2025 Ram 1500 coverage

[testerdahl]

Tim,

Yeah remember that video and his discussion and linked back to it on you tube where top commenters had the same concern as I do and which wasn't addressed:

"I think the biggest problem is still not addressed, that is carbon buildup in the intake valves. It’s my understanding that carbon/ dried sludge builds up on the intake valves from the PCV introducing oil vapor into the intake valves building up crud, because in the normal course of port injection the deposits would be washed away from building up on the valves otherwise. Direct injection eliminates this of course. That is why they have added this 2 way punch of port and direct injection. It’s still not clear how GM is addressing this issue beyond using both as Ford and others have done."

"It's the crank case blow by that gets returned to the intake through the pcv that creates intake valve coking. Valve coking is worse on turbo charged engines, which is the point for ecoboost having port and direct injection. The port injection helps to clean the back of the intake valves."

From 37:10 to 37:20 Alan talks about how the bad gases are ventilated from the crankcase and go back through the combustion process. But as the earlier comments to the GM video detail, the PCV system sends the gas with the dirty oil back through the intake manifold...Where detergent gasoline doesn't spray anymore because of the 2000psi fuel atomization occurring in the cylinder. But here is the end result for the consumer:

Timestamp Chapter 4, 3:47 for the valves.

Believe this is something GM and RAM will accept and and tell customers to walnut shell (or trade it in!) while Ford has partially addressed it, but not as clean as full-time port injection.

Moot point in the end, just have to keep my L36, LMG, LC9, and SI6 motors.

I’ve been talking and asking about direct injection with regards to carbon buildup for years. I actually asked Alan about that and got a WTF kind of look back. Engineers are of the opinion this is a fixed issue IMO. It just never comes up anymore in my discussions.

I feel like this issue isn’t going away with the videos I’ve done though. That tells me I haven’t either asked the right question or gotten the right answer. Terrence, whose comment you quoted, has been on and off with me on this for at least 4 years.

I wonder who to interview now that people would actually believe. LOL. I tried Stellantis, I tried GM, so… either Ford or Toyota.

 

[testerdahl]

All in all Tim, that was a decent interview; I liked how you let him talk, no interruptions, you didn't "preach to him" and ask him to confirm etc etc. That style drives me nuts.

However, few things stood out to me, especially regarding oil. Note how they select 0w-20 and 0w-40 respectively for the 2 engines, despite the ad pack being the same? That's because the first line of defence against wear is the viscosity (oil film thickness itself). The ad pack comes into play once parts are touching, but the oil film is supposed to prevent that in the first place. The increased pressures make that more of a problem in the HO, but its the same reason many of us hemi guys prefer 0w-30 in our trucks. Relying on the ad pack is not ideal. This isn't as big of a problem for guys who city drive, but for those who tow and heat the oil up excessively it's an important detail.

Regarding oil change interval, I found the explanation of the PCV system interesting. However oil still carries soot/debris and the filter only does so much. Dirty oil still wears on the components like a very fine sandpaper and nothing solves that problem other than a flush. If/when the oil filter goes into bypass you're then circulating very dirty oil through the engine for a brief period of time. How much does it matter? I dunno, but I will continue with my 7500 miles max per OCI as it's cheap insurance.

He mentioned the duty cycle of the engines and how most people barely exceed 30 minutes of max power. The 6.4 hemi in the 2500 is rated to deliver full power under full load on 87 octane for 12 minutes. It's too bad there were no questions directly relating to the stress and intended work load for these engines vs the cast iron hemis. Also remember the 5.7 hemi was used as the base engine in the 2500 for a decade+. We KNOW it can handle the abuse, at this point the hurricane has to prove itself and I think the fact that they're not using it in the 2500 speaks loud enough (I mean why not put 520 hp in a 2500, right?), though perhaps they'll dump it in the 2500 later this year during that refresh.

The other problem with the hurricane is that its a modern, sophisticated, and very intricate design. This makes it more expensive/costly to repair, and also makes it less and less likely that backyard mechanics like me can service my truck. The hemi (and the chevy small block v8's etc) are all very simple, easy to understand, easy to self service, and this is where much of the blowback (heh) on turbos and modern engines is also coming from.

In the end it was a nice watch but I doubt he is changing many minds at this point.

I can’t imagine anyone doing their own engine work anymore without a dedicated shop, a lift to remove the cab, computers, speciality tools and a wealth of instruction manuals and videos. I just don’t see it. There are far too many different parts and systems that have to work together.

People love to tell me that my ‘62 is the sweet spot. Easy to work on, simple to understand, etc…

I tell them the difference is the ‘62 ALWAYS needs work while new trucks don’t need nearly as much work unless you get a bad one. Vehicles are turning into rolling computers. You don’t fix them anymore when they die, you just replace them.

 

[testerdahl]

Oh and I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind. I’m merely the vessel providing the information.

 

[testerdahl]

Hmm… Maybe Ford will have an engineer on site, when I go to the Ranger program, who can talk about this GDI and carbon buildup. It is pretty interesting that one engine has port injection and the other doesn’t. If port injection is THE solution to carbon buildup and this buildup causes long-term performance issues, why wouldn’t they do it for both engines? Saying cost is a cop out IMO.

Or maybe I’m reading “port fuel” incorrectly.

 

[testerdahl]

I should also just read Terrence’s question out loud and let the same Ford engineer person answer. Maybe that will finally answer his question. LOL

 

[zonedout]

I can’t imagine anyone doing their own engine work anymore without a dedicated shop, a lift to remove the cab, computers, speciality tools and a wealth of instruction manuals and videos. I just don’t see it. There are far too many different parts and systems that have to work together.

People love to tell me that my ‘62 is the sweet spot. Easy to work on, simple to understand, etc…

I tell them the difference is the ‘62 ALWAYS needs work while new trucks don’t need nearly as much work unless you get a bad one. Vehicles are turning into rolling computers. You don’t fix them anymore when they die, you just replace them.

There are all kinds of guys who replace the lifters in their current ram hemis using nothing more than a garage and an engine hoist you can pick up for a few bucks at a parts store. You won't be doing that so quickly anymore. That is kinda the point yes.

 

[zonedout]

I’ve been talking and asking about direct injection with regards to carbon buildup for years. I actually asked Alan about that and got a WTF kind of look back. Engineers are of the opinion this is a fixed issue IMO. It just never comes up anymore in my discussions.

I feel like this issue isn’t going away with the videos I’ve done though. That tells me I haven’t either asked the right question or gotten the right answer. Terrence, whose comment you quoted, has been on and off with me on this for at least 4 years.

I wonder who to interview now that people would actually believe. LOL. I tried Stellantis, I tried GM, so… either Ford or Toyota.

This is the problem. There is a disconnect in what the engineers are saying, and the real life actual reports. Maybe you'll read this article from valvoline (just as an example). GDI is very, very far from a solved problem in many engines.

The Truth Behind Carbon Buildup

We all know that gasoline is the fuel that provides power in our cars’ engines. But along the way to the combustion chamber, that gasoline provides the additional benefit of serving as a solvent that cleans the intake port and intake valve.

team.valvolineglobal.com

 

[testerdahl]

This is the problem. There is a disconnect in what the engineers are saying, and the real life actual reports. Maybe you'll read this article from valvoline (just as an example). GDI is very, very far from a solved problem in many engines.

The Truth Behind Carbon Buildup

We all know that gasoline is the fuel that provides power in our cars’ engines. But along the way to the combustion chamber, that gasoline provides the additional benefit of serving as a solvent that cleans the intake port and intake valve.

team.valvolineglobal.com

Wait, is that date correct? 2019?

Also, “What will help with these issues is Vavoline’s Modern Engine Full Synthetic, which is specifically formulated with additives to reduce carbon buildup more than other oils.”

Isn’t that what Alan talked about today was advanced oils?

 

[testerdahl]

I found the oil on Amazon. Indeed it came out years ago. The description reads:

• Innovative formula fights carbon build-up in GDI (Gas Direct Injection), Turbo and other newer engines

Valvoline Modern Engine SAE 5W-30 Full Synthetic Motor Oil 1 QT https://a.co/d/5vIgIKO

 

[zonedout]

Wait, is that date correct? 2019?

Also, “What will help with these issues is Vavoline’s Modern Engine Full Synthetic, which is specifically formulated with additives to reduce carbon buildup more than other oils.”

Isn’t that what Alan talked about today was advanced oils?

Alan mentioned ILSAC GF-6, my understanding is its a minor change from GF-5 and is mainly to combat LSPI (low speed pre ignition mainly on small turbo GDI engines) and some improvements to combat timing chain wear. It seems many formulas decrease calcium and increase magnesium in their formulas to combat LSPI.

 

[NMTRUCKER]

I was really impressed by his answer and I'm hoping I can now put this question to bed.

Also, whenever somebody says something about start/stop systems and starter going bad, I'm just going to share this link and say, "here you go."

I don’t think the start/stop “conundrum” will ever go away (no matter what hard facts are presented) especially if it’s somehow anyway related to the government. People today seem not to want to trust in science and the scientific method. It’s truly a sad state of affairs IMO.

 

[testerdahl]

Alan mentioned ILSAC GF-6, my understanding is its a minor change from GF-5 and is mainly to combat LSPI (low speed pre ignition mainly on small turbo GDI engines) and some improvements to combat timing chain wear. It seems many formulas decrease calcium and increase magnesium in their formulas to combat LSPI.

Great now I have to interview Shell. Thanks…

 

[Rogue Skunk]

It's LIVE!

Did your LZO Silverado continue a cooling cycle after you shut the engine down?

 

[NMTRUCKER]

I can’t imagine anyone doing their own engine work anymore without a dedicated shop, a lift to remove the cab, computers, speciality tools and a wealth of instruction manuals and videos. I just don’t see it. There are far too many different parts and systems that have to work together.

People love to tell me that my ‘62 is the sweet spot. Easy to work on, simple to understand, etc…

I tell them the difference is the ‘62 ALWAYS needs work while new trucks don’t need nearly as much work unless you get a bad one. Vehicles are turning into rolling computers. You don’t fix them anymore when they die, you just replace them.

Yes, old vehicles require lots of care and maintenance. I have a ‘69 Chevelle SS with a 396 cubic inch engine that I have worked on lots. Would that engine last 100,000 miles? No way. Modern engines are way more efficient, reliable, and longer lasting than the supposed engines of the “good old days”.

 

[GMT 900]

Hmm… Maybe Ford will have an engineer on site, when I go to the Ranger program, who can talk about this GDI and carbon buildup. It is pretty interesting that one engine has port injection and the other doesn’t. If port injection is THE solution to carbon buildup and this buildup causes long-term performance issues, why wouldn’t they do it for both engines? Saying cost is a cop out IMO.

Or maybe I’m reading “port fuel” incorrectly.

View attachment 276

To your earlier point Tim, I work with engineers all the time and the look is common; a lot of times it is because I am bringing up something they didn't think of already or it's something I mention that was documented in the Systems Engineering Plan two versions ago and I must have missed the Configuration Management meetings!

Alan and his RAM team are doing something I have first hand experience with in the aviation field: Modifying a complicated platform, in this case the DT truck, to fit a power plant it was never designed to take way back at its germination in 2014 or so. Much more difficult than a clean sheet design in most ways.

The GDI issue also shows the Systems Engineering Tradespace compromises made on the fuel injection system. Tradespace? Here is a little light reading on the topic, courtesy MIT:

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/16-842-...all-2015/resources/mit16_842f15_ses_5_design/

In a nutshell, Alan and team are inheriting a tradespace compromise on GDI the Alfa Romeo Systems Engineering team made on the GME (Hurricane) architecture, probably back in the first part of the last decade:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCA_Global_Medium_Engine

They have added cylinders, made other changes and "only share 5%" with the 2.0L but changing head castings to add the port injection and most importantly, the engine management system upgrades (it is ALWAYS software), are cost prohibitive and not in the GME DNA:

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a39525460/stellantis-hurricane-engine-details/

So, its 2.0L sister did have a catch can test that collected a lot of oil and I expect the 3.0L to do the same:

https://www.mishimoto.com/engineering/2019/07/jeep-wrangler-catch-can-kit-2018-rd-pt-4

So why the WTF stares? They have been busting their butts to make this huge modification work (engineering a low temp circuit is impressive for thermal management, EVERYTHING runs hotter these days) and can't help what a bunch of pissed off Alfa engineers, mad Italy got knocked in the group stage of the 2014 World Cup (sorry, too easy), did in compromising the engine architecture to be GDI only (or if they even thought of port injection). They can't say anything because saying "Italy" and "Engine Design" out of Auburn Hills will get you booted EcoDiesel quick!

Should they be more transparent? Of course, but they know they have you by the...Nose

No invites means limited content and no food on the table. Child's friend is a MLB team beat reporter and has the same situation. Until "Ball Four" was written in 1970, the clubhouse was a no report area. It has gone back to before the book in many ways.

As for the 2.3L vs. 2.7L GDI only to GDI/Port, the engines are both roughly ten years old in their original production life cycle (2015 models), but the 2.7L received a Nano Gen 2 update (port injection, new stronger CGI block, etc.) in 2018. Figure the 2.3L is close to its End of Life, so investment in it is strictly emissions compliance now to get it to its successors introduction.

 

[testerdahl]

Did your LZO Silverado continue a cooling cycle after you shut the engine down?

Honestly, I never really noticed. It did make some sounds when you turned it off, but I never did film it. I should have. I should have demanded answers.

 

[testerdahl]

To your earlier point Tim, I work with engineers all the time and the look is common; a lot of times it is because I am bringing up something they didn't think of already or it's something I mention that was documented in the Systems Engineering Plan two versions ago and I must have missed the Configuration Management meetings!

Alan and his RAM team are doing something I have first hand experience with in the aviation field: Modifying a complicated platform, in this case the DT truck, to fit a power plant it was never designed to take way back at its germination in 2014 or so. Much more difficult than a clean sheet design in most ways.

The GDI issue also shows the Systems Engineering Tradespace compromises made on the fuel injection system. Tradespace? Here is a little light reading on the topic, courtesy MIT:

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/16-842-...all-2015/resources/mit16_842f15_ses_5_design/

In a nutshell, Alan and team are inheriting a tradespace compromise on GDI the Alfa Romeo Systems Engineering team made on the GME (Hurricane) architecture, probably back in the first part of the last decade:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCA_Global_Medium_Engine

They have added cylinders, made other changes and "only share 5%" with the 2.0L but changing head castings to add the port injection and most importantly, the engine management system upgrades (it is ALWAYS software), are cost prohibitive and not in the GME DNA:

https://www.autoweek.com/news/a39525460/stellantis-hurricane-engine-details/

So, its 2.0L sister did have a catch can test that collected a lot of oil and I expect the 3.0L to do the same:

https://www.mishimoto.com/engineering/2019/07/jeep-wrangler-catch-can-kit-2018-rd-pt-4

So why the WTF stares? They have been busting their butts to make this huge modification work (engineering a low temp circuit is impressive for thermal management, EVERYTHING runs hotter these days) and can't help what a bunch of pissed off Alfa engineers, mad Italy got knocked in the group stage of the 2014 World Cup (sorry, too easy), did in compromising the engine architecture to be GDI only (or if they even thought of port injection). They can't say anything because saying "Italy" and "Engine Design" out of Auburn Hills will get you booted EcoDiesel quick!

Should they be more transparent? Of course, but they know they have you by the...Nose

No invites means limited content and no food on the table. Child's friend is a MLB team beat reporter and has the same situation. Until "Ball Four" was written in 1970, the clubhouse was a no report area. It has gone back to before the book in many ways.

As for the 2.3L vs. 2.7L GDI only to GDI/Port, the engines are both roughly ten years old in their original production life cycle (2015 models), but the 2.7L received a Nano Gen 2 update (port injection, new stronger CGI block, etc.) in 2018. Figure the 2.3L is close to its End of Life, so investment in it is strictly emissions compliance now to get it to its successors introduction.

Good lord with the MIT mic drop. You sir win the internet tonight!

 

[GMT 900]

I should also just read Terrence’s question out loud and let the same Ford engineer person answer. Maybe that will finally answer his question. LOL

I doubt it, here is Ford's press release back in the day for the 2nd Gen EcoBoost:

https://media.ford.com/content/ford.../2017-ford-f150-more-torque-better-boost.html

And here is something from a Toyota Dealer using Toyota B-roll and talking points for the D4-S port and fuel injection:

LOL, the first entry in the comment section details it prevents carbon valve buildup, but the video doesn't.

Further reflection on product liability law and such leads me to think the known benefit of port injection on intake valve coking, i.e. allows the detergent gasoline to wash the back of the intake valve is not to be discussed because both manufacturers have DI only vehicles in their lineup and even in the same model (Ranger). Saying the port injection decreases intake valve coking opens them up to the lawyers...Maybe not the ambulance chasers sponsoring TFL vids, but the inevitable product liability firms. Is it a wink, wink, nudge, nudge sort of thing, but I doubt you can get anyone on record to say it. Didn't you mention at the hotel bar you were "Esterdahl, Tim Esterdahl, shaken, not stirred" in your conversations with manufacturer reps? You may get something off the record there.

The horse is six feet under, but I think the manufacturers are working with the additive companies so closely (another great Alan revelation) to see if a chemical solution can:

1. Resist oil distillation when high pressure fuel blows by the lighter, thinner, higher tension rings in boosted engines (what Terrance Jones brings up).

2. Make the oil less prone to "baking" on the back of the intake valves who the PCV valve sends the ventilated oil/gas vapor down the intake manifold.

Okay, I promise, I'm done.

 

[testerdahl]

I doubt it, here is Ford's press release back in the day for the 2nd Gen EcoBoost:

https://media.ford.com/content/ford.../2017-ford-f150-more-torque-better-boost.html

And here is something from a Toyota Dealer using Toyota B-roll and talking points for the D4-S port and fuel injection:

LOL, the first entry in the comment section details it prevents carbon valve buildup, but the video doesn't.

Further reflection on product liability law and such leads me to think the known benefit of port injection on intake valve coking, i.e. allows the detergent gasoline to wash the back of the intake valve is not to be discussed because both manufacturers have DI only vehicles in their lineup and even in the same model (Ranger). Saying the port injection decreases intake valve coking opens them up to the lawyers...Maybe not the ambulance chasers sponsoring TFL vids, but the inevitable product liability firms. Is it a wink, wink, nudge, nudge sort of thing, but I doubt you can get anyone on record to say it. Didn't you mention at the hotel bar you were "Esterdahl, Tim Esterdahl, shaken, not stirred" in your conversations with manufacturer reps? You may get something off the record there.

The horse is six feet under, butI think the manufacturers are working with the additive companies so closely (another great Alan revelation) to see if a chemical solution can:

1. Resist oil distillation when high pressure fuel blows by the lighter, thinner, higher tension rings in boosted engines (what Terrance Jones brings up).

2. Make the oil less prone to "baking" on the back of the intake valves who the PCV valve sends the ventilated oil/gas vapor down the intake manifold.

Okay, I promise, I'm done.

Oh I don’t believe for a second that you are “done.” LOL.

So, I went back and forth with Terrence last night. Basically, the summary of his argument is this: he sees carbon buildup to be an engine design issue. He doesn’t believe DI or port to completely negate the issue, nor does the PSI from the high-pressure rail system. He also doesn’t believe the new “modern synthetic” oil reduces carbon buildup either.

He also owns a 2013 Ford EcoBoost and that is one of his examples of poor engine design.

IMO - the carbon buildup issue resolution is two-fold - high-pressure direct injection atomizing all the fuel. This prevents any leftover fuel from being an issue. The second resolution is the new oil with additives meant to reduce carbon buildup.

It seems to me carbon buildup will happen. It is just impossible for it not to with an engine’s combustion and the need for better performance and emissions - GDI.

The question then isn’t about IF it will happen, it is to what extent this happening is a problem. I tend to believe the engine designers have done what they can and the oil company scientists have done what they can. I also believe this issue will fade away in future years with future engine tear downs showing either clean or relatively clean intake valves.

I remember when I did the tear down story on the million mile Tundra. Those intake valves had very little to no carbon buildup on them. That was a 2007 truck - https://www.motortrend.com/features/million-mile-tundra-the-tear-down/

 

[testerdahl]

EDIT: the 2UZ-FE engine had indirect fuel injection. It is sprayed into the intake valve and not the combustion chamber. A nuance that I’m sure is very important to some.