4.6 Question

[derek77]

My dad has a '95 ThunderChicken that, according to him, burns about a quart every 400 miles. I knew it burned oil but not to the extent of a quart every 400 miles.

I was driving behind him the other night and saw the car puff blue smoke when leaving stop signs or traffic lights. Now more and more I see T-birds, Cougars, Town Cars, CV, and any other car the 4.6 was put in smoking. Does any one know where the problem is originating from? Or is it not a problem that a finger can't be pointed at and it is a bunch of different things it could be? Any help would be great.

[Dr Caleb]

I'm not an authority, but after changing plugs on my CV this weekend, I'll throw in my $.02. My CV has the 4.6, with dual cams, dual distributors.

The plugs have to be the worse design I have ever seen. Being deep, and on top of the motor, coupled with poorly fitting boots over the plugs, the design lends itself to all kinds of things getting jammed in the spark plug holes.

I removed the boots and put on the spark plug socket, only to find I could not get a bite on the plug. I shone a flashlight down inside, to see the plug buried 3/4 in sand and dirt. No wonder the "Check Engine" light kept bugging me.

It took me about 30 minutes per plug to shop-vac the sand out of the holes, in order to get the plugs out. Now, I was extremely careful, but I still had some sand fall through the plug and on to a very black piston (other pistons were fine, and an extra 30 minutes to figure a way to get the sand out again...). That plug was particularaly fouled, and I feel that the last time someone changed the plugs, they weren't careful.

Sand in the cylynders is bad. My CV uses about 1 liter (quart) per 2 tanks (1000 km or ~600 miles) and I suspect sand in the cylynders from changing plugs is to blame.

[03SILVERSTREAK]

I Don't know if this response would Help but back about 3-Years ago when I had my 2000 Ford Crown Victoria-LX started with 10-Mil: to up to 88,458 Mil: with no smoke from the exhaust pipes and oil up to the dip stick level . I made sure that I changed the oil every 3-to 4-thousand miles intervals and I commuted 120 mil: round trip 5-days a week with no oil burning problems .

[Merc-O-matic]

I have a 1994 Lincoln Town Car with 4.6L
(281cid) SOHC, 210HP, Dual Exhaust with
over 100,000. miles on it. Never burned
or used a drop of oil. The tail pipes are so
clean you can rub the inside (no soot)
Oil has been changed every 3,000 miles
like clock work. At idle the engine is so
smooth, you don't know it's running.
Gotta Love it!

[LincMercLover]

I think a lot of the smoking 4.6's you see are those CV's, GM's, and TC's because of the simple fact that people buy them brand new and go cross country with them BRAND NEW. This doesn't allow for the valves to break in a seat properly, and over time, can cause oil consumption.

[SergntMac]

We have about 7000 CVPI on duty here in Chicago, 4/6 SOHC. The cars are driven hard from day 1, and I cannot recall ever seeing one puff blue smoke.

[Bigdogjim]

Come to think of it I don't recall seeing smoke when behind a local CVPI.

[RCSignals]

Originally posted by derek77
My dad has a '95 ThunderChicken that, according to him, burns about a quart every 400 miles. I knew it burned oil but not to the extent of a quart every 400 miles.

I was driving behind him the other night and saw the car puff blue smoke when leaving stop signs or traffic lights. Now more and more I see T-birds, Cougars, Town Cars, CV, and any other car the 4.6 was put in smoking. Does any one know where the problem is originating from? Or is it not a problem that a finger can't be pointed at and it is a bunch of different things it could be? Any help would be great.

First of all I don't believe you that "more and more I see T-birds, Cougars, Town Cars, CV, and any other car the 4.6 was put in smoking", because they don't.

As for your fathers oil problem. Some of the early '90s 4.6s had valve stem seals that would wear and cause oil seepage past the valves, and subsequent burning. The problem shouldn't be that bad though. Have him check the valve stem seals

The 4.6s as a rule do not "use" or "burn" oil.

Now if you were talking about chrysler mini-vans, and SBC, there would be no problem. Ever notice how SBC with dual exhaust almost always blow more blue smoke on the driver's side than the passenger side?

[jgc61sr2002]

I have to agree about the smoke. In NY most livery services use Town Cars or Older PI's. The tend to smoke more so than other cars. This is probably due to high mileage and poor service. As said many times before, frequent oil changes are the life blood of your vehicle.

[RCSignals]

John, many of those livery cars have up to, and some of them over, 300,000 miles on them. They are in a category all by themselves.

[RF Overlord]

Originally posted by Bigdogjim
Come to think of it I don't recall seeing smoke when behind a local CVPI.

The only time I worried was when I was smoking something in FRONT of a local CVPI...

D'OH!

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by RF Overlord
The only time I worried was when I was smoking something in FRONT of a local CVPI...D'OH!

Damn...Wish I has said that first!

[derek77]

Thanks for the replies folks! I guess? The oil is changed out every 3000 miles on it and the car is taken care of very well in my opinion. And I have to agree with Dr. Caleb on the spark plugs. The first time I changed them out I thought the same thing.

I liked your reply the best RCSignal. :up: First you said you didn't believe me when I said that I've seen more and more 4.6s smoking. Well, I should have been clearer on the that and said earlier 4.6s. But I have, mostly T-birds, Cougars, CV, and Town Cars because I think they were first to get it, if I'm not mistaken. But back to RC's reply. The next paragraph you said, "Some of the early '90s 4.6s had valve stem seals that would wear and cause oil seepage past the valves, and subsequent burning." But I thought you said they don't smoke from your first line?:confused: And the real kicker was when you said, "The 4.6s as a rule do not "use" or "burn" oil." But if you look at your other quote you said "subsequent burning". So which is it??:confused:

Sorry to bust your balls. I just thought it was funny.:lol:

But I am going to change out the valve seals on it and see what that does and go from there.

[RCSignals]

You try to be helpful

Read it again

Some of the early '90s 4.6s had valve stem seals that would wear and cause oil seepage past the valves, and subsequent burning. The problem shouldn't be that bad though

The 4.6s as a rule do not "use" or "burn" oil.

and I stand by because they don't as I have personally not seen one on the road "smoking"

You didn't answer about the sbc, which does smoke with regularity, and mostly from the left side with dual exhausts. :lol:


So, was it valve stem seals?

[derek77]

Originally posted by RCSignals


Some of the early '90s 4.6s had valve stem seals that would wear and cause oil seepage past the valves, and subsequent burning. The problem shouldn't be that bad though

The 4.6s as a rule do not "use" or "burn" oil.

and I stand by because they don't as I have personally not seen one on the road "smoking"

You didn't answer about the sbc, which does smoke with regularity, and mostly from the left side with dual exhausts. :lol:


So, was it valve stem seals?

Man you can’t be serious. I was trying to be funny with your statements the contradict themselves. You said 4.6s don’t burn or use oil, but then say some of the early '90s 4.6s had valve stem seals that would wear and cause oil seepage past the valves, and subsequent burning. Hold on a second. I thought the 4.6s don’t burn or use oil. Do you see what I’m talking about when you say one thing then negate it with another statement? Does anyone else see it or is it just me. Look, would it make you feel better if I were to get some video of the car smoking. Come on. I asked a simple question about the 4.6s and got Fords rule, Chevy sux answers.


You didn't answer about the sbc, which does smoke with regularity, and mostly from the left side with dual exhausts.

Ever notice how SBC with dual exhaust almost always blow more blue smoke on the driver's side than the passenger side?

I don’t know why some do. Do you? SBCs don’t smoke out the driver side more, though. My 77 Monte smoked out the passenger side.

Something else. Are you talking about the LT1 or the LS1, or are you comparing a smoking 4.6 to a smoking sbc from the 70s or 80s. I hope not. Comparing an 8 year old motor to one 20 years old or better is a bad comparison. My dad’s t-bird is a 95 with just turned over 100k. That’s sad to me that it already smokes and we’ve taken good care of it. Something else that just happen to the bird, the check engine light came on. I’m thinking the sensors in the exhaust are clogged setting off the check engine light. Which mean the cats could be clogged and cost big bucks to fix.

[RCSignals]

Come on. I asked a simple question about the 4.6s and got Fords rule, Chevy sux answers.

A little sensitive aren't we?

and yes, it is just you. :)

You did get answers to your 4.6 question. Was it the valve seals?

[Jeff]

I smoke out of the side window...:lol:

[RCSignals]

:lol: Jeff

[jerrym3]

My 94 TBird LX 4.6 has over 105,000 and does not smoke or burn oil. Changed oil and filter every 3,000 miles.

My 89 Towncar has 138,000 miles (302 V8) and does not smoke, but it just started leaking from the rear main seal. My local garage tried two different sealers and none worked. Any good suggestions, besides selling it and buying an MM?

Figured that with 138,000 miles on the car, I've changed the oil myself 46 times.

But nothing's worse than getting at the filter on the 4.6.

[RCSignals]

Best thing to fix a leaky rear main seal is to replace it. 138,000 miles represents a lot of wear on that poor little seal.

Of course a MM would be nice too :)

[jerrym3]

Car just runs too good to sell. It's become the "bumper" car, the one that gets packed with stuff for the shore, goes to the shopping center, or gets loaded with mulch.

I hear that it's a big job replacing the rear seal.

True?

[RCSignals]

To do it right, it involves engine removal and removal of the crank.

I know people who have done it with the engine in the car, but it's certainly not the best way. There are no quick fixes

[jerrym3]

RCSignals

In that case, it will just keep on leaking until it gets out of control and I trash the car. Car's not worth throwing a lot of money into, even though it runs/looks great and the trans was rebuilt about two years ago.