First year car,everybody had to have that first X-Box 360.Oh well somebody has to be the first beta testers.They will get it straighten out eventually.

 

So does BMW, the new 3.6 V6 Chrysler Pentastar and even the latest volvo penta 5.7 (old school small block) marine engines. No mess, less wasted material, easy to get to from the top - love 'em.

 

Oil is cheap compared to an entire engine. My first car was a 66 Chevelle with a 283 powerglide. I changed oil and filter every 3000 miles. I drove this car over 100,000 miles the first year, second year another 100,000. I drove it like any teenager with a lead foot drives. I sold this car with 250,000 miles on it. At every 100,000 miles I replaced the oil pump as the older mechanic I bought the car from said if you do that you should get 300,000 miles out of the engine. They do not build them like that anymore. At one point I put on a set of double bump heads after I blew a head gasket. To this day I still change oil on that schedule.

 

DANG 100k miles in 1 year ..twice.. changed oil 33 times a year .. as a teenager too
whooeee

my wife has a rav4 with 225,000 on it ... 10 years

did you ever see your family during that time??
or
go to school or work or eat or breathe or have time to poop??

 

Uhhhh, Not if you use an after market filter????

 

Oil filter failure, that's just LOL. I've been changing oil on my parent's cars and my own for over 30 years and have never experienced a oil filter failure. GM comes up with some pretty LOL excuses. There's a certain racetrack I know that HAD auto C7 vettes that now returned them for stick C7 vettes even though the autos weren't faulty. That's some good stuff right there.

 

Are you saying this has only happened to the automatics? Can anyone else confirm yes or no? Our's was an Auto non Z51.

 

Got a link or any proof of that? Reason(s) why they returned them?

Or is this another "I know something nobody else does but I have no proof" story?

 

I'm glad this was documented and happened to them (C&D) - so's the 'deniers' that pop-up cannot argue with it as some 'rumor.'

JOe,
In my immediate family, we've had one model or other Mercedes-Benz for 45 consecutive years. Personally, I've had (3) going back 23 consecutive years. ALL of them have/had the top-fill, cartridge filter. Might be a lesson in there for other engine manufacturers....

 

A track with autos? I thought they overheat a bit on track. Is that considered "faulty"? I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic.

I just don't believe the filter excuse or the "emergency brake" sales halt either.

But seriously, does someone on this thread think the LS7 valve guide issue is overblown? Cuz' I thought that was all but proven. Ref. "the list" on this forum for evidence. I think it's still under-blown.

Just remember the 2014 GT3 issue or those Ferrari fires a few years ago... No amount of money perfects any car.

The other thread on this forum has someone implicating the driveshaft length... Solid theory. Hope it's that simple.

 

"Good ol AC Delco filters"

And guess who makes those?


I dont buy the filter excuse for one second, and whats some chunk mysterious chunk of metal falling off these motors? Its not breaking oil pumps? Come on.

Guy here with almost no miles on his tossed a rod sitting at a stoplight;sure theres lots more failures we wont hear about not everyone is on the internet forums.

Theres an issue somewhere. Doubt youll see a recall it would be stupid expensive for them. Hey maybe a free oil filter!

 

ive been wondering about this as well......i mean im saying i believe there is an issue somwhere. The few failures all seem to be the same with the bottom end just lettin loose outa nowhere

 

Guard Corporation, Wix?

 

You drove 278 miles per day, EVERY DAY, for two years?

Almost 5 hours in the car, EVERY DAY, for two years?

And, changed the oil EVERY 10.5 days?

Sorry, but I don't believe that.

 

GM probably tried to save a few bucks by going with a cheaper subcontractor for the filters. Probably from the same quality of subcontractor that build the 427 rods. The "new GM" definitely doesn't care about quality, only max profit.

 

I'm old enough to have done my first solo in a three-on-the-tree six cylinder '56 Chevy with power nothing before I was ten years old. Dad gave me my first car, a '62 Corvair on my 16th birthday and I had graduated to a '70 GTO a year later. Hottest car I ever owned was a '74 GTO (a fairly light car as I recall) with a Pontiac 455, '69 400 HO heads (I think) headers, dual exhaust, working fresh air scoop, and a half an inch lift cam. It was faster than the 2011 Mustang GT I test drove or my C5 Vette with the free-flow intake and exhaust being the only mods. My dad had been a mechanic for TWA since before WWII so he new all about superchargers, turbos, and the high performance issues that came with the need for the quick excelleration piston aircraft of those days had.

I bring up history not to brag but to say I grew up hearing about high performance issues related to such engines, but the truth is, the C7 has systems that are or should be able to take high performance power adders, like a supercharger, and use them in cars that must be reliable enough to be driven every day without getting your hands dirty every weekend in an attempt to keep them on the road. Are the systems in place up to this level of performance?

Some WWII pilots had superchargers 70+ years ago as a matter of survival. Who cared if the engine blew five minutes after disengaging the enemy. At the very least, you could bail out and get picked up by friend or foe. Either would greatly enhance your chance for survival. But if you had the slowest plane you would likely die a horrible death. The mechanics who worked on such planes were much like the dragster mechanics of today, constantly rebuilding engines or spending eight+ hours making sure "their" bird brought the pilot home. I say their bird because the plane belonged to the mechanic. Pilots just borrowed the plane for a test drive, but it was the mechanic's responsibility to keep the plane flying 24/7. Rods broke, valves got bent because of over-revving too long or worn out weak springs, head gaskets blew, and all that abuse occurred while using oil that was just a step above (and may have been supplemented with) castor bean oil. All of this effort was just for a single sortie that may have only been in the air four to eight hours.

Because I grew up hearing all of this I have questioned how I want to build up the top end of my 2001 C5 convertible's LS1 with only 46750 miles on the ticker. It burns no oil and I didn't even find any in the throttle body. I have always felt like I should stay away from simply slapping on a super or turbocharger because it doesn't make any sense to replace the oil pump, lifters, pushrods, springs, rockers, retainers, any whatever else I may have missed in preparation for a head/cam replacement that will help me gain 50 to 100 horsepower over stock when that supercharger is going to give me twice the gain. Yet everyday on the forum you hear about bolting on 200hp in less than a day. Really, is my engine properly prepped to bolt on 200hp without doing everything I would do for a head/cam swap and them some?

I'm not suggesting Chevy didn't do the R and D properly and give us a great engine that will take some pusishment. I do know that when you build a car with 650hp it is going to be used and abused and it is Chevy's responsibility to build a beefy motor with systems, lubrication has been implicated here, that will hold it together for well over 100,000 miles. That is a lot to ask considering the normally aspirated engines of today that are expected to go for 250,000 miles between overhauls. Someone mentioned a RAV4, and since I own one I'll use that as an example. Mine is a 2007 with a 3.5 liter engine. It's a great example of a modern motor because it has four valves per cylinder and has variable valve timing. Four valves per cylinder are nothing new but perhaps VVT is, and while it might lead to extra repair bills down the road, or not, I don't think it's 269hp qualify it as a vehicle that will often be the object of abuse like C7 will. To make 650hp (hope I'm using comparable figures, if not please correct me) it would have to be 2.41 times as large or 8.45 liters and without going into anymore math I am sure that the difference in weight would be quite significant.

I guess my point is that when you buy a car that tries to do as much as a C7 does with so little, it's kind of like living on the edge of "the greatest car America ever built" and "I should of bought a Porche." Or, to put it in the words of an old aviator "Never fly the A model of anything." I'm sure the C7 will get any problems it may have worked out and the model year to buy will be about 2017.

 

Pardon me. But sorry that is not impressive.

My mother drives a 1994 Lexus ES300 that has 284,000 miles on it last I checked. She bought the car used with about 120,000 miles on the clock. From what I am aware of.. she has NEVER changed the oil in that car.

You are right they dont build them like they used too. They build them better now.

 

Does sound a bit incredible. Time has a way of altering memories.

 

A few engine failures and people think we are driving time bombs on wheels.

Every car line has engine failures (even a Porsche). With percentage rates of failure less than 1 percent, I'd say there is nothing wrong with the development and specification of the engine.

Failures do happen and we can't be sure if the engine was having the dog-$#it run out of it or not at the time (or for how long).

Expecting a street car to be run like a race car (without a team of mechanics maintaining after each race) is crazy.

Some track time is anticipated as is some performance driving where you put your foot into it. But if one expects to take a street car to the track continuously (or drive like your on a track every-time you crawl into the car) and not have mechanical issues arise over time is on a fools errand.

 

Seriously!?!?!?! Duh...
I'll continue to enjoy mine now and let the warranty take care of any issues. Life is too short and in the words of Jim Morrison "The future's uncertain and the end is always near".