F150 Ecoboost Forum banner

61 - 80 of 126 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,478 Posts
Could this be the result of Ford removing the support bolt on the turbo to the block on the 2013 and 2014 models? Thinking about Woo's point, that's a lot of heat and weight just hanging on the manifold. Are the only confirmed leaks on the 2013 and up? Anyone have a 2011/12?
please show us picture difference. The odd thing is, there are extra holes in the block factory.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,124 Posts
Could this be the result of Ford removing the support bolt on the turbo to the block on the 2013 and 2014 models? Thinking about Woo's point, that's a lot of heat and weight just hanging on the manifold. Are the only confirmed leaks on the 2013 and up? Anyone have a 2011/12?
I think @BRoell has a 2012, but he may not have put the support back in...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Could this be the result of Ford removing the support bolt on the turbo to the block on the 2013 and 2014 models? Thinking about Woo's point, that's a lot of heat and weight just hanging on the manifold. Are the only confirmed leaks on the 2013 and up? Anyone have a 2011/12?
2011, leak on factory manifold... passenger


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,318 Posts
please show us picture difference. The odd thing is, there are extra holes in the block factory.
That's interesting. So there are threaded fastener holes in the block that are positioned where they COULD be in play IF the manifold casting accommodated them?

I ask because I have seen cad drawings of exhaust manifolds that had bolt patterns that suggest there IS such a bolt hole that the current manifolds don't have.

I always wondered

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: WooBoost

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,144 Posts
Discussion Starter #65
That's interesting. So there are threaded fastener holes in the block that are positioned where they COULD be in play IF the manifold casting accommodated them?

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
Correct. There are 11 holes already drilled and tapped. I believe only 8 are used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WooBoost

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Correct. There are 11 holes already drilled and tapped. I believe only 8 are used.
Read about this somewhere... maybe here... a couple years ago. According to that account, with each “retooling” of the manufacturing process, those unused holes became plugged holes, then disappeared altogether. I unfortunately do not recall why the bolts were not installed in the first gen1’s... the trucks that have holes in the block.

Somebody correct me if I’m inaccurate on any details


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,318 Posts
Edit: I was typing this while the previous 2 responses were posted.


So do you fellas with the EFR type setup, does the custom exhaust manifolds, like those from Full Race, utilize that unused bolt hole that was described?


Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,478 Posts
I can tell you I didnt realize there were extra holes until I ran out of studs and was wondering wtf was going on and picked up the manifold and saw not all the holes are used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
I can tell you I didnt realize there were extra holes until I ran out of studs and was wondering wtf was going on and picked up the manifold and saw not all the holes are used.
I think these show it... looks like the on 2013 (according to source) the holes are plugged, but the other they are there, presumable threaded. Wouldn't it be cool if @CRP Engineering or someone else could find a way to utilize these additional mounting points? Be a bit more difficult where the holes aren't already drilled and tapped.

168042
168043
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,144 Posts
Discussion Starter #70
I think these show it... looks like the on 2013 (according to source) the holes are plugged, but the other they are there, presumable threaded. Wouldn't it be cool if @CRP Engineering or someone else could find a way to utilize these additional mounting points? Be a bit more difficult where the holes aren't already drilled and tapped.

View attachment 168042 View attachment 168043
Mine were not plugged on my 2014. I remember counting them and wondering what the hell happened.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
I can confirm we have had three warranty requests total for manifold leakage to date, out of nearly 1000 units shipped. We stand by the product, and have supported these customers with replacements.


Of the three requests, one was for a commercially used Ford Transit 3.5L. This customer advised towing at or over capacity frequently and that they had been through 4-5 OEM sets. Our sets lasted significantly longer than the OEM sets, and that customer discovered in the end that his heads had warped after contacting us. The gaskets were found to have cracked in multiple places causing the leak and no failure occurred of the actual CR manifolds. Once the cylinder heads were replaced this customer has had no concerns, and we concluded as clamping force on the gasket was maintained once the cylinder issue was corrected and this case overall was not caused by our product.

BRoell, You were the first to contact us asides our transit customer mentioned above, and we had one customer after you who sent us what looked like another gasket concern as the manifold upon inspection had no clear sign of failure. These are our 3 requests.

We are having parts returned for inspection in all warranty cases and on the parts received so far, no clear issue has been established with the manifolds themselves. There are parts of the installation that we cannot control or inspect in these cases (gaskets, studs & stud installation into cylinder head, cylinder head face preparation and condition, other variances), so the cause of these issues without significant signs in the returned parts can be difficult to diagnose.

When recently contacted by Mass-hole, I had not heard of a case of studs backing out and needing tightening a 1/8 turn so I advised we had not seen a case like this before. Mass-hole if you need further support please contact CRP via email.



As others have noted, there is a long span in the bolt pattern in Ford's design. Unfortunately additional bolts is not an option without a considerable performance penalty with a cast manifold needing a change in port routing, along with difficulty on installation (blind from turbo flange). Also note they are not located in an area which would apply more clamping pressure to the needed area, if used they would actually unequalize clamp force on the gasket.

We have put specific design effort to increase the strength in this area, such as increasing the wall thickness, reinforced ribbing to the rear stud, increased boss thickness, usage of a High Sil Material, and Manufacturing 100% in North America.


We continue to have confidence in our product as a significant improvement over the OEM option in durability and performance .



Thank you.

Andrew C @ CR Performance Engineering Inc.


@CRP Engineering Care to shed any light on this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
please show us picture difference. The odd thing is, there are extra holes in the block factory.
I am talking about something completely different. Mass showed the extra holes in the block which were intended for the exhaust manifold but not used. Interesting note, the gasket has a provision for using the bottom hole, but neither the stock or CRP manifolds make use of either of the 2 extra holes. It's too bad CRP could not include those mounting locations in their design. Their reasoning though makes sense. If you include them and take a performance penalty, then it defeats part of the purpose of the design.

What I was previously referring to is the dog ear on the 2011/12 turbo, which supports the weight of the turbo and mounts to a bracket on the block. This is in addition to the three bolts which mount the turbo to the exhaust manifold. So on the 2011/2012 models, the weight of the turbo hanging on the exhaust manifold is partially supported by this extra mounting location. It's my understanding that the 2013/2014 turbos do not have this mounting location, so the entire weight of the turbo, adapter and part of the down pipe are all pulling on the exhaust manifold while it repeatedly goes from super hot to cold.

2012 Turbo Dog Ear mount.jpg
2012 Turbo Mount.jpg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,318 Posts
Thanks @CRP Engineering!

Excellent support and response

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: BRoell

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,478 Posts
I am talking about something completely different. Mass showed the extra holes in the block which were intended for the exhaust manifold but not used. Interesting note, the gasket has a provision for using the bottom hole, but neither the stock or CRP manifolds make use of either of the 2 extra holes. It's too bad CRP could not include those mounting locations in their design. Their reasoning though makes sense. If you include them and take a performance penalty, then it defeats part of the purpose of the design.

What I was previously referring to is the dog ear on the 2011/12 turbo, which supports the weight of the turbo and mounts to a bracket on the block. This is in addition to the three bolts which mount the turbo to the exhaust manifold. So on the 2011/2012 models, the weight of the turbo hanging on the exhaust manifold is partially supported by this extra mounting location. It's my understanding that the 2013/2014 turbos do not have this mounting location, so the entire weight of the turbo, adapter and part of the down pipe are all pulling on the exhaust manifold while it repeatedly goes from super hot to cold.
That would be nice to have
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,144 Posts
Discussion Starter #75
I can confirm we have had three warranty requests total for manifold leakage to date, out of nearly 1000 units shipped. We stand by the product, and have supported these customers with replacements.


Of the three requests, one was for a commercially used Ford Transit 3.5L. This customer advised towing at or over capacity frequently and that they had been through 4-5 OEM sets. Our sets lasted significantly longer than the OEM sets, and that customer discovered in the end that his heads had warped after contacting us. The gaskets were found to have cracked in multiple places causing the leak and no failure occurred of the actual CR manifolds. Once the cylinder heads were replaced this customer has had no concerns, and we concluded as clamping force on the gasket was maintained once the cylinder issue was corrected and this case overall was not caused by our product.

BRoell, You were the first to contact us asides our transit customer mentioned above, and we had one customer after you who sent us what looked like another gasket concern as the manifold upon inspection had no clear sign of failure. These are our 3 requests.

We are having parts returned for inspection in all warranty cases and on the parts received so far, no clear issue has been established with the manifolds themselves. There are parts of the installation that we cannot control or inspect in these cases (gaskets, studs & stud installation into cylinder head, cylinder head face preparation and condition, other variances), so the cause of these issues without significant signs in the returned parts can be difficult to diagnose.

When recently contacted by Mass-hole, I had not heard of a case of studs backing out and needing tightening a 1/8 turn so I advised we had not seen a case like this before. Mass-hole if you need further support please contact CRP via email.



As others have noted, there is a long span in the bolt pattern in Ford's design. Unfortunately additional bolts is not an option without a considerable performance penalty with a cast manifold needing a change in port routing, along with difficulty on installation (blind from turbo flange). Also note they are not located in an area which would apply more clamping pressure to the needed area, if used they would actually unequalize clamp force on the gasket.

We have put specific design effort to increase the strength in this area, such as increasing the wall thickness, reinforced ribbing to the rear stud, increased boss thickness, usage of a High Sil Material, and Manufacturing 100% in North America.


We continue to have confidence in our product as a significant improvement over the OEM option in durability and performance .



Thank you.

Andrew C @ CR Performance Engineering Inc.
Thanks, Andrew. And I don't blame you or your product. I don't tow beyond the towing capacity of my truck, but I am pulling a travel trailer through the Rockies, often in very extreme conditions. On Thursday I was fighting a 30mph headwind while towing that parachute behind me so the truck was working very hard. I got no noise during the tow, it wasn't until Saturday when I first drove the truck again to go on a hike that I heard the chirping.

Do you have any input on the use of the stainless steel studs that were shown a ways back in this thread? They are meant for the 5.4L Triton but I guess fit this application as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
ARP makes a great product that should bolt up for these trucks and we advise customers who ask that ARP PN# 400-8035 should be a ARP replacement for the FoMoCo studs.

With that said,
We have not tested these with our manifolds yet and I am concerned about thermal expansion with SS is higher and may lift clamping pressure when at temperature on the gasket vs a steel stud.
A higher torque may be needed to have success with these.

We might need to get a head in here and increase torque to failure to determine the highest clamping force we can use before failing the heads threads and put a safety factor on this to confirm how customers should proceed.

168046




I would highly recommend against low cost stainless stud options at this time.
We are fighting clamping loads in my opinion here to hold that gasket in place and sealing, stainless steel is material limited on its ability to do this task over steel options.


Thank you.


Andrew C @ CR Performance Engineering Inc.

Thanks, Andrew. And I don't blame you or your product. I don't tow beyond the towing capacity of my truck, but I am pulling a travel trailer through the Rockies, often in very extreme conditions. On Thursday I was fighting a 30mph headwind while towing that parachute behind me so the truck was working very hard. I got no noise during the tow, it wasn't until Saturday when I first drove the truck again to go on a hike that I heard the chirping.

Do you have any input on the use of the stainless steel studs that were shown a ways back in this thread? They are meant for the 5.4L Triton but I guess fit this application as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,318 Posts
Makes sense.

Stainless offers a great solution for many various applications. But not all applications.

That's a pretty good example of why stainless would not be the very best option.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,124 Posts
< Snip I can confirm we have had three warranty requests total for manifold leakage to date, out of nearly 1000 units shipped. We stand by the product, and have supported these customers with replacements.

Thank you.

Andrew C @ CR Performance Engineering Inc.Snip>
Thanks for taking the time to respond Andrew, much appreciated!

I know it's a different application, but Ford did move to SS studs to remedy the manifold leaks and breaking studs on the 5.4 3v Triton. They are used in conjunction with a cast steel Manifold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
How long has it been? Are you doing a lot of towing?
No towing but a moderate tune most of the time. I want to clarify my timeline a bit. The OEM manifold warped on the drivers side a while back. I replaced with CRP manifolds and OEM turbos and ran it (about 1500 miles?) til the engine failed. RMB reinstalled the CRP manifolds with new GT turbos on the new block. After maybe about 10k miles on the new setup, the passenger CRP manifold warped. I replaced the passenger side with a new replacement from CRP. Now another 5k miles later the driver's side it starting to squeal. I need to investigate further and try to tighten the manifold nuts before any further comment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
I think @BRoell has a 2012, but he may not have put the support back in...
2011. My stock turbos had a tab for the mount. I was planning to re-use them but the GTs didn't have the tab, so no dice.

What I was previously referring to is the dog ear on the 2011/12 turbo, which supports the weight of the turbo and mounts to a bracket on the block. This is in addition to the three bolts which mount the turbo to the exhaust manifold. So on the 2011/2012 models, the weight of the turbo hanging on the exhaust manifold is partially supported by this extra mounting location. It's my understanding that the 2013/2014 turbos do not have this mounting location, so the entire weight of the turbo, adapter and part of the down pipe are all pulling on the exhaust manifold while it repeatedly goes from super hot to cold.
Exxxxactly. I couldn't find the brackets in my junk pile, but I got a pic of the stock turbos and the mounting hardware lol. I agree the weight of the turbos with all the heat cycles can't help the warping issue. Moves the turbo blankets up a few notches on my buy list...

168050


168051
 
61 - 80 of 126 Posts
Top