For $750 over the premium you already pay for the 5.0?
Not this fool.
Not this fool.
EcoBoost torture engine tear down
- Thread starter Ben99GT
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Are they driving the second cam on each bank off the back of the chain rolling over the first ?
It looks like the primary chain goes from the crank to the intake cams. Then there is a secondary chain from the intake to exhaust cams on each head. The modular, 4.6, 5.4 DOHC motors use a similar setup.
Are they driving the second cam on each bank off the back of the chain rolling over the first ?
It looks like the primary chain goes from the crank to the intake cams. Then there is a secondary chain from the intake to exhaust cams on each head. The modular, 4.6, 5.4 DOHC motors use a similar setup.
Forum posts on Jalopnik say a water injection kit was installed on this engine by Ford, with the end product making the engine parts look cleaner than they normally would at teardown.
They also say if you look closely at the right video you can see the blue, watery fluid leaking out.
BTW, that is a really cheap, [censored] looking intake.
They also say if you look closely at the right video you can see the blue, watery fluid leaking out.
BTW, that is a really cheap, [censored] looking intake.
Originally Posted By: MrCritical
Forum posts on Jalopnik say a water injection kit was installed on this engine by Ford, with the end product making the engine parts look cleaner than they normally would at teardown.
They also say if you look closely at the right video you can see the blue, watery fluid leaking out.
I wouldn't doubt water/math injection on the Baja truck, I do doubt it for the durability testing and the rest of the Ford testing though.
Forum posts on Jalopnik say a water injection kit was installed on this engine by Ford, with the end product making the engine parts look cleaner than they normally would at teardown.
They also say if you look closely at the right video you can see the blue, watery fluid leaking out.
I wouldn't doubt water/math injection on the Baja truck, I do doubt it for the durability testing and the rest of the Ford testing though.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
i want to see how it looks after a lifetime of cold starts and light throttle driving.
^^2nd. Controlled laboratory tests aren`t the least bit pertinent imo. Real life driving/teardown is the best test.
i want to see how it looks after a lifetime of cold starts and light throttle driving.
^^2nd. Controlled laboratory tests aren`t the least bit pertinent imo. Real life driving/teardown is the best test.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
i want to see how it looks after a lifetime of cold starts and light throttle driving.
^^2nd. Controlled laboratory tests aren`t the least bit pertinent imo. Real life driving/teardown is the best test.
I don't know if I would call what this engine went through controlled laboratory tests.
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/experien...09m2n0p20101221
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
i want to see how it looks after a lifetime of cold starts and light throttle driving.
^^2nd. Controlled laboratory tests aren`t the least bit pertinent imo. Real life driving/teardown is the best test.
I don't know if I would call what this engine went through controlled laboratory tests.
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/experien...09m2n0p20101221
Whether it was methanol injected or not it was proven to be quite capable of a beating! I still need some details, but overall quite impressive.
A little leakdown on a 4 valve engine is nothing to get too excited about. I was most impressed with the 24 hour high speed segment.
A little leakdown on a 4 valve engine is nothing to get too excited about. I was most impressed with the 24 hour high speed segment.
If the engine looks like [censored] on teardown, I'm a lot less impressed. So the probability of this DI engine looking better than it would without the water injection is high.
As for torture tests, I believe Hyundai has run the 2.0 turbo from the Sonata 300 hours at 100% load on a dyno, removed the rev limiter, and then ran 30 hours at 7800 rpm/100% load.
As for torture tests, I believe Hyundai has run the 2.0 turbo from the Sonata 300 hours at 100% load on a dyno, removed the rev limiter, and then ran 30 hours at 7800 rpm/100% load.
I still think giving it to a roofing crew will punish it worse than anything the boys in Dearborn or Seoul can dream up.
Originally Posted By: MrCritical
As for torture tests, I believe Hyundai has run the 2.0 turbo from the Sonata 300 hours at 100% load on a dyno, removed the rev limiter, and then ran 30 hours at 7800 rpm/100% load.
Reportedly, GM did the same with the Northstar engine. A powertrain engineer described another torture test it went though; they would run the engine to full hot temperature, then cycle in super cooled coolant and let it heat that up. They'd do that over and over to simulate intense thermal cycling scenarios.
But the engine still had problems with head bolt threads in the field.
I'm sure simulated torture testing is getting better and better at uncovering eventual problems in the field, but there still seems to be nothing like real field trials. For example, I'm sure the spark plug issue in some recent Ford Modulars, and the valve guide seal problem in earlier Modulars, never reared their heads during testing (or at least I hope they didn't), but were problems in the field nonetheless.
As for torture tests, I believe Hyundai has run the 2.0 turbo from the Sonata 300 hours at 100% load on a dyno, removed the rev limiter, and then ran 30 hours at 7800 rpm/100% load.
Reportedly, GM did the same with the Northstar engine. A powertrain engineer described another torture test it went though; they would run the engine to full hot temperature, then cycle in super cooled coolant and let it heat that up. They'd do that over and over to simulate intense thermal cycling scenarios.
But the engine still had problems with head bolt threads in the field.
I'm sure simulated torture testing is getting better and better at uncovering eventual problems in the field, but there still seems to be nothing like real field trials. For example, I'm sure the spark plug issue in some recent Ford Modulars, and the valve guide seal problem in earlier Modulars, never reared their heads during testing (or at least I hope they didn't), but were problems in the field nonetheless.
Originally Posted By: flacoman
I still think giving it to a roofing crew will punish it worse than anything the boys in Dearborn or Seoul can dream up.
HUGE X2. Give to the working man. He will test it to it's limits.
I'm still a little weary having a V6 under the hood (even if it is a turbo) in a truck. Call me old fashioned. I was concerned when the 4.6/5.4 came out and replaced the 302 and 351W.
"Less motor, more power?". My 5.4L has served me well though and the technology is there. Ford seems to be doing it's homework.
I still think giving it to a roofing crew will punish it worse than anything the boys in Dearborn or Seoul can dream up.
HUGE X2. Give to the working man. He will test it to it's limits.
I'm still a little weary having a V6 under the hood (even if it is a turbo) in a truck. Call me old fashioned. I was concerned when the 4.6/5.4 came out and replaced the 302 and 351W.
"Less motor, more power?". My 5.4L has served me well though and the technology is there. Ford seems to be doing it's homework.
The new engine looks good...but...without a doubt the toughest Ford trucks I ever drove were the mid-80's E350 Econoline vans. I worked for a electrical contractor and all the vans had the 9750lb GVWR suspension and the bullet-proof 300cid straight six mated to a 3-speed automatic (C6?).
It seemed that engine oil/ATF was recomended, but not required.
I had a brand new one and took good care of it, but some had 200k+ miles of NYC/Metro driving (loaded to the max with tools/cargo) and still ran strong.
It seemed that engine oil/ATF was recomended, but not required.
Originally Posted By: Drew2000
The new engine looks good...but...without a doubt the toughest Ford trucks I ever drove were the mid-80's E350 Econoline vans. I worked for a electrical contractor and all the vans had the 9750lb GVWR suspension and the bullet-proof 300cid straight six mated to a 3-speed automatic (C6?).
It seemed that engine oil/ATF was recomended, but not required.
I had a brand new one and took good care of it, but some had 200k+ miles of NYC/Metro driving (loaded to the max with tools/cargo) and still ran strong.
+1 I had an 85 E series van with the 4.9L engine. I worked it hard for over 150,000 miles, then sold it. The guy that bought it did airport delivery service runs, in the NY area and Jersey. He had it a few years after I sold it, it took an accident that totaled it to take it off the road. Mine had a stick, but the C6 version was awesome!
The new engine looks good...but...without a doubt the toughest Ford trucks I ever drove were the mid-80's E350 Econoline vans. I worked for a electrical contractor and all the vans had the 9750lb GVWR suspension and the bullet-proof 300cid straight six mated to a 3-speed automatic (C6?).
It seemed that engine oil/ATF was recomended, but not required.
+1 I had an 85 E series van with the 4.9L engine. I worked it hard for over 150,000 miles, then sold it. The guy that bought it did airport delivery service runs, in the NY area and Jersey. He had it a few years after I sold it, it took an accident that totaled it to take it off the road. Mine had a stick, but the C6 version was awesome!
Originally Posted By: MrCritical
So the probability of this DI engine looking better than it would without the water injection is high.
I'm not so sure about that, if this engine even really had water/meth injection I doubt it was on for more than ~1,200 miles of its life.
For comparison's sake, here's an Audi with meth injection just 2,000 miles after a cleaning.
After cleaning:
2,000 miles later with meth injection:
So the probability of this DI engine looking better than it would without the water injection is high.
I'm not so sure about that, if this engine even really had water/meth injection I doubt it was on for more than ~1,200 miles of its life.
For comparison's sake, here's an Audi with meth injection just 2,000 miles after a cleaning.
After cleaning:
2,000 miles later with meth injection:
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: MrCritical
As for torture tests, I believe Hyundai has run the 2.0 turbo from the Sonata 300 hours at 100% load on a dyno, removed the rev limiter, and then ran 30 hours at 7800 rpm/100% load.
Reportedly, GM did the same with the Northstar engine. A powertrain engineer described another torture test it went though; they would run the engine to full hot temperature, then cycle in super cooled coolant and let it heat that up. They'd do that over and over to simulate intense thermal cycling scenarios.
But the engine still had problems with head bolt threads in the field.
I'm sure simulated torture testing is getting better and better at uncovering eventual problems in the field, but there still seems to be nothing like real field trials. For example, I'm sure the spark plug issue in some recent Ford Modulars, and the valve guide seal problem in earlier Modulars, never reared their heads during testing (or at least I hope they didn't), but were problems in the field nonetheless.
Exactly what i was saying when everyone was raving over the tests. Those caddy northstar motors ran all sorts of races but in real life they became oil burners and head gasket eaters.
Its soo hard to duplicate real world applications
Originally Posted By: MrCritical
As for torture tests, I believe Hyundai has run the 2.0 turbo from the Sonata 300 hours at 100% load on a dyno, removed the rev limiter, and then ran 30 hours at 7800 rpm/100% load.
Reportedly, GM did the same with the Northstar engine. A powertrain engineer described another torture test it went though; they would run the engine to full hot temperature, then cycle in super cooled coolant and let it heat that up. They'd do that over and over to simulate intense thermal cycling scenarios.
But the engine still had problems with head bolt threads in the field.
I'm sure simulated torture testing is getting better and better at uncovering eventual problems in the field, but there still seems to be nothing like real field trials. For example, I'm sure the spark plug issue in some recent Ford Modulars, and the valve guide seal problem in earlier Modulars, never reared their heads during testing (or at least I hope they didn't), but were problems in the field nonetheless.
Exactly what i was saying when everyone was raving over the tests. Those caddy northstar motors ran all sorts of races but in real life they became oil burners and head gasket eaters.
Its soo hard to duplicate real world applications
Hello everyone. I am the guy that made the YouTube video with the pictures of the engine teardown, and from which some screengrabs were made of the valves and cylinder head.
Jim Mazuchowski, the Manager of V6 Engine Programs for Ford told me they used Motorcraft 5W-30 synthetic blend oil, just as one poster here was hoping for. He said they changed the oil at every 10,000 mile increment.
I have a picture of an exhaust and intake valve in the video. The still photo is much higher res and I can post it here for a closer look if anyone is interested. Also the combustion area of a cylinder head.
Someone mentioned "port injection." The engine is not port injected, it is direct injected into the cylinder, just like a diesel.
There was no water injection kit installed on this engine. Not that I looked for one but I think I would have noticed if it had been there. I think someone at Jalopnik just didn't want the engine to look this good.
I am a Toolmaker at a Ford plant and my wife works in the plant where the EcoBoost engine is built. I'd be happy to answer questions and post pictures.
Jim Mazuchowski, the Manager of V6 Engine Programs for Ford told me they used Motorcraft 5W-30 synthetic blend oil, just as one poster here was hoping for. He said they changed the oil at every 10,000 mile increment.
I have a picture of an exhaust and intake valve in the video. The still photo is much higher res and I can post it here for a closer look if anyone is interested. Also the combustion area of a cylinder head.
Someone mentioned "port injection." The engine is not port injected, it is direct injected into the cylinder, just like a diesel.
There was no water injection kit installed on this engine. Not that I looked for one but I think I would have noticed if it had been there. I think someone at Jalopnik just didn't want the engine to look this good.
I am a Toolmaker at a Ford plant and my wife works in the plant where the EcoBoost engine is built. I'd be happy to answer questions and post pictures.
Originally Posted By: 1001hobbies
I'd be happy to answer questions and post pictures.
Thanks for Your post ,and now a question .
Some folks are saying DI can cause deposits on the Intake valves because fuel with detergents never reaches the valve stems .
Maybe it's just Me ,and My lack of understanding of IC engines . But, If the fuel doesn't touch the intake valves ,how are the deposits created in the first place . It never seemed to be a problem on My diesels ,are Gassers different ?
I'd be happy to answer questions and post pictures.
Thanks for Your post ,and now a question .
Some folks are saying DI can cause deposits on the Intake valves because fuel with detergents never reaches the valve stems .
Maybe it's just Me ,and My lack of understanding of IC engines . But, If the fuel doesn't touch the intake valves ,how are the deposits created in the first place . It never seemed to be a problem on My diesels ,are Gassers different ?
I will find out that info for you.
My own views on that are right along with your's. Without the fuel contacting the backside of the valve there is nothing from the gasoline that can cause deposits. The only thing going past the backside of the intake valve is air.
Thinking a little deeper, a consideration may have to do with the variable cam timing of this engine. At higher RPM's, under load or hard acceleration, the timing of the valve events will be adjusted for longer duration. I don't know if there is significant enough duration to cause valve overlap where the intake opens while exhaust is still being pushed out of the cylinder just before the exhaust valve closes. If that were to happen there could be a negligible amount of reversion that could cause contaminants from the combustion process to be deposited on the backside of the intake valve. I don't know if this is happening but if it is the case it would cause deposits.
Steve
My own views on that are right along with your's. Without the fuel contacting the backside of the valve there is nothing from the gasoline that can cause deposits. The only thing going past the backside of the intake valve is air.
Thinking a little deeper, a consideration may have to do with the variable cam timing of this engine. At higher RPM's, under load or hard acceleration, the timing of the valve events will be adjusted for longer duration. I don't know if there is significant enough duration to cause valve overlap where the intake opens while exhaust is still being pushed out of the cylinder just before the exhaust valve closes. If that were to happen there could be a negligible amount of reversion that could cause contaminants from the combustion process to be deposited on the backside of the intake valve. I don't know if this is happening but if it is the case it would cause deposits.
Steve
Last edited:
I read on this site that the deposits which form on the intake valves on DI engines are caused by the PCV system.
Perhaps the EGR could contribute as well, if so equipped.
I'd love to see the photos of the I valves, and any other High res stuff you've got of the teardown.
Perhaps the EGR could contribute as well, if so equipped.
I'd love to see the photos of the I valves, and any other High res stuff you've got of the teardown.
- Status
