maytheus

They said. Did they show? Ford says and downplays a lot of things as normal that most people raise an eyebrow to.

I'll fully admit that I don't even have a novice level of understanding about modern automotive engines. I just like to see proof. I see proof when people dump nasty oil/fuel/condensate out of a catch can. I don't see any proof about Ford's torture test other than a marketing video.

Takeda

They disassembled the engine in front of an audience.......Most of what you see coming out of catch cans is water!!

This is the statement:


At the Detroit Auto Show in January, Ford was confident enough about its popular 3.5 liter EcoBoost direct-injection V6 to have technicians tear down an example engine that had accumulated the equivalent of 160,000 miles through an intentionally abusive regimen of log dragging, high-speed towing and desert racing. When they opened it up before a live audience, they found some light carbon deposits on the valves and pistons, but not enough to affect performance. In fact, the engine showed a loss of just one horsepower afterwards – roughly what Boyadjiev’s RS 4 engine lost every 500 miles.

maytheus

Here is another statement about the valves:

And comments about the photo:

So opinions vary on if the result was good or bad. I have no idea. I hear some folks say it isn't a big deal, then others shows pictures of coked up valves. I figure if I am dropping $60k on a pickup, what's another $500? If it helps, great. If it doesn't, and isn't hurting anything, great.

Now what I wonder is why you have such a hard-on against these products?

Takeda

Your comments don't agree with a dyno run of one HP less!

Based on how catch cans don't do a thing once they get hot, and water vapor is the main thing that condenses, they are a waste of money. I hate to see youngsters that aren't technically inclined throw their money away on useless aftermarket products like catch cans, intakes, etc.

maytheus

Simple solution, don't get one then. If others think they're beneficial, who are you to say otherwise? I've posted a video of a Ford tech who has had extensive discussions with Ford engineers who says they are beneficial. If carbon coking isn't an eventual issue, why did Ford add port injectors for 2017? If it was great as-is, why change it?

So how about moving along now and stop crapping all over a discussion?

Takeda

If catch cans were that great, why did Ford elect to add port injectors? Catch cans would be a lot cheaper alternative! The reason: catch cans aren't effective, for the reasons I have previously posted.


Another thing to consider: How did millions, and millions of diesels run millions, and millions of miles with no problems without catch cans? ALL diesels are DI, and have more blow-by from higher compression, and cylinder pressures, than gasoline engines, and most of them have turbos.



You did have a valid point, however! This is a free country, and people can spend their money they way they choose! People still buy GM products, and I'm really against GM products!!

maytheus

You're just being silly now. Port injection is a much better solution than a catch can. Tens of thousands of images online of the vaporized oil, unspent fuel and condensed water shows they at least do something.

Comparing diesels to gassers is plain .

Takeda

You are showing your lack of engine knowledge now!!! Intake valve coking would be worse on diesels!!!!!

maytheus

You know what they say about people who assume things...

I never said it wasn't worse. However, you can clean the valves on every diesel made in the last 45 years. Let me know when Ford has an approved method for valve cleaning on the Ecoboost.

Takeda

Wrong again! You have never worked on a Mercedes 300D!!!!!!!