Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Build up like that  effects low lift. Probably happens gradually enough that you would not notice the 1 or 2 mpg and 10 to 20 hp. Looks like enough to impact performance to me. I would get it walnut blasted at this point. When I pull mine after running a can with about the same mileage we can compare. 

Posted

IMG_4397.JPG

 

This (above) is not that. (below) Carburetor motors look worse than this in a few thousand miles and will run a million or more taken care of like:  https://www.growingbolder.com/romancing-the-road-259598/ 

 

n54-valve-carbon-17076613_767005956788490_9148968870982189056_n.jpg.9db89e9747be1584b30695f1be9068dd.thumb.jpg.c05b30ffe5a8bd5926fd405644805489.jpg

 

THIS is what is being talked about when performance nose dives. Not the above. 

This isn't what is happening in a Ecotec3.

Posted

You should be the guinea pig for the seafoam spray treatment to clean that. Do it and take an after shot. On Truck Tech they showed an before and after on a similar mileage truck and it looked good but the episode was sponsored by seafoam so who knows.

  • 1 year later...
Posted

Back from the dead, I performed a walnut blast intake valve cleaning recently, will upload pics of the before on a few of the valves. This is a serious problem. The only reason they don't absolutely run horrible is cause the intake runners in the heads are huge and the valve lift from the cam is huge too. There was soo much of this disgusting carbon like thick jelly and dirt/oil everywhere killed the low lift air flow over the valves. I immediately picked up 1.5~2 mpg and power increase/return is almost dramatic. Truck is a rocket again. Like the frog in boiling water analogy it (DI carbon buildup) is so gradual that you don't notice how bad it is.

 

 

I don't care what anyone says, it is a problem on these motors once you get up in miles and I'm sure significant buildup occurs well before you notice it. With post details on another new thread, how to, what I used, Was able to get them way cleaner with the walnuts over any other method. Was kinda a pain overall though. At least a half-days work taking your time.

If your truck has over 50k mi I would say it needs it. Mine was at 87k and was shocking to me and this was running an elite catch can, so who know how much that may have slowed it down.

 

Posted (edited)
On 4/3/2021 at 1:14 AM, kennerz said:

Back from the dead, I performed a walnut blast intake valve cleaning recently, will upload pics of the before on a few of the valves. This is a serious problem. The only reason they don't absolutely run horrible is cause the intake runners in the heads are huge and the valve lift from the cam is huge too. There was soo much of this disgusting carbon like thick jelly and dirt/oil everywhere killed the low lift air flow over the valves. I immediately picked up 1.5~2 mpg and power increase/return is almost dramatic. Truck is a rocket again. Like the frog in boiling water analogy it (DI carbon buildup) is so gradual that you don't notice how bad it is.

 

 

I don't care what anyone says, it is a problem on these motors once you get up in miles and I'm sure significant buildup occurs well before you notice it. With post details on another new thread, how to, what I used, Was able to get them way cleaner with the walnuts over any other method. Was kinda a pain overall though. At least a half-days work taking your time.

If your truck has over 50k mi I would say it needs it. Mine was at 87k and was shocking to me and this was running an elite catch can, so who know how much that may have slowed it down.

 

Very Astute DUDEMAN!  There is many on this forum unaware/ignorant etc. misinformed etc.  Your 100%  correct on that Cam!  I already told everybody it was aggressive and the intake runners yup HUGE!  All done on purpose from GM Engineers to obfuscate the obvious and they usually accomplish their goal as GM has some of the best engineers without question!  I will preach it again!  I don't care if your 3k-5k-10k guy you have to keep these buggers clean and it's more work no doubt but the LT'S are awesome engines imo.....

 

 

Edited by mookdoc6
  • Like 1
Posted

So if build up in ALL GDI motors results in a loss of both power AND economy somebody explain to me why Pepper at 134,000 miles it still gaining in lifetime fuel efficiency and getting better numbers now than it did at 50,000 miles? This I gotta hear. 

 

:lurk: 

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

Here were mine at 104,000 miles, now I'm at 110,000.

 

Notice zero power loss, weird idle problems, still pulls 21+ mpg on the freeway easy. Not saying that the build up is fine but to lump all engines into that is a bit much. I know plenty of fleets running these trucks with high mileage doing okay still.

 

2123523422_20200402_1213481.thumb.jpg.bd70e31b00e638994aea50b253941c2b.jpg

Edited by CamGTP
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, CamGTP said:

Here were mine at 104,000 miles, now I'm at 110,000.

 

Notice zero power loss, weird idle problems, still pulls 21+ mpg on the freeway easy. Not saying that the build up is fine but to lump all engines into that is a bit much. I know plenty of fleets running these trucks with high mileage doing okay still.

 

2123523422_20200402_1213481.thumb.jpg.bd70e31b00e638994aea50b253941c2b.jpg

Scoop! There it is!!! 

I have a serious dislike for "Blanket Statements" and "F.U.D". Thank you Cameron. 

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
On 4/3/2021 at 4:14 AM, kennerz said:

Back from the dead, I performed a walnut blast intake valve cleaning recently, will upload pics of the before on a few of the valves. This is a serious problem. The only reason they don't absolutely run horrible is cause the intake runners in the heads are huge and the valve lift from the cam is huge too. There was soo much of this disgusting carbon like thick jelly and dirt/oil everywhere killed the low lift air flow over the valves. I immediately picked up 1.5~2 mpg and power increase/return is almost dramatic. Truck is a rocket again. Like the frog in boiling water analogy it (DI carbon buildup) is so gradual that you don't notice how bad it is.

 

 

I don't care what anyone says, it is a problem on these motors once you get up in miles and I'm sure significant buildup occurs well before you notice it. With post details on another new thread, how to, what I used, Was able to get them way cleaner with the walnuts over any other method. Was kinda a pain overall though. At least a half-days work taking your time.

If your truck has over 50k mi I would say it needs it. Mine was at 87k and was shocking to me and this was running an elite catch can, so who know how much that may have slowed it down.

 

Where are the pics?

 

also odd that you running a catch can have build up problems and everybody that doesn’t run one, who has posted pictures on high mileage engines, has no problems. Weird

Edited by truckguy82
  • Haha 1
Posted

A simple answer to this issue IMO.

If you are going to keep your truck for an extended time this is what I would do.

Catch can. Why not?

Shorter oil and filter changes than the computers OLM. Maybe consider 100% synthetic oil, Amsoil or?

Top Tier gas.

 

Posted

GDI has been used since 1925. Mercedes in the 1950's used it and had these issues with it. Gave it a bad reputation. People like to hang on the what it was instead of what it is. What if we did that with rings and oil? We would still by shying away from motors over 60,000 miles and changing oil every other weekend.

 

How would a motor that uses no measurable oil over 5K miles benefit from a can. If it uses oil because of rings or valve seals how would a motor benefit from a can?  

 

When someone says I picked up 1.5 to 2 mpg instantly???? Wishful thinking. You haven't collected data long enough to make a valid statistical argument for that. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

GDI has been used since 1925. Mercedes in the 1950's used it and had these issues with it. Gave it a bad reputation. People like to hang on the what it was instead of what it is. What if we did that with rings and oil? We would still by shying away from motors over 60,000 miles and changing oil every other weekend.

 

How would a motor that uses no measurable oil over 5K miles benefit from a can. If it uses oil because of rings or valve seals how would a motor benefit from a can?  

 

When someone says I picked up 1.5 to 2 mpg instantly???? Wishful thinking. You haven't collected data long enough to make a valid statistical argument for that. 

I’m burning a boatload of oil. Don’t know where its going. If I don’t check it and add it, I’ll get a low oil level warning when the oil life monitor says I’m about 25% oil life remaining. That’s a lot of burning oil.

 

Owner of blackbear street tuned my truck, I told him about the oil consumption, and he said well it’s not the rings. Somehow he could tell that by looking at the live data.

 

i too get great mpg at 60k miles, seems good as new, and I take a ton of short trips, which is probably terrible for carbon buildup.

 

i would say I’m only running my engine for more than 20 minutes a time, once a month.

 

infact I’m gonna make a thread about it

Edited by truckguy82
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, truckguy82 said:

I’m burning a boatload of oil. Don’t know where its going. If I don’t check it and add it, I’ll get a low oil level warning when the oil life monitor says I’m about 25% oil life remaining. That’s a lot of burning oil.

 

Owner of blackbear street tuned my truck, I told him about the oil consumption, and he said well it’s not the rings. Somehow he could tell that by looking at the live data.

 

i too get great mpg at 60k miles, seems good as new, and I take a ton of short trips, which is probably terrible for carbon buildup.

 

i would say I’m only running my engine for more than 20 minutes a time, once a month.

 

infact I’m gonna make a thread about it

There's only four ways out, right? Leak, valve seals, rings or PCV system. 

A can only helps the last. 

 

Looking forward to your thread 😉 

 

So...I wonder...has anyone noticed these motors no longer have an EGR pump nor passages? Yet they do in fact utilize EGR. But instead of pumping exhaust into the intake they back fill the exhaust into the intake with a combination of cam events and injector timing.  In the days of carburetors we called it 'reversion'.

:crackup:

 

It's what you see on the backs of Cameron's valves 

 

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • probably won't get a response from that user, as they haven't returned to the site since making that one post.  users don't (at least I don't, and I haven't seen any setting which would notify me via say, email) get any notification other than going to this site, and checking if they got a response on their thread...
    • Thanks - I wasn't quite caffeinated this morning. 2:1 makes sense, turning the crankshaft 360 degrees will turn the cam 180 degrees, and had I done that, the cam's dot would be at 6 and the crank's at 12 again.   I went ahead and took the sprocket off anyway, aligned everything dot-to-dot including the balance shaft just for s&g. I'm glad I did because I discovered no Loctite on the timing sprocket bolts. Maybe it's not required, but at only 20 ft-lb torque spec, those bolts aren't in there very tight. Cleaned and reassembled with some thread locker and torqued.   A general observation: Less is more with RTV. If a little doesn't stop a leak, a LOT probably won't, either. RTV is thinly veiled revenge, in a tube...      
    • The timing marks are ok, that is #1, you can turn it over until they line up and it won't change anything, the crankshaft turns twice for every camshaft revolution, I have always set up SB Chevs as your pic shows using a straight edge
    • Someone's been here before.... There is a receipt for a 3-piece timing set, purchased earlier this year.   Is this picture something, or, nothing?   I have the timing cover off and my crank is perfectly TDC and the keyed gear's locating mark is dead on 12 o'clock.   The cam gear locating mark is also at 12 o'clock. Now, I'm not an expert, but all the install guides say the two locating marks should meet and be perfectly aligned when installing a timing set. The mark on the crank should be dead on 12:00 and the cam gear's mark should be dead on 6:00, and both marks should be perfectly vertically aligned.   I believe the timing gear is keyed or has a dowel that ensures it can only be installed on the cam in one position, so I have to believe the cam is out of phase somehow. At the very least, with a triangular bolt pattern, it can only be installed in one of 3 different positions.   Before I pulled the front cover, the truck was running alright, no service engine soon lights except an occasional P0172 / rich condition. Timing -16 timing at idle (should be +16), and total -35% fuel trim, two conditions I haven't been able to figure out.   In related news, my injector tested pretty well, wasn't leaking, but I had it rebuilt anyway, and it's on it's way back to me.         Along with this discovery, the good and bad:   Good: The oil pan seal appears undamaged.   Bad: -The timing cover has been reused, and the positioning dowels have been broken. That could explain some of the leaking. -Some kind of white paste or grease was used to try to seal the oil pan seal and timing cover (since wiped off..). -Then, someone globbed silicone all over the front of the cover and also buried the ckp sensor in it. But, they didn't put any inside the cover or use RTV to try to seal the oil pan seal with the timing cover (good).
    • The guy that owns K&P filters last I checked in with him has over 300,000 miles on his Dodge base Hemi using his own 35 micron absolute stainless mesh filter from its first oil change.    The GM study I've posted a dozen times shows the relationship in engine life based in multiples of base units, not miles or years. That is the base unit is the number of miles the motor ran using the reference filter efficiency.    The above two paragraphs dismantle anecdotal arguments IF one changes oil often enough to prevent particle formation and the motor is in otherwise good shape. That is not full of silica (no air filter) or suffering a metallurgical issue that is not part of the lubrication discussion. Poor heat treat in example.   Data from UOA's I've reviewed from more than a few engines can show remarkably broad variations in oil cleanliness using the exact same filter over the course of an engines life.     Lastly there is the common sense of it. Wear debris WILL circulate the engine BEFORE it ever sees a filter in route to that filter and WILL harm the pump which NEVER sees filtered oil.    Alpha question then becomes, given the facts, how long do you believe is a reasonable service life from a vehicle you are certain you will not pass down? That is the junk yard will be it's resting place when you're done with it? (the moral issue most don't care about).    Omega question is then how diligent are you prepared to be in general mechanical, air & oil maintenance? Preventing particulates and keeping them sufficiently dilute; preventing the precursors from generation, amalgamation and precipitation.    If I get a good look at the engine bay of a vehicle I have a fair idea of the owners commitment to the inside of the power train. That 30 micron WIX is still more efficient than a sieve.                 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...