2.7 Ecoboost engine details you should know

[markregel]

We all love horsepower and the numbers game, however after reading all the replies there isn't much mentioned about maintenance.
Twin turbo's are cool. I've been driving supercharged and turbo cars/Jeeps for over twenty years.

Now back to reality...Try changing one of these turbo's or any maintenance for that matter. Under the hood looks like a nightmare. I'm not sure about you, but I won't even let a dealer mechanic change my oil. Not now or ever!

What happens when you ford water and your turbo's are subjected to extreme temperature changes? I don't know the measurements, I'm sure someone is soon to correct me, however I don't believe both turbo's are above the fording capabilities of the Bronco.

Also, twin turbo's mean double trouble. $$$$$$$$

Short term ownership or lease is fine. If you plan to keep this Bronco 2.7 long term. Get ready to empty your pocket book. Especially if you are going to wheel it.

Nothing different with the 2.3. Same turbo situation and I think quite adequate for the Bronco 2DR.
Back in 1998 a LS1 Camaro just barely made 300hp and it rocked. That little 2.3 has impressive torque numbers as well. That's all due to cylinder pressure!
My 2.0T Jeep Rubicon out ran a Subaru WRX.
Did anyone see the TFL youtube video of the 2.3 Ranger with a tune. It ran 8.8 eight mile, that's what we used to run with a 69 Mach 1 Mustang 351 cammed, heads, and 4.11 cogs.

Anyways, my build is a 2.7 before I drop my 5.0 in it. I'm a gluten for horsepower as well, but think about engine choices wisely.
I'm also a manual dude, so who knows (or cares).

I wish the Bronco had normally aspirated engine options.

Sponsored

 

[mpeugeot]

Short term ownership or lease is fine. If you plan to keep this Bronco 2.7 long term. Get ready to empty your pocket book. Especially if you are going to wheel it.

Nothing different with the 2.3. Same turbo situation and I think quite adequate for the Bronco 2DR.

So are you suggesting this would be likely the same outcome for the 3.5 Ecoboost as well?

 

[MayhemMike]

Of course this all could have been made moot by optioning a push rod V8. It isn’t like the mpg would have been significantly different, if at all. Spinning turbos to get 18 mpg seems nuts to me. The 5.0 in my crew 4x4 Lariat gets that. ( Yes I understand the gearing diff) Both vehicles weigh the same. These turbo motors are the one part of this Bronco thing that causes me concern. I am an official geezer and I change my oil myself at 3500 miles regardless. It is cheap insurance. I have owned nothing but Ford products and have never suffered any engine failure. I never use synthetic. Dinosaur goo for the classic motors and Motorcraft blends required on newer motors has done the trick. “ Premium fuel you say?” Not I.

 

[Bronco4]

So are you suggesting this would be likely the same outcome for the 3.5 Ecoboost as well?

I would like to know his answer as well. My wife drives a 2012 150 3.5 first Gen, 100000 +miles, original everything except plugs and plug wires. Tons of examples of higher mileage 3.5s with little to no costs other than normal maintenance.

 

[Alienpilot]

Ford should just make a small displacement V8 with all of the available technology today.
There's a reason why the Godzilla pushrod V8 is into production.

 

[Panzer948]

Wow, you would think after reading this thread that twin turbo engines are some new kind of untested technology. I have owned twin turbo engines for the past 15 years and they have been no more trouble than a standard non turbo engine. This technology has been around for quite some time, well before Ford built them.

To be honest, we should be glad for the magical turbo tech as its engines like this that will keep ICE vehicles around just a bit longer before EVs rule the roads. Sad to say but the days of putting big V8s in most cars has already come and gone. I actually own a fairly new Jeep Grand Cherokee with the 5.7L hemi, which is about the last of its kind.

 

[Dogstyle]

Thank you for posting.



Blk Diamond Cheese/2D/2.7/SASQ/MIC/MID/TOW

 

[bytheway]

Thank you for posting.



Blk Diamond Cheese/2D/2.7/SASQ/MIC/MID/TOW

You could just put the cheese thing in your signature instead of posting it every time.

 

[J Jernigan]

As someone who has worked in the downstream side of the petroleum industry for 25+ years, I can tell you that while the majority of gasoline brands starts off with the same base product, the additive that is injected into it at the terminal side is substantially different. I highly recommend branded gasoline....Exxon, Shell, BP, etc.... I don't know that there is much difference in their additives (they all claim they have the best), but the amount that is added compared to unbranded stores (walmart, kroger, etc...) is huge. This may be what he means by premium gas....not necessarily 93 oct vs 87 oct.

agreed.. the main thing is to stick with a top tier gasoline.
If memory serves there is a website listing all of the top tier gasoline brands available.

the unwritten secret in gasoline is that most all modern stations only have two main gasoline tanks on site, one regular, one premium. the dispensers blend a combination of the two to meet any octane grade between the regular and the premium. With that being said the mid grade fuel will contain a fair amount of the detergent and additive package of the premium fuel at a much lower price.

 

[omg_bbq]

Is there anything like this video but for the 2.3?

 

[da_jokker]

I've been running synthetic oil in my 2.0T Jeep. Even at 5,000 mile interval changes, it appears that's too much.

Can you expand on this? If I end up going the Jeep route, the 2.0 is most likely the engine I'll have to be forced into. The idea of doing oil changes earlier than 5K would bug me. I do 10K now on my current cars.

 

[Alienpilot]

Can you expand on this? If I end up going the Jeep route, the 2.0 is most likely the engine I'll have to be forced into. The idea of doing oil changes earlier than 5K would bug me. I do 10K now on my current cars.

My 2.0 is totally capable. That's coming from a guy who has a supercharged 5.0 Mustang.

The Jeep 2.0T with the Generator has plenty of torque when you need it.

As far as oil changes, my GF who knows nothing about mechanics stated "that oil looks pretty dark." Only 5,000 miles.

 

[Heelabaloo]

Now back to reality...Try changing one of these turbo's or any maintenance for that matter. Under the hood looks like a nightmare. I'm not sure about you, but I won't even let a dealer mechanic change my oil. Not now or ever!

What happens when you ford water and your turbo's are subjected to extreme temperature changes? I don't know the measurements, I'm sure someone is soon to correct me, however I don't believe both turbo's are above the fording capabilities of the Bronco.

Also, twin turbo's mean double trouble. $$$$$$$$

Short term ownership or lease is fine. If you plan to keep this Bronco 2.7 long term. Get ready to empty your pocket book. Especially if you are going to wheel it.

Nothing different with the 2.3. Same turbo situation and I think quite adequate for the Bronco 2DR.

So you’re saying that for those of us that don’t intend to trade in a few years that extended warranty will be worth it?

 

[mpeugeot]

So you’re saying that for those of us that don’t intend to trade in a few years that extended warranty will be worth it?

The one thing that I think is a valid argument against the 2.7 is a belt driven oil pump, with plastic gears, which makes me want to know more about the anticipated life of the pump.

Hell, if they going to all that effort to run a belt driven oil pump, they should have just built it as an external dry sump system.

The oil pump does seem to be something that would have been better executed differently. I say that without knowing enough to know whether or not it will be durable enough as is.

 

[GoTigersGoBronco]

It would appear the 2.7 uses a different water pump design than the 3.5, that is much appreciated. The water pump change or failure is a booger on those.

Sponsored