Either a mandatory cleaning of the engine will be req'd and or a possible FSA, is in the future.

 

What's your take on these videos?

My take is that I watched them and it is duly noted. I think this is a across-the-board potential issue with all DI engines.

A special thanks to makuloco. His video's are great. I only wish he lived close enough to me because I would pay dearly for him to do the work on my vehicles. He seems to really care about what he does.

 

You are right all manufactures of DI engines have had this problem. Methanol/water injection has been proven to help.
As far as the mechanic on the video goes, he has a vested interest as this is his personal vehicle he's working on.
Mark

 

There's been a lot of speculation why Ford is suddenly replacing the Ecoboost motor with basically a second generation Ecoboost motor. Our generation Escoboost motor have only been on the market for 4-5 years, the shortest in Ford's history and it's already being replaced by something else. There a growing crowd in the Ecoboost community that believe the issues shown in the Youtube video are some of the primary reasons why this switch is suddenly happening. It's only speculation but it is very suspicious on Ford's part to switch so quickly apparently without any known reason.

 

While I agree that it seems a bit odd that Ford is moving away from the current generation of ecoboost engines, you must remember the base engine was developed by a Ford / Mazda calibration back in 2001. Mazda called it LF and Ford called it Duratec (their world engine). They both developed DI and VCT on the same platform together. Mazda has already moved away from this engine in 2011 to a newer design, so its not surprising Ford is doing the same.
Mark

 

So, if I understand the root concept, the lack of fuel in the intake charge (due to direct injection of fuel to the cylinder) means the back of the intake valves/exposed stems don't get the benefit of the fuel solvent/cleaning properties?

And the author of the clip suggests this is aggravated in certain cylinders by the returned PCV oil vapor being 'concentrated' on those cylinders?

Makes intuitive sense. As a new Ecoboost 2.0 owner that intends to keep it a long time I can only hope that the mitigation will be covered under my Ford ESP.

I'm a Ford fan, keep buying them, but must admit disappointment in Ford's response to a carbon-buildup problem specific to the 2005 5.4l V8 spark plug wells inside the head. The result is a risk of plug breakage when they're replaced (recommended 100k service). While a TSB has been issued and a special tool developed to remove the broken plug base without head removal, the extra labor time associated with that procedure is not covered by Ford under any warranty program if any plugs break during maintenance; and the basic sparkplug R&R maintenance cost is higher for this engine due to extra time required to R&R plugs using the procedure hoped to minimize breakage :-(

The 5.4l head design was tweaked after that year to eliminate the problem.

 

I actually hope they come to resolution, warranty or not, if this is the case and it gets worse, its possible that the engine, may not make it to 100,000mi without TLC

 

If the phenomenon is as described in my simplistic understanding stated above, I doubt that there is a resolution within this motor that eliminates the problem, only procedures to remediate (clean the valves) as suggested by the author of the clips. There are always methods to clean valves, just a matter of finding the easiest / most cost effective that doesn't damage other components like turbos.

Even if a way is devised to retrofit something to distribute the PCV vapor evenly among the cylinders, that doesn't eliminate the problem, just evens-it-out among the valves and thereby maybe buys a bit more time until the buildup affects operation.

Given the benefits of DI fuel control on efficiency I doubt that will be abandoned. In 'traditional' (non-DI) motors the primary source of valve carbon is the fuel itself (thus the development of fuel additives intended to minimize that build-up). Having removed that source, the PCV vapor is the only remaining hydrocarbon contamination source hitting the back of the intake valve.

As an engineering problem three solution routes come to mind immediately:
1. Investigate ways to cool the valve or intake charge to minimize conversion of vapor-state hydrocarbon to solid-state carbon deposition (this the concept behind water/methanol in the intake charge as mentioned above).
2. Investigate valve materials/coatings that minimize adhesion of carbon build-up from contaminant sources.
3. Eliminate completely all hydrocarbon contaminant sources in the intake charge.

Number three would be a more 'elegant' solution, IMHO, leading to ideas like 'closed-loop' crankcases (capture/condensation of vapors and return to the sump?) or injecting crankcase vapors into the cylinders for combustion downstream of the valves. The former would have the added benefit of reducing emissions since it eliminates combustion of crankcase vapors. Neither of these solutions lend to retrofitting I suspect .... wanna bet something along these lines is what we see on future iterations of DI engines?

 

More INFO (with pictures) about carbon build-up on the backside of the valves here: http://www.fordescape.org/forum/eng...orum/engine-technical-discussion/21242-what-about-water-methanol-injection.html
Mark

 

catch can

Is there any evidence that certain oil types promote this buildup?
I'm thinking that for my 2.0, I will build/devise a well filtered catch can to minimize the vapors being fed to the engine. I might clean or replace it periodically. Also it might help to place it in a cooler area near the headlights to help condense the vapors back to liquid. The can would not be vented to atmosphere, but would be like an inline filter of the pcv system.

 

Is there any evidence that certain oil types promote this buildup?

IMHO this would be a matter of small degrees; all oil vapor will be a source of hydrocarbon contamination and all modern oils have additives designed to prevent carbon-buildup; the root 'problem' is the lack of 'fuel washing on the valves' due to DI.

I'm thinking that for my 2.0, I will build/devise a well filtered catch can to minimize the vapors being fed to the engine. I might clean or replace it periodically. Also it might help to place it in a cooler area near the headlights to help condense the vapors back to liquid. The can would not be vented to atmosphere, but would be like an inline filter of the pcv system.

That's the challenge and good luck. Given the surprisingly large volume of vapor-rich air 'pumped' by the crankcase and the resident times or temperature differentials needed to condense and separate a hydrocarbon vapor, I'm skeptical that you'll find space and thermodynamics on your side in devising an effective home-built retrofitted solution.

Returning the condensate to the sump is the easy part; getting condensation efficiency/vapor removal efficiency high enough to meaningfully reduce the contamination in the air returned to the intake is the challenge.

Simple basic filtering may give the easiest and most direct benefit, but the maintenance of those filters to maintain efficiency would likely be an unacceptable burden to most owners.

But sincerely, good luck!

 

One thing aggravates the problem is the high cylinder pressure created by the turbo. This would make more blow-by than a normally aspirated DI engine would have.
Mark

 

OK, so that tends to increase the level of contamination in the crankcase. A piston-ring / cylinder sealing efficiency problem (the bain of the wankle/rotary engine). Again, I suspect (total WAG) that in the overall scheme this is a small part of the valve carbon loading issue associated with DI.

Wanna give-up the overall benefits of turbo / engine displacement reduction per HP or work on the ring problem to optimize cylinder sealing vs piston friction?

>

Don't you envy automotive engineers that have the luck to get paid to work on these problems! I had a ball in my career solving very different types of engineering problems and can't imagine how cool it would have been if it had happened to be related to cars!

 

A well maintained engine with little wear will also have less blowby.
Had I known about the "built in carbon buildup design issue" I would not have purchased a di engine. I know that most folks would not sign up for additional maintenance activity such as cleaning a pcv filter canister, but I am not happy about a head replacement at 20k miles either (which with labor is likely to cost a couple grand).
I purchased this car with the idea that the engine would likely last 200k without major work. Now appears that that number is 20k.
This is where I'm at. I'm between a rock and a hard place; trading for a different car is also expensive. To minimize the cost, I may have to clean an add on pcv filter.
I also have a 2004 f150 5.4l v8 that had the head/sparkplug break issue. I dodged that
disaster by changing the plugs at 30k miles per the service procedure. I was lucky and didn't have any broken plugs. I'm respecting Honda and Toyota more and more every day.

 

A well maintained engine with little wear will also have less blowby.

But as pointed out by Mark, all other things being equal higher cylinder pressure = more blowby.

..... but I am not happy about a head replacement at 20k miles either (which with labor is likely to cost a couple grand).....

There's lots of options short of total head replacement to remediate carbon on valves. I can't help but think that Ford response reported in the clip (in the context of warranty work) was an interim, rather knee-jerk, response, perhaps intended in part to get Ford more examples of the loaded valves for problem assessment.

..... I purchased this car with the idea that the engine would likely last 200k without major work. Now appears that that number is 20k.
This is where I'm at. I'm between a rock and a hard place; trading for a different car is also expensive. To minimize the cost, I may have to clean an add on pcv filter.....

Then maybe that is your best solution. Personally, I'm a long way from the panic button on this (and my typical car life is well into 100k). One thing I'll note is that there are at least several members on this forum that already have over 20k on their E's and there hasn't been a rash of posts about rough-running when cold or dealers telling them they need head/valve replacements. We'll surely read it on this forum as soon as that happens!

..... I'm respecting Honda and Toyota more and more every day.

Certainly your prerogative; let us know when you find the 'perfect' manufacturer. You did note the mention above that this phenomenon is hitting many DI manufacturers, not just Ford? Widely available data shows that all manufacturers have their problems and that it is impossible to predict what may pop-up in any specific cutting edge design.

Respectfully, IMHO, the degree of assurance you seem to seek is found only in buying a vehicle that is a ten-year old design with the track record to prove it's dependability. In some circles those are known as "old school" designs ;-)


(Please understand, I'm not picking on you and I understand your frustration; just suggesting that given where you are in E ownership as you described you let this issue mature a bit before you draw any hard conclusions) EDIT thanks @oldschool for the rapid 'like', I'm relieved you apparently took my comments in the intended good spirit)

 

Centex....
I didn't choose "old school" for no reason. It was with some hesitation that one of my trade-ins for the escape was a 2002 Grand Marquis. No problems and the original battery lasted 10 years.
I cant deny that the handling and response of the 2.0 escape is exciting and can't be had with oldschool technology.

 

I'm not a mechanic in any stretch of the imagination, but it sounds from the videos and comments that using premium fuel, synthetic oil changes and reving the engine up to 5000 RPM on a good long stretch of highway can help push out timing. Maybe instead of 20K, it shows up at 40K?

 

Maybe. I've got 41,000 miles with no problems. Only premium fuel has ever crossed her lips. Switched to synthetic at 20,000.

 

Twin Scroll Turbo System Design - Modified Magazine


Do you think the new twin scroll 2.0 EcoBoost engine may help to alleviate some of the carbon build up? Have a read of the article that I posted in the link.

 

I saw these a while back when the guy first put them up. There was a big discussion on another forum I frequent regarding the known issue of carbon buildup on the valves for DI motors. Many manufacturers have had or are still having similar issues with the design flaw. Having to R&R a heads on a DI motor for this is ridiculous. Some have done the walnut shell blasting with ok results.

Hopefully I won't have to endure any of this as my usual game plan is to trade out of the vehicle in a year or two. I haven't hit anything north of 33,000 miles on any of my trades. Last one only had 12,000 on it. I would hope that Ford would decide to release some info for what they plan to do with these vehicles when they have to have this issue addressed.

Are they going to R&R the head for you under warranty? Perform some type of induction or valve cleaning service at no charge? All good questions for Ford Customer Service.

 

Hello Cthrewu,

Since I am not a certified technician, I recommend setting an appointment and having your Escape diagnosed at your nearest Ford Dealer.

Your service manager will be in the best position to look into any warranty, assistance, recalls, or customer satisfaction programs that may apply to your vehicle.

You can find the nearest dealer and set up an appointment here.

Have a great day!

Tricia

 

I called it guys. Months ago.

 

Yes sir you did, and you are the person we need to talk to.
If you don't mind, what kind of driving do you do? (In town, open hwy, wide open throttle, pulling hills or a trailer) Have you had any turbo issues after cleaning your intake valves with the chemical you used? How many miles sense it was cleaned? Any reoccurring issues sense you cleaned your valves?
Any advice or anything you could add, sense your the only one known on this board so far that has done the cleaning.
Thank you
Mark

 

My take on the video was damage to the hot side of turbo via chunks of carbon going through it also.
On another note I found a article about the newer DI engine changes by Ford, GM, and others to help prevent this.
Its a good read. Direct Injection Fouls Some Early Adopters - AutoObserver
Mark

 

....
Its a good read. Direct Injection Fouls Some Early Adopters - AutoObserver
Mark

+1, thanks for the link.

Among other interesting things the article highlighted that in my earlier ramble I completely forgot about EGR which is another source of intake hydrocarbons on top of PCV :redface: .

With the suggestion that there might be benefits relating to this issue in tweaked combustion event timing (fuel injection, valve and ignition), I can't help but wonder if those benefits could be 'retrofitted' to some extent via ECM re-programming. Obviously the valve timing changes allowed by the Escape's Ti-VCT variable valve timing system are limited and the cam profile is fixed, but one can hope .... ;-)

 

Engines have come full circle

Back in 60s it was almost a given at 100,000 miles time for a new engine. Seems we've gone back to that time.

 

My understanding is that the valve when closed is sealing. The problem is the carbon buildup impedes the flow and or direction of flow and affects air fuel ratio for combustion.
That causes some miss-fires and less efficiency. I believe the buildup of concern is on the stem.

 

Its the build up on the valve stem that's the problem, not the seat or the face. Normally incoming fuel would prevent this build up, but on a DI their is no fuel so here we are,
Mark

 

I may not have stated it correctly; I think it is actually on the stem side of the valve including the area where the stem attaches to the valve. The piston has an unusual shape that helps the progression of fuel ignition across the combustion chamber. I read somewhere that there are two pulses of fuel flow for each combustion cycle. Even the direction of air flow into the cylinder might be an issue.
If the valve was not sealing, it would burn and fail.
These are just my opinions.

 

What the guy in the videos says make a lot of sense, and I can see it on the tail pipes. I would assume ford had tested this ecoboost engines for several thousands of miles before start using them; I remember seeing a video here about the extreme test Ford does to the Escapes.
Mine has 24.000 miles and mainly problem free, no rough idle or anything.
It would be good to hear from the people that have higher mileage, I doubt anyone is at 100K miles...

 

I'm 1 1/2 months away from 2 years of ownership and I'm @ 41,000 miles. No issues related to this thread so far. I do have a periodic rough idle, some stumble/hesitation issues. I thought it might be related to the PCM calibration, but now that this new recall is out(got the notice in my Ford owner account)I am wondering if this harness/splice recall has been my problem all along.

 

I just wonder if the ESP warranty will cover this issue or will they fight it as a possible regular maintenance issue?

 

Nothing about intake or valve cleaning on my printed Escape Maintenance Schedule, 'Severe Duty' or otherwise.

'Course that still doesn't mean dealers will be leaping to do the required remediation as engine operations degrade. Even with a TSB or FSM (IF either is ever issued) ..... ? And it'd likely take the dread (by manufacturers) determination '.... may cause vehicle to hesitate or stall ...' for this to fall under a Recall.

^^That sounds a lot more pessimistic than I actually am about Ford's likely follow-through in case of actual rough-running under warranty / ESP ;-)

 

well we are at 34k with ours. and I have noticed no real drivability issues to date. of course with that statement I need to drive to New Orleans or fly out to Port Au Prince and get some some good juju charms and a chicken foot for the ritual.

 

Wow.....Very interesting read. I know with my Grand Marquis, There was a Intake Recall Lawsuit/Settlement as the plastic coolant crossover on the 4.6 V8 would crack and spray coolant everywhere.

I wonder if Ford will do something about these engines if it proves to be a problem.....If not......

1. Buy Ford premium Care ESP for 6/7yrs and 100K or 125K with low deductible.
2. SEAFOAM!!!!!!!!! AND BG!!!!!!
3. Use Warranty for new turbo



LOL!!!!!!!