Why new intake/manifold design for 2025 Maverick?

[Mark S.]

also, here’s multiple pictures of caked ecoboost valves, I guess

Which engine? What is the source of the photos? Here's more actual evidence:

https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news...a-problem-with-direct-injection-engines-.html

Sponsored

 

[Mark S.]

I almost have those miles on our maverick, we live in northern michigan, always use 87 octane, did initial and subsequent oil changes at fords recommended 5000 miles,never used a valve cleaner and no issues. Maybe the focus was a lemon?

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.

Responding via e-mail Laskowski [AKA FordTechMakuloco] said, “Carbon deposits in Ford engines are not a widespread issue due to the advanced engine technology.” But he also mentioned that it has happened in some low-mileage EcoBoost units.

“As of today the issue seems to be isolated to certain markets with varying factors such as fuel quality,” said Laskowski. If carbon buildup becomes severe he said it can result in all kinds of issues from drivability woes to misfires, turbocharger issues and even catalytic converter damage.

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.

 

[Chapystick]

Which engine? What is the source of the photos? Here's more actual evidence:

https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news...a-problem-with-direct-injection-engines-.html

As far as I’m aware, those photos are of 3.5 V6 Ecoboosts. Here’s a photo of a 2.3 cylinder head caked. Same as the 2.0.


And that article is “is it a problem?” Not, “will it happen”. Objectively, it will happen, regardless of how fast or slow. Will it be a problem? Probably not for 90% of people.

 

[Mark S.]

Very common on STs, I think we're seeing it less due to the oil formulation change https://www.api.org/news-policy-and...-oil-standards-good-for-consumers-environment

ST owners are notorious for mods, especially software mods, and especially software mods that increase boost pressure. If you increase boost pressure you will increase piston blowby, and therefore crankcase pressure.

 

[Mark S.]

As far as I’m aware, those photos are of 3.5 V6 Ecoboosts. Here’s a photo of a 2.3 cylinder head caked. Same as the 2.0.

Random photos with no provenance are not very good evidence. I've provided evidence from two sources as proof of my claims. Where is yours?

Objectively, it will happen,

Yes, you keep saying this, but you have offered no proof.

Will it be a problem? Probably not for 90% of people.

Where did you get the 90% statistic? If valve contamination does not cause driveability problems for 90% of EcoBoost owners then why would Ford add port injection to prevent it?

 

[OleKennyRoy]

The videos I posted are from FordTechMakaluco. Watch them. You're either a troll, or suffering from fact-resistance. Ford would not spend the time and effort to work backwards and add port injection if valve coking was not an issue.

 

[Chapystick]

Random photos with no provenance are not very good evidence. I've provided evidence from two sources as proof of my claims. Where is yours?

Random photos?? My brother in Christ, they’re direct injection ecoboost engines. That IS the whole point. The caking is RIGHT THERE
Plus your sources are articles with one statement or no actual backing to your argument.

If you’ve never taken a manifold off your ecoboost and seen your valves from the outside I don’t even think you’re allowed to argue

Yes, you keep saying this, but you have offered no proof.

At this point I’m convinced you’re ignoring it because you like to hear yourself be in opposition to something for fun.

Where did you get the 90% statistic? If valve contamination does not cause driveability problems for 90% of EcoBoost owners then why would Ford add port injection to prevent it?

I personally never stated they added the PI to solve the problem. The dual fuel injection is beneficial for plenty of other reasons. I even said in response earlier that it remains to be seen if the small amount of fuel that’s actually being used from the PI system will make a measurable difference.



All I was here to do was laugh at the statement that valve caking has “NEVER been a problem” on ford engines.

 

[Mark S.]

The videos I posted are from FordTechMakaluco.

Did you read either of the articles I linked to? FordTechMakaluco is quoted in one. He said, "Carbon deposits in Ford engines are not a widespread issue due to the advanced engine technology."

You're either a troll, or suffering from fact-resistance.

Neither. I'm looking for something besides opinion or anecdote. For example, a quote from a trusted source such as the one I supplied.

Ford would not spend the time and effort to work backwards and add port injection if valve coking was not an issue.

Again, the articles I posted clearly state the several advantages offered by port injection that have nothing whatsoever to do with valve contamination.

 

[Mark S.]

Random photos?? My brother in Christ, they’re direct injection ecoboost engines. That IS the whole point. The caking is RIGHT THERE

They are random to me. I have no idea where they came from, who took them, what engine it was, whether the engine was modified or stock, etc., etc., etc. Like I said, a few random photos is not evidence of widespread issue with valve contamination.

Plus your sources are articles with one statement or no actual backing to your argument.

I linked to an article with a quote from a respected source that clearly says valve contamination is not a widespread issue with Ford's EcoBoost engines. I note you have offered NOTHING from any source other than yourself to back up your claim that it is.

f you’ve never taken a manifold off your ecoboost and seen your valves from the outside I don’t even think you’re allowed to argue

This is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. One of humanity's greatest advances toward modernity is our ability to learn from other peoples' experiences.

All I was here to do was laugh at the statement that valve caking has “NEVER been a problem” on ford engines.

Please quote the post where I made that claim. I have said repeatedly that valve contamination is not a widespread issue with Ford's EcoBoost engines. Do some people experience valve contamination. Yes. I was a member of the Ford Mustang EcoBoost forum for several years, and more than one person reported such problems. But after you did a bit deeper you find their engines were modified, usually with software meant to boost power.

I personally never stated they added the PI to solve the problem. The dual fuel injection is beneficial for plenty of other reasons. I even said in response earlier that it remains to be seen if the small amount of fuel that’s actually being used from the PI system will make a measurable difference.

Then we are in agreement on that at least!

 

[colinl]

Well, one thing is for sure, the ATF R&R will be a lot easier on a '25!

I'm not seeing a transmission dipstick though. Assuming it still doesn't have one, damn that's annoying, but not surprising.

 

[fstlan3]

As an powertrain engineer 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

 

[Packer Bill]

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 some clarification on this much debated topic!!

 

[1929]

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

Emissions compliance.

 

[dalola]

I'm not seeing a transmission dipstick though. Assuming it still doesn't have one, damn that's annoying, but not surprising.

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

 

[Hoagus]

The old aftermarket intake won’t work with the new truck. Doesn’t really matter why.

Sponsored