oil cooler
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
From: Chippewa Falls, WI
oil cooler
Hey,
I have a 94 with the 351w. It is equipped with the oil cooler that attaches to the oil filter bung and has some lines running to the lower radiador hose.
What I am wondering is do I have to replace the whole cooler assembly $$$$$$$!! to change that portion of the lower hose, about 6-8"?
It really looks bad and I would really like to change it before it goes, but it looks intergral to the cooler (only clamped on the water pump end).
I have a 94 with the 351w. It is equipped with the oil cooler that attaches to the oil filter bung and has some lines running to the lower radiador hose.
What I am wondering is do I have to replace the whole cooler assembly $$$$$$$!! to change that portion of the lower hose, about 6-8"?
It really looks bad and I would really like to change it before it goes, but it looks intergral to the cooler (only clamped on the water pump end).
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
From: Plymouth, MI
If I understand your question correctly, you beleive the oil cooler and the lower radiator hose are one peice. They are not. They are seperate peices. I happen to have a spare here and can tell you that they don't come with the hose attached. There are 2 different hoses. The style for trucks without the exchanger and the style for trucks with the exchanger. My service manual doesn't show the exchanger....so if your still skeptical, I would take a trip to the ford dealer parts department and let them look it up....they can show you on the diagrams they have. Good luck.
Sam
Sam
Last edited by 77 Bronco; Jan 13, 2007 at 04:27 AM.
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
From: Plymouth, MI
Found them in my service manual.
Oil cooler adapter assembly Part #: 6K741 *this is the part that attaches to the waterpump and had the 2 hoses going to the oil cooler between the block and the oil filter.
Only shows them as available on the "Lightning" engine. Maybe yours was a special added option somehow. *1993-1995 model years.
Oil cooler adapter assembly Part #: 6K741 *this is the part that attaches to the waterpump and had the 2 hoses going to the oil cooler between the block and the oil filter.
Only shows them as available on the "Lightning" engine. Maybe yours was a special added option somehow. *1993-1995 model years.
Last edited by 77 Bronco; Jan 13, 2007 at 04:35 AM.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
From: Chippewa Falls, WI
So I can replace that small piece of coolant hose without having to get the entire cooler assembly?
I don't know why my truck has this, it is definatly not a lightning,(unless the rate at which it uses gas counts) It must have something to do with the tow package i have. It is a waldoch and has all the bells and wistles otherwise.
I will go to the dealer and have them look up the assembly you noted and see what i find.
I already changed the main hose from the cooler to the radiador no problem.
I don't know why my truck has this, it is definatly not a lightning,(unless the rate at which it uses gas counts) It must have something to do with the tow package i have. It is a waldoch and has all the bells and wistles otherwise.
I will go to the dealer and have them look up the assembly you noted and see what i find.
I already changed the main hose from the cooler to the radiador no problem.
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
From: Plymouth, MI
Kell104, it is part of the hose. It is an assembly. There are 2 hoses that come off of it and go to the oil adapter. I beleive they may have put them on the 351W only as I am now finding out it may not have been just the "Lightning". I have yet to see one on a 302 (5.0L). I am not sure what the cost is on the assembly. I'd go to your dealer like you said and get a price. It may be a dealer part only but I am not positive on that. Ford may have started to install these on trucks starting in the '92 model year. Maybe someone can shed some light on this subject as to when these became available. Good luck.
Sam
Sam
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
From: Chippewa Falls, WI
When I go to the dealer this week, I will pump them for more information. I will also post the price so anybody else who needs the same thing can start pinching pennies.
Thanks!!!!!
Thanks!!!!!
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
From: Plymouth, MI
Great...I'd like to know a little more. As far as I know they are only offered on the 351W....but the service manuals don't list it for the regular trucks....like I said just the "Lightning". Learn something new every day. You can eliminate the cooler all together and just get a regular hose but I am unsure if there would be issues with the oil and such. The late model engines may have a need for it for whatever reason. Otherwise it would be really cheap to just get a regular 302 or 351W lower radiator hose. Good luck.
Sam
Sam
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
From: Chippewa Falls, WI
yeah, I think that piece of hose I already changed was about 40bucks and it had to be special ordered at NAPA.
I assume the cooler is necessary because of some oiling problem ford found with the higher output motors, like the lightning. I wonder if the oil temp got too high under extreme load and wiped out bearings or burnt off excessivly?
I guess it is a good thing I have one since I work the hell out of it pulling my camper and other various toys.
I think I saw someone else here with a 302 that had one too, but i am not positive.
I assume the cooler is necessary because of some oiling problem ford found with the higher output motors, like the lightning. I wonder if the oil temp got too high under extreme load and wiped out bearings or burnt off excessivly?
I guess it is a good thing I have one since I work the hell out of it pulling my camper and other various toys.
I think I saw someone else here with a 302 that had one too, but i am not positive.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
From: Plymouth, MI
Well I don't think it is because of the higher output because back in '69 the 351W was easily a 300+ hp engine stock...and the "Lightning" is 240 hp and our trucks are only around 200 or so. So I beleive it has to do with something else. Like maybe the option for super cooling, as some of the trucks were equiped with. If there is one on a truck with a 302 I'd like to witness that as I have yet to see one...would be interesting. Not that the one of your truck wouldn't fit....they are very similar in alot of ways. (Some parts interchange)
Sam
Sam
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
From: Chippewa Falls, WI
I agree, these motors don't have the power their earlier versions did at all and I sure wish they did.
I will try to find out why some trucks have them and some don't.
Like I said earlier I am not sure about a 302 having one too, I just thought I saw it somewhere in another discussion. Like you stated I would think one could be fitted on one since they are like kissing cousins with the 351.
I will try to find out why some trucks have them and some don't.
Like I said earlier I am not sure about a 302 having one too, I just thought I saw it somewhere in another discussion. Like you stated I would think one could be fitted on one since they are like kissing cousins with the 351.
Cargo Master
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,033
Likes: 32
From: Aurora,Colorado
You cant compare pre 1972 gross horsepower to post 1972 net horsepower directly. A 300 gross horse 1969 351 is about the same power output as a 1993 240 net horsepower 351.And the 240 net may have actually more horsepower than the 300 gross 1969 351.
That 240 net 351 pushes that 4400 pound Lightning thru the quarter mile in the mid or low 15 seconds. And the 1969 290 horse 351 was lucky to do that in a 3200 pound car stock.
That 240 net 351 pushes that 4400 pound Lightning thru the quarter mile in the mid or low 15 seconds. And the 1969 290 horse 351 was lucky to do that in a 3200 pound car stock.
Last edited by phoneman91; Jan 13, 2007 at 10:10 PM.
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
From: Plymouth, MI
Phoneman91, Yeah but you have to realize that the "Lightning" has a 4.10 rearend and how many cars in '69 had that stock. Probably not too many....and the newer cars are lighter than the cars in '69. Also my 300 hp number was a little easy going as I am positive they made more than that....but not excessive. Nothing against a "Lightning" as I am a HUGE "Lightning" enthusiest but the engines can't even compare to the pre-emission engines of the early years. Some of these early engines were also rated low as to make it easier to insure. I am not saying your statement isn't correct.....mine isn't all that specific either....there's just maybe a liltte more to it than what we have mentioned. I guess all in all it was just a general statement. Just my 2 cents.
Sam
Sam
Cargo Master
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,033
Likes: 32
From: Aurora,Colorado
Today's fuel injection cars are so much better in almost any way compared to yesterdays cars. Better gas mileage and much better driveability.
And the performance of todays EFI cars are so much better than yesterdays cars. The gross and net horsepower ratings cloud the comparison.
An eye opener is looking at period track tests of 60s cars. Even many of the big blocks of the day werent any faster than the typical 5.0 Mustang of 1989 thru 1993.
My 2001 GT Mustang with 260 net horsepower could do high 13 seconds at over 100 MPH in the quarter with 3.27 ratio. Only a few stock 60's performance cars would be able to do that faster back in the 60's--no matter what the rear ratio.
I remember reading Hot Rod magazine track tests of the new performance 60s cars and many of the cars couldn't break into 14 seconds STOCK. They had to remove the air cleaner and remove the assessories belts and install headers and up the initial timing to get relatively good times from these performance cars.
And the performance of todays EFI cars are so much better than yesterdays cars. The gross and net horsepower ratings cloud the comparison.
An eye opener is looking at period track tests of 60s cars. Even many of the big blocks of the day werent any faster than the typical 5.0 Mustang of 1989 thru 1993.
My 2001 GT Mustang with 260 net horsepower could do high 13 seconds at over 100 MPH in the quarter with 3.27 ratio. Only a few stock 60's performance cars would be able to do that faster back in the 60's--no matter what the rear ratio.
I remember reading Hot Rod magazine track tests of the new performance 60s cars and many of the cars couldn't break into 14 seconds STOCK. They had to remove the air cleaner and remove the assessories belts and install headers and up the initial timing to get relatively good times from these performance cars.
Last edited by phoneman91; Jan 14, 2007 at 01:10 PM.
Resident smarta$$
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,929
Likes: 9
From: Oaks,PA
I have the 351W and from what the guy I bought it from tells me it is part of the towing package. I just had my 95 X-cab inspected and the mechanic told me thats where he thinks I have a small oil leak, at the cooler. Apparently from what he tells me there's an o-ring in there he thinks is leaking ( I can smell something burning when I shut it off and get out), I can't seem to find any info on the cooler with a diagram so I can see what I need to replace in there. I checked LMC but didn't have much luck.Can't tell if the coolant line might be leaking also but it smells more like coolant burning and not oil. Maybe when it stops raining ( and warms up a bit) I will have to get up close and personal with it. Anyone else have this problem?