Jeff_E

A while back someone was talking about this on fmcdealer, and sent his procedure to anyone who put down their email. Being curious, I gave him my email.

He sent me his procedure, and in my opinion it is a clusterf%$# that creates more potential problems, and ends up being a lower grade repair than something I would want to stand behind. It involved many of the same steps as an in chassis branch tube, with the addition of removing the front cover, and upper and lower oil pans, as well as the bedplate with the engine still in chassis and the cab on. The difficulty level and frustration caused by trying to work in these confined spaces and in awkward positions did not appeal to me at all. And didn't sound like the time savings would be worth it either.

I would much rather lift the cab, pull the motor, put it on a stand, flip it over and clean the bedplate and block surfaces thoroughly. I also like to apply a thin bead of the 7.3 silicone sealer along the inner edge of the new seals to make up for any imperfections in the machined surface - and have never had one come back leaking after doing so. The thing about silicone though is that the surfaces must be clean/dry/degreased prior to applying otherwise you will have adhesion problems. Unless the engine is upside down in an engine stand, there is no way to stop the oil residue from seeping into the sealing area when performing this repair. Also, you're right about the torquing process as well which would be much harder and less accurate in vehicle /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/2cents.gif

Kyle,

I apologize if you felt that my rant was directed at you. I was simply venting about how FoMoCo makes all of our lives more difficult sometimes than it needs to be. I'm thinking this thread would have never been started if that were not true.

Anyway, I hope we can stop our pissing match and go back to helping each other out again.

Peace,

~Jeff

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cheers.gif

OH NO YOU DI-INT...WHO YOU THINK YOU BE CURMUDGEON'EN? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/boxing.gif

Gee Golly, as I peck away at the keyboard the conversation keeps going and my questions are answered before I even post them /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/notworthy.gif

I seem to remember paying dearly for my vcm subscription/ids renewal.
Certainly we haven't crossed any "legal" boundaries, at least not yet. That would require there actually being a LAW against THINKING, which is all were doing. We're THINKING about ways to regain something we've already had for the past several years. Were not talking about modifying or hacking software, just to understand how it generates a code we need to do our jobs. A code that we can obtain anyway from the mother company. Yes, there are ways to potentially use the code for bad, but the overwhelming majority of uses are not only quite legitimate, but increasingly more necessary to perform the tasks we do. This seems to me at least, to be a relevant cause due to the fact that far too many times when I needed to contact hotline, they were closed for training or a holiday or something. What do I tell the customer from out of town then, when he drove 60 miles and is waiting to have me install some sop module that can only be configured with as built? Ford got pissy because they feel that too many people found out their secret code. As a result, they made more hoops for us to jump through in order to get it. That is a far cry from passing an actual law. I'm a Ford man, and always will be. I believe in the company, but sometimes the bean counters make our lives more difficult than necessary. Until Ford actually lobbies congress to pass legislation that stops me...or until Ford comes up with a labor op for contacting hotline, I'm going to be as self sufficient and perform legitimate repairs as efficiently as I possibly can. When I think about it, it just seems to me that if Ford gave us all of the technical support we needed-when we needed it this would be a non issue, but obviously that is not the case. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/2cents.gif
Keith, am I that far off base with this ???

Here we can discuss all kinds of things without "promoting" them (unlike fmcdealer). This is after all a PRIVATE forum. If lack of knowledge is the only thing stopping someone from doing something questionable, then that person has bigger problems-and probably isn't even smart enough to get in here. If they happen to be "just smart enough to be dangerous", then they are still liable for their own actions. It's all good /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/flamethrower.gif

It's used for forcing AS BUILT DATA into a module. see the TPMS thread in the Body/Chassis/Electrical section for more info. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Just so you know, my fingers are in my ears, my eyes are shut, and I'm chanting "I can't hear you" repeatedly.

 

There's no beating the cost/benefit ratio of the 3/36 warranty on FQR engines in my opinion. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/thumbup.gif

I agree Larry, I don't care what all the other guys say, You Rock!!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rockon.gif

However...If my dealer ever calls you asking for such a rebuild kit, I want you to tell them exactly what that dealer told you. I'm more of a reman long block kinda guy. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

CLR95, Have you determined anything for sure on either of these yet?

Notice the part where it says the injectors can be damaged if they are left in the head during the detorque or torquing process? That's news to me. I've done MANY head gasket jobs, and never removed injectors during the process. I've never had any problems either. I'm curious to know whether you guys have been removing injectors to do these. Otherwise I think this is a MUCH better written TSB than its predecessor. This one actually has a logical process, and doesn't involve disassembling the vehicle twice. Now if only they upgraded the service parts to have ARP studs rather than bolts...perhaps in the next rewrite.

See the "engine cranes" thread in the Tools/Computers/internet section. It's pretty close to the top of the list.

You know that might be possible, those connectors look alike and are very close to eachother so that maybe it. Parts already returned that one so I cant go back and check, but Good thinking /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/notworthy.gif DOESN'T THIS HARNESS FINDING CIRCUS SUCK?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/banghead.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/banghead.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/banghead.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/banghead.gif Hopefully this thread will help all of us avoid some of this aggrivation in the future.

Yeah Bruce, No wiring for EGR valve or EGRTP. I think you're right, it must be for a non US application.

I don't know, the only thing I can think of is if it is for a big Navistar truck of some kind with a non egr VT365, but I don't work on anything like that, so I don't even know if such a thing exists. On the other hand, I may have just gotten a misbuilt or mispackaged one...in which case people will have to take this info with a grain of salt. I will say though that Fords parts cataloging of International parts REALLY SUCKS, and it took our parts guy 2 emails to PACO to get this figured out. At first PACO said the IH number off the harness was invalid. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/banghead.gif You'd think these bugs would have been ironed out by now. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rotz.gif

3rd time is the charm. If anyone neeeds an engine harness for an 04.25 6.0 in an F series built after 9-29-03, you will need

a 4C3Z 12B637 CA. This harness has everything needed including VC mounted ICP, EGRTP and EGR. I don't know what the last build date this harness applies to, but I do know that the 5C3Z AA which is supposed to take over for engines built 7-19-04 through 11-4-04 DOES NOT have connectors for EGR or EGRTP so that one might be for a different application altogether. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/scratchhead.gif

BRIEF HISTORY OF "SAUSAGE MAKING"

I don't know for sure, but I'd bet its probably the "happy medium" voted on in congress after lobbyists from the oil companies, and lobbyists from the enviornmental science community each bitch at eachother. That is how most laws are made, why would this be different? It's kind of like making sausage, its good to eat, but you don't want to watch the process of creating it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/hammer2.gif

Well here's an update. The 5C3Z AA does NOT have the circuits for the EGR valve or the EGR TP. I'm back to square 1. Upon removal I did find a Navistar tag though. 264A1846377 and below it it has C91 (but so does the wrong one). Any help crossing to a ford number would be GREATLY appreciated /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crybaby2.gif

In regards to your second one, a few ideas come to mind. I would first put good batteries in it because cranking speed is important. Since you mentioned that this vehicle has been neglected, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for it to be dusted and therefore not capable of creating enough compression heat to light. This theory would be consistent with your misfire and smoke concerns. A quick and easy check before digging in too deep is just run the engine with the oil cap removed. If you get a strong huffing smokestack from the oil filler, it can only come from one place-blowby. If you find this, then yes, by all means perform crankcase pressure and compression tests. In my experience it seems cyl 8 usually gets dusted first, and you will usually notice sand blasted turbo fins as well.

Another thought is injectors. Perform a buzz test and use your ears. They buzz in numerical order 1-8 and if you notice 1 that is muffled compared to the others it is usually a sticky spool valve from contamination. If you end up going down this path it would be a good idea to bench test all injectors with the rotunda vacuum test fixture, and replace or reseal as necessary.

I'm getting ahead of myself a little though. Make sure you don't forget the basics: check Fuel pressure, check weather the hp pump reservoir is leaking down overnight by removing the inspection plug in the top and checking the level-if its low we can give you further advice, What is the ICP pressure and IPR percentage when cranking?

It's late so I'm going brain dead, Let us know if you need more ideas, or what you find. There are a TON of knowledgeable experts here.

In regards to your first one, DONT REPLACE PCM untill you check VREF. should be 5v. If any sensor (like EP) is shorting vref to ground (which is common) you will lose communication and glow plug light.

Tier 2 Diesel emissions standards

No there isn't unfortunately. I'm wondering if this one is screwy because of the recalls we used to do on it ie: ebp and icp sensor connectors. Perhaps Ford doesn't list the obsolete harness anymore and didn't update their catalog. I'll just have my parts dept order a 5C3Z AA even though it is meant for one built a few months later and hope for the best. I'll let you guys all know how it goes. Thanks for the help.

Its an 04 F350 vin: 1FTNX21P74ED04590. IT HAS THE ICP IN THE VALVE COVER making it an 04.25 engine. My parts department already got me one wrong harness already, and thats after using HVBOM which comes up with like 3 options. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/banghead.gif

Nope, 04 and 1/4 engine with icp in valve cover