Direct Injection issues still a problem?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: SrDriver
Doesn't Toyota and Lexus have both a direct injection and part time fuel injection system to help reduce deposits on the intake valves.

Has Honda started using direct injection engines yet?


Nope, Yup, Nope..


For 2013 Honda is going direct injection on both V6 and the 4 banger Accords.
 
obviously there are HUGE variations in the application of DI.

And these issues will be unlikely to reveal themselves early, so get back to me when you've got 100k city miles on that DI motor.

Seen a lot of imports with issues, still watching carefully the 2 Eboosters in the family. Neither have enough miles yet.

I'd wait a bit if it was my choice.
 
Honda is going DI on the new generations? Dang.....I'm about ready to get another one next year, but will probably wait until 14 or 15 comes out so they can work out the bugs.....anybody remember the 03 Accord AT issues....lack of oiling on the second gear and had to put an after-production lube sprayer on? Yeah, I bet everybody will go DI within the next 5 years. Look at the progression from carbs, multiport, fuel injection to DI. It's coming.
 
Yes along with CVT's for all.

The specifications for the new Honda engines are:

-- A 3.5-liter V6 with 310 hp and 265 lb-ft of torque. This is 30 more horsepower and 11 more lb-ft than the outgoing 3.5-liter engine in the Acura TL.

-- A 2.4-liter inline-four with 181 hp and 177 lb-ft of torque. This will be the base engine in the redesigned Accord coming next fall and could find its way into the midcycle change for the CR-V in 2013.

-- A 1.8-liter inline-four with 148 hp and 133 lb-ft of torque, which could be installed in the 2013 midcycle change for the Civic.

-- A 1.5-liter inline-four with 127 hp and 111 lb-ft of torque for the Fit, perhaps in time for the midcycle change in 2012.

-- A 1.6-liter turbodiesel engine that has comparable power to a current 2.2-liter diesel, with 220 lb-ft of torque but much better fuel economy.

Ohtsu said the power figures were preliminary and likely understated. Compared with the current four-cylinder engines, the new design will carry at least a 10 percent fuel economy advantage.

New transmissions

In addition, Honda has designed three continuously variable transmissions, one for mid-sized cars such as the Accord, and two for smaller vehicles such as the Civic, Fit and minicars.

Honda is betting big on continuously variable transmission technology and will use it as its base automatic transmission offering across all four-cylinder engines.

Although current CVTs have a “rubber band” feeling similar to a slipping clutch under acceleration, the Honda system has less feeling of slippage, said Hideki Wakamatsu, general manager of Honda r&d.

Also, the engine control software has been remapped so there is less hunting between the engine and CVT for optimal engine revs and transmission ratios during sudden acceleration, Wakamatsu said.

Honda will continue to offer manual transmissions for markets such as Europe that prefer stick shifts. And traditional stepped-gear automatics will be offered for vehicles such as sport sedans and sports cars where more immediate performance impact is needed, Wakamatsu said.



Read more: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20111129/TOKYO/111129907#ixzz1sbpogWWo
 
There is no fix for keeping the intake valves clean. The have tried upstream injectors to deal with this, but then you don't really have DI only.
 
Originally Posted By: R2d2
Yes along with CVT's for all.


Honda will continue to offer manual transmissions for markets such as Europe that prefer stick shifts.





Mark me off the list considering ANY Honda without a manual transmission in the USA.

I'm done with ANY car company that will NOT sell manuals in here in the USA, I will NOT buy a new car WITHOUT a stick shift.
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
There is no fix for keeping the intake valves clean. The have tried upstream injectors to deal with this, but then you don't really have DI only.


yes there is. The variable valve timing can be set up to allow enough reversion to clean the valve. Plus the factories are fitting vapor seperators to keep oil vapors from condensing in the intakes.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
There is no fix for keeping the intake valves clean. The have tried upstream injectors to deal with this, but then you don't really have DI only.


yes there is. The variable valve timing can be set up to allow enough reversion to clean the valve. Plus the factories are fitting vapor seperators to keep oil vapors from condensing in the intakes.


Yup. The GM HFV6 engins have both of those. VVT replaces EGR and the PCV section seems to contain something other than simply the PCV valve.

20120417160821.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: alphasparky353
One of my criteria for a new car was NO direct injection. I was considering a Hyundai accent but went with the '12 fiesta.


Same here. Traditional MPFI on both cars, and plenty happy with the response and fuel economy on both.
 
Originally Posted By: SrDriver
Doesn't Toyota and Lexus have both a direct injection and part time fuel injection system to help reduce deposits on the intake valves.

Has Honda started using direct injection engines yet?


The CR-V nor our '12 Pilot use DI. One of the reasons we like them. The upcoming Honda models will incorporate DI, as they phase it in.
 
Originally Posted By: alphasparky353
One of my criteria for a new car was NO direct injection. I was considering a Hyundai accent but went with the '12 fiesta.


That is my criteria as well. IIRC Bill in Utah based his choice for a new vehicle based on the same criteria, as well as a few other members.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Trav
I'm already seeing DI injectors come in with heavy deposits on the spray nozzles.
Its good for me for sure but i wouldn't want to own one just yet.


Your comments IMO have meaning, since you also have first hand experience with servicing them. Funny I took a pounding for my views on DI a while back, and yet people here are echoing me. I'd pass I think the technology has a way to go. Fuel dilution and valve deposits are a problem.


Problem is DI is here and it isn't going anywhere. Maybe the technology will improve with time, but soon nearly every car will have it.


No arguing DI is coming to every engine soon, my point is I'd rather wait till I'm certain the bugs are worked out. I'm not there yet. Reading through this thread I'm in good company. If DI wasn't a concern, and if members were totally comfortable with buying into it we wouldn't be having these threads popping up more and more.
 
The term "Early Adopters" from the Auto Observer article "Direct Injection Fouls Some Early Adopters" is not referring to the current generation DI engines GM, Ford and Hyundai. That article specifically points to the 'early adopters' as the first generation Audi and VW engines using DI. The article actually ends with a positive outlook regarding the current generation DI engines.

I've only seen the one BG case study of a DI engine, but then it's also true that BG has some vested interest in the outcome too.

If the trend continues however, like it or not, DI will be the predominant new vehicle engine choice. Are they all be getting it wrong?
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac


If the trend continues however, like it or not, DI will be the predominant new vehicle engine choice. Are they all be getting it wrong?


If they haven't properly solved the issues of carbon build up so that the engine doesn't have reduced performance or operating issues in the long term...yes they ALL have it wrong. Unless of course it is a slick use of planned obsolesence. (Another words it will be to expensive to remove the carbon unless you tear the head apart.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: sayjac


If the trend continues however, like it or not, DI will be the predominant new vehicle engine choice. Are they all be getting it wrong?


If they haven't properly solved the issues of carbon build up so that the engine doesn't have reduced performance or operating issues in the long term...yes they ALL have it wrong. Unless of course it is a slick use of planned obsolesence. (Another words it will be to expensive to remove the carbon unless you tear the head apart.


We seem to agree on this one.
 
The current push on these D.I. is a direct result of the pressure from the EPA to increase MPG ratings. Auto companies want to appear that there "Green" but so far it appears to me to be a false economy. If your required to treat the engine buy tearing the engine apart and media blasting the head ( i.e Audi) every 15-30K miles or suffer a loss of power/MPG is it really worthwhile technology?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
There is no fix for keeping the intake valves clean. The have tried upstream injectors to deal with this, but then you don't really have DI only.


yes there is. The variable valve timing can be set up to allow enough reversion to clean the valve. Plus the factories are fitting vapor seperators to keep oil vapors from condensing in the intakes.


Not even close.
Nothing beats a fuel wash. Period.
And if you play with cam timing, then the car won't run right [or as good as it can].
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
There is no fix for keeping the intake valves clean. The have tried upstream injectors to deal with this, but then you don't really have DI only.


yes there is. The variable valve timing can be set up to allow enough reversion to clean the valve. Plus the factories are fitting vapor seperators to keep oil vapors from condensing in the intakes.


Not even close.
Nothing beats a fuel wash. Period.
And if you play with cam timing, then the car won't run right [or as good as it can].


I think you've nailed it. Can you elaborate on a fuel wash? Wouldn't that contribute to fuel dilution, and the need for shorter OCIs? That certainly isn't helping conserve resources or protect the environment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom