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

[ryanO]

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.

You are spot on! Staying within the payload is something a lot of people don't look at. They throw a 5K lb trailer on the back with 3 people and a bed of gear and take off.
My rule is that if you're gonna tow you put everything on the truck (including humans), go to a LOVES truck stop and fill up. Go over to their weigh station and get it weighed. Unless you have at least 25 lbs of payload left, you're over weight and something has to go. The other part is to look at the breakdown of weight on each axle. It should be within the axel limits.

Sponsored

 

[ryanO]

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.

By degree I am a mechanical design engineer. It's impossible to say an engineer would chose a chain or a belt. Each has their pros and cons. One must evaluate them within the context of the entire system they are a part of and the list of outcomes you are designing to.
Neither is necessarily better or worse from an engineering standpoint, its about what tradeoffs is the engineer and manufacturer willing to accept.
Its why I get so frustrated at the average person making statements on things they aren't educated on (not taking a shot at you. Speaking here about the "wet belt bandits"). The list of issues a chain brings to the system can be just as long as the "assumed" belt issues and customers would be mad then too.
Its why I stick by the notion that the internet giving a public forum for tbe average person was a bad thing....LOL.

 

[stemplar]

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.

I think that along with supporting the value of top tier fuels it also supports the value of regular use of fuel system cleaners such as Techron or seafoam. Perhaps port injection isn’t always enough to spray the intake valves clean?

 

[Satex]

By degree I am a mechanical design engineer. It's impossible to say an engineer would chose a chain or a belt. Each has their pros and cons. One must evaluate them within the context of the entire system they are a part of and the list of outcomes you are designing to.
Neither is necessarily better or worse from an engineering standpoint, its about what tradeoffs is the engineer and manufacturer willing to accept.
Its why I get so frustrated at the average person making statements on things they aren't educated on (not taking a shot at you. Speaking here about the "wet belt bandits"). The list of issues a chain brings to the system can be just as long as the "assumed" belt issues and customers would be mad then too.
Its why I stick by the notion that the internet giving a public forum for tbe average person was a bad thing....LOL.

By degree I am a mechanical design engineer. It's impossible to say an engineer would chose a chain or a belt. Each has their pros and cons. One must evaluate them within the context of the entire system they are a part of and the list of outcomes you are designing to.
Neither is necessarily better or worse from an engineering standpoint, its about what tradeoffs is the engineer and manufacturer willing to accept.
Its why I get so frustrated at the average person making statements on things they aren't educated on (not taking a shot at you. Speaking here about the "wet belt bandits"). The list of issues a chain brings to the system can be just as long as the "assumed" belt issues and customers would be mad then too.
Its why I stick by the notion that the internet giving a public forum for tbe average person was a bad thing....LOL.

I don't read that as a shot at me, even without your disclaimer. In fact, my point was that as a layperson, my preference for a chain is simply a layperson's perception. But my actual choice was far more objective ... deference to the experts and actual data.

 

[ryanO]

I think that along with supporting the value of top tier fuels it also supports the value of regular use of fuel system cleaners such as Techron or seafoam. Perhaps port injection isn’t always enough to spray the intake valves clean?

Interesting thought. I was always told that seafoam type products in the ecoboost engines was a big no-no. Incorrect info....?

 

[stemplar]

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.

It’s funny how persistent you are asserting that a component with ZERO DOCUMENTED FAILURES is, or “possibly is” the weak point of the 2.7. No, it’s not. This video shows one example of a valve-related failure which is infinitely more than zero. You’re just putting out unsupported falsehoods that get sucked up by search engines and shitty AI engines.

 

[ryanO]

I don't read that as a shot at me, even without your disclaimer. In fact, my point was that as a layperson, my preference for a chain is simply a layperson's perception. But my actual choice was far more objective ... deference to the experts and actual data.

100%. Let me also say I don't design engines so I'm not in the know on the wet belt vs chain thing. I'm involved with district energy and university Central Utility Plant systems.
I think your overall point was spot on!

 

[ChronciallyChronic]

By degree I am a mechanical design engineer. It's impossible to say an engineer would chose a chain or a belt. Each has their pros and cons. One must evaluate them within the context of the entire system they are a part of and the list of outcomes you are designing to.
Neither is necessarily better or worse from an engineering standpoint, its about what tradeoffs is the engineer and manufacturer willing to accept.
Its why I get so frustrated at the average person making statements on things they aren't educated on (not taking a shot at you. Speaking here about the "wet belt bandits"). The list of issues a chain brings to the system can be just as long as the "assumed" belt issues and customers would be mad then too.
Its why I stick by the notion that the internet giving a public forum for tbe average person was a bad thing....LOL.

I too am a degreed mechanical engineer, am also a mechanical engineer working in the automotive industry involved with component design and failure analysis. Just my opinion, and that's all it is - an opinion, given a choice between an engine with a timing chain, dry timing belt or wet timing belt I am choosing the engine with the timing chain every time. That was the prime driver for my Ranger being the 2.3L instead of the 2.7L. Am I going to have service in the 50k - 60k mile range to have the carbon build up removed due to the direct injection system on the '24's., I know it will be needed so no surprise.

Again my opinion but I do not trust the wet belt design,in my OPINION the belt is sensitive to oil quality and engine running temp in a way timing chains and dry belts are not. I know why Ford went the wet belt direction, I think it was the wrong direction to take.

This is all my OPINION which means anyone who wants to disagree is free to do so. You won't change my mind just like I won't change yours, and that's OK.

 

[ryanO]

I too am a degreed mechanical engineer, am also a mechanical engineer working in the automotive industry involved with component design and failure analysis. Just my opinion, and that's all it is - an opinion, given a choice between an engine with a timing chain, dry timing belt or wet timing belt I am choosing the engine with the timing chain every time. That was the prime driver for my Ranger being the 2.3L instead of the 2.7L. Am I going to have service in the 50k - 60k mile range to have the carbon build up removed due to the direct injection system on the '24's., I know it will be needed so no surprise.

Again my opinion but I do not trust the wet belt design,in my OPINION the belt is sensitive to oil quality and engine running temp in a way timing chains and dry belts are not. I know why Ford went the wet belt direction, I think it was the wrong direction to take.

This is all my OPINION which means anyone who wants to disagree is free to do so. You won't change my mind just like I won't change yours, and that's OK.

As an automotive engineer, why does the 2.7 have the belt and the 2.3 have a chain?

 

[ChronciallyChronic]

As an automotive engineer, why does the 2.7 have the belt and the 2.3 have a chain?

It's a play for some improved efficiency. There's a bit less friction with the wet belt due to the oil lubrication as opposed to the bearing in a chain, a belt is lighter than a chain so you get a fractional improvement in power from displacement (but it's very small like less than 1 HP). In total you're going to get maybe 1-2% improved MPG's from the wet belt, however over the anticipated life of the belt any fuel savings will be more than outweighed by the cost to replace the belt - and wet belts do still have a very real possibility for premature failure if you're not perfect with your oil change frequency and using top quality oil.

 

[ryanO]

It's a play for some improved efficiency. There's a bit less friction with the wet belt due to the oil lubrication as opposed to the bearing in a chain, a belt is lighter than a chain so you get a fractional improvement in power from displacement (but it's very small like less than 1 HP). In total you're going to get maybe 1-2% improved MPG's from the wet belt, however over the anticipated life of the belt any fuel savings will be more than outweighed by the cost to replace the belt - and wet belts do still have a very real possibility for premature failure if you're not perfect with your oil change frequency and using top quality oil.

Is full synthetic the way to go or is a blend OK long term?

Your write up on the reasoning is what I imagined the reasoning to be. The other thing I think you've gotta consider is that MOST people wont keep these trucks for 150K+ miles. Most will trade in after 3 or 4 years and 50K miles so original purchases won't be made based on that decision by Ford.

 

[ChronciallyChronic]

Is full synthetic the way to go or is a blend OK long term?

Your write up on the reasoning is what I imagined the reasoning to be. The other thing I think you've gotta consider is that MOST people wont keep these trucks for 150K+ miles. Most will trade in after 3 or 4 years and 50K miles so original purchases won't be made based on that decision by Ford.

I suggest full synth at all times.

 

[Satex]

It’s funny how persistent you are asserting that a component with ZERO DOCUMENTED FAILURES is, or “possibly is” the weak point of the 2.7. No, it’s not. This video shows one example of a valve-related failure which is infinitely more than zero. You’re just putting out unsupported falsehoods that get sucked up by search engines and shitty AI engines.

I don't know the weak point of the 2.7. It's possible that the wet belt is it. I'm not persisting in anything other than, in a situation where there's no one apparent weak point, one part might be it.

You might be brilliant, but still the dumbest guy in your family.

 

[Satex]

It's a play for some improved efficiency. There's a bit less friction with the wet belt due to the oil lubrication as opposed to the bearing in a chain, a belt is lighter than a chain so you get a fractional improvement in power from displacement (but it's very small like less than 1 HP). In total you're going to get maybe 1-2% improved MPG's from the wet belt, however over the anticipated life of the belt any fuel savings will be more than outweighed by the cost to replace the belt - and wet belts do still have a very real possibility for premature failure if you're not perfect with your oil change frequency and using top quality oil.

That didn't quite answer the question. Your opinion seems logical regarding the belt vs chain question. But why does that logic apply to the 2.7 vs the 2.3?

Again, assuming your opinion reflects Ford's, is the 2.3 a more highly stressed engine relative to the 2.7 and therefore has less margin for error? Or is the 2.3 motor fuel efficient to the degree that a wet oil pump belt offers even less marginal mpg improvement vs chain?

I understand these are your opinions, but I find the difference in approach between the two engines curios.

 

[bjc]

ZERO DOCUMENTED FAILURES is,

I watch my share of car/truck YouTube videos and I have not seen a 2.7 belt failure in these videos. I see lots of episodes of GM 6.2/5.3 failures, lots of GM 10 speed transmission valve failures.

I have seen a channel that diagnoses a lot of wet belt failures in the Ranger in the UK but I think that is the 2.0 ecoBlue engine. Given sales numbers in the USA, along with consumer preference, I am personally not concerned about the wet belt.

Sponsored