Ford Ecoboost Engine Failure (TWICE)

[Mr2Mike]

Andyjc86 said:

Wtf are ford playing at, for the sake of a cheap part, do a mass bloody recall!

The head gasket itself may not be particularly expensive, but do you think it would cost Ford nothing to have them fitted?

[Megaflow]

Willy Nilly said:

The market leader in farm tractors has been having head gasket issues for over 20 years, the official line is that they are "service items". At least you didn't pay 90 grand for your Fiesta.

Just out of curiosity, which manufacturer?

[MC Bodge]

Mr2Mike said:

The head gasket itself may not be particularly expensive, but do you think it would cost Ford nothing to have them fitted?

Isn't it a problem with a failing coolant pipe rather than the head gasket?

[Francy555]

Megaflow said:

Just out of curiosity, which manufacturer?

John Deere. Its kind of a running joke in the farming community, its a problem across all ranges from the really old 30 series, 3130 etc right the way up to the 6*30 series, 6830 etc in the late 2000's, i wonder if the new R series is any different.

[XJ Flyer]

MC Bodge said:

Mr2Mike said:

The head gasket itself may not be particularly expensive, but do you think it would cost Ford nothing to have them fitted?

Isn't it a problem with a failing coolant pipe rather than the head gasket?

That would depend on a definitive answer to the question is the failure of both possibly just a symptom of an engine design that is being pushed too far in terms of specific outputs and therefore internal pressures.'If' that was case the failure of the coolant pipe would more likely to be a result of the failure of the head gasket not vice versa.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 2nd January 12:46

[Krikkit]

ToothbrushMan said:

gareth3685 said:

I've just checked and it seems the Fiesta has this modification also, car this picture is taken from is a 62 plate so assume its been the rubber part since introduction.

Looking at that engine bay of the 1.0L its a surprise theres any room for anything bigger like the 2L tdci or st engine !

It's deceptive - the top of the engine is quite busy with pipework/wiring etc, but there's acres of room below all that crap to fit a much bigger engine.

[Megaflow]

Francy555 said:

John Deere. Its kind of a running joke in the farming community, its a problem across all ranges from the really old 30 series, 3130 etc right the way up to the 6*30 series, 6830 etc in the late 2000's, i wonder if the new R series is any different.

Very interesting, thanks for that.

[Tobeman]

Megaflow said:

Francy555 said:

John Deere. Its kind of a running joke in the farming community, its a problem across all ranges from the really old 30 series, 3130 etc right the way up to the 6*30 series, 6830 etc in the late 2000's, i wonder if the new R series is any different.

Very interesting, thanks for that.

http://www.thecomet.net/news/video_firefighters_ca...

In my town this summer. Pretty sure from the colour scheme it was a John Deere. Sat idling at the traffic lights and boom!

[Willy Nilly]

Tobeman said:

Megaflow said:

Francy555 said:

John Deere. Its kind of a running joke in the farming community, its a problem across all ranges from the really old 30 series, 3130 etc right the way up to the 6*30 series, 6830 etc in the late 2000's, i wonder if the new R series is any different.

Very interesting, thanks for that.

http://www.thecomet.net/news/video_firefighters_ca...

In my town this summer. Pretty sure from the colour scheme it was a John Deere. Sat idling at the traffic lights and boom!

That was a Fendt, but I shall set fire to a John Deere to make up for it.

[MC Bodge]

XJ Flyer said:

That would depend on a definitive answer to the question is the failure of both possibly just a symptom of an engine design that is being pushed too far in terms of specific outputs and therefore internal pressures.'If' that was case the failure of the coolant pipe would more likely to be a result of the failure of the head gasket not vice versa.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 2nd January 12:46

So what you are saying is that it would be actually better to use a V12 in a Fiesta? Preferably running on 4 star, back in the 1950s with Nigel garage as fuhrer?

Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 2nd January 20:42

[XJ Flyer]

MC Bodge said:

XJ Flyer said:

That would depend on a definitive answer to the question is the failure of both possibly just a symptom of an engine design that is being pushed too far in terms of specific outputs and therefore internal pressures.'If' that was case the failure of the coolant pipe would more likely to be a result of the failure of the head gasket not vice versa.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 2nd January 12:46

So what you are saying is that it would be actually better to use a V12 in a Fiesta? Preferably running on 4 star, back in the 1950s with Nigel garage as fuhrer?

Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 2nd January 20:42

No but just maybe the advantages of less stress/more reliability of a 1.6-1.8 Litre using less boost to make similar overall outputs might possibly outweigh the extra arguable efficiency of trying to get similar outputs from a 1.0.That would be assuming the cause of the issues is something more than just a dodgy pipe.

[IntriguedUser]

XJ Flyer said:

That would depend on a definitive answer to the question is the failure of both possibly just a symptom of an engine design that is being pushed too far in terms of specific outputs and therefore internal pressures.'If' that was case the failure of the coolant pipe would more likely to be a result of the failure of the head gasket not vice versa.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 2nd January 12:46

Happened to me, upper radiator hose burst, turned off engine immediately so no damaged was caused. Got a new hose, but it was still over-heating badly, so I concluded that the hose burst because of pressure being build in the cooling system due to HGF. Then again I still question whether the split hose was genuinely a bad hose that was worn which did cause the HGF once new hose was fitted...

I'll never know, sold it after a month.

[ORD]

MC Bodge said:

So what you are saying is that it would be actually better to use a V12 in a Fiesta? Preferably running on 4 star, back in the 1950s with Nigel garage as fuhrer?

Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 2nd January 20:42

The 1.0 is a symptom of market failure - designed to perform well on the official cycle and made to work tolerably in the real world. No engineer would have started with a 1.0 if asked to design the best engine for the car without worrying about CO2 nonsense statistics.

[Willy Nilly]

ORD said:

The 1.0 is a symptom of market failure - designed to perform well on the official cycle and made to work tolerably in the real world. No engineer would have started with a 1.0 if asked to design the best engine for the car without worrying about CO2 nonsense statistics.

But CO2 nonsense is something they have to worry about and if it wasn't that, it would be something else. My sister in law has one and says she likes it, my brother say how well it drives.

We have had turbo charged diesels for a couple of decade now in cars and a long time before that in heavy duty applications, so I don't see why turbo charged petrol engines should be much on an issue.

Maybe there is an issue with this family of engines, but it is probably not as a result of being a 1 litre, 3 cylinder turbo charged petrol. Probably something that didn't show it's head when they were testing them. As long as Ford stand by them I see no issue.

[Megaflow]

ORD said:

MC Bodge said:

So what you are saying is that it would be actually better to use a V12 in a Fiesta? Preferably running on 4 star, back in the 1950s with Nigel garage as fuhrer?

Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 2nd January 20:42

The 1.0 is a symptom of market failure - designed to perform well on the official cycle and made to work tolerably in the real world. No engineer would have started with a 1.0 if asked to design the best engine for the car without worrying about CO2 nonsense statistics.

There is an element of truth in that, but don't hate the player, hate the game. The politicians drive the legislation, the car manufacturers come up with the best answer to it.

Best, obviously depends on who you ask, what you ask and what you are measuring it against.

[XJ Flyer]

Megaflow said:

ORD said:

MC Bodge said:

So what you are saying is that it would be actually better to use a V12 in a Fiesta? Preferably running on 4 star, back in the 1950s with Nigel garage as fuhrer?

Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 2nd January 20:42

The 1.0 is a symptom of market failure - designed to perform well on the official cycle and made to work tolerably in the real world. No engineer would have started with a 1.0 if asked to design the best engine for the car without worrying about CO2 nonsense statistics.

There is an element of truth in that, but don't hate the player, hate the game. The politicians drive the legislation, the car manufacturers come up with the best answer to it.

Best, obviously depends on who you ask, what you ask and what you are measuring it against.

Engineering is always a case of balance and compromise to get the best possible result.Which seems to logically translate in the qustion would pushing the balance more towards less stress,in the form of more capacity and less boost, provide a better reliability/emissions compromise,than going for more boost less capacity.IE would the lower stress outweigh any arguable/marginal increase in emissions.

[Willy Nilly]

XJ Flyer said:

Engineering is always a case of balance and compromise to get the best possible result.Which seems to logically translate in the qustion would pushing the balance more towards less stress,in the form of more capacity and less boost, provide a better reliability/emissions compromise,than going for more boost less capacity.IE would the lower stress outweigh any arguable/marginal increase in emissions.

The 1.0 Eco Boost has the same output per litre as the EP3 Civic Type R did 10 years ago and a bike with the same displacement would have 75% more power.

[XJ Flyer]

Willy Nilly said:

XJ Flyer said:

Engineering is always a case of balance and compromise to get the best possible result.Which seems to logically translate in the qustion would pushing the balance more towards less stress,in the form of more capacity and less boost, provide a better reliability/emissions compromise,than going for more boost less capacity.IE would the lower stress outweigh any arguable/marginal increase in emissions.

The 1.0 Eco Boost has the same output per litre as the EP3 Civic Type R did 10 years ago and a bike with the same displacement would have 75% more power.

It would be interesting to see the type of engine speeds which you're comparing.IE high specific torque ( BMEP ) creates a totally different type of stress environment.Than high specific power output obtained through the low torque high engine speed option.IE the former is mostly about containing high internal cylinder pressures within the engine.While the latter is mostly about stopping the engine from flying apart through high inertia G loadings or melting bearing surfaces through friction outweighing oil supply etc.

[InfamousKeiran]

In reply to the OP...

My engine went lastnight on 40k. Temperature rose high, I managed to keep it down thanks to a lack of traffic on the road but eventually I got the 'knock knock'
Further inspection shows the head has gone too...

[MC Bodge]

InfamousKeiran said:

In reply to the OP...

My engine went lastnight on 40k. Temperature rose high, I managed to keep it down thanks to a lack of traffic on the road but eventually I got the 'knock knock'
Further inspection shows the head has gone too...

How old and did it have the revised coolant pipe -that are apparently now fitted at the factory?