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.

DuraYuk

Full Access Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2022
Posts
1,111
Reaction score
884
@DuraYuk

I believe you would argue with a brick wall.

A few things here, you clearly do not have a 6.2l and I am not sure you really fully understand the L87 or the difference between the L84 5.3l and what is going on here.

You also clearly missed the issue on the oil filters.

You keep referencing the oil filter for you DuraYuk, which is different than the 6.2l.

But just to put it out here 1 more time, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION.

Notice how all the standard AC Delco OE filters have base plates with larger and more oil inlet holes. I do not care to research the 3.0l Diesel oil pump and filter, not my problem, do not own one and will not own one, but the way GM implemented the variable displacement oil pump on the 6.2l with its internal pressure control spring is not very well thought out IMHO based on how the 6.2l engine is loaded when driving.

You clearly have not done the logging and data gathering I have done on a 6.2l much less you probably have not even driven a L87 vehicle on a longer trip to see the the Transmission Control Module loads the engine up. And just think about what happens when you fill up one of these Suburban/Yukon XL/Escalde ESV, with 4+ people and gear then add the wind resistance and additional weight of a trailer. Your going to tell me with a straight face 0W20 is more than adequate and will allow these engines to last 300,000 miles??? Also understand that if any of these 0W20 engines end up with 150,000 miles or more, a smart person would switch to 5W30 or 0W40 to offset engine wear as well.

Just because "everyone" is running 0W20 or even lower viscosity oil (0W16 or 0W8) is it a wise idea? I plan on keeping my engine running for at least 200,000 miles, if not more. I would expect more out of it if was not for the DFM trash. You claim is it just technology, it is junk, too many moving and operating parts that are not necessary. The ONLY reason for all the stupid cylinder deactivation is for EPA/CAFE requirements. Over complicate something that is reliable and it becomes unreliable and expense to maintain and repair. I did not buy this vehicle for fuel economy, I bought to haul people and gear and I do not need a bunch of crappy DFM parts failing in under 100-150k miles that cost me a bunch of time and money.

The problem is these days all are options are limited and we all try to take the best of the worst.


PF63 base plate

View attachment 458243

PF64 base plate

View attachment 458244

AC Delco PF66 base plate
View attachment 458249

Typical AC Delco Gold base plate UPD63/64/66R type

View attachment 458248
The 6.2 has a upf filter equivalent. I just used tne Amazon link to show the picture.

Bro your making up your own mind about stuff. Its honestly pretty entertaining to see.

First it was high rpm, then torque, then this than that. I just proved how what you are using for justification doesnt exist outside of your own believe system..
 

jfoj

Full Access Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Posts
1,227
Reaction score
1,089
I force = peak torque is 2400rpm

Hurricane I6 = peak torque 2350

Defender = peak torque at 2000

G550 = peak torque at 1950

5.6 = peak torque at 4000 rpm
Nissan 3.5 tt = 3600

Nissan is the only high rever in both v8 and twin turbo guise.

DRUM ROLL PLEASE ****
Gm 6.2 peak torque = 4100 rpm!
What is you point, you CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

You are clearly comparing a bunch of Oranges to an Apple.

Specs and real world operation are 2 very different things.

The 6.2l rarely operates much higher than 1700 RPM on the highway unless the transmission downshifts, but BEFORE the transmission downshifts, the engine loading it pushed into the 80-100% range very often.

You will also have a rude awakening continuing to run 0W20 in your DuraYuk, good luck to you.
 

DuraYuk

Full Access Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2022
Posts
1,111
Reaction score
884
What is you point, you CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

You are clearly comparing a bunch of Oranges to an Apple.

Specs and real world operation are 2 very different things.

The 6.2l rarely operates much higher than 1700 RPM on the highway unless the transmission downshifts, but BEFORE the transmission downshifts, the engine loading it pushed into the 80-100% range very often.

You will also have a rude awakening continuing to run 0W20 in your DuraYuk, good luck to you.
Are you data logging these other engines? How do you know anything about them ? These other engines make peake torque lower. Why would they rev higher in the same operational conditions as a 6.2?

You are using these justifications while ignoring everything else.

Why am I in for a rude awakening when the lm2 or lz0 hasn't died in high numbers to make a blip on the forums or the world ? They run and run and its the same oil. This statement alone just kills your whole argument as you are using feels.

I see your data logging. Im not impressed because you have confirmation bias.

What is more crazy is that rather than presenting the data you are convinced it's correct and everyone else be danged.

All im doing is poking holes in your own findings. I have no findings except the objective verifiable data.

Yall are all trying to ignore the real data and just use your own lmao. I guess your findings wont hold up in a peer review.
 

DuraYuk

Full Access Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2022
Posts
1,111
Reaction score
884

Stbentoak

Full Access Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2020
Posts
2,279
Reaction score
2,772
0w40 can support an out of spec crankshaft. Not sure how much off spec it is. Judging by some of the miles seen it is barely out of spec.
but 0w20 sure can't.

If you like to gamble, knock yourself out.
"Support" is not the correct wording. "Prolong" is .. there... I fixed it for you.....
Watch this and tell me this guy doesn't make sense.....


Overall I think the debris in the crankshaft and on the connecting rod story is a red herring bunch of BS for GM. If the issue was just the crankshaft tolerances and final finishing, then this pretty much makes GM guilty of VERY POOR quality control and inspection which is really what happened here that there is 4 model years and probably close to 800,000 engines that have some degree of problems. Understand that GM is not counting all the replacement 6.2l in the numbers for the recall.
GM has never been guilty of poor quality control before? Seriously? What about the 10 speed transmission recall that you wrote ad nauseam about? That is poor quality control on top of a mainly poor design. There are two strikes right there on something that should go 100K miles min, without even having to look at it. Best transmissions out there today? ZF's hands down. Also, there's a big coolant control valve issue on 3.0 Duramax's because the valve's internals are made of crappy plastic gears. Another case of poor design, poor execution and testing and save money by going to the lowest unsupervised supplier.
Many many 3.0 Duramax's out there running 0W-20 that are over 100K miles, And I'd bet 95% of these owners buy the cheapest DexosD they can find at Walmart (I do..) and change them at five to 10,000 miles or have the dealer do it. And I bet a pretty decent subset of these owners (Mainly PU's) actually work these vehicles daily harder than many 6.2 owners.
The difference I believe is they don't have the demand for the 3.0 vs 6.2 and they don't ramrod the line for volume. When you are going fast, things get missed and by the time enough data has been accumulated to say, "Its a real problem.." another 100-200k of them are out there... They also have the heritage and expertise of Opel to draw on to create a robust design that the basic components and design laws of Diesel I6's are pretty solid and previously proven. Although, Heck, V8's should be too....

Poor component quality, poor design standards, poor life testing of these products, and poor control over their suppliers all add up to where we are today. Meanwhile the pressure is on for shareholder value and so the basic product quality suffers at the hands of bean counters. The bottom line here is whatever auto manufacturer can control all the above issues the best, puts the best product on the road...... eventually people will beat a path through their door if they offer a version of product that suits the consumer's needs and wants. I'm not loyal to GM. I want what they have that no one else has. A diesel container ship that is pretty comfy and hauls a lot of people and stuff......No one else has it....So far... So good....
 

viven44

Full Access Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2024
Posts
397
Reaction score
504
Location
Dallas, TX
I force = peak torque is 2400rpm

Hurricane I6 = peak torque 2350

Defender = peak torque at 2000

G550 = peak torque at 1950

5.6 = peak torque at 4000 rpm
Nissan 3.5 tt = 3600

Nissan is the only high rever in both v8 and twin turbo guise.

DRUM ROLL PLEASE ****

I force and G550 don't count in this discussion. They are hybrid.... is the defender also hybrid? if so same there

All the others, you must be using AI answers to get those numbers. Any Dyno test I am finding puts the peak torque at higher RPMs.

GM 6.2L yes peak torque at high RPM, but its a flawed design as well. That oil pump design as jfoj has been describing is quite messed up to be doing what its doing.

These other engines make peake torque lower. Why would they rev higher in the same operational conditions as a 6.2?

Nope. Show me a dyno on Hurricane I6 for example which shows peak torque at that low of an RPM.

Those engines are twin turbo as well, heck I know very little about turbo engines but I know they must rev to make power so this makes no sense.
 

DuraYuk

Full Access Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2022
Posts
1,111
Reaction score
884
I force and G550 don't count in this discussion. They are hybrid.... is the defender also hybrid? if so same there

All the others, you must be using AI answers to get those numbers. Any Dyno test I am finding puts the peak torque at higher RPMs.

GM 6.2L yes peak torque at high RPM, but its a flawed design as well. That oil pump design as jfoj has been describing is quite messed up to be doing what its doing.



Nope. Show me a dyno on Hurricane I6 for example which shows peak torque at that low of an RPM.

Those engines are twin turbo as well, heck I know very little about turbo engines but I know they must rev to make power so this makes no sense.
Im not using max hybrids for obvious reasons:

Toyota:

Hurricane:

Defender:

G550: https://www.caranddriver.com/mercedes-benz/g-class/specs
Its a mild hybrid. 48 volt.

Nissan:

Gm 6.2:

Turbo engines do make torque down low. Its all in the tuning and turbo size.

Why is this ai now? What else should we say?

For the record I want the information we gain to be relevant. This is a discussion it isnt personal. We all want to figure this out to the best of our ability. I want the data we get to be meaningful and informative. So even if we dont agree we can still move the discussion along positively.
 
Last edited:

vcode

Full Access Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2015
Posts
788
Reaction score
782
Im not using max hybrids for obvious reasons:

Toyota:

Hurricane:

Defender:

G550: https://www.caranddriver.com/mercedes-benz/g-class/specs
Its a mild hybrid. 48 volt.

Nissan:

Gm 6.2:

Turbo engines do make torque down low. Its all in the tuning and turbo size.

Why is this ai now? What else should we say?

For the record I want the information we gain to be relevant. This is a discussion it isnt personal. We all want to figure this out to the best of our ability. I want the data we get to be meaningful and informative. So even if we dont agree we can still move the discussion along positively.
Don't forget about all the Ram Hemi's that use 5W20.
 

viven44

Full Access Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2024
Posts
397
Reaction score
504
Location
Dallas, TX
For the record I want the information we gain to be relevant. This is a discussion it isnt personal. We all want to figure this out to the best of our ability. I want the data we get to be meaningful and informative. So even if we dont agree we can still move the discussion along positively.
Fine with that, I appreciate that.

But I'd say we sort of went on a tangent here, yes you've proven your point at least based on advertised numbers that these smaller turbo charged engines are decent at putting out torque. Now the one dyno video is in disagreement, but lets move on for now... those engines were certainly developed with 0W-20 in mind.. maybe there is some to that.

Again we are not debating as a whole which oil 6.2L should be using, we are only guessing on design aspects like DFM and its involvement etc. vs pre 2021 without DFM.

Until all of this happened, I didn't even think once about the oil viscosity, we ran 0W-20 the entire time we had our 2018 as thats what GM wanted.

With this recall its really a wake up call.....

AFAIK, The 2025 6.2L engines aren't entire redesigned or anything, they are just a cleaner production and thus dimensionally, metallurgically, ~same as the 90% of the 21-24 population that is supposedly going to survive on 0W-40...... All they did was "manufacturing improvements implemented on or before June 1, 2024, addressed contamination and quality issues."

lets say ~50% of the ones pass the Picoscope test clean as a whistle ... those are as good as the 2025 ones right? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever why they would keep the newer 2025 ones on 0W-20, and switch over the passing old ones to 0W-40.
 

Vladimir2306

Full Access Member
Joined
May 18, 2023
Posts
1,064
Reaction score
1,251
View attachment 458228

GM adds more power and reduces viscosity which puts the bearings and rotor closer and closer to a mixed lube scenario vs original design.

The dimensions of the crank and rods are not changed since 1999. This isn't a fresh bearing design that was originally designed for 0w20.

All this does is reduce safety margin and by default adds risk to the customer.

But somehow...in 2024 when out of spec cranks were found the solution was to change oil spec to 0w40.

If 0w20 had no role whatsoever in this failure, then there would be no mention, not a peep, about 0w40 or any viscosity change.

I'd rather run an oil that can mitigate or neutralize some imperfections in machining than an oil that has to have the surface and dimensions absolutely pristine.
This is not true, the engines are constantly changing, and the crankshaft is different, and even the connecting rod liners are different
 

DuraYuk

Full Access Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2022
Posts
1,111
Reaction score
884
Fine with that, I appreciate that.

But I'd say we sort of went on a tangent here, yes you've proven your point at least based on advertised numbers that these smaller turbo charged engines are decent at putting out torque. Now the one dyno video is in disagreement, but lets move on for now... those engines were certainly developed with 0W-20 in mind.. maybe there is some to that.

Again we are not debating as a whole which oil 6.2L should be using, we are only guessing on design aspects like DFM and its involvement etc. vs pre 2021 without DFM.

Until all of this happened, I didn't even think once about the oil viscosity, we ran 0W-20 the entire time we had our 2018 as thats what GM wanted.

With this recall its really a wake up call.....

AFAIK, The 2025 6.2L engines aren't entire redesigned or anything, they are just a cleaner production and thus dimensionally, metallurgically, ~same as the 90% of the 21-24 population that is supposedly going to survive on 0W-40...... All they did was "manufacturing improvements implemented on or before June 1, 2024, addressed contamination and quality issues."

lets say ~50% of the ones pass the Picoscope test clean as a whistle ... those are as good as the 2025 ones right? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever why they would keep the newer 2025 ones on 0W-20, and switch over the passing old ones to 0W-40.
Id imagine the reason for the oil is because they need some delay. They probably deep down know that there wont be many engines in the recall list that get a clean inspection.

And frankly we just wont know until we start seeing some 0w-40 oil caps and stickers in owners manuals. We wont know until we know.

My guess is that they are all going to get motors if they are part of this recall list. They may just give priority to the dead or dying ones. Give oil to the ones that pass inspection and then issue more guidance which brings those oiled vehicles back in for engines.

Think of it like triage in the emergency room. The bleeders and dying get rooms first.
 

Vladimir2306

Full Access Member
Joined
May 18, 2023
Posts
1,064
Reaction score
1,251
Id imagine the reason for the oil is because they need some delay. They probably deep down know that there wont be many engines in the recall list that get a clean inspection.

And frankly we just wont know until we start seeing some 0w-40 oil caps and stickers in owners manuals. We wont know until we know.

My guess is that they are all going to get motors if they are part of this recall list. They may just give priority to the dead or dying ones. Give oil to the ones that pass inspection and then issue more guidance which brings those oiled vehicles back in for engines.

Think of it like triage in the emergency room. The bleeders and dying get rooms first.
I've already posted the information here. We separate the two cases. 1. This is an engine failure when running up to 5-7 thousand miles, this is most likely a poor build quality and a violation of temperature gaps.2. This is a failure on a run of 30 thousand miles or more. That's what makes it more interesting and confusing. The L87 engine has different connecting rod liners than the L86. The crankshaft, connecting rods, everything is the same. The inserts are different, both basic and connecting rod. The L87 liners have more clearance than the L86 liners. Further, with mileage, this gap also increases with the production of the liner metal, and creating crankshaft production. After that, chips and metal dust appear, which clog the oil channels. and at one point, the engine finds itself in oil starvation conditions. Switching to 0-40 oil should improve the oil film at the Liner-Crankshaft point. And theoretically, this will lead to a further reduction in damage to the crankshaft and liners, but my personal opinion is that if the crankshaft has already started to damage, then changing the oil to 0-40 will just delay the engine failure a little bit, so as to complete the warranty. It is impossible to switch to 0-40 oil in a normally running L87 engine, when switching to an index 30 or 40 oil, the problem of lifters will most likely return as on the L86 (we already have such cars with a 5.3 engine with a mileage of 50 and 65 thousand miles, driven on 5-30 oil). The oil pump in the L87 is set to run on 0-20 oil, filling in thicker oil, and without changing the pump operation, it will cause the pump to pump as if the oil were 0-20.What to do? Yes, I have already heard on this forum that 99.9% will not do this, of course, on this forum it is more convenient to write comments on many thousands of words about suffering than to take the car to the workshop, where it will be given an inexpensive revision.It is necessary to remove the engine pan and look into it from below. if there is a crankshaft drain, it means an easy overhaul of the engine with replacement or grinding of the crankshaft, if there is no crankshaft drain, just change the liners to liners from L86, they fit more tightly, without having a gap like liners from L87, they will work perfectly on 0-20 oil. and they have a stronger coating than the gray liners from L87. having done this work early, you will most likely forget about the problem.
 

23Seven

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2024
Posts
60
Reaction score
96
Going to make this as short as possible.

Oil wedge is better maintained at higher RPMs. These 6.2l rarely exceed 1700 RPM on the highway under most driving conditions.

Oil wedge is typically better maintained with higher oil pressure. These 6.2l have around 25-28 PSI warm oil pressure in drive, 35 PSI warm oil pressure at idle and around 45 PSI warm oil pressure when cruising. The 5.3l has around 60 PSI at 1100 RPM.

Oil wedge typically is more robust with a higher viscosity oil at lower RPM's, higher oil temperature as well as higher RPM's.

GM screwed the pooch with the 6.2l when compared to the 5.3l when it comes to the L84 vs the L87 and oil pressure. GM should have probably put the same oil pump from the L84 into the L87, BUT they chose to do something different.

The L84 5.3l oil pump puts out more pressure at lower RPM's and DOES NOT have the 2nd stage solenoid control that the L87 and predecessors had. Based on all my testing the 2nd stage oil pump solenoid is not controlled by engine Load but by engine RPM. Seems that the 2nd stage is typically not triggered until around 3500 RPM. Oil pressure jumps to around 75--80 PSI when the 2nd stage is triggered. Seems the 2nd stage might be better triggered at 75% and higher engine loading.

0W20 has been used successfully in many engines, BUT the majority of these engines are not pulling a 6000 lb brick down the highway at 1500-1700 RPM with many spikes in engine loading from 70-100% on a regular basis. Add to this the DFM turning on and off cylinders and probably causing crazy crank loading and vibrations. Also assume this loads the thrust bearing more due to crank walking.

Many of the other engines running 0W20 do not have AFM/DFM systems, most of the smaller displacement engines rely mainly on variable valve timing, DFCO, Auto Stop/Start for fuel economy bumps.

The variable displacement oil pump can be problem depending on the oil filter flow restriction. The oil pump modulates or regulates the oil pressure based on the oil pressure build up on a spring inside the vane style oil pump. If you happen to use an oil filter that is too restrictive, the oil pump is fooled to think the oil pressure is correct and backpressure causes the oil pump to modulate or regulate the oil pressure before it even get out of the oil filter.

All this talk about the difference in oil cooling between 0W20 and 0W40 is nothing but noise. If this engine was in a race situation running 7000-8500 RPM non stop, then it might make somewhat of a difference. I believe all the 6.2l engines have a radiator based oil cooler anyway, so this along with a larger oil sump capacity this issue of oil cooling is again, nothing but noise.

The Corvette and the Camero with LT1 which is effectively the same engines are speced for 0W40 by GM, so why the difference? They sell far more trucks with 6.2l engines than the Corvettes and Cameros, has to do ONLY with CAFE and trying to avoid fines.

In general running 0W20 has less of a margin for higher temperature, fuel dilution, low RPM lugging, less shock and cushioning ability and will not tolerate surface finish and wear as well as a higher viscosity oil.

Take a look at these 2 pictures of GM oil filters, one is the OE PF63 and the other is the UPF63R Delco Gold filter. Understand that there is a REASON that GM has so many larger oil intake holes in the PF63 oil filter. I do not know the full reasoning behind this, but part of my thought is to allow better oil pressure charging with the Auto Stop/Start nonsense and overall less restriction on the filter inlet. Additionally the PF63 probably flows better than the UPF63R based on the oil filter media. Regardless of how great/fine the oil filter is, the oil keeps dirt in suspension and the primary way to get dirt, soot and other small particles out of the oil is to change it! Changing oil often is far cheaper and easier than an internal engine repair.

If you are so worried about oil filtration, install a bypass oil filter and use the PF63, you would be far better off than screwing up the variable displacement oil pump performance and operation.

View attachment 458233

View attachment 458235


Overall I think the debris in the crankshaft and on the connecting rod story is a red herring bunch of BS for GM. If the issue was just the crankshaft tolerances and final finishing, then this pretty much makes GM guilty of VERY POOR quality control and inspection which is really what happened here that there is 4 model years and probably close to 800,000 engines that have some degree of problems. Understand that GM is not counting all the replacement 6.2l in the numbers for the recall.

So everyone will do what they want, think what they want and make all sorts of claims, but the bottom line is GM tried to squeeze too much fuel economy out of the 6.2l in the 6000 lb bricks and it comes with a price and sometimes a very high price. Lots of talk about people not wanting 4 and 6 cylinder engines in vehicles this size and I fully agree, no interest in a Ford Ecoboom or the Jeep/Dodge Hurricane 6 cylinders, you think the 6.2l has problems!!! There is no way the smaller engines will last hauling large vehicles, its asking too much from the hardware and the engine oil.
Yes Yes Yes! You get it!
 

blanchard7684

Senior Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2024
Posts
447
Reaction score
382
Prove it.
The bottom end rotating assembly of these engines is virtually identical going back to the LS days. Journal sizes have not been changed. The first oil spec for a truck based LS was 5w30. This is found via a simple google search.

Asking for proof of this is like asking for proof that the sky is blue. You can find this out for yourself.

But if you want to nit pick based on 6.2 alone then we can do that too.

L92 vs L87 details



As far as engine bearings and crankshaft go these two engines are identical. journal size, rod ratio, bore and stroke.

So the L92 was out in 2007 in an Escalade. The oil spec for a 2007 escalade was 5w30. See example below. You can find this in about 3 dozen other ways with a simple search.


1748515144385.png
 

blanchard7684

Senior Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2024
Posts
447
Reaction score
382
"Support" is not the correct wording. "Prolong" is .. there... I fixed it for you.....
Watch this and tell me this guy doesn't make sense.....

No 'support' is the right word. As in reaction forces developed in an eccentric rotor and hydrodynamic bearing system.

Video essentially says go up in viscosity if you need to.

1748516560147.png


L and C haven't changed since the LS days. But viscosity has dropped yet power goes up.

What provides the support, the reaction force, for this? The oil film.
 
Last edited:

blanchard7684

Senior Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2024
Posts
447
Reaction score
382
Are you data logging these other engines? How do you know anything about them ? These other engines make peake torque lower. Why would they rev higher in the same operational conditions as a 6.2?

You are using these justifications while ignoring everything else.

Why am I in for a rude awakening when the lm2 or lz0 hasn't died in high numbers to make a blip on the forums or the world ? They run and run and its the same oil. This statement alone just kills your whole argument as you are using feels.

I see your data logging. Im not impressed because you have confirmation bias.

What is more crazy is that rather than presenting the data you are convinced it's correct and everyone else be danged.

All im doing is poking holes in your own findings. I have no findings except the objective verifiable data.

Yall are all trying to ignore the real data and just use your own lmao. I guess your findings wont hold up in a peer review.
ahhh yes. There it is.

"The proof is not to my exacting and bespoke requirements" argument.

Anything other than a live streamed PHD defense at MIT will simply not suffice.

Therefore you don't have to think or form your own opinion-- just let others do the work for you. You can just sit back and passive aggressively label things as misinformation, conspiracy, or assumptions.

golf clap.
 

blanchard7684

Senior Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2024
Posts
447
Reaction score
382
This is not true, the engines are constantly changing, and the crankshaft is different, and even the connecting rod liners are different
different part numbers but dimensions aren't.

LS1 crank journal specs: https://www.onallcylinders.com/2017...ormance-bore-stroke-cylinder-heads-cam-specs/

L87/L86 (posted for the second time)


2.559, 2.11 journal diameters, and stroke is 3.6. Same connecting rod length of 6.098. Same deck height 9.24.

These are the core dimensions in configuring the engine bearings.

They are the same.

Original oil was 5w30 for trucks.

CAFE also plays a role here.

Corvette and Camaro have 0w40 as a spec because their sales numbers are rounding error compared to trucks and suvs.

So they don't have to get 0w20 to juice up the cafe numbers.
 
Last edited:

Vladimir2306

Full Access Member
Joined
May 18, 2023
Posts
1,064
Reaction score
1,251
different part numbers but dimensions aren't.

LS1 crank journal specs: https://www.onallcylinders.com/2017...ormance-bore-stroke-cylinder-heads-cam-specs/

L87/L86 (posted for the second time)


2.559, 2.11 journal diameters, and stroke is 3.6. Same connecting rod length of 6.098. Same deck height 9.24.

These are the core dimensions in configuring the engine bearings.

They are the same.

Original oil was 5w30 for trucks.

CAFE also plays a role here.

Corvette and Camaro have 0w40 as a spec because their sales numbers are rounding error compared to trucks and suvs.

So they don't have to get 0w20 to juice up the cafe numbers.
no, the sizes of the liners are different, the liners from L86 sit tightly on the crankshaft, and the liner from L87 sits with a gap of 0.15 mm. He has more freedom. Plus, the L86 liner has a red coating similar to rubber, which does not wear off, and the L87 liner erases the coating immediately increasing the gap. I personally held them in my hands and compared them when they assembled my engine.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
138,089
Posts
1,998,642
Members
103,014
Latest member
john1989
Back
Top