Modern Engine's Grenading?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
That would be the million dollar question if both factories have the same raw material supplier and foundry. Fact that they indicate significant engine machining operations in Alabama might suggest otherwise. What if they decided to delete a process eg. hardening/polishing for the NA-made/bound cars, perhaps because "american driving cycle". That's a defect that fits the vague bill and could have been directly associated to an executive decision, rather than a drunk machinist that managed to make quite a large batch of bad ones before anyone noticed,,,


I doubt it was a drunk machinist. I don't think anyone but you is insinuating that.

I think it is a clear indicator of a lack of process and quality control. But Hyundai/KIA haters gonna hate.
 
I could be wrong, but I assumed they were not the same engine. Either way, this has been discussed fairly extensively. They originally said it was a machining debris cleanup issue that was corrected back in 2012 or 2013 (don't quote me) but then they had to extend the recall to include the 2013 and 2014 and it sounds like soon the 2015 as well. They are apparently reprogramming the knock sensor and installing a new harness on it to distinguish between pinging and rod knock. This information comes from a Hyundai tech on the Hyundai forums.
 
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
That would be the million dollar question if both factories have the same raw material supplier and foundry. Fact that they indicate significant engine machining operations in Alabama might suggest otherwise. What if they decided to delete a process eg. hardening/polishing for the NA-made/bound cars, perhaps because "american driving cycle". That's a defect that fits the vague bill and could have been directly associated to an executive decision, rather than a drunk machinist that managed to make quite a large batch of bad ones before anyone noticed,,,


I doubt it was a drunk machinist. I don't think anyone but you is insinuating that.

I think it is a clear indicator of a lack of process and quality control. But Hyundai/KIA haters gonna hate.




It's in the process somewhere. As for drunk machinists, modern engine making is all done by automation and robots.
 
Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
That would be the million dollar question if both factories have the same raw material supplier and foundry. Fact that they indicate significant engine machining operations in Alabama might suggest otherwise. What if they decided to delete a process eg. hardening/polishing for the NA-made/bound cars, perhaps because "american driving cycle". That's a defect that fits the vague bill and could have been directly associated to an executive decision, rather than a drunk machinist that managed to make quite a large batch of bad ones before anyone noticed,,,

not to mention even if some drunken machinist DID make bad parts what does that say about Hyundai's quality systems corporate wide.
 
1999 Dodge Intrepid 2.7 liter V6. 160k. Conventional every 3-5k.

In fairness, a couple cylinders survived just long enough to get it off the highway. Had it towed to the shop- they pulled the oil pan, displayed the carnage and sent me car shopping.
 
Originally Posted by littleant
My 1988 F350 with he 7.3 had 400,000 miles no chain just gears. Succumbed to rust but still ran when I sold it. What an outstanding engine


You remind me of my wife's Saab Sonett. V-4 Ford engine (yes, V-4, not a typo) with gear to gear cam timing. Crazy little engine.

Originally Posted by benhen77
1999 Dodge Intrepid 2.7 liter V6. 160k. Conventional every 3-5k.

In fairness, a couple cylinders survived just long enough to get it off the highway. Had it towed to the shop- they pulled the oil pan, displayed the carnage and sent me car shopping.


There is nothing one can do to prevent the demise of a Chrysler 2.7. That engine was doomed off the grip. Sludge prone and tiny oil passages to the cam chain tensioners that clogged easily. When I was a Chrysler tech in the early 2000's the dealership had 2.7 parts everywhere. Benches, toolboxes, on the floor... what a poor engine design. Glad those days are over. And glad I never have to work on a Dodge 3.7 V6 or 4.7 V8 again. Cam chains strung through the cylinder head casting. Google it. It's stupid.


Edit. I'll google it for you. Barf.



F2F0ED86-1CFD-4F9E-957F-922CCDF0A110.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by turnbowm
Because of incomplete combustion in GDI/TGDI engines, carbon particles are produced which are too small to filter. These particulates contaminate the oil and are responsible for accelerated timing chain wear. Dexos1 Gen2 oils, in addition to minimizing LSPI events, reduces timing chain wear.

I realize that direct injection offers power and fuel economy advantages over port injection, but I wonder if the auto makers knew what they were getting themselves in for. The dual-injection system, used in some Toyota and Ford vehicles, seems like an expensive (and complicated) band-aid.



With a less than 1% failure rate GDI is not a cause for a dramatic increased engine failure rate. It's been in mass production for nearly 2 decades.
 
Originally Posted by littleant
69Torino had to read your comment twice. A - V4 ford. Had to Google it. Was it a good engine?

It didn't have a choice, Ford used that engine family from 1962 t0 2010!! You've got one. Starting as a 60 degree V4 (????? wth) then evolving through many bizarre metamorphoses, eventually winding up into the V6 it was meant to be. The 4.0L OHV and SOHC found in the trucks/vans are that Taunus V4 engine family.
 
Originally Posted by Audio
Engines are much more stressed these days, stretched thin making crazy power, great fuel economy, minimal maintenance, and are pretty much disposable.
I would have to agree though Engines have always failed . You make 1,000,000 engines and so many will fail no matter how careful the manufacture is.
 
Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
Originally Posted by littleant
69Torino had to read your comment twice. A - V4 ford. Had to Google it. Was it a good engine?

It didn't have a choice, Ford used that engine family from 1962 t0 2010!! You've got one. Starting as a 60 degree V4 (????? wth) then evolving through many bizarre metamorphoses, eventually winding up into the V6 it was meant to be. The 4.0L OHV and SOHC found in the trucks/vans are that Taunus V4 engine family.


They had issues with cracked heads on a lot of them. The 4.0 OHV sometimes cracked heads, so did the 2.9 before that. I have a friend with a 2.8 (same engine family too as far as I know) in his 78 Mustang. It's been smoking a huge cloud of blue and running terrible for a few years now. This year it finally died when the timing gears stripped. It's apart now but the one head had a very noticeable crack and he's having trouble finding replacements. He got a set and one that appeared good showed a crack right away when magnafluxed.

He's thinking about just attempting a 302 swap.
 
I'm curious what's up with that new gen 3 Coyote engine in the Mustang, I like the car and wanted to look at one in a few years once depreciation taken a hammer to a GT with a manual, but that tick. I've heard some say it's normal, just loud valve-train design, others due to the plasma bore lining degrading causing too much play between the piston and cylinder wall. If the later is the case that does not bode well for long engine life, especially from a car you'd want to drive hard.
 
GM messed up my dad's 08 caddy CTS with them long oil changes messed up the timing chains and sludge up the motor. Dealer serviced using Valvoline
 
Originally Posted by neo3
Originally Posted by rubberchicken
I would rather have a chain. They tend to give you some warning before they grenade. My brother has a close friend that works for BMW: his take on belts vs. chains is: belts are quieter and cheaper to manufacture. Belts give the dealer another opportunity to get a major $$ item from the customer when its time for maintenance.


My Ford with the 3.5 has miles of chains (1 long non-roller main chain, and 2 shorter roller chains), and it's completely quiet. Using belts instead in this engine would add a major maintenance requirement to replace them.

Originally Posted by neo3
Originally Posted by rubberchicken
I would rather have a chain. They tend to give you some warning before they grenade. My brother has a close friend that works for BMW: his take on belts vs. chains is: belts are quieter and cheaper to manufacture. Belts give the dealer another opportunity to get a major $$ item from the customer when its time for maintenance.


My Ford with the 3.5 has miles of chains (1 long non-roller main chain, and 2 shorter roller chains), and it's completely quiet. Using belts instead in this engine would add a major maintenance requirement to replace them.


No replacing that water pump in the fords 3.5 will get major $$ from customers
 
Only engine I ever blew up was a Yamaha YZ85 two smoke dirtbike when I was a kid, I held it wide open for too long because it sounded cool!
Came close on my first car, which was a Jeep CJ5 with an inline six, deep in the remote mountains on a rugged trail and the upper radiator tank blew. Had no choice but to limp it back to civilization, or be stranded without any way to call for help. Luckily the trail I was on had several water crossings so each one I'd stop and let the engine cool, using a bucket to fill refill the radiator to get it by to the next crossing, and since the water was deep enough, the oil pan was submerged to help cool the block.
The last few times I changed the spark plugs on that thing; (it needed them more often afterwards) the third cylinder forward from the firewall was always oiled up and fouled while the others were relatively normal looking and I could get more life out of them by cleaning them up with a wire brush, must've fried the piston rings on that particular cylinder. The engine never died and survived thousands of hard testosterone fueled teenager lead foot miles after a new radiator went in, and I'm sure whomever owns it now is still driving it!
 
Originally Posted by ragtoplvr
……..Nissan 3.5V6 The small cats right next to exhaust manifold fracture, and the abrasive pieces get sucked into engine....
Lost a well maintained relatively low miles 03 2.5L Altima engine EXACTLY this way, posted about it, in this thread . Pre-cat failure and resulting terminal engine, much more common in the 2.5L than 3.5L. Also why recent Renault/Nissan Ghosn arrest in Japan looked at by me as fitting karma. But I digress.

The Nissan pre-cat failure, while engine terminating, not really a true "grenading" event. Since it was mentioned though, thought I'd chime in. I'd also add, had the pre-cats been properly designed, even though 2.5L not a great engine would have lasted significantly longer.
 
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by caprice_2nv
Originally Posted by Brigadier

Quote
During machining of the engine crankshaft and crankpins, metal shavings may have been left within the crankshaft oil passages, and the crankpins themselves may be too rough on the edges. As a result, oil may be blocked and cause the connecting rod bearings to wear, which would then cause them to fail and seize the whole engine. That, of course, would cause the car to stall during driving.



That is the story that Hyundai is sticking to but it definitely is not the actual cause of the continued failures. The problem exists from 2011 through at least 2015 now.

If that is the cause, then so much for the improved and clean, near sterile machining process as some allude to used to produce modern engines.

You get what you get when you buy bottom of the line questionable cars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

CourierDriver
  • Locked
The internal combustion engines--history
Replies
9
Views
6K
HerrStig
dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
14K
MolaKule
Back
Top