bt50 turbo timer

The instructions for the early Discovery diesels was to idle them for 11 seconds. In addition to the slow arrival driving give the motor 10 seconds before switching off. If you put a turbo timer in you will be waiting around for a few minutes so you don't get pinged for leaving your motor running unattended.

Good point, are you 100% sure re the water cooled?
I was advised by a mechanic that they arent water cooled on the 4 cylinder 2.2 litre models, maybe the 3.2's are different?
He says that it would be a different story if it was water cooled.Maybe its a model thing?

I can't see anything which indicates a BT50 or Ranger doesn't have a water cooled turbo. Most makes do have water cooled turbos for life reasons. Water cooled EGR has nothing to do with the issue. The rate they speed up in relation to older turbos is irrelevent.

RMD - Well, here are multiple photos of a new Ford Ranger/Mazda BT-50, 5 cyl, 3.2L Duratorq engine turbocharger.
The black device is the electronic actuator for the variable vanes - because this engine uses a variable-geometry turbocharger.

If you are still convinced the 3.2L Duratorq turbocharger is water-cooled, I'd be very pleased if you could point out the coolant passageways and coolant connections that it possesses, according to you!

I've been around diesel turbochargers since 1965, and I can assure you, I've replaced hundreds of them, and had hundreds apart - and I know the difference between a water-cooled turbo and a non-cooled turbo.

Quote - "The rate they speed up in relation to older turbos is irrelevent."

Yes, that statement is true - but you only quoted part of my statement.

I said, "they are very responsive, and speed up and slow down probably 3 times faster than the early turbochargers."

The important part I was getting at, is the current turbocharger turbine wheels, slow down rapidly because of their light weight - as compared to the older, heavier turbocharger turbine wheels, that kept spinning, long after the engine was shut down - and long after the pressurised oil that lubes the bearings, stopped being supplied by the oil pump.

As a result, there was a risk with older turbochargers keeping on running for a period, after a fast shutdown - without oil being supplied to the bearings.
This naturally leads to increased turbocharger bearing wear.

In addition, there is another and even greater problem with rapid shutdown for turbos - and it is heat soak.
An engine shut down quickly with a very hot turbocharger results in the oil in it, being "cooked".

This "cooking" of the residual oil in the turbocharger leads to deposits of oil varnish and nasty chunks of carbon residing in the turbocharger oil gallery.

This buildup of nasty burnt oil deposits can lead to oil gallery blockages, damage to turbocharger bearings, and reduced levels of lubrication reaching the turbocharger bearings - and therefore, turbocharger failure.

Ron, where did you hear about these turbo failures on the 3.2l ranger/bt50 engines.

I can't even find one failure on the Newranger or Australian ford forums even with people installing 3 inch exhausts with the danger of the turbos over spooling.

Tony, there's one 3.2L turbo failure outlined in the link below ...

Ford Ranger engine failure

I've personally seen 3 turbo failures on mining company vehicles, one of which resulted in total engine failure. 2 were sighted in auction yards, one in the link below - [see "ACCIDENT DAMAGED: ’13 Ford Ranger Dual Cab(engine)].
As you can see from the photo, the Ranger hasn't been in an accident, it's unmarked, it just had a U/S engine.

Ross's Auctions

Reviewer "Macca" on Product Review, reports a blown turbo, followed by a blown engine (page 3) ...

On page 4 of Product Review, reviewer "Nick0489" reports a turbo failure and "dusted" engine.
He reports Ford blamed it on "excessive dust in the air filter".
Sounds to me, more like an intake hose failed when the air filter became excessively clogged.

Product Review - PX Ranger

Overall, a fair number of "unhappy campers" amongst the PX Ranger owners on the above site.
I have found Product Review to be a fairly honest site, with reviewers being asked to present proof of purchase. (I reviewed my Hilux there and they wanted to see the contract).

There is likely to be more turbo failures not listed amongst the corporate world.
I have heard from a mining associate that BHP has had a number of problems with the Ford 3.2L engines, not all of them turbo-related.

I've also had reports from South African friends that there have been turbo failures in SA with the 3.2L engine, and I have found them listed on SA forums.

Turbo problems on new Rangers? (South African forum)

Cheers, Ron.

What a backwards step to fit a non water cooled turbo and also have it sourced from India too. Perhaps it has a larger than normal oil flow supply to take heat from the turbo housing in the absence of water cooling.

Ron, thanks for that but you and I know you should never use mining as a bench mark for any make of vehicle problems. I have a bit of inside info on new model vehicle that is being used in the mining industry and they have had quite a few engine and gearbox failures. I wouldn't even bother with printing any of it due tot what happens in mining.

The South African Rangers are not imported into Australia.

To put the perceived turbo problems into perspective, there would be between 50,000 and 75,000 PX rangers running around Australia.

Couple of the known common faults are the hose from the intercooler cool slide to the engine can split and there were software problems with some of the autos, although that seems to have quietened down of late.

"The South African Rangers are not imported into Australia."

That may be true - but the Ford/PSA Duratorq 3.2L engine is a "global engine" and it is sold in a large number of countries with only slight modifications, and fitted to quite a range of vehicle models.

I consider South African operating conditions to be very similar to Australia, unlike North American, British and European conditions, where ambient temperatures, road conditions and hazards encountered are substantially different.

Manufacturers are not concerned with 100% engine reliability and infallibility.
I've been informed from a reliable source within manufacturing that they aim for a reasonably low failure figure, that is "acceptable" to them.

To an owner, engine failure is a disaster. To a manufacturer, it's merely an opportunity to sell more parts and components, and improve their bottom line.
They don't really care if 1 in 2000 engines fails due to a manufacturing fault or some other reason related to poor design. That kind of numbers doesn't affect sales in any serious manner.

The engine problems we have today, with current engines, are related to increasing complexity and a "low tolerance" style of construction.
A "low tolerance" engine has little tolerance to going out of spec, or coping with a component failure, or tolerating some kind of owner ignorance.

The old engines from pre-emission control days were "high tolerance" engines, they could cope with wear in components, adverse operating conditions, owner/driver/operator abuse and ignorance - and they would keep running.

Today, we have engines that run on very tight tolerances, they have little margin for wear, so construction materials have been improved to try and lower wear.
However, if an adverse event happens (hose failure, dirt ingestion, overheating, etc), then the engine fails rapidly, and in a big way.

Todays fuel injectors are a typical "low tolerance" item, they run at half the clearance of the older injectors, as well as incredible pressures, with the resulting low tolerance to dirt and water.

The Duratorq design has a number of "European" features that I consider undesirable. A water-cooled EGR valve that is prone to failure on an unacceptably high basis. This device is complex in its construction and is obviously prone to manufacturing faults that only appear after some use. An EGR cooler failure results in a seriously-damaged engine.

The coolant hose abrasion problem, which was a simple, poor assembly design, appears to have been fixed with a recall. There may be a number of engines out there that missed the recall, this is common, due to the poor Ford response as regards carrying out recalls - and also due to owners doing their own maintenance.

The Duratorq engine utilises bearing shells with no locating tang - unlike earlier designs. The tang was originally a standard design in all bearing shells that ensured proper location of the bearing shells and to ensure they did not spin inside the conrod or block.
The Duratorq bearing shells have no tang and are merely clamped in position by the tightness of the main bearing cap, or the conrod bearing cap.

As a result, if you are lax with maintenance and do not change oil regularly, or use an incorrect type of oil, the bearing shells are likely to "grab" and spin in their housings. Once again, a low tolerance to abuse. The old engines would run happily with oil like tar.

You are correct, the number of engine failures with the Duratorq engine is still relatively low, as compared to the number of vehicles in use.
However, they are a complex engine with a need for particular care in operation, frequent servicing and regular inspection to pick up potential developing problems, and owner knowledge of the situations and conditions that they will not tolerate.

Here's a list of Duratorq 3.2L recalls and known faults. I don't believe this is an entirely complete list, and there are other, known faults that owners need to be on the alert for.

Ford Ranger (2011-on) recalls and Ford-recognised faults

Ron, you said they were having turbo failures and that is not correct. Australian bt50 and rangers are not having turbo problems and please don't quote the odd run of the mill failure of turbos. Remember this is what the post is about.

How about starting with an EGT guage, a precision water temperature guage and a catch can on the PCV line.