Another Vote For Traditional PFI Engines !

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
3,806
Location
PNW
CAFE blah , blah , blah !! While at my Hyundai dealer I over heard a customer complain that on his "new" 2012 Hyundai (DFI) that he needed a complete upper intake cleaning to the tune of $300 . The customer became irate when the service representative said that it is not uncommon for the Hyundai DFI engines to require a upper intake cleaning approx. every 30K miles ! Really ? ... That combined with a OCI of every 4,000 miles makes DFI engines a bit on the expensive side to maintain with normal performance . 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 !!
 
Originally Posted By: ChrisD46
CAFE blah , blah , blah !! While at my Hyundai dealer I over heard a customer complain that on his "new" 2012 Hyundai (DFI) that he needed a complete upper intake cleaning to the tune of $300 . The customer became irate when the service representative said that it is not uncommon for the Hyundai DFI engines to require a upper intake cleaning approx. every 30K miles ! Really ? ... That combined with a OCI of every 4,000 miles makes DFI engines a bit on the expensive side to maintain with normal performance . 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 !!


I agree; although there are performance gains with DI, the shorter oci, and additional cleaning turn me off on the idea.
 
only problem is you listened to anything the service writer said.

They will say anything to sell you services or justify anything.

he pockets his 10$ spiff for selling the cleaning if you need it or not.. He doesnt care if you trade in your hyundai and buy a toyota.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I'll stick with my port injected engines ...


Yep, me too. This is definitely improving but still very different from make to make. Some seem to have it down a lot better than others.

And I would add that the Service writer is paid commissions on anything he sells. Don't blame him for trying, but just follow the owner's manual...
 
I will stay with PFI for the foreseeable future. Personally i don't see enough gains for the trouble with DI.
It will become as common and reliable as PFI in time but for now it is still in the K Jetronic stage compared to modern PFI.
 
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
This is the same fear there was when fuel injection was implemented. There will always be teething issues.


Exactly, it there was no progress we would still have tillotson carburetors on our engines.
 
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Originally Posted By: ChrisD46
CAFE blah , blah , blah !! While at my Hyundai dealer I over heard a customer complain that on his "new" 2012 Hyundai (DFI) that he needed a complete upper intake cleaning to the tune of $300 . The customer became irate when the service representative said that it is not uncommon for the Hyundai DFI engines to require a upper intake cleaning approx. every 30K miles ! Really ? ... That combined with a OCI of every 4,000 miles makes DFI engines a bit on the expensive side to maintain with normal performance . 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 !!


I agree; although there are performance gains with DI, the shorter oci, and additional cleaning turn me off on the idea.


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.
 
I keep saying: if so many people in the '90s and '00s didn't intentionally buy vehicles that were heavier than necessary, we'd have no need for things like DI regardless of CAFE standards, and everyone would be better off for it...
 
Originally Posted By: Danh
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.


Ford is having the same issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0irwbwpuEbQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK2eXdaydqI

Like CVT, DSG, and electronic steering, every mfc seem to be heading in the same direction. As stated earlier, most vehicles will have no issue but the one's that do , will be on the forums.
 
Last edited:
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)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trav
It will become as common and reliable as PFI in time but for now it is still in the K Jetronic stage compared to modern PFI.

Speaking of which, Audi hung onto mechanical fuel injection for the longest time, yet jumped head first into DI. Talk about a reversal!
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I keep saying: if so many people in the '90s and '00s didn't intentionally buy vehicles that were heavier than necessary, we'd have no need for things like DI regardless of CAFE standards, and everyone would be better off for it...


Right.
It would have been ever so much better had they bought something smaller and lighter with an outsized appetite for fuel:)
People made rational economic choices based upon the low and stable price of fuel from the early 'eighties through the middle of the last decade.
Gasoline fell under ninety cents a gallon here during OPEC's late 'nineties production war. Driving a thirsty vehicle under those pricing conditions involved little economic penalty.
Things have changed, and the main driver for higher fuel economy is the persistence of higher peak fuel prices during each summer since 2008, not CAFE.
There were many years where fuel economy was ignored in most vehicle advertising and promotion.
Not now.
Fuel economy is a significant competitive factor in most vehicle price tiers, and the level of inovation demonstrates this.
CAFE is very easy to get around for any automaker wishing to do so.
Take a look at Subaru, just as an example, but even Subaru has sought to improve the fuel economy of their vehicles, because this is a competitive imperative, not one driven by CAFE.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I keep saying: if so many people in the '90s and '00s didn't intentionally buy vehicles that were heavier than necessary, we'd have no need for things like DI regardless of CAFE standards, and everyone would be better off for it...


Right.
It would have been ever so much better had they bought something smaller and lighter with an outsized appetite for fuel:)

I know what you mean by this and I don't think it's entirely unfair, but I actually can make that argument. Just for the record.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

CAFE is very easy to get around for any automaker wishing to do so.
Take a look at Subaru, just as an example, but even Subaru has sought to improve the fuel economy of their vehicles, because this is a competitive imperative, not one driven by CAFE.


Can you elaborate on this? You're saying Subaru is getting around CAFE? What does that mean?
 
If you build a two box car with enough flat cargo space with the rear seats folded and enough interior volume, you can call it a truck for CAFE purposes and Subaru was not alone in this.
Ever hear of something called the PT Cruiser?
Most crossovers fall into the same class for CAFE purposes.
Any station wagon body on a pickup platform is similarly allowed to be called a truck for CAFE purposes.
Their buyers and makers liked to call them "SUVs", of course, rather than station wagons.
This gets the subject vehicle out of the manufacturer's CAFE figures as they apply to cars.
Subaru refers to our '09 Forester as an SUV and has good reason for doing so.
Subaru had to get around CAFE in some way, since they had no other way of meeting the requirement.
As any owner can tell you, their cars from the era of our Forester had pathetic fuel economy for their size and weight.
Our Forster has many virtues.
Abstemious fuel consumption is not among them, although we remain very pleased with the car.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top