rant: all manufacturers Carbo & Turbo

ScubaDive · Feb 24, 2018

rant: all manufacturers Carbon & Turbo

So I am in the market for a new/er truck and I am doing some research on what is out there. I seem to be coming across a lot about issues with Turbo, no madder what they are called (Eco-boost). Apparently they are prone to carbon build up, for Direct Injected cars which now a days are all cars. The carbon builds up and then small pieces of it end up fly in the turbo and destroying the turbo, that ends up be a costly repair. All the manufacturers have known about this issue for awhile now and still has no approved cleaning method, wow.
I keep looking and it seems the only really solution is naturally aspirated engines. Why are they looking for a 'cleaning method' look for a solution. Some say installing a 'catch can' will help if that's the case shouldn't the manufacturers be installing them right out the gate?
It makes picking a car hard as I not a fan of buying a headache.
:icon_confused:

adsm08 · Feb 24, 2018

A catch can isn't going to fix anything. The carbon build-up in question is a byproduct of fuel evaporating out of the cylinder after the engine is shut off. It is more related to the direct injection than the turbo. It wasn't an issue with ported injection because the injectors were spraying at the back of the intake valve and cleaning them as you went.

There are some intake cleaners that you do have to be careful with as they cause problems. I have had really good like with the Valvoline chemicals, but the other key to it is that you can't let the stuff build up. On a GDI engine this is a 10-15K mile service rather than the 30-45K mile service it was on older ported injection engines.

don4331 · Feb 24, 2018

The very latest engines have added an extra set of injectors in the ports to combat this issue. A little shot of fuel on back of valves and they stay clean...no issue with buildup.

It is issue as a result of direct injection and affects naturally aspirated engines as well. Chunks of carbon in cylinder aren't healthy, between valve and valve seat is really bad (burnt valves) and build up at catalytic converter can result in runaway thermal event. All of the above are independent of turbo charged or not.

adsm08 · Feb 24, 2018

don4331 said:
The very latest engines have added an extra set of injectors in the ports to combat this issue. A little shot of fuel on back of valves and they stay clean...no issue with buildup.

It is issue as a result of direct injection and affects naturally aspirated engines as well. Chunks of carbon in cylinder aren't healthy, between valve and valve seat is really bad (burnt valves) and build up at catalytic converter can result in runaway thermal event. All of the above are independent of turbo charged or not.

Right, turbos just add the extra dimension of breaking more things when that chunk goes through the turbo.

ScubaDive · Feb 24, 2018

adsm08 said:
Right, turbos just add the extra dimension of breaking more things when that chunk goes through the turbo.

So then why? why are just about all things turbo? The manufacturers know yet, "oh well, its the owners problem"

Everything I seem to be reading about this issue leads me to the conclusion that if I buy a 'eco boost' or the other manufacturers turbo its a matter of time before I am in the shop with a big bill to replace the turbo.

Interesting read. From http://www.underhoodservice.com/direct-injection-engines-develop-carbon-deposits/
Why are some direct injection engines more prone to deposits?

If you look up direct injection carbon deposit problems on the Internet, engines from BMW, Audi and VW always rank the highest. Engines from GM and Ford that have been on the road for at least four years hardly have a carbon deposit complaint. What’s the deal?

Some direct injection engines have bad timing. The modern engine typically has variable valve timing and even cylinder deactivation. The engine management system can control when, how long and, in some cases, how deep the valve goes into the combustion chamber. If an intake valve is dropping into a combustion chamber with combustion byproducts or unburned fuel, the valve might be exposed to the precursors that cause *carbon build-up.

Some have blamed the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) systems for leaving an oily film on the intake valve that is then baked into carbon. Some blame the valve overlap during the intake stroke that eliminates the need for an EGR valve.

This is the 1st time I have come across, can someone comment on the bold part.

The Fix

There are several fixes available to solve carbon build-up problems.

The first is preventive maintenance. Scheduled oil changes can keep the camshaft actuators working in optimal condition to control the exposure of the intake valves. Spark plug replacement can reduce the amount of unburned fuel in the combustion chamber that can stick to a valve. Fuel injector cleaning can help injectors maintain the correct spray geometry.

But the number one method for preventing a *carbon build-up problem is updating the engine management software. New software can reduce carbon deposits by reducing the exposure of the valves to conditions that cause carbon build-up by adjusting valve and spark timing.

Don’t assume that you will find a TSB saying that a reflash of the ECM will correct a carbon build-up problem because most of the updates will be contained in normal housekeeping that may never say anything about a problem. You may even have to check the OEM’s website to see if the vehicle has the latest version of the software.

The above was written back in 2014

85_Ranger4x4 · Feb 24, 2018

Eco boost came out in 2011, if it was going to have massive turbo eating problems it would be all over everywhere and ford would have dumped it rather than introduce more that people still continue to buy and love...IMO. :dntknw:

racsan · Feb 24, 2018

what i hate about turbos is that the engine wont work very well without them, and its a pricey part itself when it goes and needs replaced, it great when they work and the sound is cool, but the headache they can be makes me just want to stay away from them. back in the day we had a diesel oliver tractor, 2 in fact. 1 turbo (1850) 1 non turbo (1650) the turbo pulled great but if the rpms got too low it could choke due to the turbo needing a minimum rpm to work, seemed like every 2-3 years it would need a turbo. engine would still run but you would need to be down at least 1 gear, would blow the black smoke and use even more fuel. wasnt very effiecent to begine with. the non-turbo 1650 would work at a lower rpm, use less fuel and generally seemed to be more trouble free, even though it was actually a older tractor. think the 1650 was 70 hp, the 1850 was about 90-95. a collector bought the bigger oliver to restore and show, the smaller 1650 was sold locally, painted up really nice, and is still used on a regular basis.

adsm08 · Feb 24, 2018

ScubaDive said:
So then why? why are just about all things turbo? The manufacturers know yet, "oh well, its the owners problem"

Everything I seem to be reading about this issue leads me to the conclusion that if I buy a 'eco boost' or the other manufacturers turbo its a matter of time before I am in the shop with a big bill to replace the turbo.

Because it isn't a common thing to have happen. I am saying that IF it happens, not WHEN it happens, it can add an extra dimension of issue.

I've never actually seen a turbo fail from carbon bits going through it. If you are doing induction services at the intervals I mentioned it will never become an issue. In fact most of the auto makers recommend increased induction service frequency with GDI engines. VW is the only one I know that has problems solely from the service itself, they seem to cook turbos when anything extra is run through the intake.

I've never seen an EB turbo fail below 75K miles. I have personally seen about 10 of them need replaced for one reason or another, a few of those were still working but were leaking oil internally, one of them had a failed waste gate. That is out of probably a thousand of those turbos (2 per vehicle) that came through that shop while I was there.

Also, the 3.5 EB runs well even when both turbos are gone. It feels a little doggy, but it is no worse than a NA 3.5.

pjtoledo · Feb 24, 2018

Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

sure it would be easier and cheaper to build a good 'ol big V8, but show me a politician or tree hugger that's willing to let that happen.

all I can say is I long for the good 'ol days,,,, when my then new 72 Comet GT with a 302 3 sp manual and 2.73 gears got a whopping 21-22 on the interstate and maybe 15 around town, at less than 3000 lbs. with no AC or power steering! :icon_rofl:

85_Ranger4x4 · Feb 24, 2018

racsan said:
what i hate about turbos is that the engine wont work very well without them, and its a pricey part itself when it goes and needs replaced, it great when they work and the sound is cool, but the headache they can be makes me just want to stay away from them. back in the day we had a diesel oliver tractor, 2 in fact. 1 turbo (1850) 1 non turbo (1650) the turbo pulled great but if the rpms got too low it could choke due to the turbo needing a minimum rpm to work, seemed like every 2-3 years it would need a turbo. engine would still run but you would need to be down at least 1 gear, would blow the black smoke and use even more fuel. wasnt very effiecent to begine with. the non-turbo 1650 would work at a lower rpm, use less fuel and generally seemed to be more trouble free, even though it was actually a older tractor. think the 1650 was 70 hp, the 1850 was about 90-95. a collector bought the bigger oliver to restore and show, the smaller 1650 was sold locally, painted up really nice, and is still used on a regular basis.

Tractor engines are made to run at a certain RPM, if you pull it too far down below that (far enough to fall out of the boost) working it you are overloading it.

Tractor turbos usually last for decades.

rusty ol ranger · Feb 25, 2018

ScubaDive said:
So I am in the market for a new/er truck and I am doing some research on what is out there. I seem to be coming across a lot about issues with Turbo, no madder what they are called (Eco-boost). Apparently they are prone to carbon build up, for Direct Injected cars which now a days are all cars. The carbon builds up and then small pieces of it end up fly in the turbo and destroying the turbo, that ends up be a costly repair. All the manufacturers have known about this issue for awhile now and still has no approved cleaning method, wow.
I keep looking and it seems the only really solution is naturally aspirated engines. Why are they looking for a 'cleaning method' look for a solution. Some say installing a 'catch can' will help if that's the case shouldn't the manufacturers be installing them right out the gate?
It makes picking a car hard as I not a fan of buying a headache.

Buy a 6.2L superduty. They go used for usually the same, if not a bit less then a EB 150. Yes, you wont get the fuel mileage, but the 6.2 seems to be a pretty straightforward motor.

rant: all manufacturers Carbo & Turbo

ScubaDive

New Member

adsm08

Senior Master Grease Monkey

don4331

Well-Known Member

adsm08

Senior Master Grease Monkey

ScubaDive

New Member

85_Ranger4x4

Forum Staff Member

racsan

Well-Known Member

adsm08

Senior Master Grease Monkey

pjtoledo

Well-Known Member

85_Ranger4x4

Forum Staff Member

rusty ol ranger

2.9 Mafia-Don

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Staff online

Members online

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Latest posts

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

Latest Album Photos

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals