2.7L availability

[jdlapointe]

at this point you've shown you're unable to read and comprehend things that have been discussed to death on this forum. i'm not sure what else to tell you. the strike went on for 2 months, add another month for holiday shutdown. that's the 90 days you keep referencing. your math is atrocious.

have fun crying while you wait lil bro

It is easier to just ignore. The way they post is pretty telling of the maturity level. They didn't change much even after having posts removed.

Sponsored

 

[Wayfaring Ranger]

It is easier to just ignore. The way they post is pretty telling of the maturity level. They didn't change much even after having posts removed.

way ahead of you. no point arguing with someone unable to read

 

[olefordguy]

I also wanted to order the 2.7. After some easy research though , they already have tunes out there for the 2.3 that will get you well over 320 horsepower while still retaining the fuel economy. If i need the extra power after my truck comes in , thats the route i'll be taking.

Thanks, that's interesting info about the 2.3L tune. Anyways, I not really upset about the delay, things happen in life, it's a little disappointing having to wait on ordering further out than I'd originally expected but it is what it is.
The reason I will wait on the 2.7L is solely the fact that the 2.7L is PORT and Direct Fuel Injected, where the 2.3L is only DIRECT Injected. Being direct injected the valves do not get cleaned by the fuel where they do with port injection. So in the 2.3L there is an additional maintenance step/cost of having to remove the heads and cleaning the valves probably every 60 - 100K miles +/- due to carbon buildup from my understanding. From what I understand the cleaning is done by walnut blasting the valves for around $500.00 +/-. I'm no mechanic by any means of the imagination, that's just what I've read about online about "some" versions of the EchoBoost engine designs.

 

[Viporpa]

Thanks, that's interesting info about the 2.3L tune. Anyways, I not really upset about the delay, things happen in life, it's a little disappointing having to wait on ordering further out than I'd originally expected but it is what it is.
The reason I will wait on the 2.7L is solely the fact that the 2.7L is PORT and Direct Fuel Injected, where the 2.3L is only DIRECT Injected. Being direct injected the valves do not get cleaned by the fuel where they do with port injection. So in the 2.3L there is an additional maintenance step/cost of having to remove the heads and cleaning the valves probably every 60 - 100K miles +/- due to carbon buildup from my understanding. From what I understand the cleaning is done by walnut blasting the valves for around $500.00 +/-. I'm no mechanic by any means of the imagination, that's just what I've read about online about "some" versions of the EchoBoost engine designs.

You are correct on the carbon build up. The GDI does cause that in the 2.3 where it dont on the 2.7. I was just reading about the comparison between the two engines a few days ago. I have a fusion sport currently with the 2.7 L twin turbo , man does that engine crank it out. I have a 2002 pontiac trans am WS6 and my fusion sport dusts that trans am without any issues. Wish they would offer the twin turbo 2.7 in the ranger instead of the single. If they did that though , then it would be to close to the performance of the raptor 3.0 and nobody would buy the raptor due to cost when they could get the 2.7 TT that performs almost as good.

 

[Wayfaring Ranger]

I've always heard an easy way to keep carbon build-up at minimum levels is to let RPMs get high and let everything get nice and toasty once a week or so. Not saying you need to red-line, but keep the revs in the upper 1/3 and most of that gunk should burn off at those temps. Wait until your engine temp is at sufficient levels first, i usually wait until it hits the first notch on the gauge. You want the turbo to also be boosting at the same time, so stay in a lower gear and WOT. Works great on highway onramps.

This is even more necessary if your driving trips are generally short and don't give the engine time to warmup before you shut it off again. If you often do longer highway driving I think this naturally occurs.

aka the italian tuneup.

ford dealers will also try to sell you some cleaning solution for an absurd amount of money. if you go this route i think you can get the same stuff at autozone for much cheaper.

 

[jdlapointe]

There are so many 2.3l ecoboosts that if it were a widespread issue I would have expected to see more by now. I don't think carbon build up is actually that bad.

 

[tbalt14]

I also wanted to order the 2.7. After some easy research though , they already have tunes out there for the 2.3 that will get you well over 320 horsepower while still retaining the fuel economy. If i need the extra power after my truck comes in , thats the route i'll be taking.

Probably requiring 91 or 93 octane with that tune.

 

[jdlapointe]

It was 91 octane which is also what the 2.7l requires/is rated with from the factory

 

[Xyotafella]

Ya I’d rather have the direct/port injection. I plan on just running a can of seafoam or equivalent through the tank every oil change. Hopefully that keeps it cleaned out. I looked it up the other day some product that was suppose to be pretty good. Like $15 a bottle

 

[tbalt14]

2.3L Bronco verse 2.7L Bronco both tuned.

 

[olefordguy]

Ya I’d rather have the direct/port injection. I plan on just running a can of seafoam or equivalent through the tank every oil change. Hopefully that keeps it cleaned out. I looked it up the other day some product that was suppose to be pretty good. Like $15 a bottle

I currently have a 22 Maverick with the 2.0L which has the same type injection as the 2.3L. I had read way back about using the GDI IVD Intake Valve Cleaner product made by CRC. From what I understood reading about the issue fuel additives do not work since fuel never hits the valves. No idea if that is valid - just what I've read. Learned long time ago ya can't believe everything ya read on the internet . I not endorsing anything, just trying to learn myself and passing along what I've read. Hopefully someone can chime in with good knowledge and/or experience.

 

[Xyotafella]

I currently have a 22 Maverick with the 2.0L which has the same type injection as the 2.3L. I had read way back about using the GDI IVD Intake Valve Cleaner product made by CRC. From what I understood reading about the issue fuel additives do not work since fuel never hits the valves. No idea if that is valid - just what I've read. Learned long time ago ya can't believe everything ya read on the internet . I not endorsing anything, just trying to learn myself and passing along what I've read. Hopefully someone can chime in with good knowledge and/or experience.

That actually makes 100% sense! Kind of a duh moment . Ya I need to do some reading up on the subject. Not something I’m necessary worried about but if a guy could stay on top of it I’d like to know what works

 

[olefordguy]

It was 91 octane which is also what the 2.7l requires/is rated with from the factory

Not surprised for the top hp, performance, towing etc. but IF that is a discouragement for any wanting the 2.7L engine but not wanting to run the higher octane gas, according to ford either engine runs fine on 87 octane.

 

[MidnightBlue]

Going with the Ford Performance tune is not covered by your warranty. Meaning you are still liable to pay for any repairs that are needed due to the tune. The warranty offered is directly from Ford Performance which is 3 years / 36,000 and its important to note it needs to be installed from a Ford ASE certified tech and starts from your vehicle date of purchase rather then when the tune is installed.

That said the tune is from Ford themselves and is considered very safe and reliable but just be aware issues arising from the tune may be rejected.

 

[DanTheMan]

Is there any indication the 2.7 will have an alternative gear ratio to 3.73? 3.55 maybe?

Sponsored