Add port injection to 2.3 ecoboost

[HiHoSilver]

Is Ford even thinking about adding port injection to the 2.3 ecoboost. Port and direct injection would appear to be a logical next step.

Sponsored

 

[mejohn50]

Doubtful. Why would it need it? It likely wouldn’t need PI from a power production standpoint (most dual fuel systems use only DI at high RPM/load). Just seems like it would be a step backwards.

 

[MikeHTally]

Doubtful. Why would it need it? It likely wouldn’t need PI from a power production standpoint (most dual fuel systems use only DI at high RPM/load). Just seems like it would be a step backwards.

It would be major re-engineering task. Cleaning the backs of the intake valves certainly has value, though.

 

[NoVaGT]

Port and direct injection would appear to be a logical next step.

Why?

 

[engineermike]

Both the 2.7 and 3.5 eb in the f-150 started with only gdi then later added pi. Pi helps with valve cleanliness, particulate emissions, and low engine speed fuel capacity.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Both the 2.7 and 3.5 eb in the f-150 started with only gdi then later added pi. Pi helps with valve cleanliness, particulate emissions, and low engine speed fuel capacity.

Thankyou Engineermike for explaining the need for PI on 2.3 ecoboost. Also Ford says nay to using spray cleaning intake passages and coked up intake valves because the spray can damage turbos and cats. Ford solved the problem on the 2.7 and 3.5 Eco. and the 5.0 n/a --- why not the 2.3 ?

 

[engineermike]

Ford had a pretty good coking-preventing injector and valve timing strategy patented and the early gdi-only eb’s seemed to have less of an issue with it than their foreign counterparts. This leads me to believe that the pfi was added mainly to address particulate emissions. I wonder if there is some other reason the 2.3 doesn’t have the need to reduce particulates? The regulations are sometimes non-intuitive, so perhaps there is some regulatory “out” that the 2.3 can take advantage of. Just guessing.

Sponsored