2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

[Mark L.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

Mark did dealer say anything about updated parts. Or say a reason for failure?

Ed, the dealer acknowledged the engine defect. Apparently caused by defective lifters. I do not know the mode of failure for the lifters. As you might suspect all the parts that were taken out went back to GM. Stay tuned.

[Gary C.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

Mark,

Curious, did the dealer indicate that there would metal shavings found in the oil?

Last July, the 2020 C8's had a batch of bad lifters, which caused engine failure.

Gary
....

[Paul D.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

Mike, go through the steps on the Range website to determine the part # for both trucks. If both trucks have the same engine and trans, I suspect they will be the same. If so, unless you use both vehicles a lot, you could move it between the vehicles. I would do that at least for a short while to see if it does what you expect. It is my understanding that it does not change or add to programming of the vehicle. One of its attributes is that it is undetectable to the factory techs when hooked up to your vehicle. If updates are required on your vehicle, just remove it before taking it in. I love mine. Some stated above that it was to eliminate the hunting sensation in the driveline. In my truck, that seems to be a function of the transmission. My truck has a fairly aggressive down shift with the 6 speed. When I test drove it, It felt as though it was slow to come up to full power as it accelerated, like it was trying to get by on 4 instead of 8 cylinders. I would continue to push the pedal and would tend to over accelerate. Maybe just in my head (with a lot of other trash). Chip.

[Mike M.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

thanks chip. defective qazcar returned for credit. got a Range thru summit. regards, mike

[Mark L.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

Mark,

Curious, did the dealer indicate that there would metal shavings found in the oil?

Last July, the 2020 C8's had a batch of bad lifters, which caused engine failure.

Gary
....

Gary,
They said no metal was found and camshaft looked ok. We'll see...not sure I'd bet my life on the dealer feedback.

[Joe L.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

All------


I'd be very worried if I had a vehicle with this cylinder deactivation system. I'd consider it "unreliable" and I'd be afraid to take it more than normal towing distance from home. Actually, that's exactly how I've felt about my 1992 Corvette with Opti-Spark distributor since the original distributor failed the day the car turned 3,000 miles.

[Terry M.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

All------


I'd be very worried if I had a vehicle with this cylinder deactivation system. I'd consider it "unreliable" and I'd be afraid to take it more than normal towing distance from home. Actually, that's exactly how I've felt about my 1992 Corvette with Opti-Spark distributor since the original distributor failed the day the car turned 3,000 miles.

Joe

At the risk of dragging this thread off topic, I have to speak up.

I have put over 300K miles on each of 2 1995 Caprice 9C1 (police car option for most of you. I know Joe knows.) that I just had to send down the road due to body rust issues. I owned those cars for 20 years after their police service which arrived with about 90K on them. I had one opti distributor fail in all that time, but I have changed several as a pre-emptive measure. I will admit the distributor is far easier to change on the B & D-body cars (Caprice, Impala SS, Roadmaster & Fleetwood) than it is on a Corvette. I can't speak to F-body (Camaro/Firebird) as I have no experience there, but I expect these are easier than Corvette due with space available between the engine and radiator. I believe all those cars got the second design distributor with the vacuum ventilation, which is a superior design to the 1992-93 design which your Corvette had. Modifications to your distributor can be made, and I hope you did so.

I just (2 years ago) got another 1995 9C1 with 47K miles on it, and I expect it will be my last. However, if the car fails prematurely (crazy drivers are ubiquitous) I will get another for a daily driver. There is no safety substitute for a body-on-frame automobile. I know some trucks fit that bill, but I have reasons for an OBD 1 sedan. There is much more to this story, but it is not for this thread.

[Joe L.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

Joe

At the risk of dragging this thread off topic, I have to speak up.

I have put over 300K miles on each of 2 1995 Caprice 9C1 (police car option for most of you. I know Joe knows.) that I just had to send down the road due to body rust issues. I owned those cars for 20 years after their police service which arrived with about 90K on them. I had one opti distributor fail in all that time, but I have changed several as a pre-emptive measure. I will admit the distributor is far easier to change on the B & D-body cars (Caprice, Impala SS, Roadmaster & Fleetwood) than it is on a Corvette. I can't speak to F-body (Camaro/Firebird) as I have no experience there, but I expect these are easier than Corvette due with space available between the engine and radiator. I believe all those cars got the second design distributor with the vacuum ventilation, which is a superior design to the 1992-93 design which your Corvette had. Modifications to your distributor can be made, and I hope you did so.

I just (2 years ago) got another 1995 9C1 with 47K miles on it, and I expect it will be my last. However, if the car fails prematurely (crazy drivers are ubiquitous) I will get another for a daily driver. There is no safety substitute for a body-on-frame automobile. I know some trucks fit that bill, but I have reasons for an OBD 1 sedan. There is much more to this story, but it is not for this thread.

Terry------

The 2nd design Optispark (actually the THIRD design: 1st design=unvented, 2nd design=3 vent holes added, 3rd design=vacuum extracted) was a much better and more reliable design than the previous. If the 2nd design had solved the Optispark problem I feel certain there would have been no 3rd design. There is really no practical way to convert a GenII small block from 2nd design Optispark to 3rd design.

Personally, I have very little confidence that the 2nd design was much better than the 1st design which, as I say, failed on my car at 3,000 miles. I've never really trusted the reliability of the car since and I don't think I ever will.

[Patrick H.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

All------


I'd be very worried if I had a vehicle with this cylinder deactivation system. I'd consider it "unreliable" and I'd be afraid to take it more than normal towing distance from home. Actually, that's exactly how I've felt about my 1992 Corvette with Opti-Spark distributor since the original distributor failed the day the car turned 3,000 miles.

Thankfully the workaround for cylinder deactivation is easier and cheaper than Opti-Spark replacement.

Currently Dad's 92 as well as the 92 you and I have been discussing offline still run their original distributors (and water pumps), and they function well. It seems to be luck of the draw as to when they decide to die.

[William F.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

Tom,
Like Richard asked, is the problem really due due the deactivation or is it a mechanical defect unrelated to deactivation?? Something real or a "I read it on the internet" or urban legend sort of thing??
Thanks

[William F.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

My 'Burb is a 2018 with the 5.3 liter engine. 55K miles with no problems so far. Is it just the 2019-2021's that are having the lifter problems? Should I be concerned?

[Gary C.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

Problem has been both an oil consumption problem and lifter/piston failure.

Compiled from various sources such as GM Authority, MotorTrend, etc.:
Active Fuel Management deactivates half of the engine cylinder banks under light driving conditions. Dynamic Fuel Management, also deactivates cylinders, with up to 17 different cylinder activation patterns for optimum efficiency and power delivery.

Another note on cylinder deactivation: It is strongly suggested that these systems can produce cylinder wall/piston ring damage because of its effect on cylinder wall lubrication at the disabled cylinders. It seems most manufacturers have discovered this problem, and are doing their best to tweak control module programming as a fix. An example: GM's Active Fuel Management operates in V-4 mode for 10 minutes, then back to V-8 for one minute (giving the cylinder walls a break), then back to V-4 for 10, and so on.

AFM system use oil control solenoids to move spring-loaded pins in valve lifters to effectively shorten the valve lifters. In practice, the valve lifters that control cylinders that can be deactivated consist of inner and outer parts that can be either coupled or decoupled from each other by moving the locking pin with pressurized engine oil. When the two parts of the valve lifters are locked together, the lifters’ effective length is reduced, meaning that the lifters cannot open the valves.

GM Service Bulletin on AFM 2012 How AFM Works Melling Lifter Findings

[Joe L.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

More Info----


https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/07...lifter-issues/

[Gary C.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

How GM dealers handle warranty repairs for 2019 & up lifter failures
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/08...lifter-issues/

[William F.]

Re: 2021 V8 5.3 and 6.2 Engine problems

Everything I see on GM authority refers only to 2019 and later engines with the lifter/ oil consumption problems. Michael, you sure your buddy's 2016 Denali's problems were due to cylinder deactivation problems?