Ford faces $1.3 billion lawsuit over EcoBoost engine

[BenK]

https://carbuzz.com/news/ford-faces-1-3-billion-lawsuit-over-defective-ecoboost-engines

[Fordlover]

theoldwizard1 wrote:

Lessmore wrote:
However the Ford ecoboost V6 engine had me rethinking. I hadn't heard about issues in the area of poor durability/reliability...and particularly not about catastrophic failure of turbo and engine.

Early EcoBoost engine were recommended to use 5W20 oil. A few years ago that was changed to 5W30. Not sure why, but if I had a 4+ year old EcoBoost engine, I think I would switch over to 5W30.

I'm fairly certain the only reason Ford switched to 5W20 was an attempt to squeeze more MPG out of the vehicle under EPA testing.

My 2002 Explorer was one of the first years they made this switch to recommending 5W20. I've noticed the truck uses more oil between changes as well compared to earlier Fords running on 5W30. So several years back after the warranty expired I changed to 5W30, and while fuel economy might have dropped slightly, oil consumption dropped to what I'd expect, about 1/2 quart over 5K miles.
I still have the pamphlet Ford issued to new vehicles in 2001 explaining the "reasoning" for the 5W20.

[RedRocket204]

Bedlam wrote:

RedRocket204 wrote:
I'm curious how many on here are towing RVs with a 1.0L Focus and what RV they're towing?


I guess you can't have drama without good actors.

I have towed 2000 lb utility trailers with a normally aspirated 1600cc air cooled gasser and normally aspirated 1800cc water cooled gasser and turbo 1900cc diesel. 3500 lb fiberglass campers with my normally aspirated 2600cc gasser and normally aspirated 2200cc diesel. All of these had less horsepower than the Eco 1000.

And yet no Focus 1.0L listed by you or anyone else who is legitimately towing with one on this forum.

This thread's only purpose is meant to feel good for the drama queens.

[Lessmore]

hone eagle wrote:
Less we went over this before
"do I allow turbo engines to idle for cool down"
no - they are wife proof ,google ecoboost siphon(water) cooled turbo.

I remember your advice and thank you for it. It's just when I read/hear of a situation as per the link, that I start to wonder about adequacy of some components on some highly stressed (turbo) engines.

I think that our next vehicle could well have a turbo gas engine as they seem becoming quite common in a lot of different lines of different manufacturers.

The turbo 4 cylinder/6 cylinder seems to be the solution on the eyes of many a vehicle maker to provide good power, good gas MPG for that amount of torque/HP and although I'm unsure of this , possible an effective way to manage more stringent emission regulations.

The Ford EcoBoost V6 was a game changer in my view...large corporation going big into turbos for everyday engines and being very successful at it. Now Honda and others are in some cases not offering any options to a gas turbo engine (CRV)...which will further cement the position of a turbo in every garage, chicken in every pot, etc.

Now GM has raised the ante in truckdom...a turbo 4 cylinder in a full size truck. BTW, which appeals to me, but I'm the conservative type, who will watch how this engine pans out over a few years in service of others.

Les

[Lessmore]

BenK wrote:
Less...went back to this mornings news readings...

This is what am talking about ONLY and OEM can do the right stuff to the whole engine design...3rd parties can NOT afford to cast a new engine block, heads, etc, etc...

2019 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 First Test: Out With a Bang


Notice the references to 'heat'...a major issue when stuffing or force feeding any ICE. The bigger the block...the more heat rejection surface area.

which is notoriously prone to power-sapping engine-protection mode due to excess heat

and

and there are four new heat exchangers (13 “radiators” in total) tucked hither and thither

Boils down to BTU density, thermal mass' ability to move that heat and the ancillary stuff that goes with this common issue...thermal management and the designed in safeties that are mostly based on thermal metrics

And towing heavy is way harder than any sports car, drag racer, etc...as how long do they stay WOT at GVWR & GCWR ??? Add in on inclines 'some times' to 'often'...

Thanks Ben for the detailed response regarding the need to upgrade ancillary components to handle the increased stress, heat, etc. on these components.

It sounds like the engineers did the job right when it came to component upgrades necessary to handle all that power in the new Corvette...GM's flagship and world class competitive super car, IMHO.

As you have said in the past it's not so much the engineering talent where problems arise, but the bean counter factor...where inadequate parts will occasionally surface and surface due to initial concerns about 'cost'.

IMO again, I feel that it is more likely that parts that have, say less margin of 'robustness', come to the fore in vehicles that are not corporation flagships and less costly.

Les

[Bedlam]

RedRocket204 wrote:
I'm curious how many on here are towing RVs with a 1.0L Focus and what RV they're towing?


I guess you can't have drama without good actors.

I have towed 2000 lb utility trailers with a normally aspirated 1600cc air cooled gasser and normally aspirated 1800cc water cooled gasser and turbo 1900cc diesel. 3500 lb fiberglass campers with my normally aspirated 2600cc gasser and normally aspirated 2200cc diesel. All of these had less horsepower than the Eco 1000.

[mhamershock]

kpratte wrote:

Lessmore wrote:


However the Ford ecoboost V6 engine had me rethinking. I hadn't heard about issues in the area of poor durability/reliability...and particularly not about catastrophic failure of turbo and engine.

Do some googling on the first gen 3.5 Ecoboost on the F150.. There were many cases of issues with the intake/intercooler. The motors were hydrolocking when the air was damp and the intercooler worked too well and dumped several ounces of water into the engine in a big gulp. Ford denied any issues for a while but magically fixed the problem on the 2nd release of the 3.5. The newer releases of the engine seem to have the kinks worked out.

My Gen1 had heat rejection issues. I am aware of quite a few others with the same issue too. I regularly had it go into limp mode on long, steep pulls. I warped both exhaust manifolds. I cooked a turbo. Yeah, I was towing heavy, up hills, in high temps, but heck, that's common out West. There are LOTS of passes on I5, I80, etc that climb 5000 feet with 7% grades and news flash, CA gets warm in the summer. Ford didn't design the heat rejection system with this in mind IMHO.

My Gen2 hasn't done any of that yet, but I'm in Oregon now and it's not as hot as CA was, nor do we have the long climbs. I have read that Ford did make further attempts to address the heat retention issues and I hope they got it right this time. It was my only real issue with the Gen1 that I had for 150k miles.

Mike

[kpratte]

Lessmore wrote:


However the Ford ecoboost V6 engine had me rethinking. I hadn't heard about issues in the area of poor durability/reliability...and particularly not about catastrophic failure of turbo and engine.

Do some googling on the first gen 3.5 Ecoboost on the F150.. There were many cases of issues with the intake/intercooler. The motors were hydrolocking when the air was damp and the intercooler worked too well and dumped several ounces of water into the engine in a big gulp. Ford denied any issues for a while but magically fixed the problem on the 2nd release of the 3.5. The newer releases of the engine seem to have the kinks worked out.

[carringb]

JIMNLIN wrote:
hmmm...who tows with a 1.0 liter engine with a whoppin' 123 hp 125 torque. Not many I would bet.

I do, and it's a fantastic small car for towing smaller trailers. Even pulling 2,000 pounds through the northwest, a downshift was hardly ever needed

Peak torque is available at a low RPM, so it pulls at a low RPM just like small diesels do.

[theoldwizard1]

Lessmore wrote:
However the Ford ecoboost V6 engine had me rethinking. I hadn't heard about issues in the area of poor durability/reliability...and particularly not about catastrophic failure of turbo and engine.

Early EcoBoost engine were recommended to use 5W20 oil. A few years ago that was changed to 5W30. Not sure why, but if I had a 4+ year old EcoBoost engine, I think I would switch over to 5W30.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

BenK wrote:
Less...went back to this mornings news readings...

This is what am talking about ONLY and OEM can do the right stuff to the whole engine design...3rd parties can NOT afford to cast a new engine block, heads, etc, etc...

2019 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 First Test: Out With a Bang


Notice the references to 'heat'...a major issue when stuffing or force feeding any ICE. The bigger the block...the more heat rejection surface area.

which is notoriously prone to power-sapping engine-protection mode due to excess heat

and

and there are four new heat exchangers (13 “radiators” in total) tucked hither and thither

Boils down to BTU density, thermal mass' ability to move that heat and the ancillary stuff that goes with this common issue...thermal management and the designed in safeties that are mostly based on thermal metrics

And towing heavy is way harder than any sports car, drag racer, etc...as how long do they stay WOT at GVWR & GCWR ??? Add in on inclines 'some times' to 'often'...

On the money on every single point Ben.

Making power is easy now days. Back in the day I struggled and struggled with two problems on my turbo engines:

#1. Detonation. It was a bad problem and super hard to deal with without electronics. I never did get it totally solved; ever.

#2. Heat. This was not as big of a problem because on a street car you could only hold it WOT for a few seconds at a time before you were doing over 100 MPH. That's why I never did have a problem with duty cycle.

Now with E85 and electronics detonation is not much of a problem anymore.

Heat still is a big problem with OEM. It is better now days because the OEM has new materials to work with and the also have things like computer modeling.

Duty cycle is still a problem with small engines (as you pointed out) and always will be. There is a reason a class 8 has a 2,000+ lb engine that puts out 500 HP.

[BenK]

Less...went back to this mornings news readings...

This is what am talking about ONLY and OEM can do the right stuff to the whole engine design...3rd parties can NOT afford to cast a new engine block, heads, etc, etc...

2019 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 First Test: Out With a Bang


Notice the references to 'heat'...a major issue when stuffing or force feeding any ICE. The bigger the block...the more heat rejection surface area.

which is notoriously prone to power-sapping engine-protection mode due to excess heat

and

and there are four new heat exchangers (13 “radiators” in total) tucked hither and thither

Boils down to BTU density, thermal mass' ability to move that heat and the ancillary stuff that goes with this common issue...thermal management and the designed in safeties that are mostly based on thermal metrics

And towing heavy is way harder than any sports car, drag racer, etc...as how long do they stay WOT at GVWR & GCWR ??? Add in on inclines 'some times' to 'often'...

[BenK]

Less...agree and say Ford has done an admiral job of it with their EcoBoost...but...

Us boy racers knew and understood about forced fed since our teens. Turtle is an expert 'cuz he does/did that for a living

Always knew it would take an educated OEM to produce a reliable ICE that was force fed 2x-3x or more air/fuel into such a small package

Castings must be way thicker and with bosses/etc everywhere.

Piston oil cooling from spray nozzles from below

Higher rate thermal rejection systems for most all/anything to do with the whole ICE (block, heads, etc, etc, etc)

Because the surface areas needed to reject these much higher amounts of heat (temp, rate of changes, etc) has to have forced everything.

And to the PM...that guy is on my blocked list, so don't see his posts...yes, know of that coolant weeping (siphon) system...but it must not ever, ever has an air bubble in there or any kind of air leak. IMHO, not a solid design, but with higher risk than I'd design in

[wnjj]

Donnoh wrote:

JIMNLIN wrote:
hmmm...who tows with a 1.0 liter engine with a whoppin' 123 hp 125 torque. Not many I would bet.

LOL. My first truck was a 1986-1/2 Nissan "Hardbody" with a 2.4 liter engine. If I remember correctly it had 106 HP and around 125 lb/ft of torque. I towed a utility trailer with two quads on it for years and it was just as slow with a trailer as it was without one.

Mine was a 1972 LUV which put down a whopping 75hp. I hauled two big 3 wheelers while towing a trailer with a couple more many times. Slowed on the big hills and moved along just fine otherwise.

[hone_eagle]

Less we went over this before
"do I allow turbo engines to idle for cool down"
no - they are wife proof ,google ecoboost siphon(water) cooled turbo.