2.3 vs. 2.7 vs. 3.0 engines after 100K miles (wear & tear assessment via teardowns)

[GoHawks63]

Not sure this video was posted here and also not sure of what the general consensus is on this guy. He claims to have worked on Fords for a long time.

Overall summary, they tear down these engines after 100K miles, the 3.0L after 70K because they couldn't find one with 100K. The goal was to see which had the less wear and tear.

The one discrepancy that I found was when he was touching on the intake valve carbon buildup, he said that all three had direct injection, but failed to mention that the 2.7L has both port and direct injection.

Yes, we know that then newer 2.3L has both as well, but these was 100K mile engines and the 2.3L was the previous version.

Again, I don't know how credible this guy is but thought I'd share.









Spoiler alert.
All did OK, but the 2.7L fared the best from a wear and tear perspective.

Sponsored

 

[DALOLA]

Adding fuel to the fire, there was a guy over on the F150 forum that put over 400K on a '15 2.7 F150, following OEM maintenance schedule, minimal cost over reg. maintenance, no serious issues, still running well at trade-in. Personally, I think the 2.7 is a rock star modern engine. I've had 2 of them in F150's.

 

[BuiltByTrav]

That channel is AI slop, look at the rest of the videos. I know because I watched it sadly lol.

 

[Snacktime]

Adding fuel to the fire, there was a guy over on the F150 forum that put over 400K on a '15 2.7 F150, following OEM maintenance schedule, minimal cost over reg. maintenance, no serious issues, still running well at trade-in. Personally, I think the 2.7 is a rock star modern engine. I've had 2 of them in F150's.

I agree, but the tiny bronco engine bay makes it a twin turbo inferno under the hood. 2.3 just packages better in that small engine bay.

 

[DALOLA]

I agree, but the tiny bronco engine bay makes it a twin turbo inferno under the hood. 2.3 just packages better in that small engine bay.

Sure, smaller usually packages better, but that's a separate topic. All things otherwise equal, I would take a 2.7 Bronco over a 2.3 7 days a week. Now, having said that, I'm perfectly happy with my 2.3, no serious complaints.

 

[GoHawks63]

I agree, but the tiny bronco engine bay makes it a twin turbo inferno under the hood. 2.3 just packages better in that small engine bay.

I agree, but the tiny bronco engine bay makes it a twin turbo inferno under the hood. 2.3 just packages better in that small engine bay.

Agree, that's equivalent to me comparing the engine bay of my supercharged Mustang, or even just a plain old GT with that of a Mustang with the EB 4 banger. Yeah the 4-cylinder has more room, but which will put a bigger smile on your face.

Having said that, I dread the day where I would need to do a DIY repair in the engine bay of my Mustang. Just getting to the spark plugs looks challenging. That engine bay is PACKED, and yes, it gets hot under there when driven hard, even with the vented hood.

 

[Bee Bop]

The video had the injection on the 2.7 wrong it is not just direct injection it also has port injection. that is why the carbon build up was less.

 

[GoHawks63]

I pointed out that in my original post that the 2.7 has both direct and port injection.

 

[cb4017]

That channel is AI slop, look at the rest of the videos. I know because I watched it sadly lol.

Yep. Notice there were no pics or videos of the subject engines. The very short tear down videos it did show were Scott from the YouTube channel I Do Cars.

 

[Willub]

I pointed out that in my original post that the 2.7 has both direct and port injection.

As already pointed out, the video is AI trash and not credible in the slightest.

 

[raqball]

That channel is AI slop, look at the rest of the videos. I know because I watched it sadly lol.

As already pointed out, the video is AI trash and not credible in the slightest.

The amount of this type of AI garbage / AI slop that gets posted as factual is increasing by the day.....

 

[HotdogThud]

That channel is AI slop, look at the rest of the videos. I know because I watched it sadly lol.

that was 13 minutes of stock footage with a guy holding a socket wrench for 12 seconds of it.

Agreed, quite the sloperation there.

Sponsored