300,000 mile Ford 2.7 Ecoboost V6 on Normal Maintenance ...

[Whimsey]

Originally Posted by Sunnyinhollister
[q

Time will tell, but so far the outlook looks promising for this engine. The same cannot be said about their smaller cousins like the 2.0L and 2.3L


What have you heard concerning the reliability of the 2.3 EB? We have a 2017 Explorer with that engine and 46,000 miles so far. The EXTERNAL water pump developed a leak early on. It was replaced under warranty and has run more than 3 times the mileage with no more leaking. Just before the 3/36,000 mile warranty was about to be up I had the dealer look it over. I was advised that the front timing chain cover was moist at the seam, no leaking though. That was replaced under warranty also. Originally from the factory the timing cover used rtv as a sealer. It looks like for the repair they used a gasket instead of rtv. I understand this leaking occurs occasionally on both the 3.5 & 2.3 EB's. Other than that the 2.3 runs great, lots of power, quiet, and good mpg. I use only plain Mobil 1 5W-30 and run it to 6-7500 mile OCI, well short of the iOLM. Also we use top tier 87 octane fuel, almost all Shell. I'm hoping for a long life from this Explorer. Our 2005 4.6 Explorer with 197,000 miles is still going strong, of course it gets 1/2 the mpg of the 2017

.

Whimsey

 

[skyactiv]

I just test drove a new F150 FX4 6.5' bed crew cab with a 5.0 and prefer the response and feel of the V8 to the 3.5 EcoBoost I test drove. Reliability is not a concern as I feel all of the gas engines offered in the F150's are reliable.

 

[kstanf150]

Originally Posted by skyactiv
I just test drove a new F150 FX4 6.5' bed crew cab with a 5.0 and prefer the response and feel of the V8 to the 3.5 EcoBoost I test drove. Reliability is not a concern as I feel all of the gas engines offered in the F150's are reliable.


Can't go wrong with the 5.0L, it's a sweet running engine with the 10 speed tranny

 

[Sunnyinhollister]

Originally Posted by Whimsey
Originally Posted by Sunnyinhollister
[q

Time will tell, but so far the outlook looks promising for this engine. The same cannot be said about their smaller cousins like the 2.0L and 2.3L


What have you heard concerning the reliability of the 2.3 EB? We have a 2017 Explorer with that engine and 46,000 miles so far. The EXTERNAL water pump developed a leak early on. It was replaced under warranty and has run more than 3 times the mileage with no more leaking. Just before the 3/36,000 mile warranty was about to be up I had the dealer look it over. I was advised that the front timing chain cover was moist at the seam, no leaking though. That was replaced under warranty also. Originally from the factory the timing cover used rtv as a sealer. It looks like for the repair they used a gasket instead of rtv. I understand this leaking occurs occasionally on both the 3.5 & 2.3 EB's. Other than that the 2.3 runs great, lots of power, quiet, and good mpg. I use only plain Mobil 1 5W-30 and run it to 6-7500 mile OCI, well short of the iOLM. Also we use top tier 87 octane fuel, almost all Shell. I'm hoping for a long life from this Explorer. Our 2005 4.6 Explorer with 197,000 miles is still going strong, of course it gets 1/2 the mpg of the 2017

.

Whimsey


From my research while car shopping with my son, The 2.0L seemes to have more of a problem. The 2.3L had some that were apparently due to the wrong head gasket:

https://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal...s-head-gasket-issues-has-been-discovered

But there are still Mustang 2.3L EB blowing head gaskets. How many of these are due to engine mods I don't know.

 

[supton]

Just remember--it's a turbo motor, it'll need an expensive replacement at 100k or whatever. Etc etc etc.

 

[Whimsey]

Originally Posted by Sunnyinhollister


From my research while car shopping with my son, The 2.0L seemes to have more of a problem. The 2.3L had some that were apparently due to the wrong head gasket:

https://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal...s-head-gasket-issues-has-been-discovered

But there are still Mustang 2.3L EB blowing head gaskets. How many of these are due to engine mods I don't know.




Thanks, I remember reading that now. The Explorer's 2.3 EB is less powerful than the car's version 2.3 EB. Also it doesn't get raced or driven anywhere near as hard. I'd suspect that there are other internal differences in the Explorer engine, hopefully it has the correct head gasket

.

Whimsey

 

[LoneRanger]

Originally Posted by kstanf150
Originally Posted by skyactiv
I just test drove a new F150 FX4 6.5' bed crew cab with a 5.0 and prefer the response and feel of the V8 to the 3.5 EcoBoost I test drove. Reliability is not a concern as I feel all of the gas engines offered in the F150's are reliable.


Can't go wrong with the 5.0L, it's a sweet running engine with the 10 speed tranny


Umm... there is a problem with excessive oil consumption with the 5.0 Coyote. TSB is out and appears a whole lot of trucks with the 5.0 have the issue. Ford is apparently using a spray-in cylinder liner in the all aluminum block. Don't know if it's similar to Nikasil or what, or if it's a ring problem, but a ton of F-150's with the 5.0 from 2017 forward are consuming oil badly.

Meanwhile, the trusty 2.7 motor has an iron block-- a compacted graphite iron block, same as a Cummins diesel. No cylinder liner necessary, hone applied directly to the bores. Just the right amount of Old School to make the 2.7 solid as a rock.

Also, 2.7 is the fastest 0-60 when compared with factory stock tune:

 

[DGXR]

I never thought a factory-boosted motor would grenade simply because it's boosted. The internal parts and blocks are overbuilt to handle the additional stresses, and nearly all manufacturers do their homework and plenty of testing before releasing a new design to the abusive public. I'm not saying they all release perfectly developed vehicles, obviously there are some issues here and there, I'm just saying they do their best R&D to avoid a(nother) PR nightmare.
I am a big fan of the idea that a small turbo motor can give you the power of a larger engine (when needed) with the fuel economy of a smaller engine (when power is not needed), manufacturers are still refining the design... the technology development continues. This 300k truck is a good example simply because it went 300k with normal maintenance, but the duty cycle is far from typical. Much more time needed for me to jump on the bandwagon.

 

[kstanf150]

Survey of complaints of the 2018-19 5.0L per one
forum group

 

[LoneRanger]

Interesting forum poll, but TSB's aren't issued unless a problem is reported in significant numbers, and there certainly is a TSB on oil consumption for 2018+ F150's equipped with the 5.0

TSB 19-2058

 

[kstanf150]

Oh
Hey I know what you mean totally
But I thought the survey was interesting as well

 

[SteveSRT8]

That poll was interesting as my FIL has an 18 F150 with the 5.0. He is quite unhappy with it. It uses oil like crazy and rattles a lot at various times, too.

A gorgeous XLT Lariat model with everything but the kitchen sink and then you start it up and it sounds like it's ready to come apart! I am positive they cannot all be like that.

 

[kstanf150]

Originally Posted by SteveSRT8
That poll was interesting as my FIL has an 18 F150 with the 5.0. He is quite unhappy with it. It uses oil like crazy and rattles a lot at various times, too.

A gorgeous XLT Lariat model with everything but the kitchen sink and then you start it up and it sounds like it's ready to come apart! I am positive they cannot all be like that.



No such thing as an XLT Lariat model
It's either one or the other ...³ðŸ¤”ðŸ‘

But your right about not all are sucking oil down like crazy
The only two guys I know that have 5.0's in a ‘17 & an new ‘18 have no issues

 

[DavidJones]

That's my thread over on the F150 forum.
Lots of skeptics manning their keyboards, both here and there.
This truck is also his daily driver, so while it spends a lot of time on the road, that's not all it does.

 

[DavidJones]

Originally Posted by LoneRanger
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
I wonder what shape the backside of the intake valves are and if he had to have them cleaned at any point. For me, the potential issues with Direct Injection far outweigh any issues with high power density and turbochargers.


Ford uses a combo of port injection and direct injection on these engines. The port injectors may assist in keeping intake valves cleaner.


This engine is direct injection only and the intake valves have never been cleaned. 2.7's with carbon issues are non-existent.

 

[DavidJones]

Originally Posted by MaximaGuy
100K/yr is no reflection on anything - mute discussion. Wonder what he did for a living - amazon delivery guy


As noted in the thread, Pat delivers industrial parts, mostly around the southeast. Usually after hours or on weekends and always as "soon as you can get there".

 

[DavidJones]

Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
Odometer pic: https://www.f150forum.com/f118/100-000-mile-2-7-a-389552/index12/#post6292982

Thread start: https://www.f150forum.com/f118/100-000-mile-2-7-a-389552/

Guy is 6k from turning 300,000 on his 2016 F-150 w/ the 2.7 liter twin turbo V6 with just normal maintenance. Not bad. As these engines begin to age we'll see if these known high milers right now are unicorns or if this can be considered common.

Claims to have been achieved on Ford 5W30 syn blend and oem filters as specified in the manual. What's interesting is says that the engine stop/start feature we all know and love (not) has never been turned off when driving (Ford has a button on dash to turn it off if desired). BUT this truck it seems we're talking looong highway mile use more than suburban/town/city use so stop/start durability issues on the starter and etc might not be a good example.

At any rate it does seem to put one on the board against the mantra that small displacement highly stressed/boosted engines are all going to blow up early especially in a truck application. The work description sounds like small/lightweight expedited cargo delivery so not heavy duty work.



While impressive I'd love to see how it would have done as a Long Island commuter vehicle where traveling 20 miles can take 90 minutes or more. Or a 20 mile ride into NYC can take 2-3 hours. Long highway miles are the best possible miles a vehicle can be driven. I'm willing to bet the driving conditions I described would be a game changer, and probably a suspension killer too. Oh and the ESS, I wonder if the owner would have opted to push the button and shut it off.

FTR these comments are coming from a long time Ford owner.


He never pushes the defeat ESS button. Like me, he doesn't even think about it anymore. Do you know of any 3 year old vehicles that have 300,000 miles on them doing what you described?

I didn't think so.

 

[DavidJones]

His truck does get "normal" maintenance, if you consider using Motorcraft Semi/Syn when the oil life monitor tells you to, normal. That's every 10,000 miles. Most on the F150 site cringe at the idea of that......

 

[LoneRanger]

DavidJones, thanks for this info, it serves to validate the durability of the 2.7 ecoboost V6. I feel like the engine is well engineered and should be quite stout in the long run.

 

[meep]

I love mine. I had some oil consumption my first 10k miles but it's stayed level since then. Last oci was 8k. Running full sun I may just start following the olm using 10w-30. Mine gets a few hundred miles of towing a 4K lb camper every interval.

The shocks, on the other hand, at least the rears, weren't up to the task. I just swapped in bilsteins in back. I've never swapped out shocks so early.

And my hvac recirc is hit or miss, and very much needed in this climate. The truck depends on recirc to get cold and will try to force you to use it; and if you select fresh will often time out and revert to recirc, which is fine ... until the light says yes but the door flap says no. In my case it acts more like an electronics issue than mechanical.