Ford Pickups Face Probe After Stranding Drivers

[92merc]

 

First off, it is in fact a "failed sensor" that is causing all these issues. Not one 6.7 that I have read anywhere has burned up. It is a $50 part that continuously fails. And, if the motor was going to burn down, ALL 4 sensors would be seeing higher then "normal" levels. If one sensor goes out, there are still 3 more there, the truck knows whether it is going to "burn down" so that takes care of your scenario.

That isn't totally true either. First failed sensor may be an indication of worse things yet to come.

 

Take the Columbia break up on re-entry. First sensor issue was a tire sensor in the wheel well of the wing. Just one sensor going bad, right? Except that first sensor was an indication of things worse to come.

 

I don't disagree it's a bad issue that can stop a driver in their tracks. It does need to be addressed. But I think the situation is probably more complicated than people realize. It's been implied to "just fix the software". Today's trucks just aren't that simple.

[Kev-Mo]

 

Nobody is saying it's a good thing, just not as horrible as some make it out to be.

 

And the kids banging on the road sign? Well, that ain't the fault of the vehicle that broke down....

 

A >$50K truck breaking down in the middle of nowhere stranding the driver and passengers due to a design flaw around a $50 sensor is a pretty horrible thing, and can put someone in danger. Especially if it is common to the specific model.

 

Shredding a tire on a piece of road debris is "unlucky" and not common to a specific model.

 

These examples are two completely different scenarios.

 

Quick - You are driving up Wolf Creek Pass on a 9% grade pulling a 8000 lb trailer - your warning light comes on and you have 10 seconds. You are about to enter an even steeper 180 degree switchback - what do you do? What would Captain Sully Sullenberger do? This is not an easy situation - not everyone is an idiot.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Kev-Mo

[fordmantpw]

 

A >$50K truck breaking down in the middle of nowhere stranding the driver and passengers due to a design flaw around a $50 sensor is a pretty horrible thing, and can put someone in danger. Especially if it is common to the specific model.

 

Shredding a tire on a piece of road debris is "unlucky" and not common to a specific model.

 

I don't disagree, but how common is the problem? Is it 5, 10, 1000 trucks? What percentage? We don't know exactly how common it is. Should it be fixed? Yes, I'm not disputing that. If the problem was truly that widespread, I think we would have already seen a complete recall on it. Ford has learned enough to know that recalls early are much better than later.

 

 

Quick - You are driving up Wolf Creek Pass on a 9% grade pulling a 8000 lb trailer - your warning light comes on and you have 10 seconds. You are about to enter an even steeper 180 degree switchback - what do you do? What would Captain Sully Sullenberger do? This is not an easy situation - not everyone is an idiot.

 

What would I do? Well, if my warning light came on and I had 10 seconds to get off the road, you can bet your sweet @ss that I'd get off the road as safely and quickly as possible, no matter the circumstances. In reality, towing heavy, especially in those circumstances, requires much more fore-thought than non-towing. You should always be monitoring the road ahead, preparing for a place to pull off or safely shut things down if the need arises.

[Kev-Mo]

 

I don't disagree, but how common is the problem? Is it 5, 10, 1000 trucks? What percentage? We don't know exactly how common it is. Should it be fixed? Yes, I'm not disputing that. If the problem was truly that widespread, I think we would have already seen a complete recall on it. Ford has learned enough to know that recalls early are much better than later.

 

 

 

What would I do? Well, if my warning light came on and I had 10 seconds to get off the road, you can bet your sweet @ss that I'd get off the road as safely and quickly as possible, no matter the circumstances. In reality, towing heavy, especially in those circumstances, requires much more fore-thought than non-towing. You should always be monitoring the road ahead, preparing for a place to pull off or safely shut things down if the need arises.

 

Point is, if you have ever been on a road like Wolf Creek Pass - there is really nowhere to go (like Sully Sullenberger). Huge snowbanks, very narrow shoulders even in the summer, guard rails, insanely steep grades etc. Not like simply pulling over on a flat Interstate Highway in the mid-west or Florida.

 

Hope they get it taken care of quickly. I would hate to see my favorite car/truck company get another black eye and bad rap on the heavy duty trucks.

[fordmantpw]

Point is, if you have ever been on a road like Wolf Creek Pass - there is really nowhere to go (like Sully Sullenberger). Huge snowbanks, very narrow shoulders even in the summer, guard rails, insanely steep grades etc. Not like simply pulling over on a flat Interstate Highway in the mid-west or Florida.

 

Maybe I should have said 'same thing I'd do if I had a blown tire.'

 

To get to the campgrounds we frequent, there are many areas where there are no shoulders at all. I mean, 12" from the white line (if they have a white line) and you are off in the ditch. Sure, they aren't as steep as in the Rockies, but we've got plenty of curvy, windy, shoulder-less roads around here.

 

Hope they get it taken care of quickly. I would hate to see my favorite car/truck company get another black eye and bad rap on the heavy duty trucks.

 

Agreed!

[RichardJensen]

This is *nothing* like the 6.0 fiasco.

 

The sensor design possibly has to be rethought, but let's not try to paint horrific scenarios based strictly off our fanciful imaginations----especially when, as fordmantpw pointed out, other scenarios are more likely and probably more dangerous (e.g. a tire blowout on a mountain road vs. a ten second countdown to shut down during which you'll have full use of your brakes and steering)

 

Will people be ticked about being stranded by an $80 part in their $60k truck? Absolutely.

 

But at the same time, show me a diesel engine these days that *isn't* temperamental and finicky. I would venture to guess that more people are stranded in these desolate areas by bad diesel fuel than any mechanical/electronic issue.

[Kev-Mo]

 

 

Will people be ticked about being stranded by an $80 part in their $60k truck? Absolutely.

 

 

 

Then we all agree.

 

And "fanciful imaginations" are for those who have never actually been on those roads, thinking "...wow, it would really suck if something so simple like my serpentine belt failed right now..."

I am however, really glad that for the most part our highly sophisticated cars and trucks are generally very reliable, and do not take it for granted.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Kev-Mo

[RichardJensen]

"Fanciful imaginations" refers to scenarios that have not happened in real life--it does not appear that anyone has careened off a mountain pass, 8,000lb camper in tow, because one of these sensors has failed resulting in a ten second countdown to engine off.

 

As far as being prepared, one should not figure, "Oh, I'm driving a Dodge, therefore my diesel sensor will not fault while I'm driving, therefore I don't need to be prepared for a sudden stop."

[blwnsmoke]

 

I don't disagree, but how common is the problem? Is it 5, 10, 1000 trucks? What percentage? We don't know exactly how common it is. Should it be fixed? Yes, I'm not disputing that. If the problem was truly that widespread, I think we would have already seen a complete recall on it. Ford has learned enough to know that recalls early are much better than later.

 

 

 

What would I do? Well, if my warning light came on and I had 10 seconds to get off the road, you can bet your sweet @ss that I'd get off the road as safely and quickly as possible, no matter the circumstances. In reality, towing heavy, especially in those circumstances, requires much more fore-thought than non-towing. You should always be monitoring the road ahead, preparing for a place to pull off or safely shut things down if the need arises.

 

My argument is this (whether right or wrong), if they were able to reflash the ambulances from the 11-12 MYs to not do this, there is no reason they can't do it to all the trucks. Back then, I think Ford wasn't as Recall happy just like most of the other manufacturers. Last year was when it really went from "sshhhhh.. don't say the "r" word to ------> recall it immediately"..

 

An ambulance has just as much of a chance of "burning down" because of this. I believe Ford did the minimum they needed to because if someone died in an ambulance on their way to the hospital because of a $50 part, Ford would be sued big time.

 

All the owners want is for Ford to do what they did for the ambulance to the pickups. There should be no difference (except the C&C trucks have a detuned 6.7).

 

Not trying to be argumentative.. I understand your view as it being more an inconvenience then a major issue.. but regardless I still say that if you are traveling at 70mph with a trailer in the middle of a 4 lane highway, you try to move all the way over in the breakdown lane and stop your truck in 10 seconds while your vehicle is 60 feet long.

 

I encourage you to take 10 minutes out of your day when you have some spare time and google "ford 6.7 failed egt sensor" to get an idea on just how common this is.

 

This issue is so common, Ford has had numerous Backorders on the part, some waiting over a month to get them in and dealer's were taking them off NEW trucks on the lot just to get the customer back on the road.

Edited January 20, 2015 by blwnsmoke

[blwnsmoke]

That isn't totally true either. First failed sensor may be an indication of worse things yet to come.

 

Take the Columbia break up on re-entry. First sensor issue was a tire sensor in the wheel well of the wing. Just one sensor going bad, right? Except that first sensor was an indication of things worse to come.

 

I don't disagree it's a bad issue that can stop a driver in their tracks. It does need to be addressed. But I think the situation is probably more complicated than people realize. It's been implied to "just fix the software". Today's trucks just aren't that simple.

 

4 Sensors, 1 right before the DPF, one in the DPF, one after the DPF and I can't remember where the 4th one is. The fact is that if sensor 1 and 2 are reading 300-400 degrees (normal operating temp) and sensor 4 is reading 300-400 degrees (all the sensors are within 5-7 feet of exhaust pipe approximate) and sensor 3 goes on a fritz and shuts down the truck, I assure you that there is no way that sensor 3 which is 18" from sensor 2 and 4 is 700 degrees hotter. There is no fuel introduced anywhere in this line. They have already revised the sensor and it is still having the same issues. Will there be a Part "C", maybe but as of now, Ford is still putting in the Part "B"s.

 

Edited January 20, 2015 by blwnsmoke

[blwnsmoke]

As far as being prepared, one should not figure, "Oh, I'm driving a Dodge, therefore my diesel sensor will not fault while I'm driving, therefore I don't need to be prepared for a sudden stop."

 

It doesn't matter whether it is a GM, Ram or Ford, ALL of us should not have to worry about this. Yes a one time failure here and there, sure no problem. The argument is that this is a common problem, the most common problem with the 6.7. Ford already recognized this and refreshed the Ambulances, they need to do the same for us at the very least OR option 2, fix the part once and for all.

[fordmantpw]

 

My argument is this (whether right or wrong), if they were able to reflash the ambulances from the 11-12 MYs to not do this, there is no reason they can't do it to all the trucks. Back then, I think Ford wasn't as Recall happy just like most of the other manufacturers. Last year was when it really went from "sshhhhh.. don't say the "r" word to ------> recall it immediately"..

 

An ambulance has just as much of a chance of "burning down" because of this. I believe Ford did the minimum they needed to because if someone died in an ambulance on their way to the hospital because of a $50 part, Ford would be sued big time.

 

Ambulances don't typically tow on the order of 20k pounds either. I'm sure those sensors are there to protect the truck and engine in more cases than just burning down. You need more detailed information and better sensing towing 20k lbs than you do with a 14k lbs ambulance. I'm sure if it was as easy as you suggest, it would have been done already.

[RichardJensen]

 

It doesn't matter whether it is a GM, Ram or Ford, ALL of us should not have to worry about this. Yes a one time failure here and there, sure no problem. The argument is that this is a common problem, the most common problem with the 6.7. Ford already recognized this and refreshed the Ambulances, they need to do the same for us at the very least OR option 2, fix the part once and for all.

 

You're missing the point I was trying to make.

 

My point was specifically in response to Kev-Mo who was suggesting that Ford owners needed to have some sort of contingency plan in case the sensor failed, which as fordmantpw also pointed out, is overly simplistic. Every driver should be prepared for 'worst case' scenarios, regardless of whether their vehicle is prone to a particular type of issue.

[Kev-Mo]

 

You're missing the point I was trying to make.

 

My point was specifically in response to Kev-Mo who was suggesting that Ford owners needed to have some sort of contingency plan in case the sensor failed, which as fordmantpw also pointed out, is overly simplistic. Every driver should be prepared for 'worst case' scenarios, regardless of whether their vehicle is prone to a particular type of issue.

 

I don't recall suggesting that....

 

My point is: In some places, there is enough to worry about without one more thing that only your model is "commonly" prone to. I know you guys don't agree with me - Ok.

 

Hope they get it resolved quickly - I love the trucks and want them to maintain their great reputation. I know one local equestrian/farm family business that switched several trucks to Dodge over the 6.0 fiasco. My neighbor has a water infrastructure business and is very frustrated over his 6.0's. I don't need to hear any more Ford bashing from my acquaintances.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Kev-Mo

[RichardJensen]

 

My point is: In some places, there is enough to worry about without one more thing that only your model is "commonly" prone to.

 

What's the additional worry?

 

- Blow a tire, need to stop safely

 

- Hit a deer, need to stop safely

 

- Get a ten second countdown, need to stop safely

 

I'm really not seeing a huge difference between the top two things that you need to be prepared for and the third---except that in the third instance you've got an intact vehicle with fully functioning steering and tires.

[YT90SC]

Blwnsmoke, your picture is of the 6.4 exhaust aftertreatment, but since that is easier to understand than one with the SCR I will use it. The left most sensor is the temp sensor going into the DOC (Diesel Oxidation Catalyst). It should be coolest during regen. Next is the DOC and the DOC's temp sensor. Let me tell you that the DOC is in front of the DPF in all applications. Why? Because it acts as the "light off" where the fuel and air are burned to increase the temp of the DPF to burn out the soot. This is literally a blowtorch. This is where the temp goes from whatever the temp coming out of the engine is to 1000 degrees to ash the soot. The DPF and its sensor are next. The temp there is critical as it must be hot enough to continue ashing the soot through the length of the DPF media, but not enough to burn the truck or anything nearby the tail pipes.

Now, if ANYTHING goes wrong in the engine (stuck injector, leaking HPFP, overfilled oil, coolant, etc) that is picked up by the crankcase vent and may even be pushed through the rings. (Turbo seal failure as well.) This enters the system as unmetered fuel. Diesels run with excess oxygen in the exhaust stream. The two of them burn in the DOC, this raises the exhaust temp and can raise it during normal operation, not just during active regen. This is EXACTLY what happened during the flamethrower videos that were viral in 2008 as the 6.4 was rolling out. This is why you cannot ignore the last sensor and why 18 inches MAY mean hotter downstream. In addition a DPF media failure (crack, break, chunk gone etc) will allow the blowtorch to continue down the exhaust unimpeded.

Edited January 21, 2015 by YT90SC

[blwnsmoke]

^^^ I was aware that it was the 6.4 but my assumption (clearly incorrect) was that they were very similar so I just used that picture. It was more of illustration purposes that the 4 sensors are very close to each other.

 

-------------

 

Apparently Ford just released this .. FSA 14E03 for all trucks built up to 11/6/2013.

 

""In all of the affected vehicles, the Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) system calibration must be updated to meet emission guidelines. In addition, the updated calibration contains additional improvements to the SCR system including reduced temperature sensor faults and improved drivability. "

 

-----------

 

If I'm understanding this correctly (not many details but seems pretty obvious in its description), it seems that it is what I said, as simple as a reflash..... Great to see they came out with a fix quickly once the NHTSA started their investigation but think they need to go through 2015.

 

On the other side, there are not many details yet on this reflash so it's hard to say specifically what it involves and/or changes.

Edited January 21, 2015 by blwnsmoke

[blwnsmoke]

Also to add, a member on one of the diesel forums I belong to put his VIN into Ford's online system and it did populate as the 14E03 is a Recall.

 

So if this does in fact fix our issues, props to Ford for finally doing something about it. However, it should not have taken 5 MYs and the publicity of the NHTSA to get this done.

[ajvolpe]

Obviously the problem with this engine as well as my 6.4l, is emission hardware. It is the weakest point in an otherwise great powertrain. Software initiates regen's on mine all too often and at the worst possible times. During this process, it destroys fuel efficiency accumulated by driving frugally.

[RichardJensen]

How do you know that those regen cycles occur "too often"?

[blwnsmoke]

The 6.4 motor had IMO a piss poor regen system. MANY complained about the regens on the 6.4s and the 13mpg they would average per tank. Coming from the 6.0s that would get 18-20mpg and with the 6.7s with an updated regen system getting 17-19mpg.. 13 was just god awful. That motor was just a motor to get by till Ford released their in-house 6.7.

 

People who delete the 6.4 get a huge increase in mileage.

 

Unless they go like the big rigs and add an additional injector down stream instead of this exhaust valve crap dumping fuel into the motor to get temps up, we will always see IMO a lower mpg truck.

 

I will be deleting most likely this spring on my 2015, not because of wanting more power, just wanting a healthier engine to last for the long term.

Edited January 21, 2015 by blwnsmoke

[fordmantpw]

The 6.4 motor had IMO a piss poor regen system. MANY complained about the regens on the 6.4s and the 13mpg they would average per tank. Coming from the 6.0s that would get 18-20mpg and with the 6.7s with an updated regen system getting 17-19mpg.. 13 was just god awful. That motor was just a motor to get by till Ford released their in-house 6.7.

 

People who delete the 6.4 get a huge increase in mileage.

 

Unless they go like the big rigs and add an additional injector down stream instead of this exhaust valve crap dumping fuel into the motor to get temps up, we will always see IMO a lower mpg truck.

 

I will be deleting most likely this spring on my 2015, not because of wanting more power, just wanting a healthier engine to last for the long term.

 

As an owner of a 6.4, I can tell you that the regen is NOT what zaps mileage on these trucks. It's just the emissions in general, not specifically a regen. The 6.4L wasn't built from the ground up with these emissions in mind like the 6.7L was. I can go a tank without a regen and two tanks with a regen, and the difference in MPG is negligible...< 1 MPG.

 

One reason the 6.7L gets better fuel economy is the addition of DEF. It allows the NOx to be cleaned up with DEF instead of needing to run as much EGR, allows the engine to run more efficient, etc. This has nothing to do with regen. The regens ARE more efficient with the 6.7L, but that is a very small portion of the mileage increase.

 

Also, how is moving the injector down stream going to improve fuel economy? You still have to inject the fuel, regardless of where the injector is located.

[blwnsmoke]

You are correct, sorry I put two things together. The whole topic of moving it down stream would create more reliability with the motor and the left bank valve issues that Ford has. Even with the redesigned valves, there are still issues with the valves going to junk. Moving downstream would solve this issue (maybe create another) and make the motor more reliable as well.

 

So if your mileage doesn't vary, between a regen and no regen, then why do people gain 4-5mpg with deleting on the 6.4? I can say I take a 2mpg hit with a regen over 1 tank of fuel on my 6.7.

[fordmantpw]

You are correct, sorry I put two things together. The whole topic of moving it down stream would create more reliability with the motor and the left bank valve issues that Ford has. Even with the redesigned valves, there are still issues with the valves going to junk. Moving downstream would solve this issue (maybe create another) and make the motor more reliable as well.

 

So if your mileage doesn't vary, between a regen and no regen, then why do people gain 4-5mpg with deleting on the 6.4? I can say I take a 2mpg hit with a regen over 1 tank of fuel on my 6.7.

 

Agree that adding a ninth injector would be better for the engine, but I'm guessing Ford determined that it wasn't worth the extra expense. After all, it seems like it would be easier to just add an additional rather than another injection for the exhaust stroke.

 

For those that gain 4-5 mpg with deleting, I call BS. I would bet you lunch that those aren't actual hand-calced, true numbers. It's more likely in the range of 1-2. Also, I'm sure they aren't just deleting the DPF, but EGR as well, along with a completely different tune on the engine. Not to mention, when deleting, the MPG calc on the computer is usually completely inaccurate after that.

 

And a 2 MPG hit on a single tank is not very likely even with your 6.7L. I'm not necessarily doubting you, but I doubt those two tanks had completely identical driving habits.

 

Let's say your truck has a 30 gallon tank, and let's say you get 18 MPG on a normal tank. That is 540 miles.

Now, in a regen tank, you get 16 MPG. That is 480 miles, for a difference of 60 miles.

So, at the before mentioned 18 MPG during non-regen, you used 26.67 gallons of fuel to travel those 480 miles. That means the regens took 3.33 gallons of fuel. Even if you had 2 regens in that tank, that is 1.67 gallons of fuel per regen. I can't find the information now, but the last I recall seeing is that a typical regen took less than a quart of diesel. A tank with two regens taking a quart each would only drop your MPG from 18 to 17.7.

[blwnsmoke]

I hand calculate my mileage with every tank and I actually track it on Fuelly.com My fuel mileage on my dash is within .2mpg every tank (I know it is rare for the dash to be almost spot on) and I have about 10,300 miles on my odometer now (bought it 5/29).

 

I have an Edge CTS monitor as well so I can see exactly when it goes into regen and when the regen finishes as well as able to monitor my soot %. I can get 19-20mpg in the summer (non winter blend) hand calculated without a regen. Since I regen once per tank, the way I track this is if I got down to half a tank without a regen, I fill up so I can take my mileage and gallons and figure it out. I do this more then once because as you said, driving habits can fluctuate.

 

Then if I run a tank with a regen, I usually average about 17.2 - 17.5mpg... that is a 2mpg hit. My commute is the same to work and back. I also bring my daughter to school 3 times a week and that commute is the same. I don't fluctuate very much with my truck as far as driving habits and speeds.

 

With winter blend right now, I'm getting 14.8 - 15.2 mpg with regen which is pretty normal of a drop. The 15 6.7s regen cycle seems to last about 20-25 minutes where the 11-14 6.7s were lasting 10-15 minutes. This is pretty consistent among 15 6.7 owners.. not sure why it changed but it did (I'm aware of all the motor upgrades for the 2015).

 

--------

 

In response to your comments on the 6.4. Yes many who delete go high power as well or run a tow tune. I've read over an over that these 6.4s get 13mpg unloaded stock and in the single digits towing heavy. What do you get for mileage hand calculate with your 6.4? My 40ft 5th wheel at about 13,000lbs nets me 11.2-11.4mpg towing (no regen - exhaust temps are hot enough to keep soot % down) so the 6.7 is a MUCH more efficient motor all around over the 6.4 IMO.

 

And as far as a 9th injector, do you really think it would have cost that much more to do it that way. $320 for an injector, some fuel piping to the injector, have to mount it inline and some programming. I don't think it would that much more to have done it that way. Obviously I'm no engineer but I wonder with this being Ford's 1st in-house motor, if they designed it similar to the 6.4 because that is what they were familiar with.. as in.. they built off what they knew as opposed to trying something different.

 

As CAFE continues to get more and more strict, I wonder if Ford will continue this direction or go the route of the big rigs. Will be interesting to see the next gen motor in the years to come.

Edited January 21, 2015 by blwnsmoke