Fuel in oil

[Stangman570]

Show me a turbo or supercharged engine on any manufacturer and I'll show you some degree of fuel dilution in the oil. However, having the oil level increase drastically, now that's a horse of a different color. If this is a major problem on a Very few select Rangers then Ford just hasn't received the proper motivation to fix these one off Rangers. Class action law suit or hire you one bad azz lawyer. I really don't see the point of endless Blackstone reports of fuel dilution and no real world solution from Ford. I've said it once on this thread and I'll say it again. Ford can give 2 sh@ts about anyone's independent report!!

Sponsored

 

[Deathrider]

OOOHHH YEAH, I just gotta have this one! LOL

BETA MALE!

 

[jsphlynch]

Are you honestly not happy to have learned something?

Only not happy because people keep going in unsubstantiated circles to try to convince others there must be a problem even in the absence of solid evidence, and then get defensive when I start asking for that evidence.

That the viscosity is no longer in specification. Ford's specification for 5w30. It's not rocket science
?.

Yes, Ford specifies to use 5w30. I have not seen it suggested anywhere on this thread that people should put 5w20 in their engines. Yes, adding just a few percentage points of gasoline drops the viscosity of 5w30 down into the specs of 5w20. Is that within the design tolerances of the engine? Unless you're secretly a Ford Engineer, your guess on this matter is as bad as mine. I've never said it's rocket science. It is, however, automotive engineering.

We all gave you references and reading material that you asked for.

You gave me a screenshot from Blackstone. How did Blackstone arrive at their 2% limit? According to Senior Analyst Joe Adams (who helpfully responded to my e-mail inquiry on this topic a couple months ago): "It's not often we find 2.0% fuel (or more) just from normal use or the sampling method, so that's how we've come to consider this amount cautionary." So do they have any evidence that over 2% is particularly bad for this engine? Nope, but they do know that over 2% is generally unusual, so they rightfully flag it.
You gave me a link to an Amsoil blog post, specifying a 2.4% limit. How did they arrive at that number? According to the post's author, John Baker, when responding to someone asking this very question in the comments section, it's based on "historical oil analysis data." Once again, no evidence that 2.4% is notably damaging to any vehicle, much less this particular one, but it is nonetheless unusual so they rightfully flag it.

So after reading every post in this thread, the links you provided, various other links scattered throughout this thread, technical papers on Ecoboost development, and numerous analyses of the SN11 failure (unrelated to the fuel dilution, but I mention because it turns out I do, in fact, enjoy a little rocket science), and after e-mailing with a Blackstone analyst, talking to a mechanical (though non-automotive) engineer, and the folks at the dealership, here's what I think I know (Please feel free to correct me if anything is blatantly wrong):
1) Ideally, there would be zero fuel in the oil
2) The world is not perfect.
3) 100% fuel in the crankcase would be very, very bad.
4) Somewhere between 0% and 100% fuel you transition from "ok, given this imperfect world we live in" to "totally not ok."
5) Ford has provided no information about where that transition is, nor do they seem at all inclined to do so. Is it 1%? 2%? 2.4%? 5%? 10%? 53%? They aren't saying.
6) Nobody else has the data to tell us where that transition is.
7) Even the folks with crazy high fuel dilution aren't seeing excess wear metals in their reports.

 

[Samsquanch]

Show me a turbo or supercharged engine on any manufacturer and I'll show you some degree of fuel dilution in the oil. However, having the oil level increase drastically, now that's a horse of a different color. If this is a major problem on a Very few select Rangers then Ford just hasn't received the proper motivation to fix these one off Rangers. Class action law suit or hire you one bad azz lawyer. I really don't see the point of endless Blackstone reports of fuel dilution and no real world solution from Ford. I've said it once on this thread and I'll say it again. Ford can give 2 sh@ts about anyone's independent report!!

You’re making a straw man argument though. No one here is saying a little fuel dilution is a cause for concern at all. The issue I have right now and plenty of others are having is I have another ecoboost engine sitting 5 feet from the 2.3 and the oil level has been rock solid on the dipstick for 68k miles an counting. I’m sure if I sent a sample to black stone I would see a tiny amount of fuel and I wouldn’t care a lick. The ranger went from correctly filled to the twist on my dipstick in 1000 miles. You telling me that’s perfectly normal and in line with other forced Injection application. You’re wrong.

mods need to remove off topic brigading posts at this point it’s become trolling.

 

[Stangman570]

You’re making a straw man argument though. No one here is saying a little fuel dilution is a cause for concern at all. The issue I have right now and plenty of others are having is I have another ecoboost engine sitting 5 feet from the 2.3 and the oil level has been rock solid on the dipstick for 68k miles an counting. I’m sure if I sent a sample to black stone I would see a tiny amount of fuel and I wouldn’t care a lick. The ranger went from correctly filled to the twist on my dipstick in 1000 miles. You telling me that’s perfectly normal and in line with other forced Injection application. You’re wrong.

mods need to remove off topic brigading posts at this point it’s become trolling.

See right there is the very problem. You didn't read all of my post or you chose to ignore it. Let me reiterate for you. The part that I mentioned that if the level INCREASED then that was a horse of a different color. Not trolling, been part of 5G since 2019. Rising oil level is not rocket science only a few ways it gets in. If you have a shitty dealership take it somewhere else. If Ford's the problem get you a lawyer and handle your business. Good luck with the independent oil analysis being accepted by Ford. They will take their own samples and testing.. When you refer to countless others how many do you know in fact have the issue? Because I can tell you this, if it were infact an affliction of every Ranger a massive recall would be underway. Not saying that you don't have an issue and I'm sure you do. However, for sure a lot of Toco boys come onto this post just to troll. Sorry you got a little sand in your britches from my comments in the previous post. You should immediately report me to the mods as you obviously feel berated and trolled. Geess feelings......

 

[Samsquanch]

Only not happy because people keep going in unsubstantiated circles to try to convince others there must be a problem even in the absence of solid evidence, and then get defensive when I start asking for that evidence.

Yes, Ford specifies to use 5w30. I have not seen it suggested anywhere on this thread that people should put 5w20 in their engines. Yes, adding just a few percentage points of gasoline drops the viscosity of 5w30 down into the specs of 5w20. Is that within the design tolerances of the engine? Unless you're secretly a Ford Engineer, your guess on this matter is as bad as mine. I've never said it's rocket science. It is, however, automotive engineering.

You gave me a screenshot from Blackstone. How did Blackstone arrive at their 2% limit? According to Senior Analyst Joe Adams (who helpfully responded to my e-mail inquiry on this topic a couple months ago): "It's not often we find 2.0% fuel (or more) just from normal use or the sampling method, so that's how we've come to consider this amount cautionary." So do they have any evidence that over 2% is particularly bad for this engine? Nope, but they do know that over 2% is generally unusual, so they rightfully flag it.
You gave me a link to an Amsoil blog post, specifying a 2.4% limit. How did they arrive at that number? According to the post's author, John Baker, when responding to someone asking this very question in the comments section, it's based on "historical oil analysis data." Once again, no evidence that 2.4% is notably damaging to any vehicle, much less this particular one, but it is nonetheless unusual so they rightfully flag it.

So after reading every post in this thread, the links you provided, various other links scattered throughout this thread, technical papers on Ecoboost development, and numerous analyses of the SN11 failure (unrelated to the fuel dilution, but I mention because it turns out I do, in fact, enjoy a little rocket science), and after e-mailing with a Blackstone analyst, talking to a mechanical (though non-automotive) engineer, and the folks at the dealership, here's what I think I know (Please feel free to correct me if anything is blatantly wrong):
1) Ideally, there would be zero fuel in the oil
2) The world is not perfect.
3) 100% fuel in the crankcase would be very, very bad.
4) Somewhere between 0% and 100% fuel you transition from "ok, given this imperfect world we live in" to "totally not ok."
5) Ford has provided no information about where that transition is, nor do they seem at all inclined to do so. Is it 1%? 2%? 2.4%? 5%? 10%? 53%? They aren't saying.
6) Nobody else has the data to tell us where that transition is.
7) Even the folks with crazy high fuel dilution aren't seeing excess wear metals in their reports.

I think this is pretty well thought out and reasoned response. However, If your truck had 10% or more fuel dilution would you just ignore it and assume the engine was designed for 1/10th the oil being gasoline or take some action? I get that is a higher than average number but some have been at that level or more multiple times.

The main concern with the issue isn’t immediate failure, failure during warranty, or Ford not backing their product under normal use. The main concern is what would happen after the warranty period is up and you’ve had high fuel dilution for 4-5 years. It’s going to take a while before we see if the issue matters at all in the long run. Very very few rangers are knocking on 100k miles or more they have been on the road a very short time.

The only argument really being made at this point is if it’s worth discussing or not. And frankly I don’t get why anyone who doesn’t believe in the issue cares at this point... just move on. This type of fuel dilution is a somewhat new phenomenon for a lot of folks as forced injection only became mainstream in most trucks in the last decade or so. It’s going to be a topic of interest for a while.

the straw man argument that anyone here is trying to convince anyone else to sell their truck or anything like it only exists in the mind of those trying to shut the thread down. It’s an issue some people are having with their trucks and some aren’t. just deal with it.

Since my fuel level rose from “normal” to significantly past “full” in just 1000 miles tell me in honest terms that wouldn’t concern anyone who knows anything about engines at all, even a novice. Dude my 80 year old grandma would take her car to the dealer if you told her the oil was past the full mark on the dipstick it doesn’t take Elon Musk to decode that something isn’t right there.

 

[Samsquanch]

See right there is the very problem. You didn't read all of my post or you chose to ignore it. Let me reiterate for you. The part that I mentioned that if the level INCREASED then that was a horse of a different color. Not trolling, been part of 5G since 2019. Rising oil level is not rocket science only a few ways it gets in. If you have a shitty dealership take it somewhere else. If Ford's the problem get you a lawyer and handle your business. Good luck with the independent oil analysis being accepted by Ford. They will take their own samples and testing.. When you refer to countless others how many do you know in fact have the issue? Because I can tell you this, if it were infact an affliction of every Ranger a massive recall would be underway. Not saying that you don't have an issue and I'm sure you do. However, for sure a lot of Toco boys come onto this post just to troll. Sorry you got a little sand in your britches from my comments in the previous post. You should immediately report me to the mods as you obviously feel berated and trolled. Geess feelings......

Literally everyone who has the high levels of fuel dilution has a rising oil level the two things are intertwined. What point are you trying to make.

 

[Stangman570]

Literally everyone who has the high levels of fuel dilution has a rising oil level the two things are intertwined. What point are you trying to make.

Yup I agree with you on this. See we are on the same page. My point was how many Rangers have had blown engines thus far????? For example, I'm arbitrarily going to pickup a number.... let's say 1.3 million Rangers sold. How many Rangers have this issue exactly beside you?? Not trolling, I'm asking you to give us all the info to help us stay informed. Perhaps I missed those numbers somewhere, can you help?

 

[MotoWojo]

Show me a turbo or supercharged engine on any manufacturer and I'll show you some degree of fuel dilution in the oil. However, having the oil level increase drastically, now that's a horse of a different color. If this is a major problem on a Very few select Rangers then Ford just hasn't received the proper motivation to fix these one off Rangers. Class action law suit or hire you one bad azz lawyer. I really don't see the point of endless Blackstone reports of fuel dilution and no real world solution from Ford. I've said it once on this thread and I'll say it again. Ford can give 2 sh@ts about anyone's independent report!!

Man, I bleed Ford blue, I have, probably unwisely, only purchased new vehicles since I graduated college, every single one was a Ford. I am typing this reply from the mancave, right next to my all time favorite vehicle, my 2007 Mustang. I am now 57 and this Ranger is the most expensive vehicle I have ever purchased and I actually like it better than any of the 3 F150's that preceded it. It just fits for my needs, except for this issue. I am holding out that Ford will eventually figure out the issue, and fix my truck. I don't want to hire a lawyer. I do however like to share experiences of ownership with other like minded folks. Is that not what this forum is all about? It's life, not everything is puppies and rainbows. I am still holding out hope that Ford will do right by me and anyone else having an issue.

 

[Samsquanch]

Not trolling, I'm asking you to give us all the info to help us stay informed. Perhaps I missed those numbers somewhere, can you help?

 

[Stangman570]

Man, I bleed Ford blue, I have, probably unwisely, only purchased new vehicles since I graduated college, every single one was a Ford. I am typing this reply from the mancave, right next to my all time favorite vehicle, my 2007 Mustang. I am now 57 and this Ranger is the most expensive vehicle I have ever purchased and I actually like it better than any of the 3 F150's that preceded it. It just fits for my needs, except for this issue. I am holding out that Ford will eventually figure out the issue, and fix my truck. I don't want to hire a lawyer. I do however like to share experiences of ownership with other like minded folks. Is that not what this forum is all about? It's life, not everything is puppies and rainbows. I am still holding out hope that Ford will do right by me and anyone else having an issue.

You know I've been where your at with Ford's. Back in 03 I bought a new GT that had a bucking issue in 5th gear under load. I took it to the dealership I bought it 3 times to fix it. Got the run around even to the point that on a ride along I was accused of doing it with the accelerator, talk about insulting. Took it to a second dealership and they couldn't figure it out. All the while Ford was supposedly involved with the issue. I had enough. I filed a lemon law in Florida and that immediately triggered a direct response from Ford to me, no other dealerships involved. Ford requested an additional attempt to repair and I agreed with my Attorney, didn't have to do it because in Florida at the time they had three attempts to fix and if not then the Lemon Law would be in effect. Once Ford sent Engineering to take a look at it turns out thatt it was a simple mass air sensor the other Dealerships said they replaced. Bottom line from my experience, you have to move beyond the dealership and deal directly with Ford. If your not your just spinning your weels. I for one wouldn't wait for Ford to come up with a fix I would force a lemon lawsuit and be done with it!!

 

[Stangman570]

Free Country so far. Your entitled to your opinion. However, with picking a snippet of my response and responding with a meme.........now whom is trolling whom? I asked you a question. What's the number that has this issue that you know of besides of the comments on this Forum?

 

[cbull]

I've read the entire thread, albeit in pieces, don't remember any cases that high. I do remember members doing their own fuzzy math that it MIGHT get that high if they went 10k miles between changes

Many things will perform functions they weren't intended to do.

And actually, you're wrong again. In tank fuel pumps are designed to be cooled and lubricated by the fuel they are submerged in.

Probably why Ford wouldn't warranty pumps with water contaminated fuel systems. Because although water will lubricate, it won't do it as well as fuel, which won't do it as well as oil.

Not wrong, gasoline only lubricates in a sealed wet environment. As soon as the fuel tank is empty the pump loses lubrication. If a pump was left to run it wouldn't take very long for it to burn up. Take gasoline out of a sealed environment on its own and it dries up very quickly and therefore does not lubricate. Also a little pump submerged in fuel does not come close to creating the same kind of heat that an engine creates. Therefore doesn't need much to keep it cool.
A little fuel pump submerged in fuel pretty much it's entire life is pretty different then an engine being contaminated with gasoline. Now if we're talking diesel well then that's a totally different matter, but we're not, we're talking gasoline.
Honestly, I could argue thus stupid thought all night long. The fact of the matter is fuel in its unattended environment is a contaminant. It was never made to serve as a lubrication in an engine other than in a 2-stroke engine with oils designed to run in that format. And while I say the two stroke runs on a mixture of fuel and oil it also isn't meant to last very long. Two strokes are not known for having a long life span.
I suppose the question is how much fuel can mix with oil in an engine and not affect its lifespan? I suppose that's a good question nobody really knows, I don't see any Ford Rangers with this 2.3 EcoBoost running around with over a hundred thousand miles. Heck, I haven't seen any close to 100,000 miles yet.
It's possible that some might be a bit panicked and are going a bit overboard with this issue, but in my opinion they have every right to be concerned.

 

[D Fresh]

I suppose the question is how much fuel can mix with oil in an engine and not affect its lifespan? I suppose that's a good question nobody really knows, I don't see any Ford Rangers with this 2.3 EcoBoost running around with over a hundred thousand miles. Heck, I haven't seen any close to 100,000 miles yet.
It's possible that done might be a bit panicked I'm are going a bit overboard with this issue, but in my opinion they have every right to be concerned.

Now you are starting to get it.

There are some members here that are pretty high up but nobody I've seen report over 100k yet.

There are plenty of 100k mile 2.3 EBs though, just not our particular variant.

 

[jsphlynch]

I think this is pretty well thought out and reasoned response. However, If your truck had 10% or more fuel dilution would you just ignore it and assume the engine was designed for 1/10th the oil being gasoline or take some action? I get that is a higher than average number but some have been at that level or more multiple times.

Absolutely I would be concerned if I had 10% or more fuel dilution, especially if it was on a short oil change interval. Yes, people on this forum have reported such values, and some of them have even been shown to be the symptom of bad injectors and/or HPFPs. I myself am concerned about my own pickup and the highest Blackstone report I've gotten was 6% over a normal interval with a short commute. The reason I've looked into the matter as far as I have is that I'm trying to figure out how concerned I should be. There have been several people throughout this thread that have been over-the-top with unfounded declarations of harm caused by even relatively low level fuel dilution, and that it is for sure a widespread problem. Those declarations are not helpful to this overall conversation, and I was pushing back on that.

Dude my 80 year old grandma would take her car to the dealer if you told her the oil was past the full mark on the dipstick it doesn’t take Elon Musk to decode that something isn’t right there.

If Elon Musk finds fuel-contaminated engine oil in one of his cars, he should definitely be concerned. ?

Sponsored