You're gonna love this! 2016 F-150 2.7 Ecoboost

[bigj_16]

Originally Posted By: Whimsey
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Some

of you guys will be happy to know with 700 miles on the new oil, not a lick of oil used.


What oil are you using this go-around? Some engines just "don't like" certain oils for some reason. Maybe you found the perfect match?
Same oil. M1 5W-30 EP.


My experience with Mobil 1 is when it's used for the first time in my 4 non oil using vehicles is it will use some oil but with subsequent oil change with Mobil 1 the oil usage disappears. Hopefully that's what happened to yours. I just went through the same thing with our 2.3 EcoBoost Explorer. With the first run of Mobil 1 it used a 1/2 qt in 7,000 miles. And this OCI was mainly at high speeds(75-85 mph) this past summer. It's not a lot but I'm not use to any of our Fords using any measurable amount of oil in even 9,000 mil OCI's.

Whimsey
Thanks, Whimsey. We'll see here in a little bit. Of course, this oil is going to see a very different set of driving conditions, but I don't think it will use much, if any, oil.

 

[bigj_16]

Addressing the issue of boost and mph/rpm before.
I did some quick research, so don't take the coefficient of drag and frontal area figures as exact, but I believe they are close. So, using the calculator from GTechPro and the following figures;
Coefficient of drag: .38
Frontal area: 60 square feet

At 75 mph, it takes 64.1 hp
At 85 mph, it takes 93.3 hp
At 90 mph, it takes 110.8 hp

I want to emphasize THIS IS VERY BROAD AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER.

However, the point being on on an engine that puts, say 260 hp to the wheels,
going from using 24.65% to 35.89% or even 42.62% of available power, might have an effect on the powerband of this engine significantly.

This dyno chart shows the 2.7 already making 275 lb./ft. of torque at 2k rpm on its way to 300 at 2250.
This is stationary dyno, admittedly.

The point to this is, the 2.7 is very close to max torque at 2200-2300 rpm. You can imply from this is well into its boost and probably close to max boost.
Taking this and the percentage of hp increase needed from 75 mph to 85-90 mph, and it is pretty apparent the 2.7 is blowing some serious air at that speed. It's not just cruising along.

What really blew me away was the comparison between it and the Chevy engine.
http://www.fordf150blog.com/2-7-liter-ecoboost-vs-chevy-5-3-v8/

And if you want to flame, here is this again:
I want to emphasize THIS IS VERY BROAD AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER.

 

[Floydian]

0.38 isn't bad for a full size pick up truck! Please check this out you can view your boost from your dash:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba3vBTyRL4g

 

[bigj_16]

Unfortunately, neither of ours has that productivity screen. I think that is on the higher trim levels.

Supposedly the slickest Ram pickup is pulling a .36

 

[dnewton3]

I don't have enough data on the 2.7EB to really know what is "normal" yet.
The 3.5EB has been out long enough to show that there's a very large stdev for wear metals and fuel dilution.

There seems to be a very broad range of experiences with all the EB engines. Some have great tales of success, others have horror stories. Some load up with fuel; others do not. Some have high metals; some don't. Some smoke; others not so much, if any at all. Some consume oil; some hold steady over the whole OCI. The "normal" is just broad variation.



Other current Ford engines (examples like the 3.5L MPI n/a engine, and the 5.0L Coy motor) are rock solid and exhibit very tight control over the whole spectrum. (Similar to the older "mod motors" 4.6L and 5.4L).

 

[bigj_16]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I don't have enough data on the 2.7EB to really know what is "normal" yet.
The 3.5EB has been out long enough to show that there's a very large stdev for wear metals and fuel dilution.

There seems to be a very broad range of experiences with all the EB engines. Some have great tales of success, others have horror stories. Some load up with fuel; others do not. Some have high metals; some don't. Some smoke; others not so much, if any at all. Some consume oil; some hold steady over the whole OCI. The "normal" is just broad variation.



Other current Ford engines (examples like the 3.5L MPI n/a engine, and the 5.0L Coy motor) are rock solid and exhibit very tight control over the whole spectrum. (Similar to the older "mod motors" 4.6L and 5.4L).

Well said. I had both the 5.0 Coyote and the 3.5, and they were rock solid. Right now the 2.7 is all over the map. Some time will have to elapse before we see a clearer picture.

 

[MNgopher]

I'm just going to say it: you cannot blanket state that at x rpm the engine is under y amount of boost.

When I read the statement several posts above, I read that since the engine makes its max torque at 2200 to 2300 rpm, it must be running near its max boost when running at this rpm.

Just not true. Monitor your boost when cruising at those rpms at various speeds (you can do so by manually selecting your top gear), and you will see you aren't anywhere near maximum boost - unless the load demands it (which is the point of a dyno run, to find that max load).

Again, are you actually monitoring your boost? Multiple ways to do so from the built in guage on high enough trim levels to aftermarket ODB plug ins like torque. Cruising at 75 mph, I am running some boost, but it is nowhere near maximum boost unless there is another component - like a strong headwind, uphill grade, etc... Throw a trailer on and the boost numbers rise accordingly...

And yes, I'd expect that to change at higher speeds, but without actually monitoring and logging your boost figures, we're doing a lot of hand gesturing and making assumptions...

 

[bigj_16]

You are correct. Everything written in this thread is an assumption. Which means everything you posted, also. I was stating a hypotheses, based on my observations. A hypotheses basically means, "I think there might be something to this, but it would take a lot of testing to bear out" For you to definitively state "Just not true", based on reading a post and nothing more is just absolute hot air. And since this is my engine, and seeing as I have extensive (Read: A lot) amount of experience with engines under boost, both on the operating side, and the maintenance/repair side, I feel very comfortable making my assumption, seeing as it was I operating it at the time. And whether I am wrong or right, I am still going to drive this truck. I am NOT going to install a "boost" gauge. It is not worth the hassle of installing it, monitoring it, and coming up with a set of data that I am going to do what with? That trip was a very specific set of circumstances that may not happen again with this truck.
Trend analysis takes place over time. I am not going to note some fuel dilution in one sample, and take corrective action. This stuff makes for good conversation and debate (or argument), but there is not nearly enough data available from being collected under controlled conditions, to make any kind of conclusion, as to why this oil diluted and/or sheared.

What I am going to do, is use an in-grade, spec'd oil that meets the manufacturer's recommendation, and keep changing it, all the while this vehicle is under warranty. For my peace of mind, for when the vehicle goes out of warranty, I am going to change it(on both vehicles) every 2000-2500 miles, until I get a couple good UOA's on each.

And that is the problem with the internet. Joe Billy Bob thinks because he had a Dodge Omni GLH turbo, back in 1988, he knows as much as anyone. There is such a thing as a "scientific process", "best engineering practice" and "peer reviewed", among others. I stated my hypotheses, and that is all it is. However, it is based on my experience and observations. When you state your credentials, your data, the process you used, and the conclusion based on such, then you can say "Just not true, or actually "The data did not support."
Instead, try posting something like, "You know, this might be worth looking into..."

 

[MNgopher]

Your line was:

"The point to this is, the 2.7 is very close to max torque at 2200-2300 rpm. You can imply from this is well into its boost and probably close to max boost.
Taking this and the percentage of hp increase needed from 75 mph to 85-90 mph, and it is pretty apparent the 2.7 is blowing some serious air at that speed. It's not just cruising along."

You have no boost guage or data to back this up. (And apparently no desire or inclination to actually do so).

Using an inexpensive app and a $25 bluetooth dongle, I collected and logged the boost from a 40 mile round trip at 80 mph. The average boost for that round trip run? 2.16psi . (Excluding acceleration onto the freeway, deceleration off the freeway, and all other driving not on the freeway). The maximum recorded on the drive was 16.8 psi (not on the freeway part of the drive). While cruising, the max was 9.5 psi. Will this vary based on altitude, temp, accessory use, etc... - yes.

Point being, the engine was running under 15% of the available boost (based on a max logged) to cruise at 80 mph and roughly 2100 rpm. (With wind effect and hills averaged out by making a round trip)

(For reference, this is in one of the heaviest configurations of the F150 with the 2.7 - a 4x4 supercrew F150, with the sport package, FX4 package, trailer towing package, and running LT tires from the factory).

So, I'll state it again: if your belief is that at 75+ mph the engine is producing max boost all the time, you are mistaken. (In other words, wrong.)

Best wishes in your endeavor...

 

[FZ1]

O.K. So what can we do about the problem until the mfgs figure out these issues including fuel dilution? Some things we can do are to use are low noak,low calcium oils and shorter ocis. Am I on the right track? What do others think we can do to mitigate these issues?

 

[bigj_16]

I am going to use low calcium oils(read:M1) and just change it at short intervals. I'll do UOA's until I can get a good idea how much is occurring at intervals in my regular driving. I know a lot of people concentrate on the tribo film being retained(not going to get into that), but if there is any benefit from that, it will be more than offset by fuel dilution, low viscosity, soot, etc. I am going to change the oil at 2500, filter at 5000, test and adjust. There are going to be people that start hollerin' about a waste of oil. So what. It gets recycled anyway. There's not anything bad that is going to happen to to your engine changing the oil sooner. With these circumstances, there is a lot of potential benefits. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing good about having that kind of fuel dilution. Anyone that's says that is "normal" or won't cause any wear,is just plain ignorant, and ignoring many years of data and tests. If you can afford a new DI car, you can probably afford to throw a new jug of M1 in every few months.

 

[FZ1]

Thank you. I'm thinking along the same lines. M1 AFE looks pretty good.

 

[bigj_16]

Originally Posted By: FZ1
Thank you. I'm thinking along the same lines. M1 AFE looks pretty good.
Yep, I am going to try the 0W-30 AFE out in both, this winter. With that, and the fuel dilution, should be some easy starting!

 

[Tones]

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Yep, I am going to try the 0W-30 AFE out in both, this winter. With that, and the fuel dilution, should be some easy starting!

Well, my normally aspirated Toyota Avalon sheared the M1 0W-30 pretty badly in a 7k OCI, so I uppped it to 5W-30. I don't think I would put that in the F-150 2.7. These engines have shown to shear the M1 5W-30. There is a UOA on here somewhere. I'm actually moving to the M1 10W-30 in the F-150 for longer OCIs. I ran the same in my Volvo turbo with good results.

 

[bigj_16]

Originally Posted By: Tones
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Yep, I am going to try the 0W-30 AFE out in both, this winter. With that, and the fuel dilution, should be some easy starting!

Well, my normally aspirated Toyota Avalon sheared the M1 0W-30 pretty badly in a 7k OCI, so I uppped it to 5W-30. I don't think I would put that in the F-150 2.7. These engines have shown to shear the M1 5W-30. There is a UOA on here somewhere. I'm actually moving to the M1 10W-30 in the F-150 for longer OCIs. I ran the same in my Volvo turbo with good results.
I am going to try out the AFE this winter. It will only be in there for 2500 miles or so. I am really looking at the M1 10W-30 HM, though. That is some really good stuff for $22.

 

[Gilstein]

Did the first change on my 2017 2.7 today. Incredibly easy change; worst part if removing the noise/heat shield. I didn't notice any metal shavings in the pan collecting the used oil, but I did find some small shavings in the oil filter. I would have preferred to change the oil sooner but just never had the time or weather to do it til now (5000 miles). I'm not concerned since there didn't appear to be any visual metal flakes in the drained oil, but I'll probably change the oil around 3000 miles next time to see if I notice any items in filter or drain. Went with Magnetec for this change.

 

[4WD]

Removing that plastic air deflector skid plate under my Explorer was far better than the dinner table they put under the Fusion Hybrid …

 

[Gilstein]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
Removing that plastic air deflector skid plate under my Explorer was far better than the dinner table they put under the Fusion Hybrid …


it wasn't horrible, just surprised how long the screws were. Much longer than others I've had to remove and the clips were kind of stubborn.

 

[4WD]

A little dab of grease is good … they can be hard to turn at times …

 

[bigj_16]

Originally Posted By: Gilstein
Did the first change on my 2017 2.7 today. Incredibly easy change; worst part if removing the noise/heat shield. I didn't notice any metal shavings in the pan collecting the used oil, but I did find some small shavings in the oil filter. I would have preferred to change the oil sooner but just never had the time or weather to do it til now (5000 miles). I'm not concerned since there didn't appear to be any visual metal flakes in the drained oil, but I'll probably change the oil around 3000 miles next time to see if I notice any items in filter or drain. Went with Magnetec for this change.

I use a IR cordless 3/8" impact to take that shield off. Just hit it quick a couple of times, so it won't run out of the retaining clip. Did you change the filter o-rings?