Main problem, no more warranty! If you have the money to cover for the "health expenditure" for your BSBL now, go on, if not, just wait until you have to cover it anyway. At least, is what I will do!Not surprised at all. All ecoboost engines respond well to a tune. But with a tune pretty much any engine, trans, or other powertrain components would be or possibly be denied.
These days I would be equally concerned about the time required rather than the warranty claim. Even if you DO have the $10K (my estimate) lying about to pay for a new engine how long will it take to get all the parts you'll need to install it?Main problem, no more warranty! If you have the money to cover for the "health expenditure" for your BSBL now, go on, if not, just wait until you have to cover it anyway. At least, is what I will do!
Go visit the Mustang EcoBoost forum and look for the poll asking about blown engines. Last time I checked there were some 40 owners who lost an engine due to catastrophic failure. All but two has been running modified software and/or bolt-on mods meant to boost power.I don't believe in the idea that oh if you put a supercharger on there or tune your car immediately means your engine isn't going to last as long.
So I kind of have to disagree with you there because I've added way more horsepower to almost every Ford that I've owned and never had a problem. Like I had a 2007 mustang V6 that I put in m90 supercharger on from a Thunderbird and I went for making like 180 horsepower to like 260 never had a problem. I had a 2011 mustang V6 that I put a vortec V3 on. Went for making like 260 horsepower to just over 400 hp on and these numbers those are the wheels on a dyno not what the manufacturer quoted rated at the crank and we all know you can't trust those numbers. Anyways, be it because they wanted lower to help with insurance or with the '90s cobras where at first they overrated them and when people dino tuned him they got mad. So then they made the cobra terminator and they underrated it and instead of making 390 the crank it basically made that at the wheels.Go visit the Mustang EcoBoost forum and look for the poll asking about blown engines. Last time I checked there were some 40 owners who lost an engine due to catastrophic failure. All but two has been running modified software and/or bolt-on mods meant to boost power.
Obtaining 250 reliable hp from a 2 liter production engine is a engineering feat that was unimaginable just over a decade ago. Many people think they can do better than Ford's engineers without the benefit of the millions of hours of test data they have access to. I don't see how.
If you need an engine with more power your best bet is to buy a vehicle that comes equipped with one from the factory.
You're not going to offend me by saying you think I'm wrong. I suspect those who are offended when their beliefs or opinions are challenged simply don't feel they are equipped to defend them.I don't want to just like flat out say you're wrong or anything...
We all share our perspectives based on our personal experience. There's no question that a lot of owners are able to modify their engines to produce more power and never have a problem. There is also no question a lot of owners who do end up with engine parts spread all over the road. It's neither a myth nor a falsehood to say if you place more stress on a mechanical device you increase both wear and the likelihood of failure. How much additional wear and how much greater the likelihood of failure is anyone's guess....but everything I know everything I've experienced. I've been modifying cars since 2010 and I've been working on cars all my life. It's just not like that. Those are just myths perpetuated.
Yes, Ford has made a large number of these engines, and that's my point. Assuming the owners over at the Mustang EcoBoost forum are a representative sample, the fact that of the 40+ (probably more now) reported engine failures the overwhelming majority involved owners seeking more power with modifications.Sure 40 guys had bad engines. Do you know how many 2.3 liters they've made?
The head gasket issue you're referring to involved the 2.3L used in the Focus RS, not the rest of the fleet. And none of those head gasket failures resulted in a catastrophic engine failure.And around that time some of the Ford EcoBoost engines had a bad design flaw where in the engine block between the Steelers they made a little divot for coolant to go through the help with cooling.
I don't follow this logic. All repairs for those engine failures are paid for by Ford. If you cause an engine failure with a modification you foot the bill. This is not an effective argument to me.But how these days you're taking that risk? Just buying it anyways. The way things are going look at these 2.7 l. Broncos guys didn't even get 500 miles on them before they catastrophically.
The Eclipse GS-T made 210 hp, not 250. If Mitsubishi could've gotten 250 hp out of its engine don't you think it would have? Honda's normally aspirated engines made decent horsepower only when revved way up (7000+ RPM if I recall), but the torque numbers sucked. Subaru's STI models were the only engines in your list that produced more power than the stock 2.0L EcoBoost, but those engines were blueprinted performance-tuned engines from the factory. These were essentially hand-built, limited production engines purpose built for rally racing. As you note, the 2.0L EcoBoost is a mass-produced engine, with millions in reliable operation around the world. Not a good comparison.I mean how even in the '90s the eclipses were making over 200 with a turbo 4. I mean Honda naturally aspirated two liters were making over 200 horsepower in the '90s. The prelude h22 made. I think 220 horsepower to the crank and the 90s. Hell Subaru has been making that much power since the 90s with their WRX's and STIs and that's on a crappy boxer engine. Make as much power as we're making now back in the '90s with a crappy boxer engine.
You may be referring to a class-action suit filed back in 2020 by a couple of enterprising lawyers. IIRC, the head gasket failures on these engines wasn't the reason for the engine failure. The original plaintiffs damaged their engines by running them without coolant, then demanded Ford give them a new engine. Note that not all of these engines failed; some of these owners continued to drive their cars with failed head gaskets, probably following their lawyer's advice.Also, that head gasket issue was more than just the two three I believe. I'm sure I read about the gasket issue I was talking about.
Go visit the Mustang EcoBoost forum and look for the poll asking about blown engines. Last time I checked there were some 40 owners who lost an engine due to catastrophic failure. All but two has been running modified software and/or bolt-on mods meant to boost power.
Obtaining 250 reliable hp from a 2 liter production engine is a engineering feat that was unimaginable just over a decade ago. Many people think they can do better than Ford's engineers without the benefit of the millions of hours of test data they have access to. I don't see how.
If you need an engine with more power your best bet is to buy a vehicle that comes equipped with one from the factory.
I don't believe Ford Performance offers a calibration for the Bronco Sport...yet. And the warranty Ford Performance offers with its calibrations are good only for the first 3yrs or 36K miles from vehicle date of purchase, not installation date. If you already have more than 36K on your car you not eligible for a warranty.My brother has a Ford Performance tune on his Ranger and he absolutely loves it. The fact it is warrantied and with a CARB EO# is just icing on the cake.
On that we are agreed!I find my BS BL peppy enough, its not a Mustang and it doesn't really need anymore power.
I don't believe Ford Performance offers a calibration for the Bronco Sport...yet. And the warranty Ford Performance offers with its calibrations are good only for the first 3yrs or 36K miles from vehicle date of purchase, not installation date. If you already have more than 36K on your car you not eligible for a warranty.
On that we are agreed!