Sponsored

Sensor failings. You could have one too!

Bull Run

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Threads
64
Messages
983
Reaction score
631
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang EB Prem PP
When suppliers build to a specification they are required to make the dimensions that are defined in the spec the same. Chamfers vent holes, etc can vary.
Is that a guess or have you done a test to verify that there are no improvements made to the new sensor? I will contend that even though there is a clear difference in physical characteristics, assuming that their reliability is the same is a fallacy.

I consider this to be no different than the evap purge valve issue. I replaced it because I ended up with a CEL. It went away after I cleared the code but I've noticed that this is one of the most common CEL reported. At $25 and 10-15 minute install time, I opted to swap it instead of waiting for a TSB or lawsuit (with all the mods I've done, I'm not even going to bother going to a stealership anyways) because it can cause the engine to get flooded with fuel.

Evap purge valve lawsuit

Ford and other car makers have known history of not issuing recalls until lawsuits became more expense than the recalls. Surely you should know that, being an egnieers for over 40 years, or should I list some examples for you?
Sponsored

 

TorqueMan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Threads
7
Messages
693
Reaction score
219
Location
St. Jacob, IL
Vehicle(s)
2017 EcoBoost Premium
The fact that the factory has not changed the part they do not believe there is an issue outside the normal failure rate.
This has been my contention from the beginning. That and the fact that I find it hard to believe that factory programming allows a catastrophic failure mode than can result from faulty sensor readings. In my mind, THAT would be a far more critical problem than a handful of faulty sensors.

Hopefully we can motivate more people to start asking questions of the right people and get to the bottom of the issue.
 

dgc333

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Threads
13
Messages
1,637
Reaction score
461
Location
MA
First Name
Dave
Vehicle(s)
15 Mustang Ecoboost Premium
Is that a guess or have you done a test to verify that there are no improvements made to the new sensor? I will contend that even though there is a clear difference in physical characteristics, assuming that their reliability is the same is a fallacy.
There is no new sensor. The factory continues in 2018 to install the BA sensor. There has neither been a recall or a TSB regarding sensor failures. The only place you see the CA sensor is the aftermarket replacement from Motorcraft. It's a known fact that Motorcraft sources their parts from different suppliers than the Factory. Industry in general will mark parts from different sources differently so they can track where they came from. There is no evidence that the BA sensor has a failure rate that is outside expected norms and there is no evidence that the CA is better.

The only real conclusion you can make is the Motorcraft part is marked and looks different. But in my 40 plus years as an engineer and having knowledge of how different suppliers of the same part are treated I believe that the the difference between the BA and CA is only that they are different suppliers.
 

Cobra Jet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Threads
707
Messages
16,237
Reaction score
17,947
Location
NJ
Vehicle(s)
2018 EB Prem. w/PP and 94 Mustang Cobra
So could it be that “tuners” are proclaiming faulty low side fuel pressure sensors are the source of possible engine damages or the fatal “ecoboom” to defer the blame onto Ford, rather than a bad tune or ill advised online internet advice from their own modifications?

I mean, if some folks in this very thread are proclaiming there’s no functional differences between a BA and CA sensor, other than possible package branding and “who” made/supplies the part... and no Ford recalls, TSB/SSM/GSB updates or other internal info exists, then why the panic?

Again, that letter referenced in the initial post of this thread was dated 2014 and was applicable to 2015 S550’s... I’ve not see any updated Ford correspondence to the related subject matter - has there been any and if so, can someone post it?
 

Bull Run

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Threads
64
Messages
983
Reaction score
631
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang EB Prem PP
There is no new sensor. The factory continues in 2018 to install the BA sensor. There has neither been a recall or a TSB regarding sensor failures. The only place you see the CA sensor is the aftermarket replacement from Motorcraft. It's a known fact that Motorcraft sources their parts from different suppliers than the Factory. Industry in general will mark parts from different sources differently so they can track where they came from. There is no evidence that the BA sensor has a failure rate that is outside expected norms and there is no evidence that the CA is better.

The only real conclusion you can make is the Motorcraft part is marked and looks different. But in my 40 plus years as an engineer and having knowledge of how different suppliers of the same part are treated I believe that the the difference between the BA and CA is only that they are different suppliers.
Again, you didn't answer my simple question about why the "revised" sensor is physically different other than a guess, while tuners and owners with means of measuring the sensor output have posted numerous times about sensor failures? Why are there more reports of evap purge valve, PCV valve, and low fuel pressure sensors than say MAP, coolent, or oil pressor sensors?

As someone who's data-oriented, one of my pet peeves is someone says "I have xx years of experience in xx industry so believe what I say even though I presented no evidence". It's one thing if you bought the sensor and tested it, but yet you presented no evidence other than the "my 40 plus years as an engineer" as repeating it somehow makes your guess true without testing. As far as I know, you can be the guy who designed the faulty seat belts, cruise control switch, ignition switch, airbags, gas tank, etc.

There is no new sensor. The factory continues in 2018 to install the BA sensor. There has neither been a recall or a TSB regarding sensor failures. The only place you see the CA sensor is the aftermarket replacement from Motorcraft.
Again, you didn't answer my question about automobile manufacturers having a history of not issuing recalls or TSBs until not releasing them until it becames financially painful to them.

"Obviously, we had a huge jump in recalls in 2014. After it came out that GM knew about the ignition switch defect on the Cobalt and other small cars for years, other automakers took no chances with safety and began calling back cars at the slightest sign of trouble."

Yup, other automakers became more proactive with recalls after GM got caught red-handed with their ignition switch defect. And how can we forget the Ford Exploder incident? There were reports of issues with Explorer tires going back as far as 1996, but Firestone and Ford pointed fingers at each other until Ford announced a recall in 2001, after 271 fatalities and over 800 injuries in the US alone.

"Ford and Firestone began testing tires in late 1997 or 1998 and began a limited recall in the Middle East, Venezuela, Malaysia, and Thailand in 1999 and the spring of 2000 but did not notify the NHTSA."

I wonder why Ford and Firestone tested tires starting in late 1997, began limited recalled for select regions in 1999 yet failed to notify NHTSA. It's as if Ford and Firestone were worried that NHTSA would force them to do a massive recall and hit their bottom line. Tell me this; do Ford and other automakers hire engineers like you to say to the jury that "there is no evidence of failures outside the norm/there has been no recalls" in personal injury lawsuits?

Here's my bottom line and summary of my observations:

1. Adam posted detailed findings of the sensor issue in the FB group. There are many differing opinions about Adam, but the fact remains that he was one of the first tuners for the Mustang EB platform and seen many datalogs. Ryan, a rival tuner, confirmed observing similar issues. There also have numerous posts by other members with pictures of the CEL due to the sensor or erroneous readings on their logger.

2. I asked you if automakers are known not to issue recalls until it becomes financially painful to them. You didn't answer this, so I posted a couple of well-publicised ones. Is there an answer you can provide other than "I've been an engineer for 40 years" and "there has been no recalls"?

3. I mentioned in response to another member that I don't have a percentage of failure rate because only a very small number of EB owners have dataloggers capable of logging sensor readings. I also stated that even if the chances of sensor failure is low, results can be catastrophic. It's one thing if this sensor costs thousands of dollars and/or hours to install, but it only costs $20, and it takes 5-10 minutes to swap. Therefore, I opted to mitigate the risk by swapping. If I'm wrong, I'm out $20 and 5-10 minutes of time, which is no big deal.

4. Is there a recall on the OPG for the 5.0? If not, why there are many GT owners swapping them out? Are you willing to tell them that since there are no recalls on the OPG, it's a fallacy to swap them?

5. Ford started replacing Focus RS head gaskets after the R&T article regarding wrong head gasket installation at the factory (mentioned on one of my previous responses). But get this, there isn't an official recall but rather a replacement program called "Customer Satisfaction Program 17B32". It's as if Ford doesn't want to admit the mistake publically and rather fix the head gasket issues under the radar to avoid a costly NHTSA mandated recall. I can see how they want to avoid the recall, since "However, the automaker will not refund owners for previously completed repairs." But please do tell R&T and RS owners that everything's fine because there have been no recalls for this.

6. The revised one has a freaking hole large enough to be easily noticeable to the naked eye. I've seen it with my very one eyes, and if you don't take my word for it, there are pictures posted online from several different sources. It was mentioned that the hole is for reference for atmospheric pressure. Perhaps this is to reduce or prevent erroneous readings? If not, can you provide evidence to us as to why that hole's present?

7. Do you agree or disagree that EB Mustang (now also Focus RS) has a bad rep online? Where do you think the term "ecoboom" came from? It's a shame that Ford couldn't/didn't prevent some simple mistakes that sullied what could've been a fun, easy-to-mod platform. By that, I mean common reoccurring themes like plugs not correctly gapped from the factory, smoke on extended idle, evap purge valve, and now the possible low-pressure sensor issue.
 

Sponsored

dgc333

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Threads
13
Messages
1,637
Reaction score
461
Location
MA
First Name
Dave
Vehicle(s)
15 Mustang Ecoboost Premium
You can believe whatever you want to.

I already posted a very plausible reason as to why the CA sensor looks different and observational evidence as to why I believe it to be true. The BA sensor has to have a reference to atmosphere (through the connector housing or by a channel that is not easily seen in the swage of the connector housing to the sensor housing), in order to not be impacted by environmental changes.

I never said sensors we're not failing and my contention in my original post was that changing the sensor for the sake of changing it was not going to ensure that you still won't have an issue. If I wasn't clear in my original post I apologize.

My 40 plus years as an engineer give me a unique perspective and knowledge that few on this forum have. You can choose to believe me or not.

This will be my last post in this thread.
 

Bull Run

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Threads
64
Messages
983
Reaction score
631
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang EB Prem PP
My 40 plus years as an engineer give me a unique perspective and knowledge that few on this forum have. You can choose to believe me or not.

This will be my last post in this thread.
What's the point, you presented zero evidence other than repeating "My 40 plus years as an engineer" like a parrot and answered none of my questions. Thank god this possible defect only causes an ecoboom at the worst case rather than vehicle losing control and people dying.

Considering how I presented multiple evidence of automakers covering of defects as long as possible, I can't believe you expect me to believe an insider like you with no evidence. I'm still waiting on your rebuttal on automakers covering stuff but then again, I suppose there's no point of continuing this discussion since you have nothing to say other than "My 40 plus years as an engineer".
 
Last edited:

TorqueMan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Threads
7
Messages
693
Reaction score
219
Location
St. Jacob, IL
Vehicle(s)
2017 EcoBoost Premium
There is no new sensor. The factory continues in 2018 to install the BA sensor.
Does anyone know for certain if the original sensor is still being installed in new cars?

I can understand why Ford would not issue a recall or TSB if the failure rate of a given device is low enough that it would be cheaper to field warranty repairs. Bull Run offered several good examples. I cannot, however, understand why Ford would continue to install a component in new cars if it KNOWS that component has a higher failure rate than those offered by other suppliers unless the upgraded component was significantly more expensive. Is that the case?

Hey dgc333, don't run off just because someone disagrees with you. Resolving disagreements is how people learn.

On a side note, I've read about a guy with 40 years engineering experience, someone else with 30 years experience, a guy who retired from the Navy after 20 years, and me, who retired in 2000 after serving 20 years. There's a lot of old f---s around here. How did they all learn how to use computers?
 

MakStang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2016
Threads
15
Messages
1,678
Reaction score
265
Location
Greece
Website
www.cellentis.uk
First Name
Makis
Vehicle(s)
A 2017 miraculous little beast
^Good point :lol:
 

Cardude99

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Threads
69
Messages
2,473
Reaction score
1,060
Location
Phoenix, AZ
First Name
Sam
Vehicle(s)
2018 Ecoboost
Does anyone know for certain if the original sensor is still being installed in new cars?

I can understand why Ford would not issue a recall or TSB if the failure rate of a given device is low enough that it would be cheaper to field warranty repairs. Bull Run offered several good examples. I cannot, however, understand why Ford would continue to install a component in new cars if it KNOWS that component has a higher failure rate than those offered by other suppliers unless the upgraded component was significantly more expensive. Is that the case?

Hey dgc333, don't run off just because someone disagrees with you. Resolving disagreements is how people learn.

On a side note, I've read about a guy with 40 years engineering experience, someone else with 30 years experience, a guy who retired from the Navy after 20 years, and me, who retired in 2000 after serving 20 years. There's a lot of old f---s around here. How did they all learn how to use computers?
My 18 still has it but there is no way to know what lot it may be part of. Always possible the issues was sorted out by the 18 year but no way to know.
 

Sponsored

Bull Run

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Threads
64
Messages
983
Reaction score
631
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang EB Prem PP
It's probably not fair for dgc333 to get all of my wraths on my frustration with automakers that withhold information. My biggest frustration is that with his experience, he probably has the knowledge and means to take apart the sensors, test them, and let us know once and for all if there are any differences, such as why is the pressure reference hole in a different location or if electronics are from the same or different sources. Heck, I'm even willing to PayPal him $20 for the cost of the new sensor if he or posts the results with pictures.

If you look at my past posts, I always post the readings between mods for the benefit of everyone on the forum if it's something that I can measure rather than saying, "I've been modding cars for a while and I felt a difference".
 

TorqueMan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Threads
7
Messages
693
Reaction score
219
Location
St. Jacob, IL
Vehicle(s)
2017 EcoBoost Premium
My biggest frustration is that with his experience, he probably has the knowledge and means to take apart the sensors, test them, and let us know once and for all if there are any differences, such as why is the pressure reference hole in a different location or if electronics are from the same or different sources.
If Ford is, in fact, still installing the original sensor, then as a practical matter does it really matter if there's any functional difference between it and aftermarket offerings? They both must output the same data, right? If so, what is the purpose of measuring functional differences between the two? I think the only difference that matters is the relative failure rates. It seems to me if the original sensor remains in use then the factory has determined its failure rate is no worse than the aftermarket sensor, or the difference in price is so great it's cheaper to continue using the old sensor and pay for the expected warranty repairs. The latter seems far-fetched to me.
 

Bull Run

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Threads
64
Messages
983
Reaction score
631
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang EB Prem PP
If Ford is, in fact, still installing the original sensor, then as a practical matter does it really matter if there's any functional difference between it and aftermarket offerings? They both must output the same data, right? If so, what is the purpose of measuring functional differences between the two? I think the only difference that matters is the relative failure rates. It seems to me if the original sensor remains in use then the factory has determined its failure rate is no worse than the aftermarket sensor, or the difference in price is so great it's cheaper to continue using the old sensor and pay for the expected warranty repairs. The latter seems far-fetched to me.
You measure so you that you don't guess, especially for something that can have catastrophic impact. I already stated that there seems to be a higher rate of certain components (plug gaps, PCV, evap purge valve) affecting the engine reliability. Who knows, perhaps the low-pressure sensor only last slightly longer than the purge valve and they are just starting to fail. But again, that'll be a pure speculation, thus needing someone with the experience to analyze the sensors rather than guessing. Tuners and many others on the FB group posted their CELs and AP readings from bad sensors. I have yet to see a solid evidence from folks claiming that the sensors are the same.

I'd be hesitant if Adam was only one who posted about the issue and also happens to sell the "revised" sensor on his shop. However, the fact that his rival tuner also saw the same issue and others that opened stated that they dislike Adam in the past also reporting same issues makes me think that there is something to this. This seems to be affecting cars with stock tunes as well. I highly recommend joining the FB Ecoboost group since there are more posts regarding EBs there than this forum.

Going back to the OPG example, this seems to be a major weak point for 5.0's. Do you know if Ford switched to a strong one by now? Or would they want to, since it may be cheaper to just warranty a relatively low number of engines rather than a recall, because it's not their problem anymore after the warranty expires, but not if there's a recall for it?
 

TorqueMan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Threads
7
Messages
693
Reaction score
219
Location
St. Jacob, IL
Vehicle(s)
2017 EcoBoost Premium
You measure so you that you don't guess, especially for something that can have catastrophic impact.
But what are you measuring? Are you suggesting the aftermarket part measures fuel pressure using a different mechanism, or that it outputs data about fuel pressure differently? Do you think a physical inspection would yield data about reliability?

I already stated that there seems to be a higher rate of certain components (plug gaps, PCV, evap purge valve) affecting the engine reliability.
I believe Ford issued TSB15-0192 for excessive smoking related to the PCV system, and TSB17-0019 for DTCs P0456, P1450 and P144C. How does Ford's response to problems with these components relate to the low-pressure sensor? Doesn't the fact that Ford issued TSBs for these components suggest it would also issue a TSB for this sensor if one were warranted?

Do you think the fact that Ford is still using the orignial sensor in new cars is significant?
 

Turbong

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Threads
3
Messages
316
Reaction score
83
Location
SoCal
Vehicle(s)
2016 RR EB 6MT PP Recaros
You can believe whatever you want to.

I already posted a very plausible reason as to why the CA sensor looks different and observational evidence as to why I believe it to be true. The BA sensor has to have a reference to atmosphere (through the connector housing or by a channel that is not easily seen in the swage of the connector housing to the sensor housing), in order to not be impacted by environmental changes.

I never said sensors we're not failing and my contention in my original post was that changing the sensor for the sake of changing it was not going to ensure that you still won't have an issue. If I wasn't clear in my original post I apologize.

My 40 plus years as an engineer give me a unique perspective and knowledge that few on this forum have. You can choose to believe me or not.

This will be my last post in this thread.

The sensor is clearly different not only from the engineering number but also physically, your arguing its no different now the burden of proof is on you. "40 plus years as an engineer" is not proof for making such a bold claim, it's an opinion, AKA an "educated guess". If you could test your theory and verify it, it would be extremely helpful and earn our respect for you being a 40 year engineering vet, at worst we just lost 20 bucks and not need worry, whether we have new or old sensors and at best we prevented picking up block fragments off the road, but as of now I can't think of any good reason not to change it other than just being cheap, no offense to the strong willed of waiting for hard direct evidence.
Sponsored

 
Last edited:
 




Top