Carpokes

From Larry Webster's 'Never Stop Driving' musings this morning:

"Perhaps you’ve heard that new-car engines are failing at an alarming rate. Some five million engines from five different automakers are under recall or investigation. One YouTuber dismantled a seized GM V-8 searching for the culprit. This is shocking because modern engines are usually incredibly reliable. What’s going on? It’s a complicated answer but this piece from Automotive News is a terrific summary."

https://www.autonews.com/manufacturing/ ... ects-1201/

There are no Porsches in this latest bit of troubling news but several other makes are having serious issues that's costing the manufacturers a lot of money and customers a lot of anguish. Interesting analysis from Automotive News, including the use of increasingly thinner oils to improve efficiency and the negative effect that is apparently having on engine reliability.

When I bought a 24 Corolla last year I had to do a triple take on the oil recommendation- 0w-8 !?!?? Now im stuck debating on switching up the oil for longevity or risk loosing my warranty. ugh.

Every manufacturer is trying to cut corners to save cost . Some engines are failing due to improper cleaning after machining . Just ridiculous.

And trying to get every drop of MPG by using 0W oil weights doesn't help either . When a 0w8 shears you don't have much left to protect engine vital components .

I also wonder if the ever-increasing specific output of motors is contributing. The ho-hum Ford Eco-boost 2.3 liter motor makes 350 ft lbs of torque and 315hp. Exotic car specific output on a Ford assembly line. What could go wrong?

Tom wrote: Fri Dec 05, 2025 2:47 pm I also wonder if the ever-increasing specific output of motors is contributing. The ho-hum Ford Eco-boost 2.3 liter motor makes 350 ft lbs of torque and 315hp. Exotic car specific output on a Ford assembly line. What could go wrong?

No doubt , modern small engines are highly stressed . But look at GM V8's , not nearly as stressed as a four banger but they are failing also . I blame accounting along with engineers .

A brief follow-up article from Aaron Robinson and Hagerty Media asking some hard questions such as if internal combustion engines have hit a ceiling. The jury may be out on the answer but nevertheless the current situation is serious.

The huge numbers of engine failures are costing several automakers some major cash - Hyundai-Kia has to test more than 3 million engines at a cost expected to exceed $5 billion and I think that's just for the testing.

"New Engines Are Failing. Is Piston Power Reaching a Breaking Point?"

https://www.hagerty.com/media/maintenan ... ing-point/

Cost reduction is a huge driving point for a multitude of issues. Money (cost) seems to carry a bigger club than most any other consideration. Most engineers I've worked with always want to improve a design, time (proto fab, testing, redesign) costs money (manpower, contracts, scheduling) and one of the signs I used to see in the proto metal shop at one of the domestic OEM's said "There comes a time in every project to shoot the engineer and go into production". Sometimes the test parameters don't fully take into account real world situations or drivers experiences. The pressure to bring new product to market faster is another unrelenting pressure, so this adds to the equation which might reduce testing time or conditions. Seat time or road testing is also lengthy and expensive, so the push for computer simulation which is faster, less expensive, and often is equal to bench or road testing, but to this aged automotive type, there is no substitute to seat/road/climate/usage physical testing.
Is the combustion engine reaching its limits, thats hard to say. Look at the mental atmosphere when emissions controls first hit and big block V-8's were producing less than 200 HP. But with time, ENGINEERING (materials, computer controls, further testing, new fuels) which all drives up cost, we have 3 litre engines making 400 HP.
Just my $0.02

Interesting discussion. Being an engineer, I would disagree with the “Shoot the Engineer” sign because I have always approached my profession with a “Make the best design/decision given the project’s constraints” knowing that optimizing one thing sub optimizes the rest. Having studied tribology a little and knowing that ICE engines operate on a fluid film, it comes down to maintaining the film (oil viscosity, pressure) and cleanliness. Given low viscosity for higher economy, you would think that more frequent oil changes would be called for. However, that is not the case.
Given the reference to the article which asks if the piston engine has hit its limit, I am reminded about watching top fuel drag racing in the 70’s. These were engines making over 1000 hp on alcohol, running over 250 mph in a 1/4 mile. Now they are over 11,000 hp running over 340 mph in 1,000 feet. What impressed me was that back in the 70’s they tore down the engine between runs to inspect everything and put it back together for the next run. I am not sure what they do now. But the between run tear down illustrates that if you are running at higher performance limits, you should gladly be doing more maintenance rather than expecting less.

zooklm1 wrote: Mon Dec 22, 2025 8:52 am Interesting discussion. Being an engineer, I would disagree with the “Shoot the Engineer” sign because I have always approached my profession with a “Make the best design/decision given the project’s constraints” knowing that optimizing one thing sub optimizes the rest. Having studied tribology a little and knowing that ICE engines operate on a fluid film, it comes down to maintaining the film (oil viscosity, pressure) and cleanliness. Given low viscosity for higher economy, you would think that more frequent oil changes would be called for. However, that is not the case.
Given the reference to the article which asks if the piston engine has hit its limit, I am reminded about watching top fuel drag racing in the 70’s. These were engines making over 1000 hp on alcohol, running over 250 mph in a 1/4 mile. Now they are over 11,000 hp running over 340 mph in 1,000 feet. What impressed me was that back in the 70’s they tore down the engine between runs to inspect everything and put it back together for the next run. I am not sure what they do now. But the between run tear down illustrates that if you are running at higher performance limits, you should gladly be doing more maintenance rather than expecting less.

That last part has got to be a huge part of the equation. We've been conditioned to expect motors to last a very long time these days -- anything under 100k is a premature failure it seems. The early 911SC motor is known for outlasting most motors -- hundreds of thousands of miles isn't uncommon. It puts out 60 horsepower per liter. My 992 puts out over 170hp per liter. It's amazing that the engineering has allowed them to last as long as they do in my mind... If they last half as long as an SC motor, that's still enormous progress. I have little doubt they 'could' build another 300k motor if the wanted, but it's all a big trade-off between efficiency, emissions, longevity, money, performance, and salesmen specs...

Tom wrote: Mon Dec 22, 2025 9:21 am

zooklm1 wrote: Mon Dec 22, 2025 8:52 am Interesting discussion. Being an engineer, I would disagree with the “Shoot the Engineer” sign because I have always approached my profession with a “Make the best design/decision given the project’s constraints” knowing that optimizing one thing sub optimizes the rest. Having studied tribology a little and knowing that ICE engines operate on a fluid film, it comes down to maintaining the film (oil viscosity, pressure) and cleanliness. Given low viscosity for higher economy, you would think that more frequent oil changes would be called for. However, that is not the case.
Given the reference to the article which asks if the piston engine has hit its limit, I am reminded about watching top fuel drag racing in the 70’s. These were engines making over 1000 hp on alcohol, running over 250 mph in a 1/4 mile. Now they are over 11,000 hp running over 340 mph in 1,000 feet. What impressed me was that back in the 70’s they tore down the engine between runs to inspect everything and put it back together for the next run. I am not sure what they do now. But the between run tear down illustrates that if you are running at higher performance limits, you should gladly be doing more maintenance rather than expecting less.

That last part has got to be a huge part of the equation. We've been conditioned to expect motors to last a very long time these days -- anything under 100k is a premature failure it seems. The early 911SC motor is known for outlasting most motors -- hundreds of thousands of miles isn't uncommon. It puts out 60 horsepower per liter. My 992 puts out over 170hp per liter. It's amazing that the engineering has allowed them to last as long as they do in my mind... If they last half as long as an SC motor, that's still enormous progress. I have little doubt they 'could' build another 300k motor if the wanted, but it's all a big trade-off between efficiency, emissions, longevity, money, performance, and salesmen specs...

I believe in stepped up (more frequent) maintenance intervals for all my cars depending on how and how much they are driven and under what conditions, especially for the newer P-cars. This holds true even even considering all the vastly improved lubricants which, I think, lead to a false sense of security regarding engine oil and its useful life.

Stepped up maint is especially important to me for the GT4 which spends a lot of time on track. For the GT4, in addition to more frequent oil/filter changes (among other increased maint cycles), that also includes the PDK trans and diff fluids which are undergoing a second full trans service at 19,200 miles. (The first full service was at about 9,500 miles.)

I'm going to change the oil/filter in the new 2026 Carrera S at 500 miles because I thinks it's wise. It's cheap insurance, cheap longevity boosting potential and cheap peace of mind.