Gen 6 St Driniking Oil. Another Saga

[daktari]

a answer to our problem from a top toyota man  :hokus-pokus: 

please read what shutty has to say.

http://www.celica-club.co.uk/cgibin/phpbb2...=34125&start=20

←

Hmm. Interesting read. So .... All you ST drivers with oil problems are driving like old women eh??? I liked that bit. But looking at what shutty says - It`s logical captain.

[mikeb]

I don't understand shutty's explanation? Lack of oil to the top of the engine (cylinder head) has nothing to do with lubricating the bores/piston rings which are in the bottom of the engine. They are lubricated by oil particles suspended in the air in the sump. Some engines (usually only turbo charged ala 3s-gte) also have an oil jet pointing at the underside of the pistons to cool them, which would also ensure plenty of oil around the bores (under the piston).

I did suggest months ago when the issue was first raised, that it was more likely to be oil rings than stem seals due to the sheer amount of oil that is being burnt - also stem seals tend to make smoke, but rings don't (apart from catastrophic failures). I also said that compression testing gives NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER on the state of the oil control rings either.

Whilst I agree with shutty that the problem is likely to be rings, his reasons do not stack up at all. I've already explained the bit about oil to the top of the engine, but to try and blame it on crap fuel is laughable. All modern brands of petrol have detergent additives (yes, even supermarket stuff), which would prevent carbon build up (unless the fueling is overly rich, but I don't see how it can be - you all have lambda sensors on your engines don't you?). What he says about bedding in also sounds a bit hard to believe too. Admittedly, it applies to compression rings which have much more contact with the cylinder walls, but not oil rings.

The real reason (IMO) is down to a fundamental flaw in the design of the 7a-fe engine. Oil control rings become less effective at their job of controlling oil if they are allowed to overheat and become brittle, or if they are made from insufficient grades of steel (I'm no metallurgist though!). I don't know how much the piston/ring design varies from the 4A- in this engine family, and I don't know if oil consumption is a common problem on that engine either. But consider this, the 7A is basically a stroked out version of the 4A engine, and as such it will have higher piston velocities that the 4A.

Higher piston velocities = more friction = more heat generated = hotter pistons/rings (unless cooling via the oil is enhanced).

Maybe toyota pushed the design of their 'A' series engine too far by stroking it? Perhaps it would have benefitted from oil squirters. Having said that, the 4A engines revs higher, which I would have thought would give it higher piston velocities.

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree entirely, and you should ignore my theory, but I do know for sure that shutty's explanation doesn't entirely stack up (unless the 7A-FE does have oil squirters, and he means that the oil pressure is not sufficient to make the jet travel far enough).

[sotal]

Well I think it has to be something like mike says, but is becoming apparent that it affects more people than first thought. When I first posted about it a year or so ago, there was basically no other reference to it on here or celica-club. Now both forums are filled with complaints about it.

How much does it cost to change piston rings, can it be a DIY job?

I just changed the rings on a 2 stroke motorbike. £9.99 for the rings and £7.95 for a full engine gasket set!! Is it the same price

[mikeb]

How much does it cost to change piston rings, can it be a DIY job?

I just changed the rings on a 2 stroke motorbike. £9.99 for the rings and £7.95 for a full engine gasket set!! Is it the same price

←

Maybe, with your gold discount!

To get at the rings, you have to remove the pistons, so you can imagine that it is not a minor task. Usually, this means removing the cylinder head, but on some engines it is possible to remove the pistons out of the bottom of the bores. This makes the job much quicker and easier, but I don't know if it's possible on the 7A-FE engine.

[sotal]

Only took a couple of hours on the 175 2 stroke engine!! Oh well!

To be honest even if we confirmed that it was the rings it probably isn't worth doing anything about it. The job will probably cost too much compared to just buying a bit of oil. I mean it's costing less to buy the oil, than the extra the import boys (and girls) are paying for optimax so it's not that bad, and it does mean there is always some fresh oil in the engine!

[Cubic Incubi]

I can't add further to the oil debate, but for those thinking of another celica - my thoughts.

ST - Power to weight: 101.29 bhp/ton

The GT4 is only viable against the GT if you modify it - the extra costs don't add up for an additional 1.6 seconds 0-60 stock. compared to the ST the GT4 is an obvious choice for stock power - everything else for more beans is additional and requires modifications which aint cheap.

between the GT and ST about 2 seconds seperates them 0-60 but yeah - the GT gets the power a bit later whereas the ST has better low down torque.

I don't think all ST owners need to go swapping their celica's but if they have found their ST has this oil consumption problem - especialy after shutty's post - I personaly would get rid before the car devalues even more and buy something else.

For Gen 6 lovers the GT is the better option imho unless you plan to modify the GT4 and have lots of spare cash - fuel consumption WILL be less than 20 mpg if you play hard, I can empty a full tank in my gt4 in about 150 miles. The GT is a very reliable car and those extra ponies and GE head come in handy on a drive out at the weekend.

A 190 is a good looking car but I have reservations. I think in all honesty a 140 would be a more sensible option as it still has a 0-60 of 8.7 seconds which isnt exactly slow and to get you power down in the 190 you have to rely on lift and high revs - 0-60 is 7.4 seconds so is it worth it just for another 1.4 seconds? fuel consumption figures are close between 140 and 190 but I reckon hammering a 190 will see 25mpg whereas the the 140 probs sees 30mpg when used hard. I also feel a second hand 190 has probs been redlined often.

choices, choices.

Of course you could always seek out a good UK low mileage Gen 5 Gt with full toyota service history and be old skool.

I've thought long about a newer modern celica - I never considered the ST gen 6. If I were to buy a Gen 7 I must admit it would be the 140 - the technical figures just don't justify the extra costs running a 190.

cheers

[mikeb]

I agree with most of what CI says, with a few comments. Firstly 0-60 times: 2 seconds is a huge difference between the ST and GT, in fact 25%. And that's even more true when comparing the gt4 to the gt. It might only be 1.6 seconds on paper, but the quicker the time is, the bigger a 1 second difference becomes, e.g. the gt is 25% slower than the gt4 even though the difference is 1.6 seconds.

Another interesting note is that the gen 5 gt has an identical 0-60 time (7.9s) to the gen 6 gt, even though the gen 5 is heavier and less powerful. Consider the gen 5 (rev 2) 3s-ge engine as having most of the power of the gen 6 gt, and most of the bottom end of the st.

Fuel consumption is directly proportional to how a car is driven (with a few other factors thrown in), except for turbo cars that need lower AFRs when under boost, so they return even worse mpg. That said the gt4 is capable of high 20's on a run, and the GT is only going to manage 35 in similar conditions. The 4wd transmission hits fuel economy too. At the same time a GT will do less than 20 mpg with urban driving.

If I had to have a gen 7, I would go for the 190. You don't have to use the extra rpm range over the 140, and they feel pretty much identical until 6k rpm or so. But my Mum has the 140 and it feels a bit gutless compared even to the gen 5. You really have to work it to make it feel quick, and take advantage of the 6 speed box. An 8.7s 0-60 time is pretty mediocre for a modern car, but 7.4s in the 190 is quicker than any 'average' car (family saloon, warm hatch etc).

But I think the gen 7 is made cheaply, and it shows IMO. When you get inside it, it feels a bit 'plasticky' somehow. And there are more 'issues' with the gen 7 than the gen 5 or 6.

[sotal]

Well that leaves me with the IS200 then

Anything bad to say about them ;)

[Cubic Incubi]

yes - here - http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/content/110808087730017428/ a good article.

fact - its slower than my ST185;

Horsepower: 240hp @ 7800rpms - mine kicks in with grunt at 2500rpm - bye bye time

Torque: 161ft.-lbs. @ 6500rpms - 6500rpm mwoahahaha

Drive type: rear wheel drive

0 to 60: 5.6 secs. psst

60 to 0: 2.7 secs.

1/4 Mile: 14.8 secs. fnar fnar - bye bye s2000 in a 91 185... weeeeeeeeeee

you have got to wring its neck to get the power down. for that money i'd have a 205 GT4 pushing 320bhp anyday and rape the living daylights out of a S2000.

Personally I feel they are over done and dusted.

start saving up for a 2007 Evo X

[mikeb]

yes - here - http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/content/110808087730017428/ a good article.

←

That's not an IS200! ;)

And the review is written by a yank. And comparing it to a gt4 is pointless.

The lexus IS200 is an OK car, not brilliant though. Try and compare both the straight 6 and the 4 pot (JDM import only), if you can find one.

[paseoGT4]

Sounds like oil rings to me, had this on my last paseo, shoud be able to do it for £300 or so.

[astrocortex]

I'm getting the Oil problem too. I've just been checking my exhaust because it needs replacing and the insides of both exit pipes are absolutely caked in a black oily soot (mostly oil I might add).

It's like someone has smeared black boot polish all over the inside of the exhaust pipes.

I've just checked the pipe on my mums car and that is as clean as a whistle.

So if that's where all the oil is going on my car I take it the oil rings have gone then?

[celica dave]

my exhaust is the same

[Tarby777]

my exhaust is the same

←

Hmmm.... loads of soot but no gunk in my case. I'm getting SO frustrated with this - :ffs: I thought the GT would be the obvious replacement but having read about torque and gearing on TOC recently, I'm not so sure. I've got to do *something* - I got burned off by a Range Rover last week :( put my foot down at 20mph in 2nd and he blew me away. It could have been something ridiculous like a 5 litre V12, but it's still a 2-ton truck, and I'm mentally scarred by the experience

[mikeb]

my exhaust is the same

←

Hmmm.... loads of soot but no gunk in my case. I'm getting SO frustrated with this - :ffs: I thought the GT would be the obvious replacement but having read about torque and gearing on TOC recently, I'm not so sure. I've got to do *something* - I got burned off by a Range Rover last week :( put my foot down at 20mph in 2nd and he blew me away. It could have been something ridiculous like a 5 litre V12, but it's still a 2-ton truck, and I'm mentally scarred by the experience

←

Don't write off the GT until you've driven one. ;)

(I'm not saying it will keep up with a v8 range rover though!)

[celica dave]

have found out the gt i drove was a ss3 with a 4 wheel steer set up but only the low powered version and not the 180 bhp i thought it was so i see why my st felt as quick! i take back what i said

[sotal]

It was good that you came back and said that - I'll try and get a go in the GT asap to compare

[daktari]

my exhaust is the same

←

Hmmm.... loads of soot but no gunk in my case. I'm getting SO frustrated with this - :ffs: I thought the GT would be the obvious replacement but having read about torque and gearing on TOC recently, I'm not so sure. I've got to do *something* - I got burned off by a Range Rover last week :( put my foot down at 20mph in 2nd and he blew me away. It could have been something ridiculous like a 5 litre V12, but it's still a 2-ton truck, and I'm mentally scarred by the experience

←

Don't write off the GT until you've driven one. ;)

(I'm not saying it will keep up with a v8 range rover though!)

←

At 20 MPH the Rangey has massive torque.... Wait till it gets to 90 and then blow his doors off. :D

[chris202]

well if my gt feels poor after the prelude i'm guessing the st is a bit ....well...!Removed!?

[mikeb]

well if my gt feels poor after the prelude i'm guessing the st is a bit ....well...!Removed!?

←

Your 'GT' is not really a GT at all though, it's the JDM equivalent of the UK ST model. They never had a 1.8 over there, just used the 3s-fe instead. It's probably better than the 1.8 7a-fe engine in the ST but no match for the 3s-ge of the GT. That's why your's runs out of puff at 90. The 3s-fe has peak torque at 4400 rpm, but the breathing is poor thereafter.

And whatever you do, don't call the ST !Removed!! Apart from being an insult to homosexuals, there will be a whole bunch of ST owners jumping up and down very shortly.