New correct dipstick (here's part number) solves 2.7L 7-quarts engine oil capacity / maximum fill amount mystery! 🕵🏻‍♂️

[broncorik]

I guess I don't believe anything Ford says.... just know what they are doing at the factory on the fills.... They lost my trust after telling us first orders in first out.... and that the time stamp is gospel....

That is so true...even so, I think they'd rather risk an "oops wrong oil level" out in the open (which is out already not only in this forum but loads of other places) than an intentional ploy to run engines meant for 7 at only 6 (especially for Broncos that spend a lot of time at extreme angles). From an optics standpoint, customers would have been way happier with a "oh yes it does hold 7 like we always said it did" than many of us are with the current "oopsie it only holds 6 (our Bronco holds 7 pan advertisement was imaginary) and we listed yet another new stick."

I for one was ecstatic after I got the sought after F-stick and it actually measured my 7 quarts almost right on the money...and then the "wait it holds only 6" SST came out...sigh...I imagine many other folks would have preferred even buying their own 20 dollar sticks that measured 7 instead of buying the NEW stick that STILL measures only 6 (just like the original). I don't think Ford would have gone through all those paces without some deeper reason.

Sponsored

 

[cowman]

That is so true...even so, I think they'd rather risk an "oops wrong oil level" out in the open (which is out already not only in this forum but loads of other places) than an intentional ploy to run engines meant for 7 at only 6 (especially for Broncos that spend a lot of time at extreme angles). From an optics standpoint, customers would have been way happier with a "oh yes it does hold 7 like we always said it did" than many of us are with the current "oopsie it only holds 6 (our Bronco holds 7 pan advertisement was imaginary) and we listed yet another new stick."

I for one was ecstatic after I got the sought after F-stick and it actually measured my 7 quarts almost right on the money...and then the "wait it holds only 6" SST came out...sigh...I imagine many other folks would have preferred even buying their own 20 dollar sticks that measured 7 instead of buying the NEW stick that STILL measures only 6 (just like the original). I don't think Ford would have gone through all those paces without some deeper reason.

Only one reason… MONEY

 

[Montaracactusgrey]

I too see Ford has gone with 6 quarts.
I will be doing my own maintenance as the dealerships are the last to the table to these types of issues….

Full synthetic (BASE) oil is what I will be using.
Wishing you many happy miles in your new Bronco…
Tahotrvlr

Right on. I will stick with 7 and have requested to the FoMoCo account on forum to provide explanation as to why sudden change, however I doubt they will respond, as they have been seemingly cryptic and unexplanatory , so far. I am using Kirkland full synthetic from Costco as it seems to be a good oil at a great price point.
Happy trails. Maybe we can meet up at a Bay Area bronco gathering at some point. I’ve got to keep up with those if there are any.
Enjoy

 

[NotApplicable]

I’ve been told that during normal use, running a quart low wouldn’t be noticeable other than slightly reducing oil service life… so not like Ford going either way will put many Broncos at risk during their lifespans.

I just want to know the original engineering intention, and that seems to be 7 based on the evidence…

 

[broncorik]

I’ve been told that during normal use, running a quart low wouldn’t be noticeable other than slightly reducing oil service life… so not like Ford going either way will put many Broncos at risk during their lifespans.

I just want to know the original engineering intention, and that seems to be 7 based on the evidence…

7 may have been the original intent, but the only apparent "evidence" of it coming to fruition was an interview in which a Ford engineer told Bronco Nation that the new Bronco would have a 7 quart pan and improved oil sump. Since then, all we have been able to confirm is that our dipstick have measured waaay over the full mark. Unless someone has torn down a motor and inspected the pan/compared capacity to the F150 6 quart pan/inspected and compared the pickups, none of us will ever know. Highly unlikely, however, that any automotive company, if they are well aware that their product was engineered to hold 7 quarts, would purposefully (after over a year of being questioned) put out an SSM that instructs dealers to refill with 6 quarts (and change owner's manuals to reflect that as well). A quart low (or high) may never be an issue with a pavement princess, but anyone who routinely experiences extreme angles would appreciate knowing exactly how much oil should be in his or her crankcase at any given moment. Ford now says 6, even after filling thousands of engines with 7, and even (albeit for a short time) added 2 additional sticks that measured 7 into the catalog...which have now been replaced with one that measures 6 accurately. Knowing that the SSM and the updated owner's manuals indicate 6, I for one will simply run 6. If I ever lose an engine, at least I can demonstrate to the warranty folks that at least my oil level was within range.

 

[NotApplicable]

the only apparent "evidence" of it coming to fruition was an interview in which a Ford engineer told Bronco Nation that the new Bronco would have a 7 quart pan and improved oil sump

Overall I understand your personal read on the situation and think you'll be fine running 6 regardless of which capacity was planned for throughout.

But, there have been many other "confirmations" of 7qts that have come down "directly from Ford" throughout this saga, so to imply it was somehow based on one interview is a pretty selective revision of history.

 

[broncorik]

Overall I understand your personal read on the situation and think you'll be fine running 6 regardless of which capacity was planned for throughout.

But, there have been many other "confirmations" of 7qts that have come down "directly from Ford" throughout this saga, so to imply it was somehow based on one interview is a pretty selective revision of history.

The interview was THE selective initiation of the 7 quart mystery. For Ford to purposefully then use sticks that measure 6 (that obviously all the owners who actually check their oil would immediately notice as reading too high of an oil level), and for Ford to finally issue an SSM (which is the only real directly from Ford we have so far as a confirmation) instead of simply keeping their second/third revision of a 7 quart stick, and keeping the 7 quart capacity former instructions, is pretty clear evidence that the 7 quart pan (although planned on the drawing board to hold 7) must have been to hold only 6. I am still stunned that no one who has access to Ford parts has yet to order a Bronco pan and a F150 pan, pour 6 quarts of water in each one, and measure the distance from the top of the water to the top of the pan...that would give us an answer.

 

[Razorbak86]

7 may have been the original intent, but the only apparent "evidence" of it coming to fruition was an interview in which a Ford engineer told Bronco Nation that the new Bronco would have a 7 quart pan and improved oil sump. Since then, all we have been able to confirm is that our dipstick have measured waaay over the full mark. Unless someone has torn down a motor and inspected the pan/compared capacity to the F150 6 quart pan/inspected and compared the pickups, none of us will ever know. Highly unlikely, however, that any automotive company, if they are well aware that their product was engineered to hold 7 quarts, would purposefully (after over a year of being questioned) put out an SSM that instructs dealers to refill with 6 quarts (and change owner's manuals to reflect that as well). A quart low (or high) may never be an issue with a pavement princess, but anyone who routinely experiences extreme angles would appreciate knowing exactly how much oil should be in his or her crankcase at any given moment. Ford now says 6, even after filling thousands of engines with 7, and even (albeit for a short time) added 2 additional sticks that measured 7 into the catalog...which have now been replaced with one that measures 6 accurately. Knowing that the SSM and the updated owner's manuals indicate 6, I for one will simply run 6. If I ever lose an engine, at least I can demonstrate to the warranty folks that at least my oil level was within range.

Watch what they do, not what they say…

 

[broncorik]

Watch what they do, not what they say…

If they are still doing factory fills at 7.5, then everyone who receives a Bronco non-Raptor with the correct stick (that is currently listed in the Ford parts catalog) is going to show overfilled. So even though the SSM shows that they're still supposed to add 7.5 quarts, it would be interesting to find out if that's what they're actually doing. The most frustrating part is that the owner's manual warns against overfilling and then the SSN says using 7 quarts won't hurt the engine and those two are in direct opposition with one another...so the new C stick should have a little message stamped on it that says "run six or seven...your choice" and the owner's manual could be updated to say "capacity
6 or 7 depending on who you ask" along with another line that says "do not feel above the max line" (this one for six or this one for seven). Or Ford could simply figure out their blunder and shoot for some continuity. A 7 quart pan is a selling point for the four-wheel drive crowd especially...more is better especially in tenuous off-road positions...which leads me to believe that if it does actually hold seven with zero potential issues then Ford would be foolish to then alter that to change to six just for "whatever."

 

[da_jokker]

Confused here. I have a 2021 Big Bend 2.7L. What is the correct dip stick to use? The start of this thread says mb3z-6750 B/F. Then later it changes to FT4Z-6750. No BS or detailed substantiated prolonged answer, just the fact please. TY

Any dipstick that came from the factory in your engine is the correct one and will measure Ford's official 6 qt correctly.

If you choose to go with the 7 qt crowd then there is no officially supported Ford dipstick that will match.

 

[Merc4x4]

IIRC, that BN article where the Ford rep/engineer said Bronco would get new 7qt pans includes the 2.3.
Maybe they only updated the 2.7 for 7qts and didn't have time to do the 2.3?
Maybe the 2.3 can/should run 7qts?
Or maybe the orig article and "Team Engineering" (from other thread) were referencing out of date info, or the (as of then) upcoming Raptor 3.0.

Obviously a break-down in communication, but I doubt Ford will ever tell us where/what that exactly was.

Just reiterating that BN article is not official specifications.

Maybe 7qts sits too high in the pan and at extreme angles (e.g. off road) the higher 7qt level will come in contact with the crankshaft, aerating the oil and decreasing lubrication when you need it most? So, running a qt over won't cause damage to the engine in most cases (on road).

 

[AMTRV]

"Maybe 7qts sits too high in the pan and at extreme angles (e.g. off road) the higher 7qt level will come in contact with the crankshaft, aerating the oil and decreasing lubrication when you need it most? So, running a qt over won't cause damage to the engine in most cases (on road)."

It's does not say "in most cases(on road)" anywhere that I've seen. Where did you find this statement? I could have missed it.

 

[Merc4x4]

"Maybe 7qts sits too high in the pan and at extreme angles (e.g. off road) the higher 7qt level will come in contact with the crankshaft, aerating the oil and decreasing lubrication when you need it most? So, running a qt over won't cause damage to the engine in most cases (on road)."

It's does not say "in most cases(on road)" anywhere that I've seen. Where did you find this statement? I could have missed it.

It wasn't a quote. I, like everyone else has to interpret their wishy-washy statements.

I was providing an alternative viewpoint to the (also not a quote) 'a couple Ford engineers said it is supposed to be 7 qts; SSM says 7qts is OK; while off-roading I'd rather have more oil than less' replies/arguments/reasoning in this thread.

At 30*, 7qts might/maybe/i don't know come in contact with the crank shaft.
At 30*, 6qts might/maybe/i don't know expose the pump inlet.

This is the info I want to know. Most people won't take their Bronco on that terrain. If you're sticking on paved roads, who cares? I don't think 6 vs 7 will make any difference (premature breakage) for the majority of owners, except 7qts may void your engine warranty as you're always running above the max level and the owners manual says to drain or take to service. It also says to use 6qts during oil change.




*transparency
I always planned on having the dealer do maintenance. I took it in before the SSM and they used 6 qts according to the service write up. I have a warranty, and the dealer is on the hook for doing proper oil changes. I always carry drinking water in the car and can easily walk several miles to find/reach help. I have an engine built in the know RUD range (21180).

 

[AMTRV]

It wasn't a quote. I, like everyone else has to interpret their wishy-washy statements.

I was providing an alternative viewpoint to the (also not a quote) 'a couple Ford engineers said it is supposed to be 7 qts; SSM says 7qts is OK; while off-roading I'd rather have more oil than less' replies/arguments/reasoning in this thread.

At 30*, 7qts might/maybe/i don't know come in contact with the crank shaft.
At 30*, 6qts might/maybe/i don't know expose the pump inlet.

This is the info I want to know. Most people won't take their Bronco on that terrain. If you're sticking on paved roads, who cares? I don't think 6 vs 7 will make any difference (premature breakage) for the majority of owners, except 7qts may void your engine warranty as you're always running above the max level and the owners manual says to drain or take to service. It also says to use 6qts during oil change.




*transparency
I always planned on having the dealer do maintenance. I took it in before the SSM and they used 6 qts according to the service write up. I have a warranty, and the dealer is on the hook for doing proper oil changes. I always carry drinking water in the car and can easily walk several miles to find/reach help. I have an engine built in the know RUD range (21180).

Ok....just more speculation then. Thanks for clearing that up.
My whole problem with this situation is; why is Ford still initially filling the engine with 7.5qts of oil. There is not 1.5qts of oil left in the engine after you drain the oil.....even with 2 turbochargers in the system.
I've worked on all kinds of engines over my 68 years and never run across an engine that retained that much oil when drained.

 

[Merc4x4]

Ok....just more speculation then. Thanks for clearing that up.
My whole problem with this situation is; why is Ford still initially filling the engine with 7.5qts of oil. There is not 1.5qts of oil left in the engine after you drain the oil.....even with 2 turbochargers in the system.
I've worked on all kinds of engines over my 68 years and never run across an engine that retained that much oil when drained.

maybe they got that spec wrong as well and will correct it.
what is the initial fill spec for 2023 2.7's?
is it still 7.5?

and while we're at it, how many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?

Sponsored