First non-maintenance repair on the Expedition

[mechtech2]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Not terrible life out of a u-joint on a truck that gets used.

Most of the "common" problems with popular domestic trucks/SUVs is due to their sheer volume of production. Issues are bound to happen when you crank out millions of the same platform.

I put a 1994 door on my 2002 truck and it latched perfectly the first time I shut it. The look on my friend's face who was helping me was priceless. An 8 year difference between when the trucks were assembled and a major body part fit perfectly. Haters gonna hate, but I think that's engineering excellence right there.


It is pure luck to get the hinges and latch perfectly aligned with just bolting it up. Astounding luck.
You should have bought a lottery ticket that day!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
U Joint or CV joint?

I'm assuming the driveshaft u joints went bad?


U-joints on the front driveshaft. The CV shafts are still original.

 

[msmoke00]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: msmoke00
The spark plugs blowing isn't really a defect. It's a misguided torque spec and procedure on the plugs. The new spec is 28 ft/lbs and no anti-seize on the plugs. Hope you used a Time sert on the repair.

Everything I've read says 14ft-lbs, no anti-seize. The lock-N-stitch insert was used, which is the only one approved by Ford. Repair was done at Ford by a mobile machine shop.

I would say three threads on a plug hole is a "design defect" in the sense that it is supposedly the bare minimum required for the stresses experienced. Had they used sometime like 6 threads, the problem would never have existed.


Everything you will read is the old spec Ford decided to stick with that had issues with. The PI heads in the 2 valves can hold up to 80 ft/lbs, so 28 isn't going to strip the heads. The plugs back out because of the fewer threads, but can be avoided with proper torque. These guys have been repairing these for years with the new spec:
http://www.blownoutsparkplug.com/

 

[4ever4d]

Originally Posted By: Rocko1
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Donald
Was the original one with a zerk? Did you get it greased once and awhile?


No sir, Ford hasn't used greaseable U-joints since like the 80's AFAIK.


Yep. They realized parts were not wearing out fast enough and eliminated the fittings.

Actually it was because most car owners are too lazy or procrastinate too much to actually put or have someone to put grease into a zerk fitting!

 

[AVB]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: msmoke00
The spark plugs blowing isn't really a defect. It's a misguided torque spec and procedure on the plugs. The new spec is 28 ft/lbs and no anti-seize on the plugs. Hope you used a Time sert on the repair.

Everything I've read says 14ft-lbs, no anti-seize. The lock-N-stitch insert was used, which is the only one approved by Ford. Repair was done at Ford by a mobile machine shop.

I would say three threads on a plug hole is a "design defect" in the sense that it is supposedly the bare minimum required for the stresses experienced. Had they used sometime like 6 threads, the problem would never have existed.


Yeah, it was pretty crazy to only put 3/8" of threads in a 3/4" deep hole.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: msmoke00
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: msmoke00
The spark plugs blowing isn't really a defect. It's a misguided torque spec and procedure on the plugs. The new spec is 28 ft/lbs and no anti-seize on the plugs. Hope you used a Time sert on the repair.

Everything I've read says 14ft-lbs, no anti-seize. The lock-N-stitch insert was used, which is the only one approved by Ford. Repair was done at Ford by a mobile machine shop.

I would say three threads on a plug hole is a "design defect" in the sense that it is supposedly the bare minimum required for the stresses experienced. Had they used sometime like 6 threads, the problem would never have existed.


Everything you will read is the old spec Ford decided to stick with that had issues with. The PI heads in the 2 valves can hold up to 80 ft/lbs, so 28 isn't going to strip the heads. The plugs back out because of the fewer threads, but can be avoided with proper torque. These guys have been repairing these for years with the new spec:
http://www.blownoutsparkplug.com/


I would LOVE to see somebody put 80lb-ft on three threads into aluminum. That's a far cry from the 28 they suggest. I also don't see any reference to Ford actually recommending this torque?

From that site:

Quote:
Q: I have heard of a Ford approved repair kit, have you seen these?
A: Yes, The Ford TSB 7-15-2 describes using the Lock-N-Stitch repair kit by Full-Torque. Keep in mind that that it states that this is for information only and that Ford will not warranty any repairs made with this kit. The biggest problem is that the replacement threads are again aluminum and if they fail you will most probably have to replace the cylinder head.


So every manufacturer that has aluminum heads is asking for failure? That's a pretty "loaded" answer.......

The reason the approved insert is aluminum is to retain the heat conductivity properties of the original setup. In fact, they touch upon that fact in their FAQ as well:

Quote:
Q: I have read that installing a steel plug seat can cause the heat from the spark plug not to transfer to the cylinder head correctly and causing the insert to blow out. Is this true?
A: Yes and No. Standard thread repair kits do have a problem with expansion and are known to come loose and can eventually blow back out again. Our replacement seat assembly is tapered which gives us the ability to torque the seat into the cylinder head and the small part that protrudes into the cylinder head is very thin. We also use a bonding agent to guarantee the transfer of heat into the cylinder head.


Now, that being said, bdcardinal works for Ford, and he's saying the spec is still the one I mentioned, so where are you getting this "new" spec from other than the cited URL? Or is this just the recommendation of this particular shop?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: AVB
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: msmoke00
The spark plugs blowing isn't really a defect. It's a misguided torque spec and procedure on the plugs. The new spec is 28 ft/lbs and no anti-seize on the plugs. Hope you used a Time sert on the repair.

Everything I've read says 14ft-lbs, no anti-seize. The lock-N-stitch insert was used, which is the only one approved by Ford. Repair was done at Ford by a mobile machine shop.

I would say three threads on a plug hole is a "design defect" in the sense that it is supposedly the bare minimum required for the stresses experienced. Had they used sometime like 6 threads, the problem would never have existed.


Yeah, it was pretty crazy to only put 3/8" of threads in a 3/4" deep hole.


It was bloody stupid really.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: msmoke00
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: msmoke00
The spark plugs blowing isn't really a defect. It's a misguided torque spec and procedure on the plugs. The new spec is 28 ft/lbs and no anti-seize on the plugs. Hope you used a Time sert on the repair.

Everything I've read says 14ft-lbs, no anti-seize. The lock-N-stitch insert was used, which is the only one approved by Ford. Repair was done at Ford by a mobile machine shop.

I would say three threads on a plug hole is a "design defect" in the sense that it is supposedly the bare minimum required for the stresses experienced. Had they used sometime like 6 threads, the problem would never have existed.


Everything you will read is the old spec Ford decided to stick with that had issues with. The PI heads in the 2 valves can hold up to 80 ft/lbs, so 28 isn't going to strip the heads. The plugs back out because of the fewer threads, but can be avoided with proper torque. These guys have been repairing these for years with the new spec:
http://www.blownoutsparkplug.com/


Just found on there that they said they were able to get over 100lb-ft on a factory head:

Quote:
Q: Why do you prefer 28-32 foot lbs torque instead of the factory specification?
A: Over the past few years we have heard from many of our customers that they tightened their plugs to the correct torque but they still came loose. We worked with 10 other Ford Certified Master Mechanics and concluded that 28 foot lbs of torque would be satisfactory. We have been using 28 foot lbs of torque for many years and have never had one come loose or strip out. To verify that we would not damage the original threads we used a test cylinder head with good factory threads we applied over 100 foot lbs of torque to the spark plug without any failure.


I think that's interesting. That's a lot more torque than I would expect it to hold

But of course that head could have been a freak too.

I say this because I've heard of guys over-torquing them and taking the threads out with the plug, and I'm sure you have too, and I doubt they were anywhere near 80lb-ft, let alone 100lb-ft.

 

[dwcopple]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal


FYI I hardly ever sell u-joints. Literally I have maybe sold 8 or 10 u-joints in the 5 plus years I have been doing this.
That is because as OVERKILL stated, they are $75 a pop at your place of business...

 

[Rocko1]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: Rocko1
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Donald
Was the original one with a zerk? Did you get it greased once and awhile?


No sir, Ford hasn't used greaseable U-joints since like the 80's AFAIK.


Yep. They realized parts were not wearing out fast enough and eliminated the fittings.

You seriously think that was the reason? They went to non-greasable because they wanted to eliminate one more maintenance item. The average person barely gets their oil changed, you really expect them to grease their u-joints regularly too? The automakers do NOT "want" their parts to fail often and early. Having a reputation of building long lasting, reliable cars sells vehicles, not junk that breaks constantly.


Okay, put all your faith in the car makers. They really DO care about you. Why would they ever want to do something that makes them more money? That would be greedy.

The grease in those sealed joints is worthless after about 30K miles.

 

[Rocko1]

Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
Originally Posted By: Rocko1
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Donald
Was the original one with a zerk? Did you get it greased once and awhile?


No sir, Ford hasn't used greaseable U-joints since like the 80's AFAIK.


Yep. They realized parts were not wearing out fast enough and eliminated the fittings.

Actually it was because most car owners are too lazy or procrastinate too much to actually put or have someone to put grease into a zerk fitting!


Nah, 95% of people don't change their own oil, they have a shop do it, which is when most zerks are serviced.

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: Rocko1


Yep. They realized parts were not wearing out fast enough and eliminated the fittings.


Bunk!

Car makers have gone to sealed joints because by the 1970's, the Japanese automakers had done enough studies to show that people either incorrectly serviced or over serviced their joints. Given the law of averages, a sealed joint last longer over some grease monkey or ignorant owner using either the wrong grease or incorrect amount and blowing the seals/boots thereby allowing a path for contaminants to enter the joints and severely decrease service life.

About the only things that still come fitted with zerks are either severe service industrial machinery or heavy duty equipment.

 

[Nick R]

So that's why I know people with original sealed u-joints on vehicles with 200k miles?

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: Rocko1
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: Rocko1
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Was the original one with a zerk? Did you get it greased once and awhile?
No sir, Ford hasn't used greaseable U-joints since like the 80's AFAIK.


Yep. They realized parts were not wearing out fast enough and eliminated the fittings.

You seriously think that was the reason? They went to non-greasable because they wanted to eliminate one more maintenance item. The average person barely gets their oil changed, you really expect them to grease their u-joints regularly too? The automakers do NOT "want" their parts to fail often and early. Having a reputation of building long lasting, reliable cars sells vehicles, not junk that breaks constantly.

Okay, put all your faith in the car makers. They really DO care about you. Why would they ever want to do something that makes them more money? That would be greedy.

The grease in those sealed joints is worthless after about 30K miles.


Because what you're talking about WOULD NOT make them more money, it would bankrupt them! Exhibit A: GM and Crhysler had a reputation for building unreliable junk that would break right after warranty. What happened? Oh yeah, bankruptcy. Exhibit B: Toyota has/had a reputation for building reliable vehicles that last a long time. What happened to them? They became the biggest automaker in the world.

Put yourself in this position: If YOU had a vehicle that was constantly breaking (and "making the automaker lots of money") would YOU go out and buy another exactly like it?? No! You would say, "That car was the biggest piece of junk I've ever owned! I'll NEVER own another one! I'll go and buy cars from brand Y now!" And you'll tell all your friends how much of a piece of junk it was and before you know it, the automaker has a lousy reputation and is going bankrupt.

I have a key term for you: MARKET SHARE. Google it. It's not about selling the same POS to the same guy year after year, it's about taking sales away from other manufacturers. THAT's how automakers make money. It doesn't matter if every one of your customers only buys a car once every 20 years. If EVERYONE is driving a car from one manufacturer, they're still gonna sell a ton of cars.

Car sales isn't like McDonalds. They don't sell incredibly small profit margin items and rely on people buying billions of them every day to make money. There are plenty of industries and companies that sell products designed to last 10, 20, 50 years and they all do just fine.

 

[Rocko1]

[ [/quote]

Because what you're talking about WOULD NOT make them more money, it would bankrupt them! Exhibit A: GM and Crhysler had a reputation for building unreliable junk that would break right after warranty. What happened? Oh yeah, bankruptcy. Exhibit B: Toyota has/had a reputation for building reliable vehicles that last a long time. What happened to them? They became the biggest automaker in the world.

Put yourself in this position: If YOU had a vehicle that was constantly breaking (and "making the automaker lots of money") would YOU go out and buy another exactly like it?? No! You would say, "That car was the biggest piece of junk I've ever owned! I'll NEVER own another one! I'll go and buy cars from brand Y now!" And you'll tell all your friends how much of a piece of junk it was and before you know it, the automaker has a lousy reputation and is going bankrupt.

I have a key term for you: MARKET SHARE. Google it. It's not about selling the same POS to the same guy year after year, it's about taking sales away from other manufacturers. THAT's how automakers make money. It doesn't matter if every one of your customers only buys a car once every 20 years. If EVERYONE is driving a car from one manufacturer, they're still gonna sell a ton of cars.

Car sales isn't like McDonalds. They don't sell incredibly small profit margin items and rely on people buying billions of them every day to make money. There are plenty of industries and companies that sell products designed to last 10, 20, 50 years and they all do just fine. [/quote]

Automakers want their cars/trucks to make it to just about the end of the payment cycle, 100K or so. They are not interested or is it in their best interest in building and selling a car that lasts 400K miles. It's the same logic behind most durable goods. They need to increase the re-purchase frequency without tarnishing their name. Make it last 50-80K and of course, your name is mud. Make it last a bit outside your payment, which is when most people buy another car and they profit and your don't think it's a POS.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Hootbro
Originally Posted By: Rocko1


Yep. They realized parts were not wearing out fast enough and eliminated the fittings.


Bunk!

Car makers have gone to sealed joints because by the 1970's, the Japanese automakers had done enough studies to show that people either incorrectly serviced or over serviced their joints. Given the law of averages, a sealed joint last longer over some grease monkey or ignorant owner using either the wrong grease or incorrect amount and blowing the seals/boots thereby allowing a path for contaminants to enter the joints and severely decrease service life.

About the only things that still come fitted with zerks are either severe service industrial machinery or heavy duty equipment.



Or a GM heavy duty truck! Our fleet vans have around 24 zerks on them.

 

[Rocko1]

Have you ever in your life heard of a u-joint being ruined by over greasing? Only thing that is ruined is the garage floor.

 

[exranger06]

Your numbers are grossly underrated. I'd say it's more like 17 years/175k miles, which is perfectly reasonable IMO. I'm not "mad" at the automakers for not designing vehicles to last longer than that. They probably COULD build a car designed to last much longer than that if they wanted to, but the cost would be much higher, new/better technologies are always coming out and would make the previous model obsolete, and when most people trade in their car for whatever reason much sooner than that anyway, it just doesn't make sense to build them.

EVERY manufactured product (not just cars) has a designed life expectancy, and there's nothing wrong with that. But to suggest an automaker knowingly uses inferior parts as some conspiracy to make their vehicles break sooner than usual is ridiculous and asinine.

Cars are pretty good at breaking down on their own. And their owners are pretty good at not maintaining them well, and crashing them into things. They don't need to be sabotaged by their own creators so they can be replaced.

 

[Rocko1]

Originally Posted By: exranger06


EVERY manufactured product (not just cars) has a designed life expectancy, and there's nothing wrong with that. But to suggest an automaker knowingly uses inferior parts as some conspiracy to make their vehicles break sooner than usual is ridiculous and asinine.

What is usual? What is your acceptable time frame? The costs would increase? Only becuase you are not buying cars as frequently, material and labor have gone down, not up. The [censored] they feed you is that a real quality item will just be too expensive, so take this mediocre product and the world swallows it. If you think they give a rats [censored] about you research the A pillar debacle Ford had with rollover crashes.

Do you think the dealerships service department is only sustaining itself on @29.99 oil changes?

 

[MNgopher]

In practice, I've had no issues with quality sealed U-joints. They can and do regularly last a very long time - well over 150,000 miles in my case.

As is the case with everything, there are good units and bad units - both sealed and serviceable.