Ford Focus C-Max 1.6 TDCI Automatic First of all a disclaimer: I am a private individual whose wife owns a C-Max, the reliability of which is in question. I am not connected to Ford or ZF in any way. I do not work in the motor trade. I have an engineering background and carry out simple maintenance on our cars as required. I, like others, have seen and read what is on the internet about CVT gearbox failures and have tried to collate the information and to resolve a course of action. Most of the information below has been taken from public sources, and as is the nature of the internet I cannot guarantee it is correct. Car build date 10/10/2006. Article C-Max 3a, July 2010 (updated September2010) History The gearbox in the C-Max is called the Duratorque CVT or internally the CFT23 by Ford. It was developed as a joint project by ZF and Ford. The “23” denotes that the gearbox was designed to handle 230 Nm of torque. The design life was 150,000 miles. The gearboxes were built from 2003 at the Ford Batavia plant in Ohio. Just before production started Ford bought the operation outright from ZF. Production started some two years late; this would appear to have been due to the gearbox not being ready. Production of the gearbox finished in 2007, presumably when the CVT gearbox was dropped from the C-Max range. The Batavia plant itself was closed in June 2008. Auto Express magazine in September 2010 quotes the production run of CVT equipped C-Max’s as 2300, though the magazine does not say whether this is total production or just for the UK. It is believed that currently all re-manufactured gearboxes supplied by Ford are made by ATP in Hednesford, Staffordshire, in the UK. Since the gearboxes are still available it may be reasonable to assume that the parts are available if no longer manufactured. There are two sister gearboxes to the CFT23; a) The VT1F made by ZF and used in the BMW Mini; this is essentially the same gearbox but using a torsional damper instead of a torque converter as in the CFT23 b) The CFT30, used only in the US, was a bigger brother built for 300 Nm torque handling; the difference being a chain drive in the CFT30 to handle the higher power, whereas the CFT23 had a steel belt. I am not aware of problems with the CFT30. Is there a problem? Until recently the only website brave enough to say don’t buy a C-Max 1.6 TDCI auto was Honestjohn. Auto Express has in September 2010, joined Honestjohn in recommending not buying an automatic. (See new material below) There are certainly dissatisfied people on the forums for the Ford Owners` Club and the C-Max Owners` Club. Not wishing in any way to disagree with any of the authors, but it is human nature to complain when things go wrong, but carry on contentedly when things are well. However, of the mainstream motoring websites, not one contains any advice to stay away from the suspect C-Max. This appears to be at odds with the Honestjohn website.

The core issue is a lack of information about how many cars have failed gearboxes, and what has gone wrong with them. There is no way of gauging a pattern to the failures, such as how many miles a car has covered, the age of the car, what has actually gone wrong with those transmissions that have failed. Unless someone (perhaps in the trade) can put some numbers and facts to the perceived problem then the best way of dealing with this issue will remain a mystery. I personally know someone who has an early CVT with better than 70,000 miles on the clock, it works just fine. Indeed it is easy to find examples for sale on the internet with high mileages. As far as I know, the same CVT gearbox was fitted to the Focus car range from 2005 to 2007. I can find no symphony of complaints about this car and when I talked to a person in the trade, all the cars they get in are C-Max’s and not the saloon. What Goes Wrong? The torque converter appears to be suspect, but the main villain appears to be the electronics control unit and its associated engine speed sensor. Spares are available for much of the gearbox including the torque converter, but the electronics is another matter. Points of Note The matching of the engine to the gearbox does not seem to be the best as the gearbox was designed to handle 230 Nm of torque, some 10 Nm less that the 240 Nm maximum output of the 1.6 diesel engine. The maximum torque figure is at only 1750 rpm, which implies that it is almost impossible not to over torque the gearbox in normal driving. Those with an enthusiastic driving style may be repeatedly asking the gearbox to handle more torque than it is capable of. With reference to the hatchback Focus not suffering as many apparent failures as the C-Max with the same platform, I have checked the Gross Vehicle Mass figures and the C-max is only 51 Kg heavier than the hatchback at 1411 Kg; about the weight of a slim person. The C-Max handbook contains a paragraph that the warning message “Transmission Malfunction” may appear if the car is driven during high ambient temperatures and or with high loads. I have never seen this warning in any other handbook which almost implies that the gearbox cooling is borderline. The handbook does not appear to contain any reassuring words that the failure message will clear when the gearbox has cooled down. On the TIS (Technical Information Service) disc under Transmission Electronic Control System, it states that a trailer should not be towed by the vehicle: all those of you with tow hooks did you know this? You have been warned. This warning does not appear in the handbook. In the sales brochure I have for the C-Max, the technical section at the back quotes towing weights which is at odds with the TIS disc. The transmission cooler is not integral to the radiator, as can be the usual case, but a separate substantial item; to me this again implies that Ford knew that transmission cooling was a problem and designed the car to take this into account. It would be interesting to know if cars supplied to hotter climates had bigger or more efficient

transmission coolers; anyone in southern Italy or Spain care to have a look at their C-Max? Everybody who has or hears of a problem tends to go to the dealer and ask if the C-Max has a history of gearbox trouble. My experience is stonewalling, no acknowledgement of any problem or advice as to what to do. However through a contact in the trade what the dealer won’t tell you is the C-Max gearbox may give trouble after the 40,000 mile mark. The sister gearbox in the Mini has a service interval of 30,000 miles; Ford, on the on-line ETIS quote a service interval for the CFT23 of 6 years/75,000 miles. Having seen the state of the transmission oil after 23,000 miles I’m not surprised they give problems after 40,000. Another ZF product, the 5HP24 was supplied to Jaguar for use in the XK8 sports car. Experience by the Jaguar Enthusiast Club has demonstrated that the 5HP24 is not sealed for life as Jaguar claim and that old fashioned maintenance is required with a fluid and filter change at a club recommended 30,000 miles. The gearbox speed sensor in the CFT23 picks up its signal from the differential and sits underneath the diff in a well. This well has no drain back into the gearbox sump and is an ideal place for dirt and swarf to gather. When I changed the transmission oil in our car I removed the sensor and found “something” on top of it. The sensor looks just like an ABS one and I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that these need to be kept clean to avoid erroneous signals. It would be interesting to know if new gearboxes are supplied on an exchange basis or outright. It would also be interesting if anyone has, or can get hold of, a failed CFT23 to take it apart to see what is inside it; I suspect this would be an enlightening exercise. Given that no engineer worth his salt would re-invent the wheel, I would not be surprised that given access to a CFT23 that it would not be possible to identify the source of suspect parts and/or work out an alternative supply. In my gearbox the filter and speed sensor both carried ZF part numbers. Reasonable Assumptions When a failure like this occurs it is human nature to seek redress; it is not pleasant to pay good money for a car then to have it fail and be faced with a very large repair bill. Ford and ZF are very large companies and neither is likely to realistically market a product knowing that its reliability or safety is in question. Given the above I suspect that the failures can be due to:

1) Poor subcontractor quality. All cars are built from a multiplicity of parts from different suppliers and no matter who made the offending part, it is the manufacturer (or assembler?) of the car who will get the blame.

2) Poor build or assembly - a Ford problem. 3) Insufficient maintenance. 4) Marginal design (transmission cooling)

Given that both the Mini and the C-Max may have gearbox problems, and that in the Mini gearboxes were built by ZF and failures were occurring at low mileages, I

suspect that the failures were in part due to components not being of sufficient quality and/or marginal cooling. However, in the C-Max I believe that the failures may be due to inadequate maintenance, lead by an over optimistic belief at Ford that the fluid would last for an extended period. Claims have been made over the years that synthetic oils have extended service intervals, and it is possible that Ford has fallen into this trap. I believe that this is a “Symptom and Cause” situation and that whilst the electronics do appear to fail, it may be because the servos and sensors have become contaminated by dirty and hot transmission fluid. We may not be able to do much about the cooling, but we can certainly carry out maintenance, and maintenance is a lot cheaper than a new gearbox. What Can Be Done? Given my reasoning above, the first thing is to arm oneself with information. Given that there is no specific Haynes manual (though the chatter on the internet is that one is coming in the autumn of 2010) the best thing to do is get hold of a Technical Information Service (TIS) disc. I bought mine from Classic Spares, email manuals@classic-spares.net. It cost £10 and is the Ford 2004 edition; it is packed with information. On the parts front, have a look at the website for automaticchoice.com. They have cutaway drawing of the gearbox and list those parts available, I found them friendly and very helpful. Be warned, Ford sell only those parts to change the filter; if you loose or break a part you may be in deep trouble. One thing everyone can do is to read off the Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTC). There is a procedure on YouTube for doing this and it costs nothing. You may not be able to do anything about the codes, but at least you will be armed with some information. Changing the fluid. Given the limited information available and the supply of parts, I had a go at changing the gearbox fluid and filter. I have a huge word of caution here; automatic gearboxes are complex machines, and if you fiddle with it you will likely break it. Whilst I consider gearbox oil and filter changes to be within my capabilities, I take the risk in doing the job myself. Anyone who has any doubt in their abilities should entrust the work to a competent person. There is a procedure on the internet and on the TIS for doing the job, but my concern is that whilst there is a lower level point there is not an upper, so there is no way of knowing the maximum to put in. Remember that fluid in the torque converter and other cavities will not drain out. Since I believe cooling may be an issue, and up to a point, more oil is better for cooling I decided to trust that Ford had put in the right amount when the car was built and re-fill the gearbox to exactly the same level. This therefore became a drain and refill exercise ignoring the standard Ford procedure. This is an abbreviated version of how I did it, but the important facts are there. Having two cars I had the luxury of not having to complete the job in one day. I put the C-Max level on axle stands and drained out the transmission fluid.

Drain (and minimum level) plug.

I carefully measured the quantity from the sump and filter at 7 litres. I rotated the road wheels by hand to move the internal components to drain out as much as fluid possible. Remove the speed sensor, there will be a small amount of spillage. Clean the sensor and refit. Sump (note dirt on wipe and the minimum level tube).

Transmission fluid.

Clean sump and magnets. Remove all traces of the old gasket. Fit new filter, gasket and sump. Refit drain plug. Torque in accordance with the TIS. Remove the fill plug (my finger is on the plug)

Fill arrangement.

Refill transmission, check for leaks as you go. Important; at about five and half litres some of the fluid backed out of the filler hole. I had to stop filling temporarily, removing the tube. I refitted the fill plug and cycled the transmission by running the engine. My advice here is not rev the engine, let it idle and cycle between drive and reverse slowly for a short time. After doing this, and letting the exhaust cool off, continue slowly filling until the required quantity is reached. The fluid I removed was clear to start with, but as more came out it became very discoloured. Importantly the fluid did not smell burnt and contained no particles of note. The smell was of straightforward ATF. The fluid had the feel of synthetic oil, i.e. very slippery between the fingers. In my opinion the fluid was extremely dirty and past the point where it should be changed. One of the comments on the Honestjohn website was that failure may be due to overfilling of the transmission. Having seen the guts it can be seen that the gearbox is made with a minimum level mark, but not a maximum. Therefore the “take some out” advice may be a bit wayward as it is impossible to know what actual volume of transmission fluid in the gearbox is. For me, when changing the transmission fluid, the only way to be sure of not overfilling is to accurately measure what came out and to put in exactly the same amount. The minimum level tube is just that. By changing the transmission fluid I believe I have;

1) Found out the condition of the gearbox. (Quite acceptable). 2) Reduced the odds of failure.

In conclusion, having changed the fluid I can find nothing which suggests imminent failure of the gearbox and seriously doubt Ford’s 75.000 mile service interval. What are we going to do? My wife’s car is a 56 plate with 23,000 miles on the clock. It has no DTC codes stored and most of the gadgets and toys work acceptably well. The car drives very well and a class act compared to the Honda Jazz we also have. Indeed the Honda feels cheap compared to the Ford. We intend to keep the C-Max having now gained a degree of confidence. On the average mileage we do it will be another three years before we reach the 40,000 mile point. Perhaps by then the hard to get parts will be available, and certainly the 2 litre automatic diesels will have fallen in price, and as I write this the later bigger engine cars do not appear to be suspect. This is a situation where information is the key to finding a solution, I hope what I have written is of use. I encourage everyone who has something to add to spread their knowledge. Please feel free to contact me. Pavillion. Ford Owners` Club. Article C-Max 4a, September 2010 Table of cars which I know about. Age or Reg. Mileage Other.

Owners names where known withheld for privacy.

NC04CXD 76,000 Being broken on eBay August 2010. KV54HYA 54,000 Spares or repair on eBay September 2010 2005(55) 46,000 Transmission failed. Owner 1. Unknown 49,000 Transmission failed. Owner 2. GJ55NBA 44,620 Mechanical failure. Owner 3. June 2004 27,000 Gearbox replaced under warranty, now at

56,000 miles, no further problems. Owner 4.

2005 34,000 No problems, transmission OK. Owner 5. October 2006 23,000 No problems, transmission OK. Self. 2006 82,500 No problems, transmission OK. Owner 6 Service Intervals. There is a bit of confusion here, so for the record: CFT23 is 6 year/75,000 miles. Taken from the on-line openly accessible Ford ETIS system. CFT30 is 60,000 miles. Taken from the Ford motorcraft.com website, again openly accessible.

Further on the Valve Block and Parts. When I did the transmission fluid change and looked at the gearbox with the sump removed I thought that the valve body and its electronics could not be removed from below. However, I have since learned that this may not be the case, as on the sister BMW Mini VT1F it is possible. If so, a significant repair is achievable without the need to remove and disassemble the gearbox. I have also learned that the valve block and electronics are now available for the CFT30 in the US and the VT1F here in the UK. Hence the only gearbox in the family not supported is the CFT23. The parts seen within the sump are clearly marked ZF, and the part numbers are; Valve block = 1064.427.150 Speed sensor = 0501.212.605 or 0501.212.805. I have looked on the internet for these part numbers but had no success. If a person out there has access to the full ZF part catalogue, they might like to look these up and let us know what they find. In August 2010 automaticchoice.com added some items to the available spares for the CFT23. Not many parts mind you and I don’t necessarily know what they do, but it does show that the supply of some parts is easing; sadly the valveblock was not an addition.

Additional Photos of the Gearbox View of the gearbox as seen from the left hand front wheel arch, the liner has been removed for a better view. The pipes to the right are the quick fit cooling pipes which lead to the transmission cooler. The electrical connector can be seen to the left. Also note the earth lead bottom left; this might be worth a clean as some other problems elsewhere on the car have been reported due to bad earths.

View of the electrical connector. Note that there is no strain relief clamp fitted to the connector, meaning that if the cable were accidentally snagged and pulled it would be possible to pull out wires. Note also no sealant on the back of the connector exposing the conductors to possible damp or water ingress. I have packed the back of the connector with petroleum jelly.

Extended Warranties. Whilst trawling the internet I came across some information concerning extended warranties on CVT gearboxes by other motor manufacturers. In the US, Nissan have extended the warranty on their CVT gearboxes to 10 year/120,000 miles; that's a hell of a guarantee. What I can't see is if Nissan UK have done the same thing. See the website of Nissan USA for CVT extended warranty information. http://www.nissanassist.com/ProgramDetails.php?menu=2 The same type of extended warranty has been rolled in the UK by Honda for their CVT gearboxes. Our Honda Jazz was recalled by Honda UK in the spring of 2010 to attend to the window switch pack. Whilst we were in the showroom I mentioned to the service person that the car would shudder when hot and moving off from standstill. Without any prompting or grumbling from us, he said it was a known problem and would be fixed free of charge by Honda. Sure enough it was, the car is fixed and it didn't cost us a bean. See the Honda Service bulletin for CVT extended warranty = HUK000000001117. Further Information. As there has been more communication between those persons interested in the C-Max CVT issue I have decided to write more to disseminate additional information which has come to light, and some further thoughts. I apologise if what follows sounds a bit technical, but I think it is important to understand what I think is going on. The general consensus is that the fault which is causing the major problems is either in the electronic controller or the speed sensor. Given that the speed sensor is available as an after-market part, the killer problem may lie with the gearbox controller. If you have a car where the speed sensor has failed then your gearbox might be repairable. The electronic controller for the gearbox is called by Ford the Transmission Control Module (TCM). The TCM is in the sump of the gearbox and is immersed in transmission fluid; it controls the gearbox via a set of five solenoids and a valve block. The solenoids control the flow of pressurised transmission fluid to actuate or move parts within the gearbox. The TCM controls the gearbox through a preset series of actions in response to inputs from sensors. The TCM uses what is essentially an electronic look-up table stored in an EEPROM (more below) to “decide” what to do. If something is not right the TCM can generate and store fault codes, these are called Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs). These fault codes can be read by a scanner, or at the dealer using a Ford Worldwide Diagnostic System (WDS). I cannot say if the DTCs;

a) Self clear. That is when the fault goes away that the code is self cancelled. b) Are battery backed. These are retained whilst the car battery is connected, but

lost when the battery is removed c) Are held in a non battery backed memory. This “non volatile” memory can be

called flash memory.

In Europe all cars are fitted with a diagnostic connector which can be reached from the driver’s seat. In the C-Max this connector is in the small cubby hole under the light switch, the connector is in the upper surface and can be felt with the fingers or seen with a mirror. The connector is the same in all cars so that any scanner can read any car. Generic fault codes used by the car manufacturers are the same; a Haynes manual exists which lists these codes. This does not mean that manufacturer special or specific codes are public knowledge, but as is the nature of the internet, some of these special codes can be found. The DTCs for the CFT23’s bigger brother CFT30 are available on the internet and I would be amazed if they were not the same for the CFT23. The TCM is not a serviceable item with the exception of reprogramming. This is because the electronics are encased in an epoxy resin type material for protection. This encasing is industry practice and essential when electronics are used in hostile environments; this is not an example of Ford being bloody minded to stop people from fixing something. The memory, or programme store within the gearbox, is in a device known as an EEPROM; this stands for Electrically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory. This device holds its programme when power is removed and is ideal in automotive applications as once the memory is programmed at the factory it will hold its settings when and if the battery is disconnected. I cannot find any information on the Technical Information Service (TIS) disc that states that when the transmission is replaced that use of the WDS is required for re-programming. If I am right, it would imply that transmissions are potentially interchangeable. In the United States it is possible to purchase (at significant cost) a re-manufactured TCM and solenoid pack for the CFT30 gearbox. The key word here is remanufactured, as given that the TCM is not serviceable, this implies that the TCMs - which are returned in exchange gearboxes - are tested and if OK recycled with new or re-furbished exterior components. There is a further implication here, that being that there may be no new supply of TCMs. What I am trying to say here is; a) It may be that CFT23 gearboxes can be swapped between cars. b) TCMs may be interchangeable between CFT23 gearboxes. c) Knowing the CFT30 fault codes and having a scanner opens the door to repair. Another factor to consider is that Ford has not released all parts to the market because some are no longer made. By treating the gearbox as an item, Ford ensures that non available parts are recycled. If individual parts were available, it may be that the availability of currently non-manufactured parts would dry up. However one could quite reasonably argue that this would be Ford’s problem not the customer’s. A factor that has become lost in the chatter about the gearbox is that any major motor manufacturer is unlikely to release to the market something that requires the skill of a brain surgeon to fix. It is true that electronics and diagnostics are integral to cars these

days and that this has made things more complicated. Care and attention in the workshop are not made redundant by electronics which dazzle in their capabilities. I believe that most faults in cars can be fixed at the local level with skill, tools, commitment and the support of the supplier/manufacturer. What has happen here is that Ford, for whatever reason, has stonewalled any acknowledgement that there might be a problem with the gearbox and they have exacerbated the situation by not allowing the release of parts. When and why this decision was taken we do not know, but we do know that if the media were to latch on to this and ask Ford inevitably awkward questions that only Ford would be the looser. My experience in maintaining our cars is that with information they are not as complicated as the manufacturer or dealer would have you believe. Something described with a fancy technological buzzword name could be just a switch and once this is known, the DIY mechanic can take on a job with more confidence. I have to believe there is a fix to the apparent CVT problem which does not involve a whole new gearbox. The more I look into this I see that similar gearbox parts and components are available and, given that electronics on the whole are reliable, I am convinced that that there is enough information and brains out there to figure out a rational fix. I have never met anyone who has had an electronics module fail on a car and I am beginning to come to the opinion that the failures may be due to contamination due to inadequate maintenance. The 40,000 mile point after which failures seem most likely points towards a common failure. Whoever comes up with a solution first could make some money out of it. This is a personal opinion, but kind words from a dealer about their hands being tied are usually rubbish. The supply of parts is controlled by Ford and if Ford wanted to, the supply of parts could quickly be eased. Dealers focus on making money, hence Ford dealers have a justifiable reputation as being hopeless when presented with difficult faults. If the dealer network really wanted to they could easily arm twist Ford into releasing the parts. The only way to Ford’s heart is through its pocket, and the fastest way to its pocket is publicity, bad publicity. It has been said before, but knowledge is power; has anybody consider using the Freedom of Information Act? It may be that a prod from a good lawyer quoting the Act may be the way to get Ford to reasonably respond. In the original piece I said that only Honestjohn said don’t buy the car; they have now been joined by Auto Express which has repeated the caution. As an aside, there has been some talk about the reliability of the engine. My homework suggests the 1.6 diesel engine, in one form of another is (or has been) used in some 22 different cars. I am not aware of any weakness with the engine, so I for one am not going to worry about it.