Word. The EPA has done irreversible damage to consumers. Ford used to have reliable engines. The 5.0, 5.8, 7.3 idi and PS, 7.5. They produced the straight six for 30 or so years.

Then the EPA brought us the Triton, the 6.0 and the 6.4, ect ect.

 

There are millions of new trucks sold in North America each year. I'd really love to know how many of these people actually subscribe to CR and of those, how many actually received a survey in the mail. And of those who did receive a survey, how many answered without emotion, honest and true as to what was actually happening to their truck if anything.

It's human nature to be more negative than positive especially when trying to hold a car builder to a standard.

Not saying that problems don't exist because they do. My daughter's 2018 XLT truck with the 3.5L eco has had the cam phasers replaced at 26K miles and her transmission feels kind of quirky but nothing is wrong with it. Other than that, the truck is flawless and she has all the interior comfort items that young people want.

My 2011 XLT with the 3.5L eco has been incredible! The SYNC system is a disaster but I ignore that and with 106K on the clock, I'm happy as hell.

I think CR needs to be ignored for the most part. I've owned a 1984, 86 and a 1988 F-150. The '84 was unsuitable and starting to have issues at 30K miles. The '86 was pretty good and the '88 was just a pure nightmare and money pit.

Thank God they don't build em like they used to!

 

I dont think CR is objective. I used to read it. They are not very positive to my way of thinking..

 

I'm not sure where you get this from.... .... especially when you look at the different gens of the 5.0..... and the 300 cid was produced for industrial use for about a decade after... and yes, the industrical engines have to comply with the epa rules as well......

The 4.6 triton was actually developed in the 1960's and was the engine Ford brought to the Indy 500 in 1965.

 

I'm sorry, that's just not accurate. The 255 (4.1l) V8 used in the 1965 IndyCar was closely related to the old 289 and even shared it's 2.87" stroke. This engine has absolutely nothing to do with the 4.6 L modular V8 first introduced in the 1991 Lincoln town car. It was then given 4V heads and stuffed transversely into the Mark VIII, then the Mustang, and then the trucks. These engines were all-new in 1991 and have nothing in common with previous designs.

http://gt40.net/photos-articles/ford-gt40-4-cam-255-indy-engine/

I also disagree about at the reliability argument… There have been some timing drive issues over the years, for the base engines almost never fail without permission before 300,000 miles. Even when worked hard, the engines often outlast the chassis they sit in.

 

I've owned two 300's, two 302's a 351 and my dad before me owned a 351 and a Ford 360 as well as many GM 350's.

Not one of the engines could hold it's own against my 3.5L ecoboost for power, reliability, MPG's and maintenance schedules. To date, my 2011 truck has been the most reliable vehicle that I've ever owned having never spent one night in the shop since I bought new. 106K and still happy.

 

Completely agree, Tim. That's the thing about nostalgia… Our brains are hardwired to think the "good old days" were a lot better than they really were.

 

Well said Tom.

My 300's were great engines from a reliability standpoint but, they were gutless gas sucking boat anchors that required 3K mile oil changes with 10w-30/40 oil and 30K mile tune ups and they leaked oil.

 

Agreed!! 2011, 3.5L 138K and not a one night in the shop!!! Pulls like a dream. Buying a 2021 and getting the 3.5L again!

 

Modern engines have gotten fantastic. Everything covered in this forum downright embarrasses as the old 2v 5.4l dinosaur under the hood of my Expedition.

But hey...131K and going strong...so that's something, right?

 

You'll never hear me talk crap about the gutless 4.6L under the hood of my 2004 expy. 140K, bought new and I've spent under $1800 on it in repairs. Fuel pump at 80K, window regulator and switch and a front and rear vent control actuator. Other than that, routine maintenance and wear items. Been a great truck.

 

The 4.6 (1965) was the foundation for the production version (later)..... and my family/relatives/neighbors were deeply involved in the racing venues at that time..... "writers" are well known for their analysis but, what they lack, is what/why the engineers did what they did...... just like when the 4.6 went into light duty truck production. One of our distant relatives worked at Ford at the time...... they literally had no intnetion at that point of using the mod engines for the F150's...... although FE series production had ceased and supplies exhausted, they were in the middle of doing heavy design upgrades to the SBF's and had about a 6 month block supplly..... when they held the press conference announcing the then new 4.6...... one of the auto mag reporters asked the Ford PR guy (and this was later published in several car mags), "If this engine is so good, how come you are not using it in your trucks"...... the PR guy went blank for a minutes and replied, "We are in the future"..............

Within hours, the PR "oops" became a nightmare for Ford.... if they corrected the statement, it would appear there might be a perceived durability, etc. issue with it..... meeting were immediately called up to and including the Ford Executive level to discuss the "potential fallout"........ it was decided that day, that the "mod" motors would now be used in the trucks..... the engineers now had to rapidly move forward with F series specific head design and the production side of the "house" now have to rapidly respond being able to produce the engines starting in 12 months...... of course, the backside events, you don't hear of at all.

With regards to engine failures, especially with the EB series (especially true in commercial applications), the exceptionally high turbo related maintenance is seen down here in Los Angeles where the engines just don't have a chance to "clear themselves out"..... about 3 years ago now, while replenishing my BG intake cleaner supply, the BG rep was having a really good day, as BG had developed a revised decarbonization type system.... he just made a sale to a fleet operator (300+ F150 EB's) who were spending $'s having to either disassemble/clean (as soon as 6 months), rebuild or replace the turbos about every 3 years due to carbon buildup..... this was a bit of an experiment on both their and BG's part to see if it would work/provided any benefit...... it did... to the point they went that day from 1 system to purchasing multiple systems..... and while they projected the engine mileage life to be 250K miles +, the "routine maintenance" as defined by Ford (such as carbon buildup) was crippling their budget....now they had a solution. Looking at todays engines, the high pressure (1000 psi) fuel delivery systems are a whole new ballgame..... Yes, used in diesels for decades, the dynamics placed upon the engine systems with gasoline, the long term reliability is unknown and there are alot of internal dynamics that have severely changed.... some of which, consumers are the "lab rats".

It's kinda like the Holley EFI systems.... the 2v specific....while it all looks good on paper, engineers at both Ford & GM found during extensive lab testing that especially with small displacement engines, fuel delivery (equalization) was just not happening and could not be corrected within a reasonable timeframe & investment...... Holley (etc.) do not to even begin to have the R&D funds and supercomputer access that the oem's do.....and these issues are now becoming a bit more common with every passing day and the sales grow and become expanded.

Let's also not forget, the FE series engines were predominently used in commercial applications.... ie beat to death yet both in the commercial & industrial and construction vehicle industries, these were the know as the engines you couldn't kill...... 200k+ miles was not unusual.

 

I mean no disrespect, but this all seems like a bunch of hearsay to me.

I can't even find anything to indicate a 4.6 L V8 was even made in 1965. The Indy V-8 was 4.1 L and didn't share a single dimension with the modular V8. It did, however, share dimensions with the 289. When I search for a 1965 Ford 4.6 L V8, I get nothing but threads of people trying to swap modular V8s into their vintage Mustangs for some reason.

Every article I can find on modular engine history indicates it was first introduced in 1990 with no prior history.

https://fordauthority.com/fmc/ford-m...odular-family/
https://www.diyford.com/complete-his...dular-engines/
Ford Modular Engine History - Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords
https://fordcobraengines.com/ford-mo...r-differences/

We have various fleet operators here on FTE as well, and none of them report this issue. @ford390gashog

The systems are completely different between GDI and common-rail diesel. The diesel systems operate about 25,000 psi and use gear-driven high pressure pumps driven from the camshaft. The direct injected gas engines use a much lower pressure system that operates under 2,175 psi and uses a valve cover-mounted pump driven from a camshaft lobe. The systems have virtually nothing in common except their basic layout.

 

As far as the engine & chassis development, it was done right here in my home town..... at Speedway Pattern Engineering....very world renoun facility.....this is where MB brought their factory race cars for final tune & prep. Well published and you can google it.

As far as the fleet operators goes, you're right....90% do not operate in Los Angeles conditions.... as an example...... my wife travels daily to the corner of Wilshire/Bundy... you can google this.... we live exactly 6 miles from the location..... good commute day, travel duration 45 minutes...bad commute day 2-4 hours....... show me how many of the fleet operators are engaged in that daily routine.... few at best.

and you are right with the gas vs diesel high pressure injection systems, but my point was, diesel fuel systems have decades of experience/tenure in a variety of very demanding and dynamic demands while the gasoline systems (the new gen) have little tenure and long term issues are yet to beknown.

 

It's no secret that turbo engines need to run hard and that city only driving is a literal dagger to the heart of those engines.

The 4.6L = 280.xxx cubic inches. Was Ford really developing an overhead cam V-8 in 1965? Or, did all this get wrapped up with the 289 motor? Just a question because I can't find anything either.