Head gasket time already?

[roaniecowpony]

True, but with VVT and VVL they can change timing umpteen different ways to compensate and avoid pre-det. Really just smells like build quality issues, either making the heads/blocks or assembling them.

Yeah, I've never been a fan of the "open deck" design. The stability of the cylinder at the top is critical for a seal and it sees the highest dynamic pressures and vibration from combustion.

Sponsored

 

[Franger]

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I've never been a fan of the "open deck" design. The stability of the cylinder at the top is critical for a seal and it sees the highest dynamic pressures and vibration from combustion.

I like this a lot. Thanks. I think there’s a significant number of things we can do to help these 3.6’s without worrying about loads. Mid-grade gas at a minimum, checking the coolant level more than once every 3mo, and potentially changing away from the 0w-20 rec (seriously, WTF, is this Antarctica?) are much more helpful than worrying if your gear is a bit heavy. It’s an engine. Proper lubrication and appropriate pressure mitigation means more than cycles. IMHO.

 

[roaniecowpony]

I like this a lot. Thanks. I think there’s a significant number of things we can do to help these 3.6’s without worrying about loads. Mid-grade gas at a minimum, checking the coolant level more than once every 3mo, and potentially changing away from the 0w-20 rec (seriously, WTF, is this Antarctica?) are much more helpful than worrying if your gear is a bit heavy. It’s an engine. Proper lubrication and appropriate pressure mitigation means more than cycles. IMHO.
[/QUOTE]

And, I'm now a big fan of the RPM Extreme fan controller. Lowered my coolant temps about 20F across the board. I also have the Mishimoto radiator, Gladiator 850W fan, and the Gladiator/392 grill mesh. My coolant temps are always in a comfortable range now.

 

[alphawolff]

BS meter is pegged. The reason people beef up drivetrains for off road vehicles is because of HOW the torque demands are being placed when rock crawling. Also for physical protection from obstacles but that’s another topic. It really doesn’t have anything to do with increased drivetrain mass via larger tires. The torque rating of an engine is the torque rating of an engine. Rock crawling places VERY unique demands on driveshafts and axles.

Also, to make an extremely important point, engines don’t have a clue what size your tires are or what your gearing is. ECU’s can be programmed for these changes for various reasons (speedometer, etc) but it doesn’t demonstrably change how the engine itself makes power. The engine “knows” fuel/air mixture and the associated rpm. That’s really it. You ask it to go via your foot, it obliges. Increased drivetrain mass takes more engine power to move due to inertia just as towing does.

To assert that large tires is somehow orders of magnitude harder on an engine than max towing is wildly inaccurate. Under certain circumstances, one or the other could be equally as harmful in the long term. Weight is weight. And yes, all weight on a vehicle isn’t created equal. But they aren’t orders of magnitude different.

All that to say, head gaskets aren’t blowing due to 37s. /rant

Please look into the difference between un-sprung weight, sprung weight, and rotational weight. Reducing rotational weight is the most important factor in drivetrain performance by orders of magnitude. It's why a lot of high end sport cars have carbon fiber driveshafts; every pound counts. I understand what you're trying to say, but you're in the wrong ballpark here.

To put things in perceptive take a jeep with 33s and 37s (even properly geared) then drive them back to back. The 33s will have significantly improved acceleration, handling, and stopping performance. Even disregarding that butt-dyno feel, go ahead and put them on a dynometer. You will find the 37s to have significantly reduced power output measured at the wheels compared to the 33s due to much higher drivetrain loss.

Adding as little as 10lbs a corner is like hooking up a 2000lb trailer on the back. Obviously these number ratios are made up, but you get the idea.

And onto the head gasket thing, technically increased drivetrain load required the engine to work harder, which in turn increases engine temperatures. It's why we see a lot of 2.0s overheating driving up mountains. That isn't why 3.6L gaskets are blowing all the time, but important to keep in mind.

 

[Franger]

Please look into the difference between un-sprung weight, sprung weight, and rotational weight. Reducing rotational weight is the most important factor in drivetrain performance by orders of magnitude. It's why a lot of high end sport cars have carbon fiber driveshafts; every pound counts. I understand what you're trying to say, but you're in the wrong ballpark here.

To put things in perceptive take a jeep with 33s and 37s (even properly geared) then drive them back to back. The 33s will have significantly improved acceleration, handling, and stopping performance. Even disregarding that butt-dyno feel, go ahead and put them on a dynometer. You will find the 37s to have significantly reduced power output measured at the wheels compared to the 33s due to much higher drivetrain loss.

Adding as little as 10lbs a corner is like hooking up a 2000lb trailer on the back. Obviously these number ratios are made up, but you get the idea.

I shouldn’t have said “BS meter is pegged”. That was a harsh characterization. We are more close than apart on our assertions. I know from experience—and there’s research on this—that one pound on your foot is like five on your back for hiking and backcountry skiing. My mountain bike reacts significantly to a tire that weighs a few hundred grams more than whether or not I take a dump before I ride. I get it.

I just want to stress that, in the context of the head gasket issue, what we are asking of our engines based upon towing or more robust offroad driveline gear is likely immaterial. Extra load is extra load. Rolling up the Ike on 37s OR with 3000lbs behind you is very hard on these engines.

What I am trying to say is that changing your use for the vehicle based upon the head gasket issue (not towing or not getting proper off road tires) isn’t exactly what I’d call a smart choice.

 

[mwilk012]

got a call yesterday, "some" goodwill was offered, I am still required to pay almost $600 out of pocket. Better than a stick in the eye. Told them go ahead and replace the head gaskets.

I don't fully understand why I have to cough up anything for a defect that is known. Hopefully this repair will not be a Band-Aid. A little nervous take any long trips after this.. I guess time will tell.

fingers crossed

That’s not bad at all.

 

[bikenutty]

well I got the Rubicon back, Just under $600 out of pocket. I was told cyls 3 and 6 has gasket failure.

I was also told the new head gaskets are thicker than original.

Runs good again, although no significant driving has occurred yet, the same day I got the Jeep back I traded my Raptor for a 2025 Rebel.

 

[Odyssey USA]

well I got the Rubicon back, Just under $600 out of pocket. I was told cyls 3 and 6 has gasket failure.

I was also told the new head gaskets are thicker than original.

Runs good again, although no significant driving has occurred yet, the same day I got the Jeep back I traded my Raptor for a 2025 Rebel.

Been a minute, I know but I just saw a vid from a popular YouTube shop that was tearing down a promaster van engine and showed the MLS was only 2 layers?

I never would’ve thought that having only seen 3 layer. I even used them on my cast iron 408 SBM and the guys around me used them on their LS’s. 3 layers…. and the middle was basically a flat shim.

Anyway, are the new gaskets thicker? Is it because they added a layer? Anyone got a pic?

Sponsored