itguy08

Didnt have an issue with them. It was the tangent on PCV "issues" as well as the GM tangent that was the issue.

So what have you noiticed after cleaning?

agetech

Did your mileage improve? Does it run better? Higher horsepower? Dyno run before and after? What did it cost? Was it worth the money?

Ford850

I wouldn't expect instant improvements after cleaning a relatively low mileage engine. I think cleaning, or preventing valve deposit buildup in the first place, is comparable to using Synthetic oil. Changing to synthetic doesn't magically change much. But over the life of the engine, it can prevent a decline, maintain, or even improve performance. The same goes for a truck that gets washed weekly and waxed monthly. Other than looking good for that day, it doesn't change much until you compare it to other trucks 10 years later. Since I don't wash my truck and I don't use synthetic oil in it, I could say there is no need to do those things since I have no issues. But I know better. I know if I washed/waxed and used synthetic oil my truck would be in better shape inside and out after 10 years. All of these things are preventative maintenance in my mind.

snobdds

Those don't look bad at all. In fact, I doubt that would be any cause for concern...

Tuner Boost

This has been posted before by others, but covers the 3.5 ecoboost pretty well on the intake valve coking issues, even WITH BG's additives and upper induction cleanings performed they still have considerable buildup:

http://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/

Tuner Boost

What are you basing your reply on? Any deposits at all begin to reduce the engines efficiency from how the engineers designed the intake ports and valves, that is why I showed the pictures of non DI V6 with 120K miles on and zero deposits.

So, we have shown actual pictures of EB engines apart showing the deposits, we have the BG test showing the deposits, and I will go further and state anyone that removes their intake manifold and looks will see these.

The fact that these can be easily prevented would bring to question "why would one want them?"

itguy08

And in that test, with many extremely flawed dyno runs, they were only able to demonstrate less than 1% power loss at 40k due to the valve deposits.

redmist

Something to note about the EB Engines vs other DI engines on the market, is that Ford uses reversion via cam phasing to get some cleaning done during deceleration.

So as you are slowing down, reversion ingests some of the fuel in the combustion chamber, back into the intake tract to clean off the valve.

There is a white paper floating around the internet that goes over this process on the EB engines.

snobdds

Should a picture of build up have me scared? Every engine out there has that...no?

Tuner Boost

That does nothing. In theory we all assumed it would, but here is what we found in actual practice. For reversion pulses to wash any fuel back over the intake valves, the fuel would have to be present in the combustion chamber at the time of the valve overlap for the reversion pulse to carry it out. Since the fuel is not introduced until the final 20-30% of the compression stroke, the valves have both long closed so only a small amount of the burnt gasses actually ever touch the backsides of the intake valves during the pulse escaping on the exhaust/intake overlap. And that mix actually adds to the deposit/coking. So yes, that paper, and Ford and Audi both have patents on the valve timing principal to reduce this issue, but in reality (what we actually see tearing these down constantly and seeing first hand) it has not come to fruition as the theory predicted. What does reduce this is the large amount of water ingested due to the CAC accumulation, and methanol injection also shows to greatly reduce the build up.

No. Thats why I included the picture of a v6 engine with 120,000 miles on it and zero deposits. Not trying to scare you or anyone, were just showing the results and why you dont want your valve guides wearing out from even a small amount.