meyeste Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 (edited) Question about the new Ford engines; it used to be Ford would do actual buyers a favor and conservatively rate the HP / torque for insurance purposes, are they still doing that? Edited August 28, 2017 by meyeste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted August 28, 2017 Author Share Posted August 28, 2017 The beauty of PTWA I believe is it's adaptability to the process of refurbishing cylinder wall surfaces of worn engines. In my opinion Ford had the best "remanufacturing" program in the business. I hope that this newish technology vaults them out front yet again. Winning! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 (edited) Sure it is dependable, but fuel economy is not one of its high points. Plus it is more expensive to build than a V8, even a larger displacement V8. Plus, it is simply "old". A lot of technology has gone by. Compare the current 5.0L with one of the 4V 4.6L modular engines. Even though the 5.0L is a direct descendant, it makes a lot more power. of course but perhaps frame of reference here is that while the 6.8 uses significant amounts of fuel, it delivers a lot more low end torque - up to 100 lb ft more than the 6.2 in the 2,000-3,000 zone. It's an engine brought back from the grave for a new purpose - easy gas sales in F650 and while it's more expensive to build than a V8, that has to be taken in context of that larger V8 already in existence and paid for. If you're starting from scratch funding development of a replacement V8, then there's a lot more expense to amortize than just the parts and machining = especially if the expected volume is on the low side.. We know there's a new large V8 coming but also, it's taken ages to get here thanks to business case and up front cost compared to rebirthing the 6,8 V10. Edited August 28, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 Why is it "non-remanufacturable"? There are plenty of articles that state that the PTWA process can be used on many different types of blocks and I would imagine re-spraying a block that was originally sprayed would be one of the least complicated to re-manufacture. The only reason that leaps to mind is the possible difficulty in getting a uniform spray on a damaged PTWA surface. If you do something to create local damage on a PTWA surface (eg, gouge it with a broken ring), can a process that is inherently designed to create a uniform surface deal with a significant imperfection in one area? Or maybe it's just too difficult to machine out the PTWA "sleeve." Then again, I'm not sure why manglement would care about an engine not being remanufacturable in the first place. IIRC, the sleeves in my LS's AJ V8 were cast into the block and couldn't be replaced... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 SoonerLS, perhaps its a combination of what you said and there are references that Caterpillar is using PTWA to reclaim parts so perhaps there's economy in re-manufacturing engines in the near future...which seems at odds with our disposable society. Perhaps it's just PR to open people's minds to the possibilities... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 I find that hard to believe ! Most engine now a day have iron liners. They are easily and cheaply replaced. Truth be told a not of newer-design alloy block engines are not rebuildable, their cast-in iron liners cannot be removed and are just too thin to cut. I suppose it's conceivable that the PTWA process can be re-applied to a used block provided the existing surface is not too worn or damaged. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 Ford using plasma to refurbish dead engines http://newatlas.com/ford-plasma-engine/40728/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 Perhaps it's just PR to open people's minds to the possibilities... Opening people's minds can be nearly impossible at times...especially around here. Must have something to do with preconceived notions. LOL. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted August 29, 2017 Author Share Posted August 29, 2017 Wow if you read that article it states you can refurbish other surfaces not just cylinder walls. That has incredible implications. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 Why is it "non-remanufacturable"? The beauty of PTWA I believe is it's adaptability to the process of refurbishing cylinder wall surfaces of worn engines. COST ! In my opinion Ford had the best "remanufacturing" program in the business. I hope that this newish technology vaults them out front yet again. Winning!Engine re-manufacturing is 100% out sourced. Those folks are not about to spend the money on a PTWA machine ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 Wow if you read that article it states you can refurbish other surfaces not just cylinder walls. PTWA is a "cousin" of Nikasil which is widely used as a way of re-plating the inside of hydraulic pump cylinders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted August 29, 2017 Author Share Posted August 29, 2017 COST !Engine re-manufacturing is 100% out sourced. Those folks are not about to spend the money on a PTWA machine ! Yes they are called "FAR"s or Ford Authorized Remanufacturer. There are some big players in this program. I'm confident that if Ford says you need PTWA that they would step up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30 OTT 6 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 Here's how I think the 4.8L V8 rumour was started. If you switch to the PTWA liners the aluminum block casting will need reduced bores compared to the cast iron liners to retain the same final displacement. So somebody saw a drawing for the new block casting with the reduced bores, did some math, and deduced a 4.8L Coyote was in the works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) PTWA is a "cousin" of Nikasil which is widely used as a way of re-plating the inside of hydraulic pump cylinders. One is electroplating, one is welding using plasma transfer tecchnique. They are only "cousins" in respect to their ability to reclaim a surface. Engine re-manufacturing is 100% out sourced. Those folks are not about to spend the money on a PTWA machine ! Just like body shops are not going to invest in aluminum repair tools.... Technology moves on and I suspect the buy in cost is now factored into a guaranteed supply contract so it probably makes sense to a limited number Ford's external contractors to sign up and earn profits. Edited August 29, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Yes they are called "FAR"s or Ford Authorized Remanufacturer. There are some big players in this program. I'm confident that if Ford says you need PTWA that they would step up. You used them much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted August 30, 2017 Author Share Posted August 30, 2017 You used them much? I worked in various Ford dealer parts departments for about 25 years so yes I have used them. In my opinion they were excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 I worked in various Ford dealer parts departments for about 25 years so yes I have used them. In my opinion they were excellent. I ask because I never used them (no opinion one way or the other) but I work with a guy that was a Ford dealer tech. for 25 or so years and he wouldn't touch them. My low opinion of 5.4L 3 valves in F-250's came from all the practice I got changing them out prematurely. We get most of our remans from LKQ. I think they are one of Ford's authorized remanufacturers: https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1031357-lkq-remanufactured-engine.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 We put a Ford Reman 4.6 in our company's Expedition in 2006. The truck had 142K on it (over heated when radiator hose blew and driver kept going). That 1999 Expedition now has 345K on it, and still running strong. No regrets from buying that engine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 I worked in various Ford dealer parts departments for about 25 years so yes I have used them (Ford Authorized Remanufacturer). In my opinion they were excellent. I think the warranty on the remanufactured transmissions is the best in the industry. 3/36K good at any dealer coast-to-coat ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 I think the warranty on the remanufactured transmissions is the best in the industry. 3/36K good at any dealer coast-to-coat ! Ours was 3 yrs 75K. That was in 2006 though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 I think the warranty on the remanufactured transmissions is the best in the industry. 3/36K good at any dealer coast-to-coat ! GM is 3/ 100k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted August 30, 2017 Author Share Posted August 30, 2017 Hey I thought this might be an interesting read on the subject. http://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=FR009 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Hey I thought this might be an interesting read on the subject. http://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=FR009 Fred Jones rebuilt the Autolite 4100 "crackerbox" carb on my '66 Galaxie's 390. Literally--there weren't any available, so they had to take in mine as a core to be able to reman it, resulting in me the same carb back from them. (Before it went to Fred Jones I had a lot of trouble with it. I even tried replacing it with a Holley 4bbl, but that POS had a bad habit of dumping gasoline onto the manifold instead of into it...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 The only reason that leaps to mind is the possible difficulty in getting a uniform spray on a damaged PTWA surface. If you do something to create local damage on a PTWA surface (eg, gouge it with a broken ring), can a process that is inherently designed to create a uniform surface deal with a significant imperfection in one area? I think the article sullynd referenced addresses that issue. Truth be told a not of newer-design alloy block engines are not rebuildable, their cast-in iron liners cannot be removed and are just too thin to cut. I suppose it's conceivable that the PTWA process can be re-applied to a used block provided the existing surface is not too worn or damaged. Same answer. To go one step further, there may be some misconception about how thick the PTWA "liner" can be made. So far on new aluminum block engines, Ford has purposely sprayed very thin liners as a means of overall engine weight reduction as compared to the same engine with a thicker traditional steel or iron liner. In a world where ounces matter in the effort to improve fuel economy, aluminum bodies and lighter engines make perfect sense. However, if the goal is to refurbish an aluminum engine with a cast-in steel or iron liner or even an old cast iron muscle car block that has been bored to it's limit and the water jackets are too thin, who's to say you can't spray the liner as thick as whatever is necessary to save the block? In the restoration world, saving a "numbers matching" engine block adds considerably to the value of the car, especially on rare and collectible models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Truth be told a not of newer-design alloy block engines are not rebuildable, their cast-in iron liners cannot be removed and are just too thin to cut. I am not an expert by a long way, but I don't think liners are ever cut, but they are typically replaceable. A few years ago, I met a gentlemen, friend of a friend, who had recently retired from Ford where he worked as the interface to most of the engine rebuilders who were under contract. They did not like the super-thin liners on the Coyote, but they replaced them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.