Fords 300 straight 6 that came in the pickups from 1965 all the way to 1996 was one stellar engine. Not fast, but loads of low end torque and very reliable
Ford's 240 six came out before the 300 which was developed from it. Not the greatest for fuel mileage but these were pure hell for reliability and longevity. Ford's other inline sixes were different designs based on different blocks.
@@markdubois4882 The 300 is still built as industrial engine. It was used in all types of equipment. The slant 6 was also used as industrial engine. The 300 is much stronger, the 225 slant 6 cheaper to operate. The slant 6 is very sensitive to timing. It will burn hole in piston, and then you went to junk yard to find piston and ever engine you found had burned piston. But timed right they was very dependable engines. 300 Ford had check valve in oil filter, and if you used wrong filter ever time motor started it rattled until the oil got primed. But latter the after market filters started using a check valve. I had a 75 ford pick up with 300 6 and it ran over 300,000 mile.
@@cliffclark6441Is the 300 still built to this day??? Ik Australia got a version of it all the way to 2011 and continued to develop the i6 as the Barra but can you still acquire a brand new 300 I6??
I recall that around 1980 Ford put nylon/fiber timing gears into the 300 but those gears wore out quickly compared to the ones in prior years. Otherwise, very durable engine.
We have surpassed the 200k mark on our ‘07; but not without tribulation. Anyone who has the 5.4 3v please take note: only buy Motorcraft parts for your timing replacement and Melling has a great high volume oil pump (which should be done at the same interval). And if you’re doing spark plugs, I’ve broken two off, Lisle has a great rental tool to remove the electrode housing. Aside all this headache, our Expedition has been good to my family.
3.8s had headgasket issues. I had 2 cars blow them a total of 3 times. I had a 91 cougar that blew them and spun a bearing because a shop kept misdiagnosing it as a waterpump, radiator, etc. $3600 for a reman'd engine on a $4900 car. Then the headgaskets blew on the reman'd engine a few years later which was repaired under warranty. Ironically I had traded that in on a 93 supercoupe later and it started smoking out the pipes about 2 years after I bought it. I took it back to the shop that had replaced the engine on the Cougar. I told them to check the headgaskets and they said I was paranoid. I told them again check the headgaskets. They protested again. I finally said either check the headgaskets or I'm taking it somewhere else...they finally relented. The verdict.....it was the headgaskets and I saved the engine from the same fate as the cougar.
3.8 SC only had HG failures due to abuse and extra boost. Running stock boost and 93 octane 89-95 THUNDERBIRD SC do not have a headgasket issue at all, and the 96-99 are good too in that they went to the SC coolant passage configuration (pre 96 N/A heads had to many coolant passages making the gasket thin in spots.)
@@pdennis93 I have 93 SC with a laundry list of parts (tune required to run) making about 350hp and 400lbs-ft, at 17Psi. Only issue have had is DIS and crank sensor and did drop a valve once.
The head gaskets issues in the Essex V6 relate to a last minute design change. Ford decided at a very late stage to change the cylinder heads from cast iron to aluminum alloy. That's not a problem in and of itself, as lots of other engines fit that description. However, it inherited the same number of headbolts and placement per cylinder from the 302 (like it or not, the design is based on the 302 Windsor block! Lots of people claim otherwise, but I would disagree). It's inadequate for the differing thermal expansion experienced between the cast iron engine block and the aluminum alloy cylinder heads.
@@brentboswell1294 that may be an issue but explain why 96+ don't have the issue and SCs only have it in relation to over boost and under octane. Considering that 96+ and SC heads have the same number of cooling passages, 1 less than pre 95 N/A heads.
LOL, correct. That's the only real issue TBH. Other things that I see people complaining about are either regular maintenance things for OHC motors, or regular maintenance period. Changing the oil (and replacing with the correct type) isn't optional, for example. Failing to maintain a car doesn't make the design of the car "bad" it makes the habits of the owner bad.
Ah yes! The VV carb! I remember it well! Sticking Cold enrichment rods, torn venturi diaphragms, catalysts glowing cherry red. Good times. I started as a Lincoln Mercury Mechanic in 1977 up till 2008. You are spot on with your worst engines. Should have included the 255 V8 and 2.8L V6.
Lol, My first and only time working on a VV carb was in a bone stock all original 79 Merc Marq I bought 25yrs ago. My dumb ass stepdad wanted the car so I bought it tried to get it all squared away, after screwing with that carb and getting nowhere I bought a new one, $600 for that pos lol. Car wouldn't pass NJ State Inspection no matter what they tried, came home one day and there was the car sitting in my drive, they gave up and stuck me with the car owning me about $1500 that I put in it, he said if the car needed a new engine he would do it he wanted that body style but yet they couldn't get it threw inspection and gave up, I was Pissed at the time. Now anything 95 and older don't need inspection, I would love to have that car now, I would have ripped all the Emission crap off went 4BL, cam and headers lol.
Don’t bash the variable I made a ton of money fixing them, both computer and non computer controlled. The shop I worked for at the time did them for the local Ford dealership. If you new what you were doing they ran very well. Still have all the tools for them, they are a little rusty though!
A guy I knew back then, which he was in his 60s at the time. He had a 81Tbird had the 255. Wasn't so bad in that car, but anything larger than that car I suppose was a dog. Definitely not a truck engine. Even the 5.0 or the 5.7 really wasn't that impressive back then. Neighbor had a 5.7L in a 85 F250 with a 5 speed, it would run decent but only if you took it to the rev limiter in every gear. Like most engines of the 80's. Another neighbor had a 460 4bbl. in an 85 F250 never seen it run without a cloud of rich smoke trailing from behind, when he got on it. That was from the time it was brand new. My 77 LTD II with a 351M and 2VV would have outran them both easily. They just got a little better gas mileage with the overdrive 5 speed trannies.
I had an F100 with a 255, with a "Real" 2bbl carburetor and the 3+OD Manual...It had V8 sound and got incredible MPG! (for a fullsize truck)....Had less power than 302, had less Torque than 300 six...But was much better than the 3.8L V6...I drove the heck out of that thing...Ford had engineered some interesting port flow into that engine... I have a set of heads and an intake, looking to make spacer plates to put on a 351W with a special camshaft should help with low end torque and fuel economy with a 2bbl fuel injection system... (Ford Wasn't Dumb, they just didn't go all the way.)
I was a teenager in the 1970s. It was said that the 351 Cleveland engine was a big block engine with large free breathing heads and small main bearings. The 351 Windsor engine was said to be just the opposite. The Windsor was a small block V8 with restrictive breathing valve heads and large heavy duty main bearings. The M 351 Windsor was supposed to have the Cleveland heads which gave you the combination of a free breather and the lighter weight of small block, plus stronger more durable main bearings. The M was favored by Ford small block drag racing enthusiasts of that era. Funny thing is, I remember the Chevys always seemed to beat the fords at the strip.
Cleveland isnt a big block. A Windsor block is only about 12 pounds lighter than a Cleveland's. And no one who knew anything about engines ran a M over a Cleveland. 351 C is one of the most winning drag engines ever. NHRA put the biggest weight penalty on the Cleveland- more than on the 426 hemi.
As a mechanic All I’m saying is these v6 ecoboost they put in everything are starting to pay for my breakfast lunch and dinner. 100,000 and those things just start falling apart
I drove a school bus with a ford 6.0 diesel. I got it new and put 120,000 miles on it. In 120,000 miles it went through 4 turbochargers, 3 headgaskets, and needed a complete overhaul. I've never seen an engine that unreliable before.
The 2.8L V6 engines that were in the 80's Bronco II and Rangers, in my opinion were junk. They were weak, they ran rough, they smoked, and they had all had valve train noise.
When I was a teenager, my neighbor had two or three Bronco IIs, I think only one of them ran and it ran like complete garbage. Listening to him struggle to start that miserable thing every morning was just painful.
@@PistonAvatarGuy I know the pain that your neighbor went through. My brother had an 84', and my uncle still has an 86'. The Bronco II wasn't really a bad vehicle, it just had a terrible engine.
LOL. I have a 1984 Bronco II with the original 2.8 that is still used for a daily driver. Number 1 cylinder shit the bed, so I removed the pushrods on that cylinder and it STILL runs, until Im done building an Explorer 4.0 to replace it....a bolt in swap as the 2.6, 2.8 and even the Saab V-4 have the same bellhousing bolt pattern and mounts. Theres even an carb type aftermarket intake available from Tom Morana so you dont have to use the 4.0 fuel injection. The 2.6 (early Mercury Capri) and 2.8 had SOLID LIFTERS, so of course they made valve train noise, most people didnt know and didnt bother to adjust them. It was the same engine used in Pintos and Mustang IIs in the late 70s, and yes they were underpowered even in the Mustang II
No problems with my 1974 2.8 l the only engine issue I had ever with the car was a stupid electric choke. I was driving down the road and the freaking thing closed and died in that position for no reason. It was 80° out. No reason for the truck to close and the engine was up to operating temperatures. On that year the 2.8 l had a carburetor from Holly no less. I pop the hood took the hot lead off the choke and the engine ran fine took it to the dealer and they put a new electric choke on no big deal. It was fun I was in traffic and if you've ever driven a car with the choke closed and you're trying to stop it can be kind of surprising. What I did was turn off the ignition which made the steering a little heavy and the power brakes weren't quite as powerful but I was able to bring the car to a stop in the parking lot with ease.
The oil cooler issues are actually related to the type of coolant used and the majority of failures in 2003 - 2004 were directly related to mixing improper incompatible coolants that caused silica separation and clogged the oil cooler, gummed up the EGR cooler and even gummed up the radiator. Also the coolant required inspection and testing just about ever oil change and required some sort of replacement every 15k to 20k miles. Swapping to ELC coolants virtually eliminated this issue but required multiple water flushes and then draining of the block and entire cooling systems to make sure the original coolant was completely removed. This is where 75% of oil cooler, EGR, and head gasket failures came from. Noted there are plenty of other issues with the 6.0L but this was a very simple one to fix before there was a problem but.... No one really understood this until the end of the 6.0L's life.
Love your videos. The 3.8 in our 2002 Windstar was great. Ran perfect at 235,000 miles when we traded it in. Literally never did a thing to it than oil changes. Maybe it was built on Wednesday afternoon 😄
I agree. I have a 2003 Windstar with the 3.8 in it. I have only had to replace plugs/wires, a coil pack and some intake manifold grommets. Of course oil changes as well. Maybe I am a lucky one or something, but this powerplant has been very reliable for me. Sadly the van has rusted to the point where its days on the road are numbered.
I have really enjoyed your "worst" engine videos, and I subscribed to see what else comes up. I have a '66 Barracuda 273 that I bought in March '66, but I really love the 3.8 liter engines in my '98 to '00 Town and Country mini-vans. They are so simple and reliable and easily made it to 200,000 miles. I think they rank with the 318s and Slant-6s!
Just had my 2.0L Ecoboost in a 2017 Escape changed under warranty last year. My cousin is the service manager at the dealer where the work was done. He told me that they almost always have a 2.0L in his shop being replaced. 😳 Disclosure: I am a 29 year Ford employee. Very troubling. Btw, I work at KTP and we all thought that 6.0L was crap from day one. The current engines are so much better.
There’s not a modern Tier IV Diesel engine that I’d consider reliable and trouble free. Starting with light duty diesel applications for cars and trucks all the way up to Class 8 trucks the engines suck compared to pre-Tier VI diesels.
I had a 1985 mustang with the 3.8l with the CFI intake system and man that was the most unreliable thing ever. the car never left me completely stranded or anytrhing but it would stall if you cranked the wheel too far, stall in the cold, starting problems on warm starts, vacuum leaks were constant, constant rough idle. the thing just never breathed right. even removing then emissions tech didnt help, albeit removing the egr did help with some of the stalling issues
I'm sorry to hear you had trouble with your Mustang. We had an 86 Mercury Capri with the CFI 3.8 and had no trouble with it at all in the 12 years we owned it. My uncle had an 85 T-bird with the 3.8 and again, no trouble with it after having owning it for 20 years. He bought it new in 85 and sold it in 2008 with almost 200k miles. Not overly an impressive motor, but it had exceptional low end torque. Pretty reliable in my book.
There is also the 3.5 Cyclone Duratec where in front drive applications the water pump fails with little warning, discharges into the crankcase and smokes the engine.
I've heard that the early Duratecs had external water pumps and oil-bathed timing chains, probably the most durable combination one could imagine. But Ford cheaped-out in later years by running the pump off the chain. If they were going to do that, the might as well have used a belt.
Only the FWD models have the internal water pump. And when they do start to fail they’re designed to leak from a weep hole outside the engine. The problem is when the engine is rarely inspected and the leak is allowed to continue then it completely fails and dumps in the engine. Other than that they are solid engines.
@@pcno2832 I have no use for engines that have the water pump inside the timing gear cover. That is Japanese technology. We obsoleted that concept in the early 30s.
I test drove a 2004 Freestar with the 3.9 v6 and found the engine course. When I test drove the 2004 Chrysler T&C with the 3.3 v6, that engine was much smoother and wound up buying the T&C. Never had a lick of trouble.
You are probably too young to know of my first Ford engine that belongs on any list of worst Ford: the 1954 239 Y-block. Same size as the classic flathead, but OHV and it was a totally different block and every other part. They had hiddous oiling problems, and the non-detergent oils of the time made it worse.
Pure junk ... Damned engine wouldn’t breathe, either. Whoever designed the “stacked” intake manifold should have been taken out and thrown “up against the wall”. A few thousand miles, and they’d start their signature clacking, hissing, and popping - you could recognize the things coming from a quarter mile away.
The 3.8 had the factory defect on the head gaskets until 1999, To solve this problem Just do the Aftermarket MLS on any engine pre 1998 and you will have a completely solid engine, i currently have a 94 t bird with a 3.8 coming up on 325k Miles, and paired with the Swapped 4r70w instead of the older AOD it has been nothing but reliable for a long long time
As a retired Ford Master Tech & Shop Foreman that was working at the time these motors were in use, I can say you are right on. Those 3 motors were a major part of my work.
the 3.8 v6 was kinda weird to me. My 03 mustang with 240k miles on it has one and still works great. No headgasket issues in the 3-4 years i have owned it and put many miles since i purchased.
The reputation comes from hundreds of thousands of Taurii that liked to cook the rear cylinder bank and ruin the gasket from the outside in. The more you sat in traffic on a hot day, the sooner the gasket degraded and failed.
I had a 1984 Mercury Capri with the 3.8 CFI. Where do I begin? Low oil pressure due to worn oil pump gears, harmonic balancer failure, clogged heat riser, malfunctioning dash pot, sudden ignition module failure, TPS failure, and finally I ran the car the last 2 years without a thermostat due to head gasket failure. All this before the car was 10 years old. The rest of the car was just as bad.
Good list there. My 78 Lincoln Continental with the 400M engine runs just fine. It’s not that powerful at all, and won’t win any drag races, but it does move the big car quite well with all that torque. I haven’t had any mechanical issues with the engine as it runs pretty smooth, the only major PITA thing about the setup is how many brackets you need to remove to replace the water pump. It’s a crappy job. And all the vacuum lines, switches makes it really difficult to work on at times since there’s so much stuff in the way, but other than few minor things, the engine runs very well. Ford even recommends a 10W-40 engine oil in the owners manual for people in warmer climates, I believe because of the oil pressure issues. I’ve always used 10W-40 or a 20W-50 full synthetic oil in the engine and it hasn’t giving me any trouble. No knocking, or ticking, plus it always passes emissions test here in CA. It actually has less HC levels than what most modern cars put out! But honestly I haven’t heard many problems with these motors from other owners that have the same engine, I think as long as you use a full-synthetic heavy weight oil, these engines can last forever. Carburetor tuning is very important as well, especially with modern fuel, you need to increase the jet size for it to run richer to compensate for the ethanol that does make our older cars run even leaner.
Sincecage 13 I, exclusively, chose the car and options that my parents purchased. In 1985 they purchased a brand new 1985 Ford LTD 4 door sedan for my parents in 1985, replacing a 1976 Ford Country Squire station wagon. This model was then a compact which replaced the Fairmont by Ford , and was replaced in 1986 by the Taurus. It had the 3.8 liter V-6 engine with the C-4 automatic transmission, power steering and power front disc/rear drum brakes, with traditional RWD, plus a host of comfort and convenience options except A/C (living in the suburbs of Boston, it was not necessary and robbed horsepower on an already depressed series of engines since 1971, as well as making routine maintenance more difficult). It was a great car as was the 1976 Ford, which lasted nine (9) years each with daily oersonal and business use. Both Fords were very reliable and economical, especially since my father was never one to take care of a car, not even to wash the car! I do/did all the maintenance, except an annual front-end alignment every spring, exclusively on my parents cars since age 14, and all my own cars. I never had any issue with the engine regarding head gasket failure. The announcer stated that this was a major problem that affected EVERY 3.8 liter V-6 engine Ford produced!
Although I liked my 96 3.8, it and the 4.2 had a recall for a seal leak that allowed water to get into the oil. Long story short I got a new long block under warranty out of it. The beauty of it was that I had 189k miles on it.
Ford was very conservative with their engine power. Every one ran very anemic. From the FE series to the 385, they all ran the same. They were good engines, just very detuned in stock form. You could have a 352, 390, 400, 460 in your car, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Despite the meager stock performance of these engines, they all had one thing in common, lousy fuel mileage, and a 100 lb cast iron intake. I knock GM for putting the 350 in everything, but GM seemed to tuned every 350 for it's application. GM wasn't afraid of letting a 350 vehicle have an exhaust note and extra performance where needed. My personal favorite from Ford is the 300 inline six.
We did a weigh in on what was the heaviest single component. 454 head was at 85lbs, 390 intake at 80lbs & a 300-6 crank at 75 lbs. I'd rather mess with a 429/460 intake than a 352/390 intake.
360 was a truck motor only from 68 to 76. It really didn't have any power, it was just a base motor. The 361 was in that MEL group which included the 462 lincoln.
Irony of all ironies: While viewing this video with its predicted inserted Ads by UA-cam, just now the YT ad that interrupted this video was for the Ford Escape.
Many of the turbo 4s blow head gaskets because Ford cut a trough between the cylinders for better cooling and it left two very narrow contact points for the head gasket.
If you look at the bore & stroke of the 351 engines you will find they are exactly the same as the 352 fe. So instead of ford making 3 different 351 engines, realistically they actually made 4 different 352 engines. 1 big block FE & 3 small blocks that they simply called 351 instead of 352.
As a ford guy the 6.0l is a great engine once we the techs figured out how to fix them. Avoid the 6.4l like the plague. Even the 5.4l 3v isn’t bad if you put a lockout kit on it.
All manufacturers had head gasket problems with their iron block aluminum head engines. Thereason was that the dissimilar metals expanded and contracted differently during thermal cycles. Head gasket technology finally caught up in the mid 90s.
My 428 CJ, 1969 fastback was the best. I topped it off with a six-pack. The 4-speed toploader made it lots of fun to drive. For better handling, I swapped in front disc brakes, thicker coil springs, a big, fat anti-sway bar, nine-inch diff, traction bars, and welded sub frame connectors. Forgot to mention I ported, polished, and matched all ports, and bumped up the compression, also stuffed a huge four-row radiator and twin fans under the hood. Added a few other goodies to enhance performance and reliability on the street. The headers and Borlas produced an amazing, deep rumble that never failed to impress. You often felt me coming before hearing me. Awesome car and engine.
Wrong. They should be maintained over and above the severe service schedule. Those super-long service intervals are marketing, not engineering, decisions.
Ford fixed the head gasket issue in the 99-up Mustang 3.8 by using MLS head gaskets. I researched this to the bone before I bought a Mustang with this engine a few months ago. There are more Mustangs running around with these engines with beyond 300k miles than you may know that never had issues and are still going strong. Aside from the past head gasket issues, these pushrod engines carry the spirit of the 5.0L pushrod in that they are strong (almost bullet proof), torquey, simple engines that give a good sound. What you totally missed is the 4.0L SOHC V6 that replaced this one in a myriad of vehicles, whose timing chain tensioners and cartridges were 100% absolute utter garbage. Backed by Ford's worst transmission ever made, the 5 speed automatic of the time, it was a double whammy of pure automotive fail. And it only made about 7 more hp than the 3.8L, to boot.
My wife and I love our 2006 Lincoln Navigator with the 5.4-3V engine. So much so that after we suffered a head-on collision (not our fault), that we replaced it with an exact same vehicle. I replaced all timing components with factor stock items as well as replaced the stock oil pump with an upgraded Melling oil pump. The root cause of issues with these engines were the first generation timing chain tensioners blowing out a seal causing a loss of timing chain tension, then that compounded the issue by beating the chain guides until they were destroyed, then ending up clogging up the oil pickup. We have 275K miles on our present one and it's very reliable.
Simply stunning to me how they could have built the 7.3 turbo diesel and then turn around and make a 6.0 AND the 6.4.. Its like they forgot everything they learned and proved with the 7.3
@@flyingdutchman4794 and the 6.4 as well. The MaxxForce made by Navistar was a piece of shit and many motors got bought back and scrapped. If you see a late model Navistar product today, it most likely would have either a Duramax or a Cummins. Some of those school buses with MaxxForce and VT365 engines were swapped with Cummins ISB 6.7 liter engines.
@@atx-cvpi_99 It's a shame they forgot how to build engines; the IDI, 7.3 and DT466 would run forever. The MaxxForce engines were built with a German company IIRC. I'd pay real money to see Cummins knocked off their high horse; Isuzu does build a hell of an engine. There's no replacement for displacement
The 3.8L Essex V6 wasn't bad in most longitudinal mounted RWD cars. But as soon as you turned it sideways in a transverse mount FWD layout, forget it. Just stock up on spare head gaskets. I'm surprised the sub-4L variants of the Cologne V6 didn't get mentioned. They were underpowered, dirty and fragile. And the 2.5L Duratec? I've never seen an engine so consistently destroy its catalytic converter. It would either last 8 years, or 80k miles, and the moment it was out of the Federally mandated emissions warranty, BAM. Bad cat triggers a Check Engine light.
Most 6.0 powerstroke failures can be attributed to lack of maintenance. Oil cooler and egr cooler failures are from the breakdown of the coolant from extreme heat cycles. Recommended coolant flushes of 30,000-50,000 miles, i have had a number of stock 6.0 make it 250,000 plus miles with proper maintenance.
You missed the Escape EcoBoost, my in-laws put 4 engines in two different vehicles. Absolute crap engines. They had one new engine blow a head gasket as it pulled out of the dealership. This was a new engine right out of the Ford Box.
Hi Rare Classic Cars - May I suggest taking your sunglasses as your making your videos which is an issue that was driven into us (cinema students) back in college. The later iterations of the Power stroke 6.0 (2005~2007) are excellent engines with minimal anti-pollution interference. We (at Ford) did fix the problem). Ciao, L (FoMoCo engineering - retired).
Complexity and cost savings don't seem to go together. When you look at the cam phasers on a 5.4 3valve and the # of threads on the spark plug hole you stare at the engine and think what did I get into.
As bad as the 6.0 was, the 6.4 was 10 times worse. Also forgot the 4.2 v-6, 2.0 diesel, 3.4 SHO v-6, anything Zetec, and anything that says ecoboost. And while we're at it, let's mention the 1.6 gas engine. Replaced tons of these over the years too
The 5.4L valve is a good engine if maintained, We have had several of them that hit 500.000 if you replace the cam phasers, timming chains, and cam followers at 200.000, use only genuine Motorcraft parts including the oil filter.
Ford replaced the 3.8 v6 engine in our first generation Windstar twice under warranty. Both times due to a failed head gasket. Got to hand it to them for standing behind their product but I haven't bought a Ford since. A good warranty will never make up for the hassles of unreliability..
Love your content! I don't believe Ford ever put a VV carb on the 3.8L. When it first came out it was equipped the the Motorcraft 2150 carb and in 1984 it got throttle body injection. When Ford recalled early Windstars for head gasket replacement I must have done 50 of them, made alot of $$ too.
I recognize your inclusion of the 4.6 3V. I'd add the early 2000s 4.6 DOHC 4V to that list. I had that poor thing in a pair of 2003 Mercury Marauders I owned simultaneously (both from brand new). By that time Ford was in such financial dire straits that it had hocked the Mustang name to be able to continue operating. Consequently, component quality was pitiful... alternators failing, serpentine belt tensioners, etc. While not directly an engine component, the PCM calibrations were a total mess for a big part of the model year... it wasn't until the later of a total of 4 released calibrations for 2003 that the car was able to drive away smoothly from a cold startup without stalling or at the very least bucking noticeably. Even on the latest calibration (CRD2) as used in the Marauder, the engine could easily be stalled when for instance one would be careful backing up into a parking space with foot on the brakes and moving the steering wheel. Likely a too-low factory idle intended to offset the potential for poor mileage by choosing to use a high-RPM DOHC 4V engine in a large full-frame "panther" sedan instead of the torquier SOHC 2V. The mileage thing itself was something to behold. Obviously at speed, the overdrive transmissions allowed the cars to achieve acceptable 25ish mpg highway consumption (acceptable for a large sedan from the mid to late 80s, but nonetheless... acceptable). At idle, however... even with the intentionally low warm idle, it was clear that it took a LOT of energy to keep all those DOHC components and chains etc. moving. It was eye opening to see how much the fuel gauge needle would move in just 15-20 minutes of idling in a grocery store parking lot on a hot day (with AC on... due to children in the car with me). This was in stark contrast to my 1998 LS1 Trans Am in the same circumstances, where such lengthy idling in those conditions (or longer) wouldn't even put a nick in the MPG for that particular tankful... notable considering the extra full liter of engine displacement and "ancient" pushrod technology. (I put "ancient" in quotes because let's face it, the LS1 was a leap forward in engine tech on literally every front, and duly recognized by its longtime placement on the Ward's list of best engines, year after year). It was certainly evident when looking under the hood: a relatively puny engine block deep in there, but shouldering two monstrous DOHC cylinder heads that pretty much doubled the overall width... it was like staring at a Boss 429 but to cartoonish proportions. Many attempts were made to grab back as much precious MPG in operation... alternators with clutches that disengaged on overrun from high RPM which often failed or at best generated bizarre noises that burdened dealer techs. At the same time, said alternators would have their field voltages deactivated on demand by the PCM (running solely off battery during some wide open throttle) in an attempt to further reduce parasitic losses in higher load scenarios... certain lead-foot operators found themselves with weak batteries soon enough. I won't discuss the very abusive torque converter clutch pulsing scheme intended to counter the choice of 3.55 rear gears in order to render acceptable the use of a high RPM weaker-at-low-RPM DOHC engine in a large heavy brick of a sedan (the TCC being pulsed at 50% for so long in 2nd gear in normal driving, many thought it was an actual additional gear until I mapped out the behaviour based on the OBD II data stream). But if we want to talk about inherent defects: those cylinder heads. As designed and cast, the monstrous heads had a coolant flow issue around the rear cylinders. Hot stagnant coolant would cook the many valves back there. Consequently, even practically brand new cars would develop a loud tick from the valves with damaged valve guides, sometimes still on the showroom floor. On the Mustang, a quick engineering fix was attempted via an external crossover pipe from head to head, but this barely helped if at all (perhaps helping the passenger's side head last a bit longer, at least to the end of the powertrain warranty). On the tighter engine bays of the Marauder (ironic considering it being a full size vehicle) there was no such crossover at the back of the engine. Inspection of such an affected cylinder head after considerably less than half a year of easy operation showed valves that dramatically rocked side-to-side in their place. Ford quietly released an updated complete driver's side cylinder head assembly for the Mustangs (ie. only for those who complained loudly) but (at least initially) refused to do so for the Marauder which used the exact same initial assembly on its 4.6 DOHC 4V! Along with a myriad other examples of cost-cutting (missing hood bumpers causing groaning hood latches on all cars except the costlier Lincoln Town Cars, etc.) this was a definite solid example of Ford Engineering having painted itself into a dark corner and after a few years of trying to brush aside each failure, I bailed and sold both cars... moving on to Chrysler 5.7 Hemis from 2006 to the present, gaining in driveability, power, torque, fuel economy and most importantly rock solid headache-free reliability.
@@brianadams429 I had to look that up, I don't touch trucks so I hadn't heard about this. Looks like early 2010s truck Hemis seemed to have a problem with idle-speed lubrication. Haven't heard of the issue on sedan applications and now I see why. Sedan-wise, there was some concern on late 2006/early 2007 model year 5.7 Hemis about valve seats. That was exactly where my 2006 Daytona came from, so I was concerned but ultimately I enjoyed over 10 years and 130000+ miles with mine before upgrading to the 2016 I own now. So the classic YMMV applies, but I usually only buy new cars and adhere strictly to maintenance and base my choice of oil on instrumented tests and not online opinions. I also don't modify my vehicles. Consequently I was disappointed by the fact of my 4.6s being the only motors in 35 years (performance or otherwise) that I've ever had to take apart for catastrophic failures (these were not the only catastrophic failures the motors experienced, but the only ones that required disassembly). When unsold double-digit odometer vehicles (Aviators, Mach 1, Marauders, etc.) on dealer lots already show audible indications of the rocking-valves issue I describe, I think it justifies my claim that the motor deserves inclusion as one of the worst motors put out by the company. (I am thinking that the early 2010s truck Hemi issue you describe is worthy of inclusion in a discussion on bad Chrysler engines, but this is a Ford list here?)
@@tripletransam87 if i had to pick a ford engine that is sketchy i would say 5.4 3 valve blowing the spark plug threads out. My mom had a 98/99 expedition with a 4.6. It had oil changes and transmition fluid flushes. It ran flawlessly until my brother in law was using it while his work van was being worked on, anyhow he got rear ended sitting at a light by a honda or toyota car. It pushed the expedition forward like 5 feet into the intersection. Lets just say the driver of the car got multiple tickets. He drove it home, but it kinked the frame just in front of where the reese hitch bolted to it. Insurance totaled it.
Mentioning the variable venturi carb: I'd be interested in what you think of the Varajet. It was a contemporary of the Ford carb and was essentially a Q-jet split longitudinally, giving a single small primary and a large secondary.
I had one on an '80 Jeep CJ5 with the GM 2.5 cast iron 4 cylinder. Not a powerhouse, but damn, I couldn't kill that engine. The Varijet worked well until it I had an underhood gas fire. I couldn't find a replacement for it unless I got a new one from the dealer. I did try another off of a junkyard V6 engine, but it wasn't much better. I eventually made a homemade adapter plate to run a Weber 2 barrel and ran that until I sold the Jeep some years later.
@@willymccoy3427 That actually happened to our 2.8L XJ. What caused your fire? In my case I'm suspecting the heating element built into the carb baseplate spacer. My grandad rewired the engine harness and got it going again with what I think might be another 2SE. I'm still planning to restore that thing eventually.
@@ironhead2008 My fire was from a loose gas line over the distributor. I managed to put it out but not before pretty much everything under the hood except the long block and radiator was beyond hope.
I owned a 2007 F250 with the 6.0 PSD. I bought it brand new, and had nothing but problems since then. It went through several FICM modules, 3 egr coolers, 2 oil coolers. I sold the truck with 80k miles and $9,000 in repair receipts, Wow ! I heard the 6.4 Navastar was worse. Those engines only lasted to 150,000 miles , then were junk. At least the 6.0 was fixable for a huge price$$
The 351M was created in the name of emissions. The 400M was a piece of junk. The whole upper end was a choke point for performance. Both the W & C variants were good motors. I preferred the Cleveland but had a number of friends that would use modified Winsor in Fox bodied Mustangs in the 90s.
Navistar 6.0s are bad but 6.4s are definitely worse. I’m glad it got an honorable mention. 5.4s 3V are definitely bad. There’s been many F series and expeditions that went to the junk yard over that engine.
Variable venturi carbs were used in aircraft. Also variable venturi carb were common on British cars, even on Rolls-Royce well into the late-1970's. The Ford 3.8L V6 wasn't that bad. Used in virtually all Ford cars, just like any cast iron engine with aluminum heads, there will be head gasket problems. It was exasperated by human error and lack of proper maintenance. It was further exasperated by improper repair. They were repaired using methods for regular run-of-the-mill engines. They required special repair procedures and machining. Yep the Ford-designed 6L diesel was problematic right away. Luckily, the 7.3 diesel was still available when the new 6L came out. It was soon replaced by the 6.4L Power Stroke diesel, which was built by International(Navistar) and was a much better engine.
Those raggedly Y-blocks from the 50’s were a joke. While Chrysler and GM already had excellent OHV V-8’s, Ford was offering their V-8 customers junk. You could routinely hear these things coming from a quarter mile away, what with all their clacking, puffing and chugging. They were also relatively poor performers; finally Ford bolted on a supercharger to get the things to breathe as well as a normally aspirated Chevy V-8. I’m sometimes surprised that Ford survived the 50’s ...
Drove a one ton with y block from tn to new Mexico many trips. Can remember it was better on fuel than the newer model truck i bought. And it never gave me no trouble.
The 7.3, 6.0 and 6.4 diesel’s were built by Navistar (International Harvester) for Ford. Ford sued them because of the failures and refusal to reimburse Ford for the warranty claims, loss business and damage to Ford’s reputation. They also refused to release Ford from their contract as an engine supplier. Navistar replaced the 6.0 with the 6.4 attempting to fix problems but Ford had already started to engineer the replacement all in-house and stop doing business with Navistar. That engine, the 6.7 PSD, went into production in 2011 and is still used today. This makes Ford the only manufacturer to engineer and build their own heavy duty diesel all in house. Although there were problems with the BOSCH fuel injection and DEF systems early on, they are as reliable as there competitors.
Yeah I had a 4.6 liter in my 99 mustang and it was🗑 shot a spark plug out then I had to replace the engine at sixty thousand miles, but I loved my 1 gen coyote and I currently own a third gen coyote and love it
I had a 6.0, was fine until I sold it at 100k miles. I also had a 5.4, never had an issue - sold it to a friend, and he still has it, runs great. But, I also use Amsoil oil, so I never have a sludge problem. I also had a 351M, he's correct, it was a dog.
I had a 4.2l in a 99 Ford f150. That truck went to 300k miles original engine and drivetrain. The transmission finally went. That thing still ran and had a. Drove up into the trailer to scrap it.
For as bad the 6.0 was, the 6.4 was even worse. But they are both Navistar and not built by Ford. Both so bad that Ford decided to take on the expense to develop and produce their own 6.7.
351M 351W 400 429 460 all used 3" main bearings. I used to throw every 351M 400 engine I got in the scrap iron pile until I started seeing the 400 beating up on all other engines in the engine master challenge. All the fancy 351C parts heads came ect all fit 351M 400 engines and the 400 has a longer stroke than 428FE engines and 460 engines so now I've given up on my old faithful FE's and build tunnel ramed 4V Cleveland headed 400's dry intake can run and Cleveland aluminum intake that bolts to the PME head adapters. Very cheap horsepower.
I'd argue that the 6.4 was much worse (stock) than the 6.0 Powerstroke: 5 years of production (6.0) vs. 3 years (6.4). Also, the 6.4 is one of the few engines I know of that is cheaper to replace with a new engine than to rebuild.
@@classicwefi I think everyone could all agree that congress let Ford off the hook with these engines. Congress was going after Toyota because their floor mats were sliding up into the throttle pedal (and being non union) at the time. All the people who died in an ambulance broke down on the side of the road with a PowerStroke, nothing. Ford, termed the phrase "mechanical repo". Most Ford owners lost everything, and just walked away. But those damn (non union) floormats in your Prius, that was the true issue.
6.4l was worse, BUT I absolutely HATED the 6.0l with a passion. We ran them in Ambulance vans for a decade. I got SO good at swapping over all of our equipment from 1 ambulance to another when they would break. I had a few times they left me stranded on the side of the freeway loaded with a patient. Only good part was I wasn't paying the repair bill.
It is interesting how a similar design can have such a difference depending on displacement. The 5.4 3-Valve is an absolute train wreck, whereas the 4.6 in so many Crown Vics, Marquis’, and Town Cars might be Ford’s most reliable V-8 in the last three decades.
I will take a built 302 or 351W over any 4.6.....FAR less complexity and the dinky valve stems (as well as plastic intakes on the passenger car variants---Ive replaced MANY of those) on the 4.6 screams to me HELL NO. Also, due to the tight bore spacing, these engines cannot be overbored much, when they wanted more displacement it had to be stroked into the 5.4 The 4.6 is WIDER than even a 385 series 429/460 engine, and the 5.4 is wider still. Point of fact. Ford re engineered the AODE transmission into the wide ratio 4R70W because they knew the tiny 4.6 (281 ci) was deficient on low end torque and its power band was higher than the 302/351, making it a dog until the rpms came up.
When they run good, they are a fairly decent engine. Exhaust manifolds are a complete bare to get to though. If you don't change the oil, they turn to junk. Main issue is cam phasers and the plastic timing chain guides break. Then you get the occasional rocker followers that wear and can pit the cam down if you keep driving them when they get noisy. I have had a few still running strong with over 200k. Like I said, not my top choice of engines but if you get the truck REALLY cheap I would run them. I ran a 2008 Expedition with 230k for a year back in like 2017. Paid $2000 for it with a bad rear end. Replaced the rear end for $100 in parts and did not have a single issue with it after that.
Peter Sladek but the 4.6 3vs don’t die anywhere near as soon or often as the 5.4’s. They always live a normal life when it comes to maintenance and longevity.
Don Reinke u are crazy if you’re picking a pushrod 302 over a mod motor lmfao u trippin god damn And no. Only the 2v and 3V mod motors have plastic intake manifolds (like every single mainstream engine design made in the last 25 years lol) The 4 valves are incredible motors. 2vs are also very good. Both substantially better than a 302/351 to anyone who doesn’t live under a rock.
The 4.0 sohc was probably a good candidate for an honorable mention, timing chain noise reported as early as 75K miles and failure causing catastrophic damage at 150k was reported And a rear chain made it so that the only way to do the job is pull the motor and strip it almost entirely
I had a mountaineer with that engine and it never made any timing chain noise. Had almost 90k miles on the original chain and guides. Didn't last much longer though because I floored it in 4x4 low and it revved over 7k rpm. Used Lucas for a year to stop the rod knock, but after that, it was too worn out. My fault though
@@christopherswanson1628 mine had it at 100K, and got the updated guides and tensioner which were better, by a lot, it's at 216K and still quiet, but that's still a noteworthy problem
My brother in law had a 97 explorer 4 liter sohc. He ran the shit out of pulling a 6 x 12 enclosed trailer around for work. When he got rid of it, it had 150 k miles, he barely had the oil changed. I only thing i know he had to replace was the fuel pump in the tank, he would run it till it was on fumes before he would stop for gas
You forgot the 1.9 escort / focus engines. I've never seen so many engines drop valve seats out of the aluminum heads. This would almost always destroy a piston and the head. The escort gt 1.8 Mazda engines, bullet proof smaller, 50% more power no inherent defects.
I was just about to mention this as well. This is pretty much the sole reason there are very few escorts on the road today. The ones still out there almost universally have less than 120k miles.
I’m not sure on the engine details, but I had one of the fairly early Mercury Lynx models and it was the most sluggish vehicle I’ve ever owned. It also had a four-speed manual that was hard to shift.
The diesel engines (1983-2010) prior to the 6.7 were made by International/Navistar. There were actually lawsuits between Ford and Navistar after all the 6.0 and 6.4 problems.
International couldnt even build a decent engine for their own trucks toward the end there. They nearly bankrupted themselves with their MaxxForce disaster.
My 84, 6.9 L Cornbinder puts around 150 hp on the rear wheels. Power Strokes put twice that on their rear wheels. At 20:1 compression, there’s not much room to soup my 6.9 up. OTOH, I get 20 mpg.
Ford got the Cornbinder factory in bankruptcy. Ford bought control of Cummings, too. G M is the last indie. My son bought a brand new Duramax extra heavy duty diesel P U, and had kittens with it’s goofs. He had to track down Chevy’s C O O online to get a new computer module under warranty from the local dealer. Buuut he still makes fun of my old mechanical diesel Ford.😇
@@davekoenig9935 Cummins.. CUMMINS.. There is no g.. And you have bought into a myth.. Ford does not own or have a controlling interest in Cummins... Never has.. It did at some point own aprox 10% but that was purchased back.. FORD DOES NOT OWN OR CONTROL CUMMINS.. NEVER HAS.. How much of Cummins does Ford own? Cummins set the record straight in their May 2013 newsletter, outlining that Ford Motor Company had purchased 10.8% of the diesel engine manufacturer in 1990. In 1997, those shares were bought back, and as such Ford has not owned a stake in Cummins since... Source.. The internet...
My 2004 6.0 was absolutely trouble free for 8 years. Near the end of my ownership it only problem was blowing off a turbo hose when it automatically downshifted when pulling my 10,000 trailer which I fixed with an extra hose clamp. I used Standyne with every fill up of diesel and Hot Shot Secret every 30,000 miles. It was serviced every 4000 miles. It never had any of the problems you mentioned.
The early 5.4 engines the spark plug would damage the threads in the head when removed requiring you to repair the threads. The exhaust manifold bolts would also rust off and create exhaust leaks. Other than that, a good engine 😁. Ford attempted to resolve the spark plug issue by moving the threads up out of the combustion chamber and using longer extended plugs. These plugs would unfortunately become stuck and break off in the head 🤦. Ford was also troubled with the cam phaser technology that is driven with engine oil. These systems are extremely sensitive to dirty oil and require quality oil filters and frequent oil changes. This goes for all modern engines that use this technology which is about every one today.
You have all of that right! The spark plug issue, especially on the back two plugs of the heads, were huge, if people took their trucks to an econolube for a tune up: some high school or pot smoking dropout doing shit work. The early 5.4 has issues but we ran full synthetic, mobil1, from Costco, every time it was on sale and anything from our local auto parts of big box store on sale. We NEVER used Fram cardboard filters, and changed the oil 250-500 mi.s less than prescribed maintenance schedule with seasonal use. We had those truck go into the 400K mi range with no issues. My personal winter time "nock around" truck is one of our 99's that has over 550K mis on it. If the motor is maintained, they will run.... However, after 2003.5 FORGET ABOUT IT, those motors are complete junk: tech bulletins state, for any top end engine noise "replace the engine." LMAO. The 5.4 3v was total junk.
@@chuckhaugan4970 219K failure mileage on a 24v vs 361k failure mileage on a 16v, it still ran but had really low compression on 3 cylinders and just enough compression to run on the rest resulting in random misfires on all cylinders no matter engine temp or rpms, it also needed refilled with oil every 1,000 miles due to consumption and minor leaks, just ran the cheapest dollar store oil when the oil consumption got out of hand and welded a 90 to the end of the exhaust so it wouldn't throw atomized motor oil onto cars or people
You could repair threads and broken manifold bolts on a 5.4-2V a hell of a lot cheaper than the cam phasers in a 3V - a fix that doesn't last long anyway seeing as replacing the phasers doesn't fix what caused them to fail in the first place. I've been a truck dealer for 35 years and we will NOT buy and sell anything with a 5.4-3V. I'll take my chances with a 6.0 diesel. And this guy left one engine off of his list - the 3.5 Ecoboost V6, especially the early models produced in 2011-13.
I used Motorcraft oil and oil filters on my 2010 5.4 3-valve motor. I changed it before the 6 month/ 7,000 mile interval. It never had a problem in 11 years. Valve train noise was considerable in cold weather. I remember visiting family in Illinois in the winter about 7 months after I purchased the truck. It was so noisy at startup, they thought it was a 7.3 liter diesel.
I agree with your list of flaws for the 6.0 diesel. Started in a Ford store in 2007. My heart stopped when I walked into the shop and saw 3 pick ups with the cabs unbolted and raised on the hoist, frames sitting on the wheels on the floor so engine could be accessed for injectors or head gaskets. Service advisor said it was how the techs had to do 6.0 "tune up" Ruined morale of techs and cost Ford a lot of diesel customers. Talk about a boat anchor.
Thats the ford philosophy on diesels going back to the obs 7.3 powerstroke. Either the motor comes out or the cabs come off. I've heard from the few guys I know that are or were ford techs they prefer working on fords over say chevys because of that. They Sawzall all the body mount bolts and lift the cab and they have access to everything within 2 hours
they're actually VERY good engines, when not "ruined" by the EPA. It was the exact same engine as the International VT365 HD/MD engine. Difference? Ford-using them in LD applications (pickups) had to request International to make changes to them so that they'd meet emissions standards and other regulations set forth by uncle sam. If left alone as the VT365, they were a decent engine.
I had a 3.8 V6 in my 86 Thunderbird which I bought new. I have to tell you, I took good care of that car, regular tuneups and fluid changes, oil changes every 3000 miles and went almost 200,000 miles, changing nothing but valve cover gaskets slong the way. Car had good power for its day, very comfortable. Probably my most favorite car I've owned.
i had an 89 for several years. got in in trade for working on a couple vehicles for a relative. he even bought the parts lol. it was overheating on him.. a new thermostat and water pump and i was in business. this was a 3.8, never had head gasket issues with it though. my inlaws had a taurus with that engine and it was an issue but only after they let my brother inlaw use it for a bit. he has a reputation for being hard an vehicles. i think they tried machining the heads and shimming them. car was never right again and they dumped quite a bit of money into that "fix". might have been the machine work, idk.
My brother had a 3.8 in a ‘94 Cougar. It blew a head gasket, hydrauliced the engine, and when Ford wouldn’t make it good, though he had been a life-long Ford man, he gave up on them, and to this day has only had Hondas. And it goes further than just him. The rest of the family swore off Fords, too, owing to their shabby treatment of brother.
@@sking2173 similar story..a friend got a nice clean Taurus with a strong 3.8 V6.. Buut the car overheated/ blew a head gasket around 90K ..mechanic said that original gasket was a cheap one that blew out easily..( Ford saves $2.50 × 50,000 -unlucky owner gets $1000 repair bill ) Unfortunately, ' Christine ' blew a fuel line on the way home from the garage..caught fire & burned to the ground in minutes.. True story.
After they went to an MLS gasket in 97 the head issues went away. Hell I am running a 96 bored and stroked to 4.2 0n 15psi of boost with the MLS gaskets with no issues.
The worst Ford engine I have ever worked on was my girlfriend's 3.8L in an '84 Thunderbird. It had no power no matter what I did to it, and just a very rough, unbalanced idle.
Glad you added the "honorable mentions." When you held up your white board and I didn't see the 351/400M, I thought about shutting it off. My grandfather had a '77 Cougar with a 351M and it wouldn't pull a dead cat off a fencepost! Even my grandmother thought it was a slug. You know your car is a slug when your grandmother complains about it.
@@charlesprice7608, the thing is my dad bought a new 77 F-150 351m 4 speed 4x4 single cab long bed and he said it was a good truck, got 23 mpg at one point on the highway somehow, and that was with the bed loaded up with stuff moving to California from Iowa, and I’ve never believed in those modified motors so I don’t know what to think lol
You have to remember, fuel crunch 73,74. Last real cars with performance for a while was 73. Those 351 m were to work but all v8's were cut back so far on power to use less fuel so it was gutless along with pretty much everything else.
I just subscribed and I enjoy your channel. One correction: the 335 series is the 351 Cleveland 351M and 400M and the 429/460 is the 385 series. As a mechanic one of the worst jobs I ever did was the head gaskets on my Mother's 91 TB SC. Yes, the 3.8 sucks. I do love my 351 C equipped 72 Mach 1.
Our 73 400 was a dog in an LTD wagon. I've done some research on them. Seriously retarded camshaft timing on the 351M and 400. It's very important to switch the timing-gear set to an aftermarket version, NOT a Ford version. Many blocks cast at the Michigan Casting Center, as opposed to the Cleveland Casting Center, were prone to lifter-valley cracks from 1973 through March 1977. All these engines used a different thermostat than most other Ford V-8s. Many ended up with the wrong thermostat, which led to overheating and oil-pressure problems. Compression ratios were very low. There was too much deck-clearance, on 400s in particular, which led to pre-ignition problems. Ford never remedied this. An improved higher-compression piston is sold by TMeyer Inc out of Minnesota.
@@ChillkootMarkowee Miracles can happen! My Mother's SC had no issues after the Fel-Pro head gasket update. My Sister then crashed it 6 months later and it was never the same. I was none too pleased. I did not mention that in the same 6 month period I did a 95 Taurus head gasket job on a 3.8 that was fairly unpleasant and then I did 95 mustang 3.8 head gasket job. That was pretty straight forward.
@@RT060789 yeah that really sucks when you just fixed it then it got wrecked. Well the Mustang was easy because it's rear wheel drive but the Saurass (Taurus) is difficult probably because it's front wheel drive.
In my experience 3.8 essex has only one weak spot, head gasket. I have owned -84 LTD four years now and with that motor (throttle body injection) zero problems! Never failed, only regular maintance, also one of the best cold starter, even in -30 celsius always startup on first try.
You missed the mid 1970's Ford engine electronic ignition modules, they would get hot and stop working. Everyone seemed to carry an extra module with tools to change in the trunk
A little grease on the TFI module mounting surface cured that problem. GM's DEI was worse. The General has a big schlong and he ain't afraid to bone you with it.
Hi I had a new 1998 Expedition with the 5,4 L what JUNK it sucked gas like a pig intake manifold cracked, exhaust manifolds cracked, 2 spark plugs blew out and was slow. All 5.4 L are junk Iwill never buy another Ford after that thing.
Ford had three 351 engines because they started off with the Cleveland, and then emissions had to be added to which the C design wasn't terribly well suited. At that point the Windsor block got an extra 5/8" deck height and a stroked crank and became the 351W as the 'moderate' v8 engine option in most things. Meanwhile, the 400 was sitting here already with a block that fit the large transmission pattern, great for the larger cars, but the fuel crunch was about so it's displacement wasn't the greatest for the market. What to do? De-stroke it to 351ci, for the 351M. Side note, the 351M/400 are "cleveland like" engines, enough that the heads swap. The only difference is the block has an extra inch of deck height and 99% of them have the C6 bolt pattern. And on pretty much all of them post-73 if you advance the cam 5 degrees, tweak the mechanical advance a little in the distributor, and tune (re-jet) the carb, it wakes right up. Easy 20-40 horsepower depending on how your chambers look, some will ping much easier than others (and can be cleaned up, but you're way deeper into it than a cam key/dizzy spring and weight swap/main jet change).
The Powerstroke was a derivative of a Transtar International, Corn Binder, and they blew head gaskets on a regular basis. And yes the 5.3 is known to launch a sparkplug thru the hood at times, yep have personally seen where sparkplugs and coil pack damaging the hood when they blew out. But those engines were in trucks and were used as trucks so there was some pressures being produced.
Engineer's job is to design for the job to be done. Lousy engineering decisions all but destroyed Navistar a few times over. An empty shell of what they once were. What a shame.
@@chris1451 i know a older gentleman that does construction so his 6.0 is a trailer tower for supplies, tractors or whatever he needs. Anyway his truck is bone stock. This guy has his truck well maintained, and has never had any problems.
Very good video. Thanks. You're being pretty kind to those V6 engines. The 6.0 diesel - sure it can be "bulletproofed" - for some serious cash. How people afforded to own these things is beyond me. 6.4 even worse. The 5.4 3 valve - slowly but surely they're fading into the sunset. Good riddance.
I truly am impressed by your linguistic skills. You are so articulate and concise in your descriptions and examples. I miss my first car, a 1972 Mach 1 Mustang with 351 Cleveland and C6 trans. Ford always seemed to have too many engineers trying to justify their existence ,resulting in over-complicated engines and accessories. I've watched a bunch of your videos...... you're very talented. Thanks for your time and effort..... I TRULY APPRECIATE THEM!!!
True! Adam has a wonderful way of presenting the facts. And boy, does he know them! Closest voice & modulation makes watching every one of his videos of pleasure!
True! Adam has a wonderful way of presenting the facts. And boy, does he know them! Plus, his voice & modulation makes watching every one of his videos of pleasure!
Don't even get me started over pentastar, although it eventually got fixed. Actually any new engine, it's a good idea to check the coolant weekly. If the level is changing or the color getting murky, it might be water pump or head gasket.
Very few had water pump problems, If you noticed when the leak started, the passage to the outside would show antifreeze, time to change the pump. Many of the engines went over 300k miles. The problem is nobody changes antifreeze or checks coolant, After a few years this new type of coolants becomes abrasive, and acidic, which eats up everything.
One thing to remember was in the 80’s into the 90’s almost all v6 engines basically head headgasket problems. They were kinda new compared to the online 6 and there was a lot of new land to discover with those motors.
Fords 300 straight 6 that came in the pickups from 1965 all the way to 1996 was one stellar engine. Not fast, but loads of low end torque and very reliable
Ford 200 straight six was also good in my experience.
Ford's 240 six came out before the 300 which was developed from it. Not the greatest for fuel mileage but these were pure hell for reliability and longevity. Ford's other inline sixes were different designs based on different blocks.
@@charlesofsavage7393 the 200 in my mustang is going strong after 57 years. However the cylinder head design is terrible
I had one in a 91 F150 that had 320K miles on it when I sold it. Never smoked or used oil. It is still going strong...
Yep they sure are brother
The legendary 300 six, perhaps the most durable/reliable engine ever made.
Can’t with a two year old
The 300 and the slant....they never die
@@markdubois4882 The 300 is still built as industrial engine. It was used in all types of equipment. The slant 6 was also used as industrial engine. The 300 is much stronger, the 225 slant 6 cheaper to operate. The slant 6 is very sensitive to timing. It will burn hole in piston, and then you went to junk yard to find piston and ever engine you found had burned piston. But timed right they was very dependable engines. 300 Ford had check valve in oil filter, and if you used wrong filter ever time motor started it rattled until the oil got primed. But latter the after market filters started using a check valve. I had a 75 ford pick up with 300 6 and it ran over 300,000 mile.
@@cliffclark6441Is the 300 still built to this day??? Ik Australia got a version of it all the way to 2011 and continued to develop the i6 as the Barra but can you still acquire a brand new 300 I6??
I recall that around 1980 Ford put nylon/fiber timing gears into the 300 but those gears wore out quickly compared to the ones in prior years. Otherwise, very durable engine.
We have surpassed the 200k mark on our ‘07; but not without tribulation. Anyone who has the 5.4 3v please take note: only buy Motorcraft parts for your timing replacement and Melling has a great high volume oil pump (which should be done at the same interval). And if you’re doing spark plugs, I’ve broken two off, Lisle has a great rental tool to remove the electrode housing. Aside all this headache, our Expedition has been good to my family.
And to my knowledge, only the champion 7989 plugs are a 1 piece design that won't break off inside the head.
3.8s had headgasket issues. I had 2 cars blow them a total of 3 times.
I had a 91 cougar that blew them and spun a bearing because a shop kept misdiagnosing it as a waterpump, radiator, etc. $3600 for a reman'd engine on a $4900 car. Then the headgaskets blew on the reman'd engine a few years later which was repaired under warranty.
Ironically I had traded that in on a 93 supercoupe later and it started smoking out the pipes about 2 years after I bought it. I took it back to the shop that had replaced the engine on the Cougar. I told them to check the headgaskets and they said I was paranoid. I told them again check the headgaskets. They protested again. I finally said either check the headgaskets or I'm taking it somewhere else...they finally relented.
The verdict.....it was the headgaskets and I saved the engine from the same fate as the cougar.
3.8 SC only had HG failures due to abuse and extra boost. Running stock boost and 93 octane 89-95 THUNDERBIRD SC do not have a headgasket issue at all, and the 96-99 are good too in that they went to the SC coolant passage configuration (pre 96 N/A heads had to many coolant passages making the gasket thin in spots.)
@@bowez9 mine may have had a 5% pulley on the supercharger added by the previous owner.
@@pdennis93 I have 93 SC with a laundry list of parts (tune required to run) making about 350hp and 400lbs-ft, at 17Psi. Only issue have had is DIS and crank sensor and did drop a valve once.
The head gaskets issues in the Essex V6 relate to a last minute design change. Ford decided at a very late stage to change the cylinder heads from cast iron to aluminum alloy. That's not a problem in and of itself, as lots of other engines fit that description. However, it inherited the same number of headbolts and placement per cylinder from the 302 (like it or not, the design is based on the 302 Windsor block! Lots of people claim otherwise, but I would disagree). It's inadequate for the differing thermal expansion experienced between the cast iron engine block and the aluminum alloy cylinder heads.
@@brentboswell1294 that may be an issue but explain why 96+ don't have the issue and SCs only have it in relation to over boost and under octane. Considering that 96+ and SC heads have the same number of cooling passages, 1 less than pre 95 N/A heads.
There was a time when the leading cause of tire failures were from Ford Triton spark plugs on the roads.
LMAO!
Ha ha. That made me laugh
LMAO
lolol
LOL, correct. That's the only real issue TBH. Other things that I see people complaining about are either regular maintenance things for OHC motors, or regular maintenance period. Changing the oil (and replacing with the correct type) isn't optional, for example. Failing to maintain a car doesn't make the design of the car "bad" it makes the habits of the owner bad.
Ah yes! The VV carb! I remember it well! Sticking Cold enrichment rods, torn venturi diaphragms, catalysts glowing cherry red. Good times.
I started as a Lincoln Mercury Mechanic in 1977 up till 2008.
You are spot on with your worst engines. Should have included the 255 V8 and 2.8L V6.
Lol, My first and only time working on a VV carb was in a bone stock all original 79 Merc Marq I bought 25yrs ago. My dumb ass stepdad wanted the car so I bought it tried to get it all squared away, after screwing with that carb and getting nowhere I bought a new one, $600 for that pos lol. Car wouldn't pass NJ State Inspection no matter what they tried, came home one day and there was the car sitting in my drive, they gave up and stuck me with the car owning me about $1500 that I put in it, he said if the car needed a new engine he would do it he wanted that body style but yet they couldn't get it threw inspection and gave up, I was Pissed at the time. Now anything 95 and older don't need inspection, I would love to have that car now, I would have ripped all the Emission crap off went 4BL, cam and headers lol.
Don’t bash the variable I made a ton of money fixing them, both computer and non computer controlled. The shop I worked for at the time did them for the local Ford dealership. If you new what you were doing they ran very well. Still have all the tools for them, they are a little rusty though!
I was blessed with having one on my 85 2.8 ranger. Didnt take me long to find a pinto to rob parts off of.
A guy I knew back then, which he was in his 60s at the time. He had a 81Tbird had the 255. Wasn't so bad in that car, but anything larger than that car I suppose was a dog. Definitely not a truck engine. Even the 5.0 or the 5.7 really wasn't that impressive back then.
Neighbor had a 5.7L in a 85 F250 with a 5 speed, it would run decent but only if you took it to the rev limiter in every gear. Like most engines of the 80's. Another neighbor had a 460 4bbl. in an 85 F250 never seen it run without a cloud of rich smoke trailing from behind, when he got on it. That was from the time it was brand new. My 77 LTD II with a 351M and 2VV would have outran them both easily. They just got a little better gas mileage with the overdrive 5 speed trannies.
I had an F100 with a 255, with a "Real" 2bbl carburetor and the 3+OD Manual...It had V8 sound and got incredible MPG! (for a fullsize truck)....Had less power than 302, had less Torque than 300 six...But was much better than the 3.8L V6...I drove the heck out of that thing...Ford had engineered some interesting port flow into that engine... I have a set of heads and an intake, looking to make spacer plates to put on a 351W with a special camshaft should help with low end torque and fuel economy with a 2bbl fuel injection system... (Ford Wasn't Dumb, they just didn't go all the way.)
I was a teenager in the 1970s. It was said that the 351 Cleveland engine was a big block engine with large free breathing heads and small main bearings. The 351 Windsor engine was said to be just the opposite. The Windsor was a small block V8 with restrictive breathing valve heads and large heavy duty main bearings. The M 351 Windsor was supposed to have the Cleveland heads which gave you the combination of a free breather and the lighter weight of small block, plus stronger more durable main bearings. The M was favored by Ford small block drag racing enthusiasts of that era. Funny thing is, I remember the Chevys always seemed to beat the fords at the strip.
Cleveland isnt a big block. A Windsor block is only about 12 pounds lighter than a Cleveland's. And no one who knew anything about engines ran a M over a Cleveland. 351 C is one of the most winning drag engines ever. NHRA put the biggest weight penalty on the Cleveland- more than on the 426 hemi.
As a mechanic All I’m saying is these v6 ecoboost they put in everything are starting to pay for my breakfast lunch and dinner. 100,000 and those things just start falling apart
I drove a school bus with a ford 6.0 diesel.
I got it new and put 120,000 miles on it. In 120,000 miles it went through 4 turbochargers, 3 headgaskets, and needed a complete overhaul.
I've never seen an engine that unreliable before.
The 2.8L V6 engines that were in the 80's Bronco II and Rangers, in my opinion were junk. They were weak, they ran rough, they smoked, and they had all had valve train noise.
When I was a teenager, my neighbor had two or three Bronco IIs, I think only one of them ran and it ran like complete garbage. Listening to him struggle to start that miserable thing every morning was just painful.
@@PistonAvatarGuy I know the pain that your neighbor went through. My brother had an 84', and my uncle still has an 86'. The Bronco II wasn't really a bad vehicle, it just had a terrible engine.
@Keef Dichards For week maybe?
LOL. I have a 1984 Bronco II with the original 2.8 that is still used for a daily driver. Number 1 cylinder shit the bed, so I removed the pushrods on that cylinder and it STILL runs, until Im done building an Explorer 4.0 to replace it....a bolt in swap as the 2.6, 2.8 and even the Saab V-4 have the same bellhousing bolt pattern and mounts.
Theres even an carb type aftermarket intake available from Tom Morana so you dont have to use the 4.0 fuel injection. The 2.6 (early Mercury Capri) and 2.8 had SOLID LIFTERS, so of course they made valve train noise, most people didnt know and didnt bother to adjust them. It was the same engine used in Pintos and Mustang IIs in the late 70s, and yes they were underpowered even in the Mustang II
No problems with my 1974 2.8 l the only engine issue I had ever with the car was a stupid electric choke. I was driving down the road and the freaking thing closed and died in that position for no reason. It was 80° out. No reason for the truck to close and the engine was up to operating temperatures. On that year the 2.8 l had a carburetor from Holly no less. I pop the hood took the hot lead off the choke and the engine ran fine took it to the dealer and they put a new electric choke on no big deal. It was fun I was in traffic and if you've ever driven a car with the choke closed and you're trying to stop it can be kind of surprising. What I did was turn off the ignition which made the steering a little heavy and the power brakes weren't quite as powerful but I was able to bring the car to a stop in the parking lot with ease.
The oil cooler issues are actually related to the type of coolant used and the majority of failures in 2003 - 2004 were directly related to mixing improper incompatible coolants that caused silica separation and clogged the oil cooler, gummed up the EGR cooler and even gummed up the radiator. Also the coolant required inspection and testing just about ever oil change and required some sort of replacement every 15k to 20k miles. Swapping to ELC coolants virtually eliminated this issue but required multiple water flushes and then draining of the block and entire cooling systems to make sure the original coolant was completely removed. This is where 75% of oil cooler, EGR, and head gasket failures came from. Noted there are plenty of other issues with the 6.0L but this was a very simple one to fix before there was a problem but.... No one really understood this until the end of the 6.0L's life.
Love your videos. The 3.8 in our 2002 Windstar was great. Ran perfect at 235,000 miles when we traded it in. Literally never did a thing to it than oil changes. Maybe it was built on Wednesday afternoon 😄
I agree. I have a 2003 Windstar with the 3.8 in it. I have only had to replace plugs/wires, a coil pack and some intake manifold grommets. Of course oil changes as well. Maybe I am a lucky one or something, but this powerplant has been very reliable for me.
Sadly the van has rusted to the point where its days on the road are numbered.
I have really enjoyed your "worst" engine videos, and I subscribed to see what else comes up. I have a '66 Barracuda 273 that I bought in March '66, but I really love the 3.8 liter engines in my '98 to '00 Town and Country mini-vans. They are so simple and reliable and easily made it to 200,000 miles. I think they rank with the 318s and Slant-6s!
Congratulations on getting a good 3.8. My old 94 Taurus with 3.8L blew head gasket before 100K miles.
@@charlesofsavage7393 Mopar 3.8 was solid
@@ufarkingicehole Oops I was saying 3.8L Ford per the original video.
@@charlesofsavage7393 Sorry about the confusion. I wasn't thinking! 🤔
@@jamesmskipper No worries.
Just had my 2.0L Ecoboost in a 2017 Escape changed under warranty last year. My cousin is the service manager at the dealer where the work was done. He told me that they almost always have a 2.0L in his shop being replaced. 😳 Disclosure: I am a 29 year Ford employee. Very troubling. Btw, I work at KTP and we all thought that 6.0L was crap from day one. The current engines are so much better.
There’s not a modern Tier IV Diesel engine that I’d consider reliable and trouble free. Starting with light duty diesel applications for cars and trucks all the way up to Class 8 trucks the engines suck compared to pre-Tier VI diesels.
I had a 1985 mustang with the 3.8l with the CFI intake system and man that was the most unreliable thing ever. the car never left me completely stranded or anytrhing but it would stall if you cranked the wheel too far, stall in the cold, starting problems on warm starts, vacuum leaks were constant, constant rough idle. the thing just never breathed right. even removing then emissions tech didnt help, albeit removing the egr did help with some of the stalling issues
I'm sorry to hear you had trouble with your Mustang. We had an 86 Mercury Capri with the CFI 3.8 and had no trouble with it at all in the 12 years we owned it. My uncle had an 85 T-bird with the 3.8 and again, no trouble with it after having owning it for 20 years. He bought it new in 85 and sold it in 2008 with almost 200k miles. Not overly an impressive motor, but it had exceptional low end torque. Pretty reliable in my book.
There is also the 3.5 Cyclone Duratec where in front drive applications the water pump fails with little warning, discharges into the crankcase and smokes the engine.
3.5/3.7 is a fairly solid engine otherwise. I have had a few police cars with 20,000 hours on them still running strong.
I've heard that the early Duratecs had external water pumps and oil-bathed timing chains, probably the most durable combination one could imagine. But Ford cheaped-out in later years by running the pump off the chain. If they were going to do that, the might as well have used a belt.
Only the FWD models have the internal water pump. And when they do start to fail they’re designed to leak from a weep hole outside the engine. The problem is when the engine is rarely inspected and the leak is allowed to continue then it completely fails and dumps in the engine. Other than that they are solid engines.
@@pcno2832 I have no use for engines that have the water pump inside the timing gear cover. That is Japanese technology. We obsoleted that concept in the early 30s.
@@khakiswag However, even if you catch it in time, you are looking at around 2 gran just to replace a water pump.
2018 Ford Focus with the European Designed 3 cylinder!
Grenades at 62,000 miles due to internal oil pump failure! Piece of Junk don’t forget this Gem!
I test drove a 2004 Freestar with the 3.9 v6 and found the engine course. When I test drove the 2004 Chrysler T&C with the 3.3 v6, that engine was much smoother and wound up buying the T&C. Never had a lick of trouble.
Those 3.3/3.8 engines were amazing. I wish the vehicles they put them in were as durable as that engine was.
You are probably too young to know of my first Ford engine that belongs on any list of worst Ford: the 1954 239 Y-block. Same size as the classic flathead, but OHV and it was a totally different block and every other part. They had hiddous oiling problems, and the non-detergent oils of the time made it worse.
Pure junk ... Damned engine wouldn’t breathe, either. Whoever designed the “stacked” intake manifold should have been taken out and thrown “up against the wall”.
A few thousand miles, and they’d start their signature clacking, hissing, and popping - you could recognize the things coming from a quarter mile away.
The 3.8 had the factory defect on the head gaskets until 1999, To solve this problem Just do the Aftermarket MLS on any engine pre 1998 and you will have a completely solid engine, i currently have a 94 t bird with a 3.8 coming up on 325k Miles, and paired with the Swapped 4r70w instead of the older AOD it has been nothing but reliable for a long long time
As a retired Ford Master Tech & Shop Foreman that was working at the time these motors were in use,
I can say you are right on.
Those 3 motors were a major part of my work.
Thx!
the 3.8 v6 was kinda weird to me. My 03 mustang with 240k miles on it has one and still works great. No headgasket issues in the 3-4 years i have owned it and put many miles since i purchased.
The reputation comes from hundreds of thousands of Taurii that liked to cook the rear cylinder bank and ruin the gasket from the outside in. The more you sat in traffic on a hot day, the sooner the gasket degraded and failed.
I had a 1984 Mercury Capri with the 3.8 CFI. Where do I begin? Low oil pressure due to worn oil pump gears, harmonic balancer failure, clogged heat riser, malfunctioning dash pot, sudden ignition module failure, TPS failure, and finally I ran the car the last 2 years without a thermostat due to head gasket failure. All this before the car was 10 years old. The rest of the car was just as bad.
Good list there. My 78 Lincoln Continental with the 400M engine runs just fine. It’s not that powerful at all, and won’t win any drag races, but it does move the big car quite well with all that torque. I haven’t had any mechanical issues with the engine as it runs pretty smooth, the only major PITA thing about the setup is how many brackets you need to remove to replace the water pump.
It’s a crappy job. And all the vacuum lines, switches makes it really difficult to work on at times since there’s so much stuff in the way, but other than few minor things, the engine runs very well.
Ford even recommends a 10W-40 engine oil in the owners manual for people in warmer climates, I believe because of the oil pressure issues. I’ve always used 10W-40 or a 20W-50 full synthetic oil in the engine and it hasn’t giving me any trouble. No knocking, or ticking, plus it always passes emissions test here in CA. It actually has less HC levels than what most modern cars put out!
But honestly I haven’t heard many problems with these motors from other owners that have the same engine, I think as long as you use a full-synthetic heavy weight oil, these engines can last forever.
Carburetor tuning is very important as well, especially with modern fuel, you need to increase the jet size for it to run richer to compensate for the ethanol that does make our older cars run even leaner.
we had a 77 Cougar XR7 with the 400 2V engine...same experience...excellent torque and very quiet...never had ANY issues...
My 77 tbird with the 400 had the timing chain jump over a cog at 60000 miles...never owned a Ford car after that.
Yes they did Mike. I learned that when I tore into it !!
Sincecage 13 I, exclusively, chose the car and options that my parents purchased. In 1985 they purchased a brand new 1985 Ford LTD 4 door sedan for my parents in 1985, replacing a 1976 Ford Country Squire station wagon. This model was then a compact which replaced the Fairmont by Ford , and was replaced in 1986 by the Taurus. It had the 3.8 liter V-6 engine with the C-4 automatic transmission, power steering and power front disc/rear drum brakes, with traditional RWD, plus a host of comfort and convenience options except A/C (living in the suburbs of Boston, it was not necessary and robbed horsepower on an already depressed series of engines since 1971, as well as making routine maintenance more difficult). It was a great car as was the 1976 Ford, which lasted nine (9) years each with daily oersonal and business use. Both Fords were very reliable and economical, especially since my father was never one to take care of a car, not even to wash the car! I do/did all the maintenance, except an annual front-end alignment every spring, exclusively on my parents cars since age 14, and all my own cars. I never had any issue with the engine regarding head gasket failure. The announcer stated that this was a major problem that affected EVERY 3.8 liter V-6 engine Ford produced!
Weird that the 4.6L 2V is nearly bulletproof but the 5.4L 3V is more useful as a lawn ornament than an engine...
Although I liked my 96 3.8, it and the 4.2 had a recall for a seal leak that allowed water to get into the oil. Long story short I got a new long block under warranty out of it. The beauty of it was that I had 189k miles on it.
Ford was very conservative with their engine power. Every one ran very anemic. From the FE series to the 385, they all ran the same. They were good engines, just very detuned in stock form. You could have a 352, 390, 400, 460 in your car, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Despite the meager stock performance of these engines, they all had one thing in common, lousy fuel mileage, and a 100 lb cast iron intake. I knock GM for putting the 350 in everything, but GM seemed to tuned every 350 for it's application. GM wasn't afraid of letting a 350 vehicle have an exhaust note and extra performance where needed. My personal favorite from Ford is the 300 inline six.
We did a weigh in on what was the heaviest single component. 454 head was at 85lbs, 390 intake at 80lbs & a 300-6 crank at 75 lbs. I'd rather mess with a 429/460 intake than a 352/390 intake.
My Ford 352 FE ran like a scalded cat. But it was a 66.
I'd take a 352 over a 360 any day.
@@speedracer3104 Isn't the 360 the same engine as the 361 used in the smaller Edsel?
360 was a truck motor only from 68 to 76. It really didn't have any power, it was just a base motor. The 361 was in that MEL group which included the 462 lincoln.
Irony of all ironies: While viewing this video with its predicted inserted Ads by UA-cam, just now the YT ad that interrupted this video was for the Ford Escape.
Dude if you keep this up, you could be like My Old Car/Big Car/Roadster Life/Ed’s Auto Reviews.
The 6.0 an 6.4 were Navistar engines also. Those two turds is what caused the ford/Navistar arrangement to take a major shit
Many of the turbo 4s blow head gaskets because Ford cut a trough between the cylinders for better cooling and it left two very narrow contact points for the head gasket.
I am surprised that the 4.0 V6 with the overhead cams were not mentioned. Those were/are lots of problems. Lots of Explorer folks suffered.
If you look at the bore & stroke of the 351 engines you will find they are exactly the same as the 352 fe. So instead of ford making 3 different 351 engines, realistically they actually made 4 different 352 engines. 1 big block FE & 3 small blocks that they simply called 351 instead of 352.
As a ford guy the 6.0l is a great engine once we the techs figured out how to fix them. Avoid the 6.4l like the plague. Even the 5.4l 3v isn’t bad if you put a lockout kit on it.
The PowerStroke was designed and made by International not Ford.
All manufacturers had head gasket problems with their iron block aluminum head engines. Thereason was that the dissimilar metals expanded and contracted differently during thermal cycles. Head gasket technology finally caught up in the mid 90s.
My 428 CJ, 1969 fastback was the best. I topped it off with a six-pack. The 4-speed toploader made it lots of fun to drive. For better handling, I swapped in front disc brakes, thicker coil springs, a big, fat anti-sway bar, nine-inch diff, traction bars, and welded sub frame connectors. Forgot to mention I ported, polished, and matched all ports, and bumped up the compression, also stuffed a huge four-row radiator and twin fans under the hood. Added a few other goodies to enhance performance and reliability on the street. The headers and Borlas produced an amazing, deep rumble that never failed to impress. You often felt me coming before hearing me. Awesome car and engine.
All modern engines should be maintained per the severe service schedule. It's unfortunate, but across the board that is solid advice.
Wrong. They should be maintained over and above the severe service schedule. Those super-long service intervals are marketing, not engineering, decisions.
@@michaelbenardo5695 You don't seem to know what you are talking about. Good luck with life.
@@michaelbenardo5695 agreed.
@@ShainAndrews 7500 miles between changes is too far. Period. YOU are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.
Ford fixed the head gasket issue in the 99-up Mustang 3.8 by using MLS head gaskets. I researched this to the bone before I bought a Mustang with this engine a few months ago. There are more Mustangs running around with these engines with beyond 300k miles than you may know that never had issues and are still going strong. Aside from the past head gasket issues, these pushrod engines carry the spirit of the 5.0L pushrod in that they are strong (almost bullet proof), torquey, simple engines that give a good sound.
What you totally missed is the 4.0L SOHC V6 that replaced this one in a myriad of vehicles, whose timing chain tensioners and cartridges were 100% absolute utter garbage. Backed by Ford's worst transmission ever made, the 5 speed automatic of the time, it was a double whammy of pure automotive fail. And it only made about 7 more hp than the 3.8L, to boot.
You mentioned the head gasket fix from 99 up; the engine had been in production for a loooong time before that.
The FWD 3.5/3.5 EcoBoost/3.7 liter V6 Fords are bad too because of the timing chain driven water pump as well as the 1.6/1.5 Ecoboost four cylinder.
For dead nuts Ford engine reliability, I'll take a 300 straight 6 every time. Unfortunately, that's not an option for newer vehicles!
My wife and I love our 2006 Lincoln Navigator with the 5.4-3V engine. So much so that after we suffered a head-on collision (not our fault), that we replaced it with an exact same vehicle. I replaced all timing components with factor stock items as well as replaced the stock oil pump with an upgraded Melling oil pump. The root cause of issues with these engines were the first generation timing chain tensioners blowing out a seal causing a loss of timing chain tension, then that compounded the issue by beating the chain guides until they were destroyed, then ending up clogging up the oil pickup. We have 275K miles on our present one and it's very reliable.
Simply stunning to me how they could have built the 7.3 turbo diesel and then turn around and make a 6.0 AND the 6.4.. Its like they forgot everything they learned and proved with the 7.3
6.0 = Your tax dollars at work
8:44
@@flyingdutchman4794 and the 6.4 as well. The MaxxForce made by Navistar was a piece of shit and many motors got bought back and scrapped. If you see a late model Navistar product today, it most likely would have either a Duramax or a Cummins. Some of those school buses with MaxxForce and VT365 engines were swapped with Cummins ISB 6.7 liter engines.
@@atx-cvpi_99 It's a shame they forgot how to build engines; the IDI, 7.3 and DT466 would run forever. The MaxxForce engines were built with a German company IIRC. I'd pay real money to see Cummins knocked off their high horse; Isuzu does build a hell of an engine. There's no replacement for displacement
The 3.8L Essex V6 wasn't bad in most longitudinal mounted RWD cars. But as soon as you turned it sideways in a transverse mount FWD layout, forget it. Just stock up on spare head gaskets.
I'm surprised the sub-4L variants of the Cologne V6 didn't get mentioned. They were underpowered, dirty and fragile. And the 2.5L Duratec? I've never seen an engine so consistently destroy its catalytic converter. It would either last 8 years, or 80k miles, and the moment it was out of the Federally mandated emissions warranty, BAM. Bad cat triggers a Check Engine light.
Most 6.0 powerstroke failures can be attributed to lack of maintenance. Oil cooler and egr cooler failures are from the breakdown of the coolant from extreme heat cycles. Recommended coolant flushes of 30,000-50,000 miles, i have had a number of stock 6.0 make it 250,000 plus miles with proper maintenance.
The 6.4 is a throwaway motor, they are done by 125k miles. Ford had large lawsuit with Navistar on 6.0.
You missed the Escape EcoBoost, my in-laws put 4 engines in two different vehicles. Absolute crap engines. They had one new engine blow a head gasket as it pulled out of the dealership. This was a new engine right out of the Ford Box.
This must be 98.99% of all Ford engines built 🤷🏻♂️
The.1% must've been the 289?
Hi Rare Classic Cars - May I suggest taking your sunglasses as your making your videos which is an issue that was driven into us (cinema students) back in college. The later iterations of the Power stroke 6.0 (2005~2007) are excellent engines with minimal anti-pollution interference. We (at Ford) did fix the problem). Ciao, L (FoMoCo engineering - retired).
Complexity and cost savings don't seem to go together. When you look at the cam phasers on a 5.4 3valve and the # of threads on the spark plug hole you stare at the engine and think what did I get into.
As bad as the 6.0 was, the 6.4 was 10 times worse. Also forgot the 4.2 v-6, 2.0 diesel, 3.4 SHO v-6, anything Zetec, and anything that says ecoboost. And while we're at it, let's mention the 1.6 gas engine. Replaced tons of these over the years too
The 5.4L valve is a good engine if maintained, We have had several of them that hit 500.000 if you replace the cam phasers, timming chains, and cam followers at 200.000, use only genuine Motorcraft parts including the oil filter.
Ford replaced the 3.8 v6 engine in our first generation Windstar twice under warranty. Both times due to a failed head gasket. Got to hand it to them for standing behind their product but I haven't bought a Ford since. A good warranty will never make up for the hassles of unreliability..
Love your content! I don't believe Ford ever put a VV carb on the 3.8L. When it first came out it was equipped the the Motorcraft 2150 carb and in 1984 it got throttle body injection. When Ford recalled early Windstars for head gasket replacement I must have done 50 of them, made alot of $$ too.
I recognize your inclusion of the 4.6 3V. I'd add the early 2000s 4.6 DOHC 4V to that list. I had that poor thing in a pair of 2003 Mercury Marauders I owned simultaneously (both from brand new). By that time Ford was in such financial dire straits that it had hocked the Mustang name to be able to continue operating. Consequently, component quality was pitiful... alternators failing, serpentine belt tensioners, etc. While not directly an engine component, the PCM calibrations were a total mess for a big part of the model year... it wasn't until the later of a total of 4 released calibrations for 2003 that the car was able to drive away smoothly from a cold startup without stalling or at the very least bucking noticeably. Even on the latest calibration (CRD2) as used in the Marauder, the engine could easily be stalled when for instance one would be careful backing up into a parking space with foot on the brakes and moving the steering wheel. Likely a too-low factory idle intended to offset the potential for poor mileage by choosing to use a high-RPM DOHC 4V engine in a large full-frame "panther" sedan instead of the torquier SOHC 2V.
The mileage thing itself was something to behold. Obviously at speed, the overdrive transmissions allowed the cars to achieve acceptable 25ish mpg highway consumption (acceptable for a large sedan from the mid to late 80s, but nonetheless... acceptable). At idle, however... even with the intentionally low warm idle, it was clear that it took a LOT of energy to keep all those DOHC components and chains etc. moving. It was eye opening to see how much the fuel gauge needle would move in just 15-20 minutes of idling in a grocery store parking lot on a hot day (with AC on... due to children in the car with me). This was in stark contrast to my 1998 LS1 Trans Am in the same circumstances, where such lengthy idling in those conditions (or longer) wouldn't even put a nick in the MPG for that particular tankful... notable considering the extra full liter of engine displacement and "ancient" pushrod technology. (I put "ancient" in quotes because let's face it, the LS1 was a leap forward in engine tech on literally every front, and duly recognized by its longtime placement on the Ward's list of best engines, year after year). It was certainly evident when looking under the hood: a relatively puny engine block deep in there, but shouldering two monstrous DOHC cylinder heads that pretty much doubled the overall width... it was like staring at a Boss 429 but to cartoonish proportions.
Many attempts were made to grab back as much precious MPG in operation... alternators with clutches that disengaged on overrun from high RPM which often failed or at best generated bizarre noises that burdened dealer techs. At the same time, said alternators would have their field voltages deactivated on demand by the PCM (running solely off battery during some wide open throttle) in an attempt to further reduce parasitic losses in higher load scenarios... certain lead-foot operators found themselves with weak batteries soon enough. I won't discuss the very abusive torque converter clutch pulsing scheme intended to counter the choice of 3.55 rear gears in order to render acceptable the use of a high RPM weaker-at-low-RPM DOHC engine in a large heavy brick of a sedan (the TCC being pulsed at 50% for so long in 2nd gear in normal driving, many thought it was an actual additional gear until I mapped out the behaviour based on the OBD II data stream).
But if we want to talk about inherent defects: those cylinder heads. As designed and cast, the monstrous heads had a coolant flow issue around the rear cylinders. Hot stagnant coolant would cook the many valves back there. Consequently, even practically brand new cars would develop a loud tick from the valves with damaged valve guides, sometimes still on the showroom floor. On the Mustang, a quick engineering fix was attempted via an external crossover pipe from head to head, but this barely helped if at all (perhaps helping the passenger's side head last a bit longer, at least to the end of the powertrain warranty). On the tighter engine bays of the Marauder (ironic considering it being a full size vehicle) there was no such crossover at the back of the engine. Inspection of such an affected cylinder head after considerably less than half a year of easy operation showed valves that dramatically rocked side-to-side in their place. Ford quietly released an updated complete driver's side cylinder head assembly for the Mustangs (ie. only for those who complained loudly) but (at least initially) refused to do so for the Marauder which used the exact same initial assembly on its 4.6 DOHC 4V!
Along with a myriad other examples of cost-cutting (missing hood bumpers causing groaning hood latches on all cars except the costlier Lincoln Town Cars, etc.) this was a definite solid example of Ford Engineering having painted itself into a dark corner and after a few years of trying to brush aside each failure, I bailed and sold both cars... moving on to Chrysler 5.7 Hemis from 2006 to the present, gaining in driveability, power, torque, fuel economy and most importantly rock solid headache-free reliability.
Have they fixed the lifter/cam failures with the hemis, or figured out why they eating cams/lifters?
@@brianadams429 I had to look that up, I don't touch trucks so I hadn't heard about this. Looks like early 2010s truck Hemis seemed to have a problem with idle-speed lubrication. Haven't heard of the issue on sedan applications and now I see why.
Sedan-wise, there was some concern on late 2006/early 2007 model year 5.7 Hemis about valve seats. That was exactly where my 2006 Daytona came from, so I was concerned but ultimately I enjoyed over 10 years and 130000+ miles with mine before upgrading to the 2016 I own now. So the classic YMMV applies, but I usually only buy new cars and adhere strictly to maintenance and base my choice of oil on instrumented tests and not online opinions. I also don't modify my vehicles. Consequently I was disappointed by the fact of my 4.6s being the only motors in 35 years (performance or otherwise) that I've ever had to take apart for catastrophic failures (these were not the only catastrophic failures the motors experienced, but the only ones that required disassembly).
When unsold double-digit odometer vehicles (Aviators, Mach 1, Marauders, etc.) on dealer lots already show audible indications of the rocking-valves issue I describe, I think it justifies my claim that the motor deserves inclusion as one of the worst motors put out by the company. (I am thinking that the early 2010s truck Hemi issue you describe is worthy of inclusion in a discussion on bad Chrysler engines, but this is a Ford list here?)
Please, Chrysler, Gm both had government bailouts.
@@tripletransam87 if i had to pick a ford engine that is sketchy i would say 5.4 3 valve blowing the spark plug threads out. My mom had a 98/99 expedition with a 4.6. It had oil changes and transmition fluid flushes. It ran flawlessly until my brother in law was using it while his work van was being worked on, anyhow he got rear ended sitting at a light by a honda or toyota car. It pushed the expedition forward like 5 feet into the intersection. Lets just say the driver of the car got multiple tickets. He drove it home, but it kinked the frame just in front of where the reese hitch bolted to it. Insurance totaled it.
The Supercharged version never had the head gasket issue.
And I never had a issue with the 2.3 turbo even with the boost turned up.
Mentioning the variable venturi carb: I'd be interested in what you think of the Varajet. It was a contemporary of the Ford carb and was essentially a Q-jet split longitudinally, giving a single small primary and a large secondary.
I had one on an '80 Jeep CJ5 with the GM 2.5 cast iron 4 cylinder. Not a powerhouse, but damn, I couldn't kill that engine. The Varijet worked well until it I had an underhood gas fire. I couldn't find a replacement for it unless I got a new one from the dealer. I did try another off of a junkyard V6 engine, but it wasn't much better. I eventually made a homemade adapter plate to run a Weber 2 barrel and ran that until I sold the Jeep some years later.
@@willymccoy3427 That actually happened to our 2.8L XJ. What caused your fire? In my case I'm suspecting the heating element built into the carb baseplate spacer. My grandad rewired the engine harness and got it going again with what I think might be another 2SE. I'm still planning to restore that thing eventually.
@@ironhead2008 My fire was from a loose gas line over the distributor. I managed to put it out but not before pretty much everything under the hood except the long block and radiator was beyond hope.
I owned a 2007 F250 with the 6.0 PSD. I bought it brand new, and had nothing but problems since then. It went through several FICM modules, 3 egr coolers, 2 oil coolers. I sold the truck with 80k miles and $9,000 in repair receipts, Wow ! I heard the 6.4 Navastar was worse. Those engines only lasted to 150,000 miles , then were junk. At least the 6.0 was fixable for a huge price$$
The 351M was created in the name of emissions. The 400M was a piece of junk. The whole upper end was a choke point for performance. Both the W & C variants were good motors. I preferred the Cleveland but had a number of friends that would use modified Winsor in Fox bodied Mustangs in the 90s.
Navistar 6.0s are bad but 6.4s are definitely worse. I’m glad it got an honorable mention. 5.4s 3V are definitely bad. There’s been many F series and expeditions that went to the junk yard over that engine.
Variable venturi carbs were used in aircraft. Also variable venturi carb were common on British cars, even on Rolls-Royce well into the late-1970's.
The Ford 3.8L V6 wasn't that bad. Used in virtually all Ford cars, just like any cast iron engine with aluminum heads, there will be head gasket problems. It was exasperated by human error and lack of proper maintenance. It was further exasperated by improper repair. They were repaired using methods for regular run-of-the-mill engines. They required special repair procedures and machining.
Yep the Ford-designed 6L diesel was problematic right away. Luckily, the 7.3 diesel was still available when the new 6L came out. It was soon replaced by the 6.4L Power Stroke diesel, which was built by International(Navistar) and was a much better engine.
Those raggedly Y-blocks from the 50’s were a joke. While Chrysler and GM already had excellent OHV V-8’s, Ford was offering their V-8 customers junk.
You could routinely hear these things coming from a quarter mile away, what with all their clacking, puffing and chugging. They were also relatively poor performers; finally Ford bolted on a supercharger to get the things to breathe as well as a normally aspirated Chevy V-8.
I’m sometimes surprised that Ford survived the 50’s ...
Drove a one ton with y block from tn to new Mexico many trips. Can remember it was better on fuel than the newer model truck i bought. And it never gave me no trouble.
I had a 1984 Mercury Cougar, bought brand new, with the 3.8 V6. It had throttle body fuel injectors.
The 7.3, 6.0 and 6.4 diesel’s were built by Navistar (International Harvester) for Ford. Ford sued them because of the failures and refusal to reimburse Ford for the warranty claims, loss business and damage to Ford’s reputation. They also refused to release Ford from their contract as an engine supplier. Navistar replaced the 6.0 with the 6.4 attempting to fix problems but Ford had already started to engineer the replacement all in-house and stop doing business with Navistar. That engine, the 6.7 PSD, went into production in 2011 and is still used today. This makes Ford the only manufacturer to engineer and build their own heavy duty diesel all in house. Although there were problems with the BOSCH fuel injection and DEF systems early on, they are as reliable as there competitors.
I could not agree with you more on the 351M/400! A gutless wonder😢
Yeah I had a 4.6 liter in my 99 mustang and it was🗑 shot a spark plug out then I had to replace the engine at sixty thousand miles, but I loved my 1 gen coyote and I currently own a third gen coyote and love it
I had a 6.0, was fine until I sold it at 100k miles. I also had a 5.4, never had an issue - sold it to a friend, and he still has it, runs great. But, I also use Amsoil oil, so I never have a sludge problem. I also had a 351M, he's correct, it was a dog.
Great video and you touched on some important issues however you forgot all the current Ford Motors they're all junk
Re 5.4 Cam Phaser Issue. Livernois Motorsport has the CP lockout Kit that includes software to reprogram the PCM.
I had a 4.2l in a 99 Ford f150. That truck went to 300k miles original engine and drivetrain. The transmission finally went. That thing still ran and had a. Drove up into the trailer to scrap it.
For as bad the 6.0 was, the 6.4 was even worse. But they are both Navistar and not built by Ford. Both so bad that Ford decided to take on the expense to develop and produce their own 6.7.
One problem that Ford had with several engines(including the 302) was blowing main seals,I've heard horror stories going back to 1965
351M 351W 400 429 460 all used 3" main bearings.
I used to throw every 351M 400 engine I got in the scrap iron pile until I started seeing the 400 beating up on all other engines in the engine master challenge.
All the fancy 351C parts heads came ect all fit 351M 400 engines and the 400 has a longer stroke than 428FE engines and 460 engines so now I've given up on my old faithful FE's and build tunnel ramed 4V Cleveland headed 400's dry intake can run and Cleveland aluminum intake that bolts to the PME head adapters.
Very cheap horsepower.
I hate when people talk about Ford engines when don’t have a clue what there talking about.
Yes, Cleveland heads fit the retarded 351M/400, but the intake manifold DOES NOT.
The 400M was an "emissions" version of the 351C. It was slower and less economical than the 351C even though it had more displacement.
The 351W had 4" main bearings.
@@williamwhite9767 3"
I'd argue that the 6.4 was much worse (stock) than the 6.0 Powerstroke: 5 years of production (6.0) vs. 3 years (6.4). Also, the 6.4 is one of the few engines I know of that is cheaper to replace with a new engine than to rebuild.
I agree with you. As bad as the sick-O was, is wasn't near as bad as the "stinker" 6.4L.
Most of the 6.4 usually have a inspection window in the block after things go bad 6.0 most of the time those are still repairable .
@@classicwefi I think everyone could all agree that congress let Ford off the hook with these engines. Congress was going after Toyota because their floor mats were sliding up into the throttle pedal (and being non union) at the time. All the people who died in an ambulance broke down on the side of the road with a PowerStroke, nothing. Ford, termed the phrase "mechanical repo". Most Ford owners lost everything, and just walked away. But those damn (non union) floormats in your Prius, that was the true issue.
The best one is the 7.3 and (arguably) better still..A Cummins swap.
6.4l was worse, BUT I absolutely HATED the 6.0l with a passion. We ran them in Ambulance vans for a decade. I got SO good at swapping over all of our equipment from 1 ambulance to another when they would break. I had a few times they left me stranded on the side of the freeway loaded with a patient. Only good part was I wasn't paying the repair bill.
It is interesting how a similar design can have such a difference depending on displacement. The 5.4 3-Valve is an absolute train wreck, whereas the 4.6 in so many Crown Vics, Marquis’, and Town Cars might be Ford’s most reliable V-8 in the last three decades.
3v vs 2v
I will take a built 302 or 351W over any 4.6.....FAR less complexity and the dinky valve stems (as well as plastic intakes on the passenger car variants---Ive replaced MANY of those) on the 4.6 screams to me HELL NO. Also, due to the tight bore spacing, these engines cannot be overbored much, when they wanted more displacement it had to be stroked into the 5.4
The 4.6 is WIDER than even a 385 series 429/460 engine, and the 5.4 is wider still.
Point of fact. Ford re engineered the AODE transmission into the wide ratio 4R70W because they knew the tiny 4.6 (281 ci) was deficient on low end torque and its power band was higher than the 302/351, making it a dog until the rpms came up.
When they run good, they are a fairly decent engine. Exhaust manifolds are a complete bare to get to though. If you don't change the oil, they turn to junk. Main issue is cam phasers and the plastic timing chain guides break. Then you get the occasional rocker followers that wear and can pit the cam down if you keep driving them when they get noisy.
I have had a few still running strong with over 200k. Like I said, not my top choice of engines but if you get the truck REALLY cheap I would run them. I ran a 2008 Expedition with 230k for a year back in like 2017. Paid $2000 for it with a bad rear end. Replaced the rear end for $100 in parts and did not have a single issue with it after that.
Peter Sladek but the 4.6 3vs don’t die anywhere near as soon or often as the 5.4’s. They always live a normal life when it comes to maintenance and longevity.
Don Reinke u are crazy if you’re picking a pushrod 302 over a mod motor lmfao u trippin god damn
And no. Only the 2v and 3V mod motors have plastic intake manifolds (like every single mainstream engine design made in the last 25 years lol)
The 4 valves are incredible motors. 2vs are also very good. Both substantially better than a 302/351 to anyone who doesn’t live under a rock.
The 4.0 sohc was probably a good candidate for an honorable mention, timing chain noise reported as early as 75K miles and failure causing catastrophic damage at 150k was reported
And a rear chain made it so that the only way to do the job is pull the motor and strip it almost entirely
I had a mountaineer with that engine and it never made any timing chain noise. Had almost 90k miles on the original chain and guides. Didn't last much longer though because I floored it in 4x4 low and it revved over 7k rpm. Used Lucas for a year to stop the rod knock, but after that, it was too worn out. My fault though
@@christopherswanson1628 mine had it at 100K, and got the updated guides and tensioner which were better, by a lot, it's at 216K and still quiet, but that's still a noteworthy problem
My brother in law had a 97 explorer 4 liter sohc. He ran the shit out of pulling a 6 x 12 enclosed trailer around for work. When he got rid of it, it had 150 k miles, he barely had the oil changed. I only thing i know he had to replace was the fuel pump in the tank, he would run it till it was on fumes before he would stop for gas
That jackshaft was an abomination!
@@CarsandCats very much so
You forgot the 1.9 escort / focus engines. I've never seen so many engines drop valve seats out of the aluminum heads. This would almost always destroy a piston and the head. The escort gt 1.8 Mazda engines, bullet proof smaller, 50% more power no inherent defects.
I had that 1.9 engine in a '95 Escort wagon, 88 ground-pounding horsepower!
Yep. I had a 1.9L and sold it before it ate itself. What a gutless turd. Ford Escort GT manual transmission ran 1/4 mile 18.20. What a disgrace.
I was just about to mention this as well. This is pretty much the sole reason there are very few escorts on the road today. The ones still out there almost universally have less than 120k miles.
Mine was one of them, my neighbor's Focus the same thing - we swap the engine. I changed the head, deglazed the cylinder, put new rings. I worked OK.
I’m not sure on the engine details, but I had one of the fairly early Mercury Lynx models and it was the most sluggish vehicle I’ve ever owned. It also had a four-speed manual that was hard to shift.
The diesel engines (1983-2010) prior to the 6.7 were made by International/Navistar. There were actually lawsuits between Ford and Navistar after all the 6.0 and 6.4 problems.
We all know this, if ford wasn’t at the table when they were designing these engines. It is completely there fault.
International couldnt even build a decent engine for their own trucks toward the end there. They nearly bankrupted themselves with their MaxxForce disaster.
My 84, 6.9 L Cornbinder puts around 150 hp on the rear wheels. Power Strokes put twice that on their rear wheels. At 20:1 compression, there’s not much room to soup my 6.9 up. OTOH, I get 20 mpg.
Ford got the Cornbinder factory in bankruptcy. Ford bought control of Cummings, too. G M is the last indie. My son bought a brand new Duramax extra heavy duty diesel P U, and had kittens with it’s goofs. He had to track down Chevy’s C O O online to get a new computer module under warranty from the local dealer. Buuut he still makes fun of my old mechanical diesel Ford.😇
@@davekoenig9935 Cummins.. CUMMINS.. There is no g.. And you have bought into a myth.. Ford does not own or have a controlling interest in Cummins... Never has.. It did at some point own aprox 10% but that was purchased back..
FORD DOES NOT OWN OR CONTROL CUMMINS.. NEVER HAS..
How much of Cummins does Ford own? Cummins set the record straight in their May 2013 newsletter, outlining that Ford Motor Company had purchased 10.8% of the diesel engine manufacturer in 1990. In 1997, those shares were bought back, and as such Ford has not owned a stake in Cummins since... Source.. The internet...
My 2004 6.0 was absolutely trouble free for 8 years. Near the end of my ownership it only problem was blowing off a turbo hose when it automatically downshifted when pulling my 10,000 trailer which I fixed with an extra hose clamp. I used Standyne with every fill up of diesel and Hot Shot Secret every 30,000 miles. It was serviced every 4000 miles. It never had any of the problems you mentioned.
My understanding is that the root of MOST of the 6.0 failures is lack of maintenance.
You speak for every 2004 6.0 owner? No?
The early 5.4 engines the spark plug would damage the threads in the head when removed requiring you to repair the threads. The exhaust manifold bolts would also rust off and create exhaust leaks. Other than that, a good engine 😁.
Ford attempted to resolve the spark plug issue by moving the threads up out of the combustion chamber and using longer extended plugs. These plugs would unfortunately become stuck and break off in the head 🤦.
Ford was also troubled with the cam phaser technology that is driven with engine oil. These systems are extremely sensitive to dirty oil and require quality oil filters and frequent oil changes. This goes for all modern engines that use this technology which is about every one today.
You have all of that right! The spark plug issue, especially on the back two plugs of the heads, were huge, if people took their trucks to an econolube for a tune up: some high school or pot smoking dropout doing shit work. The early 5.4 has issues but we ran full synthetic, mobil1, from Costco, every time it was on sale and anything from our local auto parts of big box store on sale. We NEVER used Fram cardboard filters, and changed the oil 250-500 mi.s less than prescribed maintenance schedule with seasonal use. We had those truck go into the 400K mi range with no issues. My personal winter time "nock around" truck is one of our 99's that has over 550K mis on it. If the motor is maintained, they will run.... However, after 2003.5 FORGET ABOUT IT, those motors are complete junk: tech bulletins state, for any top end engine noise "replace the engine." LMAO. The 5.4 3v was total junk.
@@chuckhaugan4970 219K failure mileage on a 24v vs 361k failure mileage on a 16v, it still ran but had really low compression on 3 cylinders and just enough compression to run on the rest resulting in random misfires on all cylinders no matter engine temp or rpms, it also needed refilled with oil every 1,000 miles due to consumption and minor leaks, just ran the cheapest dollar store oil when the oil consumption got out of hand and welded a 90 to the end of the exhaust so it wouldn't throw atomized motor oil onto cars or people
You could repair threads and broken manifold bolts on a 5.4-2V a hell of a lot cheaper than the cam phasers in a 3V - a fix that doesn't last long anyway seeing as replacing the phasers doesn't fix what caused them to fail in the first place. I've been a truck dealer for 35 years and we will NOT buy and sell anything with a 5.4-3V. I'll take my chances with a 6.0 diesel. And this guy left one engine off of his list - the 3.5 Ecoboost V6, especially the early models produced in 2011-13.
I used Motorcraft oil and oil filters on my 2010 5.4 3-valve motor. I changed it before the 6 month/ 7,000 mile interval. It never had a problem in 11 years. Valve train noise was considerable in cold weather. I remember visiting family in Illinois in the winter about 7 months after I purchased the truck. It was so noisy at startup, they thought it was a 7.3 liter diesel.
@@SCREECHTRUMPET1 I think thats just a thing the Tritons do, my older 2v on cold start up will carry on like a loaded down diesel for a bit.
I agree with your list of flaws for the 6.0 diesel. Started in a Ford store in 2007. My heart stopped when I walked into the shop and saw 3 pick ups with the cabs unbolted and raised on the hoist, frames sitting on the wheels on the floor so engine could be accessed for injectors or head gaskets. Service advisor said it was how the techs had to do 6.0 "tune up"
Ruined morale of techs and cost Ford a lot of diesel customers. Talk about a boat anchor.
That's right! I saw plenty in our shop.
They still work on them that way.
Thats the ford philosophy on diesels going back to the obs 7.3 powerstroke. Either the motor comes out or the cabs come off. I've heard from the few guys I know that are or were ford techs they prefer working on fords over say chevys because of that. They Sawzall all the body mount bolts and lift the cab and they have access to everything within 2 hours
They had a ton of power though. Snappy too..
they're actually VERY good engines, when not "ruined" by the EPA. It was the exact same engine as the International VT365 HD/MD engine. Difference? Ford-using them in LD applications (pickups) had to request International to make changes to them so that they'd meet emissions standards and other regulations set forth by uncle sam. If left alone as the VT365, they were a decent engine.
I was a mechanic 38 years and I agree totally with this content 👌
I had a 3.8 V6 in my 86 Thunderbird which I bought new. I have to tell you, I took good care of that car, regular tuneups and fluid changes, oil changes every 3000 miles and went almost 200,000 miles, changing nothing but valve cover gaskets slong the way. Car had good power for its day, very comfortable. Probably my most favorite car I've owned.
i had an 89 for several years. got in in trade for working on a couple vehicles for a relative. he even bought the parts lol. it was overheating on him.. a new thermostat and water pump and i was in business. this was a 3.8, never had head gasket issues with it though. my inlaws had a taurus with that engine and it was an issue but only after they let my brother inlaw use it for a bit. he has a reputation for being hard an vehicles. i think they tried machining the heads and shimming them. car was never right again and they dumped quite a bit of money into that "fix". might have been the machine work, idk.
My brother had a 3.8 in a ‘94 Cougar. It blew a head gasket, hydrauliced the engine, and when Ford wouldn’t make it good, though he had been a life-long Ford man, he gave up on them, and to this day has only had Hondas.
And it goes further than just him. The rest of the family swore off Fords, too, owing to their shabby treatment of brother.
@@sking2173 similar story..a friend got a nice clean Taurus with a strong 3.8 V6..
Buut the car overheated/ blew a head gasket around 90K ..mechanic said that original gasket was a cheap one that blew out easily..( Ford saves $2.50 × 50,000 -unlucky owner gets $1000 repair bill )
Unfortunately, ' Christine ' blew a fuel line on the way home from the garage..caught fire & burned to the ground in minutes..
True story.
After they went to an MLS gasket in 97 the head issues went away. Hell I am running a 96 bored and stroked to 4.2 0n 15psi of boost with the MLS gaskets with no issues.
The worst Ford engine I have ever worked on was my girlfriend's 3.8L in an '84 Thunderbird. It had no power no matter what I did to it, and just a very rough, unbalanced idle.
Glad you added the "honorable mentions." When you held up your white board and I didn't see the 351/400M, I thought about shutting it off. My grandfather had a '77 Cougar with a 351M and it wouldn't pull a dead cat off a fencepost!
Even my grandmother thought it was a slug. You know your car is a slug when your grandmother complains about it.
😁
My dad had a 77 F-150 with a 351m he said it wouldn’t pull the hat off your head! Bought it new and it needed an new engine at 40,000 miles.
@@charlesprice7608, the thing is my dad bought a new 77 F-150 351m 4 speed 4x4 single cab long bed and he said it was a good truck, got 23 mpg at one point on the highway somehow, and that was with the bed loaded up with stuff moving to California from Iowa, and I’ve never believed in those modified motors so I don’t know what to think lol
You have to remember, fuel crunch 73,74. Last real cars with performance for a while was 73. Those 351 m were to work but all v8's were cut back so far on power to use less fuel so it was gutless along with pretty much everything else.
@@brianadams429 GM engines from the same period worked just fine. And it wasn't just lack of power, they had terrible reliability.
4.9l 300 inline six deserves #1 best ever spot IMHO
So pleased with my 4.9 inline 6 cylinder in my 1980 F150 shortbed.
Those old Ford I-6 engines for most part were relatively trouble free. Some of the V8s were good, some were trash!
I just subscribed and I enjoy your channel. One correction: the 335 series is the 351 Cleveland 351M and 400M and the 429/460 is the 385 series. As a mechanic one of the worst jobs I ever did was the head gaskets on my Mother's 91 TB SC. Yes, the 3.8 sucks. I do love my 351 C equipped 72 Mach 1.
the 351/400 m serie is a 335
@RT060789 the shop I work at is still driving a $200 1995 Ford Windstar 3.8L Essex V6 with nearly 360 000kms.
Our 73 400 was a dog in an LTD wagon.
I've done some research on them.
Seriously retarded camshaft timing on the
351M and 400. It's very important to switch the timing-gear set to an aftermarket version, NOT a Ford version. Many blocks cast at the
Michigan Casting Center, as opposed to the Cleveland Casting Center, were prone to
lifter-valley cracks from 1973 through
March 1977. All these engines used a
different thermostat than most other
Ford V-8s. Many ended up with the wrong
thermostat, which led to overheating and
oil-pressure problems. Compression ratios were very low.
There was too much deck-clearance, on
400s in particular, which led to pre-ignition
problems. Ford never remedied this.
An improved higher-compression piston
is sold by TMeyer Inc out of Minnesota.
@@ChillkootMarkowee Miracles can happen! My Mother's SC had no issues after the Fel-Pro head gasket update. My Sister then crashed it 6 months later and it was never the same. I was none too pleased. I did not mention that in the same 6 month period I did a 95 Taurus head gasket job on a 3.8 that was fairly unpleasant and then I did 95 mustang 3.8 head gasket job. That was pretty straight forward.
@@RT060789 yeah that really sucks when you just fixed it then it got wrecked. Well the Mustang was easy because it's rear wheel drive but the Saurass (Taurus) is difficult probably because it's front wheel drive.
I'm working on a 5.4 3 valve and a 6.0 powerstroke in the shop today lucky me lol
In my experience 3.8 essex has only one weak spot, head gasket. I have owned -84 LTD four years now and with that motor (throttle body injection) zero problems! Never failed, only regular maintance, also one of the best cold starter, even in -30 celsius always startup on first try.
You missed the mid 1970's Ford engine electronic ignition modules, they would get hot and stop working. Everyone seemed to carry an extra module with tools to change in the trunk
A little grease on the TFI module mounting surface cured that problem. GM's DEI was worse. The General has a big schlong and he ain't afraid to bone you with it.
I just got a distributor for a 1971 ford 400 ..points and condenser don't ever overheat..low tech is always the better solution
Hi I had a new 1998 Expedition with the 5,4 L what JUNK it sucked gas like a pig intake manifold cracked, exhaust manifolds cracked, 2 spark plugs blew out and was slow. All 5.4 L are junk Iwill never buy another Ford after that thing.
Ford had three 351 engines because they started off with the Cleveland, and then emissions had to be added to which the C design wasn't terribly well suited. At that point the Windsor block got an extra 5/8" deck height and a stroked crank and became the 351W as the 'moderate' v8 engine option in most things. Meanwhile, the 400 was sitting here already with a block that fit the large transmission pattern, great for the larger cars, but the fuel crunch was about so it's displacement wasn't the greatest for the market. What to do? De-stroke it to 351ci, for the 351M.
Side note, the 351M/400 are "cleveland like" engines, enough that the heads swap. The only difference is the block has an extra inch of deck height and 99% of them have the C6 bolt pattern. And on pretty much all of them post-73 if you advance the cam 5 degrees, tweak the mechanical advance a little in the distributor, and tune (re-jet) the carb, it wakes right up. Easy 20-40 horsepower depending on how your chambers look, some will ping much easier than others (and can be cleaned up, but you're way deeper into it than a cam key/dizzy spring and weight swap/main jet change).
Actually ford came out with the 351 windsor first in 1969 then the cleveland in 1970.
351W was from 1969
The Powerstroke was a derivative of a Transtar International, Corn Binder, and they blew head gaskets on a regular basis. And yes the 5.3 is known to launch a sparkplug thru the hood at times, yep have personally seen where sparkplugs and coil pack damaging the hood when they blew out. But those engines were in trucks and were used as trucks so there was some pressures being produced.
You don't see many stock 6.0 engines that are totally stock blow head gaskets. The bottom end was bullet proof. I never had a problem with mine.
Navistar International not Transtar. 5.4 for Ford, not 5.3.
You were supposed to put a drop of lock tight on your 5.4 spark plugs that nobody did lol
Engineer's job is to design for the job to be done. Lousy engineering decisions all but destroyed Navistar a few times over. An empty shell of what they once were. What a shame.
@@chris1451 i know a older gentleman that does construction so his 6.0 is a trailer tower for supplies, tractors or whatever he needs. Anyway his truck is bone stock. This guy has his truck well maintained, and has never had any problems.
Very good video. Thanks.
You're being pretty kind to those V6 engines.
The 6.0 diesel - sure it can be "bulletproofed" - for some serious cash. How people afforded to own these things is beyond me. 6.4 even worse.
The 5.4 3 valve - slowly but surely they're fading into the sunset. Good riddance.
Bulletproofing a 6.0 is a waste of money because its still going to fail a lot
Total waste of money.
The 6.4 wasn't bad just horrible fuel economy
My 6.0 is bulletproof all the way, including radiator.
@@jackobrien4432 sure, without discipline maintenance
I truly am impressed by your linguistic skills. You are so articulate and concise in your descriptions and examples. I miss my first car, a 1972 Mach 1 Mustang with 351 Cleveland and C6 trans. Ford always seemed to have too many engineers trying to justify their existence ,resulting in over-complicated engines and accessories. I've watched a bunch of your videos...... you're very talented. Thanks for your time and effort..... I TRULY APPRECIATE THEM!!!
True! Adam has a wonderful way of presenting the facts. And boy, does he know them!
Closest voice & modulation makes watching every one of his videos of pleasure!
True! Adam has a wonderful way of presenting the facts. And boy, does he know them!
Plus, his voice & modulation makes watching every one of his videos of pleasure!
The 3.5 is on my never-buy list. Actually they run really well -- unless and until the water pump starts to leak.
I believe the 3.7 also has an internal water pump they ford was dumb enough to copy the interal water pump idea From the Chrysler 2.7 disaster.
Don't even get me started over pentastar, although it eventually got fixed. Actually any new engine, it's a good idea to check the coolant weekly. If the level is changing or the color getting murky, it might be water pump or head gasket.
Very few had water pump problems, If you noticed when the leak started, the passage to the outside would show antifreeze, time to change the pump. Many of the engines went over 300k miles. The problem is nobody changes antifreeze or checks coolant, After a few years this new type of coolants becomes abrasive, and acidic, which eats up everything.
Feel free to buy one if you wish. I'm not going to become interested.
GM has the most lemon engines for sure. PERIOD
One thing to remember was in the 80’s into the 90’s almost all v6 engines basically head headgasket problems. They were kinda new compared to the online 6 and there was a lot of new land to discover with those motors.
That 3-valve was a real moneymaker for techs and parts guys. Thank you Ford!