Direct Injection - Pros, Cons & Maintenance

[Oliverboots]

Bronco engines are equipped with Direct Injection Fuel technology allowing the fuel to be sprayed directly in to the combustion chamber - great for power and efficiency, not so great for carbon build up on valves and quicker wear and tear. It is said that at every 40 K to 50 K miles, the valves and cylinder head are to be walnut shell blasted to remove the carbon buildup - which means down time and $$$$

Thought to start this thread to get inputs on proactive maintenance and steps to keep carbon build up at bay and allow us to enjoy the Bronco to the max. Your thoughts and inputs are much appreciated!

Sponsored

 

[Staticclism]

I think this depends on how they've designed the system; I know one of the Audis I've owned had to be walnut blasted every 60k, but the direct injection systems since then (mine was an '07) have since added injectors above the valves as well specifically to avoid the coking issues.

 

[Granger Ford]

on my first gen 3.5 Eco was direct injected and I put a catch can on it to keep the oil from coking on the top of the intake valves but my current gen 3.5 eco has direct injection with an injector at each cylinder intake valve that seem to be doing a much better job of keeping the intake valves clean

 

[aplm7]

I really want to know this also. From my research in the past about my older 3.5L Explorer Sport, the more modern ecoboost's fixed this by adding both Direct, and Port injection. The 2.7 in the bronco says it has both, but the 2.3 only says it has the one..... why the heck didn't they add both? I don't know anything about engines, so maybe the 2.3 just doesn't suffer the buildup?

 

[Oliverboots]

Nice at-least the 2.7's are dual injected, but they don't come with manual tranny's

 

[Oliverboots]

I really want to know this also. From my research in the past about my older 3.5L Explorer Sport, the more modern ecoboost's fixed this by adding both Direct, and Port injection. The 2.7 in the bronco says it has both, but the 2.3 only says it has the one..... why the heck didn't they add both? I don't know anything about engines, so maybe the 2.3 just doesn't suffer the buildup?

you mean 2.7's don't suffer buildup? Cuz, injection on top of valve helps clean the build up

 

[aplm7]

you mean 2.7's don't suffer buildup? Cuz, injection on top of valve helps clean the build up

Well yes, 2.7 doesn't BECAUSE of the improvements made, but I was wondering if they didn't think the 2.3 would suffer the same buildup, hence why they left it at only Direct injection?

 

[deznut]

some info on the 2.7
https://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=146

info on the 2.3
https://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=135

and info on the 2.0 which the 2.3 is based
https://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=134

based on the links above for the 2.3 and 2.0...it does NOT appear to have "dual" fuel injection like the 2.7...a review of the emission / EGR system on the 4 cylinder engine may provide a clue???

CRC the aftermarket chemical/cleaner company has a product that they claim will clean deposits, but I don't think it is "Ford" approved...



biggest issue on the 4 cylinder that I remember is the head gasket failing ( Focus ST) ...by now, Ford should have fixed the head gasket issue...hth

 

[Blackandbluebronco]

some info on the 2.7
https://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=146

info on the 2.3
https://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=135

and info on the 2.0 which the 2.3 is based
https://www.motorreviewer.com/engine.php?engine_id=134

based on the links above for the 2.3 and 2.0...it does NOT appear to have "dual" fuel injection like the 2.7...a review of the emission / EGR system on the 4 cylinder engine may provide a clue???

CRC the aftermarket chemical/cleaner company has a product that they claim will clean deposits, but I don't think it is "Ford" approved...



biggest issue on the 4 cylinder that I remember is the head gasket failing ( Focus ST) ...by now, Ford should have fixed the head gasket issue...hth

Looks like the 2.3 has a lot more room to modify and tune compared to the 2.7. The 2.3 has a longer history and with that more history to figure out the issues compared to the short production life of the 2.7.

Sponsored