BREAKING: GM is officially recalling the L87

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

blanchard7684

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2024
Posts
220
Reaction score
102
That makes sense. As the piston is pushed down there is enough force to overcome the "centrifuge" and place the heavy load there, and it is worse on the "rod side" half.

Per the video, these same exact bearings have been in use for a LONG time on the LS family of engines. Very strange why it only happened only on these engines. Video also notes that the crank is unique to this engine... thus the journal dimensioning/controls are understandably "defective"
The journal dimensions are the same. same stroke too. Only difference is the bore size. Thus the same bearings all the way back to the LS days.

What may be different or likely different is the counterweight/balancing.
 

BADRIDES

Full Access Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Posts
1,756
Reaction score
1,180
Also keep this in mind that when the Takata airbag recall came out it was 2-3 years before they had parts and were able to make these fixes. The guy that listed the parts list for this fix i think on page 48, do you think those are gonna be available soon? It does NO good to call or go by your dealership and bug the hell out of them. We know their is a problem and we have to do what GM tells us to do. They are NOT gonna put a new 6.2 in every vehicle from 2021-2024 when it costs $10,000 to install these engines. We are also a small dealership and dont have the man power for this if it gets into replacing a lot of engines. So we are only gonna be doing Chevrolets that are in the recall and NO Gmc's or Cadillac's. We also have a policy that you only get a loaner vehicle if your vehicle was bought from us.
 
Last edited:

Fless

Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Posts
13,383
Reaction score
27,220
Location
Elev 5,280
Also keep this in mind that when the Takata airbag recall came out it was 2-3 years before they had parts and were able to make these fixes. The guy that listed the parts list for this fix i think on page 48, do you think those are gonna be available soon? It does NO good to call or go by your dealership and bug the hell out of them. We know their is a problem and we have to do what GM tells us to do. They are NOT gonna put a new 6.2 in every vehicle from 2001-2004 when it costs $10,000 to install these engines. We are also a small dealership and dont have the man power for this if it gets into replacing a lot of engines. So we are only gonna be doing Chevrolets that are in the recall and NO Gmc's or Cadillac's. We also have a policy that you only get a loaner vehicle if your vehicle was bought from us.

Might want to edit the 2001-2004 years to 2021-2024...
 

viven44

Full Access Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2024
Posts
227
Reaction score
298
Location
Dallas, TX
We know their is a problem and we have to do what GM tells us to do.
That 'pragmatically' means any 6.2L coming in for an oil change tomorrow and involved in the recall should be using 0W-40. Its ok if its going to take years to complete the recall, but maybe be pragmatic and switch over all of these affected ones to 0W-40 until a "0W-20 replacement engine" is ready. Do it in 2 phases. Yes it will cost more but is the correct thing to do if GM believes the 0W-40 is going to reduce the likelihood of "loss of propulsion".... maybe the logistics of managing 2 oils is tough and I get that but can't afford to put people at risk much longer. Its a messy situation for all parties involved. Its sad the dealers have to clean up the mess always.... y'all need a bonus !
 
Last edited:

jfoj

Full Access Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Posts
652
Reaction score
444
What is the mystery here? Rod bearings were too tight. They heated up and end of story. So the people putting these engines together did not get that one (and a lot more of them) right.

Or, ..... (and maybe worse?) is the oil delivery design bad and that particular journal was not getting the correct lubrication? Then we are all doomed.
I do not think the bearings were too tight. I think it may have been a combination of things.

Understand that every engine built is "Cold Tested" on a device like a Spintron. If the engine was too tight at assembly the Spintron device should have detected higher current consumption of the electric motor spinning the engine.

If the motor was too loose, this may not have been picked up on the Spintron device.

I think if the engine was too loose, the oil pressure should have been an indicator, HOWEVER, the variable displacement pump may have masked a need for more oil and the pressure was not registering as low.

There was discussion of "debris" in the crank oil passages and on the connection rods. The crank was also I believe the words were "machined out of tolerance"??? The crank is supposed to have a micro polishing of the journals before installation, this is not usually performed at foundry, but at the assembly plant shortly before the crank is installed.

I believe the bearings were scored with debris and may have started to delaminate and/or there were problems maintaining the hydrodynamic oil wedge due to surface finish and excessive clearance.

Again, I believe the variable displacement oil pump may have masked a excessive clearance issue.

I have yet to see a 6.2l failure where anyone was ever alerted of an oil pressure problem. Few, if any engines had a noticeable knock or noise.
I believe every engine failed at highway speed.

At highway speed the 6.2l is under extreme engine loading at low RPM. Typically 1500-1700 RPM and when taking a very gradual rise in the road, maybe 50-100 feet over a mile or so, the engine loading will increase to between 70-100% depending on the grade and gear. Even if the transmission downshifts from 10th to 9th gear, this is only about 100 RPM increase.

I firmly believe the 0W20 oil cushion and ability to provide a thick enough layer on the crank and rod bearings was just beyond what ever damage may have occurred to the bearings or increased clearance.

Clearly there is some validity to this just because GM has proposed changing from 0W20 to 0W40 in engines that they believe had this manufacturing flaw. Some may characterize the flaw as a "defect" but I believe this is actually a combination of "Process Problems".

The Process of correctly grinding, polishing and cleaning the crank was not performed correctly.

The Process of making sure the connecting rods were clean and free of debris was not performed.

The Process of QA to verify that the engine oil clearances by way of monitoring the oil pressure was not reliable or even possibly covered up where a constant displacement oil pump may have indicated problems.

The Process of QA to pull every 100-250th engine for tear down and inspection was not performed. GM relied too much on automated assembly and testing and it is possible even the staff working in the assembly plants were not trained to identify problems or told they are to only perform X tasks and that the testing would identify any out of spec/bound conditions.

So sad all the way around. This was avoidable. Unfortunately now the end customers of 3 model years of multiple vehicles are caught in the middle of this. 600,000k or so engines in question?? What is the right answer???

All I can say is I am on the customers side and I think GM so poorly addressed this issue that they should make a public apology an get their clearly explain what they are planning to do to address this issue and how long they think it may take.

I expect this to take 18-24 months if they have to build and replace a large number of engines.

But the remedy is VERY unclear at this moment and there appear to be differences in the remedies. Maybe there was a false start, maybe Management has come to their senses?

We shall see.
 

jfoj

Full Access Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Posts
652
Reaction score
444
That bearing wear is pretty strange. The centers are wiped out almost like there was no lubrication and/or loss of oil pressure. I think @jfoj posted this somewhere but I'd be interested in knowing what the oil pressure was with 0W-20 when things are nice and hot...... but he may not have that data as he switched to heavier weight.

In the old clunkers, going from 40 weight to 60 weight was often the last ditch effort to bring up oil pressure before a full rebuild was in order.
I do not have good data on the 0W20 on my 6.2l, it was drained at 544 miles!

But with the variable displacement oil pump, I think the oil pressure was probably around 25-30 PSI. The guys with the 2025's can display the oil pressure in a digital numeric form unlike the 2024 and earlier unless some of the pickups had a different dash display.

I have never heard of a 6.2l failure ever that someone was informed of an oil pressure problem before the engine seized. I do not think oil pressure is the problem, I think maybe loose bearing clearances, 0W20 oil that was too thin, not enough oil cushion and/or hydrodynamic oil wedge and way too high of a Low RPM/High Torque load at highway speeds between 60-75 MPH. Engine loading with headwinds and/or very slight grade increase (50-100 feet over 0.5-1.0 miles) will cause the engine loading to spike to 70-100% easily and may sustain for a while depending on conditions.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
134,735
Posts
1,907,202
Members
100,122
Latest member
sainmegroll
Top