Watch "Ford F150 2.7L EcoBoost V6 Engine **Heavy Mechanic Review** | How GOOD Is It??" on YouTube

Love the 2.7 in the Bronco. I had the 2.3 in my 2020 Ranger and it's such an improvement.

Haven’t had the 2.3 but did own a 3.5 in an F-150 and the 2.7 in the squatch is a great improvement. Jmo

🐎

Good enough for a lawsuit.

https://eclassactions.com/ford-ecoboost-valvetrain-defect-3552/

Foxtrot Bravo

Good enough for a lawsuit.

https://eclassactions.com/ford-ecoboost-valvetrain-defect-3552/

According to the lawsuit, the Class Vehicles intake valves are manufactured out of an alloy known as “Silchrome Lite,” a material that becomes excessively hard and brittle if exposed to over-temperatures during the machining of the component.
These structurally-compromised intake valves cannot withstand the pressures placed upon them and risk fracturing. This is what is commonly known as the “Valvetrain Defect.” When this occurs, the consequence can be sudden, catastrophic engine failure and a loss of motive power. In the aftermath of such an event, the only repair available is a full engine replacement.
Ford stopped manufacturing valves made from Silchrome Lite in October 2021 opting instead for a different, more resilient alloy that is less prone to fracture.

Rydfree

Love the 2.7 in the Bronco. I had the 2.3 in my 2020 Ranger and it's such an improvement.

What issues did you have with the 2.3L?? Or was it just not enough power for what you wanted??

The 2.3L is probably my favorite engine Ford produces today (at least in the top 3), so it's always surprising to hear when people don't like it.

Is this Groundhog Day or what? Nothing like a good 2.7 valve issue from 2021 to bring up all over again…..

RagnarKon

What issues did you have with the 2.3L?? Or was it just not enough power for what you wanted??

The 2.3L is probably my favorite engine Ford produces today (at least in the top 3), so it's always surprising to hear when people don't like it.

I would not say that I did not like it, just that I find the 2.7 an improvement .
I did test drive a couple 2.3 equipped Broncos and decided to stick with my 2.7 order and very happy I did.
My Ranger was a FX4 Supercrew Lariat with rear locker riding on 33s vs my current Badlands on the stock 33s.

I wouldn't call these complaints as much as simply a preference as to how the 2.7 accomplishes the task.

The 2.3 was noisy. Most of the time it sounded like an older diesel with all the fuel pump and injector chatter, especially during the several minutes after startup. My 2.7 is noticeably quieter. The wife even commented on the Ranger a few times but she's been in a MB since '95 so she's a bit overly observant when it comes to how quiet a ride is, lol.

The torque of the 2.7 is much better. Just to get the Ranger moving in the parking lot sounded like a jet spooling up under the hood. I don't think I even notice any boost on the Bronco until I get out on the highway. It gets going from a dead stop with much less effort, throttle and resulting sound it seems.

The 2.3 is of course a little powerhouse and it moved the Ranger very well once it got spooled up, but the 2.7 just seems to do it effortlessly in the Bronco. I find the 2.7 to have much less turbo lag. I assume that to be due to the twin turbo setup as opposed to the single of the 2.3. Maybe more cylinders can just be tunned better in that regard, not sure ?

Oil changes are easier and less messy on the 2.7 since it has the top mounted filter.

The 2.7 warms up quicker than the 2.3. I used the remote start feature way more often and for longer during the Winter on the 2.3 and was still cold when I hit the highway. I hardly have used it on the Bronco and when I have I am warm by the end of my driveway. Could it be the HVAC system of the Bronco is that much better than the Lariat Ranger ? I doubt it. The 2.7 seems to get to temp much quicker . Twin turbo with integrated header design ?? hmm. Don't know.

Fuel mileage surprisingly is the same for the two but I fully expected the Square body of the Bronco with bigger engine to be worse. Nice surprise there.

Like I said , it's just preference but I'm sure I would have also kept the Ranger if it had the 2.7. I liked that truck a lot otherwise :)

2.7 EcoBoost Common Problem #1 – Carbon Buildup
2.7 EcoBoost Common Problem #2 – Cam Phasers
2.7 EcoBoost Common Problem #3 – Oil Pan
2.7 EcoBoost Common Problem #4 – Spark Plugs and Ignition Coils

and the wet rubber oil pump drive belt

Foxtrot Bravo

2.3 EcoBoost Common Problem #1 – Carbon Buildup
2.3 EcoBoost Common Problem #2 – engine running hot/head gasket failure
2.3 EcoBoost Common Problem #3 - Excessive fuel dilution of oil
2.3 EcoBoost Common Problem #4 – water in Spark Plugs and Ignition Coils

I could go on any forum and find common issues with any engine. These are off the top of my head from the Ranger forum ,lol.

The way people gush over the 2.7 you would think it can cure cancer and end world hunger. It's just another recall prone lump in a long line of ford foul ups.

Foxtrot Bravo

The way people gush over the 2.7 you would think it can cure cancer and end world hunger. It's just another recall prone lump in a long line of ford foul ups.

This isn’t a bash the 2.7 thread. Driving a Bronco with one is night and day difference over 2.3. There’s a reason Ford chose to put the 2.7 in the F-150.

And if you’re looking for recognition, the 2.3 is on Consumer Reports top ten list. Oh that’s their “rebuild list”. I guess a person would have to argue with them. The 2.7 didn’t make the list…

2015 Ford Mustang

2015 Ford Mustang 4-cyl.Typical mileage: 76,000-85,000Alternatives without this problem: 2015-2016 BMW 2 Series, 2015-2016 Mazda MX-5 Miata

extra toasty

This isn’t a bash the 2.7 thread. Driving a Bronco with one is night and day difference over 2.3. There’s a reason Ford chose to put the 2.7 in the F-150.

And if you’re looking for recognition, the 2.3 is on Consumer Reports top ten list. Oh that’s their “rebuild list”. I guess a person would have to argue with them. The 2.7 didn’t make the list…

2015 Ford Mustang

2015 Ford Mustang 4-cyl.Typical mileage: 76,000-85,000Alternatives without this problem: 2015-2016 BMW 2 Series, 2015-2016 Mazda MX-5 Miata

First off the 2015 2.3L EcoBoost is not the same engine in the 2021 Bronco, it's been improved as all manufacturers update their engines upon finding in real world use that testing doesn't find. But the 2.3L EcoBoost is used across Ford's lineup in both retail and commercial applications and has some very high real world use by the time it was used in the Bronco.

But if a buyer wants his Bronco with a manual transmission (as I did) the 2.3L is a very fine engine choice IMO. It has excellent power and returns great fuel mileage. If buying a Bronco with the automatic it's a non-brainer to choose the 2.7L. But, after seeing a video of a failed 2.7 EcoBoost teardown at 96,000 miles the wet rubber oil drive belt would have me very concerned. I have no issues with modern engine design materials engineering, but the wet-oil drive belt from the engine teardown showed significant surface cracking at 96,000 miles. If I owned the 2.7 EcoBoost and intended to keep it over 150,000 miles, I would buy an extended warranty.

Eninty

First off the 2015 2.3L EcoBoost is not the same engine in the 2021 Bronco, it's been improved as all manufacturers update their engines upon finding in real world use that testing doesn't find. But the 2.3L EcoBoost is used across Ford's lineup in both retail and commercial applications and has some very high real world use by the time it was used in the Bronco.

But if a buyer wants his Bronco with a manual transmission (as I did) the 2.3L is a very fine engine choice IMO. It has excellent power and returns great fuel mileage. If buying a Bronco with the automatic it's a non-brainer to choose the 2.7L. But, after seeing a video of a failed 2.7 EcoBoost teardown at 96,000 miles the wet rubber oil drive belt would have me very concerned. I have no issues with modern engine design materials engineering, but the wet-oil drive belt from the engine teardown showed significant surface cracking at 96,000 miles. If I owned the 2.7 EcoBoost and intended to keep it over 150,000 miles, I would buy an extended warranty.

"intended to keep it over 150,000 miles, I would buy an extended warranty."

...and for 150k you would not suggest the ext warranty with a 2.3L ?
I'll be near dead before my 2.7 sees 150k so I'm good ,lol.

Eninty

First off the 2015 2.3L EcoBoost is not the same engine in the 2021 Bronco, it's been improved as all manufacturers update their engines upon finding in real world use that testing doesn't find. But the 2.3L EcoBoost is used across Ford's lineup in both retail and commercial applications and has some very high real world use by the time it was used in the Bronco.

But if a buyer wants his Bronco with a manual transmission (as I did) the 2.3L is a very fine engine choice IMO. It has excellent power and returns great fuel mileage. If buying a Bronco with the automatic it's a non-brainer to choose the 2.7L. But, after seeing a video of a failed 2.7 EcoBoost teardown at 96,000 miles the wet rubber oil drive belt would have me very concerned. I have no issues with modern engine design materials engineering, but the wet-oil drive belt from the engine teardown showed significant surface cracking at 96,000 miles. If I owned the 2.7 EcoBoost and intended to keep it over 150,000 miles, I would buy an extended warranty.

If you watched the video of 2.7 tear down it pretty much proved that the belt damage was the effect not the cause.

Even if these engines happen to have the exact same long term reliability a person still has to give up some pretty serious performance benefits with the 2.3 without gaining any real efficiency.

Oh yah that Bronco 2.3 still only has direct injection. No silly warranty will cover intake carbon deposits. Nothing cheap about walnut blasting.

extra toasty

Oh yah that Bronco 2.3 still only has direct injection. No silly warranty will cover intake carbon deposits. Nothing cheap about walnut blasting.

Ford put an air/oil separator on the Bronco's 2.3L. As long as you do normal oil changes should only have to clean out the intake every ~150,000 miles or so. Maybe 90,000-100,000 if you drive it around like a sports car or are constantly towing... but I suspect anyone who is looking to drive with their Bronco like a sports car or heavily tow bought the 2.7L anyway. 150k miles is enough for the majority of people, and if you are one of the 300k+ miles folks there are third party catch cans that mitigate the issue almost completely.

That said, I will admit carbon deposits was a huge problem early on with the initial versions of the 2.3L, especially on the performance vehicles that had the 2.3L EcoBoost (most notably the Focus RS). The 2.3L also had heat dissipation issues that caused all kinds of problems on the 2015 Mustangs. But they've since largely mitigated both of those issues with a few design changes.

It does bring up a good point. These engines aren't static throughout their lifespan. Ford will continually refine these engines throughout. Even the two worst engines Ford has released in the past two decides—the 1.5L/1.6L Sigma EcoBoost 4-cyls, and the 2.7L V6—got some design changes to fix their major issues. (In the case of the 2.7L V6 it was a big enough change to warrant a "2nd generation" label.)

Luckily for the Bronco, the current 2.3L and 2.7L EcoBoosts are both probably in the top 3 most-reliable EcoBoost engines. The second generation 2.7L may very well be THE most reliable EcoBoost engine. (If it isn't the 2.7L, it's probably the 2.0L twin-scroll EcoBoost.)

extra toasty

If you watched the video of 2.7 tear down it pretty much proved that the belt damage was the effect not the cause.

Even if these engines happen to have the exact same long term reliability a person still has to give up some pretty serious performance benefits with the 2.3 without gaining any real efficiency.

Oh yah that Bronco 2.3 still only has direct injection. No silly warranty will cover intake carbon deposits. Nothing cheap about walnut blasting.

The video I watched made no correlation between the belt condition and the bearing failures; it was the mechanic's observation from his concern of an oil bath rubber belt running the oil pump. He did mention Ford recommends a specific oil type use regime to prevent belt degradation. The video came to no conclusion as to why the bearings were oil starved, just that the bearings were damaged from oil starvation.

I was surprised to see the belt in such a degraded state at 96,000 miles. Hopefully the belt in the video was an anomaly.

This isn't a 2.3 vs 2.7 comparison, its all about the 2.7 and its problems. The valve train issues go back to 2017 its not just the 21s with the Sillychrome valves.

Foxtrot Bravo

This isn't a 2.3 vs 2.7 comparison, its all about the 2.7 and its problems. The valve train issues go back to 2017 its not just the 21s with the Sillychrome valves.

I assume you are referring to the carbon build up on valves that is endemic to direct injection. That would be why FORD has modified the 2.7 to run dual injection by adding the port injection in addition to the direct injection to address that specific issue. Results remain to be seen but theoretically it appears the corrective design should address the issue and so far so good. It does come at the cost of an MPG or two and truly drives home the importance of using top tier gasoline. (not referring to octane but to those distributers that commit to adding specific cleaning agents).

Unicorn

I assume you are referring to the carbon build up on valves that is endemic to direct injection. That would be why FORD has modified the 2.7 to run dual injection by adding the port injection in addition to the direct injection to address that specific issue. Results remain to be seen but theoretically it appears the corrective design should address the issue and so far so good. It does come at the cost of an MPG or two and truly drives home the importance of using top tier gasoline. (not referring to octane but to those distributers that commit to adding specific cleaning agents).

No I'm talking about dropped valves and other valve train issues.Valve keepers are not affected by fuel...