Car and Drivers 2014 Corvette grenaded engine....

[jimbrewer]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
It's nice to see that this issue will be handled at least in part in the public eye. This car was apparently driven in a manner that was intended and there would no reason to change the oil until the OLM indicated that it was time. Because of the public nature of this problem there might be an expedited response and we know for a fact that GM has all the in house resources to determine the cause. If the oil filter is part of the problem this might lead to a remedy that would benefit everyone.


I don't know about this being in the "public eye" When Edmunds turbo Dodge Dart blew up the most dissembling, vague description ever ensued, then the long-term test ended with no further discussion.

Supposedly the Corvette specs synthetic only because GM was too cheap to include an oil cooler for the car. I have no idea of the truth of that, but then, who else but GM would ever do something like that?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
"What can you do if you own one of these LT1 powered rocketships? Getting a full oil change on a more regular basis probably wouldn’t hurt, along with an aftermarket oil filter for the time being. Sometimes you can never be too safe."

In other words, they really don't have a clue because it's too early in the process so they're just spitballing.

Exactly.

 

[SilverC6]

I don't know how members here can declare the oil filter a "red herring" when no one here has any knowledge of what really happened.

This was posted by Aaron Brzozowski on GM Authority:

"The engine failure was apparently due to metal particles breaking loose from the oil filter (likely from tapping the filter’s threads) and causing the failure of a rod bearing."

Brzozowksi is a past member of the Car and Driver staff and participated in prior long term tests with the magazine.

Brzozowksi speaks here with some knowledge gleaned from the current C&D staff and possibly the inquiry performed by the GM engineers looking at the problem.

With the media exposure here, if the public statements hint at a filter failure, you can bet the GM engineers know indeed that it was a filter failure.

 

[splinter]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
..no one here has any knowledge of what really happened..

..you can bet the GM engineers know indeed that it was a filter failure..


One might reasonably suspect GM's ensuing forensic examination and analysis has rightly determined the failure’s contributing cause(s).

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Everytime I've had warranty engine replacement they ($tealership) trashed the car and I had to sell it. So There could be worries. Plus, the ECU storage will make you into a liar when you say, "I was just driving it into my garage at 1200 rpm and it let go!" DENIED!~


No surprise there, considering the quality of most techs at the
$tealerships today I'm surprised most of them can even show up to work on time everyday, let along do a decent job of anything.

 

[jrustles]

Rod bearing failures are very common, especially in demanding service of sports cars, and are most commonly caused by a lubrication failure.

To immediately associate a ruined bearing to the filter filter is just too conveniently the least damaging entity to blame from a PR perspective. They're absolutely not going to say it was the recommended oil, a lack of oil cooling, OLM calibration or anything else if they can pawn this incident off on the filter.

But it could be. However any official reports should be taken with a grain of salt, because the chances of the likelihood that a rogue burr from a defective oil filter caused lead-footed auto journalists to spin a bearing during their intensive testing of a high performance vehicle, is just incredible.

 

[SilverC6]

So there is no truth in the statements by Car and Driver and people close to the issue.

That's all spin and misrepresentation.

And it's your myopic analysis that rings true.....

 

[SilverC6]

Originally Posted By: jimbrewer

Supposedly the Corvette specs synthetic only because GM was too cheap to include an oil cooler for the car. I have no idea of the truth of that, but then, who else but GM would ever do something like that?


This was true in 1984 when Chevrolet unveiled the new Corvette after skipping the entire 1983 production year.

I don't know that it was their cheapness, but instead, the willingness of the design engineers to trust the capability of synthetic motor oil to handle higher engine temperatures.

Two decades later, my 2005 C6 with the Z51 option had an oil cooler but still specified M1 5W-30 as the factory fill.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Exactly.

And the same publication groused about the cost a a number of months ago over the track pack Mustang switching to synthetic 5w-50 synthetic from regular SN/GF-5 5w-20. It's clear here what C&D really wants. They want to drive the snot out of the vehicle in their tests, have a 20,000 mile OCI, and be able to use the cheapest oil they can find.

Part of their long term testing should involve getting their lazy behinds under the vehicle themselves and conducting some maintenance and report on that to us readers. I would suggest that a larger portion of C&D readers are interested in maintenance than the general driving public. Popular Mechanics is filled with mechanical fluff these days, and C&D's contribution to maintenance issues is the occasional quote on the price of an oil filter - like no one knows how to use Rock Auto, Napa, or Walmart websites.

Part of my buying decision is based upon ease of maintenance. If a long term test is supposed to simulate at least part of the ownership experience, it should go beyond dropping the thing off at the dealership for an oil change.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
Supposedly the Corvette specs synthetic only because GM was too cheap to include an oil cooler for the car. I have no idea of the truth of that, but then, who else but GM would ever do something like that?


Once again folks let their misguided 'anger' at GM rule their mind.

Ford never put a cheap Chinese transmission in a Mustang either. Did they do it to save a buck? Most likely.

GM is not the only mfgr to pinch pennies. Any list of the examples would be too long to post here.

My car has seen many track days with oil temps over 300 degrees. Correspondence with M1 engineers found nothing wrong, oil analysis didn't either. I was told that 300 degrees was easy for M1 0W-40 to handle...

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Exactly.

And the same publication groused about the cost a a number of months ago over the track pack Mustang switching to synthetic 5w-50 synthetic from regular SN/GF-5 5w-20. It's clear here what C&D really wants. They want to drive the snot out of the vehicle in their tests, have a 20,000 mile OCI, and be able to use the cheapest oil they can find.

Part of their long term testing should involve getting their lazy behinds under the vehicle themselves and conducting some maintenance and report on that to us readers. I would suggest that a larger portion of C&D readers are interested in maintenance than the general driving public. Popular Mechanics is filled with mechanical fluff these days, and C&D's contribution to maintenance issues is the occasional quote on the price of an oil filter - like no one knows how to use Rock Auto, Napa, or Walmart websites.

Part of my buying decision is based upon ease of maintenance. If a long term test is supposed to simulate at least part of the ownership experience, it should go beyond dropping the thing off at the dealership for an oil change.


I agree. I remember reading about a new engine a few years ago, I won't mention the name to avoid starting a battle here. They claimed 40,000 hours of testing went into the design. After release they had some problems. I got to thinking how many engines did they test for 40,000 hours? Or did they test 40 engines for 1,000 hours, that also totals 40,000 hours of testing. They weren't too specific. The bottom line is the long term testing is done by the consumers, and many times they get screwed. I'm certain C&D can't come close to testing like a mfg would, and even the mfg's testing often falls short.

OT- I will never buy the first year or second year of a new automotive technology. The risk to reward is not worth it, to me. Opinions vary.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint

OT- I will never buy the first year or second year of a new automotive technology. The risk to reward is not worth it, to me. Opinions vary.


Likewise, as anyone with real world experience buying cars can see the trend. We have always been the guinea pigs for new tech, we do the testing in the field! All the mfgrs do is track warranty claims...

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

OT- I will never buy the first year or second year of a new automotive technology. The risk to reward is not worth it, to me. Opinions vary.


Likewise, as anyone with real world experience buying cars can see the trend. We have always been the guinea pigs for new tech, we do the testing in the field! All the mfgrs do is track warranty claims...


+1 As the tech advances we become guinea pigs for longer periods of time it seems.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Garak
They want to drive the snot out of the vehicle in their tests, have a 20,000 mile OCI, and be able to use the cheapest oil they can find.


isn't that what most consumers want? Including BITOG'ers?

Originally Posted By: demarpaint

I agree. I remember reading about a new engine a few years ago, I won't mention the name to avoid starting a battle here. They claimed 40,000 hours of testing went into the design. After release they had some problems. I got to thinking how many engines did they test for 40,000 hours? Or did they test 40 engines for 1,000 hours, that also totals 40,000 hours of testing. They weren't too specific. The bottom line is the long term testing is done by the consumers, and many times they get screwed. I'm certain C&D can't come close to testing like a mfg would, and even the mfg's testing often falls short.


Ever read up on the venerated Slant Six? Chrysler did all sorts of testing and as a publicity stunt ran a fleet of NYC taxi cabs to show off the new engine. On the very first day of this stunt every single car had to be towed off the street. All of 'em. Turns out, there was a problem where the rings fluttered at idle, and the plugs oil fouled. All that testing, and apparently no testing done at idle. But as we all know that turned into a very reliable motor.

Still wouldn't have wanted to be the guy buying the first one off the line only to find out that the rings needed replacing in short order!

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Garak
They want to drive the snot out of the vehicle in their tests, have a 20,000 mile OCI, and be able to use the cheapest oil they can find.


isn't that what most consumers want? Including BITOG'ers?

Originally Posted By: demarpaint

I agree. I remember reading about a new engine a few years ago, I won't mention the name to avoid starting a battle here. They claimed 40,000 hours of testing went into the design. After release they had some problems. I got to thinking how many engines did they test for 40,000 hours? Or did they test 40 engines for 1,000 hours, that also totals 40,000 hours of testing. They weren't too specific. The bottom line is the long term testing is done by the consumers, and many times they get screwed. I'm certain C&D can't come close to testing like a mfg would, and even the mfg's testing often falls short.


Ever read up on the venerated Slant Six? Chrysler did all sorts of testing and as a publicity stunt ran a fleet of NYC taxi cabs to show off the new engine. On the very first day of this stunt every single car had to be towed off the street. All of 'em. Turns out, there was a problem where the rings fluttered at idle, and the plugs oil fouled. All that testing, and apparently no testing done at idle. But as we all know that turned into a very reliable motor.

Still wouldn't have wanted to be the guy buying the first one off the line only to find out that the rings needed replacing in short order!


I read that years ago, but forgot about it, thanks for the memory refresher. It backs my point, decades later. LOL I owned two of those engines and hated both. One in a Dodge van another in a Duster my wife had. The Slant 6 was touted as one of the most reliable engines ever made, I didn't think so, but I'm one of the few with that opinion. I'd take a Ford 6 or Chevy 6 any day over one of those engines. I hope I don't take any flack for it.

Again opinions vary.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
The bottom line is the long term testing is done by the consumers, and many times they get screwed. I'm certain C&D can't come close to testing like a mfg would, and even the mfg's testing often falls short.

OT- I will never buy the first year or second year of a new automotive technology. The risk to reward is not worth it, to me. Opinions vary.

I just get a little irked by C&D's writing staff sometimes. Certain writers like to talk about their engineering credentials, yet they defer to the guy earning minimum wage in the quick lube lane at the dealer for all their maintenance advice and work. They claim to be engineers, yet they act like soccer moms.

supton: Yep, well, there's nothing wrong with wanting a 20,000 mile OCI on cheap oil and wanting to run severe service, I suppose. But, wanting it and it being realistic may not be the same thing.

I'm just grousing. C&D complains about the lack of manual transmissions and vehicles with too many bells and whistles, and vehicles with too cushy of a ride. So, they laud the introduction of the Subaru BRZ (and its Toyota counterpart). Upon actually driving the thing for a while, they groan that it's suspension is too stiff and its interior is too spartan.

I love the publication, but they come up with some real gems sometimes.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^As is grossly typical of ALL car rags.

Were anyone to follow them, the others would likely be just as predictable.

I like them, too, especially their motto!

"Intelligence, Independence, Irreverence"

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
"Intelligence, Independence, Irreverence"

I'm sure plenty of irreverence will appear in the letters to the editor rubbing their noses in the engine failure.

That alone will be worth the price of maintaining my subscription.

 

[SteveSRT8]

All here should note the engine failed at VIR during the Lightning Lap feature on my desk today!

I'll be entertained for a few hours at least...

 

[zorobabel]

I was at Autozone buying a filter, and the clerk brought me a Bosch basic filter ($6), last one on the shelf. Fortunately I pulled it out of the box and noticed a major burr (about the length of the thread diameter, but thin) attached to the threads at the inside end. I declined and got my first orange can.

The Corvette discussed here may have very well be the victim of filter burrs, especially if they had a quick lube place change it.