2.0 ecoboost? They need to offer the bigger engines.Ouch man see I kinda figured with it being the last year before the refresh that all the kinks would be out. Slash wouldn't have to worry about the recalls. These things keep going so quick here. It's not funny. Mines a ecoboost I love it I've taken both out. Guys at the ford dealer are doubtful about the awd hybrid
Damn straight. I mean I got more hp and torque than the Focus st. But it would be awesome with the 2.3 or the 2.7 that's what I was expecting with the next gen lobo. Honestly I was disappointed in that. Lol but hey I love the get up go of this thing I put in sport mode getting on the highway damn that thing flies.
If I were looking into buying a smaller pickup now I think it might be the Ranger with the optional 2.7L twin turbo V6. It should run like a scalded rabbit since it is more than sufficient power for the F150. I think the 2.3L from the Mustang would be a perfect match for the Maverick.
Someone did do a 2.3 swap and it is wicked fast.
I think the 2.7 is really smooth good running engine. However my only doubt is the oil pump drive belt, and you hve to remove the timing chains to replace it. If it was a gear or chain it would be ok, but a belt is outrageous to me.
Nah whata talking about 3.0t swap.
We'll have you talked into a 3.5 ecoboost before the warranty is upNah whata talking about 3.0t swap.
Goodluck with that I got an 8 year 100k bumper to bumper on it. Lol.
Those two bumpers are well protected.
PremiumCare? If you dont mind me asking what ballpark number was it? 2k? Just curious what its like on the Mav since pops is looking at a new Ranger and PremCare for that is.... $$$
These days it seems like every engine has some issue that could be a deal breaker. Overall, the 2.7L is such a good engine in so many other aspects. Wet belt engines require the use of specific types of oil to keep the belts from deteriorating over time. I would wager that many of the failures that do occur are due to using the wrong type of oil over time. Regardless, I would take the 2nd gen 2.7L over the first gen because it has so many good updates like dual port injection, a revised oil pan to prevent leaking, etc.
True, I do like the dual port (the 2.3 doesnt have it). I just think its retarded to use a wet belt... how long do those things last? Pops is looking at a '24 but hes going 2.3 since the wet belt. Were hoping to get 15-20 years and around 200k out of it
I watch a YouTube channel called "I Do Cars" and all he does is disassemble dead engines. He has done a few 2nd gen 2.7L engines with higher mileage (around 100k or more miles) and they all had good looking belts in them with no fraying. I agree with you on not using a chain. That said, I would bet the farm that the Ford engineers initially used a chain and they were told by management to replace it with a belt. It is crazy how much control the non engineers have over what is the final design. I wouldn't be surprised if they purposely used the belt to build in an eventual failure point to brick the engine by some mileage point. Planned obsolescence seems to be a design criteria these days. This said, I bet the overwhelming majority of belts will last to 200k+ miles if the right oil is used.
I'll have to check paper work again when I get home but around that ball park. Honestly it was a great decision.
I think until the 2nd gens they had gear or chain or something. I heard for the 5.0s they went to belt because of gears shattering or somethingi at 1000hp, but the belts apparently held up. I'm no engineer, but I do wonder about belt vs gear/chain longevity wise. Although I suppose if they save 20c per piece, thats lots of money over 2.7 sales. Maybe I will give the 2.7 a shot and look at it again. It felt smoother than the 2.3 and ran like a bat out of hell, especially for a Ranger. That said the 2.3 is no slouch either...
No rush and if its aroudn there thats all I need to know. For a Ranger 2.3 4x4 XLT Ive gotten numbers consisdtently in the 4s
Having a wet belt might not be all that bad now that I have thought about it some. I know that dry timing belts wear like tires do over time due to friction. When the cover is removed there is always a lot of belt dust everywhere. The oil likely reduces wear quite a bit since it acts as a lubricant and causes the belt to grind away at a much slower rate as compared to a dry belt. Also, the spec'ed oil to be used probably has an additive that conditions the belt to keep it from degrading as fast. A typical dry belt will last 100k miles before needing replaced. I wouldn't be surprised if a wet belt will last 2-3 times as long and maybe even longer. If this is the case, then replacing it every 200k-300k miles isn't all that bad because it would also be a good time to replace the chains and guides.
The 68 302 in my cougar had a nylon timing gear. I remember the original owner telling me about it and how it failed before 80k miles. A Google search shows you can still buy them, not sure why someone would want to? One reason a belt is used is to make the engine as smooth and quiet as possible, gotta cater to the dudes with way too much sand down there.
My 350 olds had a nylon timing chain that engine is no longer.
The guy I bought the Cougar from was retired CHP. He replaced it with a steel gear and said he cleaned the oil pan out. That's back when oil would easily sludge up in the engine. I replaced the carb twice and can't get it to run right. It'll eventually get EFI so I can drive it again
