Another Vote For Traditional PFI Engines !

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You made no point on the significance of lifetime fuel consumption

Correct. That was you. That's what I'm saying misses my point.

I have a feeling neither of us knows what the other is talking about any more...

 

[fdcg27]

You are really getting silly here.
When you're wrong, you're wrong.
Simple as that.

 

[d00df00d]

Ah, well. Thanks anyway.

 

[supton]

Hmm... if GM, Toyota, Ford (possibly Chrysler?) were late to the DI game people would complain about them being behind the times and dragging their feet.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: supton
Hmm... if GM, Toyota, Ford (possibly Chrysler?) were late to the DI game people would complain about them being behind the times and dragging their feet.

I'm sure some would, but do you think it'd be a lot? I suspect that most of their customers only really care about the end result (i.e. window sticker MPG).

 

[Errtt]

I know others with DI's and and a few with well over 100k and never had a intake cleaning to also clean the valves and none mention anything about noticeable decline in performance/mpg.

Then again, also know a couple of middle-later age woman who do nothing but stop & go town shopping and would probably have issues if they venture more than 15 minutes away from a Walmart and pay no attention in performance decline, just want to get from point A to point B etc., meaning a performance drop would be something like the car not start, out of gas, wreck.

One of my vehicles is DI and approaching 75k on the clock and have had no thoughts, yet, getting the cleaning maid service for the intake.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: supton
Hmm... if GM, Toyota, Ford (possibly Chrysler?) were late to the DI game people would complain about them being behind the times and dragging their feet.

I'm sure some would, but do you think it'd be a lot? I suspect that most of their customers only really care about the end result (i.e. window sticker MPG).


Most people, sure. I meant on this site, or on other sites, real enthusiasts.

 

[d00df00d]

Ah, okay. Yeah, I could see that.

Maybe not on this site per se, as we are pretty anti-DI here generally. But in other circles, I could see it.

 

[KrisZ]

I don't consider myself "anti-DI", but at the same I'm not the one to jump on the bandwagon when the gains by the technology are miniscule when compared to the risk of having problems, that is always associated with new tech.

Fuel injection was a major step forward in HP and fuel economy gains when compared to carburetors while meeting emission standards. DI is a mere stop gap, or teak, taken from diesel engines.

I think we reached the optimal balance of fuel economy, HP, efficiency and cost of gasoline internal combustion engines with port injection and electronic controls. From there, immense amounts of resources have to be committed to see gains measured in fractions of a percent and that cost is passed on to customers.
Essentially all low hanging fruit have been picked up and we are spending considerable resources just to get the few remaining on the top. The top brass and the companies don’t care because all the cost is passed on to the customers, but we should care because we are all paying for that.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
I don't consider myself "anti-DI", but at the same I'm not the one to jump on the bandwagon when the gains by the technology are miniscule when compared to the risk of having problems, that is always associated with new tech.

Fuel injection was a major step forward in HP and fuel economy gains when compared to carburetors while meeting emission standards. DI is a mere stop gap, or teak, taken from diesel engines.

I think we reached the optimal balance of fuel economy, HP, efficiency and cost of gasoline internal combustion engines with port injection and electronic controls. From there, immense amounts of resources have to be committed to see gains measured in fractions of a percent and that cost is passed on to customers.
Essentially all low hanging fruit have been picked up and we are spending considerable resources just to get the few remaining on the top. The top brass and the companies don’t care because all the cost is passed on to the customers, but we should care because we are all paying for that.


You nailed it. It is obvious that engineering expertise varies significantly from one make to the next, as some mfgrs have no issues with DI.

You always will reach the point of diminishing returns. IMO that is where we are now, when a modern vehicle can actually emit cleaner air than it ingested in some heavily polluted areas!

Mfgrs have always used the buyers as guinea pigs, we are the R&D department...

 

[SteveSRT8]

Drawing conclusions about folks in any way by looking at what they drive is foolish and petty. I suppose if it makes you feel better about yourself then go to it.

But imagining that you know why a complete stranger chose their vehicle is pure assumption, hardly factual, and may reveal a lot about the person making all the judgments.

I am absolutely positive that each and every reason quoted here for buying a truck/SUV is correct, but I also figure there may be other reasons that I am not privy to. Plus I do not pretend to know the numbers of each type...

 

[Silverado12]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Lifetime fuel consumption is far more significant a factor in determining the overall environmental and social impact of a vehicle than is anything else.
Marginal wear on the roads of a Tahoe versus an RX-8 is of no consequence when you consider the huge number of commercial trucks using our roads every day everywhere.
The marginal environmental cost of the materials needed to build a large SUV over those used in constructing a smaller vehicle are also inconsequencial over their respective lives, and no RX-8 will live as long on its original engine as any SUV will.
The crash safety thing could ironically resolve the problem of too many people choosing these outsize vehicles as daily drivers.
Make all vehicles aside from heavy trucks comply with uniform standards for the heighth of headlights, hoods and bumpers.
Bring all vehicles into the same range of crumple zone heights.
This would eliminate the tough guy appeal of current trucks and thereby restrict their purchase to those who really need them.
Easy resoloution of what has been a silly problem based only upon light truck styling.
Take the style out of light trucks and watch sales limit themselves to those who actually need a truck.
The automakers could hardly object, since at least two of the domestic ones exist only because the government helped them to.



In regards to your last sentence, foreign automakers get tax incentives from our gov't and their own. Let's be fair here.

 

[fdcg27]

Every maker of anything from anywhere gets various tax benefits from all levels of government.
Build almost anything anywhere that promises to create a couple of jobs and you can probably arm-twist yourself a tax abatement, just as an example.

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: supton
Hmm... if GM, Toyota, Ford (possibly Chrysler?) were late to the DI game people would complain about them being behind the times and dragging their feet.

I'm sure some would, but do you think it'd be a lot? I suspect that most of their customers only really care about the end result (i.e. window sticker MPG).

I also agree. Just look at how many people treasure their Buick Aprk Avenue that had 3800 OHV engines at the same time that Ford used a SOHC engine in the Crown Vic, and a 4V engines in the Chrysler LHS. I could bring up other cars, but few are similar in price, but I am not sure the comparison would be fair.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: Danh

Varies a lot by manufacturer. Ford has the same OCI as for its port injected engines and I have yet to hear of a DI Ford engine that needed intake cleaning. Hyundais and Kias, on the other hand, seem to have plenty of these problems as did many European manufacturers. I'm not sure the trade-off is worth it either, but some manufacturers seem to do DI much better than others.


From another thread:
Originally Posted By: jaxf250

Yeah, doing a regular intake cleaning like I'm used to in the past (with SeaFoam or such) is apparently not a good idea on these Ecoboost engines. See this 2 part video set:

http://youtu.be/0irwbwpuEbQ

http://youtu.be/nK2eXdaydqI

Watching those vids from the Ford mechanic made me think that if I want to try and keep the car for a long time, I should think about keeping the intake valves clean.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: stranger706
Originally Posted By: ChrisD46
A new Ford Fusion with a traditional PFI engine remains on my short list of new vehicles to consider ...I don't want to be a "lab rat" experiment for auto makers and their marginally performing DFI engines !!


Intake valves aside (and I agree with you there), the numbers don't really add up.

Take the Fusion for example, and compare the 1.5 EB vs the 2.5 NA motor. The 1.5 EB adds $795 to the price tag. The 1.5 EB gets 36 mpg hwy, the 2.5 NA motor gets 34 mpg hwy. If you drive 20,000 miles/ per year on the highway, like I do, then it would take you 8 years to break even on the additional $795 for the 1.5 EB motor.

Why do they even offer the 1.5 EB motor? (I wonder how the 1.0 EB would do in this car. It would make more sense if you're going for economy)


I've been very critical of the concept of combining DI with turbo/supers. I just don't see the performance benefit, fuel economy and power combo, beating normally aspirated engines. If you look at it, for every Ecoboost vehicle, I can name a competitor that doesn't need the turbo to get the same overall power with the same or better fuel economy. Many examples of that. ... Anyway, your comment on putting the 1.0L ecoboost in the Fusion, I'd think it would be a huge problem since the tiny engine would have to stay in boost too much to improve gas mileage unless you were really soft on the gas pedal, too soft to be practical.

 

[FetchFar]

Since dirty intake valves on a DI engine are largely due to oil seeping thru the valve stems, then I wonder if Ford's use of conventional dino oil is hurting them here. GM's DI engines have been using higher-performing dexos1 semi-synthetics or synthetics for 3 years now and I haven't heard of the same intake valve problems that Ford's DI engines have. Some will blame EGR for the intake valves deposits, yet I think its mainly the slight oil flow from the stems.

 

[SteveSRT8]

So even after re-posting the Ford Vids you still propose that it's valve seal leakage?

On a new engine that is highly unlikely. Add to that the video clearly shows that the PCV design leads the vapors directly to the affected intake valves!

While there may be some insane way for you to be right here, NOTHING anyone knows leads to your conclusion...

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
While there may be some insane way for you to be right here, NOTHING anyone knows leads to your conclusion...


Whoa! Calm down. Other studies have discussed valve stems as possible paths to the valves. Your usual crazy posts say a lot about you.

 

[Mykl]

80k miles on my DFI vehicle and it has treated me well, and shows no signs of slowing down any time soon. But I also drive it in a way that minimizes deposits, so there's that.