03 Cobra voided warranty engine dissassembly pics
Originally posted by THEAUTOMAN
The dumb-**** shoulda bought 2 new tires before he took it in.
The dumb-**** shoulda bought 2 new tires before he took it in.
I can only assume that the owner might NOT HAVE HAD a part in this. Why?
These engines are now shown to hold 800rwhp. There are quite a few guys WELL OVER 600rwhp (daily drivers).
The fact that the heat band is on the BEARING end, no visible piston damage, no visible head damage leads me to think the engine had an inherent OILING problem. The fact that the owner burned down the tires (who here hasn't smoked them at the track MULTIPLE TIMES) does show that the engine was USED. When I bought mine, the salesmen didn't say drive it easy the first 500 miles then drive it "normal".
I've yet to see Ford make that statement. And don't use the logic of "common sense" should have keep him from doing that. Some guys on here, even one TUNER, took their brand new truck straight to the track.
I think that fact that the tires were worn is why Ford voided the warranty. I also think they KNEW that tire wear wasn't the reason it blew, the rod picture proves that. Just Ford worming their way outta paying for it if you ask me (well, you didn't, I'm just tellin' ya).
These engines are now shown to hold 800rwhp. There are quite a few guys WELL OVER 600rwhp (daily drivers).
The fact that the heat band is on the BEARING end, no visible piston damage, no visible head damage leads me to think the engine had an inherent OILING problem. The fact that the owner burned down the tires (who here hasn't smoked them at the track MULTIPLE TIMES) does show that the engine was USED. When I bought mine, the salesmen didn't say drive it easy the first 500 miles then drive it "normal".
I've yet to see Ford make that statement. And don't use the logic of "common sense" should have keep him from doing that. Some guys on here, even one TUNER, took their brand new truck straight to the track.I think that fact that the tires were worn is why Ford voided the warranty. I also think they KNEW that tire wear wasn't the reason it blew, the rod picture proves that. Just Ford worming their way outta paying for it if you ask me (well, you didn't, I'm just tellin' ya).
warranty?
I think that fact that the tires were worn is why Ford voided the warranty. I also think they KNEW that tire wear wasn't the reason it blew, the rod picture proves that. Just Ford worming their way outta paying for it if you ask me (well, you didn't, I'm just tellin' ya).
I have to agree 100% with corner carver, when it comes to warranties ford is the judge and jury on it and there is very limited sh** we can do about it, personally it makes me sick, I literally have to go to the bathroom now.

I have to agree 100% with corner carver, when it comes to warranties ford is the judge and jury on it and there is very limited sh** we can do about it, personally it makes me sick, I literally have to go to the bathroom now.
I don't see what the problem is with worn tires. It doesn't matter if you are banging through the gears with the tires spinning at 35mph or pulling high rpm's at 80mph with no tire spin. You can beat a car either way. There is no proof that the car was beat. Heck he could've throw pair of used tires on the back...or something.
Originally posted by 99svtlightning
I don't see what the problem is with worn tires. It doesn't matter if you are banging through the gears with the tires spinning at 35mph or pulling high rpm's at 80mph with no tire spin. You can beat a car either way. There is no proof that the car was beat. Heck he could've throw pair of used tires on the back...or something.
I don't see what the problem is with worn tires. It doesn't matter if you are banging through the gears with the tires spinning at 35mph or pulling high rpm's at 80mph with no tire spin. You can beat a car either way. There is no proof that the car was beat. Heck he could've throw pair of used tires on the back...or something.
1st off great site, Ive been a lurker for a long time but just got around to joining. Can somebody please remove 1 of the z's out of Buzzz correcting it to Buzz?
It appears to be a problem is the assembly of this motor. The rod caps could have been torqued wrong, bearings etc etc. In all the motors Ive seen fail(oil starvation), the cams are the 1st to heat up and lock. In this case the cams seem to be fine, leading you to believe that the heat was only on the rod bearings.How many of the rods are like this ? Was a oil sample analized for breakdown or contaminates ? The above rod pictured is from what # cylinder ?
BTW- I agree the tire wear dont mean jack, afterall look at Ford's book on the Lightning
[img] http://images.google.com/images?q=tb...ing-2k1-02.jpg [/img]
It appears to be a problem is the assembly of this motor. The rod caps could have been torqued wrong, bearings etc etc. In all the motors Ive seen fail(oil starvation), the cams are the 1st to heat up and lock. In this case the cams seem to be fine, leading you to believe that the heat was only on the rod bearings.How many of the rods are like this ? Was a oil sample analized for breakdown or contaminates ? The above rod pictured is from what # cylinder ?
BTW- I agree the tire wear dont mean jack, afterall look at Ford's book on the Lightning
[img] http://images.google.com/images?q=tb...ing-2k1-02.jpg [/img]
Last edited by BuzzzLightyear; May 26, 2003 at 12:55 PM.


