BLKWS.6

Well, maybe not THAT strong, but I feel that I have ferreted out a LOT! of the issue!


https://ls1tech.com/forums/generation-iii-internal-engine/584997-different-rings-01-a.html
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...9&page=1&pp=20

Seems the PCV does still suck, but GM just buggered up trying to make AS MUCH HP AS POSSIBLE! with the 9# low tension rings...they did fix it, too little too late imho.

THis also has to do with driver behavior. If you are at high (3,000rpm) rpm under low load (i.e. being a lazy jackass like some people I know and just cruising in 2nd in the city so you dont have to shift into 3rd). This causes ring flutter and oil usage, but if you short shift and load the engine all the time, you probably wont use nearly the oil, if any. GM "fixed" the rings for their more errant and or OCD (myself) owners.

300bhp/ton

Nice, but it's hadly conclusive eivdience. Not enough results across the entire production range, but that in itself would be flawed, as age and fatigue will likely have had a greater affect on more of the earlier examples.

I understand why you are researching this, and this isn't a dig at you, but I really think it is of little or no consequence overall. Or what model year you own.

I mean if the engine fails all the more reason to build a boosted 402ci