Ecoboost engine question -- prevent carbon build up in the cylinder head?

[RedRider]

This is bad information. I was with Ford/Lincoln from 2011 to 2019 and I can tell you with great confidence that we replaced a huge number of Eco boost cylinder heads and even engines due to excess carbon build up. And many at mileage that was shockingly low.

That has definitely not been my experience. Maybe you have a large number of people in your area who do not use the correct oils, or do not change it until the engine falls over. The "huge number of Eco boost cylinder heads" in the first generation (2013-2015) 2.0 engines were due to a gasket leak that was corrected by a small head redesign to eliminate one water jacket hole. Similarly, the 1.6L engines had faulty gaskets causing engine failure early on. The current 1.3, 1.5, 2.0 engines do not have these issues to my knowledge. The 2.7 and 3.5 engines in F150s may, but they are not GDI designs and I don't work on those. One of my vehicles has the early 2.0 head, so I watch for the gasket failure signs. I've never seen a badly carboned up valve on an ecoboost with less than 300k kms. that did not also have an ignored misfire.

Sponsored

 

[sanpablo]

I would not recommend spraying any solvent cleaner into a running the ecoboost engine unless you want to destroy the turbo.

Walnut blasting or manual scraping is the only method that works.

Researching this a little more and I have to apologize for mentioning using CRC intake valve cleaner on ecoboost engines. I agree with you. Don't do it.
With that said, that is why I personally will never buy any make vehicle with a turbo. IMO it's just not needed on an everyday vehicle. Naturally aspirated engines are fine for me. YMMV, what ever works for you. All the best.

 

[Skyline]

I agree that it isn't a one brand problem. I am concerned since none of the manufacturers have addressed the problem. Certainly, I am concerned since I ordered a Ford with the 2.0 engine. And I stand by my statement that Ford should have fixed the problem before now. Other companies should have fixed the problem, also.

This issue is due to the high performance, low emission GDI engines, unless some workaround had been implemented by some brands. The solution is:

Systemic solutions to the problem currently involve varying the formulation of oil, changing combustion chamber design, and reprogramming valve and ignition timing. Ford is also experimenting with a hybrid direct-indirect injection system: Fuel is injected into the combustion chambers as in GDI but also some is injected into the intake ports in order to clean the valve heads.

Source

Naturally aspirated engines are fine for me. YMMV, what ever works for you. All the best.

Yeah, I am kicking myself for not getting the Honda Ridgline instead, I wish they had the silver color...

 

[Bill Quattlebaum]

Ford should have already fixed this. The 2.0 ecoboost engine has been around for many years. This is a recurring long-term issue.

 

[Gray Maverick]

Yeah i'm fine with running 87 octane in the 2.0 ecoboost. That said, what do you guys think about running 89 during the hottest 2-3 months of the year?

 

[Ottocycle]

Geez, using that line of thought, the hybrid at 13:1 compression should fall over after a week of operation. Clearly that is not the case. If your ECU cannot manage the fuel mixture properly just because it is retarding under load, then there is something seriously wrong with either your ECU design or the combustion chamber geometry. E.g: BMW and Mini engines are famous for carboning up, and you do have to clean them out regularly. Unless you are at no load at the redline, modern engines are always retarding the ignition, usually by at least 30 degrees. The only reason that Toyota (and Volkwagon and the larger Ford engines do the intake injection instead of direct injection is that either its an old head design with no HPI port, or (e.g. the larger Ford and Toyota V6 engines) they do not have a high-pressure fuel rail and cannot do direct injection. Volkswagen only does the additional low-pressure injection to eliminate a deadspot in their mechanical-ECU fuel curve.

Geez, ever heard of otto and atkinson cycles? Cylinder pressures? CR is just one variable in the thermodynamic equation. It all comes down to cylinder pressures and keeping the explosion controlled in the most optimal manner for the thermodynamic cycle being employed. If you want a computer to compensate for a non efficient cycle by all means go for it. Any modern ECU will save a motor from stupidity. If you would like to discuss thermodynamic cycles please feel free to PM me.

 

[matmondro]

Where is it squirted in?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but through my research on this, I think you'll be fine if you spray this into the intake post-turbo. Sea Foam makes a similar product that I plan to use when I hit the 10k mile mark. Spraying it pre-turbo, such as through the air intake/box or the intake boot near the MAF will likely throw a code. The worst that could happen spraying it pre-turbo is that the spray could cold seize, fissure, or shatter the turbine within the turbo.

I would think the best place on the 2.0 EB would be right at the intake manifold and throttle body where your charged air tube comes in from the intercooler. This puts you ahead of the turbo and MAF and gets your spray essentially as close as possible to the valves and intake runners.

 

[RedRider]

Geez, ever heard of otto and atkinson cycles? Cylinder pressures? CR is just one variable in the thermodynamic equation. It all comes down to cylinder pressures and keeping the explosion controlled in the most optimal manner for the thermodynamic cycle being employed. If you want a computer to compensate for a non efficient cycle by all means go for it. Any modern ECU will save a motor from stupidity. If you would like to discuss thermodynamic cycles please feel free to PM me.

You're partially correct about the cylinder pressures, ignoring bad head and piston design, hotspots, uniform mixture dispersion, otto/atkinson/miller/diesel/other cycle, etc. Engines for the last 35+ years have used high compression to get much better highway cruise economy, and I cannot think of an engine from any manufacturer bigger than a lawnmower that does not use a knock sensor and a computer to back off the timing to compensate for that higher compression when accelerating and not near the redline. Its not saving it from stupidity, its building a more efficient engine. Similarly, adding a turbo on a smaller engine with less friction improves the efficiency, which is why there are no more V8s running 8:1 compression and getting 6mpg, and why GM and Ford are pushing 3-cylinder engines a lot these days. But this has nothing to do with bad injection curves causing carbon buildup on the backside of the valve, which is what this thread is about. Luckily it is very rare on Fords.

 

[Snox801]

This is bad information. I was with Ford/Lincoln from 2011 to 2019 and I can tell you with great confidence that we replaced a huge number of Eco boost cylinder heads and even engines due to excess carbon build up. And many at mileage that was shockingly low.

But he’s not entirely wrong. Vastly more ecoboost went crazy high mileage like his and mine without any carbon issues. So yes a lot did but they sold millions and majority had no issues. But I understand what you were trying to say.

 

[Snox801]

I would not recommend spraying any solvent cleaner into a running the ecoboost engine unless you want to destroy the turbo.

Walnut blasting or manual scraping is the only method that works.

So I see that ford does not recommend this and I’ve not had to do it on any of mine. But this is very common practice for Audi and VW, with DI turbos. In fact they use very similar turbos. So why would it be ok in one and not the other? Does recommend walnut Audi uses cleaners? That engine does not know it’s a ford or VW. Plus I can tell you a shop in my town does hundreds of ecoboost a year with this cleaner spray and they have never had one single issue related.
Not saying I would use it but I would not be scare of it either.

 

[Vaportrail]

I've got a 10 year old Hyundai with a direct injection turbo-

I got behind the wheel after not driving it for 6 months. (Wifey has been driving it to work)

It was running rough, hesitating-

It's got well over 120k miles, and I figure carbon was plugging things up a little...

I filled it up with premium, and stood on it to redline a few times-

Runs much better again...

I think they called it an "Italian tuneup"

 

[Bob The Builder]

Use a full synthetic and change the oil sooner than Ford recommends. Now forget about it.

 

[Decayed]

So I see that ford does not recommend this and I’ve not had to do it on any of mine. But this is very common practice for Audi and VW, with DI turbos. In fact they use very similar turbos. So why would it be ok in one and not the other? Does recommend walnut Audi uses cleaners? That engine does not know it’s a ford or VW. Plus I can tell you a shop in my town does hundreds of ecoboost a year with this cleaner spray and they have never had one single issue related.
Not saying I would use it but I would not be scare of it either.

I'd be surprised if the spray stuff really does much. There are youtube videos where people used it then took off the covers to see the valves. Looked maybe a little cleaner but not by much. IMO it just dissolved some varnish. Carbon buildup is tough stuff and walnut blasting is the way to go.

 

[Montana]

I'd be surprised if the spray stuff really does much. There are youtube videos where people used it then took off the covers to see the valves. Looked maybe a little cleaner but not by much. IMO it just dissolved some varnish. Carbon buildup is tough stuff and walnut blasting is the way to go.

It doesn't do much at all. Even on engines where it's capable of hot soaking it doesn't do much and then there is risk of it all just building up in the catalytic converter. Plenty of shops with mechanics who buy into those marketing gimmicks and snake oil cleaners.

 

[Snox801]

It doesn't do much at all. Even on engines where it's capable of hot soaking it doesn't do much and then there is risk of it all just building up in the catalytic converter. Plenty of shops with mechanics who buy into those marketing gimmicks and snake oil cleaners.

That explains why they have never had an issue. Hence why I said it probably doesn’t hurt anything. I agree though the only way to really get it off is walnut. Or add meth injection. That stuff will clean the dirtiest of valves very fast. One guy on the focus forum showed before and after and I was shocked. But the carbon does get very soft when hot which is when most meth would be sprayed so that makes sense.

Sponsored