well the dealership said that this was something that can be repaired with the valves being replaced and ordering new rings. i am very worried becuase with only 2200 miles on the stook there is DEF. a related problem. my stook consumed 2 quarts of oil and the service guy said it was due to the #4 cylinder. Is this the right steps of correcting the problem? Should a new short block be put in? As soon as i noticed the rough idle i drove five miles home to get it towed the next day to the dealership.

 

Can someone post a concise, technical answer to why this failure occurs? Digging through the archives it's a PITA to sort through it.

 

I don

 

This is really disheartening. Barry WY Silver/Black '01 has been keeping track of all of the failures (and doing a GREAT job!), but when I did a search, I was unable to find his latest thread. I beleive that there has been around 10-12 confirmed #4 cylinder failures. I was hoping that Honda had found the problem, and quietly fixed it in production. I posted this as a question for the people who went to Japan to ask the engineers - it's a long shot that they will get an answer.

After seeing the typical damage in the other posts with the engine torn down, I don't see how new valves and rings will correct the problem. If this is truely a typical #4 cylinder problem, I would demand a new short block and a complimentary extended warranty at a minimum.

Good luck.

 

Has this been correlated with anything, such as hard driving, racing, etc.? I was surprised to find that our oil pans are finned on the outside for cooling but not baffled. I'm known of more than one engine to lose bearings do to a dry pan, and plan on getting a baffled pan for the S2.

Just wondering what I can do to determin if I'm in danger, or stay out of it. So far, no oil consumption in 1500 miles.

 

The baffle is not built into the pan, but as I recall there is a complete cover so that only the pump pickup extends into the sump area. I really do not think you can uncover the pickup with the car shiny side up.

 

Maybe you should have drove it until there was no question about replacing the short block.
Doesn't that suck when you do the right thing and get the shaft because of it?

 

Here is Barry's record keeping thread.

Suggest you post to it for the record with full details or PM Barry with details.

 

I have not heard of a dealer replacing both the valves and the rings. The rings are included in the short block replacement. The valves are not.

Those of us with #4 cylinder failure either had a "tap tap tap" sound or had a more catastrophic noise or an engine seize. Running rough was NOT a symptom. In my case, the noise was the only symptom.

Consuming two quarts of oil is excessive. I personally believe that the #4 cylinder failure leads to excessive oil consumption. My engine started making the tap-tap-tap noise and I didn't drive it more than a few miles before getting the short block replaced. I was not down any on the oil. I bet if I had driven 50 or 100 miles with the noise, I would have seen oil consumption.

How did your dealer diagnose the #4 cylinder failure? If they did, you can bet they're not just replacing rings. They're replacing the short block.

Keep us posted, but I'm not adding your engine problem to the short block failure list until you provide us with some more details.

You should be reassured that no one with the short block failure had to pay a penny AND no one with the short block replacement has had the problem recur.

 

Hey B-Man I checked your list and noted that an '01 is listed as confirmed. What's your take on this. I thought we were only seeing this defect on the '00's?