Automotive Engineers

[Andy D]

I feel your pain. I got into the Rat, thinking. 'It just needs a clutch. How bad can that be?'

In fairness. I was taking over from a PO with air tools and 20 yrs of rust. I snapped 2 bell housing bolts and had to saw out another one.
Judging from working underneath the Rat. Ford's engineering sees assembly as the prime directive. The truck was designed to be assembled and sold. 3 yrs later, you are s'posed to buy another one. There are next to no provisions for ease of repair.

I've had a series of BMW 528es for 18 yrs They were built to be maintained and are easy to work on.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Compare new list price for a Beemer and a Ranger...

And I still don't get what is so hard about working on them...

 

[adsm08]

They all work for the auto manufactures. This way you have to come back for service at your own expense. That is how the nick name 'Stealership' came about….lol

I have a recommendation for you that involves a phallic shaped object and various orifices that are located below your waist.

With the introduction of CAD software, assembly equipment, and automated manufacturing, cars are becoming more compact and more of a bird's nest than anything else.

Today's cars are even worse than your 1986 Ranger. My buddy's 2008 RX8 has to have the bottom skid plate removed every time he wants to change his oil filter, and the oil drips all over his cross beam, making a goddamn mess every 3,000 miles. YOUR filter and plug are vertical and in plain site.

Yeah, the Ranger is not at all bad. The Mustangs, from 2005 to 2014 the final step of the instructions for trans removal (and keep in mind at this point the X pipe is out), "remove transmission bell housing bolts, unhook clutch hydraulic line, slide trans back to clear dowel pins, ROTATE 90*, and THEN you have the room to pull it back and clear the clutch.

In the Mustang you have to lay the transmission on it's side to clear the firewall. The Ranger isn't bad.

Chevy and Dodge are still much better for engine bay space though. I have seen 2013 and 14 GMs and MOPAR trucks that I can crawl into the engine bay, with the engine still there, and close the hood. I can barely unplug things in a Ford. I think a big part of the problem there is that Ford insists on using very wide OHC engines, while the other two have retained narrower OHV designs.

 

[stmitch]

Removing a Y-pipe that has been in place since 1986 can be a pain when you consider fasteners being rusted and rounded off and such, that's all.

Yeah, but rusted fasteners are a pretty universal thing when working on a 28 year old vehicle. Getting upset because the engineers didn't design the vehicle so that the y-pipe could be removed easily after almost 30 years seems kind of silly to me. Nothing (except maybe buildings and large structures) is engineered to be easily serviced after 30 years of use.

The fact that you still have a functional vehicle that's nearly 30 years old seems to indicate that the engineers did a lot of things right, even if there is an occasional oversight.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I have a recommendation for you that involves a phallic shaped object and various orifices that are located below your waist.





Yeah, the Ranger is not at all bad. The Mustangs, from 2005 to 2014 the final step of the instructions for trans removal (and keep in mind at this point the X pipe is out), "remove transmission bell housing bolts, unhook clutch hydraulic line, slide trans back to clear dowel pins, ROTATE 90*, and THEN you have the room to pull it back and clear the clutch.

In the Mustang you have to lay the transmission on it's side to clear the firewall. The Ranger isn't bad.

Chevy and Dodge are still much better for engine bay space though. I have seen 2013 and 14 GMs and MOPAR trucks that I can crawl into the engine bay, with the engine still there, and close the hood. I can barely unplug things in a Ford. I think a big part of the problem there is that Ford insists on using very wide OHC engines, while the other two have retained narrower OHV designs.

I have heard interesting stories about the joys of working on Camaros too, like say changing spark plugs in a 2000 vintage...

 

[AgPete139]

Pete's got a lot of it right. Depending on which system you are tasked to design, you are only given a certain amount of space to work in and have to deal with all the other systems blending in.

With such parameters and need for collaboration between teams, meetings become invaluable for communication and design simplicity.

They all have their + and -, and unless you pony up and buy new rust plain and simple will be a factor no matter where you go. It is one of the thrills of owning old stuff.

But if I didn't enjoy working on my '85 I wouldn't have done as much as I have to it over the past 14 years.

Pros & cons for each manufacturer, definitely. I'm very comfortable with my Gen III's; if I didn't enjoy doing it I would trade it in, too. But, there IS a threshold where it gets irritating.

I guess I should just have gotten on here and praised the situation that I'm in as an opportunity to expand my abilities to overcome adverse situations. Pete, I humbly apologize for not being appreciative that that Ford didn't weld all of the parts together rather than bolting them together. I will close by saying that after wrenching on things from weed eaters to Peterbilts, Harleys to Chevys, Volkswagens to Kawasakis, I can't think of anything I've touched that I have situations like I have on Fords.

Mellvis, do one doubts your abilities, and we can all empathize with the chores associated with a seemingly simple part replacement.

In response to your original question, yes, it is a fairly straightforward process to lifting the body of the Ranger up 1". The body cap bolts, though rusted, are still easier to remove than the exhaust bolts. The carpet needs to be pulled back, and the rubber plugs can be removed before accessing the heads. Be sure to spray some penetrating oil beforehand so that it gets a chance to work itself into the threads. It'll be easier to remove then.

If you are temporarily lifting it to remove the tranny, then some 2" x 4" blocks would do the trick. If you are actually interested in a permanent 1" body lift, people have used the polyurethane kits to hockey pucks with great success.

How bad are your body bushing? Are they deteriorated and original equipment?

I have a recommendation for you that involves a phallic shaped object and various orifices that are located below your waist.

Yeah, the Ranger is not at all bad. The Mustangs, from 2005 to 2014 the final step of the instructions for trans removal (and keep in mind at this point the X pipe is out), "remove transmission bell housing bolts, unhook clutch hydraulic line, slide trans back to clear dowel pins, ROTATE 90*, and THEN you have the room to pull it back and clear the clutch.

In the Mustang you have to lay the transmission on it's side to clear the firewall. The Ranger isn't bad.

Chevy and Dodge are still much better for engine bay space though. I have seen 2013 and 14 GMs and MOPAR trucks that I can crawl into the engine bay, with the engine still there, and close the hood. I can barely unplug things in a Ford. I think a big part of the problem there is that Ford insists on using very wide OHC engines, while the other two have retained narrower OHV designs.

1) Props to qualified techs that show their shiz. ADSM posts more correct information on this site than straycat has phallic-shaped objects in him at this very moment.

2) Sounds like a nightmare. What comes after rotating the transmission 90* and maneuvering it straight out? Legs & back day?

3) Are you an Oompah-loompah?

4) The Vettes still have a large OHV layout, while many Imports use large OHC designs. I guess it just depends on the manufacturer?

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

I'm still mad at the engineer that came up with the bright idea to put the slave cylinder inside the bellhousing....

Just because you can draw it on a piece of paper doesn't mean it's a good idea. I was having this conversation earlier today with a fellow contractor.

I do understand an engineer's point of view and the concern for easy assembly. But seriously, some of the ideas were indeed stupid and should never have made it off the drafting table. In an F-series truck, there is absolutely no reason why all manual transmissions cannot use an external slave cylinder. I can understand why you might want an internal slave cylinder on say... a Miata. In most cases, there is no reason why a truck should be difficult to work on. I think that is the gist of the argument here...

 

[adsm08]

1) Props to qualified techs that show their shiz. ADSM posts more correct information on this site than straycat has phallic-shaped objects in him at this very moment.

While I appreciate the compliment I feel like the threshold we are using is probably very low. Somewhere in the range of =<1.

2) Sounds like a nightmare. What comes after rotating the transmission 90* and maneuvering it straight out? Legs & back day?

The way I do it, the rotating part is usually preceded and followed by denting the fire wall rather severely. Despite it not being in the instructions I have also taken to removing the nuts on the engine mounts so that the engine has a lot more give.

3) Are you an Oompah-loompah?

5'8", 175 lbs, whiter than minute rice, so no, not an Oompah-Loompah. They just have a ton of open space under the hood.

On the newer GM trucks I can lay down, doubled over next to the engine and get the hood latched. It is slightly less comfortable than the trunk of a mid-90s Civic.

4) The Vettes still have a large OHV layout, while many Imports use large OHC designs. I guess it just depends on the manufacturer?

Depends on the make, model, and engine. The new 5.0 F-150 has significantly more open engine bay space than the same body with a 4.6 or 5.4.

In the Raptors even the 6.2 seems smaller than the 5.4.

It really does seem like Ford has started shifting designs back toward serviceability in the last few years.

I am actually in a postios to win a trip from Ford out to Dearborn to sit down with the guys who design these things and give them real-world feed back. Boss said I can't go if I do win, something about the likely hood of me just killing them vs offering helpful suggestions.

 

[AgPete139]

I'm still mad at the engineer that came up with the bright idea to put the slave cylinder inside the bellhousing....

Just because you can draw it on a piece of paper doesn't mean it's a good idea. I was having this conversation earlier today with a fellow contractor.

I do understand an engineer's point of view and the concern for easy assembly. But seriously, some of the ideas were indeed stupid and should never have made it off the drafting table. In an F-series truck, there is absolutely no reason why all manual transmissions cannot use an external slave cylinder. I can understand why you might want an internal slave cylinder on say... a Miata. In most cases, there is no reason why a truck should be difficult to work on. I think that is the gist of the argument here...

Dude, totally get that. Trust me, I frequently wonder why that is as well. I just chock it up to something/a reason that someone, somewhere it's better. How? The fvck if I know. I had to work on my slave 1.5 years ago. I cursed it the entire time.

 

[AgPete139]

While I appreciate the compliment I feel like the threshold we are using is probably very low. Somewhere in the range of =<1.

Depends on the make, model, and engine. The new 5.0 F-150 has significantly more open engine bay space than the same body with a 4.6 or 5.4.

In the Raptors even the 6.2 seems smaller than the 5.4.

It really does seem like Ford has started shifting designs back toward serviceability in the last few years.

I am actually in a postios to win a trip from Ford out to Dearborn to sit down with the guys who design these things and give them real-world feed back. Boss said I can't go if I do win, something about the likely hood of me just killing them vs offering helpful suggestions.

You're no fun. I was using you as an excuse to get at Straycat.

That's pretty awesome. It'll be excellent feedback. Just play the politics and be nice, I guess? If you did get picked, the manager would let you go. Go in with a list of stupid things you've seen. When I talk to my guys at the shop/lab, I hear stories about how other engineers don't put shackle lifting eyes in a 4,000# hunk of steel, while other times it's just a tolerance stackup issue when all parts are at their highest tolerances, and pieces gall and get seized in a fixture. The most common solutions: machines shop to send that crap back, while other times is to just cut it out with an oxy/acet torch.


That's interesting. I haven't worked on the new Coyotes or the 6.2's, but when all the mags like Car & Driver, Road & Track, Fast Fords, Mustang 5.0, etc came out with the 2010 Mustang specs, I was all over it. I was surprised how "small" it turned out. I wouldn't quite say older Fox 5.0L dims, but still down there for a revised modular.

What changed with the 6.2 design that makes it smaller than the Tritons/5.4?

FROM WIKIPEDIA:
The 6.2 L (379 cu in) V8 is the main variant of the Boss engine. The V8 shares design similarities with the Modular engine family such as a deep-skirt block with cross-bolted main caps, crankshaft driven gerotor oil pump, overhead camshaft valve train arrangement, and bellhousing bolt pattern. In particular, the 6.2 L V8 features a 2-valve per cylinder SOHC valve train with roller-rocker shafts and two spark plugs per cylinder as well as dual-equal variable cam timing. The single most significant departure that the Boss engines make from earlier Modular engines is that they have much wider 4.53 in (115 mm) bore spacing (compared to the Modular's 3.937 in (100.0 mm)), allowing for the use of larger bore diameters and valves. The 6.2 L V8 has a bore diameter of 4.015 in (102.0 mm) with a 3.74 in (95 mm) stroke. The 6.2 L V8 has lightweight aluminum cylinder heads and pistons but makes use of a cast iron cylinder block for extra durability since most applications for the engine will be trucks.[2]

The 6.2 L V8 went into production in early 2010 and debuted in the 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor as a late-availability option. A limited edition version of the Raptor from Ford Racing called the Raptor XT features a high output version of the 6.2 L V8 with approximately 500 horsepower (370 kW).[3] For the 2011 model year, the 6.2 L V8 was introduced in Ford's Super Duty pickups as a replacement for both the 5.4 L Triton V8 and the 6.8 L Triton V10 and in the F-150 as the premium engine option, though it is not available in all configurations.[2]

 

[AgPete139]

While I appreciate the compliment I feel like the threshold we are using is probably very low. Somewhere in the range of =<1.

Depends on the make, model, and engine. The new 5.0 F-150 has significantly more open engine bay space than the same body with a 4.6 or 5.4.

In the Raptors even the 6.2 seems smaller than the 5.4.

It really does seem like Ford has started shifting designs back toward serviceability in the last few years.

I am actually in a postios to win a trip from Ford out to Dearborn to sit down with the guys who design these things and give them real-world feed back. Boss said I can't go if I do win, something about the likely hood of me just killing them vs offering helpful suggestions.

1) You're no fun. I was using you as an excuse to get at Straycat.


4) That's pretty awesome. It'll be excellent feedback. Just play the politics and be nice, I guess? If you did get picked, the manager would let you go. Go in with a list of stupid things you've seen. When I talk to my guys at the shop/lab, I hear stories about how other engineers don't put shackle lifting eyes in a 4,000# hunk of steel, while other times it's just a tolerance stackup issue when all parts are at their highest tolerances, and pieces gall and get seized in a fixture. The most common solutions: machines shop to send that crap back, while other times is to just cut it out with an oxy/acet torch.


That's interesting. I haven't worked on the new Coyotes or the 6.2's, but when all the mags like Car & Driver, Road & Track, Fast Fords, Mustang 5.0, etc came out with the 2010 Mustang specs, I was all over it. I was surprised how "small" it turned out. I wouldn't quite say older Fox 5.0L dims, but still down there for a revised modular.


New 5.0L in an Explorer:
http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=316074



What changed with the 6.2 design that makes it smaller than the Tritons/5.4?



FROM WIKIPEDIA:
The 6.2 L (379 cu in) V8 is the main variant of the Boss engine. The V8 shares design similarities with the Modular engine family such as a deep-skirt block with cross-bolted main caps, crankshaft driven gerotor oil pump, overhead camshaft valve train arrangement, and bellhousing bolt pattern. In particular, the 6.2 L V8 features a 2-valve per cylinder SOHC valve train with roller-rocker shafts and two spark plugs per cylinder as well as dual-equal variable cam timing. The single most significant departure that the Boss engines make from earlier Modular engines is that they have much wider 4.53 in (115 mm) bore spacing (compared to the Modular's 3.937 in (100.0 mm)), allowing for the use of larger bore diameters and valves. The 6.2 L V8 has a bore diameter of 4.015 in (102.0 mm) with a 3.74 in (95 mm) stroke. The 6.2 L V8 has lightweight aluminum cylinder heads and pistons but makes use of a cast iron cylinder block for extra durability since most applications for the engine will be trucks.[2]

The 6.2 L V8 went into production in early 2010 and debuted in the 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor as a late-availability option. A limited edition version of the Raptor from Ford Racing called the Raptor XT features a high output version of the 6.2 L V8 with approximately 500 horsepower (370 kW).[3] For the 2011 model year, the 6.2 L V8 was introduced in Ford's Super Duty pickups as a replacement for both the 5.4 L Triton V8 and the 6.8 L Triton V10 and in the F-150 as the premium engine option, though it is not available in all configurations.[2]

 

[AgPete139]

Oh, just thought of something:

Yesterday, buddy came because his Colorado was overheating. It was the thermostat.

How do you get it out, because it's not at the top like all of my other Fords & Asian + European imports.

Jack up.
Remove driver tire.
Remove fender liner.
Undo lower radiator hose at radiator.
Extensions and sockets to get at the 2 housing bolts.
Snake out that mini assembly past the brake line.
Remove hose clamp on the housing, switch out t-stat.

The whole process took 30 minutes, from start to drive, but I thought it was funny that we had to go through the fender to the side of the block.

I actually remembered Melvin's thread here, and thought that although inconvenient, it was straightforward. It could have been worse.

 

[AgPete139]

Today, another buddy is coming over to my house to replace his water pump, belts,a nd idler pulley in his 1991 MR2.

Everyone says to drop the motor/trans/axles out of the ass. Should be fun.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Oh, just thought of something:

Yesterday, buddy came because his Colorado was overheating. It was the thermostat.

How do you get it out, because it's not at the top like all of my other Fords & Asian + European imports.

Jack up.
Remove driver tire.
Remove fender liner.
Undo lower radiator hose at radiator.
Extensions and sockets to get at the 2 housing bolts.
Snake out that mini assembly past the brake line.
Remove hose clamp on the housing, switch out t-stat.

The whole process took 30 minutes, from start to drive, but I thought it was funny that we had to go through the fender to the side of the block.

I actually remembered Melvin's thread here, and thought that although inconvenient, it was straightforward. It could have been worse.

Until midyear '85 Ford 2.8's had the t-stat in the lower waterneck too. Mine was a late one so it is where it is supposed to be in the top one.

6.2's are legally a big block, they are not smaller than a 5.4, just the crap is arranged on them much better. And the F-150 engine bays have been getting situated much better with every redesign since '97.

 

[adsm08]

That's pretty awesome. It'll be excellent feedback. Just play the politics and be nice, I guess?

Yeah, they take the top 200 techs from each region, hopefully at different times. When the July ratings came out two weeks ago I was #6 out of 400 or 500 some, in the Philly region.

Half my shop is in the top 100 for our region.

Oh, just thought of something:

Yesterday, buddy came because his Colorado was overheating. It was the thermostat.

How do you get it out, because it's not at the top like all of my other Fords & Asian + European imports.

Jack up.
Remove driver tire.
Remove fender liner.
Undo lower radiator hose at radiator.
Extensions and sockets to get at the 2 housing bolts.
Snake out that mini assembly past the brake line.
Remove hose clamp on the housing, switch out t-stat.

The whole process took 30 minutes, from start to drive, but I thought it was funny that we had to go through the fender to the side of the block.

I actually remembered Melvin's thread here, and thought that although inconvenient, it was straightforward. It could have been worse.

I have had the fun of doing one of those as well. It really wasn't as bad as I expected. I think the worst part was getting the bolts back in.

If you want a truly inconvenient thermostat do one on a Duratech engine. Of all the ones I have done the 2.3/2.5 Duratech is the worst. No access, no visibility, and if you don't get the jiggle pin at 12:00 you never get all the air out.

If you are ever doing intake gaskets on one of those things do the thermostat and PCV while you are there.