Fuel Dilution - DI Engines

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by CJWinWA
Chrysler offered a a kit to convert them to carburetors. It came in a wooden crate and contained everything from the carburetor to a new fuel tank. Everything in one box. Obviously there was an issue.


I was a kid then so I go by the stories I hear from my dad etc. I will have to ask him about the kit. Good coffee conversation when I see him next.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Originally Posted by Brigadier
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
Use top-tier fuel and no need for 93 octane, if acceleration doesn't ping or engine run a-foul. Change oil often and the Pennzoil Platinum claims to clean the engine best.

I plan on 5K OCIs.- SN Plus Dexos1/Gen2 oil - top tier 87 octane fuels (no ethanol) and hopefully no problems surface.


Just for clarification, Top Tier and ethanol free are totally unrelated.

Just for clarification, I already know that. For additional clarification, gasoline is more pure WITHOUT ethanol and many cases exist where ethanol has created engine misfires and engine damage.

So yes, it's very relevant in my post above. But of you like ethanol in your gas, go for it.

 

[littlehulkster]

Originally Posted by WhizkidTN
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by tig1
DI engines are tech in reverse.


Naw. It's about being able to increase power AND meet mpg/emissions. It can't be done otherwise.

^^^ This, I just wish a lot more OE's took a better approach to it, in controlling valve deposits.


Toyota did. It's in their dual PFI/DI setups. Others are also going that way (Ford, Mazda,...). There are advantages of both that combine.


The hilarious thing on here is that you have people calling Toyota unsophisticated while they're out solving these problems that have baffled other engineers.

I think Toyota's solution, at least for now, is a good one, and I think DI is good tech, it just has some teething problems.

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by CJWinWA

You must not have experienced an 81-83 fuel injected Chrysler Imperial, those were real gems indeed.


Absolute garbage. My dad did a lot of conversions on vehicles equipped with that system.

Years later a friend of my dad's that I keep in touch with that taught me a lot when I was a kid about computers told me about the story of that system and the vehicle he had at the time that would stall all the time because of it
and I asked my dad about it and he told me about the numerous ones he converted back to straight carb engines.


Carbs do that, too. They also have the added benefit of only starting when they want to, and requiring constant maintenance and tuning to get them running, with even more to get them running anything close to well.

Fortunately, I've never made the dire mistake of buying a Chrysler, so I can't comment on that particular injection system, but carbs are simply obsolete tech. FI is superior, flat out.

 

[StevieC]

A properly setup carb will not do that. Problem is most people don't understand them or they think "Richer is better" I've seen too many for you to argue with that.
The only reason that Fuel Injection won out Carbs is because of cold weather performance and tighter emission regulations.

A properly setup carb at operating temperature will perform just as good as fuel injection. I have seen it with my own eyes on a 5 gas analyzer in terms of emissions.

Second it was a bad design not because it was a "Chrysler" the electronic control box under the hood couldn't handle the heat of the engine and in some cases the cold of winter. That's where the technology was at, at the time.
EVERY OE HAS HAD THEIR WOES. No one is excluded from that, so stop with the brand bashing.

You want a prime example... My brand new Toyota Highlander with the new 8 speed transmission. Absolutely awful and I got rid of it before it became more of a problem child. Lots of owners complaining over it.
Toyota Sludgers, Ford DCT's, GM Timing Chains, Hyundai engine failures, VW DCT / Valve Gunking. What are you going to not buy from anyone?

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
Use top-tier fuel and no need for 93 octane, if acceleration doesn't ping or engine run a-foul. Change oil often and the Pennzoil Platinum claims to clean the engine best.

I plan on 5K OCIs.- SN Plus Dexos1/Gen2 oil - top tier 87 octane fuels (no ethanol) and hopefully no problems surface.


Unfortunately that blanket statement just isn't true. The DI engines with higher compression ratios do need premium. They have been bandaided to run 87 octane. This bandaid is running pig rich (fuel dilution driver #1) to keep the combustion chamber cooler and prevent detonation. Run premium and running rich isn't needed so the ECU leans out the ratio.

For example, Fords 2.0L DI is lower compression than most. It turns in good UOAs with no fuel dilution on 87 octane. Mazda runs a high compression DI that has fuel dilution with 87 octane and no fuel dilution issues when running 91+octane.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by StevieC
A properly setup carb will not do that. Problem is most people don't understand them or they think "Richer is better" I've seen too many for you to argue with that.
The only reason that Fuel Injection won out Carbs is because of cold weather performance and tighter emission regulations.

A properly setup carb at operating temperature will perform just as good as fuel injection. I have seen it with my own eyes on a 5 gas analyzer in terms of emissions.

Second it was a bad design not because it was a "Chrysler" the electronic control box under the hood couldn't handle the heat of the engine and in some cases the cold of winter. That's where the technology was at, at the time.
EVERY OE HAS HAD THEIR WOES. No one is excluded from that, so stop with the brand bashing.

You want a prime example... My brand new Toyota Highlander with the new 8 speed transmission. Absolutely awful and I got rid of it before it became more of a problem child. Lots of owners complaining over it.
Toyota Sludgers, Ford DCT's, GM Timing Chains, Hyundai engine failures, VW DCT / Valve Gunking. What are you going to not buy from anyone?




A properly setup carb from the 60's or early 70's would be ideal but as the 70's went on and into the 80's carbs got cheap and more stuff added on. They were really finicky then and things like sinking floats were common as they went to plastic from the brass ones.

 

[littlehulkster]

Originally Posted by StevieC
A properly setup carb will not do that. Problem is most people don't understand them or they think "Richer is better" I've seen too many for you to argue with that.
The only reason that Fuel Injection won out Carbs is because of cold weather performance and tighter emission regulations.

A properly setup carb at operating temperature will perform just as good as fuel injection. I have seen it with my own eyes on a 5 gas analyzer in terms of emissions.

Second it was a bad design not because it was a "Chrysler" the electronic control box under the hood couldn't handle the heat of the engine and in some cases the cold of winter. That's where the technology was at, at the time.
EVERY OE HAS HAD THEIR WOES. No one is excluded from that, so stop with the brand bashing.

You want a prime example... My brand new Toyota Highlander with the new 8 speed transmission. Absolutely awful and I got rid of it before it became more of a problem child. Lots of owners complaining over it.
Toyota Sludgers, Ford DCT's, GM Timing Chains, Hyundai engine failures, VW DCT / Valve Gunking. What are you going to not buy from anyone?


A "properly set up" carb is still flat out inferior in every way possible to fuel injection. FI is more efficient, smoother, more tolerant of temperature extremes and air pressure, self adjusting, idles better, requires basically no maintenance and gets significantly better mileage. There's also the issue of getting, and keeping the carb "properly set up", which you never have to do with a FI system.

The only reason carbs even exist is because of grognards who think everything with a computer in it is some arcane black magic.

And no, lots of other companies made reliable fuel injection systems in the early 80s. Chrysler wasn't one of them. Not much of a surprise there.

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted by Railrust
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
When are they going to design FI that isn't CXXP?



The Corvette has had direct injection since 2014 and I haven't seen anyone on Corvette Forum reporting major carbon buildup issues at all. (or serious amounts of fuel dilution either)

And I don't think there have been too many problems with Mazda's direct injected engines either.

Those people also don't drive their cars, their vehicles are sitting in their garages with $200 worth of the latest and greatest wax on their paint. Happy as clams. And some of these guys, despite not driving their vettes, have installed catch cans and change their oil every 3,000 miles using the very best oil they can get their hands on. They're show cars...weekend warriors to the ice cream stand to show off. Meanwhile on the Chevy Silverado forums there's guys pulling their intakes off trying to clean these things...loaded.


A lot of Corvette guys don't pile on the miles, that's true, but there are quite a few on the forum over 100,000 miles now and there is one person on one of the Facebook pages with over 260,000 miles on his. And I have yet to see a single picture of anyone's engine that looks severely gunked up (by contrast if you look on the Subaru WRX forums you'll find plenty of severely carboned up intake valve pictures on very low mileage cars)

 

[dave1251]

Catch cans don't do a thing.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

I find the discussion on this board about fuel dilution and LSPI to be fascinating. I have driven DI VAG products now since 2007 and I am on car forums every day, and I have never heard anything about either of these issues until I signed up here. Either I am quite ignorant or these problems are way blown out of proportion.

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
I find the discussion on this board about fuel dilution and LSPI to be fascinating. I have driven DI VAG products now since 2007 and I am on car forums every day, and I have never heard anything about either of these issues until I signed up here. Either I am quite ignorant or these problems are way blown out of proportion.


BITOG tends to blow everything out of proportion

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by StevieC
A properly setup carb will not do that. Problem is most people don't understand them or they think "Richer is better" I've seen too many for you to argue with that.
The only reason that Fuel Injection won out Carbs is because of cold weather performance and tighter emission regulations.

A properly setup carb at operating temperature will perform just as good as fuel injection. I have seen it with my own eyes on a 5 gas analyzer in terms of emissions.

Second it was a bad design not because it was a "Chrysler" the electronic control box under the hood couldn't handle the heat of the engine and in some cases the cold of winter. That's where the technology was at, at the time.
EVERY OE HAS HAD THEIR WOES. No one is excluded from that, so stop with the brand bashing.

You want a prime example... My brand new Toyota Highlander with the new 8 speed transmission. Absolutely awful and I got rid of it before it became more of a problem child. Lots of owners complaining over it.
Toyota Sludgers, Ford DCT's, GM Timing Chains, Hyundai engine failures, VW DCT / Valve Gunking. What are you going to not buy from anyone?




A properly setup carb from the 60's or early 70's would be ideal but as the 70's went on and into the 80's carbs got cheap and more stuff added on. They were really finicky then and things like sinking floats were common as they went to plastic from the brass ones.

Some were, the 1980's Mikuni I had on my Caravan was flawless other than the occasional choke diaphragm replacement needed. So good you could remote start the vehicle. No pump to prime needed!

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted by ChrisD46
Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by MCompact
Originally Posted by SteveSRT8
Only thing is despite endless discussions there have been virtually no cases of engine damage conclusively linked to it.


Who needs facts when we've got hundreds of unsubstantiated rumors?


...and, as has been said before, the fact is the vast majority... VAST ...of UOA lack elevated wear numbers, even with substantial dilution.

I'm not concerned as i'm currently running a 0W20 (Pennzoil Platinum) in the Sportage 2.4L and thus far (4th day) it's been extremely smooth and quiet. And yes, i have an email from the Service Mgr of one of the local KIA dealerships that says it's perfectly fine to do so because the important number is the 20, not the 5w vs 0w.
My OCI are 5K max.

*I do not believe that Hyundai / Kia recognize any 0W oils ... Only 5W and 10W for North America .



I just took it a step further and called KIA USA. The Tech Support Rep advised that 0W- actually exceeds 5W- because the oil must be a blend or synthetic so there will not be an issue. I asked if he's on Bitog.........."what???". Call ended cordially.

The gentleman's name was Ed.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted by dave1251
Catch cans don't do a thing.


I've tried them out a few times. Don't ask me why and each time the amount of fluid is minuscule compared to some videos i see on youtube. I eventually removed the can altogether.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by littlehulkster

And no, lots of other companies made reliable fuel injection systems in the early 80s. Chrysler wasn't one of them. Not much of a surprise there.


Early 80's? Most were using carburetors still and when they did implement fuel injection, there were a host of different designs even among the same manufacturer. While Ford hit it out of the park with their SEFI setup (Bosch/Intel), GM's TBI was a glorified carburetor with a couple of fuel injectors slapped in the top. Ford's CFI was no better. GM then had their "spider" setup, which was a gong show and had something like 3x or 4x different injection systems going on simultaneously with TPI, SEFI, TBI and the Spider setup.

Honda was still using carburetors while simultaneously producing their somewhat odd fuel injection setup: PGM FI.

With respect to Chrysler, their multiport system found on cars like the Daytona, wasn't any worse than anybody else's. Of course the Imperial being discussed didn't have that system, it had something more akin to Ford's CFI or GM's TBI, basically a glorified carb with injection melded to it and the results were predictably crap.

I'm not sure what all the little Hulkamaniacs thought of all this at the time but they probably weren't trying to push a brand-bash masquerading as a legitimate technical discussion

 

[StevieC]

Chrysler had a very reliable fuel injection system in the 1980's and it was a Throttle Body with Bosch injector. Worked great.

The Port injection systems weren't great from any OE at that time because the technology was fairly new.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Carbs do that, too. They also have the added benefit of only starting when they want to, and requiring constant maintenance and tuning to get them running, with even more to get them running anything close to well. ...
Maybe in your very limited experience. Cars and trucks and school buses reliably started and went to work every day with reasonably set up carburetors.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Chrysler had a very reliable fuel injection system in the 1980's and it was a Throttle Body with Bosch injector. Worked great.

The Port injection systems weren't great from any OE at that time because the technology was fairly new.


I believe the Bosch setup came after the "spraybar" TBI-style setup found on the Imperial. Most of the TBI mills I'm familiar with were utter dogs, so I'm a tad biased on that front perhaps.

Ford's SEFI system, which appeared on the mid-80's cars, was a vast improvement over the TBI arrangements. They used a cheaper batch-fire injection system on the trucks, which, while still port injected, was not sequential.

I have a massive amount of experience with SEFI Ford stuff (EEC-IV) and it is probably my favourite injection system.

 

[StevieC]

I was talking about 1980's injection, I'm not sure the spraybar was still in use then or at least those vehicles died before I got to see them in the late 1980's early 90's I do remember the Holley carbs on the 1980's Chryslers that the Bosch TBI replaced.

Yes I should have excluded Ford's injection. It was a pretty good system. My apologies. 30 almost 40 years ago... I remember a ton of port injected GM's having mega issues.

 

[StevieC]

I was never a fan of Rochester carbs until later on as they seemed far less reliable compared to Holley and I know this might start a war but it's just personal observation.
I do like the Quad Jet though... Properly setup it's a gem.