Jontall

This is how. Would you use this block in your build?

Codefive

For what its worth, I do not know the owner of the car but I DO know the shop and the tuner very well. The shop owner has been in the hi-perf industry for over 20 years now and has an excellent reputation in his field. He has tuned countless cars of this nature and is no stranger to FI builds. I live over 400 miles away from him and local people know of him in a possitive manner for his abilities. He is one of the most revered people in the field in his area and down the east coast. Just because he chooses not troll around here or other forums doesnt mean he doesnt know what he is doing.

I was visiting the area and stopped by the shop in Dec shortly after the incident in question and viewed the parts personally. Up close there is NO sign of detonation, on the piston tops or the bearings. The skirts didnt look bad either. The knock sensors were checked and were working properly at the time. The log shows a conservative tune. The fuel system was upgraded and fuel pressure was logged on the dyno & up to par (This was all done on a SuperFLow Chassis dyno, NOT an engine dyno) As for the big stink about 11:1, maybe someone needs to look at blown methanol combos where they're alot higher than that. The C-16 was a safety precaution. The cam was one of his personal blower cams that he has used in several similar applications with good results. Its not like he opened up the catolog and said "how 'bout that one?" It was a well researched and tested grind. The blower was in fact a Vortech YSI, cog drive peaking at 15psi.

Do I agree with putting 15psi on the GMPP LSX454? No and the shop owner was hesitant. But this was a project the car owner investigated himself and wanted to do. Money is not much of an issue from what I've been told and he wanted what he wanted and that was it. And after getting a green light from Dr. Jamie, he could see no reason not to do it.

IMO there should be some photos posted of what I saw back in Dec. The chamber, the spark plugs, a hi-res shot of the piston top & skirt, the bent rod, the perfect head gasket, etc ... there was no sign of excessive heat or even a hotspot. The block failed, plain & simple.

The car owner is not an engine builder nor is he well versed in the field in general but ... he IS getting an education. From what I see & hear, he is just making light of the fact that a highly placed GM official gave him the green light for this project and the block failed. All he was looking for was a replacement block and he got the praverbial "FU". GM has been shown the parts and given the necessary proof posters here have asked for. They just dont care. The car owner (while trying ot get GM to step up) is also trying to bring to light the fact that the LSX blocks are flawed. He is trying to give the industry a heads up at his expense.

The car owner has learned his lesson, LPE has built him a new engine specifically for his intentions and his 2010 Camaro ought to be a force to be wreckoned with when completed. (and will be tuned again by the same COMPITENT" tuner)

In short, I believe the entire purpose of these threads is make light of the fact that GM really needs to look at QC.

stevieturbo

And potential buyers need to realise that when building a big power combo, you dont do it with an off the shelf engine that has never actually been inspected to see if it is suitable for what you intend to do with it.


It's been an expensive lesson for him, and it seems he only wanted to listen to people who told him what he wanted to hear.
As you seem to suggest the tuner told him it wasnt a smart idea.

As can be seen by posts in these threads, and indeed the forum for some years. The LSX blocks rarely are top quality as they leave the factory.

FMX05

iTrader: (3)

Exactly. He remind me of a middle school age child. It seems like he went around asking if it was a good idea until he got the answer he wanted to hear albeit from a guy in the marketing department. That's just ludicrous. Why not call the advertising department at Jeg's and have them spec out your next $15,000 build.

TurboAv

iTrader: (6)

You aren't getting the point. That block would have been fine for YEARS with an NA build. Add boost and BOOM. Who's fault is that? GM's or the person who boosted an NA engine?

I say you can run a stock LQ9 to 1500 rwhp. Put a fancy title in front of my name and you believe me? Come on.

topend

No you are not getting the point.

why were the headgaskets intact and not the block???


The block failed plain and simple.

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

Is there a pic of a bent rod somewhere? Bent rod = lifted HG = coolant in the cylinder. Again I point to head studs being a requirement for this power level. We are talking like over 900 at the crank here.

stevieturbo

It may have done. Doesnt alter the fact the OP went down a very stupid route when buying off the shelf parts.
And equally stupid in engine size for a boosted build. If bore size had been kept sensible, maybe he wouldnt be in the same situation. But taking any bore to its maximum limit, then adding boost. Is plain stupid.

Codefive

John, The headgasket was MINT. It showed no trace of a breach what so ever. The concensus is that the bent rod came from hydrolock due to the block braking and filling the cylinder. I believe the first post has a pic showing the verticle crack as well as the hole in the lower part of the bore. My guess is the crack came first and began filling the hole as the piston went down. On the upswing attempt, it blew the hole in the block. The piece was wedged firmly in the coolant passage. It was pushed out and then wedged down between the sleeve and the block. Also, the rod wasnt just bent, it was twisted slightly as well.

I'm in full agreement that good hardware is a must for the power level in question but in this particular case, I dont believe it failed .... yet (it didnt get the chance to). Also, being a 6 bolt configuration, even stock hardware will take a pretty good beating before allowing a HG to lift.

TurboAv

iTrader: (6)

Exactly.

topend

OP contacted GM about this build and was given an ok.

Bore size was in specification for the block.

why only one cylinder cracked?? if the block was over bored for forced induction.why not more???

This is not the first time GM built a batch a bad blocks. Many years ago GM made SBC for marine application. Some of these engines suffered from bad core shift. Cylinders would crack like an egg shell on NA engines.

LSX block=junk

Boycott the LSX block . GM needs to fix this problem and not leave us hanging like the OP.

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

If they were just making pulls on the dyno, I don't think the head gasket would look at that messed up compared to one with 1/4 runs on it.

Stock head bolts stretch when even making 600hp. I'm just saying.

Good luck to the owner of the car.

Hank Peabody

iTrader: (2)

Says the guy who cant form a complete sentence.

SilverSS

iTrader: (30)

PSJ is right. The rod would be bent because of a hydraulically locked cylinder. There is no other reason it would be bent and twisted unless metal was being crushed between the piston and head. Look at the top of the piston. It's clean so no metal bouncing around. I've seen some old school high hp nitrous motors make way more power than this for a long time only to find out core shift left cylinders thinner than .070" in some spots before detonation windowed that cylinder. I'm sure that this block would have lasted if everything was right but yeah, I still wouldn't have boosted it like this.

topend

So you saying the stretched headbolts lifted the cylinderheads which in turn caused coolant to enter the cylinder and bend the rod. But not the big hole in the cylinder wall allowing coolant to enter causing the rod to bend due to hydralock ?????

how many 600 hp stock head bolt (that stretched) engines u mentioned broke the cylinder wall????

Ive seen rods bend due to fuel hydralocking but never cracking the cylinder wall wide open.

O.N.

Hey guys just want to let you know, I have the passenger side (USA side) head off my LSX454 at the moment and there is no problem with cylinder wall thickness on this side, i was worried about this and had a very close look at all 4 cylinders especially at the 10 oclock position and the thickness is the same all the way around, no where near as bad as the photo from PRI/Sema shows.
The other head will be off shortly and i'll have a look at it too.

I got my block from summit around late October 2010. And then shipped to Australia. I dont work for GMPP, you can check my posts etc and youtube video of my car.

SirNemesis

Cut the block in half (like the PRI/Sema show) and then show us how it looks...

Boosted One

iTrader: (6)

Is it just me or does it look like the right 2 cylinders are stock rough bored and the left 2 are bored considerably more?

O.N.

lol you might want to read the first post with the pictures from the guy who posted the pics.
The left 2 are 4.185 the right 2 are 4.125

98Z28CobraKiller

iTrader: (17)

Regardless of the bore or application, the difference between the wall thickness at 10:00 and 2:00 on #6 cylinder should fail QC.