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

[TrailDamage]

Yesss I love my 2.7 in my heritage… just makes me wonder why ford would make such a decision to remove it on the f150s and replace it with 3.0. Was it too slow and they needed better competition with GMs new v8s and improvised 2.7 I4????

My beer is too cold and steak is too juicy…

Sponsored

 

[Willub]

I agree that the video was just stock footage, but what specifically around the details that were mentioned is disputable?

Just because the video was poorly put together doesn’t necessarily mean that the claims are necessarily false.

I’m not defending the claims made. But I haven’t heard anyone pointing out to specifics that what was highlighted is proven to be false.

It’s narrated by AI. That’s not a human speaking in to a microphone. RJ that’s worked on Ford engines for 20 years doesn’t exist. They didn’t pull engines off a shelf and tear them down. It’s lies to get as many views as they can while being as lazy with AI as they can. An AI engine searches the internet for info on the three engines and narrates the findings in a video.

 

[MWILD]

I got tired of pointing out the fact this channel wasn’t legitimate and just a money grab from someone that knows how to use AI decently.

 

[DaPierogiKid]

Yesss I love my 2.7 in my heritage… just makes me wonder why ford would make such a decision to remove it on the f150s and replace it with 3.0. Was it too slow and they needed better competition with GMs new v8s and improvised 2.7 I4????

Wait, Ford is replacing something that is universally liked and enjoyed? The Fusion, Edge and Escape might have an opinion on that...

 

[GoHawks63]

Wait, Ford is replacing something that is universally liked and enjoyed? The Fusion, Edge and Escape might have an opinion on that...

The 2.7 in those models had an internal the water pump (behind the timing chain cover). The issue with that was when the water pump started leaking there would be no visible indication that it was leaking and due to it being internal, the coolant would contaminate the oil and result in engine damage. The design was changed in later versions (in the Bronco and F150) and now has an external water pump.

EDIT: I'm mistaken. The internal water pump was on the 3.0 and 3.5 EB engines, not the 2.7. The early (2015-2017) 2.7s had issues with the timing chain tensioner that would loosen and rattle. Also had head gasket failures.

As for the later 2.7s, there was that small batch in the early Bronco models with the bad valves that would break apart and cause catastrophic damage.

As for the 2.3L, it had the following according to Google AI.

• 2021 Model Year (Early Builds): Some early-production 2.3L engines experienced isolated catastrophic failures, such as a damaged cylinder or valve train issues. Additionally, a very small batch of late-2021/early-2023 assembly blocks faced a customer satisfaction program for a potential oil leak at the main oil galley plug due to a machining tool error. [1, 2]

• 2025–2026 Model Years: Ford issued a major recall for 2025–2026 Bronco models equipped with the 2.3L EcoBoost engine (including newer Modular Power Cylinder variants) due to improperly installed camshaft roller finger followers that can lead to catastrophic engine failure. These model years have also seen complaints regarding faulty exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valves and cold-start misfires

 

[HotdogThud]

I agree that the video was just stock footage, but what specifically around the details that were mentioned is disputable?

Just because the video was poorly put together doesn’t necessarily mean that the claims are necessarily false.

I’m not defending the claims made. But I haven’t heard anyone pointing out to specifics that what was highlighted is proven to be false.

Because a voice-over that says "we tore it down, it's great!" with *zero* backing data or pics of internals is worthless.

 

[UncleBrad]

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.

And since we can't get a manual transmission with the 2.7, we get the 2.3. Totally worth it.

 

[Nibroc99]

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.

Really wish there was more video of the engines torn down and less video of random bullshit with an AI voiceover.

 

[Thor_1]

Yesss I love my 2.7 in my heritage… just makes me wonder why ford would make such a decision to remove it on the f150s and replace it with 3.0. Was it too slow and they needed better competition with GMs new v8s and improvised 2.7 I4????

They weren’t getting enough maintenance dollars from repairs. Gotta replace things that don’t break.

 

[Harry The Heritage]

Wait, Ford is replacing something that is universally liked and enjoyed? The Fusion, Edge and Escape might have an opinion on that...

Touché..

But to be fair the Escape and the Bronco sport are the same platform. So it was obvious one was going to go and the escape being older gave it the boot… makes me wonder that’s probably the “Bronco Hybrid” we are getting. Since the Escape had a hybrid option.

 

[Callelk]

Absolute garbage video. I stopped watching it at about the .00000002 mark.

 

[Rydfree]

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

You can pick any topic and the amount of Ai garbage out there is astonishing. I am a history geek and Ai is literally changing history with so much un-factual content out there.

 

[Lcubed]

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.

it was posted long ago with an accompanying multipage thread

 

[VirginiaHeritage]

I didn’t watch. Was the 2.3 from a 7MT Bronco or an auto? It wouldn’t surprise me to see a 2.3 with 7MT fair worse than a 2.7 given a sample size of one each, because a manual can be driven shitty and that will obviously have an impact on the engine.

 

[DALOLA]

And since we can't get a manual transmission with the 2.7, we get the 2.3. Totally worth it.

For sure... now knowing how Ford totally F'd up Select-Shift for the Bronco, I wish I would've gotten the MT....

Sponsored