DamageINC

You damn Canadians and your Liters. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif That's a good one though, we had a tech cause a runaway after forgetting to drain the CAC after he "flushed" one out with brake-cleaner and forgot to drain what was left inside. Did you find out where all the !@#!?$! in the CAC even came from?? Dave

*stored* One more piece of info that I'll probably never have to know again /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Still, I knew someone here would find the answer, hehe. Dave

I think a fulley dressed 6.4 comes in at just over 1,000lbs, and the 6.0 is just a hair lighter. I might not be totally correct, but I'm sure it's close.. Dave

So lately there's been a lot of speculation on things like Ford & Navistar (Not necessarily because of their recent slap-fest) and the idea of a CAT engine in one of these has been tossed around.. Personally, I would imagine that the C7 is a pretty damn big and heavy engine for the Light-Duty truck platforms, a 7.2 straight 6 weighing over 1,400 lbs isn't exactly gonna slide right in, I think. But I was talking to an old friend of mine who happens to have a relatively important position at Caterpillar and I mentioned that I'd heard rumors of some kind of possibilities of the C7 in our trucks... ...She basically said that she's hearing the same thing from very credible sources at her company as well. Wouldn't this be interesting??? Dave

Holy moly... I hope this isn't the kind of thing that might be common. I can only guess how badly this could flush Ford's name if someone fires their truck up in the driveway and lets it warm up for a bit, only to come back out and see that their truck just incinerated the car parked next to it. Opaa!!! Dave

Nice, good luck with the repair. I wonder how likely a hydro-lock condition is, if one of these puppies hangs wide-open. Dave

I definitely think that ITEC needs Ford a lot more than Ford needs them.... Ford makes up so much of ITEC's paycheck that they'd be very hard pressed to maintain their current status without the Big Blue Oval buying hundred of engines from them on a daily basis. On the other hand, FoMoCo puts up an ad that says "We're shopping for a new Diesel" and every damn manufacturer out there who could possibly provide an engine capable of doing what Ford needs it to, will end up in line to wine & dine the guys at Ford in hopes that they'll consider their product. If Ford decided tomorrow that they needed a new diesel manufacturer, I imagine the problem would be solved pretty quickly. Dave

The !@#!?$! hath hittith the fan. ith. Of all the rumors we've likely heard about having a Cat engine in a light-duty Super-duty, now would be the time to start putting some serious thought into the possibilities. (Although I don't know that the C7 is a feasible option...) Dave

I saw a cam sensor leak where the oil would follow the bedplate seal all the way to the rear of the engine and then start to drip... Also, yeah CAC tubes will collect and leak oil *ESPECIALLY* if the engine has too much oil in it... the couplers don't even have to be torn. Anything over 15 qts and the PCV system starts drawing in oil like crazy. Dave

It's unbelievable that they charge 80 grand for that box of !@#!?$!. It's a decent performance car but to be honest, for the price, it's an absolute waste of money. No torque, *ok* power (but nothing to get excited about) and a good suspension setup. A totally stock '03 Cobra would thoroughly embarrass an NSX at the drag strip, and with nothing more than a decent set of springs and shocks/struts, would run circles around one on a road course too. The NSX would have been a cool ride if it were closer to 40 grand... and even then it'd be getting stomped by C5 Vettes. (I sure know how to hijack my own thread, 'eh?) Dave

VTEC is actually more of a performance enhancement thing than anything else, and a great idea to boot. It's essentially a large "extra" lobe on the camshafts for each cylinder that is engaged when commanded on by the ECU... basically it's the same idea as stomping on the gas, waiting till the upper RPMs, and then swapping the cam out for one with more overlap, lift, and duration, for better power production in the top end. Dave

This is the kind of stuff that the media never feels like bringing up. I have yet to learn why they treat Toyota with such respect. A long read, but well worth it.... Dave =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thunder on the Tundra: Toyota Trucks Ahead in 2007 Recalls If you’ve merely done a moderate amount of Internet surfing or cracked open a newspaper lately – just about any newspaper – you’ve undoubtedly seen the news that Toyota has once again passed Ford in worldwide auto sales and may pass GM sometime this year. But what you may not have seen is that Toyota has already passed both Ford and GM in a different category – automotive recalls. Although we’ve barely passed mid-February, Toyota has already recalled 533,417 vehicles this year in a mix that, according to http://www.AutoRecalls.us, includes Tundras Sequoias and Camrys. That puts Toyota on track to recall more than the over 1.76 million autos they recalled in the U.S. and Japan in 2006, and the 2.2 million they recalled in 2005 when they recalled more cars than they built. What’s more, the current recall related to the Turdra trucks and Sequioa SUVs is similar to the same defect in 800,000 of the same vehicles in 2005. Maybe somebody at Toyota isn’t paying attention? Hopefully the American consumers are. Recall numbers by domestic companies (GM and Ford) so far this year are as follows: Ford, 128,163; Chevrolet, 4,829; and Pontiac, 1,602. Chrysler - a German company masquerading as an American company with plans to start importing cars from China in 2008 - has recalled 77,432 vehicles so far in 2007. To be sure, high recall numbers are not good. Auto companies would much rather prefer high sales numbers instead. As I’ve already mentioned, the media is abuzz that GM may lose its crown this year to Toyota in worldwide auto sales. But for that to ever happen in the U.S. sales category, it’s going to take several more years since GM has a U.S. market share of 24.3% compared to 15.4% for Toyota. Even Ford, despite their recent troubles, has a higher domestic market share than Toyota at 17.5%. But if GM loses their worldwide crown this year, it may actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Here’s why: First, GM spent 17% less per vehicle this January compared to last January, which means they are more profitable on a per-unit basis. In fact, GM expects to report a profit for the most recent quarter. Second, it may be good for GM to step aside temporarily, for now, and let Toyota take all the ammunition that is always aimed at the top dog of the industry so there is less pressure and fewer distractions. And when GM combines their more-solid profitability and their improved quality together, their public perception will also improve. Then they can use these admirable qualities to prepare to surge back on top at the precise time Toyota is in the top slot with their recall surge in the news. Toyota’s timing at being number one worldwide would create further skepticism about whether they really deserve their reputation for untarnished quality. According to Business Week’s January 22, 2007 issue, Toyota has recalled 9.3 million vehicles in the last three years, which is nearly four times the number of recalls in the three year period prior to 2004. Other recent news that won’t sit well with a Camry-conscious public is the class-action lawsuit recently settled by Toyota regarding ruinous oil sludge buildup covering 3.5 million Toyota and Lexus (yes, Lexus) vehicles. Optimistic statements by Toyota executives aren’t going to cut it for long – particularly when they don’t match well with reality. Denial in the Camry-company camp seems to be setting in. Toyota’s North American president Jim Press recently disputed the suggestion that his company no longer enjoys a large lead in reliability over the American competition. Speculating on the thoughts of American car company well-wishers while speaking at the recent Chicago Auto Show, Press said “I think there’s some hope that the gap in quality is closing, but it really isn’t.” Oh, really? That’s a pretty strong comment considering Toyota recalled 1.27 million vehicles in one swoop in 2005, recording the biggest-ever recall in history for a Japanese car company. But, recalls notwithstanding, the evidence that the quality gap is closing is pretty indisputable, and the evidence has been piling up for more than just the last couple of years. With the following facts, you can make your argument for American car quality fully bulletproof – even among your most ardent foreign car-defending friends. * A February 10, 2003 Business Week told of how undeniable it was that GM cars are better built than they used to be. The article cited an improved J.D. Power quality ranking and a Consumer Reports recommendation for 13 of GM’s vehicles (equal to 41% of their sales volume) compared to just five recommended GM vehicles for the previous year. The Chevy Impala beat the Camry in a quality survey, and Buick beat BMW. * Business Week also reported September 23, 2003 that GM boosted its productivity 23% in six years while Toyota’s productivity remained flat, and that GM’s most-productive factories now beat Toyota’s most-productive factories. * A 2004 Consumer Reports ranking selected the Buick Regal as the most reliable among family sedans, beating the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord and Nissan Maxima. They also gave recommended ratings for four Ford models, including the Ford Focus. * J.D. Power and Associates awarded Cadillac’s Lansing Grand River assembly center its highest honor – the Gold Plant Quality Award – in 2004. * An August 4, 2004 Wall Street Journal article said Toyota’s lead in quality and reliability has narrowed in some segments and disappeared in others. Quality problems were reportedly “mushrooming.” * The Toyota Camry hasn’t been awarded the best in its segment since the year 2000, but many Americans continue to regard it as the number one model in terms of quality. Toyota’s Kentucky Camry plant was awarded with high initial quality rankings by J.D. Power from the late 1980s through the 1990s, but it plummeted to number 26 in 2002, improving to only number 14 in 2004, while two GM factories and one Ford factory took the top three spots that year. * In a J.D. Power Initial Quality Survey of new 2004 cars, Chevy placed second behind Honda and Toyota sank to number three. * As far back as at least 2003, Business Week has reported that American consumers regard certain foreign cars as better built than American cars, even when facts prove otherwise. * Fast-forwarding to 2006, J.D. Power shows Mercury, Buick and Cadillac beat Toyota in a list of dependable cars. Two Buicks and a Mercury took the top three midsize car awards; Mercury, Ford and Buick took the top three large car awards; Ford took the midsize van award and the midsize truck award; and GMC and Cadillac took the large MAV (multi-purpose activity vehicle) and large premium MAV awards, respectively. * In an article about trust issues, Business Week’s December 11, 2006 issue stated “GM’s quality nearly equals Toyota’s.” Perceived quality among the American public is another story, however. The difference between the actual quality of American cars and the perceived quality of American cars is the “perception gap.” * In the same article, J.D. Power’s director for retail research said “Actual quality is so close…” discussing the quality rankings of GMC, Chevrolet and Cadillac placing them on par with both Honda and Toyota. * And most recently, of course, the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan beat the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry according to Consumer Reports. What’s needed among automotive senior executives, and much of the media as well, is a return to intellectual honesty. Everyone tends to have their favorites and biases (mine are pretty obvious) but I pride myself in sticking with the facts to back up my comments. When Toyotas North American president says that the quality gap isn’t really closing, he’s not being intellectually honest. Some editorial writers aren’t either. When Douglas Brinkley trumpeted Indiana’s success in a Wall Street Journal article last year for attracting a Honda plant to their state – even though it took $140 million in tax credits and incentives – he wasn’t what you would call “intellectually honest.” In an apparent attempt to convince the reader that Honda doesn’t send any automobiles to the U.S. from outside the country, he said the following: “Turning farm fields into factories, that’s what Henry Ford used to do. Today, in the heartland, it’s being done by Honda – a company that doesn’t manufacture imports but builds American-made cars.” Such statements lead the reader to think that some Japanese companies make all of their cars in the USA. Hardly. In fact, according to a January 8, 2007 Wall Street Journal article, the NAP ratio – a ratio that compares how many cars are built in North America vs. the number of cars imported – is slipping for Toyota. And according to Toyota internal documentation, the ratio is going to worsen next year. Occasionally I’ll find an editorial writer that dares to step away from the foreign biases of others in the same industry and rate cars objectively, rather than relying on the mindset of the question “will American cars ever match the Japanese cars in quality?” Editorial Director for Consumer Guide Automotive, Mark Bilek departed from the typical mindset of his colleagues back in June of 2005 by declaring that the Ford Five Hundred was the best car he’d ever driven. That’s good news for Ford, since the Five Hundred is being renamed the Taurus and will get several more second-looks because of the Taurus’ higher name recognition. Billek said he judged the Five Hundred based on “what it is” and how well it “fulfills its mission.” Based on this, his opinion was that the Five Hundred was “simply the best full-size sedan sold in America.” I am confident, however, that people like Toyota’s Jim Press can be somewhat honest in their statements about the competition from time to time. He did say that the “car of the show” at the Detroit Auto Show in January was, for him, none other than the Chevy Malibu. Maybe there’s hope for intellectual honesty after all.

I nearly laughed until it hurt when he started bashing the Tundra for having an engine that doesn't appear to be easy to work on. Apparently he walked right past the 6.4 displays. Dave

It's hard to gauge because fuel economy is going to be very directly related to fuel quality as well. I've heard that 5-8% on average seems to be the going figure, though. I will mention that ***if*** say, someone happens to flash-tune the ECU & eliminate DPF strategy, then fuel mileage will actally be higher than that of a similarly tuned 6.0. Dave

Ford has recently released a new sealant/RTV compound that is supposedly even stronger than the International stuff. It comes in a small caulk-gun style canister, but we didn't have any caulk guns in the shop. I ended up using my ball-joint press, hehe. (Stuck the tip through the hole in the "c" clamp and threaded the rod into the back of the canister. Just used a socket & small ratchet to turn it) But the expiration date on the stuff was in August of '08, so that was kinda encouraging. At least it's got a good shelf-life. Dave

Our dealership understands that corrosion isn't really warrantied... but these people spend 40k +on a truck to work for them. The fact that they might have to shell out over 2 grand because their oil pan rotted out a couple years after they bought it (and none of the other ones do) is kind of BS if you ask me, so I understand why we choose to cover them. That's an expensive f'ing oil leak, and it's not exactly one you can just "live with" either. Fortunately for me, the 7.3's warranty life is almost over by now and I really can't imagine having to deal too much more with this particular issue. I'm primarily bringing this up because my service manager was interested to know just how many other dealerships do this repair the same way, and likewise get shafted the same way. Dave

Ok, so here in the midwest, we get *LOTS* of salt on the road in the winter. This has a tendency to corrode the hell out of the oil pans on the 7.3's. As a shop rule, whenever replacing an oil pan on these, engine removal is *required* and we will noe perform the repair in-chassis as previous attempts have resulted in too many that came back leaking. With that being said, we remove the engine from the truck, mount it on that big stand, and replace the oil pan that way. Problem is - under warranty, it doesn't pay hardly anything. And according to Ford, engine removal is the recommended procedure. Warranty pays 7.7 hours to pull the engine, mount it on a stand, replace the rear main, and reinstall the engine, get everything set and have it running. Adding an oil pan is an additional .6 hours. You might get .5 for oil leak diag. So basically, you get 8.8 Hours to pull the engine, mount it, replace the rear main, and change the oil pan. Which is absolutely retarded. Is anyone else out there getting hammered this badly with this labor op?? Any way you look at it, the truck will be taking up a rack in your shop for 2 days. The sealant has been recommended to let "sit overnight" with the engine upside-down and this necessitates the use of the rack for basically 2 days. It's just really aggrivating to have 15-16 hours into a job, literally busting !@#!?$!, and get paid for half of it. Especially when I can write up a story (legit) and get paid well over 6 hours to replace a single injector on a 6.0. If I do one on each bank, I can get paid MORE than I do for the 7.3 oil pan. And it only takes a couple hours. I've been blasted twice with this, God knows my neighbor tech has been whacked over the head a few times too by it. Local shops around us also won't do the repair "in chassis" and everyone charges roughly 20-22 hours for an F-superuty 7.3 oil pan @ customer pay. Dave

Yes, I agree that it's not actually the gaskets that fail. But the bolt stretching is a HUGE problem, and I can tell you that every single set of cylinder heads I've ever removed from a 6.0 for a "head-gasket" concern, the heads were warped FAR beyond the minimum spec. Even according to the updated surface-flatness checking procedure. I've had some that were out .009"!!! Of course the gasket will not be able to compensate for such a retarded amount of warpage, and the cylinder heads end up getting replaced with new gaskets as well. The '06 + models, with the larger/stronger bolts, have so far proved to be problem free with us. I've had a couple '05's with trashed heads and honestly probably 20 or so '03-'04 models that required cylinder head replacement as well. Once the bolts stretch, the head can lift off the deck and this almost always ends up in a head casting that could be a spokesmodel for Ruffles potato chips. Dave

If you guys honestly think you've got an audit coming, I'd start making 100% sure that everything you touch gets properly documented and all parts get returned as needed. Audits will usually end up in your store owner cutting a 6-figure check and then they'll jump down the throat of whoever's tickets were the "problem" tickets. That whole extrapulation process is brutal... ...if I remember right, they take all of last years Warranty RO's and randomly pull 10% of them. Of the 10% they pull, each one with a mistake, even something as simple as a missing signature from a customer, ends up costing the owner 10 TIMES the amount the bill came to. So a $200 repair becomes a $2,000 fine. And a $3,500 trans job is now a $35,000 pooch-screw. It doesn't take more than a dozen or so RO's to start equaling enormous sums of money. Dave

Yeah, often times if the cooler is blown out bad enough, you'll actually see coolant & wet spots all over the carbon stuck to the EGR valve. This also practically necessitates a turbo removal and inspection too, seeing as the coolant results in more moisture in the exhaust and therefore, over time, can have a profound effect on unison ring mobility. Dave

Yeah, but it's not like these Powerstrokes are wallet-friendly to begin with. A customer would very unlikely turn down a truck because it cost a couple hundred more than he expected due to an improvement in processor technology. And honestly - how often do you see PCM's go bad?? Yeah, it happens... but not nearly frequently enough to warrant complaining about replacement costs. I'm sure Ford would be much happier replacing a few $500 PCM's each month, than they would be replacing a thousand $150 Liftgate Modules ('03/04 Navigators) every couple weeks. Dave

NERD!!!!! Actually that's some good info though, I'll seriously put that away somewhere. God only knows when it may come in helpful /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Dave

Wow, some of those pids look like richter-scale printouts from "The Big One". I guess from what you describe and the pids shown, that my first thought would also be that there's a problem with the crank sensor signal, whether it's a mechanical issue with the trigger wheel or an electrical/wiring fault. RFI from an alternator is certainly not out of the question either... it may not be a bad idea to keep the interior fuse panel open and keep a puller on the fuse for the alternator. Then, if it acts up, yank the fuse while driving to kill the alternator and see if the problem alleviates. Dave

With french fry grease in the tank. Dave

Oh god - If Icould only tell you how many times I've made brake lines for the older F-seires pickups... the ones that blow out way in the back by the axle... But now I'm getting way off subject, heheh. Dave