new TSB 13-8-1
#81
Member
It just occured to me after re-reading the TSB article, this isn't another bandaid... This is just a way to save Ford some $$$ on the replacment intercooler some of us already got from the previous TSB. Now they can stop production on that part number!
And didn't GermanEB flow test the two coolers and said there was little to no difference. The only noticable difference is the density of cooling fins or something?
And didn't GermanEB flow test the two coolers and said there was little to no difference. The only noticable difference is the density of cooling fins or something?
#82
Senior Member/Vietnam Vet
It just occured to me after re-reading the TSB article, this isn't another bandaid... This is just a way to save Ford some $$$ on the replacment intercooler some of us already got from the previous TSB. Now they can stop production on that part number!
And didn't GermanEB flow test the two coolers and said there was little to no difference. The only noticable difference is the density of cooling fins or something?
And didn't GermanEB flow test the two coolers and said there was little to no difference. The only noticable difference is the density of cooling fins or something?
"We did the flowtest a while ago. The older and the newer oem Intercooler have the same pressure drop. See the graph. The Fins inside are much wider on the new cooler.
We are very busy over here, I need to find the time to compare the new and old cooler in my truck, just need to find the time."
The following users liked this post:
Kenferg1 (08-22-2013)
#83
Opinionated Blowhard
Kenferg1, I agree with 90% of your post. These trucks have a systemic issue and they absolutely must fix it, especially if they expect customers to accept this technology as the way of the future. I also do not believe that ford really has their arms around the root cause, but that's a separate discussion.
However, I do not believe that engine power is a safety system in the same sense that brakes, steering, or even tire integrity is. Airplane engines are considered a safety system, and the standard to which they are built and repaired is much more stringent than automotive.
To further my point, note that with something like 300,000 of these on the road, no one has reported an actual accident yet, not even a minor one. Based on this, the problem is either not as widespread as it seems, or its not a safety issue. By comparison, around 30 fatalities and an order of magnitude more accidents had to occur due to a sticking throttle before Toyota did their recalls. I pray this doesn't happen to anyone, but THIS is what a real safety issue looks like and our problem, without even a fender bender reported, pales in comparison. Heck, now that I think about it, more ecoboost f150's accidents have been reported due to unintended acceleration than loss of power. What's that tell you?
Furthermore, I don't think overdramatizing the problem is going to get us anywhere because we lose some amount of credibility. It's just an observation, but it looks like the vast majority of the people only had the problem around fast-moving 18 wheelers and only with loved ones in the vehicle. How could most of these trucks only exhibit the problem in the highest consequence situation possible? ...which brings me to my next point...one guy tried passing an 18 wheeler on a 2 lane road, in the rain, with oncoming traffic, family in the truck, knowing his truck had the issue, and when it lost power he put all the blame on the truck. If you know your truck has the issue, then for crissake don't put your life at the mercy of the thousands of moving and electrical parts in the drivetrain. This is where I start blaming the driver. Furthermore, I do believe, ecoboost or not, if you're regularly relying on engine power as a safety system to prevent injury or death, then you seriously need to reevaluate your driving habits. Automotive drivetrains just arent designed and built to the same standard that a safety system is.
I have never said there isn't a problem or that ford shouldn't have to fix it or that its the drivers fault. I believe quite the opposite actually, but we maintain more credibility and have a higher chance of a positive outcome if we are all reasonable about the problem and don't try to make it into something it's not. A touch of conservative driving practices couldn't hurt either, thus reducing the consequence of any engine failure.
Edit: I never questioned how buddyxp drives his truck, just implied its an option to adjust his driving habits while waiting for a fix rather than trading it in after one loss-of-power episode because its "dangerous".
My guess is that 2015 will reveal a new intake design that solves the problem. That's my hope. I also hope that the 13-3-3 TSB is a final fix for my truck.
As always I look forward to reading you evaluations and opinions.
The following users liked this post:
engineermike (08-22-2013)
#86
Member
Ok on account of shift work I have not had the time to check my spark plugs. I plan on pulling them this weekend and checking them. With the tsb in mind I pull my tractors 2-4 hours away all the time to my lake house. Never once had a problem, especially when going through burkville with the twist and turns on top of all the hills. Thats what catches me off guard of having this problem now when ive never had it before. Do y'all think the tsb would effect towing? Also the thing that worries me the most is after my warranty runs out (if I decide to keep it) the problems I would have then and the problems the condensate could have cause without me knowing. I'm almost tempted to get a steam trap from work and mount on the bottom of the intercooler.. I also read on other forums from engineermike about putting in a small weep hole on the bottom of the cac, I have a small check valve 1/8 for tubing we using on our instruments at work, do u think that'd work wit draining the cac? Even putting a cap on it and just randomly draining it.
#87
Senior Member
I thought about one of those float style steam traps. The check valve might work, if its in right, to prevent any possible reverse flow. I was going to keep it simple by using just a small weep hole. It's kinda like an orifice style steam trap - let's a much higher mass flow of liquid than gas.
#88
Member
I'm going to run to our shop and check out what sizes we have, they work for sure with our process. We deal with some serious acid and can't have it backing into our instruments and and their stainless. I've also thought about some small RV's that we have on some nitrogen tubing i believe are rated for 15lbs and maybe when high boost it would open it and blow enough out without being opened all the time.. Have any ideas on incorporating that into the cac?