The Drive37%

This Is What Four Years in a River Does to a GM 6.2L V8 46%

By Caleb Jacobs57%

7/7/2026, 4:45:30 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 61.6% saturation with 357 hits. Analysis detected 1,255 faulty-reasoning hits from 580 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48% and a BS Rank of 46% (11,937 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.50% of the article peer group.

When you fish a car out of a lake or pond after it sat there for who knows how long, the results are always disgusting. 
I mean, what do you expect to find? 
A showroom beauty that just smells... fishy? 
Anywho, this 6.2-liter V8 out of a Chevy Camaro SS that was submerged in the Ohio River for years is a prime example. 
Not only are there rust and barnacles on the outside, but the inside is gross with mud, oil, and other types of slimy slime. 
There's an hour-long teardown video on the I Do Cars YouTube channel for those with time to kill. 
If you're taking your union break, then stick with me for a minute or two. 
I'll show and tell as briefly as I can while still showing just how bad this engine is. 
A quick walkaround reveals a little bit about the sad state of this L99 V8, but not all of it. 
It's difficult for Eric, the host, to even get a socket on most of the bolt heads as they're caked with whatever-the-heck. 
There isn't much silver left on this engine; really, it's more orange and brown than anything. 
Job number one was removing the drain plug. 
Once that was done, enough stagnant river water poured out to fill a Purina Tidy Cats litter container. 
Oil eventually followed, along with some nasty chunks of debris. 
Oi. 
The intake manifold could have been far worse, but taking off the valve covers revealed some atrocities. 
The rockers were practically frozen with rust, and after further investigation, Eric discovered it was missing a pushrod. 
How does that happen? 
He suggests that someone might have removed it beforehand to hopefully solve a ticking problem, and y'know, I wouldn't put anything past a fifth-gen Camaro owner. 
(I kid.) 
Most of the cylinders were filled with mud, though surprisingly, the sleeves weren't horrendously damaged. 
One was even clean, though that could have been because it sucked in some water before shutting down. 
There was still some rust that made the sleeves less than desirable. 
And since you can swap them out for a new set, I don't know why anyone would want to try salvaging what was already there. 
The pistons certainly didn't fare any better, as Eric had to remove three rusty ones before getting the engine to turn. 
He did eventually force the crankshaft to rotate, which forced out tons of crumbly gunk. 
It took a lot of work to get there, though, and practically every step was filthy. 
Maybe the most visually disturbing parts of the teardown were the camshaft removal (which Eric refers to as the "slime stick"), the bellhousing extraction, and the torque converter dislodging. 
I wouldn't want any part of those jobs. 
But then again, this fella surely knew what he was getting into when he acquired the lump. 
Having torn it down completely, Eric expressed how pleasantly surprised he was with the engine's resistance to its surroundings. 
"This whole thing came apart. 
I did not expect any of that," he said. 
"I broke one exhaust manifold bolt, but they do that when they're not in rivers, or lakes, or ponds, or streams. 
I just can't believe I got the whole thing apart." 
So, if anything, I guess we should give props to the team at General Motors. 
Here's yet another reason to love the LS family of engines. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.6%Caleb Jacobs: 3.0%The Drive: 3.0%Confirmation Bias3.6%This article: 1.4%Caleb Jacobs: 1.4%The Drive: 1.1%Anchoring Bias1.4%This article: 10.0%Caleb Jacobs: 6.5%The Drive: 4.0%Availability Heuristic10.0%This article: 4.0%Caleb Jacobs: 2.1%The Drive: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 2.9%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.9%Hindsight Bias2.9%This article: 3.1%Caleb Jacobs: 3.5%The Drive: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias3.1%This article: 2.4%Caleb Jacobs: 3.5%The Drive: 4.6%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.3%Caleb Jacobs: 1.0%The Drive: 0.7%Status Quo Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 4.6%The Drive: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Caleb Jacobs: 1.9%The Drive: 2.0%Pessimism Bias5.7%This article: 39.7%Caleb Jacobs: 7.5%The Drive: 6.7%Negativity Bias39.7%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 2.1%The Drive: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.7%The Drive: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Caleb Jacobs: 1.6%The Drive: 0.7%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.6%The Drive: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Caleb Jacobs: 4.6%The Drive: 2.6%Halo Effect7.8%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 1.9%The Drive: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.7%Caleb Jacobs: 0.4%The Drive: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.7%This article: 4.5%Caleb Jacobs: 0.4%The Drive: 0.2%Ad Hominem4.5%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.5%The Drive: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.6%Caleb Jacobs: 4.7%The Drive: 3.4%Appeal to Authority2.6%This article: 4.3%Caleb Jacobs: 1.8%The Drive: 1.9%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.3%The Drive: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.3%The Drive: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.5%Caleb Jacobs: 10.2%The Drive: 6.6%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.1%The Drive: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.9%Caleb Jacobs: 1.5%The Drive: 0.9%Bandwagon1.9%This article: 8.4%Caleb Jacobs: 4.8%The Drive: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion8.4%This article: 1.4%Caleb Jacobs: 1.3%The Drive: 0.7%Begging the Question1.4%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 2.0%The Drive: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.9%Caleb Jacobs: 0.7%The Drive: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.9%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.3%The Drive: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.6%The Drive: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 4.8%The Drive: 3.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.2%The Drive: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.9%Caleb Jacobs: 0.9%The Drive: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.2%The Drive: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.4%Caleb Jacobs: 0.1%The Drive: 0.3%Personal Incredulity2.4%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.7%The Drive: 0.4%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.9%Caleb Jacobs: 1.7%The Drive: 2.1%Unattributed Quote5.9%This article: 2.1%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.1%This article: 61.6%Caleb Jacobs: 23.9%The Drive: 11.3%Biased Writer Voice61.6%This article: 1.9%Caleb Jacobs: 2.1%The Drive: 1.4%Indoctrination1.9%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Caleb Jacobs: 5.2%The Drive: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.2%

580 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech509writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageEric • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageEric • 5 words • 100.0% coverageEric • 9 words • 0.0% coverageEric • 21 words • 0.0% coverageEric • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Eric

87%flagged-word coverage
71 attributed words100% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice-28.4 ptsWriter: 65.0%Eric: 36.6%36.6%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.1 ptsWriter: 7.1%Eric: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+5.7 ptsWriter: 1.4%Eric: 7.0%7.0%Unattributed Quote+1.3 ptsWriter: 5.7%Eric: 7.0%7.0%Indoctrination-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Eric: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.