Recall on Ford F150 2.7L EcoBoost

[sourdough]

Below is a link outlining a recall on some 2.7L Ecoboost F150s. The 2.7s and 3.0s were under investigation for failures and now a recall has been issued. Just a heads up for anyone that has one. I believe some of our members have that engine so get it looked at asap - let them fix it vs trying to fix a destroyed top end on your own. When they are looking at it be sure and tell them it is under load pulling an RV.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...85205da6&ei=50

https://fordauthority.com/2024/09/fo...intake-valves/

[Badbart56]

When these little turbo charged sixes came out the dealers were loving giving test drives and showing how the acceleration was comparable to the V-8 power. But my friends in the service department were shaking their heads. They said don't own one past the warranty.

[NH_Bulldog]

I had a 3.5 EB in my last F150. Fortunately I had an extended warranty because I went through 2 sets of exhaust manifolds, two sets of turbos, and a timing chain retrofit/upgrade. Once I had the last rebuild done I traded it in quickly since the warranty was almost up and I didn't want to go through it all a third time. Great power, great acceleration, decent fuel mileage, but not built/intended for any sort of even medium duty towing. But they make a great grocery-getter.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by NH_Bulldog

I had a 3.5 EB in my last F150. Fortunately I had an extended warranty because I went through 2 sets of exhaust manifolds, two sets of turbos, and a timing chain retrofit/upgrade. Once I had the last rebuild done I traded it in quickly since the warranty was almost up and I didn't want to go through it all a third time. Great power, great acceleration, decent fuel mileage, but not built/intended for any sort of even medium duty towing. But they make a great grocery-getter.

Ford has for some time tried to take a regular gas engine and inject it with steroids (turbo(s) ) to pump it up and seemingly make it stronger. The problem is that they usually don't beef up the rest of the engine enough and thus have problems....even running unloaded. That began, in my memory, back in the 80s when they tried to make the 2.3L compete with V8s by using turbos/intercoolers etc. Looked good on paper and they ran good.....until they didn't. Then it was an arm and a leg for repairs. That continues today with the 3.5L, 2.7L and 3.0L. The little engines just aren't built robust enough to run at full boost so they can pull a trailer etc. for prolonged periods of time. Like in a human that injects steroids to bulk up and get "big", those same steroids will self destruct. JMO

[Kirk's Keystone Outback.]

Originally Posted by NH_Bulldog

I had a 3.5 EB in my last F150. Fortunately I had an extended warranty because I went through 2 sets of exhaust manifolds, two sets of turbos, and a timing chain retrofit/upgrade. Once I had the last rebuild done I traded it in quickly since the warranty was almost up and I didn't want to go through it all a third time. Great power, great acceleration, decent fuel mileage, but not built/intended for any sort of even medium duty towing. But they make a great grocery-getter.

I have a 2013 3.5L with 213K miles with zero engine problems, other than replacing the composite valve covers at 200K. I towed several trailers with this truck and it did well.
My F250 is the workhorse now.

[locomech]

My 2013 F-150 has the 3.5L ecoboost and is approaching 100K miles. I've been towing my 27ft trailer with it for ten years now. With the exception of replacing the throttle body twice I've had no major issues with it. I like the truck and hope to keep it for another 100k. I've had more problems with my trailer.

[NH_Bulldog]

It sounds like 2013 was a good year to own a 3.5L EcoBoost then! I have owned nearly 20 Ford vehicles and my 2015 was nothing but trouble. I know there have been several generations of the engine and maybe that’s part of it. When the engine was working right, it was great. Coincidently, the 2.7L that is subject to the recall was first introduced in 2015.

My wife used ours mostly as a daily driver, and we always used high-end full synthetic lubricants, and met or exceeded all maintenance requirements. Ford brought in a tech from the Cleveland engine plant for the last rebuild and I had high hopes that it would finally be fixed, but I couldn’t pass up the deal I got on both the trade and price on the new one so I stepped away

[jasin1]

Originally Posted by Badbart56

When these little turbo charged sixes came out the dealers were loving giving test drives and showing how the acceleration was comparable to the V-8 power. But my friends in the service department were shaking their heads. They said don't own one past the warranty.

My son was looking for a truck about 6 or 7 years ago and we went to the ford dealer to check out new 150s as a possible option… I asked the sales guy to let us test drive a lariat I believe and I said specifically do not bring me a truck with a eco boost …bring us a v8 truck to test drive …he said the eco boost is blah blah blah and I said not interested… he says no problem be right back… we test drove and the dopey sales guy insisted on tagging along which is rare when I test drive… when we got back I asked some questions about overall horsepower and torque and he goes hahahahahahaha…that was an eco boost you were driving!!…. I said wtf wouldn’t you bring what I asked for and I suspect they were trying to move certain inventory… We left and I made up my mind we wouldn’t be purchasing anything from that sales person… we ended up with a used low mileage mint ram 6.7 2500 for him that he still has.. he just purchased a mint super low mileage Volkswagen tdi sport wagon for his long commute.. Arizona car that looks brand new and gets like 45 miles to the gallon and looks and sounds cool as hell

[jasin1]

Originally Posted by NH_Bulldog

It sounds like 2013 was a good year to own a 3.5L EcoBoost then! I have owned nearly 20 Ford vehicles and my 2015 was nothing but trouble. I know there have been several generations of the engine and maybe that’s part of it. When the engine was working right, it was great. Coincidently, the 2.7L that is subject to the recall was first introduced in 2015.

My wife used ours mostly as a daily driver, and we always used high-end full synthetic lubricants, and met or exceeded all maintenance requirements. Ford brought in a tech from the Cleveland engine plant for the last rebuild and I had high hopes that it would finally be fixed, but I couldn’t pass up the deal I got on both the trade and price on the new one so I stepped away

Interesting the way that works with both gas and diesel engines… Ford to me always seemed to play fast and loose with engine iterations….whereas Dodge/Ram finds something that works and sticks with it for years and years a bit too conservatively for some people… Chevy as well seemed to not change as much as Ford…when I was looking for a new truck when the ford 6.7 came out the sales guy was touting how wonderful this new engine is and I pointed out how many different diesels ford had in the last few years and I said you probably gave the same speech for all of them…


I get that Ford is on the cutting edge of new technology and with that comes a lot of change but I also wonder how much of that change is because of finding an engine that will work in all of its global markets at the same time to satisfy global economy standards… rather then what works for the average American truck owner.

The Ford 6.7 and the 7.3 are great motors but wonder when they will be phased out for something newer and “better”…hopefully it will be a long running option similar to Ram hemis and 6.7 diesels that have been the workhorses since the early 2000’s

Not bashing Ford btw it’s just an observation

[Badbart56]

Yeah, Ford has been forcing the technology on the consumer for some time. I don't think they even offer a V-8 in the Expedition anymore. Or the Lincoln Navigator either. We had a beautiful 2004 Eddie Bauer Edition Expedition that my wife loved. Gave it to our youngest son and his wife several years ago and they had over 200K miles on it when they traded it. But we went with a Cadillac Escalade this time around. Not disappointed either.

And this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...09328442&ei=26

[sourdough]

The push on little engines with a turbo, or two, is based on the imagined fuel economy benefits the manufacturers receive from the base line specs...they don't have to use the dismal numbers from them when under full boost. As we see now Toyota has gone to fully turbo engines in their larger vehicles - to their detriment IMO.

Turbocharged motors have been used in autos for many decades but what they have tried to do now is use that small, sedan based motor in trucks.....no comparison. If used as a light duty truck I don't have much doubt that those little motors on steroids can do the job getting groceries or carrying plywood. Those same motors were never designed for heavy truck/towing applications. There is a reason they aren't used in HD trucks and larger and when the smaller trucks are pushed into those services....trying to use them predominantly for heavy work, the steroids will have an eventual effect on the engine and performance as they always do....at the cost of many thousands of dollars. It has been said many times and it's true to this day....there is no replacement for displacement.

[NH_Bulldog]

My last company car was a Ford Escape. It had what I "lovingly" called a gutless wonder of an engine. It was a 1.5L 3 cylinder turbocharged motor that at highway speeds would disable one cylinder to maximize fuel economy. The last three Harleys I owned each had a bigger motor than the car did.

[Stircrazy]

Originally Posted by sourdough

Ford has for some time tried to take a regular gas engine and inject it with steroids (turbo(s) ) to pump it up and seemingly make it stronger. The problem is that they usually don't beef up the rest of the engine enough and thus have problems....even running unloaded. That began, in my memory, back in the 80s when they tried to make the 2.3L compete with V8s by using turbos/intercoolers etc. Looked good on paper and they ran good.....until they didn't. Then it was an arm and a leg for repairs. That continues today with the 3.5L, 2.7L and 3.0L. The little engines just aren't built robust enough to run at full boost so they can pull a trailer etc. for prolonged periods of time. Like in a human that injects steroids to bulk up and get "big", those same steroids will self destruct. JMO

you do know that is total BS don't you. building a turbo engine and a natural aspirated engine of the same HP levels and roughly the same displacement the turbo engine will be more reliable, get better gas milage, have way more power and cost less to produce.

the problem comes in where people buy a motor like this and because it says 400 HP they think it can be an every day tow motor. the whole idea of these motors is to stay out of the boost and get good milage, but have the boost for the odd time you need the power like passing another car. if you are always in the boost your going to stress parts and never see that good milage.

an ecoboost should only be used for the occasional tow on normal trailer of if you tow a lot if should be a small lighter unit. that's why they have the 5.0 and 7.3 gas options and the 6.7 diesel. the problem comes in when you want the good milage as your daily driver but you want to tow that 30 foot trailer every weekend through the mountains, or at 75mph down the highway.

[NH_Bulldog]

Well I seem to recall that my 3.5L EB was THOUSANDS more than a “regular” 3.5L when I ordered it back in 2015 (I just looked at my window sticker so $1,995 more to be precise). So I don’t buy that a turbocharged motor costs less than a traditional motor of the same displacement. It costs more to acquire, it costs more to operate and it costs more to maintain. Period.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by Stircrazy

you do know that is total BS don't you. building a turbo engine and a natural aspirated engine of the same HP levels and roughly the same displacement the turbo engine will be more reliable, get better gas milage, have way more power and cost less to produce.

the problem comes in where people buy a motor like this and because it says 400 HP they think it can be an every day tow motor. the whole idea of these motors is to stay out of the boost and get good milage, but have the boost for the odd time you need the power like passing another car. if you are always in the boost your going to stress parts and never see that good milage.

an ecoboost should only be used for the occasional tow on normal trailer of if you tow a lot if should be a small lighter unit. that's why they have the 5.0 and 7.3 gas options and the 6.7 diesel. the problem comes in when you want the good milage as your daily driver but you want to tow that 30 foot trailer every weekend through the mountains, or at 75mph down the highway.

I guess you know you validated my post so there is no BS - and the assertion that a twin turbo engine is cheaper to produce, own and repair is simply inaccurate - btdt. As I said; you can't buy a turbocharged engine (on steroids) then run it at max boost so it can be a HD truck towing engine and expect it to last like a non boosted big block (or even some of the small blocks). What I said and it's just fact.

[LHaven]

It was my understanding that many auto manufacturers added turbos as a way of gaming the CAFE requirements they were mandated to meet by arbitrary regulation, not just Ford. My Jeep has the same "feature." At one time I understood the math behind this, but since it's not something I deal with on a frequent basis, my brain archived it to be dealt with at a future time by "Top! Men!"

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by LHaven

It was my understanding that many auto manufacturers added turbos as a way of gaming the CAFE requirements they were mandated to meet by arbitrary regulation, not just Ford. My Jeep has the same "feature." At one time I understood the math behind this, but since it's not something I deal with on a frequent basis, my brain archived it to be dealt with at a future time by "Top! Men!"

LOL! Same here. IIRC turbos began, or when I first heard of one, was in a Corvair Monza? that my friend owned. Kind of cool and funny looking but it would burn some rubber. That was in the early/mid 60s then folks talked about fuel injection. In the 80s Ford came out with turbos for their Mustang line (SVO) and then put it in the TBird line (still SVO). The 2.3L 4 cylinder could ramp up but had glitches. In more recent years, and even back then (more specifically the 80s) boosting mileage by using the "little engine" and dropping on a turbo let them improve CAFE performance but get some performance...if the turbo didn't die, disintegrate taking the engine or.....become unplugged!

Today due to the stringent CAFE requirements (rather ridiculous IMO) they play games with the engines and a turbo, or turbos, are used to "pump" up a small engine to make it SEEM bigger. The steroids come from those turbos spinning at 17k rpm or so so wear is an issue if used hard constantly - but overall mileage measurements are helped. Putting them into light duty trucks works fine until you start trying to use them for HD purposes then longevity and mileage are affected. Someone posed a question once that asked "are turbo gas engines reliable"? The answer was - if used and cared for properly. Running at full boost to pull a trailer does not fit those criteria. In the U.S. Ford has really put a lot of their eggs in the turbo basket but others use them as well. Toyota just moved to a 3.4L turbo V6 for their trucks vs upping their V8 game and turbos are used pretty extensively in Europe.

[Stircrazy]

Originally Posted by sourdough

I guess you know you validated my post so there is no BS - .

to tell you the truth I think I replied to the wrong post haha, but part of it is garbage, they are not trying to stick them on regular engines just to bump up the numbers, these engines were designed from the bottom up for turbos and while some have had issues they are usually not turbo related. the old 1.5 4cyl had a block design issue that lead to head gasket failures and cracks due to the lack of support. kid got a new engine in here escort with the design fixes and it has been good ever sense, the wife has a 2L EcoBoost in her edge not an issue with it I just finally retired my old 2.5L NA fusion after 370000km and bought a new Bronco sport with the 3 cyl EcoBoost 1.5L and it is quite the engine so far. advertised at 8.4L/100km but for the last two weeks I have been pulling 6.8L/100km out of it. now for me this is car is mainly for commuting to work, 120 miles every day so fuel economy was fairly important, but I also wanted the space to through my hockey gear in the back and cut down on usage of the superduty in the winter.

the truth is for the majority of the people the small engine with a turbo model is perfect as most people aren't driving in a manor that is putting them into the boost all the time. so it is a great way to lower milage and reduce emissions

the 2.7 and 3L are fairly new motors to my understanding and like any new motor design there will be growing pains, and the recall is for valves that were not post treated properly from the supplier so how is this about the unreliability of ecoboosts in the first place? this happens with any "new design" going to production, that's why we say never buy the first year of a new motor no mater what it is.. the Duramax with its injector issues, the ford 6" with the varable vane turbo and so on and so on...