attributable to LSPI? I would like to hear about your experience.
So, I guess the answer is no?
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Has anyone on this board actually had a DI engine in a vehicle in thier possession, that had damage directly attributable to LSPI? I would like to hear about your experience.
So, I guess the answer is no?
smile.gif




Yep. It's a bit fat zero. In this age of instantly broadcast social media, do you honestly think that if people's engines were self-destructing as a result of oil induced LSPI, we wouldn't of heard about it by now? LSPI is a risk but that doesn't make it a fact.
 
Last edited:
I have not owned one but over on the chev Malibu forum, there have been a few people show up with late model 1.5 litre turbo charged DI engines that have suffered cracked pistons. I suppose this is are result of LSPI.
Compression ratio does not mean so much anymore. Just because the throttle pedal is to the floor does not mean the throttle body is totally open. The computer measures and limits how much air enters the combustion chamber and adjusts fuel and ignition timing accordingly. This is supposed to minimize and prevent detonation/engine damage. The new Mazda skyactive engines with a 15:1 compression ratio seem be able to manage it so far.
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Has anyone on this board actually had a DI engine in a vehicle in thier possession, that had damage directly attributable to LSPI? I would like to hear about your experience.
So, I guess the answer is no?
smile.gif




Yep. It's a bit fat zero. In this age of instantly broadcast social media, do you honestly think that if people's engines were self-destructing as a result of oil induced LSPI, we wouldn't of heard about it by now? LSPI is a risk but that doesn't make it a fact.
Okay, SOJ, I agree, so why the manufacturer, ILSAC, SAE focus on it? Give me a little more than Mountain out of Molehill. Is it solely liability? I can buy that, but even in today's corporate liability averse community, this seems a little extreme.
 
Last edited:
On the Hyundai forums, the first year Veloster Turbo's are regarded to have suffered from it. As stated by Solarent earlier in the thread, the fix was an ECU reflash, and they're still using Quaker State dealer fill at most dealerships too. We all know that brand has historically used high Ca levels...

But i believe the issue is very much real.
 
I had my plugs replaced at part cost when my FXT was recalled, but I passed the leakdown test fine. Mind you, I had been on a M1 5W30 diet for some time by then, something like 1200ppm calcium per the PQIA. I can take some snaps of the plugs if I can find them, asked for them back and wouldn't have used them in a lawnmower unless I was desperate.
I never counted how many people got partial or full engine replacements in this 61 page discussion, but there were some.

http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/...-thread-570138/

This 47 page thread is a little more lively...sure, there were some modders in there, doesn't change the facts.

http://www.velosterturbo.org/forum/veloster-turbo-discussions/9852-why-motors-keep-blowing-up.html

There is also a discussion about the GM 1.5l elsewhere on BITOG.
Seriously, why are manufacturers going through hideously expensive recalls if there is no issue? Just getting to the plugs on an FXT or WRX is a lot of labor, not to mention running leakdown tests. Why is it in anybody's interest to take action if there has never been any real damage?

BTW, not very cool for somebody to act as if the matter is closed less than two hours after the OPer asked for input.
 
Last edited:
Pretty common on the Cadillac 2.0T motor apparently. Causes cracked pistons. Same engine in the Malibu as well.

Quote:
CERTAIN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH A 2.0L 4 CYLINDER ENGINE (LTG) MAY HAVE A CONDITION IN WHICH PISTON DAMAGE COULD OCCUR DUE TO AN ENGINE PRE-IGNITION CONDITION. IF THIS CONDITION OCCURS, THE VEHICLE MAY PERFORM


TSB Reference
#G-206372

I know a GM tech that has had to do a lot of motors, mainly driven by older people who mainly use the lower RPMs.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Okay, SOJ, I agree, so why the manufacturer, ILSAC, SAE focus on it? Give me a little more than Mountain out of Molehill. Is it solely liability? I can buy that, but even in today's corporate liability averse community, this seems a little extreme.


Think about how long it took to get action even after it was known that some airbags were killing people with shrapnel instead of saving them...
 
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
I had my plugs replaced at part cost when my FXT was recalled, but I passed the leakdown test fine. Mind you, I had been on a M1 5W30 diet for some time by then, something like 1200ppm calcium per the PQIA. I can take some snaps of the plugs if I can find them, asked for them back and wouldn't have used them in a lawnmower unless I was desperate.
I never counted how many people got partial or full engine replacements in this 61 page discussion, but there were some.

http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/...-thread-570138/

This 47 page thread is a little more lively...sure, there were some modders in there, doesn't change the facts.

http://www.velosterturbo.org/forum/veloster-turbo-discussions/9852-why-motors-keep-blowing-up.html

There is also a discussion about the GM 1.5l elsewhere on BITOG.
Seriously, why are manufacturers going through hideously expensive recalls if there is no issue? Just getting to the plugs on an FXT or WRX is a lot of labor, not to mention running leakdown tests. Why is it in anybody's interest to take action if there has never been any real damage?

BTW, not very cool to ask for input and then act as if the matter is closed less than two hours later.
Umm, you did see the little smiley emoji, right? Just trying to facilitate the discussion. Okay, so FXT is Forester Turbo, I assume? And, this plug recall is ostensibly due to LSPI? I assume the language "certain" means not all. Wonder why? Why would the ECM be programmed differently on some models?
 
Last edited:
VP, what is the oil recommendation on the Subies in the recall? Two things on the Hyundai site. They were pointing possibly to high silicon. I have never seen mentioned in studies. They are also saying PAO's are more resistant to LSPI, whereas the one study I saw said the likliness of an LSPI event actually increase as oil group increases, numerically, with the exception of Group V.
 
Last edited:
i would not be suprised if poor piston quality could be added to the mix, after all turbocharged engines with higher cylinder pressures need better parts
 
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Umm, you did see the little smiley emoji, right? Just trying to facilitate the discussion. Okay, so FXT is Forester Turbo, I assume? And, this plug recall is ostensibly due to LSPI? I assume the language "certain" means not all. Wonder why? Why would the ECM be programmed differently on some models?


Sorry bigj, I reworded my post after rereading to try to make it clear I was not referring to you! Yes, FXT=Forester XT=turbo Forester.
The plugs were checked as part of the recall, they were finding plugs with missing or misshapen metal with was likely caused by LSPI events. My plugs looked kind of crummy but the electodes seemed to be OK, I asked for a replacement since I had about 40kmiles and they were recommended for a 60k replacement anyway. I really don't know if my plugs looked normal for the mileage they had in my car, the tech seemed to be implying things weren't quite right.
The FXTs and WRXs that were recalled dated from the introduction of the 2.0l DIT engine to each model up to some point during the 2015 model year, when Subaru apparently started programming the ECUs in a new way.
Subaru never made any oil recommendation changes, the only time I have heard of that happening is with the GM 1.5l recall. I tried to gather some info on subaruforester.org about what oil types the posters involved in the recall were using, but never got anywhere with it. I was especially curious about what those owners who had seen damage were using.
 
You could be correct. Pre-ignition can destroy quality pistons, also. If it's happening regularly, it not good for pistons, rods, bearings, etc. The piston is just first in line for the blow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top