[Mark Koskenmaki]

I'm curious as to the "why" and "what" engineering-wise. To me, this says production problem, but there has to be an obvious solution. I'm guessing casting revision to provide a little more metal in one area.

It's interesting that the Pentastar has been through one of the most rigorous durability testing cycles, according to them, but production reveals a few quick failing parts with inherent issues. For those of you who have a better grasp on metallurgy, what's the solution? Alloy changes, casting or machining changes ( to thicken an area?), or something else?

 

[Mark Koskenmaki]

For those who think that this seems terrible... Let me remind you of a couple really bad "stinkers" in the recent past...

Subaru had casting problems that released sand into the crankcase and destroyed engines, and it was a problem that took them a long time to fix, and owners sometimes had a terrible time getting Subaru to permanently fix the problem with a new engine.

The first year of production ( 1994) of the GM 6.5 electronic injection engine had a near 100 % failure rate. The engine electronics were not adequately heat tolerant, among other things. Some blame was offered that at the last minute a plastic shield was placed over the motor that caused temperatuers to rise underneath. Whatever the cause, only months into production, GM began replacing the entire injection pump with a newly redesigned one, that had both mechanical and electronics redesign. We believe that GM actually knew they would fail, but wanted to market the pickup with the "new" engine, as the new engine was required to have a diesel that met emissions for 94.

The Cadillac 4-6-8 V-8 with variable displacement was also a near 100% eventual failure, as it proved to have a failure rate, again, so high that success was more rare than failure.

Cummins had a large number of B engine blocks that failed near the introduction of the ISB. A porosity problem that caused them to leak coolant through the metal. Many owners did not experience failure within warranty, and thus had to fix an 7000 dollar engine on their own.

 

[Mark Koskenmaki]

The 2.2 was a good engine. There were early problems with head gaskets. Never met anyone who replaced a cam. I don't care what they sounded like. What fuel system? Has anyone else ever met anyone who had fuel injection problems on a 2.2?

The 2.5 / 2.5 had cam issues when people used oil that didn't tolerate the head's heat. It created carbonized specs that plugged the oil jets which lubricated the camshaft and then the slider cams ate the lobes. I had to replace 3 cams in MY cars due to this, because I was young and didn't know much about engine oil. I bought a quality brand and product, but it just wasn't designed for the heat involved. After a 2.2 racer explained this, I never had issues again.

Of all the 2.2's and 2.5's I've owned, which ads up to about 6, I think, I had ONE head gasket failure that wasn't in a car run without water. It happened about 3 weeks after I bought it, and it burned out between the center cylinders. It was a Dynasty.

The holley carbs used were garbage, through and through.

The EFI had minor issues, mostly with failing map sensors and O2 sensors, and (get this), water finding its way into the MAP sensor and causing stalling and stumbling and bad mileage. Cold weather drivability issue. Oh,and some cars that would not start for some reason at -10 or below, some issue with the EFI.