Are Direct Injection Engines Bad? Carbon Build Up Concerns? Engineer Interview
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2024
- New engines have a technology called direct injection and if you read enough forums, you will learn this is bad for engines. You need port injection and direct injection to cut down on carbon build up, right? Not really. Watch now as an engineer debunks the direct injection claims put forward by the internet.
Subscribe for more Pickup Truck and SUV videos: ua-cam.com/users/pickuptruck...
Join this channel to get access to special perks:
/ @pickuptrucktalk
Interested in owner reviews? Check out this playlist: • Pickup Truck Owner Int...
Trying to find the most reliable trucks and SUVs?: • Pickup Trucks, SUVs Re...
Shop our Cafepress store for new Pickup Truck +SUV Talk gear: www.cafepress.com/pickuptruck...
Find us on Facebook: / pickuptrucktalk
Also, on Instagram: / pickuptrucktalk
And on Twitter: / pickuptrucktalk
Our website is here: www.pickuptrucktalk.com - Авто та транспорт
Here is the full video with the engineer: ua-cam.com/video/IdhKqR4Y9LQ/v-deo.html
This engineer hasn't been reading forums or complaints....this engineer doesn't understand that the owners aren't concerned about the combustion process using direct injection. As been stated over and over, it's the upstream path prior to compression and combustion that's the issue (due to PCV). Direct injection has been used for decades in diesels....nothing new other than a timing with the ignition of the spark plugs on gasoline engines.
I see a few guys already mentioned it in the comments, but I will elaborate on the issue he didn't discuss too. The main problem is the EGR bringing oil mist back in across the intake valves. Port injections washes this off the intake valves and prevents the carbon buildup. Catch cans will slow this process down, but not totally eliminate it. Ford redesigned the ecoboost to have DI plus some port injection to solve this issue. If you talk to him again, please ask him how this specific issue has been solved on the 6.6 gas engine. As far as I know, it hasn't been solved, but maybe I'm wrong.
Not EGR, if you have oil mist in your exhaust gas, you already have some BIG problems. It’s from the PCV system.
@@jeffs2809 You're right. The older I get, the more think something and say something else.
You're mostly right but a little bit incorrect terminology. It's the crank case blow by that gets returned to the intake through the pcv that creates intake valve coking. Valve coking is worse on turbo charged engines, which is the point for ecoboost having port and direct injection. The port injection helps to clean the back of the intake valves.
I just would add Ford to BMW have had the carbon buildup issue on intake values. Toyota from the start went with direct/port injection, first on Lexus. I remember being at the Detroit Autoshow looking at the Lexus engine cutaway (during industry day) and hearing competitor engineers comment that they could not afford to add the extra injectors. They learned the true cost of their mistake.
And as an engine gets more miles on it the PVC will pull more gases/oil deposits into the intake system which will stick to the hot stem of the valve. This guy isn't assessing an engine on the outer spectrum of time that would be seen on a vehicle coming off of warranty.
Tim, I think the biggest problem is still not addressed, that is carbon buildup in the intake valves. It’s my understanding that carbon/ dried sludge builds up on the intake valves from the PCV introducing oil vapor into the intake valves building up crud, because in the normal course of port injection the deposits would be washed away from building up on the valves otherwise. Direct injection eliminates this of course. That is why they have added this 2 way punch of port and direct injection. It’s still not clear how GM is addressing this issue beyond using both as Ford and others have done. I think direct injection is pretty great other than this issue and the ones you mentioned. I think all this can be fixed, it’s just what works best. Tim, thanks for a great video with a deeper dive into a interesting topic!
No knock on the engines, but yes missed the point - the question needs to be - what have you done to illuminate carbon buildup on the intake valves?
I think twin injection is key.
@@tosil Like Toyota does. However, unlike Tim is showing with his hand gestures, Port injection comes from above the intake valves thus washing them off all the time. Direct injection is under the intake valves directly into the cylinder.
This video completely missed the biggest DI problem: carbon build up on the intake valves. I have yet to see a GM engineer talk about how they addressed this issue without port injection while Ford & Toyota engineers’ solution was to spend the money and add port for the sake of reliability. It’s like GM PR is telling their engineers to avoid the subject or something.
Gm/chev only have direct injection so even after as little as 40,000 miles you have to get the valves walnut blasted by using a machine that is like a sandblaster. Chemicals do not work. The only way is taking the heads off and getting it picked off manually with tools and solvents or walnut blasting.
Coming from owning several Volkswagens, carbon buildup on the intake valves is a very real problem and the answer still didn't address that. I'm glad that Toyota has their D4-S system (direct and port) on all their new turbo engines.
Gas does not remove carbon. That is not the reason Toyota uses D4-S. Carbon issues are rare in modern DI engines.
Lol. No it’s not. It’s quite common actually
@@MSparks9509 Less than 1% of vehicles will ever have an issue. With millions of vehicles there will be a few issues. It’s totally blow out of proportion and quite frankly is no longer an issue. Gasoline absolutely will not prevent the build up or remove carbon.
@@user-tb7rn1il3q ok, not the gas, but the detergents in the gas prevent the carbon build up . & yes, it's a big problem on VW's - - i dont know why that brand has such problems more than other, but they do
I was in the understanding it was the crankcase venting back into the intake that causes carbon buildup. That is where a catch can comes in.
It is the crankcase PCV that draws oil vapor from the crankcase into the intake, before direct injection there was gas that mixed with the crankcase vapor and kept the valve stems and valve bottom clean. Now it’s just air and crankcase vapor on the valve.
Without a catch can it's best to have both port and direct injection. Fuel coming into cylinder thru port injectors washes crap off the back of the intake valves.
Some manufacturers won't do both because of cost and complexity.
This guy is defending their design.
and is frankly lying as in all consumer based media blogs.
reversion causes intake build-up
PCV after oil starts intruding into the chamber and back out of the intakes
this why so many questions are asked without an answer
port and direct ala. toyota reduced it
He didn't really debunk anything, I would have preferred to see a tear down after an engine ran 200,000 miles with proper maintenance. That is proof. This video is just talking about how it should work in theory.
Im highly confident we are going back to the days of a “great” engine only lasting 100k before needing a rebuild.
Love these videos. Love your channel, and these tech deep dives. No one does them better, keep them coming.
The core issue isn’t DI, it is when you circulate oil vapor back through the intake. That is what creates the carbon build up.
DI doesn’t eliminate the carbon build up like port injection does in this scenario.
The engineer is correct, but he isn’t talking about the entire picture. It is marketing/salesmanship.
So when you recirculate that oil vapor through the intake, port injection only is far superior to DI and DI/PI.
A catch can helps, but won’t eliminate it.
He avoided the MAIN problem with this design as expected.
Why would GM say DI causes issues, that’s what they’re touting for their engines. The carbon build up is caused by crankcase ventilation and the oil fumes in the return to the intake and it collects on the intake valves. Port injection cleans the intake valves of this buildup plus if the engine is turbo charged, the port injection lowers the intake air temperature. Also, listen to his answer, he doesn’t address carbon buildup on intake valves. To me it’s marketing BS. If all you got to sell is DI, you won’t be touting the advantages of PI. Think about it
I'm not an engineer either, but I know enough about this issue to recognize you know very little about it. It's not about incomplete burning of the fuel, it's about from where the fuel gets injected into the cylinder. On direct injection engines, the fuel mixture bypasses the intake valves and therefore never washes the back side of those valves. I first learned about this issue after my dad bought a Mini Cooper which had to go to the shop twice before it hit 60,000 miles to get the head removed so that the valves could be taken out and have the carbon buildup scraped off.
walnut blasting every 60 to 80k isn't a long term fix for a issue that could be very expensive!!!
Tim, great discussion and topic. Agree tech is better for performance.
Fact, carbon build-up is mainly on the intake valves, before cylinders, outside the combustion cylinders. So you need to go further and answer the question why not add some throttle port fuel injection to keep the backside of intake valves clean. Yes, the best of both worlds. I think the answer is cost! Mfr's don't want the added cost and complexity of both fuel systems.
So please continue asking auto engineers and complete the discussion! Carbon buildup leads to misfires and CEL codes, then to expensive repairs.
I do an intake cleaning before every oil change on my GM DI 6.2 and it has stopped any stumbles I had been getting before using the products. I've used both CRC and Seafoam (specific intake cleaner), I like the straw that comes with the Seafoam product so that's what I'll continue to use.
This is the least of my problems. I bought my 2023 3.0 from Chevy on the Feb 20th. My engine light came on the next day when I started it to go to work. I got the vehicle back yesterday and this morning the check engine light came back on. I took it back to Chevy and the dealer saying all the codes are coming back to EGR issues. It's to the point the dealership is looking to find a whole new 2023 to put me into and transfer my loan. I'm lucky I choose the financing from Chevy or this option wouldn't have been availible. At this point I wish my truck would last long enough to have the possibility of this direct injection issue. I think the dealership sees the write on the wall and are trying to get ahead of the more than likely lemon coming their way.
Great video, it's well known that DI is more efficient, but the 2.7 is under a lot more stress than the HD because of the turbo. It doesn't really address the issue with carbon deposits. It's a "trust us, we thought of everything" type of reply.
He actually made it sound like the carbon build up would occur in the cylinder and didn't even mention the intake valves which DI bypasses thus creating the build up.
Any chance in interviewing a Toyota engineer about this? I was under the impression the build up was from the PCV system. Naturally aspirated probably no big deal, turbo with all that blow by into the crankcase there is a whole lot more work to do with the PCV system. I know the dual injuection 3.5 ecoboost still carbon, but just slower, no driveability issues or anything. Ford Makuloco has a few interesting videos on the topic and walnut cleaning at his shop. I'm sticking with my naturally aspirated Hemi with port injection for now thanks.
Tim
Please revisit this question regarding intake valve buildup.
This buildup of oil/sludge on the intake valve is from crankcase fumes. And because port injection is not there to clean the intake valves it becomes a problem. I see with some manufactures they have a PM recommendation to clean the valves with chemicals.
I'm working on another video on this since the oil blow by buildup looks to be resolved through GF-6 oil.
I’ve seen first hand the effects of DI on an engine, Subaru n/a and turbo 2.0 engines. While DI does lead to greater carbon buildup the addition of turbocharging greatly increases the production of carbon buildup. I believe it’s due to the added crank case pressure putting oil in the pcv system.
Missed the mark with video. Entire concern is with intake valves.
Former Lexus technician here: the one thing that seems to constantly get glossed over is that the intake valves coke up due to oil vapor being ingested by the PCV system.
Unless modern DI engines have been engineered with a better PCV system to eliminate this coking, better minimum engine oil specifications or both, its still a knock against DI only engines.
The 1st gen DI engines Lexus had the LEAST issues with were port/DI engines. Id love to heard these engineers thoughts on that specific issue.
Looking at buying an LT1 Camaro and this is a point of contention for me.
why would di push more oil?
After researching this further I'm still confused on what gets used when. Is port injection used mainly at slow speeds and direct injection used at highway speeds or do I have that backwards?
I see most everyone has picked up on the coking issue that is directly related to DI. I for one have the 6.6L engine and love it. After 300 miles I did put a catch on it and have been quite surprised with how much oil that it catches...On the 6.6L engine, the PCV system is built into the valve covers and was supposed to be the end all of bypass gasses (oil vapors) getting into the intake. Not so from what I've seen. I would highly recommend running a catch can on all DI engines to help reduce the amount of oil vapors being sent into the intake and then collecting on the backside of the intake valves. I also have a 21 Ford Explorer that is DI, the 2.3L turbo engine. Believe it or not, I hardly get any oil in that catch can. Way less than my 6.6L chevy engine. So I can say that on the Ford 2.3L engine, Ford did a great job with their overall PCV system. Chevy, not so much....this is just my personal experience, nothing more. But I do love my 6.6L chevy engine....It is an absolute beast and very fuel efficient as well.
The new 5.0 coyote has the best solution with a combination of direct and port injection
The PCV system will still coat the valves and with DI there is nothing to wash the back of the valves.
Gee, I wonder why he doesn't tell us what that 'durability target' is so we can verify his claims?
Warranty period and EPA emissions compliance duration. I believe it’s 100k miles for the later.
That would be the targets they would fall under. Being vague is a marketing strategy for deniability
150k miles dude@@gordonborsboom7460
I was wondering something. If you have a catch can on a gdi engine, would it be okay to put seafoam or crc intake valve cleaner in the catch cans?
Toyota has been using direct injection and port injection for several years now. It dramatically reduces carbon buildup on valves and the direct injectors. This is present on all D-4S engines.
The direct injection system operates under extremely high pressure.
These systems do not tolerate off-brand, low quality, gasoline. Top Tier certified fuel is required.
I think he is towing the company line. As long as there is a EGR recirculating dirty exhaust mixed with the crank case oil vapor there is going to be carbon buildup. Show me an intake manifold and intake valves after 100,000 miles to show how dirty they really are.
I bet if you ask one of these engineers if GMs cylinder deactivation works good you will get the same BS
Everything you said regarding DI is true, more power, higher compression, more complete burn, more efficiency. Unfortunately the PCV system and DI alone do not play well together. If you swap cars every 5 years or so this is a non issue but you hold on to them for extended lengths befitting their bloated prices, you will probably deal with the effect of carbon build up on the intake valve faces and stems by way of engine misfires.
Can you reduce carbon buildup by increasing burn efficiency?
On the new Trailblazer 1.3l DI turbo engine the crankcase ventilation system seems very elaborate possibly to reduce the carbon deposits on the intake valves.
Here is a brief description of how GM tackled the problem.
"The crankcase ventilation system incorporates a pre-separator in the left side of the engine block below the coolant control valve. As crankcase gasses enter the pre-separator, oil separates and drains back to the oil pan through two oil drain channels in the block. The blow by flows internally from the pre-separator through block and head into the fine separator."
Hey Tim, do you what is going on with GMC trucks. GMC 2500 HD released their price for the 2024 truck. Chevrolet deleted the 2024 HD trucks from their web cite and no price information. just wondering.
The 2.3 Ecoboost in the new Mustang has higher pressure than both (5070 Psi) yet uses both Port and Direct injection.
I wonder why GM don’t engineer both port and GDI like Ford and Toyota
There are advantages and disadvantages to both, of course GM marketing their DI only engines will only tout the pros. Driving behavior and engine type (NA, turbo, gas, diesel, truck, sports car etc) also heavily influence some of those aspects. There can be issues with DI only but definitely blown out of proportion and lumped in with other issues that owners experience (coupled with the fact that carbon build up strikes an emotional response when looking at pictures).
It is the crankcase blow by that is the issue. The carbon build up on the intake valves is because there is no longer gasoline spraying into the port and cleaning off the crud so it builds up. That is why some engineers got smart and went to dual injection ports to help get rid of the problem.
No doubt DI has its benefits, but I doubt the engineers or spokespeople are going acknowledge anything negative on camera. Like many others have said, the concern is additional maintenance costs required due to carbon deposits on intake valves known to be an issue with other DI engines. Will it be a problem with the GM engines? Time will tell.
This video sidesteps the main issue which is BLOWBY (especially in boosted applications). Over time, oil blowby will cause intake valve coking. Quality catch cans help but don't completely eliminate it. Port injection washes off the valves. The best engines have both
yes I do ford tried just direct injection on there 3.5 egoboost did not go so good so they added port on top of it that took care of the build up on the valves
The problem with GDI unlike MFI/PFI like my 09 Honda Pilot has it only spray the front of the intake valves whereas, my 09 Honda Pilot sprays the back of the intake valves over time you get carbon buildup requiring you to use either Sea Foam Intake Throttle Body Spray cleaner Lucas Oil Throttle Body Spray cleaner, or STP Pro Throttle Body Spray cleaner. The only way to fix that problem is to be re-engineered with a dual spray injector system by putting a set injectors in the front of the intake valves and a set of injectors in the back of the intake valves. This is why GDI gasoline engines require more maintenance than old school MFI/PFI gasoline engines. 🙂
"I designed it, so it can't be wrong"- Every engineer ever.
I hear the Jeep 2.0 is direct injection and people are saying they are getting fuel smell in their oil. Not sure of the pressure though.
Is carbon build up from direct injection only a problem with turbo engines or non turbo as well? Thinking of buying a used Armada which is a 5.6L V8 with direct injection.
Turbo doesn't matter for direct injection.
Tim, I can not agree more. Direct injection allows for everything that the engineer stated and prevents pre-ignition as there is no fuel mixture in the cylinder until the injector fires and adds the fuel.
However, you were focused on the engine after the intake valve closes.
The issue is not downstream of the valve train but in the intake manifold.
All gas combustion engines have PCV to scavenge the extra pressure built up in the oil pan. The PCV routes the purged vapors into the intake manifold to be burnt by the combustion cycle. The intake air and the PCV fumes are passed over the intake valves. When the intake valves are cold, or very hot, the oil vapors in the PCV airstream pass over the intake valve and can coat the intake valve with oil residue which then can create carbon on the intake manifold side of the valve.
The reason this is not an issue with Port Injection, Throttle Body Injection, or Carburetors is that fuel is added to the intake air upstream of the intake valve. Gas is a wonderful cleansing agent which dissolves any oil residue on the intake valve. Hence, you do not get carbon buildup on the intake valves. This is why some manufacturers are running both Port injection and Direct injection.
Cheers
I think the reality is that overtime direct injection will build up some carbon on the valves and after about 100,000 you just clean it off, hire somebody to walnut blast or whatever needs to be done. The engine is going to keep on going. It's called maintenance. If folks don't want to do that, my guess is the engine will last it's intended lifespan which may be 180 200,000 for the average user before they change out the truck. It's only those few folks who want to keep their trucks for a million miles that will have any issue at all approaching direct injection these days.
As described in the service manual under PCV system operation. I'll just copy and paste.
"The blow-by flows from the crankcase through 4 rising channels into the pre separator (3). In the pre separator the first oil separation starts and the separated oil drains through two oil drain channels. One channel under oil level into oil pan and one ends in the block over oil level but with a check valve. The blow-by flows internal from the pre separator through block and head into the fine separator (2). In the fine separator assembly, the blow-by flows through a fine oil separator and the pressure regulation valve (PRV). The fine separator has an internal oil drain channel under oil level with a check valve. After blow-by has passed the PRV it can flow through the primary or secondary check valve. The primary duct is routed internally through cylinder head into the intake manifold (4). The secondary duct (turbo mode) is routed internally in the head, camshaft carrier and then external through The PC
Okay, how does GDI clean the deposits now????
All I heard was a bunch of marketing speak from another GM employee.
As far as compact SUV's go, appears that Toyota goes with both port and direct injection in their RAV4 and Corolla Cross. And the standard engine from Hyundai/Kia has dual injection as well. Why aren't we seeing port&direct injection offered by other manufacturers? ... IF that is the best way to go to keep the back of the valves clean for the life of the engines....
Toyota is also using dual port injection on their new 2.4 turbo engine.
Using a proper oil matters a lot too. Proper dexos certified/ quality synthetic
I add a Mann & Hummel ProVent 200 catch can to every vehicle I own. This greatly reduces the amount of oil re-entering the intake tract. EGR returns are dry and contribute very little to intake valve fouling UNLESS combined with wet oil mist from the PCV system.
The ProVent has pressure/vacuum releases in the unlikely event of a hose freeze off. Highly recommended for all engines in my opinion. And my intake valves remain clean. Never, never, NEVER use a metal catch can if you live where it freezes!
Is this ProVent 200 catch can only live at freeze place? Is this more effect than other? How can proof success? Thanks!
Is the 2.7 direct injection only or is it a dual injection setup like what Ford does in some of their engines?
Direct injection.
I’ve owned several DI engines and never had a issue. Change your oil every 5000 miles and add a can of sea foam.
It would have been nice if you actually asked the correct question to the engineer, recirculating of oil vapor through the intake and how does the DI engine deal with that build up of carbon on the valves, but you sold out.
In a perfect world where there was no EGR and no PCV bringing exhaust gases and oily vapors across the valves, DI would be perfect. DI is great for power and fuel consumption, but you need to pair it with port injection to keep those valves clean. It's not the biggest problem in the world though. BG has great cleaning processes to get the sooted up valves cleaned every year or so. You can also keep your valves from sooting up by using a high quality synthetic oil and changing your oil at 5k mile intervals.
For all of the good points, this is still an open deck design that's likely to have head gasket issues and intake valve carbon problems. Lets give it a few years and hope I'm wrong. The other problems are likely to develop when the infamous GM bean counters cost reduce the critical parts.
Decades of watching GM shoot themselves in the foot, leads me to always lower my expectations.
Curious as to why diesel engines which also have direct injection don't suffer from PCV fume build up on the intake valves.
Just a little history from personal experience. My first car was a 1976 Camaro. I loved that car , but on a quite night you could hear it rusting. Later when I started a family I bought a 1980 Monte Carlo turbo. My father , a mechanic said it locked up at 46k while engine was idling waiting to turn left because GM had used a 2 core radiator which didn't cool the engine enough. In 2016 i reluctantly gave Chevrolet one more chance when I got a sweetheart deal on a 2014 captiva suv. Just around 100k I got a $2600 estimate to replace the catalytic converter because G.M. used low tension oil rings and I think screwed up the EGR system as well. This was G.M.s last chance with me. Where is an old Plymouth Scamp with the slant 6 when you need it ? G.M. Will slip planned obsolescence into a vehicle anytime they can or the ones making decisions are terribly incompant.
Retired U.A.W. 2155.
The engineer is definitely proud of his engine. It's easy to see. You can also tell that he was praying someone would ask him these questions because if it was a marketing thing by GM, he would've had it in a speech at the start of the media event. Tim has to ask him about it to get the ball rolling.
Given all the recent talk about Top Tier Diesel, I'm glad he brought up using regular, everyday, cheapish , 87 octane.
For those really concerned about carbon buildup, why not just do a complete seafoam treatment every 50,000 miles?
" High pressure- 2200 psi".. That's about 10% of what a common rail diesel has.
Time will tell on this tech. I still prefer port over DI. I still wish Chevy carried over the Italian-made VM Motori diesel engine into the new Colorado as it was a year or two ago.
This GM engineer didn't really explain what they are doing to avoid carbon build up. But one of the techniques they use is leaving the intake valve open a little longer after the fuel is injected. With that valve open fuel does clean the valves.
Now it's still not as good as having a port injector. But it works GM V8s from 2014 don't have carbon issues.
Not true. Lots of 2014+ 5.3 higher mileage engines have severe intake valve carbon buildup. Start by searching here for videos showing 5.3s with the intake manifolds removed showing the problem, and folks spending big $ trying to fix it. It's a real problem that GM is ignoring on their old and obviously their new engines. Sweeping it under the rug. Nothing to see here...
@Mark Weber I work In a dealership. I've taken these engines apart. They do not have carbon build up issues.
@@terrencejones9817 High mileage 2014+ engines w/o carbon buildup? How many miles? Maybe videos showing the problem on 5.3 engines are unique.
@Mark Weber I've seen these apart with well over 300 000kms /200k Miles. The AFM cylinders do some carbon on the pistons, not the valves. but nothing bad enough to effect combustion. The 19+ DFM engines have no carbon. We have these apart for Lifter failures and that's pretty much it. Otherwise these are extremely reliable engines.
They do not consume oil like the 07-13 engines did either
@@terrencejones9817 Thank you. So videos like this are all just outliers and nearly everyone on this thread is bamboozled...? ua-cam.com/video/NoIIVsjHZTw/v-deo.html
Every GM engineer/employee has the opportunity to teach their customers through actual data and facts that this issue has been resolved on GM engines. Instead, we get hand waving engineers that completely dodge the subject. Search the topic and you only find complaints (with factual evidence/videos, etc.), how-to videos on how to temporarily fix (valve scraping), catch can solutions, and zero discussion/evidence from GM teaching that the problem has truly been resolved.
Every manufacturer supports variable valve timing, yet somehow Toyota, Ford, and others have resorted to dual injection. Leaving valves open during compression stroke has obvious drawbacks. If this is an actual solution that works, then why aren't GM engineers explaining it?
Nothing personal, just an obvious area that clearly needs more teaching and/or solutions. The posted video didn't answer any of the related questions.
This is just another example of GM being so far behind. OK, FORD realized that carbon buildup was becoming a problem on the very popular 3.5L Ecoboost engines. So, FORD added port injection with the direct injection way way way way back in 2017. YES, 2017 F150's have both. Shame on GM for designing a NEW engine and not having both. No excuse for that. Nice video. Merci
Gasoline does not remove or prevent carbon build up. Toyota and Ford do not use port injection to clean the intake valves.
@@user-tb7rn1il3q ... YES, it does. The port injection sprays (cleans) the valves during the drive cycle. Which is why port injection (the older technology) basically kept the valves clean.
@@user-tb7rn1il3qyes, it absolutely does, especially if you use high detergent gas, go tear apart a old 2000 V8 and see how clean their valves are, it's white Toyota and Ford went to Port / direct injection.
It's all about the valves. Oil vapor creating carbon buildup on the back of the valves. It is a proven fact. Toyota uses port and direct injection to alleviate the problem.
Still not sold, DI and PI is superior
If you don’t do the maintenance you’re gonna suffer the consequences. I have a Acura MDX with a direct injection engine and every 30,000 miles I have to do the TDI service or they burn out the carbon but if everything is cool. There’s drawbacks and benefits to everything you just have to be willing to do the maintenance.
Ugh durability and longevity are different words. Manufacturers talk about a durability or reliability target. They dont tell us what that target is. They dont release the results of their test and less than Toyota I've never heard a engineer talk about longevity. And that guy was claiming a million miles out of ever car 🙄🙄
DI is best for low speed and port is better for higher speeds. GM is touting a party line because they are not will to spend the extra to include both. Ford has both methods on its gas engines and Ram only has port. Smart move. Go take a look at the earlier Fords with only DI. Big problems with build up in the valves. That’s why Ford brought port back.
Main point is the black carbon from the oil on the pcv valve oil go into the intake manifold that cause built up black carbon over the time this why people need a oil separator for the direct injection engines. Why don't the manufacturer installed them?
An occasional Italian tune up will fix any carbon buildup, been proven for decades, and yes it's been used on modern DI vehicles.
Direct Injection squirts the fuel into the cylinder and has a better air mixture in the cylinder for a more complete combustion, translating to more power because it's efficiently converting all the fuel & air to combustion. Port Injection squirts the fuel into the intake ports then the air & fuel mixture enters the cylinder.
I think you need to dig a little deeper on the subject. The engineer's answer addressed carbon build up on the piston but not on the intake valves. From what I've seen, the carbon build up on the intake valves is caused by the oil fume recirculation which is where oil catch cans help. As you probably already know, Ford uses both port and direct injections which helps clean the valves. Ford's solution isn't perfect either. Is the direct injection on the chevy 2.7 a deal breaker? Not in my opinion. Here's a video that digs in a little more on the subject with some bore scope video of the valves. ua-cam.com/video/sNzF7rm8OzY/v-deo.html&ab_channel=FordTechMakuloco
The carbon buildup got nothing to do with fuel burning it's crank case capers that go back into the I take and the oil residue builds up on the back of the intake valves and since fuel isn't getting injected through the intake valves nothing washes it off. That's where also having port injection helps! What would solve it would be dumping crankcase ventilation outside the engine like the old days!
It doesn't have anything to do with the combustion chamber, fuel burn, or pressure. Its carbon build up on the intake valve. Port injection has been around forever and washes the valve off. Do you know ford uses both forms of fuel injection?
They don’t on all their engines FYI. Also, research new oils and you’ll see how they are formulated to reduce carbon build up.
@@Pickuptrucktalk yup oils have higher flash temps now special designed for direct injection. Listen I like DI motors but let's not pretend they don't have this issue. Also the only engine ford makes that doesn't have both is the power stroke.
Just watched this video. Had to comment on the main problem of direct only gas engines, looks many have. Sorry to say that I dont think this video debunks the claims. I was starting to like the reports of this engine, no I'm not so sure.
Vehicle usage has a major impact on how clean an engine is. Both on intake, EGR and PCV systems.
Constantly driving at least 30-50 miles non stop will help keep these systems clean. Drive 2-3 miles a day, and vapors from gas and oil will turn into the sludge you see.
Just install a catch can. Solved
If the carbon build up gets really bad walnut blasting is a relatively affordable option. Using a oil catch can as well can help prevent the carbon deposit build up.
True but should the customer have to buy an oil catch can for an engineering foul up.
@@robertpulliam9973 The consumer shouldn't have to take these steps to help prevent carbon build up. It's frustrating having to use aftermarket products to keep your engine running clean.
Walnut blasting is a ridiculous solution. I suppose we should remove the intake manifold every 30k miles. GM shoud fix freakin root cause. Until then, people should be wise and buy from manufacturers that actually care about Quality reputation and include both Port and DI injection (or solely Port).
Ford has a problem with this but not with the 5.0 V8 because fuel is also directed threw the port cleaning the carbon off the valves where the ecoboost 4 cylinder gets carbon buildup on intake valves. The dealer can clean this which works ok but removing the intake and walnut blasting the valves does the best job. This buildup occurs after at least 40000 miles and gets worse with time causing poor idle and engine performance.
I'm sorry Tim. but a Chevy Engineer is NOT the person to ask about this, he's not going to go on a video recording saying anything negative about Chevy engines, his big bosses might not be so understanding seeing that on UA-cam.
Others have clearly stated the issue here. That engineer is really saying durable for the length of the warranty.
MAKES sense but why do they need that deactivation of ⛽️ fuel.
Go watch the YT channel "I do cars" as he rips apart dead engines and he will occasionally point out engines with the effects of no port injection engines.
Already subscribed.
Yeah, no problem, that’s why my garage smells like gasoline when i change the oil in my 2018 5.3. I notice he didn’t address the carbon build up issue.
No problem,lets see a tear down after 200,000 miles with perfect maintanence regimen.You can see many of those engine tear downs of such engines on youtube and all of em tend to have that carbon build up which ends up killing the engine.They just dont seem to last as long and nowadays nobody seems to have an interest in investing in making them any better since soon enough we are going to switch to all electric engines anyway
Toyota went to direct injection and port injection and is expensive for car manufactures to engineer into their engines. Thats why you won't see a lot of car manufactures engineering direct injection and port injection into their engines. Honda is having problems with direct injection because on their 1.5 engines are getting fuel into the the oil.
Toyota had a patent on that system until 2017, when Ford was finally able to replicate it, using it in their 2017+ model year Ecoboost engines. In typical Toyota fashion, it was only put in a handful of Lexus/Toyota engines to make sure it works and is reliable enough for the long term. That's why despite the 10-year patent, it wasn't all that prevalent until recent years. They've since rolled it out to most their updated engines, including the new 3.4 TT in the Tundra, which has the Turbo version (D-4ST).
So is Jeep with their 2.0 turbo 4XE.
That was a well rehearsed answer but he didn't address the problem with direct injection.
That’s why I added a J&L oil separator, so that oil doesn’t get recycled through the EGR system and dumped on the back of the valve, where the direct inject never sprays it, and cleans it. Simple solution to another dumb ass factory problem, just like tuning off the DFM 😂
Next time you talk to any manufacturing engineer. The real problem is PCV with intake valves. Ask what they are doing to correct this with direct injection. What Ford did was add multiport inject with DI.
Never direct injection----ask my honda earth dream engine 1.5 turbo engine nothing but carbon build up and gas smell in the cabin.
Tim you missed the target pretty good here.
I know your only going off what the “engineers” are telling you. But it’s apparent that the engineer you spoke with is either really a PR person, and not an engineer at all. Or he is hiding the real issue by directing attention elsewhere.
Carbon buildup in the combustion chamber has not been an issue for quite a long time. Modern fuel detergents solved combustion chamber carbon buildup, not whatever this guy is rambling about. Today when people talk about carbon buildup, they are most often referring to the carbon on the back side of the intake valves, and inside the intake manifold in some extreme cases. This comes from PCV (crank case ventilation). We force the engine to eat it’s oily crank case vapors. This oil forms a varnish that burns into the back of the hot intake valves. Over time it gets so heavy and thick that it restricts air flow into the cylinders. Which is what degrades performance. To the best of my knowledge Ford was the first to utilize old fashioned port injectors to clean this oil/carbon varnish. Then licensed the design to Toyota next. (I could be wrong about who was first. Don’t come after me.) This problem affects every DI engine in existence. Save for a handful who have implemented port injection to clean the valves. It actually boggles my mind that these manufacturers haven’t gotten smart on designing better air oil separation systems into the PCV. which is the obvious aftermarket solution. People got smart about installing AOS’s (air oil separators) on DI vehicles many years ago! Why haven’t the OEM’s??????
Don’t let Mr PR “engineer” derail you like this! It’s a blatant cover and redirection.
Toyota has the first patent and it expired in 2017, allowing for the Ford Ecoboost engines to be utilizing both port- and direct-injections. That was why Ford didn't get to use it despite knowing its advantages for their earlier model year Ecoboosts. Toyota and already created it back in 1996; just took a long time for them to perfect the technology and finally all over the place when ICE is on the way out.
I noticed that as of late, Ford and Toyota cross paths with their engine technology, such as this and the E-CVT, where instead of licensing each others' tech, they just collaborated and shared patents (on the E-CVT).
This doesn't address valve carbon buildup. I know some designs are better than others with direct infection only. Not worried about combustion ignition and cylinder washing one new, well designed models.
There is no miracle solution, going to cause an issue regardless. You pay extra for DI and PI, more later life cost, more complex. Less efficient with PI, but clean valves, more efficient with
Use the field as a whole as some contrary, strong evidence:
#1: Toyota (in typical fashion) was the last into use of Direct Injection. When they introduced DI, they did it WITH Port Injection. 2 reasons: First, already described, to wash back of intake valves and terminal run of intakes where oil vapor from crankcase ventilation bakes into ultra-hard deposits, eventually risking seal of the intake valves at the seats. 2nd reason: at low load, using port injection helps with efficiency / emission (so Toyota says anyway).
#2 After 8+ years with EcoBoost (initially DI only) in products, Ford (in 2019?) updates all of the DI motors to ADD Port Injection. That cost money (R&D, validation, retooling, change in production processes). But Ford, after taking a beating (poor durability and getting sued over intake carbon build up), adds Port Injection to all of the EcoBoost motors. That was a VERY EXPENSIVE change. Motivated by the problems …
So, Mr Careful (Toyota) comes out with DI+PI and no DI-only motors, and bold Ford revises all their DI designs to add Port Injection.
A certain, but small percentage of Hondas, Nissans, and many Fords still needed blasting with ground walnut shells to get the baked/coked on oil carbon off the intakes after anywhere from 40-100K miles.
GMs choice looks like an experiment in progress. The HD motors will show whether or not they’re right, but not for another 3-6 years.
If this technology solves the problem he describes .... then why don't they use it across the entire GM model lineup, including the Silverado 1500 ? You need to ask the right questions.
They did use this technology across their entire lineup.
GM hoping it's followers can help them figure out how to build a reliable vehicle..... Haven't built one in 40 years so lets try this.... Sorry not Sorry!!
Have to also add: carbon buildup.
There is no miracle solution, going to cause an issue regardless. You pay extra for DI and PI, more later life cost, more complex. Less efficient with PI, but clean valves, more efficient with DI but more deposits.