Thursday, January 15, 2015
Ford 3.5 V6 Eco Boost Engine Problem
A class action was filed regarding the Ford 3.5 Eco-boost engine. here are excerpts from the opinion.
I. BACKGROUND
This case centers on Defendant Ford Motor Company's 3.5-liter V6 "EcoBoost" engine, a twin-turbocharged gasoline internal combustion engine utilizing direct-injection and variable valve timing ("the Engine").. These vehicles are the 2010-2013 Lincoln MKS, 2010-2013 Lincoln MKT, 2010-2013 Ford Flex, 2010-2013 Ford Taurus SHO, 2011-2013 Ford F-150, and 2013 Ford Explorer Sport (the "Class Vehicles").
Plaintiffs allege that Ford promoted its EcoBoost technology as providing increased fuel efficiency without sacrificing performance, and advertised EcoBoost engines as functioning reliably in extreme conditions. (Id., ¶¶ 2-3, 118-33). According to Plaintiffs, however, "[a]ctual driver experiences have been dramatically different," with "[h]undreds" of drivers reporting that vehicles equipped with the [4] engine are "prone to shuddering, shaking, stumbling, misfiring, rapidly losing power, or improperly going into 'limp mode,'" particularly in situations involving heavy rain or humidity. (Doc. 35 at 26-27; Am. Compl., ¶¶ 4-5, 134, 139-40).
Investigations to date, Plaintiffs explain, have indicated that the issue likely arises from moisture entering the Engine via condensation that forms inside the tubes of the "Charge Air Cooler" or "intercooler," a radiator-like component which cools intake air after it has been compressed (and heated) by the turbochargers, before it enters the combustion chambers. (Am. Compl., ¶ 5). Ford has issued four "Technical Service Bulletins" ("TSBs") to its dealerships and internal departments mentioning this problem, designated TSB 12-6-4, TSB 12-10-19, TSB 13-3-3, and TSB 13-8-1. (Id., ¶¶ 6, 141-48). These TSBs were issued on June 4, 2012, October 30, 2012, March 18, 2013, and August 5, 2013, respectively. (Id., ¶¶ 141-45). According to one internal update, Ford is still "investigating [the problem's] cause and solution." (Id., ¶¶ 7, 146). Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that Ford had knowledge of the potential problem in the Engine, as evidenced by TSBs 11-8-19, [5] 11-5-3, and 10-17-10, regarding Ecoboost engines "running rough, hesitating, and shuddering," which were issued in 2010 and 2011 and predate the introduction of the
Davisson v. Ford Motor Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122673, 2-5 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 3, 2014)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment