Hey Ford!!! Screw you guys!!!!

[adsm08]

So after getting back and investigating what actually went wrong I found the cams timed to each other correctly, and they were both timed to the crank damper correctly, which was advanced a few degrees in relation to the crankshaft itself.

I am assuming one of two things happened.

1) The crank locking tool that engages the flex plate teeth knocked the crank backwards a few degrees while I was installing it

2) The crank damper moved forward a bit as I torqued the bolt down.

Either would have put the crank off in the direction I found it.

Either is plausible, since all the timing and holding tools except the crank locking tool are removed during torqueing to avoid damage if something moves, per the workshop manual.. I particularly avoid leaving the damper aligning tool on as I have seen the oil pump get broken by trying to turn the engine with it in place.


I reset the crank today and started it. It fired up much faster, but I didn't run it long since I still have a leaking heater hose.

 

[G8orFord]

Thanks for giving the results.
Some would probably claim that to be user error, I stand by my theory of design error.

 

[OneGoofyGuy]

I have questions for Ford. I have issues with Ford and the way they are designing/building vehicles, specifically the engines. I want to contact the design team to ask them why they stopped putting keyways on the cams and cranks. Nobody can tell me how to contact the people I want to talk to.

I've asked Ford's Tech Hotline, their response "Yeah, it's a dumb design, we don't know how to contact that group". I checked Ford's website, no information aside from the design team "exists". I just got done with a "live chat" with Ford's customer service who referred me to the dealership service center. I AM THE FREAKING DEALERSHIP SERVICE CENTER!!!!

I just put a 1.5 together today. I had to replace the short block because some retard at Ford OK'd for production a design that has an open faced water jacket against the head, between the cylinders. Surprise surprise it blows out the head gaskets. My 7 yo could have predicted that. I showed him a picture of that block and he said "daddy, that was a dumb idea".

So I've spent the last half of my week fixing yet another one of Ford's totally predictable and preventable f**kups and at the very end, just when I thought I was done I ran afoul of another one. MF'ers thought a non-keyed crank, and two non-keyed cams was an acceptable design. I used all new hardware, used all their special tools, the cam aligning plate, the phaser aligning dog-bone, the crank stop pin to set cylinder 1 and TDC, the crank locking tool that bites onto the flywheel teeth, all of it. I held the cams with the 21 wrench on the hex. I torqued the bolts by the book. Cam bolts, 18 ft.lbs + 75 degrees. Crank bolt 75 ft lbs, + 90 degrees, plus 15 degrees. Rotated it twice around to install and torque my torque converter nuts, brought it back to TDC and slipped all the cam aligning tools in nice and easy. It was in time.

So I put the little bastard engine back in it's MFing home, hooked it all up, fired it up, and it sat and idled in my bay smooth as glass for 10 minutes. I tried to back it out and it died and wouldn't re-start. Now I have a P0016, Crankshaft position- Camshaft position correlation error, Bank 1 sensor A. The fracking intake cam jumped time.

I am at least the third person I know of that this has happened to. Two of us are Senior Master Techs. I haven't torn mine back apart yet, but in the other two cases the phasers skipped on the cam after everything was tightened.

Golly gee whiz. I bet a MF'ing keywayed f**king camshaft could have prevented that. But you bastards at Corporate were too lazy, cheap, stupid, or all three, to figure that out and do it. "Oh no, friction will hold it together even after it's all soaked in oil".

Ford, you people are idiots, you need to start building the vehicles right again, or stop doing it altogether. I want to talk to your people directly, I want answers about why you are half assing things, and I don't want to hear anything that even gets into the same state of matter as "but my production costs".

Dude you made my day in the 2nd paragraph. I used to work at Volkswagen in Chattanooga Tennessee I sort of know what you're talkin about with production defaults. It's ridiculous.

 

[pjtoledo]

LOL, I have lost nothing, but I do apologize for what was evidently considered a cheap shot. That was not the intent. The Mods can delete it if they choose. Maybe they already have, I'm not going back to look.

I still don't like friction held timing gears and no amount of "science" is going to change my mind. I also prefer torque over HP in a work truck.
Yes, putting turbos (or superchargers) on a 1.5, 2.5 or 3.5 liter engine is going to help it out a lot in that department and flatten the curve, but it also works on 5.0, 5.7, 6.0 and 6.2 liter engines in the same way.

@8thTon you can call it a win if you like. It really means nothing to me either way and I do sincerely apologize if I hurt your feelings or anyone else's.

time to stir the pot some more. (it's late & I'm bored)

technically the Duratec gears are not held by friction. those special diamond coated washers actually cut into the steel under pressure
and lock everything in place.
@adsm08 thanks for the tip about the crank or damper moving while torqueing. I'll watch for that when I work on mine.

 

[G8orFord]

time to stir the pot some more. (it's late & I'm bored)

technically the Duratec gears are not held by friction. those special diamond coated washers actually cut into the steel under pressure
and lock everything in place.
@adsm08 thanks for the tip about the crank or damper moving while torqueing. I'll watch for that when I work on mine.

That may be so, but I didn't see any diamonds on my 4.0 sohc washers. I think I'd still consider that a friction fit anyway though.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

It gets a lot of hate here. The Vulcan 3.0 is somewhat of a bastard child of the ford motors. The 2.8, 2.9, & 4.0 share some parts/tech and the I4's are all derivatives of each other, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, & 2.5 are all the same except small displacement differences and carb vs. Fuel Injected. The Vulcan has to really get up into the RPM's to get any power from them, so people say they are gutless at low RPM. I liked mine just fine, until I bent a valve in it. So I am swapping my Vulcan for a 5.0V8

That's true if the engines are from the same engine family. HOWEVER, There is more than one 2.0 Ford engine. There's also more than one 2.3, more than one 2.5.......

Take the 2.3 engines, for example. I know of three. The Pinto engine, the HSC (found in the Tempo), and the Duratec (I think). For the 2.5 engines, there's the HSC (Taurus), and the one found in later 90's Rangers (it's a derivative of the Pinto engine, right?). For the 2.0, there are two different ones that I know of, both found in the 2000-2004 Focus, and I think they were also both in the 97-99 Escort. The DOHC variant is the Ztec. The other is SOHC, I think.

If you were talking about the 4cyl engines found in the Ranger, then yes, the 2.5 is similar to the Pinto 2.3. HOWEVER, I think the later 2.3 is a Duratec engine.

Yes, all of the engines in each engine family are similar except for displacement. But, the different engine families are quite different from each other.

 

[Ranger850]

That's true if the engines are from the same engine family. HOWEVER, There is more than one 2.0 Ford engine. There's also more than one 2.3, more than one 2.5.......

Take the 2.3 engines, for example. I know of three. The Pinto engine, the HSC (found in the Tempo), and the Duratec (I think). For the 2.5 engines, there's the HSC (Taurus), and the one found in later 90's Rangers (it's a derivative of the Pinto engine, right?). For the 2.0, there are two different ones that I know of, both found in the 2000-2004 Focus, and I think they were also both in the 97-99 Escort. The DOHC variant is the Ztec. The other is SOHC, I think.

If you were talking about the 4cyl engines found in the Ranger, then yes, the 2.5 is similar to the Pinto 2.3. HOWEVER, I think the later 2.3 is a Duratec engine.

Yes, all of the engines in each engine family are similar except for displacement. But, the different engine families are quite different from each other.

I was focusing on the 3.0 as the subject and left out "Lima" when speaking of the 4 cylinders. Thanks though. I have been known to spew nonsense, but i got pretty close to a full explanation this time.

 

[Eddo Rogue]

This is what gets me with the "oh you have to gear it right" arguement.

Yes, you could take a 1.3L festiva and gear it low enough to literally pull a freight train.

But in the instances im talking about its like taking a world record holding strongman and putting them in a contest to break a large rusty bolt loose with an average guy.

Sure, the average guy can do it with a 6ft cheater bar, while the strongman needs nothing but the 1/2in ratchet. So it would then appear to anyone who doesnt understand mechanics that the average guy is just as strong as his opponent.

Gears are mechanical advantage, same as a cheater bar. But it doesnt make the guy with a huge cheater bar as strong as the guy without, even if the end result is the same.

Yes this is what Im trying to say....and at the same time that average is probably alot better at moving lighter things faster or more efficiently...Its like they are busting theyre asses trying to engineer this cheater bar, when they can probably make way more advances applying this energy towards applying the strong man engine for slow heavy tasks, and the average one for lightweight fast tasks....

Thank you for the logical analogy lol I was struggling to think of one

 

[Eddo Rogue]

I

wow, I just got caught up reading the 10 pages where I left off and this was humorous..... Lots of haters on TRS, that's for sure. It's like people forget this is a forum and you shouldn't be hazed for saying something you feel is right by you. ALL vehicles have ups and downs no matter what make or model.

One thing no one mentioned when it comes to making power is previous owners maintenance..... a 20 year old 460 that has been abused and neglected wont be as good as a 20 year old 460 that has been taken well care of and that's a fact jack!

I love the 460

 

[Eddo Rogue]

LOL, I have lost nothing, but I do apologize for what was evidently considered a cheap shot. That was not the intent. The Mods can delete it if they choose. Maybe they already have, I'm not going back to look.

I still don't like friction held timing gears and no amount of "science" is going to change my mind. I also prefer torque over HP in a work truck.
Yes, putting turbos (or superchargers) on a 1.5, 2.5 or 3.5 liter engine is going to help it out a lot in that department and flatten the curve, but it also works on 5.0, 5.7, 6.0 and 6.2 liter engines in the same way.

@8thTon you can call it a win if you like. It really means nothing to me either way and I do sincerely apologize if I hurt your feelings or anyone else's.

I dont think anyone's butthurt...Or at least hope not. If you ask me, this has turned into a great debate, with many valid points on both sides of the arguement. It seems personal preference and point of view can vary greatly in the wonderful world of engines and their applications...
I will be checking in on this thread...its good shitter reading so far

 

[1990RangerinSK]

I was focusing on the 3.0 as the subject and left out "Lima" when speaking of the 4 cylinders. Thanks though. I have been known to spew nonsense, but i got pretty close to a full explanation this time.

Translation: You were focusing on the 3.0 Vulcan as the subject, and intended to say that the 4 cylinder Lima engines are the same basic engine with different displacements.

Right?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Translation: You were focusing on the 3.0 Vulcan as the subject, and intended to say that the 4 cylinder Lima engines are the same basic engine with different displacements.

Right?

The 3.0 shares nothing in common with the 2.3.

 

[8thTon]

So after getting back and investigating what actually went wrong I found the cams timed to each other correctly, and they were both timed to the crank damper correctly, which was advanced a few degrees in relation to the crankshaft itself.

I am assuming one of two things happened.

1) The crank locking tool that engages the flex plate teeth knocked the crank backwards a few degrees while I was installing it

2) The crank damper moved forward a bit as I torqued the bolt down.

Either would have put the crank off in the direction I found it.

Either is plausible, since all the timing and holding tools except the crank locking tool are removed during torqueing to avoid damage if something moves, per the workshop manual.. I particularly avoid leaving the damper aligning tool on as I have seen the oil pump get broken by trying to turn the engine with it in place.


I reset the crank today and started it. It fired up much faster, but I didn't run it long since I still have a leaking heater hose.

So it doesn't look like it slipped after it was torqued, just that it moved while tightening?

 

[8thTon]

It gets a lot of hate here. The Vulcan 3.0 is somewhat of a bastard child of the ford motors. The 2.8, 2.9, & 4.0 share some parts/tech and the I4's are all derivatives of each other, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, & 2.5 are all the same except small displacement differences and carb vs. Fuel Injected. The Vulcan has to really get up into the RPM's to get any power from them, so people say they are gutless at low RPM. I liked mine just fine, until I bent a valve in it. So I am swapping my Vulcan for a 5.0V8

Well, I don't know about bastard child, but your point is valid - it is a unique design not sharing much beyond the rocker arm and lifter design with any other Ford engine. They did make a ton of them though. I remember when it came out, right at the same time as the OHV 2.3 used in the Tempo (a shortened straight 6 essentially). I had an instructer who had been an engineer at Ford and I remember showing him an article on these new Ford pushrod engines - way to go back to the 60's Ford!

Still, they were cheap power sources for mass produced vehicles, and they worked well. The 3.0 was a clean sheet design of basically old tech, but it benefited from all the years of development on such engines.

 

[Ranger850]

Translation: You were focusing on the 3.0 Vulcan as the subject, and intended to say that the 4 cylinder Lima engines are the same basic engine with different displacements.

Right?

That's not a translation, but more of a rearrangement of the same words. Unless American to Canadian needs translation?
Yes, the Subject of the question that I was answering was "why does the 3.o get so much hate" and yes, I was referring to the Lima Family of engines when I was referring to the I4's.

The 3.0 Vulcan has very little, if anything, to do with the other Cologne or Lima engines.