Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
Escapism

Porosity in Ford Blocks

Recommended Posts

So what’s going on with all the TSB’s about replacing long blocks. The very active Fordescape.org forum that I participate in has quite a few folks getting long blocks replaced due to coolant intrusion in the cylinders. Both 1.5 and 2.0’s has TSBs released. 

Not really sure if the engine ID tag would do any good  Is the casting done at a different location than the engine assembly?

I traded in my 2013 for a 2017 Ti 2.0  Love my vehicle, but now I’m nervous  

Just thought I would try to get some honest answers here. 

 

 

2F58AD47-CF56-4616-BA40-AD5E88868EB6.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't heard anything about that. I have a 2.0 in my 17 Fusion. No engine issues with almost 40k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting! It’s the first I’ve heard of it. So far I’ve done 2 UOA’s, no presence of coolant. No white smoke. No issues. Maybe I’ll do another UOA before 50k just to be certain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My parents 2013 Ti and my Wife's 2017 SE with the 2L Ecoboost have been fine so far

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Porosity is NOT the issue. Core shift due to the stress relief cuts between the cylinders are. The cuts make it so the fire ring cannot seal properly if there is even a little shift. The new short blocks have cross drilled reliefs rather than cut. Not sure when production moved to these.  

As of now, the 1.5 is being repaired with short blocks unless the plugs bind in the holes from the coolant. They don't even want tear down on those now. The 2.0 and 1.6 are long block for intrusion only.  FYI: 1.6 has always been 6006 since launch.

Edited by YT90SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YT90SC said:

Porosity is NOT the issue. Core shift due to the stress relief cuts between the cylinders are. The cuts make it so the fire ring cannot seal properly if there is even a little shift. The new short blocks have cross drilled reliefs rather than cut. Not sure when production moved to these.  

As of now, the 1.5 is being repaired with short blocks unless the plugs bind in the holes from the coolant. They don't even want tear down on those now. The 2.0 and 1.6 are long block for intrusion only.  FYI: 1.6 has always been 6006 since launch.

Thanks for the reply. Sounds like it is totally random. Are the block final machining done at the assembly plant? And what is "6006" mean?

Edited by Escapism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, YT90SC said:

Porosity is NOT the issue. Core shift due to the stress relief cuts between the cylinders are. The cuts make it so the fire ring cannot seal properly if there is even a little shift. The new short blocks have cross drilled reliefs rather than cut. Not sure when production moved to these.  

As of now, the 1.5 is being repaired with short blocks unless the plugs bind in the holes from the coolant. They don't even want tear down on those now. The 2.0 and 1.6 are long block for intrusion only.  FYI: 1.6 has always been 6006 since launch.

And then there's this:

 

1.5Coolant.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Escapism said:

Thanks for the reply. Sounds like it is totally random. Are the block final machining done at the assembly plant? And what is "6006" mean?

If by assembly plant you mean the engine plant then yes. Engines are delivered to final assembly completely built minus whatever unique wiring harnesses, a/c lines, etc are needed for that particular vehicle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know how many vehicles the 2.0 turbo goes into? I mean, you could read it as the sky is falling or just a small % of defects that happen in the manufacturing process. Don't go by what you hear on boards as an absolute. It may happen and there is a TSB but I wouldn't be too worried about it. If you are worried, pay attention for any warning signs and do a used oil analysis. If anything is out of the ordinary, take it to the dealer and document it. Worst case you have the issue but it will be fixed by Ford. My point is, enjoy your Escape and don't get to worried about the what if's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2.0 is in much everything except EcoSport and Trucks. There's millions on the road. If it was a larger issue it would be well documented by now. 

With that many on the road there's bound to be a bad one here or there, that's just the law of averages.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Forums are often echo chambers of small problems. Its like the case of the GT350 and it eating oil or grenading engines. They make what? 3500 of them a year and if 50 blow up, its only a roughly 1.5% failure rate. 

Share this post


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

Do you know how many vehicles the 2.0 turbo goes into? I mean, you could read it as the sky is falling or just a small % of defects that happen in the manufacturing process. Don't go by what you hear on boards as an absolute. It may happen and there is a TSB but I wouldn't be too worried about it. If you are worried, pay attention for any warning signs and do a used oil analysis. If anything is out of the ordinary, take it to the dealer and document it. Worst case you have the issue but it will be fixed by Ford. My point is, enjoy your Escape and don't get to worried about the what if's.

 

19 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

The 2.0 is in much everything except EcoSport and Trucks. There's millions on the road. If it was a larger issue it would be well documented by now. 

With that many on the road there's bound to be a bad one here or there, that's just the law of averages.  

Definitely agree with both of you. And yes, enthusiast forums tend to be a little over the top. But its really all we have to keep an honest eye on things. Kinda like having a free press and free speech. You have to put up with all the noise to find the truth hidden in there somewhere. Can't rely on Motor Trend or Car and Driver cause their all paid by sponsors.

Share this post


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

And then there's this:

 

1.5Coolant.jpg

When the gasket fails it almost always erodes the block where it let go because it was not meant to have combustion against those surfaces. The 1.5 automatically gets a short block now, the SSM you posted is old. HOWEVER many times when coolant has entered the chambers for an extended time, it will gall the plug to the head and ruin the head on plug removal. The TSB for 2.0 is engine long block assemblies (6006 base number).

21 hours ago, jcartwright99 said:

 If you are worried, pay attention for any warning signs and do a used oil analysis.

 First, you won't see anything in the oil. Coolant ends up in the combustion chambers only, not in the oil. If it is bad enough to get there, it will have other signs like missing at startup, empty degas bottles, overhearing and stinky burnt coolant. Second, oil analysis is NOT a warrantable justification for repair, per Ford. 

Any small leaks, get repaired immediately, as low coolant can exacerbate the failure of the headgasket. Lastly, don't get your panties in a wad if you go through a very small amount of coolant between oil changes. Some loss of volume of orange coolant due to evaporation during normal use is considered normal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 1:22 PM, YT90SC said:

 The new short blocks have cross drilled reliefs rather than cut. Not sure when production moved to these.  

Sounds similar to the cylinder block differences between the Mustang and Focus RS 2.3L EB's. Just curious, which style block does the Ranger use, cross drilled or machined reliefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blksn8k2 said:

Sounds similar to the cylinder block differences between the Mustang and Focus RS 2.3L EB's. Just curious, which style block does the Ranger use, cross drilled or machined reliefs?

I can't find the article but I recall reading they used the Focus RS block as the starting point for the Ranger block. The biggest changes were on the top end. 

Edited by fuzzymoomoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, blksn8k2 said:

Sounds similar to the cylinder block differences between the Mustang and Focus RS 2.3L EB's. Just curious, which style block does the Ranger use, cross drilled or machined reliefs?

I'm not sure. Haven't been that deep in one yet.. which bodes well for Ranger owners. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 7:45 AM, silvrsvt said:

Yes, Forums are often echo chambers of small problems. Its like the case of the GT350 and it eating oil or grenading engines. They make what? 3500 of them a year and if 50 blow up, its only a roughly 1.5% failure rate. 

two out of every 100 engines should not blow up.  ONLY a 1.5% failure rate is a very high failure rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, blwnsmoke said:

two out of every 100 engines should not blow up.  ONLY a 1.5% failure rate is a very high failure rate.

100% On target. 1.5% doesn't seem like much until you are the 1.5%. And these are specialty cars. Some of which wont see many miles/year. That becomes a VERY high rate, if you compound yearly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes it a common problem but not a widespread, they all do it kind of problem.

Share this post


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

two out of every 100 engines should not blow up.  ONLY a 1.5% failure rate is a very high failure rate.

 

26 minutes ago, akirby said:

That makes it a common problem but not a widespread, they all do it kind of problem.

The issue is-what is an acceptable rate of engine failure? Without metrics from other engines to compare it to, the numbers inconsequential.

Just as an example having a success rate of 99.9% out of  250K cars means that roughly 1250 cars have an issue... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The issue is-what is an acceptable rate of engine failure? Without metrics from other engines to compare it to, the numbers inconsequential.

Just as an example having a success rate of 99.9% out of  250K cars means that roughly 1250 cars have an issue... 

Not 1.5%..  i dont even think 0.1% is acceptable.  We are not talking about an overall issue with a vehicle, we are talking engine failure here.  I would never say to a customer, there are 2 vehicles out of a 100 on this lot that will have engine failure, hope you dont pick one of them lol.  YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, blwnsmoke said:

Not 1.5%..  i dont even think 0.1% is acceptable.  We are not talking about an overall issue with a vehicle, we are talking engine failure here.  I would never say to a customer, there are 2 vehicles out of a 100 on this lot that will have engine failure, hope you dont pick one of them lol.  YMMV.

I completely agree with you, however these things are just so complicated that a 0% failure rate is probably never going to happen. There's just way too many variables involved.  It sucks for the few that it might happen to and I really feel for them (says the guy who's 1 year old car with 15k miles on it that is currently on week 5 of getting its transmission rebuilt) and I really don't blame them for being pissed if it does happen. Fortunately that's what a warranty is for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big difference with something that fails at 10% for a subset of build dates under warranty and once replaced doesn’t fail again and things that fail at higher rates between 60k and 100k outside of warranty and is just as likely to fail again.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×