6.0L Mysteries

mchan68 · January 4, 2011

Okay folks, since this engine has now been out a few years, I'd like to think that MOST of us have now become quite comfortable with wrenching on these beasts. That said, I now have some lingering questions in my mind that maybe some of you might have answers to.

-Anyone ever notice that '03/'04 engines DO have STC fittings? I am referring to the connection between the HPOP discharge tube to the branch tube. But why do they NEVER blow out like they do on '05 to '07 engines? Is it because the branch tube on '03/'04 engines are BOLTED to the back of the engine block while on '05 to '07 (okay I mean '05 and UP if you include E-Series applications) they are not?

-What is the highest mileage you have seen any truck in service on its ORIGINAL EGR cooler last (orange hose and all)? Those that do answer this I suspect are going to say mostly 2003 engines (with the original round style cooler). With the availability of the aftermarket BPD style cooler, has anyone ever personally installed one of these with great success after? If so, you ever wonder why Navistar didn't change the internal design of these coolers?

-2003 engines seem to be unique animals. Just about everything inside a 2003 engine is non-interchangeable with 2004 and up engines. Anyone else ever notice the difference in the sounds of a 2003 engine versus a 2004 and up engine? Also, is it just me or does it seem like FICMs fail far less often on 2003 engines (even though they are the same part from 2003 on up to and including 2007 for F-Series applications)? Why is that? Is there SOMETHING in the calibration of 2003 engines that are much less stressful on FICMs?

-With update after update after update to engine calibrations, it seems like the latest and greatest level seem to have yielded ZERO complaints from customers. The most current level will now throw the "wrench" light on and de-rate power if necessary when the PCM "sees" turbo overboosting, EOT exceeding ECT by greater than 15*F under any given operating condition and finally if FICM volts decrease below a certain level. It will also "sweep" the vanes if the engine is left idling for more than certain amount of time (although the exact time escapes me for the moment). Why are '03/'04 engines excluded from this seemingly good strategy to have?

-With the introduction of the updated dummy plugs and standpipes (the ones with the white teflon rings), I've been upselling them on pretty much every one that comes in retail that I've needed to pull valve covers off for whatever reason. My question though, is if you would push this update on '04 to early '05 models (the ones that use a 1/2" square drive to service)? I don't seem to recall ever seeing one in with the d-rings deteriorated on those particular model year ranges.

Sorry if any or all of above post of this thread is considered useless information to any of you. Feel free to add to it if I've left anything out that I may have overlooked.

cbriggs · January 5, 2011

Quote:

But why do they NEVER blow out like they do on '05 to '07 engines? Is it because the branch tube on '03/'04 engines are BOLTED to the back of the engine block while on '05 to '07

I thought it may be due to heat and pressure flexing the branch tube, but i have seen trucks with over 200,000 kms and fitting still intact, yet i have replaced some under 5000 kms.(one at 285 kms,truck was 1 day old) I lean more towards crap parts now.

Quote:

-What is the highest mileage you have seen any truck in service on its ORIGINAL EGR cooler last (orange hose and all)?

I just did head gaskets on an 05 with 340,000 kms. Had original EGR cooler and orange hose. Cooler was not leaking. (replaced it anyways a preventative measure due to the labour savings involved)

Quote:

Why are '03/'04 engines excluded from this seemingly good strategy to have?

Could it be that they were all off warrantee by the time these strategies were disscovered?

Quote:

My question though, is if you would push this update on '04 to early '05 models (the ones that use a 1/2" square drive to service)?

Once again, failure to come to any other conclusion has lead me to beleive that they are just crap o-rings, not capable of performing the task required of them.

Each year these trucks get more and more complex, and the price only increases slightly. The savings have to come from somewhere, right? If they can save a dollar or two on a part they will use several million of, what choice do they have. They have to keep the cost reasoneable because (especially with the current economy) people are less brand loyal and more willing to buy the best deal (read: cheapest). It sucks that reliability has to be sacrificed because of this.

Jim Warman · January 5, 2011

Sadly, it is this exact sentiment that has driven good, reasonably priced goods out of the marketplace. Naturally, people will bitch about the shoddy quality.... of course, the next time they need something, it once again going to be purchased with "price" being the main consideration.

However, my real reason for replying to this thread... In Adams bay as we 'speak'... About an '06 with something 260K kms on the clock... and 7456 hours on the motor... customer concern is "sometimes lacks power".

How much money is anyone willing to put into a motor with that kind of time on it?

rlchv70 · January 5, 2011

With the availability of the aftermarket BPD style cooler, has anyone ever personally installed one of these with great success after? If so, you ever wonder why Navistar didn't change the internal design of these coolers?

I doubt the aftermarket cooler will pass emissions certification.

Keith Browning · January 5, 2011

Originally Posted By: mchan68

With the availability of the aftermarket BPD style cooler, has anyone ever personally installed one of these with great success after? If so, you ever wonder why Navistar didn't change the internal design of these coolers?

I doubt the aftermarket cooler will pass emissions certification.

I had raised that point when we first discussed the Bullet Proof EGR cooler but it seems to me that from an emissions stand point these people are at the very least not eliminating the EGR cooler. Though likely not as efficient it would be safe to say the coolers are better than no cooler?

I also haven't heard of then causing any DTC's either or driveability concerns. Has anyone?

Mike Jeanotte · January 5, 2011

Why is that? Is there SOMETHING in the calibration of 2003 engines that are much less stressful on FICMs?

I think this has to do with the fact that the 03 injectors all leak a little fuel into the crankcase. They seam to have less stiction causing less load on FICMs.

I also think the emission levels were much more strict on 04 and later expecially in the egr flow requirments. Which causes lots of problems.

mchan68 · January 5, 2011

Here's interesting food for thought. I'm well aware that there are a lot of differences between the 6.0L and 6.4L engines. It seems that we unanimously agree that the inherrent cause for 6.0L heads to lift off the blocks is due to a design flaw (only ten head bolts securing the head to the block per bank). How many of you have had to deal with this issue on the 6.4L? How hard would it be for someone to yank the block, modify it by retapping all cylinder bolt holes to accept the same bolts that 6.4L engines use and re-install everything back together using ARP head studs for a 6.4L to make a completely bulletproof 6.0L setup. If such a setup were even possible, this would cater to those who do not like the 6.4L for their own reasons. Just a thought.

Steve Mutter · January 6, 2011

I have had only one 6.4 that needed headgaskets for coolant loss. You could see the grove in the head and the leak point on the gaskets

rlchv70 · January 7, 2011

I had raised that point when we first discussed the Bullet Proof EGR cooler but it seems to me that from an emissions stand point these people are at the very least not eliminating the EGR cooler. Though likely not as efficient it would be safe to say the coolers are better than no cooler?

The EPA allows for in-use emissions to be higher than the data that is submitted for certification. This is taken into account with the DTCs.

Also, the DTCs are limited based on the sensors available. I think the only sensor that would show any results would be the intake temp sensor. I'm not sure how sensitive it would be.

Another thing to consider with these aftermarket coolers is that higher EGR temps will result in higher soot out of the engine.

rlchv70 · January 7, 2011

Here's interesting food for thought. I'm well aware that there are a lot of differences between the 6.0L and 6.4L engines. It seems that we unanimously agree that the inherrent cause for 6.0L heads to lift off the blocks is due to a design flaw (only ten head bolts securing the head to the block per bank). How many of you have had to deal with this issue on the 6.4L? How hard would it be for someone to yank the block, modify it by retapping all cylinder bolt holes to accept the same bolts that 6.4L engines use and re-install everything back together using ARP head studs for a 6.4L to make a completely bulletproof 6.0L setup. If such a setup were even possible, this would cater to those who do not like the 6.4L for their own reasons. Just a thought.

I doubt there is enough meat in the 6.0L crankcase to support the larger head bolts.

Also, there were other structural changes to the 6.4L crankcase and cylinder heads to improve head gasket sealing.

JSHTech · January 14, 2011

Originally Posted By: mchan68

Here's interesting food for thought. I'm well aware that there are a lot of differences between the 6.0L and 6.4L engines. It seems that we unanimously agree that the inherrent cause for 6.0L heads to lift off the blocks is due to a design flaw (only ten head bolts securing the head to the block per bank). How many of you have had to deal with this issue on the 6.4L? How hard would it be for someone to yank the block, modify it by retapping all cylinder bolt holes to accept the same bolts that 6.4L engines use and re-install everything back together using ARP head studs for a 6.4L to make a completely bulletproof 6.0L setup. If such a setup were even possible, this would cater to those who do not like the 6.4L for their own reasons. Just a thought.

I doubt there is enough meat in the 6.0L crankcase to support the larger head bolts.

Also, there were other structural changes to the 6.4L crankcase and cylinder heads to improve head gasket sealing.

Not long ago I had made a post on the Ford Message boards about doing head studs one at time, with out pulling the head. That turned out some very interesting replies, but anyways, I got a call from an engineer in Dearborn. He told me, that at one point in time Ford had taken head studs and done some extensive testing with them regarding clamping force on the head opposed to clamping force from torque-to-yield head bolts, and how that force was spread out. Because Ford was considering doing an updated head gasket kit with head studs instead of bolts. He said that in the end, the results they found was that the 6.0 block is simply too weak. You can apply as much force as you want to the head, but the block just cant handle the stress, and they saw just as many gasket failures with studs, as they did with head bolts. Because they didn't have a large enough difference in preventing gasket failures, they decided against using the head studs. This is what I was told from Dearborn.

I know this probably goes against what a lot of you think, and it really raised more questions for me than answered. But I just thought I would throw that in there, and I'm curious how you guys feel about this.

cbriggs · January 17, 2011

I think I may have posted this before, but the only truck I have ever done head gaskets on twice (60,000km apart) had ARP studs installed at the first gasket replacement.