Ford Ecoboost Engine Failure (TWICE)

[itcaptainslow]

A new part fitted under warranty without any payment from the customer is ONLY warranted for the remaining balance of the original warranty. Doesn't matter if that's a day, or 4 years.

If the customer paid even a tiny contribution to the repair under arrangement then they would benefit from a newly supplied part warranty (typically 12 months).

[53catalina]

djfaulkner said:

Just to clarify - The hose had failed which caused the first engine to go, but they didn't change it when replacing the engine?
Or have I got it wrong?

I've got an Ford Ecoboost currently around the 19,000 mile mark.

The hose is the reason the second engine failed.

The first engine was similar, in that the engine made a horrible noise, engine management light came on, immediately followed by temp light, and then engine was stopped.

First engine went whilst being driven on the motorway, 2nd engine was traveling at 40mph whilst chap drove home. No motorways involved in the journey.

[J4CKO]

I wonder how the A45 AMG engines will fare down the line if we put this down to being overstressed ?

Arent they 360 bhp from 2 litres and people are remapping them as well, ditto the Golf R.

135i might be a better choice for longevity perhaps ?

[XJ Flyer]

IanCress said:

xxChrisxx said:

It's not about how much power it produces that makes it unsuited to the task. It's how highly strung it is (specific power output).

As you say the old 2.0 Zetec was putting out a similar amount of power. Large capacity lazy engines aren't as highly stressed. 125hp/L is pretty high really.

In these days of modern turbo charged engines, 125bhp/L isn't particularly high. The ecoboost cars will lope along at 2500rpm on the motorway, with plenty of torque in reserve. It's easily a match for a naturally aspirated 2.0 engine at low revs.

'If' the problem was caused by a head to block sealing problem caused by high internal cylinder pressures it isn't the revs that are the problem.The problem ( would be ) the high BMEP figure.IE trying to get too much 'specific torque' from an engine which isn't strong enough in whatever way to withstand the pressures involved.

In this case it seems to be two engine failures of two new factory supplied engines,one of which being blamed on a blown hose as being the cause not a symptom,which seems to be where the questions arise.

[blade7]

Company car, small engine with big output, 3 times average mileage, one blow up already, perhaps OP should have extended the warranty ?

[53catalina]

blade7 said:

Company car, small engine with big output, 3 times average mileage, one blow up already, perhaps OP should have extended the warranty ?

2000 miles out of warranty, serviced 3000 miles ago. Assumed we were just unlucky with the first engine, maybe its a deeper problem.......

[xxChrisxx]

XJ Flyer said:

'If' the problem was caused by a head to block sealing problem caused by high internal cylinder pressures it isn't the revs that are the problem.The problem ( would be ) the high BMEP figure.IE trying to get too much 'specific torque' from an engine which isn't strong enough in whatever way to withstand the pressures involved.

It's difficult to make statements that aren't pure speculation. Ford aren't daft, if the engine got into production it's fundamentally good.

XJ Flyer said:

In this case it seems to be two engine failures of two new factory supplied engines,one of which being blamed on a blown hose as being the cause not a symptom,which seems to be where the questions arise.

What I find curious is, two engines going pop after the same mileage and same time period, driven by the same user. It's either massively unlucky and a coincidence, or it's the type of usage that's contributing to a failure.

edit: This isn't necessarily blaming 'user error'. Could be the hose fatiguing, could be the heat cycles the engine is going through, could be the OPs driver pretending he's part of the Ford World Rally Team at the weekends.

Edited by xxChrisxx on Tuesday 23 September 15:44

[53catalina]

xxChrisxx said:

What I find curious is, two engines going pop after the same mileage and same time period, driven by the same user. It's either massively unlucky and a coincidence, or it's the type of usage that's contributing to a failure.

This is our concern. General driving, some motorway,some A road. you cant really cane these engines, they dont have any oomph to start with.

xxChrisxx said:

edit: could be the OPs driver pretending he's part of the Ford World Rally Team at the weekends.

Edited by xxChrisxx on Tuesday 23 September 15:44

The only part of the WRC team he would be in is the catering section :-)

[eldar]

53catalina said:

The only part of the WRC team he would be in is the catering section :-)

Good at cooking engines, it appears

[dwol]

This is becoming a very common fault though ford have now changed the offending hose to a plastic one they have not recalled the older versions to change it from rubber to plastic. Apparently the turbo and cylinder head get destroyed very quickly once coolant is lost.

[Driver101]

hora said:

ging84 said:

Looking at this the other way, if they were to give a fresh warranty with every new part, they could end up having to indefinitely replace the part

Any new part you have fitted to your car tends to come with 1yrs warranty. Obviously things like brake pads and clutches might not be.

An engine can be reasonably expected to last longer than 30k. If its had the same failure point it points to manufacturing defect/workmanship. I've NO legal knowledge on any of this but this is how I'd tackle it. That and legal advice as I wouldn't pay up for a new engine.

I've had this discussion before.

I had parts replaced under warranty that later failed outside warranty. Normally BMW give a 2 year warranty with parts they fit.

However they refused to cover something as if it is replaced during the 3 year manufacturers warranty, it's only covered to the end of the warranty.

I was later told this is the case.

That's a real shame OP. Terrible circumstances that really should be covered for such a minor amount of miles given the history of the car.

[blade7]

53catalina said:

blade7 said:

Company car, small engine with big output, 3 times average mileage, one blow up already, perhaps OP should have extended the warranty ?

2000 miles out of warranty, serviced 3000 miles ago. Assumed we were just unlucky with the first engine, maybe its a deeper problem.......

If it is I doubt Ford will admit to it, or thank you for going public...

[oakdale]

dwol said:

This is becoming a very common fault though ford have now changed the offending hose to a plastic one they have not recalled the older versions to change it from rubber to plastic. Apparently the turbo and cylinder head get destroyed very quickly once coolant is lost.

This is a very interesting comment, do you know this for sure?
Do you work on these cars?

[Fire99]

The points raised about the small capacity engine.. Surely the whole point about the 'ecoboost' engine is that it should be advanced enough to offer the benefits of a larger engine, in a smaller (and potentially more economical) package.
If it's just another small engine that now has worse reliability than the larger engine it replaces, then it defeats the object somewhat!

In this case it appears the hose design is at fault. I'd be interested if the redesigned plastic part is the only reliability issue the engine suffers.

[Megaflow]

dwol said:

This is becoming a very common fault though ford have now changed the offending hose to a plastic one they have not recalled the older versions to change it from rubber to plastic. Apparently the turbo and cylinder head get destroyed very quickly once coolant is lost.

I can see a connection there, isn't this the engine with the integral exhaust manifold in the cylinder head. If so, a loss of coolant around the exhaust ports could result in quite some mess.

Edited by Megaflow on Tuesday 23 September 22:12

[rallycross]

Megaflow said:

I can see a connection there, isn't this the engine with the integral exhaust manifold in the cylinder head. If so, a loss of coolant around the exhaust ports could result is quite some mess.

Highly stressed small capacity turbo charged Ecoboost petrol engine may not be the wonder solution to current EU low emission regs well not if the engines are self destructing at 30k miles.

[rallycross]

Megaflow said:

I can see a connection there, isn't this the engine with the integral exhaust manifold in the cylinder head. If so, a loss of coolant around the exhaust ports could result is quite some mess.

Highly stressed small capacity turbo charged Ecoboost petrol engine may not be the wonder solution to current EU low emission regs well not if the engines are self destructing at 30k miles.

[rallycross]

Megaflow said:

I can see a connection there, isn't this the engine with the integral exhaust manifold in the cylinder head. If so, a loss of coolant around the exhaust ports could result is quite some mess.

Highly stressed small capacity turbo charged Ecoboost petrol engine may not be the wonder solution to current EU low emission regs well not if the engines are self destructing at 30k miles.

[MC Bodge]

dwol said:

Work at main dealer

And is this info public knowledge?

If there is/was a fundamental problem with failing coolant hoses at 31,000 miles, then I would definitely be seeking a refund on the extortionate price of the like-for-like engine replacement.

I did wonder what the lifetime reliability of these compact and hot engines would be in normal use and heat-cycling.

My early Mk1 Mondeo 2.0 had a few cooling problems, but it was older and was driven like it was on the WRC

Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 23 September 22:49

[Devil2575]

rallycross said:

Megaflow said:

I can see a connection there, isn't this the engine with the integral exhaust manifold in the cylinder head. If so, a loss of coolant around the exhaust ports could result is quite some mess.

Highly stressed small capacity turbo charged Ecoboost petrol engine may not be the wonder solution to current EU low emission regs well not if the engines are self destructing at 30k miles.

Eh? Remind me how many engines of this type you are aware of that have expired at 30k miles?
You have no idea why the engines in this case failed and the 30k miles is just as likely to be a coincidence as anything else.
Turning this single thread into a discussion about how small capacity turbo charged engines are flawed and destined to fail is an extreme example of jumping the gun.
It's not unheard of for car engines to expire well before their time. I remember tails of woe about the zetec when it first came out.