About those "catch cans"
07-25-2014, 05:53 PM
#51
Senior Member
I am asking you to PLEASE not turn this into a drama mud sling aagin....your in the other threads posting this and it is absolutely false findings.
If this was true, all turbo engines would cause this. The water is not released in any sort of quantity until it is subject to the intense heat and pressure of the combustion process. If it is as you believe, and the report concluded (given the misinformation provided the HTSB) then there would not be such high amounts of oil, unburnt fuel, sulfuric acid, and the other compounds that make up this gunk accumulating in the CAC, and every other turbo car & truck (10's of millions) would experience the same. And we would see far more accumulating in the wet, humid summer rainy season here in FL (daily rainstorms, 780-90% plus humidity, etc.)
Please don't do this to this thread computer guy.....lets keep it with actual Automotive Engineers. This is not water from the air just entering the CAC:
.
I am pleading with you to not wreck another thread.
If this was true, all turbo engines would cause this. The water is not released in any sort of quantity until it is subject to the intense heat and pressure of the combustion process. If it is as you believe, and the report concluded (given the misinformation provided the HTSB) then there would not be such high amounts of oil, unburnt fuel, sulfuric acid, and the other compounds that make up this gunk accumulating in the CAC, and every other turbo car & truck (10's of millions) would experience the same. And we would see far more accumulating in the wet, humid summer rainy season here in FL (daily rainstorms, 780-90% plus humidity, etc.)
Please don't do this to this thread computer guy.....lets keep it with actual Automotive Engineers. This is not water from the air just entering the CAC:
.I am pleading with you to not wreck another thread.
07-25-2014, 06:06 PM
#52
Senior Member
Funny thing that Ford has since reversed the so called fix that this investigation used to dismiss the case. Driver control was also identified to not be impaired. I bet they would have thought differently if it had been them in the truck when you pulled out to pass on a two lane road and your truck goes into limp mode. Do you really trust in big company/big government to tell you the truth? I know I don't.
Yup, Ford tried a lot of things to fix it - several CAC redesigns, deflectors on, deflectors off, and programming. This last round seems to have fixed it. It's summer and reports are way down to almost nothing compared to prior.
I ask anyone this - if you don't think it is condensation, why are there 0 reports of this in the other engines that use the same "defective PCV system" Ecoboost 3.5. There are 0 reports in the Taurus SHO, MKS, MKT, and Explorer. If it were a bad PCV system I would think those vehicles would also exhibit it since they all share the same "defective" design.
Anyway, even if you don't believe in the dirty side issues, pull the clean side off the driver side turbo inlet barb. There will be oil there. And where do you think it goes after entering the turbo inlet? Do you really think this is a proper design?
I did find oil in the pipe of my SHO when I did plugs at 75k. Wiped it up and buttoned her up. Didn't faze me at all. It may bother some and they may benefit from the can.
07-25-2014, 06:15 PM
#53
So Eco Tuner - the 3 sets of pics you provided - with the 55k, 40k and 68k are EcoBoosts? If so - great. That's a good start and I'm looking forward to more of that before I make a decision.
I'm confused though; the article you posted again - about the RS4 owner - references for & Cadillac having mitigated the issue to acceptable levels. Do you disagree with those aspects of the article?
And as far as stutters/misses and vehicles falling on their face - I believe there have been multiple documented reasons for those issues - and I don't doubt that gunk buildup on the valve stems is a percentage of those. I know it wasn't for all - because I know in my case - it was 100% due to the pre-2013 (my truck was built just before the new intercooler) intercooler design. When the temp was 10 degrees plus or minus of the current dew point - I could expect the fall flat on the face like clock work. The new design fixed mine right up. I've put at least 20k miles on since then with no issues.
I also know some folks had poorly gapped plugs. Simple resetting - not replacing or even cleaning them - fixed their missfires, stutters and poor idles.
Again - I don't doubt that valve buildup is a legit issue - and even occurs "prematurely" in some cases - but, like the intercooler issue, the plug gapping issues and other issues - "most" have not exhibited a problem.
I don't dismiss that the gunk buildup on the valve stems is surely going to happen "down the road"; it's "plausible" - but based on hard evidence, as well as anecdotal evidence (most Eco engines exhibit no such issues whether low miles or high miles). I kinda have faith in the Ford engineers on this one and that they knew about previous DI carbon buildup issues on other motors - and want to believe they knew what they were doing in the overall engine design.
Again - I haven't dismissed the "need" for a catch can - yet. But I'll need to see more than 1 example on an engine that had one after it had a known - issue (for the valves to build up that quick when most other engines don't - that's an anomaly), or 1 from a brand new vehicle outfitted with one.
Hope you understand my concerns. I like facts or at least plenty of evidence before I make decisions.
Who's to say if we take 10 new eco's - outfit 5 with cans and 5 without - straight off the dealer lot - that at 40k miles, the won't all be comparable?
Or what happens if 1 or 2 of those vehicles still has over gunked valves?
I know - I'm asking for testing & results on a large scale & it's not easy putting together a formalized test plan and what not. But I know Ford did on these engines - and decided to publicly showcase their results with the 160k endurance and public tear down because they felt they got it right. And by all indications - they did. Even if you couldn't put the back of the valve stems under a microscope - things looked pretty darn good.
Yes - there will always be percentages of manufactured products that have issues and failures - and so far - based on the info provided - there have been "a handfual" of Eco engines with gunked valve issues. And haven't all of these been "pre-mature" no less? Where are the 100k & up Eco engine owners and complaints of gunked valve stems? If memory serves me correct - we've only seen/heard of early low mileage issues. Which are anomalies no matter how you look at it.
I think I'm gonna punch out on this. I guess I'll wait to see if gunk build up on the valve stems of maturing vehicles is an issue - and deal with it then. I like to think I keep in the loop on things but outside of a few threads on these forums - and the links contained within them - I have heard nothing from Eco owners nationally or locally. And there are a lot of 2011 F-150's out there getting a lot of miles on them. Based on your hypothesis - we should be seeing dealerships and shops backed up with gunked valve Eco 150's, no?
I think I'll roll the dice - and if/when I start seeing Eco owners requiring valve cleanings - then I'll either get a can or get mine cleaned and THEN get a can - unless I'm at 100k miles already - in which case, a simple cleaning until the next 100k miles will suffice for me.
Sorry for the long post. I just recently decided to buyout my lease, and now plan on having this ride for a while and am trying to make the most educated decisions I can for efficiency, longevity, and performance. So this issue sounded like something I needed to carefully consider. I think I'll be ok putting it on the back burner, at least for now.
I'm confused though; the article you posted again - about the RS4 owner - references for & Cadillac having mitigated the issue to acceptable levels. Do you disagree with those aspects of the article?
And as far as stutters/misses and vehicles falling on their face - I believe there have been multiple documented reasons for those issues - and I don't doubt that gunk buildup on the valve stems is a percentage of those. I know it wasn't for all - because I know in my case - it was 100% due to the pre-2013 (my truck was built just before the new intercooler) intercooler design. When the temp was 10 degrees plus or minus of the current dew point - I could expect the fall flat on the face like clock work. The new design fixed mine right up. I've put at least 20k miles on since then with no issues.
I also know some folks had poorly gapped plugs. Simple resetting - not replacing or even cleaning them - fixed their missfires, stutters and poor idles.
Again - I don't doubt that valve buildup is a legit issue - and even occurs "prematurely" in some cases - but, like the intercooler issue, the plug gapping issues and other issues - "most" have not exhibited a problem.
I don't dismiss that the gunk buildup on the valve stems is surely going to happen "down the road"; it's "plausible" - but based on hard evidence, as well as anecdotal evidence (most Eco engines exhibit no such issues whether low miles or high miles). I kinda have faith in the Ford engineers on this one and that they knew about previous DI carbon buildup issues on other motors - and want to believe they knew what they were doing in the overall engine design.
Again - I haven't dismissed the "need" for a catch can - yet. But I'll need to see more than 1 example on an engine that had one after it had a known - issue (for the valves to build up that quick when most other engines don't - that's an anomaly), or 1 from a brand new vehicle outfitted with one.
Hope you understand my concerns. I like facts or at least plenty of evidence before I make decisions.
Who's to say if we take 10 new eco's - outfit 5 with cans and 5 without - straight off the dealer lot - that at 40k miles, the won't all be comparable?
Or what happens if 1 or 2 of those vehicles still has over gunked valves?
I know - I'm asking for testing & results on a large scale & it's not easy putting together a formalized test plan and what not. But I know Ford did on these engines - and decided to publicly showcase their results with the 160k endurance and public tear down because they felt they got it right. And by all indications - they did. Even if you couldn't put the back of the valve stems under a microscope - things looked pretty darn good.
Yes - there will always be percentages of manufactured products that have issues and failures - and so far - based on the info provided - there have been "a handfual" of Eco engines with gunked valve issues. And haven't all of these been "pre-mature" no less? Where are the 100k & up Eco engine owners and complaints of gunked valve stems? If memory serves me correct - we've only seen/heard of early low mileage issues. Which are anomalies no matter how you look at it.
I think I'm gonna punch out on this. I guess I'll wait to see if gunk build up on the valve stems of maturing vehicles is an issue - and deal with it then. I like to think I keep in the loop on things but outside of a few threads on these forums - and the links contained within them - I have heard nothing from Eco owners nationally or locally. And there are a lot of 2011 F-150's out there getting a lot of miles on them. Based on your hypothesis - we should be seeing dealerships and shops backed up with gunked valve Eco 150's, no?
I think I'll roll the dice - and if/when I start seeing Eco owners requiring valve cleanings - then I'll either get a can or get mine cleaned and THEN get a can - unless I'm at 100k miles already - in which case, a simple cleaning until the next 100k miles will suffice for me.
Sorry for the long post. I just recently decided to buyout my lease, and now plan on having this ride for a while and am trying to make the most educated decisions I can for efficiency, longevity, and performance. So this issue sounded like something I needed to carefully consider. I think I'll be ok putting it on the back burner, at least for now.
Last edited by sknyfats; 07-25-2014 at 06:24 PM.
07-25-2014, 07:12 PM
#54
There are, as have been pointed out before, some significant differences in the Eco vs other turbo engines that cause the problem. Primarily, the fact that it runs at moderate boost in the CAC but slight vacuum in the manifold at cruise speeds. That isn't very common because most turbo vehicles are either bigger motor or smaller vehicles.
This is optimal conditions for condensation since it includes heating, cooling, and pressure drop across the intercooler. Any of these can cause small amounts of condensation that doesn't matter. But all three on a humid day can cause excessive amounts.
The stupid Ford design of dumping PCV system pre CAC instead of post CAC doesn't help matters. But the fact remains that in cases of extremely high humidity\rain this alone is sufficient to cause condensation at harmful levels.
Combine this with a highly sensitive misfire detection system that shuts down injectors and goes into limp mode when misfiring and you have your complete recipe.
How do we know this is true? Because for the bulk of us, the problem only happens in rain or fog. Anybody who had a problem other times may want to look into a can. For the rest of us it won't fix the condensation problem. Though it could make it less likely since the can will prevent additional water from adding to atmospheric.
Regarding valve deposits. I'm agnostic. A catch can may help. But there really hasn't been any evidence of a need for it on this engine by 100,000 miles.
07-25-2014, 11:02 PM
#55
Senior Member
Sorry I missed this post...old dog is correct. If it is a MAF (Mass airflow sensor) equipped engine (instead of MAP (manifold absolute pressure) alone speed density system, that air entering a breather is eventually drawn into the intake manifold and into the combustion process and will throw off the short term fuel trims. A MAF system the ECU/PCM uses data from the MAF, MAP, and upstream O2 sensors to determine cylinder fill rate and command the injectors in the correct amount of fuel to deliver. If x amount of incoming air is measured, and the MAp and O2's provide data that does not fit into the acceptable parameters of what the ECU/PCM is expecting, it quickly tries to adapt to try and maintain stoiometric (target A/F ratio) and quickly adds and subtracts fuel......in short, your fuel trims go crazy trying to adapt.
All air entering the crankcase on a MAF type system must be metered.
All air entering the crankcase on a MAF type system must be metered.
Last edited by Wannafbody; 07-25-2014 at 11:11 PM.
The following 5 users liked this post by tamnalan:
joedotmac (07-26-2014),
Lariat_offroad (07-27-2014),
MadocHandyman (07-26-2014),
Manuellabour247 (07-26-2014),
sknyfats (07-27-2014)
07-26-2014, 01:59 AM
#57
Senior Member
This thread could use some shorter paragraphs. Definitely not mobile phone friendly.
FWIW, catch cans are pretty big with the Tacoma guys too. Some decent threads about them on tacomaworld
FWIW, catch cans are pretty big with the Tacoma guys too. Some decent threads about them on tacomaworld
07-26-2014, 11:49 AM
#58
Senior Member
Sweatmachine - True, but the air would only be going into the crankcase and/or valvetrain area not into the combustion chamber. Why would this matter?
07-26-2014, 11:51 AM
#59
[QUOTE=sknyfats;3614887]So Eco Tuner - the 3 sets of pics you provided - with the 55k, 40k and 68k are EcoBoosts? If so - great. That's a good start and I'm looking forward to more of that before I make a decision.
Those are from the 3.6L GM DI V6, very similar to the Ford 3.5. We started installing these on the ecoboost in Jan of this year, but all DI engines are experiancing this...and as I clarified, the EB has one of the least severe coking rates. It clearly shows the difference of each.. Several of the other pics are actual ecoboost before and after a manual cleaning of the intake valves, and also the Ford master techs pictures of what they are finding tearing these down.
I'm confused though; the article you posted again - about the RS4 owner - references for & Cadillac having mitigated the issue to acceptable levels. Do you disagree with those aspects of the article?
Every single DI gasoline engine produced today has this issue, not a single one does not and that is showing it affects every auto maker domestic and foreign.
And as far as stutters/misses and vehicles falling on their face - I believe there have been multiple documented reasons for those issues - and I don't doubt that gunk buildup on the valve stems is a percentage of those. I know it wasn't for all - because I know in my case - it was 100% due to the pre-2013 (my truck was built just before the new intercooler) intercooler design. When the temp was 10 degrees plus or minus of the current dew point - I could expect the fall flat on the face like clock work. The new design fixed mine right up. I've put at least 20k miles on since then with no issues.
If the gunk can be ingested in small steady amounts it generally will not cause the misfire/shudder, but to make the CAC less effective is contrary to all forced induction logic. The cooler the IAT2 temps, the denser the air charge, the more room for oxygen molecules, the more efficient an engine runs. This is again, a band aid apporach. Many with the RX system are running double capacity aftermarket intercoolers and have zero accumulation in the CAC and zero misfire/shudders.
I listed as much documentation from actual engineers and the testing showing all the coking, and oil contamination that occurs.
I also know some folks had poorly gapped plugs. Simple resetting - not replacing or even cleaning them - fixed their misfires, stutters and poor idles.
Absolutely. Plug gap is critical , and so is making sure none of the insulators. Also, MSD has just released the first line of forced induction specific plugs that should be a must. You also have to make sure there is not a bad or failing coil as this can also cause misfire.
Again - I don't doubt that valve buildup is a legit issue - and even occurs "prematurely" in some cases - but, like the intercooler issue, the plug gapping issues and other issues - "most" have not exhibited a problem.
Most owners have not complained as they are not aware, but we have yet to examine a single engine w/out the intake valve coking the Ford tech shows in his video. And there is never any time that any amount of oil should ever be in the combustion chamber.....oil slows and disrupts the burn, reduces the useable octane, and causes detonation that the knock sensors detect and pull timing. This results in less power and less fuel economy. Here is an example for the past week:
[QUOTE=Billynilly;126239]I got back from Colorado just getting around to posting my results.
I was running the 5star 89 Performance Tow tune. I also Have a Wagner CAC, S&B intake and MBRP 3 inch cat back.
I emptied the catch can the day after I got there (RX Monster Can)
Emptied 3 days after I got back.
While I was in Colorado I installed a 170 degree Thermostat and loaded the 5 Star 91 Performance Tow Tune.
I forgot to grab a Picture But I got 18.4 MPG on the way back. I was averaging 20 until I hit Richfield and the wind started blowing all the way back to Vegas.
I don't dismiss that the gunk buildup on the valve stems is surely going to happen "down the road"; it's "plausible" - but based on hard evidence, as well as anecdotal evidence (most Eco engines exhibit no such issues whether low miles or high miles). I kinda have faith in the Ford engineers on this one and that they knew about previous DI carbon buildup issues on other motors - and want to believe they knew what they were doing in the overall engine design.
Ford engineers are among the best in the world...it is not any lack of skill on their part (the pictures of the EB coking are all from the current ecoboost) that this occurs, that is why I went to such effort to show how this effects EVERY auto maker in the world, and all claim to have ways to prevent this, but every single study and examination shows not a single one with all the patents on valve and fuel timing have prevented this. That is why anyone can easily remove there own intake manifold and see this first hand, it is not hard to do, and the dyno graphs showing long term testing as the valve coking progresses. But the real issue here, that does not effect the 5.0 and 6.2 as they have a properly functioning PCV system. The ecoboost anyone can test to see the PCV valve closes any time you are cruising and is only open and evacuating at idle and deceleration or very light throttle. If the crankcase is not being constantly evacuated at all times at a constant rate, you see the rapid accumulation of these damaging compounds, and that is what you see caught in these cans. That gunk does not come from thin air.
Again - I haven't dismissed the "need" for a catch can - yet. But I'll need to see more than 1 example on an engine that had one after it had a known - issue (for the valves to build up that quick when most other engines don't - that's an anomaly), or 1 from a brand new vehicle outfitted with one.
And that is certainly your choice to make...this is not for anyone that is comfortable taking the risk and waiting, there are tons of these trucks running for years and still going strong. Everyone will have a different level of severity depending on how well the rings seated during break-in, etc. This is only for those that do want to not take the chance, and the price is a no brainer if all you do is realize 2 MPG improvement by not having the ingestion affecting the combustion efficiency.
Hope you understand my concerns. I like facts or at least plenty of evidence before I make decisions.
Absolutely. If you dont want to do this mod (99.9% if owners never will) you are certainly free to do as you choose. You have to believe the benefits, and if a few years more of testing is needed that wont convince the skeptics either, so there is no need to even consider this if one believes all vehicles come perfect from the factory.
Who's to say if we take 10 new eco's - outfit 5 with cans and 5 without - straight off the dealer lot - that at 40k miles, the won't all be comparable?
Those are from the 3.6L GM DI V6, very similar to the Ford 3.5. We started installing these on the ecoboost in Jan of this year, but all DI engines are experiancing this...and as I clarified, the EB has one of the least severe coking rates. It clearly shows the difference of each.. Several of the other pics are actual ecoboost before and after a manual cleaning of the intake valves, and also the Ford master techs pictures of what they are finding tearing these down.
I'm confused though; the article you posted again - about the RS4 owner - references for & Cadillac having mitigated the issue to acceptable levels. Do you disagree with those aspects of the article?
Every single DI gasoline engine produced today has this issue, not a single one does not and that is showing it affects every auto maker domestic and foreign.
And as far as stutters/misses and vehicles falling on their face - I believe there have been multiple documented reasons for those issues - and I don't doubt that gunk buildup on the valve stems is a percentage of those. I know it wasn't for all - because I know in my case - it was 100% due to the pre-2013 (my truck was built just before the new intercooler) intercooler design. When the temp was 10 degrees plus or minus of the current dew point - I could expect the fall flat on the face like clock work. The new design fixed mine right up. I've put at least 20k miles on since then with no issues.
If the gunk can be ingested in small steady amounts it generally will not cause the misfire/shudder, but to make the CAC less effective is contrary to all forced induction logic. The cooler the IAT2 temps, the denser the air charge, the more room for oxygen molecules, the more efficient an engine runs. This is again, a band aid apporach. Many with the RX system are running double capacity aftermarket intercoolers and have zero accumulation in the CAC and zero misfire/shudders.
I listed as much documentation from actual engineers and the testing showing all the coking, and oil contamination that occurs.
I also know some folks had poorly gapped plugs. Simple resetting - not replacing or even cleaning them - fixed their misfires, stutters and poor idles.
Absolutely. Plug gap is critical , and so is making sure none of the insulators. Also, MSD has just released the first line of forced induction specific plugs that should be a must. You also have to make sure there is not a bad or failing coil as this can also cause misfire.
Again - I don't doubt that valve buildup is a legit issue - and even occurs "prematurely" in some cases - but, like the intercooler issue, the plug gapping issues and other issues - "most" have not exhibited a problem.
Most owners have not complained as they are not aware, but we have yet to examine a single engine w/out the intake valve coking the Ford tech shows in his video. And there is never any time that any amount of oil should ever be in the combustion chamber.....oil slows and disrupts the burn, reduces the useable octane, and causes detonation that the knock sensors detect and pull timing. This results in less power and less fuel economy. Here is an example for the past week:
[QUOTE=Billynilly;126239]I got back from Colorado just getting around to posting my results.
I was running the 5star 89 Performance Tow tune. I also Have a Wagner CAC, S&B intake and MBRP 3 inch cat back.
I emptied the catch can the day after I got there (RX Monster Can)
Emptied 3 days after I got back.
While I was in Colorado I installed a 170 degree Thermostat and loaded the 5 Star 91 Performance Tow Tune.
I forgot to grab a Picture But I got 18.4 MPG on the way back. I was averaging 20 until I hit Richfield and the wind started blowing all the way back to Vegas.
I don't dismiss that the gunk buildup on the valve stems is surely going to happen "down the road"; it's "plausible" - but based on hard evidence, as well as anecdotal evidence (most Eco engines exhibit no such issues whether low miles or high miles). I kinda have faith in the Ford engineers on this one and that they knew about previous DI carbon buildup issues on other motors - and want to believe they knew what they were doing in the overall engine design.
Ford engineers are among the best in the world...it is not any lack of skill on their part (the pictures of the EB coking are all from the current ecoboost) that this occurs, that is why I went to such effort to show how this effects EVERY auto maker in the world, and all claim to have ways to prevent this, but every single study and examination shows not a single one with all the patents on valve and fuel timing have prevented this. That is why anyone can easily remove there own intake manifold and see this first hand, it is not hard to do, and the dyno graphs showing long term testing as the valve coking progresses. But the real issue here, that does not effect the 5.0 and 6.2 as they have a properly functioning PCV system. The ecoboost anyone can test to see the PCV valve closes any time you are cruising and is only open and evacuating at idle and deceleration or very light throttle. If the crankcase is not being constantly evacuated at all times at a constant rate, you see the rapid accumulation of these damaging compounds, and that is what you see caught in these cans. That gunk does not come from thin air.
Again - I haven't dismissed the "need" for a catch can - yet. But I'll need to see more than 1 example on an engine that had one after it had a known - issue (for the valves to build up that quick when most other engines don't - that's an anomaly), or 1 from a brand new vehicle outfitted with one.
And that is certainly your choice to make...this is not for anyone that is comfortable taking the risk and waiting, there are tons of these trucks running for years and still going strong. Everyone will have a different level of severity depending on how well the rings seated during break-in, etc. This is only for those that do want to not take the chance, and the price is a no brainer if all you do is realize 2 MPG improvement by not having the ingestion affecting the combustion efficiency.
Hope you understand my concerns. I like facts or at least plenty of evidence before I make decisions.
Absolutely. If you dont want to do this mod (99.9% if owners never will) you are certainly free to do as you choose. You have to believe the benefits, and if a few years more of testing is needed that wont convince the skeptics either, so there is no need to even consider this if one believes all vehicles come perfect from the factory.
Who's to say if we take 10 new eco's - outfit 5 with cans and 5 without - straight off the dealer lot - that at 40k miles, the won't all be comparable?
07-26-2014, 11:52 AM
#60
Or what happens if 1 or 2 of those vehicles still has over gunked valves?
Only time would tell, but I ask then...where would the oil and other compounds come from to gunk the valves then? It is not from air alone...that leaves no deposits. Fuel never touches the valves, and the fuel is what kept the old port injection valves clean for hundreds of thousands of miles, so if you eliminate the oil mist and other compounds, there is nothing to be baked onto the valves.
I know - I'm asking for testing & results on a large scale & it's not easy putting together a formalized test plan and what not. But I know Ford did on these engines - and decided to publicly showcase their results with the 160k endurance and public tear down because they felt they got it right. And by all indications - they did. Even if you couldn't put the back of the valve stems under a microscope - things looked pretty darn good.
Absolutely. That engine was driven hard and raced non stop, and I have viewed the video several times. They never show the back sides of the valves, only the face of the valves and that is not where the coking occurs. Take a few minutes and click on this link and see every make and model of car in the world today has this issue:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Inta...ction&tbm=isch
Take the time to study these pictures and read. Every engine you can imagine. Also, your invited to come to our facility any time and see all this in person....engines apart with various miles on to show the stages of this.
Yes - there will always be percentages of manufactured products that have issues and failures - and so far - based on the info provided - there have been "a handfual" of Eco engines with gunked valve issues. And haven't all of these been "pre-mature" no less? Where are the 100k & up Eco engine owners and complaints of gunked valve stems? If memory serves me correct - we've only seen/heard of early low mileage issues. Which are anomalies no matter how you look at it.
Every single ecoboost has intake valve coking if it has 10 k or more miles on it....I guarantee if you remove your intake manifold and look in with a flashlight, you will see it yourself.
Actual ecoboost valves at 30k miles:
dumping oil out of the CAC:
I think I'm gonna punch out on this. I guess I'll wait to see if gunk build up on the valve stems of maturing vehicles is an issue - and deal with it then. I like to think I keep in the loop on things but outside of a few threads on these forums - and the links contained within them - I have heard nothing from Eco owners nationally or locally. And there are a lot of 2011 F-150's out there getting a lot of miles on them. Based on your hypothesis - we should be seeing dealerships and shops backed up with gunked valve Eco 150's, no?
More and more are doing manual intake valve cleaning services. Tell you what, stop in and for no charge, we will remove your intake manifold for you to see and perform a $600 manual intake valve cleaning service so you can see the difference in MPG and performance for yourself.
I think I'll roll the dice - and if/when I start seeing Eco owners requiring valve cleanings - then I'll either get a can or get mine cleaned and THEN get a can - unless I'm at 100k miles already - in which case, a simple cleaning until the next 100k miles will suffice for me.
Sorry for the long post. I just recently decided to buyout my lease, and now plan on having this ride for a while and am trying to make the most educated decisions I can for efficiency, longevity, and performance. So this issue sounded like something I needed to carefully consider. I think I'll be ok putting it on the back burner, at least for now.[/QUOTE]
Anyone here want me to go into the detail on what the few regulars that follow and attack arguments to dispel them? I dont want to clog this up more than we have to, but if those wanting to learn ask I will address them. Otherwise I am going to ignore them so we can stay of topic here.
And I am open to anyone explaining how this is coming out of thin air as they claim:
And explain how this is not bad for an engine to ingest.
Only time would tell, but I ask then...where would the oil and other compounds come from to gunk the valves then? It is not from air alone...that leaves no deposits. Fuel never touches the valves, and the fuel is what kept the old port injection valves clean for hundreds of thousands of miles, so if you eliminate the oil mist and other compounds, there is nothing to be baked onto the valves.
I know - I'm asking for testing & results on a large scale & it's not easy putting together a formalized test plan and what not. But I know Ford did on these engines - and decided to publicly showcase their results with the 160k endurance and public tear down because they felt they got it right. And by all indications - they did. Even if you couldn't put the back of the valve stems under a microscope - things looked pretty darn good.
Absolutely. That engine was driven hard and raced non stop, and I have viewed the video several times. They never show the back sides of the valves, only the face of the valves and that is not where the coking occurs. Take a few minutes and click on this link and see every make and model of car in the world today has this issue:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Inta...ction&tbm=isch
Take the time to study these pictures and read. Every engine you can imagine. Also, your invited to come to our facility any time and see all this in person....engines apart with various miles on to show the stages of this.
Yes - there will always be percentages of manufactured products that have issues and failures - and so far - based on the info provided - there have been "a handfual" of Eco engines with gunked valve issues. And haven't all of these been "pre-mature" no less? Where are the 100k & up Eco engine owners and complaints of gunked valve stems? If memory serves me correct - we've only seen/heard of early low mileage issues. Which are anomalies no matter how you look at it.
Every single ecoboost has intake valve coking if it has 10 k or more miles on it....I guarantee if you remove your intake manifold and look in with a flashlight, you will see it yourself.
Actual ecoboost valves at 30k miles:
dumping oil out of the CAC:
I think I'm gonna punch out on this. I guess I'll wait to see if gunk build up on the valve stems of maturing vehicles is an issue - and deal with it then. I like to think I keep in the loop on things but outside of a few threads on these forums - and the links contained within them - I have heard nothing from Eco owners nationally or locally. And there are a lot of 2011 F-150's out there getting a lot of miles on them. Based on your hypothesis - we should be seeing dealerships and shops backed up with gunked valve Eco 150's, no?
More and more are doing manual intake valve cleaning services. Tell you what, stop in and for no charge, we will remove your intake manifold for you to see and perform a $600 manual intake valve cleaning service so you can see the difference in MPG and performance for yourself.
I think I'll roll the dice - and if/when I start seeing Eco owners requiring valve cleanings - then I'll either get a can or get mine cleaned and THEN get a can - unless I'm at 100k miles already - in which case, a simple cleaning until the next 100k miles will suffice for me.
Sorry for the long post. I just recently decided to buyout my lease, and now plan on having this ride for a while and am trying to make the most educated decisions I can for efficiency, longevity, and performance. So this issue sounded like something I needed to carefully consider. I think I'll be ok putting it on the back burner, at least for now.[/QUOTE]
Anyone here want me to go into the detail on what the few regulars that follow and attack arguments to dispel them? I dont want to clog this up more than we have to, but if those wanting to learn ask I will address them. Otherwise I am going to ignore them so we can stay of topic here.
And I am open to anyone explaining how this is coming out of thin air as they claim:
And explain how this is not bad for an engine to ingest.