Sensor failings. You could have one too!

[Turbong]

This is often used as justification for all kinds of modifications as well. A catch can is cheap insurance against all the supposed ills one can protect against, why not install one?

The problem is every time you do anything mechanical to your car you increase the chance of making a mistake and causing harm—this is the mantra of the if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it crowd.

If you've already heavily modded your car—especially with a tune—then you are likely far more risk tolerant than those trying not to void their warranty. If you ARE trying to maintain your warranty then my advice is to do nothing. Any problems that might arise for the failure of this part will be covered by your warranty, and Ford knows it. That gives me confidence that Ford will weigh the pros and cons of replacing the part and act accordingly, especially since it already has done so with the older cars.

This isn't considered a modification it's more like preventative maintenance, your replacing a FORD sensor for a FORD sensor superseded from FORD, what can you do wrong? It screws on and screws off, if your that worried about replacing a sensor cause of warranty you probably shouldn't be changing your own oil in the first place.
Catch can comparison lol?

Sponsored

 

[TorqueMan]

This isn't considered a modification it's more like preventative maintenance, your replacing a FORD sensor for a FORD sensor superseded from FORD, what can you do wrong? It screws on and screws off, if your that worried about replacing a sensor cause of warranty you probably shouldn't be changing your own oil in the first place.

The original recall states "the fuel pressure sensor in the fuel supply tube assembly may not have been installed correctly." If it can be installed incorrectly at the factory it can be installed incorrectly in your garage.

Catch can comparison lol?

Yeah, analogies are hard for some people. Here's how it works. A catch can is not the same as a fuel pressure sensor. Clearly that's silly. The ARGUMENT that the cost of a catch can is cheap compared to all the supposed damage that will occur should you not use one is ANALOGOUS to the claim that "if the chance was .2 percent possibility of losing an engine it warrants a replacement [of the fuel pressure sensor] at that price and ease of replacement."

I'm comparing the arguments, not the parts. Get it?

As to your claim about the ".2 percent possibility of losing an engine," what if it was .02 percent? How about .002 percent? What percentage point is the cutoff where it becomes an acceptable risk? The problem with using made up numbers is everything based on them is made up too.

What is the typical rate of new fuel pressure sensors with manufacturing defects or damaged while packaging/shipping? Does .2 percent sound like a good number? If the defect rate for new fuel pressure sensors is .2 percent and there's nothing wrong with the one in your car then you create a .2 percent chance of failure by replacing it.

Here's an interesting article about maintenance. It's about Conrad Hal (C.H.) Waddington, a British scientist who studied (among other things) maintenance practices for aircraft during WWII. The conventional wisdom of the time was that more preventative maintenance—they used every 50 flight hours for the bombers—would keep the aircraft in better mechanical shape, and find more incipient problems before they resulted in part(s) failures. Common sense, right? Replacing failure-prone parts before they break should reduce the number of unscheduled repairs and keep the aircraft flying.

Rather than make assumptions based on common sense, Waddington and his team studied the data, specifically the number of unscheduled repairs compared to the number of flight hours. They found that the number of unscheduled repairs spiked in the hours following an aircraft completing its scheduled preventive maintenance, then dropped steadily until the next scheduled maintenance. In other words, the preventative maintenance was introducing more failures than it was preventing.

What Waddington discovered is now called the "Waddington Effect," which forms the basis of a widely adopted process called Reliability Centered Maintenance.

So it turns out "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is based on scientific study of actual data, not probability computations based on made up numbers. If your car is functioning properly you don't need to replace any parts on it (aside from factory-recommended maintenance, of course), and there are good reasons not to.

 

[Turbong]

The original recall states "the fuel pressure sensor in the fuel supply tube assembly may not have been installed correctly." If it can be installed incorrectly at the factory it can be installed incorrectly in your garage.



Yeah, analogies are hard for some people. Here's how it works. A catch can is not the same as a fuel pressure sensor. Clearly that's silly. The ARGUMENT that the cost of a catch can is cheap compared to all the supposed damage that will occur should you not use one is ANALOGOUS to the claim that "if the chance was .2 percent possibility of losing an engine it warrants a replacement [of the fuel pressure sensor] at that price and ease of replacement."

I'm comparing the arguments, not the parts. Get it?

As to your claim about the ".2 percent possibility of losing an engine," what if it was .02 percent? How about .002 percent? What percentage point is the cutoff where it becomes an acceptable risk? The problem with using made up numbers is everything based on them is made up too.

What is the typical rate of new fuel pressure sensors with manufacturing defects or damaged while packaging/shipping? Does .2 percent sound like a good number? If the defect rate for new fuel pressure sensors is .2 percent and there's nothing wrong with the one in your car then you create a .2 percent chance of failure by replacing it.

Here's an interesting article about maintenance. It's about Conrad Hal (C.H.) Waddington, a British scientist who studied (among other things) maintenance practices for aircraft during WWII. The conventional wisdom of the time was that more preventative maintenance—they used every 50 flight hours for the bombers—would keep the aircraft in better mechanical shape, and find more incipient problems before they resulted in part(s) failures. Common sense, right? Replacing failure-prone parts before they break should reduce the number of unscheduled repairs and keep the aircraft flying.

Rather than make assumptions based on common sense, Waddington and his team studied the data, specifically the number of unscheduled repairs compared to the number of flight hours. They found that the number of unscheduled repairs spiked in the hours following an aircraft completing its scheduled preventive maintenance, then dropped steadily until the next scheduled maintenance. In other words, the preventative maintenance was introducing more failures than it was preventing.

What Waddington discovered is now called the "Waddington Effect," which forms the basis of a widely adopted process called Reliability Centered Maintenance.

So it turns out "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is based on scientific study of actual data, not probability computations based on made up numbers. If your car is functioning properly you don't need to replace any parts on it (aside from factory-recommended maintenance, of course), and there are good reasons not to.

I get your comparison in the terms, still not valid a valid argument, a catch can is an addition that was never there in first place. The sensor is genuine replacement, I also under stand and use the logic "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and the "Waddington Effect" however this part has shown recorded accounts of failures and can lean out and blow your motor, kind of a big deal and since I don't have an accessport to test and the part is 20 dollars it's a no brainier to me to just swap it and not worry about it.

Also remember this was a circumstance experiment in a war era with x amount of planes and x amount of workers, were they been over worked with the extra maintenance and extra work? I would say more than likely, There is a big difference between swapping out parts for the sake of swapping out parts and it makes sense why they were having more issues in the experiment they were simply over worked too many things to do with no real cause and of course increases chances of making mistakes in larger scale operations. This sensor part is in question has probable cause, your not just swapping out all possible parts just to get newer parts in, big difference my friend.

 

[Juben]

I got my old sensor that came off of my stock engine. With the sensor on the new (built) engine I put together, lowside fuel pressure looks great. Swap back to the old sensor (-BA) and guess what — all zeros.

As I've said in other threads and places around the internet, I noticed this issue with the LSFP sensor being flaky and even noticed the characteristic drops in the HPFP pressure under WOT. I thought something might have been happening with the spill valve in the HPFP because it was an intermittent problem but replaced it only to see the same thing. That's when I started monitoring the LSFP monitor and noticed it was working erratically at times. I noticed this a few months before I lost the engine and had been monitoring it the whole time but didn't know there was a correlation between the sensor output values and the operation of the HPFP. There's no catch in the PCM logic for the failed sensor and that's what's causing the lean issue. I unplugged the factory sensor and did some more testing with the bad one and that seems to resolve the issue, too, because the PCM then infers the value from the LSFP sensor.

I discussed the issue with Adam and even some other tuner friends at that time, but there really wasn't any information at that time to make the connection. And now, I've come to find out from some reliable Ford sources that Ford has been aware of an issue with the sensors and have been replacing them at dealerships when people experience issues with their cars. It's also one of the things that Ford has been looking at when blown engines are sent in.

So, there's two things I'd do. First, I'd monitor Lowside Fuel Pressure if you have the older -BA type sensor. Second, I'd spend the $20 and get the upgraded -CA sensor (part number ending in -B).

Also, the part number on the sensor is the engineering part number. The original sensor -A is shown as being -BA on the sensor itself. The revised sensor -B is shown as being -CA on the sensor itself. Hopefully that'll eliminate any confusion on what I'm talking about there.

I've seen a lot of people want to see where the proof is that it's causing the failures on stock cars but we really wouldn't be able to see that without a device, like the Accessport, to monitor and log the problematic condition.

However, the thing that we do have is clear cut defined proof (data) from multiple verified sources that a bad sensor does cause an issue where fuel pressure drops and creates a lean condition. A lean condition, especially under harsh operating conditions like a WOT pull, is a receipt for disaster. That's one reason that I had my old sensor sent back to me and wanted to verify this problem myself. I mean, what are the odds? I had a failing sensor with erratic operation for a few months starting prior to the failure and then the engine gives up with no other factors appearing to be a contributing source. The scary thing is, even a built engine wouldn't last under lean conditions. It might take it longer than stock components but it'd eventually fail too.

The moral of the story: change to the new sensor and let's all hope this is what eliminates the dreaded EcoBoom.

 

[TorqueMan]

And now, I've come to find out from some reliable Ford sources that Ford has been aware of an issue with the sensors and have been replacing them at dealerships when people experience issues with their cars. It's also one of the things that Ford has been looking at when blown engines are sent in.

I would really like to get more information about this. Can you be more specific? What do you mean by "reliable?"

The moral of the story: change to the new sensor and let's all hope this is what eliminates the dreaded EcoBoom.

It seem illogical to me to change engine components based on "hope," especially when my engine doesn't seem to be exhibiting any problems.

 

[Cardude99]

Anyone have any knowledge if the 18's have a problematic sensor or the new one?

 

[Banjo]

The 2018 should have the newest revision. Hopefully it has a let failure rate but I think it's too early to tell.

 

[Virge]

Is there any procedure to follow to remove the sensor?

 

[MakStang]

This is a nice video showing how to replace the sensor:

[ame]

And this is a link for the item on eBay:

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/202107275077

 

[lostlocalhost]

The 2018 should have the newest revision. Hopefully it has a let failure rate but I think it's too early to tell.

My 18 built in batch 1 still has the BA version.

 

[Juben]

I would really like to get more information about this. Can you be more specific? What do you mean by "reliable?"

It seem illogical to me to change engine components based on "hope," especially when my engine doesn't seem to be exhibiting any problems.

I have numerous friends that are employed within various positions at Ford: Engineers, FSEs, Master Techs, Assembly Technicians, etc. I try not to go into specifics, especially online, because I'm not going to risk telling too much and getting someone into trouble for giving me information that's considered confidential by Ford.

Hope? Don't take things so literally. We have mounting evidence that if/when the older sensors fail that they cause a disasterous set of operating conditions. If you have the old sensor and a way to monitor it while having no desire to spend money, then don't replace it. It's as simple as that. However, when we have actual data and proof of what happens under a failure condition and can complete mitigate potential for that to happen for $20, then why not? Is every single old sensor going to fail? Maybe, maybe not. However, for me, it's not worth risking when it's easily replaceable and less than a meal at a nice restaurant.

I have a failed sensor in my car and one that works. I can put the failed sensor in and watch the HPFP drop pressure. When that happens, the engine will run lean and destroy it at some point. It's not worth risking to me and could potentially save a lot of people's engines.

I'm trying to help. I have nothing to gain or lose by sharing what I know other than to potentially help others avoid a big catastrophe.

 

[Redcruzer]

Thanks Justin, just what I was looking for.

 

[ZenkaiRacer]

Replaced mine today, came off surprisingly easy. Didn’t even have the right wrenches. I just used two crescent wrenches.

Did it right after pulling it into the garage and still had very little fuel come out. Only had a single shop towel under it and it was more than enough to catch the fuel.

 

[Juben]

My 18 built in batch 1 still has the BA version.

FWIW, the 18s are different from the 15-17 cars PCM wise and that's what's taking Cobb and some of the others longer to release their software. To my understanding, it was like starting over new. I'm curious as to whether Ford did anything different within the new calibrations to account for the failure. I'm going to try to do some digging on that and see what I can find out. When/if I do, I'll make sure to update everyone on here.

 

[MakStang]

Keep up the good work Justin. We appreciate you taking the time to post all this info. Although my sensor works fine, I will proactively replace it with the new part within a month or so. As you said, at $20 it’s cheaper than a meal.

Sponsored