Honda is an engine builder first and foremost. When the first big Odyssey came out, 1999 model, (which I am still driving), there were some transmission issues. Honda sent me a letter asking me to get the car checked out at the dealership at their cost and extended my warranty to 10 years on the tranny. I've never had an issue with that van. After 15 years of driving it, I'm sick of it!! It's a gas guzzler and looking to get the all new FIT. In Canada, gas is over $5/gallon and 95% of my driving is city driving.

I have no concerns as I trust Honda to have done proper testing, unlike other car manufacturers who rely on their customers to be their beta testers.

GDI is the future of fuel injection across the board.

 

Have exactly the same thoughts!

As one of our members wisely posted earlier:

 

This is my concern, as well.

DI is perfect, except that it doesn't work.



I read the same thing about Toyota on the BRZ/FR-S forums before that car was introduced.

The head on the BRZ/FR-S doesn't work now and is never going to work.

 

I have not been following developments in the BRZ/FR-S space since I test drove that car last year and found that it wasn't my cup of tea, but are they reporting problems with carbon build up? And if so, what is Toyota/Subaru doing about it?

 

Before I forget, I did ask this question to Yoshinori Nakamura, the Assistant Large Project Leader for the 2015 Fit and the engineer from Japan. He told me that they did not use this engine for every country as some available fuel is cleaner than others. I believe in Brazil and South America, this engine is not used. But he said the fuel that we have in America is clean enough that owners will not run into problems with carbon buildup.

 

Thanks, but no DI for me. Not until there is no choice and there are no more concerns. As of now, I don't like the idea of having fuel pumps that require super high pressure. The injectors themselves are expensive and probably prone to failure since they are subjected to combustion chamber explosions.
All the savings in fuel and power per unit of displacement is a questionable benefit over tried and proven, efficient modern fuel injection engines like L15 in the GE8 Hondas.

 

Using this technology, they were able to get the same MPG ratings as my 2008 Fit on the current HONDA ACCORD with almost 1 extra liter of displacement and a hell of a lot more weight!

As I said before, I worked in the Parts department at lexus and saw issues with buildup on the IS250, but the IS350 has direct injection as well and none has ever come in for this issue. There was a recall on IS350s for an unrelated issue and my mom's IS350 had to have its engine partially pulled apart. I peeked in while the tech was working on it and the engine looked pretty damn clean to me

 

The argument is not about fuel efficiency and engine displacement.
Just because you didn't see problems come to parts department at you dealership says nothing about limitations and issues associated with direct injection. Seeing one engine clean or dirty is irrelevant and is not a basis for generalization of DI performance.

Here is some info about why D.I. has not been adopted sooner and among all engine makers.

"
However, direct injection isn’t without its critics. “There is a process of getting the technology to not only work but to be durable and cost effective,” Says Brauer. “The latter always takes time when a new technology first enters mainstream production.”
There are many longevity concerns with direct injection equipped engines. For example, the high pressure injection used in these engines causes a lot of stress on the fuel pumps. Regular fuel pumps in non-direct injected applications operate at much lower pressure than the high-pressure fuel pumps in direct-injected power-plants. The difference is in thousands of PSI.

Some high-pressure fuel pumps, like those used with BMW’s twin-turbo direct injection engine in the 2007-2010 335i, the 2008–2010 135i, 535i and X6 xDrive35i, as well as the 2009–2010 Z4 Roadster sDrive35i have been known to fail prematurely.
Another problem with direct injection is with ethanol fuel. Ethanol is known to speed up the corrosion rate of some metals that are used in an engine. With the higher pressure of a direct injection engine, and thanks to the fuel injector being exposed to in-cylinder explosions, there’s a higher chance of a problem or failure. Because of this, it’s more important to use higher quality fuels.
Finally, the biggest concern with direct-injection technology is with carbon buildup. In a direct injection engine, oil droplets tend to get ‘baked’ on the valve. Carbon buildup can create a lot of headaches in the long-term, with build-up being bad enough to make extra noise during operation and damage the engine. At the very least it can reduce fuel mileage, and affect performance.
This issue can affect other components in your car’s engine, like turbochargers or catalytic converters.. Taken from http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...injection.html"


Direct Injection Fouls Some Early Adopters - AutoObserver

 

Some more useful reading on fuel, DI engines

Ask An Engineer: GDI Problems In A Nutshell | The Truth About Cars

 

But I did say that a bunch came to my dealership with the problem... But only in the IS250 models and some 2006 Model GS300s, which has a very similar engine to the IS250.

The IS350 on the other hand has direct injection as well, and has no known problem with carbon buildup.

I can very well attest that the IS250 has a HUGE problem with it and I've seen how much gunk it can build up and how much work it takes to make the engine run correctly again. What I'm trying to say is it is not a problem for every single direct injection vehicle. There is no point in crying over it now, it has been done on this car AND the Accord, Honda is going to sell these cars like hotcakes so unless they really want to waste time and recall thousands of cars 5-10 years from now or hear millions of complaints, I doubt they would release it without making sure it works.

 

At least he (Jason) has seen one engine up-front and knew exactly what to look for. Other than reading articles of vehicles that had DI problems 2010 prior, if one hasn't seen a vehicle or can show any current printed articles on post 2010 vehicles with DI problems, then chauk it up to advancement in technology.

Also of note is the above quoted article continues to say: "Newer implementations of direct-injection are designed around these problems. Toyota’s D-4S system that is in use in some of its cars such as the Scion FR-S and Lexus GS350 have a second set of port injectors (not direct injectors) that run when needed to help clear off the carbon build up and optimize performance. ............"

Just because problems existed before when the technology was new (in reference to mass-production) doesn't mean engineers didn't actively address these. They all did.

Manufacturers main goal are out to make long term profits. Intentionally mass-producing an engine with known GDI combustion faults resulting in carbon build-up, is not a step in the right direction to achieve a healthy bottom line objective.

Honda introduced their first Earth-dream GDI engine in the 2012 Accord 2.4l 4 cyl and 3.5l 6 cyl. Any mass recalls or lawsuits around on the Accord due to carbon build-up as a result of GDI???? Google it and let us know.

 

I believe there's at least one engine with both port and DI, but I can't remember which maker. The port injection was used time to time for washing effect.

 

My argument is that I prefer the tried and true regular fuel injection over direct injection.

That is because regular fuel injection is sufficiency reliable, efficient, and inexpensive. It is good enough.

Direct injection, on the other hand, involved a number of additional expensive components, with spotty reliability history and unknown long-term reliability and cost of ownership. This fact along does not justify buying a DI engine for me just yet.

Furthermore, just because it is sold, does not mean it is equally reliable, inexpensive, and serviceable. It is offered for a variety of reasons, including the priority of maximizing fuel efficiency to meet the governmental mandates, possibly at the expense of reliability, simplicity, and long term cost of the technology.

Convertibles obviously can not be compared to hard top vehicles and the price of being able to take the top down is the limited long term reliability of the fabric, issues related to mechanism that moves the top, as well as compromised safety in rollover accidents. But despite this, convertibles are offered for sale and sold in relatively large numbers.

The debate over new technology vs old technology is nothing new. In motorcycle world, there are many loyalists of older carburated - air-cooled engines as well as proponents of modern fuel injected, liquid cooled designs. Bother have valids reasons to favor one over the other. If you priority is crossing the Sahara solo, you may chose an air cooled carburated engine that is less likely to leave you stranded or rquire repairs of components that it does not have (i.e. drowned bike and damaged ECU, busted radiator or a hose, malfunctioning mass air flow sensor, etc).

I think the best comparison of DI vs regular FI is the exhause gas treatment in diesel trucks. That technology adds cost, is complicated, often unreliable, but is mandated.

Same with DI, it might be slowly forced upon consumers through lack of other choice for various reasons, but not because it is just as reliable or cost effective compared to regular fuel injection.

That is why I prefer to keep the LA 15 for the time being until there are other compelling reasons to switch direct injection.

Let people buy the new Fits, I will sit back and watch their experiences. My '12 fir MT has only 15 K miles and an eager and efficient hamster under its hood that gives me on average 39 mpg in mixed driving.

 

You must be engaging in what they call "magical thinking."

Mfrs. are doing exactly what you think they won't. They are bringing to market cars that they know will not go to 40k mi. without problems. Or, in the case of the BRZ/FR-S, cars that will not go to 15k mi. without throwing codes.

Read the papers, my friend. Honda, Toyota and GM are recalling cars by the millions and will recall millions more if the public and the authorities call them to account.

DI doesn't work. They only invented it to meet EPA and MPG.

 

DI removes detonation, allowing the fuel to be added right before spark.

 

Well said, then at least state it in conjunction with your original statement rather than as a response to my post.

I grew up with carbs and fuel injection. I believe in them, but as the world changes, the difference between you and me is I'm willing to give technology the "benefit of the doubt" as well as accept all mfg's objective to create a sustaining profit margin, year in and year out. You seem to be stuck in the old world not willing to risk or "try" anything new.
Carbs are tried and tested. Why did most mfg's today go FI? Their fuel pumps emit much greater pressure that those for carbs. If fuel pump pressure is a concern, you should be driving a 1978 carburated Civic.
We live in the USA and its the freest country in the world. Do as you please and stay beholden to the past.
As for me, I'm a risk taker and believe that the youth of our emerging generation are better than us and can solve past problems with the help of continuing technology.
Remember that once, everybody believed the world was "flat"!!!!!
It AIN'T!!
Oh, putting in the statement about DI in diesel vs. gas in trucks, stick to the subject at hand. The GK is GAS and a car (sub-compact, at that) not a truck!!!!!!! We're in the USA not Europe.
BTW, I ride bikes too (only Japanese sportbikes-and track them too). They are the ultimate "pocket rockets". Their technology has put them at the forefront of everyone. The day they go DI, I'll still be buying them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To continue on bikes, in sandy desert situations, as you mentioned, the winner of the 2013 and 2014 Paris-Dakar rally was a fuel injected water-cooled KTM. FYI, they plan to enter a DI version for 2015. So I guess your air-cooled argument is a mis-representation of factual reality.
In the meantime, sit back and watch me as I take delivery of a GK LX in June/July. The GD's/GE's are great and no one is telling you to change yours. But for god's sake don't flush the GKs (and it's new technology) down the toilet without having even owned one, much more, driven one.

 

What I'm doing is believing what I see instead of hearing about stuff that doesn't affect my situation. There was about 5 work bays at Lexus SPECIFICALLY for pulling out IS250/GS300 motors and cleaning up all the components. I've spent hours picking out new Pistons, Valves, Springs, and Gaskets as a fix for the IS250 carbon buildup recall program. I also experienced hesitation in my friend's IS250 before prompting her to get the warranty work done at the dealer, so it was noted in my mind that yes, carbon buildup could be an issue.

The IS350 we own at home is at 71,000 miles, has direct injection and recently had its engine pulled apart due to an unrelated issue where I was able to peek into the valves... They were clean. The car starts up every morning and has no known issues with the fuel pump or fuel system causing any problems...

I believe the FR-S/BRZ only has issues because they did not do enough research and testing before releasing the car. I don't understand why the car makes that "cricket" noise that they claim is normal for high pressure fuel pumps or whatever when the IS doesn't make that noise at all.

How do you expect to win me over with your thinking if I have a direct injection car at home and had a look inside the engine at 70k miles and it is clean?

 

Jason, I appreciate your input on this subject.

The BRZ/FR-S — which, for simplicity, we might as well refer to as the FT86 — has a Toyota-sourced head design that uses DI plus PI. My understanding is that this design was in use somewhere in the Lexus line prior to the marketing of the FT86. Can you clarify if the IS250s and IS350s of which you speak have this arrangement, or do they have DI without the PI?

You may have a point about your IS350, but, as someone above has already said, one model from one mfr. doesn't offer much cause for optimism when most cars from most mfrs. can't get DI to work without carbon buildup issues. Even Audi's R8 had it.

 

It looks like the 350 has the D4-S or direct and multi-port injection like the FT-86. While the 250 and 2006 GS300 only have Direct Injection

 

So, the engine that you say has licked the carbon buildup problem is, in fact, not a simple DI design, but a DI + PI design.

What's Honda gonna do about carbon buildup with just DI on the new Fit? Your argument above was that you have faith in the company; therefore, it should not be an issue. Faith-based engineering?