Some Assembly is Required

[customboss]

On 10/2/2025 at 11:17 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

Once again, the scientific community disagrees that excluding background Nitration is an acceptable methodology. the sampling of VOA's above support that stand. Common sense does as well. The makers of the instruments that detect do as well. 

 

 

 

https://documents.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/CAD/Application-Notes/D10256~.pdf

 

 

I'm now to the point where I let this go. I've brought the receipts. I've sounded the siren. Those that wish to believe the LIE will; and I am no longer responsible. It has zero effect on my equipment and I no longer have a reason nor a responsibility to continue this Nitration . 

 

You want to believe that one man in 8 BILLION is the only one that gets this right? You have at.....

 

 

I did this chart with a friend/ colleague from CAT labs when they used Perkin Elmer machines in 1998-99. It gives @Grumpy Bear and @OnTheReel a comparison of values. SOS CAT labs have gone south on reporting good FTIR data and my pal is dead. 
 

Edited November 12, 2025 by customboss

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, garagerog said:

Kudos to the both of you for extending the proverbial olive branch to one another!

 

It seems to me that we all often demand someone accept our point of view when what should be happening is an attempt to understand their frame of reference. We don't even see it ourselves that we are resisting the wrong element of the presentation. We take an outcome based position we defend with a passion and we have that passion because we care about what we are passionate about. 

 

Arguments should always include reference and context. It isn't the first time nor will it be the last we ALL forget this salient point. 

 

You reminded me of that fact and to that, I thank you. 

 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

We have a defunct Buick Garage in town owned by the same guy for about 40 years and it was his fathers before he. There is a sales guy there whose been not just the sales guy but the buyer for decades. Auction house that is. I stopped in to say Daniel yesterday and he shared a piece of interesting information surrounding the Ecotec I-4 2400.

 

There are still some of these around in Terrains and Equinox's with under 50K miles on them that show themselves at auction occasionally. They discontinued buying them quite a few years ago regardless of the shape they seemed to be in. BUT that same motor in a Malibu or a Verano is still quite sought after. Reason? Motors crap out in the heavier and less aero SUV's but sing like kittens with a bowl of warm mild in the lighter more streamlined sedans. He was puzzled by this. 

 

I am not. Wear is not just about design of the unit but about the "Load" placed on it. The reason bridges have load limits. As I have one of each and both have Scan Gauge setups I tested this utilizing the % Load feature and at 60 mph there is a HUGE difference in BMEP. 

 

Not quite the difference as there is in a 230 Chevy I-6 in a Biscayne and that motor is 16" Sea Star Tri-haul I/O but quite a difference. One could come to that same conclusion by examining the differences in EPA fuel economy numbers between vehicles with motor of the same type. 

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, customboss said:

I did this chart with a friend/ colleague from CAT labs when they used Perkin Elmer machines in 1998-99. It gives @Grumpy Bear and @OnTheReel a comparison of values. SOS CAT labs have gone south on reporting good FTIR data and my pal is dead. 
 

 

Explain please the notes on the bottom right column. 

 

Yea, I let the dogs out....

[Grumpy Bear]

Rewind the Assembly

 

A recent post noted upping the viscosity wouldn't hurt anything, it just isn't necessary. 

 

Lets remember point of reference. "As things ought be". And in that case and situationally dependent I might be inclined to agree, especially in the case of Dizzy whose OEM call out is 5W30.

 

So why did I up the ante? Because Dizzy isn't operating as she ought. She's operating 'As she is" and that is with a profound amount of fuel dilution that has no remedy other than a rebuild. Early by reason of a faulty high pressure fuel pump and afterwards as a result of the loss of ring seal. Something not abnormal to the Ecotec I-4 engine series.

 

In other words I went to 5W40 to get a 5W30 under current operational conditions for which there is no economic fix. Also because the design has the fuel pump, prone to failure, with access to the crankcase and thus the oil. Upping the viscosity is insurance for the inevitable engine killing pump leak. 

 

Why the ultra short OCI's? Again ring seal caused dilution. Fuel doesn't just kill viscosity, it kills lubricity and both increase wear rates. It also accelerates oil degradation. 

 

First sample is Mobil 1 HM 15W50. Ending as a SAE 40 with elevated oxidation at 2K miles with pretty good wear. 

Second sample is that same oil at 1K miles sill in grade with improved oxidation. Cleaner. 

Last sample is Traveler's SAE 40 Mineral oil with ZDP added, which ended in 1K miles as a heavy SAE 30 and wear is stellar. New fuel pump installed with injector service at 261,753 miles which you see had zero impact on dilution. RINGS. 

 

Both too heavy for year around so I settled on Mobil 1 Euro Spec 5W40. So at this point the short OCI is to keep the ring land oil returns open. Cat is shot and I'm setting a P420 code every day now and using a quart over 2000 miles based on usage in 1K miles. Tis her life until I give up. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[asilverblazer]

On 11/13/2025 at 1:41 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

Something not abnormal to the Ecotec I-4 engine series...

 

Also because the design has the fuel pump, prone to failure, with access to the crankcase and thus the oil. Upping the viscosity is insurance for the inevitable engine killing pump leak. 

 

261,753 miles which you see had zero impact on dilution. RINGS...

I am ignorant and oblivious to the Gm Ecotec I-4, however, I'm working with an Ecotec LE5, in a relatives car. (2008 Saturn Sky, base model, automatic with about 90k on the clock. reasonably regular oil changes at any quick lube joint.)

 

Where is your Dizzy experience documented for review? What else is it based off...

 

I'm trying to find where all the gremlins of this I-4 hiding? I've done a VVT solenoid on it and a vapor canister replacement (along with fuel delivery clean out and inspection).

 

It has a very coarse idle (not missing) gravely, growly, but otherwise runs well enough, gets decent mileage. Not very powerful at top end.

[Grumpy Bear]

59 minutes ago, asilverblazer said:

I am ignorant and oblivious to the Gm Ecotec I-4, however, I'm working with an Ecotec LE5, in a relatives car. (2008 Saturn Sky, base model, automatic with about 90k on the clock. reasonably regular oil changes at any quick lube joint.)

 

Where is your Dizzy experience documented for review? What else is it based off...

 

I'm trying to find where all the gremlins of this I-4 hiding? I've done a VVT solenoid on it and a vapor canister replacement (along with fuel delivery clean out and inspection).

 

It has a very coarse idle (not missing) gravely, growly, but otherwise runs well enough, gets decent mileage. Not very powerful at top end.

 

Dizzy is an LEA series Ecotec. The I-4 just meant inline four cylinder. 

 

Dizzy has a build thread in that forum. Don't Think I left anything out. 

 

Now, your LE5 motor doesn't have GDI nor low tension rings with DLH coatings. The one you have is near bullet proof if well serviced. I'm jealous. Seriously. You are one year to old for the valve upgrade that permitted E-85 usage. That said I don't know if that motor has a normal breather with PCV system or the junk orifice system my motor has. 

 

You buy it new and done all services yourself? Does it use any oil? That gravel noise...hum...timing chain? Not uncommon. 

[newdude]

Yea LE5 2.4 Ecotec was pre GDI.  Was a generation 2 Ecotec.  LE5 2.4 was the largest displacement.  Highest displacement and power naturally aspirated.  Reinforced block and forged rods on engines built from July 2007-onwards.  LE5s have dual VVT (VVT on intake and exhaust) where gen 1 engines didn't have any. 

 

VVT solenoids are a common item, but nowhere near as common as the 2.4 GDI LAF/LEA engines.  Timing chain can be an issue but again, not as prevalent as in the 2.4 GDI LAF/LEA.  You could also have water pump noise?

 

So yea, Grumpy Bear pretty much nailed the LE5 as being near bulletproof.  Regular maintenance should keep it running for some time.  

[asilverblazer]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

The one you have is near bullet proof if well serviced... 

 

You buy it new and done all services yourself? Does it use any oil? That gravel noise...hum...timing chain? Not uncommon. 

Not my car, just one I'm servicing for family.

 

14 minutes ago, newdude said:

Yea LE5 2.4 Ecotec was pre GDI.  Was a generation 2 Ecotec.  LE5 2.4 was the largest displacement.  Highest displacement and power naturally aspirated.  Reinforced block and forged rods on engines built from July 2007-onwards.  LE5s have dual VVT (VVT on intake and exhaust) where gen 1 engines didn't have any. 

 

VVT solenoids are a common item, but nowhere near as common as the 2.4 GDI LAF/LEA engines.  Timing chain can be an issue but again, not as prevalent as in the 2.4 GDI LAF/LEA.  You could also have water pump noise?

 

So yea, Grumpy Bear pretty much nailed the LE5 as being near bulletproof.  Regular maintenance should keep it running for some time.  

Good to know.

[OnTheReel]

Just @Grumpy Bear ‘s luck. The one that came before his and the 2.5 that replaced it are both much much better engines.

 

I gotta say I’m impressed with most of GM’s four cylinders these days. I’ve come across quite a few Equinox’s with the 1.4T doing 200-300k miles pretty easily. Underpowered in that platform but damn good engine.

[newdude]

49 minutes ago, OnTheReel said:

Just @Grumpy Bear ‘s luck. The one that came before his and the 2.5 that replaced it are both much much better engines.

 

I gotta say I’m impressed with most of GM’s four cylinders these days. I’ve come across quite a few Equinox’s with the 1.4T doing 200-300k miles pretty easily. Underpowered in that platform but damn good engine.

 

 

The 2.5 is pretty good except for it's Achillies heel (same on the 1.4T, 1.5T and 2.0T).  The camshaft driven vacuum pump.  If the pump fails seen them jump time or break the end of the cam they are on.  I've told people to replace them before 100K mi as preventative maintenance.    

[Grumpy Bear]

Can it be assembled? 

 

A Rubik's Cube is challenging to solve because it has over 43 quintillion possible configurations, but only one correct solution. 

 

Hold that thought!

 

 

 

Google this SAE paper title and read the introduction: 

 

 

In the intro it is acknowledged that there is a relationship between wear and fuel efficiency/Green House Gas generation. It also CLEARLY states that the latter, efficiency, carries more weight than the former, wear. 

 

Buy it, read it. If you do you are going to find that 'designing a motor from the ground up for low HTHS' isn't as much about design and it is about goal post moving. Unlike a Rubik Cube and running motor doesn't have one correct solution. It has no correct solution. It only has margins around an acceptable result. It also has not 43 quintillion possible configurations or positions but and infinite number. 

 

This is why Rafe Britton says in his viscosity series: [quote] The main significance of HTHS viscosity is its ability to indicate the oil’s performance in maintaining a protective film between moving parts under high stress and temperature. Oils with higher HTHS viscosity values provide better protection against wear and reduce friction, which is essential for engine longevity and efficiency. However, higher HTHS viscosity can also result in increased fuel consumption. [close quote]

 

Two take aways in Rafe's comment. The word BETTER PROTECTION. Odd choice adjectives. He didn't say prevent. If the motor is going to run it's going to wear. Higher HTHS reaches further into the margins. What does that mean?

 

Means it will prevent things from touching other moving things at LOWER SPEEDS, at HIGHER LOADS, at HIGHER TEMPERATURES and this isn't taking about when the motor is being abused. All within a single normal down the road revolution. That piston comes to a dead stop at each end of the stroke. What happens to Hersey at a velocity of zero? 

 

HTHS and ring tension hysteresis prevent collapse of the film thickness reducing the wear kiss that no surface finish or hardness will eliminate. And yes adds protection during harsher environments such as fuel dilution and towing. Protection as Rafe uses the word is relative to all conditions during a cycle. More area under the curve. 

 

I said there were two. His second went unsaid but implied in that last sentence.  However, higher HTHS viscosity can also result in increased fuel consumption. (higher FRICTION) Same word he used in the opposite in the preceding sentence: higher HTHS viscosity values provide better protection against wear and reduce friction,

 

People seem to have a problem separating the wear friction of surface ON surface contact with the internal fluid friction of viscosity. They are OPPOSITE ends of the Stribeck Curve and why Lake Jr makes such a point in saying wear and friction are NOT mutually exclusive. 

 

Designing a motor for low viscosity oil would require a smoother or harder surface or both. Even then it doesn't eliminate wear. It utilizes more of the margins. It does not eliminate the margin. It's a frog trying to reach a wall by jumping half way there with each attempt. Motors are not Rubik cubes. 

 

Increases in hardness invite fractures as the surface becomes brittle. Reductions in surface finishes inhibit 'wetting'. Both have been known and maximized since WWII. Stellite and Hard Chrome over tool steel cam cores (Now Ceramic DLH coatings) and single quartz light band flat finishes at zero micron have been done. 

 

Most of what makes a motor 'designed for it' is altering expectations of the end user. 

 

Toyota KNOWS nothing bad happens when you use 0W20 oil in their CROWN 'designed for 0W8. They don't even supply the dealers with 0W8. They offer 0W16 as a suitable substitute and allow 0W20 in the manual. To do that the motor was EPA qualified on 0W20. This designed thing is word salad that can be impossible to assemble until the scales come off the eyes. 

[customboss]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Can it be assembled? 

 

A Rubik's Cube is challenging to solve because it has over 43 quintillion possible configurations, but only one correct solution. 

 

Hold that thought!

 

 

 

Google this SAE paper title and read the introduction: 

 

 

In the intro it is acknowledged that there is a relationship between wear and fuel efficiency/Green House Gas generation. It also CLEARLY states that the latter, efficiency, carries more weight than the former, wear. 

 

Buy it, read it. If you do you are going to find that 'designing a motor from the ground up for low HTHS' isn't as much about design and it is about goal post moving. Unlike a Rubik Cube and running motor doesn't have one correct solution. It has no correct solution. It only has margins around an acceptable result. It also has not 43 quintillion possible configurations or positions but and infinite number. 

 

This is why Rafe Britton says in his viscosity series: [quote] The main significance of HTHS viscosity is its ability to indicate the oil’s performance in maintaining a protective film between moving parts under high stress and temperature. Oils with higher HTHS viscosity values provide better protection against wear and reduce friction, which is essential for engine longevity and efficiency. However, higher HTHS viscosity can also result in increased fuel consumption. [close quote]

 

Two take aways in Rafe's comment. The word BETTER PROTECTION. Odd choice adjectives. He didn't say prevent. If the motor is going to run it's going to wear. Higher HTHS reaches further into the margins. What does that mean?

 

Means it will prevent things from touching other moving things at LOWER SPEEDS, at HIGHER LOADS, at HIGHER TEMPERATURES and this isn't taking about when the motor is being abused. All within a single normal down the road revolution. That piston comes to a dead stop at each end of the stroke. What happens to Hersey at a velocity of zero? 

 

HTHS and ring tension hysteresis prevent collapse of the film thickness reducing the wear kiss that no surface finish or hardness will eliminate. And yes adds protection during harsher environments such as fuel dilution and towing. Protection as Rafe uses the word is relative to all conditions during a cycle. More area under the curve. 

 

I said there were two. His second went unsaid but implied in that last sentence.  However, higher HTHS viscosity can also result in increased fuel consumption. (higher FRICTION) Same word he used in the opposite in the preceding sentence: higher HTHS viscosity values provide better protection against wear and reduce friction,

 

People seem to have a problem separating the wear friction of surface ON surface contact with the internal fluid friction of viscosity. They are OPPOSITE ends of the Stribeck Curve and why Lake Jr makes such a point in saying wear and friction are NOT mutually exclusive. 

 

Designing a motor for low viscosity oil would require a smoother or harder surface or both. Even then it doesn't eliminate wear. It utilizes more of the margins. It does not eliminate the margin. It's a frog trying to reach a wall by jumping half way there with each attempt. Motors are not Rubik cubes. 

 

Increases in hardness invite fractures as the surface becomes brittle. Reductions in surface finishes inhibit 'wetting'. Both have been known and maximized since WWII. Stellite and Hard Chrome over tool steel cam cores (Now Ceramic DLH coatings) and single quartz light band flat finishes at zero micron have been done. 

 

Most of what makes a motor 'designed for it' is altering expectations of the end user. 

 

Toyota KNOWS nothing bad happens when you use 0W20 oil in their CROWN 'designed for 0W8. They don't even supply the dealers with 0W8. They offer 0W16 as a suitable substitute and allow 0W20 in the manual. To do that the motor was EPA qualified on 0W20. This designed thing is word salad that can be impossible to assemble until the scales come off the eyes. 

Yawn  

[jwhjr]

1 minute ago, customboss said:

Yawn  

Agreed.  The word salad spoken about at the bottom is more accurate.

[customboss]

Watchout Grumpy you might be a casualty of this thread.