Picture of the installed tray(?) for fuel drainage

[jkeaton]

Anyone can overthink this to death. Which is what happens every time the topic is brought up. lol.

Sponsored

 

[Bucko]

This is true IF you have a fuel leak. That's not what this recall is for. A fuel leak requires immediate attention. Ford (under NHTSA oversight) has not issued a "stop drive" recommendation for this recall, which suggests it believes the risk of injector leaks to be small. The recall was prompted by field reports of 54 under-hood fires. Here's what Ford's investigation turned up (so far):



Do you think that's enough evidence to warrant fleet-wide replacement of fuel injectors? The investigation is ongoing, and it's entirely possible that Ford will discover a flaw with the fuel injectors currently in use requiring replacement. That's not currently the case.



And you still haven't. That's not what this recall is about.



Every car you've ever owned has at least one fuel drain tube. The fuel filler port includes a drain tube to port fuel spills to the ground in the event you overfill the tank. Spend some time on Google searching for "emergency fuel drain tube" and you'll find many examples.



Which is its only purpose.

Thank you once again Mark for your research and posts to explain the reasonings for this recall.

Something in my mind tells me this will not be your last explanation on this topic.

 

[Mark S.]

Thank you once again Mark for your research and posts to explain the reasonings for this recall.

Something in my mind tells me this will not be your last explanation on this topic.

I'm rapidly approaching my cutoff. Kent is right; it may be time to just stop responding. There're already more than enough words on the forum devoted to this topic.

 

[Bucko]

I'm rapidly approaching my cutoff. Kent is right; it may be time to just stop responding. There're already more than enough words on the forum devoted to this topic.

What topic?

 

[sajohnson]

We are starting to once again question the engineers and testing that was performed to solve this issue. Since it passed the tests and was released as a TSB for repair, I'm fine with it.

I'd say we stop beating the dead horse.

Just to be clear, I know better than to question engineers. As I said, "It looks like the recall repair will work to safely divert fuel in the event of a leak."

There is no reason to think their solution will not work.

Setting that aside, I'm just curious as to why (AFAIK) this issue has never come up before. I'm not trying to step on any toes, or start a debate, it just seems like an unusual problem, that's all.

Is anyone aware of another vehicle with a dedicated drainage system for potential fuel leaks?

 

[sajohnson]

This is true IF you have a fuel leak. That's not what this recall is for. A fuel leak requires immediate attention. Ford (under NHTSA oversight) has not issued a "stop drive" recommendation for this recall, which suggests it believes the risk of injector leaks to be small. The recall was prompted by field reports of 54 under-hood fires. Here's what Ford's investigation turned up (so far):



Do you think that's enough evidence to warrant fleet-wide replacement of fuel injectors? The investigation is ongoing, and it's entirely possible that Ford will discover a flaw with the fuel injectors currently in use requiring replacement. That's not currently the case.



And you still haven't. That's not what this recall is about.



Every car you've ever owned has at least one fuel drain tube. The fuel filler port includes a drain tube to port fuel spills to the ground in the event you overfill the tank. Spend some time on Google searching for "emergency fuel drain tube" and you'll find many examples.



Which is its only purpose.

Looks like I inadvertently kicked a hornets nest. It was/is honestly not my intention to get anyone riled up.

From your Ford report:

"A complete accounting of all fifty-four (54) 1.5L under hood fire reports known to Ford includes: four (4) of them have had one confirmed cracked fuel injector determined from the fuel injector supplier tear-down analysis. Ford Engineering assessed the fifty (50) remaining reports, determining: approximately thirteen (13) others were likely caused by a leaking fuel injector."

So the recall is due, in part, to the fuel injectors.

That said, 17 is a very small number when compared to the total number of vehicles. It begs the question though, why don't we hear of similar issues, and recalls, with other vehicles?

Yes, the fuel filler port on essentially all vehicles includes a drain tube to port fuel spills to the ground in the event you overfill the tank. Absolutely true, however, other than the fact that it carries excess fuel to the ground, that's completely unrelated to this issue. I'm not aware of another vehicle that has a drain hose from the engine to the ground so that in the event of a fuel leak it will be safely diverted. Maybe most/all vehicles *should* have one?

Keep in mind, we like our BS BL. I'm not hating on the BS. We're just talking about a recall. They are very common -- my 2002 WRX had about 6 recalls -- a couple were very serious. One was similar to this (fuel leaking onto the engine and exhaust manifold). I still have the WRX. Since the recalls were completed it's been a great car.

So no offense intended. I'm only asking questions because this problem, and the solution, seem unusual.

 

[Bucko]

Looks like I inadvertently kicked a hornets nest. It was/is honestly not my intention to get anyone riled up.

From your Ford report:

"A complete accounting of all fifty-four (54) 1.5L under hood fire reports known to Ford includes: four (4) of them have had one confirmed cracked fuel injector determined from the fuel injector supplier tear-down analysis. Ford Engineering assessed the fifty (50) remaining reports, determining: approximately thirteen (13) others were likely caused by a leaking fuel injector."

So the recall is due, in part, to the fuel injectors.

That said, 17 is a very small number when compared to the total number of vehicles. It begs the question though, why don't we hear of similar issues, and recalls, with other vehicles?

Yes, the fuel filler port on essentially all vehicles includes a drain tube to port fuel spills to the ground in the event you overfill the tank. Absolutely true, however, other than the fact that it carries excess fuel to the ground, that's completely unrelated to this issue. I'm not aware of another vehicle that has a drain hose from the engine to the ground so that in the event of a fuel leak it will be safely diverted. Maybe most/all vehicles *should* have one?

Keep in mind, we like our BS BL. I'm not hating on the BS. We're just talking about a recall. They are very common -- my 2002 WRX had about 6 recalls -- a couple were very serious. One was similar to this (fuel leaking onto the engine and exhaust manifold). I still have the WRX. Since the recalls were completed it's been a great car.

So no offense intended. I'm only asking questions because this problem, and the solution, seem unusual.

I'm betting because other vehicles have a better drainage system to divert fuel from a heated source.

 

[Mark S.]

Looks like I inadvertently kicked a hornets nest. It was/is honestly not my intention to get anyone riled up.

Not riled up, just getting tired of reposting the same information over and over.

So the recall is due, in part, to the fuel injectors.

It's this kind of comment that leads to all the confusion on this topic. The recall is related to fuel injectors the same way brake recall was related to brake pads. The brake recall was about meeting a mandated (and logical) design requirement: to ensure the vehicle could stop within a certain distance in the event of a brake boost failure. Ford's fix for the issue was to install higher-friction brake pads. That didn't mean there was anything wrong with the pads initially installed, they just weren't capable of meeting the required standard in a very specific circumstance.

The "fuel injector" recall is the same in that it's not about fuel injectors; it's about meeting a design standard that requires under-hood fuel leaks be directed away from hot engine components. There's nothing wrong with the fuel injectors. The problem is with the Ford's leak management design.

How do you square this question...

It begs the question though, why don't we hear of similar issues, and recalls, with other vehicles?

...with this comment?

One [recall for Subaru] was similar to this (fuel leaking onto the engine and exhaust manifold).

Search on Google for fuel leak recall and see how many hits you get. For some of these, the manufacturers and the NHTSA determined component replacement was necessary. So far, they have not determined injector replacement is necessary for this recall.

So no offense intended. I'm only asking questions because this problem, and the solution, seem unusual.

None taken. It IS unusual; leak management is engine design 101 stuff, so it's rare to see a manufacturer make a misstep in this area. The only reason I keep responding to these posts with such vehemence is because I am trying to prevent another urban legend. Every post made about "faulty fuel injectors" is another hit on a Google search. I'm hoping anyone that follows a link to this site sees my responses as well. The bottom line is there is no evidence (yet) that the fuel injectors used for the 1.5L EcoBoost engine are faulty, substandard, poorly made, or in any way more prone to failure or cracking than those used by other manufacturers.

 

[sajohnson]

I'm betting because other vehicles have a better drainage system to divert fuel from a heated source.

They may, but I just searched for, "drainage system to divert fuel from hot engine components" (among other search terms) and all of the top results were for airplanes.

A fuel drainage system seems like a good idea for car/truck engines that are designed such that a fuel leak -- from a faulty injector or other source -- could come into contact with the/an exhaust manifold.

Like most people who are not mechanical engineers working for a major auto mfr, my knowledge is limited to: cars I've owned; cars I've worked on for friends and family; and what I've read in the car magazines and media, over the past 45+ years.

One thing that occurred to me is that on most inline engines I'm familiar with (except the old Chrysler 'slant 6' and a couple other older engines) the intake is located on one side of the head and the exhaust is on the other. Prior to direct injection engines like the Eco-boost, the injectors were mounted on the intake runners. If one of them leaked, the fuel would not be likely to come into contact with the exhaust manifold. That would explain why fuel drainage systems are relatively new.

Direct injection engines like ours have the injectors mounted above the cylinders, in what might be called a "valley" that can trap a significant amount of leaked fuel. That type of engine design would call for a fuel drainage system.

 

[Marinaguy]

Quite honestly I can't think of much I care less about related to my Bronco Sport, but I don't think Ford would issue CSP 22N18 (below) if they didn't at least have some concern about the injectors. Again...I'm not concerned about them cracking, but it's nice to know I won't be on the hook for replacements if they crack after the standard warranty expires.

CSP 22N18...

Additionally, Ford Motor Company is providing a one-time repair Customer
Satisfaction Program 22N18 for the high-pressure fuel injectors, which lasts
for 15 years or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date - whichever comes
first (if needed).
NOTE: Customer Satisfaction Program 22N18 will automatically be activated
for your vehicle after Safety Recall 22S73 has been completed.

 

[sajohnson]

Mark,

It's true that the early WRX models had the fuel leak I mentioned (typically it was in single-digit temps and below) but that's where the similarity ends. One difference is how Subaru responded. Initially, they told owners to pound sand, but when the NHTSA got involved they began to act like 'responsible corporate citizens'. Another difference between that WRX recall and this one from Ford is that with the there were known incorrect parts that Subaru replaced -- as opposed to installing a fuel drainage system.

It was a different situation. The fuel leak in the WRX was due to an engineering defect -- failure to account for differences in expansion/contraction rates between fuel line and fuel house. Almost all of the early WRX models had the problem. So it made more sense for Subaru to just replace the line and/or hose causing the problem. Unlike this situation with the 1.5L recall, a fuel drainage system would not have been appropriate.

BTW -- that was an EXPENSIVE recall for Subaru because the boxer engine has the intake manifold on top, spanning the block, from one head to the other, with the fuel lines attached underneath -- so a bunch of stuff had to come off. IIRC, it was about a 6+ hour job.

Back to the 1.5L Eco-boost recall, I found this from the Ford Medi Center:
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/11/24/ford-alerts-customers-that-certain-2020-2023-my-bronco-sport-and.html

The projected injector failure rate is low -- .22% according to Ford -- but when their headline, in large bold font, is:

"FORD ALERTS CUSTOMERS THAT CERTAIN 2020-2023 MY BRONCO SPORT AND ESCAPES MAY HAVE A CRACKED FUEL INJECTOR"

And Ford goes on to say:

"
DEARBORN, Mich., November 24, 2022 – Ford Motor Company will urge owners of 2020-2023 MY Bronco Sport and Escapes with 3-cylinder, 1.5L engines to visit their dealership to inspect for a potential cracked fuel injector.

When the engine is operating, a cracked fuel injector could cause fuel and/or fuel vapor to accumulate near hot surfaces, resulting in a potential under hood fire."

it's easy to see how an urban legend might get started. After all, that's from Ford, not some click-bait site.

If we had the 1.5L, I wouldn't worry excessively about this issue -- just have the recall work done and go on down the road.

At the end of the day, we're just talking differences in semantics:

* Ford should have said essentially what you did -- that the vast majority of fuel injectors are fine, but IF one fails, they want to be sure any leaked fuel is directed away safely.

* Most recall work will not involve replacing cracked injectors, only installing the drainage system.

It's really a shame Ford worded it the way they did. Here's another:
https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/recall/recalls-and-faqs/bronco-sport-escape-fuel-injector/

And a typical media report:
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/recall-alert/ford-recalls-over-634000-suvs-due-to-fuel-leaks-and-engine-fire-risk/3133541/

 

[Meanderthal]

Mark,

It's true that the early WRX models had the fuel leak I mentioned (typically it was in single-digit temps and below) but that's where the similarity ends. One difference is how Subaru responded. Initially, they told owners to pound sand, but when the NHTSA got involved they began to act like 'responsible corporate citizens'. Another difference between that WRX recall and this one from Ford is that with the there were known incorrect parts that Subaru replaced -- as opposed to installing a fuel drainage system.

It was a different situation. The fuel leak in the WRX was due to an engineering defect -- failure to account for differences in expansion/contraction rates between fuel line and fuel house. Almost all of the early WRX models had the problem. So it made more sense for Subaru to just replace the line and/or hose causing the problem. Unlike this situation with the 1.5L recall, a fuel drainage system would not have been appropriate.

BTW -- that was an EXPENSIVE recall for Subaru because the boxer engine has the intake manifold on top, spanning the block, from one head to the other, with the fuel lines attached underneath -- so a bunch of stuff had to come off. IIRC, it was about a 6+ hour job.

Back to the 1.5L Eco-boost recall, I found this from the Ford Medi Center:
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/11/24/ford-alerts-customers-that-certain-2020-2023-my-bronco-sport-and.html

The projected injector failure rate is low -- .22% according to Ford -- but when their headline, in large bold font, is:

"FORD ALERTS CUSTOMERS THAT CERTAIN 2020-2023 MY BRONCO SPORT AND ESCAPES MAY HAVE A CRACKED FUEL INJECTOR"

And Ford goes on to say:

"
DEARBORN, Mich., November 24, 2022 – Ford Motor Company will urge owners of 2020-2023 MY Bronco Sport and Escapes with 3-cylinder, 1.5L engines to visit their dealership to inspect for a potential cracked fuel injector.

When the engine is operating, a cracked fuel injector could cause fuel and/or fuel vapor to accumulate near hot surfaces, resulting in a potential under hood fire."

it's easy to see how an urban legend might get started. After all, that's from Ford, not some click-bait site.

If we had the 1.5L, I wouldn't worry excessively about this issue -- just have the recall work done and go on down the road.

At the end of the day, we're just talking differences in semantics:

* Ford should have said essentially what you did -- that the vast majority of fuel injectors are fine, but IF one fails, they want to be sure any leaked fuel is directed away safely.

* Most recall work will not involve replacing cracked injectors, only installing the drainage system.

It's really a shame Ford worded it the way they did. Here's another:
https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/recall/recalls-and-faqs/bronco-sport-escape-fuel-injector/

And a typical media report:
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/recall-alert/ford-recalls-over-634000-suvs-due-to-fuel-leaks-and-engine-fire-risk/3133541/

It would be nice if companies could use plain simple language to explain these issues but lawyers get involved and that means these messages pass through multiple people/committees to sculpt the language to protect themselves.

BTW, not all direct injection engines have the injectors on top of the engine like the Ford design. I'm not saying Ford's design is bad, just that other variations exist on GDI engines.

 

[sajohnson]

It would be nice if companies could use plain simple language to explain these issues but lawyers get involved and that means these messages pass through multiple people/committees to sculpt the language to protect themselves.

BTW, not all direct injection engines have the injectors on top of the engine like the Ford design. I'm not saying Ford's design is bad, just that other variations exist on GDI engines.

Very true.

In this case, with CYA in mind, I would have expected Ford to downplay the possibility of a leaking/cracked injector, a) because it sounds bad, much worse that just installing a drainage system and b) because the possibility of a leaking injector is fairly remote -- about 1 in 400-500 vehicles (0.22%) according to Ford's projections.

I'm surprised they didn't go with something like:

"With all ICE vehicles an engine compartment fuel leak is a remote possibility. While Ford uses the highest quality components and design standards, we have found that in <1% of certain models, the injectors can crack and leak fuel, generally only after years of service. In an abundance of caution Ford has decided to install a backup fuel drainage system on the affected vehicles -- at no charge of course. Your safety is our #1 priority."

Oh well. Now they have to deal with the public's mistaken perception.

That's interesting about the location of the injectors on direct injection engines. I'm not very familiar with them. In order of age, our other vehicles are a 2008 Sprinter (diesel); 2002 WRX; 1997 RAV4; and 1993 NX2000. I haven't had any reason to work on GDI vehicles.

Because most inline 4 engines have a 'hemi' design with the spark plugs right at the top center of the combustion chamber, I figured that with GDI the engineers would put the injector right next to the plugs, but it is not something I've studied. It's pretty much 'need to know' at this point.

Most newer 4 cyl. engines I've seen have sort of a 'valley' formed by the cover over the camshafts on either side, which could potentially trap fuel. If that's the case then it's definitely a good idea to have a way to drain fuel safely away.

 

[Mark S.]

The language used for these notices is likely the result of an agreement between the manufacturer and the NHTSA. In this case, they know the source of leaks that caused at least four under-hood fires, and my guess is the NHTSA wants customers to know the source.

Remember, it hasn't been established that the fuel injectors are good to go. It's entirely possible that further investigation will find these injectors to be faulty and require fleet-wide replacement.

Sponsored