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.
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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!
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a die hard Ford person you hit nail on the head with all of them… I used to pull a lot of 351/400M engines out and swap in a 429 or 460 engines and they actually got better gas mileage because they didn’t have to work as hard. I also hated those 3.8 V6’s with their head gasket issues and stopped doing head gaskets on them because of them being so time consuming… The 351C’s were the best engines Ford ever built!!! The Windsors and the FE’s were great too along with the 429’s and 460’s… Also as someone mentioned in the comments the 300 six cylinders were great too.
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 had a 2006 F-150 Lariat with the 5.4L Triton engine. The only problem that engine had was the mis-engineered spark plug that tended to come apart during the removal process. That issue was easily resolved by using special tools that addressed that issue and installing upgraded spark plugs. I owned that truck for over 11 years and changed the oil & filter every 5K miles, using only full synthetic oil, having none of the problems described here
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.
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).
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.
You are also right about the 351M. We had an 1978 LTD Station wagon, about 5000lbs, so big, with the 351M in it, and it was so slow and under powered. Again very good video, thanks!
Actually the problem was 1978 and all the emissions controls, very rudimentary early computerization, carburetion, restricted breathing on the engine, etc. The 351M was a great engine, and if you find a solid block and want to go pay for the performance parts to build one, 500 horsepower is easy and it will do it all day long without thinking twice. So will the 302, 351W, 429/460. The problem with the 351C, 351M, and 400 is that they never made much of a splash prior to all the emissions controls or prior to the fuel crisis and the hot roders never got interested in them. There is a direct correlation between availability and cost of performance parts and the number of available blocks of a particular engine, along with the application of those blocks in vehicles. 302 and 351W fit like a glove in Fox body Mustangs. Many of Fords other engines require a bit of shoehorning. And the guys that build 302s into performance engines like 351W because they are similar to build.
One of the family's cars that I drove in high school was an 1980 (?) Pinto with a red/white Starsky & Hutch paint scheme. With a 2.3-liter four and a manual transmission, it took a while to get comfortable with stopping at an uphill stop sign. With only 88 hp (?), it was not suitable for climbing any steep driveways, and I remember a good bit of spark knock.
The '79-'80 pinto 2.3 engines were very badly hampered by EPA junk! The basic engine was, and is a great engine! I had a '76 pinto and drove that thing for a very long time with no problems!
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!
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.
I just found your channel, brought here by the algorithm. It’s a terrific channel. I’ve subscribed and notifications are on. Here’s a suggestion…the Chrysler / Dodge / Plymouth slant six. What made it bulletproof and why did it go away.
@@sking2173also HUGE main bearings. I assume it didn't fit in other applications. The Jeeps were already designed for the AMC inline 6, and it was too long to fit in a Dakota. I sure would've loved to have the slant 6 as an option for the 94-up Dodge pickups ❤
Adam: Bullseye regarding the 3.8 V6. My sister had one in a Sable wagon back in the early 90s. On a good day, a sleepy underpowered lump. On a bad day blown head gaskets!!! My wife also had one in a 2000 Windstar. Nothing broke, but it couldn't drive into a headwind or climb a grade without knocking continuously. Fortunately, a two-year lease. Couldn't give that back to the dealer fast enough. My sister has never considered a Ford product since. My wife and I have had five Hondas since turning in the Windstar. No regrets.
I had a 2.3L in a Courier pickup that lasted 544,448 miles... only reason it was retired was I couldn't get a trans output shim for it. Beat the living tar outta that truck and was always reliable. My parents had a LTDII with the 2.8 V6 that was gutless- I currently drive a '06 F250 with the 6.0 for work, It's not a speed demon like my 5.9 (12 valve) but it seems to be holding up quite well... I never was a fan of the 352 V8, a lot of weight for piss poor performance. And the V10? don't let me even start on those turds! Great video!
It was a very poor decision from Ford to put the 3.8 into its F150. Thankfully it was dropped in short over. It was nothing like the tried and true 300 six.
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.
Very good list, Id say the same and even down to the honorable mention. Though Ill say without a doubt the GM 2.8 V6 was way more of an POS vs the 3.8 Ford. The modular motors series were great motors despite the 5.4 3 valve. The 5.4 2 valve was reliable. The VV carb a great idea on paper, not so much real world. The VVs were a PITA and especially the later computer controlled emissions wise as a smog tech as they aged. Though they were really a simple carb to teardown and rebuild.
I had the 2.8 in a Fiero, and in an S-10. Both very reliable. But then, I change oil like you are supposed to. The 3.8 Ford is good, but the 4.0 is lesser by quite a bit.
351M / 400. I saw a good number of these come in with a light knock when up around 100K miles. Pick-ups seemed especially prone to this. We'd roll in a fresh set of main bearings that were .001 (yes that's correct!) oversize to solve the problem. I could never figure out why these main bearings would wear out in that way. I went to an engine clinic one day and the guy that ran it really knew his stuff! On a break, I asked him about it. He knew the answer right away ... the main bearing journals were TOO BIG! Huh? Yep. Because of the larger size of the journal, the surface speed between the bearing and main journal was far higher than that of an engine with a smaller journal. That is, the surface had to move faster to complete a revolution and therefore wore quicker. So interesting. Another case of bigger not being better.
I believe you're incorrect, the 351m is a modified 400. It has tall Pistons. That's why it's called the 351m for modified. The Windsor is a completely different block.
@@lukemeier1853 Yep- my old brain ain't what it used to be. Edited my post. I'm older than any Ford engine series still in production. Thanks for the correction!
I don't see the cause and effect logic between journal size and wear. It seemed a that the issue was a bad crank hardening process in combination with oil distribution problems. It appears the 351m had the 351 Windsor crank with a different snout and the 351 w has no such problems. A small percentage variation in the diameter is unlikely to cause any adverse reaction as evidenced by the Windsor having no issues.
Was happy to see you acknowledged the 5.4 but it is far worse than you describe. It's equal to or worse than the 6.0 diesel. In fact, way worse. And Ford denied there was an issue for a couple of years, at least our dealer had, and we had a huge fight to get our money back out of them. Our company never adhered to Ford's maintenance schedule! 250 mi's less than prescribed, in the winter and 500 mi.'s less in the hottest months of summer!!!! And we still had the top end blow out! Why? We are a heavy construction industry trade, hauling tools, equipment and materials: industrial steel pipe manufacturing and installation. The 5.4 was a stellar engine in the 2v variety. When Ford redesigned the top end, they did exactly what Chrysler is doing with the hemi: used lighter gauge steel on all components but the actual valve, in addition to narrowing the oil ports. Further, they replaced timing guides with hardened plastic from steel..... What could possibly go wrong??? If you read the tech bulletins for noise from the head or timing chain area the solution is "engine replacement." It was a total POS in 2002.5 when Ford tested the motor, they knew it, but they put it on the market anyway. It's unbelievable that a corporation thought people would just eat the cost. But, that was Ford's business model. Sad thing is, I still have my 99, 5.4, as our personal winter nock around truck. It only spent 100K mi's of hard trade driving, mostly for deliveries of random parts, as it was my company truck. It has over 550K mi's on it, original motor, only had alternators, coil packs, and an AC pump replaced. The original water pump is still on it!!! When it hit 420K mi's, the coil pack in the transmission died.... Since the seats were rotting away, I almost retired the truck... But, I want to see how long this motor will go. So here we are with a rebuilt trans and 140K mi's later, the truck still runs but is now using 1/2 pt of oil every 1,500 mis. Hope to put another 100K on her before we have a funeral.
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.
"It liked head gaskets like Cookie Monster likes cookies." Brilliant 😄!! One of the funniest analogies on any auto post. PS Good thing you're not a scam artist; with that super-honest voice you likely could dupe the masses.
The 2 valve 5.4s were the ones that only had 4 or 5 threads in the spark plug holes and sometimes would eject the spark plugs. Although I owned two of those trucks that went 170k miles each that did not eject a spark plug. The 3 valve engines had plugs that broke in half when removing quite often.
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.
Good list. The 5.4 3V has a well-earned reputation as a terrible engine. It is much-maligned on RUclips, and there are numerous videos harping on all of the things that can go wrong with one. This is a shame, because it was installed in a lot of F150’s that were otherwise very solid workhorses. You wonder how many of the problems with engines that make “worst” lists were found during development testing and swept under the rug or rationalized away because a proper design fix was too expensive.
I remember when I still in California, when it got hot during the summer the side of the road always had big Ford tanks with 351M and 400 engines. I was a engine mechanic for 32 years and almost every one of those engines I tore down had cracked cylinder heads from overheating.
The 351/400M engines have a dry intake manifold that are cooled using an air injection pump. The air pumps force cool air into the intake manifold. Well, people thought the pumps were the same as smog pumps and removed them from the engine. The intakes will get so hot without the fresh air from the pump that the gas will start to boil in the carburetor and vapor lock and also overheat the engine. The 351M is a pretty decent engine if the air injection pump is working correctly. I've got a 78 f100 with that engine and it runs great with tons of torque with a 360 carburetor upgrade!
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 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.
I had a 1993 Taurus with the Essex 3.8L. I had absolutely no issues with it at all. It was the best powertrain I ever had in a daily drive. Amazing engine in the Taurus. Of all the cars I've owned, its the 3.8L Taurus I miss the most.
I have a 2003 Windstar with the 3.8 in it. Have had zero significant engine issues. Plugs/wires, a coil pack and some intake grommets are all I have had to do to that engine. Been a very reliable power plant. Sadly, due to rust issues, that Windstar's days on the road are numbered.
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.
The 3V 5.4L was SO BAD that dealer auctions started making an announcement on them when they did NOT have cam phaser or timing chain noise because practically all of them did and the arbitration on them was getting out of hand.
Truly enjoyed the video. I owned a '73 Ford Gran Torino Sport with a 351C and that thing was bulletproof. Ok, it became not so bulletproof when the oil pump gave out at 110 mph...
LOLOL , I had a ‘70 Torino 351C that did the exact thing - oil pump locked up, but in my case, it twisted the oil pump shaft like a candy cain, but it locked the distributor gear tight enough to make it jump 3 teeth before the shaft broke, and the engine immediately shut down. Amazing stuff.
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.
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 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.
The 5.4 3 valve solved the early year spark plug blow out issue by having them weld themselves into the head with carbon build up, then they break in two when trying to remove them. Then they chose not to have bearings between the cam and cam tower. The passenger side cam is the last thing to get oil so it starves first, which allows the steel cam to ruin the aluminum head. They really phoned in the engineering on the '05 Super Duty in many places, like the high speed suspension wobble (max the air pressure says the TSB).
I have an 06 expedition with the 5.4 3 valve. Never had problems with the plugs, but CalVan makes an easy to use fix for it if I ever do. When I did the timing gear last summer at 130k miles I installed a Melling high volume oil pump and replaced all the roller followers since the valve covers were off. This truck runs as well as the day I drove it off the lot. I'm actually disappointed to know I'll never be able to get another expedition with that engine. It's a workhorse.
When you only have 3 threads holding each plug in, you gotta expect them to self-eject at some point. But not Ford engineers - they thought it would be just fine.
Perhaps I should note that I've never had any of the engine issues I listed in my own '05 F250 with 95K miles on it. I've changed the oil every 5K but I fear the worst. Did have the wobble thing happen once, though
I worked for ford co internally… actually to fix a fact in your video.. the 6.0 would blow head gaskets from the VGT vain turbos would bind up from soot, thus over boosting the living hell out of the motor + the head bolts were weak that would stretch from this stress. Oil issues 6.0 , first off it had nothing to do with oil passages. It was the fact that from factory synthetic oil was not required. This was a TERRIBLE thing as the HPOP system would literally pressurize oil up at 3000 psi making it very hot.. it would coke the spools in the injectors. ----- 5.4L … no oil passages blocked from sludge. There was a shity oiling system for the heads but the killer was a oring in the timing chain tensioner. It would pop and hemorrhage all the oil pressure going to the already anemic oiled heads. This would score the cam caps and shoot metal to the bottom end wrecking the motor. I had to sign a non-disclosure document for years haha. I haven’t worked for Ford in about five years though. It was sad. Im not gonna lie id NEVER buy a ford. They are a pile of cheap crap. Engines junk, transmissions weak junk, plastic caliper pistions, cast internals on turbo engines. Junk junk junk.
Very interesting knowledge you have sir! I also have the 400 in my 79 Continental and it’s a pooch. It does have rod bearing noise at higher rpms so I just baby it so it doesn’t go boom! Too bad the 460 wasn’t an option in Lincolns in that year.
Car Wizard has done several videos on the 5.4 L 3 valve engine and how they like to totally destroy themselves. I heard the best thing you can do for one of those engines is frequent oil changes.
Hey Yeah, also if you've ever seen/watched: "FordTechMakeUloco",,,,, he's a really good , young guy who loves does Mostly, or Only Fords. He to speaks of those 5.4 , 3 valve.
Dennis W - Watch the "I DO CARS" channel. He tears apart engines so he can sell the parts. All the Triton engines i've seen him do have issues with the heads and timing chain.
Had a variable Venturi carb in a Ford LTD. No mechanic I brought it to could tune it to work correctly. It may have been good in theory, but it was terrible in execution.
Those VV carbs from Ford were such a complex carburetor even THEY didn't know how to make them run right. Very few Ford techs could service them properly. The only obvious choice was to junk it and replace it with a Motorcraft 2100 or 2150 2bbl carb.
It seems that the Power Stroke and 3 valve v8 suffered from the same problem. Ford designed them with a particular service interval and owners ignore that and complaining when it fails. For an engine to sludge up to the point of clogging the engine enough for it to fail it hasn’t just been late for one oil change it’s missed many. Due to competition manufacturers make the service intervals as long as possible and if you read your handbook most of us operate our vehicles in more extreme environments that require oil changes more often. Yes driving in stop start traffic, short trips to work or the shops ect almost anything other than long freeway drives is considered extreme. Even if you don’t get a full service done at least change your oil regularly as not doing so is false economy. Oil is cheap compared to new engines. Cheers Stuart 🇦🇺
It's not improper maintenance any 3V will eventually have the phaser problems it's not a maintenance issue it's a poor design that causes oil pressure and volume problems that cause the engine to basically need to be replaced if the top end so much as coughs wrong.
None of these were the worst engine Ford ever built; not even close. The first gen Escorts; I believe 80-82, were the worst. The motor in them was a hemi style 4 cylinder with the biggest intake and exhaust valves they could put in them. The valves were so close in the combustion chambers there was not enough material between the valve seats to support the seats themselves. The cylinder head being aluminum just compounded the problem. The problem? The valve seats nearly touched and as I said, the head was really thin in that area because of the cooling passages being so close as well at that point. The valve seats and heads would crack where the valves came together and would fail not to long after the cars were driven off the lot new. My dad was a car dealer and I was one of his mechanics back then. I had one of these cars coming back to me about every two weeks to have the cylinder head replaced. The lady that owned it was so frustrated with it that we finally just took it back and put her in another car. We took it to what we called the “dog show”, an auction where all the “we tote the note” lots bought their junk back then and took our financial butt whipping on this deal.
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.
I am more familiar with Ford engines then GM because I have owned more Fords. Particularly the Mercury Grand Marquis. I've had two '77's with the 400 and two '78's with the 460. The 460's were great. I agree 100% on your assessments with the 400's. I always called them moody engines. lol
I would also add the Ford 4.0 SOHC motor used in late '90's Exploders and Rangers. Had 2 of them (both in '99 Explorers), and both engines developed a rattle in the top end after approx 10-15K miles. Dealer replaced 1 motor under warranty and sure enough, that replacement motor developed the same problem. Got rid of those vehicles and swore off Ford for 20 years.
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.
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.
Fantastic presentation once again. I am a Ford guy but certainly were some duds in the lineup. I had 4.6 and 5.3 2v. They were good to me. I drove it 15 years from new on and no issues. The 3 valves apparently had more horse power than the 2 valve but I found them to be sluggish so I never traded it for many years. I changed oil to John Deere 0-40 synthetic which made the engine run noticeably quieter. To this day the truck is in excellent condition throughout. My brother still has it but like you said Adam, it has been maintained meticulously since new. It now has about 275,000 KMS which is not all that high.
I was quite surprised with your first choice, the Essex V6. I had two of them and never had a carburetor or head gasket issue. I removed the EGR valve and blocked off the opening, removed the air pump and got a shorter belt, removed the catalytic converter, removed about 500 feet of vacuum lines, and retarded the timing from the factory 12deg before TDC to 2deg before, and they were great runners for around 150,000 miles each. More power and better MPG after removing the emissions crap. Maybe I just got lucky.
I'd put a vote in for the Ford 255 V8 that they brought out in the early 1980s. No upgrades are possible, and it is outpowered by the carbureted turbo 2.3-litre 4-cylinder. That 2.3 is a MVP of Ford's lineup, from the 1970s right through to the 1990s, as a champion of basic transportation, or as a cool experiment in Mustang SVOs and Thunderbird Turbo Coupes. The High Swirl Combustion heads put on the 4-cylinder cut-down of Ford's old straight-6 made for a rough engine, but unfortunately reliable, unless it was the slightly larger version in the Taurus. This engine didn't really need to exist, but it did anyway, being down on horsepower to the similarly-sized Pinto engine near the end of their respective lives. It underwhelms with no effort. All of it's effort is put into vibration. The Essex engine went into 2 vehicles that I remember, a 3.8 Ford Taurus that plagued my family with 2 headgasket repairs and some friends of ours (who had that nadir of reliability, a Ford WIndstar) with 5 or 6 headgaskets (and 3 transmissions!), and a 4.2 in a F150 that was dead-nuts reliable but very slow. There was a 3.9-litre version that went into some 2004 Mustangs, and some 2004-05 Ford Freestars and Mercury Montegos.
What were they thinking? All the Ford Mini Vans parked on the "backlot" had the same problems around here. Did Ford ever have to make good on those pitiful things.Ford finally learned its lesson and most of their gas engines are 300K reliable these days
Thank you for this list you created. I can't argue with any of your choices. I work as a fleet mechanic for a public utility. All of our pickups are Fords. I have lived through the 7.3/6.0/6.4/and now the 6.7. I can't add anymore to what you have said about the 6.0 and 6.4 than what you said here and in other videos. In fact, I prefer not to think about them as it gives me nightmares. Before I became a fleet mechanic, I worked as a mechanic at a Ford dealer from 1983 to 1996. I can't argue with what you said about the 3.8 V6. I thought that engine would never go away. Ford must have built a billion of them because they used it in everything. It was a lousy engine from the day it first saw use. But if I had to pick a terrible engine it would be the 4.0 V6 introduced in 1989 with the Explorer. My God, that thing leaked oil from the day it was designed. We didn't have computers then, Technical Service Bulletins came to us in the mail. Almost half dealt with design upgrades to repair oil leaks on the 4.0. This did not impress Explorer owners. Nor did the cylinder heads cracking around #1 and #6 spark plug holes (opposite corners). When that wasn't enough, the intake manifold gaskets liked to blow drawing coolant into the oil. But worst of all, the engine was lucky to squeeze 12 miles to the gallon for so little horsepower in return. Eventually, Ford corrected the issues that plagued the 4.0. Although it was also used in the Aerostar and Ranger, it was the only engine offered in the new Explorer upon its debut. This did not make a good first impression. Resealing the oil pan meant pulling the engine. No new car owner wants to hear their engine needs to come out to fix an oil leak again and again and again, until Ford finally developed a repair procedure that worked. To Ford's credit, they did cover oil leak repairs well beyond the warranty period.
My 93 Taurus GL Wagon with 3.0 Vulcan V6. Purch new with 3k oil changes, we got just over 300k miles before trading. Transmission, on the other hand, "neutraled out" in the middle of the freeway and was nearly hit by a semi. Reman trans was fine after that.
One thing not mentioned about the powerstroke engine is the way they were packaged in the truck. They were just a nightmare to work on, no room for anything. They need a lot of service and that service is extremely unpleasant.
After the spark plug issue was resolved on the 5.4L it was a decent engine IF you took extra care with maintenance. Regular oil and filter changes with top quality oil were a must ! Phaser problems were corrected in the last couple of years of production, but that was too late. It had already had a bad stamp on it's reputation.
The oil galleys and PCV system of the 5.4 just weren't up to the task of meeting the demands of the variable valve timing components in the 3V version. You can install a Melling high volume oil pump and updated timing components, but that's only a band aid. They are flawed by design. Changing your oil certainly reduces the odds of problems, but I've seen otherwise clean and well maintained 5.4s suffer timing component failures and destroyed cam bearings. The top end just doesn't get enough oil in city driving.
Interesting take. My only experience with the 3.8 was in 2 different 96 Windstars that I owned. Both were absolutely amazing! I put 70+ k on the first one (It was a lease) and I liked it so much I went out and bought another 96 Windstar. My kids were basically raised in that rig and it was bulletproof. When I finally sold it, she had just over 300k on her and still ran like a top, although it wouldn't pass the NC tax on poor people that they call an emission inspection. It did blow a head gasket once but it wasn't the fault of the engine. The thermostat stuck and overheated the engine and my lovely wife decided to "baby it home" which led to the loss of a head gasket. I can't fault the engine and that was the only major issue we ever had with either of the Windstars.
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.
I do love my odd ball 400m. I gotta say, they really feel a lot better if you just free up the top end. I had the Motorcraft 2150 rebuilt but it just didn't ever run right for me. Tossed a 500cfm Edelbrock on there with Performer intake and that helped a lot! I wanna rebuild the entire thing and beef up the low end but I gotta wait a bit longer yet. Fun daily though!
Thanks, that was fun. I'm a Ford guy starting to move away from them given they've stopped building everything I like. It's kind of pitiful that Ford's worst engines are mostly very modern ones, where-as GM's were in the late '70s, early '80s when no one was any good. Also, it's very sad for their reputation that 2 of their worst engines (actually all 3, now that I think about it) were all in Ford's most important model line, the F-series, with the most passionate following. Anyone who was a brand conquest buyer who got saddled with one of these is not likely to buy Ford again. No wonder Ram's sales are booming.
Good comment, but you’re wrong about GM. They didn’t stop making bad engines. They’re new engines are notorious for bent rods and lifters because of their active fuel management system. I know because my 2020 trailboss had to have them replaced at 8k miles. I was so pissed I traded it in for a new ranger as soon as it got fixed. And it wasn’t Ilan isolated incident. Happens all the time
I hate the whole direction they have been going the past 10 years with small displacement engines with turbos everywhere. Just give me a naturally aspirated V8. If I buy another Ford it would have to be the 7.3L V8 but those are pretty rare on dealer lots. I'm hopeful they are reliable in the long term due to the simplicity of the design.
@@bubba99009 I have never liked small foreign-sized engines, as they feel gutless, even if they are fast. They lack torque. Turbos can be great, on diesels and aircraft engines. For automotive gasoline engines, give me a supercharger instead, but there is no replacement for displacement.
You mentioned the early eighties GM diesel. My father-in-law had a pickup with one of those in it. He took horrible care of it and it blew up at around 45000 miles. I had a friend who had one in an Oldsmobile. He took immaculate care of it and it blew up at around 45000 miles. Those engines were hopeless. My friend had a gas engine put in to replace the diesel.
The reason why. GM was too cheap to use a water separator in the fuel line. As such condensate from the fuel tank got into the injectors and ultimately the cylinders causing extreme pressure from steam. This pressure broke head bolts and cracked cylinder heads. People who installed a water separator report having few problems with the Olds Diesel other than being underpowered as it had no turbo. The Olds diesel block was capable of being overbored a ridiculous .130 and STILL having thicker cylinder walls than the gasoline Olds 350.
That is hilarious and so true. Remember in the 80s and late 70s a car with sixty to eighty thousand miles was just done for call the junkyard. Now, most engines aren't even broke in till one hundred thousand.
The early 350 and 260 Olds V8 diesels were a mess. I had a 260 V8 diesel Olds Cutlass that I maintained meticulously and the engine was worn out at 60K miles. It was replaced (partially under warranty) with an '84 Mr. Goodwrench 350 V8 diesel. By then, most all of the bugs were worked out of the 350 diesels, but the PR damage was done. The replacement engine was still going strong when I sold the car a 100K miles later. My next door neighbor had an '83 Buick Riviera with the 350 V8 diesel. It was still running fine with no major problems when he sold it years later with over 300K miles on that engine. He got 30 mpg+ on the highway with it when most gasoline engine full-size cars couldn't break 20 mpg. So, the later engines were good, but were poison on the market because of the early versions' failures.
I’ve had the spark plugs pop out of my plumbing work truck which had the 5.4 , had it happen 3 times within a year, my mechanic friend told me the spark plugs are only catching by 3 threads and that’s why these motors have this problem. He said the 4.6’s don’t have this spark plug problem
The worst part of the 6.0/6.4L diesels was that the owners paid many $$$$ more than the excellent big block gas V-8's that came standard in the F250/350's. Also, all Triton V-8's had defective spark coils. Smart folks simply replaced all 8 with aftermarket ones, while I struggled with FoMoCo during my warranty period, replacing the last 5 myself, at my expense, after 3 coil failures. Fun Fact: A Hi-Po version of the 6.8L V-10 was originally scheduled to be installed into the Mercury Maurader, but FoMoCo nixed it because it would faced a gas guzzler tax.
My father has a first year 4x4 Crew Cab Super Duty (Manufactured 1998) with just over 100 thousand miles on it. Purchased it new and mainly used for camper travel. It has the 2V 5.4 which has been very reliable. Just recently the exhaust after the cat was replaced. One issue with this engine which was only on the early ones I believe is that they tend to leak oil at the back of the head on the passenger side. Not at a high rate but enough to drop directly onto the crossover pipe of the exhaust, causing an annoying smell when you stop after giving it some gas. This happened a few years after purchase and the dealer replaced the head gaskets. The issue returned after a few years and it has been like that for about 15+ years. Minor enough leak that the level doesn't drop much, but enough to make that annoying burn smell. Otherwise a very reliable engine. Replaced an alternator and just recently the A/C stopped working and it turned out just to be the clutch which has a rubber spring which has hardened so the magnetic force cant move it. I will be replacing the clutch with a steel feather clutch.
I think the Vulcan 3.0 V6 could be considered used in the Taurus, Sable, Ranger and Mazda B series. They have issues with head gaskets and cracked heads. As for the 2.3 it’s a solid engine. The Focus RS had issues because they installed a Mustang head gasket on some. The non turbo 2.3 in Rangers can go forever.
Must have been the early ones? The ones I am familiar with (92+) were absolute tanks. Only real issues I knew about were the occasional timing cover leak and squeaky dummy distributor shafts.
Those were solid engines (Vulcan V6). Weak on power but tough as nails. Originally designed to be aluminum but Ford was new at that and didn’t want to risk it so it was built as cast iron block and heads. Those engines don’t die unless you internationally kill them.
The 6.0L diesel was a great engine when it worked with good power and fuel economy. Unfortunately, it was a ticking time bomb. When (not if) they broke, they broke in a big, expensive way. The current 6.7L is far superior, but the complexities of the emissions control systems are the constraints these days. At least the 6.0L never had to worry about diesel particulate filters or DEF systems.
The dpf and def system doesnt constrain the 6.7, unlike the 6.4 where the system was piss poorly designed and crudely implemented. Early 6.7s are capable of north of 600whp with the factory emissions equipment, the later ones are further improved. Quite often misunderstood, def is actually a fantastic solution to nox emissions, while a bit bothersome for the user. DPFs however are an unecessary evil, simply another way for the government extort people. That said, the two systems are quite robust in regards to the 6.7 with relatively few replacement rates. The 6.0 couldnt handle a simple egr, i cant imagine what wouldve happen if saddled with a dpf.
@@doxnoogle5782 Unnecessary evil when combined with SCR. Engine-out particulate emissions are far too high on earlier diesels that attempt to limit NOx emissions without aftertreatment. The DPF then becomes a necessary evil.
@@Mythicregard I worked with suppliers on testing various DPF filters 2004-2010, none really worked out, great when new, but the maintenance required, was a deal breaker. The technology wasn't ready for prime time.
Adam, I have learned a lot from these videos(Thanks)…….very interesting formation. I was looking at a 2006 Ford 150 with 5.4 only 50k miles….. my mechanic said…”Run, way as fast as you can”. Glad you mentioned the 5.4. Most mechanics I know say they replace them all the time as their oil ports are to small to lubricate effectively and as you said…” Sludge”. When you mentioned the 351 Cleveland and Windsor, my first question would be which one do you feel is better. My family always seemed to have the 351 Windsor in their cars and everyone I knew who was a Ford fanatic would say you should have gotten the Cleveland as it was better. I don’t know if different parts of the country get different motors? I get they were made in different places but not sure the exact reason. Please mention this issue when you do your video on Fords Best Motors. Thanks . don’t walk
Cleveland’s have really great cylinder heads for the time. They flow very well, better than most heads back then .they offer better performance, but are no where near as plentiful or cheap to build.
@@theyhatehimbecausehetoldth7576 You dont need to find a Cleveland block...they were made only from 1970 to 1974. Lots of people have built "Clevors" Stock Cleveland heads can easily be installed on a Windsor block with minor modification to the water passages and conversion intakes are readily available. Aftermarket Cleveland style heads are available with the water passages for use on a Windsor block already in place. Head bolts all line up and both engines have the same bore spacing.
be thankful you're not British. We had the Essex V4 which was truly ghastly. It was thirsty, gutless, shook through designed imbalance, threw conrods and regularly stripped timing gears. I can't think of a worse engine ever built
we had 75& 6 Ford F-100 I had one my lovely wife had a 75 one and both had kick ass V8 390's again I was raised around GM's I taught to dislike Fords but I did have a few good Fords with some seller's regret
Had a `1965 Ford With a 352 4 Barrel, it ran like a Raped Ape, 4 dr Hardtop to Boot...Only problem was loose Sparkplugs after a Little Hard Driving, never had a Bad Engine In any Ford I ever owned 6cyl or V8. had a lot of Older Fords with the Y Block 56 57 etc No Problem at all...
In my experience early V6s from Ford or GM were bad. Since the 90s, they have improved. I have had several V6 Tauruses and they all ran great and were easy on gas. The 3.5 I have in my 2018 has an internal water pump that has been problems in the earlier versions. I have been hearing they went to a double sprocket timing chain in mid 2011 that went a long way to solve this issue, though it is wise to keep the oil changed and the cooling system flushed.
I worked on a Taurus 3.0 or 3.8 (don't remember) that had an long term bad oil leak. So bad it rotted the rubber on the harmonic balancer. The engine would idle weird and had a metallic rattle upon shutdown which turned out to be the metal ring on the balancer. Shade tree mechanics that we were, we traced the leak to the oil pump/filter adapter that was held on by allen screws and sealed by a fancy oring. We got all the screws out except for the worse one, buried in a hole. We decided to pull the engine and disconnected every sensor and snaked the harness off and laid it on the cowl. With the engine out, we drilled the head off the allen screw until the head popped off. Pulling the housing off, the remaining stump of the screw came off with my fingers. The seal shattered like glass. The leak was bad because full pressure off the oil pump was held by that seal. After we cleaned everything up we realized that the harness could have come off with the engine by unscrewing one bolt that held on a big plug at the firewall that split all the wires that went into the cabin. It was a duh! moment because the assembly line certainly wasn't going to struggle with the harness like we did.
GM /Buick 3.8 was a solid engine as is 4.3 l vs used in small pickups they have some small issues.but running them well over 200,000 mile is not hard with proper maintenance.
@@mbsnyderc Some 3.8's had serious problems where GM over-cheapened things. Basically it was a very good engine once you applied the aftermarket fixes which GM should have used in production. IMHO it was as significant and as good as their SB V8. The 4.3 was nowhere near as good with some internal weaknesses showing up at not-so-high mileages such as piston slap, balance shaft twisting and destroying it's bearings, and timing chain noise. The smaller 3.8 derivatives were all crap, again trying to achieve cheapness instead of goodness. Maybe they're better now but I doubt it; GM has lost it's way in the world and Ford has too.
I rebuilt the vv two times on my 81 grand marquis. Both times on the kitchen table. On the 3.8 the gasket problem was due to one engineer designing the heads and manifolds to make high bmep. Also at the same time using only a 4 bolt head with a lightweight head with a flat surface with a small riser for the head valve setup. It kept being made due to the cost of redesign.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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
🤣🤣🤣🤣
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"
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?
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.
I was a mechanic 38 years and I agree totally with this content 👌
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.
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 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 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!
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.)
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.
ALL of the Ford Diesels are NAVISTAR until the Ford built 6.7L.
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.
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.
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.
As a die hard Ford person you hit nail on the head with all of them… I used to pull a lot of 351/400M engines out and swap in a 429 or 460 engines and they actually got better gas mileage because they didn’t have to work as hard. I also hated those 3.8 V6’s with their head gasket issues and stopped doing head gaskets on them because of them being so time consuming…
The 351C’s were the best engines Ford ever built!!! The Windsors and the FE’s were great too along with the 429’s and 460’s… Also as someone mentioned in the comments the 300 six cylinders were great too.
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.
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 had a 2006 F-150 Lariat with the 5.4L Triton engine. The only problem that engine had was the mis-engineered spark plug that tended to come apart during the removal process. That issue was easily resolved by using special tools that addressed that issue and installing upgraded spark plugs. I owned that truck for over 11 years and changed the oil & filter every 5K miles, using only full synthetic oil, having none of the problems described here
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.
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
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
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!
4.9l 300 inline six deserves #1 best ever spot IMHO
You are also right about the 351M. We had an 1978 LTD Station wagon, about 5000lbs, so big, with the 351M in it, and it was so slow and under powered. Again very good video, thanks!
Actually the problem was 1978 and all the emissions controls, very rudimentary early computerization, carburetion, restricted breathing on the engine, etc. The 351M was a great engine, and if you find a solid block and want to go pay for the performance parts to build one, 500 horsepower is easy and it will do it all day long without thinking twice. So will the 302, 351W, 429/460. The problem with the 351C, 351M, and 400 is that they never made much of a splash prior to all the emissions controls or prior to the fuel crisis and the hot roders never got interested in them. There is a direct correlation between availability and cost of performance parts and the number of available blocks of a particular engine, along with the application of those blocks in vehicles. 302 and 351W fit like a glove in Fox body Mustangs. Many of Fords other engines require a bit of shoehorning. And the guys that build 302s into performance engines like 351W because they are similar to build.
Through the 90’s, I made a fortune doing head gaskets on 3.8’s. Mostly Taurus/Sable.
One of the family's cars that I drove in high school was an 1980 (?) Pinto with a red/white Starsky & Hutch paint scheme. With a 2.3-liter four and a manual transmission, it took a while to get comfortable with stopping at an uphill stop sign. With only 88 hp (?), it was not suitable for climbing any steep driveways, and I remember a good bit of spark knock.
The '79-'80 pinto 2.3 engines were very badly hampered by EPA junk!
The basic engine was, and is a great engine! I had a '76 pinto and drove that thing for a very long time with no problems!
actually a good engine just buried in emission controls. Don't take my word for it ask Esslinger Engineering...
Good part is you can re drill one bolt hole in belt housing and drop it in place of old jeep 4 cyd engine.
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.
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.
I just found your channel, brought here by the algorithm. It’s a terrific channel. I’ve subscribed and notifications are on. Here’s a suggestion…the Chrysler / Dodge / Plymouth slant six. What made it bulletproof and why did it go away.
Forged crank, mechanical lifters, superior induction (compared to its contemporaries). What a great engine !
@@sking2173also HUGE main bearings.
I assume it didn't fit in other applications. The Jeeps were already designed for the AMC inline 6, and it was too long to fit in a Dakota. I sure would've loved to have the slant 6 as an option for the 94-up Dodge pickups ❤
Adam: Bullseye regarding the 3.8 V6. My sister had one in a Sable wagon back in the early 90s. On a good day, a sleepy underpowered lump. On a bad day blown head gaskets!!! My wife also had one in a 2000 Windstar. Nothing broke, but it couldn't drive into a headwind or climb a grade without knocking continuously. Fortunately, a two-year lease. Couldn't give that back to the dealer fast enough. My sister has never considered a Ford product since. My wife and I have had five Hondas since turning in the Windstar. No regrets.
I had a 2.3L in a Courier pickup that lasted 544,448 miles... only reason it was retired was I couldn't get a trans output shim for it. Beat the living tar outta that truck and was always reliable. My parents had a LTDII with the 2.8 V6 that was gutless- I currently drive a '06 F250 with the 6.0 for work, It's not a speed demon like my 5.9 (12 valve) but it seems to be holding up quite well... I never was a fan of the 352 V8, a lot of weight for piss poor performance. And the V10? don't let me even start on those turds! Great video!
I thought all the Couriers had Mazda engines in them?
Yeah, he's wrong on the bulletproof 2.3. I've seen Rangers cross 400,xxx miles.
@@johneckert1365 No Sir. My 77 had the ford 2.3, and ran super. I did replace the carb and exhaust first thing, and that woke u
As an automotive tech I had an early 80s F150 come into the shop with an early 3.8 v6. It was gutless and made for a very weak engine for a truck.
Yikes. What a terrible combination. Didn't even know they would offer that with the 300-6 as an option.
It was a very poor decision from Ford to put the 3.8 into its F150. Thankfully it was dropped in short over. It was nothing like the tried and true 300 six.
That 3-valve was a real moneymaker for techs and parts guys. Thank you Ford!
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.
Very good list, Id say the same and even down to the honorable mention. Though Ill say without a doubt the GM 2.8 V6 was way more of an POS vs the 3.8 Ford. The modular motors series were great motors despite the 5.4 3 valve. The 5.4 2 valve was reliable.
The VV carb a great idea on paper, not so much real world. The VVs were a PITA and especially the later computer controlled emissions wise as a smog tech as they aged. Though they were really a simple carb to teardown and rebuild.
My 2.8 V6 began leaking oil at 50K miles. The idiots at the factory used silicon, not a proper gasket, to seal the covers.
@@Duke_of_Prunes My Dad's 86 Olds
Ciera 2.8 ran strong, but the transmission
leaked immediately, and the radiator
hissed the whole time we had it.
I had the 2.8 in a Fiero, and in an S-10. Both very reliable. But then, I change oil like you are supposed to. The 3.8 Ford is good, but the 4.0 is lesser by quite a bit.
@@wymple09 4.0 DOHC, yes.... Such a goof on a good motor by Ford to try and save a few bucks. The SOHC 4.0 was a good motor.
351M / 400. I saw a good number of these come in with a light knock when up around 100K miles. Pick-ups seemed especially prone to this. We'd roll in a fresh set of main bearings that were .001 (yes that's correct!) oversize to solve the problem. I could never figure out why these main bearings would wear out in that way.
I went to an engine clinic one day and the guy that ran it really knew his stuff! On a break, I asked him about it. He knew the answer right away ... the main bearing journals were TOO BIG! Huh?
Yep. Because of the larger size of the journal, the surface speed between the bearing and main journal was far higher than that of an engine with a smaller journal. That is, the surface had to move faster to complete a revolution and therefore wore quicker.
So interesting. Another case of bigger not being better.
The 351M was essentially a raised deck 351C, meant to increase torque at lower RPM's.
I believe you're incorrect, the 351m is a modified 400. It has tall Pistons. That's why it's called the 351m for modified. The Windsor is a completely different block.
@@lukemeier1853 Yep- my old brain ain't what it used to be. Edited my post. I'm older than any Ford engine series still in production. Thanks for the correction!
Yep ... I installed crank kits in loads of those things. Crap engine, as far as I was concerned ...
I don't see the cause and effect logic between journal size and wear. It seemed a that the issue was a bad crank hardening process in combination with oil distribution problems. It appears the 351m had the 351 Windsor crank with a different snout and the 351 w has no such problems. A small percentage variation in the diameter is unlikely to cause any adverse reaction as evidenced by the Windsor having no issues.
Was happy to see you acknowledged the 5.4 but it is far worse than you describe. It's equal to or worse than the 6.0 diesel. In fact, way worse. And Ford denied there was an issue for a couple of years, at least our dealer had, and we had a huge fight to get our money back out of them. Our company never adhered to Ford's maintenance schedule! 250 mi's less than prescribed, in the winter and 500 mi.'s less in the hottest months of summer!!!! And we still had the top end blow out! Why? We are a heavy construction industry trade, hauling tools, equipment and materials: industrial steel pipe manufacturing and installation.
The 5.4 was a stellar engine in the 2v variety. When Ford redesigned the top end, they did exactly what Chrysler is doing with the hemi: used lighter gauge steel on all components but the actual valve, in addition to narrowing the oil ports. Further, they replaced timing guides with hardened plastic from steel..... What could possibly go wrong???
If you read the tech bulletins for noise from the head or timing chain area the solution is "engine replacement."
It was a total POS in 2002.5 when Ford tested the motor, they knew it, but they put it on the market anyway. It's unbelievable that a corporation thought people would just eat the cost. But, that was Ford's business model.
Sad thing is, I still have my 99, 5.4, as our personal winter nock around truck. It only spent 100K mi's of hard trade driving, mostly for deliveries of random parts, as it was my company truck. It has over 550K mi's on it, original motor, only had alternators, coil packs, and an AC pump replaced. The original water pump is still on it!!! When it hit 420K mi's, the coil pack in the transmission died.... Since the seats were rotting away, I almost retired the truck... But, I want to see how long this motor will go. So here we are with a rebuilt trans and 140K mi's later, the truck still runs but is now using 1/2 pt of oil every 1,500 mis. Hope to put another 100K on her before we have a funeral.
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.
I'm working on a 5.4 3 valve and a 6.0 powerstroke in the shop today lucky me lol
"It liked head gaskets like Cookie Monster likes cookies." Brilliant 😄!! One of the funniest analogies on any auto post. PS Good thing you're not a scam artist; with that super-honest voice you likely could dupe the masses.
The 2 valve 5.4s were the ones that only had 4 or 5 threads in the spark plug holes and sometimes would eject the spark plugs. Although I owned two of those trucks that went 170k miles each that did not eject a spark plug. The 3 valve engines had plugs that broke in half when removing quite often.
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
Good list. The 5.4 3V has a well-earned reputation as a terrible engine. It is much-maligned on RUclips, and there are numerous videos harping on all of the things that can go wrong with one. This is a shame, because it was installed in a lot of F150’s that were otherwise very solid workhorses. You wonder how many of the problems with engines that make “worst” lists were found during development testing and swept under the rug or rationalized away because a proper design fix was too expensive.
I remember when I still in California, when it got hot during the summer the side of the road always had big Ford tanks with 351M and 400 engines. I was a engine mechanic for 32 years and almost every one of those engines I tore down had cracked cylinder heads from overheating.
The 351/400M engines have a dry intake manifold that are cooled using an air injection pump. The air pumps force cool air into the intake manifold. Well, people thought the pumps were the same as smog pumps and removed them from the engine. The intakes will get so hot without the fresh air from the pump that the gas will start to boil in the carburetor and vapor lock and also overheat the engine. The 351M is a pretty decent engine if the air injection pump is working correctly. I've got a 78 f100 with that engine and it runs great with tons of torque with a 360 carburetor upgrade!
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 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.
I had a 1993 Taurus with the Essex 3.8L. I had absolutely no issues with it at all. It was the best powertrain I ever had in a daily drive. Amazing engine in the Taurus. Of all the cars I've owned, its the 3.8L Taurus I miss the most.
When they ran well, that was a really nice driving platform.
I have a 2003 Windstar with the 3.8 in it. Have had zero significant engine issues. Plugs/wires, a coil pack and some intake grommets are all I have had to do to that engine. Been a very reliable power plant.
Sadly, due to rust issues, that Windstar's days on the road are numbered.
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.
The 3V 5.4L was SO BAD that dealer auctions started making an announcement on them when they did NOT have cam phaser or timing chain noise because practically all of them did and the arbitration on them was getting out of hand.
This this include the 5.4
Truly enjoyed the video. I owned a '73 Ford Gran Torino Sport with a 351C and that thing was bulletproof. Ok, it became not so bulletproof when the oil pump gave out at 110 mph...
LOLOL , I had a ‘70 Torino 351C that did the exact thing - oil pump locked up, but in my case, it twisted the oil pump shaft like a candy cain, but it locked the distributor gear tight enough to make it jump 3 teeth before the shaft broke, and the engine immediately shut down. Amazing stuff.
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.
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 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.
The 5.4 3 valve solved the early year spark plug blow out issue by having them weld themselves into the head with carbon build up, then they break in two when trying to remove them. Then they chose not to have bearings between the cam and cam tower. The passenger side cam is the last thing to get oil so it starves first, which allows the steel cam to ruin the aluminum head. They really phoned in the engineering on the '05 Super Duty in many places, like the high speed suspension wobble (max the air pressure says the TSB).
I have an 06 expedition with the 5.4 3 valve. Never had problems with the plugs, but CalVan makes an easy to use fix for it if I ever do. When I did the timing gear last summer at 130k miles I installed a Melling high volume oil pump and replaced all the roller followers since the valve covers were off. This truck runs as well as the day I drove it off the lot. I'm actually disappointed to know I'll never be able to get another expedition with that engine. It's a workhorse.
When you only have 3 threads holding each plug in, you gotta expect them to self-eject at some point. But not Ford engineers - they thought it would be just fine.
Wow, how horrible. Glad my 54 Chrysler Hemi and my 73 GMC 292 will never have those problems.
Perhaps I should note that I've never had any of the engine issues I listed in my own '05 F250 with 95K miles on it. I've changed the oil every 5K but I fear the worst. Did have the wobble thing happen once, though
Shame so many modern engines are garbage.
I worked for ford co internally… actually to fix a fact in your video.. the 6.0 would blow head gaskets from the VGT vain turbos would bind up from soot, thus over boosting the living hell out of the motor + the head bolts were weak that would stretch from this stress.
Oil issues 6.0 , first off it had nothing to do with oil passages. It was the fact that from factory synthetic oil was not required. This was a TERRIBLE thing as the HPOP system would literally pressurize oil up at 3000 psi making it very hot.. it would coke the spools in the injectors.
-----
5.4L … no oil passages blocked from sludge. There was a shity oiling system for the heads but the killer was a oring in the timing chain tensioner. It would pop and hemorrhage all the oil pressure going to the already anemic oiled heads. This would score the cam caps and shoot metal to the bottom end wrecking the motor.
I had to sign a non-disclosure document for years haha. I haven’t worked for Ford in about five years though. It was sad. Im not gonna lie id NEVER buy a ford. They are a pile of cheap crap. Engines junk, transmissions weak junk, plastic caliper pistions, cast internals on turbo engines. Junk junk junk.
Very interesting knowledge you have sir! I also have the 400 in my 79 Continental and it’s a pooch. It does have rod bearing noise at higher rpms so I just baby it so it doesn’t go boom! Too bad the 460 wasn’t an option in Lincolns in that year.
Car Wizard has done several videos on the 5.4 L 3 valve engine and how they like to totally destroy themselves. I heard the best thing you can do for one of those engines is frequent oil changes.
If he was a wizard, he would have realized that Superbird was a rebody.
Hey Yeah, also if you've ever seen/watched: "FordTechMakeUloco",,,,, he's a really good , young guy who loves does Mostly, or Only Fords. He to speaks of those 5.4 , 3 valve.
Dennis W - Watch the "I DO CARS" channel. He tears apart engines so he can sell the parts. All the Triton engines i've seen him do have issues with the heads and timing chain.
@@drippinglass doesn't really matter 🤔
@@samholdsworth420 It kinda does. Hoovie got that one for $130k. A documented original body just sold at Mecum for $990k. There’s the difference.
Had a variable Venturi carb in a Ford LTD. No mechanic I brought it to could tune it to work correctly. It may have been good in theory, but it was terrible in execution.
Pitch it...we ALWAYS did. Went to the wrecking yard and found Motorcraft 2100s to install on the engine and they seldom had an issue again.
Had a Mercury Grand Marquis with a 302 and variable Venturi carb. Always a problem!
@@Donaldopato Same motor I had in the LTD. Nothing but trouble. I've had some good Fords, but this wasn't one of them
@@frankbrowning328 then had an 88 Lincoln Town Car for 26 years with fuel injection totally reliable.
Those VV carbs from Ford were such a complex carburetor even THEY didn't know how to make them run right. Very few Ford techs could service them properly. The only obvious choice was to junk it and replace it with a Motorcraft 2100 or 2150 2bbl carb.
It seems that the Power Stroke and 3 valve v8 suffered from the same problem. Ford designed them with a particular service interval and owners ignore that and complaining when it fails. For an engine to sludge up to the point of clogging the engine enough for it to fail it hasn’t just been late for one oil change it’s missed many. Due to competition manufacturers make the service intervals as long as possible and if you read your handbook most of us operate our vehicles in more extreme environments that require oil changes more often. Yes driving in stop start traffic, short trips to work or the shops ect almost anything other than long freeway drives is considered extreme. Even if you don’t get a full service done at least change your oil regularly as not doing so is false economy. Oil is cheap compared to new engines. Cheers Stuart 🇦🇺
It's not improper maintenance any 3V will eventually have the phaser problems it's not a maintenance issue it's a poor design that causes oil pressure and volume problems that cause the engine to basically need to be replaced if the top end so much as coughs wrong.
None of these were the worst engine Ford ever built; not even close. The first gen Escorts; I believe 80-82, were the worst. The motor in them was a hemi style 4 cylinder with the biggest intake and exhaust valves they could put in them. The valves were so close in the combustion chambers there was not enough material between the valve seats to support the seats themselves. The cylinder head being aluminum just compounded the problem. The problem? The valve seats nearly touched and as I said, the head was really thin in that area because of the cooling passages being so close as well at that point. The valve seats and heads would crack where the valves came together and would fail not to long after the cars were driven off the lot new. My dad was a car dealer and I was one of his mechanics back then. I had one of these cars coming back to me about every two weeks to have the cylinder head replaced. The lady that owned it was so frustrated with it that we finally just took it back and put her in another car. We took it to what we called the “dog show”, an auction where all the “we tote the note” lots bought their junk back then and took our financial butt whipping on this deal.
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.
I am more familiar with Ford engines then GM because I have owned more Fords. Particularly the Mercury Grand Marquis. I've had two '77's with the 400 and two '78's with the 460. The 460's were great. I agree 100% on your assessments with the 400's. I always called them moody engines. lol
I would also add the Ford 4.0 SOHC motor used in late '90's Exploders and Rangers. Had 2 of them (both in '99 Explorers), and both engines developed a rattle in the top end after approx 10-15K miles. Dealer replaced 1 motor under warranty and sure enough, that replacement motor developed the same problem. Got rid of those vehicles and swore off Ford for 20 years.
My Ranger 4.0 V6 was perfect when I sold it at almost 300,000 miles. Sorry yours sucked.
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.
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.
Fantastic presentation once again. I am a Ford guy but certainly were some duds in the lineup. I had 4.6 and 5.3 2v. They were good to me. I drove it 15 years from new on and no issues. The 3 valves apparently had more horse power than the 2 valve but I found them to be sluggish so I never traded it for many years. I changed oil to John Deere 0-40 synthetic which made the engine run noticeably quieter. To this day the truck is in excellent condition throughout. My brother still has it but like you said Adam, it has been maintained meticulously since new. It now has about 275,000 KMS which is not all that high.
I was quite surprised with your first choice, the Essex V6. I had two of them and never had a carburetor or head gasket issue.
I removed the EGR valve and blocked off the opening, removed the air pump and got a shorter belt, removed the catalytic converter, removed about 500 feet of vacuum lines, and retarded the timing from the factory 12deg before TDC to 2deg before, and they were great runners for around 150,000 miles each. More power and better MPG after removing the emissions crap.
Maybe I just got lucky.
That's illegal though.
Rumours are they were a reverse engineered Buick 3.8.
I got one now, they was used as power units on pumps and other equipment and was a popular replacement engine to replace skid steer engines.
I'd put a vote in for the Ford 255 V8 that they brought out in the early 1980s. No upgrades are possible, and it is outpowered by the carbureted turbo 2.3-litre 4-cylinder. That 2.3 is a MVP of Ford's lineup, from the 1970s right through to the 1990s, as a champion of basic transportation, or as a cool experiment in Mustang SVOs and Thunderbird Turbo Coupes.
The High Swirl Combustion heads put on the 4-cylinder cut-down of Ford's old straight-6 made for a rough engine, but unfortunately reliable, unless it was the slightly larger version in the Taurus. This engine didn't really need to exist, but it did anyway, being down on horsepower to the similarly-sized Pinto engine near the end of their respective lives. It underwhelms with no effort. All of it's effort is put into vibration.
The Essex engine went into 2 vehicles that I remember, a 3.8 Ford Taurus that plagued my family with 2 headgasket repairs and some friends of ours (who had that nadir of reliability, a Ford WIndstar) with 5 or 6 headgaskets (and 3 transmissions!), and a 4.2 in a F150 that was dead-nuts reliable but very slow. There was a 3.9-litre version that went into some 2004 Mustangs, and some 2004-05 Ford Freestars and Mercury Montegos.
What were they thinking? All the Ford Mini Vans parked on the "backlot" had the same problems around here. Did Ford ever have to make good on those pitiful things.Ford finally learned its lesson and most of their gas engines are 300K reliable these days
Thank you for this list you created. I can't argue with any of your choices. I work as a fleet mechanic for a public utility. All of our pickups are Fords. I have lived through the 7.3/6.0/6.4/and now the 6.7. I can't add anymore to what you have said about the 6.0 and 6.4 than what you said here and in other videos. In fact, I prefer not to think about them as it gives me nightmares.
Before I became a fleet mechanic, I worked as a mechanic at a Ford dealer from 1983 to 1996. I can't argue with what you said about the 3.8 V6. I thought that engine would never go away. Ford must have built a billion of them because they used it in everything. It was a lousy engine from the day it first saw use.
But if I had to pick a terrible engine it would be the 4.0 V6 introduced in 1989 with the Explorer. My God, that thing leaked oil from the day it was designed. We didn't have computers then, Technical Service Bulletins came to us in the mail. Almost half dealt with design upgrades to repair oil leaks on the 4.0. This did not impress Explorer owners. Nor did the cylinder heads cracking around #1 and #6 spark plug holes (opposite corners). When that wasn't enough, the intake manifold gaskets liked to blow drawing coolant into the oil. But worst of all, the engine was lucky to squeeze 12 miles to the gallon for so little horsepower in return.
Eventually, Ford corrected the issues that plagued the 4.0. Although it was also used in the Aerostar and Ranger, it was the only engine offered in the new Explorer upon its debut. This did not make a good first impression. Resealing the oil pan meant pulling the engine. No new car owner wants to hear their engine needs to come out to fix an oil leak again and again and again, until Ford finally developed a repair procedure that worked. To Ford's credit, they did cover oil leak repairs well beyond the warranty period.
1999 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 4.0L engine was made by Opel (GM) Germany?
My 93 Taurus GL Wagon with 3.0 Vulcan V6. Purch new with 3k oil changes, we got just over 300k miles before trading. Transmission, on the other hand, "neutraled out" in the middle of the freeway and was nearly hit by a semi. Reman trans was fine after that.
One thing not mentioned about the powerstroke engine is the way they were packaged in the truck. They were just a nightmare to work on, no room for anything. They need a lot of service and that service is extremely unpleasant.
After the spark plug issue was resolved on the 5.4L it was a decent engine IF you took extra care with maintenance. Regular oil and filter changes with top quality oil were a must !
Phaser problems were corrected in the last couple of years of production, but that was too late. It had already had a bad stamp on it's reputation.
The oil galleys and PCV system of the 5.4 just weren't up to the task of meeting the demands of the variable valve timing components in the 3V version. You can install a Melling high volume oil pump and updated timing components, but that's only a band aid. They are flawed by design. Changing your oil certainly reduces the odds of problems, but I've seen otherwise clean and well maintained 5.4s suffer timing component failures and destroyed cam bearings. The top end just doesn't get enough oil in city driving.
@@doug960 Ford did release a higher volume oil pump later in the production run.
Interesting take. My only experience with the 3.8 was in 2 different 96 Windstars that I owned. Both were absolutely amazing! I put 70+ k on the first one (It was a lease) and I liked it so much I went out and bought another 96 Windstar. My kids were basically raised in that rig and it was bulletproof. When I finally sold it, she had just over 300k on her and still ran like a top, although it wouldn't pass the NC tax on poor people that they call an emission inspection. It did blow a head gasket once but it wasn't the fault of the engine. The thermostat stuck and overheated the engine and my lovely wife decided to "baby it home" which led to the loss of a head gasket. I can't fault the engine and that was the only major issue we ever had with either of the Windstars.
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!
Dude if you keep this up, you could be like My Old Car/Big Car/Roadster Life/Ed’s Auto Reviews.
I do love my odd ball 400m. I gotta say, they really feel a lot better if you just free up the top end. I had the Motorcraft 2150 rebuilt but it just didn't ever run right for me. Tossed a 500cfm Edelbrock on there with Performer intake and that helped a lot! I wanna rebuild the entire thing and beef up the low end but I gotta wait a bit longer yet. Fun daily though!
Had a 400m I built no one in my county want anything to do with racing me
@@jamesbullock4008 I've seen just a couple built right and boy are they mean!
Thanks, that was fun. I'm a Ford guy starting to move away from them given they've stopped building everything I like. It's kind of pitiful that Ford's worst engines are mostly very modern ones, where-as GM's were in the late '70s, early '80s when no one was any good. Also, it's very sad for their reputation that 2 of their worst engines (actually all 3, now that I think about it) were all in Ford's most important model line, the F-series, with the most passionate following. Anyone who was a brand conquest buyer who got saddled with one of these is not likely to buy Ford again. No wonder Ram's sales are booming.
Good comment, but you’re wrong about GM. They didn’t stop making bad engines. They’re new engines are notorious for bent rods and lifters because of their active fuel management system. I know because my 2020 trailboss had to have them replaced at 8k miles. I was so pissed I traded it in for a new ranger as soon as it got fixed. And it wasn’t Ilan isolated incident. Happens all the time
@@lesterparker1594 And folks call me crazy for keeping my old pre catalytic converter cars.
I hate the whole direction they have been going the past 10 years with small displacement engines with turbos everywhere. Just give me a naturally aspirated V8. If I buy another Ford it would have to be the 7.3L V8 but those are pretty rare on dealer lots. I'm hopeful they are reliable in the long term due to the simplicity of the design.
@@bubba99009 I have never liked small foreign-sized engines, as they feel gutless, even if they are fast. They lack torque. Turbos can be great, on diesels and aircraft engines. For automotive gasoline engines, give me a supercharger instead, but there is no replacement for displacement.
You mentioned the early eighties GM diesel. My father-in-law had a pickup with one of those in it. He took horrible care of it and it blew up at around 45000 miles. I had a friend who had one in an Oldsmobile. He took immaculate care of it and it blew up at around 45000 miles. Those engines were hopeless. My friend had a gas engine put in to replace the diesel.
The reason why. GM was too cheap to use a water separator in the fuel line. As such condensate from the fuel tank got into the injectors and ultimately the cylinders causing extreme pressure from steam. This pressure broke head bolts and cracked cylinder heads. People who installed a water separator report having few problems with the Olds Diesel other than being underpowered as it had no turbo.
The Olds diesel block was capable of being overbored a ridiculous .130 and STILL having thicker cylinder walls than the gasoline Olds 350.
That is hilarious and so true. Remember in the 80s and late 70s a car with sixty to eighty thousand miles was just done for call the junkyard. Now, most engines aren't even broke in till one hundred thousand.
The early 350 and 260 Olds V8 diesels were a mess. I had a 260 V8 diesel Olds Cutlass that I maintained meticulously and the engine was worn out at 60K miles. It was replaced (partially under warranty) with an '84 Mr. Goodwrench 350 V8 diesel. By then, most all of the bugs were worked out of the 350 diesels, but the PR damage was done. The replacement engine was still going strong when I sold the car a 100K miles later. My next door neighbor had an '83 Buick Riviera with the 350 V8 diesel. It was still running fine with no major problems when he sold it years later with over 300K miles on that engine. He got 30 mpg+ on the highway with it when most gasoline engine full-size cars couldn't break 20 mpg. So, the later engines were good, but were poison on the market because of the early versions' failures.
My family ran the VW diesels at the time, and saw all the horrible GM diesels giving them a bad name and knew it was a mess ,stay far away.
@@donreinke5863 Both lived near the coast. One on the Pacific coast and one on the Gulf Coast. The high humidity probably did not help matters.
I’ve had the spark plugs pop out of my plumbing work truck which had the 5.4 , had it happen 3 times within a year, my mechanic friend told me the spark plugs are only catching by 3 threads and that’s why these motors have this problem. He said the 4.6’s don’t have this spark plug problem
I had a 2001 F-150 with the 4.6 and it shot out 2 spark plugs. That and the exhaust manifolds rotting out were my only 2 complaints with the 4.6 2v.
Not true, certain years of the 2 valve 4.6 and 5.4 used 4 threads. They later redesigned it to 8 threads
The worst part of the 6.0/6.4L diesels was that the owners paid many $$$$ more than
the excellent big block gas V-8's that came standard in the F250/350's.
Also, all Triton V-8's had defective spark coils. Smart folks simply replaced all 8 with aftermarket ones, while I struggled with FoMoCo during my warranty period, replacing the last 5 myself, at my expense, after 3 coil failures.
Fun Fact: A Hi-Po version of the 6.8L V-10 was originally scheduled to be installed into the Mercury Maurader, but FoMoCo nixed it because it would faced a gas guzzler tax.
My father has a first year 4x4 Crew Cab Super Duty (Manufactured 1998) with just over 100 thousand miles on it. Purchased it new and mainly used for camper travel. It has the 2V 5.4 which has been very reliable. Just recently the exhaust after the cat was replaced. One issue with this engine which was only on the early ones I believe is that they tend to leak oil at the back of the head on the passenger side. Not at a high rate but enough to drop directly onto the crossover pipe of the exhaust, causing an annoying smell when you stop after giving it some gas. This happened a few years after purchase and the dealer replaced the head gaskets. The issue returned after a few years and it has been like that for about 15+ years. Minor enough leak that the level doesn't drop much, but enough to make that annoying burn smell. Otherwise a very reliable engine. Replaced an alternator and just recently the A/C stopped working and it turned out just to be the clutch which has a rubber spring which has hardened so the magnetic force cant move it. I will be replacing the clutch with a steel feather clutch.
I think the Vulcan 3.0 V6 could be considered used in the Taurus, Sable, Ranger and Mazda B series. They have issues with head gaskets and cracked heads. As for the 2.3 it’s a solid engine. The Focus RS had issues because they installed a Mustang head gasket on some. The non turbo 2.3 in Rangers can go forever.
Must have been the early ones? The ones I am familiar with (92+) were absolute tanks. Only real issues I knew about were the occasional timing cover leak and squeaky dummy distributor shafts.
Those were solid engines (Vulcan V6). Weak on power but tough as nails. Originally designed to be aluminum but Ford was new at that and didn’t want to risk it so it was built as cast iron block and heads. Those engines don’t die unless you internationally kill them.
Agree totally with the 2.3 engine comment,232,000 on my 09 ranger,oil change every 3000mi no problem ever
The 6.0L diesel was a great engine when it worked with good power and fuel economy. Unfortunately, it was a ticking time bomb. When (not if) they broke, they broke in a big, expensive way. The current 6.7L is far superior, but the complexities of the emissions control systems are the constraints these days. At least the 6.0L never had to worry about diesel particulate filters or DEF systems.
The dpf and def system doesnt constrain the 6.7, unlike the 6.4 where the system was piss poorly designed and crudely implemented. Early 6.7s are capable of north of 600whp with the factory emissions equipment, the later ones are further improved. Quite often misunderstood, def is actually a fantastic solution to nox emissions, while a bit bothersome for the user. DPFs however are an unecessary evil, simply another way for the government extort people. That said, the two systems are quite robust in regards to the 6.7 with relatively few replacement rates. The 6.0 couldnt handle a simple egr, i cant imagine what wouldve happen if saddled with a dpf.
@@doxnoogle5782 Unnecessary evil when combined with SCR. Engine-out particulate emissions are far too high on earlier diesels that attempt to limit NOx emissions without aftertreatment. The DPF then becomes a necessary evil.
@@Mythicregard I worked with suppliers on testing various DPF filters 2004-2010, none really worked out, great when new, but the maintenance required, was a deal breaker. The technology wasn't ready for prime time.
Adam, I have learned a lot from these videos(Thanks)…….very interesting formation. I was looking at a 2006 Ford 150 with 5.4 only 50k miles….. my mechanic said…”Run, way as fast as you can”.
Glad you mentioned the 5.4. Most mechanics I know say they replace them all the time as their oil ports are to small to lubricate effectively and as you said…” Sludge”. When you mentioned the 351 Cleveland and Windsor, my first question would be which one do you feel is better. My family always seemed to have the 351 Windsor in their cars and everyone I knew who was a Ford fanatic would say you should have gotten the Cleveland as it was better. I don’t know if different parts of the country get different motors? I get they were made in different places but not sure the exact reason. Please mention this issue when you do your video on Fords Best Motors. Thanks
.
don’t walk
Cleveland’s have really great cylinder heads for the time. They flow very well, better than most heads back then .they offer better performance, but are no where near as plentiful or cheap to build.
@@theyhatehimbecausehetoldth7576 You dont need to find a Cleveland block...they were made only from 1970 to 1974. Lots of people have built "Clevors"
Stock Cleveland heads can easily be installed on a Windsor block with minor modification to the water passages and conversion intakes are readily available.
Aftermarket Cleveland style heads are available with the water passages for use on a Windsor block already in place.
Head bolts all line up and both engines have the same bore spacing.
be thankful you're not British. We had the Essex V4 which was truly ghastly. It was thirsty, gutless, shook through designed imbalance, threw conrods and regularly stripped timing gears.
I can't think of a worse engine ever built
That’s a great reminder
we had 75& 6 Ford F-100 I had one my lovely wife had a 75 one and both had kick ass V8 390's again I was raised around GM's I taught to dislike Fords but I did have a few good Fords with some seller's regret
Had a `1965 Ford With a 352 4 Barrel, it ran like a Raped Ape, 4 dr Hardtop to Boot...Only problem was loose Sparkplugs after a Little Hard Driving, never had a Bad Engine In any Ford I ever owned 6cyl or V8. had a lot of Older Fords with the Y Block 56 57 etc No Problem at all...
LMAO @Raped Ape, bwahaha!
Ain’t nothing better than a 3.8 motor and transmission chewing Windstar.
And Taurus
In my experience early V6s from Ford or GM were bad. Since the 90s, they have improved. I have had several V6 Tauruses and they all ran great and were easy on gas. The 3.5 I have in my 2018 has an internal water pump that has been problems in the earlier versions. I have been hearing they went to a double sprocket timing chain in mid 2011 that went a long way to solve this issue, though it is wise to keep the oil changed and the cooling system flushed.
GMC light truck V6’s from the early 60’s we’re good.
@@tomtheplummer7322 I had a 305 with the oil bath carb that monster gave me no problems.
I worked on a Taurus 3.0 or 3.8 (don't remember) that had an long term bad oil leak. So bad it rotted the rubber on the harmonic balancer. The engine would idle weird and had a metallic rattle upon shutdown which turned out to be the metal ring on the balancer. Shade tree mechanics that we were, we traced the leak to the oil pump/filter adapter that was held on by allen screws and sealed by a fancy oring. We got all the screws out except for the worse one, buried in a hole. We decided to pull the engine and disconnected every sensor and snaked the harness off and laid it on the cowl. With the engine out, we drilled the head off the allen screw until the head popped off. Pulling the housing off, the remaining stump of the screw came off with my fingers. The seal shattered like glass. The leak was bad because full pressure off the oil pump was held by that seal. After we cleaned everything up we realized that the harness could have come off with the engine by unscrewing one bolt that held on a big plug at the firewall that split all the wires that went into the cabin. It was a duh! moment because the assembly line certainly wasn't going to struggle with the harness like we did.
GM /Buick 3.8 was a solid engine as is 4.3 l vs used in small pickups they have some small issues.but running them well over 200,000 mile is not hard with proper maintenance.
@@mbsnyderc Some 3.8's had serious problems where GM over-cheapened things. Basically it was a very good engine once you applied the aftermarket fixes which GM should have used in production. IMHO it was as significant and as good as their SB V8. The 4.3 was nowhere near as good with some internal weaknesses showing up at not-so-high mileages such as piston slap, balance shaft twisting and destroying it's bearings, and timing chain noise. The smaller 3.8 derivatives were all crap, again trying to achieve cheapness instead of goodness. Maybe they're better now but I doubt it; GM has lost it's way in the world and Ford has too.
My uncle used to call a 351m a 351 monkey engine
I rebuilt the vv two times on my 81 grand marquis. Both times on the kitchen table. On the 3.8 the gasket problem was due to one engineer designing the heads and manifolds to make high bmep. Also at the same time using only a 4 bolt head with a lightweight head with a flat surface with a small riser for the head valve setup. It kept being made due to the cost of redesign.