Ford Fiesta ST Forum banner

1 - 20 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I read this article: Direct Injection Fouls Some Early Adopters - AutoObserver

and these paragraphs was most interesting:
"
Haider, GM’s V6 assistant chief engineer, explained how GM has designed its DI engines to combat carbon buildup: “We maintain great engine function and performance in our all our DI engines through an optimization strategy with our valve events,” he said. “Our intake-cam timing, injector targeting and timing of the injection events are optimized to avoid direct fuel contact on the intake valves. This strategy keeps smoke and soot formation to an absolute minimum, which in turn prevents excessive deposit formation.”
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.
Stephen Russ, technical leader for combustion for Ford’s 2-liter Duratec DI engine, said that similar to GM, engineers have determined the proper injection-timing calibration to help eliminate the carbon deposits. But Russ also said the technology of injection components – particularly the high-pressure solenoid injectors – has quickly matured, meaning excess valve deposits in most DI engines should become a thing of the past as these improved components are incorporated into production."

With an aftermarket tune you can bet that timing has been changed to produce more power. I wonder if this affects the anti-valve deposit system(s) FORD has engineered in the Fiesta ST engine, whether this be mechanical, and/or electrical technique.

I suppose the only way to tell is with time, if carbon buildup issues begin to be reported.

Any thoughts, or better yet, educated reasoning for, or against my concern? This is my first, and my extended family's first turbo charged AND direct injection car. So this is technology is all new to me. I'm looking at aftermarket tunes after the warranty expires, but if this is an issue, i'll go without the extra power, as I plan on keeping the car for a very long time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
I read this article: Direct Injection Fouls Some Early Adopters - AutoObserver

and these paragraphs was most interesting:
"
Haider, GM’s V6 assistant chief engineer, explained how GM has designed its DI engines to combat carbon buildup: “We maintain great engine function and performance in our all our DI engines through an optimization strategy with our valve events,” he said. “Our intake-cam timing, injector targeting and timing of the injection events are optimized to avoid direct fuel contact on the intake valves. This strategy keeps smoke and soot formation to an absolute minimum, which in turn prevents excessive deposit formation.”
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.
Stephen Russ, technical leader for combustion for Ford’s 2-liter Duratec DI engine, said that similar to GM, engineers have determined the proper injection-timing calibration to help eliminate the carbon deposits. But Russ also said the technology of injection components – particularly the high-pressure solenoid injectors – has quickly matured, meaning excess valve deposits in most DI engines should become a thing of the past as these improved components are incorporated into production."

With an aftermarket tune you can bet that timing has been changed to produce more power. I wonder if this affects the anti-valve deposit system(s) FORD has engineered in the Fiesta ST engine, whether this be mechanical, and/or electrical technique.

I suppose the only way to tell is with time, if carbon buildup issues begin to be reported.

Any thoughts, or better yet, educated reasoning for, or against my concern? This is my first, and my extended family's first turbo charged AND direct injection car. So this is technology is all new to me. I'm looking at aftermarket tunes after the warranty expires, but if this is an issue, i'll go without the extra power, as I plan on keeping the car for a very long time.
DI has been around for long enough now that they have figured it out. VW used to be bad for carbon build up, but all of the new VW's that are DI are just fine. Tuning is going to make it even better I would imagine. When you get carbon deposits is when you are running pig rich. Tunes will even out your AFR's and make you more power and make your combustion events more efficient, hence removing large amounts of the carbon from a rich tune.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
314 Posts
My brother just recently had to have a $1500 service performed on his 2010 VW GTI. It could be due to how he hypermiles the crap of it due to his long commute but they essentially had to tear down the head for manual cleaning. I would think if they've figured out the injector timing it would have been flashed to his ECU in a dealer visit prior to this point.

I'm with Originalrocket though. I wonder how tuning the ECU for performance could potentially alter injector timing (duty cycle, etc) enough to cause issues with carbon buildup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
The Mazdaspeed had sludgey build up in the intake manifold due to the lack of fuel travelling through it, just air.
The sludge would eventually work its way down to the valves on one cylinder. I think it was at the PCV return... it's
been a few years.

Back in '07-'10 when I owned the MS6 we had no issues with carbon build up. The connecting rod through the
bottom of the engine was the issue that made me walk away. Mazda wasn't receptive at all to defect claims, even on
bone stock engines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
A lot of the Ecoboost family are having issues with carbon build-up with as early as 30k miles. I haven't heard of any Ford-approved cleaning methods yet, so it generally has involved a head replacement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
Seafoam or Meth ??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
A lot of VW guys run meth just for valve cleaning. Buddy of mine (07 A3) just had his valves cleaned after 120k miles, $450 including new manifold gaskets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Hot $h!+... still the same problem I mentioned with the Mazdaspeed Intake Manifold. Looks like I might be looking into
an Oil Catch Can for the PCV return, and minimize the crap... I might still have one from the Speed6... time to tear into the old parts box!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
I have yet to install the Mishimoto baffled OCC, but I saw the Ford tech video last week and dumped a can of Seafoam into the gas tank...car ran better, no doubt about it...What has got me miffed is Sekred's comments about how an oil catch can may be necessary on both sides of the pcv system due to the suction fluctuation? This issue needs to be clarified. Do I need one oil catch can or two? Sekred's comments only leave me hanging...I don't want to foul the valves, and that is why I bought the Mishi OCC...can someone clarify what is actually needed to keep oil mist from entering the combustion chamber?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Yeah this is tough to pin, but one thing is for sure though, as soon as I get this car THIS will be the first things I do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
Yeah...but what will you do? This issue needs to be nailed down. I talked to Mishimoto, and they we're vague as to the the installation procedure...they talked about which line to cut......but did not address the aforementioned issues Sekred addressed...I will have to mention this issue to Mishimoto to someone above the pay grade beyond whomever responded to me..btw, no diagram, and no engineering info....pretty lame if you ask me...but I will press on
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
I would wait.

See what Ian at Cobb thinks or talk to a recognized and respected tuner who knows these engines inside and out.

The reason being is that you don't know what your affecting.

The old Ford Lightnings actually used the oil that recirculation through the PCV valve to lubricate the rotors in the blower.

Guys who threw on oil catch cans saw some decent wear on the superchargers because of this.

I am not saying something like this will happen to the FiST but I am just using the example to give warning and say that you may not know what you are effecting by adding an OCC.

Only someone who builds and knows these engines will know what they need.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
I'm pretty sure that those in the FoST community are still getting plenty of carbon buildup even with catch-cans, but it's been a while since I've looked into it. Consider it a delay because a catch can won't catch atomized oil that's in the air. Not saying it won't help at all, but all of the Ecoboost motors already have catch/return systems to get the majority.

Also, Seafoam in the fuel will do absolutely nothing for this issue on a DI system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
Ya I was thinking the old spray in the intake like the old days not in the fuel . Would be under vacuum at idle so you could draw it into the manifold via a fitting of some sort. Maybe where the bleed lines go into the intake.. Just tossing ideas around at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
This has been a problem with Direct Injection for a while. Going to need a check valve in an OCC installation,
because you're not just working with vacuum. Pretty sure some applications require (2). Time to start doing some
'research'.

\
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
This has been a problem with Direct Injection for a while. Going to need a check valve in an OCC installation,
because you're not just working with vacuum. Pretty sure some applications require (2). Time to start doing some
'research'.

\
I think that the "problems" are over exaggerated. When you go online, of course you are going to see people complain because that is where people go when they have issues. They feel the need to go online and get vengeance by smearing X companies name. This creates what would look like a TON of people with problems.

Meanwhile the other 99.9% of people who bought the car haven't had a single issue but do not feel the need to go online and write about good things, because lets face it, when people are mad they will go above and beyond to let everyone know. When you have a good experience, you have nothing to write about.

Subaru's forums were quite bad for this. Everyone thought the EJ motors should have been recalled because of the cracked ringland failures. The real truth was that it wasn't even 1% of customers who had this issue, and a lot of them were modified which could or could not be to blame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Ya I was thinking the old spray in the intake like the old days not in the fuel . Would be under vacuum at idle so you could draw it into the manifold via a fitting of some sort. Maybe where the bleed lines go into the intake.. Just tossing ideas around at this point.
The old seafoam in the brake booster line trick.

Cleans the crap off your intake tract.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
418 Posts
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Top