F150 Ecoboost Forum banner

21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,862 Posts
I would think in 2019, 50 years since the recirculating of crankcase oil and 40 years of EGR science, and now, back to port injection, the burning of oil and carbon in the combustion chamber, engineers have this issue contained. I’m all for choice lol. I’d just be emptying it every time I stopped. If it was a serious problem engineering and R&D would solve it. Ford, Gm etc don’t need us coming back for large dollar fixes like the VW gdi system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have no beef with this point of view except that we are living in a time, in my opinion, that manufacturers of different products actually ARE aware of design issues that currently exist and do NOT necessarily address them by fixing them properly.

Instead, everything is weighed in "the cost room" and it's absolutely not unheard of to accept the costs and risk factors of the design flaw and choosing to continue to live with it.

Or I could put it in an even more frustrating way........

A $30,000 product could have a weakness that could be addressed by adding $60 to the cost of manufacturing it. So now the single consumer would pay $30,060 and never likely experience the previous issues related.

But instead, the manufacturer concludes it would cost them 30 MILLION dollars to add that $60 to ½ million units. But their records show it cost $15 Million to fix the affected units in warranty claims. So they DON'T fix it. On purpose!

Drives me crazy. But the stockholders get what they demand.

If that sounds like I'm whining, I am. But keep in mind I whine very little about very few things. So please allow this. Lol

Gen2 Ecoboost motors are perfect examples of this kind of strategy. There are some incredibly inexpensive improvements that were obviously not made, and $cost can be the only explanation.

Again, as a single consumer of a Gen2 truck, of course I would have gladly paid the tiny cost increase. But Ford actually didn't even want the additional money from me because it would have made them le$$ profit.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
I have no beef with this point of view except that we are living in a time, in my opinion, that manufacturers of different products actually ARE aware of design issues that currently exist and do NOT necessarily address them by fixing them properly.

Instead, everything is weighed in "the cost room" and it's absolutely not unheard of to accept the costs and risk factors of the design flaw and choosing to continue to live with it.

Or I could put it in an even more frustrating way........

A $30,000 product could have a weakness that could be addressed by adding $60 to the cost of manufacturing it. So now the single consumer would pay $30,060 and never likely experience the previous issues related.

But instead, the manufacturer concludes it would cost them 30 MILLION dollars to add that $60 to ½ million units. But their records show it cost $15 Million to fix the affected units in warranty claims. So they DON'T fix it. On purpose!

Drives me crazy. But the stockholders get what they demand.

If that sounds like I'm whining, I am. But keep in mind I whine very little about very few things. So please allow this. Lol

Gen2 Ecoboost motors are perfect examples of this kind of strategy. There are some incredibly inexpensive improvements that were obviously not made, and $cost can be the only explanation.

Again, as a single consumer of a Gen2 truck, of course I would have gladly paid the tiny cost increase. But Ford actually didn't even want the additional money from me because it would have made them le$$ profit.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
I get that for sure. My GDI Sierra probably would have benefited from one due to it being straight DI without PI. Catch can craze followed the GDI in a blaze. PI motors were almost never canned. So, the point I was trying to make was that Ford (Toyota or Nissan started it I think) saw the issue with GDI buildup and decided adding PI to GDI was the best solution as past PI proved buildup was negligible after 300k miles due to the gas washing the intake port. Is a catch can a good idea in this setup? It’s not a bad one. Until you forget to empty it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,862 Posts
I get that for sure. My GDI Sierra probably would have benefited from one due to it being straight DI without PI. Catch can craze followed the GDI in a blaze. PI motors were almost never canned. So, the point I was trying to make was that Ford (Toyota or Nissan started it I think) saw the issue with GDI buildup and decided adding PI to GDI was the best solution as past PI proved buildup was negligible after 300k miles due to the gas washing the intake port. Is a catch can a good idea in this setup? It’s not a bad one. Until you forget to empty it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I admit I wasn't addressing the catch can AT ALL. :)

In fact, most around here know that my truck is coming up on 2 years rapidly (Build 10/2017- 2018 model ) and it is 100% OEM under the hood, except plugs and variable octane tuned. Dyno reports about 440 RWHP.

It runs fantastic, in my opinion. Has 27,000 miles and it gets asked to tow and SCOOT often!

I have no catch can.

Scared to mess with it until something stops working perfectly or at least some wierd noise appears somewhere.

I personally feel it is inevitable! But I love every mile so far.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
That’s awesome! Is the variable octane tune aftermarket? Affect warranty? One of the guys over on the PY forum is a Ford boost engineer. Interesting to see what engineering has to say. I’m neither for or against cans. For me, it would be another thing I’d end up forgetting about. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,862 Posts
It's a tune by Matt at GearHead.
It started as their email tune. But later was tweaked on their dyno.

Honestly I don't know what "it puts down" currently because he's sent me revisions since the last time it was on a dyno.

As for warranty, in my opinion it is a crap shoot. Dealership relationships are everything. Good and bad.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,534 Posts
The problem with solving this issue is that the system needs to be designed for any boob buying an F150. There would be two options as far as I cant tell:

1. Recirculate the stuff that catch can grabs to the oil sump. This solves nothing, and would likely increase oil contamination over having no catch can at all. You would be adding all sorts of terrible **** back into your oil.

2. Make it part of regular maintenance where the owners empty it. This would solve nothing because most people barely remember to change their oil, you think they are going to drain a catch can. HA! Good one.

They are making the best out of what they are handed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
From a boost engineer at Ford

Prior to the 2016 Ford Le Mans race cars and their win in 2016, all of the Ecoboost engines were direct injection only. We found out that we wanted more hp (600+) not 440 HP that the Direct Injection fuel systems were capably of. So we did a Port and a Direct Injection fuel system. It made the power that we needed. That being said Toyota had direct and port injection for about 10 years but for a different fuel strategy:

The ultimate strategy is combining both PI and DI benefits, using each to diminish the other’s negatives. Toyota, for example, fires both injectors during low to medium load and rpm conditions—in other words, during normal driving. This raises the density of the incoming charge without boosting and flushes carbon deposits off the intake valves. During high load and rpm circumstances, when maximum combustion chamber cooling is needed because detonation is more likely, DI handles all the fuel delivery.

Ford does it differently: A couple of my former co-workers describe it here:

Peter Dowding, Ford’s chief engineer of powertrain gasoline systems, revealed a different strategy. Ford uses PI alone at idle and at low rpm for smooth, quiet, and efficient engine operation. As rpm and load increase, fuel delivery becomes a programmed blend of PI and DI. In contrast to Toyota’s methodology, Ford’s PI is always operating, responsible for at least 5 to 10 percent of the fuel delivery.

Dowding and his Ford engineering colleague Stephen Russ stress that carbon deposits on tailpipes and intake valves have never been an issue in their DI engines. Dowding adds: “Now that electric motors are being assigned increasing propulsion roles, our task is to improve engine efficiency whenever we can. Ford’s dual-fuel technology has already proven to be a valuable, cost-effective strategy in this effort.”



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
517 Posts
"Dowding and his Ford engineering colleague Stephen Russ stress that carbon deposits on tailpipes and intake valves have never been an issue in their DI engines”
Sounds like classic corporate denial to me. Especially since it has been widely proven and accepted that all DI motors, no matter the manufacturer, have valve coking issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Sounds like classic corporate denial to me. Especially since it has been widely proven and accepted that all DI motors, no matter the manufacturer, have valve coking issues.
Sure. It’s info I got from a retired senior engineer. Take it how you want. Turns out they added Pi for power and got valve cleaning as a bonus. Especially since Fords PI is constantly operating. I am convinced my 2.7 EB stays cleaner than my 5.3 Ecotec.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,534 Posts
Sure. It’s info I got from a retired senior engineer. Take it how you want. Turns out they added Pi for power and got valve cleaning as a bonus. Especially since Fords PI is constantly operating. I am convinced my 2.7 EB stays cleaner than my 5.3 Ecotec.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its also why Ford is being sued by the PhD’s at MIT that claim to have invented the fueling strategy ford uses and allegedly stole.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,862 Posts
I very much appreciate the information and the post. As a senior citizen, I'm very appreciative of these modern mediums that never existed before. Your story would have never been available to me.

Pretty cool actually.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,534 Posts
If it works, Do I care how they got it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A little defensive, arnt we?

I was suggesting that the PFI was more than just for cleaning the valves since it was a technology they were being sued over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
A little defensive, arnt we?

I was suggesting that the PFI was more than just for cleaning the valves since it was a technology they were being sued over.
That’s not how I meant it lol. But yes I agree on your PFI point. I haven’t heard about this lawsuit. But I’m a new ford guy so my research has been limited. I have a good grasp on the crap GM is in lol.
Sorry if it came off weird.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,608 Posts
Ford GT lemans cars use PI? WTF, is this for sure? That car came out with dual HPFP running DI only.

A catch can would still benefit on PI with boost, lol. Boost is what matter and what im trying to explain here. ANother thing, the way the system works stock, all that oil and crap is going into your intercooler and piping. Helping prevent that alone is worth it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Its also why Ford is being sued by the PhD’s at MIT that claim to have invented the fueling strategy ford uses and allegedly stole.
IDK sound like a sampling lawsuit over 3 chords to a 4 minute song. I’m not aware of the case you speak of but a fueling strategy? If you said he invited GDI or a specific engine design then sure but populating a fueling table may require a steady hand and good judgment its not what I would call proprietary. More like Granny suing Betty Crocker over reverse engineering her muffin recipe.
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top