Well, Destroked, first, nothing personal. However, with over two dozen Fords, I’ve never had a truck burn oil. My 76 Olds Cutlass in my college years had 200k plus on the odometer, and never used oil. Frankly, if a damn auto manufacturer can’t get oil consumption under control in THIS day and age, they have no business making engines. They played with fire with the 2018 IMO, and after dropping almost $60k on a truck, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect an engine to not use oil. It’s not like I am putting the engine under loads. It’s a daily driver.
Ford says 1 quart in 3,000 is the deal breaker for the 2018 5.0L. My sons 2011 5.0L with 140k burns absolutely nothing. I can’t see how a 2011 burning nothing shouldn’t be the standard the 2018 should match.

 

Ford has actually admitted that there is a problem, based on the TSB issued. Nobody here is crying or being out of line about this issue. Yes, there is some venting going on here, as expected.

These trucks are stupidly expensive now, so expectations are high. Competition is tough in the truck segment. The company that lets quality slip will lose sales.

 

I'd love to read about how much testing Ford did on this coated 5.0L before they unleashed it to the public.

 

I looked up some stuff on this process, they stated they had 3 million miles of testing before they released to public. Something's amiss here, the true reason will probably never be known unless it comes from an independent source, Ford has proven they put profits before integrity so I wouldn't hold my breath on them revealing anything on this one.

 

You'd think they would have learned from the Nikasil coating fiasco on Jaguar's aluminum V-8 when they owned them.

 

There was a lot of talk regarding cylinder coding in the 6.7 L forum a few years ago when we saw the first high-pressure fuel pump failures. It was too long ago for me to remember specifics, but there was a lot of information posted about how this technology had been in use for years in engines from several different manufacturers. I just did some quick google searching, and while I can't find any specific examples, there was some discussion about sleeveless aluminum engines being used since the 1980s in some applications.

 

I agree. This kind of consumption starts to become acceptable at 200,000+ miles, not brand new. I've had many (including other manufacturers) from the `70's, `80's, `90's, and 2000's that happily go 200,000+ and don't lose a quart in 3,000 miles . . . and most of what they do lose is usually from a leak somewhere. Most were big rear-drive boats or well-used pickups, some with short-production oddball engines, and only one is FWD. For the 5.0/307 to have this issue new and post break-in is unacceptable, and unbelievable.

History aside, this issue doesn't happen on every 5.0/307 out there, but only on a not-insignificant number of them. This tells me that they can be had with less or no oil consumption issues . . . leading me to believe this is a production quality issue of some sort, not a fundamentally crummy design. Maybe there's a bad process somewhere? I can't tell from here.

So now, standing in the shoes of corporate execs at Ford, how do I handle this issue? It is only happening on some of them, and we don't know what causes the problem in the first place. I certainly don't want to appear to condemn every 5.0 out there so I won't make an announcement. I also don't want the owners of every 5.0 produced to start thinking "free engines woohoo!" so I put checks and balances in place for engine replacements. I understand that these checks and balances will not be applied perfectly, but they need to be there. Will I get some heat from a small minority of owners and lose some reputation in the deal? Probably so, but the impact of that is much lower than my other alternatives.

 

I think the tens of engines they use(d) for testing are built they way they should be every single time, whereas the thousands of engines they build for consumers probably occasionally have a slight chance of seeing less attention per-engine at some small part of the process along the way. Not making excuses for them, just presenting my speculation on a possible cause.

 

They probably did, but that was corrosion of Nikasil due to a combination of fuel ingredients and cool engine temperatures. Porsche still uses Nikasil in one of their engines.The plasma transfer process looks good to me, but perhaps isn't being done right on occasion . . . or perhaps some other part of the "new 5.0" is being done wrong on occasion.

I tend to think that while "yes, steel liners are expensive and weigh ~15 pounds", they are going to a lot of trouble to save a few bucks and ~15 pounds on an expensive and profitable pickup truck.

 

This right here is the essence of the matter. They looked for ways to lighten and save probably across all lines. Nothing wrong with that, it is a business for profit. I'm sure all sectors got pressure from above to do their share, but sometimes it doesn't work out, it's not like it was a mud flap that doesn't require major repairs. And I don't think they'd roll out an "improvement" that they don't feel comfortable with, but something in the reality of this didn't gel. Big mistake with costly ramifications.

 

Maybe they think they know where the problem is/was and (will?) have it sorted out and have to wait until units roam in the wild for a while to know if they fixed the problem or not.

 

There is no excuse for the 5.0 burning oil. None what so ever. With all the computers, testing, and historical data they have at their fingertips, for the 5.0 to have oil consumption problems
is just unbelievable. What we are really talking about is the fact that Ford can't design and build a V-8 engine anymore. And I am not buying anything from Ford until they get things fixed.
This all started with the multiple cams, variable pressure oil pumps, 16 injectors for an 8 cyl engine, pm rods, short skirt pistons, and sprayed-in cylinder walls. Bring back the 351W.
Simple, extremely reliable, enough power to get the job done and easily last for decades.
OK, I'm done. Someone take it from here.

 

There's nothing wrong with all these things that you mention, they're working well in other Ford engines. The main issues with the older pushrod engines was that they could never have a hope of meeting current or future EPA mandates. Plus, the amount of power delivered for the amount of fuel consumed made them a dinosaur today.

My 3.5L Ecoboost with 95000 miles on the clock has been less problematic (in fact, no issues what so ever) and more maintenance free then my 1986 inline 300. Additionally, my city MPG's are better than the 300's highway MPG's. The 300 struggled to muster 150HP and 300 LB/FT of torque. My 3.5L is laying down 365 / 420 and easily gets 22 MPG's on the highway. Oh and more notably, the 300 leaked and burned oil like a Peterbilt. The 3.5L Eco does neither.

My apologies for the of topic rant:

Getting back to testing; Ford did a 30 minute infomercial about the 3.5L eco back in 2011, anyone remember that?

Supposedly Ford logged 150,000 miles on one particular engine swapping it from body to body and performing different pieces of work with said vehicle. After it was all over Ford did a public tear down of the engine revealing that it was in bulletproof condition after having been raced and worked in all environments and levels of humidity. Suppoedly Ford logged millions of real miles on these engines.

2011/12 proved to be somewhat devastating for the mighty little engine as customers were experiencing misfires, condensation issues and a few even blew apart. We were all test mules for Ford. I had to replace plugs at 61000 miles as did most others. I had to replace a coil at 67000 miles and at that time, I drilled the 1/16th weep hole in the intercooler to prevent any possible condensation issues. Knock on wood and thank God for FTE for steering me in this direction. A five minute free piece of preventative maintenance possibly saved me from major issues.

 

Completely agree with you on all points, Tim. Nostalgia is always biased towards the good memories, not the bad… And a lot of people don't remember the "good old days" weren't nearly as good as we remember them. It's hard to get accurate data from that long ago, but I don't think the engines of yore were anywhere near as reliable or well-built as modern engines. Nothing is perfect, though, and this thread is a good example of that.

 

Ahhh. Nostalgia.
Anyone remember spending Saturday afternoon swapping points, plugs and condenser? I do.
Then setting and re-setting the timing? I do.
Then making some test runs to see if advancing the timing a few degrees made any difference? I do.
Then swapping the points again a month later because they'd started to pit? I do.