Should Ford Bring The F150 Back To The Basics??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 02-24-2008, 11:18 AM
JohnHL's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Should Ford Bring The F150 Back To The Basics??

Ya know.....I'm sitting here reading about the spitters and stickers on these F150 motors and it's killing me that my beloved Ford company would let this fester. I was lucky in that when I did my 03 5.4 plugs a few miles ago I didn't have any problems....other than #3 and #5 (or #7??) was a little low on initial back out torque.

We know Ford came back to their roots with the early Mustang look. I'm wondering if they should come back with an early F100/150 look AND engine design that doesn't have these plug problems???? Reading some of these repetitive stories you guys are having leaves me shaking my head.

C'mon Ford....get your act together...@#$%!!!!

Sign me......"The John Who's Looking For Something Old"
 
  #2  
Old 02-24-2008, 11:42 AM
ManualF150's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vernon, NY
Posts: 10,625
Received 259 Likes on 250 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnHL
Ya know.....I'm sitting here reading about the spitters and stickers on these F150 motors and it's killing me that my beloved Ford company would let this fester. I was lucky in that when I did my 03 5.4 plugs a few miles ago I didn't have any problems....other than #3 and #5 (or #7??) was a little low on initial back out torque.

We know Ford came back to their roots with the early Mustang look. I'm wondering if they should come back with an early F100/150 look AND engine design that doesn't have these plug problems???? Reading some of these repetitive stories you guys are having leaves me shaking my head.

C'mon Ford....get your act together...@#$%!!!!

Sign me......"The John Who's Looking For Something Old"
That's why I wanted the good old V6... an engine that never has much of an issue.

At least I got a prehistoric dinosaur in a 21st century look.
 
  #3  
Old 02-24-2008, 12:41 PM
NYfordguy's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Alex Bay, NY
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I miss real metal trim inside mainly. And I want curved dash towards the driver appearance like in some of the older 80's trucks. Somewhat like a big rig dash.

But yes, the spark plugs need to be revised, what is the POINT of plug holes that deep and that hard to change anyways?
 
  #4  
Old 02-24-2008, 12:46 PM
Labnerd's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: So. Texas
Posts: 2,226
Likes: 0
Received 41 Likes on 37 Posts
I think all of the truck makers should re-evaluate their products. All of these half ton trucks are bloated pigs and getting to be near worthless as a TRUCK. They are dandy open trunk soccer mom cars but there isn't much truck left in them. As a comparison, I have several 74 F-100s around and a 2004 SCrew. The SCrew is next to impossible to get something as large as a 12 pack out of the bed if it is in the middle of the bed. It's too tall to reach over the sides and too tall to reach in from the tailgate- I'm 6'4". My 74s you can reach over the sides and get anything. The 74s will carry 1500 lbs and you hardly know it's back there but the SCrew just about pukes at 500 lbs. Yeah, the new ones are nice, no doubt, but they aren't trucks anymore. I'm hopeful that Ford bring the global Ranger to the US as they have planned. It's a little smaller than the old F-100s and should have a V6 diesel option. It's also a little bigger than the midsize trucks like the Taco and has a carrying capacity of 1500 lbs. With any luck at all Ford will bring it to the US and not gut the function of the truck for the glitz.
 
  #5  
Old 02-24-2008, 01:06 PM
Gotts2BMe's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sask. Canada
Posts: 1,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NYfordguy

But yes, the spark plugs need to be revised, what is the POINT of plug holes that deep and that hard to change anyways?
Over head Cams is why they are so deep
 
  #6  
Old 02-24-2008, 02:38 PM
glc's Avatar
glc
glc is online now
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Joplin MO
Posts: 43,205
Received 763 Likes on 706 Posts
That and the need to fit into the combustion chamber with 3 valves in there.
 
  #7  
Old 02-24-2008, 04:16 PM
lenore's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Talking

Originally Posted by glc
That and the need to fit into the combustion chamber with 3 valves in there.
That is crap, there are a lot of three valve overhead engines that dont have deep plugs. They just screwed up bigtime.
 
  #8  
Old 02-24-2008, 06:17 PM
risupercrewman's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 3,711
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Labnerd
I think all of the truck makers should re-evaluate their products. All of these half ton trucks are bloated pigs and getting to be near worthless as a TRUCK. They are dandy open trunk soccer mom cars but there isn't much truck left in them. As a comparison, I have several 74 F-100s around and a 2004 SCrew. The SCrew is next to impossible to get something as large as a 12 pack out of the bed if it is in the middle of the bed. It's too tall to reach over the sides and too tall to reach in from the tailgate- I'm 6'4". My 74s you can reach over the sides and get anything. The 74s will carry 1500 lbs and you hardly know it's back there but the SCrew just about pukes at 500 lbs. Yeah, the new ones are nice, no doubt, but they aren't trucks anymore. I'm hopeful that Ford bring the global Ranger to the US as they have planned. It's a little smaller than the old F-100s and should have a V6 diesel option. It's also a little bigger than the midsize trucks like the Taco and has a carrying capacity of 1500 lbs. With any luck at all Ford will bring it to the US and not gut the function of the truck for the glitz.
I tend not to agree, the 2004-2008's will out Tow,Haul,& are just screwed together much better than anything from the 70's era! Let's not even talk about frame technology......
 
  #9  
Old 02-24-2008, 09:31 PM
Matts ford's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: whaleyville, MD
Posts: 3,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i wish ford didn't make the modular engines so wide and stuck the plugs in the side ,thats the only thing i can complain about. my little 302 has all the room in the world in the engine bay. for a tune up all i need is a socket and ratchet, no extensions or swivels or special sockets and such. i like the plain and simple stuff, thats why i wish the old carbureted motors got better fuel mileage.
 

Last edited by Matts ford; 02-24-2008 at 09:34 PM.
  #10  
Old 02-24-2008, 11:02 PM
NYfordguy's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Alex Bay, NY
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are over head cams a nessecity? Does that technology increase fuel economy/power ect? I think I'd swap technology with easier to change plugs!
 
  #11  
Old 02-24-2008, 11:06 PM
JMC's Avatar
JMC
JMC is offline
Technical Article Contributor

Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Windsor,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 9,417
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 10 Posts
Ford is working on a better engine. The new6.2 V8 will have a larger bore spacing so there will be more room a large bore and for bigger valves. Now for a 281 cu inch engine the 4.6 packs quite a wallop. More than the 302 anyways. Gets better gas mileage too. The 2 valve is no longer in production or almost so the plug issue is a mute point. Anyways it was addressed in the 2003 engine. The 3 valve plugs are a problem but that is in the process of being corrected. By the time that it is fixed the modular engine will have been phased out for the new engine.

JMC
 
  #12  
Old 02-24-2008, 11:19 PM
Bluegrass's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Easton, Pa.
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes on 36 Posts
I can almost asure you that Ford won't go backward on motors.
They can't afford to.
Look in the March 2008 issue of HOT ROD mag page 18 and read about the new motor, which gets it first and second.
Then look on page 98 to see one reason they can't go backwards.
 
  #13  
Old 02-24-2008, 11:22 PM
JMC's Avatar
JMC
JMC is offline
Technical Article Contributor

Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Windsor,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 9,417
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Bluegrass
I can almost asure you that Ford won't go backward on motors.
They can't afford to.
Look in the March 2008 issue of HOT ROD mag page 18 and read about the new motor, which gets it first and second.
Then look on page 98 to see one reason they can't go backwards.
I don't have that mag and all the stores that do are closed so I am going to wonder all night..... Please enlighten me.

JMC
 
  #14  
Old 02-25-2008, 03:13 AM
Gotts2BMe's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sask. Canada
Posts: 1,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NYfordguy
Are over head cams a nessecity? Does that technology increase fuel economy/power ect? I think I'd swap technology with easier to change plugs!
Not really. Yes. Then by a chevy, they are still push rod engines.
 
  #15  
Old 02-25-2008, 03:33 AM
chrism9232's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gotts2BMe
Not really. Yes. Then by a chevy, they are still push rod engines.
the new ford 6.2 v8 is too
 


Quick Reply: Should Ford Bring The F150 Back To The Basics??



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:15 AM.