Sensor failings. You could have one too!

ZenkaiRacer said:

Recalls only really happen when lives are at risk. Like with the original recal recited in this post. WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROBLEM AT HAND.

Click to expand...

Manufacturers also use a mechanism called a Technical Service Bulletin to alert about mechanical issues. That said, an engine at high RPM puking its guts--and its oil--all over a busy interstate highway could certainly be considered a safety issue.

ZenkaiRacer said:

That recall posted is only confusing people. It deals with a leaking faulty installed sensor. Which was recalled BECAUSE LIVES WERE AT RISK. FUEL LEAK = LIVES.

Click to expand...

I hope everyone replacing their sensors reads this twice. Please be careful guys. I know it's just a simple screw off/screw on procedure, but if trained techs at the factory can--ahem--screw it up so can you.

ZenkaiRacer said:

This faulty sensor which may or may not trigger a CEL but will enable 16:1 AFR under boost is not a big enough problem for a corporation to do anything about.

Click to expand...

Do you know this is factual for engines with a stock tune? If so, can you share the data?

TorqueMan said:

Manufacturers also use a mechanism called a Technical Service Bulletin to alert about mechanical issues. That said, an engine at high RPM puking its guts--and its oil--all over a busy interstate highway could certainly be considered a safety issue.

Click to expand...

If you're going to stretch that far, anything can be considered a safety issue. A loud exhaust can be a safety issue. Body rattle can be a safety issue (takes concentration away). Non-premium trims with small screens can be a safety issue (harder to see).

TorqueMan said:

I hope everyone replacing their sensors reads this twice. Please be careful guys. I know it's just a simple screw off/screw on procedure, but if trained techs at the factory can--ahem--screw it up so can you.

Click to expand...

Ford builds approximately 16 vehicles per minute. I think that there's much higher chance of someone at the factory messing something up at that rate vs. someone replacing their own sensor. I double and triple checked my work and hopefully others are as well. An assembly line worker do not have that luxury. Look up the Focus RS head gasket issue as a good example. If someone can't screw on one sensor, how can they do other simple work, such as changing wheels (e.g. when getting a flat) which has five lug nuts per wheel? I'd say a wheel falling off at highway speeds has a higher impact (aside from loss of control, the other wheel now a 60lb+ projectile.

TorqueMan said:

Do you know this is factual for engines with a stock tune? If so, can you share the data?

Click to expand...

It's a sensor and not affected by the tune. For lucky ones, their ECU detected when the sensor misbehaved, threw a CEL, and ignored readings (or lack of) from it. It seems like the unlucky ones ended up with the sensor that provided erroneous readings instead.

I already replaced my evap purge value due to a CEL, PCV baffle and valve due to idle smoke issue, and while the AP showed normal readings, went ahead and replaced the sensor because it was only $20 shipped off of eBay.

Honestly, I'm not sure if numbers are high enough to trigger a TSB but only a relatively few EB owners have devices that can monitor for this issue and thus there's not a good way of finding out the percentage of ecoboom attributed to this. But again, for $20, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I love the mass hysteria on this forum...

You people will believe anything, if the right person says it and others repeat it enough times.

:lol:

jtmat said:

I love the mass hysteria on this forum...

You people will believe anything, if the right person says it and others repeat it enough times.

:lol:

Click to expand...

Hey, the Earth is flat right? Pretty sure I read it here somewhere...

jtmat said:

I love the mass hysteria on this forum...

You people will believe anything, if the right person says it and others repeat it enough times.

:lol:

Click to expand...

Adam actually brought this up in a couple of FB groups. Ryan also stated that he saw some cars with similar issues, and Adam and Ryan are definitely now friends or business partners. It's a simple risk management concept; even if the frequency is low, severity being catastrophic raises the risk score. Since the sensor's around $20 on eBay and it takes 5-10 minutes swap it, it's a cheap risk mitigation. It's similar to the 5.0 folks replacing their OPG, especially when they plan on doing power mods.

But since you sound like you may know something, please enlighten us as for why the new sensor has a physical difference than the old one.

Don't remind me of the multiple OPG jobs and failures I've done and seen. :headbonk:

Bull Run said:

I think that there's much higher chance of someone at the factory messing something up at that rate vs. someone replacing their own sensor.

Click to expand...

Yes, the techs working the production line have limited time, but that is offset by the fact they get training, follow a checklist optimized to prevent/catch errors, and their work is subject to inspection--and yet they STILL make mistakes. No system or device has ever been invented that is foolproof for a sufficiently motivated fool.

Bull Run said:

If someone can't screw on one sensor, how can they do other simple work, such as changing wheels (e.g. when getting a flat) which has five lug nuts per wheel?

Click to expand...

I understand your point, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges. A missing lug nut is obvious with even the most cursory visual inspection, and driving with loose lug nuts will provide plenty of warning before a wheel falls off. These improperly installed sensors clearly passed post-assembly inspections by people trained to perform them, and improperly installed fuel system components can begin leaking with no warning whatsoever, especially when you start ramping up the fuel pressure.

Bull Run said:

It's a sensor and not affected by the tune. For lucky ones, their ECU detected when the sensor misbehaved, threw a CEL, and ignored readings (or lack of) from it. It seems like the unlucky ones ended up with the sensor that provided erroneous readings instead.

Click to expand...

Yes, the sensor is unaffected by the tune, but the issue is how the computer responds to input from the sensor. You seem to have specific knowledge of this. Does the stock tune respond to erroneous indications differently than the various performance tunes? Do all performance tunes respond the same, or are some different than others? I don't know enough about the programming to make any factual claims, which is why I'm seeking data and making inquiries, both here and with Ford. I would think it would be easy to include safeguards in the programming to prevent a dangerously lean mixture under load no matter what any sensor is indicating. You set a range for operating conditions, and if an indication exceeds the range for the current operating condition you immediately return to open loop mode. Again, I don't know that's what happens, but that makes more sense to me than allowing a bad sensor indication to create a condition which can blow up the engine.

BTW, if what you are saying about the different ways this sensor can fail is true, then not only must the sensor fail, it must fail in a very specific way. This would seem to reduce the chance of engine damage as a result of this sensor failing even more.

Bull Run said:

Honestly, I'm not sure if numbers are high enough to trigger a TSB but only a relatively few EB owners have devices that can monitor for this issue and thus there's not a good way of finding out the percentage of ecoboom attributed to this.

Click to expand...

You may be right on TSBs vs number of incidents, I don't know (but I'm checking). That said, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Mustang is the only car Ford will manufacture in the years ahead, and with it's decision to ditch the V6 it has placed all of its bets on the EcoBoost for volume sales. That tells me it has a vested interest in convincing people the platform is robust and durable. The internet makes it impossible to hide something as egregious as engines blowing up because of sensor failures, so I believe (hey, I'm an optimist) that Ford will respond appropriately if this is really an issue.

Bull Run said:

But again, for $20, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Click to expand...

Yes, that seems like sound reasoning for many that are running tunes and/or otherwise modded engines (assuming you take care with the work). For you, you're potential loss is the engine. I'm not so sure the reasoning is sound for a stock engine under warranty. My potential loss is a warranty. I thinks it's worth what appears to be a very small risk (I have yet to see any data showing this issue as causal for a stock engine failure) to wait for more data.

For those who are convinced, Turbong posted a pretty good summary of what you need to do to complete the job safely. If I were replacing my sensor I'd probably make a checklist out of this and follow it to reduce the chance of forgetting something; that's the way the pros do it.

TorqueMan I feel your asking the right questions. I think that where some of us deviate from your position is where your think you will get some sort of answer from Ford.

I have no idea what you do for a living but some of us here work for major global manufacturing companies in a service capacity.

In todays litigious world where TSB's are public knowledge nearly instantaneously, companies in my field are laoth to put publish unless they have too because the costs become so great. Shoot, the company I work for likes to acknowledge a problem first by putting out a firmware fix. Its a running joke because we all know it wont work, but is used to buy time. The info will usually surface in a TSB, but the field techs often have fixed the issue and moved on to the next one, or five.

What we will often get in a timely fashion is a wink and nod or a " you didnt hear this from me but you might want to keep an eye on such and such" from a sympathetic engineer close to the issue. This info tends to make it down the grape vine.

THIS info is what I feel Juben provided and what I was looking for. I think its about the best we can expect at this time and its enough for me to buy a thirty dollar sensor without thinking twice about it.

I'm not saying you should run out and buy a new sensor, just explaining why I did. Besides, its a hobby and something to do.

Redcruzer said:

TorqueMan I feel your asking the right questions. I think that where some of us deviate from your position is where your think you will get some sort of answer from Ford.

Click to expand...

I get that, and I have my doubts as well, but I have contacts with Ford as well, and I see no downside to trying.

Redcruzer said:

THIS info is what I feel Juben provided and what I was looking for. I think its about the best we can expect at this time...

Click to expand...

I'm also appreciative of the info from Juben, and you could very well be right that it's the best we'll get, but it would be nice to get similar information from two independent sources.

Redcruzer said:

Besides, its a hobby and something to do.

Click to expand...

I love tinkering with things too--I sometimes wonder how much this attitude influences those arguing in favor of replacing the sensor. Hell, I like tinkering so much my hobby right now is building an airplane. Believe me, not touching my Mustang--a car that cries out for customization more than any I've ever owned--until the warranty expires is going to be a sore trial for me. I'm just not yet willing to jeopardize the money I paid for it... Yet.

ZenkaiRacer said:

The one that has -CA printed on it is the one you want...

Click to expand...

All the Ecoboost Mustangs built right up to and including the 18's have a sensor with the suffix BA. The only source of a sensor with the suffix CA is from Motorcraft. It's a known fact that Motorcraft does not source parts from the same places as the factory.

I have been an engineer for over 40 years and it is the norm to have an identifier to distinguish parts made to the same specs but from different suppliers, ie, BA verse CA.

If Ford was to have changed the design to correct a defect there would be an indicator on the part, but they haven't. If they had identified a bad batch there would be a TSB or recall issued and there hasn't been.

The fact that the factory has not changed the part they do not believe there is an issue outside the normal failure rate. The fact that the Motorcraft part has some slight visual differences indicates it is made by a different supplier.

I will contend that changing the sensor for "good measure" is a falicy. It would be nice to think that the failure rate from two suppliers would be identical but that is almost never the case. The probability the CA part is better than the BA part is the same as the probability the BA part is better than the CA.

TorqueMan said:

Hell, I like tinkering so much my hobby right now is building an airplane.

Click to expand...

Cool, what kind of plane? Restoration, kit, plansbuilt? I have my A&P and want to build a Baby Lakes.

Blue Moon said:

Cool, what kind of plane? Restoration, kit, plansbuilt? I have my A&P and want to build a Baby Lakes.

Click to expand...

It's a Lancair Legacy FG. It's not as pretty as the one in the pic, but she'll get there eventually. When I get it covered in primer in a few weeks it'll be ready for final assy. I expect to be in flight test by the end of July.

A Baby Lakes would be a lot of fun, but we need a traveling plane. Tired of getting groped by the TSA.

TorqueMan said:

Yes, the techs working the production line have limited time, but that is offset by the fact they get training, follow a checklist optimized to prevent/catch errors, and their work is subject to inspection--and yet they STILL make mistakes. No system or device has ever been invented that is foolproof for a sufficiently motivated fool.

Click to expand...

We're just talking about a screw on sensor here. It was easier to swap than the evap purge valve/line. They make mistakes because they are pumping out 16 cars per minute and thus have limited time they can spend. Why do you think that Mustangs have panel fitment issues? If you were to build a Mustang by hand, would you end up with panel fitment issues? No, because you'd take your time and check your work.

TorqueMan said:

I understand your point, but I think you're comparing apples and oranges. A missing lug nut is obvious with even the most cursory visual inspection, and driving with loose lug nuts will provide plenty of warning before a wheel falls off. These improperly installed sensors clearly passed post-assembly inspections by people trained to perform them, and improperly installed fuel system components can begin leaking with no warning whatsoever, especially when you start ramping up the fuel pressure.

Click to expand...

"Wheel system failures are primarily caused by the improper installation of a wheel that causes it to be loose or become loose. Commonly, a loose wheel causes the wheels studs to break and the wheel and tire to separate from the vehicle. Many root causes lead to loose wheels, but most of them are associated with over-torquing or under-torquing the lug nuts."

I wasn't even talking about something as is as a missing lug nut. Do you know what's a good way to avoid over/under-torquing the lug nuts? Finish tightening them by hand with a torque wrench and go around and double check the torque. Do you know what dealerships and tire shops use to tighten lug nuts? Impact wrench because they have a quota to meet and it's not their car.

Improvely installed oil filter and bolt and can leak too and people who had their oil changed at a shop experienced it first hand. Do you know what's a good way to mitigate this? Change your own oil and check your work. Yes, it's impossible to mitigate any risk 100% but you can greatly reduce the likelihood of failure happening.

And guess what? When I was doing the brake hose swap, I had to re-tap the rear hard line nuts because they came from the factory cross-threaded and I'm only one who had this issue. If swapping brake lines was a more popular mod, I'm willing bet that more people will come forward with this issue.

TorqueMan said:

Yes, the sensor is unaffected by the tune, but the issue is how the computer responds to input from the sensor. You seem to have specific knowledge of this. Does the stock tune respond to erroneous indications differently than the various performance tunes? Do all performance tunes respond the same, or are some different than others? I don't know enough about the programming to make any factual claims, which is why I'm seeking data and making inquiries, both here and with Ford. I would think it would be easy to include safeguards in the programming to prevent a dangerously lean mixture under load no matter what any sensor is indicating. You set a range for operating conditions, and if an indication exceeds the range for the current operating condition you immediately return to open loop mode. Again, I don't know that's what happens, but that makes more sense to me than allowing a bad sensor indication to create a condition which can blow up the engine.

Click to expand...

There were reports in the FB group who had stock tune that had the same issue. It seems that there are more in FB groups who are into visual mods only, whereas more folks in this forum that do power mods.

The main problem is that computers are only as smart as people who program them. There was a discussion on the FB page regarding this but looks like it's buried in hundreds of comments now.

TorqueMan said:

You may be right on TSBs vs number of incidents, I don't know (but I'm checking). That said, as I mentioned in a previous post, the Mustang is the only car Ford will manufacture in the years ahead, and with it's decision to ditch the V6 it has placed all of its bets on the EcoBoost for volume sales. That tells me it has a vested interest in convincing people the platform is robust and durable. The internet makes it impossible to hide something as egregious as engines blowing up because of sensor failures, so I believe (hey, I'm an optimist) that Ford will respond appropriately if this is really an issue.

Click to expand...

Actually EB Mustangs (now Focus RSes) are getting a bad rep online due to ecoboom and head gasket failure issues. No one can tell me the actual number of ecobooms vs number of EB Mustangs sold, but all it takes is a handful of guys making multiple posts in multiple forums and groups.

TorqueMan said:

Yes, that seems like sound reasoning for many that are running tunes and/or otherwise modded engines (assuming you take care with the work). For you, you're potential loss is the engine. I'm not so sure the reasoning is sound for a stock engine under warranty. My potential loss is a warranty. I thinks it's worth what appears to be a very small risk (I have yet to see any data showing this issue as causal for a stock engine failure) to wait for more data.

Click to expand...

I agree with you there, don't give the dealership a reason to deny your warranty for some petty reason. You are a good case of a "risk reduction by insurance", which is keeping your warranty. I'm eventually going for a built motor, but I'd rather do it on my schedule (e.g. after all supporting mods are done) rather than hurrying up to slap something together due to an ecoboom.

dgc333 said:

All the Ecoboost Mustangs built right up to and including the 18's have a sensor with the suffix BA. The only source of a sensor with the suffix CA is from Motorcraft. It's a known fact that Motorcraft does not source parts from the same places as the factory.

I have been an engineer for over 40 years and it is the norm to have an identifier to distinguish parts made to the same specs but from different suppliers, ie, BA verse CA.

If Ford was to have changed the design to correct a defect there would be an indicator on the part, but they haven't. If they had identified a bad batch there would be a TSB or recall issued and there hasn't been.

The fact that the factory has not changed the part they do not believe there is an issue outside the normal failure rate. The fact that the Motorcraft part has some slight visual differences indicates it is made by a different supplier.

I will contend that changing the sensor for "good measure" is a falicy. It would be nice to think that the failure rate from two suppliers would be identical but that is almost never the case. The probability the CA part is better than the BA part is the same as the probability the BA part is better than the CA.

Click to expand...

But why are the sensors physically different? Surely, you bothered to look at the sensors before posting this, right?

Bull Run said:

But why are the sensors physically different? Surely, you bothered to look at the sensors before posting this, right?

Click to expand...

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.