well I guess I sent another message to your profile I guess i dont know how to pm either lol

 

Don't quote me on this, but I think it's related to post count, but it's been so long since I've been at that post count that I can't remember. I just have one msg from you at 10:06 and I responded in the same manner at 10:14 or something like that. Just click on your name and go to your profile, you should be able to see it going that way. I'm surprised you havent' gotten a notification about it by your username.

 

Ya I got that one lol and then I asked ya how do I do my signature?

 

User CP->Settings & Options->Edit Signature

Now that is related to post count, but I think post count min. is 25, so I think you are good to go. Unless they raised it.

 

I read that hole thread and decided to stay out of it! My opinion on these two engines is based on my experience and no one here will change that. If someone asks, then I'll share my experience...

I view your caveat as a constant cheap shot at the guy. The guy just cracked out of fustration but it's nothing to take personnal.

 

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/7...w-members.html

 

Thanks guys for the help! NOW COMMENCE THE DISAGREEING!

 

True. Rather or not your or my experience is status quo is where things get sticky(I'm talking about when my truck was stock mind you). However, that's for another thread.

Well here is the problem with that. The one thing that you will find very hard to do is to show where I blatantly did something along the lines of what that guy did and trust me, I've been involved in a lot of threads that have gotten out of hand, and no contrary to popular opinion, I didn't start them all. I, however, did not resort to tactics like he did. I could care less if he thought them, that's another thing entirely.

Now I can't promise I didn't think that or other things, but that's different then actually posting it.

You also have to remember that even though postings like that are irrelevant to the thread, they tend to sway people one way or the other with regard to whom to "listen" to. That doesn't help some situations. They may or may not have chosen correctly, but they would have done so for the wrong reasons.

Now with regard to you believe that I'm take a cheap shot at the man. 3 problems with that are: 1. I regard that as a cheap shot on his part and 2. I find it lacking integrity although since he was a military man he should have had integrity(unless there are certain exemptions that I'm not aware of) and 3. I have spent a good portion of time trying to build up a positive reputation on the FTE community and to have it belittled by someone in such a manner.

Even if I don't agree with you Troy, I wouldn't have done that, even through just this little exchange tonight that we have had I didn't do that. That showed a lack of respect on his part and integrity(which once again integrity is something that he claimed that military men are expected to have).

Now if mountaineer27 was correct in his assessment of my posts and they are truly ignorant and crappy then I'm doing everyone that reads them a service by warning them of how bad the information that I spew out is on here.

 

From the sideline view you do have a "high" level of respect here so you just have to maintain that. Yes the guy made a cheap shot, but so be it. Yes you do have a bias towards the 6.0 but I would expect that in a 6.0 forum, so these type of confrontations are inevetible. I've added my opinion about the 6.0 and get the nose turned up attitude, but so be it.

But yes, I agree we should all maintain a level of respect for the ones that help out here. As my part of maintaining some of that respect my cousin who is a Ford diesel tech since ~ '93 (And is the tech who just recently worked on my truck{I left that part out in our previous discussion}) lurks on this and other sites and was tempted to jump in and add his $0.02 when you suggested to me some of the techs is part of the 6.0 psd issues (not that your wrong with that statement), but I suggested and he agreed it would not been beneficial to you or no one here so he stayed out. Sometimes you just got to see the big picture and jump out when the immaturity sets in.

Maybe he'll jump in when the time is right, but it's obvious there's some good techs already contributing here. He's a little technical and to the point so maybe not the best personnality.

Now back to the 6.0 psd discussions that we love sooo much.

BTW - I really enjoyed how you handled the "100k Oil Mile Challange" thread and kept it somewhat contructive and I'm not suggesting bringing that thread back to life either!

 

For some reason this thread started out reminiscing old posts and members.

Troy, if your cousin wants to jump in he is more than welcome. Technicians had very little or no training when the 6.0L was launched adding to owner frustration.

 

I am so lucky I guess. I have had both of Troy's favorite engines. My 6.0 has had it's share of issues and the engine was replaced. Owner ignorance was it's biggest issue. I had a GMC pickup with the 5.7 diesel in it. I sold it at 160000 miles. It was never back to GM for anything. I was running a small engine business at the time and I used it for pu and delivery, Regular maintenance and drove daily.

 

Yeah, when I took my 6.0 training, we didn't have a 6.0 to look at or work on. Came back to the dealership with a no start waiting, and I'd never seen one, much less worked on one.

 

Every single one of us has a bias. I would actually worry about the conclusions from someone that wasn't biased to a degree. You know, I bring my opinions and why I hold those opinions to the table and I get noses turned up on me as well. All I ask is "you" mention why(and for "you" to be able to handle my countering as well with mine).

If he has objective data(which you said he was technical), then I would appreciate to "hear" what he has to say.

Yes, there were problem diesel techs, even at my ford dealership there have been problem techs. Thankfully, I don't recall any of them working on my truck when I had to have it at the shop. Now I'm not saying your cousin is/was one of them or that all of them are like that. If you do find me making that statement then I will apologize for that, because that's just not true.

However, it is well documented that training was spotty with the ford techs in those early 6.0 formative years. There were a lot of issues that were coming together in those early years that did affect the 6.0. You mentioned that it influx of newbies buying diesel started with the 7.3, the later ones I could see that happening, but I'm pretty sure that it was full throttle by the time the 6.0 came out. However, if I were to take what you said, that would further add more credence to my position, because these people would be taking what was successful on the 7.3 and trying to apply it to the 6.0. Something that is still done a lot. As everyone is very fond of mentioning, the 7.3 is very much a different animal then the 6.0.

The only thing that I'm truly in agreement with on people as being a true design flaw with the 6.0 is the oil cooler. The only issue that keeps me from saying from there the 6.0 is a design flawed engined, is the fact that it takes casting sand to be present for those small passageways to be clogged up. In my mind, that is a processing error, because some have it and some don't. That's about the only thing that I could really see has a design error based on what people are saying on here, now if there is something else out there that shows otherwise mention it. Everything that has been said so far, could be true, but it still is also just as likely that it's still owner upkeep issue or techs not properly handling the issue. That's all I ask. You see I learn from "exchanges" like this, I imagine other people do as well. It forces us to make sure we are thinking the correct thing( or atleast in theory anyway).

That one I could interpret in a lot of different ways, some bad. I don't want to jump the gun on that one, so maybe a little clarification there.

There are some people that don't have good personalities that contribute a lot here.


Yes, let's not bring that one back to life.

 

So what you are saying is the oil cooler is the only design flaw on the 6.0. I beg to to differ. What about the 4 headbolt design per cylinder? What about egr cooler?

 

As we find out more and more of the real story, it has become very clear that the egr cooler is fine. It just can not stand the overloading of it's design capacity when the Oil cooler plugs up with casting sand. How many owners have had multiple egr cooler failures before they replaced an oil cooler? The postings I read here and elsewhere show many have had this happen. The same deal on the oil cooler. Multiple oil cooler failures are also have a very low percentage of recurrent failure when a coolant filter is installed. Ford has even acknowledged the relationship between the egr cooler failures and the oil cooler. If your egr cooler goes and Ford is picking up the tab under warraty, you get a new oil cooler. IIRC, it does not work the other way, oil cooler failure does not get you a new egr cooler. They have to pressure test the egr cooler first and if it passes, no new egr cooler. I would also dispute the design flaw in the oil cooler. In a ridiculous way, it is too reliable. It took a few years of stumbling around the egr cooler issues to link the two together as a common problem. If the oil cooler was a POS, it would fail a lot sooner than they do. I will agree that this does not absolve IH/Ford of the casting sand issues that precipitate this entire debacle.But, a $165 coolant filter addition to your truck has proven to virtually eliminate the sand issue. The 4 head bolt issue has been debunked. Yes, 5 would have been better but the number of bolts is a much lesser issue than the real causes of head bolt failures. The number of egr cooler/oil cooler issues that were misdiagnosed in earlier days put a lot of stress on the bolts. No engine is designed to survive multiple coolant pressure invasions into the combustion chambers. No one knows how many of these failures were the result of this happening. Use of tuners not well suited for the 6.0 stretched many of these beyond design capacity. These are well documented causes of the head bolt failures. If four bolts per cylinder was a true design flaw, the huge success
of the ARP head studs would not be possible. Here is reality, some of the early engines had their problems, time, knowledge and acquired experience have led us out of those dark days. It is now 2010 and we know so much more about the resolutions to the issues. The tools are there to get these engine to a very high level of reliability, some just choose to ignore their existence. May you not be one of them

Regards