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

[Bmadda]

Thanks! I just talked to the dealer and they said that they have it in the bay and it may take up to Monday to diagnose it. I can't believe it will take that long.

The way you described it, it sounds like yours might have punched through to water. The tech might get ambitious and pull a head. See if they will share any info he finds. Which cyl was the failure on, and if he can tell which valve, intake or exhaust. So far we've heard cyl 5 and cyl 6. Haven't heard of a failure on the pass side bank...curiously. Have had race engines that failed this way. If multiple cyls sucked water and hydrolocked as a result, that says intake valve.

Sponsored

 

[ryridesmotox]

The way you described it, it sounds like yours might have punched through to water. The tech might get ambitious and pull a head. See if they will share any info he finds. Which cyl was the failure on, and if he can tell which valve, intake or exhaust. So far we've heard cyl 5 and cyl 6. Haven't heard of a failure on the pass side bank...curiously. Have had race engines that failed this way. If multiple cyls sucked water and hydrolocked as a result, that says intake valve.

I dont think it would be out of the realm of possibilities for a serious enough failure to either crack the head or block to a cooling passage. I've never had one of these engines apart so I don't know first hand... but I have has several LS motors apart and the steel liners are not super thick, a Crack into the cooling jackets isn't necessarily an uncommon thing.

Edit... since I'm thinking about it... if the issue is mostly cylinder 5, which is the end of the bank, I wonder if this isn't a casting issue. I'm not sure how these heads are made, but most oem heads these days are some type of casting. It could very well be that there is a weakness in the casting of the particular heads used in the Bronco. There has been porosity issues in all manufacturers that use these processes. Perhaps there is an issue here as well. It won't necessarily be a defect in every head poured. But could impact some.

Totally just spit balling here... thinking out loud

 

[Bmadda]

I dont think it would be out of the realm of possibilities for a serious enough failure to either crack the head or block to a cooling passage. I've never had one of these engines apart so I don't know first hand... but I have has several LS motors apart and the steel liners are not super thick, a Crack into the cooling jackets isn't necessarily an uncommon thing.

Edit... since I'm thinking about it... if the issue is mostly cylinder 5, which is the end of the bank, I wonder if this isn't a casting issue. I'm not sure how these heads are made, but most oem heads these days are some type of casting. It could very well be that there is a weakness in the casting of the particular heads used in the Bronco. There has been porosity issues in all manufacturers that use these processes. Perhaps there is an issue here as well. It won't necessarily be a defect in every head poured. But could impact some.

Totally just spit balling here... thinking out loud

I tried to find one of the race heads that happened to, but it's long scrapped. What happens is, imagine dropping a quarter, or silver dollar into a running cylinder. It starts flipping, getting smashed on all sides, sometimes knife edge. If the piston smacks it real good and square when it is knife edge it can drive it right up through the combustion chamber like an air chisel bit...through to water in the head. destroys the piston too, and if the piston shatters bad the pistonless con rod will turn into a wrecking ball and destroy the block. All depends on what kinda rpms the motor is turning when it fails. Street=bad, Race=VERY bad

 

[TravisC91]

Man they should just replace the blown bronco motors with the F-150 motor, if that is even possible.

I'll take whatever's goin in the Raptor

 

[ryridesmotox]

I tried to find one of the race heads that happened to, but it's long scrapped. What happens is, imagine dropping a quarter, or silver dollar into a running cylinder. It starts flipping, getting smashed on all sides, sometimes knife edge. If the piston smacks it real good and square when it is knife edge it can drive it right up through the combustion chamber like an air chisel bit...through to water in the head. destroys the piston too, and if the piston shatters bad the pistonless con rod will turn into a wrecking ball and destroy the block. All depends on what kinda rpms the motor is turning when it fails. Street=bad, Race=VERY bad

Yea exactly, I think the issues are going to be worse as time goes on. If its a vale problem it will be pretty isolated. But it seems to not have a particular pattern at this point. It appeared to have two windows of failure. New ones appear to be stretching out of that window.

I've not owned new fords, last one being a 59 F100, so most of my experience with new stuff is GM for what little thats worth here. But I know that in GM LS motors, there are several redundant head numbers. 799 (2007 and later) and 243 (2001) heads for example. EXACTLY the same heads in every respect, but cast in different factories, and supposedly used solid v sodium filled valves. One used in trucks, one used in LS6/LS2 but I've also seen engines FROM FACTORY with different number heads on the motor IE a LATE LS2 with 799s, 5.3 trucks with 243s. The point I'm getting to is, the 243s had known valve spring failures, but the 799s never did to my recollection. No idea why that would be other than the 243s (at least early ones) got their springs from a different vendor, but I bet a similarity can be found here in the bronco motors v the f150 motors. There is some, relatively, small difference that is causing a pretty significant difference in longevity.

I forgot what part numbers between the two 2.7s were different, but I think the heads were a different P/N so I imagine that those heads are from a different vendor than the F150 heads.

Again its a total blind guess on my part here.

 

[navi]

I don't know if there's a public number of all 2.7 failures nationally. I can see how many are on backorder, how many are between the supplier and packager, in the depots and next month forecasted demand. What exactly the forecast is based on is just a mildly educated guess but I can tell you only 4 are on backorder at this time, about 20 in transit to the packager and a less than 30 forecast for next month. Forecast may factor in anticipated failures as a % of all failures and number of stock they want to keep for surge demand.

In contrast, and read into this what you will, but the 2.7 2021 F150 long block has 2 in a depot, about 25 headed to the packager and a next month demand of less than 50. The engine did change numbers from a -C to a -G.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the 27 ordered engines for the F150 represent replacements needed from a group of millions of F150's with any mileage.

Contrast that with the 15k Bronco 2.7's most with mileages under 5k, and there are 24 on order for that group already.

 

[flip]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the 27 ordered engines for the F150 represent replacements needed from a group of millions of F150's with any mileage.

Contrast that with the 15k Bronco 2.7's most with mileages under 5k, and there are 24 on order for that group already.

That F150 number was for '21 and maybe '22 models, not all 2.7s. Should've been more clear when I posted. Tried to do a like comparison.

 

[JollyFolly]

So has anyone had experience w/the buyback program with Ford? how does it differ from a Lemon Law?

 

[NotApplicable]

Again its a total blind guess.

I think it’s important to remember that most of the theories in this thread are blind guesses, or at most educated guesses based on very little information.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Ford apologist or fanboy, and if my own engine needed a full replacement within the first year of ownership, on my first Ford vehicle, I’d sell it ASAP and never buy another Ford product.

Still, there’s a lot of alarmism in this thread. As laypeople without access to important details like fleetwide statistics & diagnostics, physical inspection of failed components, diagnostic logs, knowledge of supply chain etc… there’s only so much that can be deduced from the 30 or so data points that we have. But who has access to the information that is needed to actually figure out what’s going on? Ford.

Many of the conclusions that are being drawn in here so far aren’t much more than superstition. “Oh no, there was a failure from a date on which the moon was in the same phase as the date on which my engine was manufactured… I’m sure that means my engine is more likely to fail and I shouldn’t be daily driving it anymore!” I’m not faulting these conclusions too much, because as humans we try to find patterns in and reason with whatever information we have. But logical fallacies abound when we don’t apply enough discipline and allow panic or emotion or fear to affect our analysis.

 

[JPye]

OK, here are my two cents. From what I have gathered so far about these blown engines are the failures initially seemed to be related to a narrow period of engine build dates. But now there are failures outside of the original Julian date windows. It seems to me that the failures are not occurring until the mileage reaches the mid 2000 miles. This is what I gleaned for this forum, but this observation could be wrong. However, much like a human being, once we reach a certain age, our predicted lifespan increases because we have made it past most of the fatal life events, and medical issues that will kill us.

What I am proposing is the hypothesis that if our Bronco's make it into well into 5000 mile range, that this failure is very unlikely. This is not without merit. Consider the position that the valves are failing due to poor quality control of hardness specs or other manufacturing flaws of the valves that were missed due to the Pandemic. Ford is certainly aware of the potential for a quality assurance failure, and we should all hope that Ford is on top of this right now. My 2.7 bronco has 406 miles on the odometer and won't have 2500 miles until June and my Julian Date is 319. I will be watching this thread until then..

 

[Snowdogyyz]

I think it’s important to remember that most of the theories in this thread are blind guesses, or at most educated guesses based on very little information.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Ford apologist or fanboy, and if my own engine needed a full replacement within the first year of ownership, on my first Ford vehicle, I’d sell it ASAP and never buy another Ford product.

Still, there’s a lot of alarmism in this thread. As laypeople without access to important details like fleetwide statistics & diagnostics, physical inspection of failed components, diagnostic logs, knowledge of supply chain etc… there’s only so much that can be deduced from the 30 or so data points that we have. But who has access to the information that is needed to actually figure out what’s going on? Ford.

Many of the conclusions that are being drawn in here so far aren’t much more than superstition. “Oh no, there was a failure from a date on which the moon was in the same phase as the date on which my engine was manufactured… I’m sure that means my engine is more likely to fail and I shouldn’t be daily driving it anymore!” I’m not faulting these conclusions too much, because as humans we try to find patterns in and reason with whatever information we have. But logical fallacies abound when we don’t apply enough discipline and allow panic or emotion or fear to affect our analysis.

Are there some going over the top a little worrying over it? Sure! It’s human nature to worry about potential issues of a failed motor.
Is the data pure guesses? No. Most blown motors have been confirmed. Many have been valve 5. We have the build dates for most of the 29-30 motors and it shows two clumps of build dates. This is hard data- not “guesstimates”. Failure rates are guesstimates. We don’t know how many 2.7’s forum members are driving currently. We cannot guess how many in the general public have blown or are running problem free. But that’s notthe purpose of this thread. It’s tracking what we know from this forum alone. Only current members and those that join are included.
What folks determine from the actual data is up to them. We do know there are nowhere near the amount of 2.3’s blown. Maybe 1-2 compared to 29-30.
So whereas I understand the main intent of your post, the data being tracked is not a guesstimate- it’s actual confirmed data. Anything concluded from it is a guesstimate.

 

[JPye]

Are there some going over the top a little worrying over it? Sure! It’s human nature to worry about potential issues of a failed motor.
Is the data pure guesses? No. Most blown motors have been confirmed. Many have been valve 5. We have the build dates for most of the 29-30 motors and it shows two clumps of build dates. This is hard data- not “guesstimates”. Failure rates are guesstimates. We don’t know how many 2.7’s forum members are driving currently. We cannot guess how many in the general public have blown or are running problem free. But that’s notthe purpose of this thread. It’s tracking what we know from this forum alone. Only current members and those that join are included.
What folks determine from the actual data is up to them. We do know there are nowhere near the amount of 2.3’s blown. Maybe 1-2 compared to 29-30.
So whereas I understand the main intent of your post, the data being tracked is not a guesstimate- it’s actual confirmed data. Anything concluded from it is a guesstimate.

Hmm, did I read this right? Is the valve failure always the same cylinder and position in that cylinder? If so, that would certainly change a lot of speculation about valve metallurgy.

 

[BroncocnorB]

OK, here are my two cents. From what I have gathered so far about these blown engines are the failures initially seemed to be related to a narrow period of engine build dates. But now there are failures outside of the original Julian date windows. It seems to me that the failures are not occurring until the mileage reaches the mid 2000 miles. This is what I gleaned for this forum, but this observation could be wrong. However, much like a human being, once we reach a certain age, our predicted lifespan increases because we have made it past most of the fatal life events, and medical issues that will kill us.

What I am proposing is the hypothesis that if our Bronco's make it into well into 5000 mile range, that this failure is very unlikely. This is not without merit. Consider the position that the valves are failing due to poor quality control of hardness specs or other manufacturing flaws of the valves that were missed due to the Pandemic. Ford is certainly aware of the potential for a quality assurance failure, and we should all hope that Ford is on top of this right now. My 2.7 bronco has 406 miles on the odometer and won't have 2500 miles until June and my Julian Date is 319. I will be watching this thread until then..

Yes a bathtub curve

 

[Snowdogyyz]

Hmm, did I read this right? Is the valve failure always the same cylinder and position in that cylinder? If so, that would certainly change a lot of speculation about valve metallurgy.

Not all but several have been valve 5.

 

[JPye]

Yes a bathtub curve

The only problem with this hypothesis is that it was based on a QA issue of the valve metallurgy. Now I am seeing that the problem is with a specific cylinder. Plus, of course most of the failures are around mid 2000 miles because most of the Broncos out there are probably around that range of mileage. SO, I think my post is full of it now.

Sponsored