205,000 miles on 2.7 first generation

[Mlarv]

I guess my 2015 F150 didn't get to 306,000 miles before I got rid of it. No turbos, no new motor, no problems other than a small oil leak that started around 280,000 miles. I didn't fix it because the leak wasn't all that bad. There is a thread over on the F150 forums that has a lot of high milage 2.7's

Sponsored

 

[Eljohno]

I guess my 2015 F150 didn't get to 306,000 miles before I got rid of it. No turbos, no new motor, no problems other than a small oil leak that started around 280,000 miles. I didn't fix it because the leak wasn't all that bad. There is a thread over on the F150 forums that has a lot of high milage 2.7's

I guess my 2015 F150 didn't get to 306,000 miles before I got rid of it. No turbos, no new motor, no problems other than a small oil leak that started around 280,000 miles. I didn't fix it because the leak wasn't all that bad. There is a thread over on the F150 forums that has a lot of high milage 2.7's

Your a 1%er!

 

[Eljohno]

It's not that simple, plenty of shitty naturally aspirated motors will fail long before many turbo motors.

Example, 90's Ford's Essex V-6 was a naturally aspirated motor that typically would spit head gaskets and self destruct long before 100k (65k being the average), whereas the same generation of engines had turbo motors that were reliable well past 100k miles including Mazda's BP motors and even Ford's 2.3 turbo used in the SVO Mustang and turbo Thunderbird, not to mention a whole host of other good gasoline turbocharged engines.

Sure, forced induction is more demanding on a gasoline engine than a normally aspirated engine, but only if they are equally built, but they are not typically built the same. The Supra 6 cylinder turbo and the v6 Buick turbo engines are virtually indestructible, and few engines are built this stout unless forced induction was considered in the design early on.

Well there's no way we will ever settle this, I believe 99% of Eco Boosts will never see 200k and you believe they are indestructible, no problem!

 

[Eljohno]

this story and the statistics are totally flawed. all this does is show which vehicles get driven the most by Americans. people put the most miles on these vehicles. Then they show the top 1% of those highly driven vehicles average mileage. some of these cars production numbers and sales were far greater than others....attributing to the bigger volume of each still on the road, and affecting to 1% ratio as well. If the engine management system keeps the parameters within spec, a boosted engine can and does last the SAME as normally aspirated. and if your looking at the SAME hp production out of the same cubic inches , then ironically the normally aspirated engine has to turn WAY more rpms to equal the boosted versions power output. we all know extra high RPMs cause extra wear, and typically don't have a long 200,000 mile lifespan...

So, to be fair, in an engine with identical components inside... with the identical cubic inches inside...AND CREATING EQUAL POWER, the normally aspirated engine will have to spin several thousand RPMs higher and this over a long period of miles will create MORE wear and noticeable differences in the Pistons, rods and cylinder walls compared to the boosted version that is, producing the SAME power, running lower RPMs and heavier loads on the piston crank and connecting rod.

additionally the valve train of the higher RPM N/A version MUST be upgraded to handle the faster reciprocation.

The advantages of boost outweighs any reliability comparisons when both engines are built the same.

Still won't be as reliable or last as long, sorry.

 

[Strykerwsu]

My 1st gen 3.5 ecoboost has 250k miles, runs perfectly. My Bronco 2.7 has 82k miles and runs strong.

Our Flex 3.5 turbo has 185k and still kicks ass once the light turns green. Did have turbos replaced at 55k under ESP. Only pain in the ass expense was water pump. Those that know, know.

 

[Strykerwsu]

Well there's no way we will ever settle this, I believe 99% of Eco Boosts will never see 200k and you believe they are indestructible, no problem!

15k, less than a year and I will raise the # to 2% lol

 

[mpeugeot]

Well there's no way we will ever settle this, I believe 99% of Eco Boosts will never see 200k and you believe they are indestructible, no problem!

Nice job of stating something that I didn't say about the ecoboost. I never said that they are indestructible, but they are solid reliable engines - and my personal experience is that they are above average with regular maintenance.

Also, I own 3 Fords with Ecoboost engines, the 3.5 in the F-150 has 250k miles, a 2.7 with 82k miles, and another 2.7 with only 4k miles. They all have one thing in common, they all run great. I'll take my chances... LOL.

 

[Eljohno]

Nice job of stating something that I didn't say about the ecoboost. I never said that they are indestructible, but they are solid reliable engines - and my personal experience is that they are above average with regular maintenance.

Also, I own 3 Fords with Ecoboost engines, the 3.5 in the F-150 has 250k miles, a 2.7 with 82k miles, and another 2.7 with only 4k miles. They all have one thing in common, they all run great. I'll take my chances... LOL.

Nice job of dragging in Mazda, Buick and Supra when topic was about 2.7 Eco Boost longevity. I like my 2 Broncos, I'm just not a fan of turbo engines, would much rather have a 5.0 but that's not possible so it is what it is. You have a nice day!

 

[kr_1315]

A lot of comments in this thread remind me of when I had an '86 Mustang 5.0 back in the day. Several old curmudgeons warned me about all the electrical issues I would have with the fuel injection. I sold it 18 years later with 258,000 miles, having had zero related issues.
I hear the same ignorance here with the "turbophobic" types.

Sponsored