Yeah I've seen those videos. He referenced older Audi and BMW engines I think.

 

He also said the 3.5L wasn't an issue and to run it pretty hard to prevent the issue.

 

Good to know. Seriously. Worth slogging through the .... varied opinions on this thread.

I know that's an issue on some of the earlier Ford diesels as a friend of mine has one that wouldn't build reasonable boost. The gurus on here recommended an "Italian tuneup" - hook onto a trailer and flog it. Sure enough, that did it. Maybe the Ecoboost needs to be run hard on occasion as well.

 

Had a buddy back when I was in college that had a hot-rod (or wanted to be hot rod) Chevy Nova with the 396 in it. From the get-go that thing was a dog; could barely get out of its own way. He made the decision to "force" a warranty rebuild. So quite literally started "flogging" it mercilessly.

Lo and behold, the engine was (mainly) just "tight", and the abuse loosened it up and the thing started performing.

Now I'm not saying that's an issue with modern engines, as car manufacturers have for the most part gotten much, much better with tolerances and quality in general. But it is a data point, if somewhat "dated".

 

Here's a couple articles on carbon build-up. It appears this was an issue on older DI engines however there have been advances that seem to solve the problem.
Is Carbon Buildup a Problem With Direct-Injection Engines? » AutoGuide.com News
Why Direct Injection Engines Develop Carbon Deposits

 

So, are you saying it is not an issue, but to prevent this non-issue, you should run it pretty hard, so it won't be an issue?

Sounds like it could be an issue to me?

 

That's a really great story and it sounds very scientific, rational and is very common phenomenon and a really great point...

 

Here we go again.

 

I don't see it as a direct injection problem. If it was, all direct injection engines would have it. It is an overall design problem of some engines and ecoboost rarely experiences this issue. So next time someone complains about my constant "bashing," some of you might say...not so fast.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

I know this is a "different" engine, but I used to have a lycoming IO540 k1E5 direct injection with turbos. I never heard of anyone having a problem with carbon build up. I hope the powers will see that this is on point even though one could argue that it isn't. The articles on this explain the problems. I thought the reality that bad fuel, poor ignition and poor mixture made more sense than the fuel not cleaning the valves because direct injection has been around for a long time. I really am glad that Ford is working through the issues.

I just think it is really poor how long it has taken them. As much as I dislike government regulation, the FAA would not have certified ecoboost until the problems were resolved.

 

You're right. That's a different engine all right. What kind of power does an IO/540 develop (even with turbos)? 300HP? That's almost a tractor motor, because it will rarely run over 2800 RPM, and only produces a little over 1/2 HP per cubic inch. The 3.5L ecoboost is producing more than 1.7HP per cubic inch, and redlines over 6000 RPM. Completely different animals.

Of course, the tractor motor (IO/540) can run at 80% power all day...

 

I'm confused. I read all the info in both links and what I saw said Ford doesn't have a problem. What did you see that I missed?

 

I read both the articles and I agree that ecoboost and carbon build up is rare. However, I think all of the issues, including some carbon build up can be traced back to Ford and the rush to get this engine to market. The condensation issue should have and probably was known and discovered. The spark plug gap the same and there are others. All and all they are relatively minor design flaws, but those issues and the potential for others with an engine that it is being pushed to hard are why I would rather have the 5.0 or 3.7.

As a reminder, when my 5.0 got totaled, it was the end of the ordering for the 2014 model and I wanted a reg cab with 8' box. My options were very limited, but I did have the chance to go ecoboost. I drove 100 miles to Fritz Ford and got the 3.7l.

Hey guys try not to get all up tight because I am telling you my experience with turbos. I am really sharing with the people who are still deciding. If you already decided and went ecoboost, good for you. That just doesn't seem like a 20-year truck to me and again, my 1995 Eddie Bauer is still sitting in the driveway with 300k miles on it.

 

Good to see that you agree there is no problem with the Ecoboost. Never has been a carbon-buildup problem and the plug-gap and condensation problems have been resolved. We are on the same page.