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

[North7]

I haven’t read all this thread but I hear everyone saying they dropped a valve. How would a bad batch of valves cause a dropped valve? Could keeper/retainer notch be bad and not lock in the keepers? Could the valve break at the keeper/retainer notch? Is it really the (6518) in the diagram actual valve keeper/retainer that failed to keep the valve, thus dropping into cylinder? Or the rocker could kick off due to bad lash adjusters (6500) causing it to hit the spring, which could throw the retainer and drop the valve? This was an issue on some 5.4’s. Only so many parts can cause a dropped valve but it usually isn’t the valve itself that failed.

Yours is as good of hypothesis as any, no one knows for sure, Ford is being tight lipped.

My hypothesis of another possibility, if the timing chain breaks or something else in the timing system gets out of time, you can bend the valve, to which collides with the piston, breaking it off.

Sponsored

 

[NC_Pinz]

Recent Changes - 2.7L Bronco V6 (Nano gen2)
- over the past 6-months there were at least three changes

1) New Valves
- 'Nano valve supplier issue was resolved with more robust design and material changes at the supplier.'
- Timeframe: ~ Summer/Fall

2) Head Assemblies - New Part#'s
- Left
-- Engineering# ML3E-6M099-DB --> new rev -DF
-- Service part# ML3Z-6049-G --> new rev -K
- Right
-- Engineering# ML3E-6F093-DB --> new rev -DH
-- Service part# ML3Z-6049-D --> new rev -J
- Timeframe: prob along w change# 3) below

3) 2.7L V6 Engine - New Part#
- Engineering# MB3E-6007-AA --> new rev -AB
- new part# prob coincident w new head assemblies
- Timeframe: appears ~ Nov/Dec ebd's

Blown Engines
- in B6g tracking, the bunches of dropped-valve failures appear to end w ebd 21224 (Aug 12) - Since then we've only seen one blown engine (21281), which could be an isolated random failure
- so far we have not seen blown engines w new part# rev -AB
- engine rev -AB still fairly new, many still low mileage


Diagram of Head Assemblies w Service part#'s (6049 overall)

Thanks from the community for tracking things and putting the information in one spot where we can at least gain a little knowledge.

 

[mountainbronco]

Recent Changes - 2.7L Bronco V6 (Nano gen2)
- over the past 6-months there were at least three changes

1) New Valves
- 'Nano valve supplier issue was resolved with more robust design and material changes at the supplier.'
- Timeframe: ~ Summer/Fall

2) Head Assemblies - New Part#'s
- Left
-- Engineering# ML3E-6M099-DB --> new rev -DF
-- Service part# ML3Z-6049-G --> new rev -K
- Right
-- Engineering# ML3E-6F093-DB --> new rev -DH
-- Service part# ML3Z-6049-D --> new rev -J
- Timeframe: prob along w change# 3) below

3) 2.7L V6 Engine - New Part#
- Engineering# MB3E-6007-AA --> new rev -AB
- new part# prob coincident w new head assemblies
- Timeframe: appears ~ Nov/Dec ebd's

Blown Engines
- in B6g tracking, the bunches of dropped-valve failures appear to end w ebd 21224 (Aug 12) - Since then we've only seen one blown engine (21281), which could be an isolated random failure
- so far we have not seen blown engines w new part# rev -AB
- engine rev -AB still fairly new, many still low mileage


Diagram of Head Assemblies w Service part#'s (6049 overall)

Thank you Lucchese, fact based information.
What this indicates is there are two sets of improvements. The valves and heads.

So those engines built AFTER the valves were resolved, that still have AA on their engine build have the OLD design.

Example: my EBD is 21267 with series 6007 AA. So this was built with improved valves, but 1st edition head. This your interpretation as well?

I am blown away that Ford does not communicate with affected owners. You would think that after their tire and roll-over fiasco in the 90s they would have learned something!

 

[gtx_bronc]

Sitting here with a build date of 21195 patiently waiting.......engine part number of MB3E-6007-AA. From reading above i think that is good? 8200 miles and counting

 

[da_jokker]

Yeah I think if I were offered a 2.7 AA I'd pass.

 

[22OBX]

Yours is as good of hypothesis as any, no one knows for sure, Ford is being tight lipped.

My hypothesis of another possibility, if the timing change breaks or something else in the timing system gets out of time, you can bend the valve, to which collides with the piston, breaking it off.

I noticed the poster after me stated and posted revised head part numbers. That also could allow a theory of poor oil flow to the lash adjuster, which could increase lash, creating the scenario of throwing the rocker into the spring, kicking out the keepers. The 5.4 issue usually happened at higher mileage when the rocker wear combined with a failing lash adjuster would allow enough clearance to kick the rocker. It would be interesting to keep an eye for revisions to the lash adjusters, rockers, or valve retainers/keepers as well.

 

[Bdisco]

Dammit ’21160’ 3600 miles so far and have not blowed up, yet. Thinking about oil change at 5k dealer service guy said to save my money that early changes weren’t necessary. Maybe this is just the engine gods cursing me because…

I sold my 2015 STi to my friend back in May prior to getting my Bronco in July. The Subaru only had about 60k miles. oil changed every 5k full synthetic, plugs at 60k, full PPI at time of transfer. He enjoyed it until October when ringland failure reared it ugly head. Fortunately I had not modified in any way for fear of voiding the extended warranty up to 100k after the Subaru class action settlement. He received a new short block and in less then 30 days was once again enjoying that suby rumble.

Meanwhile, waiting on the Ford Class Action for 2.7 Lima Valve issues before I purchase the extended warranty.

 

[Carolina Jim]

I am blown away that Ford does not communicate with affected owners. You would think that after their tire and roll-over fiasco in the 90s they would have learned something!

Ford gets reminded every single day how the world views their performance - I can only assume they take a lot of Valium in Dearborn, because its not a pretty picture.

Investors value companies at some multiple of their earnings (P/E Ratio); the higher the multiple, the more highly you are regarded:

Ford: 4.047​

GM: 7.527​

Toy: 9.434​

I'd be Much happier if Toyota had made my Bronco - and if they ever make a 2-door retro FJ, I'll ditch Ford in a heartbeat.

 

[jwoobs]

A design change would result in a rolled part number for the engine assembly.

There might be some containment action which involved additional quality checks on valves before the new design was introduced, but the design would be the same.

Edit: Michigan assembly plant is getting entire engine assemblies with heads and everything already installed. Mating the two together would happen at Lima. To make it easy for MAP to track incoming parts, there is only going to be a top-level part number for the engine assembly itself. So if any component on the engine changes, Lima will change their part number, and MAP will order that new one.

So those engines built AFTER the valves were resolved, that still have AA on their engine build have the OLD design.

Example: my EBD is 21267 with series 6007 AA. So this was built with improved valves, but 1st edition head. This your interpretation as well?

 

[Snowdogyyz]

Ford gets reminded every single day how the world views their performance - I can only assume they take a lot of Valium in Dearborn, because its not a pretty picture.

Investors value companies at some multiple of their earnings (P/E Ratio); the higher the multiple, the more highly you are regarded:

Ford: 4.047​

GM: 7.527​

Toy: 9.434​

I'd be Much happier if Toyota had made my Bronco - and if they ever make a 2-door retro FJ, I'll ditch Ford in a heartbeat.

I’ve been bitching for years that Toyota hasn’t wised up and made a modern FJ40. That would be a great competitor with Jeep and now the bronco. I just sold a 1974 FJ40 last year that I loved. I just don’t have time for the upkeep anymore. Sold it for 4.5 times what I paid for it. Cannot figure out why Toyota hasn’t done this yet!

 

[cpmartin1999]

I’ve been bitching for years that Toyota hasn’t wised up and made a modern FJ40. That would be a great competitor with Jeep and now the bronco. I just sold a 1974 FJ40 last year that I loved. I just don’t have time for the upkeep anymore. Sold it for 4.5 times what I paid for it. Cannot figure out why Toyota hasn’t done this yet!

SAME! always thought they missed the boat on that FJ they were making, should have had it with removable roof and doors

 

[mountainbronco]

Dammit ’21160’ 3600 miles so far and have not blowed up, yet. Thinking about oil change at 5k dealer service guy said to save my money that early changes weren’t necessary. Maybe this is just the engine gods cursing me because…

I sold my 2015 STi to my friend back in May prior to getting my Bronco in July. The Subaru only had about 60k miles. oil changed every 5k full synthetic, plugs at 60k, full PPI at time of transfer. He enjoyed it until October when ringland failure reared it ugly head. Fortunately I had not modified in any way for fear of voiding the extended warranty up to 100k after the Subaru class action settlement. He received a new short block and in less then 30 days was once again enjoying that suby rumble.

Meanwhile, waiting on the Ford Class Action for 2.7 Lima Valve issues before I purchase the extended warranty.

Do your oil change NOw. Did mine at 3000 and no regrets. You can feel the difference!

 

[1975U15]

Sitting here with a build date of 21195 patiently waiting.......engine part number of MB3E-6007-AA. From reading above i think that is good? 8200 miles and counting

For some perspective, you're a Gapper!! I'm also a Gapper hoping we lucked out. Love to hear you're at 8200mi.

Sponsored