Overblown. I've been on CivicX since buying my car, and there are ZERO, and I mean ZERO, serious issues noted due to fuel dilution. ZERO. Say that 10 times, and call me in the morning.
Interesting GM 2.7 Turbomax failure and tear down
- Thread starter JTK
- Start date
Except that the leak was adjacent to the worn lifter, not the crankcase.
If it were run low on oil, wear would be similar throughout the valve train, which it is not. It is concentrated on the adjacent lifter.
All other wear was from the debris generated by those bearing chunks. Including the turbo bearings!
Last edited:
He needs to save those darn water pumps!!!!!!
So many good water pumps just thrown out!
I'm not generally a fan of 0W anything for high load applications. The VII's don't provide high load protection. A robust 5W-40 would be my first choice. Along with 5K OCI's.
HP per cylinder is a good metric for viscosity, as engines rarely have oversized rod bearings. Especially long stroke engines, as the rod won't fit down the bore. Once we push 80HP per cylinder, a 40 viscosity is generally a very good idea. Exceptions include engines than can manage a low oil temp, engines in light vehicles that rarely see full output for long periods of time and of course, engines with very robust designs.
Correct, modern highly loaded engines often require clean oil of adequate viscosity. However, an objective look at that engine does not show it to be a robust, diesel-like design. It has coated, short skirt pistons which have clearly been unable to handle 140K miles of boost.
Absolutely essential in today's DI environment. Frequent oil changes with adequate viscosity is, and has always been the basis of a good maintenance plan. Even more so today.
An example of a robust diesel piston:
GM's 2.7L piston:
The idea that we can ask this engine to provide diesel-like torque and hold up for diesel-like miles in truck applications is based on a fantasy. GM made the engine just robust enough to provide 10 years of service for the light duty user hauling air in the bed.
Last edited:
If you need to have it hooked to a trailer for 140K miles, they have HD trucks for that.I'm not generally a fan of 0W anything for high load applications. The VII's don't provide high load protection. A robust 5W-40 would be my first choice. Along with 5K OCI's.
HP per cylinder is a good metric for viscosity, as engines rarely have oversized rod bearings. Especially long stroke engines, as the rod won't fit down the bore. Once we push 80HP per cylinder, a 40 viscosity is generally a very good idea. Exceptions include engines than can manage a low oil temp, engines in light vehicles that rarely see full output for long periods of time and of course, engines with very robust designs.
Correct, modern highly loaded engines often require clean oil of adequate viscosity. However, an objective look at that engine does not show it to be a robust, diesel-like design. It has coated, short skirt pistons which have clearly been unable to handle 140K miles of boost.
Absolutely essential in today's DI environment. Frequent oil changes with adequate viscosity is, and has always been the basis of a good maintenance plan. Even more so today.
An example of a robust diesel piston:
GM's 2.7L piston:
View attachment 302166
The idea that we can ask this engine to provide diesel-like torque and hold up for diesel-like miles in truck applications is based on a fantasy. GM made the engine just robust enough to provide 10 years of service for the light duty user hauling air in the bed.
This is for someone who needs a daily driver and tows once a month.
Considering that the majority of truck owners never tow or haul, I think this engine is probably suited for anyone that doesn't demand much truck stuff from their truck, but uses it as a daily driver. Personally, I never could understand wanting an open cargo bed if you don't actually need it. Just seems like a waste.
This is Chevy's base engine, so yes it's not meant to do heavy duty things. It should be judged against the 4.3 V6 it replaced, and the 3.6 pentastar from Ram, not the v8's or diesels or top choices from Ford (3.5 EC) and Ram (Hurricane).
A lot of us do use our beds, just not all day every day. But altogether the truck becomes a very versatile tool, with massive amounts of interior space, abilitly to haul junk/supplies in the bed, pull large loads, drive in rough/wintery conditions (clearance) etc etc. You don't need to do all of that at the same time every day to find a truck useful.
Taking your thought to the extreme, most people could probably just buy a 2 door kia forte hatchback with their economical 1.6 L engine because most people just travel single most of the time. A lot of guys drive sports cars, or 4 door sedans, or small/midsize SUVs and never need the interior space, and face it nobody needs a sports car, but for some reason truck owners get the most "lip" for owning the most useful and comfortable and tough/rugged vehicle ever mass produced.
Is that really what they use in the 2.7? Got a short deck and short skirt. Reminds me of a ej22I'm not generally a fan of 0W anything for high load applications. The VII's don't provide high load protection. A robust 5W-40 would be my first choice. Along with 5K OCI's.
HP per cylinder is a good metric for viscosity, as engines rarely have oversized rod bearings. Especially long stroke engines, as the rod won't fit down the bore. Once we push 80HP per cylinder, a 40 viscosity is generally a very good idea. Exceptions include engines than can manage a low oil temp, engines in light vehicles that rarely see full output for long periods of time and of course, engines with very robust designs.
Correct, modern highly loaded engines often require clean oil of adequate viscosity. However, an objective look at that engine does not show it to be a robust, diesel-like design. It has coated, short skirt pistons which have clearly been unable to handle 140K miles of boost.
Absolutely essential in today's DI environment. Frequent oil changes with adequate viscosity is, and has always been the basis of a good maintenance plan. Even more so today.
An example of a robust diesel piston:
GM's 2.7L piston:
View attachment 302166
The idea that we can ask this engine to provide diesel-like torque and hold up for diesel-like miles in truck applications is based on a fantasy. GM made the engine just robust enough to provide 10 years of service for the light duty user hauling air in the bed.
I guess the 3.3 in our '07 Dodge Grand Caravan is not overstressed at 30 HP/cylinder.
Maybe I'll go with a 0W-8 next time.
Just kidding!!!
Speak for yourself.
You stay away from my garage!
If only people were logic driven...
Heck, remember the early 80's right after the gas crisis, and economic issues, and small, efficient, reliable/cheap cars were all the rage?
Everyone likes to cosplay as Billy Bad Asp during the week on the roads in their white pickup trucks.
I just drive on by in the Cayman while getting 32 to 35 mpg, and with a big smile on my face.
Fast cars can be efficient. That’s one of the benefits of EVs!
Just in case it wasn't clear; it doesn't matter to me what you own, if you want a sports car or harley, whatever floats your boat. I was just making the observation that for some reason trucks seem like they get the most "hate" despite it being more practical and useful than many other life style choices.
Yes. That’s the 2.7L piston
Wow. Is the crank offset to reduce power stroke side loads? It doesn’t appear to be anything particularly beefy, however we know that looks aren’t everything.
Last edited:
Yes, I believe so. GM made a point about that when describing the engine. It is a very long stroke engine, with just over a 4 inch stroke and a 3.63 inch bore. So measures must be taken to ensure piston side loads are managed.
In years past we would simply offset the piston pin on short stroke engines. Effective and easy, and likely a better choice for an engine with a sub 3 inch stroke. It accomplishes much the same thing with regard to connecting rod geometry and skirt loading. Relieving the thrust side. However for long stroke engines, the offset crankshaft is a better choice due to the less severe (albeit by mm) connecting rod angle.
These do come with a 5 year 100k powertrain warranty unlike the 5.3/6.2 gas motor 5/60k. I think it’s a neat motor. However only time will tell. Currently considering one of these new turbomax half tons. It’s that, a new tundra, or a ram hurricane. My only gripe is when I see 4 cyl and General Motors paired together I think of all the broken Chevy Cruze/Sonics lol.
Completely different engines. Can't compare them, just like the GM v8's in the 1500's are a hot mess at this point but the GM 6.6 v8 gas in the 2500 is probably best in class.
Probably 90%+ of the engines that make it to his tear down videos are engines beyond economical salvage for his parts business. That means he goes full gorilla in his tear downs and is not worried about best mechanical practices. He will purposely do things to piss off the armchair quarterback viewers with things like taking all the hose clamps off a hose and then just going through with a set of cutters cutting them off. Same with electrical.
Honestly I find the way he takes things apart like that funny cause we have all gotten frustrated and wanted to destroy things, but couldn't
Anyways, I watched the video and man does that look like a complicated little engine! I have nothing against turbo 4's (obviously, there's two in my signature) but man that is definitely way over-engineered!
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked