2.7L blown engine failure list . . 68 so far [Updated: December 13, 2022]

[navi]

We've heard from Ford techs that there are way more than 26 failed engines, but we have no idea how many.
What we do know about is the reported failures here:
26 failures, over a range of 60 days of builds, which then was about 5000 builds. That puts the min. failure rate for that period at about 0.5%.
That's no bueno !

Sponsored

 

[Bmadda]

Got it and that is what I thought.

My question was in response to a reply made to an earlier post I made. In short some Broncos are getting held up in extended QC during manufacturing (mine was held up for over a week while others with same build day got shipped within a day). My thought was are some of the engines failing during QC? If so and it was getting a replacement 2.7 before it even leaves MAP wouldn't it just be a 6007 from the plant stock rather than a 6006 replacement that is shipped to dealers? Mine is a 6007 on day 214 (unfortunately one documented failure on this thread was from this day). I now have just over 2500 miles on mine. Anyhow, if this could be the case how many more may have failed before they even left MAP?

Doubt ANY failed in QC. If that were to happen(and I'm sure in the century + Ford has been building cars it has), I have no clue how it gets handled...good question tho! Either way its not really important as the vehicle never went into service

 

[Tex]

Mine is a 6007 on day 214

Same here, about 4K on it. I haven't been babying it, but I also haven't been hammering on it either.

 

[mountainbronco]

We've heard from Ford techs that there are way more than 26 failed engines, but we have no idea how many.
What we do know about is the reported failures here:
26 failures, over a range of 60 days of builds, which then was about 5000 builds. That puts the min. failure rate for that period at about 0.5%.
That's no bueno !

I like your math, but, I think the output was more like 600/day, or 3600. AND, the 2.7 is only about 40-45% of those ordered, the rest are 2.3s.............

so, using your calc, it is more like 1.6% WOW WOW!!

 

[navi]

It's all becoming clear to me now. The few weeks that these bad engines were installed, Milton was in charge of QA/QC.


upload image

 

[Clearwater native]

On the Bright side it's been 6 days since the last 2.7 fail

 

[Tex]

Just because a replacement engine has a different part number doesn’t mean the core design is different. If you don’t know the difference then maybe you need to look into it more.

In aviation, sometimes the only difference between engines is the way the exhaust system or intake was routed for a particular aircraft. A Continental IO-520D is an identical engine to the IO-520K in all regards except for the intake tube...the D has it on bottom and the K has it on top. You can (against regs) take a D and convert it to a K by bolting on a different intake with the end result being identical besides the data plate saying it's a D. Sometimes those changes have no effect when comparing the two, but sometimes they do.

A cursory investigation shows the 2021 F-150 making less power than the Bronco, so there's a small but quantifiable difference in spec, and often it's those tiny changes that are responsible for completely different results (as well as part #'s). Whether it's in the tuning or different internal parts or specs that are responsible for the power disparity is not necessarily relevant, as a failure can be the result of a multitude of things all working against each other at the same time. If they turned the boost up just a tad and changed timing on the Bronco, then saying the F-150's are running fine is inconsequential, as the F-150 engines are not going to be replicating the same conditions as the Bronco engine. If they used updated head components or sourced different parts for the Bronco runs, then it's impossible to compare the two engines. If it ends up being a QC issue, a production run of Bronco engines is not going to make it in F-150's or vise-versa. So the guy or machine or part that botched a run of Bronco engines isn't necessarily going to do the same with the F-150 engines that were made on a different run. Those are just a few reasons why using reliability metrics for the 2.7L in F-150's are flawed from the beginning.

I'm fairly confident in saying that if F-150 owners had the same percentage of failures with low miles, you'd be seeing it posted all over Ford forums just the same as it is here. Statistically speaking, F-150 owners should be experiencing a whole lot more failures if the same percentages held true. 5,500 members here vs. 360,000 members in the F-150 forum, and it's entirely possible that just in that forum, more members own 2.7L 2021 F-150's than there are Broncos in existence. So if it was just a 26 in 2,000,000 occurrence, you'd still be seeing more posts over there about blown engines in the first few thousand miles. I've yet to run across a single thread about failed 2.7L engines on that forum, so a logical conclusion is that 2.7L failures are Bronco specific. Yet another reason that comparing reliability to a F-150 gets you nowhere. It's kinda like saying, "Oh, only 1,000 people in the US are murderers, you're safe not having to lock your door in the US because there's 300 million people here, that's a tiny percentage", when the reality is that all 1,000 of those murderers are in one town and you just moved there. The F-150's aren't having these problems because it's Bronco specific, for whatever reason, and the percentages when that is taken into consideration is alarmingly high.

 

[mountainbronco]

I like your math, but, I think the output was more like 600/day, or 3600. AND, the 2.7 is only about 40-45% of those ordered, the rest are 2.3s.............

so, using your calc, it is more like 1.6% WOW WOW!!

correction (of myself), 600 for 60 days is 36000, NO they never produced that much. I am applying our October/November production experience, but the June/July period was a totally different story. IGNORE my math, all wrong and presumptuous!

 

[North7]

In aviation, sometimes the only difference between engines is the way the exhaust system or intake was routed for a particular aircraft. A Continental IO-520D is an identical engine to the IO-520K in all regards except for the intake tube...the D has it on bottom and the K has it on top. You can (against regs) take a D and convert it to a K by bolting on a different intake with the end result being identical besides the data plate saying it's a D. Sometimes those changes have no effect when comparing the two, but sometimes they do.

A cursory investigation shows the 2021 F-150 making less power than the Bronco, so there's a small but quantifiable difference in spec, and often it's those tiny changes that are responsible for completely different results (as well as part #'s). Whether it's in the tuning or different internal parts or specs that are responsible for the power disparity is not necessarily relevant, as a failure can be the result of a multitude of things all working against each other at the same time. If they turned the boost up just a tad and changed timing on the Bronco, then saying the F-150's are running fine is inconsequential, as the F-150 engines are not going to be replicating the same conditions as the Bronco engine. If they used updated head components or sourced different parts for the Bronco runs, then it's impossible to compare the two engines. If it ends up being a QC issue, a production run of Bronco engines is not going to make it in F-150's or vise-versa. So the guy or machine or part that botched a run of Bronco engines isn't necessarily going to do the same with the F-150 engines that were made on a different run. Those are just a few reasons why using reliability metrics for the 2.7L in F-150's are flawed from the beginning.

I'm fairly confident in saying that if F-150 owners had the same percentage of failures with low miles, you'd be seeing it posted all over Ford forums just the same as it is here. Statistically speaking, F-150 owners should be experiencing a whole lot more failures if the same percentages held true. 5,500 members here vs. 360,000 members in the F-150 forum, and it's entirely possible that just in that forum, more members own 2.7L 2021 F-150's than there are Broncos in existence. So if it was just a 26 in 2,000,000 occurrence, you'd still be seeing more posts over there about blown engines in the first few thousand miles. I've yet to run across a single thread about failed 2.7L engines on that forum, so a logical conclusion is that 2.7L failures are Bronco specific. Yet another reason that comparing reliability to a F-150 gets you nowhere. It's kinda like saying, "Oh, only 1,000 people in the US are murderers, you're safe not having to lock your door in the US because there's 300 million people here, that's a tiny percentage", when the reality is that all 1,000 of those murderers are in one town and you just moved there. The F-150's aren't having these problems because it's Bronco specific, for whatever reason, and the percentages when that is taken into consideration is alarmingly high.

Since no one wants to actually read this entire thread, I'll repost post #115 below.

So I did a little research when I got some time today. Here's some of what I cyphered:

Complete cyl head assy: ML3Z-6049-K LH, ML3Z-6049-J RH. no need to compare w/F150, you can see from the prefix those are Bronco only

Ex valve: JT4Z-6505-A
Valve spring: FT4Z-6513-A
Keeper: FT4Z-6518-A
Lock: FT4Z-6514-A
Rocker: FT4Z-6564-C
Lifter: BR3Z-6500-A

Got all those #s from repair link, thats when it got interesting...no intake valve listed! So I called my local parts dept that I buy from regularly. The guy I got i know I've talked to before, and is knowledgeable. Gave him the last 8 and asked for intake valve part #. 1st he asked me "this isn't one of those 2.7s that blew up is it?" Which I asked him "have u guys seen any of these?" He said "WE haven't, but I've heard about it" anyhow, his system didn't show a part # for an intake valve either...just an engineering #. The engineering # doesn't lead anywhere, but if he crosses it manually it comes back as FT4Z-6507-A.

The only PN I had him cross over to F150 was the exhaust valve, and they are the same, so the $64k question? Are the failed 2.7 valves all intakes? Don't know we will ever get a clear answer to that, but it sounds like they used a different intake valve and there was a manufacturing issue...heat treat etc. The service PN may be on hold till they decide how to address the issue...revert to previous parts, or trust the new intake valve manufacturer to fix the issue.

 

[Tex]

Since no one wants to actually read this entire thread, I'll repost post #115 below.

Nice, I vaguely remember reading that. Differences can be small, but they 100% can be the reason for our 2.7's failing while F-150's are driving around with no failures.

 

[TravisC91]

Wait... we got a little continuity gap here. It doesn't just go from I parked it, to it wont start, to there's piston mcnuggets in the pan without it being very noticeable.

Yeah I see what you mean. It's possible something happened when I warmed it up in the morning, then when I came out to leave it wasn't on running so I tried to start it and couldn't.

 

[TravisC91]

Update: Today the dealer called me and said he can't order a new engine because the Ford engineers need time to redesign it. So it's gonna be a while.

 

[TravisC91]

I'm taking this pretty well aren't I?

 

[Lucky Nut]

Update: Ford engineers need time to redesign it. So it's gonna be a while.

Uh-oh

 

[Ice Age]

Update: Today the dealer called me and said he can't order a new engine because the Ford engineers need time to redesign it. So it's gonna be a while.

Wow so add insult to injury not only are you dead in the water there is not even anything in the near future to resolve this. That statement is a huge statement which should be concerning to every 2.7 Bronco owner. We need to see this in writing the engine has to be redesigned before any replacements to know for sure. Otherwise all the naysayers are gonna laugh this one off.

Sponsored