The OTHER Kevin in San Diego

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:39:44 -0800, Matt Mead
<mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:08:20 GMT, "glenf" <ccim@jps.net> wrote:
>
>>I had a 1988 460 with a C-6 that loved gas almost as much as it loved
>>exhaust manifolds! Are the newer 460s with fuel injection any better? What
>>about the V-10? I've heard of problems with wrist pins, warped heads, spark
>>coils, etc. but they are supposed to get better fuel economy. I've also
>>heard that the V-10 is a higher reving engine which, I would think, would
>>not be desireable in a motorhome. Any thoughts?????????
>
>
>I don't see any real problems. The V-10 is a decent motor, certainly
>equivilant in durability to many of the older 460s. The only problem
>I've seen mentioned frequently regarding the V-10 is the popping of
>sparkplugs. This is a costly problem to fix and has occurred with
>many. That being said though, the number is still very small when
>compared to how many engines have actually been built. (This
>potential problem was recently fixed when new cylinder heads were
>added a year or two back.) As I recall, the early 99 and earlier
>V-10s (which were mostly in vans and Class Cs) had other problems,
>probably the wrist pin issue you mentioned. These problems surfaced
>after several thousands of miles and you could potentially find one of
>these in a motorhome that didn't get replaced under warranty.

The plug-puking is an issue with a lot of Ford engines, not just the
6.8l Triton.. The fix is not new heads, but inserts in the heads to
stop the problem from happening. www.timesert.com has a kit to repair
one or all 10 (or 6 or 8 or however many cylinders your engine has)
plug holes permanently. I don't see the logic in replacing a head
with the same flawed design...

 

Matt Mead

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:07:30 -0800, The OTHER Kevin in San Diego
<skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote:

>The plug-puking is an issue with a lot of Ford engines, not just the
>6.8l Triton.. The fix is not new heads, but inserts in the heads to
>stop the problem from happening. www.timesert.com has a kit to repair
>one or all 10 (or 6 or 8 or however many cylinders your engine has)
>plug holes permanently. I don't see the logic in replacing a head
>with the same flawed design...


My understanding is the new heads introduced (3 valve) a couple of
years back allowed for more thread area for the sparkplugs, decreasing
the likelyhood of the plugs loosening. Is this wrong? (And I'm not
saying these heads can be used to replace those on the earlier
engines/blocks. My understanding was this change was incorporated
during a redesign to bump the HP and torque.)

I agree about using the inserts to make the repair. That will be my
plan if I ever pop one.....

Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4

The OTHER Kevin in San Diego

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:26:46 -0800, Matt Mead
<mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:07:30 -0800, The OTHER Kevin in San Diego
><skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote:
>
>>The plug-puking is an issue with a lot of Ford engines, not just the
>>6.8l Triton.. The fix is not new heads, but inserts in the heads to
>>stop the problem from happening. www.timesert.com has a kit to repair
>>one or all 10 (or 6 or 8 or however many cylinders your engine has)
>>plug holes permanently. I don't see the logic in replacing a head
>>with the same flawed design...
>
>
>My understanding is the new heads introduced (3 valve) a couple of
>years back allowed for more thread area for the sparkplugs, decreasing
>the likelyhood of the plugs loosening. Is this wrong? (And I'm not
>saying these heads can be used to replace those on the earlier
>engines/blocks. My understanding was this change was incorporated
>during a redesign to bump the HP and torque.)

My local dealer service <ahem> "manager" told me there was a design
change to increase the thread length in the plug holes.. The guy who
did my inserts told me the plug hole was threaded 16mm in my heads
(the "old" design) but the plugs themselves only had like 6mm of
thread on them and different plugs might have lessened the loosening
tendency. This guy is a straght up, no BS kind of guy - been using
him for nearly 20 years - so I doubt this is some sunshine being blown
under my skirt.

>I agree about using the inserts to make the repair. That will be my
>plan if I ever pop one.....

My guy says he's never had one come back that's he's done the inserts
in. Says they're a pain in the ass to do on the vehicle, but with the
heads on the bench it's a cakewalk.

RSCamaro

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:08:20 GMT, "glenf" <ccim@jps.net> wrote:

>I had a 1988 460 with a C-6 that loved gas almost as much as it loved
>exhaust manifolds! Are the newer 460s with fuel injection any better? What
>about the V-10? I've heard of problems with wrist pins, warped heads, spark
>coils, etc. but they are supposed to get better fuel economy. I've also
>heard that the V-10 is a higher reving engine which, I would think, would
>not be desireable in a motorhome. Any thoughts?????????
>
My experience with the Modular line of Ford engines have been ok I
guess. My first one a 2002 E-250 with a 5.4L V-8 ran well and got 10
to 11 miles per gallon on a 8,500 lb truck with 3.23:1 rear gears. The
engine blew a couple of plugs out and the transmission was going when
the odometer reached about 98,000 miles. These problems seemed to
happen to a number of trucks in my branch. We were told that the
problem was that we were hard on the trucks and possibly overloaded
too, even though we did the regular maintenance at our national
account schedules.

Now I'm running a 6.8L V-10 2005 E-350. The rear gears are now 3.73:1
and I get 11 to 12 mpg. Not much of a difference at first glance
until you figure in the rear gear difference and the overdrive
transmission. Acceleration is great compared to the 5.4. I haven't
heard of any problems with these trucks from any of my co-workers as
of yet, but most of us only have about 30,000 miles on them so far.

Find a replacement RV with a 4 speed automatic/overdrive. There is
where you will make up the gas mileage.

...Ron
--
68'RS Camaro
88'Formula
00'GT Mustang

Ralph E Lindberg

In article <o0Sxf.7610$%W1.7088@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"glenf" <ccim@jps.net> wrote:

> I had a 1988 460 with a C-6 that loved gas almost as much as it loved
> exhaust manifolds! Are the newer 460s with fuel injection any better? What
> about the V-10? I've heard of problems with wrist pins, warped heads, spark
> coils, etc. but they are supposed to get better fuel economy. I've also
> heard that the V-10 is a higher reving engine which, I would think, would
> not be desireable in a motorhome. Any thoughts?????????

Class A or Class C? It matters

Many early to almost recent Class A MHs have an air-filter issue,
there is a TSB to fix this, but make certain it's fixed. What happens is
under certain rainy conditions they will injest water.

Some recent Class C chassis, Ford has derated the engine. The Class C
chassis doesn't have as good cooling as the A, and the new engines (3
valve) can generate too much heat.

All in all, the 460-EFI or V10 would be a serious upgrade for your.

BTW, watch the E4OD trany and make certain it gets service as needed,
neglecting that results in a bad situation. This is not a trany that
thrives on neglect.

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv