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

[DrBriGuy]

one way to check is to get an oil sample and have it analyzed for metal. Some failures are catastrophic so it may not catch it. Either way, I would suggest not getting too far off the grid prior to 5000 miles.

Maybe some early oil changes in the affected date range would catch something early? Collect and analyze for metals?

Sponsored

 

[navi]

Maybe some early oil changes in the affected date range would catch something early? Collect and analyze for metals?

I like that:
oil change, test for metals
if it looks bad replace the valves
maybe Ford would prefer this to replacing entire engines?

 

[AKBronc49]

I finally looked at my date, looks like I'll keep my fingers crossed as the miles rack up! Almost 1,500 now.

 

[stampede1]

26 out of millions of 2.7L made.

26 that we know of so far from only this forum. And apparently not from the overall 2.7 population of millions including the venerable F-150, but apparently from the far thinner population of 2021 broncos.

 

[Lucchese]

I finally looked at my date, looks like I'll keep my fingers crossed as the miles rack up! Almost 1,500 now.

- in the engine build-date 'failure range' (66-days so far), there's a 31-day gap in the middle, w no failures in the gap
- it could be we're looking at two separate failure ranges w a 'clear gap' in the middle
- so far your 21179 falls in the 'clear gap'
- as they accumulate, we'll have to see where the build-dates fall

 

[ColoradoKid26]

- in the engine build-date 'failure range' (66-days so far), there's a 31-day gap in the middle, w no failures in the gap
- it could be we're looking at two separate failure ranges w a 'clear gap' in the middle
- so far your 21179 falls in the 'clear gap'
- as they accumulate, we'll have to see where the build-dates fall

I just wanted to say thank you for your work and reporting on this.

 

[DrBriGuy]

Imagine if this weren’t the absolute crudeness of the internet.

Few people people having conversation in a group. Someone says “oh really you fly helicopters” after someone else talks about what they do. Leads to a story of saving lives and the butthurt person talking about how he rebuilds engines says “excuse me, can you take the conversation somewhere else. We were talking about what I want to talk about and it’s important. They’d be fun!

What a world.

Honestly, I thought the "take it somewhere else" post was a joke. Since airplane and helicopter crashes are a bit more important than blown bronco engines, all things considered. I think the vast majority of us can tolerate a little off topic chumminess...better than the 50 or so "nothing to see here" posts. If nothing to see, stop following and commenting.

 

[AKBronc49]

- in the engine build-date 'failure range' (66-days so far), there's a 31-day gap in the middle, w no failures in the gap
- it could be we're looking at two separate failure ranges w a 'clear gap' in the middle
- so far your 21179 falls in the 'clear gap'
- as they accumulate, we'll have to see where the build-dates fall

Thank you for that! Fingers crossed

 

[1975U15]

- in the engine build-date 'failure range' (66-days so far), there's a 31-day gap in the middle, w no failures in the gap
- it could be we're looking at two

- in the engine build-date 'failure range' (66-days so far), there's a 31-day gap in the middle, w no failures in the gap
- it could be we're looking at two separate failure ranges w a 'clear gap' in the middle
- so far your 21179 falls in the 'clear gap'
- as they accumulate, we'll have to see where the build-dates fall

So do we know “in clear range” then?? 21196 with 2800mi(mostly in sport ha!)

Appreciate your effort.

 

[Snowdogyyz]

Honestly, I thought the "take it somewhere else" post was a joke. Since airplane and helicopter crashes are a bit more important than blown bronco engines, all things considered. I think the vast majority of us can tolerate a little off topic chumminess...better than the 50 or so "nothing to see here" posts. If nothing to see, stop following and commenting.

The “nothing to see here” pics I’ve posted are sarcastic memes aimed at those that refuse to acknowledge the possibility of an issue with this range of builds. It’s poking fun at them for refusing to see any issues with the bronco, even after MIC 1.0 and now 26 blown 2.7’s.

 

[Lucchese]

So do we know “in clear range” then?? 21196 with 2800mi (mostly in sport ha!)

Looking at the 15 known engine build-dates so far, we have -

- '1st failure range' (17-days) - 21159 thru 21175 - 7 failures
- 'clear gap' (31-days) - 21176 thru 21206 - zero failures
- '2nd failure range' (18-days) - 21207 thru 21224 - 8 failures

With only 15 data-points our view is still fuzzy, but to have a 31-day 'clear gap' in the middle is very unlikely, unless we're looking at separate failure ranges.
With data we have so far, it appears very likely we have some kind of a 'clear gap' in the middle.

 

[navi]

Looking at the 15 known engine build-dates so far, we have -

- '1st failure range' (17-days) - 21159 thru 21175 - 7 failures
- 'clear gap' (31-days) - 21176 thru 21206 - zero failures
- '2nd failure range' (18-days) - 21207 thru 21224 - 8 failures

With only 15 data-points our view is still fuzzy, but to have a 31-day 'clear gap' in the middle is very unlikely, unless we're looking at separate failure ranges.
With data we have so far, it appears very likely we have some kind of a 'clear gap' in the middle.

If those ranges hold then the vast majority of 2.7 drivers can rest easy.
That's just a few weeks worth of builds that would be at risk, maybe a few thousand?

 

[Lucchese]

If those ranges hold then the vast majority of 2.7 drivers can rest easy.
That's just a few weeks worth of builds that would be at risk, maybe a few thousand?

Right, and hopefully we don't see any new 'failure ranges' popping up as the newer builds get more miles -
If they're all confined to these two short 'failure ranges' it seems Ford would have an obligation to contact the affected owners w some kind of safety bulletin -
I believe Ford prob has at least 10x more data-points than we have here - maybe 20x plus -

 

[1975U15]

Right, and hopefully we don't see any new 'failure ranges' popping up as the newer builds get more miles -
If they're all confined to these two short 'failure ranges' it seems Ford would have an obligation to contact the affected owners w some kind of safety bulletin -
I believe Ford prob has at least 10x more data-points than we have here - prob 20x plus -

I’m sure you know I goaded you into this to a certain point. It’s just because I knew you were right guy for job. Thank you!

 

[Lucchese]

I’m sure you know I goaded you into this to a certain point. It’s just because I knew you were right guy for job. Thank you!

yeah, you & @mpeugeot saddled me with it - so what choice did I have -

- also got tired of some saying 'baloney' about # of failures so far

Sponsored