Topic Sponsor
2011+ Engine Related Questions Sub-Forum to the new engines that debuted in 2011.

new TSB 13-8-1

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-22-2013, 10:09 AM
  #81  
Member
 
EcoFX4d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wright City, MO
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts

Default

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?
Old 08-22-2013, 11:25 AM
  #82  
Senior Member/Vietnam Vet
 
SkiSmuggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Northern Vermont
Posts: 2,603
Received 539 Likes on 369 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by EcoFX4d
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?
Here is what he said in post #179 of his thread:
"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)
Old 08-22-2013, 01:18 PM
  #83  
Opinionated Blowhard
 
Kenferg1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 1,007
Received 165 Likes on 104 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by engineermike

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".
Thank you for your reply. I have thought more about this and agree with much of what you wrote. I will disagree on the safety factor though. We have all come to expect a very high level of reliability and drivability of our modern vehicles. I think the danger that most of us are concerned about involves the suddenness and unexpectedness with which the power loss occurs. The drivability we are accustomed to disappears and leaves some folks in hairy situations. It is usually after that that people go hunting for information about the problem and report their experience. I know about the problem, and as you suggest, drive accordingly. But for the thousands that do not, it truly is a safety concern. Like you I have not heard or read about any accidents, injuries or deaths... Thank God.

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)
Old 08-22-2013, 02:50 PM
  #84  
Senior Member
 
chlngfyo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: central mo
Posts: 310
Received 22 Likes on 21 Posts

Default

Mine's at Machens today getting tsb 13 3 3 hopefully its an improvement.
How are some of you getting the dealership to change or atleast look at the plug's?
Old 08-22-2013, 03:30 PM
  #85  
Senior Member/Vietnam Vet
 
SkiSmuggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Northern Vermont
Posts: 2,603
Received 539 Likes on 369 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by chlngfyo2
Mine's at Machens today getting tsb 13 3 3 hopefully its an improvement.
How are some of you getting the dealership to change or atleast look at the plug's?
I told them to do it. No problem. At 41K, two of the plugs were shot and the rest gapped at .038 and up.
Old 08-22-2013, 09:05 PM
  #86  
Member
 
buddyxp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vinton Louisiana
Posts: 43
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

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.
Old 08-22-2013, 09:12 PM
  #87  
Senior Member
 
engineermike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, La
Posts: 5,462
Received 1,556 Likes on 990 Posts

Default

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.
Old 08-22-2013, 09:39 PM
  #88  
Member
 
buddyxp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vinton Louisiana
Posts: 43
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

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?
Old 08-22-2013, 09:53 PM
  #89  
Member
 
buddyxp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vinton Louisiana
Posts: 43
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Engineermike u have the weep hole and have not experienced any problems?
Old 08-22-2013, 09:59 PM
  #90  
Senior Member
 
engineermike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, La
Posts: 5,462
Received 1,556 Likes on 990 Posts

Default

It won't be easy due to the plastic end tanks. Also, you'd be losing a lot of air when at full boost, which would affect power.


Quick Reply: new TSB 13-8-1



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:09 AM.