| Re: [GMCnet] Need advise from the engine wizard [message #281871] |
Sat, 11 July 2015 11:37  |
BobDunahugh
Messages: 2465
Registered: October 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Karma: 11
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Crise has a good point there. If the bottom of that lifter is smooth along with the lobe. Both will more then likely be that way. If the lifter literally groaned the lobe off. The contamination will be larger. But will still be very fine. If that engine is in good shape other then the cam. I'd just put a cam in. Pull the oil pan off. The story will be on the bottom of the oil pan Glenn's engine had big chunks everywhere.I had a cam go flat in a 327 Chevy once. Did something that you should never do. Stuck a used cam in with miscellaneous lifters. Went for more than 100,000 miles more. Just got alot of pure dumb luck with those used parts. Bob Dunahugh
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Need advise from the engine wizard [message #281932 is a reply to message #281871] |
Sun, 12 July 2015 10:42  |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In the late 60's and 70's, during the "Silent Recall" that Chevrolet did on
it's small block 8 cylinder engines for flat cams and lifters, literally
thousands of them got fixed in the cars and trucks by pulling the front
timing cover, pushrods, intake manifold, water pump, and in some cars the
radiators. All that was usually replaced was the camshaft and lifters and
ocasionally the timing chain and sprockets if they were badly worn. Those
flat cams were a direct result of a mid year production change to 1.6 to 1
rocker arm ratio to get more lift from the same camshaft. The hard
surfacing was not up to the task of the extra loading on the cam lobes and
lifters. GM knew about it, and chose to only fix the engines that customers
would complain about instead of fixing them all with a full blown recall.
The bean counters figured that it would add about $8.00 to the cost of
every chev v8 they sold to fix it. For Corporate, it was cheaper to fix the
few that complained than it was to fix the cam and lifters. Such is life in
a big corporation. $$$$$ rules quality.
GM allowed 2.2 hours warranty labor for the repair. You think any oil pans
got removed and cleaned? You think that new cams and lifters wore out
prematurely because of all that metal circulating around in the engine?
They USUALLY lasted longer than the warranty, which was all GM had any
interest in. Hello, Honda and Toyota. Goodbye Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and
Saturn. No big secret there.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Bob Dunahugh wrote:
>
>
>
> Crise has a good point there. If the bottom of that lifter is smooth along
> with the lobe. Both will more then likely be that way. If the lifter
> literally groaned the lobe off. The contamination will be larger. But
> will still be very fine. If that engine is in good shape other then the
> cam. I'd just put a cam in. Pull the oil pan off. The story will be on the
> bottom of the oil pan Glenn's engine had big chunks everywhere.I had a cam
> go flat in a 327 Chevy once. Did something that you should never do. Stuck
> a used cam in with miscellaneous lifters. Went for more than 100,000 miles
> more. Just got alot of pure dumb luck with those used parts. Bob Dunahugh
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Need advise from the engine wizard [message #281951 is a reply to message #281938] |
Sun, 12 July 2015 16:42 |
Kosier
Messages: 834
Registered: February 2008
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob,
I was the service manager at Dave Smith Ford in Pataskala, Ohio in 1965. I
don't recall anything secretive about the recall. We called our customers
in and welded the
reinforcements onto their frames. I did hear later that GM started early
designing their 1965 frame change when they gave up on the infamous X-frame.
Ford got
wind of the new design and copied it. GM found a flaw before production and
corrected it. Ford didn't find out about the change until well into
production. They
didn't hesitate, but sent out the repair kits and a list of the cars that
needed it. I'm not willing to brag up the Fords of that time, but they were
willing to correct the
problems, even some that weren't their fault.
I might add that at that time, I broke the motor in the Corvair Spyder I was
driving and I still have the letter from some stroke in GM telling me that
their cars didn't
have defects in materials and workmanship in under 12,000 miles. Bet me!!!
Gary Kosier still bitter
77PB w/500 Cad
Newark, Oh
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Dunahugh
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 3:49 PM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Need advise from the engine wizard
James H. ( I'm a little off topic here). But it's amazing what the BIG
THREE did to the public from the 20's to the mid 60's. Then, and be on. With
safety, engine pollution, and recalls that didn't happen. Go read Unsafe at
any Speed. The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile. By Ralph
Nader. The book had really very little about the Corvair. Even praised the
1965 and newer models. A small example. In 65. Ford found that they had some
very serious safety hazards with the rear suspension in the 65 full size
Ford. So to not have Ford look bad with a recall. They told their dealers.
That if one of those cars came in for an oil change. Or any service. Just
tell the customer that they wanted to keep the car for an extra day for some
FREE handling IMPROVEMENTS. If the cars never showed up. Don't say
anything. In 54 when Buick came out with power brakes in the Roadmaster.
There was an O ring that was the wrong size. So the vacuum booster unit
would suck the brake fluid o
ut of the master brake cyl. It was felt by management that when an accident
happened. The accident would be blamed on the driver. And every time there
was an accident. There would be one less to fail. The problem in that way
would solve the problem itself. Given enough time.Buick did finally come
out with a kit. But very few dealers were told of that kit. If your really
into cars. It's a must read. If someone wants to comment on this kind of
thing. Have the subject Designed-in dangers.Bob Dunahugh
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
