6.0 PowerStroke Sluge build up. - Auto-Trend Repairs and Service Information Forums

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

6.0 PowerStroke Sluge build up.

PowerStroker · UNSTOPPABLE!

YUCK

Date: 04:16 PM Jan 3, 2010

Ford is the master of sludge build up. The 351 and 302 are prime examples!

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Still, 12K miles on ANY engine is a good way to make some sludge.

For whatever reason, I find that used Diesel oil is by FAR much more nasty than used oil out of a gasoline engine. As advanced as the diesel fuel systems have become the process is still crude compared to the coil fired gasoline engines.

Torque can be directly tied to the amount of compression needed to pop diesel fuel in general. For that reason, diesel engines have always been favored by the payload crowd.

I cant wait to open this bitch up to tell you the truth.

PogoPossum · RIP - Veteran User

With stacked piezo crystal injectors (and you thought you had trouble coming to grips with HEUI injectors) in a common rail fuel system..... the equation certainly hasn't become any simpler... However, the greatest complexity is still going to be stuff that happens on the exhaust side... EGR and VGT are with us to stay... DPF and DOC are beginning to age and we shall soon see their true colours... and we will soon be treated to SRC (foes along with urea injection.

For spark ignition engines, little has changed in the fuel system for over 20 years... The biggest evolution being the switch to returnless fuel systems and the necessary inclusion of a fuel rail pressure sensor (and, of course the PWM fuel pump modules). Only now, with the introduction of the direct injection gasoline engine, spark ignition fuel systems are beginning to gain in complexity. Disclaimer... let's not try and brag up "flex fuel" as "gasoline".

One of todays burning questions.... how long before they figure out how to give a diesel OHC AND variable cam timing?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

I agree things will get more complicated on the electronics end, however I dont see them getting away from the internal combustion any time soon.

Piezo cristals are starting to turn up everywhere now days, from BBQ ignitors to just about anything. Using them in injectors is certainly a new method, but I'm sure you will figure them out Pogo.

I too wonder whats been holding them back from Over Head Cams and VCT. Chevy has stuck with the push rod engine for some time and even still use them in their newest V8 engines. I have no problems with the pushrod engine and I think they are a cost effective stradigy. More times than not OHC engines will start ticking well before they ever hit 100,000 miles.

The PowerStroke is a pushrod engine, and I have always been impressed with the rocker arm design. While they are 4 valve heads, they still function much the same as a two valve head. I would imagine you could really tweek some more power from these engines if there was an additional cam to drive each of the valves seperatly. Someone was telling me once that were not far off from solonoid opperated valves. If that ever happens the days of having to change camshafts for a more agressive profile will be long gone.

PogoPossum · RIP - Veteran User

Rex.. your naivete is so cute... piezo BBQ lighters are so very much different from stacked piezo injectors... It isn't me that will need to figure them out.

I can see where some might confuse creating a spark hot enough to light propane with the act of controlling the flow of diesel fuel under extremely high pressure... God knows that the two functions are so very similar...

As for OHC... you don't see OHC diesels because their isn't any room for the camshaft. By design, the injector nozzle desparately needs to be located at the center of the combustion chamber (but you knew that, right?) because of the requirements of flame propogation. (Did you know that the 6.2 engine is a two plug per cylinder engine? Did you know that two plugs per cylinder is OLD NEWS? ). Eventually, I expect that someone will come up with a viable work-around - for something truly enlightening Google the "Jumo 205" diesel aircraft engine... hard to tell if this is an art form or a motor.

The 6.0 and the 6.4 use "bridges" (what I continue to call "crossheads" for no other reason than a passing familiarity with Detroit diesel two stroke engines) and one intake rocker arm and pushtube and only one exhaust rocker arm and pushtube to control four valves per cylinder. The 6.7 is going to use 4 push tubes to control each of the 4 valves individually... even though the pushtubes will be combined with a common cam follower...

BBQ lighters? Fuck me.... what are we discussing here?

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

The BBQ lighter thing is more my way of saying the Piezo is being used in MANY applications, NOT to undermind the complex nature of the injectors being used in diesel trucks. We are not here to talk about BBQ repairs, but I thought putting it in perspective would allow many whom are NOT mechanics to grasp the reality that these things are here to stay, and they are also found in regular old household items as well.

For some reason I get this feeling that the newer 6.7 liter that will be using FOUR PUSH RODS (Here in the states we call them push rods, not push tubes) is not going to offer much advantage, esp. since they will be doing the exact same thing if they run on a common cam follower. I have not seen too many problems with regards to the valve train on the 6.0 or the 6.4 with regards to the "bridge" so I wonder why Fords is changing things up.

Yes they had two plugs per cylinder on the Ford 2.3 liters that were put in trucks and Mustangs. I cant say it was the best idea, but it did allow for variable ignition timing at the expence of turning a 4 cylinder tune up into a 8 cylinder tune up. I think it was a bad idea then, just as much as I think its a bad idea now.

Like I said before... Soon they will be using electronic solinoids to open and close valves. There will be no need for a camshaft, rocker arms, followers or push rods/tubes. Also they can do away with timing chains, sprockets and the likes. This will reduce reciprocating drag in a MAJOR way. It will be the "NEXT" big thing.

disgruntled · Veteran Guest

PogoPossum wrote:

As for OHC... you don't see OHC diesels because their isn't any room for the camshaft. By design, the injector nozzle desparately needs to be located at the center of the combustion chamber (but you knew that, right?) because of the requirements of flame propogation. (Did you know that the 6.2 engine is a two plug per cylinder engine? Did you know that two plugs per cylinder is OLD NEWS? ). Eventually, I expect that someone will come up with a viable work-around - for something truly enlightening Google the "Jumo 205" diesel aircraft engine... hard to tell if this is an art form or a motor.

Pogo, think back to 1984 to 1986 model years. Do you remember the Escort/Lynx as well as the Tempo/Topaz? If I'm not mistaken, there was a 2.0L Mazda diesel engine that was available in those years. If memory serves me correctly, that engine employed an OHC type design well as front and rear timing belts too. I also vaguely remember this engine being an option in the Rangers of that era.

Then, on the Lincoln end of things, do you remember a BWM made inline-6 turbo-diesel that was optional from the above-mentioned model years in the Lincoln Continental and Mark VII models. Apparently, there wasn't any Ford Workshop Manual procedure available service these engines too. THAT, if I'm not mistaken was also an OHC engine. This was during the era when GM were putting diesels in their full-size luxo-boats. Makes me wonder who's brain fart idea that was, or what the purpose was. If memory serves me correctly, that engine was nothing short of an absolute dismal failure for GM, just like Cadillac's own 368 cu. in. V8-6-4 too. Sorry for the highjack to the thread.

SELLC · CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Look at this guy... He talks trash about me in other forums, then he hi-jacks my thread!

Ill play along....

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/27/business/the-saga-of-the-gm-diesel-lemons-lawsuits-and-soon-an-ftc-decision.html

Does that article remind you of anything? Perhaps the 6.0 PowerStroke engine?

G.M. Lost their ass when they tried to offer the 5.7 liter engine as a diesel. Who here can remember that?

I cant even find a PHOTO of one, but I can remember working on them back when I first got started in this business.

PogoPossum · RIP - Veteran User

The Mazda 2.0 diesel.... if the concept was sound, we would still be using it. Mike, none of the engines you refer to could be considered successful...

Rex... I call them push tubes as a matter of semantics. A 5.0 (or any other cam in block engine not manufactured by ITEC) gets to have the term "pushrod". However, "when in Rome...." - ITEC refers to these things as pushtubes.... As of this writing all that the corporate website will give us is the 2011 owners manual and the 2011 diesel owners supplement. Neither indicates what Ford will call these pieces now that ITEC is no longer in the picture.

For the 2.3 dual plug engines... the exhaust side plugs "fired" all the time. The intake side plugs were for emissions control reasons only and "fired" only when required. The 6.2 gas engine that is in the pipeline is a dual plug engine... there is nothing in the way of training available at the moment. I am sure that any training Ford may offer us will have you calling us "spoon fed".

GM survived the 350 Oldsmodiesel... FWIW, this engine wasn't a purpose-built diesel engine. It WAS a gasoline engine converted to diesel and (IIRC) GM did refer to this as a 'conversion'. Interestingly, there are few pctures of this engine but youtube does host some videos.

All the same.. what does this 30 year old misbegotten adventure have to do with today?

Adding a little fat to the fire.... when the oldsmobile division (yes, this engine was designed as a car engine) came up with the idea General Motors was already producing many engines in the 350 CID range. The Buick, Chev, Olds and Pontiac engines were all similar in displacement but represented a waste of resources regarding development costs.

At one point in the '70s, there was even a bit of a kerfuffle when some owners realized that they had purchased an Oldsmobile with a 350 "corporate" (read that as Chevy) engine rather than the venerable Rocket 350. As I recall, though I may be incorrect, there was an ill-fated class action suit.

The world is full of failures. We move on. The Corvair... Chev Vega, Olds Firenza, Hyundai Pony... so many more I haven't listed... not one of these dogs has killed the builder.

Fuck me... even the Transit Connect won some kind of prize and I don't recall seeing anything with that many broadcast messages before...

Date: 06:28 AM Mar 2, 2010