Wet Belts......Nobody Could've Predicted This

[amschind]

Re: 1.0 Fox, equally applicable to every wet belt.

I cannot understand the decision by Ford: there were at least two simple, cheap, reliable, well-tested and common solutions, but Ford chose to combine elements of both in a manner that was more expensive, untried and ultimately far less reliable. How many miles of chain does Ford mass produce each year? How many successful dry belt designs are there? The answer to both questions is "many". This won't change until there is accountability, which does NOT mean "governments fine Ford's shareholders"; it means that vehicles with stupid flaws pile up on lots because consumers wise up. There was a great video by Getty Adventures about the 3.0l Powerstroke/Lion, and his theory was that because the engine was designed without the American emissions equipment that is essentially fatal for diesels, it couldn't really be retrofitted. Consumers wisely shied away unless they were willing to shell out $2500, a voided warranty and the risk of big fines to buy, install and run a full delete kit.

Nothing will change until we the consumers demand it. Durable products that fall apart at the end of the warranty period are in the interest of the manufacturer; the only check against that is consumer choice.

Sponsored

 

[fordtruckman2003]

If you don't want the wet belt don't buy it. Stick to the 3.5 and avoid 2.7 and 5.0

Pot stirring over rare issues is good for entertainment purposes though.

 

[amschind]

If you don't want the wet belt don't buy it. Stick to the 3.5 and avoid 2.7 and 5.0

Pot stirring over rare issues is good for entertainment purposes though.

I understand your point, and if this kind of failure were unique, then avoidance would be the right call. However, this isn't an isolated event, and it has in fact become the norm. There are similar flaws on every engine that Ford makes (see my crusade against the Powerboost exhaust heat exchanger). The 2.7/3.0 is a great motor with one specific flaw that has zero justification. I don't want people to bag on one particular engine, I want them to rebel against stupid engineering that hurts ALL of us.

 

[Micho523]

Without having done any research of my own, is there even a single documented failure of the wet belt on the 2.7 or 3.5? I know the 2.7 has had it since 2018.

That 1.0 engine is just a dumpster fire as a whole.

 

[GypsyDanger]

Pretty sure this hasn't been an issue at all really for the 150s. If it was if agree but they must have got something right with it in these trucks.

 

[WhiteLightningnshitshadow]

I think Im aware of 2 failed belts on 2.7s. I'm not sure what the factors were leading to the failures. Definitely a watch item that can't be inspected.

 

[Mosey]

Hopefully you all will post on GM forums with the same enthusiasm concerning the wet belt in the 3.0 duramax.

 

[Highway 11]

I'd be more concerned if this was a known problem among the wet belts in the 2.7 and 5.0. The 2.7 is arguably the most reliable engine in the lineup now that the 3.3 is gone. The 3.3 was known for reliability yet its the only engine I've had self destruct under full throttle. Defective engines do exist.

Now if 2.7 and 5.0s were blowing up at the frequency of say... a Ford Focus DCT then I'd be the first one to spend my money elsewhere.

Sponsored