LSJ blown motor thread
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-08-05
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for the help, im really considering switching to a gm stage 2 kit instead of my intense kit just b/c my priorities have changed. Looking more toward saving for my first house than modding, going to start looking for a junkyard with a supercharger in it since my snout is machined....
also im always using 93, its the highest i can find....
also im always using 93, its the highest i can find....
#52
Banned
Join Date: 03-14-06
Location: soon to banned as I am from MANITOBA?
Posts: 3,660
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by CobaltBurst
thanks for the help, im really considering switching to a gm stage 2 kit instead of my intense kit just b/c my priorities have changed. Looking more toward saving for my first house than modding, going to start looking for a junkyard with a supercharger in it since my snout is machined....
also im always using 93, its the highest i can find....
also im always using 93, its the highest i can find....
2 things you could do. Do the dual pass intercooler modification or trade s/c snouts with someone else.
your decision is warranted. I would get a house first too. GMS2 is quick, fun, and fills all the holes in the power band. Modding can be then put into getting power to the ground. I have not seen a good recipe for that though. alot of dampeners are sold but not many have talked about how it has improved performance times and 60fts. sure it helps with wheel hop but I now know from personal experience that does not equate to better 60ft. my best 60ft was without a traction aid and on stock tires which was 2.18. If better tires were on the added grip would help with hop. others who have gone to wider tires have found that. Until were able to launch hard good 60's will elude us. I would prefer to do it on street tires but that would require AWD. Oh well.
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-08-05
Location: Niceville, FL
Posts: 6,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ssnipes
had to be a fluke. that is not the norm at all. I, for one, have had no issues with GMS2 and I have been pretty hard on it. about 20 extreme burn outs on this car plus 1/4 mile passes. Also been on the street and highways going hard. I also do not see a blown head gasket thread on here. I have only heard of one other person with a headgasket problem. I know 10 other SS owners as well. One is trying to pop his motor. He dynoed 283HP with about 240TQ and still has no problems.
Tuning is a must though for sure. A good tune can make all the difference between being fast and being broke.
#55
Originally Posted by SilverSS/SC
^^^ you can "try" octane booster , it may help the situation a bit . If its knocking under boost , I would just drive the car normally until u can get it tuned . Because I can bet its also pretty damn lean leading up to the point the pcm starts retarding timing .
I would put the 3.0 back on in the cold months , especially if u have no way to see whats going goin on via a scan tool . IMO the 2.8 works the 42's a lil too hard as it is .
I would put the 3.0 back on in the cold months , especially if u have no way to see whats going goin on via a scan tool . IMO the 2.8 works the 42's a lil too hard as it is .
#56
New Member
Join Date: 06-22-06
Location: VA BEACH, VA
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Spastic Chicken
You probably could have gotten that fixed under warranty.
Originally Posted by ssnipes
had to be a fluke. that is not the norm at all. I, for one, have had no issues with GMS2 and I have been pretty hard on it. about 20 extreme burn outs on this car plus 1/4 mile passes. Also been on the street and highways going hard. I also do not see a blown head gasket thread on here. I have only heard of one other person with a headgasket problem. I know 10 other SS owners as well. One is trying to pop his motor. He dynoed 283HP with about 240TQ and still has no problems.
#57
Originally Posted by toydriver00
Sorry there is a lot more to my story than that. Contrary to what is put out on this site, not all dealers warranty GM performance parts modified cars. 3 Dealerships here would not cover it under warranty, plus my driverside CV axle was clicking while turning and going straight, neither of which was covered. I didn't feel like shelling out the money for it, while I was still paying the car note. On top of all of that, I had paid for an extended warranty ( not through the dealer) and the warranty company said that due to aftermarket parts the head gasket was on me.
I know of at least 3 people including me that have had this issue.
I know of at least 3 people including me that have had this issue.
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-08-05
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is there a way to take off the snout with out pulling off the stock pulley? I was under the impression that when you pull off the stock pully it doesnt go back on. So can u just swap snouts?
Thanks
Thanks
#59
Originally Posted by CobaltBurst
is there a way to take off the snout with out pulling off the stock pulley? I was under the impression that when you pull off the stock pully it doesnt go back on. So can u just swap snouts?
Thanks
Thanks
#62
Banned
Join Date: 03-14-06
Location: soon to banned as I am from MANITOBA?
Posts: 3,660
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by toydriver00
I know of at least 3 people including me that have had this issue.
I know there have been head gasket problems, I dont think it is the owners fault at all, I just question whether it is a weak point. there is just not enough failures to consider it a weak point for all Cobalts. IMO
#63
Banned
Join Date: 03-14-06
Location: soon to banned as I am from MANITOBA?
Posts: 3,660
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 2K5SS/SC?
I wouldn't say this is true. I blew my headgasket with just GM Stage 2, and intake, and exhaust. I guess you didn't read any of my threads a few months ago about the whole ordeal resulting in the headgasket and headstud sticky at the top of the page. Granted I fixed the issue permanently myself, but I have also seen a few others with blown headgaskets on here and on the redline forums. The stock headgasket is definitly a weak point on these engines. It's just a matter of time I believe before people find this out. That's my .02
Tuning is a must though for sure. A good tune can make all the difference between being fast and being broke.
Tuning is a must though for sure. A good tune can make all the difference between being fast and being broke.
Yeah I read yours. I cant forget how you were whining and going to sell your car. anyway there just not enough people out there that are experiencing this problem to make it a WEAK POINT of our cars. IMO. I would change my mind if we started to see more of it, so maybe your right. We will have to just wait and see.
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-08-05
Location: Niceville, FL
Posts: 6,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ssnipes
Yeah I read yours. I cant forget how you were whining and going to sell your car. anyway there just not enough people out there that are experiencing this problem to make it a WEAK POINT of our cars. IMO. I would change my mind if we started to see more of it, so maybe your right. We will have to just wait and see.
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-08-05
Location: Niceville, FL
Posts: 6,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cobalt_Supercharged
Yeah if I did stage 2 and blow the head gasket I would follow your footsteps and upgrade to the Cometic gasket and Golden Eagle headstuds. Shot peened studs FTW!!!!!
#67
Originally Posted by 06lasersss/c
Know thats not it, if my memory serves me correctly (good luck on that) they all had intense tunes and no water/meth injection. I think im on to something here....
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-27-05
Location: Weston, FL
Posts: 1,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seriously think GM put a different gasket in some of you guys SS's just to see what would happen cuz there has never been a RL to blow a gasket. This engine, in a RL at least, never needs a new gasket or even headstuds in the 300+ build...
#69
Senior Member
I know this is late and all but this is how I feel about the situation...
I think that you guys in the beginning are kind of lead under the misconception that the M62 is going to be some super duper power adder. I don't mean to beat a dead horse but it does not compare to an properly sized turbocharger. For this reason, from the bat, your M62 roots charger isn't as efficient. Roots chargers are typically in the area of 50% efficient (excuse me if I'm slightly off), turbochargers (if matched properly) can run from 70%-80% efficiency ratings. With this said, you're running on the edge of heat and performance in my eyes.
Also, you're given this air-to-water intercooler system. Your cooling only according to the outside temperature, how efficient the heat exchanger is and the temperature of the liquid. Again, not as efficient as a turbocharged air-to-air cooling system (which isn't your fault, not really possible on an roots charger setup).
To me, it's like you have an oven on top of your engine. Heat is what is causing all these cracked pistons & blown headgaskets. When you see people are cracking a pistons or in some cases melting them, this is a result of extreme heat and detonation. I think it has nothing to do with you reaching your limitations of the LSJ engine, it has to do with the combination of:
1. Your a/f ratio
2. How much heat you're producing (Air Intake Temperatures)
With these 2 things out of wack, you're asking for trouble.
Now, I will say it again, in my opinion, you're limited, period, to an inefficient form of boost. It's a great car for what you get. A nice sub 200 HP car. Runs great on the stock pulley, stock aftercooler setup and stock computer perameters. The problem I think is that people are trying to make something out of this power adder that (in my opinion again) isn't made for. Why do you think GM doesn't warranty lower than a certain pulley size? They recognize the inefficiencies of this specific charger. At a certain point, you're just producing more heat than you are power.
Now if you truely want to keep going with your car, I want you to realize this limitations of your power adder...but not your whole setup. You CAN reach whatever power goal you want but it won't be as easy as say (I really hate to compare) an SRT-4 which you just change the turbocharger and turn up the boost. You don't really have a replacement as far as the power adder goes unless you convert to a turbocharger, so you're main focus should be in your engine or atleast your cylinder head.
I feel the biggest problem, besides lack of knowledge and monitoring, is that people aren't recognizing the fact that the true power lies within their engine, and not necessarily in their supercharger. I have yet to see someone take the time to not drop pullies like crazy and just say "hey, why don't I open up the passage way to my combustion chamber?" Sorry but 19 PSI of manifold pressure isn't going that much to use if the hallway it has to travel down is tiny as **** (figuratively speaking). The valvetrain system is the gate, upgrading it is the key to reaching a much larger power.
Untill people start realizing this and start taking the time to actually open up their engine and spend some real money, they aren't going to go far supercharged (atleast w/the M62). I would get into the whole monitoring device discussion but it's been mentioned enough in this thread.
This was not meant to bash or anything like this but just to put things in perspective (or atleast how I see things). If I said anything that doesn't make sense, excuse me, it's 5 AM and I'm tired lol.
I think that you guys in the beginning are kind of lead under the misconception that the M62 is going to be some super duper power adder. I don't mean to beat a dead horse but it does not compare to an properly sized turbocharger. For this reason, from the bat, your M62 roots charger isn't as efficient. Roots chargers are typically in the area of 50% efficient (excuse me if I'm slightly off), turbochargers (if matched properly) can run from 70%-80% efficiency ratings. With this said, you're running on the edge of heat and performance in my eyes.
Also, you're given this air-to-water intercooler system. Your cooling only according to the outside temperature, how efficient the heat exchanger is and the temperature of the liquid. Again, not as efficient as a turbocharged air-to-air cooling system (which isn't your fault, not really possible on an roots charger setup).
To me, it's like you have an oven on top of your engine. Heat is what is causing all these cracked pistons & blown headgaskets. When you see people are cracking a pistons or in some cases melting them, this is a result of extreme heat and detonation. I think it has nothing to do with you reaching your limitations of the LSJ engine, it has to do with the combination of:
1. Your a/f ratio
2. How much heat you're producing (Air Intake Temperatures)
With these 2 things out of wack, you're asking for trouble.
Now, I will say it again, in my opinion, you're limited, period, to an inefficient form of boost. It's a great car for what you get. A nice sub 200 HP car. Runs great on the stock pulley, stock aftercooler setup and stock computer perameters. The problem I think is that people are trying to make something out of this power adder that (in my opinion again) isn't made for. Why do you think GM doesn't warranty lower than a certain pulley size? They recognize the inefficiencies of this specific charger. At a certain point, you're just producing more heat than you are power.
Now if you truely want to keep going with your car, I want you to realize this limitations of your power adder...but not your whole setup. You CAN reach whatever power goal you want but it won't be as easy as say (I really hate to compare) an SRT-4 which you just change the turbocharger and turn up the boost. You don't really have a replacement as far as the power adder goes unless you convert to a turbocharger, so you're main focus should be in your engine or atleast your cylinder head.
I feel the biggest problem, besides lack of knowledge and monitoring, is that people aren't recognizing the fact that the true power lies within their engine, and not necessarily in their supercharger. I have yet to see someone take the time to not drop pullies like crazy and just say "hey, why don't I open up the passage way to my combustion chamber?" Sorry but 19 PSI of manifold pressure isn't going that much to use if the hallway it has to travel down is tiny as **** (figuratively speaking). The valvetrain system is the gate, upgrading it is the key to reaching a much larger power.
Untill people start realizing this and start taking the time to actually open up their engine and spend some real money, they aren't going to go far supercharged (atleast w/the M62). I would get into the whole monitoring device discussion but it's been mentioned enough in this thread.
This was not meant to bash or anything like this but just to put things in perspective (or atleast how I see things). If I said anything that doesn't make sense, excuse me, it's 5 AM and I'm tired lol.
#72
Originally Posted by NJHK
From what I've read, it isn't.
I was wondering what you read that said it isn't?
#73
Senior Member
Originally Posted by god+1
I know this is their own site and thus is probably a bit biased... http://www.opcon.se/index.asp?sPage=1&langID=2&cID=15
I was wondering what you read that said it isn't?
I was wondering what you read that said it isn't?
http://product.half.ebay.com/Street-...71702QQtgZinfo
I wasn't saying that isn't efficient at all, but just it wasn't as efficient as a properly sized air to air intercooler system.
I have the book at home.
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-26-06
Location: Marlton, NJ
Posts: 9,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can an air-to-air intercooler be more efficient than a water based intercooler?
There is an overwhelming quantity of ambient air available to cool an air-to-air core relative to the charge air thru the inside of the intercooler (The iced down water intercooler is the only exception to this argument.). At just 60 mph, with a 300 bhp engine at full tilt, the ambient air available to cool the intercooler is about ten times the amount of charge air needed to make the 300 hp. Whereas the water intercooler largely stores the heat in the water until off throttle allows a reverse exchange. Some heat is expelled from a front water cooler, but the temperature difference between the water and ambient air is not large enough to drive out much heat. Another way to view the situation is that ultimately the heat removed from the air charge must go into the atmosphere regardless of whether it's from an air intercooler or a water based intercooler. The problem with the water intercooler is that the heat has more barriers to cross to reach the atmosphere than the air intercooler. Like it or not, each barrier represents a resistance to the transfer of heat. The net result; more barriers, less heat transfer.
There is an overwhelming quantity of ambient air available to cool an air-to-air core relative to the charge air thru the inside of the intercooler (The iced down water intercooler is the only exception to this argument.). At just 60 mph, with a 300 bhp engine at full tilt, the ambient air available to cool the intercooler is about ten times the amount of charge air needed to make the 300 hp. Whereas the water intercooler largely stores the heat in the water until off throttle allows a reverse exchange. Some heat is expelled from a front water cooler, but the temperature difference between the water and ambient air is not large enough to drive out much heat. Another way to view the situation is that ultimately the heat removed from the air charge must go into the atmosphere regardless of whether it's from an air intercooler or a water based intercooler. The problem with the water intercooler is that the heat has more barriers to cross to reach the atmosphere than the air intercooler. Like it or not, each barrier represents a resistance to the transfer of heat. The net result; more barriers, less heat transfer.