RAM 1500 Diesel Forum banner
21 - 40 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
TX with a GDE EGR off tune & T6 my crate went 423k with hard service life. EGR Cooler delete to remove the low coolant risk I bet you are good well past 300k. Will stay tuned for your progress.
That sounds super-encouraging! I am a stickler for maintenance, and do everything I can myself. I'll run it with the EPA-Compliant GDE tune until I run out of 3-year/100K warranty on the new crate, then I will find a shop that can help me delete as much of that nonsense as possible.
 

·
Premium Member
2015 RAM 1500 CC 4x4
Joined
·
5,062 Posts
I never had a CEL in 96,500 miles. I had the AEM done at that mileage and I have now had 3 CEL's one of which got my DPF replaced under the AEM warranty and and one for the reluctor wheel.

Place me firmly in the camp that thinks 5w40/15w40 is superior protection, but 5w30 is not the reason behind the bottom end issues.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,785 Posts
A small number of engines failed, to read this forum you would think every ecodiesel ever built has or is going to fail when the truth of the matter is the majority of ecodiesels will never suffer a lower end bearing issue. The original 5w-30 oil spec showed that the percentage ecodiesels failing was at a point that it was no longer tolerable and an investigation and change had to be made, the investigation was done and the change was updating the oil spec to 40 weight oil, after that the failure rate went way down.

As the other poster said name any engine that you think is great and someone can show you some of them that have blown up for one reason or another. No engine made is immune from failing.

Like the video on lubrication I posted said, buy the best oil you can afford at the very least then buy a better oil. That is from a bearing manufacture.

What is a perfectly maintained engine, you can use a cheap oil that will shear and blow up an engine yet you changed the oil on time every time so that would fit your description of a perfectly maintained engine yet it still failed.

Remember that the bigger the spread between the first winter number vs the actual oil weight the more viscosity enhancers have to be used and viscosity enhancers shear which lowers the viscosity of the oil overall. That is one of the advantages of a Group V Ester synthetic oil is many use a bare minimum of viscosity enhancers and some don't need any at all because Group V Ester oils flow so well at low temperatures and resist shear to begin with.
there was an abnormally large number of ecodiesels that failed. thats a fact. we had weekly demand numbers that leaked out from a mopar warehouse and it was quite shocking. Cummins had something on the order of 1-2 engines whereas the ecodiesels were like 26. Thats massive. given the fact there are far more cummins out there, thats even more alarming.

The issue is, yes a small # failed. the problem is that failure RATE is on the order of 3 - 6% based on estimates. in modern day cars, any engine failure rate over 1% is really bad. FCA should be ashamed of itself on this one.

As for perfectly maintained, putting sh.t oil in you truck is not maintaining your truck. When i say perfectly maintained, i mean changing the oil at the right interval with an oil that meets the service spec required by the manufacturer. I can literally guarantee you that the oil spec was not the issue. There are plenty of trucks out there that ran nothing but 5-40 T6 and still blew up at low mileage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
there was an abnormally large number of ecodiesels that failed. thats a fact. we had weekly demand numbers that leaked out from a mopar warehouse and it was quite shocking. Cummins had something on the order of 1-2 engines whereas the ecodiesels were like 26. Thats massive. given the fact there are far more cummins out there, thats even more alarming.

The issue is, yes a small # failed. the problem is that failure RATE is on the order of 3 - 6% based on estimates. in modern day cars, any engine failure rate over 1% is really bad. FCA should be ashamed of itself on this one.

As for perfectly maintained, putting sh.t oil in you truck is not maintaining your truck. When i say perfectly maintained, i mean changing the oil at the right interval with an oil that meets the service spec required by the manufacturer. I can literally guarantee you that the oil spec was not the issue. There are plenty of trucks out there that ran nothing but 5-40 T6 and still blew up at low mileage.
I still don't know where RaceHillFarms came up with that business about "perfectly maintained" and using [email protected] oil. I asked him if that was just a canned answer for engine failures. I am the OP and went back and read every response and that "perfectly maintained engine" shows up for the first time in RaceHillFarm's post about failures and using [email protected] oil. I get a lot of people know a lot more than I do, but it isn't particularly helpful when people throw the entire thread off by introducing something like that, which again was never part of my OP or any response. I've only ever used MOPAR Spec-oil (Rotella T6), just for the record.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,785 Posts
I still don't know where RaceHillFarms came up with that business about "perfectly maintained" and using [email protected] oil. I asked him if that was just a canned answer for engine failures. I am the OP and went back and read every response and that "perfectly maintained engine" shows up for the first time in RaceHillFarm's post about failures and using [email protected] oil. I get a lot of people know a lot more than I do, but it isn't particularly helpful when people throw the entire thread off by introducing something like that, which again was never part of my OP or any response. I've only ever used MOPAR Spec-oil (Rotella T6), just for the record.
yea i don't know exactly what that means either. maintained should be enough to keep an engine from nuking.

bottom line is, this engine does have some weird issue. FCA/Stellantis is mum about it. I HOPE the fixed it in gen 3. If not, it means they don't know either.

I'm sticking to my poor assembly/harmonic issue theory. Neither of which any normal owner can fix. Just a crap shoot with the odds WAAAY in your favor.

I used to do used Oil analysis. I stopped. My engine was perfect each one. Same with a few other's who had an engine fail.

best of luck w/ the new crate engine. just enjoy it and run it. Make sure you maintain it "perfectly".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
yea i don't know exactly what that means either. maintained should be enough to keep an engine from nuking.

bottom line is, this engine does have some weird issue. FCA/Stellantis is mum about it. I HOPE the fixed it in gen 3. If not, it means they don't know either.

I'm sticking to my poor assembly/harmonic issue theory. Neither of which any normal owner can fix. Just a crap shoot with the odds WAAAY in your favor.

I used to do used Oil analysis. I stopped. My engine was perfect each one. Same with a few other's who had an engine fail.

best of luck w/ the new crate engine. just enjoy it and run it. Make sure you maintain it "perfectly".
Haha, Thanks, and will do!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
732 Posts
Have to agree with shagn85 on the above, gotta give sh! t where is due, and credit where its due. FCA dropped the ball on this one, I was checking the ram Canadian website today, looks like there is no option for ram classic ecodiesel for 2021. Does that mean the production for gen2 longblocks will also be slowed?
Things are nice and cozy at the moment with cheap new longblocks. But what happens couple years down the road when ram doesn't have to replace these ecodiesel engines anymore? All warranties up?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,785 Posts
Have to agree with shagn85 on the above, gotta give sh! t where is due, and credit where its due. FCA dropped the ball on this one, I was checking the ram Canadian website today, looks like there is no option for ram classic ecodiesel for 2021. Does that mean the production for gen2 longblocks will also be slowed?
Things are nice and cozy at the moment with cheap new longblocks. But what happens couple years down the road when ram doesn't have to replace these ecodiesel engines anymore? All warranties up?
Im hoping some aftermarket parts appear in the form of some cranks and bearings. perhaps a slightly stiffer crank may alleviate some of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
Sorry, is this like a canned answer? I don't recall saying anything like: "so that would fit your description of a perfectly maintained engine yet it still failed." I did point out the probably early use of 30-weight oil, but didn't try to make the case that was the root cause of my blown engine. If you're just trying to help, then thanks. I get the sense I'm being lectured though.

I would point out that any effort to paint the Ecodiesel as typical failure rate seems off to me. I don't have access to the stats, other than what I've read on this forum. I can tell you I've driven a diesel VW Jetta for years, since '06, and they never changed their spec-oil for that engine. I also get that anytime one frequents a forum of this type, you're only going to see the negative experiences. That said, I still call BS that the Ecodiesel had a typical failure rate. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and no intent to offend you by my wrongness. :)
Look at this way if the failure rate was 20% which we know it was not 20% that would mean out of the reported 170,000 ecodiesel Rams sold 34,000 of them would have failed. What we do know is during a nine month period that the 2014, 2015 and first half 2016 ecdiesels used 5w-30 oil the average failure rate hit 215 ecodiesels a month over that 9 month period. that was a high enough failure rate that FCA conducted an investigation by tearing down a number of the failed engines and their engineers determined that the 5w-30 oil did not have a strong enough film strength to protect the bearings in the bottom end. That is when the oil spec was changed to 5w-40 because 40 weight oil has a stronger film strength to protect the bearings.

Now lets take that 215 average over nine months and we come up with 1,935 trucks that failed in that nine month span, that was enough to get the attention of FCA to investigate and make a change, now take 170,000 - 1,935 = 168,065 trucks that did not suffer a bottom end failure. But we know that number is not accurate either so lets add another failure rate of 0.4% and you have another 672.26 ecodiesel that have failed. Add 1,965 to 673 (rounded up) and you come up with 2,638 ecodiesels with the majority of them failing during a nine month period before the oil spec was changed from 30 weight oil to a 40 weight oil. Now take 170,000 - 2,638 = 167,362 ecodiesels that did not/have not suffered a bottom end bearing failure.

Again like another poster pointed out take your favorite engine of all time and someone can show you examples of that engine that have blown up for any number of reasons.

To address the line bore issue one poster is blaming on the failures, if the line bore was the case then the failure rate should be 50% at a minimum because you are now basically flipping a coin on reliability.

With the known numbers the failure rate of the ecodiesel overall is 1.55% resulting in 2,635 failed ecodiesels or 3 short of the number above (2,638) and that includes the nine month period where the average was 215 a month before the oil spec change to 40 weight oil out of 170,000 ecodiesel Rams sold.

I suspect if you listed the Jeep eocdiesel sales/failure numbers you would come up with similar percent rate of failure numbers.

The first 2 1/2 years where the failure rate peaked in 2016 before the oil spec change to 40 weight oil would be the bulk of the ecodiesel failures so the percentage of failures would have been higher in those first 2 1/2 years and the failure rate from the second half of 2016 forward the failure rate would be far less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
Look at this way if the failure rate was 20% which we know it was not 20% that would mean out of the reported 170,000 ecodiesel Rams sold 34,000 of them would have failed. What we do know is during a nine month period that the 2014, 2015 and first half 2016 ecdiesels used 5w-30 oil the average failure rate hit 215 ecodiesels a month over that 9 month period. that was a high enough failure rate that FCA conducted an investigation by tearing down a number of the failed engines and their engineers determined that the 5w-30 oil did not have a strong enough film strength to protect the bearings in the bottom end. That is when the oil spec was changed to 5w-40 because 40 weight oil has a stronger film strength to protect the bearings.

Now lets take that 215 average over nine months and we come up with 1,935 trucks that failed in that nine month span, that was enough to get the attention of FCA to investigate and make a change, now take 170,000 - 1,935 = 168,065 trucks that did not suffer a bottom end failure. But we know that number is not accurate either so lets add another failure rate of 0.4% and you have another 672.26 ecodiesel that have failed. Add 1,965 to 673 (rounded up) and you come up with 2,638 ecodiesels with the majority of them failing during a nine month period before the oil spec was changed from 30 weight oil to a 40 weight oil. Now take 170,000 - 2,638 = 167,362 ecodiesels that did not/have not suffered a bottom end bearing failure.

Again like another poster pointed out take your favorite engine of all time and someone can show you examples of that engine that have blown up for any number of reasons.

To address the line bore issue one poster is blaming on the failures, if the line bore was the case then the failure rate should be 50% at a minimum because you are now basically flipping a coin on reliability.

With the known numbers the failure rate of the ecodiesel overall is 1.55% resulting in 2,635 failed ecodiesels or 3 short of the number above (2,638) and that includes the nine month period where the average was 215 a month before the oil spec change to 40 weight oil out of 170,000 ecodiesel Rams sold.

I suspect if you listed the Jeep eocdiesel sales/failure numbers you would come up with similar percent rate of failure numbers.

The first 2 1/2 years where the failure rate peaked in 2016 before the oil spec change to 40 weight oil would be the bulk of the ecodiesel failures so the percentage of failures would have been higher in those first 2 1/2 years and the failure rate from the second half of 2016 forward the failure rate would be far less.
This is comforting in light of the serious coin I'm dropping on a new crate engine. My Laramie had 125,000 miles and the truck is in really good condition. Looking at new and even used truck prices made the decision much easier.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,730 Posts
TX. You may like this thread;

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
Have to agree with shagn85 on the above, gotta give sh! t where is due, and credit where its due. FCA dropped the ball on this one, I was checking the ram Canadian website today, looks like there is no option for ram classic ecodiesel for 2021. Does that mean the production for gen2 longblocks will also be slowed?
Things are nice and cozy at the moment with cheap new longblocks. But what happens couple years down the road when ram doesn't have to replace these ecodiesel engines anymore? All warranties up?
Not sure about Canada but US did not have a classic ED in 2020 either..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Hi: justind... I don't need one. I'm having enough "Fun" with my old crate!!!
Dieseldragon North shore of Lake Erie.
That's one 'fancy' crate ya got there Dieseldragon life is good in Lake Erie :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
That's one 'fancy' crate ya got there Dieseldragon life is good in Lake Erie :rolleyes:
Hi: TexasJoe... Thanks... I got it 2 yrs old w/ 55ks/35k real miles on it. All the stuff I needed for towing and all the "Bells and whistles" I like.$27 G's w/ B-B warr. to 100,000kms and my Nissan Fronty w/ 172,000 krazy miles. When U find one like that... buy it!!! Strange what you just bump into.
P1040820.JPG
P1040902.JPG

Dieseldragon North shore of Lake Erie.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,785 Posts
Look at this way if the failure rate was 20% which we know it was not 20% that would mean out of the reported 170,000 ecodiesel Rams sold 34,000 of them would have failed. What we do know is during a nine month period that the 2014, 2015 and first half 2016 ecdiesels used 5w-30 oil the average failure rate hit 215 ecodiesels a month over that 9 month period. that was a high enough failure rate that FCA conducted an investigation by tearing down a number of the failed engines and their engineers determined that the 5w-30 oil did not have a strong enough film strength to protect the bearings in the bottom end. That is when the oil spec was changed to 5w-40 because 40 weight oil has a stronger film strength to protect the bearings.

Now lets take that 215 average over nine months and we come up with 1,935 trucks that failed in that nine month span, that was enough to get the attention of FCA to investigate and make a change, now take 170,000 - 1,935 = 168,065 trucks that did not suffer a bottom end failure. But we know that number is not accurate either so lets add another failure rate of 0.4% and you have another 672.26 ecodiesel that have failed. Add 1,965 to 673 (rounded up) and you come up with 2,638 ecodiesels with the majority of them failing during a nine month period before the oil spec was changed from 30 weight oil to a 40 weight oil. Now take 170,000 - 2,638 = 167,362 ecodiesels that did not/have not suffered a bottom end bearing failure.

Again like another poster pointed out take your favorite engine of all time and someone can show you examples of that engine that have blown up for any number of reasons.

To address the line bore issue one poster is blaming on the failures, if the line bore was the case then the failure rate should be 50% at a minimum because you are now basically flipping a coin on reliability.

With the known numbers the failure rate of the ecodiesel overall is 1.55% resulting in 2,635 failed ecodiesels or 3 short of the number above (2,638) and that includes the nine month period where the average was 215 a month before the oil spec change to 40 weight oil out of 170,000 ecodiesel Rams sold.

I suspect if you listed the Jeep eocdiesel sales/failure numbers you would come up with similar percent rate of failure numbers.

The first 2 1/2 years where the failure rate peaked in 2016 before the oil spec change to 40 weight oil would be the bulk of the ecodiesel failures so the percentage of failures would have been higher in those first 2 1/2 years and the failure rate from the second half of 2016 forward the failure rate would be far less.

hold on here... in your first paragraph, FCA did not determine that 5w30 was the culprit. Sorry. This was a bandaid to tray and decrease the number of failures. This was not THE issue. They figured they could get a few more to survive longer and get out of warranty and save their financial bacon. Unless you are an engineer with fca or have a family member that is etc... you have NO idea what fca engineers found or even if they did tear anything down. Again, the oil switch was a bandaid to limp things along for a while.

the Gen 3 Ecodiesel engine purportedly fixes the issue. My guess, crank, bearings and probably balancing is different - but i am just educated-guessing. there was NO way for FCA to correct the issue with the Gen 2. that cake was baked and they had to live with it because it's an inherent flaw with assembly or rotating assembly balance - they were not gonna recall every eco-d to replace the engine. I agree with you... line bore likely not the problem. That would get picked up very quickly in QA and would result in a lot more failures.

You are assuming the issue ran for 9 months and thats it. i am pretty darn sure that issue ran for more than 9 months and it was not just the 14, 15, 16 MY. Plenty of 17s and 18s blew up as well. that engine failure thread on here and on facebook saw 16s, 17s, 18s blowing up. I actually think the AEM tuning did more to stop the blow ups than the oil spec. The trans tune does not allow the engine to chug hard in the 1500 - 1800 RPM range. my bet is, the engineers at FCA realized that was where most of the harmonics were starting to show up. Those would show up for ALL engines up to the Gen 3. so i highly suspect your 1.55% to be very very very generous to FCA and you have no idea where the failure rate peaked. all speculation.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,785 Posts
RaceHill... if you have inside info on the #s by all means share. We did a number of calcs on the failure thread to extrapolate failures. ALL the estimates were higher by far than 1.55%...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
829 Posts
hold on here... in your first paragraph, FCA did not determine that 5w30 was the culprit. Sorry. This was a bandaid to tray and decrease the number of failures. This was not THE issue. They figured they could get a few more to survive longer and get out of warranty and save their financial bacon.
For some reason he believes they ultimately determined it's an oil issue because they changed the spec, when in reality it was a band aid like you mentioned. lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
You all keep looking for a boogeyman but failed bearings are nothing new to any engine from any brand. Clearly the bearing clearance was not so tight that a 40 weight oil would not work, when you have really tight bearing clearance you have to run thinner oil, if the clearance is not so tight you need to run a thicker oil, now that we know a 40 weight oil works fine in the ecodiesel we can also make an educated guess that a 30 weight oil would lead to bearing failure in a certain amount of engines because the clearance is to much for a 30 weight oil to properly protect the bearings.

No one knows how many ecodiesels had owners who bought the cheapest oil the could find, and as much as many of you want to believe that all oils are the same there are differences in oils even when they pass the API test to get that little API symbol on their bottle. There are oils of the same weight where one will shear and fall out of grade and another will hold up fine remaining in grade yet both passed the same API test and have the same API symbol on the oil bottle.

Passing an API test to get the API symbol on your bottle is one thing, the oil being used in real world use is an entirely different situation.

Like the man said in the bearing company video buy the best oil you can afford then buy the next better oil. In other words he was telling you the quality of the oil plays a big part in protecting the bearings. Run the cheap stuff if you want, it is your money and your truck for me I will stick with Redline and pay the extra price and know I have an oil that will out preform the cheap stuff.
 
21 - 40 of 64 Posts
Top