Eric @ I Do Cars Tears Down a Blown 2022 2.7l EB from a F-150

[josephp732]

This engine has 110k miles. If you go to the 33:25 mark you can see the oil belt - interesting it has some cracks. Pretty crazy as this was a very well taken care of engine that self destructed.

Sponsored

 

[ryanO]

This engine has 110k miles. If you go to the 33:25 mark you can see the oil belt - interesting it has some cracks. Pretty crazy as this was a very well taken care of engine that self destructed.

Im not sure what any of that is supposed to imply or mean. An engine failed.
Been happening since the invention of engines....

 

[stemplar]

This f#%^ing video again…

 

[ryanO]

This f#%^ing video again…

The problem with the internet is that it allows the average person to be heard in public.....
This Eric dude is the problem in today's society.

 

[stemplar]

The problem with the internet is that it allows the average person to be heard in public.....
This Eric dude is the problem in today's society.

I honestly have no issue with Eric or the video itself; it’s how often this video is regurgitated by the “bUT tHE wEtbElt” crowd that drives me bananas. Edit: ESPECIALLY when the user posting it has been around a while; more than long enough to have seen it come up again and again.

 

[ryanO]

I honestly have no issue with Eric or the video itself; it’s how often this video is regurgitated by the “bUT tHE wEtbElt” crowd that drives me bananas. Edit: ESPECIALLY when the user posting it has been around a while; more than long enough to have seen it come up again and again.

Thats my problem with all of it. The video creator is trying to create drama where it doesn't really exist for monetary gain. His efforts are then rewarded by useful idiots (the "wet belt" crowd).

 

[josephp732]

This f#%^ing video again…

Everybody take a breath for a second.

This new video that just came out last night—I wasn’t posting it as a knock on the 2.7L EcoBoost. I actually run the 2.7L EB in my 2025 Ranger and have been really happy with it. If you watch the full teardown, Eric is overall very positive about the engine.

The particular engine in the video appears to have been well maintained with solid dealer service records. The failure involved two burnt valves, and it looks like one may have dropped. Eric’s takeaway was that a bad fuel event could have played a role.

There’s a lot of value in watching a teardown like this. From a durability standpoint, some of the internals held up really well:

• At ~110K miles, the main and rod bearings looked excellent
• Crank journals were in great shape

One interesting observation was carbon buildup on the intake ports and valves, which is a bit surprising given the dual injection setup. That could support the idea of lower-quality fuel being a factor here.

On the wet oil belt—there were some minor cracks visible, but nothing out of line for the mileage. If anything, it lines up pretty well with Ford’s recommended service interval of ~150K miles.

Bottom line: this looks more like an isolated failure with a possible fuel-related cause, not a systemic issue with the 2.7L EB.

 

[stemplar]

*breath taken*

Then let me be the first to offer my apologies; I thought this was Eric’s *other video*, but being it’s a different, new, video, clearly I overreacted.

 

[ryanO]

Everybody take a breath for a second.

This new video that just came out last night—I wasn’t posting it as a knock on the 2.7L EcoBoost. I actually run the 2.7L EB in my 2025 Ranger and have been really happy with it. If you watch the full teardown, Eric is overall very positive about the engine.

The particular engine in the video appears to have been well maintained with solid dealer service records. The failure involved two burnt valves, and it looks like one may have dropped. Eric’s takeaway was that a bad fuel event could have played a role.

There’s a lot of value in watching a teardown like this. From a durability standpoint, some of the internals held up really well:

• At ~110K miles, the main and rod bearings looked excellent
• Crank journals were in great shape

One interesting observation was carbon buildup on the intake ports and valves, which is a bit surprising given the dual injection setup. That could support the idea of lower-quality fuel being a factor here.

On the wet oil belt—there were some minor cracks visible, but nothing out of line for the mileage. If anything, it lines up pretty well with Ford’s recommended service interval of ~150K miles.

Bottom line: this looks more like an isolated failure with a possible fuel-related cause, not a systemic issue with the 2.7L EB.

I too offer my apologies thinking this was the original video.

Im curious what "low quality" fuel means.....?

 

[josephp732]

I too offer my apologies thinking this was the original video.

Im curious what "low quality" fuel means.....?

For me, “Low-quality fuel” doesn’t just mean cheap gas or the wrong octane—it usually refers to fuel that’s contaminated, degraded, or inconsistent (water in the fuel, poor storage, weak additives, or ethanol issues). In a situation like this, it likely points to a bad fuel event rather than normal use. The signs line up: burnt valves suggest abnormal combustion and excess heat, carbon buildup points to incomplete burning, and the bottom end still looks great.

One other interesting point—the engine had documented 6–7k mile dealer oil change intervals, likely using Ford’s synthetic blend, and overall the internals look very clean with minimal varnish. There are some deposits on the oil control rings, but they’re not stuck. That suggests the maintenance regimen was solid, but also reinforces that if you tighten intervals to ~5k miles and run a full synthetic, you’re probably in even better shape long-term.

It’s also a great testament to the strength of the design that the block only showed damage in the cylinder where the valve dropped—even with that piston completely destroyed, the rest of the cylinders look solid. The crosshatching is still clearly visible with no meaningful signs of wear, which says a lot about the durability of the bottom end.

 

[ryanO]

For me, “Low-quality fuel” doesn’t just mean cheap gas or the wrong octane—it usually refers to fuel that’s contaminated, degraded, or inconsistent (water in the fuel, poor storage, weak additives, or ethanol issues). In a situation like this, it likely points to a bad fuel event rather than normal use. The signs line up: burnt valves suggest abnormal combustion and excess heat, carbon buildup points to incomplete burning, and the bottom end still looks great.

One other interesting point—the engine had documented 6–7k mile dealer oil change intervals, likely using Ford’s synthetic blend, and overall the internals look very clean with minimal varnish. There are some deposits on the oil control rings, but they’re not stuck. That suggests the maintenance regimen was solid, but also reinforces that if you tighten intervals to ~5k miles and run a full synthetic, you’re probably in even better shape long-term.

It’s also a great testament to the strength of the design that the block only showed damage in the cylinder where the valve dropped—even with that piston completely destroyed, the rest of the cylinders look solid. The crosshatching is still clearly visible with no meaningful signs of wear, which says a lot about the durability of the bottom end.

I have the 2.7L and love it. Got 9K miles and am trying to determine if I want to run full synthetic or a blend.
I have my local dealer (Planet Ford 45 Spring, TX) do all the scheduled maintenance at 5K mile intervals.
Haven't seen anyone say that full is definitely worth the added cost, but I also want to keep this truck for MANY years.

 

[Satex]

The service intervals on that engine were good, but imo not great. Regardless, Eric was emphatic that this failure was not oil related and not apparently related to lack of service.

We can't know how the truck was used, but the valves certainly suggest to me that the owner regularly used fuel that wasn't "Top Tier." I'd bet that that he towed relatively heavy and didn't use higher octane fuel, which Ford suggests for higher loads.

Another possibility is that the owner did everything right but just got a piston or a valve with a flaw.

I watched this last night within 15 minutes of it being available. The very earliest comments? "I'll bet anything it was the wet oil belt." One of these days, the "wet belt is the devil" guys will find a failure, and that will prove that they've been right from the start.

 

[ryanO]

The service intervals on that engine were good, but imo not great. Regardless, Eric was emphatic that this failure was not oil related and not apparently related to lack of service.

We can't know how the truck was used, but the valves certainly suggest to me that the owner regularly used fuel that wasn't "Top Tier." I'd bet that that he towed relatively heavy and didn't use higher octane fuel, which Ford suggests for higher loads.

Another possibility is that the owner did everything right but just got a piston or a valve with a flaw.

I watched this last night within 15 minutes of it being available. The very earliest comments? "I'll bet anything it was the wet oil belt." One of these days, the "wet belt is the devil" guys will find a failure, and that will prove that they've been right from the start.

. Yep. Cause the people that are out to prove something is an issue aren't intelligent enough to reason. If 1 belt broke they'd yell they were right but when I find a chain that broke in another engine they'd argue that was a one off.
I have an uncle like that and I literally haven't talked to him in 5+ years because I refuse to engage with fools. Haha. Yep, I'm saying my uncle is a fool!

 

[Satex]

For me, “Low-quality fuel” doesn’t just mean cheap gas or the wrong octane— ...

Agreed. Just to add to the "wrong octane" aspect, "wrong" is often situational.

I do a fair bit of towing. The weights range from 1000 to 5000 pounds, so I'm always well within the ratings, and I'm never over my payload rating. When I'm dragging a light load over flat terrain, I don't fill up with premium. But I sometimes tow a camper in the mountains whole loaded almost to my payload limit. In those cases, I use the highest available octane. It's easy to see from the boost gauge that the engine is operating at high compression.

 

[Satex]

. Yep. Cause the people that are out to prove something is an issue aren't intelligent enough to reason. If 1 belt broke they'd yell they were right but when I find a chain that broke in another engine they'd argue that was a one off.
I have an uncle like that and I literally haven't talked to him in 5+ years because I refuse to engage with fools. Haha. Yep, I'm saying my uncle is a fool!

I'm not an engineer, but if I were given the option of a belt or a chain for the oil pump, I'd select a chain. BUT, I selected the 2.7 KNOWING it had the wet belt. Perceptions about the superiority of chains aside, experience and the decisions of actual engineers are enough for me.

It's possible that the wet belt really is the weak point of the 2.7 Ecoboost. The 3 point shot was the weakest part of Jordan's game.

Sponsored