My point is that the 2015 F-150s are not out yet, so declaring them as having issues sounds a lot to me like you're being a troll. (Look it up if you don't know what that means).

 

I am talking about my concern for the EB direct injection engines and have done so because I have concern about the EB direct injection engines. I am concerned that Ford has not engineered in any means to keep the back of intake valves clean. Their track record with cylinder head design has not been great.

I have been on Internet forums for 18 years, on FTE for 8 years, and have a very good record here on the FTE. I always do my best to help people here and believe I have done so over the years--perhaps you should check my feedback ratings or my post count which I believe are not characteristic of a troll. I am most often on the van forum because that's what I own now.

This is a *discussion* forum and that, sir, does not mean that everyone has to be a total fanboy with no skepticism. There is good and bad in all machines. I love Ford trucks and chose a 1978 F100 as my first brand new vehicle in 1978. I have had my E150 since 2003 and have had many other Fords along the way and have recommended them to friends. I hope to have other Fords in my future.

Respectfully,
George

 

Troll schmoll, I just wish they wouldn't use direct injection. That seems to be wha' cause a bit of gasoline to get into the oil.

 

Unfortunately the EcoBoost engine wouldn't be possible without it. Up until the advent of direct injection boosted engines could only run a few PSI of boost and required premium fuel.

The EcoBoost engine runs as high as 16 PSI of boost on regular 87-octane gasoline. You can't have that, or anything close to it, with traditional multiport injection.

 

Thanks Tom. I didn't know that. Oh well, it's still seems like Ecoboost is a good engine to me.

 

Direct injection on a gas engine is so good and so bad. LOTS more horsepower and lower octane on high compression engines.

I was the one accused of being a troll and really resent that....I will also note that I am a lifelong Detroiter whose engineer son (including the first 2 years at U of M Dearborn just miles from the Glass House and on my dime, 2nd 2 at U of M Ann Arbor) works at a Tier 1 supplier for Ford (models including the F150) as well as the other 2 of the big three. And I know engineers at Ford, Chrysler, and GM, some in their engine and drivetrain departments including the engineer in charge of front wheel drive transmissions for Ford. And have friends at Roush and many other auto-related firms. I see test mules for all the big 3 before you guys....some of them in my freaking driveway with camo jobs...

One of my son's college U of Mich friends works as an engineer at Toyota powertrain in Ann Arbor (worked on the engine balance on the monster V10 in the Lexus LFA), and one of his jobs a few years ago was to take a DI-engined Volkswagen in the Toyota parking lot, start it, up, and drive it across the parking lot. Then park it and turn it off until the next day when he had to again drive it across the lot.

Within a couple months, the oil in the crankcase was over 15% gasoline. This kind of information makes me nervous about new technologies.

Again, when Ford develops a logical-sounding system that can cleanse the back of intake valves (AND show that gasoline dilution is not a major problem) and can show it to me and the rest of us, I will breathe a sigh of relief. This is probably not the best thread for the 2015 F150 forum, but since it relies on EB engines so much, maybe it is in the right place.

Only turbo I ever owned was an '86 Dodge Lancer which I really liked, but which blew out its headgasket and killed the turbo and the upper and lower ends of the engine. Before the end of the 7/70 warranty, thank God. I take turbos with a grain of salt but would buy one. I do fear DI at this time in my life on any engine that I would intend to drive 200k miles.

George

 

There's this real cool new deal called "diesel" that works great for direct injection and higher boost pressures I hear if you don't refine the fuel down so far you don't have a lot of the engine oil dilution issues, and can actually use the fuel itself to lubricate the injectors.

 

Kinda funny you got called a troll. Sometimes people don't like it if you don't sing prasies of the preferred brand. Ford had an oversight here and denying a screw up does nothing to solve it.

Regardless over the years Ford has screwed up and cheaped out on a LOT of stuff. I have been burned by them and so have friends and family. Several of the issues and flaws should have been covered due to Ford's stupidity but of course they will not stand behind them. However there were also several things IMO Ford did better than the competitors. There are going to flaws and oversights, how the company deals with them says a lot.

 

Once again you miss my point entirely, George. If you want to go and say the EcoBoost V-6 is a POS then go to the forum where the 2014 and earlier F-150 is discussed. I'm not defending the trucks or doubting your wisdom. I'm just saying you're in the wrong forum.

If the 2015 engines have this issue, it will be discovered once the 2015 trucks are released. As of right now, the 2015 trucks do not have this issue because there aren't any 2015 F-150 trucks on the road.

 

Not so sure that this was foreseeable. This engine was extensively tested in the lab and in the field. I'm not an engineer or even a real smart man but I would imagine that carbon buildup is mostly related to hours of run time. Ford simulated 150K miles on the test engine, publically tore it down as George pointed out and it was clean or within specs for an engine that had 150K on the clock.

Is it possible that there is a slight design difference between the 3.5L ecoboost and it's GTDI siblings?

The 3.5L and the 5.0L are both running 10.1 compression, about half that of a diesel. The 3.5L is running very high fuel pressure and even the boost isn't all that high.

This isn't the doomsday engine that many say it is or would like it to be.

 

It was a foreseeable issue and somewhat common sense to anyone with actual hands on experience with engines.

The traditional fuel injected engines build carbon in the intake manifold and in th eintake runner in the head all the way down to the valve. However they have an injector shooting fuel on the back side of the valve to help remove deposits from the valve which is more critical than the in the runner. Take that injector away from the back side of the valve and put it in the combustion chamber like on the DI EB and you lose ability to prevent buildup on the backside of the intake valve.

I pulled an intake manifold to replace a valve cover gasket on a 4.0l the other week. Lots of carbon in the intake and head near the valve. It was super easy to see which cylinder intake ports did not receive near as much oil mist/crud from the PCV system/EGR system. The injector however did help manage the buildup on the back side of the valve.

Maybe if Ford spent more time with R&D, real world testing and etc vs making fancy commericials fairly obvious issues could be prevented. The consumer doesn't really care why the issue happened they just know there is an issue and it costs them time and often money. When noticeable carbon buildup happens at 20k causing issues I see little reason why this was not caught during R&D. Besides it is not like the EB is the first DI gasser out there.

 

I am the original poster and only posted this because of my history with Audi and their turbo'ed DI engines...

made GREAT horsepower, but at about 50K miles there were reports of carbon build up...

so I got rid of ours - actually traded it in on the Explorer sport...

IMHO, and my wife's (as her daily driver), MUCH better car...
heavier, bigger, quicker, would say more bells and whistles,
but it's a 2 year newer car, so it should have more

 

You write this like these things are dropping like flies due to carboned up valves. I'm just not seeing it. I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to the EcoBoost or even the F150 forums until about a year or two ago, and I can't remember a single incident of someone reporting a problem due to this. So a tech posts a video having issues with one engine in a completely separate platform? Big deal. I do find it interesting that they told him to replace the entire head instead of disassembling it to clean things out. Perhaps there is a defect in the head that causes this?

At this point it's been a non-issue for the F150s, and a quick search of the EcoBoost forum and I can't find a single issue in that forum either. If this were such a big deal don't you think we'd be hearing lots more of it?

You got rid of a car because of something that MIGHT happen to it? And you currently own a 6.7L with the much maligned CP4 injection pump?

 

Do scheduled maintenance, on time oil changes and drive it hard and long and blow that crap out! ***** footin' driving ain't good for it! My scientific analysis.

 

Can someone explain to me how a seafoam treatment that lasts for a few minutes is going to cook a turbocharger? Why replace head(s) because the back of the valves have carbon buildup? This sorta sounds like Ford's way of not wanting to honor a warranty... car manufacturers and the dealers want you to take it to the dealer for any repairs or service.