Why can't Ford fix the cam phaser issue?

[KABQ]

This can explain why Ford keeps pushing out existing engines with the same cam phaser problems. Too lazy & too cheap to fix their existing engine designs

Another question is why do they keep designing new engines with the same cam phaser problems. The Bronco 2.7L V6 didn't exist till 2018. Almost 15-years after the problems started

20-years of V6 cam phaser epidemics. Ford hasn't fixed their new engine designs because their dysfunctional engineering & design teams are pretending the cam phaser problems don't exist

The 2.7 being designed later doesn't really matter since all the EcoBoost engines are designed around roughly the same architecture, both 4 and 6 cylinder. Interestingly, rumor has it that the design borrows heavily from Mazda's 2.3 MZR, which didn't have any of the issues commonly found in the EcoBoost engines.

Sponsored

 

[Mojave Norte]

The 2.7 being designed later doesn't really matter since all the EcoBoost engines are designed around roughly the same architecture, both 4 and 6 cylinder. Interestingly, rumor has it that the design borrows heavily from Mazda's 2.3 MZR, which didn't have any of the issues commonly found in the EcoBoost engines.

And Ford's in-line engines don't have the problems. For example the 2.3L I-4 engines have essentially zero cam phaser failures. Only Ford's V-engines are having the epidemics. It's another fact that proves design problem. If it were production problem then the I-4's would be having failures also.

The point about the 2.7L V6 Nano 2nd-gen is they had plenty of time to fix the design before releasing it. If Ford's design/engineering/QA teams were doing their job to recognise & diagnose their 20-years of V6 cam phaser epidemics, they could have fixed the designs in their newer engines. These epidemics started 2004. Their 2.7L V6 Nano 2nd-gen design could have been fixed long before they released it 2018

The big problem is they're pretending these V6 cam phaser epidemics don't exist. Ford has dysfunctional design/engineering/QA & management w "Head-in-Sand"

 

[CarbonSteel]

I am curious if the break-in process in conjunction with the initial oil change intervals has any impact on cam phaser issues.

Case in point, after only 1,000 miles, the factory fill (which should be Motorcraft Synthetic Blend 5W-30) was already reduced to a 20 grade in viscosity.

For those who run the factory oil until the iOLM states to change it, the viscosity is going to be a super thin xW-20 which is not what a HO twin turbocharged engine should be running.

 

[Ducati1098]

I am curious if the break-in process in conjunction with the initial oil change intervals has any impact on cam phaser issues.

Case in point, after only 1,000 miles, the factory fill (which should be Motorcraft Synthetic Blend 5W-30) was already reduced to a 20 grade in viscosity.

For those who run the factory oil until the iOLM states to change it, the viscosity is going to be a super thin xW-20 which is not what a HO twin turbocharged engine should be running.

I think it’s just crappy parts to be honest. I’ve seen sub 3k mile engines develop phaser rattle and others go over 100k with zero issues.

 

[CarbonSteel]

I think it’s just crappy parts to be honest. I’ve seen sub 3k mile engines develop phaser rattle and others go over 100k with zero issues.

For me, the problem is the lack of consistency or rationale for the failures. One would think if the parts were bad we would see some pattern.

 

[Ducati1098]

For me, the problem is the lack of consistency or rationale for the failures. One would think if the parts were bad we would see some pattern.

I agree. It’s baffling either way, whether it’s a parts issue or something else. Unfortunately I’m not sure we will ever know the real reasoning behind it.

 

[Alanp970]

If I’m not mistaken the cam phaser issues of the early 2000’s typically happened much later in the life of the engine and was usually due to poor lubrication from plugging/narrowing of oil ports that fed the phasers. Extended oil change intervals do your engine no favors. These seem to have much earlier failures.

 

[HotLap]

Same question as OP, all I can come up with is it must be cheaper for Ford to just fix via warranty? For those that pass the 5yr/60K power train warranty you’re in for a healthy repair bill!

My 2018 Raptor started the cold start “cam phaser death rattle” at 4 1/2yrs w/39K miles. It quickly got worse, (I was even doing the cold start oil pressure trick of pressing both brake and gas pedals). Finally recorded the rattle at 4yrs. 10mos., took it into my LFD. Service writer immediately said I needed cam phasers replaced and was lucky I had 6 weeks of power train coverage left. Didn’t even wait overnight for a cold weather start as this is such a common/known issue. Said in the early days they would have had to reverify rattle and contact Ford in advance, (before repairs would be authorized), but fairly common now. Also said it would have been a 5K repair AND they would have to lift the cab off the chassis for the repair. Guess that’s easier than removing the engine? Not at all happy about having my entire cab removed.

Upon getting the Raptor back, I immediately changed the oil & filter, went through (everything I could get at) and found a pair of needle nose pliers in the engine bay, quite a few wiring harness clips busted and not replaced and several of the headlight fascia housing clips broken and not replaced…however the CP rattle was gone and everything worked as before. Traded it for the new Bronco 2 mos later and sales manager asked me if the cam phasers had been replaced yet, (just an assumpotion), but sounded like he might have been contemplating factored that into my trade allowance…

Disappointed Ford does not have this under control by now. Over on the Raptor forum the prevailing thought was that the 3rd redesign of the cam phaser part in the 2019-2020 timeframe was the fix…

Was really hoping that was the case, looks like an extended power train warranty is in my future.

And FORD, shame on you for allowing this to go on so long and inconveniencing your loyal customers and destroying your reputation in the process…

Apologies you all had to read through this but the CP rattle failure is near and dear…I would have been majorly pissed if I would have to pay a $5K repair bill for Ford’s failure to fix the well known cam phaser issues on these 6cyl EB engines…

Sigh, stepping off the soapbox now…

 

[CarGuy]

I was with a firm that outsourced their entire IT environment (telecom, data centers, all operations, etc) to a large outsourcing firm. Many months into the contract they were missing the contractual SLAs (service level agreements). Even though we hit them with contractual fines, they continued to miss the SLAs. I had a private conversation with the firm’s exec and he stated “it’s cheaper to pay the fine than perform the service.”

With respect to the cam phasers, my hypothesis is the cost to repair the impacted vehicles is likely (much) cheaper than reengineering and implementing a solution.

 

[HotLap]

snip, snip…

With respect to the cam phasers, my hypothesis is the cost to repair the impacted vehicles is likely (much) cheaper than reengineering and implementing a solution.

Great point and I suspect you’re correct on Ford’s thinking, however, Ford should provide a lifetime (or at least high mileage) warranty on cam phaser failure with these affected EB engines. Will never happen, but patently wrong for a customer to have to pay for these well known engineering defects (assuming vehicle is maintained properly) when they occur past powertrain warranty expiration…

 

[CarGuy]

Great point and I suspect you’re correct on Ford’s thinking, however, Ford should provide a lifetime (or at least high mileage) warranty on cam phaser failure with these affected EB engines. Will never happen, but patently wrong for a customer to have to pay for these well known engineering defects (assuming vehicle is maintained properly) when they occur past powertrain warranty expiration…

I agree with your points. It would take a class action lawsuit to change that.

 

[Agua Caliente]

. . . this is such a common/known issue . . .

Over the years many Ford employees have posted here in B6G. Existing employees and former - engineering, production, finance, and so forth - all kinds of employees. Several talked about the poor communication & cooperation between various departments & divisions at Ford. Tribalism, entrenchment - stubborn self-righteous attitudes of "not our problem" - "that's your problem" - "our design is fine" - "your parts are defective" - "your assembly is sloppy" - and so on. Not a great atmosphere for problem solving

When your V6 engines have decades of widespread cam phaser failures and your in-line engines have basically none, that's a design problem. Design of the engine, design of the parts, design of the software, you figure it out - but it's a design problem.

 

[Jms1]

I am inclined to believe it is an oil flow design flaw between the V6 engine and its phaser. The in-line engine does not have the problem yet I find it hard to believe the phaser itself is that much better of a design. If it was the phaser design alone that was the issue for the V6 engine, then that is solvable. It is a bolt on part that the design can easily be changed. Very little cost respectively. If it is an oil flow issue with how the heads and block are routed then that is a different more costly issue.
But, being that Ford went Gen 2 With the 2.7 I think in 2017, I am sure they would have fixed it. So basically I have no basis for my theory.

 

[userdude]

Over the years many Ford employees have posted here in B6G. Existing employees and former - engineering, production, finance, and so forth - all kinds of employees. Several talked about the poor communication & cooperation between various departments & divisions at Ford. Tribalism, entrenchment - stubborn self-righteous attitudes of "not our problem" - "that's your problem" - "our design is fine" - "your parts are defective" - "your assembly is sloppy" - and so on. Not a great atmosphere for problem solving

This is because Ford is an infamous command and control environment, where siloing and cross-departmental cooperation are seen as impediments to management's goals of improving their careers. This came out of the military post-WWII and works well for building up capacity with known outcomes, not good for long term reliability and improvements. When only a few people have a say, power comes from exerting control, not cooperating.

This is a big reason why Toyota showed up with their much improved Toyota Production System and ate American car manufacturers lunch in the 80's and 90's, a vaunted approach to improving quality that has run aground given different issues like inability to scale in the oughts (think separation versus duplication as a risk mitigation). When everybody has a say, effectively nobody can change everything and breakdowns occur like the Takata air bag issue.

Moral of the story: Manufacturing at large scale is hard, yo.

 

[CarbonSteel]

I still wonder about the oil being a contributor to this. Though it is a miniscule sample base, I wonder how many here who have had a cam phaser issue at low mileage have followed the iOLM for the first oil change.

5W-30 dropping down to a 20 grade in 1,000 miles is not a good thing. My first 1,000 was from Dallas where I bought it to Colorado Springs--so all highway miles where the stress on the engine is the least.

It would be very interesting to see what the viscosity would be at 5K miles or so. I did not wait and changed mine as soon as I hit 1K. I am glad that I did.

Sponsored