17 F150 3.5 gen 2 Eco 9588 miles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Congratulations on the new truck !!
This is the FF oil I assume.

It still has ample TBN (2.2) after ~ 9600 miles. Typical new engine wear metals that should settle down.

Thanks for posting.

How are you finding that 10 speed box ?
 
Completely normal to be above normal with FF break in. I see nothing here in terms of wear that is unexpected.

I will note that the fuel is nicely low! On an EB engine!
Given that the average mpg is above 20, I'd have to estimate it seems some decent highway use.
However, this is the "new" 2017 fuel system that uses both DI and MPI, if I am not mistaken. Yes - 12 injectors on a v-6, as I understand it.
Perhaps they've solved the fuel dilution issue via technology?
 
Last edited:
Congrats on the new truck! The UOA looks fine for the factory fill on that many miles. I'm sure that the new truck is a hoot to drive and you're getting much better fuel economy.

Did you refill with Magnatec (as you were using in the last truck)?

Edit- I originally wrote Tundra...I had that wrong until I looked at the old UOA thread.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: gonefishing
Oil life monitor %?
5% i would place a bet on.
 
What is the Manganese for? I don't think I've seen much if any Mn in oils. Function is....? Or from what wear surface?
 
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...
 
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.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
The extra injectors are for the particulates in the exhaust.


I don't think this is right as others have mentioned. This is not a diesel engine, which some manufacturers have utilized injectors right before emissions. This engines uses DI and PI. The port injector is supposed to help for a few reasons but it also helps wash deposits away that have been an issue with DI engines.

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
What is the Manganese for? I don't think I've seen much if any Mn in oils. Function is....? Or from what wear surface?


I've read that the manganese is a contaminant from the fuel from the combustion process on DI engines.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Is Carbon Buildup a Problem With Direct-Injection Engines?

Survey Says…

Assuaging potential sky-is-falling fears, Michael Karesh, the developer of TrueDelta.com said carbon buildup is “not an issue for all direct-injected engines” based on the data he collects. His website surveys the owners of around 33,000 different vehicles to acquire relevant and timely data about vehicle reliability and fuel economy among other things.

But of course there are some instances of deposit-related issues that have popped up. Karesh said, “The only engines it’s reported quite a bit is [with] the VW/Audi 2.0T and then the Audi V6s.” He also said, “I know there are some BMWs that end up with carbon buildup as well.”

As for the frequency of reported problems with these Volkswagen cars he said his numbers indicate “it can be as high as one in six over the last two years,” which “is a high number” and one that he said is consistent across different models.

Carbon Buildup

The 2008 Audi A3, which offered a 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine, also popped up in the TrueDelta data. Karesh said it’s puzzling why 2006 and 2007 models aren’t having similar carbon issues. Leaving us with more questions he said, “I’m not really seeing GTIs [popup],” which are mechanically similar to the A3.

“If there is a non-German car there might be something happening in the [Cadillac] CTS,” said Karesh, but once again he cautioned that it’s “too scattered and sporadic” to draw any definitive conclusions. Additionally he said, “I have one report of decarbonizing the engine in a Chevrolet Equinox.” Unlike the other instances, he has quite a large sample size for this particular vehicle, which clearly indicates that deposits are not a major problem at this time.
The Whys and the Hows

But how does this buildup occur?

“One of the biggest problems with direct injection is that the fuel is no longer being sprayed onto the backside of the intake valves,” Laskowski said.

This mist of gasoline actually helps keep the intake ports clean. In addition to fuel quality, he said things like valve and injection timing are key factors in carbon buildup.

Additionally software plays a huge role. “What I think is most overlooked is the PCM calibration itself,” the engine-control computer.

“I believe it’s the absolute key to preventing the bulk of this buildup by making the air and fuel burn as completely and cleanly as possible.” Laskowski also said a simple software update can yield dramatic results.

But if something does go awry with your EcoBoost engine and there are drivability issues associated with deposits, Laskowski said the only Ford-approved course of action at this time is to replace the cylinder head, though he also said, “Manual cleaning with a brush and various carbon dissolving products has been used with great success on vehicles out of warranty.”

Beyond outright replacement or lots of elbow-grease there are other ways of of dealing with carbon buildup. Laskowski said there’s a media-blasting technique that can clean engine intact tracts but the method is currently not approved by Ford. Regrettably he said, “In any case the service to remove the carbon can be time consuming and expensive.”
Down the Road

As for the long-term reliability of engines with direct injection, only time will tell if carbon buildup is a serious issue. But for the most part it seems like an isolated problem, at least at this time.

When asked if he’d hesitate to purchase a vehicle with DI because of this issue Karesh said no. “I’m not seeing it for anything after 2010 or so.

SEE ALSO: What is Octane?

“I think even though direct-injection technology is far superior today compared to a decade ago that with varying fuel qualities, different driving techniques and overall aging of the engines it will be an issue for some,” Laskowski said. Going on he said Ford should develop a cleaning process for EcoBoost powerplants so carbon can be addressed without completely tearing engines down.

DecarbonizingConventional induction-cleaning services aren’t recommended with Ford’s EcoBoost engines. Laskowski said turbochargers can be damaged and they ain’t cheap to replace. “Again I believe the bulk of this problem can and will be eliminated with future PCM software-calibration updates.”

For the time being Karesh said that according to his data, “Clearly it’s a VW/Audi problem and not much else.” Elaborating he also said, “We’ve got other direct-injected engines and it’s not showing up for those.”

Since carbon-related issues with direct injection seem to be sporadic at best Karesh said this is good news for drivers. “It means you don’t have to plan on decarboninzing your engine every two years for $800 a pop.” When asked if deposits could become a nightmarish issue in the future he said, “I can’t say. I don’t have my crystal ball; it’s in the shop,” and hopefully not because of something related to carbon.
 
Originally Posted By: SR5
Congratulations on the new truck !!
This is the FF oil I assume.

It still has ample TBN (2.2) after ~ 9600 miles. Typical new engine wear metals that should settle down.

Thanks for posting.

How are you finding that 10 speed box ?


First, thanks! New trucks are always fun!

Correct, this is the factory fill.
The two things I was wanting to check was the TBN and fuel dilution.
TBN looks real good to me, the last truck would have been close to 1 at this point.

Fuel dilution is ok, better than I thought, would like to see it improve, but better than a gen 1 engine.

The best thing I can say about the 10 speed is that you don't really notice it.
No searching, smooth shifts.

The first month or so, slowing down was a little weird.'
It would downshift about the time I would brake and it made for some awkwardness.
That has worked itself out.
Now, generally the first 3-4 shift in the morning or cold engine can be strange... almost like a stall.
Some of it is me being very light on the pedal.
I turn left right out of my drive and then an immediate right.
About the time I start to accelerate the tranny is trying to decide what gear it wants.
I also wonder if the Tq converter locks up about that time.
I have seen reports and experienced a little surge when in stop and go traffic going from 2-3.
Almost sure that's a converter lock up happening.

In case people don't know, it does not always use every gear.
Very common to go 1,3,5,6,7,8,9,10.
It will also skip coming back down.
Other than that, it tends to keep the RPM around 1600. Right at the bottom of the Tq curve.

65mph + 1600 rpm.

Truck feels fast.

Have not used tow/haul.
Played a little with the Sport mode.
Sport mode holds the gears longer both ways.

It will be interesting to see what Chevy owners say about it when they start using their version.
Last I read the ZL1 is up first.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Completely normal to be above normal with FF break in. I see nothing here in terms of wear that is unexpected.

I will note that the fuel is nicely low! On an EB engine!
Given that the average mpg is above 20, I'd have to estimate it seems some decent highway use.
However, this is the "new" 2017 fuel system that uses both DI and MPI, if I am not mistaken. Yes - 12 injectors on a v-6, as I understand it.
Perhaps they've solved the fuel dilution issue via technology?

Happy about the dilution...so far.
I would say 80% or better Hwy.
Going on a short road trip in a couple of weeks. Should be fun.
Correct, Port and DI.
I see the discussion going on.
My understanding was the port injection was to improve idling and help wash the valve stems (non issue as far as I know).
The original 3.5 eco does not idle well.
 
Originally Posted By: dustyroads
Congrats on the new truck! The UOA looks fine for the factory fill on that many miles. I'm sure that the new truck is a hoot to drive and you're getting much better fuel economy.

Did you refill with Magnatec (as you were using in the last truck)?

Edit- I originally wrote Tundra...I had that wrong until I looked at the old UOA thread.


Thanks,
Yea, way to much fun.
It has enhanced engine noise, makes me smile just as much as enhanced boobies.

Of course, its got Magnatec 5/30 full syn in it now.
Why quit a good thing?
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: gonefishing
Oil life monitor %?
5% i would place a bet on.


I would have thought that also.
I was wondering why the "change oil soon" warning had not come up.
When I reset oil life, it was at 7%.
Then the TBN is at 2.2. Interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top