Why new intake/manifold design for 2025 Maverick?

[Tim d]

There's no evidence of widespread valve contamination being an issue with Ford's EcoBoost engines. This article includes a quote from popular YouTuber FordTechMakuloco who has a great deal of experience working with Ford engines.



Use good quality fuel, change your oil as recommended, and enjoy your car without worrying about carbon buildup--it just isn't an issue with these engines.

Well said! And that's what I plan on doing,ty

Sponsored

 

[Mark S.]

in the late stages

Please define late stages.

and customer warranty teams

I have not read about widespread warranty claims regarding valve contamination. Do you have some data?

 

[fstlan3]

Please define late stages.


I have not read about widespread warranty claims regarding valve contamination. Do you have some data?

Late stages meaning 60,000 miles and greater

I cannot source internal documents for you I’m sorry. The second gen Nano engine was fast to market for some of these reasons however. And with the multitude of issues plaguing the I-4 engines this was a lower priority issue. Also this can be thrown back at the customer for lacking regular maintenance much like many issues are initially. I can appreciate your determination to counter this argument however

 

[colinl]

I'm guessing the 8AT is completely carryover for '25.

still easier to fill without removing the air box.

Please define late stages.


I have not read about widespread warranty claims regarding valve contamination. Do you have some data?

are you serious?

please do not chase off the one valuable FoMoCo resource we have apparently just gained.

 

[Glen Baker LLC]

As an powertrain engineer at Ford and now working in a team at Ford Performance, though not speaking on their behalf, valve contamination was seen as a long term side effect of the initial design of EcoBoost engines. Eliminating port injection was heavily weighed originally because we knew the side effects were 100% going to be carbon buildup on valves reducing efficiency in the late stages. Also this buildup insulates the valve from cooling naturally and can cause LSPI and detonation. It was determined to reintroduce port injection, bringing relief to both development teams and customer warranty teams. There were really nothing but benefits to this. You can assume what you want but from Ford, it was for buildup reduction

Thank you for your Time, information and patience with some members.
It is appreciated.
I hope you have a great 2025.
Take Care

GB

 

[Glen Baker LLC]

Does anyone know why ford redesigned the whole intake/manifold for the 2025?

I’m still excited about my truck, just bummed a bit that I can’t go ahead and order the S&B Intake to have ready and waiting to put on when I receive my truck from the dealer.

after seeing pictures of the actual layout of engine, it’s not making a ton of sense for all the changes

Cody "envymy300",
At $350.
Was there any particular reason you wanted to install the S&B Intake?

 

[Mark S.]

Late stages meaning 60,000 miles and greater

I cannot source internal documents for you I’m sorry. The second gen Nano engine was fast to market for some of these reasons however. And with the multitude of issues plaguing the I-4 engines this was a lower priority issue. Also this can be thrown back at the customer for lacking regular maintenance much like many issues are initially. I can appreciate your determination to counter this argument however

Thanks for the reply. I have been tracking this issue since we bought our first 2.0L EcoBoost-equipped Escape in 2014. Since then we've owned an EcoBoost Mustang, a second Escape, and a Bronco Sport, all equipped with EcoBoost engines. I've read on forums for over a decade about the dreaded valve contamination and have asked repeatedly on several different forums for any evidence of a widespread problem. None has ever been shared. I get anecdote, and the I-have-a-friend-of-a-friend stories, but nothing that would indicate an ongoing, widespread problem.

Given that EcoBoost equipped cars have been in operation for nearly a decade-and-a-half, with millions having accumulated mileage well in excess of 60K (including three of the four EcoBoost equipped vehicles I've owned), it seems to me that Ford has either been very adept at scrubbing the internet of the kind of data I seek, or it has been successful in mitigating valve contamination well enough to prevent driveability issues. One of these seems much more likely to me than the other.

 

[fstlan3]

Just because something is widespread doesn’t mean it causes enough of a problem to bring attention to it. Valve contamination is a long term and slow building issue. It doesn’t cause catastrophic failure and most symptoms are in the NVH category. Over time there’s going to be performance loss. I understand what you’re asking for but it’s niche information in a small percentage group of otherwise oblivious owners.

Rest assured that the new 2.0 L EcoBoost carried forward is entirely redesigned to alleviate long term performance issues and maintain longevity to accompany the trend of customers holding onto their vehicles longer. I hope we didn’t derail the thread too much with this back and forth.

 

[Tim d]

Just because something is widespread doesn’t mean it causes enough of a problem to bring attention to it. Valve contamination is a long term and slow building issue. It doesn’t cause catastrophic failure and most symptoms are in the NVH category. Over time there’s going to be performance loss. I understand what you’re asking for but it’s niche information in a small percentage group of otherwise oblivious owners.

Rest assured that the new 2.0 L EcoBoost carried forward is entirely redesigned to alleviate long term performance issues and maintain longevity to accompany the trend of customers holding onto their vehicles longer. I hope we didn’t derail the thread too much with this back and forth.

Agree,lots of back and forth here. I have an antique car, 72 Plymouth cuda, it's 53 years old and I've never given one thought to valve contamination. Maybe to much thought going into this.

 

[Mark S.]

Just because something is widespread doesn’t mean it causes enough of a problem to bring attention to it.

This has been my point; if it doesn't cause problems why would Ford commit to a redesign to "fix" it?

I hope we didn’t derail the thread too much with this back and forth.

I'm not sure why you would be concerned about this. The topic is a question about why Ford redesigned the intake system to include port injection. Isn't that what we've been discussing?

 

[Glen Baker LLC]

hmmm

 

[fstlan3]

This has been my point; if it doesn't cause problems why would Ford commit to a redesign to "fix" it?


I'm not sure why you would be concerned about this. The topic is a question about why Ford redesigned the intake system to include port injection. Isn't that what we've been discussing?

I’ve stated why it was redesigned and then you rebutted the answer. The engine was redesigned for long term efficiency and to eliminate LSPI that’s been noted during post-market testing. I don’t know how much more direct I can give of an answer to why than that. I’m just trying to be helpful and answer questions here. Like I said most people don’t and won’t notice the issue. It’s not something that ends up scrapping motors. It’s just a simple result of combustion that is exacerbated by direct injection only design.

I guess this became more of a Streisand effect by unintentional reason lol. Ford improves something and suddenly: “what was wrong with it before then???”

 

[RobbieAG]

Late stages meaning 60,000 miles and greater

I sure hope I don't experience this issue starting around 60k. To me, late stages means 200,000 miles and greater.

 

[fstlan3]

I sure hope I don't experience this issue starting around 60k. To me, late stages means 200,000 miles and greater.

I guess I should have emphasized sooner that this isn’t a major concern for the engine.

 

[Mark S.]

I’ve stated why it was redesigned and then you rebutted the answer.

I don't believe I rebutted your answer. I shared my reasoning and expressed confusion regarding yours.

I don’t know how much more direct I can give of an answer to why than that. I’m just trying to be helpful and answer questions here. Like I said most people don’t and won’t notice the issue. It’s not something that ends up scrapping motors.

From what I know, a single LSPI event has the potential to destroy an engine. If Ford has linked intake valve fouling to LSPI then it would certainly seem that valve fouling has the potential to scrap an engine. This illustrates the source of my confusion: You say that Ford added port injection primarily to mitigate intake valve fouling. You also said valve fouling is not a major concern. These two claims seem at odds to me.

I guess this became more of a Streisand effect by unintentional reason lol. Ford improves something and suddenly: “what was wrong with it before then???”

This has been my assumption from the start. You often read on forums such as this one how this or that manufacturer scrimps on costs, and designs their products with planned obsolescence; they are meant to hold together only long enough to get through the warranty period. Adding port injection is not an inexpensive redesign, and if you are correct doing so would seem to belie claims that Ford doesn't care about the long-term durability of its products.

Whatever the reason, it's a welcome design change, whether you believe Ford is fixing an old problem or improving an already good design. Thanks for the civil discussion.

Sponsored