6.2 L87 (not LT1) discussion

[Realist]

Originally Posted by Capricio

my 2017 with L98/6L90 tends to get around 14mpg. Is yours an older LQ4/4L80?

Further off topic: Reading about the currently available 3/4 gassers... I'd take the Ford 6.8 mini-zilla, easily, for reliability, capability, efficiency (kind of) and simplicity.

2013 2500hd L96/6L90 Local driving, some plowing and somewhat heavy foot.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Realist

2013 2500hd L96/6L90 Local driving, some plowing and somewhat heavy foot.

Gah, i keep saying L98 instead of L96!

[m6-lt1]

Do NOT buy anything with an L87 in it. The LT1 is also junk and should have been included in the recall. The only reason it wasn’t is because not many Camaro’s are made so less blow up so there is less of a fuss about the LT1 blowing up. The parts that are failing in the L87 are the crank and bearings. The LT1 has the same exact part number as the L87 for those parts.

I don’t know why this turned into a cafe conversation. It has NOTHING to do with emissions or even oil viscosity. The L86 also used 20 weight oil and was not blowing up nearly at the same rate as the L87.

I’m in the FB group for 1LE’s and every month multiple LT1 failures are reported. GM simply has gotten cheap on quality control. The cranks are bad from the factory. They must be making them cheaper than they were from 14-20 in order to maintain profits and keep shareholders happy. Companies don’t care about future problems, only how they can make more money than the prior quarter.

Wait for the gen Vi. GM doesn’t give a s*** about folks with crappy manufactured cranks in their 6.2’s. I have done 10 track days in my 1LE and I do not trust it. I literally bought an F150 so I can tow it to my preferred dealer if it blows up at a far away track.

[Ryanbabz71]

I have a 2019 (built in May 2019) High Country Silverado with the 6.2, almost 84K miles. Usually I am not a fan of the first year model but in this case I cant complain.

[Devstrike]

Specifically with the LT1 because I am part of other Camaro groups on Reddit, facebook etc it appears that most of the engine failures also seem to happen in the 21-24 Model year cars. Seems like the after COVID vehicles are a big issue. It isn't as many as the L87 Trucks but it is something I noticed. There are those that heavily track in older model years with high ish mileage that have no issues. Well one had lifter issues but it wasn't the same catastrophic one you guys are mentioning here.

[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by Devstrike

Specifically with the LT1 because I am part of other Camaro groups on Reddit, facebook etc it appears that most of the engine failures also seem to happen in the 21-24 Model year cars. Seems like the after COVID vehicles are a big issue. It isn't as many as the L87 Trucks but it is something I noticed. There are those that heavily track in older model years with high ish mileage that have no issues. Well one had lifter issues but it wasn't the same catastrophic one you guys are mentioning here.

We’re starting to see older ones fail however it’s after MANY track days so imo they are 100% allowed to fail. The newer ones though are truly awful and very disappointing.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

If it’s a manufacturing problem they should have the exact VIN numbers it affected, the repair or replacement with the upgraded crank, and verification all new production vehicles have the new crank from the factory.

This is true. I'll see if I can find someone who can tell me the date range as well as how to figure out the date range by block stamping. I used to know this but it's been a while. It is also likely focused on a specific plant. L87 is made at more than one plant. Unless it's a supplier manufacturing issue and not an engine plant manufacturing issue, the likelihood of multiple plants having the same manufacturing process problem at the same time would be lottery-worthy odds.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

Do NOT buy anything with an L87 in it. The LT1 is also junk and should have been included in the recall. The only reason it wasn’t is because not many Camaro’s are made so less blow up so there is less of a fuss about the LT1 blowing up. The parts that are failing in the L87 are the crank and bearings. The LT1 has the same exact part number as the L87 for those parts.

Actually, the reason LT1 is not included is that if they've narrowed it down to a manufacturing process, they may know that they're dealing with a plant that makes L87 but not LT1. Although they do move RPOs around from plant to plant, LT1 is produced at Tonawanda, some at either Bowling Green or Spring Hill (I can't remember and no longer have access to the data). I think L87 are primarily made at St. Catharines and maybe one other plant.

***EDIT*** OK, just "phoned a friend". L87 is produced at Tonawanda and St. Catharines. LT1 is produced at Tonawanda and some are produced at Bowling Green in the Performance Build Center (ex. some 1LE with signed engines). So if the manufacturing problem was at St. Catharines, LT1 cannot be included. Now, if the manufacturing problem was at Tonawanda that's a whole different story. Unless the rods / cranks go down different machining lines.

[SS71SS24]

Hi Jim :
Thanks for your efforts. I'd imagine that the pad stamping would be able to tell us where the LT-1 was manufactured. I've read on this forum that the 22-24 MY were no longer assembled at Bowling Green. Not sure if that's 100% fact. So, my hope is that Tonawanda Plant isn't in the crosshairs. Speaking for myself, I really wish GM would clarify. They've had quite a bit of time already. Anyone out there know what prefix, suffix or whatever one would use to determine the birthplace of their LT-1?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by SS71SS24

Hi Jim :
Thanks for your efforts. I'd imagine that the pad stamping would be able to tell us where the LT-1 was manufactured. I've read on this forum that the 22-24 MY were no longer assembled at Bowling Green. Not sure if that's 100% fact. So, my hope is that Tonawanda Plant isn't in the crosshairs. Speaking for myself, I really wish GM would clarify. They've had quite a bit of time already. Anyone out there know what prefix, suffix or whatever one would use to determine the birthplace of their LT-1?

Makes sense since Corvette no longer uses LT1. That's the original reason for installing a small module there. The 1LE builds were basically excess units that may have originally been intended for Corvette. Probably only making LT2 at this point.

[bishopts]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

Do NOT buy anything with an L87 in it. The LT1 is also junk and should have been included in the recall. The only reason it wasn’t is because not many Camaro’s are made so less blow up so there is less of a fuss about the LT1 blowing up. The parts that are failing in the L87 are the crank and bearings. The LT1 has the same exact part number as the L87 for those parts.

I don’t know why this turned into a cafe conversation. It has NOTHING to do with emissions or even oil viscosity. The L86 also used 20 weight oil and was not blowing up nearly at the same rate as the L87.

I’m in the FB group for 1LE’s and every month multiple LT1 failures are reported. GM simply has gotten cheap on quality control. The cranks are bad from the factory. They must be making them cheaper than they were from 14-20 in order to maintain profits and keep shareholders happy. Companies don’t care about future problems, only how they can make more money than the prior quarter.

Wait for the gen Vi. GM doesn’t give a s*** about folks with crappy manufactured cranks in their 6.2’s. I have done 10 track days in my 1LE and I do not trust it. I literally bought an F150 so I can tow it to my preferred dealer if it blows up at a far away track.

Why are you still here? Every time i see a post from you it's about how crappy Camaros are and how much you're looking forward to getting rid of it. Sell your car and move on, you're like cancer here.
My car is coming up on 110k, still runs great. Ive had it faster than most ever see and go through most empty intersection mostly sideways.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Actually, the reason LT1 is not included is that if they've narrowed it down to a manufacturing process, they may know that they're dealing with a plant that makes L87 but not LT1. Although they do move RPOs around from plant to plant, LT1 is produced at Tonawanda, some at either Bowling Green or Spring Hill (I can't remember and no longer have access to the data). I think L87 are primarily made at St. Catharines and maybe one other plant.

***EDIT*** OK, just "phoned a friend". L87 is produced at Tonawanda and St. Catharines. LT1 is produced at Tonawanda and some are produced at Bowling Green in the Performance Build Center (ex. some 1LE with signed engines). So if the manufacturing problem was at St. Catharines, LT1 cannot be included. Now, if the manufacturing problem was at Tonawanda that's a whole different story. Unless the rods / cranks go down different machining lines.

Of course even though I knew mine was built in Tonawanda I still pulled my engine cover off to look lol

[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by bishopts

Why are you still here? Every time i see a post from you it's about how crappy Camaros are and how much you're looking forward to getting rid of it. Sell your car and move on, you're like cancer here.
My car is coming up on 110k, still runs great. Ive had it faster than most ever see and go through most empty intersection mostly sideways.

I literally praised the 14-20 engines. Maybe read the full post or my other post in this thread? You have a precovid car. Those engines are rock solid so I’d expect you to not have problems. I’m here because I like helping provide info. I doubt everyone here is involved in the much more active social media groups of our cars. Another poster also posted what I said about the 21+ engines. It is a fact that they are failing at a higher rate than the pre Covid engines and it’s not just a coincidence this L87 issue got brought to light.

I literally have seen folks on engine number 3 and number 4 in their cars (LT1). Something did get messed up in GMs manufacturing process. Whether it’s poor quality control or they have a new/cheaper supplier for cranks we won’t ever know for sure. As an owner of one of these cars, I have a right to be mad. If the newer motors were more solid, I’d mod my car so I can enjoy it but because they aren’t I’m stuck at this power level because I’m not losing warranty on this car with the number on engine failures I have seen.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Makes sense since Corvette no longer uses LT1. That's the original reason for installing a small module there. The 1LE builds were basically excess units that may have originally been intended for Corvette. Probably only making LT2 at this point.

Jim, it wasn’t just 1LE LT1’s being built at PBC, it was LT1 engines assigned to MANUAL transmission cars from 2020-mid 2023. Here is the thread about it. 1LE vehicles are the most likely vehicles to have manuals (even after 2021 when they finally were available with an A10) so that’s probably why you had it in your head it was 1LE engines. I have a late 2023 so no plaque on mine. I actually reached out to one of the guys on the plaques to confirm what someone else in that thread below did (they also reached out to a PBC engine builder via instagram. https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=579544

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

...
Jim, it wasn’t just 1LE LT1’s being built at PBC, it was LT1 engines assigned to MANUAL transmission cars from 2020-mid 2023. Here is the thread about it. 1LE vehicles are the most likely vehicles to have manuals (even after 2021 when they finally were available with an A10) so that’s probably why you had it in your head it was 1LE engines. I have a late 2023 so no plaque on mine. I actually reached out to one of the guys on the plaques to confirm what someone else in that thread below did (they also reached out to a PBC engine builder via instagram. https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=579544

That makes perfect sense.