2013 3.6L with 1,300 miles valve coking - Page 3 - Chevy Impala Forums

It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

Chevy Impala Forums

Go Back   Chevy Impala Forums > Performance and Technical > Chevy Impala 8th Gen Discussion > 8th Gen Engine Performance

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-22-2013, 02:12 PM   #31 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Klowny1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New york - Ringling Bros.
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
This is the reason i just installed a moroso crankcase evacuation system on my 383 stroker

Klowny1969 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-22-2013, 03:09 PM   #32 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
jtrosky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: West Grove, PA
Posts: 2,371
Thanks: 461
Thanked 502 Times in 385 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by volume View Post
I wanted to do the ecm/tcm update to see if that works with the throttle and trans response and so far the response is pretty good
I agree - mine has been shifting much better since the "sag" TSB was applied. Really, the only issue I had was when re-applying the gas pedal after coasting at low speeds - and it seems to have taken care of it. Before the TCM update was applied, sometimes, no matter how gently I applied the gas after coasting at low speeds, the car would take off abruptly - now it's much smoother...

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

jtrosky is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to jtrosky For This Useful Post:
volume (10-22-2013)
Old 11-05-2013, 07:31 AM   #33 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
SC2150's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Palmetto, FL
Posts: 183
Thanks: 8
Thanked 66 Times in 44 Posts
Anyone with questions or wanting guidance on these mods just let me know.

SC2150 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-05-2013, 07:47 AM   #34 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
rippir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 519
Thanks: 204
Thanked 133 Times in 111 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC2150 View Post
Anyone with questions or wanting guidance on these mods just let me know.
Can you send me a parts quote on items used on Freddy Car?

Do you offer a kit that includes all hardware you used?

Thanks.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

rippir is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-05-2013, 08:06 PM   #35 (permalink)
Z71
Senior Member
 
Z71's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 238
Thanks: 0
Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
I am glad I do not have one of these engines. I like my 3.9 liter and so far it has been absolutely trouble free (close to 60k miles), and no indication of anything going wrong. I am very meticulous about changing oil every 3K and doing other required maintenance as well.

I have driven a 2012 rental LTZ witht he 3.6 liter engien and the only difference in performance I see is at higher RPMs. The 3.6 liter V6 revs up more willingly and pulls stronger at higher RPM. Low end torque and acceleration from a standing start is about the same for both engines up to about 40 MPH.

Z71 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-06-2013, 03:28 AM   #36 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
jtrosky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: West Grove, PA
Posts: 2,371
Thanks: 461
Thanked 502 Times in 385 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71 View Post
I am glad I do not have one of these engines.
Don't let this thread mislead you - in my opinion, the "problem" stated in this thread is greatly over exaggerated (even the thread title is greatly over exaggerated - the car really had 13,000 miles - not 1,300 miles). 99%+ of the people with this engine don't install a catch can and have been very happy with the performance and durability of the 3.6L engine. Truth is that most people using this engine on a daily basis don't have any noticeable issues resulting from said "valve coking" - if you didn't see pictures of the inside of the engine, you would never even know the "problem" existed. If you need to see pictures of the inside of the engine to know that the problem even exists, then is it really a problem that needs addressed? You also have to keep in mind that the OP of this thread is also selling - you guessed it - catch cans!

I have owned many GM V-6 motors over the years (3.1, 3.4, 3.8, etc) and at least so far, this 3.6 is by far the best of them all. The power is simply amazing - I find that I hardly *ever* need to press the throttle more than halfway, even when merging on the highway, etc - this motor is a beast!

Keep in mind that this motor has been around for some years now and it's known to be an excellent engine, regardless of some of the claims of the dire results of "valve coking". Simply put, these are great engines and are leaps and bounds better than the 3.4 and 3.9 engines of past Impalas.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

jtrosky is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-06-2013, 10:59 AM   #37 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
SC2150's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Palmetto, FL
Posts: 183
Thanks: 8
Thanked 66 Times in 44 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtrosky View Post
Don't let this thread mislead you - in my opinion, the "problem" stated in this thread is greatly over exaggerated (even the thread title is greatly over exaggerated - the car really had 13,000 miles - not 1,300 miles). 99%+ of the people with this engine don't install a catch can and have been very happy with the performance and durability of the 3.6L engine. Truth is that most people using this engine on a daily basis don't have any noticeable issues resulting from said "valve coking" - if you didn't see pictures of the inside of the engine, you would never even know the "problem" existed. If you need to see pictures of the inside of the engine to know that the problem even exists, then is it really a problem that needs addressed? You also have to keep in mind that the OP of this thread is also selling - you guessed it - catch cans!

I have owned many GM V-6 motors over the years (3.1, 3.4, 3.8, etc) and at least so far, this 3.6 is by far the best of them all. The power is simply amazing - I find that I hardly *ever* need to press the throttle more than halfway, even when merging on the highway, etc - this motor is a beast!

Keep in mind that this motor has been around for some years now and it's known to be an excellent engine, regardless of some of the claims of the dire results of "valve coking". Simply put, these are great engines and are leaps and bounds better than the 3.4 and 3.9 engines of past Impalas.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

And can you list your professional qualifications to make such statements? How many of these do you rebuild weekly? How many GM engineers do you work with on this issue? Have they implemented any of your designs?

Were did you train professionally to build engines?

And do GM dealers use you for training on this issue?

I can answer them all and show the certifications, and all else.....but you have made it clear you choose to ignore the issue and that is fine, but to argue it to convince others not to want to avoid this is a disservice to the entire forum membership.

I created this thread with a ton of pictures to pack all up, links to industry contributions, and explanations from an automotive engineers standpoint.....but you continue to argue from a consumer that is making assumptions? I am not interfering with any of your threads....why are you so set to post disinformation on a subject so serious?

SC2150 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to SC2150 For This Useful Post:
jfcadena (12-16-2013)
Old 11-06-2013, 11:34 AM   #38 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
turbotodd69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 202
Thanks: 33
Thanked 58 Times in 38 Posts
Hey jtrosky. Every GM motor you named that you've owned were port injected motors except for the 3.6 which is direct injected. The port injected motors didn't really suffer from this problem. This is not just a GM design flaw. You wouldn't be saying there isn't a problem if it was doing it in your ferrari which you paid $200,000 for. This problem has hit every brand of vehicle that uses direct injection. In fact my brother just bought a 2014 VW direct injected turbo diesel jetta and at 5000 miles he is already having the problem. VW even put in a oil and water separator to try and fix the problem. If there wasn't a problem why would VW try and fix it? I'm just tired of you attacking SC2150 when all he doing is trying to help. Why don't you check the other forums that have our motor ie camaro,malibu,traverse,cts..etc and see how many are using catch cans and then come and tell us it's a bad idea. I don't have a catch can yet I'm putting my Impala up for the winter but I did do the pcv mod which I saw on this forum in which SC2150 was not in that thread. So he is not the only one that understands this problem. Like I said before I have no ties to SC2150 in fact I'm 2000 miles away from him. I just see a very educated man trying to help us where GM won't.

turbotodd69 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-06-2013, 11:44 AM   #39 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
jtrosky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: West Grove, PA
Posts: 2,371
Thanks: 461
Thanked 502 Times in 385 Posts
I don't *need* any qualifications to post my opinions. All of my opinions are based on driving a car with this very engine, every single day - and guess what? It runs perfectly fine without a catch can and I do not have any complaints - in fact, just the opposite - it's a *great* engine! Truth is, I heard not one single complain about "valve coking" issues on this forum before you got here.

Actually, *you* completely agreed with me that over 99% of the Impalas on the road don't have a catch can installed and that drivers don't even notice the difference! Read back through our conversations! Look - we all agree that direct injection engines have "dirtier" lifters - the question at hand is does anyone really even notice the difference during their day-to-day driving!

I'm not "interfering" with anything - just posting my opinions on the matter. Like I said before, if it were such a huge problem, GM wouldn't still be using these engines and the customers wouldn't continue to buy them. You've also stated that these 3.6L engines are substantially better than the previous pushrod engines. Not a single US auto manufacturer uses catches cans from the factory - that should tell you something right there. If it was costing them more in come-backs and there was such a simple solution available, they would use it. They are not going to lose money over something with such a "simple" solution.

Now, to address the "disservice" that I'm doing on this forum - unlike you sir, I have *never* been banned or suspended from *any* forum. I've done some research on you and the tactics you use to sell your wares. You seem to try and use sneaky tactics (like this thread) to advertise your wares without becoming a supporting vendor on these forums. Is that not a disservice to this forum?

Do you see what you've done here - you have people thinking that this 3.6l engine is a nightmare to own, when it's really a great engine. Now, who is doing the disservice?

Sorry, but I will continue to post my opinions, and you'll just have to deal with it. Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean that I can't post in this thread. Just because you started the thread doesn't mean that you own it - it's a public forum.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

jtrosky is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to jtrosky For This Useful Post:
jfcadena (12-16-2013)
Old 11-06-2013, 01:01 PM   #40 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
SC2150's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Palmetto, FL
Posts: 183
Thanks: 8
Thanked 66 Times in 44 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtrosky View Post
I don't *need* any qualifications to post my opinions. All of my opinions are based on driving a car with this very engine, every single day - and guess what? It runs perfectly fine without a catch can and I do not have any complaints - in fact, just the opposite - it's a *great* engine! Truth is, I heard not one single complain about "valve coking" issues on this forum before you got here.

Actually, *you* completely agreed with me that over 99% of the Impalas on the road don't have a catch can installed and that drivers don't even notice the difference! Read back through our conversations! Look - we all agree that direct injection engines have "dirtier" lifters - the question at hand is does anyone really even notice the difference during their day-to-day driving!

I'm not "interfering" with anything - just posting my opinions on the matter. Like I said before, if it were such a huge problem, GM wouldn't still be using these engines and the customers wouldn't continue to buy them. You've also stated that these 3.6L engines are substantially better than the previous pushrod engines. Not a single US auto manufacturer uses catches cans from the factory - that should tell you something right there. If it was costing them more in come-backs and there was such a simple solution available, they would use it. They are not going to lose money over something with such a "simple" solution.

Now, to address the "disservice" that I'm doing on this forum - unlike you sir, I have *never* been banned or suspended from *any* forum. I've done some research on you and the tactics you use to sell your wares. You seem to try and use sneaky tactics (like this thread) to advertise your wares without becoming a supporting vendor on these forums. Is that not a disservice to this forum?

Do you see what you've done here - you have people thinking that this 3.6l engine is a nightmare to own, when it's really a great engine. Now, who is doing the disservice?

Sorry, but I will continue to post my opinions, and you'll just have to deal with it. Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean that I can't post in this thread. Just because you started the thread doesn't mean that you own it - it's a public forum.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

And you can choose to be ignorant on any of your own vehicles, it's a free world.

You ignore the pictures and the facts and the industry discussions on the issue, especially how for 2014 GM talks up their new improved oil separating baffels in the valve cover being 300% more effective than the 2013 and older.

I don't claim to own the thread, I just question your motives....and lifters don't get any dirtier in DI engines. The valves do as shown in the pictures.

Your claiming Car & Driver, and every tech working on these engines is full of it....GM does not discontinue engines due to issues like this, they work to improve them...as they 2014 and on use the larger PCV barb orfice size.....which I have shared with them for app 3 years, and have posted for years....they changed it to how I have modified them for years eliminating most of the cleanside ingestion.

Direct Injection Spark Ignition Engine Deposit Analysis: Combustion Chamber and Intake Valve Deposits

Carbon Deposits with Direct Injection - Car and Driver Backfires

http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-...ters.html\\All

Skyactiv Owners Beware: Intake Valve Deposits! - 2004 to 2014 Mazda 3 Forum and Mazdaspeed 3 Forums

DailyTech - Direct Injected Engines from Some Automakers are Seeing Reduced Performance

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...in-a-nutshell/

Direct injection and dirty intake valves | Automotive Thinker - Discussing the finer points of automobiles

bgfueltest.com

Advanced Vehicle Technology Lab: Tech:Direct Injection Engines & Carbon Build Up Part 1

Carbon Build-Up on New Direct Injected Mercedes Engines - MBWorld.org Forums

Direct Injection Could Be Maintenance Nightmare | The CarGurus Blog

And University Engineering departments study's:

The University of Maine - Mechanical Engineering Technology - Oil-Air Vapor Separator Team

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...8NGfUgdEIuBETA

And this one above has GM technical Service Bulletins on the issue.


"the rapid adoption of DI has actually illuminated an issue, not caused one. A “dirty” intake or exhaust-recirculation design can easily go undetected in a conventional port-injected engine due to the cleaning effect of gasoline passing over the intake valves. When the same engine designs are adapted to direct-injection fueling, however, that cleaning effect is suddenly lost – and the carbon layers can build.
There is no simple fix for engines that are prone to carbon build-up, Chick says. What’s needed is a complete redesign of the crankcase ventilation and exhaust-gas recirculation systems to prevent particulates from getting through. Fortunately, the manufacturers whose engines are frequently cited in carbon build-up reports – mainly VW, Audi and Lexus – appear to have taken this step with many of their latest models. For instance, Audi’s new 3-liter supercharged V6, used in the S4 and A6 models, has so far been free from carbon-related complaints – a far cry from the 3.2 liter V6, which has
numerous threads">numerous threads
dedicated to the condition."

the above links are documenting these issues and the extent....and not by opinons, by fact. This is from the industry, not from me. You have taken the stance to "shoot the messenger" rather than engage in a constructive and educational discussion. So I will give links to engineers, industry labs, scientists, and credible reference material...and you give an "opinion".


And your GM service department will try to sell you a upper induction cleaning service to "clean the deposits from your intake valves restoring lost power and fuel economy" (right from GM's recommended services).

You say you have done your searching, so why have you ignored all of this?

You ignore all of this readily accessable data FROM the auto makers and engineers themselves! Spend a portion of the time you spent trying to discredit me and read up on this "non-existent" issue. All I am asking is do as you choose to your own cars, but don't spread your uneducated opinion on this as fact. There is more than enough information to research and see how widespread the issue is.



"Reduced performance is blamed on carbon deposits



The promise of direct injection is very appealing to drivers and to the automakers that are always looking for an edge in performance and fuel economy. While most people that have vehicles that use direct injection have cited no issues, there are some that are having lots of problems with the technology.

Auto Observer reports that the issue is the tendency of direct injected or DI engines to build up a layer of carbon or soot around the intake valves that can over time significantly affect the performance and economy of the engines. The soot is able to build up in a DI engine because unlike a port injected engine there is no constant spray of fuel that can keep the deposits washed away."

If you really want to go deep this patent for reducing the deposits digs as deep as any scientist would care to go:

Patent US6846782 - Method of reducing intake valve deposits in a direct injection engine - Google Patents

http://delphi.com/pdf/techpapers/2013-01-0261.pdf

So I did not come here to "sell" catchcans, they are one of over 20 inventions we have designed and manufacture, and as the odds of more than 3-4 members here buying anything from me are slim due to the forums traffic and membership #'s........I was invited here to share technical data and over 38 years of working in the automotive engineering business. Not to argue with someone that wants to believe what they believe....it takes time away from billable hours in the shop to write these replies and that is far more valuable in donated time to share this and any other technical info anyone ask's for as we work on these cars day in and day out.

I started with GM in 1974....before most here were born, and have a lifetime of gained knowledge to share if asked. If this is not appreciated by the majority of members, then I have no problem leaving and not spending more time here.

SC2150 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SC2150 For This Useful Post:
jfcadena (12-16-2013), turbotodd69 (11-06-2013)
Old 11-06-2013, 06:49 PM   #41 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
turbotodd69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 202
Thanks: 33
Thanked 58 Times in 38 Posts
This is what I'm talking about jtrosky. You're right nobody owns the forum and you can post all the opinions you want. Why are you trying to argue facts with your opinion? Do you even know if you have oil in your intake? Do you even care? Well some of us do and we welcome SC2150 knowledge. If you search threads you will find 2012 oil in intake. I think it was started by jayman. You may not have the problem or don't care but when you hit 45,000 miles and are having a new motor put in and wondering what happen you might actually look at the facts. No one here is saying the 3.6 is a bad motor in fact it is a great motor. It just has a problem that needs to be addressed. GM's 3.1 and 3.4 had a issue with intake manifold gaskets which we all know about. Are you going to tell me that is just my opinion? The only reason I'm getting upset is that you are attacking somebody that came over here to educate us on a serious problem and you're going after him with nothing to back yourself up with. I haven't bought anything from him yet he doesn't mind taking time out of his day to answer some questions or help me figure something out but in your OPINION he is just here to sell something. Also you're right I don't have a catch can yet because I have another vehicle and as I said the Impala is put away for the winter. I will have one in the spring. That is because of the research I did myself not just because SC2150 said so. You may be one of the few that don't have the carbon build up problem and that's great but why fight with someone that has the solution for those of us that do. The answer to your question on why isn't GM doing anything about it is because it's too costly for them to fix it on a large scale then to just deal with it on a individual basis and actually they are dealing with it for the 2014-15 models. If they dealt with it on our models we would probably end up paying $5000-$10,000 more than we paid.

turbotodd69 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to turbotodd69 For This Useful Post:
jfcadena (12-16-2013), volume (11-06-2013)
Old 11-06-2013, 09:47 PM   #42 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
jtrosky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: West Grove, PA
Posts: 2,371
Thanks: 461
Thanked 502 Times in 385 Posts
So how has GM dealt with this issue on the 2014/2015 models? Have they installed these catch-cans on their new models? If adding a $50 part to resolve this "huge" problem is too expensive, then they are obviously not having to spend much to deal with the results of it. Does anyone have any actual info as to the number of complaints GM gets related to direct results of "valve coking" from actual drivers? I don't see any complaints about this on-line for the 2012/2013 Impala from owners.

And yes, I have checked my intake for for oil - it's not there (in any measurable amount). Although, what I'm talking about here is not the "oil in intake" issue - it's the "valve coking issue". I am not saying that it doesn't happen - I'm simply stating that it's not nearly as "huge" of a problem as it is being made out to be in this thread. Since I own and drive this car daily, if it was causing huge problems, I think I would be experiencing them. Truth is, I'm not experiencing any issues at all. Show me one post on this forum where someone is complaining about issues resulting from "valve coking".

Of course, all engines can be improved. But does everyone driving a direct injected need to run out and install a catch can - I think not. As @SC2150 has already pointed out, over 99% of the direct injected engines on the road do not have them installed. Yet, I don't see everyone running to their dealers complaining about the results "valve coking".

Believe it or not, most 2012/2013 Impala owners never even look in the intake tune. Regardless if there is oil in there or not, nobody seems to be complaining about issues resulting from it. The only people that are complaining seem to be the people that just so happen to see it there - not problems resulting from it.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

jtrosky is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-06-2013, 11:22 PM   #43 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
turbotodd69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 202
Thanks: 33
Thanked 58 Times in 38 Posts
Have you had any hesitation as the car is accelerating especially in the higher rpm range? If not great but that oil you see in your intake that's not measurable gets sucked into the intake manifold with other combustibles right to the valves causing carbon build up and if it does it long enough it will cause multi cylinder misfire. At that time you'll bring to the dealership. They will say for $200 you need a upper intake cleaning. When that oil should not be there in the first place. The PCV system on this motor cannot turn all the nasty stuff you don't want in your motor to vapor. The other thing that can happen is that the build-up on the valves can break off in bigger pieces scour your piston and rings. If that happens and your motor goes and you bring it in for warranty replacement they will tell it's your fault because you didn't follow recommended maintenance and then you're S.O.L... The catch can that SC2150 is talking about solves this problem. If you don't want to believe us why don't you call your dealership and see what they say about intake cleaning and it being part of regular maintenance and what happens if your motor blows up and you didn't have that done. Then tell us more about our imaginary problem. Also why don't you look up the TSB for multi cylinder misfire on 12-13 Impala due to valve coking. See it's there including your car. If you don't want to do anything about it don't but why go after people that do. I just hope for your sake that if anything happens to your car and it has to do with this subject that GM covers you. We all know you're an average Joe you said it yourself. So get in your car and drive it till it dies and stop posting opinions on something you know nothing about or cou d careless to. Oh and by the way. Why did you want to know how to clean your throttle body if this isn't a problem? Why would you need to? Where do you think the carbon on the throttle body comes from? Take a look at the hoses that connect to your intake tube and I'll let you use common sense on that answer.

turbotodd69 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-07-2013, 02:09 AM   #44 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
jtrosky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: West Grove, PA
Posts: 2,371
Thanks: 461
Thanked 502 Times in 385 Posts
No, I have *never* had *any* hesitation with this engine. If I did, I would take it to the dealership and let them diagnose and handle the issue.

You mention warranty claims - the truth is, if I ever did have a problem with my engine, I would have an easier time getting it fixed under warranty without a catch-can installed! How is GM going to decline warranty coverage on a stock motor when I keep all maintenance receipts? Do YOU have any data to back up what you are saying (that GM will decline warranty coverage)? I think not.

If you are have engine issues, you take it to the dealership and get it fixed under warranty. You don't start redesigning the systems that the manufacturer put in place. But again, I've seen not a single complaint on this forum resulting from "valve coking" - have you?

Cleaning the throttle body is something that is needed to be done on *all* vehicles - direct injected or not. There is simply a small ring of soot around the throttle plate that again, happens with all cars - throttle-body cleaning is not a new procedure for direct-injected cars only.

If the oil in the intake is ingested into the intake system, then how is that other users are reporting ounces of oil in their intake? My point is that if you have that amount of oil in your intake, then something else is going on. I simply had a very minor oily film on mine every time I've checked it. If you really have that much oil in there, then take it to GM and make sure they deal with it - or, at the very least, that way it will be documented in case you actually do have issues down the road.

Unfortunately, for you, you'll just have to deal with my opinions and my findings on the matter, just as I have to deal with the constant "the sky is falling" posts about "valve coking". In fact, I wasn't even replying to you or @SC2150 - I was replying to someone who is now under the impression that these engines so bad, that they would rather own an older pushrod engine - which is the real disservice here. I was just trying to explain that these engines are really a big improvement over other older pushrod engines, as I think we all agree.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

jtrosky is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-07-2013, 04:28 AM   #45 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
volume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: orlando fl
Posts: 1,107
Thanks: 415
Thanked 137 Times in 118 Posts
You depend on the dealer and spend $200 upper intake cleaning that can damage the Teflon coating on the piston or worst good for you. the 2012 and 2013 impala have bean on the road for 2 year and still on warranty you will see the complaint after they reach 100.000 miles and when the warranty expire like the camaros

now jtrosky where is your data, information, experience and background or web link??? I don’t see nothing on your post that contradict what sc2150 post only personal opinion

can you provide anything that can contradict this ????? can you back up your opinion????

volume is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Chevy Impala Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.impalaforums.com/8th-gen-engine-performance/419481-2013-3-6l-with-1-300-miles-valve-coking.html
Posted By For Type Date
2014: what do you love/hate - Chevrolet Forum - Chevy Enthusiasts Forums This thread Refback 04-21-2014 02:02 PM
Direct injection engines - 2014+ Chevrolet Silverado & GMC Sierra 1500 - GM-Trucks.com This thread Refback 02-18-2014 09:20 AM
8th Gen Engine Performance on Chevy Impala Forums | BoardReader This thread Refback 01-22-2014 10:27 AM
Direct injection engines - 2014 Chevrolet Silverado & GMC Sierra 1500 - GM-Trucks.com This thread Refback 12-13-2013 07:19 PM
Mail | The CarGurus Blog This thread Refback 11-10-2013 09:45 PM
Why Automotive Advertising Is All Wrong | The CarGurus Blog This thread Refback 11-09-2013 03:50 AM
Tires on New Cars: Replace After 20,000 Miles? | The CarGurus Blog This thread Refback 11-09-2013 12:16 AM
Jeep Cherokee Problems Keep Vehicles from Dealerships | The CarGurus Blog This thread Refback 11-06-2013 03:12 PM

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2013 Jeff Gordon #24 AARP/Drive To End Hunger 2013 Chevrolet Impala 1/24 RSS Bot Impala Diecast Toys Cars on eBay 0 09-26-2013 07:10 AM
Chevrolet : Impala 1963Impala 1963 Impala 35,300 Original Miles Just Restored RSS Bot eBay Cars For Sale: Impala 0 01-17-2011 05:14 AM
Chevrolet : Impala 1963Impala 1963 Impala 35,300 Original Miles Just Restored RSS Bot eBay Cars For Sale: Impala 0 12-27-2010 02:50 PM
Chevrolet : Impala 1963Impala 1963 Impala 35,300 Original Miles Just Restored RSS Bot eBay Cars For Sale: Impala 0 11-26-2010 04:42 AM
What is the valve of a 84 vette. With 22700 orginal miles. Excellent condition.? lakesider Automotive Discussion 0 09-15-2007 11:42 PM




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
This site is not affiliated nor endorsed by General Motors Corp. Chevy Impala and related trademarks are the property of General Motors Corp.