Ford Ecoboost Engine Failure (TWICE)
Discussion
skyrover said:
At the end of the day, turbo motors will never match the equivalent N/A motor in the reliability stakes.
More moving parts = more to go wrong. Sods law states this will be the case.
The fact that engines are coming from the factory in an ever higher state of tune only add's to the risk.
Total and utter bMore moving parts = more to go wrong. Sods law states this will be the case.
The fact that engines are coming from the factory in an ever higher state of tune only add's to the risk.
ks. I have been using turbocharged engine for nearly 25 years and I can think of 3 turbo failures, one of on a machine that got plain neglected and also went porous like 2 of the other machine (that were naturally aspirated) with the same engines on the fleet and the other 2 failures were on machine (of the same brand) that by their nature did a lot of start-full load-stop type work.
We have 2 machines at work that are the same virtually identical save for a few updates and one has a turbo. The turbo charged machine is 2 years younger, has about 2000 more engine hours more power and runs much better. The bulk of turbo charged engines have to work bloody hard for their living, while car engines get a very easy ride.
All this crap about engines in a higher state of tune is just that - crap. Engineers find ways to extract more power from the same displacement all of the time, so engine get more powerfull. Those Eco Boost engines will have been put through the same duty cycle testing as all of Fords other engines. They've placed a big bet on them and I doubt they will sit back and watch them all grenade themselves.
Willy Nilly said:
Total and utter bks.
I have been using turbocharged engine for nearly 25 years and I can think of 3 turbo failures, one of on a machine that got plain neglected and also went porous like 2 of the other machine (that were naturally aspirated) with the same engines on the fleet and the other 2 failures were on machine (of the same brand) that by their nature did a lot of start-full load-stop type work.
We have 2 machines at work that are the same virtually identical save for a few updates and one has a turbo. The turbo charged machine is 2 years younger, has about 2000 more engine hours more power and runs much better. The bulk of turbo charged engines have to work bloody hard for their living, while car engines get a very easy ride.
All this crap about engines in a higher state of tune is just that - crap. Engineers find ways to extract more power from the same displacement all of the time, so engine get more powerfull. Those Eco Boost engines will have been put through the same duty cycle testing as all of Fords other engines. They've placed a big bet on them and I doubt they will sit back and watch them all grenade themselves.
Rubbish ks. I have been using turbocharged engine for nearly 25 years and I can think of 3 turbo failures, one of on a machine that got plain neglected and also went porous like 2 of the other machine (that were naturally aspirated) with the same engines on the fleet and the other 2 failures were on machine (of the same brand) that by their nature did a lot of start-full load-stop type work.
We have 2 machines at work that are the same virtually identical save for a few updates and one has a turbo. The turbo charged machine is 2 years younger, has about 2000 more engine hours more power and runs much better. The bulk of turbo charged engines have to work bloody hard for their living, while car engines get a very easy ride.
All this crap about engines in a higher state of tune is just that - crap. Engineers find ways to extract more power from the same displacement all of the time, so engine get more powerfull. Those Eco Boost engines will have been put through the same duty cycle testing as all of Fords other engines. They've placed a big bet on them and I doubt they will sit back and watch them all grenade themselves.
SV8Predator said:
Yes, there are a few changes to the pipes and hoses, but the one you show above is an even smaller bore than the original. That would only cause even more problems.
The Technician implied that the hose I pointed to was the new replacement one, so that will be the basis of my complaint and appeal to Ford.
Willy Nilly said:
....I doubt they will sit back and watch them all grenade themselves.
Have to agree with you.Back to the OP's problem:
A small hose that goes to the coolant expansion tank fails and this causes the engine to need replacing. Sounds odd to me.
But, the car doesn't have a water temperature gauge? Just a warning light?
I'm old enough to remember water temp gauges that only work if the sender is in water.
Maybe the warning light has the same 'problem'?
Whatever, I do think that the OP has a good case for Ford to do the right thing, replace the engine and anything else that will prevent the same thing happening again, free of charge.
53catalina said:
It is the same pipe. It enters the header tank just under the two thinner pipes, which also take a different route. The connection onto the engine is also slightly different, but the location is the same.
If the original version was good, then why would it have been re-engineered???
I'm pretty sure it isn't. The original header tank has one rubber hose and two plastic hoses, and the later version has....one rubber hose and two plastic hoses and they all attach to the header tank in the same locations. One plastic pipe and the rubber pipe are simply routed differently.If the original version was good, then why would it have been re-engineered???
It's possible that the problem was caused by the routing of the original pipe, which would explain why this has changed, but it doesn't seem like a material problem otherwise they wouldn't still be using the plastic hoses.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Thursday 25th September 00:09
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but here in the USA, the Ecoboost has a generally good reputation, but its also known to have a fair number of failures. Seems that in the bigger engines there are issues with the turbo and the heads. Seems to be a big thing for quite a few people and affects the smaller 2.0 as well as the big 3.5 twin turbo too. Causing issues for Ford but not sure what this means.
Willy Nilly said:
Total and utter bks.
I have been using turbocharged engine for nearly 25 years and I can think of 3 turbo failures, one of on a machine that got plain neglected and also went porous like 2 of the other machine (that were naturally aspirated) with the same engines on the fleet and the other 2 failures were on machine (of the same brand) that by their nature did a lot of start-full load-stop type work.
We have 2 machines at work that are the same virtually identical save for a few updates and one has a turbo. The turbo charged machine is 2 years younger, has about 2000 more engine hours more power and runs much better. The bulk of turbo charged engines have to work bloody hard for their living, while car engines get a very easy ride.
All this crap about engines in a higher state of tune is just that - crap. Engineers find ways to extract more power from the same displacement all of the time, so engine get more powerfull. Those Eco Boost engines will have been put through the same duty cycle testing as all of Fords other engines. They've placed a big bet on them and I doubt they will sit back and watch them all grenade themselves.
Sorry mate but your wrong... better engineering can reduce the risk but the fact remains, more moving parts, more complexity, higher state of tune = more risk of failure.ks. I have been using turbocharged engine for nearly 25 years and I can think of 3 turbo failures, one of on a machine that got plain neglected and also went porous like 2 of the other machine (that were naturally aspirated) with the same engines on the fleet and the other 2 failures were on machine (of the same brand) that by their nature did a lot of start-full load-stop type work.
We have 2 machines at work that are the same virtually identical save for a few updates and one has a turbo. The turbo charged machine is 2 years younger, has about 2000 more engine hours more power and runs much better. The bulk of turbo charged engines have to work bloody hard for their living, while car engines get a very easy ride.
All this crap about engines in a higher state of tune is just that - crap. Engineers find ways to extract more power from the same displacement all of the time, so engine get more powerfull. Those Eco Boost engines will have been put through the same duty cycle testing as all of Fords other engines. They've placed a big bet on them and I doubt they will sit back and watch them all grenade themselves.
skyrover said:
Sorry mate but your wrong... better engineering can reduce the risk but the fact remains, more moving parts, more complexity, higher state of tune = more risk of failure.
Obviously right - this is why supercar engines (which share a lot of traits with the Ecoboost) have always had very tight servicing schedules, etc. An engine putting out huge specific performance needs to be looked after very closely. skyrover said:
Willy Nilly said:
Total and utter bks.
I have been using turbocharged engine for nearly 25 years and I can think of 3 turbo failures, one of on a machine that got plain neglected and also went porous like 2 of the other machine (that were naturally aspirated) with the same engines on the fleet and the other 2 failures were on machine (of the same brand) that by their nature did a lot of start-full load-stop type work.
We have 2 machines at work that are the same virtually identical save for a few updates and one has a turbo. The turbo charged machine is 2 years younger, has about 2000 more engine hours more power and runs much better. The bulk of turbo charged engines have to work bloody hard for their living, while car engines get a very easy ride.
All this crap about engines in a higher state of tune is just that - crap. Engineers find ways to extract more power from the same displacement all of the time, so engine get more powerfull. Those Eco Boost engines will have been put through the same duty cycle testing as all of Fords other engines. They've placed a big bet on them and I doubt they will sit back and watch them all grenade themselves.
Sorry mate but your wrong... better engineering can reduce the risk but the fact remains, more moving parts, more complexity, higher state of tune = more risk of failure.ks. I have been using turbocharged engine for nearly 25 years and I can think of 3 turbo failures, one of on a machine that got plain neglected and also went porous like 2 of the other machine (that were naturally aspirated) with the same engines on the fleet and the other 2 failures were on machine (of the same brand) that by their nature did a lot of start-full load-stop type work.
We have 2 machines at work that are the same virtually identical save for a few updates and one has a turbo. The turbo charged machine is 2 years younger, has about 2000 more engine hours more power and runs much better. The bulk of turbo charged engines have to work bloody hard for their living, while car engines get a very easy ride.
All this crap about engines in a higher state of tune is just that - crap. Engineers find ways to extract more power from the same displacement all of the time, so engine get more powerfull. Those Eco Boost engines will have been put through the same duty cycle testing as all of Fords other engines. They've placed a big bet on them and I doubt they will sit back and watch them all grenade themselves.
How high a state of tune are some of the Vtec engines that Honda have produced? Is the S2000 in too high a state of tune too?
It sounds to me very much like the failure mechanism here is a pipe bursting. So an issue of material durability that it appears that Ford have recognised. This is hardly evidence of a type of engine being unsuitable or in too high a state of tune to be reliable.
This is not the first time where a major manufacturer has released a new product and there turns out to be issue with the durability of certain components. When the E36 M3 started to suffer from Vanos failures did people start claiming that this was evidence of this type of engine not being fit for purpose. I don't recall people saying that variable valve timning was a bad idea because one manufacturer has issues with their system. Did we all decry the use of alloy blocks when Nikasil reared it's ugly head?
I think you have an issue with the move to small capcity turbocharged engines and have decided that they are going to be unreliable so are looking for evidence to prove this.
This is evidence of a single manufacturer, that has a history of not fessing up straight away when it gets it wrong, not ensuring a pipe is durable enough. That is all.
skyrover said:
Sorry mate but your wrong... better engineering can reduce the risk but the fact remains, more moving parts, more complexity, higher state of tune = more risk of failure.
There is more to go wrong, that does not automatically lead to a higher probability of all of it failing.Things like turbos in the modern age for instance, are tremendously reliable when run within their design limits. I'll add the last point before someone comes along and says their mates remapped 335d shat both its turbos into many pieces.
The fact is, the engine itself should always be robust to the performance of the engine. The durability cycles these things go through for validation are ridiculous. Several thousand hours of testing at all speeds and loads, and specific high speed high load tests run for many hundreds of hours non stop.
The issue, more often than not, is more in the ancillary items which are pretty well designed by packaging constraints, not common sense. When these things fail, the engine doesn't stand a chance if said item is carrying oil or coolant does it?
The actual engine units these days are typically quite robust.
Manufacturing processes have improved on so many items that had high propensity to fail in bygone years that they are more robust than the things they are strapped to.
ORD said:
Obviously right - this is why supercar engines (which share a lot of traits with the Ecoboost) have always had very tight servicing schedules, etc. An engine putting out huge specific performance needs to be looked after very closely.
Or, just a thought, the service intervals on these products are not typically an issue for the owner so the manufacturer doesn't spend time designing around a long period of time in service with little to no attention?In cars such as this, three things are king - residuals, CO2 and service intervals / cost.
In supercars... not so much.
Edited by zeppelin101 on Thursday 25th September 11:23
I agree with the earlier poster about ancilliaries / packaging.
The OEMs do thousands of hours of durability testing on new engine designs, including bizarre temperature shocks etc.
However, most of this testing is done on engine dynos. Although they try and make the dyno intallation include as many ancilliaries as possible, things like coolant hoses will be different.
Sods law says it is what you don't test that fails.
The OEMs do thousands of hours of durability testing on new engine designs, including bizarre temperature shocks etc.
However, most of this testing is done on engine dynos. Although they try and make the dyno intallation include as many ancilliaries as possible, things like coolant hoses will be different.
Sods law says it is what you don't test that fails.
oakdale said:
Temperature gauges on modern cars are ecu driven and are much the same as engine temp lights because they read normal if the temp is within whatever the manufacturers decide is the normal range, and only rise if the temp goes higher than what is considered outside this range.
It still needs an input from a sensor or multiple sensors from which to derive the temperature though. My Mondeo temp gauge doesn't go straight from low to Medium, it does climb and is slower to reach normal range when it is colder.fords also have a temp readout that can be accessed on the dashboard diagnostics.
oakdale said:
Temperature gauges on modern cars are ecu driven and are much the same as engine temp lights because they read normal if the temp is within whatever the manufacturers decide is the normal range, and only rise if the temp goes higher than what is considered outside this range.
It still needs an input from a sensor or multiple sensors from which to derive the temperature though. My Mondeo temp gauge doesn't go straight from low to Medium, it does climb and is slower to reach normal range when it is colder.fords also have a temp readout that can be accessed on the dashboard diagnostics.
MC Bodge said:
It still needs an input from a sensor or multiple sensors from which to derive the temperature though. My Mondeo temp gauge doesn't go straight from low to Medium, it does climb and is slower to reach normal range when it is colder.
fords also have a temp readout that can be accessed on the dashboard diagnostics.
It might move in an analogue fashion to get to the middle, but it's not a proper 'gauge' in that you can estimate coolant temperature from it's position. It's basically a traffic light system. Cold - ok - hot. It'll stay in the middle between a wide range of temperatures say... 70 to 110°c. The same thing can be accomplished without the space for a gauge on the instrument panel, so why have one.fords also have a temp readout that can be accessed on the dashboard diagnostics.
The only proper temperature gauges put in cars tend to be oil temp (ie ones with a scale).
Edited by xxChrisxx on Thursday 25th September 13:28
xxChrisxx said:
It might move in an analogue fashion to get to the middle, but it's not a proper 'gauge' in that you can estimate coolant temperature from it's position. It's basically a traffic light system. Cold - ok - hot. It'll stay in the middle between a wide range of temperatures say... 70 to 110°c. The same thing can be accomplished without the space for a gauge on the instrument panel, so why have one.
The only proper temperature gauges put in cars tend to be oil temp (ie ones with a scale).
Yep, that's exactly how the gauge in my car works. Having compared its output to the OBD readings, it reaches "bang in the middle" at around 50-60c, and will stay perfectly stationary for the climb up to 85-90c achieved when running. Idling with the A/C off (therefore the fan doesn't always run) the coolant gets to 105c before the fan switches off. Temperature gauge is still bang in the middle.The only proper temperature gauges put in cars tend to be oil temp (ie ones with a scale).
Edited by xxChrisxx on Thursday 25th September 13:28
Never had it hotter so don't know at what point it'll climb any more but, well, point proven I think!
Gassing Station | Ford | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff