Warning To All Ford Ecoboost Owners

[leeharvey418]

Originally Posted By: supton
I wonder what the recommened service schedule on that beast looks like.

I know that they call for replacing all four wheels (not the tires... the wheels) at something like 40,000 miles, to the tune of $35,000.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
So, can anyone give me the approximate number of Ecoboost engines that have had their cylinder heads replaced due to intake valve deposits?


Of course not. Ford will take that secret to their grave! As someone already stole my line earlier there is a lot of "Internet Amplification" involved here.

In reality, DI is great tech, but only for some mfgrs. For many carmakers it is a "work in progress" and considerable work is obviously still needed.

It is extremely illogical to somehow rationalize that this somehow applies to all new tech in automobiles as many do here...

 

[millerbl00]

It is extremely illogical to somehow rationalize that the car manufacturers have our best interest at heart and get new tech right the first time as many do here...

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: millerbl00
It is extremely illogical to somehow rationalize that the car manufacturers have our best interest at heart and get new tech right the first time as many do here...


When you are arguing that a transmission may not work properly because it's never been fitted to a specific frame before, your argument starts to sound silly and loses credibility.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Trav
No comment on the Veyron?


Sure, why not? The Veyron is a very limited edition, very high performance car. The few people that can afford to buy and operate it don't care one snap about getting a few percent better fuel economy that DI can provide.

If you're trying to make an inference that DI is not good for high performance applications, I would refer you to Audi's LeMans winning cars of the early 2000's. These were all DI turbo V8's, and won the race I think 4 years in a row. (One of those years was with a closed car badged as a Bentley, but still powered by the same FSI engine.) Audi replaced them with their TDI racecars and continued winning LeMans year after year.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: millerbl00
It is extremely illogical to somehow rationalize that the car manufacturers have our best interest at heart and get new tech right the first time as many do here...


Exactly who said that?

You say "many" so I expect to see quotes from at least four different people.

 

[millerbl00]

Like I said it happened to ME and others I have personally seen.



Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: millerbl00
It is extremely illogical to somehow rationalize that the car manufacturers have our best interest at heart and get new tech right the first time as many do here...


When you are arguing that a transmission may not work properly because it's never been fitted to a specific frame before, your argument starts to sound silly and loses credibility.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Trav
No comment on the Veyron?


Sure, why not? The Veyron is a very limited edition, very high performance car. The few people that can afford to buy and operate it don't care one snap about getting a few percent better fuel economy that DI can provide.

If you're trying to make an inference that DI is not good for high performance applications, I would refer you to Audi's LeMans winning cars of the early 2000's. These were all DI turbo V8's, and won the race I think 4 years in a row. (One of those years was with a closed car badged as a Bentley, but still powered by the same FSI engine.) Audi replaced them with their TDI racecars and continued winning LeMans year after year.


Totally irrelevant! Those are race cars and will be torn down right after they race.
So now DI is just about fuel economy so they feel no need to use in the Veyron because the customer have enough money to buy the gas? Thats beyond laughable man!
VW who also owns Audi you are using as an example built the engine and didn't bother with DI or did you just happen to forget that?
Your irrelevant history lessons are all well and good but the bottom line is they didn't use it because they didn't need to use it. It brought nothing to the project that was deemed beneficial. Its that simple.

This thing with the space you are dead wrong! SRB had problems for many years and NASA was well aware of the design issues and used them anyway. The Shuttle was a potential flying bomb right from the drawing board. That is a design flaw no matter how you want to spin it! The proof? The thing exploded in mid air.
So what if it was cold, if the SRB didn't have a design flaw nothing would have happened.


Quote:
As early as 1972, problems began to develop in solid rocket field joints on other boosters similar to those proposed for the SRBs. Under some circumstances, the putty and O-rings did not function properly and the O-rings were subjected to hot combustion products which rapidly eroded the O-rings


The use of this flawed design was at best irresponsible.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03l.html

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
As early as 1972, problems began to develop in solid rocket field joints on other boosters similar to those proposed for the SRBs. Under some circumstances, the putty and O-rings did not function properly and the O-rings were subjected to hot combustion products which rapidly eroded the O-rings


The use of this flawed design was at best irresponsible.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03l.html


What circumstances, exactly?

Subfreezing temperatures? The exact circumstance the manufacturer of this product specifically stated to avoid?

What other circumstances could have caused this to occur? It doesn't state that the issue presented itself completely at random.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: millerbl00
It is extremely illogical to somehow rationalize that the car manufacturers have our best interest at heart and get new tech right the first time as many do here...


When you are arguing that a transmission may not work properly because it's never been fitted to a specific frame before, your argument starts to sound silly and loses credibility.


Gee, the phrase "loses credibility" seems to imply that there WAS some to begin with.

Clever paraphrasing does not an effective argument make. Perhaps a few facts and figures, or maybe just another emotional diatribe...

 

[millerbl00]

Low blow. Keep um coming. Showing your true colors...

Even though we disagree I hope you never have to spent a year going though arbitration like I did TWICE. Then you would not praise your big auto so much...

 

[leeharvey418]

Trav, you're starting to come across as less than well-informed.

By your standard, every manned space vehicle ever launched was a potential flying bomb. Every system had its known operational parameters and limits... NASA decided to ignore those limits, repeatedly, in different ways, with the Space Shuttle. They got burned twice, but they violated what the engineers said was safe on many more occasions. The prevailing attitude was that they hadn't screwed up yet, so keep going the way they were. Fourteen people died, not because of flawed systems, but because of managers who thought they knew more than what they really did.

 

[leeharvey418]

Originally Posted By: millerbl00
I hope you never have to spent a year going though arbitration like I did TWICE.

I realize that there are people who win the lottery more than once, but when one considers the odds of being forced into arbitration or Lemon Law situations more than once...

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: millerbl00
Low blow. Keep um coming. Showing your true colors...

Even though we disagree I hope you never have to spent a year going though arbitration like I did TWICE. Then you would not praise your big auto so much...


Man, if I had to go through that I'd be angry and distrustful too. I get it.

But the filter you're running this conversation through is just wrong. We're not saying that "big auto" is super awesome, all praise King Chevrolet and Queen Hyundai!

Most of us (all of us?) have been burned in one way or the other. Maybe it's something as simple as a just out of warranty repair being denied, maybe we've had to go in and fix a design flaw that could lead to something expensive failing, whatever.

But when you buy a car, any car, you know that there's always going to be something. I'm comfortable with this "something."

 

[cptbarkey]

the bottom line is, ford sucks. and everyone's opinion here on NASA is frankly ignorant.

lock this thread up, its done.

 

[millerbl00]

I feel by waiting for "new tech" to be proven the "something" risk can be mitigated. Depending on the manufacturer and new tech that could be a long time...

Nothing wrong with tech 5 or 10 years old. Its been proven or bugs show up...

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: millerbl00
Low blow. Keep um coming. Showing your true colors...

Even though we disagree I hope you never have to spent a year going though arbitration like I did TWICE. Then you would not praise your big auto so much...


Man, if I had to go through that I'd be angry and distrustful too. I get it.

But the filter you're running this conversation through is just wrong. We're not saying that "big auto" is super awesome, all praise King Chevrolet and Queen Hyundai!

Most of us (all of us?) have been burned in one way or the other. Maybe it's something as simple as a just out of warranty repair being denied, maybe we've had to go in and fix a design flaw that could lead to something expensive failing, whatever.

But when you buy a car, any car, you know that there's always going to be something. I'm comfortable with this "something."



Finally, the voice of reason.

EVERY single car mfgr has made a lemon. Someone bought it. It happens all the time.

I can tell stealership horror stories quite well as I buy fleet trucks regularly. Of course I've had a lemon or two. Buy enough cars/trucks and you'll eventually hit one.

But I NEVER let the past steal the future from me. What has happened in no way controls what could or will...

 

[millerbl00]

I will let someone else test the "future". Learn from the past or be doomed to repeat it.

 

[Trav]

They Knew this design was inherently flawed back in 72. Why would you use it?
The tiles dropping off i suppose that wasn't a flaw either?
I am very well informed. I was reading about von Braun, he said SRB are not really for manned space flight vehicles. The reason, once started there is no shutting them off.

Now if that isn't an inherent flaw in the design for their use with the shuttle nothing is.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90890

 

[kschachn]

But neither of which were design flaws, nor contributed to either accident.

Originally Posted By: Trav
They Knew this design was inherently flawed back in 72. Why would you use it?
The tiles dropping off i suppose that wasn't a flaw either?
I am very well informed. I was reading about von Braun, he said SRB are not really for manned space flight vehicles. The reason, once started there is no shutting them off.

Now if that isn't an inherent flaw in the design for their use with the shuttle nothing is.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90890