Ford Ecoboost Engine Failure (TWICE)
Discussion
Shurv said:
OP, Good luck with the battle with Ford. These engines have been released to the market with the engineers stating they were not 100% satisfied with them, according to a chap I know with mates at Ford.
Do you think the engineers at Porsche were 100% happy with the 996 engine compared to the 993 ? I wouldn't be surprised if the failure rates are less for the Ecoboost.Edited by blade7 on Friday 26th September 20:48
Devil2575 said:
MC Bodge said:
Would the oil specification be quite so critical for these engines if the oil change interval was halved?
Yes. Oil specification has nothing to do with service interval.Is the specified oil for an Ecoboost a special 'long-life' variety?
MC Bodge said:
Is the hose failure the cause of the problem or merely a symptom of over-heating?
If it is an over-heating issue, then other serious faults are likely to show up in the future.
Would the oil specification be quite so critical for these engines if the oil change interval was halved?
My guess would be symptom, but not really based on anything other than a basic understanding of these engines. Turbo is water cooled, oil is too hot, heats up water, head gasket goes and cracks hose on it's way out. It's a fairly extreme theory I'll grant youIf it is an over-heating issue, then other serious faults are likely to show up in the future.
Would the oil specification be quite so critical for these engines if the oil change interval was halved?
Also, these engines have a cooling trick for cabin heat where it's heated from the exhaust side first (according to HonestJohn) so there's the possibility of thin waterways leading to cracking of the head
Edited by andy-xr on Friday 26th September 14:16
Shurv said:
OP, Good luck with the battle with Ford. These engines have been released to the market with the engineers stating they were not 100% satisfied with them, according to a chap I know with mates at Ford. I do know that they are sensitive to the right oil ( as are most highly stressed engines)and this is a major potential issue. Many customers and dealers chuck in the cheapest oil they can find that looks close to the correct grade and spec, but are storing up a problem for a few miles down the line. My feeling is that in a few years, many modern turbo'd "downsizer" engines will prematurely fail leaving the owners with no warranty and a massive garage bill.
That has always been my view of trying to get too much output out of too little capacity.I'm shocked to hear some alleged hearsay that such products 'might' 'possibly' be getting into production against the advice of engineers who maybe following that rule.Although it's my guess that 'if' an engine is overstressed in that regard,in the sense of a cooling system issue,rather than a mechanical one,it would be more likely to be a head to cylinder sealing issue in that seal being over come by the cylinder pressures involved in creating such a high specific torque output. Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 26th September 15:10
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 26th September 23:41
Mr2Mike said:
Devil2575 said:
Yes. Oil specification has nothing to do with service interval.
I'm sure that oil and car manufacturers would be surprised to hear this. Why do you think manufacturers have different specifications for oil to be used in extended drain applications?XJ Flyer said:
Shurv said:
OP, Good luck with the battle with Ford. These engines have been released to the market with the engineers stating they were not 100% satisfied with them, according to a chap I know with mates at Ford. I do know that they are sensitive to the right oil ( as are most highly stressed engines)and this is a major potential issue. Many customers and dealers chuck in the cheapest oil they can find that looks close to the correct grade and spec, but are storing up a problem for a few miles down the line. My feeling is that in a few years, many modern turbo'd "downsizer" engines will prematurely fail leaving the owners with no warranty and a massive garage bill.
That has always been my view of trying to get too much output out of too little capacity.I'm shocked to hear some alleged hearsay that such products 'might' 'possibly' be getting into production against the advice of engineers who maybe following that rule.Although it's my guess that 'if' an engine is overstressed in that regard,in the sense of a cooling system issue,rather than a mechanical one,it would be more likely to be a head to cylinder sealing issue in that seal being over come by the cylinder pressures involved in creating such a high specific torque output. Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 26th September 15:10
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 26th September 23:41
Why don't we also thow in conjecture. Add some anecdotes as well and you'll have conclusive proof.
Some of you guys just pull this stuff out of your arses don't you
VAG have been producing high ouput small capacity engines for years without major problems. 225 bhp from a 1.8...
Devil2575 said:
XJ Flyer said:
Shurv said:
OP, Good luck with the battle with Ford. These engines have been released to the market with the engineers stating they were not 100% satisfied with them, according to a chap I know with mates at Ford. I do know that they are sensitive to the right oil ( as are most highly stressed engines)and this is a major potential issue. Many customers and dealers chuck in the cheapest oil they can find that looks close to the correct grade and spec, but are storing up a problem for a few miles down the line. My feeling is that in a few years, many modern turbo'd "downsizer" engines will prematurely fail leaving the owners with no warranty and a massive garage bill.
That has always been my view of trying to get too much output out of too little capacity.I'm shocked to hear some alleged hearsay that such products 'might' 'possibly' be getting into production against the advice of engineers who maybe following that rule.Although it's my guess that 'if' an engine is overstressed in that regard,in the sense of a cooling system issue,rather than a mechanical one,it would be more likely to be a head to cylinder sealing issue in that seal being over come by the cylinder pressures involved in creating such a high specific torque output. Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 26th September 15:10
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 26th September 23:41
Why don't we also thow in conjecture. Add some anecdotes as well and you'll have conclusive proof.
Some of you guys just pull this stuff out of your arses don't you
VAG have been producing high ouput small capacity engines for years without major problems. 225 bhp from a 1.8...
If all this was easily possible with no downsides then we'd have also seen these type of specific outputs in far more general use 'for years'.Being that it is basically just a case of filling a cylinder with as much air as possible to as much pressure as the sealing system used, either between the bore and piston,or cylinder and head,can withstand before that pressure 'possibly' finds its way out through any 'potential' weakest link in the chain.
In that case probably more educated guess in the form of personal choice of either preferring something with a larger capacity engine producing less specific outputs.
Or just go for it in the form of the above.
XJ Flyer said:
It seems obvious that around 115 lbs/ft per litre from 2,200 rpm is pushing the boundaries less in terms of cylinder pressures than 125 lbs/ft per litre from 1,400 rpm with a possible 148 lbs/ft per litre max.
If all this was easily possible with no downsides then we'd have also seen these type of specific outputs in far more general use 'for years'.Being that it is basically just a case of filling a cylinder with as much air as possible to as much pressure as the sealing system used, either between the bore and piston,or cylinder and head,can withstand before that pressure 'possibly' finds its way out through any 'potential' weakest link in the chain.
In that case probably more educated guess in the form of personal choice of either preferring something with a larger capacity engine producing less specific outputs.
Or just go for it in the form of the above.
are you dividing peak torque by litres of displacement?If all this was easily possible with no downsides then we'd have also seen these type of specific outputs in far more general use 'for years'.Being that it is basically just a case of filling a cylinder with as much air as possible to as much pressure as the sealing system used, either between the bore and piston,or cylinder and head,can withstand before that pressure 'possibly' finds its way out through any 'potential' weakest link in the chain.
In that case probably more educated guess in the form of personal choice of either preferring something with a larger capacity engine producing less specific outputs.
Or just go for it in the form of the above.
If so how would an 8.4 litre engine with 1600nm or torque at 1600rpm grab you? The first 10,000 hours should pass by without incident.
Devil2575 said:
Hearsay...
Why don't we also thow in conjecture. Add some anecdotes as well and you'll have conclusive proof
ome of you guys just pull this stuff out of your arses don't you
VAG have been producing high ouput small capacity engines for years without major problems. 225 bhp from a 1.8...
The basic architecture of the 20v 1.8T engine is over engineered for the outputs. The block and head is good for in excess of 450HP, it was used in Formula Palmer Audi and F2.Why don't we also thow in conjecture. Add some anecdotes as well and you'll have conclusive proof
ome of you guys just pull this stuff out of your arses don't you
VAG have been producing high ouput small capacity engines for years without major problems. 225 bhp from a 1.8...
The stock internals on the AGU are good for knocking on for 300hp for example. The later AUM engine used cheaper rods (as cost saving).
This is not to say that the EcoBoost is under-engineered, or all high boost engines will go pop. It's a learning process, and these reliability issues are more due of the relative lack of maturity of the engine, rather than pushing a design too far. Basically these are teething issues, rather than the engine being fundamentally s
t.Edited by xxChrisxx on Saturday 27th September 21:17
Willy Nilly said:
XJ Flyer said:
It seems obvious that around 115 lbs/ft per litre from 2,200 rpm is pushing the boundaries less in terms of cylinder pressures than 125 lbs/ft per litre from 1,400 rpm with a possible 148 lbs/ft per litre max.
If all this was easily possible with no downsides then we'd have also seen these type of specific outputs in far more general use 'for years'.Being that it is basically just a case of filling a cylinder with as much air as possible to as much pressure as the sealing system used, either between the bore and piston,or cylinder and head,can withstand before that pressure 'possibly' finds its way out through any 'potential' weakest link in the chain.
In that case probably more educated guess in the form of personal choice of either preferring something with a larger capacity engine producing less specific outputs.
Or just go for it in the form of the above.
are you dividing peak torque by litres of displacement?If all this was easily possible with no downsides then we'd have also seen these type of specific outputs in far more general use 'for years'.Being that it is basically just a case of filling a cylinder with as much air as possible to as much pressure as the sealing system used, either between the bore and piston,or cylinder and head,can withstand before that pressure 'possibly' finds its way out through any 'potential' weakest link in the chain.
In that case probably more educated guess in the form of personal choice of either preferring something with a larger capacity engine producing less specific outputs.
Or just go for it in the form of the above.
If so how would an 8.4 litre engine with 1600nm or torque at 1600rpm grab you? The first 10,000 hours should pass by without incident.
The difference seems to be in the idea that they can be applied in anything other than specialist applications where standard car levels of long term durability is less of a priority than performance.With even the standard Veyron producing a lot less than the specific torque output of the example in question.While even the Veyron in tuned form still can't match the max figure in question.
As for my personal view I wouldn't want to buy such a car in the used car sector and by that logic I wouldn't want the risk of the potential depreciation/failure downsides v the arguable fuel efficiency advantages of buying in the newer sector of the market either.
A 10.0:1 compression ratio isn't that high. They've proved more reliable than the modern VAG equivalents thus far too. TSI and TFSI reliability is bloody shocking.
VW's engine failure rate is 1 in is 52, Audis is 1 in 27, Fords currently stands at 1 in 80
VW's engine failure rate is 1 in is 52, Audis is 1 in 27, Fords currently stands at 1 in 80
Edited by lee_erm on Saturday 27th September 21:45
Edited by lee_erm on Saturday 27th September 21:48
J4CKO said:
I wonder how the A45 AMG engines will fare down the line if we put this down to being overstressed ?
I know someone who did a turbo in 5,000 miles, I believe the new turbo has failed since but I can't confirm.He does drive it like its stolen though
(Not that that's an excuse!)lee_erm said:
A 10.0:1 compression ratio isn't that high. They've proved more reliable than the modern VAG equivalents thus far too. TSI and TFSI reliability is bloody shocking.
VW's engine failure rate is 1 in is 52, Audis is 1 in 27, Fords currently stands at 1 in 80
1 in 52 - well to hear the slating VW gets from some - youd think it was a 100 percent failure rate.VW's engine failure rate is 1 in is 52, Audis is 1 in 27, Fords currently stands at 1 in 80
Edited by lee_erm on Saturday 27th September 21:45
Edited by lee_erm on Saturday 27th September 21:48
Bear in mind that - this one in 52 figure will be including (one assumes) 1.4 TSI 180 ps oil consumption issues - and chain tensioners on the 2.0 TFSI with the timing chains (post 09 afaik - it was when they switched the 2.0 tsi/tfsi from a timing belt to a chain).
Id love to see what the failure rate was/is for some of Mazdas diesels..... Especially the 2.0 common rail turbodiesel engine as used in the Mk 1 Mazda 6 and early Mk 2 Mazda 6s.....
Megaflow said:
XJ Flyer said:
lee_erm said:
A 10.0:1 compression ratio isn't that high.
The 24 psi boost and 1,800 psi peak cylinder pressure is the relevant bit.While examples such as described in the topic understandably only adds to the reservations of anyone who remains sceptical of the idea of very high specific outputs.At least on anything that's outside the manufacturer's warranty period.
Gassing Station | Ford | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff