***[merged]L-92/LS-3 / 6.2 L blocks core/liner shift***
11-19-2006, 08:21 PM
#21
Originally Posted by klymaxr
If i had the pictures I would deffinitly have shared them.
max
max
Sorry, but them's the breaks. Please come back when you have proof, and not before then.
11-19-2006, 08:38 PM
#22
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,004
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am pretty sure the shop this guy uses can get reject blocks from St. Catherines and that is probably what he has. Usually these blocks will have marks or stripes on them and they are throw aways. Some are worse then others. I would like to see some pics.
11-19-2006, 09:05 PM
#23
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SSZ
I am pretty sure the shop this guy uses can get reject blocks from St. Catherines and that is probably what he has. Usually these blocks will have marks or stripes on them and they are throw aways. Some are worse then others. I would like to see some pics.
Dave
11-19-2006, 10:10 PM
#25
My opinion on this (as an engineer) is that if you call an engine "awesome" because it'll take significantly more power than it came with from the factory, you're wrong...thats an overbuilt engine that costs more than it needs to. A WELL engineered engine is no stronger than it needs to be to last for the expected service life of the vehicle at the same power level it came off the assembly line at...can't blame GM for anything at all if it does that.
Now from an enthusiasts poing of view...yeah I want my engine block to be way stronger than it was to hold up to whatever stock HP it had so that I can have more fun...but if it doesn't I can't call GM and complain about it...this is exactly why GM is now making the new GMPP iron block and rating it for a specific HP...my bet is that you could find SOME production blocks that hold up to that power as well, and SOME GMPP blocks that will hold up to more...but by selling it as aftermarket and advertising it at that HP level, they're saying "our tolerances and QC and specs on this block are SIGNIFICANLY higher, so you don't need to worry about it and don't need to do as much inspection on it".
Now from an enthusiasts poing of view...yeah I want my engine block to be way stronger than it was to hold up to whatever stock HP it had so that I can have more fun...but if it doesn't I can't call GM and complain about it...this is exactly why GM is now making the new GMPP iron block and rating it for a specific HP...my bet is that you could find SOME production blocks that hold up to that power as well, and SOME GMPP blocks that will hold up to more...but by selling it as aftermarket and advertising it at that HP level, they're saying "our tolerances and QC and specs on this block are SIGNIFICANLY higher, so you don't need to worry about it and don't need to do as much inspection on it".
11-19-2006, 10:23 PM
#26
Originally Posted by klymaxr
HMMM would that make it a performance engine... and i guess non of the proud truck owners would care if their engine all of a sudden split a liner just out of warranty!! max
I am not saying that I wouldn't like GM casting and machine work to be perfect, what I am saying is that it shouldn't be expected from a mass produced passenger car engine. If I had laid out $6k for a C5R block and ran in to the issues that you were having than I would be as upset as you are. Instead I bought a $900 LS2 block and spent a week (at night after work) deburring and polishing the rough as **** casting flash in the bottom end and am dealing with a slight imprfection in the casting on the deck next to one of the sleeves on the head gasket mating surface. It's not perfect, but I didn't pay 6 large for it either. It fits in to what I require including (but not limited to) budget, performance, strength and reliability. What I didn't do was jump on an internet message board, call it junk and garbage, and then call for the heads of product engineers of the people who made it.
11-19-2006, 10:48 PM
#27
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 4,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 99Fbody99
And 1/16" threaded plugs drilled in the back of the block plug the holes St. Cats now puts in the when scapped as well.
Dave
Dave
11-20-2006, 02:20 PM
#29
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK heres the proof from the better block, the first, which was way worse was already sent back...TO PARTS DEPOT.. not factory rejects.. like some of the posters on this site!!!...sumized.
11-20-2006, 02:23 PM
#30
Originally Posted by klymaxr
OK heres the proof from the better block, the first, which was way worse was already sent back...TO PARTS DEPOT.. not factory rejects.. like some of the posters on this site!!!...sumized.
11-20-2006, 02:31 PM
#32
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
Ok everyone. there is your proof. Now everyone simmer down, and lets find out what is going on...
Klymaxr, thanks for the pics...
Klymaxr, thanks for the pics...
Last edited by J-Rod; 11-20-2006 at 02:55 PM.
11-20-2006, 02:32 PM
#33
9 Second Club
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New Braunfels ,Tx
Posts: 4,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sciff5
whoa.. I'm a complete noob whos never been inside an engine and even I can see a major problem with that picture. Thats a wee bit of difference in sleeve thickness by a factor of like 30%. Are you sure the block isnt supposed to be this way from the factory?
There is no way its suppost to be like thast from the factory! At least I would not accept it! Good catch!
11-20-2006, 02:32 PM
#34
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other bank/side is pretty much dead on there is also a chamfer at the top of the cylinder liners that has been completly removed on one side. When bored symetrically, the cylinders have a nice chamfer all around to allow ease of ring install, but because the cylinders are bored to one side they have removed all chamfer.
11-20-2006, 02:35 PM
#35
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you imagine..this was the better of the three, since everyone wanted proof after i sent the others back. What do you think of how many vehicles..high end at that, have worse then this in them.
Max
Max
11-20-2006, 03:35 PM
#36
14 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, Il
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChucksZ06
I would have to ask if you have ever seen any lsx block before. The tolerances on the lsx engines are far superior to the sbc stuff that was produced for 40 years. My money says you are full of it and do not have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Humility always involves getting your *** kicked a few times.
I thank the original poster for bringing this out. Although next time maybe have the pics first to avoid the drama.
Anyway, that is what I would consider less than acceptable myself. The old SBC's also had core shift problems, but you also werent dealing with a pressed in liner. Although most of the "as factory intended" engines will probably see no ill effects from this I do think it shows a lack of attention to detail. Hopefully it is something that GM will inprove on in the future.
Does anybody know if the OD of the sleeves is any different that the LS1's? Is this maybe just something that is exagerated by the larger bore and may have been there all along?
11-20-2006, 05:03 PM
#37
Like I said, everyone's quick to bash, but now what? He's a hero because he showed you some pics. You guys should quit hammering on people for nothing. Always thinking someone is trying to take down GM. Sounds like a bunch of g*d damn hippies.
Thanks for the info and pics klymaxr. No way would I run block #3 like that. That liner thickness is unacceptable. GM would be payin g freight for every block till they got me one that was right. That's rediculous.
Thanks for the info and pics klymaxr. No way would I run block #3 like that. That liner thickness is unacceptable. GM would be payin g freight for every block till they got me one that was right. That's rediculous.
11-20-2006, 05:37 PM
#38
10 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Beast96Z
Like I said, everyone's quick to bash, but now what? He's a hero because he showed you some pics. You guys should quit hammering on people for nothing. Always thinking someone is trying to take down GM. Sounds like a bunch of g*d damn hippies.
Thanks for the info and pics klymaxr. No way would I run block #3 like that. That liner thickness is unacceptable. GM would be payin g freight for every block till they got me one that was right. That's rediculous.
Thanks for the info and pics klymaxr. No way would I run block #3 like that. That liner thickness is unacceptable. GM would be payin g freight for every block till they got me one that was right. That's rediculous.
ouch..... that looks like ***......take it back! who here has a contact at GM?? someone needs to send these pics to them ... atleast get an explanation..... I assume in a performance application those imperfections would cause serious issues... the cylinders eventually warp out of shape ...do the cylinders have a barrell or taper to them??
11-20-2006, 05:41 PM
#39
Originally Posted by mzoomora
Where is humility now?
I thank the original poster for bringing this out. Although next time maybe have the pics first to avoid the drama.
Anyway, that is what I would consider less than acceptable myself. The old SBC's also had core shift problems, but you also werent dealing with a pressed in liner.
I thank the original poster for bringing this out. Although next time maybe have the pics first to avoid the drama.
Anyway, that is what I would consider less than acceptable myself. The old SBC's also had core shift problems, but you also werent dealing with a pressed in liner.
11-20-2006, 05:43 PM
#40
10 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: by my computer
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 96 Comp T/A
You aren't dealing with a pressed in liner here either. They are cast in and that is the problem. It sucks that they aren't perfect but for what it is you can't expect it to be either. Previous engines had much thinner sleeves. remember 97-98 LS1 engines anyone?