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
[email protected]. 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.