Fuel Dilution - DI Engines

[Railrust]

Originally Posted by Tahoe4Life
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)



Since 2015 the Tahoe,Yukon and Escalade [5.3&6.2] has had direct injection. Have not seen anyone on the any of the Tahoe-Yukon or Escalade forums reporting major carbon buildup either...or serious fuel dilution issues. A lot of those have way over 100K miles.


On the Silverado forums/Facebook pages I have seen carbon complaints (same engines). Just the other day a guy was trying remove a failed injector, he couldn't get it out, it was stuck in the head surrounded by carbon. He was asked about the valves...if they were covered in carbon...he said yes, very bad. Truck had 150,000 miles on it. Had to remove the entire head to get an injector out that should be removeable easily from the top.

There are also threads hundreds of pages long about catch cans and setup procedures.

There are fuel dilution threads as well, to go along with oil consumption and collapsed lifter threads.

But I look at it this way...that 5.3 direct injected engine is in probably more vehicles than any engine on the road right now. It's in the Sierra, the Silverado, the Tahoe, and Suburbans. I'm probably missing some, but the Silverado has been the second best selling vehicle in America the last five years, with something like 500,000 units sold per year. Add in the Sierra...another 200,000 and the Tahoe and Suburban...and you're looking at maybe 5,000,000 of these direct injected engines driving around on the roads today. So a few online threads aren't exactly scaring me, but I own one of these things so I'm a little concerned (just a bit). And I also keep in mind that a lot of these vehicles are abused as pickups....service vehicles, guys lifting and modding them, big tires, doing a little off roading. Some people pull a trailer with these things work trucks everyday. Some people plow with these things. So I try to keep it in perspective. Lol

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Outside of some monstrous gas guzling SUVs that were getting slaughtered by the high fuel prices, Chrysler basically had nothing worth buying at that time. This is a company that tried to sell Sebrings with a straight face. A car company won't go broke if people want to buy their cars, after all.

When it comes to Fiat-Chrysler, well, let's give it a while and see how many are in the junkyards after the warranty runs out.


Really, it was GM/Ford with the "monstrous" gas guzzling SUV's in the Expedition/Suburban/Yukon offerings. Chrysler only had the Durango, that was based on the Dakota, and the higher-trim version of the same vehicle, the Aspen. All three marques "went broke", which is why Ford mortgaged the farm and GM went bankrupt, right alongside Chrysler. They were all in the same boat.

Regarding Chrysler specifically: Their product offerings at the time were pretty mediocre, even if the platforms for many of them had some excellent Mercedes DNA. The interior trimming aspect of these cars was not anything like it is presently, which is one of the first things Fiat appears to have addressed. While the Chrysler brand itself has questionable value, the Dodge, RAM and Jeep brands all sell well, which, aside from getting a foothold in the North American market, was one of the main reasons Fiat purchased them.

There are tons of post-warranty FCA products on the road in the form of RAM trucks, Chargers, Challengers, 300's, Caravans, Grand Cherokees; heck most of the Jeep products. Cars less likely to survive have already been discontinued in the 200 and Dart offerings.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by 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.



Carbs just don't run right it's that simple.

 

[littlehulkster]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Outside of some monstrous gas guzling SUVs that were getting slaughtered by the high fuel prices, Chrysler basically had nothing worth buying at that time. This is a company that tried to sell Sebrings with a straight face. A car company won't go broke if people want to buy their cars, after all.

When it comes to Fiat-Chrysler, well, let's give it a while and see how many are in the junkyards after the warranty runs out.


Really, it was GM/Ford with the "monstrous" gas guzzling SUV's in the Expedition/Suburban/Yukon offerings. Chrysler only had the Durango, that was based on the Dakota, and the higher-trim version of the same vehicle, the Aspen. All three marques "went broke", which is why Ford mortgaged the farm and GM went bankrupt, right alongside Chrysler. They were all in the same boat.

Regarding Chrysler specifically: Their product offerings at the time were pretty mediocre, even if the platforms for many of them had some excellent Mercedes DNA. The interior trimming aspect of these cars was not anything like it is presently, which is one of the first things Fiat appears to have addressed. While the Chrysler brand itself has questionable value, the Dodge, RAM and Jeep brands all sell well, which, aside from getting a foothold in the North American market, was one of the main reasons Fiat purchased them.

There are tons of post-warranty FCA products on the road in the form of RAM trucks, Chargers, Challengers, 300's, Caravans, Grand Cherokees; heck most of the Jeep products. Cars less likely to survive have already been discontinued in the 200 and Dart offerings.


I mean, you say that, but CR rates Chrysler (26th of 28 on reliability) and Jeep (23rd of 28) as two of the least reliable brands overall. Dodge just edges out Chevy, but even still it's firmly in the bottom third.

Given Fiat's history, I don't see those numbers improving much.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by littlehulkster


I mean, you say that, but CR rates Chrysler (26th of 28 on reliability) and Jeep (23rd of 28) as two of the least reliable brands overall. Dodge just edges out Chevy, but even still it's firmly in the bottom third.

Given Fiat's history, I don't see those numbers improving much.


I don't think that correlates with vehicles on the road post-warranty, which was your claim that I responded to, along with them making "monstrous gas guzzling SUV's", which was also patently false. This exchange is becoming one that predicates on hyperbole and opinion. If you have a hard-on for dogging Chrysler just say so. I drive two FCA products, one of them that doesn't have much warranty left and I have no concerns that it is going to magically teleport to the junkyard when that happens. There are more than enough trucks, Chargers, 300's, Wranglers, Grand Cherokees and Caravans on the road to nullify the veracity of the post-warranty claim.

 

[littlehulkster]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by littlehulkster


I mean, you say that, but CR rates Chrysler (26th of 28 on reliability) and Jeep (23rd of 28) as two of the least reliable brands overall. Dodge just edges out Chevy, but even still it's firmly in the bottom third.

Given Fiat's history, I don't see those numbers improving much.


I don't think that correlates with vehicles on the road post-warranty, which was your claim that I responded to, along with them making "monstrous gas guzzling SUV's", which was also patently false. This exchange is becoming one that predicates on hyperbole and opinion. If you have a hard-on for dogging Chrysler just say so. I drive two FCA products, one of them that doesn't have much warranty left and I have no concerns that it is going to magically teleport to the junkyard when that happens. There are more than enough trucks, Chargers, 300's, Wranglers, Grand Cherokees and Caravans on the road to nullify the veracity of the post-warranty claim.


Chrysler being awful for reliability is not actually opinion, given CR's numbers. If the largest and most respected company that collects reliability data says a company's reliability is almost as bad as it gets, they are probably correct.

The rest is just you taking everything absolutely literally, for some bizarre reason.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by littlehulkster


I mean, you say that, but CR rates Chrysler (26th of 28 on reliability) and Jeep (23rd of 28) as two of the least reliable brands overall. Dodge just edges out Chevy, but even still it's firmly in the bottom third.

Given Fiat's history, I don't see those numbers improving much.


I don't think that correlates with vehicles on the road post-warranty, which was your claim that I responded to, along with them making "monstrous gas guzzling SUV's", which was also patently false. This exchange is becoming one that predicates on hyperbole and opinion. If you have a hard-on for dogging Chrysler just say so. I drive two FCA products, one of them that doesn't have much warranty left and I have no concerns that it is going to magically teleport to the junkyard when that happens. There are more than enough trucks, Chargers, 300's, Wranglers, Grand Cherokees and Caravans on the road to nullify the veracity of the post-warranty claim.


Chrysler being awful for reliability is not actually opinion, given CR's numbers. If the largest and most respected company that collects reliability data says a company's reliability is almost as bad as it gets, they are probably correct.

The rest is just you taking everything absolutely literally, for some bizarre reason.


I didn't realize I was supposed to take your digs all as generous metaphor and playful hyperbole

Is there an actual breakdown of how the CR figures are arrived at or is it like when Ford's numbers tanked because people couldn't figure out Sync? "Reliable" needs to be qualified because otherwise you end up with people coming onto message boards making statements, literal or not, about cars ending up in the junkyard out of warranty while making ambiguous references to the term. Plenty of Honda Odyssey vans and V6 Accords ended up in the junkyard with their transmissions nuked for example, despite them likely getting an "exemplary" rating from CR. I would suspect the same for the Toyota sludgers. I'd much rather take the reliability ranking hit of needing a rear USB port replaced because my kids got snow in it (true story) than have my fuel-diluting 1.5L turbo mill seize solid on the highway. Similarly, the 9spd transmission used in the Cherokee was seriously problematic initially, likely impacting the Jeep brand as a whole, despite the other vehicles under the same banner not using it.

If you want to pick what you drive based on what CR advises, then by all means do so, but the feigned bewilderment over the response to the ambiguous allusions to junkyards brimming with FCA products is unneeded. It was quite obvious how your statements were being interpreted from the get-go, so any issues with that should have been addressed at that juncture, not at what appears to be the cessation of this discourse.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Best vehicle I ever owned was a 1994 red Plymouth Voyager. Worst vehicle I ever owned was also a Chrysler product ... a Plymouth Volare.

What a coincidence.... both names begin with 'V'.

 

[littlehulkster]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by littlehulkster


I mean, you say that, but CR rates Chrysler (26th of 28 on reliability) and Jeep (23rd of 28) as two of the least reliable brands overall. Dodge just edges out Chevy, but even still it's firmly in the bottom third.

Given Fiat's history, I don't see those numbers improving much.


I don't think that correlates with vehicles on the road post-warranty, which was your claim that I responded to, along with them making "monstrous gas guzzling SUV's", which was also patently false. This exchange is becoming one that predicates on hyperbole and opinion. If you have a hard-on for dogging Chrysler just say so. I drive two FCA products, one of them that doesn't have much warranty left and I have no concerns that it is going to magically teleport to the junkyard when that happens. There are more than enough trucks, Chargers, 300's, Wranglers, Grand Cherokees and Caravans on the road to nullify the veracity of the post-warranty claim.


Chrysler being awful for reliability is not actually opinion, given CR's numbers. If the largest and most respected company that collects reliability data says a company's reliability is almost as bad as it gets, they are probably correct.

The rest is just you taking everything absolutely literally, for some bizarre reason.


I didn't realize I was supposed to take your digs all as generous metaphor and playful hyperbole

Is there an actual breakdown of how the CR figures are arrived at or is it like when Ford's numbers tanked because people couldn't figure out Sync? "Reliable" needs to be qualified because otherwise you end up with people coming onto message boards making statements, literal or not, about cars ending up in the junkyard out of warranty while making ambiguous references to the term. Plenty of Honda Odyssey vans and V6 Accords ended up in the junkyard with their transmissions nuked for example, despite them likely getting an "exemplary" rating from CR. I would suspect the same for the Toyota sludgers. I'd much rather take the reliability ranking hit of needing a rear USB port replaced because my kids got snow in it (true story) than have my fuel-diluting 1.5L turbo mill seize solid on the highway. Similarly, the 9spd transmission used in the Cherokee was seriously problematic initially, likely impacting the Jeep brand as a whole, despite the other vehicles under the same banner not using it.

If you want to pick what you drive based on what CR advises, then by all means do so, but the feigned bewilderment over the response to the ambiguous allusions to junkyards brimming with FCA products is unneeded. It was quite obvious how your statements were being interpreted from the get-go, so any issues with that should have been addressed at that juncture, not at what appears to be the cessation of this discourse.


The Cherokee is fairly solid now, actually. Jeep's real problem models are the Grand Cherokee and the Renegade. The GC has had a mishmash of problems, with the engine and trans being mostly ok, but the Renegade has been pretty junk for all it's life. The recently killed Patriot was also a real turd. Given the "performance" of the Renegade, I can't wait to see what future Fiat models hold. Maybe we'll get to the Alfa-Romeo threshold of even hand picked press cars breaking down after a few hours.

The question is, why would anyone want a car from a company that's gone broke twice, and is now owned by the people who designed the Yugo, when there exists a lot of competition that can do the same things better and more reliably.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

little hulkster
The now spiritual Marchionne and Iacocca are about to put a spell on you. Crawl under the bed tonight and try not to dream about being run over in your sleep by a 1984 K Car.

 

[littlehulkster]

Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
little hulkster
The now spiritual Marchionne and Iacocca are about to put a spell on you. Crawl under the bed tonight and try not to dream about being run over in your sleep by a 1984 K Car.


Nah, I'll sleep like a baby knowing that everything from that era has rusted into dust long ago. Shame, because I would totally buy a TC by Maserati just for novelty's sake.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by littlehulkster
The Cherokee is fairly solid now, actually. Jeep's real problem models are the Grand Cherokee and the Renegade. The GC has had a mishmash of problems, with the engine and trans being mostly ok,

The Cherokee, now, since the transmission issues have been sorted, is generally good. Some owners have had some oil consumption on the 2.4L though from what I recall, and there's actually a thread in this section from an owner with that issue. The GC had some problems with the diesel but the other powertrains, have, as noted, been good. Curious as to some details on this "mishmash of problems"? Other than a bad body ground, mine has, in the three years I've owned it, been excellent. I don't recall any threads on here about major issues with them either, and quite a few of us own them

I will add that I do the IT for the local Chrysler dealer and the GC isn't one of the "problematic" vehicles, which tended to be the 200/Dart, the Fiat 500 and the Journey.

Originally Posted by littlehulkster
but the Renegade has been pretty junk for all it's life. The recently killed Patriot was also a real turd. Given the "performance" of the Renegade, I can't wait to see what future Fiat models hold. Maybe we'll get to the Alfa-Romeo threshold of even hand picked press cars breaking down after a few hours.

Yes, the Renegade was/is a bit of a joke, the Patriot was an unremarkable product, but its been out of production for three years now.

Looking at the current Jeep lineup, the only real stinker is the Renegade.

Originally Posted by littlehulkster
The question is, why would anyone want a car from a company that's gone broke twice, and is now owned by the people who designed the Yugo, when there exists a lot of competition that can do the same things better and more reliably.

Personally? Because I like several of their products, have an excellent relationship with my local dealer, and despite the claims about competition, nobody is putting a 475HP or 707HP V8 into a small AWD SUV trimmed-out like a GC outside of the German marques, which would likely be off the table due to price and maintenance costs, not to mention the fabled concerns about "reliability". The same can be said as to the appeal for the Charger, with which not much competes with, and none of them are available with the amount of power on tap that it is.

I'm not sure what designing the Yugo has to do with any of this

If we are reaching back to the design travesties of the past, GM brought us the Chevette/Acadian, Ford the Pinto, Hyundai the Pony...etc. Mitsubishi made the planes that bombed Pearl Harbour, how far are you willing to go?

 

[caprice_2nv]

Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
little hulkster
The now spiritual Marchionne and Iacocca are about to put a spell on you. Crawl under the bed tonight and try not to dream about being run over in your sleep by a 1984 K Car.


Nah, I'll sleep like a baby knowing that everything from that era has rusted into dust long ago. Shame, because I would totally buy a TC by Maserati just for novelty's sake.


Hopefully this picture messes up your sleep tonight because you were wrong - not everything from that era rusted into dust yet. And it even perfectly cold started on another minus 20c day with its 34 year old never rebuilt carburetor. Unfortunately it does require a little choke adjustment every couple years.

You are definitely a little bit ignorant.