Replaced Voodoo Engine

[17RubyShelbyGT350]

Hmmm

Agreed. The one thing this "list" of engine failures has done is reinforce my belief that the GT350 engine is a good engine and I am not worried about it's health or longevity.

Before you folks jump on me I will remind you that my knowledge and use of statistical sampling and the Law of Large Numbers paid for my GT350 and the other hot rod cars I have in my garage.

You are not the only one here with a numbers/statistics background. Not clear how this documented list of failures either provided corroborating evidence that this engine has significant problems or it doesn’t.

Standard sampling of say a 20,000 population at a 95% confidence level would need to be drawn from a diverse sample of approximately 600, for starters. No where close to that sample size here.

So at this juncture, saying there is no problem is just as spurious of saying there is a problem.

At the very least, I think most people would agree that the majority of folks buying a production street vehicle in the 21st century would not realize that vehicle might burn a quart of oil in 500 miles of aggressive or track day sessions. My early ‘17 manual does not include that warning from Ford, and even though I bought the car new, I never received a supplement from Ford informing me of this. I learned about this need to do this unusually high frequency of oil checks from this forum. So, if some of the 40 plus to-date documented failures here were caused by this, that is squarely on Ford.

If Ford knew about this at the beginning of production in ‘15, why was this warning info not put into the users manuals from the beginning? To me, this is another piece of anecdotal information which suggests this engine should have had more R&D, or more real world testing, or more attention paid to obtaining a high level of production quality control - perhaps more attention paid to all of these things. And of course, not nearly all of these failures were caused by failure to check oil levels every few hundred miles...

It would not be the first time that a company’s customers were also their unwitting beta testers.

 

[Zitrosounds]

You are not the only one here with a numbers/statistics background. Not clear how this documented list of failures either provided corroborating evidence that this engine has significant problems or it doesn’t.

Standard sampling of say a 20,000 population at a 95% confidence level would need to be drawn from a diverse sample of approximately 600, for starters. No where close to that sample size here.

So at this juncture, saying there is no problem is just as spurious of saying there is a problem.

At the very least, I think most people would agree that the majority of folks buying a production street vehicle in the 21st century would not realize that vehicle might burn a quart of oil in 500 miles of aggressive or track day sessions. My early ‘17 manual does not include that warning from Ford, and even though I bought the car new, I never received a supplement from Ford informing me of this. I learned about this need to do this unusually high frequency of oil checks from this forum. So, if some of the 40 plus to-date documented failures here were caused by this, that is squarely on Ford.

If Ford knew about this at the beginning of production in ‘15, why was this warning info not put into the users manuals from the beginning? To me, this is another piece of anecdotal information which suggests this engine should have had more R&D, or more real world testing, or more attention paid to obtaining a high level of production quality control - perhaps more attention paid to all of these things. And of course, not nearly all of these failures were caused by failure to check oil levels every few hundred miles...

It would not be the first time that a company’s customers were also their unwitting beta testers.

I have owned two and both built in December 2015. Both have the oil usage statement and so do most if not all manufacturers.

 

[Minn19]

I have owned two and both built in December 2015. Both have the oil usage statement and so do most if not all manufacturers.

Same here, and I remember the difference as others are stating with the specificness of the warning/info/recommendation or whatever you want to call it. It was changed sometime in that timeframe. Along with the filter they sent out and revised manual IIRC.

I remember it fairly well since the reason my 16 motor was replaced was due to excessive oil usage.

 

[17RubyShelbyGT350]

My car was built prior to 2/17 when they switched from spin on to canister type filter. I bought the car on 9/17 and never received either the oil filter wrench or revised manual that came with it that warned about using up to a quart of oil under certain driving conditions. Found out about these things later in ‘17 after reading about this in the forums. By then I was told Ford was not sending these items out any longer....

In fact, when I bought the car new, the dealership did even have the manual in the car - had to ask for it twice while taking delivery. And wasn’t until later, after I had the car shipped to me, that I found out that the hardware bag in the trunk for the splitter was missing pieces for installation of the splitter.

 

[5.2 VooDoo]

You are not the only one here with a numbers/statistics background. Not clear how this documented list of failures either provided corroborating evidence that this engine has significant problems or it doesn’t.

Standard sampling of say a 20,000 population at a 95% confidence level would need to be drawn from a diverse sample of approximately 600, for starters. No where close to that sample size here.

So at this juncture, saying there is no problem is just as spurious of saying there is a problem.

At the very least, I think most people would agree that the majority of folks buying a production street vehicle in the 21st century would not realize that vehicle might burn a quart of oil in 500 miles of aggressive or track day sessions. My early ‘17 manual does not include that warning from Ford, and even though I bought the car new, I never received a supplement from Ford informing me of this. I learned about this need to do this unusually high frequency of oil checks from this forum. So, if some of the 40 plus to-date documented failures here were caused by this, that is squarely on Ford.

If Ford knew about this at the beginning of production in ‘15, why was this warning info not put into the users manuals from the beginning? To me, this is another piece of anecdotal information which suggests this engine should have had more R&D, or more real world testing, or more attention paid to obtaining a high level of production quality control - perhaps more attention paid to all of these things. And of course, not nearly all of these failures were caused by failure to check oil levels every few hundred miles...

It would not be the first time that a company’s customers were also their unwitting beta testers.

I’m going to head out for a drive...

 

[Caballus]

Like many, I've been quietly following the discussion about the accuracy and relevance of the data that [MENTION=32698]17RubyShelbyGT350[/MENTION] and [MENTION=35782]300blackout[/MENTION] assembled--thanks for it.

From my perspective, raw data is lifeless...and neutral. It only has life (context) when it is used to test a hypothesis or answer a research question.

Still, for me, +/- 40 blown engines within two model years (mostly 16 & 17 so far) of any car is a trend worth noting and watching, even without extrapolating across the entire population…intuitively.

To go beyond informed intuition, I would have to introduce other variables, even if only for qualitative comparison. For instance, how does +/- 40 blown engines within two recent model years compare to similar sports cars; i.e., Camaro, Challenger/Charger, M3/M4…or whatever cars one determines to be similar? Depending on the answer, the equation would continue to grow (40 of how many total, etc).

Bottom line, knowing that roughly 40 engines have blown tells me to be EXTRA vigilant with maintenance so that if things go pop and it’s time to determine actual causality I will be able to eliminate the one variable I control…moi.

So, thanks. I find the data useful, even if the contributors chose not to submit an MIT-quality research project on a car forum.

 

[17RubyShelbyGT350]

Bingo

Like many, I've been quietly following the discussion about the accuracy and relevance of the data that [MENTION=32698]17RubyShelbyGT350[/MENTION] and [MENTION=35782]300blackout[/MENTION] assembled--thanks for it.

From my perspective, raw data is lifeless...and neutral. It only has life (context) when it is used to test a hypothesis or answer a research question.

Still, for me, +/- 40 blown engines within two model years (mostly 16 & 17 so far) of any car is a trend worth noting and watching, even without extrapolating across the entire population…intuitively.

To go beyond informed intuition, I would have to introduce other variables, even if only for qualitative comparison. For instance, how does +/- 40 blown engines within two recent model years compare to similar sports cars; i.e., Camaro, Challenger/Charger, M3/M4…or whatever cars one determines to be similar? Depending on the answer, the equation would continue to grow (40 of how many total, etc).

Bottom line, knowing that roughly 40 engines have blown tells me to be EXTRA vigilant with maintenance so that if things go pop and it’s time to determine actual causality I will be able to eliminate the one variable I control…moi.

So, thanks. I find the data useful, even if the contributors chose not to submit an MIT-quality research project on a car forum.

Bingo, you get it, as I expect many others seen or unseen, do. I have done some ancillary “lurking” on the Camaro 6G and CorvetteForum and did not see any analagous blown engine threads among the host of other complaint threads during my brief lurks. They may be there, just didn’t see ‘em unless you include the old C6 Z06 dropped valve threads.

You are using the data we collected to-date as intended. If I had the time I would try to bring it closer to MIT standards...

 

[MulhollandMonster]

Not accurate is not accurate. Not enough or incorrect data, is not enough or incorrect data. You cant then say it's within 5%, if there was no way to prove the data to begin with. I thinks is what he was saying.

Interested but not optimistic to get some real info from Ford someday.

My unscientific, but high level analyst perspective...coupled with common-sense...The failure rate is an embarrassment to Ford. The only time there was an active "blown engine" thread on the Evo forum was only due to outrageous boosting...Here there are many, stock engines, low miles...This forum sample is probably a pretty good rendering of the true gravity of the situation.

 

[nastang87xx]

My experience:

What little oil it consumed stopped after I changed the oil at 6500 mi. It now has 8000 mi and ZERO oil consumption.

Paint is flawless.

ZERO rattles. Which is kind of bizarre, since I have a JBL Stealthbox and the bass is so loud the car should have spontaneously disintegrated.

Everything works like it did the day I drove it off the showroom floor. Still hauls ass.

Best car I've ever owned, and I've owned plenty.

Mine doesn't rattle either. I fully believe that some S550's have some rattle an vibration issues with the interior. But mine doesn't. My engine has also consumed a total of two quarts of oil. SLOWLY. Over 14,500 miles. I broke my car in by hitting autocross at 200 miles. According to the keyboard warrior logic, my engine should have nuclear bomb'ed at 201 miles. Glad to see your car is kickin'. :cheers:

 

[J_Maher_AMG]

Mine doesn't rattle either. I fully believe that some S550's have some rattle an vibration issues with the interior. But mine doesn't. My engine has also consumed a total of two quarts of oil. SLOWLY. Over 14,500 miles. I broke my car in by hitting autocross at 200 miles. According to the keyboard warrior logic, my engine should have nuclear bomb'ed at 201 miles. Glad to see your car is kickin'. :cheers:

I'm in the same boat. My R has a little over 11,000kms and it seems to burn very, very little or next to no oil. Took out a very small amount of oil in the passenger side air/oil separator last fall before storage, driver's side completely dry. I also do not have a single rattle in the interior, compared to my Mercedes that was constantly rattling from the dash and nav screen.

I also broke my car in without babying it too much. Varied the RPM's as much as possible, followed TR's advice regarding cornering maneuvers, and hit redline a number a of times before that first oil change (while the oil was fully warm of course).

Knock on wood my good luck continues because I want to keep this car forever :cheers:

 

[windnsea00]

Agree completely. There's some good date to find - and then there's some bad data. There's definitely SOME data ;) Much of it is subjective and each case can have a bunch of variables. Check this out: I ran through the top stack of names that I didn't recognize and searched them on the forum. Made some notes for each one that I thought could skew the numbers one way or the other.

voodoo702 - 1 post - engine failure

racer02 - 5 posts - 1st post trans thermostat - second and all other posts, engine failure.

wookie - 14 posts - admits to using the engine starting to rattle to let him know that he needs to add oil:
"You can add me to the list. 2016 ~9k miles. I had reported some issues on my last service, which was explained away as piston slap. I was able to correlate the noise with when I needed to put oil in the car... I guess it was a strange oil level indicator (ha!). I let the car sit through some of the harsher parts of winter here, when I went to start it again. Dead. The starter was working fine, just throwing codes. Got it towed to the dealer and sure enough, the engine needed replaced. Not much hassle on that front. If the new engine doesn’t hold up, I guess I get to decide between a buy back or a replacement? "

G4579 - 2 posts - hasnt personally had engine failure but previous owner did. Were both users counted?

WINDNSEA00 - Rented his car out to others on Turo. No way of knowing who did what to the car.


Just too many variables here.

Kind of nutty you went through all my posts but nonetheless if cars couldn't be rented then the whole car rental industry would cease to exist. My family owned a 500 annual fleet car rental business growing up, engine failures are generally non-existent unless there is some fluke manufacturing issue.

Ford themselves said it was their fault due to a ton of metal in the oil which caused the bottom end to go thus why they are covering the bill. No over-revs on the DME. I love the car but the build quality is mediocre at best, I would've paid $10-15k more for aligned body panels, thicker paint, better quality welds on the exhaust, less interior rattles, and a reliable engine.

 

[stanglife]

Kind of nutty you went through all my posts but nonetheless if cars couldn't be rented then the whole car rental industry would cease to exist. My family owned a 500 annual fleet car rental business growing up, engine failures are generally non-existent unless there is some fluke manufacturing issue.

Ford themselves said it was their fault due to a ton of metal in the oil which caused the bottom end to go thus why they are covering the bill. No over-revs on the DME. I love the car but the build quality is mediocre at best, I would've paid $10-15k more for aligned body panels, thicker paint, better quality welds on the exhaust, less interior rattles, and a reliable engine.

Kind of nutty that I spent a little time researching? Isn’t that what started this endeavor? Just did a little digging to see what kind of variables we were talking about here. I thought it was fair that, if I was going to critique, that I also put in a little time. No big deal.

It wasn’t a dig at you personally for renting your car - just as I said - hard to say how it was driven.

 

[stanglife]

On a separate note - what the hell is up with the quotes? I keep having to go back and fix the double quotes so that it doesn’t look like I’m talking to myself. Also makes it hard to see who is replying to who.

 

[stanglife]

Can’t let it go, it seems. Confirming my original vibe from you. You’re so hot and bothered that you chase innocent posts with petty, not-even-creative replies. I mean - if you’re going to attempt an insult, why go so limp-wristed?

+1 to the ignore list, I guess.

 

[blueghost]

You are using the data we collected to-date as intended. If I had the time I would try to bring it closer to MIT standards...

I've been down a similar road with Dr. Samuelson where I tried to convenience him of the validity of my sample and sampling technique.It wasn't pretty. ROFL