6 minutes ago, alexp999 said:

Presumably a diligent journalist would have asked the question, if the wet belt was not a problem, why did they change it to a chain?

Back on topic...  I stopped watching Watchdog a few years ago.  Got fed up with the way it was presented.  Clearly just intended to scaremonger rather than offer decent consumer advice.  

Still in two minds about whether to watch this segment on iPlayer or not.

37 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

Found it on the All4 catch up service eventually. 

Turned out I was right...those HT leads would be a little unnecessary on a diesel.

CN56 FFU.  Jimps will be even more upset about this though.  It never failed MOT, in fact on it's last MOT wasn't even an advisory. 

 

Oh dear thats me in self destruct mode, how dare they, goes against all the ethos of the programme.

 

32 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

Back on topic...  I stopped watching Watchdog a few years ago.  Got fed up with the way it was presented.  Clearly just intended to scaremonger rather than offer decent consumer advice.  

Still in two minds about whether to watch this segment on iPlayer or not.

They could not offer consumer advice as Ford said there was NOT a problem.

1 hour ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

So let's say 2 million as a nice round figure. 0.01% of that is only 200 and we've probably had that many on this forum alone, so a ludicrous figure. Big fib from Ford or c*ck up by the Beeb?

Just checking out PumaSpeed sales of replacement Ecoboom 1.0 engines and they claim to have sold 468. Of course we have no way of knowing why 468 owners decided to fit a new engine but I'd like to bet Ford have replaced at least the same number, and then there are those selling second hand/refurbished engines. So just making the numbers easy lets say a nice round 1000 replaced and assume only half of them were because of cam belt failure that would still mean 500 poor Ecoboom owners have had to pay at least £3000 and in many cases probably double that.

I can only think the 0.01% is "Ford's truth" a bit like the version of events that prince Harry gives !

13 hours ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

So let's say 2 million as a nice round figure. 0.01% of that is only 200 and we've probably had that many on this forum alone, so a ludicrous figure. Big fib from Ford or c*ck up by the Beeb?

Just watched it.  They said 0.01% of ALL EcoBoost engines produced globally.  No mention of 1.0 or wetbelt engines.  So that presumably includes every EcoBoost size and every type of belt or chain drive.

This is exactly the kind of thing that frustrates me with any 'statistics'...they're never actually real, always tweaked in the favour of the person giving them.

1 hour ago, TomsFocus said:

They said 0.01% of ALL EcoBoost engines produced globally.  No mention of 1.0 or wetbelt engines.  So that presumably includes every EcoBoost size and every type of belt or chain drive.

Only watched it so far via the Facebook link. I'm back home so hopefully can find my BBC iPlayer password and have another look. If that does mean all types though, in one way it makes sense (they'd already produced 5 million by 2015) but is totally irrelevant to what the piece was about (the 1.0 wet belt). 

Or so we think. It's not at all clear that the presenter or many of the posters on Facebook actually have a clue as to which engine is which.

So, had another watch. It is pretty clear that they are talking about timing belts on ecoboost engines (and we know which one, even though they don't specify). He definitely said less than 0.01% of global production of ecoboost engines and this is the confusing point - he doesn't specify the 1.0 so it could mean everything with an "ecoboost" label which is a pretty vast range of engines.

It was a pretty poor report really. The problem engine was not clearly identified and both the cases featured did not have full service records. 

 

Sounds like p*** poor journalism. 

The major problem with wet belts is that you can not really inspect their condition. You have either to remove the sump or the head cover. I wonder if it is possible to use a camera and an endoscope inserted into the sump after the oil is drained. This is a relatively simple procedure and If the oil pump strainer is clear most probably the belts will be just fine.

The more I watch that clip, the more stuff doesn't seem to add up, and I think Alex summed it up nicely!

I wonder what sort of cost the first guy had been quoted? Even with the offer of a contribution from Ford he said it was still cheaper to borrow £5k from his Dad and get it done elsewhere.

Likewise the lady featured was talking of £6k - in both cases way over what we've seen here.

Just indulging in nostalgia for a moment, I was reflecting on how things were back in the day. These two cases cars were 6 and 8 years old respectively and had done 80k miles or so. At that age/mileage my Mk 1 Cortina had had a major engine overhaul (pistons, big ends, etc) usual strut top mount plating/welding and so on. (Admittedly there was no wet belt and swapping an oil pump was a 5 minute job!) Are people being over-optimistic nowadays buying a mass-produced car at 8 years old with 80k or more miles and expecting total reliability?

3 hours ago, Tony Roman said:

 I wonder if it is possible to use a camera and an endoscope inserted into the sump after the oil is drained.

A couple of people posting online claim to have done it. Knowing the configuration of the sump, drain hole, strainer location, I'm sceptical.

To get a definitive image I would think an aero/medical grade endo would be required to reach the required position and in focus.

3 hours ago, alexp999 said:

Sounds like p*** poor journalism. 

I'm shocked, From the BBC?? 😂

The BBC should have asked me to participate, I could have shown the viewers ALL the affected parts 🤓

13 minutes ago, RayC333 said:

A couple of people posting online claim to have done it. Knowing the configuration of the sump, drain hole, strainer location, I'm sceptical.

To get a definitive image I would think an aero/medical grade endo would be required to reach the required position and in focus.

Yep, I just came across such a post in You tube. It says that an endoscope with a mirror of small diameter (less than 6,5 mm) may be sufficient to do the job. There are some cheap small Chinese endoscopes on the market Pipe Endoscope 480P/1080P/1200P 5.5mm/8mm Camera Suitable For Android Apple Mobile Phone Computer Inspection Pipe Car Endoscope - AliExpress. I think it is worth trying. If it fails then one can proceed by dropping the sump off.

 

5 hours ago, alexp999 said:

Sounds like p*** poor journalism. 

Sounds like the BBC 🤣

On 6/9/2023 at 6:47 PM, Tony Roman said:

Yep, I just came across such a post in You tube. It says that an endoscope with a mirror of small diameter (less than 6,5 mm) may be sufficient to do the job. There are some cheap small Chinese endoscopes on the market Pipe Endoscope 480P/1080P/1200P 5.5mm/8mm Camera Suitable For Android Apple Mobile Phone Computer Inspection Pipe Car Endoscope - AliExpress. I think it is worth trying. If it fails then one can proceed by dropping the sump off.

 

Here how it looks like with endoscope

7 minutes ago, Tony Roman said:

Here how it looks like with endoscope

Is it available in high definition?

I dont get why the engine flush thing is such a problem, do indie places just go around randomly flushing engines? Every garage or mechanic I have been too have said they do not flush engines unless asked as theres not much point and they do not believe the majority of modern engines need it; something along those lines.  I think I would rarther find a good indie garage than pay extra going to ford who might end up using the wrong oil in the first place.

1 minute ago, Pigeon12 said:

I dont get why the engine flush thing is such a problem, do indie places just go around randomly flushing engines?

Yes.  There's an excellent mark up on a bottle of engine flush and it doesn't add any extra labour.

When I worked at a main dealer (not Ford) we were putting fuel additive in with every service for the same reason.

Nope, photo is not mine. The endoscope is cheep but the author claims the picture is even clearer on the phone screen and there is also video recorded which is clear enough to conclude the strainer is OK.

1 minute ago, TomsFocus said:

When I worked at a main dealer (not Ford) we were putting fuel additive in with every service for the same reason.

I bet you also added a sachet of windscreen wash too at an exorbitant price, that use to really p*ss me off at a main dealer service LOL

4 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

Yes.  There's an excellent mark up on a bottle of engine flush and it doesn't add any extra labour.

When I worked at a main dealer (not Ford) we were putting fuel additive in with every service for the same reason.

Well thats uncomforting to know lol. At the place I go to usually, I said not to use any engine flush and he chuckled and said "dont worry we wouldnt use any on this engine anyway" 😂

3 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

I bet you also added a sachet of windscreen wash too at an exorbitant price, that use to really p*ss me off at a main dealer service LOL

Worse than that, we just added plain water!  I suppose the service desk might have charged for screenwash though lol.

It’s from the North American market, but a channel that sometimes pops up on my YouTube feed had a 1.0 wet belt tear down due to failed belt

 

Too late, already posted 🤣

2 hours ago, Karbonfaiba said:

 

In the video example; wet belt breaks up, clogs oil pickup. Worrying it seems the turbo was also oil starved for a while - either due to lack of any warning, failure to detect low oil pressure at all, or driver failure to observe low oil pressure warning. 1.0L wet belt seems to be a time bomb in best case scenario imo.