17 F150 3.5 gen 2 Eco 9588 miles

[KJSmith]

Originally Posted By: pbm
I think that's a nice UOA for FF @ nearly 10K.
If you are getting 21.5 on this young engine it will probably go up a little when fully broken in.
I'd be very happy with these results. Good Luck with that nice F150...


Thanks!

 

[KJSmith]

Originally Posted By: bigj_16
KJSmith, anything noticeable stand out on the Gen.2 engine compared to the Gen.1? How about the 10-speed?


The gen 2 idles, my Gen 1 was almost always rough.
I covered the tranny earlier.
From what I understand, this is almost an all new engine.
Its definitely more refined.
Has the composite pan and plastic plug. (tranny has a composite pan also).
The coolant to turbo connectors are re designed.
My last one leaked... expensive repair.

Other than that, it runs great.
Stays in the tq curve.
You have that constant feeling that your holding it back.
Smooth and powerful.

When you get on it, it burns fuel in a hurry.

My lifetime MPG is up 2.4 over my gen 1.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: KJSmith

It has enhanced engine noise, makes me smile just as much as enhanced boobies.



Thanks for that, I just LOL'd!

 

[KJSmith]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: KJSmith

It has enhanced engine noise, makes me smile just as much as enhanced boobies.



Thanks for that, I just LOL'd!

Your welcome... we can all use a good laugh every now and then.

On a side note: As Men, we really need to appreciate what women put themselves through to look good.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: KJSmith
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: KJSmith

It has enhanced engine noise, makes me smile just as much as enhanced boobies.



Thanks for that, I just LOL'd!

Your welcome... we can all use a good laugh every now and then.

On a side note: As Men, we really need to appreciate what women put themselves through to look good.


Sage advice sir

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Strawdog
That is total speculation.

The port injectors were added by ford to decease emissions at cold start and to improve fuel mileage. This is stated in a press release from ford, (I posted it in another thread).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsam...r/#4d01cf74545e


LSPI is not rampant on later model ecoboost engines ,(despite what you read on the internet by a FEW people). I know many people with them with no issues. The 2.7 was introduced in 15 and a blank slate new engine and if there had been a rampant problem that needed port injection to rectify they would have done it then. Proper valve timing can greatly minimize the LSPI problem the in DI motors. Participate emission standards and other emission standards are getting more stringent and these are a way to cope with it.



I would agree that Ford is addressing concerns for particulate at cold start.
But let's not pretend that Ford (and other companies) don't spin things for their own purpose.
Just because that's what they release in a public information statement, does not mean that's the ONLY reason for the MPI.
Are they stating a reason for the MPI? Sure.
Was that the ONLY reason behind their actions? I'm not convinced.

Gee, have there been any other recent examples of official Ford statements that are vague, misleading or generally seemingly unfounded?
Uh - perhaps the diesel oil CK-4 debacle?

 

[Strawdog]

Have you been directly affected by LSPI? Have you owned a DI vehicle. Show me REAL evidence this is still a problem 2010 forward. I have owned 3 different Di vehicles with 0 issues.

 

[dnewton3]

No I don't own one, nor have I ever.
But that does not mean the phenomenon does not exist.
There are plenty of reasonably credible stores on 'tube that indicate it's been an issue in Ford EB engines way later than 2010.

If this were only a ghost issue, why are there are now major product offerings specific to this topic?
(note - I'm not convinced this is the way I'd solve the issue, but I am merely pointing out that the aftermarket sees a large enough market to justify specific production placement)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU8iUcPkq6s

Ford certified service tech; his POV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ynGWxzJHjA

Same Ford tech telling us why using a "catch can" can reduce this issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK2eXdaydqI

And it's not just the 3.5L EB engine .... Here's the 2.0L EB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVByL95pXlY


This phenomenon is not limited to 2010 engines.
These examples are not all high-mileage units; they often are less than 50k miles, some even less than 25k miles.


Is this phenomenon present in all engines? Yes, even MPI gets valve build up. But not nearly as bad, and not nearly as soon as an EB.
Not all EB engines have the same magnitude of exposure; I would also admit that.


But for you to imply that because I don't own one, I cannot understand the issue nor comment on it, is silly.
One does not need to be present at, or affected by, a phenomenon to understand it and believe it credible.
The inference I take from your comment is that one must own such a vehicle to be considered "credible"?

I live in Indiana; always have and likely always will. Therefore, I don't live in Houston.
I do, however, understand there's reason to believe a storm front passed through Houston a while back.
Same goes for the central strip of Florida; I hear there was an environmental tussle as well.
By your logic, I should not have any ability to comment on those events simply because I did not experience them directly.
By your logic, I should not trust anyone's assessment if they did not suffer from those events directly.

I find your logic flawed.

 

[Strawdog]

I was absolutely, positively 100% sure you would use him as you reference. He makes money from his videos and you viewing them. Also you must believe every product sold works or is needed. How about cold air intakes, they let dirt into your engine do nothing but make noise when installed alone but many are sold to people that believe, (positive) they are getting needed benefit.. I will not debate this subject with you further as you are so much smarter than me.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
No I don't own one, nor have I ever.
But that does not mean the phenomenon does not exist.
There are plenty of reasonably credible stores on 'tube that indicate it's been an issue in Ford EB engines way later than 2010.

If this were only a ghost issue, why are there are now major product offerings specific to this topic?
(note - I'm not convinced this is the way I'd solve the issue, but I am merely pointing out that the aftermarket sees a large enough market to justify specific production placement)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU8iUcPkq6s

Ford certified service tech; his POV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ynGWxzJHjA

Same Ford tech telling us why using a "catch can" can reduce this issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK2eXdaydqI

And it's not just the 3.5L EB engine .... Here's the 2.0L EB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVByL95pXlY


This phenomenon is not limited to 2010 engines.
These examples are not all high-mileage units; they often are less than 50k miles, some even less than 25k miles.


Is this phenomenon present in all engines? Yes, even MPI gets valve build up. But not nearly as bad, and not nearly as soon as an EB.
Not all EB engines have the same magnitude of exposure; I would also admit that.


But for you to imply that because I don't own one, I cannot understand the issue nor comment on it, is silly.
One does not need to be present at, or affected by, a phenomenon to understand it and believe it credible.
The inference I take from your comment is that one must own such a vehicle to be considered "credible"?

I live in Indiana; always have and likely always will. Therefore, I don't live in Houston.
I do, however, understand there's reason to believe a storm front passed through Houston a while back.
Same goes for the central strip of Florida; I hear there was an environmental tussle as well.
By your logic, I should not have any ability to comment on those events simply because I did not experience them directly.
By your logic, I should not trust anyone's assessment if they did not suffer from those events directly.

I find your logic flawed.




I agree. There is enough information out there to know the problem exists, as laid out here. A person doesn't have to own one to learn or know about it. Talking to people with first hand experience, or service writers who deal with it is another great place to learn about it. I have a Ford service writer friend in PA who shed some interesting light on it. Time will tell how the newer engines will do.

 

[Strawdog]

PS it is not 2010 engines it is PRE 2010 engines.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Is this phenomenon present in all engines? Yes, even MPI gets valve build up. But not nearly as bad, and not nearly as soon as an EB.
Not all EB engines have the same magnitude of exposure; I would also admit that.

There could be a correlation between intake valve stem & end surface polish degree and carbon build-up. Smooth surfaces are less likely to have carbon get a foothold. Also PCV design affects how much exposure any one valve has. This may help explain why this phenomenan seems to appear, be a problem on some production runs, and then disappear in other engine designs at various times.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: Strawdog
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: CT8
The extra injectors are for the particulates in the exhaust.


I don't think that's right ...
but I am willing to be open minded if you have more info.

Here's what I understand is the issue, and how it was addressed. Up to now, Ford's EB engines only used DI. That allows for much higher compression ratios, which ups power and efficiency. The downside to DI is that there is no longer any fuel going down the intake tract, and cleaning/cooling the back of the intake valves. Without this cooling effect of gas vaporization in the intake tract, the intake valves run hotter, and yet still get a full dose of PCV oil impurities and EGR exhaust. So the lack of gas detergents in the intake tract allows more heat to bake the ever-present oil blow-by byproducts, with no aid from the detergents in the gasoline. Simply put; same amount of PCV junk, more heat, less cleaner. That makes for a bad combination. There are lots of 'tube vids showing the backs of intake valves in EB engines having a mound of carbon gunk on them.

So, Ford introduced this next-gen EB; it has the DI injectors AND multi-port injectors. I'm not sure what protocol is used to determine when each set is firing. Several opportunities exist:
- only DI fires
- only MPI fires
- DI fires prior to MPI sequentially; one finishes prior to the other coming open
- MPI fires prior to DI sequentially; one finishes prior to the other coming open
- DI and MPI fire in overlap; one before the other but overlapping in timing
- DI and MIP fire concurrently
I'm sure it's fairly complex. As the makers of tuners get this worked out, we'll know more.

But I don't think it has anything to do with particulate in the exhaust stream.
As I said, if you have more or different info, please share!
I'm very interested in this new engine and how it deals with the inherent problems.


That is total speculation.

The port injectors were added by ford to decease emissions at cold start and to improve fuel mileage. This is stated in a press release from ford, (I posted it in another thread).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsam...r/#4d01cf74545e


LSPI is not rampant on later model ecoboost engines ,(despite what you read on the internet by a FEW people). I know many people with them with no issues. The 2.7 was introduced in 15 and a blank slate new engine and if there had been a rampant problem that needed port injection to rectify they would have done it then. Proper valve timing can greatly minimize the LSPI problem the in DI motors. Participate emission standards and other emission standards are getting more stringent and these are a way to cope with it.


Ford would not put out a statement that states we added this MPI to correct deposit issues or an engine design flaw. That would cause everyone who has an ecoboost or DI engine to panic and think their engine is flawed. So of course they would put out a statement highlighting the performance and regulatory improvements.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Strawdog
I was absolutely, positively 100% sure you would use him as you reference. He makes money from his videos and you viewing them. Also you must believe every product sold works or is needed. How about cold air intakes, they let dirt into your engine do nothing but make noise when installed alone but many are sold to people that believe, (positive) they are getting needed benefit.. I will not debate this subject with you further as you are so much smarter than me.


He's not the only one who makes money off their posts. But so what? Does that make him wrong? He's a certified Ford tech, or are you implying that's false too? And he's not the only person talking about EB issues; just use the Google box and search. I suppose you don't think they have an issue with the 3.5L CAC condensing oil and moisture so badly that it will occasionally slug liquid into the intake and cause surging, stalling, rough running, either?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKgI5pnD_3E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DwDq5HuJIw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCop9wPzRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXP1KBXSny8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58jK3FIe4iQ
I guess all these people are imagining this issue also?
Or those who are experiencing timing chain issues? And the cam phaser issues?
The 3.5L EB is a great engine, but it has issues, to be sure. Ignoring them does not make them imaginary, at least not in my world.
And the topic of these DI engines coking up the PCV vapors on the intake valves is a real issue, despite your denials.


Do I believe all products are necessary just because they are in the market place? No!


Let's not let this distract us from this OPs UOA post.
Wear is break in; not much to glean there.
But the lack of fuel dilution (also a known, real issue with EBs) seems absent here.
That's good news for him.

It is my belief that Ford's outward position of the MPI being for particulate is only PART of the truth. The reality is that the MPI allows them to address other issues such as intake valves with carbon buildup, and fuel dilution. As others have said, to admit that would be to admit a problem, which opens them up to bad press and perhaps class action suits. So they won't admit it publicly. But that does not make it any less of a side-benefit they gladly accept which reduce or eliminate those issues with the new duel injection system.

I don't know that I'm smarter than you. Just not as ignorant of problems with the EB DI engines as you.

 

[KJSmith]

Guys, don't let him get to you.
He is doing the same troll act on FTE.

I can't think of a single known member who has had that issue.

 

[Strawdog]

Originally Posted By: KJSmith
Guys, don't let him get to you.
He is doing the same troll act on FTE.

I can't think of a single known member who has had that issue.


Dito, I know many people that I personally know face to face in the real world that are extremely happy with their ecoboost trucks and like you have put 100s of thousands of miles on them and then traded them in on new ones.

Thank you, from another very happy and and according to the troll blissfully ignorant ecoboost owner.

 

[advocate]

Great report! I’m really impressed with what ford has done to this engine with the dual fuel setup. It seems to be working for you! I’m looking forward to subsequent reports.

 

[Danh]

Before we conclude that the dual-injector setup has solved the fuel dilution issue note that:

1) Blackstone's fuel dilution numbers are laughably inaccurate and

2) Assuming the ff was a 5w-30, the viscosity is in the middle of the 20-weight range now. Shearing/oxidation may play a small role here, but it sure looks like there's substantial fuel in the sample.

 

[Tdog02]

Interesting to watch and see if this helps some with fuel dilution and idle. Also incredibly expensive to repair the fuel system now.

Can the system be configured to run in one mode or the other? Can it be used as PI only?

 

[KJSmith]

Originally Posted By: Danh
Before we conclude that the dual-injector setup has solved the fuel dilution issue note that:

1) Blackstone's fuel dilution numbers are laughably inaccurate and

2) Assuming the ff was a 5w-30, the viscosity is in the middle of the 20-weight range now. Shearing/oxidation may play a small role here, but it sure looks like there's substantial fuel in the sample.


Can you explain what you are seeing?
Not trying to be argumentative, trying to learn.

The old truck said the SUS should be between 54-63, Cst 8.5-11.3 and the flashpoint is good.
Those #s are for 5/30.