Hurricane I6 Direct injection Carbon buildup and Toyotas D-4s

[Privateer]

Direct injection..... came about because of government fuel economy regulations......when you port inject the fuel flows over the intake valves and the gas cleans the carbon from the pcv valve off the intake valve..indeed flooring your vehicle once in a while would help it clean itself even more....BUT with direct injection oil blow by from the pcv valve DOES NOT get cleaned by gas from a port injector.....So this results in carbon build up and loss of power....then at about 60-100k miles..... you need to take the engine apart and blast it with walnut shells...to clean the engine....Ford has solved this with their 2.7 and 3.5 with a dual injection system which includes a port injector...indeed for reliability and longevity the ford 7.3 is port injected and in my opinion is the best engine in a truck u can buy..Toyota is the inventor more or less of direct injected engines that include a port injector to clean the intake valves of carbon they call it the D-4S system. They put D-4S on their NEW engine in the tundra.....SO i have scoured the net...and this 3.0 does NOT SEEM to have a port injector to clean the intake valve....Im telling everyone here..DO not buy a 3.0 until its clear how this engine is dealing with OIL blow by and carbon build up...if Stelantis came up with some other system or what...stick with the hemi....the 3.0 might be an impressive engine....but Stick with port injection unless an engine has a dual injection system OR some new tech we haven't seen. id like to know other peoples thoughts on this... im sort of worried..

 

[Goldsy]

I had a Titan before I got my Ram. I put a catch can in there very shortly after I bought it to catch the oil blow by. The 5.6 from Nissan is a DI engine. My Ram with the 5.7 doesn't even have 5000 miles on it yet, so I'm not even considering a Hurricane at this point, but maybe the next truck? Who knows. I'll probably eventually add a catch can to the Hemi soo, even though it is not as necessary as it is with a DI engine.

 

[Ninety-9 SE-L]

I'll start with this. The Federal Government regulates detergents added to fuels (all grades) which help combat and reverse carbon buildup in the intake, valves, and combustion chambers. A standard known as "Top Tier" takes it a step further finding the best gasoline to reduce carbon buildup:

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:7545%20edition:prelim)

Fuel Stations - TOP TIER™

TOP TIER™ Licensed Brands prominently display the TOP TIER™ logo on the pump, pump handle, canopy or in a station window.

toptiergas.com

I say this for one reason, only: Carbon buildup on valves and valve seats has been on the radar for the EPA and other regulatory bodies for many decades. Carbon buildup results in efficiency losses and emissions problems, down the line. In short, it's unacceptable.

Direct-injection did a lot to help with thermal efficiency, cylinder pressures/temperatures, emissions, compression ratios, and boost ratios, but as we all know, GDI has led to other issues, such as carbon buildup in the valves/seats. As mentioned, that is unacceptable.

It's well-known that these problems exist across multiple manufacturers, and maybe I'm being a little optimistic, but I'm expecting that newer GDI engines won't have these problems now that the technology has matured. Many manufacturers have gone to dual-injection, providing the benefits of both. Other manufacturers have started locating the injectors closer to the intake valves and even running a second spray for each cycle, which is designed to wash the intake valves when they are open. I'm hoping that manufacturers, plus regulatory bodies are cracking down on the carbon issues considering carbon buildup was a hot item back when we had port injection.

 

[WXman]

What I've seen in the real world over the last couple of decades is that direct injection results in no power increase, and no fuel economy increase. DI engines competing in segments where other brands have non-DI engines are seeing zero advantages. Look at Stellantis' 3.6L Pentastar V6 as a great example. It has no DI, but it's been on the Ward's Best Engines list in multiple years and it's the best V6 in a world FULL of 3.5-3.7L V6s.

To me, I'd rather have a cleaner, longer lasting engine, even if DI makes a 0.00004% difference in fuel economy.

 

[Ninety-9 SE-L]

What I've seen in the real world over the last couple of decades is that direct injection results in no power increase, and no fuel economy increase. DI engines competing in segments where other brands have non-DI engines are seeing zero advantages. Look at Stellantis' 3.6L Pentastar V6 as a great example. It has no DI, but it's been on the Ward's Best Engines list in multiple years and it's the best V6 in a world FULL of 3.5-3.7L V6s.

To me, I'd rather have a cleaner, longer lasting engine, even if DI makes a 0.00004% difference in fuel economy.

I think that's a bit of a hard-headed statement. Being considered on a "Ward's Best Engines" list doesn't necessarily say much about how modern it is. It's mostly based on reliability and scalability. I've owned several Nissan VQ vehicles which is also a long-running member of Ward's Best Engines...but it's old as dirt and needs to be put out to pasture. I can attest my VQ40 is a breeze to work on and will probably run long past the apocalypse, but it has terrible efficiency, and power output for a 4.0L. It was introduced in ~1994 and is still being used today, plaguing the world with terrible retrofitted solutions and terrible fuel economy. Retrofitted GDI engines suck and should be built from the ground up. They need a carbon-cleaning solution, something I hope most manufacturers have learned by now, with dual-injection.

Port-Injection advantages:
1. Port injection washes over the intake valves and valve seats, resulting in less carbon deposit.
2. Homogenous cycle Spark Ignition (HCSI), using a spark to ignite a Homogenous mixture. Better mixture at low RPMs.

GDI advantages:
1. Better atomization and leaner mixtures, resulting in better timing control.
2. Tolerates higher cylinder pressures, more boost or higher compression ratios.
3. Lower cylinder temperatures, fewer misfires or detonation.
4. Better throttle/mass control. Technically, GDIs could eliminate the throttle body resulting in less restriction.
5. Stratified cycle spark ignition (SCSI), Controlling location of fuel concentrations within the cylinder. Better to control detonation, but can cause more NOx.
6. Homogenous cycle compression ignition (HCCI), the holy grail of controlling gasoline ignition without a spark plug.

In general, GDI has higher efficiency, better fuel economy, lower emissions. The disadvantage would be carbon build up, and slightly higher Particulate Matter emissions (from the carbon).

Mazda has an HCCI engine called the Skyactiv X, which is in production. Although it's technically SPCCI, the spark doesn't propagate the flame, but rather acts as a catalyst to trigger compression ignition.

 

[WXman]

I think that's a bit of a hard-headed statement. Being considered on a "Ward's Best Engines" list doesn't necessarily say much about how modern it is. It's mostly based on reliability and scalability. I've owned several Nissan VQ vehicles which is also a long-running member of Ward's Best Engines...but it's old as dirt and needs to be put out to pasture. I can attest my VQ40 is a breeze to work on and will probably run long past the apocalypse, but it has terrible efficiency, and power output for a 4.0L. It was introduced in ~1994 and is still being used today, plaguing the world with terrible retrofitted solutions and terrible fuel economy. Retrofitted GDI engines suck and should be built from the ground up. They need a carbon-cleaning solution, something I hope most manufacturers have learned by now, with dual-injection.

Port-Injection advantages:
1. Port injection washes over the intake valves and valve seats, resulting in less carbon deposit.
2. Homogenous cycle Spark Ignition (HCSI), using a spark to ignite a Homogenous mixture. Better mixture at low RPMs.

GDI advantages:
1. Better atomization and leaner mixtures, resulting in better timing control.
2. Tolerates higher cylinder pressures, more boost or higher compression ratios.
3. Lower cylinder temperatures, fewer misfires or detonation.
4. Better throttle/mass control. Technically, GDIs could eliminate the throttle body resulting in less restriction.
5. Stratified cycle spark ignition (SCSI), Controlling location of fuel concentrations within the cylinder. Better to control detonation, but can cause more NOx.
6. Homogenous cycle compression ignition (HCCI), the holy grail of controlling gasoline ignition without a spark plug.

In general, GDI has higher efficiency, better fuel economy, lower emissions. The disadvantage would be carbon build up, and slightly higher Particulate Matter emissions (from the carbon).

Mazda has an HCCI engine called the Skyactiv X, which is in production. Although it's technically SPCCI, the spark doesn't propagate the flame, but rather acts as a catalyst to trigger compression ignition.

You just regurgitated what automakers have been telling us for years.

My entire point is that in the real world this is not the case. As a "car wh0re" who has owned and reviewed dozens of vehicles over the last few decades I can tell you that in the real world, DI doesn't produce any of those claimed benefits, but it does produce those claimed problems.

As somebody already mentioned, the fact that Ford added port injection to their DI 5.0L engine and then developed a new 7.3L engine with NO DI at all is testament to the fact that the assumed benefit of DI doesn't counter-balance the drawbacks.

 

[GKIII]

The best DI system is Toyota's D-4S which has both port and direct injection and allows the best of both worlds. That's where Ford likely got the idea from.

With that said we have a 2017 Honda V6 with GDI and at 75000 miles the valves were surprisingly clean. The rest of the car is a flaming piece of **** but at least I don't have to worry about carbon buildup on the valves.

 

[HSKR R/T]

A catch can reduces the carbon build up significantly. No reason they can't be added from factory, other than most owners would never check/empty them. Of course they could always design a self emptying catch can that dumps into crankcase putting the crap right back where it started. This may effect oil quality long term and would definitely show up on oil analysis testing.

And catch cans provide the same benefit on port injection engines. Even if the fuel helps wash down the intake valve, that crap still gets burned in CC and leaves deposits on the top of piston. Which long term leads to carbon fouling and/or detonation from hot spots.

 

[Ninety-9 SE-L]

You just regurgitated what automakers have been telling us for years.

My entire point is that in the real world this is not the case. As a "car wh0re" who has owned and reviewed dozens of vehicles over the last few decades I can tell you that in the real world, DI doesn't produce any of those claimed benefits, but it does produce those claimed problems.

As somebody already mentioned, the fact that Ford added port injection to their DI 5.0L engine and then developed a new 7.3L engine with NO DI at all is testament to the fact that the assumed benefit of DI doesn't counter-balance the drawbacks.

Well, agree to disagree.

Seems more or less you just distrust the "system" but without any real evidence to back that up. Aside from the video I posted, most of my information comes from other Engineers, plus my own understanding of Homogenous/Stratified mixture, along with Spark Ignition and Compression Ignition.

Arguing against me is basically arguing against physics, I can't really help you out or get into a debate about something that can't really be debated. GDI engines have more thermal efficiency, which translates to more joules per gallon of gas. That's the end of my story.

I'll agree on one thing, GDI roll out, along with HEVs, PHEVs, and mHEVs have been a **** show in the US. And a few reasons for that:
1. My VQ40DE is multi-port injection. 1980s technology crammed into a 2015 Engine without much more. Easy to work on, relatively clean, aside from the fact that I've blown up a few catalytic converters. Nissan finally retrofitted the VQ with GDI and created the VQ38DD. Supposedly able to achieve better numbers: ONE WHOLE MPG!!!!!!!!!1`11 As the story goes, it's a **** show of an engine. The VQ is a long time Ward's Best Engine, but it's 30 years old. Without a better valve timing system, higher compression, intake angles, combustion chamber design, runners, and a better carbon-cleaning solution, it's crap. A GDI engine needs to be designed from scratch.

2. The new Toyota Tundra Hybrid is also ****. They spend a TON of R&D on creating a Twin-Turbo V6 GDI engine WITH a hybrid drive system and it can barely pump out 22mpg-combined, which makes the Pentastar and EcoBoost look pretty good, right about now. Why is that? Well, my theory is that they focused too much on power output and not enough on fuel economy. They were so concerned with making the V6 into a V8 killer that they forgot that gas is $5/gal. Their outgoing V8 was SO BAD on fuel economy that they consider the 7mpg gain a win....yet they're still behind the entire market with an engine that looks like it was developed by Nasa.

3. Lastly I'll pick on the Ram eTorque engines. I think they're brilliant because of their packaging. They only add about 90lbs to the entire vehicle and they're retrofitted like a backpack. They replace the alternator and they could've chosen to replace the starter. They claimed that they kept the 12V starter because of cold climates. Even so, the mild-hybrid system doesn't really equate to any real-world savings. If anything, they've basically added a mild shot of NOS to the Hemi, focusing on power-boosting over fuel economy.

America's GDI, Turbo, and Hybrid roll out has been **** because Americans are constantly measuring their dicks and trying to pump out as much horsepower as possible. Other parts of the world have used GDI, Turbo, and Hybrid as a means to de-tune the rest of the engine while still keeping power and thermal efficiency on tap. I got my particular configuration, below (3.21 gear ratio) because I really don't care how fast my 6,000lb truck accelerates from a red light. If I need the thrill, I have other vehicles that can do 0-60 in under 4 seconds. I want my commuter/work vehicle to be mild and efficient, especially with gas/diesel prices raping my credit card. I spend so much on a fill up, I have to run my credit card twice per fill-up.

 

[6of36]

E-torque isn't for milage at all. It's an emissions thing. When the engine isn't running, it isn't polluting. It's a joke how they market the horsepower, because they list total of gas and electric, but only use one at a time.

 

[Idahoktm]

E-torque isn't for milage at all. It's an emissions thing. When the engine isn't running, it isn't polluting. It's a joke how they market the horsepower, because they list total of gas and electric, but only use one at a time.

eTorque does get better mileage in stop and go traffic.

Ram doesn't market eTorque like that.

 

[6of36]

eTorque does get better mileage in stop and go traffic.

Ram doesn't market eTorque like that.
View attachment 151482

410 ft of torque INCLUDING 130 ft SUPPLEMENTAL enabled by etorque.

 

[Idahoktm]

410 ft of torque INCLUDING 130 ft SUPPLEMENTAL enabled by etorque.

The non-eTorque Hemi has the same specs. If they added them, it would be 540 ft lbs of torque.

 

[6of36]

I see I was wrong, I remember when it first came out, they added it, but that has changed. As far as the mileage, in reality it does get better mileage, less than 1mpg even though they say almost 3. The real reason for it though, is emissions. That's why it has start stop, but the standard Hemi doesn't. A normal starter cant handle the start stop. When stopped at a light the etorque motor restarts the engine.

 

[silver billet]

I see I was wrong, I remember when it first came out, they added it, but that has changed. As far as the mileage, in reality it does get better mileage, less than 1mpg even though they say almost 3. The real reason for it though, is emissions. That's why it has start stop, but the standard Hemi doesn't. A normal starter cant handle the start stop. When stopped at a light the etorque motor restarts the engine.

It hasn't changed since ET came out? ET was always a supplemental thing. The Hemi makes 410 lb/ft of torque but that's at like 4000 RPMs. When it's at 1500 or less, it's not making near that amount. ET adds extra torque until the RPMs hit about 1500 or so, then it doesn't add anymore additional torque ever.

So peak HP/Torque with the ET does not change over the non-ET. However HP/Torque below 1500-ish is where you'll see the very slight improvement. I think in the real world its like ET contributes to the first rotation of a tire or something small like that.

The only fuel savings are from turning the engine off.

I'd much rather see Ram develop this technology further, a much larger battery back to boost HP/Torque way further up the RPM band, than go to the Hurricane I6.

We won't get a choice unfortunately, and so it looks like the Hurricane is a real possibility for me in the future despite my concerns and objections. Either that or I'd just go heavy duty and get a simple reliable v8.

 

[GKIII]

It hasn't changed since ET came out? ET was always a supplemental thing. The Hemi makes 410 lb/ft of torque but that's at like 4000 RPMs. When it's at 1500 or less, it's not making near that amount. ET adds extra torque until the RPMs hit about 1500 or so, then it doesn't add anymore additional torque ever.

So peak HP/Torque with the ET does not change over the non-ET. However HP/Torque below 1500-ish is where you'll see the very slight improvement. I think in the real world its like ET contributes to the first rotation of a tire or something small like that.

The only fuel savings are from turning the engine off.

I'd much rather see Ram develop this technology further, a much larger battery back to boost HP/Torque way further up the RPM band, than go to the Hurricane I6.

We won't get a choice unfortunately, and so it looks like the Hurricane is a real possibility for me in the future despite my concerns and objections. Either that or I'd just go heavy duty and get a simple reliable v8.

There is a noticeable difference between ET and non-ET when towing from a complete stop. I thought I was going crazy when hauling my car trailer with my brother in law's non-ET 2020 HEMI.

 

[6of36]

It hasn't changed since ET came out? ET was always a supplemental thing. The Hemi makes 410 lb/ft of torque but that's at like 4000 RPMs. When it's at 1500 or less, it's not making near that amount. ET adds extra torque until the RPMs hit about 1500 or so, then it doesn't add anymore additional torque ever.

So peak HP/Torque with the ET does not change over the non-ET. However HP/Torque below 1500-ish is where you'll see the very slight improvement. I think in the real world its like ET contributes to the first rotation of a tire or something small like that.

The only fuel savings are from turning the engine off.

I'd much rather see Ram develop this technology further, a much larger battery back to boost HP/Torque way further up the RPM band, than go to the Hurricane I6.

We won't get a choice unfortunately, and so it looks like the Hurricane is a real possibility for me in the future despite my concerns and objections. Either that or I'd just go heavy duty and get a simple reliable v8.

I was saying when it first came out, the way they marketed it, it sounded like it added more hp and torque at all times. It works fro 1/2 revolution of the tire to start, which is normally the least efficient, but unless you are in a city where you have a light every block, it saves very little. The fuel savings is just the bonus, of the lower emissions it was designed for. All the manufacturers have gone to start stop for emissions. It is hard on the starting system. Chrysler developed etorque to start the engine without using the starter motor. All start stop engines are etorque. 23 eliminated non etorque completely. My 21 Durango is non start stop and non etorque. I don't have any data to back it up, but I would bet all California emission cars are etorque.

 

[silver billet]

There is a noticeable difference between ET and non-ET when towing from a complete stop. I thought I was going crazy when hauling my car trailer with my brother in law's non-ET 2020 HEMI.

I haven't towed with an ET. I'm sure you can feel the extra 130 lb/ft off the line but it disappears almost immediately. I could be wrong on the exact number but IIRC it's like 1500 rpms and ET is done. So it's not really doing much.

 

[silver billet]

I was saying when it first came out, the way they marketed it, it sounded like it added more hp and torque at all times.

I think this was more market perception (guys on YT rambling on with no real understanding) than Ram changing anything. I watched Alex on Autos explain ET before it was released to the public and he made it very clear that it didn't bump peak numbers, just filled in a tiny fraction under the torque curve.

 

[6of36]

I think this was more market perception (guys on YT rambling on with no real understanding) than Ram changing anything. I watched Alex on Autos explain ET before it was released to the public and he made it very clear that it didn't bump peak numbers, just filled in a tiny fraction under the torque curve.

I'm old. I never used youtube back then lol. I forget where I saw it. Just odd the way it still says 410 including extra 130. That makes it sound like total. It should sand and an extra130.