Bill Putney wrote:
> Robert Meyer wrote:
>
>> The 2.7 L sludge issue may be a non-issue. FWIW, the reported failure
>> rate is something like 650 complaints out of a possible 750,000
>> engines. See the ongoing discussion on allpar.com:
>>
>> http://www.allpar.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59368
>>
>> I'm going to change my oil and not worry about it!
>>
>> SpongeBob
>
>
> You just made a sh**load of assumptions there as to it being a
> non-issue. Are you assuming that 100% of owners of failed engines filed
> a formal complaint? That would not be a wise assumption. What if only
> 1 out of 50 owners of failed engines complained? That would represent
> almost a 5% failure rate.
>
> You would have to look at percent of owners of other engines (known not
> to have a design problem that would lead to failure) who filed
> complaints (that wouldn't be scientific either, but a better inidcator
> than just looking at raw percent of compliants). IOW, if engine X
> (known to have no design problems) had a failure complaint rate of
> 0.87%, comparing that to the failure complaint rate indicates that the
> 2.7L is of similar good design. HOWEVER, if the engine of known good
> design has a failure complaint rate of only 0.02%, then it could be a
> reasonable conclusion that the 2.7L has a problem. As it is, you don't
> have enough data to go on.
>
> Not saying that the alleged 2.7L problems are real or imagined, but I
> certainly am not prepared to lean towards there not being a problem
> based on "only" 650 complaints out of 750k owners. And I say that as an
> owner of a 2.7L with 140+kmiles on it that runs as good as the day it
> left the factory.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')


I wonder what the failure rate is for properly maintained 2.7 litre engines?