Ford CEO: Need Better Quality

[JohnnyO]

Ford CEO: "Until We Fix Quality, Nothing Else Matters"

Ford CEO Jim Farley told a group of retired engineers that it would take several years for the Blue Oval to fix its quality problems.

www.roadandtrack.com

 

[superj]

At least they know what they need to work on. My full size is a nissan titan and we get tons of people who used to drive f150s but left because of how many peoblems they had with their ecoboost f150s

 

[DILLARD000]

"Until I Get My MultiMillionDollar AnnualBonus & StockOptions, Nothing Else Matters."
is really what the CEO & everyone else in the executive suite is thinking.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Thats partially the reason i bought a jeep. The internet (granted, yes its the internet) is littered with issues about recent ford drivetrains.

Crazy how they can go from building rock solid stuff like the old Windsors and I6's and early 5.4's to the iffy at best stuff they make today.

GM is just as bad anymore.

 

[Chapap]

I've heard good and bad about the 2.7 ecoboost. My takeaway was that they're perfectly fine for modern engines. I didn't get one cause trucks in general are just so ridiculously expensive. A big problem i read about is condensate collecting in the intercooler, then stalling the engine under sudden, high throttle. The solution was to drill a weep hole in a low spot. That seems like it'd be a problem on all turbo engines tho, so Ford did something wrong there.

I don't know that Ford should be ridiculed any more than others tho. My wife's Camaro had stupid problems. the first 6-12 mo of the 2016 generational update put bad tranny fluid in the A8 that fried the TC. They went thru a couple TSBs till they fixed it. First it was 3 flushes then TC replacement... that didn't work. Then it was a special power flush then TC change. That seemed to work. My dealer didn't follow the TSB and did TWO power flushes then TC change. They also didn't ground the block good enough leaving people stranded with non-start when hot. a simple addition of a ground cable fixed it.

The new Tundra is a prime example of why to wait for a year before buying a generational update.

I mainly think it's a matter of new stuff being buggy. By the time it's confirmed to be reliable, it's outdated. I think that's why Mazda is so far behind on hp, mpg, tech... they found something that works really well and just stick with it... and they're too small to fund new stuff. They're Chinese now, so no telling what the future holds for them.

 

[sgtsandman]

At least they are publicly recognizing and at least saying they are going to address the problems. That’s more than many do.

Unfortunately, Ford is run by a lot of people that agree with the current government agenda. They also don’t learn from other people’s mistakes, like the issues VW and others has/had with DI engines. I’m sure the issues with the 5.4 3 valves didn’t help either.

It will be interesting to see what they do, if anything other than just saying words.

 

[Chapap]

At least they are publicly recognizing and at least saying they are going to address the problems. That’s more than many do.

Unfortunately, Ford is run by a lot of people that agree with the current government agenda. They also don’t learn from other people’s mistakes, like the issues VW and others has/had with DI engines. I’m sure the issues with the 5.4 3 valves didn’t help either.

It will be interesting to see what they do, if anything other than just saying words.

I'd really like them to do more with their lowest option NA 3.3 V6. I hate how 4 bangers are taking the place of V6s. I'd rather have an underpowered 6 than a strung out 4.

 

[sgtsandman]

I'd really like them to do more with their lowest option NA 3.3 V6. I hate how 4 bangers are taking the place of V6s. I'd rather have an underpowered 6 than a strung out 4.

They are taking the same approach that was the big push in the 1980s.

Smaller engines use less fuel. At least on paper. In the real world, there is a benefit as long as you aren’t towing or hauling anything. That’s the Eco side.

Throw a big enough load in the back or hook up a trailer and you are in boost and won’t be much better, if any than a larger NA engine.

At least the ecoboost engines aren’t failing like the ones in the 1980s were. Manufacturers were throwing turbos on engines never designed to be boosted which where causing head gasket failures left and right. Then there was the oil coking issue in the turbos as well. The push turned into a temporary fad that people didn’t forget for a long time. I don’t think Ford started dabbling in turbocharged gas engines again until either 2014 or 2015.

Like you said, it would be nice if there was a naturally aspirated offering. Even if it was a bit of a dog.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Most 3.5 EB guys online claim about 11-12mpg towing 6-7klbs.

By comparison my 460 gets 10.

More power being used, more gas youll burn. Theres no real way around it.

 

[CMOS]

At least they know what they need to work on. My full size is a nissan titan and we get tons of people who used to drive f150s but left because of how many peoblems they had with their ecoboost f150s

Have they listed anything specific that they feel needs correcting, or was it more of a general statement?

CMOS

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

They are taking the same approach that was the big push in the 1980s.

Smaller engines use less fuel. At least on paper. In the real world, there is a benefit as long as you aren’t towing or hauling anything. That’s the Eco side.

Throw a big enough load in the back or hook up a trailer and you are in boost and won’t be much better, if any than a larger NA engine.

At least the ecoboost engines aren’t failing like the ones in the 1980s were. Manufacturers were throwing turbos on engines never designed to be boosted which where causing head gasket failures left and right. Then there was the oil coking issue in the turbos as well. The push turned into a temporary fad that people didn’t forget for a long time. I don’t think Ford started dabbling in turbocharged gas engines again until either 2014 or 2015.

Like you said, it would be nice if there was a naturally aspirated offering. Even if it was a bit of a dog.

Ecoboost came out in 2011 for trucks.

Most 3.5 EB guys online claim about 11-12mpg towing 6-7klbs.

By comparison my 460 gets 10.

More power being used, more gas youll burn. Theres no real way around it.

If you need 400 horses you gotta feed 400 horses.

The neat part about a ecoboost is if you don't need 400 horses you are not stuck feeding them.

Our 5k lb Bronco is a freaking brick, gets 25mpg and I wouldn't want to live on the difference between it and my coyote F-150 in a drag race. That lil bugger will scoot.

 

[CMOS]

Ecoboost came out in 2011 for trucks.

I had a 2010 F150 with the 3.5EB.....


CMOS

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Ecoboost came out in 2011 for trucks.



If you need 400 horses you gotta feed 400 horses.

The neat part about a ecoboost is if you don't need 400 horses you are not stuck feeding them.

Our 5k lb Bronco is a freaking brick, gets 25mpg and I wouldn't want to live on the difference between it and my coyote F-150 in a drag race. That lil bugger will scoot.

No, the EB will pry hit 20 empty. But that waa kinda my point. Power means fuel consumption lol.

 

[19Walt93]

Agreed, I've been away from it since 2017, but we sold a pile of 3.5 EcoBoost F150's, customers loved them, they got good mileage, and we had zero problems. Our sales manager was the dealer's son and he always had an Ecoboost F150 demo if we had one in stock. He towed his 2 snowmobile trailer to Pittsburg, NH, in cold winter weather(obviously) and got mid 20's for gas mileage. We had a customer who towed a trailer all over selling welding supplies with his EcoBoost F150. We loaned him a 5.0 truck when his was in for a turbo at 150,000 miles. He thanked me for the loan, said the 5.0 was a lot harder on gas and didn't tow as well. We never had to take a 3.5 apart for anything, a couple high mile turbos was the worst we had. We sold few 2.7 trucks at the time but also had zero problems with them.
My 2016 2.0 EcoBoost AWD averaged 27.3 mpg round trip to my daughter's house near Washington, DC- going 75-80 on the highway and then in the worst city driving I've ever seen.

 

[sgtsandman]

Earlier than I remember in any case. Considering, they haven’t been to bad. Though, the valve coking issue before they put port injection back in is an annoyingly expensive one.

The only other issue I recall being with the 2.7 and the oil pan?