Just wanted to see if there were any TSB's about the common flaw in the 2.4 motors. I know so many people have had this issue, and just wanted to see of there was anything ever done about it through GM. If anyone can shed some light, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Hmm.....thought they might have done something, or had some sort of hidden bulletin, since it is so common of an issue. Oh well, back to playing the game with the warranty company.......
Shifted wrote:Nope. GM never released a TSB about it, in fact they never officially recognized it as a problem. It only happens in the 97-98 model years, and there are different theorys as to why.
Really? Only those years? What are some of the reasons why? I've got an '01, and I've always been worried about it, what changed that it doesn't affect later years?
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
Ian Brydon wrote:Shifted wrote:Nope. GM never released a TSB about it, in fact they never officially recognized it as a problem. It only happens in the 97-98 model years, and there are different theorys as to why.
Really? Only those years? What are some of the reasons why? I've got an '01, and I've always been worried about it, what changed that it doesn't affect later years?
x2
2000 Camaro V6.
| SLP Loudmouth | CAI Intake | HID's |
I have heard it happen on a couple 99. Didn't Ian Lacey when his engine went go because of that same reason and he had a 02.
2004 Grand Prix GTP (Competition Group)
SOLD-->1999 Z24 5M-#30 to register on JBO
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people'
all the time
How much oil lubricant to be allocated to camshaft (s) vs. crankshaft
has always vexed engineers...
After a few years they tend to re-drill oil passageways to get the
mix right...
In the case of the dual overhead cam GM engines, GM simply
took too long to get it right...
Leland Sparks wrote:How much oil lubricant to be allocated to camshaft (s) vs. crankshaft
has always vexed engineers...
After a few years they tend to re-drill oil passageways to get the
mix right...
In the case of the dual overhead cam GM engines, GM simply
took too long to get it right...
Do you have any proof of this (not to sound accusational, lol)? This would be great info, but it's the 1st I've heard of it, and I'd also like to know the specs so that those with older cranks could upgrade when building a motor.
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
my 99 spun the #3 bearing, Ian Brydon took the engine apart and saw it for himself
"Do you have any proof of this (not to sound accusational, lol)? This would be great info, but it's the 1st I've heard of it, and I'd also like to know the specs so that those with older cranks could upgrade when building a motor....?"
No, I don't have any proof. Been rebuilding engines almost 60 years...
Never touched one of the Quad Four variety...
[quote=Leland Sparks
No, I don't have any proof. Been rebuilding engines almost 60 years...
Never touched one of the Quad Four variety...
Thanks for the clarification, I had just never heard this before, I'd love it to be true as it's the achiles heel of this engine, and I know several people who have fallen victim to it, so I always run synthetic, and watch my oil level.
Dirtbag, your's was a '99, may have been an "old stock" bottom end, who knows. Does anyone know of an '00+ that has spun a bearing?
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
may sound goofy, but i run a 1/2 quart more oil then recommened. not sure if that matters though.
good luck mike.
My Buddy told me he heard the problem was a lower idle on these pre-00 cars and that kept theoil pressure a little lower when idling. Not sure if this is right...Just thought that I throw it in.
I believe the issue is at high RPM's, not idle. The pump spins too fast, aerates the oil, and pressure drops at high RPM's starving the bearings.
15.3 @ 89.97mph, 14's on the way?
Hmm, all good info if the topic stays on track.......any other input?
