Thanks. That was what I was trying to see the difference between the 6.0 and the 6.4. So I wouldn't get duped.

 

And that is why I bought the mass quantity of serrated flange bolts.

All mine were tight from when the dealer put in the rebuilt starter maybe 6 years ago.

Had a startle when I took it out though as it looked like it already was a 6.4L with it's nose.





Installed the 6.4L this afternoon and finished taking the videos of the voltage and ammeter measurements. I'm just not sure this is worth documenting in a published video though.

Here's the data I've tabulated so far, just not sure I want to play with it in another view.


EDIT!

Pulling the data and calling no joy after sleeping on this.

 

Jack: yeah the look of the nose looks more 6.4 and no extended shaft like on the other 6.0 picts I've seen -- maybe it IS a 6.4 starter you already had, or...?

I guess the holy grail (free lunch) isn't there either, based on your two starters...

Thanks for all your efforts

 

I spent a half hour after pulling it out looking at 6.0L images to no avail. It is a Motorcraft rebuilt, but the existing engine rpm is in line with the 6.0L starter. The 6.4L starter has a worn 6.4L proper tag on it, and it does spin the engine faster, just not as fast as some have noted. The batteries are from May, and I know the cables are good. The sound is certainly of a faster spinning engine.

 

That would make some sense then -- they had come out with the new "front end" for the 6.4 starter, so it goes on rebuild 6.0 starters...

 

For the guys that bought the 6.7 starters... those have the 12mmx1.75mm threaded bottom hole, correct? How about a threaded insert to allow the use of a 10mm or an 8mm bolt?

 

No, the 6.7 has an 8mm bolt. The 6.0 and 6.4 the 12mm, which may be the reason for them loosening.

 

That was my thinking too Scott. Hey, welcome back from the second hiatus.

 

So the answer is yes it does draw more current and also causes the voltage to drop a little more. This should be taken into consideration since our trucks demand so much current on cold starts. I can't help but to think of the FICM that is so vulnerable to drops in voltage.

.

 

Chuck,

That was my initial real concern, the voltage drop especially during the winter. It still is.

As a starter only, it was coming in around a 0.20v drop.

But in a system setup, that doesn't prove out. There is some limitation due to the 2/0 cable from the battery to the starter, but if will improve that then the batteries will develop even more of a voltage drop. We have a limited resource of current capacity with batteries, where do you want to use it.

Edit, I should also point out I was doing this with the batteries off a full charge for each test, unlike what would be experienced every morning. I just didn't want to go through what I did last winter, spending a week or more for each variable.

 

Thanks Jack

 

Jack, that looks like 2 6.4 starters to me. My factory original 2005 starter has the extended shafts out the nose.
I swapped mine out and I can hear the difference. I didn't get any testing info but it sounds faster.
Again my replacement is a 6.4 starter and was a direct bolt in (with some green loctite).

 

And that was my first reaction coming out from under the truck. As Scott pointed out, I'm not sure how the Ford rebuilders are putting these out. I do have changes in engine speed, both off the SG and in personal observation. It would have been less controversial if this was still the original starter, but it's not.

For my situation it just brings up a ton of questions. If the one coming out is a 6.4, why is its RPMs in line as the 6.0s. And why is the salvage 6.4 at 185 rpm rather them as some reported as 200+? More questions then answers. I was thinking of pulling both apart today to document internals, but didn't for time.

 

After sleeping on this I'm calling No Joy on this one guys. I've pulled the data graph as I don't want someone to look at it and take the data as presented. Chuck, if you would, please edit your post so the table in the quote of me is removed.

I thought I was going to present some useful data showing the two representations, but the rebuilt starter that the Ford dealer installed is unlike the original equipment 6.0L. The RPMs off both starters as read by ScanGage are not in-line either, so I'm real uncomfortable in presenting any of this as representative data. Maybe I'll re-present the data as a tale of two starters or something else.

 

Sorry to hear it didn't work out as you expected. I must admit I'm alittle surprised at your RPM, I expected it to be at minimum 200