TeamSwift

Home of the Suzuki mini-compacts ! Your Home for all things Suzuki Swift, Geo Metro, Holden Barina, Chevy Sprint, Pontiac Firefly, and Suzuki Cultus. TeamSwift is a technical performance oriented community!
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:44 am

Underbody braces, turbos and more!

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 204 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 12:28 pm 
Offline
Sad but True...

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:20 pm
Posts: 2973
Location: Saskatchewan
I dont know all the differences between the xfi and normal, but theres a shorter duration cam, so if its burning while its off the seat, then yeah it would help transfer heat better.

the check valve is the one you said fell on the ground, it just sits into the block. theres another one thats threaded into the head via hex key iirc. and it basically takes the 1mm across hole down to 1/4mm with the size of the opening. do a search for head oil restrictor or something. when I took my last motor apart, the previous owner failed to install one. what ended up happening was too much oil flowed into the head in the higher rpms (more oil pump revolutions = more flow.... and without that restrictor it all pools up there), so what would happen was the pcv system would pull the oil into the intake manifold, and when this happened it was obvious. I would be bagging it on the highway (mines turbo... but same head, and installing it fixed it..) and when I would get back on vacuum there would be an insta blue cloud of smoke behind me as the intake manifold drained the valve cover.

it doesnt sound like what is happening to you, but I figured I would share it. its something that gets overlooked, but that said, that motor didnt burn valves, I burned pistons because the stock ecu was crap for my power level

im a little confused by what you are talking about when you say he shimmed the springs, did you physically add a spacer to help keep the spring more compressed? I dont know how good of an idea that is either.

just for comparison sake, how many miles are roughly on those valve springs? that last motor had 300+km on it before it blew up, and im using the same springs in my new one, and I spin it to 8500rpm with what I would think should be higher combustion temperatures than you, and ive yet to burn one in 32000km with 22psi.

that said, these motors are notorious for burning valves, design flaw with the flow in the head doesnt help either. the mk2 head is imo, junk compared to the mk1. but many hours later the mk2 head can be very good. now in your case, im assuming all is virtually stock. and the only thing besides weak valve springs and valve float I can think of, is extremely high egt's.

which are caused by:
highly loaded engine
retarded timing (id say use 12*... I got away with it on my stock motor running 87 octane... but if you are burning oil in anyway, its reducing octane rating alot)
lean fuel mixture (o2, injector, fuel pump/regulator, filter?)
maybe too hot of a spark plug, I would use bpr5ey's in a stock 3cyl, I think thats what the book calls for anyways. you could try a 6 if you are using a 5.

I dont know man, I feel your pain in a different way wrecking parts due to power. yours should have been 100% reliable with 175psi and a rebuilt head. theres SOMETHING else going on... there has to be, hopefully this post helps you narrow it down a little maybe

_________________
1991 Swift GT Build G10 +25 psi + other goodies
1996 Metro Build QR25de swap, still undecided where to take it
the lolcar family


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2009 1:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:17 pm
Posts: 1408
Location: Alberta, Canada
These long threads get so painful. Listen to Suprfly, listen to me. I rebuild a minimum of one 3cyl a week. Some engines can burn one litre of oil in 700k and not burn valves. This is true. The 3cyl will not take that amount of oil consumption, it will just wreck the 'new' head. You can play with pcv, egr, cam timing, lifters, exhaust, spark plugs...(and any other theories out there), but at the end of the day they need rings. You can put a brand new suzuki head on with new everything, but if the rings are bad it will not stand up.
This past week i have redone two engines that had new heads put on within 20,000k and now barely had enough compression to run. I installed new valves, cleaned up the mess from oil burning and replaced rings. They are perfect now, they will work perfectly until the day the car dies. I know this because its what i have seen work hundreds of times. It all hinges on doing the rings, nothing more. The sad part is each of these engines had bills of $1500+ for the head job.
Do your rings, do the valves one last time. You will be very happy with the results. You won't have to worry about it letting you down.

_________________
1995 Swift w/16V 4.39s, 3tech cam, Esteem t-body, Header, needs more.
1995 Gt Mustang "Boss Shinoda" package.
1999 F150 4x4 Supercharged
1967 Mustang 428 auto, never ending expensive project
1993 Civic si h22a, fell in my lap, couldn't resist!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 9:37 am
Posts: 1172
Location: Memphis, TN
codyb76 wrote:
The 3cyl will not take that amount of oil consumption, it will just wreck the 'new' head. You can play with pcv, egr, cam timing, lifters, exhaust, spark plugs...(and any other theories out there), but at the end of the day they need rings.
Do your rings, do the valves one last time. You will be very happy with the results. You won't have to worry about it letting you down.


So one my 94 GT, if it's burning about a quart every 2K, do I need to do my rings as well? Sorry to hijack.

_________________
94 Swift GTi 5spd
94 3cyl automatic 4 door


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:24 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:16 am
Posts: 8043
Location: Ontario, Canada
No.
One quart per 1000-1500 is considered OK.

_________________
Contact 3tech: g10pro@rocketmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:17 pm
Posts: 1408
Location: Alberta, Canada
I would agree to that. Especially a Gti engine. I see the 3cyls start using a a litre a tank, then you know you have problems! More or less two litres between oil changes is fine.

_________________
1995 Swift w/16V 4.39s, 3tech cam, Esteem t-body, Header, needs more.
1995 Gt Mustang "Boss Shinoda" package.
1999 F150 4x4 Supercharged
1967 Mustang 428 auto, never ending expensive project
1993 Civic si h22a, fell in my lap, couldn't resist!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 12:09 pm 
Offline
Sad but True...

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:20 pm
Posts: 2973
Location: Saskatchewan
I know most of you guys are using throw away motors, but at the same time, a motor isnt DESIGNED to burn any oil... Id be concerned if my investment started burning a little gold

_________________
1991 Swift GT Build G10 +25 psi + other goodies
1996 Metro Build QR25de swap, still undecided where to take it
the lolcar family


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:44 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:16 am
Posts: 8043
Location: Ontario, Canada
Not true.
They all burn a little.

_________________
Contact 3tech: g10pro@rocketmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:58 pm 
Offline
Sad but True...

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:20 pm
Posts: 2973
Location: Saskatchewan
strange im not losing any oil? its got 34 000km on it

where do they pull oil from? is it a ring issue? im not using stock pistons/rings or bore size..

_________________
1991 Swift GT Build G10 +25 psi + other goodies
1996 Metro Build QR25de swap, still undecided where to take it
the lolcar family


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:23 am
Posts: 1750
Location: Washington, DC
It's not a major problem that needs immediate attention until it gets to a quart every 1000 miles, but normal oil use is way less than that. My 98 four cylinder with 145K miles on it uses half a quart between 5,000 mile oil changes.

_________________
91 Pontiac Firefly Turbo
10 Suzuki Kizashi


Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:58 am 
Offline
Sad but True...

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:20 pm
Posts: 2973
Location: Saskatchewan
but it also has 145k miles on it, half of which may have been poorly maintained...

_________________
1991 Swift GT Build G10 +25 psi + other goodies
1996 Metro Build QR25de swap, still undecided where to take it
the lolcar family


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:23 am
Posts: 1750
Location: Washington, DC
It's been well maintained. It used about a third of a quart every 5,000 miles when brand new. All engines use oil.

_________________
91 Pontiac Firefly Turbo
10 Suzuki Kizashi


Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:23 am 
Offline
Sad but True...

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:20 pm
Posts: 2973
Location: Saskatchewan
I must be lucky then, because my 20weight with 6200km that I just dropped last night was still at the top of the dipstick. not even 1/8th of a quart. maybe some factory design flaw or something, or maybe mine is somehow special. but I wont complain.

as for the burned valve topic we are posting in, whats the latest?

_________________
1991 Swift GT Build G10 +25 psi + other goodies
1996 Metro Build QR25de swap, still undecided where to take it
the lolcar family


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 9:37 am
Posts: 1172
Location: Memphis, TN
20W is pretty thick for a 1.0L, isn't it :roll:

_________________
94 Swift GTi 5spd
94 3cyl automatic 4 door


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:34 pm 
Offline
Sad but True...

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:20 pm
Posts: 2973
Location: Saskatchewan
does the roll eye smiley mean sarcasm? my detector is broken today.

but either way im not sure what you are getting at. 20weight is THIN, and any leaky motor running on 30 that got 20 dumped in it, will leak more oil...

_________________
1991 Swift GT Build G10 +25 psi + other goodies
1996 Metro Build QR25de swap, still undecided where to take it
the lolcar family


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:35 pm
Posts: 2433
Location: Regina, SK
swift13b wrote:
does the roll eye smiley mean sarcasm? my detector is broken today.

but either way im not sure what you are getting at. 20weight is THIN, and any leaky motor running on 30 that got 20 dumped in it, will leak more oil...


He's being sarcastic.

0w20 or 5w20 is faaar too thin for these engines, lightest I'd go is 0w30, and I even have a reccomendation from Redline that I use either 5w40 or 10w40 in my factory Turbo Sprint regardless of mods and that's a group 5 ester based oil. You're increasing the stresses the engine internals see by quite a bit to make a barely noticable gain in horsepower. Good German Castrol 0w30 is readily available and will beat the pants off that so/so Mobil 1.

Also you should see some oil consumption, it's just natural even in a brand new perfectly broke in engine, it will use oil. Ecspecially the way you drive your car.

If you never use oil, it means the motor is replacing it with something.

Just an FYI.

_________________
My cars:

J. McBean: '98 Suzuki Swift 1.3L 16v SOHC 5sp+ "Mk5" Made in Canada
The Mini Rattler: '94 Suzuki Swift .993L 6v SOHC 5sp+ "Mk3" Made in Canada *The Winter Beater*
B. Berry: '90 Chevrolet Turbo Sprint 1.0L 6v SOHC 5sp+ "Mk2" Made in Japan

I got 18MPG in a 3cyl with a 5 speed manual 4dr, '93 Metro! :yeahyeah


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:17 pm 
Offline
Sad but True...

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:20 pm
Posts: 2973
Location: Saskatchewan
you know the first number means virtually nothing right? its not far too thin, it works great. I suppose it matters that all your clearances are real tight before you think about using thinner oil, but for my platform I will run nothing but 20weight. keep in mind im far from stock though, so my application should call for a different oil.

plus ive got 1/4bottle of lucas in each oil change, so its more like 25weight... lol

in 7000km, im down maybe 1mm on the dipstick. im not losing coolant or anything either. maybe these motors are just crap stock? my 04 never burned any oil either

40 weight is hella thick for the turbo, the only time I used 40 was when my blown motor was wasting oil alot, it slowed it down by like 25%

_________________
1991 Swift GT Build G10 +25 psi + other goodies
1996 Metro Build QR25de swap, still undecided where to take it
the lolcar family


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:16 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Minnesota
Sorry for bailing on the thread for such a long time. I just got too busy to be playing with cars.

What I am going to do is glaze break the cylinders with 320 grit stones, re-use the old pistons, use a new set of rings, bolt the head back on and see what happens. Its only money and a bit of education. Education isn't free.

Keep in mind that this 135k mile engine has .003" of cylinder wall taper / out of round based on my inside micrometer readings. According to Mitchell, the limit is .0039". On a larger scale engine, .003" of taper has never been a problem for me, but on something this small, it is a lot more taper in relation to cylinder bore size.... we'll find out if it is a problem or not.

The auto parts stores are either dumb and/or can't get me a set of rings. My brother works at Car Quest, and if he can't get rings, Car Quest cannot. He is the best parts person there is. Napa asks me if I have a 1 or 2 ring piston, and then when I say "2", there is silence for awhile and "sorry sir, it doesn't look like I can get those."

I have yet to try the GM dealer. Any tips? I'm leaving it standard bore.

Another interesting tidbit is that the compression rings both appear to be square-cut. I've never seen both top rings be square cut before in an engine. Unless they are worn so much that the bevel is just worn away. The ring's end gaps are right about where they should be though. I have not checked end gaps of the oil rings.

To contradict some people here, I have people telling me to run 5w20 oil because the 5w30 I run is too thick and causing too much oil pressure, pumping up the lifters to the point where it makes negative valve lash and holds the valve open. I'm firm in my belief that even 5w40 won't cause that though, and I am sticking with it.

When I say that the last machinist shimmed the valve springs... he did just that. Added a shim at the valve spring seat to make the springs compress more and work harder.... if that makes sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:55 pm
Posts: 1257
Location: So. Calif
I've been running 10W30 ever since I bought my 1992 geo Metro with 108,000 miles on it.

I now have over 345,000 miles on the original engine and still runs great.
My oil consumption used to be 1/4 qt in 3000 miles, but now it's about 1 qt in 3000 miles.

This is on the coast in So. Cal so the temps are never freezing.

dave

_________________
1992 Geo metro, 1.0L 5spd, 511,000miles on original engine & trans
- First time engine work at 456K miles, bad headgasket. Rebuilt head, Felpro gasket installed.
- knuckles/hubs/brakes/13" wheels from a 2000 Metro, running 175 70R13
- New bearings and 1st/2nd synchros at 440.5K miles.
- MPGuino
- Averaging ~ 51MPG these days


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:16 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Minnesota
swift13b wrote:
the check valve is the one you said fell on the ground, it just sits into the block. theres another one thats threaded into the head via hex key iirc. and it basically takes the 1mm across hole down to 1/4mm with the size of the opening. do a search for head oil restrictor or something. when I took my last motor apart, the previous owner failed to install one. what ended up happening was too much oil flowed into the head in the higher rpms (more oil pump revolutions = more flow.... and without that restrictor it all pools up there), so what would happen was the pcv system would pull the oil into the intake manifold, and when this happened it was obvious. I would be bagging it on the highway (mines turbo... but same head, and installing it fixed it..) and when I would get back on vacuum there would be an insta blue cloud of smoke behind me as the intake manifold drained the valve cover.

it doesnt sound like what is happening to you, but I figured I would share it. its something that gets overlooked, but that said, that motor didnt burn valves, I burned pistons because the stock ecu was crap for my power level


Hold on a sec. I think that I may see where I screwed up and mis-informed everyone.

Well, maybe this IS what is happening to me. I was never able to see the blue smoke out the exhaust, but it does not mean it was never there. I was always driving. I admitted that. I had to re-read your post about the check valve AND oil restrictor. Yes, the check valve is there. I thought it WAS the restrictor. I just went out to the garage to check that it is indeed a check valve. And NO, i do not recall the restrictor in the cylinder head. The head is at the machine shop now... (worst time of the year to get any kind of machine work done!). I will call and ask him tomorrow if the restrictor is there. For some reason, I remember working on a cylinder head (which one, I can't remember) and seeing a threaded oil supply passage with nothing in it.

So, before, I was thinking that there is no way that oil pressure can cause negative valve lash because downstream of the restrictor, there is very little oil pressure. With no restriction, there's going to be plenty of oil pressure in the head--almost as much as there is in the main bearings. So, lets say 80 PSI of oil pressure. I've seen a few engines that normally produce well over 120 psi... but have no idea what these engines run for pressure. The lash adjusters have an internal surface area of??? Would 3/4 square inch sound about right? That'd be at 1" diameter. I've never had one apart before, so I cannot tell. At 80 psi, there is 62 pounds of force in the valve springs... which has to be pretty darn close to enough to compress the valve spring and cause the negative valve lash since these valve springs are pretty darn wimpy.

Or are all my calculations / assumptions way off?

And also, with all this oil in the head, its plentifully available for pooling up, seeping past the valve seals and getting sucked into the PCV system causing the oil consumption, which in either case is going to cause it to combust in the combustion chamber, causing carbon buildup, poor valve to seat heat convection, etc.

Hmmm, now I am really starting to wonder.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:16 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Minnesota
I talked to the machinist today. There is NO oil supply restrictor in the head. It is threaded so that one could be put in there though.

He's done hundreds of these heads over the years, but not many recently as the cars have kinda died off to a certain degree and just aren't nearly as popular anymore. He doesn't recall there being restrictors in all the others, but said he honestly wasn't 100% sure. He does thousands of heads every year, so keeping track of little stuff like this is very difficult.

So, I definitely was running around without an oil supply restrictor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:06 am
Posts: 59
Location: Texas
Umm, there's been some good and interesting and informative postings on this thread, 'cuz this car forum has some of the sharper techs posting on it out there on the web, but everyone seems to be missing something here on this engine. The first thing I'd check from burning valve problems on these engines after EGR is a warped exhaust manifold. That'll burn a valve. People don't as a rule seem to be checking exhaust manifold faces for warp when they pull heads. Everyone ought to. My view is that as a matter of routine on any engine with any miles on it you need to resurface the exhaust manifold each time it comes off. Machine shops have the oversized belt-sander machine to do it for fast and cheap, and puts a good surface finish (better on the rough side, imo) on it. Make sure you got a good sealup to the rest of the exhaust system, too.

Shoot, why flinch on a rebore? Pistons are cheap, machine work is reasonable, .003 means to me that the cylinder is well on its way to worn out--my understanding is that cylinder bore wear accelerates at this stage of the game on account of the honing going/gone away. Do it right, do it once. Spend your time keeping everything clean on the rebuild--always take an engine through the hand-held carwash after it visits the machine shop. Bring sponges and bore brushes when you do.

Keep us posted on what transpires. This is an interesting one.

Dan White


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:45 am
Posts: 27
Location: Arizona
Dan White wrote:
Umm, there's been some good and interesting and informative postings on this thread, 'cuz this car forum has some of the sharper techs posting on it out there on the web, but everyone seems to be missing something here on this engine. The first thing I'd check from burning valve problems on these engines after EGR is a warped exhaust manifold. That'll burn a valve. People don't as a rule seem to be checking exhaust manifold faces for warp when they pull heads. Everyone ought to. My view is that as a matter of routine on any engine with any miles on it you need to resurface the exhaust manifold each time it comes off. Machine shops have the oversized belt-sander machine to do it for fast and cheap, and puts a good surface finish (better on the rough side, imo) on it. Make sure you got a good sealup to the rest of the exhaust system, too. Keep us posted on what transpires. This is an interesting one.

Dan White



this is an interesting concept with the leaky manifold as a possible culprit. can you explain to us why this would cause a valve to burn?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:06 am
Posts: 59
Location: Texas
No. All I know is that I've seen it happen. One of my main sources for Geo information, who was Van's Imported Auto Parts' mechanic on their fleet of 30 or so Metros that they used as parts delivery vehicles--it was his full-time job for a dozen years to keep the fleet running, so he probably has more Geo Metro wrench experience than anyone--mentioned that to me as well. His view was that the EGR snotted up first, then the exhaust manifold warped, then the valve burned. If you didn't reface the manifold, then the valve would burn again. One of these days I''ll try and interview Dean and get his input on this site--he's been shy about facing a tape recorder.

What the hell. I'll probably swing by the UT SAE Monday afternoon beer session and ask them. UT's got a decent automotive engineering program. They probably don't know either.

Dan White


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:11 am 
Offline
Sad but True...

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:20 pm
Posts: 2973
Location: Saskatchewan
phantomrt wrote:
swift13b wrote:
the check valve is the one you said fell on the ground, it just sits into the block. theres another one thats threaded into the head via hex key iirc. and it basically takes the 1mm across hole down to 1/4mm with the size of the opening. do a search for head oil restrictor or something. when I took my last motor apart, the previous owner failed to install one. what ended up happening was too much oil flowed into the head in the higher rpms (more oil pump revolutions = more flow.... and without that restrictor it all pools up there), so what would happen was the pcv system would pull the oil into the intake manifold, and when this happened it was obvious. I would be bagging it on the highway (mines turbo... but same head, and installing it fixed it..) and when I would get back on vacuum there would be an insta blue cloud of smoke behind me as the intake manifold drained the valve cover.

it doesnt sound like what is happening to you, but I figured I would share it. its something that gets overlooked, but that said, that motor didnt burn valves, I burned pistons because the stock ecu was crap for my power level


Hold on a sec. I think that I may see where I screwed up and mis-informed everyone.

Well, maybe this IS what is happening to me. I was never able to see the blue smoke out the exhaust, but it does not mean it was never there. I was always driving. I admitted that. I had to re-read your post about the check valve AND oil restrictor. Yes, the check valve is there. I thought it WAS the restrictor. I just went out to the garage to check that it is indeed a check valve. And NO, i do not recall the restrictor in the cylinder head. The head is at the machine shop now... (worst time of the year to get any kind of machine work done!). I will call and ask him tomorrow if the restrictor is there. For some reason, I remember working on a cylinder head (which one, I can't remember) and seeing a threaded oil supply passage with nothing in it.

So, before, I was thinking that there is no way that oil pressure can cause negative valve lash because downstream of the restrictor, there is very little oil pressure. With no restriction, there's going to be plenty of oil pressure in the head--almost as much as there is in the main bearings. So, lets say 80 PSI of oil pressure. I've seen a few engines that normally produce well over 120 psi... but have no idea what these engines run for pressure. The lash adjusters have an internal surface area of??? Would 3/4 square inch sound about right? That'd be at 1" diameter. I've never had one apart before, so I cannot tell. At 80 psi, there is 62 pounds of force in the valve springs... which has to be pretty darn close to enough to compress the valve spring and cause the negative valve lash since these valve springs are pretty darn wimpy.

Or are all my calculations / assumptions way off?

And also, with all this oil in the head, its plentifully available for pooling up, seeping past the valve seals and getting sucked into the PCV system causing the oil consumption, which in either case is going to cause it to combust in the combustion chamber, causing carbon buildup, poor valve to seat heat convection, etc.

Hmmm, now I am really starting to wonder.....


just so you have it on hand, the part number for that restrictor is:
GM P/N 91174219
SUZUKI P/N 11112-73002 (however, I was told the part number was updated and is 11112-73010 with no change to the actual part...) now go buy one atleast. I know mine burned oil. and yes, they all have it

_________________
1991 Swift GT Build G10 +25 psi + other goodies
1996 Metro Build QR25de swap, still undecided where to take it
the lolcar family


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:48 pm
Posts: 471
Location: Auburn Wa
Just a few things that haven't been mentioned.

1) your exhaust back pressure should be 2.8 psi or less. If over 2.8 psi you have a blockage in your exhaust whether it is in the cat or the muffler.

2) your exhaust seats should be at least .080" wide or you may not have enough seat area to transfer the heat quick enough from the valve to the head.

3) your installed height of the valve is important as this is a direct drive camshaft meaning there is no adjustment for valve adjustment. Set installed height by grinding/facing the end of the valve to proper installed height specs. Aim for the middle of the tolerance.

4) the reason for burned valves (when no other problems can be found) almost always comes back to lifters that don't bleed down fast enough. This is due mostly to engine gunk. GM has changed the bleed rate of the lifters several times. The viscosity of the oil when tested for redesign is 5W-30W.

The accumulation of any or all these things could be leading to your problems???

_________________
My favorite quote
t3 ragtop wrote:
just drive your car and enjoy it. when it starts to get a little stale, enjoy giving it a little love.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 204 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group