Adam telling people all EB engines built prior to 5/15 are problematic

[Maggneto]

This is a real head scratcher considering it includes Cleveland engines, all 40k 2015 engines and he has provided no physical evidence. Sounds like he is covering his in ass to me by blaming Ford. Now we know where all the hysteria comes from, thanks Adam.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/744040028974741?view=permalink&id=1379118295466908&ref=content_filter

According to Ford in June 2016,.

"The class-leading power and output of the Ford Mustang 2.3-liter EcoBoost haven’t changed since we launched the new car in 2014. It’s the same powertrain, calibration and gearing"

Sponsored

 

[PamAndJim]

This is a real head scratcher considering it includes Cleveland engines, all 40k 2015 engines and he has provided no physical evidence. Sounds like he is covering his in ass to me by blaming Ford. Now we know where all the hysteria comes from, thanks Adam.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/744040028974741?view=permalink&id=1379118295466908&ref=content_filter

Except it doesn't say anywhere in his comment that ALL of those motors are problematic. He's just saying that the ones that have had problems have been pre 5/15. You're taking his comment out of context and putting words in his mouth. That, my friend is where hysteria comes from.

Also, the quote from Ford doesn't say that they didn't change the casting of the block. A different revision of the same block would still be considered the same powertrain.

 

[Maggneto]

Except it doesn't say anywhere in his comment that ALL of those motors are problematic. He's just saying that the ones that have had problems have been pre 5/15. You're taking his comment out of context and putting words in his mouth. That, my friend is where hysteria comes from.

Also, the quote from Ford doesn't say that they didn't change the casting of the block. A different revision of the same block would still be considered the same powertrain.

Clean your glasses and read it a few times. The hysteria comes from statements​ like this. Now every uninformed Facebook pus head thinks that all 2015 EB are going to explode without providing any evidence other than " it wasn't my software, or it had nothing to do with the backyard engineering." If there is a difference show it exists or stop guessing that something changed.

"You have a 2016, The problem engines are 5/15 and older"

 

[Weather Man]

Look at Adams failure rate versus Livernois. The problem isn't the motor.

 

[PamAndJim]

Clean your glasses and read it a few times.

You go back and read it and apply a little common sense.

"You have a 2016, The problem engines are 5/15 and older"

is a far different statement than

"ALL EB engines built prior to 5/15 are problematic"

If you read something that said "the car that crashed at Cars and Coffeee was a 2015 Mustang" would you read that as "ALL 2015 Mustangs crash at Cars and Coffee"?

Hysteria comes from statements​ like YOURS. YOU are twisting the comment to fit your own narrative. YOU are using something that wasn't said to incite a reaction. Sounds like hysteria to me. Show me where he used the word "ALL" in the quote you posted.

 

[Juben]

Backyard engineering?

Wow, that's a bold statement. I suppose you said something on Facebook, like here, to challenge this claim where he's more likely see it and offer a rebuttal, right?

Also, with posts like these, what are you offering in the way of proving that '15s weren't problematic? So often, people challenge what others say and don't provide any "physical evidence" to support what they say either.

This post is a bit ridiculous, in my opinion, and seems like you're trying to start beef with Adam more so than to disprove the '15 going boom theory. So why? Why not add something of value to support your argument? Why not say something on Facebook too? This just turns into a bunch of he-said-she-said bs that adds nothing of value to the forum or even to comfort those with "hysteria".

 

[Maggneto]

You go back and read it and apply a little common sense.

"You have a 2016, The problem engines are 5/15 and older"

is a far different statement than

"ALL EB engines built prior to 5/15 are problematic"

If you read something that said "the car that crashed at Cars and Coffeee was a 2015 Mustang" would you read that as "ALL 2015 Mustangs crash at Cars and Coffee"?

Hysteria comes from statements​ like YOURS. YOU are twisting the comment to fit your own narrative. YOU are using something that wasn't said to incite a reaction. Sounds like hysteria to me. Show me where he used the word "ALL" in the quote you posted.

The statement Implies that all 2015 engines built prior to 5/15 are flawed by suggesting 2016 are ok.

Clean your glasses, take a deep breath and try again.

"You have a 2016, The problem engines are 5/15 and older"

 

[Maggneto]

Backyard engineering?

Wow, that's a bold statement. I suppose you said something on Facebook, like here, to challenge this claim where he's more likely see it and offer a rebuttal, right?

** No, I am not a part of the Facebook group and didn't post anything on Facebook regarding the Mustang and won't. I was simply reading thru threads about Ecoboost failure and remember someone saying that a couple of Ecoboost engines blew up last month on Facebook.

** Backyard engineering was not a reference to Adam but a general reference to owners modding cars in their backyards which may cause the engine failure.

Also, with posts like these, what are you offering in the way of proving that '15s weren't problematic? So often, people challenge what others say and don't provide any "physical evidence" to support what they say either.

** If you are going to make a claim that something is faulty you need to offer proof or shut the hell up. There are 40k 2015 EB owners that don't need to worry about their cars exploding.

This post is a bit ridiculous, in my opinion, and seems like you're trying to start beef with Adam more so than to disprove the '15 going boom theory. So why? Why not add something of value to support your argument? Why not say something on Facebook too? This just turns into a bunch of he-said-she-said bs that adds nothing of value to the forum or even to comfort those with "hysteria".

** What is it with you and Facebook? Adam has stated that 2015 engines are faulty due to improper rod bolt torquing in the past and this comment also implies that 2015 engine are problematic and that 2016 engines are fine. I am not starting a beef with Adam, Adam started a beef with the 2015 Valencia EB community by continually suggesting that the 2015 engines are faulty while not providing any physical evidence to back up his claims.

As for the hysteria, it was already on M6G when got here.

 

[Juben]

** No, I am not a part of the Facebook group and didn't post anything on Facebook regarding the Mustang and won't. I was simply reading thru threads about Ecoboost failure and remember someone saying that a couple of Ecoboost engines blew up last month on Facebook.

** Backyard engineering was not a reference to Adam but a general reference to owners modding cars in their backyards which may cause the engine failure

** If you are going to make a claim that something is faulty you need to offer proof or shut the hell up. There are 40k 2015 EB owners that don't need to worry about their cars exploding.

** What is it with you and Facebook? Adam has stated that 2015 engines are faulty due to improper rod bolt torquing in the past and this comment also implies that 2015 engine are problematic and that 2016 engines are fine. I am not starting a beef with Adam, Adam started a beef with the 2015 Valencia EB community by continually suggesting that the 2015 engines are faulty while not providing any physical evidence to back up his claims.

As for the hysteria, it was already on M6G when got here.

Didn't post anything on Facebook and won't? Got it! Adam has said a bunch of times that he's not on here very often, so it's easier to attack someone where they can't see it than to have the balls to do it where they can.

In regards to the "backyard engineering" comment, I guess I misinterpreted your statement. Hmm, that's odd how that can happen with statements online, isn't it?

You keep talking about proof, but here we are again, without you offering anything in the way of providing proof yourself. What would you like to see? Adam tearing apart an early Spain build and checking the torque numbers on the rod bolts? Are you going to do a video to prove that they are? I mean, physical proof is necessary, right? I cannot wait to see your video, pics, proof — any "physical" proof really.

Right now, you don't believe Adam is being truthfully based on what you've seen. Have you had hands on experience with these engines? Have you torn them apart? What work have you performed in which you've gained your insight?

Point blank, WHAT PHYSICAL PROOF CAN YOU PROVIDE for your argument to substantial your claims since that's the standard to which you're going to hold others.

You know what I think a lot of the problems were/are? Early developmental growing pains and/or the owners.

First, the early developmental growing pains. With every new platform, it takes a good while to learn the ins and outs — the quirks, if you will. With that is going to come blown motors. It happens with every engine and every platform. Do you think Coyotes weren't popping back in '11? How about the Voodoo? They've had problems too. The first year or so is usually rougher years for new platforms and engines because it takes time to figure them out, so naturally, we're going to see more failures of those years/builds. Could there have been some issues with quality or construction of the engines? Most certainly, and I'm sure there's flukes here and there just like there is with any mass produced product. There's been two EcoBoosts locally that were brought in to the dealership to find that the head bolts weren't properly torqued from the factory. That came from the techs and SM (friends) themselves, so there have been some quality/assembly issues there. There has also been posts on Facebook by techs showing some similar things. Since you like to research Facebook, do some searching on that stuff.

Second, the owners. Anytime a car is tuned for higher performance, especially these high strung 4 cylinders, you have to be very attentive and alert to what's going on with the car. A simple tank of bad gas can mess things up in a hurry. I had one tank of gas that was so bad recently (about 2 months ago) that the tune would pull -8.00° of timing out as soon as the engine saw boost pressure. That was the same exact tune from the day before that was running perfect, so did the tune take a crap on me overnight? No, it didn't. And had I not have heard (LITERALLY) the engine knocking and saw it pulling massive amounts of timing, then I might have went along my merry little way and blew it up. A TON of EcoBoost owners are first time turbo car owners and don't know what to look and listen for. As such, if a newb experienced what I did with my gas and wasn't the wiser to what was happening, then they might have went out, beat on the car (racing or playing around), and then blew it up. Who is going to get blamed then? Exactly, the tuner, even though it wouldn't have been the tunes fault. I've long said that proper maintenance, supporting mods, and common sense would go a LONG way in preserving these engines. I'm almost to 65,000 miles and have been modded and tuned since 1,000 miles so that says something, right? I have an early Spain build, VEP 678, too.

In the end, I think the failures are from a variety of issues. Build/assembly issues, owner errors, and early developmental growing pains. We've seen a lot of the failure rates decline because we've learned over the last two years what can and cannot be done safely with these engines. Even when your safe, things can sometimes still happen, but I'll say it again:

Proper maintenance, having the right supporting mods in place, and using common sense (learning about the car and what can be done safely with it and knowing what to look/listen for) can go a LONG way in preserving an engine, even with a lot of mods.

In any event, I'm done here. I'm not going to go back and forth arguing. You're going to believe what you want to believe, factual or not. The thing is, if you're going to call people on their "bullshit" and want "physical proof", then it'd always be a good thing to have "physical proof" to support your arguments as well. Otherwise, aren't you falling into the same pit as them?

Have fun! :cheers: I'm out!

 

[metalhead79]

Backyard engineering?

Also, with posts like these, what are you offering in the way of proving that '15s weren't problematic? So often, people challenge what others say and don't provide any "physical evidence" to support what they say either.

The onus is on the individual making the claim to provide proof.

In this case, the claim is 'Valencia, Spain made 2.3L Ecoboost motors are flawed'. To make the claim, you need to provide proof. Which is what is being asked for.

 

[Maggneto]

First if all, my balls are so big they ride in the passenger seat my friend.

Second, I have no fucking clue, nor do I care if Adam spends his time on Facebook or M6G.

And third, as pointed out by Metal, the burden of proof comes from the person making the claim not the other way around.

 

[Tune+]

So, I love where your head was at when you woke up at 7:17a.m. and posted this. However next time I would appreciate it if you spent a little more time on the subject before making a similar post. This doesn't do anything but cause another thread for regurgitated information to be posted and people freaking out.

First of all, MOST of the stock engine failures WITHOUT a tune are early modes pre-5/15 build dates. These are cars that are just daily drivers for people and they have a failure. This data has been collected by Ford and shared through channels I work with.

Now, with my personal experience most CUSTOMERS that have reported issues have been older builds, so that follows suit to what FORD has seen. This doesn't mean every single old build is going to have an issue. It has it's flaws and as time has gone on we have seen 5 different blocks come from Ford. As you know we build a TON of engines and we probably purchase a new block each month from Ford, so like I said over time we have seen changes. In fact it has made it a complete pain in the ass for the build process when something changes.

We have received good running engines from customers that have old build dates and had to have the customer purchase a new block because of how distorted the factory block was. On top of that we have seen the very top of the cylinder have a small hairline crack in it, and this engine was running[ without issues. Only a matter of time before that would have caused a catastrophic failure. The only solution when a block is distorted enough or has a crack is to sleeve the block and start with a fresh cylinder.

Other issues with earlier cast were having pinholes in the side of the block or small cracks, and bleeding coolant. There have been 100% stock vehicles that have had their engine replaced because of this issue.

Moving onto the new variants of this block (V4 and V5) the casting has changed dramatically. It is much cleaner and smoother, and so far I have YET to see a new build date engine have the cracking/pinhole issue. Additionally, all newer part number blocks were able to be honed and built, meaning the distortion was very minimal.

This isn't secret knowledge, you can go up to anyone that works at Ford and ask them for the current block part number, and ask to see previous supersessions. You will see that they are on the 5th part number for this block, 3rd part number for the factory rods, and 3rd part number for the factory oil pan. The oil pan is interesting because the first one had baffles, second one had no baffles with threaded holes, and third one has no baffles and no threaded holes for baffles. More than likely this was a supply change, but the design had noticeable changes as well and honestly for the worse (no baffle).

So - to Ford themselves nothing has changed because it is still a turbocharged 2.3L. Where they are wrong, and this depends on who you speak with, the calibration HAS changed as well between 2015, 2016, and 2017. Power output has changed but table data has been altered. Don't believe me, see below:

Below are the results from the comparison with:
Source Vehicle: USDM 2015 Mustang EcoBoost AT
Source Map: \Stock Tunes\Stock Tune 2015 Mustang AT.ptm
Comparison Vehicle: USDM 2016 Mustang EcoBoost AT
Comparison Map: \Stock Tunes\Stock Tune 2016 Mustang AT.ptm

----- Tables with differences: 47 -----
AFIP Sensor: AFIP Sensor Voltage (Max)
AFIP Sensor: AFIP Sensor Voltage (Min)
Converter Pressure: Bypass Clutch Control Valve Pressure Gain
Converter Pressure: Bypass Regulator Pressure Offset
Downshift Schedule (DRIVE): Shift Schedule (2->1)
Downshift Schedule (DRIVE): Shift Schedule (3->2)
Downshifts: Shifting Base Rate (4->3)
Downshifts: Shifting Base Rate (5->4)
Engagements: Starting Pressure (N->D)
Engagements: Starting Pressure (N->R)
Normal Downshift: Starting Pressure (3->2)
Normal Downshift: Starting Pressure (3->2)
Normal Downshift: Starting Pressure (3M->1A)
Normal Downshift: Starting Pressure (4->3)
Normal Downshift: Starting Pressure (5->4)
Normal Downshift: Starting Pressure (6->5)
Overall Desired Slip Time: Overall Desired Slip Time (2->3)
Overall Desired Slip Time: Overall Desired Slip Time (3->2)
Overall Desired Slip Time: Overall Desired Slip Time (4->3)
Overall Desired Slip Time: Overall Desired Slip Time (6->5)
Ramp In End: Modulation Ramp In End (1->2)
Ramp In End: Modulation Ramp In End (2->3)
Ramp In End: Modulation Ramp In End (3->4)
Ramp In Start: Modulation Ramp In Start (1->2)
Ramp In Start: Modulation Ramp In Start (2->3)
Ramp In Start: Modulation Ramp In Start (3->4)
Ramp Out Start: Modulation Ramp Out Start (4->3)
Sequenced Downshift: Starting Pressure (5->3)
Torque Maximum: Maximum Time Allowed In Overboost
Torque Maximum: Minimum Time Required To Allow Overboost Counter
Torque Maximum: Torque Max. without Overboost (High)
Torque Transfer Time: Torque Transfer Time (1->2)
Transient Performance: Transient Performance Distance Clip (Critical Exh. Temp.)
Upshift Clutch Filling: Clutch Fill Time (1->2)
Upshift Clutch Filling: Clutch Fill Time (2->3)
Upshift Schedule (DRIVE): Shift Schedule (1->2)
Upshift Schedule (DRIVE): Shift Schedule (2->3)
Upshift Schedule (S/S+/TRACK): Shift Schedule (1->2)
Upshift Schedule (S/S+/TRACK): Shift Schedule (2->3)
Upshift Schedule (SNOW/WET): Shift Schedule (1->2)
Upshift Schedule (SNOW/WET): Shift Schedule (2->3)
Upshifts: Desired Torque Level (1->2)
Upshifts: Desired Torque Level (2->3)
Upshifts: Shifting Base Rate (3->4)
Upshifts: Starting Pressure (1A->2M)
Upshifts: Starting Pressure (2->3)
Upshifts: Starting Pressure (2->3)

----- DTCs found in source but not in comparison: 7 -----
DTC: P0555 - Brake Booster Pressure Sensor Circuit
DTC: P0556 - Brake Booster Pressure Sensor Circuit Range/Performance
DTC: P0557 - Brake Booster Pressure Sensor Circuit Low
DTC: P0558 - Brake Booster Pressure Sensor Circuit High
DTC: P0559 - Brake Booster Pressure Sensor Circuit Intermittent
DTC: P0709 - Transmission Range Sensor Circuit Intermittent
DTC: P0721 - Output Shaft Speed (OSS) Sensor Circuit Range/Performance

----- Toggles: no differences found -----


Most of this is transmission changes, but the interesting ones are Torque Max's allowed in overboost and the time required to allow overboost. They actually reduced the torque amount between 3000-4000 rpm by 40ft/lbs. So, to say nothing has changed is technically wrong, there are a lot of changes.

There is no covering ass here, when we tune 90% (based off a poll) of the Ecoboost Mustangs being modified we know there is going to be a possibility that an engine is going to have a failure and our tune just so happen to be on it, the odds are there based on how many we do. The customers that HAVE had engine issues always have a similar experience: Cruising at low speeds, and then speed up and before even getting into boost - boom. Cruising on the highway, downshifting rpms start to rise - boom. It just so happens these are the same EXACT scenarios where factory tuned vehicles (100% Stock) are having engine failures as well. Nobody has ever been top of the rpm, heavy into boost, and then shit grenades. In fact TILL THIS DAY a big turbo stock engine car has yet to fail even at 400whp+.

Just the other day, two customers posted their FRPP tuned vehicles (that is Ford Racing Performance Products) have had engine failures. What were they doing? Driving fairly normal....and boom. Both early builds btw.

You'll have the guys that have failures that indeed are backyard engineers. I have seen it and had to explain why what they did caused their problems. Few examples:

1 - Broke boost control solenoid nipple off when installing intake - Infinite Boost = Infinite Boom

2 - Didn't hook boost reference line back up to wastegate actuator after installing, again - Infinite Boost = Infinite Boom

3 - Didn't drain their catch can, let it fill up to the top and let the vacuum draw from the intake manifold pull in water like a straw. Condensation (water), Fuel, Oil Vapors, and other byproducts in your catch can are not to be considered a positive injection method.

4 - Overmixed their E30. Already had E30 in the tank, but added the same amount of ethanol as if there was just straight 91/93 in the tank. High ethanol content and not enough fuel system causes lean conditions, high temps, detonation and melted pistons.

5 - Didn't wire up their E85 kit correctly, wire came loose because they didn't solder. So E85 in the tank, no port injection, and well you know the story.

6 - This is a fun one - uninstalled oil, reinstalled nothing.


Anyways, things can happen that are outside of a tuners control. We can't install a camera in everyones car to make sure they aren't being a dumb dumb.... Or can we.....hyummm.....

 

[Tune+]

The onus is on the individual making the claim to provide proof.

In this case, the claim is 'Valencia, Spain made 2.3L Ecoboost motors are flawed'. To make the claim, you need to provide proof. Which is what is being asked for.

And has been posted.....

 

[Tune+]

Look at Adams failure rate versus Livernois. The problem isn't the motor.

Easy to have the better rate when you have 20 customers instead of 3000.

 

[metalhead79]

And has been posted.....

I'm not invested in the engine debate. I've got a Spanish engine and I'm untuned for now.

I was simply trying to make a point about the burden of proof, not trying to take sides.

Sponsored