dcmdon
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Don
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2021
- Threads
- 60
- Messages
- 3,654
- Reaction score
- 4,388
- Location
- Boston Metro-West, Northern NH
- Vehicle(s)
- .
- Thread starter
- #136
The bronco uses a combination of port fuel injection and direct injection precisely to avoid carbon build up on the valves. This is the way that the industry seems to be going.And I’m not sure how relevant this really is but I’ve been looking for a small SUV so I don’t log so many miles on my gladiator and in my research I have discovered that apparently a lot of the turbos have direct injection and this puts a great deal of pressure and over the long run carbon buildup on the valves pistons leading to premature failure of the motors and I don’t know if this would apply to a typical we 60s are mostly tiny little four-cylinder 1.5 to 2.0 LIters for that reason alone I’d be reluctant to go with anything that’s turbo especially for an off-road vehicle where you’re going to suck in a lot of dirt or do you have a really good filter or not perhaps someone more educated than I regarding this Ken comment I watched a video the other day of the new bronco it’s the big one versus the Rubicon andGoing up a rocky trail the Rubicon kept all four wheels on the ground but the bronco kept lifting one of the rear Wheels
Direct injection is too good from an efficiency perspective to give up, but it needs to be helped with port injection to keep the valves clean.
You are misinformed that a lot of turbos have direct injection. A lot of engines in general have direct injection, regardless of whether they are turbocharged or not. All suffer from carbon build up on the intake valves if they don't also have port injection.
So in summary, your desire to avoid an engine with direct injection (when not supplemented with port injection) is reasonable. But this has nothing to do with whether an engine is turbocharged or not.
Sponsored