My thoughts for new modders after 3 years of ownership

[DeVito757]

Note- Originally posted this in a thread debating FBO vs going big turbo right out of the gate, but I thought you all might appreciate this as a new thread. Feel free to post results/thoughts below if you have gone a different route or if I missed something.

Note 2 for 2018 Eco's
-Not extremely familiar with the 2018 eco yet, but it seems you all are getting pretty shafted here. Based on my research the UPR DVCC will not fit the 2018s and Cobb is still 2-3 months away from making you guys an AP because the 2018 ECU is very different from the previous gen. There has been back and forth discussions on 2015-2017 intercooler fitment in the 2018, but by the looks of it some/most 2015-2017 IC's will fit 2018s (possibly bolt-on and possibly with a little modification). For you 2018 guys that are looking to not void factory warranty a drop in filter for the stock air box appears as though it will not void the warranty. In the past Ford Performance has released a warranty-friendly "Power Pack" that includes a FP tune and Intake, but rumors have it they may not be releasing the Power Pack for the 2018 eco. If they do end up releasing it, it will most likely be released very late because FP does a lot of basic testing before even beginning to work on power upgrades. My advice for 2018 owners would be to get the drop in filter and NGK plugs, research intercooler installs on the 2018, and sit tight hoping Cobb will release the Accessport for the 2018 soon.

Under the hood mods- In the order in which I would do them, but many of them can interchange spots. (Everything is just my personal opinion, I could be wrong on some cases and you overall have the freedom to do whatever you want!)

Format is: mod - (new price, what I've seen it go for on M6G)

1. UPR DVCC - ($250, 150)
-Carbon build-up + mods + bad plug gaping = ecoboom. Carbon build-up is pretty bad on this engine. (Interesting how ford changed to a dual (port & direct) fuel injection system in 2018 GT). Don't go cheap and get the Mishimoto or any other brand as the quality is extremely inferior to the UPR. For extra protection you also have the option of picking up the UPR Clean-Side CC ($230, $150) in addition to the DVCC.

2. ETS/Levels FMIC - ($550, $450)
-Bad heat soaking on OEM at stoplights, charge pipe temps range 100-150, hot air makes the car pull very very weak. The normal size of the Levels and ETS intercoolers will provide more than adequate levels of cooling at pretty much any HP figure but Levels does offer an even larger IC, the Levels Race IC ($659). It seems as though a lot of new modders to the ecoboost platform tend to go with options such as the Mishimoto IC ($520, $300) or the Cp-e IC ($560, $300), both of which have smaller, similar (if not the exact same) core dimensions (21.06" x 5.75" x 5.28" for the Mishi) that don't really compare to the size of the Levels and ETS IC's ( 20" x 14" x 3.5"). However, these smaller models do benefit in that you do not have to remove the active grille shutter assembly (the IC mounts in the same location and space as the OEM intercooler) unlike the ETS and Levels intercoolers.

3. Cobb Accessport V3 - ($500, $315)
-Necessary for future mods, honestly it would be best to not ever run an OTS map but if you're horrible at waiting on money to become available like me you can run the COBB OTS stage 1 when you get the AP. Definitely do not run any of the other OTS maps (Stage 2, 3). Gauges being monitored can vary but I prefer monitoring Cylinder 1-4 Timing (each individually) Corrections, Boost Pressure, and AFR (actual). The AP will also add support for variable RPM launch control, Flat Foot Shifting, Burnout Mode (front wheel lock), On the fly map switching, and Adjustable Traction Control.

4. NGK 6510 1 step colder plugs ($45)
-OEM plugs known to have inconsistent gaping, many people believe this should be the first mod done and I definitely also agree with that. Make sure you get these gaped correctly (varies based on fuel type) and you inspect and change them often. (I've seen people say anywhere from 8,000 to 15,000 to over 30,000 miles. I personally go with 10,000 just because although it may be overkill, its not that costly and I try to do the most preventative maintenance I can.) These can come pre-gapped from Tune +, or you can gap them yourself, but just be very careful with handling and installing b/c the iridium tip is very delicate. Some owners suggest checking the correctness of the gaps with every oil change. During this time you can also examine the appearance of your plugs to possibly diagnose a wide variety of problems (http://www.onallcylinders.com/2012/12/20/reading-101-how-to-read-your-spark-plugs/). The main cause of the eco-boom craze is abnormal combustion from improperly gaped spark plugs. Although the plugs may be fine up to and beyond 30k miles, a simple $45 purchase 2 or 3 times a year is worth potentially saving $3,000+ in my opinion.

5. Purple Drank/Tune + Lifetime Tuning Package - ($300 for PD, $350 for Adam's)
-I like and have PDtuning, they have lots of experience w/ turbos and alternative fuel, they respond quickly and are nice. Adam from Tune+ knows a lot about the car but he can be unpleasant and in my opinion has too many tuning customers to do more than just the minimum communication w/ customers. The tunes are different, I can't speak personally for Adam's but PD's has a sluggish low band (<2500) that you have to accept to get their ridiculous top end power. Both tunes will transform the drivability of the car away from the quick jumpy boost threshold that dies at 5k to a more top-end focused, drawn out power curve.

6. Airraid Big Intake Tube w/ drop in filter for stock airbox - ($250, $150)
-Swapping out the stock box for a aftermarket box or cone style filter has shown to actually cause power losses. Adam recommends a drop in filter and the option of installing the airraid tube. Many people also wrap the intake tube in heat shielding tape. Retune recommended

7. 100 PSI upgraded checkvalve for UPR CC - ($55, sometimes included w/ DVCC on m6g)
-Kinda going out of order now but you really wanna just get this done ASAP & definitely as soon as you get the protune. When you get the DVCC off of M6G try to score one with the upgraded check valve and possibly even clean side catch can already included. Probably should have included this with #5. Retune not required

8. Turbosmart/Tune + upgraded WGA - ($140, $100)
-Many benefits, all relating to boost & boost consistency. Can also increase top end boost slightly in some cases by 1-3psi. Requires retune.

9. Turbo Back exhaust- I like the Borla Catless DP - ($500, $250) + MBRP Race catback - ($600)
-Obviously mostly personal opinion & a lot of different choices, MBRP being one of the cheapest, but better sounding. Pretty much all of them sound pretty awful. If you're on a quest to make big power I'd recommend having 3" exhaust all the way back from the turbo (may require custom fab work if your cat-back has a step-up/step-down from 3" to 2.25" like the MBRP) and a wide-band 02 sensor. The work to create the 3" fabricated piece is pretty simple and just involves cutting off the stepdowns on the catback and/or downpipe and installing either a welded or clamped piece that allows 3" connections on both sides. Some users report paying anywhere from $30 to $75 at a muffler shop for this service. This modification to delete the 2.25" step down does significantly decrease restriction, but is really only necessary when you're making over 500 hp.

10. If you have an auto for some reason you probably wanna get some transmission tuning - ($150)

At this point is where you can go a variety of different directions, common directions most people go include:

1. Charge piping + BOV
- If you are satisfied being around the same power you are at now, go ahead and grab some charge pipes and a BOV. I recommend MAPerformance ($480, $325) or ETS charge pipes ($380, IDK) with the Boomba Racing or C&L bypass valve adapter ($60). This will allow your OEM BOV to still be controlled by the ECU (allowing for PD or Tune + to make adjustments if necessary), isn't as annoying as the vacuum controlled BOV's, and still gets rid of the poor-designed re-circulation back to the intake. If you do go with a vacuum controlled, don't do the dumb T-tap vacuum line or whatever it says in the installation guide, pick yourself up a turbosmart boost reference adapter ($40). It reads pressure directly from the intake manifold and also allows for an optional boost gauge or whatever accessory you want to connect. Whatever you do, do not buy the C-Pe MAP Tap, its garbage (said by Ryan @PD after I told him I bought one).

2. Charge piping + BOV + E30 (Sadly I don't have access to ethanol)
-Same as above but if you have access to ethanol and want some more optional power E30 tuning is included in both Tune + and PDtunings lifetime packages. You just have to go through the extra work of always being mindful of you current mix of 93/ethanol in your tank and the actual percentage of ethanol at the pump in order to calculate the numbers correctly and always have around the right mix.

3. The full send option, aka the bolt on turbo kit
-If you're a power nut and happen to have around $3,000+ you could spend at any minute of the day on a new block without feeling financially unintelligent this option is for you. Less dumb smaller options include the Vargas stage 1 and stage 2 turbos ($1000-$1600), but most people go with a VTT stage 2+ ($1800), CP-e + Borg Warner EFR twin-scroll kit ($3,500-$5,000), or a MAPerformance + Precision single-scroll kit ($4,000). The kits will usually have everything necessary including hot and cold side charge pipes, necessary manifolds, lines, a custom downpipe, wastegate, and a BOV (You can save yourself some money by not buying the wastegate, downpipe, charge pipes, and BOV separately if you know you're going to be buying a big turbo kit down the road). You're probably going to want to upgrade the clamps that connect the charge piping to constant tension clamps ($70) if you feel the clamps included/clamps you already have are questionable. Even if you still have the stock turbo the charge pipe connections may blow off under high boost (as in my case) and you may want to upgrade to constant tension clamps. Only god knows how long the OEM block will make it with a big turbo, so good luck if you go this route. If the condition of your block may already be questionable and you think you would not be able to receive any sort of money for it or the internals than I guess this route would actually make some sense.

4. Built motor (2 common options)

Option 1: Sending in your 2.3L to be built
-Lots of good options from different shops, I personally like what speed perf6rmanc3 has to offer with their 500hp stage 1 ($3,784) and 700hp stage 2 ($5,140) packages for the 2.3 block. Although most shops offer around a 12-15k mile warranty, keep in mind that the 2.3L block is an open-deck design and there is not much structural rigidity surrounding the cylinders, especially on the backside of the block.

Option 2: Built 2.0L block w/ 2.3 internals (Newly Developing)
-Much better option, many companies/people like Adam, Speed Performance, and Josh Parker are working on different ways to build a 2.0L/2.3L "hybrid" closed deck block that incorporates a 2.3L head and assembly. The closed deck design of the 2.0L ecoboost block provides lots of rigidity and has continually held higher and higher horsepower numbers since customers began building their FoST's. If you want to make confident, reliable power this is definitely the option. I'f you somehow haven't blown your 2.3L by now some shops may give you a core charge for the block, but probably will only give you a core charge for the head, since that's really the only part they can reuse ($450 for a 2.3L head from tune +). Current price for a stage 1 500whp-rated built 2.0L from SP63 is $4,500 (new OEM block included). It will be interesting to see if this price will remain around the same amount for the 2.0/2.3 "hybrid" configurations that SP63 is now testing. 2.0/2.3 hybrids already ready for purchase can be found on Adam's website (for a premium) and range from the Type A- 500hp rated OEM-replacement block ($6,600) to the Type C- 800hp rated, 8,000 rpm redline, $11,000 monster. It will be interesting to see what built 2.0/2.3 hybrids become available as initial testing for many companies finishes up in the next couple of months. I personally think the open deck 2.3L will be left behind and the real only option will be to switch to the closed deck hybrid.

Additional Costs with Built Motor

Obviously depending on how much HP you're seeking you're going to run into some fueling problems and might have to purchase bigger injectors (DW 1700cc injectors are $635 for a set of 4), lines, and a High-Pressure Fuel Pump (The livernois one in the record setting ecoboost is $1600.) along with some dyno tuning to get the set up right. You're probably also going to be purchasing a big turbo kit down the road and will also need to upgrade to a 5-bar MAP sensor ($160) if your boost peaks over 29 psi. If you are not confident in your mechanical skills you may also have to pay mechanics for bigger installations, which can get very expensive. If you have somehow found the budget to make it as far as a built block w/ big turbo and upgraded fuel delivery you probably have also done a decent amount of spending in the cars suspension, driveshaft, clutch, differential, brakes, wheels+tires, and possibly transmission.

The Verdit (My Opinion)

If you do the installs yourself and are patient enough to get everything off of forums or facebook groups you can achieve pro tuned, full bolt-on with or without e30 for about $2,400-$2,600. Although it varies drastically from car to car, you can most likely expect somewhere around 360-400 whp and 400+ wtq on e30. This is also kind of considered the max level of somewhat safe power output for the stock block. Theoretically for around another $6,000 you can have a brand new closed deck 2.0 block w/ a VTT stage 2 twin scroll turbo that can easily daily as a reliable, 500 hp beast. The best part is the block itself is easily rated up to around 700hp (and can be custom sleeved to support even more), so down the road if 500hp is not enough for some reason you can upgrade your current internals or swap out the VTT for a bigger turbo.

Comparing Stock Costs

2015 Ecoboost Mustang (50k miles)- $17,268 KBB value.
2015 Mustang GT (50k miles) - $24,062 KBB value.
Average of $6,794 gap


Builds I Mentioned Compared

1. FBO Eco Build - roughly $20,000 (+/- 1.5k) - 360-400 whp /400+ wtq "max OEM block performance"
2. FBO + VTT stage 2 - roughly $21,500 (+/- 1.5k) - 420 whp /430 wtq "full send build"
3. FBO + 2.0L + VTT stage 2 - roughly $27,500 (+/- 2k) - 500 hp/500 wtq "Daily driving beast"

Stock 2015 GT - roughly $24,062 - 380 whp/350 wtq (measured by MAPerformance)
Stock 2015 Eco - roughly $17,268 - 275 whp/290 wtq (measured by Stage 3 Motorsports)

Sponsored

 

[prostovovatt]

Being on my second EB (18 PP) having a 17PP for a year and not getting a chance to mod it, I wanted to extend my sincerest thanks for this article.

One problem you haven't mentioned here - for 2018 EB Cars, many tuning options (like the Cobb AP, which is my preferred vendor for this) are simply not available yet.

 

[DeVito757]

Being on my second EB (18 PP) having a 17PP for a year and not getting a chance to mod it, I wanted to extend my sincerest thanks for this article.

One problem you haven't mentioned here - for 2018 EB Cars, many tuning options (like the Cobb AP, which is my preferred vendor for this) are simply not available yet.

I did some research on the 2018s and unfortunately you're probably just going to have to play the waiting game and give Cobb time to develop the AP software for the 2018 model. IMHO its not really worth going with another platform unless you have a trusted local tuner that dyno tunes with a different platform such as SCT and knows what they're doing. In the meantime you could always do the no-tune required mods (spark plugs, drop-in filter) or start picking up parts off of the marketplace for when the AP is eventually released. If you're worried about voiding the warranty the drop-in filter does not void the warranty and neither will the Ford Performance tune if FP releases it for the 2018.

 

[TorqueMan]

Since you moved this to a new thread I'll repost my comments here as well.

-Carbon build-up + mods + bad plug gaping = ecoboom. Carbon build-up is pretty bad on this engine. (Interesting how ford changed to a dual (port & direct) fuel injection system in 2018 GT)

Can you share any evidence you have for this claim? I'm not aware of anyone reporting issues with intake deposits with the 2.3L EcoBoost. Ford has developed strategies (mainly tweaking fuel injection timing) to mitigate this issue which based on the lack of reported problems seems to be working.

While it's true that combining port injection with direct injection can help prevent carbon deposits on intake valves I don't believe that's the primary reason Ford went with this strategy for the 2018 5.0L. There has been a lot of speculation online about this change, with many pointing the finger at carbon deposits on the valves. As with the 2.3L EcoBoost, however, I don't believe the 5.0L suffers from excessive carbon deposits.

There are other benefits to combining port and direct injection besides keeping the valves clean (although I concede that would certainly be a side benefit), namely that by mixing fuel with the intake air in the port you cool the fuel/air mixture BEFORE it enters the cylinder which increases charge density, and allows more time for fuel vaporization. This improves low-end torque (a weak point for the 2015 - 2017 5.0L engine) horsepower and fuel economy. Combining PI with DI is a big part of the reason the 2018 engine produces 25 more hp and 20 lb/ft more torque than the 2017. In addition, if you look at the torque curves for both engines you'll see that although both produce peak torque near 4.5K rpm, the 2018 engine achieves 300+ lb/ft of torque around 2000 rpm, where the 2017 engine requires 3k rpm.

 

[lizardrko]

Since you moved this to a new thread I'll repost my comments here as well.



Can you share any evidence you have for this claim? I'm not aware of anyone reporting issues with intake deposits with the 2.3L EcoBoost. Ford has developed strategies (mainly tweaking fuel injection timing) to mitigate this issue which based on the lack of reported problems seems to be working.

The catch can debate will never end. There will never be any proof that whatever the can is catching is bad for the engine, let alone bad enough to affect relability during the span most of us have the car. Its one thing if its a matter of the car lasting 100k vs only 60k miles. Its another if its a matter of the car lasting 300k vs 250k, we simply will not have the car long enough to see the effects. Its also another thing is you are constantly tracking it vs daily driving. We can speculate all we want.



But to the OP, thanks for the article, it will really help those looking to mod. Another point to add to the FMIC section. Levels and the other "racing" size intercoolers require the removal of the grill shutters. The stage 1 FMICs (MAP, CPE, Mishimoto) do not require the removal of them, some of us like to retain the stock look, especially for warranty work. For the street, stage 1s do just as well as the bigger ones, the main benefit is in a racing scene.

 

[wildcatgoal]

That's funny... UPR and quality. The UPR catch can for my Durango was poorly designed and actually couldn't be mounted because their garbage mounting system stripped. And then I had to fight them to get my money back after providing them a simple solution that would resolve the issue entirely, forever. They told me they didn't even make them!

 

[cvf-jason]

2. ETS/Levels FMIC - ($550, $450)
-Bad heat soaking on OEM at stoplights, charge pipe temps range 100-150, hot air makes the car pull very very weak. The normal size of the Levels and ETS intercoolers will support up to 700 hp, with the Levels Race IC ($659) supporting up to 1,000 hp. It seems as though a lot of new modders to the ecoboost platform tend to go with options such as the Mishimoto IC ($520, $300) or the Cp-e IC ($560, $300), both of which have smaller, similar (if not the exact same) core dimensions (21.06" x 5.75" x 5.28" for the Mishi) that don't really compare to the size of the Levels and ETS IC's ( 20" x 14" x 3.5"). To explain it more simply, the core size of the Mishimoto and Cp-e intercoolers are about 639 cubic inches compared to the ETS and Full Race's 980 cubic inch core size (53% larger).

While I generally agree that going for the Mishi and CP-E smaller stock-sized replacements are not nearly as good as going with the larger IC's, keep in mind that yes, larger core is better, but CP-E does actually offer a larger option that compares to the size of ETS and Levels:

https://cp-e.com/shop/product/ford-mustang-ecoboost-race-v2-fmic-δcore-front-mount-intercooler/

It is much more expensive, but the end-tanks are fully cast, which is an advantage over the Levels and ETS variations (whether that's worth the price difference is up to you).

Also, the 700hp and 1000hp support claimed are largely up for dispute - any of these large FMIC's can get very high HP and the vehicles attaining these levels have many other mods - it's not very fair to compare their max hp gains based on what is said on product descriptions.

 

[DeVito757]

Since you moved this to a new thread I'll repost my comments here as well.



Can you share any evidence you have for this claim? I'm not aware of anyone reporting issues with intake deposits with the 2.3L EcoBoost. Ford has developed strategies (mainly tweaking fuel injection timing) to mitigate this issue which based on the lack of reported problems seems to be working.

I'm not by any means a mechanical expert but from what I have researched it seems as if problems are caused by caked up valves through a combination of general carbon build-up, the exhaust scavenging method used by Ford, and the oil-carryover problem (although deposits are most likely caused by mainly the oil-carryover problem.)

General carbon build-up in GDI and GTDI engines occurs because cool fuel and detergents are not being sprayed onto the backs of the valves.

Ford's exhaust scavenging technique is used to try and clear unwanted, non-ignitable gases in the cylinder. With this exhaust scavenging strategy Ford opens both the intake and exhaust valves during the exhaust stroke when the car is under boost. Their thought by this is that the pressure of the incoming charged air through the intake value will force out all the non-ignitable exhaust gasses faster and leave a perfectly clean cylinder for the incoming charged air. Although this does work well, some of the exhaust gases will still be present and be blown into the intake, collecting on the back side of the intake valve.

General carbon build up is obviously normal for GDI and GTDI engines but intake services are necessary to remove the carbon build-up over time as the car gains mileage. The issue arises with carbon build up in the ecoboost specifically because attempting to remove the build up with an induction cleaner will actually cause significant damage to the turbo. According to Ford, the cleaner will either knock off pieces of carbon build up and cause severe damage to the fins on the turbocharger or not get fully combusted in the cylinder and cause high temperate exhaust gases to overheat the turbo or catalytic converter. Ford's only solution to excessive carbon build up in ecoboost engines is literally to replace the entire cylinder head.

The oil-carryover problem results when increased cylinder pressure caused by the turbo's compressed air causes blow-by into the crank case. This dramatically increases pressures in the crank case and the blow by along with oil vapors get routed through the PCV back into the intake, causing additional build up of gas deposits and water vapors from the crankcase along the backside of the intake valves.

The lead speculation on this issue is that the PCV hose connects to the intake right below cylinders 2 and 3 (Most ecoboom victims report the failure on cylinder 3).

Although the problem seems to mainly arise from the deposition of crank case vapors onto the intake valves for cylinders 2 and 3 from the PCV, I assume its generally a good idea to limit as much general build up on the intake valves as possible.:shrug:

Again, just my thoughts here really just based on speculation, I am in no way, shape, or form an expert in this matter.

As for the main reason Ford combined port and direct injection on the new 5.0L I have no idea because I do not work for Ford, but if you look at it from a future cost/project engineering standpoint it definitely makes more sense that they chose this design to reduce carbon build up instead of making an insignificant 25 more horsepower and 20 more torque. Ford sold over 125,000 mustangs last year and the number is still increasing mainly because Ford now has delivered mustangs to over 80 countries. The one thought brought up in my head is that Ford included the dual injection system as a method of fail-safe engineering for owners in areas of the world where high quality gas, fully synthetic oil, or regular maintenance like spark plug changes may not be readily available. By utilizing the dual injection system they were able to basically eliminate carbon build-up and were even able to further engineer the system to include a small HP and TQ gain. Whichever came first, those are definitely some pretty smart engineers over at Ford.:ford:

 

[lizardrko]

Can you post the article from ford about this? You mentioned, "according to ford" a few times, so there must be some document regarding the carbon buildup issue. Does it mention how fast it accummulates and/or how much is allowed to build up before issues arise and/or will a catch can help the issue? Id like to know what Ford itself thinks about this issue, maybe it will help close the information gap

 

[DeVito757]

But to the OP, thanks for the article, it will really help those looking to mod. Another point to add to the FMIC section. Levels and the other "racing" size intercoolers require the removal of the grill shutters. The stage 1 FMICs (MAP, CPE, Mishimoto) do not require the removal of them, some of us like to retain the stock look, especially for warranty work. For the street, stage 1s do just as well as the bigger ones, the main benefit is in a racing scene.

Updated the intercooler section

 

[DeVito757]

Can you post the article from ford about this? You mentioned, "according to ford" a few times, so there must be some document regarding the carbon buildup issue. Does it mention how fast it accummulates and/or how much is allowed to build up before issues arise and/or will a catch can help the issue? Id like to know what Ford itself thinks about this issue, maybe it will help close the information gap

Read about it a few years ago initially but a quick google search brought me to this http://www.ecoboostmustang.org/forum/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-news/4218-ecoboost-mustang-2-3l-carbon-buildup.html

If you watch the videos the ford employee basically goes over everything I was saying and talks about his interactions with the ford engineering/testing team.

 

[lizardrko]

Read about it a few years ago initially but a quick google search brought me to this http://www.ecoboostmustang.org/foru...218-ecoboost-mustang-2-3l-carbon-buildup.html

If you watch the videos the ford employee basically goes over everything I was saying and talks about his interactions with the ford engineering/testing team.

Very interesting, I wonder if this has been addressed in the later years

 

[TorqueMan]

I'm not by any means a mechanical expert but from what I have researched it seems as if problems are caused by caked up valves through a combination of general carbon build-up, the exhaust scavenging method used by Ford, and the oil-carryover problem (although deposits are most likely caused by mainly the oil-carryover problem.)

General carbon build-up in GDI and GTDI engines occurs because cool fuel and detergents are not being sprayed onto the backs of the valves.

Ford's exhaust scavenging technique is used to try and clear unwanted, non-ignitable gases in the cylinder. With this exhaust scavenging strategy Ford opens both the intake and exhaust valves during the exhaust stroke when the car is under boost. Their thought by this is that the pressure of the incoming charged air through the intake value will force out all the non-ignitable exhaust gasses faster and leave a perfectly clean cylinder for the incoming charged air. Although this does work well, some of the exhaust gases will still be present and be blown into the intake, collecting on the back side of the intake valve.

General carbon build up is obviously normal for GDI and GTDI engines but intake services are necessary to remove the carbon build-up over time as the car gains mileage. The issue arises with carbon build up in the ecoboost specifically because attempting to remove the build up with an induction cleaner will actually cause significant damage to the turbo. According to Ford, the cleaner will either knock off pieces of carbon build up and cause severe damage to the fins on the turbocharger or not get fully combusted in the cylinder and cause high temperate exhaust gases to overheat the turbo or catalytic converter. Ford's only solution to excessive carbon build up in ecoboost engines is literally to replace the entire cylinder head.

The oil-carryover problem results when increased cylinder pressure caused by the turbo's compressed air causes blow-by into the crank case. This dramatically increases pressures in the crank case and the blow by along with oil vapors get routed through the PCV back into the intake, causing additional build up of gas deposits and water vapors from the crankcase along the backside of the intake valves.

This is an excellent review of the primary cause of carbon deposits plaguing GDI engines, but it doesn't address my primary question: Is there any evidence that Ford's 2.3L EcoBoost engine suffers from this phenomenon?

The lead speculation on this issue is that the PCV hose connects to the intake right below cylinders 2 and 3 (Most ecoboom victims report the failure on cylinder 3).

Although the problem seems to mainly arise from the deposition of crank case vapors onto the intake valves for cylinders 2 and 3 from the PCV, I assume its generally a good idea to limit as much general build up on the intake valves as possible.:shrug:

Lead speculation by whom? Carbon buildup is not a problem with all direct injection engines. Indeed, if you read the link the technican you reference in a later post (Brian Laskowski) admits that Ford in particular does not have a widespread intake fouling problem. Further, this is not a new issue. This 2011 article on Edmunds.com contains the following:

At the Detroit Auto Show in January, Ford was confident enough about its popular 3.5 liter EcoBoost direct-injection V6 to have technicians tear down an example engine that had accumulated the equivalent of 160,000 miles through an intentionally abusive regimen of log dragging, high-speed towing and desert racing. When they opened it up before a live audience, they found some light carbon deposits on the valves and pistons, but not enough to affect performance. In fact, the engine showed a loss of just one horsepower afterwards...​

As for the main reason Ford combined port and direct injection on the new 5.0L I have no idea because I do not work for Ford, but if you look at it from a future cost/project engineering standpoint it definitely makes more sense that they chose this design to reduce carbon build up instead of making an insignificant 25 more horsepower and 20 more torque.

First, this presupposes there was a problem with carbon build up. Based on the articles I linked to above, I think Ford adequately addressed the issue via other means several years ago. Second, it's not just 20 lb/ft more torque, it's that the torque comes on a thousand RPM lower. The 2017 Camaro SS boasted a sub-four second 0 - 60 time, with the GT's best time around 4.3. How much crap do you think Ford's marketing division has been giving the Mustang's engineering team about that? The higher power, and especially the higher torque at low RPM, gives the 2018 Mustang GT enough low-end oomph to get under four seconds.

EDIT: Fixed the second link.

 

[Marvinmadman]

At the Detroit Auto Show in January, Ford was confident enough about its popular 3.5 liter EcoBoost direct-injection V6 to have technicians tear down an example engine that had accumulated the equivalent of 160,000 miles through an intentionally abusive regimen of log dragging, high-speed towing and desert racing. When they opened it up before a live audience, they found some light carbon deposits on the valves and pistons, but not enough to affect performance. In fact, the engine showed a loss of just one horsepower afterwards...​

And yet, my personal 3.5 ecoboost had a ton of charcoal on the valves at 80k miles. Surely they fixed it if that public teardown was squeaky clean. :headbonk:

 

[H@mmer]

.....The higher power, and especially the higher torque at low RPM, gives the 2018 Mustang GT enough low-end oomph to get under four seconds.

Please. The tires and 10-speed are what's responsible for the drop in acceleration times. The change in power and the shifting of the power-band had a negligible effect on this.

Sponsored