Recall for 2021-2022 2.7L - Broken Intake Valve

[Boscom39]

I wonder if they'll mention what that magic cycle number is which i'm surely under unless its LOW... I only have 16k on my '21 and don't really use it for any highly demanding engine load. I'd hate for them to put my engine through that and it passes. I'd really hope it'd fail if they did though. If i wanted my engine run like that i would have bought a used one from a car rental place.

Sponsored

 

[JHawk]

I am curious if some early 2023's are included as well. I had a Wildtrak delivered just before Christmas '22. 12 months and 12k miles later it ate a valve on the highway. The replacement motor never had any issues.

 

[fordtruckman2003]

I am curious if some early 2023's are included as well. I had a Wildtrak delivered just before Christmas '22. 12 months and 12k miles later it ate a valve on the highway. The replacement motor never had any issues.

Doubt it, but concerning the number of issues that seem to be related to valves on what all the forums described as a reliable engine option. My 3.5 v1.0 broke and was rebuilt on my last truck. Never an issue with it. I'm really surprised they are going to replace entire engines. That comes with other concerns. I wonder if we are going to get a new engine or another reject 2.7 that has done a valve swap. ?

 

[fordtruckman2003]

I wonder if they'll mention what that magic cycle number is which i'm surely under unless its LOW...

42




Or something significantly higher.
The logic makes sense that if it was going to fail it should have already failed. I'm sure they set the threshold so low that nearly every vehicle recalled will be over. Then we all get to drive around few more years wondering if engine will self destruct. Well, some might, I'm gonna drive it like a stole it. Too fun not to zip around in this truck. ?

 

[gnikdaor]

My truck has the 2.7, the truck itself is a May 2022 build, but I have no idea of the engine build date. So I have no idea yet if my truck is a part of this recall.
I am already cringing at the idea of my engine being rev bombed at the dealership to see if it passes this so called test. From the sounds of it, if the engine doesn't grenade while they are rev bombing the piss out of it, then it passes this test? WTF kind of test is this? Am I then supposed to be happy that it passes, only to find out later the engine was damaged by bouncing it off the rev limiter?
I sure hope to get more clarity on this soon.

 

[fordtruckman2003]

My truck has the 2.7, the truck itself is a May 2022 build, but I have no idea of the engine build date. So I have no idea yet if my truck is a part of this recall.
I am already cringing at the idea of my engine being rev bombed at the dealership to see if it passes this so called test. From the sounds of it, if the engine doesn't grenade while they are rev bombing the piss out of it, then it passes this test? WTF kind of test is this? Am I then supposed to be happy that it passes, only to find out later the engine was damaged by bouncing it off the rev limiter?
I sure hope to get more clarity on this soon.

The dates in the recall would be the vehicle build dates, not the engine. It is possible they expand the recall later to more dates though.

No clue how this procedure will work until we see the Ford documentation that will inevitably be leaked online. For all we know could just be a button to click in FDRS and it cycles the truck through several high RPM cycles. ?‍?‍

I agree, I'm not fond of the thought of abusing the motor at the dealer to see if it pops.

 

[Spiller]

Other info stating 10 yr 150K miles warranty on affected vehicles

https://www.motor1.com/news/732545/ford-recall-90k-vehicles-engine-failure/

We contacted Ford seeking clarification on the remedy and should have more information soon. A company spokesperson explained that, beyond the immediate recall, a special customer satisfaction program is offered to affected vehicle owners. If an intake valve failure occurs within 10 years or 150,000 miles, owners are eligible for a one-time engine replacement.

so -- don't do the recall check at dealer? and if it blows within the 10 years it will be covered. no need for extended warranty? I'm at 33K miles and 2yrs 8 months so will need to decide on ford protect warranty very soon....

The above seems a lot better than passing the test and then it blowing up and not being covered after standard powertrain 5 yr 100K. I don't plan to keep the truck 10 years and if I do I won't break 150K miles.

 

[KTM753]

I bet you have to complete the recall to be eligible for customer satisfaction 10 yr/150k program. Just a hunch. More info to come.

 

[fordtruckman2003]

I'll take the extended warranty coverage.
I still think all of us at this point are going to be over whatever magical threshold they came up with for engine cycles.

I'm just pissed that I have to go to dealer when I was planning to avoid it for the life of this truck. I still haven't done the rear wiring harness recall so they can do that one too.

Waiting to see details on what dealers will be doing so we know how long we will be without our vehicles. I hope everyone bought first day rental ESP for this.

 

[Probity]

I did a deeper dive into the NHTSA data on this recall (24V635000). Found that on the NHTSA site under Investigations tab there are numerous (63) associated documents. They are here (you’ll find the same if you look up a 21MY F-150/Bronco/etc):
Vehicle Detail Search - 2022 FORD F-150 SUPER CREW PU/CC 2WD | NHTSA.

I looked through all of them. On 43 of them, little useful info for me because they were (a) heavily redacted, some 100% (all blacked out), (b) legal/confidentiality statements/declarations, (c) spurious info (ESP data, duplicate tables/graphs, etc). Biggest disappointment was the March 2023 Ford Root Cause (1402 pages, 99.9% redacted) and Nov/Dec 2022 supplier (Eaton) Root Cause (heavily redacted) documents.

In the remaining 20 docs I did find more detail than is in the Recall tab docs. But it was a like taking the tour of a high-tech, complex sausage factory, surprised at some things, disappointed in others, still had questions, came away feeling sick. But I did come away still willing to at least consider buying/eating future Ford sausage again, but probably not in the immediate future. Really disappointed that a cost-reduction measure raised it’s ugly head. And timing (May-Oct 2021) being on the tail end of covid/activity ramp up didn't help either.

Ford didn't want this intake valve problem to be elevated to a safety recall, that's evident from reading their responses to NHTSA. I'm of the opinion that only due to the Toyota Tundra debacle and energetic pushback from the Bronco community did Ford decide to throw in the towel.

Sorry this is so long but thought if anyone was interested they could open the various links to see in more detail what I’m talking about.

From IR Letter Template (nhtsa.gov) the 18 requests from ODI
-When NHTSA kicked off their formal information request on October 20, 2023. These are the 18 requests they wanted Ford to respond to.

INRL-EA23002-13250.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 1
-From Ford, all MY21 and MY22 vehicles with 2.7/3.0 Nano engines produced (~185,000 F-150’s).

INRD-EA23002-13260.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 2
-Warranty claims - ~340 unique VIN F-150’s at time of submittal.

INRL-EA23002-13255.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 5
-Around 800+ warranty claims in total for all models.

INRL-EA23002-13492.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 9
-Communications - very disappointing. No TSB/SSM messages, no Internal Service Messages, no field service communications, no plans to issue communications on the “alleged” defect at that time (January 2024). To me that stinks.

INRL-EA23002-13494.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 11
-This did answer my “what is Silchrome Lite” question. But not “why did they change to it in May 2018?”.

"The Nano intake valve material was changed from “Silchrome 1” to “Silchrome Lite” in May, 2018. The Silchrome Lite material is an industry-recognized valve material with widespread usage in engine valves and is included in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Engine Poppet Valve Information Report J775_201801 material specification UNS K14072 (reference SAE International Surface Vehicle Information Report, “Engine Poppet Valve Information Report,” SAE Standard J775, Rev. Jan. 2018). As Ford advised ODI in its response to PE22-007, the design change to the Silchrome Lite material followed all Ford design and validation disciplines, including three Ford Engine Fatigue Tests which were completed as part of the material change validation process. The Engine Fatigue Test is designed to evaluate the engine’s robustness to structural fatigue caused by repetitive mechanical loading at high engine speeds and high cylinder pressures. This test cycle, developed through Ford’s extensive experience and long tenure manufacturing engines, is used as a basis to ensure engines of high quality, efficiency, and reasonable durability across many possible usage profiles and varied conditions. The test regime is designed to achieve at least 35 million full load cycles on the engine and includes engine speeds ranging from idle to the maximum design speed of the engine. A detailed post[1]analysis of the subject valves was completed, indicating passing results and meeting design goals."

INRD-EA23002-13493.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 11 Parts Change Log
-An “aha” moment for me. Why did they change to Silchrome Lite in 2018? A cost reduction action for MY2018, aka TVM (‘Team Value Management, the auto maker’s global supplier-oriented waste-elimination initiative’).

INRL-EA23002-13496.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 12
-Number of Nano engine replacements MY21 and MY22 – 1434 in total for all models (~520 for F-150’s), but estimated 780 total related to Nano intake valve problem. Explorers with 3.0 Nano’s looked problematic.

INRL-EA23002-13500.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 14
-Ford says “As NHTSA is aware, Ford is an OEM customer. The supplier manufactures the subject intake valves, and information within Fords possession is either not directly its own work product or is the supplier’s best available information provided for this request. Ford does not have the type, description, specification, manufacturer, and photographs of each machine and/or tool used in each step of the manufacturing process.”

INRD-EA23002-13499.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 14 Process Flow
-From Eaton, Kearney NE. From receipt of raw barstock to final inspections. For both Silchrome Lite and Silchrome 1. 28 steps.

INRL-EA23002-13503.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 15
-Special Characteristics Communication and Agreement Forms (SCCAFs) between Ford and Eaton. Inspection method and frequency for both Silchrome Lite and Silchrome 1 – what they did as approved in Nov. 2016 versus what was approved in Sep. 2021.

“All intake valves manufactured for use in the subject vehicles until and on September 6, 2021, were tested for valve tip hardness every shift change. Starting on September 7, 2021, the intake valves manufactured for use in the subject vehicles were tested for valve tip hardness every hour. Additionally, the SCCAF did not detail an upper tolerance limit for valve tip hardness until September 7, 2021. The SCCAF also did not include a microstructure inspection for grain structure and/or grinder burn at start of shift, end of shift, and every eight hours until September 7, 2021.”

INRD-EA23002-13501P1.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 15 SCCAF AA Suffix
-SCCAF vintage 2016. 32 stage method.

INRD-EA23002-13502.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 15 SCCAF BA Suffix
-SCCAF vintage Sep. 2021. 34 stage method.

Subject: (nhtsa.gov) Request 16 Tip End 8D Report (from Eaton)
-Eaton’s problem solving process report for tip end hardness (Oct. 2021). Defect = “Tip hardness adjacent to the keeper grooves above specification at 58-60 HRC. Specification is 57 HRC maximum.”

Potential root causes – “Parts set-up at high end of the hardness range”, “Technicians have been historically instructed to make tips as hard as possible”, “Technicians (now) instructed to put the hardness in the middle of the specification” (as of Aug. 2021), “Added checks for microhardness profile down the center of the tip and keeper groove were added.”

Of note: “Raw material has been changed from Sil-lite to Silchrome 1. Expect field failures to stop. Hardness set-up changed.”

Subject: (nhtsa.gov) Request 16 Keeper Groove Burn 8D Report (from Eaton)
-Defect = “Keeper groove found to be “burned” rehardened and tempered at the surface in localized areas.”

Potential root causes – various – “No evidence that parts were processed outside of control plan”, “Only a visual inspection of the keeper groove was done for a “burn” check” / “Added additional metallographic inspection at keeper groove grind” (as of Jul. 2021), “Lack of (grinding machine) coolant flow” / “Testing to be performed week of November 1st (2021)”.

Of note on possible/probable causes – “Grinding aggressively enough to cause material to reharden - Wheel speed and/or infeed too high - Specifications designed for Silchrome 1 material?”

“Visual inspection of the keeper groove was the only detection for burnt keeper grooves - Visual inspection was deemed adequate at the time - This was the standard hardness inspection at keeper groove grind for 50+ years”

“Raw material has been changed from Sil-lite to Silchrome 1. Expect field failures to stop. Inspection process changed”.

INRD-EA23002-13504P1.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 16 Panel
-A Ford Global Engine Engineering (GEE) report on the Nano 2.7 failures /warranty claims and ERA proposals. Only minor redactions. A lot to unpack, too much to summarize it all. From August 2021. Of note:

*another mention of change to Silchrome Lite for MY2018 was a TVM (i.e. cost reduction) measure – see page 6.

*A ‘new’ root cause (for why mainly LH bank – cylinders 4/5/6 – experienced failures)? (per Ford – “side-loading of the valve tip from rocker arm tipping as a result of valvetrain dynamics caused by increased lash in the system”)

*ERA = Emergency Response Action. So Ford was jumping on this. There were 3 x ERA’s:

*”Other” work – best to read the whole file – oil pressure increase (?), increase left-hand (LH) hydraulic lash adjuster (HLA) gallery restriction in head gasket (?), rolling finger follower (RFF) alignment improvement (?), oil pan work, etc.

INRL-EA23002-13510.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 17
-Two parts to Ford’s response. It’s worth a read. First is (as of Jan. 2024) Ford pushing back on the intake valve ‘defect’ being worthy of a safety recall – “Ford believes that the alleged defect at issue here does not constitute evidence of a defect resulting in an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety” – and “Under the Safety Act, a manufacturer’s recall responsibility is limited to non-compliances with motor vehicle safety standards and defects that present an unreasonable risk to safety (see 49 U.S.C. § 30118(a)).” Not sure I agree with that.

Second part is Ford’s summary on failure modes/mechanisms and why mainly LH engine bank intakes failed:

“At present, over 370 engines associated with these reports have been returned from the field and inspected. Engineering evaluation of those engines found intake valve fracture as the cause. Further investigation of the fractured valves from these engines found evidence of grinding burn and over[1]specification hardness, indicating the valve supplier’s keeper groove grinding and heat treat processes were not within control specifications.”

“From the inspection results of engines returned from the field, Ford has determined that the intake valves on the left-hand side of the engine (cylinders 4, 5, and 6) are substantially more likely to fracture. The teardown results of engines returned to Ford as seen in the file “EA23- 002 Request 12 – Engines Replaced” shows that engines that were found with a fractured left bank intake valve account for over 97% of all returned engines that were found with fractured intake valves.”

“Predominately left bank occurrence is to be expected and is the result of side-loading on the valve tip from the roller finger follower which is an inherent trait of a V-engine arrangement.”

INRD-EA23002-13508P1.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 17 Ford Lab Report
-Nano engine valve fracture report from Ford Central Laboratory in Dearborn (Dec. 2023).

INRD-EA23002-13509P1.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 17 Suppliers Lab Report
-Eaton valve fracture report (done at Eaton Marshall MI) from Oct. 2021. Why there’s a 2 year difference between the Eaton and Ford lab reports is beyond me. Strangely (or maybe not so strange), Eaton said valve tip was within hardness specification (opposite from Ford lab conclusion).

INRL-EA23002-13511.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 18
-How in-time vehicle service affected the frequency of valve failures. Work a read also. Ford said:

“Eighty-seven percent (87%) of the responsive claims had a reported mileage at the time of repair equal to or less than 10,000 miles. As of this IR submission, Ford estimates that over 95% of subject vehicles built during the period of intake valve grinding burn have been driven for more than 10,000 miles.” From their graph, about 70% experienced failures at less than 5000 miles.

“Ford’s analysis of responsive reports submitted in Responses 3 and 5 demonstrates that the number of alleged failures in the field related to this EA drop dramatically on vehicles produced after October 2021. October 2021 is also when the intake valve design changed to the Silchrome 1 material which is more robust to uncontrolled keeper groove grinding due to the material’s higher austenitizing temperature as discussed in Response 13. A “spike period” of higher than ambient level of repairs is observed for vehicles produced between May 1 and October 31, 2021, as shown in the figure below. The start of the spike period corresponds to the vehicle production dates of vehicles with engines containing intake valves manufactured during a period of capacity uplift at the valve supplier manufacturing facility.” What I think Ford might be inferring – Eaton Kearney NE was getting a lot busier in May 2021 as covid was winding down, mistakes made and bad things happened quality-wise.

And a summary on Ford’s statistical analysis regards how they arrived at around 90,000 vehicles in their Failure Probability estimate.

 

[WhiteLightningnshitshadow]

I did a deeper dive into the NHTSA data on this recall (24V635000). Found that on the NHTSA site under Investigations tab there are numerous (63) associated documents. They are here (you’ll find the same if you look up a 21MY F-150/Bronco/etc):
Vehicle Detail Search - 2022 FORD F-150 SUPER CREW PU/CC 2WD | NHTSA.

I looked through all of them. On 43 of them, little useful info for me because they were (a) heavily redacted, some 100% (all blacked out), (b) legal/confidentiality statements/declarations, (c) spurious info (ESP data, duplicate tables/graphs, etc). Biggest disappointment was the March 2023 Ford Root Cause (1402 pages, 99.9% redacted) and Nov/Dec 2022 supplier (Eaton) Root Cause (heavily redacted) documents.

In the remaining 20 docs I did find more detail than is in the Recall tab docs. But it was a like taking the tour of a high-tech, complex sausage factory, surprised at some things, disappointed in others, still had questions, came away feeling sick. But I did come away still willing to at least consider buying/eating future Ford sausage again, but probably not in the immediate future. Really disappointed that a cost-reduction measure raised it’s ugly head. And timing (May-Oct 2021) being on the tail end of covid/activity ramp up didn't help either.

Ford didn't want this intake valve problem to be elevated to a safety recall, that's evident from reading their responses to NHTSA. I'm of the opinion that only due to the Toyota Tundra debacle and energetic pushback from the Bronco community did Ford decide to throw in the towel.

Sorry this is so long but thought if anyone was interested they could open the various links to see in more detail what I’m talking about.

From IR Letter Template (nhtsa.gov) the 18 requests from ODI
-When NHTSA kicked off their formal information request on October 20, 2023. These are the 18 requests they wanted Ford to respond to.

INRL-EA23002-13250.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 1
-From Ford, all MY21 and MY22 vehicles with 2.7/3.0 Nano engines produced (~185,000 F-150’s).

INRD-EA23002-13260.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 2
-Warranty claims - ~340 unique VIN F-150’s at time of submittal.

INRL-EA23002-13255.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 5
-Around 800+ warranty claims in total for all models.

INRL-EA23002-13492.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 9
-Communications - very disappointing. No TSB/SSM messages, no Internal Service Messages, no field service communications, no plans to issue communications on the “alleged” defect at that time (January 2024). To me that stinks.

INRL-EA23002-13494.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 11
-This did answer my “what is Silchrome Lite” question. But not “why did they change to it in May 2018?”.

"The Nano intake valve material was changed from “Silchrome 1” to “Silchrome Lite” in May, 2018. The Silchrome Lite material is an industry-recognized valve material with widespread usage in engine valves and is included in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Engine Poppet Valve Information Report J775_201801 material specification UNS K14072 (reference SAE International Surface Vehicle Information Report, “Engine Poppet Valve Information Report,” SAE Standard J775, Rev. Jan. 2018). As Ford advised ODI in its response to PE22-007, the design change to the Silchrome Lite material followed all Ford design and validation disciplines, including three Ford Engine Fatigue Tests which were completed as part of the material change validation process. The Engine Fatigue Test is designed to evaluate the engine’s robustness to structural fatigue caused by repetitive mechanical loading at high engine speeds and high cylinder pressures. This test cycle, developed through Ford’s extensive experience and long tenure manufacturing engines, is used as a basis to ensure engines of high quality, efficiency, and reasonable durability across many possible usage profiles and varied conditions. The test regime is designed to achieve at least 35 million full load cycles on the engine and includes engine speeds ranging from idle to the maximum design speed of the engine. A detailed post[1]analysis of the subject valves was completed, indicating passing results and meeting design goals."

INRD-EA23002-13493.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 11 Parts Change Log
-An “aha” moment for me. Why did they change to Silchrome Lite in 2018? A cost reduction action for MY2018, aka TVM (‘Team Value Management, the auto maker’s global supplier-oriented waste-elimination initiative’).

INRL-EA23002-13496.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 12
-Number of Nano engine replacements MY21 and MY22 – 1434 in total for all models (~520 for F-150’s), but estimated 780 total related to Nano intake valve problem. Explorers with 3.0 Nano’s looked problematic.

INRL-EA23002-13500.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 14
-Ford says “As NHTSA is aware, Ford is an OEM customer. The supplier manufactures the subject intake valves, and information within Fords possession is either not directly its own work product or is the supplier’s best available information provided for this request. Ford does not have the type, description, specification, manufacturer, and photographs of each machine and/or tool used in each step of the manufacturing process.”

INRD-EA23002-13499.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 14 Process Flow
-From Eaton, Kearney NE. From receipt of raw barstock to final inspections. For both Silchrome Lite and Silchrome 1. 28 steps.

INRL-EA23002-13503.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 15
-Special Characteristics Communication and Agreement Forms (SCCAFs) between Ford and Eaton. Inspection method and frequency for both Silchrome Lite and Silchrome 1 – what they did as approved in Nov. 2016 versus what was approved in Sep. 2021.

“All intake valves manufactured for use in the subject vehicles until and on September 6, 2021, were tested for valve tip hardness every shift change. Starting on September 7, 2021, the intake valves manufactured for use in the subject vehicles were tested for valve tip hardness every hour. Additionally, the SCCAF did not detail an upper tolerance limit for valve tip hardness until September 7, 2021. The SCCAF also did not include a microstructure inspection for grain structure and/or grinder burn at start of shift, end of shift, and every eight hours until September 7, 2021.”

INRD-EA23002-13501P1.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 15 SCCAF AA Suffix
-SCCAF vintage 2016. 32 stage method.

INRD-EA23002-13502.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 15 SCCAF BA Suffix
-SCCAF vintage Sep. 2021. 34 stage method.

Subject: (nhtsa.gov) Request 16 Tip End 8D Report (from Eaton)
-Eaton’s problem solving process report for tip end hardness (Oct. 2021). Defect = “Tip hardness adjacent to the keeper grooves above specification at 58-60 HRC. Specification is 57 HRC maximum.”

Potential root causes – “Parts set-up at high end of the hardness range”, “Technicians have been historically instructed to make tips as hard as possible”, “Technicians (now) instructed to put the hardness in the middle of the specification” (as of Aug. 2021), “Added checks for microhardness profile down the center of the tip and keeper groove were added.”

Of note: “Raw material has been changed from Sil-lite to Silchrome 1. Expect field failures to stop. Hardness set-up changed.”

Subject: (nhtsa.gov) Request 16 Keeper Groove Burn 8D Report (from Eaton)
-Defect = “Keeper groove found to be “burned” rehardened and tempered at the surface in localized areas.”

Potential root causes – various – “No evidence that parts were processed outside of control plan”, “Only a visual inspection of the keeper groove was done for a “burn” check” / “Added additional metallographic inspection at keeper groove grind” (as of Jul. 2021), “Lack of (grinding machine) coolant flow” / “Testing to be performed week of November 1st (2021)”.

Of note on possible/probable causes – “Grinding aggressively enough to cause material to reharden - Wheel speed and/or infeed too high - Specifications designed for Silchrome 1 material?”

“Visual inspection of the keeper groove was the only detection for burnt keeper grooves - Visual inspection was deemed adequate at the time - This was the standard hardness inspection at keeper groove grind for 50+ years”

“Raw material has been changed from Sil-lite to Silchrome 1. Expect field failures to stop. Inspection process changed”.

INRD-EA23002-13504P1.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 16 Panel
-A Ford Global Engine Engineering (GEE) report on the Nano 2.7 failures /warranty claims and ERA proposals. Only minor redactions. A lot to unpack, too much to summarize it all. From August 2021. Of note:

*another mention of change to Silchrome Lite for MY2018 was a TVM (i.e. cost reduction) measure – see page 6.

*A ‘new’ root cause (for why mainly LH bank – cylinders 4/5/6 – experienced failures)? (per Ford – “side-loading of the valve tip from rocker arm tipping as a result of valvetrain dynamics caused by increased lash in the system”)

*ERA = Emergency Response Action. So Ford was jumping on this. There were 3 x ERA’s:

*”Other” work – best to read the whole file – oil pressure increase (?), increase left-hand (LH) hydraulic lash adjuster (HLA) gallery restriction in head gasket (?), rolling finger follower (RFF) alignment improvement (?), oil pan work, etc.

INRL-EA23002-13510.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 17
-Two parts to Ford’s response. It’s worth a read. First is (as of Jan. 2024) Ford pushing back on the intake valve ‘defect’ being worthy of a safety recall – “Ford believes that the alleged defect at issue here does not constitute evidence of a defect resulting in an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety” – and “Under the Safety Act, a manufacturer’s recall responsibility is limited to non-compliances with motor vehicle safety standards and defects that present an unreasonable risk to safety (see 49 U.S.C. § 30118(a)).” Not sure I agree with that.

Second part is Ford’s summary on failure modes/mechanisms and why mainly LH engine bank intakes failed:

“At present, over 370 engines associated with these reports have been returned from the field and inspected. Engineering evaluation of those engines found intake valve fracture as the cause. Further investigation of the fractured valves from these engines found evidence of grinding burn and over[1]specification hardness, indicating the valve supplier’s keeper groove grinding and heat treat processes were not within control specifications.”

“From the inspection results of engines returned from the field, Ford has determined that the intake valves on the left-hand side of the engine (cylinders 4, 5, and 6) are substantially more likely to fracture. The teardown results of engines returned to Ford as seen in the file “EA23- 002 Request 12 – Engines Replaced” shows that engines that were found with a fractured left bank intake valve account for over 97% of all returned engines that were found with fractured intake valves.”

“Predominately left bank occurrence is to be expected and is the result of side-loading on the valve tip from the roller finger follower which is an inherent trait of a V-engine arrangement.”

INRD-EA23002-13508P1.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 17 Ford Lab Report
-Nano engine valve fracture report from Ford Central Laboratory in Dearborn (Dec. 2023).

INRD-EA23002-13509P1.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 17 Suppliers Lab Report
-Eaton valve fracture report (done at Eaton Marshall MI) from Oct. 2021. Why there’s a 2 year difference between the Eaton and Ford lab reports is beyond me. Strangely (or maybe not so strange), Eaton said valve tip was within hardness specification (opposite from Ford lab conclusion).

INRL-EA23002-13511.pdf (nhtsa.gov) Request 18
-How in-time vehicle service affected the frequency of valve failures. Work a read also. Ford said:

“Eighty-seven percent (87%) of the responsive claims had a reported mileage at the time of repair equal to or less than 10,000 miles. As of this IR submission, Ford estimates that over 95% of subject vehicles built during the period of intake valve grinding burn have been driven for more than 10,000 miles.” From their graph, about 70% experienced failures at less than 5000 miles.

“Ford’s analysis of responsive reports submitted in Responses 3 and 5 demonstrates that the number of alleged failures in the field related to this EA drop dramatically on vehicles produced after October 2021. October 2021 is also when the intake valve design changed to the Silchrome 1 material which is more robust to uncontrolled keeper groove grinding due to the material’s higher austenitizing temperature as discussed in Response 13. A “spike period” of higher than ambient level of repairs is observed for vehicles produced between May 1 and October 31, 2021, as shown in the figure below. The start of the spike period corresponds to the vehicle production dates of vehicles with engines containing intake valves manufactured during a period of capacity uplift at the valve supplier manufacturing facility.” What I think Ford might be inferring – Eaton Kearney NE was getting a lot busier in May 2021 as covid was winding down, mistakes made and bad things happened quality-wise.

And a summary on Ford’s statistical analysis regards how they arrived at around 90,000 vehicles in their Failure Probability estimate.

Well youre a gent and a scholar.

I feel okay about this one with my 6/22 build tbh if they are offering 150k 10 yr warranty. I have a 60k 10yr esp already, and Id be surprised if I went significantly over 60k in 10yr frankly.

 

[PPK]

My 502A has a engine build of 2021 Dec 30... i looked this over a while ago.. and thought i was good to go... though i did do a 100k / 9 yr... my lastt f150 almost sent me in the hospital over leaks.. and leaks..

 

[fordtruckman2003]

The Engine Fatigue Test is designed to evaluate the engine’s robustness to structural fatigue caused by repetitive mechanical loading at high engine speeds and high cylinder pressures. This test cycle, developed through Ford’s extensive experience and long tenure manufacturing engines, is used as a basis to ensure engines of high quality, efficiency, and reasonable durability across many possible usage profiles and varied conditions. The test regime is designed to achieve at least 35 million full load cycles on the engine and includes engine speeds ranging from idle to the maximum design speed of the engine. A detailed post[1]analysis of the subject valves was completed, indicating passing results and meeting design goals."

I wonder if dealers are supposed to do a limited version of that to "test" our engines that do not meet the cycle count.

 

[KTM753]

Dealers were supposed to receive information from Ford yesterday based on proposal to NHSTA. Anyone heard any new info?

Owners are supposed to be notified between 10/07 and 10/11/2024. Waiting...

My engine build tag has a Julian date of 21022. So January 22, 2021. Very early build. 30,000 on my motor now. Curious how this thing will play out.

 

[fordtruckman2003]

Dealers were supposed to receive information from Ford yesterday based on proposal to NHSTA. Anyone heard any new info?

Owners are supposed to be notified between 10/07 and 10/11/2024. Waiting...

My engine build tag has a Julian date of 21022. So January 22, 2021. Very early build. 30,000 on my motor now. Curious how this thing will play out.

Stupid question but where is an "engine build tag?"

Most of us will be subject to this recall but I'm curious what the actual Ford fix is for it. Specifically the high RPM cycles.

Sponsored