Ford Focus RS Head Gasket Failures

[blksn8k2]

It looks like there is a channel between those two holes that corresponds to the V-groove in the Mustang block. That channel probably allows coolant to seep into that area and with nowhere for the coolant to escape to on the RS block and head it probably boils in place causing a hot spot that eventually fails which then allows coolant to enter the combustion chamber.

[jpd80]

It looks like there is a channel between those two holes that corresponds to the V-groove in the Mustang block. That channel probably allows coolant to seep into that area and with nowhere for the coolant to escape to on the RS block and head it probably boils in place causing a hot spot that eventually fails which then allows coolant to enter the combustion chamber.

Which is where the failures were actually happening.

 

Can you imagine the guys that stuck a tune on their RS and then suffered the failure, they'd be up for the engine cost themselves.

Edited December 29, 2017 by jpd80

[Stray Kat]

This video says that the Focus RS cylinder block is an "open deck" design thereby rendering the tops of the cylinders unstable adding to this problem.

 

Can anyone verify this?

 

The meat of this video starts at the 5:00 minute mark.

 

[coupe3w]

This also explains what's going on. It appears to me that open deck design is not a good with a turbo. I think the tops of the cylinders could move around a bit and over time the head gasket will wear. Just my opinion.

 

https://jalopnik.com/why-so-many-ford-focus-rs-owners-are-freaking-out-about-1820280550?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_facebook&utm_source=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[fordtech1]

The 3.8 Essex engine with all its head gasket failures were solved with updated gaskets. The aluminum head and cast iron block moved at different rates causing failures. I suspect the updated gasket will solve this issue. Will they change the design probably, but as long as the repair is adequate I dont see an issue.

[jpd80]

It seems like a good idea that turned to crap, FOE changed the water jacketing and gasket just enough

that the US 2.3 EB gasket wouldn't quite seal.. Foe will now have to make good on every vehicle

ans if they can't, they'll have to replace the engine.

 

Most who buy the RS are enthuiasts and those people generally stick with the brand, so all they need

to see form Ford is good faith on this and repair their cars so they don't leaking head gaskets.

[coupe3w]

I don't understand why they have two different designs for engine blocks. Why just not use the same design for both US and Europe? They have to pay for tooling anyway why not make both the same? Does it have to do with different emissions regulations or something?

[SoonerLS]

I don't understand why they have two different designs for engine blocks. Why just not use the same design for both US and Europe? They have to pay for tooling anyway why not make both the same? Does it have to do with different emissions regulations or something?

Do they have different blocks on the FoE RS and the NA RS, or do they have a different block for the RS and the Mustang? The RSes are all built in Europe, aren't they?

[jpd80]

Do they have different blocks on the FoE RS and the NA RS, or do they have a different block for the RS and the Mustang? The RSes are all built in Europe, aren't they?

Yes all sourced form Europe, the 2.3s for RS are all built in Valencia

the wrong gaskets were sent by a supplier, the numbers on the failed

head gaskets indicate a Mustang 2.3 EB application, not RS.

Edited December 31, 2017 by jpd80

[SoonerLS]

Yes all sourced form Europe, the 2.3s for RS are all built in Valencia

the wrong gaskets were sent by a supplier, the numbers on the failed

head gaskets indicate a Mustang 2.3 EB application, not RS.

That would explain having two blocks--one for transverse applications and one for longitudinal.

[jpd80]

That would explain having two blocks--one for transverse applications and one for longitudinal.

No, the RS team changed the RS engine, no other 2.3 EB applications are sold by Europe.

the FWD/AWD 2.3 EB in MKC and Explorer is same block as EB Mustang.

Edited December 31, 2017 by jpd80

[blksn8k2]

I don't understand why they have two different designs for engine blocks. Why just not use the same design for both US and Europe? They have to pay for tooling anyway why not make both the same? Does it have to do with different emissions regulations or something?

 

I assume they found that the coolant groove design used on the non-RS applications was not adequate enough for the higher output of the RS engine. That's probably why they changed the block to use the drilled coolant passages on the RS engines.

 

Now that the 2018 Mustang EB has a higher torque rating I suppose it is possible that it has been changed as well.

[blksn8k2]

This also explains what's going on. It appears to me that open deck design is not a good with a turbo. I think the tops of the cylinders could move around a bit and over time the head gasket will wear. Just my opinion.

 

https://jalopnik.com/why-so-many-ford-focus-rs-owners-are-freaking-out-about-1820280550?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_facebook&utm_source=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

I would expect that with all of Ford's endurance testing regimens that an inherently flawed engine design would have been discovered during testing. However, if the problem is that the wrong head gaskets were shipped by the gasket supplier as R&T suspects that is probably not something that would have been tested.

 

And to carry that theory one step further, unless Ford has some way of identifying which engines actually received the wrong gasket and which cars got those particular engines, their current policy of telling customers that experience any problems to bring their cars back to their dealer for warranty repairs is probably the best they can do. I seriously doubt they are going to tear every Focus RS down to see if it has the wrong head gasket.

Edited December 31, 2017 by blksn8k2

[blwnsmoke]

I love that flow chart. "Hardware present that COULD cause failure?" Then no warranty.

 

Umm.. Ford, you need to prove that an aftermarket part caused the failure.. not that it "could" and the fact that this is becoming such a common issue means that aftermarket didn't cause crap. The fact they are telling techs that if aftermarket is there that the warranty is already gone.. It doesn't work that way.

 

Just saying..

[Stray Kat]

So tell me gentleman, what supports the top of the cylinder in an open deck configuration?

 

If there were no head gasket I could see the engagement of the cylinder to head as being a stable situation.

 

Smashing the cylinder into a head gasket leaves me a little skeptical.

 

Are there vertical ribs around the cylinders to provide support or are they just thickening the cylinder walls to make them more stable?

 

I assume the advantage of an open deck is to be able to pull the mold out and reuse it?

 

Help me out here.

[coupe3w]

 

I assume they found that the coolant groove design used on the non-RS applications was not adequate enough for the higher output of the RS engine. That's probably why they changed the block to use the drilled coolant passages on the RS engines.

 

Now that the 2018 Mustang EB has a higher torque rating I suppose it is possible that it has been changed as well.

 

 

The coolant grove aside. The RS is an open deck no cylinder support at all. The EB has support all around the top of the cylinders. The RS has a thicker cylinder wall it appears but if that cylinder is not supported at the top I can see it moving under boost and causing gasket failure. I think Toyota and Honda started this open deck design years ago, (not sure just guessing) but in non turbo applications. I don't think it is a good design in a turbo motor. Just my thoughts.

[blksn8k2]

 

 

The coolant grove aside. The RS is an open deck no cylinder support at all. The EB has support all around the top of the cylinders. The RS has a thicker cylinder wall it appears but if that cylinder is not supported at the top I can see it moving under boost and causing gasket failure. I think Toyota and Honda started this open deck design years ago, (not sure just guessing) but in non turbo applications. I don't think it is a good design in a turbo motor. Just my thoughts.

 

Pretty sure all versions of the 2.3L are open deck. The other photo is of the bottom of the cylinder head. Unless Ford went back to a flathead design and didn't tell anyone. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[blksn8k2]

Here's a photo of the Mustang block with the coolant groove between the cylinders.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Here's a photo of the Mustang block with the coolant groove between the cylinders.

Is that identical to the one used for MKC and Explorer?

[SoonerLS]

Unless Ford went back to a flathead design and didn't tell anyone. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Flatheads rule!

[blksn8k2]

Is that identical to the one used for MKC and Explorer?

 

Not sure. My guess is there could be some differences related to the transverse mounting in those vehicles but I doubt there is any difference in the basic open block design.

[coupe3w]

 

 

Ford Performance Ecoboost Engine Block
Get the perfect foundation for your Ecoboost engine build with this Ford Performance 2.3L Ecoboost engine block! This is the production cylinder block that rolls off the assembly line of all Ecoboost Mustangs. When it comes time to build up your Ecoboost engine, a new engine block is the best starting point. The engine block includes new freeze plugs, dowels, and other production hardware needed for an engine build up. This block is a direct replacement for 2015-2017 Mustang Ecoboost, but great for any vehicle swapping an Ecoboost engine in.

Edited December 31, 2017 by coupe3w

[coupe3w]

Here's a photo of the Mustang block with the coolant groove between the cylinders.

This is the RS block not the Mustang block. Notice no support at the top of the cylinders.

Edited December 31, 2017 by coupe3w

[jpd80]

this is the head gasket meant for US engines fitted to the RS, only one of the holes lines up with a coolant passage,

fluid eventually forces its way in between cylinders and fails thanks to second hole in gasket.

On the mustang, that second hole lines up with the coolant hole in the block, on the RS it's on a blind piece of the block.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the correct RS gasket, notice how there's only one hole and the water passage between cylinders is completely blocked.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by jpd80

[blksn8k2]

The R&T article stated that the first engine block photo I posted is of the Mustang EB block. Their words not mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a quote from their article:

 

 

 

The Mustang uses a small v-shaped passage cut into the block between the cylinders in order to transfer coolant across, as shown in the image above. There are two connected holes in the gasket which can accept coolant and transfer it all the way to the edge, at which point it can flow into the water jacket.

 

The next photo is of a block with what I assume is the updated machining that uses a coolant passage with a single outlet hole and no V-groove. Notice the difference between the two blocks at the junction of each cylinder? The first block has the V-groove while the second does not but does have a single round hole. Both of those blocks obviously use the open deck design.

 

 

I suppose it is possible that both of those are RS blocks with the second one being the updated design. But that's not what R&T said.

 

However, the point is that if the gaskets were mixed up between the two you would still have the potential for a failed gasket.

 

If the Mustang EB uses a third and completely different block with no open deck that very well could be yet another update.