Federal safety records now tie a specific group of Ford F‑150 EcoBoost engines to broken intake valves, sudden loss of power, and a major recall affecting hundreds of thousands of trucks. A defect in 2.7‑liter and 3.0‑liter “Nano” EcoBoost V6 engines, documented in Ford’s Part 573 Safety Recall Report 24V‑635 and in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Engineering Analysis EA23002, has prompted regulators to scrutinize how these engines can abruptly lose motive power in real‑world driving.
What began as owner complaints about stalling and power loss has escalated into a formal safety campaign and a detailed federal investigation, according to those filings. Together, the recall and the engineering analysis describe broken intake valves, engine shutdown, and a defined population of affected vehicles, while also outlining how many incidents regulators have tracked and how Ford plans to repair the problem.
What the recall really says
The starting point is Ford’s formal Part 573 Safety Recall Report 24V‑635, also identified internally as Ford campaign 24S55, filed under the federal defect‑reporting rules in 49 CFR Part 573. In that document, Ford states that certain 2.7‑liter and 3.0‑liter Nano EcoBoost V6 engines have intake valves that can fracture, creating a safety‑related defect rather than a routine maintenance issue. The report identifies the affected engines as being installed in F‑150 trucks from specific model years and build ranges and classifies the condition as one that can cause a loss of motive power while the vehicle is in motion.
In the recall filing, Ford estimates an affected population of 223,708 vehicles in the United States, a figure that defines the scope of the 24V‑635 campaign for regulators and owners. The same report explains that Ford will notify dealers and owners, inspect engines for the defective intake valves, and replace components where needed. By submitting this information as a Part 573 safety recall, Ford is formally acknowledging that the broken‑valve condition meets the federal threshold for a safety defect, not just a drivability complaint.
Inside the broken‑valve defect
Ford’s description of the defect focuses on the intake valves, which open and close at the top of each cylinder to admit air and fuel. When those valves fracture, pieces of metal can enter the combustion chamber, damage pistons and cylinder walls, and cause the engine to seize or shut down. The recall report characterizes the intake valves themselves as the failure point and notes that a broken valve can lead to a sudden loss of power, engine misfire, or stalling, all of which can occur without prior warning to the driver.
The same filing explains that the company’s remedy involves replacing the affected intake valves or related components with updated parts designed to prevent similar fractures. Because the defect is tied to a core moving part inside the engine, the recall is not limited to software updates or minor adjustments; it requires physical inspection and, where necessary, mechanical repair. The presence of a defined remedy in the safety report indicates that Ford expects real internal damage in at least some of the engines in the 223,708‑vehicle recall population.
What the federal investigation adds
The recall followed and overlapped with a separate regulatory action: the Office of Defects Investigation at NHTSA opened Engineering Analysis EA23002, titled “Loss of Motive Power (Ford 2.7L/3.0L EcoBoost),” on 09/29/2023. In its public resume for EA23002, ODI states that it is examining reports of vehicles equipped with 2.7‑liter and 3.0‑liter EcoBoost engines that experience a sudden loss of motive power, often accompanied by engine misfire or internal damage. That document identifies the investigation as a follow‑on to earlier screening work and notes that ODI is gathering detailed information from Ford about the design and field performance of these engines.
Within the EA23002 resume, ODI lists key metrics that frame the scale of the problem. The agency reports that it has identified 698 consumer complaints and 890 warranty or field reports related to loss of motive power or internal engine damage in the covered vehicles, along with 60 reports of alleged engine stalling events in traffic. ODI also records 16 field reports involving confirmed broken intake valves and states that these data points, combined with the size of the affected vehicle population, justified escalating the matter to a full engineering analysis. Taken together, these figures show that regulators are not acting on isolated anecdotes but on a documented pattern of failures.
Why EcoBoost design is under pressure
The official documents do not attempt to redesign the Nano EcoBoost family on paper, but they do highlight how a single weak component can undermine the performance of a complex turbocharged engine. The 2.7‑liter and 3.0‑liter EcoBoost V6s are designed to deliver strong torque from relatively small displacements, which places sustained thermal and mechanical loads on top‑end components such as intake valves. When Ford reports in its Part 573 filing that these valves can fracture and require replacement, it is effectively acknowledging that the as‑built parts have not met durability expectations in a subset of engines over the recall period.
Engineering Analysis EA23002 reinforces that this is not merely a matter of rough running or long‑term wear. By documenting hundreds of complaints and field reports tied to loss of motive power and broken valves, ODI is treating the issue as a safety concern rather than a routine reliability question. The investigation resume explains that ODI is reviewing design information, production changes, and field performance data to understand how the defect developed and how it relates to the broader operating conditions of the Nano EcoBoost engines.
Why the official fix may not feel complete
Ford’s remedy in the recall report is straightforward: owners of affected vehicles will be notified, dealers will inspect the engines, and defective intake valves or associated components will be replaced at no charge. The company’s Part 573 filing states that this remedy is intended to eliminate the risk of valve fracture and the resulting loss of motive power in the 223,708 vehicles covered by 24V‑635. For owners who have already experienced misfires or stalling, the recall provides a structured path to diagnosis and repair under a safety campaign rather than through ad hoc warranty claims.
Both the recall and the EA23002 resume, however, focus on identifying and correcting the existing defect rather than projecting long‑term outcomes for repaired engines. The documents do not provide post‑remedy durability data or failure‑rate projections for vehicles that receive the updated intake valves. As a result, the public record at this stage answers the immediate safety question—how to address the known defect in the current fleet—but does not yet offer quantitative evidence about how the updated parts will perform over high mileage, heavy towing, or extended service in demanding conditions.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
