2025 Ram 1500 coverage

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.

IMG_0420.png
 
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
 
testerdahl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
testerdahl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

team.valvolineglobal.com

Discover Valvoline Products & Solutions - Valvoline™ Global

Get the protection you need from Valvoline, with the original motor oil since 1866, car lubricants and future ready products and services for partners around the glo
team.valvolineglobal.com team.valvolineglobal.com
 
zonedout said:
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.

team.valvolineglobal.com

Discover Valvoline Products & Solutions - Valvoline™ Global

Get the protection you need from Valvoline, with the original motor oil since 1866, car lubricants and future ready products and services for partners around the glo
team.valvolineglobal.com team.valvolineglobal.com
Click to expand...
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?
 
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
 
testerdahl said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
zonedout said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great now I have to interview Shell. Thanks… 😂
 
testerdahl said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
GMT 900 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good lord with the MIT mic drop. You sir win the internet tonight!
 
testerdahl said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
GMT 900 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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/
 
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.
 
testerdahl said:
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/
Click to expand...
I promise, scouts honor...Whoops, I wasn't ever a Boy Scout.

Yeah, port injection only on that Tundra and the Ford Tech in the video I linked showed a port only engine being very clean. I can imagine this may have happened in the days after PCVs were mandated (1960s) and detergent gasoline wasn't common; wonder what the back of my '75 Buick 350's intake valves looked like in the early 80s?

https://ftloscience.com/chemistry-of-detergents-in-gasoline/

The manufactures and oil companies worked together to make sure the surfactants didn't harm the engine, so maybe they can team up some more to add something to the fuel to resist fuel dilution in crankcase oil.

GDI is not going away anytime soon, so it may be something where the old "Tune-up" is now the periodic walnut shell blast.
 
testerdahl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great engine, but the starter location in the valley of the "V" and under the intake manifold is a bear, especially with the secondary air injection system:

 
testerdahl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks Tim, I like the fact the Hurricane has a cooldown sequence, that got me wondering about the LZ0, it would require an electric motor to drive coolant, but not that big of a deal for me as I would be using the Banks idash to keep an eye on the turbo temp, I also don't have a problem sitting and waiting for things to cool down before I shut down.
 
Rogue Rkunk said:
Thanks Tim, I like the fact the Hurricane has a cooldown sequence, that got me wondering about the LZ0, it would require an electric motor to drive coolant, but not that big of a deal for me as I would be using the Banks idash to keep an eye on the turbo temp, I also don't have a problem sitting and waiting for things to cool down before I shut down.
Click to expand...
The 2.7 Turbomax also has an electric water pump that can run after the engine shuts off. Learned that from the 2.7 GM engineer vid.
 
Rogue Rkunk said:
Thanks Tim, I like the fact the Hurricane has a cooldown sequence, that got me wondering about the LZ0, it would require an electric motor to drive coolant, but not that big of a deal for me as I would be using the Banks idash to keep an eye on the turbo temp, I also don't have a problem sitting and waiting for things to cool down before I shut down.
Click to expand...
Unless you are really pushing the turbos like max towing or towing at high elevation for a long period of time, you shouldn't need to idle to cool off the turbo. I looked through the owner's manual and this is what I found. Keep in mind all the towing I did with the LZ0, I never had any issues with overheating.


Trailer Towing


When towing at high elevation on steep uphill grades, consider the following:

Engine coolant at higher elevation will boil at a lower temperature than at or near sea level. If the engine is turned off immediately
after towing at high elevation on steep uphill grades, the vehicle may show signs similar to engine overheating. To avoid this, let the engine run while parked (preferably on level ground) with the transmission in P (Park) and the parking brake applied for at least five minutes before turning the engine off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top