3.6 Reliability Issues Resolved ?

[jwolfejt]

Wow!
There may have been some folks thinking you might need an intervention................LOL!

Posts such as yours may bring some owners' anxiety down to a negligible level.
Thanks!

I think most of us here are in need of an intervention - my M1097R1 (HMMWV) - getting a new top - repainting it - maintenance and will see how it does on the trails.

Sponsored

 

[hayduke-TX]

I've put 120k miles on a F150 in 2 years - it was still running fine - however I wasn't going to take a gamble -

That was a smart move if it was the Ecoboost.

 

[oldironsights]

One of the easiest vehicles to do an oil change on.

Again just to be clear - I NEVER had an issue with any 3.6 i've had if anything I've always thought of them to be pretty stellar/reliable engines - my only gripes about them is the low end tq isn't really there and it feels more like a sports car engine. I have seen several in person reach well beyond 200k miles (original engines) - I never heard of a cam phaser issue and till i started reading through threads again.

Yes, the engine oil filter is convenient. Looks just like the one in my former 2015 VW EA888 1.8 TSI gasoline engine.
I agree with your assessment that the 3.6 is an automotive engine; NOT ideal for a truck.
I prefer pushrod V8 engines for trucks. I just prefer harvesting low rpm torque rather than the high hopes of a screaming V6.
My two most recent previous trucks were a 19 coyote F150 XL & a 96 GMC Seirra Z71 with fore & aft lockers, 5 speed manual mission & L31 engine. I HATED that L31!
Before that, I owned a 02 Dodge 1500 with 4.7 V8. That was NOT an overwhelming engine, but it carried me & my stuff over 200k miles without trouble.
The 3.6 would be very entertaining in a 3200 lb car with a row-your-own mission.
Dual exhaust sounds sweet on the V6, but just doesn't sound right arriving @ your ears from a passing truck.

 

[oldironsights]

Another WOW!
OUTF(oops)Standing!

I think most of us here are in need of an intervention - my M1097R1 (HMMWV) - getting a new top - repainting it - maintenance and will see how it does on the trails.

Some of the ex sailors & others I train with have these equipped with big & small block gm engines.
They can keep up with fast moving traffic & even pass some.
Much better than the NA 6.2 oil burner.
Love the riveted aluminum construction!
I bucked rivets in the Navy on Viet-nam era A7 Bravo's & later Echo's..

 

[jwolfejt]

Another WOW!
OUTF(oops)Standing!

I think most of us here are in need of an intervention - my M1097R1 (HMMWV) - getting a new top - repainting it - maintenance and will see how it does on the trails.

Some of the ex sailors & others I train with have these equipped with big & small block gm engines.
They can keep up with fast moving traffic & even pass some.
Much better than the NA 6.2 oil burner.
Love the riveted aluminum construction!
I bucked rivets in the Navy on Viet-nam era A7 Bravo's & later Echo's..

Seen them on base and ridden in them before - they are far from comfortable and give you an appreciation for the folks in our service for sure. The best thing you can say is its kinda better than walking (in terms of comfort) - this has the 6.5 - but still a 3 speed (non turbo) it is dog slow - supposedly if you keep them from overheating they will run forever. I am more interested in a O/D transmission (either 700R4 or 4L80E) than anything else at this point at 55mph it feels like its breaking the sound barrier. They are also loud (0 sound insulation) - but supposedly they are very competent off-road - really good payload/towing capacity for what it is.

 

[BearFootSam]

Seen them on base and ridden in them before - they are far from comfortable and give you an appreciation for the folks in our service for sure. The best thing you can say is its kinda better than walking (in terms of comfort) - this has the 6.5 - but still a 3 speed (non turbo) it is dog slow - supposedly if you keep them from overheating they will run forever. I am more interested in a O/D transmission (either 700R4 or 4L80E) than anything else at this point at 55mph it feels like its breaking the sound barrier. They are also loud (0 sound insulation) - but supposedly they are very competent off-road - really good payload/towing capacity for what it is.

They’re good off-road if you have a shit ton of room. The width is a major issue. We had a stellar off-road course in Germany with a rock garden and a water crossing that we regularly drove during PMT.

They are miserable on the road, loud, poor handling, shit brakes.

 

[jwolfejt]

They’re good off-road if you have a shit ton of room. The width is a major issue. We had a stellar off-road course in Germany with a rock garden and a water crossing that we regularly drove during PMT.

They are miserable on the road, loud, poor handling, shit brakes.

The seating positions are very cramped - there is room - but its meant more for radios and other equipment the military would use (i.e. payload). From what I have seen they are absolute monsters off-road (not first hand account). Sure 37's aren't a big deal in the Jeep world (stock HMMWV tire fitment) but the ground clearance is spectacular - there is nothing obstructing under the vehicle - everything is tucked high up in the body - its got a LCG compared to say your typical off-roader. Excellent approach/departure (And even breakover angles considering its length). Even if you do pull a tire (which you will) - it's not as tipsy as other off-roaders (again due to the LCG). Jeep's tackle that tipping problem via articulation.

Either way its not an apples to apples comparison by any stretch - a new Jeep has A/C, awesome heat, heated seats - great water/weather sealing - HMMWV's DO NOT - even with a new top/doors etc. They do not ride bad - especially if you ditch the military run flats and run commercial wheels/tires.

It's slightly more narrow than a F150 Raptor - but definitely wider than a JL/JT. However on tight trails side by sides rule the roost by far nowadays.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I prefer pushrod V8 engines for trucks. I just prefer harvesting low rpm torque rather than the high hopes of a screaming V6.

What advantage would pushrods have over 4 valve/cylinder OHC engines?

 

[oldironsights]

Low speed torque.
Every pushrod OHV engine I have owned had grunt right off idle with the only exception I remember being one with low compression.
My 4.7 mini magnum nor my Coyote had the grunt of a 5.7 hemi off idle.
Pulling a trailer with the 4.7 was as pleasant as a double root canal.
Engine revving & shifting so much, conversation was difficult.
Just my old school preference.

 

[rhaney02]

I think most of us here are in need of an intervention - my M1097R1 (HMMWV) - getting a new top - repainting it - maintenance and will see how it does on the trails.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Low speed torque.
Every pushrod OHV engine I have owned had grunt right off idle with the only exception I remember being one with low compression.
My 4.7 mini magnum nor my Coyote had the grunt of a 5.7 hemi off idle.
Pulling a trailer with the 4.7 was as pleasant as a double root canal.
Engine revving & shifting so much, conversation was difficult.
Just my old school preference.

That's nothing to do with cam-in-block overhead valve pushrod engines.
It's just that happens to be what the torquey engines were that you drove.
Some companies make OHC engines with good low-end torque. It's a matter of what's the main purpose or goal of the engine - mpg and high RPM power dictate OHC. But they can build OHC to get the same type of low end torque.

There's a lot of talk on such things over on BITOG forums with some examples of low-end torque OHC engines.

 

[oldironsights]

Low speed torque.
Every pushrod OHV engine I have owned had grunt right off idle with the only exception I remember being one with low compression.
My 4.7 mini magnum nor my Coyote had the grunt of a 5.7 hemi off idle.
Pulling a trailer with the 4.7 was as pleasant as a double root canal.
Engine revving & shifting so much, conversation was difficult.
Just my old school preference.

 

[jwolfejt]

Lol - i don't have a Hummer. Funny you mention it (that is a HMMWV) - I remember back in the day one of the cool things to do was to slap on HMMWV tail lights on a JK. Not getting into the Jeep vs Hummer thing - if you asked Hummer folks - they would say Hummer's are like Jeeps but for men. Carry on bud.

 

[jwolfejt]

Low speed torque.
Every pushrod OHV engine I have owned had grunt right off idle with the only exception I remember being one with low compression.
My 4.7 mini magnum nor my Coyote had the grunt of a 5.7 hemi off idle.
Pulling a trailer with the 4.7 was as pleasant as a double root canal.
Engine revving & shifting so much, conversation was difficult.
Just my old school preference.

Because they were camm'd that way a pushrod ohv engine has to make compromises - you have less finite valve control - so (especially in trucks) the cam profile is more suited to that. Drive a Cummins truck and if you truly love low end tq - you will not want to drive anything else (they make pushrod v8's look anemic in that regards).

 

[Mad Mac]

I could be wrong, I often am,
but I think the low end torque
comes from the longer stroke
that most push rod engines had.
Not from placement of camshafts.

The newer OHC engines
are typically short stroked
and high revving.

An old hot rodder trick
was to build a stroker motor
with longer crank arms
longer connecting rods
and shorter pistons.
This increased displacement
without boring out the cylinders
and improved grunt off the line.

Sponsored