Jump to content





Escapism

Porosity in Ford Blocks

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, akirby said:


Of course it’s bad engineering but Engineering is workmanship.

 

Disagree. Workmanship is manufacturing of a product. Engineering is designing the product to be manufactured.

Anyway, tomato/tomoto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, akirby said:


Of course it’s bad engineering but Engineering is workmanship.

Not so fast my friend.  GM had a lawsuit dismissed arguing that inherent design defects do not fall under defects of materials or workmanship.

 

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2020/11/lawsuit-over-corvette-cracked-rims-dismissed-in-california/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Juechter said the problem can be caused by owners hitting potholes or other bumps in the road and then continuing to drive on the wheel, which can cause it to warp severely.


That’s entirely different than an engine failing.  And Ford is not refusing warranty coverage.

 

But I do agree there is room for interpretation on the definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, akirby said:


That’s entirely different than an engine failing.  And Ford is not refusing warranty coverage.

 

But I do agree there is room for interpretation on the definition.

 

You are quoting something that was irrelevant to reason the suit was dismissed.

Quote

The judge presiding over this suit, which was filed in the spring of last year in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, ruled that the plaintiff in the case did not prove that the problems with factory wheels on the C7 Corvette Z06 and Grand Sport were caused by a defect in the materials or workmanship rather than a design defect. While GM’s three-year, 36,000-mile factory warranty covers defective parts that do not work as they are intended, they do not cover inherent design flaws with vehicle parts. The plaintiff’s case hinged on the fact that GM had expressly breached its own warranty claims, so it was thus thrown out.

 

So this ruling sets a precedent that if a manufacturer designs a product/part and that part meets the manufacturing specifications yet routinely fails because the design itself is inherently unsuitable for the purpose it was intended, that bad design is not covered under warranty.  GM actually argued that point.  Now was it smart on GM's part not to warranty those wheels, probably not.  They could have easily said that those wheels were designed to be driven on smooth surfaces only.  However a reasonable expectation from the buying public would suggest that wheels should hold up under normal road conditions.

 

In Ford's case they are warrantying the blocks, so that isn't the question.  But your prior statement that design defects are covered is incorrect based on the GM precedent (a court in another state may rule differently, but many will look to previous rulings like this as guidance).  So if Ford eventually determines that these blocks are performing correctly, per design, and have no defects in materials and workmanship they may decide to not warranty them.  But I suspect that won't happen and instead they will look for a band-aid fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flying68 said:

 

You are quoting something that was irrelevant to reason the suit was dismissed.

 

So this ruling sets a precedent that if a manufacturer designs a product/part and that part meets the manufacturing specifications yet routinely fails because the design itself is inherently unsuitable for the purpose it was intended, that bad design is not covered under warranty.  GM actually argued that point.  Now was it smart on GM's part not to warranty those wheels, probably not.  They could have easily said that those wheels were designed to be driven on smooth surfaces only.  However a reasonable expectation from the buying public would suggest that wheels should hold up under normal road conditions.

 

In Ford's case they are warrantying the blocks, so that isn't the question.  But your prior statement that design defects are covered is incorrect based on the GM precedent (a court in another state may rule differently, but many will look to previous rulings like this as guidance).  So if Ford eventually determines that these blocks are performing correctly, per design, and have no defects in materials and workmanship they may decide to not warranty them.  But I suspect that won't happen and instead they will look for a band-aid fix.

 

I understand how it was worded but I'm not so sure all judges would interpret it that way.  Decisions like that get overturned all the time.  But I think the difference here is that the wheels only failed after impact so it becomes a question of how much impact was the wheel designed to take.  To me that's entirely different than a design that causes the engine to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, akirby said:

 

I understand how it was worded but I'm not so sure all judges would interpret it that way.  Decisions like that get overturned all the time.  But I think the difference here is that the wheels only failed after impact so it becomes a question of how much impact was the wheel designed to take.  To me that's entirely different than a design that causes the engine to fail.

 

Yes it is, but the actual suit was tossed even before that issue was discussed.  The actual cause of failure never entered into the suit.  So from a legal standpoint it doesn't matter how or for what conditions they were designed for.  The court agreed with GM's argument that the warranty doesn't cover design defects which is the cause of action that the plaintiffs were using.  There was no trial or evidence, GM only argued that if what the plaintiffs alleged was true (a design defect) the wording of the warranty excluded that defect.

 

And yes, another court may disagree and this may end up overturned on appeal, but that will likely take a few years if an appeals court decides to hear it.  So for now, this is precedent in California and all automakers will point to this ruling in any other case alleging a design defect, until a court rules that "materials and workmanship" includes the design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

 

Yes it is, but the actual suit was tossed even before that issue was discussed.  The actual cause of failure never entered into the suit.  So from a legal standpoint it doesn't matter how or for what conditions they were designed for.  The court agreed with GM's argument that the warranty doesn't cover design defects which is the cause of action that the plaintiffs were using.  There was no trial or evidence, GM only argued that if what the plaintiffs alleged was true (a design defect) the wording of the warranty excluded that defect.

 

And yes, another court may disagree and this may end up overturned on appeal, but that will likely take a few years if an appeals court decides to hear it.  So for now, this is precedent in California and all automakers will point to this ruling in any other case alleging a design defect, until a court rules that "materials and workmanship" includes the design.

 

That could very well be correct, but I do not think any automaker will deny a warranty claim for an engine failure caused by a design defect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Applying Indiana law, the Eighth Circuit concluded that summary judgment was proper because the flimsy sweeps constituted a design defect and design defects were not covered by warranty against defects in material and workmanship. Id. at 754. In reaching its conclusion, the Court drew a bright line between design defects and defects in materials or workmanship. Id. at 753. The Court held that a design defect reflects an inadequacy of the design itself, while defects in material and workmanship reflect departures from the intended design. Id. The Court concluded that the buyer’s expert’s characterization of the flimsy sweeps as a design defect and the buyer’s concession that the sweeps conformed to the design were fatal to the buyer’s claim. In support of its position, the Eighth Circuit cited to several decisions in other jurisdictions that reached the same conclusion.

https://www.fredlaw.com/news__media/2014/01/27/533/square_peg_meet_round_hole_-_do_design_defects_breach_a_warranty_against_defects_in_material_or_workmanship/

 

So in this case and the Corvette case the product worked as designed but not the way the buyer expected.

 

But in the Ford engine issue the inadequacy of the design leads to complete engine failure.   I suppose if the Ford engines were simply leaking coolant and not causing engine failure they could claim it was working as designed (but I don't expect that to happen).

 

Also.......

 

Quote

As a threshold matter, it is worth noting that not every jurisdiction has reached the same result. A few jurisdictions have held that a design defect does constitute a breach of warranty against defects in material or workmanship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes a design defect that leads to engine failure would likely be litigated under an implied warranty for merchantability.  After all a car isn't usable with an engine that fails.  Warranties and case law are very complex.  These cases also show that you can't just make a claim without knowing the case law.  I bet they would have had more success with claims for intentional misrepresentation and implied warranty claims, versus just standard warranty defect claims. 

 

Bottom line is that good companies will stand behind their products, bad companies won't.  All others only do when it is financially sound to do so (and that includes just about every car maker).  In the case of engines, Ford can keep warrantying the engines until engineering comes up with a new part that fixes what ever the root cause is.  In the case of the vette wheels, there really isn't anything that can be done other than replace them with an aftermarket set.  That Indiana case should have been litigated under intentional misrepresentation.

 

Good discussion.  Buyer be ware, and know the limitations and exclusions of your warranties.  Have a good lawyer if things go wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

In the case of the vette wheels, there really isn't anything that can be done other than replace them with an aftermarket set.  


Move somewhere with fewer potholes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, akirby said:


Move somewhere with fewer potholes?

Where would that be, Fantasy Island??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flying68 said:

Where would that be, Fantasy Island??

 

Definitely not Michigan or Illinois !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flying68 said:

Where would that be, Fantasy Island??

 

Georgia, for one - excluding Fulton County.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jcartwright99 said:

 

Definitely not Michigan or Illinois !!!

Don't come to Pennsylvania, either! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stay in the South, don't go up North.

 

Not a problem!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, akirby said:


Move somewhere with fewer potholes?

 

If it was your intent to de-rail this thread, and move the conversation away from Ford engine failures, you've succeeded.

 

Don't bother following your own rules,,,,,

 

HRG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

If it was your intent to de-rail this thread, and move the conversation away from Ford engine failures, you've succeeded.

 

Don't bother following your own rules,,,,,

 

This was on topic and if your intent was to further antagonize the moderators you've succeeded.   Take a 2 week vacation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too bad there isn't a simpler solution to the problem.  Like a metal based head gasket or something to prevent the issue.  Save an engine before it craps out from coolant issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 92merc said:

It's too bad there isn't a simpler solution to the problem.  Like a metal based head gasket or something to prevent the issue.  Save an engine before it craps out from coolant issues.

 

I was thinking about this before I got my extended warranty. If you didn't do any damage to the engine (ie caught the coolant leakage before driving around with no coolant), would you just be able to replace the head gasket as a band aid to keep it going? I mean it wouldn't fix the root cause, but would make it drivable  till the coolant ate through the gasket again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

 

I was thinking about this before I got my extended warranty. If you didn't do any damage to the engine (ie caught the coolant leakage before driving around with no coolant), would you just be able to replace the head gasket as a band aid to keep it going? I mean it wouldn't fix the root cause, but would make it drivable  till the coolant ate through the gasket again.

 

Seems reasonable to me.  What does it cost to replace the head gasket on a 4 cylinder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

Seems reasonable to me.  What does it cost to replace the head gasket on a 4 cylinder?


Probably depends on the shop and what they charge for labor. I don't see the difference in price for a different gasket material being that big. I also haven't checked either. You can also save money by doing it yourself if you’re out of warranty and feel comfortable enough to tackle that kind of job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going a ways back.  But didn't the Focus RS have some aftermarket metal head gasket setup racers were using?  I could be wrong.  And maybe this just doesn't work.  I would think Ford Engineering would have tried this already.

 

https://www.speedperf6rmanc3.com/products/je-pro-seal-head-gasket.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2021 at 5:14 PM, 92merc said:

I'm going a ways back.  But didn't the Focus RS have some aftermarket metal head gasket setup racers were using?  I could be wrong.  And maybe this just doesn't work.  I would think Ford Engineering would have tried this already.

 

https://www.speedperf6rmanc3.com/products/je-pro-seal-head-gasket.html

Focus RS has a 2.3L "open deck" design vs the subject of this thread that has a "closed deck"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2021 at 11:59 AM, twintornados said:

Focus RS has a 2.3L "open deck" design vs the subject of this thread that has a "closed deck"

Are you sure? The 1.5 and the twin scroll 2.0 are open deck designs. These are the main culprits of coolant intrusion that has plagued folks, and the topic of this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Escapism said:

Are you sure? The 1.5 and the twin scroll 2.0 are open deck designs. These are the main culprits of coolant intrusion that has plagued folks, and the topic of this thread. 

 

The coolant intrusion is due to the "saw cuts" into the Siamesed cylinders that fail in some cases...and that is the topic of this thread.   I stand corrected that the other EB's in this thread are also open deck designs...thanks for the correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×