— A federal judge has dismissed a Ford EcoBoost engine lawsuit by finding no evidence of defective intake valves.
It's another example of paying $405 to file a class action lawsuit for a minimum of $5 million even though the customers who sued never had any problems with their vehicles.
In the Ford EcoBoost lawsuit, the three plaintiffs who sued (Matthew Barkus, Daniel Silberman, and Katrina Miller) complain their vehicles were not included in a recall and they overpaid for their vehicles.
According to the class action lawsuit, the vehicles contain intake valves made out of “Silchrome Lite,” which suffer “from a structural defect in their valvetrains that makes the vehicles susceptible to catastrophic engine failure, exposing occupants to great risk of bodily harm.”
Included in the Ford EcoBoost engine lawsuit are these vehicles equipped with 2.7-liter or 3.0-liter engines.
- 2022 Ford Bronco
- 2021-2022 Ford F-150
- 2021-2022 Ford Edge
- 2021-2022 Lincoln Nautilus
- 2021-2022 Ford Explorer
- 2021-2022 Lincoln Aviator
The intake valve “Silchrome Lite" becomes excessively hard and brittle if exposed to over-temperatures during machining.
The Ford EcoBoost engine problems caused defect petitions, a federal investigation and a recall issued by Ford.
In March 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received three defect petitions (here, here and here) to investigate the EcoBoost engine intake valves. The letters, which are nearly identical and use almost the exact same words, alleged at that time 35 complaints had been filed about the EcoBoost engines.
The government opened a July 2022 federal investigation into 2021 Ford Broncos equipped with 2.7L EcoBoost engines.
The probe was upgraded in September 2023 to include 2021-2022 Ford Bronco, Ford Edge, Ford Explorer, Ford F-150, 2021-2022 Lincoln Aviator and Lincoln Nautilus vehicles equipped with 2.7L or 3.0L EcoBoost engines.
Ford determined the EcoBoost intake valves had problems and a August 2024 recall was issued because an estimated 1% of the vehicles were at risk of stalling. Ford dealers were told to inspect and test the EcoBoost engines and replace any engines that failed the tests.
Ford also announced a customer satisfaction program (24N12) that includes an intake valve warranty extension that covers the vehicles up to 10 years or 150,000 miles.
The federal investigation lasted 27 months, but NHTSA closed its Ford EcoBoost engine investigation based on Ford's recall and EcoBoost warranty extension.
According to NHTSA:
"The EcoBoost engine 'defective intake valves will likely fail at a low time in service and . . . the majority of subject vehicles equipped with defective valves have already experienced a failure.'”
Ford EcoBoost Engine Lawsuit Dismissed
Ford argues the plaintiffs had no problems with their vehicles or EcoBoost engines, but the class action alleges that doesn't matter because customers were "injured" because they overpaid for their vehicles.
Judge Terrence G. Berg says “monetary harms” qualify as concrete injuries, and “recently, [the Sixth Circuit] indicated that a plaintiff can suffer a concrete injury when he or she overpays for a defective product.”
However, the judge says to establish standing under an overpayment theory, the EcoBoost engine plaintiffs “must allege facts sufficient to raise a ‘plausible’ inference of' a defective product."
The plaintiffs insist they did exactly that because the vehicles contain EcoBoost engine valvetrains that are defective, but Ford argues the EcoBoost class action ignores the evidence.
Ford admits some vehicles contained defective valvetrains in vehicles built between May 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021, all which were recalled. But Ford argues the three plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged their vehicles, manufactured before May 2021, also contain defective valves.
Ford told the judge all the plaintiffs do is claim, “at most, only a hypothetical future injury,” in that “they subjectively fear their vehicles might have a problem but offer no facts to substantiate that concern.” And the judge agrees.
The judge disagrees with the class action lawsuit which alleges all defective vehicles were not recalled, including vehicles owned by the plaintiffs. The lawsuit argues the Silchrome Lite material is a “compromised material that cannot withstand the intense pressures foisted upon intake valves during the regular operation of the vehicle.”
But the judge ruled the allegation is "speculative and unsupported."
"Plaintiffs do not allege that all valves were subject to 'over-temperature during machine grinding' and do not otherwise plausibly allege facts that suggest that Silchrome Lite—when not subjected to any manufacturing error—poses any risk of failure at all." — Judge Berg
The judge found the plaintiffs rely on evidence of the recall to allege their own vehicles manufactured before May 2021 are defective. This is the opposite of what Ford and NHTSA found about the intake valves, and about the vehicles involved.
In addition, the judge says the Sixth Circuit recently held that “[a] product recall, by itself, does not suffice to raise a plausible inference of [defect].”
Ford admits there were some complaints about the EcoBoost intake valves in vehicles not included in the engine recall, but the specific number of claims, field reports and customer reports is unknown.
According to the judge, claiming a “mere possibility [of a defect] is not enough.”
"[T]o allege standing under an overpayment theory without manifestation of the defect, Plaintiffs must offer allegations suggesting the manufacturing defect was 'sufficiently extensive' or 'widespread' to plausibly affect Plaintiffs’ or the class vehicles." — Judge Berg
There there is what NHTSA found that the judge says the plaintiffs have ignored regarding the percentage of Ford vehicles with defective EcoBoost engines. Even at its peak "spike" population, both Ford and NHTSA say only 1% of the vehicles (1 in 100) were estimated to have EcoBoost intake valve defects.
In addition, NHTSA says that by the end of October 2024, “the majority of subject vehicles equipped with defective valves have already experienced a failure.”
The judge dismissed the entire Ford EcoBoost engine class action lawsuit after finding the plaintiffs lack standing to allege design or manufacturing defects in the EcoBoost engines.
The Ford EcoBoost engine class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Barkus, et al., v. Ford Motor Company.
The plaintiffs are represented by The Miller Law Firm, P.C., DiCello Levitt LLP, and Smith Krivoshey, PLLC.
