Recall for 2021-2022 2.7L - Broken Intake Valve

[PPK]

build date is up front on drivers side valve cover, big sticker there... my truck was built jan '22 with a dec28 '21 built motor...

Sponsored

 

[Probity]

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.

All I could find was the recent (Monday Sep 30) delivery hold 'advance notice' to dealers on this - no mention of the test procedure - the 'complete' bulletin to dealers now not until 1Q2025.

Microsoft Word - 24S55 - Advance Notice.docx (nhtsa.gov)

 

[KTM753]

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

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/thre...k-old-1000mi-2-7l-ecoboost.26787/#post-924343

 

[fordtruckman2003]

I was just looking at FordPass today.
Loss of motive power is an interesting way to describe engine self destruct option I didn't know I paid for.

 

[amschind]

My WAG is that a machining operation which is supposed to have cooling/lubricating fluid sprayed onto it suddenly stopped receiving that fluid. Supply chain/cost skyrocketed/see what happens if we cut some corners? Maybe all of the above. My YouTube University degree in metal working tells me that your workpiece isn't supposed to smoke and spark and turn blue.

 

[fordtruckman2003]

My WAG is that a machining operation which is supposed to have cooling/lubricating fluid sprayed onto it suddenly stopped receiving that fluid. Supply chain/cost skyrocketed/see what happens if we cut some corners? Maybe all of the above. My YouTube University degree in metal working tells me that your workpiece isn't supposed to smoke and spark and turn blue.

I think Ford and their suppliers didn't do enough research. I agree more cooling would have likely not created an issue but they were apparently using same manufacturing process as regular Silchrome. Thinking no additional cooling measures were required will cost Ford lots of money to replace or repair.

 

[amschind]

I think Ford and their suppliers didn't do enough research. I agree more cooling would have likely not created an issue but they were apparently using same manufacturing process as regular Silchrome. Thinking no additional cooling measures were required will cost Ford lots of money to replace or repair.

That's likely correct, but I really want to believe that at some point they told Timmy the Marginal Intern to look up if Silchrome Lite needs to be kept below a certain temperature. I WANT to believe that they did that.

 

[WhiteLightningnshitshadow]

So why dont I have this recall in my june 2022?

 

[Probity]

That's likely correct, but I really want to believe that at some point they told Timmy the Marginal Intern to look up if Silchrome Lite needs to be kept below a certain temperature. I WANT to believe that they did that.

The ’21-’22 Nano engine intake valve recall is a bit strange. We’ll probably never know all the gory details. In amongst the 63 documents from Ford and Eaton in the NHTSA Investigation site there is the March 2023 Ford Root Cause (1402 pages, 99.9% redacted) and Nov/Dec 2022 supplier (Eaton) Root Cause (heavily redacted) documents. The full story is likely somewhere in there, we just can’t see it.

The intake failures spiked between May and October 2021 affecting both MY2021 and MY2022. Switched back to Silchrome1 from Silchrome Lite in October 2021.

Why was the switch made to Silchrome Lite from tried-and-true Silchome 1 for MY2018 and beyond Nano engine? A cost reduction measure.

In some of the 63 documents, Ford and Eaton talk about what manufacturing processes were changed as a result of the failures:

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.”

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.”

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” (the old ‘we’ve always done it this way’ answer). “Raw material has been changed from Sil-lite to Silchrome 1. Expect field failures to stop. Inspection process changed”.

Request 16 Panel - A Ford Global Engine Engineering (GEE) report on the Nano 2.7 failures /warranty claims and ERA proposals. A lot to unpack. From August 2021. Of note: another mention of change to Silchrome Lite for MY2018 was a TVM (i.e. cost reduction) measure. 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”.

Apart from the machining/hardness check/other inspection revisions made after the problem was identified, the biggest corrective action was – stop using Silchrome Lite.

It made me wonder – I had until recently a 2018 F150 2.7EB, zero issues. If Silchrome Lite intake valves were also in use for MY 2018/2019/2020 vehicles, and assuming the same manufacturing processes and QA/QC checks were in place then as were in place during the May-October 2021 failure problem ‘spike’, how come 2018-2020 owners like me didn’t see a failure ‘spike’ too?

I can only assume that something was ‘wrong’ (heat treat, quench/tempering?) with the raw Silchrome Lite bar stock used for those 2021-2022 vehicles; I’ve no idea where the problematic bar stock originated from (US, Italy, India, China, ?), never saw that mentioned in the unredacted files I read. But I’d bet it’s mentioned somewhere in the redacted Root Cause docs, we’ll never know.

 

[fordtruckman2003]

Definitely seems that supply chain was potentially taking shortcuts in response to increased production demands. For sure something changed there in the machining side or the source of the Silchrome.

Given the timeframe we can assume that the Silchrome Lite alloy was possibly in production during covid times. Could have easily been issues that didn't show up until machining process. Remaining undetected by routine standard checks for regular Silchrome.

 

[fordtruckman2003]

Received the official recall notice in the mail.
Keep driving and wait until sometime in first quarter for a solution.

Feel like Ford is intentionally delaying so more engines can grenade? ?‍

 

[Spiller]

Anyone have the details on this Ford Customer Satisfaction campaign for extended warranty for the affected vehicles? (mine is one)

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2023/INCLA-EA23002-10828.pdf

24N12

Does this 10 yr 150K mile extended warranty I assume only cover powertrain. But it is more specific, does it only cover an issue if the valve fractures? Ford could just say it was a different issue and not replace the engine if it's that narrow and the engine blows up?

 

[Carphunter]

not sure if this is the right thread... wondering how many people have done this recall, and how many had any adverse effect from the testing.

 

[Snakebitten]

I'm guessing there would be a LOT of noise on this and other forums if the procedure itself was dropping valves. Or even if valves dropped soon thereafter?

 

[fordtruckman2003]

Still waiting to see notification of how this recall will be handled by Ford. ?

Rolled over 50k with no self destructing engine yet. Probably fine...

Sponsored