2006 Head gasket replaced @ 28,000

[landthos]

Now please somebody tell me how much a 18wheeler loaded with pipe weighes. Because Ford is telling us it's ok to pull this much weight in there latest commercial with the ambulance in the tunnel.


it's my .03

[444turbodiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
Now please somebody tell me how much a 18wheeler loaded with pipe weighes. Because Ford is telling us it's ok to pull this much weight in there latest commercial with the ambulance in the tunnel.


it's my .03

[/ QUOTE ]

Cute, unfortunately the marketing department is not where you want to be getting your advice from...[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img]

[landthos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now please somebody tell me how much a 18wheeler loaded with pipe weighes. Because Ford is telling us it's ok to pull this much weight in there latest commercial with the ambulance in the tunnel.


it's my .03

[/ QUOTE ]

Cute, unfortunately the marketing department is not where you want to be getting your advice from...[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to be cute nor am I saying that we should get any info from any marketing dept. I'll leave it at that.. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smokin.gif[/img]

[Shadow_Grey]

Probably in an emergency, for a short duration, fairly cool conditions it doesn't take much for a lot of weight like a big rig to be moved. It's not like they were trying to pull it across the country or something like that.

I would try it at least once...just think about the truck pullers pulling a sled. A lot of stock class trucks running in the county fairs.

[moabtj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they questioned me about a chip... I denied it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, c'mon.....It's reasons like this that are a contributing cause to the ever increasing cost of warranty work. IMHO you should've paid the repair cost as I believe the programmer plus overloading was the direct cause of your overheating. What can I say, this is my own opinion and wouldn't hold water to anything right now, but I sure hope I don't see you on any roads around my area. If so, you'll soon have a trooper pulling you over. And yes, I've seen MVAs that were results from dumba$$'s who thought they could safely pull an overweighted load. It should've been their responsibility to tell the kid's parents that they were the reason their child was no longer with us instead of having a doctor do it. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/vomit.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
I am very lucky, I don't know if the hyperpac will be making its way back into the truck...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd bet a buffalo nickel that it will once the truck doesn't pull that big of a load like it "used to". [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/vomit.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

OK im getting to the point were im calling people out on what they think about matters and subjects. And before I get into this im not gonna say that the programmer didnt contribute to the failure.

WHY on earth would overloading the TRUCK make the engine at fault.

IF the engine cant handle a 95% load factor for more than 5 minutes than its a absolute POS end of story.

Only thing towing heavy does is make the engine work at RATED hp.

Can you please explain to me how you get at RATED horsepower???????

Doesnt matter if hes a GVWR or 30,000 OVER GVWR the engine will ONLY do what its RATED to do. PERIOD.

I see alot of people BLAIMING the engine failures on a overloaded truck, this theroy may have been true back in the older carb. gas engine days but these are ELECTRONIC Diesel engines.


DUDE, give all us here that do this $#%^ for a living a break.

[/ QUOTE ]



THANK YOU... Some of these guys use thier powerstroke diesels for going down to walwart and getting a christmas tree, and I know over half have never even pulled a trailer in thier life.

[catdiesel0631]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WHY on earth would overloading the TRUCK make the engine at fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> I don't know...let's see...maybe because the engine was DESIGNED to only pull a limited amount of weight. </font>

NO(to an extent but with exceptions). Engines are NOT designed around weight limits LOL Take a CAT for instance LOL. You can have one that has a HP rating of 300hp and one of a 600HP they BOTH are GVWR'ed at 80,000lbs [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shrug.gif[/img]

</font>

Well one of the exceptions that comes to mind is this: the Kenworth T800 Wide Hood Heavy Hauls that I sell the heck out of over here, I can spec the C-15 625 hp up to 80K GCWR but only a max of 550 hp for over 80K. I can use up to 550hp up to 210K and then it goes down again. Why? Cause the engine will overheat and the CAC can not flow the elevated boost levels that come about when a load of this magnitude is hauled.

To say that GCW and engine load are not intimatedly related shows a lack of... well a lack of something.

[/ QUOTE ]



Suns ill take that personal,

you my non-friend are nothing more than a brochure reading pencil pusher that doesnt have the FOGGIEST idea [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ExR90]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah dont feel bad my 06' has been in the shop 9 times for oil leaks with only 9,000 miles on the clock. Head gaskets and Rocker gaskets twice. I dont know what to do with it anymore. It seems everytime the dealer touches it the truck gets slower and slower. I would like to add a programer but this thing wont stay together stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same boat here...

[navistar45]

is the man over loading the truck according to manufactors specs? yes,is it wise to pull that kind of weight with his drive train setup,no. the drivetrain is really being stressed,but the engine should be the strongest link in the chain,and the last to give problems.i have pulled[still do] loads like that many a mile behind lesser a truck,with no issues.what really suprises me is that the dealer didnt throw up a red flag because of the overloading..

[a94cobra]

Doesn't International use the 6.0 in their tractors-trucks. And they are pulling big trailers. Don't know what weight rating those are at, but it can't be that light.

The motor really wouldn't be overloaded by that much weight. The truck is. Size of the pulling machine that would be in question. But that isn't what broke. It was the motor.

[ryandye]

As far as I know the VT365 is only available in the 4200 series truck, which is a medium-duty chassis - hardly a "tractor".

[a94cobra]

But carries a heavier load routinely than F-250's. Yes?

[365turbodiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
But carries a heavier load routinely than F-250's. Yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but has a lower hp rating and a much larger coolant system.

The coolant systems in the MD trucks are designed to operate with the engine at near 100% duty cycle, which is also why the engines are de-rated, to increase their duty cycle so they can be run at WOT for unlimited periods.

Our engines are NOT medium duty rated (low duty cycle at rated hp) and neither are our coolant systems, which is why overloading (or increasing power output) with them can have negative consequences.

[a94cobra]

Ok, I follow you.

But, isn't there always one. The truck(F-250) should be able to pull the load in question, when the MD trucks are carrying double that?

Or should we ask what 100% is to him?

[365turbodiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I follow you.

But, isn't there always one. The truck(F-250) should be able to pull the load in question, when the MD trucks are carrying double that?

Or should we ask what 100% is to him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say if he was grossing &lt;25K in a stock truck he probably wouldn't have a problem (I've been much heavier with my 7.3 SRW)

BUT he's running 37" tires with (I'm guessing) the wrong gear ratio so the engine is not running in it's designed operating range for that amount of weight.

It's not an question of whether or not the engine can pull the load, it's at what rpm it needs to run to pull it and remain within it's duty cycle.

My new '07 is rated for 26K, but it has 4.30 gears and 31" tires (stock)
If he were to increase (numerically) his gear ratio (in his case it should be 4.88's) the truck would perform much better.

As far as the headgaskets, I haven't seen where he's stated his build date, after 1/06 all 6.0's got upgraded gaskets/heads/bolts so he might be dealing with a defect there (which if he weren't running grossly overweight, might not have been an issue)

I think with the known problems with headgaskets, overloading early 6.0's should be done with the same caution as installing hp upgrades.
Or at least with the knowledge a gear swap is probably going to be necessary.

[moabtj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I follow you.

But, isn't there always one. The truck(F-250) should be able to pull the load in question, when the MD trucks are carrying double that?

Or should we ask what 100% is to him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say if he was grossing &lt;25K in a stock truck he probably wouldn't have a problem (I've been much heavier with my 7.3 SRW)

BUT he's running 37" tires with (I'm guessing) the wrong gear ratio so the engine is not running in it's designed operating range for that amount of weight.

It's not an question of whether or not the engine can pull the load, it's at what rpm it needs to run to pull it and remain within it's duty cycle.

My new '07 is rated for 26K, but it has 4.30 gears and 31" tires (stock)
If he were to increase (numerically) his gear ratio (in his case it should be 4.88's) the truck would perform much better.

As far as the headgaskets, I haven't seen where he's stated his build date, after 1/06 all 6.0's got upgraded gaskets/heads/bolts so he might be dealing with a defect there (which if he weren't running grossly overweight, might not have been an issue)

I think with the known problems with headgaskets, overloading early 6.0's should be done with the same caution as installing hp upgrades.
Or at least with the knowledge a gear swap is probably going to be necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]


The Build date on my truck was 12/05. So maybe that was the problem