Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

To gauge the general consensus as to how my engine came to be in its current condition I thought I would ask SAU'ers their opinions. Give me your ideas as to the causes of what you see below. At the least, I might get a laugh out of it as that is all I can do at this stage.

Charlie.

post-4183-1138797324.jpg

post-4183-1138797911.jpg

post-4183-1138798064.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/104196-tell-me-what-happened-to-my-engine/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

hard to say with the pics supplied if you have some more you could show of the destruction thatd be handy, and what did the other pistons look like etc?

and could you describe what you where doing at the time, was it making nosie leading up to its death, stuff like that

I wasn't driving and unfortuntely I wasn't anywhere near the car. They are the only pics I have. Cyl #1 bearings are down to the copper, that piston & rod is from # 6. The rest appear to be fine.

The clues are in the LH photo. The question is whether the debris/parts were found 'as shown' (ie with bolts separated as shown), and if that is the case, how is it that one bolt appears remarkably undamaged given the extensive damage to the conrod ??.

bearings down to copper suggest oil starvation then had the bearing seize, which forced the piston onto the side of the bore, jamming it there which forced the bolts out as the crank continued round..

my opinoin is either

1) As stated by craved oil starvation caused a bearing to lockup

2) Rod bolts were not torqued to the correct specs meaning one of the bolts came loose causing the rod to jam on the crank as the crank turned it wedged the rod/piston against the bore and with no where to go the rod bent and i think it is safe to assume that the broken part of the conrods bigend is the part that put the hole in the block.

Just my 2 cents

my opinoin is either

1) As stated by craved oil starvation caused a bearing to lockup

2) Rod bolts were not torqued to the correct specs meaning one of the bolts came loose causing the rod to jam on the crank as the crank turned it wedged the rod/piston against the bore and with no where to go the rod bent and i think it is safe to assume that the broken part of the conrods bigend is the part that put the hole in the block.

Just my 2 cents

i would have to agree with you on the 2nd one.

in that one pic it looks like there is a WHOLE rod bolt, so my guess is that something was not torqued down on that rod and when it loosened it ate the bearing and killed the rod.

that sucks a large one there mate, i would consult the engine builder and raise hell as that (to me atleast) looks like some one didnt check the torque specs on the rod bolts.

were those tomei rods?

I know it doesnt help, but this is why I have a strong belief that workshops have their limitations since most of the specalist work engines/gearbox rebuilds is handled by a third party. I personally prefer to use

1) Dedicated engine builder

2) Good mechanic familiar with the car

3) Good tuner whether independant or a workshop

In the pic on the left there is a bolt there that has been snapped, is the other half still in the big end cap? if so then theres your answer, the bolt broke opening up the bearings crankshaft came out of the conrod piston stopped then when crank came around again smashed into hanging conrod and bearing and hey presto! total utter CHAOS!

BTW assuming you are going to follow this up with the builder, you need to get the motor and all bits back asap and take them to a 3rd party specialist, there are companies around who specialise in investigating and acting as specialist witnesses if it comes to that

Well maybe the engine was just on its way out due to bearing wear, it is very hard to diagnose a failure like this on an engine which has been in use for some time.

NXTIME when you say you had a problem with the engine what was the problem? and what did the workshop do to rectify this?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...