I will add more. If the crankshaft had been changed in the second half of 24 and 25, then the part number would have changed. And it remained the same. So the video is complete nonsense, as well as like a pass to GM, to give credibility to this video))
Moreover, the crankshaft from L87 has the same part number as the crankshaft from L86))
Vladimir,
You clearly do not understand the issue with the crankshaft, it is not a different part. Same casting, same finishing process, just the finishing process had some errors that have now supposedly been corrected and addressed. Should GM maybe have changed the part number to eliminate confusion on old and new stock?? This has many ripple effects and the decision to not change the part number may have been the correct approach.
The problem with the crankshaft was the final finishing of the crankshaft, the machining and micro polishing of the crankshaft journals. Additionally there may have been debris that what not properly cleaned out of the crankshaft oiling holes or just poor final cleaning of the crankshaft before final installation. This is a process problem with the end machining and preparation of the raw crank forging. The final process of the crank manufacturing process would not necessarily require a part number change.
Additionally GM had outsource the crankshaft manufacturing to Mexico quite some time ago and probably due to the crank final machining, finishing and clean up, GM brought either the complete crank foundry work or at least the final crank machining, polishing and cleaning back to the US at the plant mentioned in the video.
If's fine if you do not agree with the video, but you clearly do not understand the failures that have been outlined with the 6.2l via the NHTSA documents and other information that is available. While the information out there may be a bit vague and not 100% complete, for people that fully understand the details of the machining requirements and have spent time in parts factories and engine assembly plants it is pretty clear what likely went wrong in the final machining, polishing and cleaning of the crankshaft.
I expect the problem it really 2 parts, partial blame of the foundry and machine work in Mexico and partial blame on the GM engine assembly plant because usually the final crank polishing and clean up is addressed just before the installation of the crank during engine assembly. But in this case GM may have chosen to outsource the final crank polishing and cleaning 100% to Mexico, which is general is a very bad idea. We may never know 100% where things went wrong, but likely is was a bad management decision that was a financial decision, not a quality decision. Additionally GM probably relied too much on automated final engine testing for Quality Control purposes rather than actually pulling a random statistical engine an perform a full tear down and inspection and provide feedback and make changes and improvements as necessary.
Now GM and the entire customer base a suffering from a few bad decisions that were for the most part 100% financially motivated. This entire situation will cost GM Billions in the long run as well as a loss of customer confidence and loyalty. GM has also had a really bad start to the entire recall as well and how the information has been released. I realize they needed to have a Stop Sale on all new, demo and used inventory because dealers cannot legally sell vehicles that have outstanding Recalls, but GM also screwed up big time on the way this entire mess has been communicated.
