There aren’t “tens of thousands of 2.7’s” on this forum. The ford diehards, such as yourself, need to realize that these numbers are concerning- enough to further investigate and stop getting butt hurt about their precious brand having numerous issues- delivery, MIC, reservation holders, huge dealer ADM, etc.
Where are your “real” numbers then?
How’d you get that calculation? From Ford marketing? Or are you making up numbers- while accusing others of making up numbers?
So you make up numbers yourself because you don't like numbers that others made up? Fact is, we know of 24 failures to date, which is amazing to me considering that is 24 people that are forum members, got a 21 Bronco, have driven it for a few thousand miles to show the problem, and got the V6.
Yes- this! No one has said this is a catastrophic failure rate- yet. But there is enough with the number of blown 2.7’s on this forum alone to be a little concerned and investigate further. Ford ain’t going to tell us shit- this would be a PR nightmare for them to own another debacle in the bronco release. It’s probably going to take a serious accident/lawsuit to get them to publicly do anything.
Join the large minority that was sure of that fact when we saw the interiors.
Tens of thousands?? There's not tens of thousands of 2.7 Broncos on the road let alone built.. I hope you're not counting the F150s and any 2.7 Engines built before the pandemic!! Totally different. The 2.7 in the Bronco is different. 2.0 version. Also this is also a supply chain quality issue because of the current pandemic that doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon.
I wonder what information are you using to state it is not an issue. If you are a dealer, it makes sense, you are getting paid twice for the car, for selling it and for installing a. New engine.
What's your engine build date?! Do you know or can call the dealer to get it? It's on the front of the drivers side valve cover.
Thanks for trying to hang a number on all this. Your “back of the envelope“ significance testing is a good way to figure this out. But I think you need better data, and perhaps different assumptions, before identifying those concerned as “worried old fishwives.’ If you are going to calculate and cite p-values, you should more clearly state your null and alternate hypotheses. “Farther and farther from 0.05” is vague. Farther higher or farther lower? Maybe I missed your hypotheses somewhere up thread. Lastly, I wonder if you are selecting your population correctly. Your back of the envelope numbers seem to be based on all the Broncos produced. I suggest that the actual population is somewhat smaller and not a number we know with great precision. For example, it’s been presumed that the engine failures are a consequence of a lower quality batch of valves. To me, the population for significance testing in this case should be the number of Broncos those valves went into. In other words, even with some lower quality valves not all engines will fail, and in fact, most engines will be fine. But your p-value might become a bit more significant (i.e., “concerning”) if you selected your population a bit more carefully. Again, good try at trying to makes sense of the failing engines. My 0.02$US.
The reality is that all of the statistical analysis, while interesting, is meaningless to the customer that shelled $50+k for a new car, which is now inoperable.
The engineering groups at Ford are much smarter than the general public, they understand their products. Why do people think the factory is just a bunch of inbreds with hammers banging on engine blocks?
Dang you really struck a nerve with a few!
It’s 1000% more than the 2.3 which was unconstrained and likely in more on road units. The cross section of the 2.3 failures is normal in modern engine manufacturing, the 2.7 and fords silence is ridiculous. I’m losing the left vs right brain battle on the Bronco reservation. I’m no longer staying pumped. Customer service will get back
