Replaced Voodoo Engine

[5.2 VooDoo]

Spoke with my selling dealers head of service the other day...they have sold in the neighbourhood of a few dozen GT350’s since 2015. Guess how many blown engines they’ve dealt with? One...and it sounds like it was from out of town and ran the freeway on couple hundred mile road trip low on oil. So, has this dealer just been lucky on his volume of sales? Obviously there’s a built in number of attrition but as he indicates it’s 1 in 24 currently and that one probably could of been prevented.

Bottom line he told me (and we’ve heard it here before) check your oil level!

Repost of #89...while not scientific...I believe this information, and I am thinking the number sold @ 24 is conservative.

 

[torque124]

I still don't see why these cars don't have a "low engine" alarm or light at all.... my 10 y.o. BMW has it... and an indicator showing how much oil is in the engine at all times. I have a feeling that many engines would have been saved if it had one; when you see loss of pressure on the gauge, too late. Engine kaput.

 

[G4579]

The original owner took mine in w/CEL and rattle at 6k miles...tech found it 8qts low, Ford replaced the engine but eventually ended up buying it back. I hate it for the original owner, but thankful I found it. At 15k now...no leaks or oil usage, but this engine does have the cold "piston slap".

 

[17RubyShelbyGT350]

Statistics

Curious to your characterization of "statistically relevant". Does anyone have hard numbers?

Actually, I should have used the phrase "statistically significant." It takes several steps to ascertain what is significant statistically - which of course Ford already has done and is withholding from its customers. Right now, their bean counters have probably, for at least now, made the calculation that it is cheaper to just keep swapping out engines than to admit to any systemic "statistically significant" problems. They know that many of these cars are "garage and C&C queens" and a much smaller number of cars are either daily driven and/or tracked.

To determine statistical significance a number of things have to be determined. For example, what constitutes a total failure of the engine would need to be defined perhaps like this: Engine has to be totally stock, engine has to have documented history of required maintenance (assuming it lasted long enough to require it), engine has to have been operated within acceptable manufacturer specified operating limits, using acceptable lubricants, fuel etc.

A number of produced units would need to be specified and that number (N) would need to be large enough to establish meaningful results. For example, saying that 1 out of 24 cars had engine failure (one post)or 2 out of 5 cars that were tracked, had engine failures (another post), is way too small of a number.

A hypothesis would need to be established as to what is considered an acceptable engine failure rate , say per 1000 engines. What would "normal" industry standards for this be? I would love to know what Ford thinks it is. And I am betting it is a higher failure rate than any of their other production engines.

Hard data would need to be acquired re documented engine failures that fit all previously acceptable conditions to screen engine failures. As an example, it might be possible to design a poll of all Forum members that is succinct enough to generate a significantly large enough sample of both total engines and failed engines to provide input to statistical analysis

Statistical methods such as Chi Square would be utilized to analyze the data and compare results against the original hypothesis.

So, it is a complicated enough process that makes it likely no one here will attempt it - and manufacturers know that too.

Perhaps someone on the forum who has knowledge of industry standard acceptable production car engine failure rates per 1,000 can comment....

 

[Austinj427]

I decided I'm just going to drive my car and have fun with it.

If the engine goes, I'll let Ford take care of it. If it's nearing the end of the warranty, I'll buy an extended plan.


Also, polls don't generally work on public forums because it's so easy to mess up the results from people playing around with them.

 

[rick81721]

Actually, I should have used the phrase "statistically significant." It takes several steps to ascertain what is significant statistically - which of course Ford already has done and is withholding from its customers. Right now, their bean counters have probably, for at least now, made the calculation that it is cheaper to just keep swapping out engines than to admit to any systemic "statistically significant" problems. They know that many of these cars are "garage and C&C queens" and a much smaller number of cars are either daily driven and/or tracked.

To determine statistical significance a number of things have to be determined. For example, what constitutes a total failure of the engine would need to be defined perhaps like this: Engine has to be totally stock, engine has to have documented history of required maintenance (assuming it lasted long enough to require it), engine has to have been operated within acceptable manufacturer specified operating limits, using acceptable lubricants, fuel etc.

A number of produced units would need to be specified and that number (N) would need to be large enough to establish meaningful results. For example, saying that 1 out of 24 cars had engine failure (one post)or 2 out of 5 cars that were tracked, had engine failures (another post), is way too small of a number.

A hypothesis would need to be established as to what is considered an acceptable engine failure rate , say per 1000 engines. What would "normal" industry standards for this be? I would love to know what Ford thinks it is. And I am betting it is a higher failure rate than any of their other production engines.

Hard data would need to be acquired re documented engine failures that fit all previously acceptable conditions to screen engine failures. As an example, it might be possible to design a poll of all Forum members that is succinct enough to generate a significantly large enough sample of both total engines and failed engines to provide input to statistical analysis

Statistical methods such as Chi Square would be utilized to analyze the data and compare results against the original hypothesis.

So, it is a complicated enough process that makes it likely no one here will attempt it - and manufacturers know that too.

Perhaps someone on the forum who has knowledge of industry standard acceptable production car engine failure rates per 1,000 can comment....

I know what statistical significance is and how to ascertain it, I spent my career in life sciences R&D. That's why I asked the question - I was wondering if you had some real data on the voodoo motor vs comparative failure rates on similar high output motors.

 

[superman07]

I know about 10-12 guys with supercharged voodoos, one broke a OPG and had the engine rebuilt. One broke his crank sprocket, then had a broken tensioner piece eat his MMR OPG. Otherwise these are all still going strong. I'm at 26k, Whipple goes on this summer. I have replaced both cats due to leaks, separately. Replaced transmission, and clutch. If mine goes its getting sleeved and slapped back in one way or the other.



I think these cars needed better crank sprockets, low oil warning sensors linked to the ecu, and OPG's.



But what the f%^&* do I know. These engines are 20k list from Ford so there is no way their cost is 34k.

 

[CANTWN4LSN]

There are it seems multiple reasons for engine failures that are occurring as not all stories are the same. Two questions trouble me and I don't know if anyone has the answers but here goes.
First some have stated their car burns no oil. I know this is relative, but has anyone who has changed their oil only near or after their oil life indicator tells them to really not had to add any oil in that time? This doesn't make sense to me for an engine designed in such a way that it is supposed to consume much more than the average car and no measurable amount in 5-7000 miles just doesn't seem possible.
Second the possibility of OPG failure causing most of these failures doesn't seem to jive with the fact that many engine replacements have been due to excess oil consumption over an extended period of time. How can OPG failure be an explanation for that? Wouldn't such an event be catastrophic?

 

[Hack]

I'm taking a wait and see approach on this. I'm at 25,000 miles and no oil consumption or any other issues with my engine. I think most of the engine failures have been at low miles and we might not continue to see failures as engines get more mileage on them. The signs I have seen point toward initial assembly issues (could be flaws in components, I'm not saying the assemblers are necessarily making mistakes), or low engine oil/oil consumption due either to some assembly issue or how the owner drives the car.

I originally was planning that after my car was worn out I would purchase a creampuff used "cars and coffee" GT350, but at the moment I would trust a car that had more miles on it - I think it's more likely that problems will show up as the miles accumulate and by 10,000 miles you will know that an engine is ok.

I agree with others that it would be terrific to have the actual numbers from Ford. I assume it's an extremely small number of engines that have failed and also I believe it isn't a single cause. The other thing I believe is that there isn't an inherent flaw in these engines. I think they are really good, but the spot light ends up on any failure and those are emphasized over all the engines that have zero problems.

 

[superman07]

replacements for oil consumption probably have zero correlation to a OPG issue. Its the folks that have 9-10 quarts of oil in them and they loose pressure completely, catastrophically. But even then there are cases when the OPG itself may have given out and others where a large piece of debris made its way to the pump and helped it on its way. The only people that I trust are the ones that have tore down their own engines.



It would be interesting to see how many of these cars had moronic dealers and sales folks wrapping them out to 8200 rpm when cold to show their buddies and or customers before someone even bought them.

 

[DrumReaper]

Second the possibility of OPG failure causing most of these failures doesn't seem to jive with the fact that many engine replacements have been due to excess oil consumption over an extended period of time. How can OPG failure be an explanation for that? Wouldn't such an event be catastrophic?

No one knows what the main cause of the lot of engines have been for... unless you have some insight the rest of us aren’t privy to.

 

[GT350-H6088]

I was wondering if anyone is tracking the Engine Failures and the Builders Names?

Could the Engine vibrations be loosening internal bolts?

Maybe a database with the following fields

Model Year:
Build Date:
Builders Name 1:
Builders Name 2:
Cause of Failure:
Oil Change by: Dealer / Self
Type Oil Used:

 

[Nfs1000f]

It would be interesting to see how many of these cars had moronic dealers and sales folks wrapping them out to 8200 rpm when cold to show their buddies and or customers before someone even bought them.

Precisely. I bought mine used with 1509 miles on it so I do not know how the car was treated prior to buying it. I am fortunate that in the nearly 1600 miles since my oil change I have not added any oil. If I were to buy a new GT 350 off the lot I would be hesitant if I saw miles on the car knowing that whoever test drove it beat this snot out of it.

 

[Hack]

It would be interesting to see how many of these cars had moronic dealers and sales folks wrapping them out to 8200 rpm when cold to show their buddies and or customers before someone even bought them.

Yeah, that's a perfect way to spin a bearing - especially on a brand new engine.

 

[Minn19]

If I were to buy a new GT 350 off the lot I would be hesitant if I saw miles on the car knowing that whoever test drove it beat this snot out of it.

My 16 tech had 4-5 miles on the odometer at delivery and I did the usual conservative break in (no redlining/limited RPM, no sustained engine RPM/a lot of backroad going through the gears type of driving etc) to a thousand miles.

My 17 had similar miles and I did the conservative break in for about 90-100 miles. From then on I get it up to temp and have drove it fairly hard since. Redlined fairly often when I get the chance on on-ramps/tracked it 3 times etc. I have about 8500 miles on it now it is going strong.

My 17 uses some oil and my 16 tech had its engine replace for excessive oil consumption so use that anecdotal data for whatever it is worth.