High Mile 2.3's carbon buildup?

Carbin buildup is not a problem on all DI engines. This is a ridiculous argument given the number of DI engines going well past 100k miles problem free. Here is Ford breaking down a high mileage 3.5 EB.

I have not seen a single example of a 2.3 with a carbon problem.

http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/28010/Ford-teardown-Ecoboost-engine

LMFAO. Believe that if you want.

Browse through this folder and look at those 100k mile no issue valves on my 3.5 Ecoboost Flex.

https://goo.gl/photos/W6HU7uFL9T2Fm7zd8

Not a Mustang, but still an EcoBoost........

and, part II

Here is a 200k Ecoboost 3.5 still going sttong. This doesnt mean that some DI engines will not suffer from carbon problems but it is proof that all DI engines will not have carbon related problems at 100k or even 200k. The presence of some carbin is not a problem.

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/heres-how-a-ford-f-150-ecoboost-held-up-after-200-000-m-1790602670

Rod Schneider said:

Not a Mustang, but still an EcoBoost........

and, part II

Click to expand...

Those vids are 3 yrs an no real service answers, but just look at 2018 GT V8, it will have port injection along with DI so that is a silent answer.

Edkiefer said:

Those vids are 3 yrs an no real service answers, but just look at 2018 GT V8, it will have port injection along with DI so that is a silent answer.

Click to expand...

Agreed--My 2016 was an early build (September, 2015) and came with the early style oil separator/breather. I've installed the updated version and will monitor the engine. No catch cans or other mods, aside from a Roush cold air intake, so we'll see how it goes in the future. Only around 6,500 miles to this point. I'll probably check the valves every 10,000 to 15,000 miles and see if I get any build up.

Hello guys, I just saw the thread!
I have also pictures from the valves that I 've got with endoscope camera. I will find and upload them a little bit later.

Rod Schneider said:

Not a Mustang, but still an EcoBoost........

and, part II

Click to expand...

Quoted from FordTechMakuloco

"I don't think the new 2.3l will be a big issue being second gen"


I believe it will be less of on issue compared to earlier DI motors since he also mentions carbon build being attributed in a big part to PCM calibrations as I also have read from other sources. Although in theory all DI systems work the same, not all will have the same results. Just as Ford will not publicly announce DI carbon build up is a problem they will also not share what measures or strategy it has taken to alleviate the issue.

Operator error lol

Had a speed6 for ten years prior to my gt. I noticed over the years and saturdays spent cleaning the valves with b12. that how i drove resulted in more or less deposits. When i was driving short trips(as in engine never really getting warm) it resulted in lots of deposits. When i moved to a place further from my job i had much less deposits.
This would affect any engine. But in direct injection i believe its magnified.

So he used the old method of cleaning meanwhile BG bought an SHO EcoBoost and developed their GDI service which cleans the system over several hundred miles of operation.

"Causes turbo failures in high mileage engines" is vague at best. 1. What fails? 2. What is the actual cause of failure? 3. Is the turbo coked up so the cleaner removed some of the coking exposing a surface that is close to failure(leaking)?

BG's method uses metered chemical while the engine is running to soften and dissolve the coking on the valves. The second step is directly injected into the fuel rail, this chemical cleans the DI nozzle and the piston bowl area. The final chemical is a in-tank chemical which continues to work over the next 300 miles to clean the combustion area.

There are large OEM dealers that perform 100's of these services a month. If it were a widespread cause of failure they wouldn't be doing them.

Most of these youtube videos people shoot are either mis-using chemicals or using applying the chemical to the incorrect process.

What I do not understand is how on port injected engines it was acceptable to use an additive to remove oil coking from valves but now with DI engines this needs to be done by mechanical methods yet they do not remove the head to clean the combustion area where the misfire originates.

Under boost conditions a gob of coked oil on the stem of a valve is insignificant. At part throttle low load or high intake vacuum conditions when the engine is pulling excessive oil mist into the combustion process which has a lower flash point and combined with the build up of materials in the combustion chamber will cause uncontrolled combustion (mis-fire). The other issue is oil coking of the piston rings. Because of the formation of deposits in the combustion area over time the build up begins to cause the rings to stick. This will cause additional oil to pass by but also change the effective mean pressure in the cylinder compounding a poor mixture and accelerating the issue. To be clear not all the coking on the valves is from the PCV system alone. High vacuum conditions can cause valve seals to pass abundant oil, depending on VVT strategies combustion mixtures can and do enter into the intake tract.

There are a lot of variables which are not covered in videos by youtube 'experts' Similar issues have plagued Diesels and Large Industrial Reciprocating Engines for 20+ years. GDI functions similar to Compression Ignition engines with the way they control fuel timing. GDI also mimics the way a pre-chambered natural gas engine operates.

Just my .02

Optimum Performance said:

So he used the old method of cleaning meanwhile BG bought an SHO EcoBoost and developed their GDI service which cleans the system over several hundred miles of operation.

"Causes turbo failures in high mileage engines" is vague at best. 1. What fails? 2. What is the actual cause of failure? 3. Is the turbo coked up so the cleaner removed some of the coking exposing a surface that is close to failure(leaking)?

BG's method uses metered chemical while the engine is running to soften and dissolve the coking on the valves. The second step is directly injected into the fuel rail, this chemical cleans the DI nozzle and the piston bowl area. The final chemical is a in-tank chemical which continues to work over the next 300 miles to clean the combustion area.

There are large OEM dealers that perform 100's of these services a month. If it were a widespread cause of failure they wouldn't be doing them.

Most of these youtube videos people shoot are either mis-using chemicals or using applying the chemical to the incorrect process.

What I do not understand is how on port injected engines it was acceptable to use an additive to remove oil coking from valves but now with DI engines this needs to be done by mechanical methods yet they do not remove the head to clean the combustion area where the misfire originates.

Under boost conditions a gob of coked oil on the stem of a valve is insignificant. At part throttle low load or high intake vacuum conditions when the engine is pulling excessive oil mist into the combustion process which has a lower flash point and combined with the build up of materials in the combustion chamber will cause uncontrolled combustion (mis-fire). The other issue is oil coking of the piston rings. Because of the formation of deposits in the combustion area over time the build up begins to cause the rings to stick. This will cause additional oil to pass by but also change the effective mean pressure in the cylinder compounding a poor mixture and accelerating the issue. To be clear not all the coking on the valves is from the PCV system alone. High vacuum conditions can cause valve seals to pass abundant oil, depending on VVT strategies combustion mixtures can and do enter into the intake tract.

There are a lot of variables which are not covered in videos by youtube 'experts' Similar issues have plagued Diesels and Large Industrial Reciprocating Engines for 20+ years. GDI functions similar to Compression Ignition engines with the way they control fuel timing. GDI also mimics the way a pre-chambered natural gas engine operates.

Just my .02

Click to expand...

Tommy, Please don't take this as I'm arguing it or disagreeing because I'm not. I know little about it and am genuinely curious. I've used BG's 44K on other vehicles and like them. I'm curious the procedure you're talking about, do they do it and have a lot of experience with it on turbo DI engines or just DI engines in general. My concern is for the turbo specifically. I just remember a year or 2 ago on the forum there was a big discussion and some credible people were talking about different cleaning methods and it seemed the general consensus was any chemical cleaning like using seafoam was bad for the tubo somehow.

Chunks flying into the turbine wheel is a big concern. Another idea was that it burns hotter than a normal combustion temp does and therefore ruins the center cartridge. That one I'm a bit skeptical about and haven't noticed any damage from over the years. I've owned over 15 turbo vehicles since 2000 and do all my own work.

jbailer said:

Tommy, Please don't take this as I'm arguing it or disagreeing because I'm not. I know little about it and am genuinely curious. I've used BG's 44K on other vehicles and like them. I'm curious the procedure you're talking about, do they do it and have a lot of experience with it on turbo DI engines or just DI engines in general. My concern is for the turbo specifically. I just remember a year or 2 ago on the forum there was a big discussion and some credible people were talking about different cleaning methods and it seemed the general consensus was any chemical cleaning like using seafoam was bad for the tubo somehow.

Click to expand...

Over the counter chemicals I understand, not trained, not metered, a low grade chemistry that is likely something that has been around for decades and not actually lab tested on new vehicles. This chemistry may be what actually causes the issues with the Cat's as well.

First Product injected with this TOOL over the period of about 30 minutes (typically two cans are run through)

Then This Product is injected with the same tool through the fuel rail through the injectors pre-soaking the combustion chamber deposits (the part that actually causes most of the mis-fires)

The final step in the process is to install the 44K in the tank which over the next 300 miles continues to remove the combustion chamber deposits softened buy the combustion chamber cleaner.

This all works as a system, BG has developed specific nozzles with orifices sized to the specific engine. This is not a one sized fits all tool, it is very model specific with a ton of technical updates coming out all the time that are engine/vehicle specific. They actually have a large tackle box with all the fittings used in this system. My Rep has been trying to get me to start selling you guy's the tool with the model specific nozzle so you could do the service yourself but....it would be hard to train you over the internet.

The reason this is a $250-300 service is it takes considerable time to perform. On the Mustang you either need a scan tool or you have to remove the rear seat to disable the fuel module, the engine runs off the injector chemical. The GDI chemical cost (4 cans of product)is roughly 1/3 of the cost of the service. It's safe and effective because it is not a $7 can of Seafoam.

Marvinmadman said:

Chunks flying into the turbine wheel is a big concern. Another idea was that it burns hotter than a normal combustion temp does and therefore ruins the center cartridge. That one I'm a bit skeptical about and haven't noticed any damage from over the years. I've owned over 15 turbo vehicles since 2000 and do all my own work.

Click to expand...

Chunks of 'carbon' - I know not your specific term; one from the internet, do not happen unless someone manually scrapes it off an open valve and it miraculously survives the combustion process and quench area in the chamber than manages to remain intact through the opening of the exhaust valve under boost conditions where the turbine is actually spinning at a velocity to damage a turbine wheel. This also assumes that it is dense hard carbon which in most cases it is low density even soft coked oil. Cheap parts store chemicals will likely contain a volatile solvent that does flash off and cause high temperatures. Again likely caused by mis-use. #MoreMustBeBetter BG GDI products do the opposite, they do not burn off, they saturate the coking and dissolve it. This isn't a 1970's drive it down the highway to blow the carbon out process like seen on youtube.

Again, when someone on youtube makes a video with actual failure analysis training and experience discusses the actual failures "Reported" and root cause analysis to back it up I'll be all ears...and eyes.

Optimum Performance said:

Over the counter chemicals I understand, not trained, not metered, a low grade chemistry that is likely something that has been around for decades and not actually lab tested on new vehicles. This chemistry may be what actually causes the issues with the Cat's as well.

First Product injected with this TOOL over the period of about 30 minutes (typically two cans are run through)

Then This Product is injected with the same tool through the fuel rail through the injectors pre-soaking the combustion chamber deposits (the part that actually causes most of the mis-fires)

The final step in the process is to install the 44K in the tank which over the next 300 miles continues to remove the combustion chamber deposits softened buy the combustion chamber cleaner.

This all works as a system, BG has developed specific nozzles with orifices sized to the specific engine. This is not a one sized fits all tool, it is very model specific with a ton of technical updates coming out all the time that are engine/vehicle specific. They actually have a large tackle box with all the fittings used in this system. My Rep has been trying to get me to start selling you guy's the tool with the model specific nozzle so you could do the service yourself but....it would be hard to train you over the internet.

The reason this is a $250-300 service is it takes considerable time to perform. On the Mustang you either need a scan tool or you have to remove the rear seat to disable the fuel module, the engine runs off the injector chemical. The GDI chemical cost (4 cans of product)is roughly 1/3 of the cost of the service. It's safe and effective because it is not a $7 can of Seafoam.

Click to expand...

My question was the experience with our specific engine especially with the turbo. Nothing that you mentioned or that I see in their marketing talk about the turbo and I think it's a significant difference. There are other cars with the 2.3L similar to ours. How do I know that any sizing and experience with "this engine" aren't the version without a turbo and where is any information that shows the impact on the turbo?