Blown Head gasket rebuild....@297k

From the way you have expressed this, it's clear that you think solder makes a better splice than a proper crimp; it's clear from the way you describe crimping as something to "get away with" or something the auto/marine/aviation industries adopted because they don't get paid to solder. You're certainly not alone in those beliefs and I don't expect anything I say to change them. But it's only fair to other readers to give a nod to the arguments on the other side too.

Solder vs. Crimp is one of those endless internet sports. It is easy to find blog posts and opinion pieces about it. Here's one that's better sourced than many (which is to say, at least it has some sources!), though it's still firmly in the lay internet-guru genre.

There's so much stuff of that kind on the 'net that it kind of makes the more interesting stuff harder to find. The Air Force likes to know how to make good connections, so Rome Lab had Martin Marietta spend some time looking into that from 1976 to 1978. Some bits and pieces:




(I kind of glommed together the parts of the table on pages 28 and 29.)
Solder does stack up darned well too ... it's that 6 score on vibration that seems to account for some of the tilt in favor of crimping in the auto/air/marine worlds.



-Chap

 

And have under 60,000 miles.
I didn't say any of us would benefit from this. Most of us started seeing a sharp increase of oil consumption around 90,000 miles.
What I'm trying to say is these engines will burn lots of oil sooner or later causing a cascade of other symptoms which are not addressed by new head gaskets, OCC's, EGR valves, or meticulous cleanings of intakes and EGR coolers. It's nice that Toyota has redesigned the Oil Rings. Maybe Toyota will again make reliable engines that run forever without burning lots of oil, etc, etc, etc.

 

Wow, you have a LOT of time on your hands! I learn from experience.
If I decided I wanted to attempt to read the graff, I couldn't, it's unreadable.
Soldering IS the best way....

 

Maybe early replacement of those piston rings would save the engine. That's a bit of a sand pounder, for the typical owner.

What was the object of the trouble-prone piston rings, reduced friction and better mpg stats I'm guessing?

The pdf budgets 16.6 hours (IIRC) for this chore. If I were ever to attempt it, it would take me 16.6 weeks, lol.

Or shorter oil change interval (I'm on that, btw), and some sort of piston soak, every so often?

So the 2015's have the updated rings?

 

I did a lot of my research here : Genuine Toyota Parts for 2012 Toyota Prius V|Five 1.8L L4 - Electric/Gas | Toyota Parts
The new rings are 10311-37270

I understand.
When the frustration of all the trouble with the Gen 3 engines, and I've experienced them all, got to me I went looking for answers and found them here. I just want to show cause and effect. I know an oil catch can can save you from much heartache but does not solve the problem.

 

Yeah that's my go-to site. The don't ship to Canada, but great info resource never the less.

Addendum: There's a typo in the part no., should be 13011-37270 I think?

I can find the part, still trying to find compatible vehicle. A little frustrating that dealership part department database don't allow "reverse" search, ie: you plug in a part number and it says what vehicles it's on. It said not compatible with 2015 Prius for example.

Addendum #2: it's apparently the piston ring for 2016 and onward Prius.

The $64 question: regardless of what the databases say, about it not being compatible with 3rd gen, it is?

 

A little more research at McGeorge Toyota:

2010~14 piston ring set part number: 13011-37110
2010~13 piston part number: 13101-37120
2014 piston part number: 13101-37240
2015 piston ring set part number: 13011-37260
2015 piston part number: 13101-37240
2016/17 piston ring set part number: 13011-37270
2016/17 piston part number: 13101-37250

Interesting screen grab the aforementioned T-SB-0169-16:



So Toyota acknowledges that a 2010 can benefit from 2015 rings, says install the "NEW" Piston Ring Set (page 15). But not sure why they list the revised piston p/n; I don't believe the intent is to replace the piston as well, there's mention that the piston and it's pin is a "matched set". I think the "parts information" is for info only, and the only thing for sure being replaced is the ring set, in "warranty information" ?

 

We all do. The next question is, do I insist on only learning from my own experience, or can I jump-start the process with experience that's already been had?



I'll need at least another week or two before I'll have analyzed 3.8 billion part hours my own personal self.

For anybody who is interested, context menu ➧View Image ➧click-for-full-size can help with that. Also the link I put in the post was to the full report pdf.

-Chap

 

Well, they do say on the first page, "The piston and piston ring assembly have been changed to reduce the potential for oil consumption." And the Op Code and Description on page 2 are EG1633, "R&R Piston and Ring Set" (emphasis mine, both places). I suspect the note about the piston and pin being matched would mean the new pistons come with pins.

Granted, I don't see any explicit step between (5) and (7) where it says "thank these old pistons for their service and unbox the new ones". But then there was that two-ECU-reflash inverter-protection recall TSB where the step to reflash the second ECU was missing....

Now, I bet if someone were to put the revised oil rings on the old pistons, as long as they fit, it would be better than a poke in the eye....

-Chap

 

Yeah your last sentence is where I was going. The price for revised piston ring set, for all four, is around $100. The new pistons are about $100 apiece, and separating them from the connecting pins sounds like a challenge.

The other thing: the TSB involved 2015 year rings, and @Ragingfit is saying 2016 rings.

I wonder if is possible to have identical parts and diff no??

 

Before I knew better, I had many personal bad experiences with solder and vibration. For a time, I used to make homemade external battery packs for my night running headlamp that I'd keep in a pocket (to keep the batteries warm, and to reduce weight carried on my head). The soldered joints, protected with adhesive-lined heat shrink would always fail within a couple weeks of about 2 hours a night of running. The failures were always at the soldered joints due to vibration from the bouncing of a runner's stride. I tried many different homemade methods of strain relief, some working better than others, but a soldered joint would always eventually fail.

I later learned that crimped joints are the best method for cars because of the vibration issue from watching Mighty Car Mods on youtube, and that made total sense to me based on my experience.

 

I've always preferred soldered, but there's some good arguments for crimping. How about both?

Come to think of it, all the stock connections are crimped.

 

On most of the information I can find, adding solder to a well-crimped connection, depending on how carefully you do it, can fall anywhere on the scale from "probably harmless" to "combining the least useful properties of both".

Hmm, is the Canadian lingo different? I'm used to "connecting rod" for the long part that links the piston to the crankshaft, and "piston pin" for the short cylindrical bit that goes through the piston and the connecting rod to attach the two.

I believe you would reuse the rods (provided they test out straight and true), and it's only the pins that would be supplied with new pistons as matched parts.

-Chap

 

changing the egr cooler with my clean spare. Its totally clogged.only 40k miles since last time was cleaned. cleaning IM and new pcv valve. IM not so dirty Not bad .old pcv valve soaked with oil. Egr valve aand pipe to IM is ok still pretty clean. Decided today to get rid of this car @danlatu . Lets hope gen4 more reliable. Its a countdown for this car now. Hoping to get a good used gen4 in 3 months from now like a 2016 model. Engine knocks was still there regardless outside temperatures this morning.

 

"IF" the solder joint in done CORRECTLY, it IS better than a crimp. With a crimp, there is air between the two metals.
Which is where corrosion comes from, or at least starts. With solder, it can't happen. IF done correctly.
A cold solder joint will/can corrode, but not a hot joint.

 

As far as I know, that's mistaken, and that point is basic enough that being mistaken there could explain a lot of other confusion about crimp joints.

The gas-tightness of the metal-to-metal contact is one of the first properties of crimped connections to be mentioned in any treatment of the subject, for example on p. 11 of the Rome Labs document linked earlier, or, here (or here because the photo is cool).



-Chap

 

I was an electrician on the A6-A Intruder airplane during the Vietnam War and all their Cannon Plugs were soldered and potted and the solder joints broke inside the Cannon Plug even though it was potted. Later I worked on the A-10 Wart Hog and all their electrical plugs were crimped and I don't remember any problem with bad connections. I like solder for a good electrical connection and crimp connectors because they are fast and easy. In a wet area I tend to solder.

 

... and also because they don't break inside the connector plugs in your warplane? I've never flown one, but if I had to, I think I'd be in favor of that property too.

-Chap

 

Do whatever YOU want. If it makes you FEEL good. I'll stick to what works best so I only
have to do it once.
With any crimp, that WILL be air gaps.
If it makes you FEEL good. Crimp, then solder. OR, solder then crimp.
As long as you FEEL good.
Unlesssssssss, You crimp it so HARD under a LOT of pressure that it melts
the metals so they become one.

 

Which you would realize, if you had read even two paragraphs into the "properties of crimp connections" section in that Rome Lab report, is exactly what we're talking about. The term "melts" isn't used there; the terms "metal flow" and "cold weld" are.

One of the best ways to move technical decision making away from the realm of feeling is by paying attention to what is known about the technical subject.

-Chap