Does anyone have DOCUMENTED proof, not just theroy that this has caused motors to fail? I hought Roush said there were big drain issues with the cylinder heads in the 2.5L. has anyone had a low mileage motor fail in a straight line? If this "crank whip" theroy is true it sounds like any 2.5L driven at high rpm could fail any miniute. I don't know if I buy into it.
The proof was the OEM damper supplier. After the failures they did additional tests and found the degree of crank bending was excessive (which "piches" oil from between bearing and crank, causing spun bearings. Judege, who worked for the company described all this long ago. Ford designed a new damper. Problem fixed, end of story. Oh, I believe the reason why Duratec so predisposed to whip is the fact that Ford shortened the crank from the Porsche design without otherwise compensating for this.
Yes, MANY engines have failed in the straight line. Search (OIL STARVATION) back about 1 year ago and you will find that I did a pretty extensive online investigation on oil starvation. I talked to Roush, SVE, Chris Reinke, Al Mirco, Bondurant & others. I had a running total with all info I could gather, including wheter or not a right turn was involved. About 35% involved a hard right out of 25 or so incidents. Some of those admitted oil was low. Most were normal driving failures...many were SVTs with <50K miles.
Why SVTs...my though is they rev better and spend more time at high RPM. High RPM = worse crank whip.
I know the Rousch head data. Some debate about whether the heads could truly hold that much oil but I think that combined with a hard right oil shift in the pan it can result in starvation. So, I think we have 2 things going on....and starvation is more likely the major problem on the track. But I think whip is the leading street motort killer.
And thanks for not calling me a liar.
