Why do Ford 4.6L have head gasket problems?
sbest
>Was in the market for a used Mustang, but I found out that a lot of
>V-6 motors were experiencing head gasket failure. In a lot of cases,
>the engine needed to be repaired AFTER warrenty had just expired. Talk
>about a bummer! So here's the question, why? Was the motor a bad
>design by Ford? Did they just use poor gaskets? Is there some kind of
>cheap way (short of tearing the whole engine apart) to head off
>problems? Are the alum. heads just so lightweight that they warp? I'm
>interested to know what you think.
>Take out xx for e-mail
The 4.6 is the new overhead cam V8.
No head gasket problems, I have 245,000 hard kms on mine.
The 3.8 V6 had head gasket problems.
It was a gasket/headbolt problem as far as I know.
Steve Best, Nova Scotia,
4x4 van website:
http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest
Jeff_A...@operamail.com
Donny73
V-6 motors were experiencing head gasket failure. >>
Your post title is the 4.6, in here you mention the V6. Which one are you
referring to?
Richard Smith
try again
Richard
<Jeff_A...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:3730e743...@news.earthlink.net...
> Was in the market for a used Mustang, but I found out that a lot of
bob_...@my-dejanews.com
years: Taurus, Sable, Windstar, Thunderbird, MUSTANG, etc. And yes,
these 3.8L Engines are prone to Headgasket and Timing Cover gasket
failures. This Engine was introduced in 1982 (I beleive) in the
Thunderbird. I had the "3.8L experience" with both a 80's Mustang
and a 90's Taurus.
Notice for 1999, the HP of the 3.8L has been increased (to something
like 210HP for Mustang, and 190HP for Windstar). I remain suspicous,
and only time will tell...
The 4.6L is a V8, and is a much better Engine. I've never heard of
any such problems and would be very suprised...
Bob
In article <3730e743...@news.earthlink.net>,
Jeff_A...@operamail.com wrote:
> Was in the market for a used Mustang, but I found out that a lot of
> V-6 motors were experiencing head gasket failure. In a lot of cases,
> the engine needed to be repaired AFTER warrenty had just expired. Talk
> about a bummer! So here's the question, why? Was the motor a bad
> design by Ford? Did they just use poor gaskets? Is there some kind of
> cheap way (short of tearing the whole engine apart) to head off
> problems? Are the alum. heads just so lightweight that they warp? I'm
> interested to know what you think.
> Take out xx for e-mail
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jeff_A...@operamail.com
>Was in the market for a used Mustang, but I found out that a lot of
>V-6 motors were experiencing head gasket failure. In a lot of cases,
>the engine needed to be repaired AFTER warrenty had just expired. Talk
>about a bummer! So here's the question, why? Was the motor a bad
>design by Ford? Did they just use poor gaskets? Is there some kind of
>cheap way (short of tearing the whole engine apart) to head off
>problems? Are the alum. heads just so lightweight that they warp? I'm
>interested to know what you think.
>Take out xx for e-mail
>
I think I was a little tired when I posted this. I meant 3.8L. I was
told 4.6L V-8 was a pretty good motor. The V-6 Stangs are reasonably
priced, is it because of more engine problems then the V-8s?
Clint Law
Jeff_A...@operamail.com wrote in message
<3731d6ad...@news.earthlink.net>...
Actually, it has more to do with them being god-awful slow. The Pre-99 V6
Mustangs had 145 HP, in a 3300-3400 pound car that doesn't move to
well -expect 9 second 0-60s and like high 16 second 1/4 Miles. Oh, and they
are less reliable and more expensive to get fixed as well. Do yourself a
favor, and don't get a pre-99 V6 Mustang.
(And there hasn't been one real good explanation for th 3.8L head gasket
problems, pretty much just a combination of a motr pretty prone to
detonation, and considering almost all of the prblems have been on newer
(94+) Mustangs, T-Birds, and Windstars - i would tend to think the Gaskets
(which are Felpro units) might have had some quality control issues)
ameijers
>
> On Thu, 06 May 1999 00:59:33 GMT, Jeff_A...@operamail.com wrote:
>
> >Was in the market for a used Mustang, but I found out that a lot of
> >V-6 motors were experiencing head gasket failure. In a lot of cases,
> >the engine needed to be repaired AFTER warrenty had just expired. Talk
> >about a bummer! So here's the question, why? Was the motor a bad
> >design by Ford? Did they just use poor gaskets? Is there some kind of
> >cheap way (short of tearing the whole engine apart) to head off
> >problems? Are the alum. heads just so lightweight that they warp? I'm
> >interested to know what you think.
> >Take out xx for e-mail
> >
> I think I was a little tired when I posted this. I meant 3.8L. I was
> told 4.6L V-8 was a pretty good motor. The V-6 Stangs are reasonably
> priced, is it because of more engine problems then the V-8s?
> Take out xx for e-mail
problems, and the young bucks want a v-8. Mustang hasn't been popular as
a 'secretary car' for years. (no flames, Detroit's term, not mine.)
I had one, an 83, and regretted it almost from day one. Drove it 3
years, and probably bought it twice with all the repairs. Same engine,
FI vs. carb, and in a front drive, has done better for me- 145k in 92
Taurus, and heads have never been off, as far as I know. Too bad the
tranny sucks.
aem sends...
Catnip
Clint Law <aw...@eosinc.com> wrote in message
news:92603665...@news.remarQ.com...
> The Pre-99 V6
> Mustangs had 145 HP, in a 3300-3400 pound car that doesn't move to
> well -expect 9 second 0-60s and like high 16 second 1/4 Miles.
HA--I wish!
TomTom
>On Thu, 06 May 1999 00:59:33 GMT, Jeff_A...@operamail.com wrote:
>
>>Was in the market for a used Mustang, but I found out that a lot of
>>V-6 motors were experiencing head gasket failure. In a lot of cases,
>>the engine needed to be repaired AFTER warrenty had just expired. Talk
>>about a bummer! So here's the question, why? Was the motor a bad
>>design by Ford? Did they just use poor gaskets? Is there some kind of
>>cheap way (short of tearing the whole engine apart) to head off
>>problems? Are the alum. heads just so lightweight that they warp? I'm
>>interested to know what you think.
>>Take out xx for e-mail
>>
>I think I was a little tired when I posted this. I meant 3.8L. I was
>told 4.6L V-8 was a pretty good motor. The V-6 Stangs are reasonably
>priced, is it because of more engine problems then the V-8s?
>Take out xx for e-mail
No, it is because the v8 Mustang costs more to build, has some
different suspension components, is more powerful, etc. It's like
comparing a 4cyl Contour/Camry/etc to a V6.
TomTom
twb...@banet.net
an '87 T-Bird, and with only 28,000 miles at that.
Fortunately, it was covered under warranty. And UNfortunately, the
dealer that did the repairs screwed things up royally and the car was
never the same.
And you're right, these 3000 lb cars with the 3.8 move like frozen
molasses. The lousy performance is made worse by Ford's jerky automatic
transmissions which take forever to downshift and can never make up
their minds which gear they want to be in.