Livernois Motorsports 3.5 Ecoboost engine build with upgraded rods and pistons

[JimiJak]

Always good to hear multiple viewpoints. Thanks again Tracy!

 

[kinder]

I know that some people here feel that Livernois is being 'targeted' and this, to me does not help.

This topic has been moved under your vendor threads.
The move is not a slight against you or your company. We appreciate all of the research you are doing, and the time you put into our EB engines, but until evidence of your claims is posted this is purely subjective, not "news".

Your company is not alone. All of the vendors are now being held to a standard of a zero-tolerance policy for unsubstantiated claims. If you are going to make a claim as a vendor, you must also post the scientific findings or empirical data that have lead you to that claim.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in moving forward.

-JimiJak

You will never get imperial data for this. The sampling is too small. We have people running big power with no problems yet, people with 400+ power with no problems yet, and stock cars with no problems yet.

Livernois has already stated that the failed engines THEY have seen come in were running around that 450+ mark. Is it the tune? Is it the climate? Is it the oil choice? Is it the driver? Is it the parts produced during a certain time frame? There is no way to determine this.

They never said that your engine will fail at 450hp. They said that based on the engines they have seen com in they recommend that as a daily driver 400hp is the highest they suggest. (At least to one client.)

Your comment about empirical data seems more petty than fair. And this type of marginalization may cost us a valued source of information. I mean why should they keep posting if they just get grief for it?

And then you post a question, that does not ask for empirical data, and was answered in the third paragraph.

Tracy,
Thanks for weighing in on this!

In regards to the original post (quoted below) what have your findings been regarding engine failure, specifically referring to broken con rods, in EB engines? Are you finding a correlation to roughly 450WHP being somewhat of a potential breaking point as well?
TIA

I am not a Livernois client. In fact I will prob never be one as I plan on using the iTSX tuner. I have no problems with challenging vendors to back up their claims when they say their product is better than another. But this is not that. This is an opinion and maybe even a light warning, not a claim. Just like Tuner Boost's claims.

I have no idea who Tuner Boost / Tracey is and while I see merit in Tuner's thinking as to the possible problems in these engines (while looking for solutions) he has no empirical data to support his claims either.

Livernois seems to be the most vocal of the tuners. Torrie responds fast to PM's and emails but I don't see him as vocal on the site. Maybe I just don't read those threads?



In my opinion.

 

[FoMoCoSHO]

I know that some people here feel that Livernois is being 'targeted' and this, to me does not help.

This topic has been moved under your vendor threads.
The move is not a slight against you or your company. We appreciate all of the research you are doing, and the time you put into our EB engines, but until evidence of your claims is posted this is purely subjective, not "news".

Your company is not alone. All of the vendors are now being held to a standard of a zero-tolerance policy for unsubstantiated claims. If you are going to make a claim as a vendor, you must also post the scientific findings or empirical data that have lead you to that claim.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in moving forward.

-JimiJak

You will never get imperial data for this. The sampling is too small. We have people running big power with no problems yet, people with 400+ power with no problems yet, and stock cars with no problems yet.

Livernois has already stated that the failed engines THEY have seen come in were running around that 450+ mark. Is it the tune? Is it the climate? Is it the oil choice? Is it the driver? Is it the parts produced during a certain time frame? There is no way to determine this.

They never said that your engine will fail at 450hp. They said that based on the engines they have seen com in they recommend that as a daily driver 400hp is the highest they suggest. (At least to one client.)

Your comment about empirical data seems more petty than fair. And this type of marginalization may cost us a valued source of information. I mean why should they keep posting if they just get grief for it?

And then you post a question, that does not ask for empirical data, and was answered in the third paragraph.

Tracy,
Thanks for weighing in on this!

In regards to the original post (quoted below) what have your findings been regarding engine failure, specifically referring to broken con rods, in EB engines? Are you finding a correlation to roughly 450WHP being somewhat of a potential breaking point as well?
TIA

I am not a Livernois client. In fact I will prob never be one as I plan on using the iTSX tuner. I have no problems with challenging vendors to back up their claims when they say their product is better than another. But this is not that. This is an opinion and maybe even a light warning, not a claim. Just like Tuner Boost's claims.

I have no idea who Tuner Boost / Tracey is and while I see merit in Tuner's thinking as to the possible problems in these engines (while looking for solutions) he has no empirical data to support his claims either.

Livernois seems to be the most vocal of the tuners. Torrie responds fast to PM's and emails but I don't see him as vocal on the site. Maybe I just don't read those threads?



In my opinion.

All vendors advertising their products must post those threads in their individual vendor areas and is being applied equally to ALL vendors.

If you look closely you will notice that many threads have been moved lately in an effort to clean up the board.

Feel free to ask TCE Todd about it if you have any doubts about what I'm saying, or just check out his vendor area.

 

[kbeck59]

Kinder .. for those that ask vendors to provide data it is not "petty".
Some folks like to dig deeper and are wanting factual information and are not reliant on opinions or a Vendors trustworthiness .

It is a matter of critical thinking and analysis .
Firstly, recognize that thinking critically does not mean simple criticism. It means not simply accepting information at face value in a non-critical, or non-evaluating way.

The essence of critical thinking centers not on answering questions but on questioning answers, so it involves questioning, probing, analyzing, evaluating.

Beware of groupthink. This can seduce you at any time, but especially if you are a member of a close-knit group of people where there is a strong sense of loyalty to the group, deference to an authority figure within the group, and a demonized view of those outside the group.

Take your bias out of the equation. Do not defend a standpoint just because you always have defended it. Look at it as if you were getting involved for the first time. How would others view the situation for the first time? Don’t get attached to a hypothesis just because it is yours.

To ask questions and asking for proof and data does not equate to being petty or flamethrowing/demonizing as long as it is fairly and objectively done .

 

[JimiJak]

Kinder,
Thank you for voicing your concerns. I see where you're coming from and think you have a good point. There's just one thing I would like you to consider:
I have in no way asked LMS not to post what they did. I appreciate what they do, and respect their opinion, just as I do Torry's. But it's just that, their opinion. This thread is very valuable, and everyone's opinion counts. The only problem here was that a thread of opinions is not "news" so it was moved to the appropriate category. Just like everyone else's threads have been getting moved lately. Mine included.

I did however take the time to write them a brief description of why it was being moved as to hopefully dismiss speculation of bias.

Also, (no disrespect intended) "empirical" does not mean "absolute, proven, or scientific", data it means; "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
The problem wasn't that they hadn't absolutely proven their theory to be accurate, it was that they provided no information explaining how they had reached their conclusion other than; it's not a detonation problem, so it must be rods and hp."

They have since provided a great deal of very appreciated information regarding how they made their determinations.

I'm sorry this ended up so long, but hopefully it provides some different insight to you and others that may feel this way.

 

[yowen]

Not really. We see 500 plus and rods holding up. Similar to the GM 3.6L DI engine. Both are strong.  What we generally see as far as rod failure is when hydrolock occurs (have never in my career seen and engine experience it as often as the EB, and that is due to the PCV system flaw, not the engine design).  Several we have torn down for other reasons seemed to still run great, but we find a bent rod or two and that is not happening from power....it is when the piston cannot compress liquid ingested from upping the boost allowing the mix collected in the CAC to be pushed into the intake manifold. No rod even forged twice as strong can survive that. Something has to give, and rod or piston (or both).  The bent rod may last for the life of the engine, but the piston is now behind in timing and never reaches the top of the deck and the quench area will no longer be effective allowing heat build up beyond what the piston can survive with. Quench area is critical so you dont want a piston sitting low in the hole.  Empty and clean the CAC, correct the PCV system flaw and trap all of this mix before it can reach the combustion chamber and these motors seem to take 500 plus HP fine and live.  600 and your going to have failures period. May last a while, may not, but you will have reached all limits.

We sent Livernoise a complete Monster System to install and see first hand 2 months ago, but to date they haven't installed it so if we can get them to put aside the strange belief that this oil/water/fuel/sulfuric acid mix is NOT good for the engine, I think you will see them making much more trouble free power in the future. They do know how to make power and build strong engines no question.....just stuck on the PCV system and dont seem to want to even test in fear they will "see the light".

Just to clarify, this hydrolock condition is more typical of a longitudinal/truck application, correct?

 

[JimiJak]

I would love to hear others' input on this as well, but my understanding is yes. MORE of a concern for the f-150 guys, but still an issue for us.

 

[Tuner Boost]

F150 trucks far more than the cars/etc.

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Tuner Boost]

I know that some people here feel that Livernois is being 'targeted' and this, to me does not help.

This topic has been moved under your vendor threads.
The move is not a slight against you or your company. We appreciate all of the research you are doing, and the time you put into our EB engines, but until evidence of your claims is posted this is purely subjective, not "news".

Your company is not alone. All of the vendors are now being held to a standard of a zero-tolerance policy for unsubstantiated claims. If you are going to make a claim as a vendor, you must also post the scientific findings or empirical data that have lead you to that claim.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in moving forward.

-JimiJak

You will never get imperial data for this. The sampling is too small. We have people running big power with no problems yet, people with 400+ power with no problems yet, and stock cars with no problems yet.

Livernois has already stated that the failed engines THEY have seen come in were running around that 450+ mark. Is it the tune? Is it the climate? Is it the oil choice? Is it the driver? Is it the parts produced during a certain time frame? There is no way to determine this.

They never said that your engine will fail at 450hp. They said that based on the engines they have seen com in they recommend that as a daily driver 400hp is the highest they suggest. (At least to one client.)

Your comment about empirical data seems more petty than fair. And this type of marginalization may cost us a valued source of information. I mean why should they keep posting if they just get grief for it?

And then you post a question, that does not ask for empirical data, and was answered in the third paragraph.

Tracy,
Thanks for weighing in on this!

In regards to the original post (quoted below) what have your findings been regarding engine failure, specifically referring to broken con rods, in EB engines? Are you finding a correlation to roughly 450WHP being somewhat of a potential breaking point as well?
TIA

I am not a Livernois client. In fact I will prob never be one as I plan on using the iTSX tuner. I have no problems with challenging vendors to back up their claims when they say their product is better than another. But this is not that. This is an opinion and maybe even a light warning, not a claim. Just like Tuner Boost's claims.

I have no idea who Tuner Boost / Tracey is and while I see merit in Tuner's thinking as to the possible problems in these engines (while looking for solutions) he has no empirical data to support his claims either.

Livernois seems to be the most vocal of the tuners. Torrie responds fast to PM's and emails but I don't see him as vocal on the site. Maybe I just don't read those threads?



In my opinion.

All good points. I only base this on what we see when tearing them down, and the GM 3.6L is an almost identical engine in pistons/rods, etc.  We have been pushing the envelope with DI engines since 2008 and were the first to exceed 600 hp with the GM version DI, so also being an R&D facility we are constantly asked to tear down and diagnose failures (comes from a lifetime of professional drag racing).  So I am only applying educated assumptions. The data needed to determine rates of failure and causes would be beyond us, but we can tear down most any failed engine and tell you with certainty what caused the failure. So can most other professional Race team crew chiefs or the actual engine builders.  Over 40 years of studying failures comes into play (and also limits our failures on the track to a minimum. We win and loose far to often by a thousandth of a second, and with National & World Championships on the line, we can't afford to take chances or guessing.

One thing as far as a tune goes, detonation cannot be hidden. Id it is detonation related, the pistons and plugs show it clear as day.

Nothing else can torch a piston:

Power limit failures are a bit more difficult, but we can exaimin rod bearings, main bearings, & journals, camshaft lobe damage, rod bolt stretch (we measure all TTY rod bolts with ARP's stretch gauge), or simply the rod fatigued to the point of failure. Pistons. where the failure took place. Around the wrist pins?  Ringland?  Lots of ways and too much to describe here, but aside from a controlled study over a large group, all I can do is tell you with X amount of certainty what caused a failure. And I always will put in any doubt if not 100% sure.

 

[13-SHO]

My 0.2 on vendors

They are here to help us. I saw this happen on ClubGP and watched vendors disappear because of it. LMS is just showing us what they found and offering a fix. I hope I never have to take them up on new rods and pistons.....

Back on topic. The news is a little disheartening but expected. As stated by others. Everyone designs, engineers and builds to the specs. I'll bet Ford is no different than the other OEMs and test to 3X life. After that they run till failure. I do find it a little odd that forged rods are breaking. (They were very strong in the 3800 and were not the weak link. The failures I remember were due to poor tuning or the pistons breaking and wedging in the cylinder.) So hopefully the rod issues get fixed but it's a little late for our engines.

 

[JimiJak]

I agree...but personally it makes more sense for these rods to be breaking due to a hydrolock issue more than related to HP.

Also, I'm curious if all of these engines LMS has to rebuild are longitudinal from F-150's. I was thinking about this the other day, and as far as I know, not a single transverse ecoboost motor has blown yet.

I hope it's clear that I haven't been trying to scare off LMS from any of this, just get more insight on their findings.

However, if all of their rebuilds are from trucks, I'm more than a little upset that never got mentioned. Especially with all the talk going around about certain F-150 tuners disabling knock sensors to crank up short term results PLUS the massive amount more PCV product shoved into the CAC on the F-150s...
All of that together makes this a completely different problem, that was potentially served up to us as a transverse problem.

I'm not asking LMS to name names here...just some clarification.
Were these failures in Longitudinal or Transverse engines?
Have you seen any transverse internal failures to date?

 

[Livernois Motorsports]

All of the engines that have had failures that have been sent to us were from the Taurus SHO, not the F-150. We have not seen any failures from the F-150.

 

[black99lightning]

My 0.2 on vendors

They are here to help us. I saw this happen on ClubGP and watched vendors disappear because of it. LMS is just showing us what they found and offering a fix. I hope I never have to take them up on new rods and pistons.....

I was on ClubGP years ago.  I had an 00 GTP 4 door.  3.8 SC.

 

[black99lightning]

Not really. We see 500 plus and rods holding up. Similar to the GM 3.6L DI engine. Both are strong.  What we generally see as far as rod failure is when hydrolock occurs (have never in my career seen and engine experience it as often as the EB, and that is due to the PCV system flaw, not the engine design).  Several we have torn down for other reasons seemed to still run great, but we find a bent rod or two and that is not happening from power....it is when the piston cannot compress liquid ingested from upping the boost allowing the mix collected in the CAC to be pushed into the intake manifold. No rod even forged twice as strong can survive that. Something has to give, and rod or piston (or both).  The bent rod may last for the life of the engine, but the piston is now behind in timing and never reaches the top of the deck and the quench area will no longer be effective allowing heat build up beyond what the piston can survive with. Quench area is critical so you dont want a piston sitting low in the hole.  Empty and clean the CAC, correct the PCV system flaw and trap all of this mix before it can reach the combustion chamber and these motors seem to take 500 plus HP fine and live.  600 and your going to have failures period. May last a while, may not, but you will have reached all limits.

We sent Livernoise a complete Monster System to install and see first hand 2 months ago, but to date they haven't installed it so if we can get them to put aside the strange belief that this oil/water/fuel/sulfuric acid mix is NOT good for the engine, I think you will see them making much more trouble free power in the future. They do know how to make power and build strong engines no question.....just stuck on the PCV system and dont seem to want to even test in fear they will "see the light".

How much fluid has to be ingested into a cylinder to cause hydrolock?  I know our PCV/crankcase evac is not the best but if it is allowing that much fluid to get into the combustion chamber wouldn't we see burnoff?  Ounces per a revolution?  Everybody demands proof from LMS.....

 

[black99lightning]

Kinder,
Thank you for voicing your concerns. I see where you're coming from and think you have a good point. There's just one thing I would like you to consider:
I have in no way asked LMS not to post what they did. I appreciate what they do, and respect their opinion, just as I do Torry's. But it's just that, their opinion. This thread is very valuable, and everyone's opinion counts. The only problem here was that a thread of opinions is not "news" so it was moved to the appropriate category. Just like everyone else's threads have been getting moved lately. Mine included.

I did however take the time to write them a brief description of why it was being moved as to hopefully dismiss speculation of bias.

Also, (no disrespect intended) "empirical" does not mean "absolute, proven, or scientific", data it means; "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
The problem wasn't that they hadn't absolutely proven their theory to be accurate, it was that they provided no information explaining how they had reached their conclusion other than; it's not a detonation problem, so it must be rods and hp."

They have since provided a great deal of very appreciated information regarding how they made their determinations.

I'm sorry this ended up so long, but hopefully it provides some different insight to you and others that may feel this way.

Yet you thank Tracy for chiming in? 

 

[black99lightning]

All of the engines that have had failures that have been sent to us were from the Taurus SHO, not the F-150. We have not seen any failures from the F-150.

you will surely get slammed for this.  Of note you must provide empirical evidence of your claims.  Year, mileage, VIN #'s, or you're not telling the truth.

BTW, the only reason I still post here is for the drama.  It's so much more fun than Smackdown on SVTP.  Pretty boring over there really.

 

[JimiJak]

Not really. We see 500 plus and rods holding up. Similar to the GM 3.6L DI engine. Both are strong.  What we generally see as far as rod failure is when hydrolock occurs (have never in my career seen and engine experience it as often as the EB, and that is due to the PCV system flaw, not the engine design).  Several we have torn down for other reasons seemed to still run great, but we find a bent rod or two and that is not happening from power....it is when the piston cannot compress liquid ingested from upping the boost allowing the mix collected in the CAC to be pushed into the intake manifold. No rod even forged twice as strong can survive that. Something has to give, and rod or piston (or both).  The bent rod may last for the life of the engine, but the piston is now behind in timing and never reaches the top of the deck and the quench area will no longer be effective allowing heat build up beyond what the piston can survive with. Quench area is critical so you dont want a piston sitting low in the hole.  Empty and clean the CAC, correct the PCV system flaw and trap all of this mix before it can reach the combustion chamber and these motors seem to take 500 plus HP fine and live.  600 and your going to have failures period. May last a while, may not, but you will have reached all limits.

We sent Livernoise a complete Monster System to install and see first hand 2 months ago, but to date they haven't installed it so if we can get them to put aside the strange belief that this oil/water/fuel/sulfuric acid mix is NOT good for the engine, I think you will see them making much more trouble free power in the future. They do know how to make power and build strong engines no question.....just stuck on the PCV system and dont seem to want to even test in fear they will "see the light".

How much fluid has to be ingested into a cylinder to cause hydrolock?  I know our PCV/crankcase evac is not the best but if it is allowing that much fluid to get into the combustion chamber wouldn't we see burnoff?  Ounces per a revolution?  Everybody demands proof from LMS.....

The issue isn't that the pcv is dumping sludge into the im by the gallon... It's accumulating little by little via back flow into the CAC, then allowing for a potential " gulp " to be taken into a cylinder.

Kinder,
Thank you for voicing your concerns. I see where you're coming from and think you have a good point. There's just one thing I would like you to consider:
I have in no way asked LMS not to post what they did. I appreciate what they do, and respect their opinion, just as I do Torry's. But it's just that, their opinion. This thread is very valuable, and everyone's opinion counts. The only problem here was that a thread of opinions is not "news" so it was moved to the appropriate category. Just like everyone else's threads have been getting moved lately. Mine included.

I did however take the time to write them a brief description of why it was being moved as to hopefully dismiss speculation of bias.

Also, (no disrespect intended) "empirical" does not mean "absolute, proven, or scientific", data it means; "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
The problem wasn't that they hadn't absolutely proven their theory to be accurate, it was that they provided no information explaining how they had reached their conclusion other than; it's not a detonation problem, so it must be rods and hp."

They have since provided a great deal of very appreciated information regarding how they made their determinations.

I'm sorry this ended up so long, but hopefully it provides some different insight to you and others that may feel this way.

Yet you thank Tracy for chiming in?

Ummm... Yes!
I'm not sure how many times I have to say it... I appreciate LMS findings and opinion on this stuff... Just as I do Tracy's... But opinions have their place, and shouldn't be talked about like facts. I would love to have even more vendors chime in on what their opinion is for these failures... But I'm not going to consider it proven, factual data, or news without proof... Test results... Or at least some empirical explanation that rules out any other contributing possibility.

All of the engines that have had failures that have been sent to us were from the Taurus SHO, not the F-150. We have not seen any failures from the F-150.

you will surely get slammed for this.  Of note you must provide empirical evidence of your claims.  Year, mileage, VIN #'s, or you're not telling the truth.

BTW, the only reason I still post here is for the drama.  It's so much more fun than Smackdown on SVTP.  Pretty boring over there really.

Let's be real... If LMS says they're from SHOs, I guess they're from SHOs. Although it does surprise me that with all the longitudinal engines *** had blown up, they haven't seem even one to rebuild. Also surprising that nobody had heard of anybody blowing their first transverse motor yet... And LMS has several in their shop... But I'm not arguing. It just means we don't have the full picture from the ecoboost world yet, and have more to learn.

 

[black99lightning]

Not really. We see 500 plus and rods holding up. Similar to the GM 3.6L DI engine. Both are strong.  What we generally see as far as rod failure is when hydrolock occurs (have never in my career seen and engine experience it as often as the EB, and that is due to the PCV system flaw, not the engine design).  Several we have torn down for other reasons seemed to still run great, but we find a bent rod or two and that is not happening from power....it is when the piston cannot compress liquid ingested from upping the boost allowing the mix collected in the CAC to be pushed into the intake manifold. No rod even forged twice as strong can survive that. Something has to give, and rod or piston (or both).  The bent rod may last for the life of the engine, but the piston is now behind in timing and never reaches the top of the deck and the quench area will no longer be effective allowing heat build up beyond what the piston can survive with. Quench area is critical so you dont want a piston sitting low in the hole.  Empty and clean the CAC, correct the PCV system flaw and trap all of this mix before it can reach the combustion chamber and these motors seem to take 500 plus HP fine and live.  600 and your going to have failures period. May last a while, may not, but you will have reached all limits.

We sent Livernoise a complete Monster System to install and see first hand 2 months ago, but to date they haven't installed it so if we can get them to put aside the strange belief that this oil/water/fuel/sulfuric acid mix is NOT good for the engine, I think you will see them making much more trouble free power in the future. They do know how to make power and build strong engines no question.....just stuck on the PCV system and dont seem to want to even test in fear they will "see the light".

How much fluid has to be ingested into a cylinder to cause hydrolock?  I know our PCV/crankcase evac is not the best but if it is allowing that much fluid to get into the combustion chamber wouldn't we see burnoff?  Ounces per a revolution?  Everybody demands proof from LMS.....

The issue isn't that the pcv is dumping sludge into the im by the gallon... It's accumulating little by little via back flow into the CAC, then allowing for a potential " gulp " to be taken into a cylinder.

Kinder,
Thank you for voicing your concerns. I see where you're coming from and think you have a good point. There's just one thing I would like you to consider:
I have in no way asked LMS not to post what they did. I appreciate what they do, and respect their opinion, just as I do Torry's. But it's just that, their opinion. This thread is very valuable, and everyone's opinion counts. The only problem here was that a thread of opinions is not "news" so it was moved to the appropriate category. Just like everyone else's threads have been getting moved lately. Mine included.

I did however take the time to write them a brief description of why it was being moved as to hopefully dismiss speculation of bias.

Also, (no disrespect intended) "empirical" does not mean "absolute, proven, or scientific", data it means; "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."
The problem wasn't that they hadn't absolutely proven their theory to be accurate, it was that they provided no information explaining how they had reached their conclusion other than; it's not a detonation problem, so it must be rods and hp."

They have since provided a great deal of very appreciated information regarding how they made their determinations.

I'm sorry this ended up so long, but hopefully it provides some different insight to you and others that may feel this way.

Yet you thank Tracy for chiming in?

Ummm... Yes!
I'm not sure how many times I have to say it... I appreciate LMS findings and opinion on this stuff... Just as I do Tracy's... But opinions have their place, and shouldn't be talked about like facts. I would love to have even more vendors chime in on what their opinion is for these failures... But I'm not going to consider it proven, factual data, or news without proof... Test results... Or at least some empirical explanation that rules out any other contributing possibility.

All of the engines that have had failures that have been sent to us were from the Taurus SHO, not the F-150. We have not seen any failures from the F-150.

you will surely get slammed for this.  Of note you must provide empirical evidence of your claims.  Year, mileage, VIN #'s, or you're not telling the truth.

BTW, the only reason I still post here is for the drama.  It's so much more fun than Smackdown on SVTP.  Pretty boring over there really.

Let's be real... If LMS says they're from SHOs, I guess they're from SHOs. Although it does surprise me that with all the longitudinal engines *** had blown up, they haven't seem even one to rebuild. Also surprising that nobody had heard of anybody blowing their first transverse motor yet... And LMS has several in their shop... But I'm not arguing. It just means we don't have the full picture from the ecoboost world yet, and have more to learn.

Well I don't believe we'll see enough of a "gulp" that would hydrolock an engine.  Also we had a member here awhile back that did blow up an SHO.  It caught fire, had a vid and everything. 

Seems on this site we take certain vendors for there words and others are told to put up or shut up!  I have an LMS tune, but will be using Unleashed for my retune on my SHO.  I have an unleashed tune in my Lightning and couldn't be happier.  I don't run catch cans on any of my cars past/present/future.  Do I think they may clean up the intake tract? yes.  Do I believe enough blowby gets through the PCV system and hydrolocks and engine?  Not on my life.  I have 76K hard miles on my SHO and no issues.  I have 133K hard miles on my Lighting, ditto.  And believe me the crankcase ventilation system on Lightnings is just as bad or worse.  Guess I'm on borrowed time?

 

[SHOdded]

You just like living on the edge, don't you, black99lightning?    Being able to quantify, and thus having a solid foundation to prioritize our efforts is what the game is all about.  The more we learn, the better!

 

[JimiJak]

If Tracy had posted; "got another snapped rod in the shop today from hydrolock today" I would have asked him the same questions. What makes you think it was from hydrolock and not from power? Etc. And if he had posted his opinion in "news" I would have moved it. Nothing against him.
I can't wrap my mind around why nobody can accept the fact that maybe LMS just has a tendency to make posts without a thorough explanation... So they get the most questions. I have no dog in this fight and am just after knowledge... Plus as a moderator is my job to keep the categories straightened and accurate.
No more, no less.

Also, no disrespect, but I think you're missing my pint about the "gulp". According to Rx the accumulation collects over time in the CAC. The gulp comes from there... Not the PCV.

If you have time, please do like others have done. Clean your oil dipstick and slide it to the bottom of your CAC. There's lots of threads on the easiest way to do this. I am interested in your findings. I don't have any first hand experience with checking my own since my eb is to new. But please tell us what you find.

(I'm not implying you will find anything... I'm simply interested to see if after 76k miles in your eb, if there's any consistency with what some others have found)

TIA