Fords 300 straight 6 that came in the pickups from 1965 all the way to 1996 was one stellar engine. Not fast, but loads of low end torque and very reliable
Ford's 240 six came out before the 300 which was developed from it. Not the greatest for fuel mileage but these were pure hell for reliability and longevity. Ford's other inline sixes were different designs based on different blocks.
@@markdubois4882 The 300 is still built as industrial engine. It was used in all types of equipment. The slant 6 was also used as industrial engine. The 300 is much stronger, the 225 slant 6 cheaper to operate. The slant 6 is very sensitive to timing. It will burn hole in piston, and then you went to junk yard to find piston and ever engine you found had burned piston. But timed right they was very dependable engines. 300 Ford had check valve in oil filter, and if you used wrong filter ever time motor started it rattled until the oil got primed. But latter the after market filters started using a check valve. I had a 75 ford pick up with 300 6 and it ran over 300,000 mile.
@@cliffclark6441Is the 300 still built to this day??? Ik Australia got a version of it all the way to 2011 and continued to develop the i6 as the Barra but can you still acquire a brand new 300 I6??
I recall that around 1980 Ford put nylon/fiber timing gears into the 300 but those gears wore out quickly compared to the ones in prior years. Otherwise, very durable engine.
It is interesting how a similar design can have such a difference depending on displacement. The 5.4 3-Valve is an absolute train wreck, whereas the 4.6 in so many Crown Vics, Marquis’, and Town Cars might be Ford’s most reliable V-8 in the last three decades.
I will take a built 302 or 351W over any 4.6.....FAR less complexity and the dinky valve stems (as well as plastic intakes on the passenger car variants---Ive replaced MANY of those) on the 4.6 screams to me HELL NO. Also, due to the tight bore spacing, these engines cannot be overbored much, when they wanted more displacement it had to be stroked into the 5.4 The 4.6 is WIDER than even a 385 series 429/460 engine, and the 5.4 is wider still. Point of fact. Ford re engineered the AODE transmission into the wide ratio 4R70W because they knew the tiny 4.6 (281 ci) was deficient on low end torque and its power band was higher than the 302/351, making it a dog until the rpms came up.
When they run good, they are a fairly decent engine. Exhaust manifolds are a complete bare to get to though. If you don't change the oil, they turn to junk. Main issue is cam phasers and the plastic timing chain guides break. Then you get the occasional rocker followers that wear and can pit the cam down if you keep driving them when they get noisy. I have had a few still running strong with over 200k. Like I said, not my top choice of engines but if you get the truck REALLY cheap I would run them. I ran a 2008 Expedition with 230k for a year back in like 2017. Paid $2000 for it with a bad rear end. Replaced the rear end for $100 in parts and did not have a single issue with it after that.
Peter Sladek but the 4.6 3vs don’t die anywhere near as soon or often as the 5.4’s. They always live a normal life when it comes to maintenance and longevity.
Don Reinke u are crazy if you’re picking a pushrod 302 over a mod motor lmfao u trippin god damn And no. Only the 2v and 3V mod motors have plastic intake manifolds (like every single mainstream engine design made in the last 25 years lol) The 4 valves are incredible motors. 2vs are also very good. Both substantially better than a 302/351 to anyone who doesn’t live under a rock.
The 4.0 sohc was probably a good candidate for an honorable mention, timing chain noise reported as early as 75K miles and failure causing catastrophic damage at 150k was reported And a rear chain made it so that the only way to do the job is pull the motor and strip it almost entirely
I had a mountaineer with that engine and it never made any timing chain noise. Had almost 90k miles on the original chain and guides. Didn't last much longer though because I floored it in 4x4 low and it revved over 7k rpm. Used Lucas for a year to stop the rod knock, but after that, it was too worn out. My fault though
@@christopherswanson1628 mine had it at 100K, and got the updated guides and tensioner which were better, by a lot, it's at 216K and still quiet, but that's still a noteworthy problem
My brother in law had a 97 explorer 4 liter sohc. He ran the shit out of pulling a 6 x 12 enclosed trailer around for work. When he got rid of it, it had 150 k miles, he barely had the oil changed. I only thing i know he had to replace was the fuel pump in the tank, he would run it till it was on fumes before he would stop for gas
351M 351W 400 429 460 all used 3" main bearings. I used to throw every 351M 400 engine I got in the scrap iron pile until I started seeing the 400 beating up on all other engines in the engine master challenge. All the fancy 351C parts heads came ect all fit 351M 400 engines and the 400 has a longer stroke than 428FE engines and 460 engines so now I've given up on my old faithful FE's and build tunnel ramed 4V Cleveland headed 400's dry intake can run and Cleveland aluminum intake that bolts to the PME head adapters. Very cheap horsepower.
I'd argue that the 6.4 was much worse (stock) than the 6.0 Powerstroke: 5 years of production (6.0) vs. 3 years (6.4). Also, the 6.4 is one of the few engines I know of that is cheaper to replace with a new engine than to rebuild.
@@classicwefi I think everyone could all agree that congress let Ford off the hook with these engines. Congress was going after Toyota because their floor mats were sliding up into the throttle pedal (and being non union) at the time. All the people who died in an ambulance broke down on the side of the road with a PowerStroke, nothing. Ford, termed the phrase "mechanical repo". Most Ford owners lost everything, and just walked away. But those damn (non union) floormats in your Prius, that was the true issue.
6.4l was worse, BUT I absolutely HATED the 6.0l with a passion. We ran them in Ambulance vans for a decade. I got SO good at swapping over all of our equipment from 1 ambulance to another when they would break. I had a few times they left me stranded on the side of the freeway loaded with a patient. Only good part was I wasn't paying the repair bill.
My 2004 6.0 was absolutely trouble free for 8 years. Near the end of my ownership it only problem was blowing off a turbo hose when it automatically downshifted when pulling my 10,000 trailer which I fixed with an extra hose clamp. I used Standyne with every fill up of diesel and Hot Shot Secret every 30,000 miles. It was serviced every 4000 miles. It never had any of the problems you mentioned.
The 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
LOL, correct. That's the only real issue TBH. Other things that I see people complaining about are either regular maintenance things for OHC motors, or regular maintenance period. Changing the oil (and replacing with the correct type) isn't optional, for example. Failing to maintain a car doesn't make the design of the car "bad" it makes the habits of the owner bad.
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 truly am impressed by your linguistic skills. You are so articulate and concise in your descriptions and examples. I miss my first car, a 1972 Mach 1 Mustang with 351 Cleveland and C6 trans. Ford always seemed to have too many engineers trying to justify their existence ,resulting in over-complicated engines and accessories. I've watched a bunch of your videos...... you're very talented. Thanks for your time and effort..... I TRULY APPRECIATE THEM!!!
True! Adam has a wonderful way of presenting the facts. And boy, does he know them! Closest voice & modulation makes watching every one of his videos of pleasure!
True! Adam has a wonderful way of presenting the facts. And boy, does he know them! Plus, his voice & modulation makes watching every one of his videos of pleasure!
The 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 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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 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'm a lifelong Ford guy and I'm done with Ford's junk. My next new Ford will be something pre 1997 before Ford went to the god awful modular engine. The 2004 era V6 3.0 duratec engines are junk out of the box. The 2014 4 cyl 2.0l turbo engine is junk. Leaks fluids like most all Ford modular engines. Lots of bad engineering and Ford went cheap for not adding several things onto those engines that would've made them a better engine. Direct injection screws up the valve train without a catch can. The transmission on same vehicle is garbage. Some last 160,000 - 180,000 miles others need replaced at 40,000 miles. PTO can self destruct leaving you stranded and holding a $2500 repair bill if you don't change the gear oil in it every 20k to 30k that they don't tell you about. The 4.6l V8 f150 engine.....junk. Another modular engine. Too many problems to list here. 2018 Ford F350 6.7L diesel. Again too many problems to list here. Mostly electronic programming issues. Def fluid is a problem if you don't drive enough. Too many issues. In my experience the older Ford engines were much less problem and simpler to work on.
The oil cooler issues are actually related to the type of coolant used and the majority of failures in 2003 - 2004 were directly related to mixing improper incompatible coolants that caused silica separation and clogged the oil cooler, gummed up the EGR cooler and even gummed up the radiator. Also the coolant required inspection and testing just about ever oil change and required some sort of replacement every 15k to 20k miles. Swapping to ELC coolants virtually eliminated this issue but required multiple water flushes and then draining of the block and entire cooling systems to make sure the original coolant was completely removed. This is where 75% of oil cooler, EGR, and head gasket failures came from. Noted there are plenty of other issues with the 6.0L but this was a very simple one to fix before there was a problem but.... No one really understood this until the end of the 6.0L's life.
Love your videos. The 3.8 in our 2002 Windstar was great. Ran perfect at 235,000 miles when we traded it in. Literally never did a thing to it than oil changes. Maybe it was built on Wednesday afternoon 😄
I agree. I have a 2003 Windstar with the 3.8 in it. I have only had to replace plugs/wires, a coil pack and some intake manifold grommets. Of course oil changes as well. Maybe I am a lucky one or something, but this powerplant has been very reliable for me. Sadly the van has rusted to the point where its days on the road are numbered.
I 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.
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
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 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.
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.
Late to the party here, but the 5.4 3v modular was used all the way up to 2014 in the ford expedition. I had two of these motors. Drove one to 220k and drove another to 175k. No problems with the first one and the second was good up until it started blowing smoke at start up. Oil changes were 7500 for one and 10,000 on the other. All in all I can’t complain, but I’m not going to be the one sitting here tell you that it’s a great motor. I had good luck with them, but I wouldn’t recommend them to anyone.
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.
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.
Good list. The 5.4 3V has a well-earned reputation as a terrible engine. It is much-maligned on RU-vid, 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.
The 6.0 is a good engine if deleted from the ERG. The EGR was what caused issues. You get it backwards. The oil passages were never the issue. It was the EGR overheating the coolant and leaking which pushed combustion gasses into the coolant which hot-spotted the headgaskets and caused failures. Its the emissions crap that gave them a bad name and they only get worse in later engines. It was rushed to market to compete with the first gen Duramax and thats what led to the divorce of Ford and Navistar. My 04 Excursion is about to hit 300k. It doesn't have head studs but is EGR deleted and running a Banks power pack. Never going to get rid of that truck, they'll never make it again and its better than the garbage they want you to buy from them now. Doesn't need an extra tank to inject what literally is piss into a component that will fail
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
There is also the 3.5 Cyclone Duratec where in front drive applications the water pump fails with little warning, discharges into the crankcase and smokes the engine.
I've heard that the early Duratecs had external water pumps and oil-bathed timing chains, probably the most durable combination one could imagine. But Ford cheaped-out in later years by running the pump off the chain. If they were going to do that, the might as well have used a belt.
Only the FWD models have the internal water pump. And when they do start to fail they’re designed to leak from a weep hole outside the engine. The problem is when the engine is rarely inspected and the leak is allowed to continue then it completely fails and dumps in the engine. Other than that they are solid engines.
@@pcno2832 I have no use for engines that have the water pump inside the timing gear cover. That is Japanese technology. We obsoleted that concept in the early 30s.
I 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!
You are probably too young to know of my first Ford engine that belongs on any list of worst Ford: the 1954 239 Y-block. Same size as the classic flathead, but OHV and it was a totally different block and every other part. They had hiddous oiling problems, and the non-detergent oils of the time made it worse.
Pure junk ... Damned engine wouldn’t breathe, either. Whoever designed the “stacked” intake manifold should have been taken out and thrown “up against the wall”. A few thousand miles, and they’d start their signature clacking, hissing, and popping - you could recognize the things coming from a quarter mile away.
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.
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.
Cost me more money than was in our maintenance budget for a single year! Ford fought our warranty claim, it was a massive headache! We did get full refund but our lost time of employees, rental trucks, and then replacement costs were through the roof! Ford builds junk in ten year cycles. Chrysler, under the control of Fiat, is doing the same with the hemi motors top end that Ford did in 2002.5. JUNK!!!! What really pissed us off was buying 99, 1/2 tons with the 4.6 and 5.4 and having them run with no issues into 2003. And, the 7.3 diesels we bought, with no issues and Ford comes out with that POS 6.0 diesel!!! You know, the one that blows the head clear off the block, alternators fail in 30K mi's, over heat while towing, and on and on. Ford lost the construction market completely when they fixed the mechanical issues with the 5.0 BUT, then the beds were constructed of aluminum!!! 500 pounds on a pipe rack and the beds collapsed!!! I'm so glad I'm retired. I have no idea what truck to buy: GM is building Mexican junk as well as Dodge and they both just fall apart.... Ford is out with another new diesel motor... Gheee, I wonder what could go wrong?.
@@chuckhaugan4970 I own an 01 Lincoln Town Car with the good ole 4.6. Got almost 200,000 on the clock and still runs like a brand new car!! Motor is quiet as a mouse. No ticks or noises whatsoever!!
@@scotthanson7888 Exactly! My 99, with a 5.4 has over 550K mi's on it, (bought it from the company when I retired). In 2003 and 4 we replaced a couple aging 95 and 96 Chevy's with the "new and improved" 5.4 Fords since our 99's were so damn bullet proof. And, one didn't make it to 30K and if I remember correctly the other didn't get to 60K. The 3v head is worse than what's described in this vid. Ford knew, in 2002.5 as they were final testing their design the engine had multiple weaknesses in not only oil port design but material failure of hardened plastic components of timing guides, mild steel used in the head guides and on and on. There were several class action lawsuits against Ford and large corporate interests sued Ford for failure to honor warranty. Google it. It was a mess! The technical bulletins for this engine, at any hint of top end noise, is to replace the engine. It's that bad.
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.
5.4 3V owner here. Mine is about to roll over 300,000 miles. Still going strong. The only reason it’ll be sold soon is because it’s in a Lincoln Navigator and we need a truck to pull a trailer beyond the Nav’s towing capacity.
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.
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.
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 ❤
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 3.8 had the factory defect on the head gaskets until 1999, To solve this problem Just do the Aftermarket MLS on any engine pre 1998 and you will have a completely solid engine, i currently have a 94 t bird with a 3.8 coming up on 325k Miles, and paired with the Swapped 4r70w instead of the older AOD it has been nothing but reliable for a long long time
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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
GMs problem was pushing out new stuff then ditching it 2~6 years later without investing the time or money into refining them. I fell victim to buying a 94 Camaro with 3.4 V8 and got laughed at when trying to find parts for it. Ford on the other hand was perhaps guilty of not making much that was new or inspiring but hey, if it's not broken, don't fix it. The 4.6 V8 is amazing for a mix of reliability and power. We have an old f150 with this engine and it's still the original engine at 320k. This work truck goes through perhaps more than most work trucks or police vehicles. We spray the sewers in Arizona which means we pull up, put in park, spray manhole(20~60s), put in drive and go a few hundred feet to the next then rinse and repeat. This is done several hundred times a day including the average of a 2.5hr commute... sitting in idle or 6 to 12 hours a day like this in the extreme heat. I'm impressed. The 2.0 4 cylinder is a pretty damn great engine too, I've seen many hit 350k~600k+. The transmissions though... stick to a manual with the Focus.
I'd like to throw the 4.0 Liter SOHC engine into this ring of shame. We bought an Explorer Sport that had one, and the timing chains suddenly started making a lot of noise at 125,000 miles. Before this it did not make excessive noise. I removed the oil pan, and found many pieces of the chain guide and tensioner. First off, the pushrod 4.0 engine was a good, reliable engine, but the hatchet-job they did on the "conversion. to an OHC engine was terrible. I can just see an engineer saying, "Here, hold my beer. I'll make this an OHC engine before Friday. I'm going fishing this weekend." Three chains, plus that shaft that goes to the back of the engine through the space formally occupied by the cam of the OHV engine. The guides are just some sort of plastic (nylon?) and the chains rub on them. Why not some sort of roller or gear tensioner. With the passenger side chain being on the back of the engine, the engine had to be removed in order to replace that chain. The engine in our Explorer was not excessively dirty for the mileage. A bouquet of poison oak for the persons who destroyed a good engine.
I drive an V6 OHV in a 96 Explorer Limited. Extremely reliable but has no power above 3K rpm, I also have 4.10s. I brought it to Ford For an oil change and the tech said it is one of the most reliable engines Ford ever made. He said it wouldn't be shocked if it outlived a new Explorer on the lot now. The SOHC is problematic and very sensitive to oil change intervals.
@@alb12345672 I had a '91 Ranger with the 3.0 L V6, which is an OHV engine, and is the same engine family as the 4.0 L OHV engine. It was a great engine. I hauled 2000 pounds of rock up a fairly steep hill with it, plus it never gave me any problems. I'm guessing that it had over 100,000 miles on it, and maybe had over 200,000 miles. The speedometer did not have a hundred thousand mile indicator. I would still be driving it, except that my left knee can not tolerate even a light clutch. My Ranger had 3.73 gears, so at 65 mph on the freeway it was turning about 3200 rpm. I was thinking about changing to 3.50 gears, particularly because first gear was very low.
the 3.8 v6 was kinda weird to me. My 03 mustang with 240k miles on it has one and still works great. No headgasket issues in the 3-4 years i have owned it and put many miles since i purchased.
The reputation comes from hundreds of thousands of Taurii that liked to cook the rear cylinder bank and ruin the gasket from the outside in. The more you sat in traffic on a hot day, the sooner the gasket degraded and failed.
I 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.
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
The 302CID/5.0L V-8 Ford engines of the early to late 1970s were pure trash. That engine lead my Dad to never even look at another Ford vehicle and both of us to shift to Chrysler trucks and cars for daily driver/small family farm use. The last pickup my Dad purchased was a 1986 RAM with the 318CID engine which my younger brother still owns and drives and the 2014 RAM 1500 Hemi 4X4 Quad Cab pickup that The Lovely Bride and I purchased new in late 2013 and own to this day. P.S.: The 352CID "Industrial" Ford engine was a beast in a pickup in the 1960s. But very few people seem to remember it. I took my driver's test in my parents' 1966 Ford pickup with that engine, three speed on the tree transmission, and power nothing!
I take care of 2 ford f250's with the 5.4, 3 valve, I recommend 3,000mile oil change, never do dealer recommendations, beside a water and 2 alternators and plug changes, everything else is stock inside, never been opened up! no chain or guide rattle as of yet! oh and no leaks and these 2 have roughly 400,000 on them! I'm actually impressed! Maintenace is key !
Ford was very conservative with their engine power. Every one ran very anemic. From the FE series to the 385, they all ran the same. They were good engines, just very detuned in stock form. You could have a 352, 390, 400, 460 in your car, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Despite the meager stock performance of these engines, they all had one thing in common, lousy fuel mileage, and a 100 lb cast iron intake. I knock GM for putting the 350 in everything, but GM seemed to tuned every 350 for it's application. GM wasn't afraid of letting a 350 vehicle have an exhaust note and extra performance where needed. My personal favorite from Ford is the 300 inline six.
We did a weigh in on what was the heaviest single component. 454 head was at 85lbs, 390 intake at 80lbs & a 300-6 crank at 75 lbs. I'd rather mess with a 429/460 intake than a 352/390 intake.
360 was a truck motor only from 68 to 76. It really didn't have any power, it was just a base motor. The 361 was in that MEL group which included the 462 lincoln.
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.
The 351M is basically a destroyed 400. Ford came up with the 351M because the demand for the "351" CID engines were greater than the Windsor plant could make. It's an absolutely horrible engine. The Cleveland series of engines suffered from block casting issues - IE porosity, core shift, etc. Nice cylinder heads, not so nice blocks.
In reality the 351M and 400 were gutless gas hogs but they virtually never die, as can be seen in the outdoor, ranching, farming, logging area where I live. They are still everywhere. It's amazing to me how many mid to late 70s Ford trucks are still on the road around here.
I had an 82 Ford F100 with the 3.8 V6 and it ran to 226,000 miles. Never blew a head gasket but back in the day it was well known that they did. Mine was a great engine always ran good.
The Canadian Essex 3.8 morphed into the 4.2 that Ford used in light duty trucks from late 1996 through 2008 to replace the legendary 4.9 straight six. The 4.2 was initially plagued with intake manifold gasket problems as well as leaking timing cover gaskets, and these issues were not fully addressed until 1999. By that time, the engine’s reputation had suffered. That’s a shame, because many sources consider the upgraded 4.2 engine to be one of the most reliable engines Ford ever made. I currently have an old former Conrail owned Ford E250 extended van with the 4.2, and I think it is a great engine…much better high speed turnpike cruiser than my old 4.9 ever was. The secret to loving the 4.2 is to have the 4.11 rear axle to compensate for the lack of torque.
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 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
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 used to own an engine machine shop in the ‘80s and ‘90s. The WORST engine I can remember was the ‘80-‘84 Ford Escort. Was always getting their cylinder heads in our shop. Only saw 1 or 2 that weren’t cracked.
Ford escort so bad i left one sit on interstate 59 going into AL. with signed title on dash and note saying free car. It was only 3 year old. The ignition module had failed like three times.And i was tired of working on it. At least once a month it would leave me walking. I decided the savings in gas was not worth it, and started driving my international scout.
You forgot the 2.3l Lima 4 cylinder motors. The absolute worst B S motor I've had the displeasure of having to set a water bottle inside the engine compartment to collect the oil that blew out the PVC pipe. That motor made very little power (less than 100hp), consume oil, blow head gaskets, and blow it out. I had one in a Ford ranger I once had. I replaced it because it would not hold oil. I blew oil out of the dipstick, PVC and any oil passage leading out of the engine. The new 2.3l did the exact same thing a couple of months later. The right oil was always used, always topped up, coolant checked and topped off, spark plugs checked, etc. it still blew. I dropped a Chevy 383 in its place and all those problems went away. That 2.3l made a great weight in the truck bed so I could get a good tire grip.
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.
I have just discovered your channel and it is for the most part very good. I don't want to be critical, but, I am somewhat disappointed in your lack of knowledge on the Ford 335 series engines (351C, 351M and 400). Much of the information you spoke of in your video isn't accurate. You list the 351C as one of Ford's greats, then berate the 351M and 400. They are all the same engine family - the 335 series. Yes, the 400 and later 351M were lo performance smog engines, but they have the same design fundamentals as the 351C. The 400 was introduced in 1971, and is a tall deck version of the 351C. The 351M replaced the 351C in 1975 to save money, as it used the tall deck 400 block with the larger 3" mains. The bottom ends are not weak on any of the 335 series engines, in fact they are considerably stronger than the small-black Ford (Windsor/Fairlane V8). The oiling system wasn't the best on the 335 series engines, but that goes for all engines, the 351C included. While the lack of priority to the mains was part of the problem, there are many engines that use this type of oiling system without issue. The issues on these engines had to do with the excessive clearances, in particular at the lifters that caused excess oil to bleed out before it reached the mains. This also lead to cavitation at the lifters. Further too much oil was sent to the top end/camshaft. To quote George Pence, who in my opinion is the ultimate authority on the 335 series engines, he says the following are the two main issues with the oiling system. (1) There's no control of where the oil is flowing nor is there control of how much oil is flowing. Main bearing lubrication does not have priority or first claim to the oil discharged from the oil pump An excessive amount of oil flowing to waste in the tappet clearances reduces the amount of oil available for lubricating the crankshaft An excessive amount of oil flowing to the valve train or the camshaft bearings also reduces the amount of oil available for lubricating the crankshaft (2) The large ports in the walls of the tappet bores create three additional problems. The ports allows too much oil to flow to waste The ports create tappet compatibility issues, possibly allowing too much oil to flow to the valve train The ports allow cavitation resulting from the motion of the tappets to spread within the oil passages. Ultimately as the engine wears, this can lead to lower oil pressure and then lower end bearing wear. Not all engines in this family suffer from this, as tolerance varied significantly. I personally have a high mileage 400 with excellent oil pressure and know of many others. The 400s did not suffer from block porosity problems. They had some blocks cast at Michigan Cast Center that suffer from core shift that lead to cracks in the lifter valley. Not all engine blocks were cast there (they were cast at Dearborn and Cleveland as well), and only certain casting dates between 1973 and 1977 were prone to cracking. Finally, I agree the 351M was a low powered smog engine, it was only built during the worst era for American V8s. If were judged the 351W based on it's performance during this time, it was just as feeble. This era was certainly not Ford's best time for engines. Today, a 351M is best used as the basis to build a 400 or even a 434 stroker. Why have the tall deck if you don't get extra displacement? Here is a good article that spells out the history on the 335 series engines and its various iterations: www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/engines/the-ford-335-series-engines-it-couldve-been-a-contender-part-1/ www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/engines/the-ford-335-series-engines-it-couldve-been-a-contender-part-2/ Please keep up the interesting videos. Thank you.
This is anecdotal evidence and I question your "stats." No doubt there were lots of cracked blocks, but in the engine rebuilding industry you'd be much more likely to see them since you do deal with failed engines.
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.
I drove a school bus with a ford 6.0 diesel. I got it new and put 120,000 miles on it. In 120,000 miles it went through 4 turbochargers, 3 headgaskets, and needed a complete overhaul. I've never seen an engine that unreliable before.
The problem with the spark plugs had nothing to do with instillation. Ford only left THREE threads for the spark plug to screw into. Those THREE threads have to hold vs the compression and explosions in the cylinder. It was just bad design.
