That's the point that I was trying to make.

One at a time can work, but even if you did the install correctly, if your engine is out of spec, it's still going to give you problems.

It's that "if" that I'm concerned with. I don't know how well or not that the person monitored their engine, so I'm hesitate to suggest something that may not work and cost them more money in the long run if it doesn't work.

The biggest difference here is, lets assume that in both scenarios flawless work is done. Doing it one at a time, you can still have the possibility of having to get back into the engine if the engine wasn't in spec (something that you don't know for sure, you can guess, but you don't know for sure), however, if you lift the cab or pull the engine, check the heads etc and that was flawlessly done, you are good to go. One you still have a risk of issues, the other you do not.

 

And how many people who pulled the heads ended up bending valves or pushrods because of lifter issues before we figured out what caused that. Removal has its own hazards. Its not the be all end all. Far too many people have done 1 at a time successfully to continue to harp on the "terrible" risk. Heck I buy a lottery ticket once in a while talk about really crappy odds there

 

I must not be explaining it right.

Can 1 at a time work? Yes it can be successful. It can work. It is a viable alternative.

My problem with it then? In order for it to work, one assumption has to be met. The engine is within spec. The issue becomes, how do you really know it's in spec, if you don't go in there and check it? Even doing what you did before, how do you really know that your test was successful or not? Noticeable failures like this don't always happen after the first, second, or third go around, as far as I know you only did your test once. Of course, doing the test multiple times, you run the risk of actually causing failure when one wasn't there to begin with.

Let's say that you had a perfect 1 at a time install on one truck and a perfect cab off or engine pull install on the other truck. Install on everything went perfect based on the type of install. Everything that can/should be done was done.

Now, which one can still runs the risk of failure despite everything being perfect with regard to the install? The one done 1 at a time. Why, because the engine may not have been in spec when those studs were done.


Yes, there could be a plethora of things that can go wrong during either install. I'm assuming everything went perfect on both.

Rather you like it or not, that risk is always there. Now you may place a different value on that risk then I do, but it's there. In my mind, it is an unnecessary risk, unless you are sure that everything is kosher. I would rather do things once and not have to worry about it later, then to run the risk of something happening down the road.

 

How many people have done one at a time and then had to do them again ? How many people have done them by removing the heads and then had to do them again ? I would at least try one at a time first but have the money to do it by removing the head just in case.

 

Most people only consider having to do studs if they've already had a problem. Puking is the most common symptom. With that being the case, you can only assume that the gaskets haven't been compromised, the mating surfaces are flat, and only the TTY bolts have stretched if you don't pull the heads. Going one at a time with ARPs may compensate for slight deficiencies with increased clamping force, and higher tensile strength, but it doesn't fix them.

In some cases the one at a time band aid fix can buy you some time. The more you stress the motor, the more likely you are to finish off any components that weren't repaired the first time around.

 

Also, how many people who have done them one at a time really stress the motor on a regular basis afterwards?

Slow down or hammer down? WOT with radical tunes, or run a tow file with a light foot all the time? How much do you trust the band aid?

 

Bottom line, I just can't stand half assed being passed off as the right way to do something.

 

Interesting, for a guy like me who has never had a progammer coonnected to the truck and now at 70k on a 2006 engine that has never been hot. I wonder if it's wise to replace the stock bolts to studs??
Weekend job?

 

Curt - I truly hope you get 100k miles and more.

That being said, even if it works for you that doesn't mean that it is wise or that it is worth the risk. There are many heads that are warped, gaskets that have begun to weaken, etc - issues that you can not ever identify without removing the heads.

IMO it is like the Russian Roulette survivor saying "Go ahead, it worked for me" ..........

Of course if you can afford to have a failure down the road (unexpected downtime, potentially warp or crack heads from it, etc) then no big deal to try it. There are a lot of things I might try, but would never recommend for others to do.

 

Thats a awesome analogy!! The half assing it was good point driver too, havin flash-backs of the movie (Deer Hunter) lol

 

Mine is the test engine for this forum. My truck is for towing & excursions out of town, not a daily driver. I use mats Slr + & 8k tow tune with the ficm atlas 40. I have done a lot of stress testing after its warmed up. We all hope our trucks don't fail us when we are out of town! This was DSMMH post that provided the risk/reward for me

 

I to have a 2006 stock engine 65k never had a progammer on it never been hot and I wouldnt do mine till they go on there own. But with that being said when I had my bed plate done at 30k miles (knowing what I know now) I would of had them done then WITH THE HEADS REMOVED.

 

Why would you be considering to do that? If it's not broke, why go in there and run the risk of tearing something up?

If you are wanting to do something (tuner, injectors whatever) or if it's broke then go in there and deal with it, but if the truck has served your purpose now, invest the money, hopefully earn some "mailbox money" and have that for a rainy day.

Either half-assed or cheap or a combination of both.

bismic had it right with the Russian roulette analogy.

 

I do appreciate the conservative nature of this forum, and the advise/help when asked/needed. This appears to be a hot topic about the best/right way to do it! I hope the op has enough information to make a choice, Thanks Curt

 

I have seached around on the diff. forums for advice on the 6.0 and this is by far the best out there. Good people, good techs, the occasional disagreements and the most active. JMHO.