Should I remove my COBB to increase reliability?

[fredsmustang]

Hey all,

I have a 2016 COBB Accessport Stage I that I have been very happy with the last year. I bought my car one year ago and have had no issues with it. I drive it like it's meant to be driven and have been getting 28 MPG on my commute.

All great things!

But I have heard about the exploding engines and wondering if this is just from a few unlucky people or if it would be best to return it to stock to increase longevity.

Would love thoughts on what people are thinking now that the Ecoboost is now a couple years old!

Thanks!

Sponsored

 

[clubamericalara]

You should either go with a custom tune using your accessport device or go back to stock. With the cobb stage 1 "canned tune" you are more than likely running it without any datalogging. Use the search function if you want to know more about datalogging or custom tuning.

 

[arghx7]

If you're really worried about it, sell it and get a Ford performance tune.

 

[Texstang]

I'm no expert, but from what I understand, the Cobb OTS stage 1 tune isn't super aggressive, so you're not absolutely pushing it to the limit. I would recommend datalogging as well. There are some pretty knowledgeable people on here who could point you in the right direction and help you spot potential issues.

My main recommendation would be to ensure that your spark plugs are properly/consistenly gapped and closely monitor your fuel quality, making sure you don't accidentally fill up with 87. Datalogging can help with monitoring fuel quality as well.

By the way, your car with those GT350-style wheels looks very nice. I used to not be a big fan of Ruby Red, but that looks super clean.

 

[LightningBlue17]

I was like you - I ran the Cobb with the Stage 1 tune. Ran the 93 Octane version. But then I went with a custom tune from Tune+. With the datalogging, the tune gets customized to your specific setup (Intake, exhaust, intercooler, etc...).

The end result is I have a car that is much more balanced in how it makes horsepower and torque, and doesn't peak like the stage1 tune did (I was hitting high boost and torque - probably not the safest thing for the engine long term).

As TexStang said, even though the Stage1 isn't the most aggressive tune, it isn't dialed in specifically for your car. A custom tune - whether Ford, Tune+ or other - is the way to go for power and safety, IMHO.

 

[Regs]

It's a no brainier. Get a reputable tune and stay with big brand gas stations or get a Ford performance tune which will feel as good as the stage 1 if not better. Some have bad engines from the factory, some beat the shit out of the engine , some goto no name gas stations that water the piss out of them with additives or they have not changed the tanks in their ground for 100 years.

 

[dgc333]

The engines that failed are mostly ones built in Spain all engines built after mid year 15 have been built in the US and there have been very little reported in the way of failures of the US built engines.

There has been much debate as to whether there were design changes between the Spain and US versions, whether the Spain engines suffered workmanship issues or the failures were related to the tuners not being familiar with the engines and over stressing them with their tunes. In any case you have a 16 which has a US engine which is very trouble free.

 

[Regs]

BTW - nice wax finishing and I love the continentals.

 

[Chef jpd]

The engines that failed are mostly ones built in Spain all engines built after mid year 15 have been built in the US and there have been very little reported in the way of failures of the US built engines.

There has been much debate as to whether there were design changes between the Spain and US versions, whether the Spain engines suffered workmanship issues or the failures were related to the tuners not being familiar with the engines and over stressing them with their tunes. In any case you have a 16 which has a US engine which is very trouble free.

Oh no.....
Magneto, Magneto, Magneto........

 

[Maggneto]

Don't listen to anyone who is telling you that Cleveland engines are safe from the dreaded Ecoboom. At the beginning of this year there were 6 tuned Ecoboosts that blew and at least 50% were verified Cleveland engines.

More Spanish engines have failed but the reason for those failures may be the tuners inexperience in the early days of the Ecoboost and not a defect as some claim.

The Cleveland engine starting production in March 2016 and there are June 2016 Mustangs with Spaninsh engines and Cleveland engines so it was not mid 15 but very late 15 that Cleveland engines started to appear. My Jan 5 2015 build has an October 2014 engine. Valencia still machines parts for the 2.3 and sends them to Cleveland.

https://media.ford.com/content/ford...ant-begins-production-of-the-new-twin-sc.html

As for any differences, there are publications that have shown the 15 is faster than the 16 so a different calibration may exist. No physical evidence exists showing a difference between the engines. After 3 years and dozens of failures there would be some evidence if parts were defective.

As for stock Ecoboost failures, there are very few and I know of only 2 on this forum. All others have been tuned. Livernois and Lund have the lowest failure rates and have been covered by Ford under warranty.

I don't think the Tune by itself is a problem but increases pressure inside the engine so when a low Octane event occurs and causes knock it may damage internal parts such as the rods/rod bolts. Over time this may result in catastrophic engine failure or if detonation is severe enough it may also cause failure. The more aggressive Tunes (93) are more likely to fail and the last 2 had just filled up with gas before the engines blew.

I am not an expert in engines and the opinions I express are the result of many hours of reading on the subject.

 

[lizardrko]

Annnddddd queue the "debate" once more lol opcorn:

 

[Ebm]

Sounds like an opinionated debate. Show me the proof!

 

[Maggneto]

Sounds like an opinionated debate. Show me the proof!

I wish someone would provide some proof of a defective engine if it exists so we can confront Ford and have the defective parts replaced. So far not a shred of evidence, other than hearsay and testimonials, have been provided.

Car and Driver

http://blog.caranddriver.com/perfor...mustang-gt-versus-2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost/

September 2014 Ecoboost Auto PP 0-60 in 5.2


Motortrend:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/ecoboost-mustangs-getting-slower/

September 2014 Ecoboost Auto PP 0-60 5.6

March 2016 Ecoboost PP Manual 0-60 6.3


In a recent comparison test, we pitted a turbocharged four-cylinder Ford Mustang EcoBoost against a turbocharged four-cylinder Chevrolet Camaro. Despite its power advantage, the heavier Mustang was 1.1 seconds slower accelerating to 60 mph and 0.6 second slower in completing a standing quarter mile. This result made it the slowest EcoBoost Mustang we’ve ever tested and the latest in a worrying trend of ever-slower EcoBoost Mustangs.

To be certain of our conclusions, we first ruled out the obvious question of user error. All cars were tested on premium fuel, which Ford recommends for maximum performance. Ford also recommends regular fuel for maximum fuel economy, per the EPA. The lower octane content of regular fuel makes an engine, especially a turbocharged or supercharged one, more likely to knock, which the engine computer will prevent by dialing back the ignition timing. In addition to protecting the engine, however, it reduces power.

We tested our first EcoBoost Mustang on September 15, 2014. A 2015 model, it was equipped with a six-speed automatic transmission and the Performance package, and it weighed 3,658 pounds. That car hit 60 mph in 5.6 seconds and ran the quarter mile in 14.1 seconds at 97.8 mph.

Most recently, we tested a 2016 Mustang EcoBoost for a Motor Trend comparison test. It was tested on March 30, 2016. This car was equipped with the six-speed manual transmission and Performance package, and it weighed 3,622 pounds, the lightest we’ve tested. It was also the slowest, needing 6.3 seconds to hit 60 mph and running a 14.5-second quarter mile at 98.0 mph.

 

[Juben]

I swear I still think the failures have something to do with the balance shafts being driven off of #3. All of the 4 cylinder EcoBoosts and even the MZR (brother engine) always fail on Cylinder #3. The portion of the crankshaft where the counterweight would be for one side of #3 is a round chunk of metal and with gear ring on it. I wonder if the balance shaft drive would have some kind of resistance on it under sudden shock loads that would stress adjoining components, i.e. the rod journals, the rod itself, etc.

I've attached a pic of my crankshaft from my spare engine that we've de-ringed. You can see what and where I'm talking about.

For almost every instance of failure to be related to #3, you'd think there'd be more cause than weak or poorly assembled components. One would almost be inclined to think it's a design flaw across all of the engines seeing how the design and location is practically the same on all of them.

 

[smdandb2]

Meh, I have a 2015 with a build date of November 2014 and have been flashed with an AccessPort since it had like 120 miles on the odo.

Ran off the shelf maps until I went Stage3, and then I started having Adam do the tunes.

I think the car has 27k on it now, still hasn't ecoboomed.

I am hyper sensitive of LSPI though. No smashing the gas until I am over 3000rpm.

Sponsored