Ford’s EcoBoost family of engines has been with us for more than ten years, meaning that most of us have encountered at least some of the common issues on EcoBoost engines. However, based on the fact that three mechanics had given one of this writer’s regular customers shockingly bad advice regarding the 1.0L 3-cylinder engine in his 2014 Ford EcoSport car, it would appear that a sizable percentage of mechanics had either not encountered many 1.0L EcoBoost engines before, or that the inner workings of EcoBoost engines in general, and 1.0L EcoBoost engines in particular, are still somewhat mysterious to a sizeable percentage of mechanics.
Therefore, in this article, we will take a closer look at Ford’s 1.0L Ecoboost engines in terms of what to look out for when we service and/or work on these engines. Before we get to specifics though, let us look at-
We can skip over most of the details of the shortcomings of previous families of Ford engines, but suffice it to say that when the Euro 5 emissions regulations came into force, it became clear to Ford’s engine designers that their current engine designs just barely met Euro 5 emissions regulations. Moreover, it turned out that developing their existing engines to meet Euro 6 emissions regulations would be both technically difficult and prohibitively expensive.
Therefore, Ford engineers were tasked with developing an all-new family of engines that will produce more power and torque than their predecessors by using less fuel and creating fewer emissions. Most importantly, though, each member of the new family of engines had to achieve all of the above with a smaller displacement than its directly comparable predecessor.
This was a very tall order indeed, but to save both time and development costs, Ford's engineers settled on making three design features or traits common to all the envisaged variants. These were forced induction (turbocharging), direct fuel injection, and variable camshaft timing. There is nothing new or particularly novel about these design traits since they are present on many, if not most engines made by other manufacturers, but Ford implemented these features in a somewhat novel way. Here is the short version of how they did it-
Instead of just bolting a turbocharger (or two turbochargers in some cases) onto an engine, Ford engineers essentially took a turbocharger (or two turbochargers, in some cases), and built an engine around the turbocharger (s). This ensured that the new engines operated at their maximum achievable volumetric efficiencies, which was further enhanced by high-pressure direct fuel injection.
The engineers took the same approach regarding the variable camshaft timing systems. Thus, instead of merely adding a variable camshaft timing system to an engine design, Ford’s engineers tweaked and developed the VCT system to suit the already exceptional volumetric efficiency of each engine variant. Put differently, this means that, unlike most other VCT systems that improve an engine's breathing only at high engine speeds, the VCT system on the new engines works in conjunction with direct fuel injection and forced induction to maximize the engine's breathing throughout its operating range.
The result of the above was a family of engines, dubbed EcoBoost engines, which generally outperformed their comparable predecessors, and many competitors, at that, in terms of fuel efficiency, emission levels, and power delivery characteristics despite their sometimes-puny displacements.
However, Ecoboost engines are not without their faults and sometimes, serious shortcomings mainly as a result of the smaller members of this family of engines being used in applications that place extreme demands on their structural integrity and resistance to mechanical wear. The (relatively) high global failure rate of the 1.5L Ecoboost engine used in medium SUVs is a testament to this since these relatively small engines are required to operate at or near their operational limits just to keep the heavy vehicles they are in moving forward at high speeds, which brings us to-
The short version of this story is that the customer brought his car to this writer’s former workshop, which now belongs to this writer’s former chief mechanic and resident diagnostician in equal parts. The purpose of his visit was to get another opinion on whether he, the customer, really needed to replace the engine in his car just because there was some oil on the timing belt.
Now, in almost all cases, oil contamination of a timing belt is never a good thing, but in this case, the engine in question was a three-cylinder, 1.0L Ecoboost engine that was designed to have the timing belt running inside the engine, hence the presence of oil on the timing belt.
There are very good reasons why Ford engineers chose this design. One reason is that the friction coefficient of a wet belt is roughly 30 per cent lower than that of a comparable dry belt, which greatly reduces parasitic power losses on the small-displacement engine. Equally importantly, wet timing belts have significantly lower NVH (Noise, Vibration, and Harshness) characteristics compared to comparable dry belts, which is a useful attribute.
Having said the above, this particular 1.0L EcoBoost engine ran well, and there were no outward signs that there was anything wrong with it. Nonetheless, the vehicle had just more than 130 000km on the speedometer, and since the service schedule called for a timing belt replacement at 150 000km, the customer started looking around for workshops that could replace the timing belt at the best possible price.
Unfortunately for the customer, the first workshop he consulted told him that there was something seriously wrong with the engine because the timing belt was “drenched” in oil, and so this workshop recommended that he replace the engine as the only practical remedy for this particular problem.
When the diagnostician recounted the story to this writer, he did not believe at first that any reasonably competent workshop would be so badly informed that they would replace an entire engine instead of just a timing belt that was fast becoming due for replacement. It gets worse, though: the diagnostician pulled out a written quotation issued by a second workshop that confirmed the first "diagnosis", but this workshop went so far as to offer the customer a 10 per cent discount on the replacement engine, hence the customer’s visit to obtain a third opinion.
We will not repeat the details of the customer’s response when the diagnostician told the customer that the timing belt was designed to be exposed to oil, nor will we express an opinion on the professionalism (or lack of professionalism) on the part(s) of the two workshops that knowingly(?) misled an unwary customer. Suffice it then, to say that the diagnostician replaced the timing belt on the little EcoBoost himself, and gained a lifelong customer in the process.
So, while this episode had a happy ending for all involved, not all stories involving the wet timing belts on 1.0L EcoBoost engines have happy endings, so let us look at-
Official Ford service information states that 1.0L EcoBoost engines, both the timing belt and the smaller belt that drives the oil pump must be replaced at 150 000km, or after ten years of service, whichever comes first. However, while the wet timing belts on 1.0L EcoBoost engines have some significant advantages over comparable dry belts, the fact is that the wet belts on these engines often fail long before they see 90 000km to 100 000km of service- and sometimes, even earlier.
Even worse, though- degraded wet timing belts can, and often do cause catastrophic engine failures before the belts themselves fail, which understandably, has given the 1.0L EcoBoost engine a decidedly poor reputation. In fact, many former owners of 1.0L EcoBoost engines have vowed never to touch another after their engines failed catastrophically as a result of timing belt failures.
Whether (or not) one agrees with the widespread aversion to small EcoBoost engines is beside the point, which is that under the right conditions, wet timing belts on 1.0L Ecoboost engines do not usually fail prematurely. So, why do so many wet timing belts on small EcoBoost engines fail prematurely, you may ask?
You may well ask, and the answer involves a general lack of attention to detail regarding the servicing and maintenance requirements of 1.0L Ecoboost engines. There are several examples we could mention here, but the most pertinent is the fact that in almost all cases of premature wet timing belt failures on 1.0L Ecoboost engines, the engine had not been filled with the correct oil.
At this point, it is worth remembering that timing belts are made with a variety of synthetic rubber and rubber-based compounds that are usually susceptible to chemical attack by the acids, sulphurous compounds, and hydrocarbons in engine oil. Thus, to combat the effects of various constituents in engine oil on the timing belt, Ford has developed several compounds and substances (mainly adhesives and structural materials) for use in the manufacture of wet timing belts that are highly resistant to chemical attack.
However, the wet timing belts in 1.0L EcoBoost engines are only resistant to chemical attack by hydrocarbons and other substances in oil when the engine is filled with Ford's purpose-designed engine oil formulation. As a practical matter, this oil formulation, known as SAE 5W-20 Premium Synthetic Blend WSS-M2C945-B1 for the 1.0L and 1.5L EcoBoost engines, has chemical properties that inhibit the formation of acids and other sulphurous compounds, which is the mechanism that prevents or retards the degradation of the timing belt.
In practice, using any other oil formulation in a small Ecoboost engine has serious, and inevitable negative consequences for the wet timing belt. The first step in the degradation process is a progressive hardening of the belt, followed by the gradual, but progressive crumbling of the “body” of the belt. This is followed by a general weakening of the belt as its structural strength is lost, and finally, the belt unravels or delaminates from the reinforcing fibres. However, in many cases, the debris from the crumbling belt accumulates around the oil intake, which reduces and can even prevent the flow of oil to the oil pump before the belt fails.
Consider the image below that shows the accumulated debris of a degraded wet timing belt clogging the oil filter strainer on a 1.0L EcoBoost engine-
Image source: https://ystradservicecentre.com/f/ford-10l-ecoboost-oil-pressure-issues
Of course, the above is not the same as saying that using unsuitable engine oil is the only cause of wet timing belt failures, but for the most part, wet timing belts in small EcoBoost fail primarily because of the effects of incorrect or unsuitable engine oil on the belt(s).
One other thing to keep in mind is that the algorithms that underpin the operation of Ford’s AI-based intelligent oil life monitors are among the most advanced in the automotive world today. So, because Ford recommends that the oil in small EcoBoost engines be replaced every 10 000km, it would be foolish to disregard the oil life monitor when it says to replace the oil after say, six or seven thousand kilometres.
The oil life monitors on small Ecoboost engines are not only programmed to recognise all possible driving conditions and styles, as well as all environmental factors that affect the useful life of oil fills, but they are also able to recognise bad fuel quality and exceptionally harsh or difficult operating conditions. What this means in practice, is that our opinions and preferences as mechanics and technicians regarding ideal oil change intervals do not count when it comes to oil changes on small EcoBoost engines.
The final arbiter of what constitutes either good or bad engine oil in small EcoBoost engines is the oil life monitor, and therefore, disregarding its recommendations could potentially destroy our customer’s engines, which brings us to another major problem with 1.0L EcoBoost engines, this being-
Image source: https://www.autoserviceprofessional.com/technology/article/23000769/the-ford-ecoboost
Although the build-up of carbon deposits on valves is a common problem on engines with direct fuel injection, small EcoBoost engines are more severely affected by even minor carbon deposits on valves than almost any other engine in use today.
The image above shows a close-up view of the valves on a 1.0L EcoBoost engine. Note, though, that this level of build-up will have almost no discernable effect on almost any other direct injection engine. However, in the case of this 1.0L Ecoboost engine, the carbon build-up was sufficient to cause a severely rough and unstable idle when the engine was cold. So, why are small Ecoboost engines affected so disproportionately by minor carbon deposits on valves?
We can answer this question by saying that is a reason why small EcoBoost engines develop more power per litre of displacement than many supercars, including the Bugatti Veyron. This is because every aspect of the Ecoboost engine’s intake system is optimised to impart the best possible flow dynamics to the intake air. In practice, the intake systems of small EcoBoost engines are (almost) free of oscillating pressure waves that can have dramatic negative effects on how air flows into an engine. Thus, if we add the effects of a super-optimized combustion chamber design and a highly effective turbocharger to (almost) free-flowing intake air, it should be obvious that anything that obstructs or impedes the flow of the intake air will have a measurable effect on the efficiency of the intake system.
In this context, even a minor build-up of carbon on the valves disrupts the flow of air into the combustion chambers, whose design depends on a stable inflow of air to establish an air-fuel matrix that is conducive to stable combustion at low engine temperatures.
So while the above explains the rough and erratic idle quality on this particular engine, removing carbon from the valves of small EcoBoost engines presents a daunting challenge if we want to avoid damage to the turbocharger. The challenge involves the fact that Ford expressly forbids the introduction of solvents and other substances into the inlet tract (while the engine is running) to dissolve and remove carbon from the valves.
So here is the problem with using solvents to remove carbon deposits from the valves of small EcoBoost engines-
While some solvents do in fact, dissolve and remove valve-bound carbon deposits, most, if not all such solvents also often cause un-dissolved pieces of carbon to become detached from the valves. In most cases, such bits of very hard carbon are simply expelled through the exhaust valves but in the case of small EcoBoost engines, the design of the turbocharger causes the turbo charger's compressor wheel to ingest carbon that is expelled through the exhaust valves.
In many cases, ingested carbon causes severe damage to the compressor wheel, which, in turn, almost always causes severe damage to the turbo chargers’ entire rotating assembly. As a practical matter, the only safe way to remove carbon deposits from the valves of small EcoBoost engines is through walnut blasting, but only with the turbocharger removed from the engine to forestall any walnut dust and bits of carbon being ingested by the turbocharger upon first start-up after the carbon removal process.
This kind of damage (to the turbocharger) is often the principal cause of many drivability and other complaints by owners of cars with small EcoBoost engines. Common complaints include-
Turbocharger failures are extremely common on small EcoBoost engines, and while not all such failures are caused by ingested carbon, one leading cause of turbocharger failures is the use of unsuitable or incorrect engine oil that damages thrust washers and bearings in rotating assemblies.
Based on the above, great care must be taken when servicing small EcoBoost engines in terms of always using the oil recommended by Ford, as opposed to oil recommended by oil companies and parts outlets. In addition, many drivability issues can only be resolved by replacing the turbocharger (see above), meaning that all inspections of small EcoBoost engines must include a thorough assessment of the condition of the turbocharger as a first step, which leaves us with this-
Although many of the shortcomings of small EcoBoost engines can probably be described as design flaws, paying proper attention to details when servicing these engines can go a long way towards preventing some design flaws resulting in major or even catastrophic engine failures.
On a practical level, neither we, as mechanics and technicians, nor Ford as a corporate entity can reasonably expect owners of cars fitted with small EcoBoost engines to know or understand the extreme loads, stresses, and strains that even “normal” operation under favourable operating conditions places on these engines.
However, we as mechanics and technicians have the collective responsibility to understand not only how every engine in the world works- we also have or should have, the ability to appreciate that some engines work much harder than others to achieve the same thing, which is to keep cars moving forward. At least, that is what our customers believe and expect from us, so let us not disappoint them by giving them shockingly bad advice and information because it reflects badly on all of us.
