Can a head problem let antifreeze in oil?

[jdmetcalf57]

Has anyone ever had a problem with a head or head gasket that has let antifreeze into the oil without leaking into the cylinder?

[granvil96]

No, but I have had two blocks crack from the mains (oiler holes) up the cylinder walls, that allowed oil into my antifreeze. Wasted time and money replacing head gaskets. Could not see the cracks from the top of the block with the pistons in even when I rotated the engine. Had to remove the oil pan to see the cracks. Both engines ran great until I remove them. Hopefully that is not your problem. I believe I would remove the engine and check out the block completely, unless you were able to discover the trail of the antifreeze from above. Also the head gaskets are alot easier to replace outside the truck.

[Kennedy]

If you have coolant in oil, I'd suggest NOT pulling heads in chassis. Pull the engine and knock off the oil pan to inspect the webs. Typically coolant in oil, is broken block. Could be deck surface or could be lower end, but in chassis is not a good place to do a thorough inspection.

[jdmetcalf57]

Thanks John. I was hoping to here from you.

My problem should be covered by the engine warranty (has 97K on it) but they are not wanting to do anything since I have changed from an auto trans to a manual. However the warranty booklet says they don't cover 'damage due to alterations'. I have talked to several GM diesel mechanics and they don't see how I could have caused it, but the area service rep doesn't want to help me.

[C.K. Piquup]

Never seen a transmission make a block break.Seen alot of blocks break with original trans set-up,though(auto&manual).It was/is do to poor manufacturing.Like robbing nickle to save a buck.Four facts:1)You altered your truck.2)Your motor is blown.3)Not due to the alteration.4)You`re under warranty.Call GM,if no help,bring up Federal Trade Commission.GoodLuck

[JohnC]

Terms of the warranty are governed by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. I can't find a reference right now, but my understanding is that in order to refuse coverage due to an alteration, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the alteration caused the failure, not just say "no".