>I will soon be changing my 2000 V8 plugs (82K). If I use anti-seize on the
>plug threads, will it prevent plugs from being 'welded' into block?
> >Is it advisable to use anti-seize for spark plus?
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kind of off topic. I just changed the plugs on my 99 XLT. I had gotten
some anti-seize compound on my concrete driveway. Whats the best way
to clean it off?
Ashton Crusher - 14 Jul 2007 18:46 GMT
>> >Is it advisable to use anti-seize for spark plus?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>some anti-seize compound on my concrete driveway. Whats the best way
>to clean it off?
I don't really know. I'd try gasoline or brake cleaner spray.
newman - 14 Jul 2007 20:13 GMT
hand cleaner??
On Jul 14, 1:57 am, Ashton Crusher <d...@moore.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:30:32 GMT, "newman" <st74du...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kind of off topic. I just changed the plugs on my 99 XLT. I had gotten
some anti-seize compound on my concrete driveway. Whats the best way
to clean it off?
Mikepier - 15 Jul 2007 13:22 GMT
I'll give it a shot. thanks
>>Is it advisable to use anti-seize for spark plus?
>
> Yes.
Ford does not recommend anti-seize. I just finished changing a set of plugs
on a 2001 Sport Trac (4.0L SOHC V-6). Several of the plugs were difficult to
reach, but none were seized. I reveiwed th Ford shop manual and there was no
mention of anti-seive. The OE plugs did not appear to be coated (although
after 7 years and 112k miles I suppose it would not be apparent). Since the
OE plugs looked Ok after 112K miles, I doubt they will ever be changed
again, so I prefer to not go against Ford's recommendation. Autoilite
specifically states that spark plugs should be installed with clean dry
threads and specifically recommends against the use of anti-seize.
Ed
>>I will soon be changing my 2000 V8 plugs (82K). If I use anti-seize on
>>the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>>Thanks-this group is a real help to me!
newman - 15 Jul 2007 21:37 GMT
Well, I researched a little further. The Motorcraft site recommends
anti-seize compound for aluminum cylinder heads.
Does my 2000 5.0 have aluminum heads?
What is Jim's opinion on this??
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:30:32 GMT, "newman" <st74dummy@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Is it advisable to use anti-seize for spark plus?
>
> Yes.
Ford does not recommend anti-seize. I just finished changing a set of plugs
on a 2001 Sport Trac (4.0L SOHC V-6). Several of the plugs were difficult to
reach, but none were seized. I reveiwed th Ford shop manual and there was no
mention of anti-seive. The OE plugs did not appear to be coated (although
after 7 years and 112k miles I suppose it would not be apparent). Since the
OE plugs looked Ok after 112K miles, I doubt they will ever be changed
again, so I prefer to not go against Ford's recommendation. Autoilite
specifically states that spark plugs should be installed with clean dry
threads and specifically recommends against the use of anti-seize.
Ed
>>I will soon be changing my 2000 V8 plugs (82K). If I use anti-seize on
>>the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>>Thanks-this group is a real help to me!
Ashton Crusher - 15 Jul 2007 22:26 GMT
>>>Is it advisable to use anti-seize for spark plus?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>specifically states that spark plugs should be installed with clean dry
>threads and specifically recommends against the use of anti-seize.
The shop manual for my 99 is silent on the subject. It also says
nothing about a torque spec. Nor does it suggest putting dielectric
grease on the boot. At some point you can't put every tiny thing
someone should know or do in every spot in the manual. On aluminum
head engines I think it would be foolish to not use anti-seize.
Ed White - 16 Jul 2007 22:17 GMT
> The shop manual for my 99 is silent on the subject. It also says
> nothing about a torque spec. Nor does it suggest putting dielectric
> grease on the boot. At some point you can't put every tiny thing
> someone should know or do in every spot in the manual. On aluminum
> head engines I think it would be foolish to not use anti-seize
I just looked at the Ford Service DVD for a 1999 Explorer - it
specified a torque of 13 lb-ft for the SOHC and 15 lb-ft for the OHC.
The use of dielectric grease was mentioned in both the text and in the
items required sections for both engines. There is no mention of anti-
seive anywhere in the sprak plug replacement sections (SOHC or OHC)
and it was not list in the items required sections. If you send me
your email address I'd be happy to email you PDFs of the procedures
from the service DVD.
Ed
Ashton Crusher - 17 Jul 2007 07:02 GMT
>> The shop manual for my 99 is silent on the subject. It also says
>> nothing about a torque spec. Nor does it suggest putting dielectric
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Ed
I believe you. The point is, there is not unanimity even within Fords
own publications. The 99 I was referring to was my 99 GT with the
4.6L.
C. E. White - 17 Jul 2007 16:05 GMT
>>> The shop manual for my 99 is silent on the subject. It also says
>>> nothing about a torque spec. Nor does it suggest putting
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> own publications. The 99 I was referring to was my 99 GT with the
> 4.6L.
I'll check my shop manual for a '99 4.6L tonight. I have the manual
for a '00 4.6L here and anti-seize is not called for. The torque is
specified as 20 Nm (15 lb-ft) and the dielectric grease is listed in
the items required box. There is no mention of anti-seize.
I also sent a question to NGK about anti-seize and got the following
response:
.....
Ed,
It is typically not recommended to use anti-seize with our plugs as
the compound can act as a lubricant during tightening and cause
excessive torque and possibly plug failure even if the correct torque
is seen with the torque wrench.
The trivalent metal coating (zinc chromate) that is on our plugs is a
very non corrosive/resistant metal and is usually all that is needed
to resist corrosion and seizure. If it is an application where there
may be a lot of water getting into the plug socket or the vehicle is
known for corrosion or seizing plugs then I would suggest to use a
very small amount of anti seize and be cautious when tightening so as
not to over torque. Hope this helps, thank you.
Best regards,
Brandon Peeler
Technical Support Representative
Aftermarket Division
NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), INC.
........
So I guess this is a mixed message. It seems like NGK is saying, you
don't need anti-seize, but you can use anti-seize if you want to and
if you are careful. Autolite was more negative, saying not to use
anti-seize, but their concern was excessive anti-seize contaminating
the insulator and shorting out the plug.
Ed
C. E. White - 18 Jul 2007 05:20 GMT
>>>> The shop manual for my 99 is silent on the subject. It also says
>>>> nothing about a torque spec. Nor does it suggest putting dielectric
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
>
> Ed
I looked in the shop manual for a 1999 Mustang 4.6L (2V and 4V) and it
mentions neither dielectric grease or anti-seize compound. A torque for the
plugs is listed. Strangley, in the 3.8L V-6 section of the same model year,
the dielectric grease was called out, but still no mention of anti-seize
compound. If you look in the manual for a 1998 Mustang, the use of
dielectric grease is called for, but it is in the ignition wire section
(which is referenced by the spark plug removal/installation section).
Apparently who ever worte the spark plug and/or coil on plug sections for
the 1999 manual forgot to include a mention of the dielectric grease in one
section or the other. Still after looking through multiple models and
multiple years, I find no mention of the use of anti-seize compund on the
plugs.
Ed
Ashton Crusher - 18 Jul 2007 06:36 GMT
>>>>> The shop manual for my 99 is silent on the subject. It also says
>>>>> nothing about a torque spec. Nor does it suggest putting dielectric
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>
>Ed
I think the best solution is to put anti-seize on the plugs that fire
odd number cylinders.