Innovative MotorWorks - 603whp/47wtq on a Stock Engine

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Thorpedo

You know that the point of failures were all over the board right? If you were talking about a particular issue that the 2013s had then you might have a case. The engines are nearly the same, and since there were so many different types of failures, you can't seriously hope to sound reasonable by making the point that "2013s can't take boost". That's sort of like saying 2013s have weak head gaskets, cranks, rods, blocks, DI seals, DI pumps etc etc.

Get real man, you sound downright foolish.

Still here? Might want to see how many 2013's have gone bye-bye by now...sounds downright correct is more like it...

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by TurboBRZ

No, it more has to do with throwing out blanket claims with little to no reasoning behind it other than your own opinion... If you had some facts that you threw in you wouldn't sound so foolish.

Have you read the F/I forums the last year? Don't ignore all the rod bearing issues from both stock and boosted 2013's as well. Notice any trends?

[raven1231]

FWIW 2013's have also been around longer, and likely have more miles compared to most 14's and up

[Thorpedo]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

Still here? Might want to see how many 2013's have gone bye-bye by now...sounds downright correct is more like it...

Still here, still right. You still clearly aren't a statistician.

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Thorpedo

Still here, still right. You still clearly aren't a statistician.

Never claimed to be, but the evidence that the bulk of the 2013 motors are deficient when it comes to handling boost is quite clear by now, lol

[brianhj]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

Never claimed to be, but the evidence that the bulk of the 2013 motors are deficient when it comes to handling boost is quite clear by now, lol

This is the first I've heard of this.. What's the issue with 2013 motors? Is there any proof that the other MY motors are actually different? I thought they were the same

[DeliciousTuning]

2014 showed some changes, but 2015 MY + years showed a heavy valvetrain revamping. 2017 + will show even more in the way of improved engine design, though in smaller details. 2013's are technically more prone to failures of various sorts, but the rods are just as terrible in all years.

-Zach

[brianhj]

Interesting! What kind of revamping have they done exactly? Do you know

[cdrazic93]

From what I remember they chaged the valve stem length (not nessecarily the springs, iirc) as to attempt to prevent more rocker arms from exiting the motor.

This thread is basically a bunch of people stomping their feet.

I think its a logical reason to sit here and think the 2013's are more prone to boost application failures as opposed to newer MY engines because of the revisions they made.

The rods have always been a weak point.

At any power level over double the stock SAE rated for the engine, is a ticking time bomb. reguardless of modle year. a 2015 vs a 2013 will pop at 700whp. Not if, when.

[DeliciousTuning]

The entire valvetrain was heavily revised in 2015. This is also why 2015-2016 cars typically dyno just a bit lower than prior model years. 2017 will receive further valvetrain changes including revised cams, valves, and rockers from the DIT engine. Changes on the bottom end will include additional stiffening ribs, a surface treatment on the pistons, and more.

-Zach

[Calum]

Originally Posted by sales@delicioustuning.com

The entire valvetrain was heavily revised in 2015. This is also why 2015-2016 cars typically dyno just a bit lower than prior model years. 2017 will receive further valvetrain changes including revised cams, valves, and rockers from the DIT engine. Changes on the bottom end will include additional stiffening ribs, a surface treatment on the pistons, and more.

-Zach

Do you know of the newer parts will fit on the older heads?

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by brianhj

This is the first I've heard of this.. What's the issue with 2013 motors? Is there any proof that the other MY motors are actually different? I thought they were the same

Many small changes were made, its been discussed before (valves, tune, etc.)

I said a while back that the MY 2013 motors were not built well to handle boost and were time bombs. Bunch of people jumped down my throat for it, but it turns out to be true

[Thorpedo]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

. Bunch of people jumped down my throat for it, but it turns out to be true

:b onk:

Older cars are more prone to failures, as they have done more miles, were the guinea pigs for boost systems, tuning, and all the rest. Typically people who got the 2013 were more so motorsports enthusiasts (as they waited for the car) and have done things "that the car was built for." How about looking at sales numbers too? How many of each model year are out there?

Some guy named Lonewolf watches a TINY, miniscule fraction of failures on a forum, takes nothing else into account, and declares 2013s "time bombs". His only real piece of supporting evidence being that they revised the valvetrain. Newsflash, typically MANY revisions are done to new engine platoforms over the years to address "issues" that come up in a small fraction of engines to further decrease failure rates. How do I know? I worked at and ran an engine shop for years.

But nooooo, they're "time bombs" even though my car and many of my friends' 2013s run raised rev limits and do hundreds and hundreds of autocross runs and laps at the local track (both with and without boost). Wait a minute, there are probably thousands of people on this forum who do stuff like that!!!!! (You'd think a light bulb would come on above his head, but no.)

Don't get me wrong, are the failure rates for 2013's higher? Absolutely, but calling them time bombs makes you look like a complete fool to anyone who has a clue.

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Thorpedo

:b onk:

Older cars are more prone to failures, as they have done more miles, were the guinea pigs for boost systems, tuning, and all the rest. Typically people who got the 2013 were more so motorsports enthusiasts (as they waited for the car) and have done things "that the car was built for." How about looking at sales numbers too? How many of each model year are out there?

Some guy named Lonewolf watches a TINY, miniscule fraction of failures on a forum, takes nothing else into account, and declares 2013s "time bombs". His only real piece of supporting evidence being that they revised the valvetrain. Newsflash, typically MANY revisions are done to new engine platoforms over the years to address "issues" that come up in a small fraction of engines to further decrease failure rates. How do I know? I worked at and ran an engine shop for years.

But nooooo, they're "time bombs" even though my car and many of my friends' 2013s run raised rev limits and do hundreds and hundreds of autocross runs and laps at the local track (both with and without boost). Wait a minute, there are probably thousands of people on this forum who do stuff like that!!!!! (You'd think a light bulb would come on above his head, but no.)

Don't get me wrong, are the failure rates for 2013's higher? Absolutely, but calling them time bombs makes you look like a complete fool to anyone who has a clue.

Many of your "points" are already known and accepted to be common knowledge. You just wasted your time typing out that
boilerplate response.

CN Takeaway: So your opinion is the only valid one? LMAO....