No. 1 Rod Bearing Spinning on Crank Shaft

[jagusmc]

Well yes I am familiar with insurance companies universally denying claims. The service tech told me they have 4 Rodeos sitting in their lot with the same exact problem. Paperwork doesn't do much good unless you have written documentation of proof, to show a track record, to prove its not an isolated event which is what the warranty company wants to assume. If I can show proof by way of other posts, complaints, experiences of the same engine failure i.e., rod bearing spinning in crankshaft then I can prove it's not me "continuously operating" my vehicle which caused this which is what the warranty company is trying to say the cause is, despite the fact the dealership is saying "No, this happens, it would have happened regardless, its not from cojntinuously driving the vehicle, it's a known and common defect/problem with this engine." The dealership service tech is the one who told me to do a search online for No. 1 rod bearing spinning in crankshaft and said I'd see tons of information to support the fact, however, I have only seen it mentioned here but thought maybe someone could point me in the right direction to find more information to support it.

[Maugan_VX]

I was under the impression that it was the #6 rod bearing that always blew in cases of engine failure.

Sorry to hear about your misfortunte though.

[jagusmc]

I know my problem is witht he warranty company but that doesn't change the fact the engine needs to be repalced at 78,000 miles thru no fault of my own. Mine is the No. 1 rod bearing spinning. Oil changes were done on a VERY religious/regular basis no more than 4200 miles in between and always used Mobil 1 and never any idication of oil burn. This literally came out of nowhere with no warning, no sign or lack of performance. I'm not against Izusu, I just think it sucks all the way around that the engine went bad.

I kept my service and maintenance records but they lacked the Vin number so at first the warranty company was trying to say they were invalid (what a joke) then they approved tear down and when the dealership found the casue and said it needed a new engine they said well just replace the parts that are affected, well that was $8187 compared to a new engine at $7952. Well once they found that out and sent their inspectors out, the inspector/adjuster agreed it needed a new engine, then the warranty company said well if you drove it to the dealership cause it was making this noise then you continuously operated it. they fail to realize this is a problem that happens, continuous operation has nothing to do with it but under that clause they can get away with not paying for the engine, however they are willing to pay for half, roughly $4100 and that includes the new cd player and drivers side window motor. The dealership says this is VERY common with the 3.5 engines and is not any fault of the owners, it would have happened regardless. Yet apparently the warranty company feels it knows more about vehicles specifically the VehiCross of which I've had to educate them on cause they had no clue what it was. I've faxed them several posts of people stating their sameengines failed with Troopers and VX's and the warranty company doesn't care lol, apparently they just dont want to pay for a new engine. I'm hoping it will get resolved BUT if not, I'm renting a car for the next 3 months and sueing the **** out of them

However I just had the oil changed that morning with no noise and was at the dealership inquiring bout how to change my headlight bulb and finding out I had to take the whole front end off, so I got back in VX andstarted it and noticed the noise. Went back in and got service tech. Now the warranty company wants a statement written from service tech that I came in for a headlight bulb issue and then noticed the noise when I was trying to leave, instead of having hte noise and then driving to dealership for it. They are assuming thats what happened despite records of engine failures with other vehicles. They claim each vehicle is treated individually yet they claim given their experience this is why my engine failed was continuous operation yet the dealership says no this is not the case. It could possibly go to court, my attorny is standing by on the ready, were waiting to hear back now that the head service tech faxed them a statement saying I came in for a headlight not a engine failing. Easy Care is the name of the warranty company, a bunch of slime balls. 67 complaints against them with the BBB within a 36 month period yet that is considered satisfactory by their standards and we all know the BBB is worthless they serve the companies not the consumers, the ratings mean nothing in all reality.

[mbeach]

Search "oil pumping phenomena." This will background one of the oil loss theories. I also have a post regarding the sudden loss of large quantities of oil, search again.

There are differences between the oil scraper rings and ring grooves from 99 to 00. There is a bulletin out there, which I have a copy of, dated 4/02. It addresses a change, to AFFECTED vehicles. However, I do not know what "affected" means, and I have no other documentation.
The fact is, there was a problem, and it's been corrected, or at least addressed. Don't expect Isuzu to own up to it though.

Interesting .pdfs:

[psychos2]

mbeach, the rings they are refering to are compression rings. the #1 ring meaning the top compression ring and the #2 ring meaning the second compression ring.the change in procedure is more than likely to be from a change in there supplier.and neither one of these is an oil control ring.

and the continued operation just means that after hearing the noise you did more damage by not shutting off the engine.you did nothing to prevent further damage.if it was me i would more likely prove to them that it did not matter that you drove back to the dealer because once the bearing spins the damage is done the crank is toast.they have a similar clause for boats that have sunk.if you do not do anything to prevent further damage they will not pay.an example is not removing water from the engine thus damaging it further. shawn

[mbeach]

There is a .002" difference in the oil control ring gap from the 99s to 00s.
Look at the "ringgap" file.
Why?

Also, a simple "change in supplier" would not cause a vehicle to be "affected" by anything -in fact, it would go unnoticed at the service level unless a problem or defect had been identified.

[psychos2]

mbeach, they changed there specs from .006-.016 to .006-.018 which really does nothing.if anything it would let more oil by if you where at the .018 mark.you would want to be closer to the .006 gap anyway.and as far as affected vehicles the rings they refer to are the "compression rings" not the oil rings. the " oil control " rings are on the bottom.they are not the #1 or #2 ring. mabye the "affected vehicles " have a compression problem. shawn