Seized lifter in LS3

[moveage]

I'm gonna dis-agree with that. I've had numerous V6 motors which run the same design lifter as the LS or rather the LS uses the same lifter as the earlier V6 motors. Our L67 has almost 270,000km on it with original lifters and they don't make any noise. Lifters failing after 100,000km just isn't right. The lifter style or design may have been the same for many years but GM might have changed to a different supplier or changed some sort of specification and the quality has gone backwards all in the name of saving a few $$$ manufacturing parts. Another great example of this was the faulty rockers and injectors that have plagued the VF's.

Maybe it's a service interval issue? Having said that, I run on 10,000km service interval and have no issues. I use Penrite extra 10th full zinc oil.

The other difference of course is our V6 motors don't run plastic lifter trays.

I am not sure if you are replying to me and yes the plastic alignment trays may be an issue if the lifter has spun (unlikely vs roller seizing) but the V6 is a vastly different engine in every regard including the valve train. Folly to compare lifter roller lubrication and NVH between the two.

 

[Immortality]

It's the same lifter, or it was until GM changed something. It slides in a bore that has pressure fed oil. If the lifter is dying there is either a underlying issue in the design of the motor or the lifter itself has changed. Earlier LS1 lifters don't seem to die so that indicates the basic design of the LS motor isn't an issue . We are talking about non DOD engines so that isn't a factor either. What does that leave? The lifter or the oil. With the longer service intervals on these motors does that not indicate the quality of the oils used has improved?

Ignore the V6 comparison, it is still not acceptable that lifters are failing. A mechanical part like that should last the life of the motor.

The roller hydraulic lifter has been around for decades and yet the newer motors are killing lifters at a higher rate than much older engines. Clearly something has gone wrong somewhere. Lifters aren't rocket science, or maybe they are and GM clearly dropped the ball. Or maybe cost cutting/savings was the cause? GM wouldn't do something like that would they?

The LS3's have a bad reputation in the VF. Clearly quality management failed somewhere.

 

[losh1971]

Chinese lifters I'd say.

 

[J_D 2.0]

https://www.holmart.com.au/engine-driveline/crate-motors/
Take your pick.

Amazing the difference in price two cylinders make! If a LFX is $3850 an LS should be $5133 being one third more “engine”. Probably less than this as a pushrod engine is easier to make than a DOHC one!

 

[Skylarking]

Amazing the difference in price two cylinders make! If a LFX is $3850 an LS should be $5133 being one third more “engine”. Probably less than this as a pushrod engine is easier to make than a DOHC one!

Yes, capitalism at its worst but it’s not really a supply and demand issue… its just because greed is good

Same issues exists with a flat plane v8 where the crank is much lighter and cheaper to make as compared to a conventional v8 crank…. with worse NVH issues as well… Economies of scale should allow a nice 4 litre flat plane V8 built off any number of 2 litre I4 engine lines. Yet a flat plane V8 is considered exotic and will carry a huge premium.

Wonder how much more the new big flat plane V8 in the Z06 corvette will cost as compared to the conventional corvette mid mounted V8

The roller hydraulic lifter has been around for decades and yet the newer motors are killing lifters at a higher rate than much older engines. Clearly something has gone wrong somewhere. Lifters aren't rocket science, or maybe they are and GM clearly dropped the ball. Or maybe cost cutting/savings was the cause? GM wouldn't do something like that would they?

The LS3's have a bad reputation in the VF. Clearly quality management failed somewhere.

Yep, old tech that should be fully worked out… it for today’s modern accountants who get too involved. But the underlying issue they cause couldn’t ever be economic (cause accountants know best). So it must be related to oil pressure, metallurgy, bore to lifter clearance, lifter cage design, engine vibration/harmonics, oil service intervals, or a myriad of other things but never ever can including GM skimming on manufacture cost or QA/QC on what should be life of vehicle components

 

[Skylarking]

I found adding an oil accumulator, a proper tuned or self-tuning damper, and definitely overhauling valvetrain at 160k intervals works a treat.

If you need to do such things for engine longevity, then GM has failed in its engine design as nothing of the sort is specified or optioned on any GM LS3 engine I've seen.

GM/Holden specifies a service interval and what should be periodically inspected and replaced. So under ACL, the engine should survive for decades when following said schedule. After all, what GM/Holden sell must be a durable product and durable engines don’t fail within 5 years…

With these rocker, injector and lifter failures we hear of, I’d say GM has failed to meet its ACL obligations. I still feel these should have all been addressed via recall

The fact that there is some 3rd party advice as to what is needed to mitigate such, as good as such advice may be, is irrelevant if GM doesn’t a knowledge these measures. And if they do acknowledge such, then queue the class action as needing a light rebuild every 100,000 or 160,000 kms was never in the purchase decision I made

 

[Anthony121]

It's the same lifter, or it was until GM changed something. It slides in a bore that has pressure fed oil. If the lifter is dying there is either a underlying issue in the design of the motor or the lifter itself has changed. Earlier LS1 lifters don't seem to die so that indicates the basic design of the LS motor isn't an issue . We are talking about non DOD engines so that isn't a factor either. What does that leave? The lifter or the oil. With the longer service intervals on these motors does that not indicate the quality of the oils used has improved?

Ignore the V6 comparison, it is still not acceptable that lifters are failing. A mechanical part like that should last the life of the motor.

The roller hydraulic lifter has been around for decades and yet the newer motors are killing lifters at a higher rate than much older engines. Clearly something has gone wrong somewhere. Lifters aren't rocket science, or maybe they are and GM clearly dropped the ball. Or maybe cost cutting/savings was the cause? GM wouldn't do something like that would they?

The LS3's have a bad reputation in the VF. Clearly quality management failed somewhere.

Probably because they were manufactured in Mexico

 

[Immortality]

Chinese lifters I'd say.

Mehico....

Same place they built the mass produced LS3 motors if Im not mistaken.

 

[Anthony121]

With the aluminum sump that states made in USA

 

[losh1971]

Mehico....

Same place they built the mass produced LS3 motors if Im not mistaken.

The Mexican parts used to be pretty good. The original V6 sensors and gear came from Mexico and were far better than anything aftermarket.