More important in a direct injection engine...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
2,182
Location
Wisconsin
I was reading about the 3.6L DI engines in the Traverse and was wondering something.

What do you guys think is more important in a direct injection engine (I have a 2.4L DI 4 cyl in 2010 Equinox), low Noack or a good cleaning oil in terms of dealing with intake deposits since the fuel doesn't pass by them with DI?
 
Don't forget about quantity and quality of viscosity modifiers also. As a tribologist told me, these sheared viscosity modifiers can be very volatile and may have a lot to do with the deposits. Ester-based oils such as redline and Biosyn have shown the least shear in the 2.0 FSI, a fuel diluting DI engine. It is often said that redline uses low levels of VIIs due to the natural multigrade nature of the oil, but I am not sure where that originated.

This quote from Pennzoil in the pennzoil FAQs also backs that up:

"The significant factor is viscosity modifier type and concentration, so using fully synthetic narrow span viscosity grades such as 5W-20 is beneficial."
 
Quote:
What do you guys think is more important in a direct injection engine (I have a 2.4L DI 4 cyl in 2010 Equinox), low Noack or a good cleaning oil in terms of dealing with intake deposits since the fuel doesn't pass by them with DI?


Good question. While a low NOACK number would surely be desired, I'm not so sure that a great cleaning oil is going to do much if intake deposits are an issue. I think it will keep the lubed internals in good shape, but I don't see it working one way or the other in the dry intake tract. Whatever makes it that far is going to just hang around. I guess it's really a matter of whatever doesn't make it to the combustion chamber ...(visions of signs littering the intake reading "combustion chamber or bust" with residual oil/fuel component carcasses all around).
 
Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
.........What do you guys think is more important in a direct injection engine (I have a 2.4L DI 4 cyl in 2010 Equinox), low Noack or a good cleaning oil in terms of dealing with intake deposits since the fuel doesn't pass by them with DI? ........


Apparently, low soot production is important.

"Ameer Haider, GM’s assistant chief engineer for V6 engines, certainly knows the problem, telling AutoObserver, “DI engines are prone to forming oily deposits on the intake valves, unlike in port fuel-injected engines, where a constant spray of fuel into the port allows any deposits to wash away. With DI engines, the fuel gets injected directly into the combustion chamber, so there isn't a chance for the deposits to wash away. Typically, deposits form when soot – which is an end-product of combustion – adheres to the valve stem.”


"Haider, GM’s V6 assistant chief engineer, explained how GM has designed its DI engines to combat carbon buildup: “We maintain great engine function and performance in our all our DI engines through an optimization strategy with our valve events,” he said. “Our intake-cam timing, injector targeting and timing of the injection events are optimized to avoid direct fuel contact on the intake valves. This strategy keeps smoke and soot formation to an absolute minimum, which in turn prevents excessive deposit formation.”

"Stephen Russ, technical leader for combustion for Ford’s 2-liter Duratec DI engine, said that similar to GM, engineers have determined the proper injection-timing calibration to help eliminate the carbon deposits. But Russ also said the technology of injection components – particularly the high-pressure solenoid injectors – has quickly matured, meaning excess valve deposits in most DI engines should become a thing of the past as these improved components are incorporated into production."

http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/06/direct-injection-fouls-some-early-adopters.html
 
Last edited:
I have wondered, couldn't you just let it suck sea foam or deep creep through a vacuum line?
 
Originally Posted By: JRed
Why not install an air/oil separator?


If you are referring to a catch can, the Audi RS4 guys tried that with virtually no improvement.
 
Originally Posted By: Steve S
The most important thing is not to buy one untill all the bugs are worked out at other peoples expense.


This is my slant also.
They are in production before major problems were addressed.
 
Originally Posted By: Steve S
The most important thing is not to buy one untill all the bugs are worked out at other peoples expense.

Smartest post I've read all day.
 
Originally Posted By: Steve S
The most important thing is not to buy one untill all the bugs are worked out at other peoples expense.


Agreed. My family in the last 2 weeks just bought 2 vehicles that are available with DI motors or "normal" injection motors.

Even though the DI motors have 20-30 more HP and 3 mpg more on the EPA highway sticker both vehicles were bought with the normal motors.

I'll always take simple over complex. DI is something I do NOT want to deal with until I have NO choice.

Bill
 
Evinrude outboards direct injection bankrupted the company working out the bugs. Now the bugs are worked out and a new parent company improved them they seem to work great. The car engines will be great as well once the bugs are worked out.
 
DI in a 2 cycle outboard has little in common with a four cycle auto engine.
The Mercury D.I. engines work fine but there's no intake valve to crud up.
Evinrude's problems had more to do with the computer mapping and the sensors used and their location. The company was low on money to invest in proper fixes. Once Bombardier took over, they fixed the problems.
 
Originally Posted By: saaber1
It is often said that redline uses low levels of VIIs due to the natural multigrade nature of the oil, but I am not sure where that originated.



That comes right from their website.
 
Originally Posted By: SubLGT
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/06/direct-injection-fouls-some-early-adopters.html


This is an informative article. It does make it clear that Audi and Lexus DI engines are more prone to intake valve carboning than other manufacturers such as Porsche and GM. Since GM's DI engines haven't been in the field as long as Audi's, time will tell. Give it another year, and we'll see if GM's strategy of proper injector targeting and injection timing is robust. I think maybe yes.

Audi needs to do better than complain about the quality of American gasoline if they don't want to get a black eye. While it may be true that gasoline quality is contributing to valve deposits in Audi engines, they are designing engines for sale in America, running on the available fuels and with lower-speed driving habits. If other manufacturers engines don't have a problem, why should Audi get a pass?

Since there are some similarities to the problems of GDI engines and diesels, maybe an HDEO would be the way to go in GDI engines. The possiblities of fuel dilution and soot production through the combustion chamber seem to be about equal between the two engine types. And the effect of oil and fuel carryover through the PCV system is something that most diesels don't have to deal with. It seems that an oil such as Rotella T6 5w40 would be good for dealing with these issues.
 
Oil dilution by fuel is very real in many DI engines.
But this is because of programming and improper pressures and spray patterns.
Doesn't seem hard to fix to me, but be aware it exists!
USA cars are programmed WORSE than Euro cars, for some reason. Richer, often.
As to valve deposits.....OOOOPS! Not as bad with a turbo, because you are jamming air in there, but otherwise, a huge silly error in design.
 
GM has been using DI on their 3.5L engine since the 07 model year.
I'm sure some of those early engines now have plenty of miles on them. Haven't heard any reports of plugged intakes ports.

The newer I4 (2.4L) has had a rash of gas in oil. Hard to point to any particular design flaw. The so-called fix is to change the fuel pump (over pressure?).
 
Unburnt fuel.... PUEuro helps ALOT with fuel dilution (according to most on the speed forum.)

You need a strong pump.... Mine hits 1600-1750 under WOT where some folks are at 1350-1500 and on the brink of pump failure.

The evac system is a main cluprit as far as fuel. EGR is the main contributer to the soot/carbon issue.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dwendt44
GM has been using DI on their 3.5L engine since the 07 model year.
I'm sure some of those early engines now have plenty of miles on them. Haven't heard any reports of plugged intakes ports.

The newer I4 (2.4L) has had a rash of gas in oil. Hard to point to any particular design flaw. The so-called fix is to change the fuel pump (over pressure?).


Sorry, didn't realize you were referring to the 3.5L
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom