Great 2.7L EcoBoost Engine Teardown Video

[GreyZ]

Oh, I know, but it's a concern. If you're putting 6 PSI through the turbos and suddenly lose oil pressure, pull off, and shut the thing down, you're probably going to be ok. If you continue to drive it for any length of time, you're probably going to end up burning up the rod bearings and potentially sending metal flakes through the engine.

Watching Eric's tear down videos for almost two years has made me kinda paranoid about that.

JR

I think your incorrect here. If you are making 6psi, even an instantanious loss of oil pressure will be catastrphic for the system.

Sponsored

 

[jacknifetoaswan]

I think your incorrect here. If you are making 6psi, even an instantanious loss of oil pressure will be catastrphic for the system.

Oh, I'm not saying everything will be perfect, just that you may not have a catastrophic failure if you get out of the gas and shut off the engine quickly. Also, I'm not a mechanic or mechanical engineer, so I can't quantify the results of sudden oil starvation on bearings, rods, and turbos.

Regardless, I think a wet belt design is short sighted.

JR

 

[Nick72]

see part #26

I don’t know that the variable displacement oiling system on the Bronco should be classified as a “stupid design”, but admittedly only time will tell if it proves to be reliable or problematic.

Unfortunately, have seen some oil pump/wet belt issues on 1.0L in the EcoSport.

He (I Do Cars) does a teardown on the 1.0L out of the EcoSport. Belt disintegrated and clogged the oil pickup.

 

[CarGuy]

The rod/crack bearing were concerning.

 

[timhood]

The discussion on the the oil pump wet rubber belt here and especially here is interesting, and does not inspire a lot of confidence

I'm not going to let a bunch of armchair engineers trouble me. People making conjectures based on things they think don't sound like good ideas without any understanding or evidence isn't science. I don't know what the practical life of that belt is, but I'm pretty sure I'll either never get to that point or I'll know from other people's real-world experience before I do.

That's not to say that the idea of this doesn't raise concern in me. But that's mainly due to my lack of understanding. It would be a more interesting video to see Ford engineers talking about why they went with that design, what advantages it may have over other options, and, if someone were to try to keep their 2.7 running forever, when is a practical point in age or mileage to replace it.

 

[HotdogThud]

To my knowledge, there is no service interval. It is presumably intended to last the life of the engine.

VW told us that about timing chain tensioners. Boy was everyone wrong about that

 

[Donkeygyrl]

Just watched the whole thing,how many would have checked 2.3 after seeing this?

 

[MadMan4BamaNATL]

I've seen one broken belt personally. 2018 F-150 with an 8' bed. Was a work truck owned by a local small business—belt failed around the 162,000 mile mark. I have seen a few belts warn out like this, but usually the timing chain cover was off to fix the cam phasers/timing chains and we just replaced the oil pump belt while we were there.

Obviously I live in a little bubble (vehicle repairs is a side-gig for me), but given the fact that the F-150 is the most popular vehicle sold in America... one actual failure leads me to believe it isn't a major issue. I think it's safe to say most people will never encounter this issue before they trade in their Bronco for something newer.

That said, I don't know if I would say the 2.7L is a 300,000 mile trouble-free engine by itself, it'll probably need some help getting there. (But most engines these days do... so... )

Most engines anywhere will need help getting beyond 150,000 miles, but that’s a far cry from, say 30 years ago when most didn’t come close to 100K without a rebuild. Wanna talk about engines even older? No, we don’t.

I’m no mechanic in any stretch, but I do know statistics pretty decent and I can tell you that the stats don’t back up the alarmist nature of that video. Sure, that belt is worn, but I expect it to be at that age along with many other parts of the engine and other areas.

Some maintenance will be required gentlemen and this includes some that is somewhat major to keep that Bronco operating under regular loads into the 200K range and beyond. Not sure that catch can will help us much either, but spend your money wherever makes you feel good.

I do plan to keep my Bronco for a good while; like 15-20 years, but after 10, it will cease being my daily. I think age is more of a threat than just miles, then factor in off-road abuse and we’ll all need to do a little extra, as this ain’t a Camry for grocery store runs and the work commute only.

Think we should all calm it down a bit. I’ve pointed out in recent weeks that the average car on the road is close to 20 years old and most of these people do nothing to keep these vehicles up, like barely changing the oil and using that recycled crap at the Jiffy place.

If we even put fourth any effort, think we’ll all be more than ok. Basically, this is just talk and debates for the inter webs and nothing serious for the average Bronco owner to pay any attention to. Maybe at that 100K service, ask to change that belt for whatever God forsaken amount that would cost, then avoid getting in a fender bender on the way back home….

 

[da_jokker]

I wish the donor of that engine provided the maintenance details...which oil....change intervals, etc.

 

[Rydfree]

Just watched the whole thing,how many would have checked 2.3 after seeing this?

I had the 2.3 in my Ranger, wasn't impressed . I'm very glad I checked the 2.7 in the Bronco. If you visit a few Mustang/Ranger forums you'll see the 2.3 has its own issues. Scary stories aside,they are both good and dependable engines for the most part.

 

[Sherminiator]

Most engines anywhere will need help getting beyond 150,000 miles, but that’s a far cry from, say 30 years ago when most didn’t come close to 100K without a rebuild. Wanna talk about engines even older? No, we don’t.

I dunno about that, I had a 86 Escort GT that I got off my dad and it still ran good at 140K or so when I got rid of it in 1993 when I went into the Army. It was still on the road (in rough shape) in 1997/8 when I saw it again at the local auto parts store I used to work at! I think It might have needed something major by then when I talked to the guy, but it got regular oil changes when we had it and it had some issues, but it wasn't anything major (for the time)

Ford normally engineers an engine to last least 150K before a major end item fails on it-which works out to about 10 years at 15K miles a year, which is roughly the average amount driving people do. Its not to say it won't happen before or after that mark, but its def more likely to happen after that.

 

[Mr Bacon Jr]

You have about the same chance of getting into an accident and totaling your car out that way as you do with an major engine failure.

This. I’ll keep the Bronco to ~150k miles like pretty much every other car in last 20 years. Unless it proves unreliable.

 

[BroncoBuckaroo]

Looks like these belts are made if Kevlar. It’s been tested to 1100 HP

Its a wet lubricated design and can’t slip like a normal belt can. Can it break..yep. You can break and stretch a metal timing chain too, thats why they invented double roll timing sets, etc

 

[da_jokker]

I wonder if the rubber belt has anything to do with why they don't put full synthetic oil in them?

 

[Isles13]

Just watched the whole thing,how many would have checked 2.3 after seeing this?

I was even more impressed with the 2.7 by this video. This platform looks incredible strong and durable outside of the oil belt. I'm sure if this becomes a common failure point at higher mileages the aftermarket will develop a solution, especially with how widespread the engine is in the F150.

Sponsored