Port and direct injection

[entersandmann]

I’m not a Ford engineer so I can’t tell you what counts as a new generation and what doesn’t. Other than to look at the last few years where Ford themselves call a major change to fuel system delivery a new generation with at least three different engines I’m aware of.

If you had something to back that up I’d give you some more leeway but all that’s going in your favor right now is a screen shot of a page on a website, the same page that incorrectly had the block listed as aluminum all summer. Like I said, I’d like to have your optimism. We’ll see when they ship, but I wouldn’t put money on port injection.

Don't put money on a system that is on the heads for the engine that is what this engine is derived from and is ported for on the heads for the 3.0 but doweled off.

Ford doesn't have to put port injection on the engine, it just makes more sense to put it on there because it would be more work to not do so.

Sponsored

 

[goalieThreeOne]

Don't put money on a system that is on the heads for the engine that is what this engine is derived from and is ported for on the heads for the 3.0 but doweled off.

Ford doesn't have to put port injection on the engine, it just makes more sense to put it on there because it would be more work to not do so.

It would be more work to keep existing DI heads than it would be to change them to PI/DI in five different trims in three models across the brand? How does that make sense.

 

[entersandmann]

It would be more work to keep existing DI heads than it would be to change them to PI/DI in five different trims in three models across the brand? How does that make sense.

Because the part number is the same between the di heads and the di port fueled heads. Honestly, you cannot be this unintelligent. Having a single design is always less expensive than having (evidently) at least 3 designs that accomplish the same thing.

We know the following for certain: there was a substantial change to the head design on the 3.0l nano between its inception in the Lincoln lineup to its installment into the bronco raptor. The head is a completely different casting between the damb and rff valve actuators. The inclusion of port injection on a head that not only has di, but already has port injection prep built into the casting would be a trivial process change at longblock assembly. It makes more sense for Ford to consolidate the design into a single product rather than continue to have at least 3 variants of the same displacement engine with the same name.

 

[goalieThreeOne]

Because the part number is the same between the di heads and the di port fueled heads. Honestly, you cannot be this unintelligent. Having a single design is always less expensive than having (evidently) at least 3 designs that accomplish the same thing.

We know the following for certain: there was a substantial change to the head design on the 3.0l nano between its inception in the Lincoln lineup to its installment into the bronco raptor. The head is a completely different casting between the damb and rff valve actuators. The inclusion of port injection on a head that not only has di, but already has port injection prep built into the casting would be a trivial process change at longblock assembly. It makes more sense for Ford to consolidate the design into a single product rather than continue to have at least 3 variants of the same displacement engine with the same name.

First off, if you’re going to insult me personally, this conversation will be over. I have no tolerance for that and neither should you.

Second, if it was so trivial and it provided a substantial cost savings then it would have been done well before the ranger. Likely with the 2020 Explorer/Aviator. Or the 2022 BRaptor. Yet they didn’t so explain why they would have kept it? Could it be they don’t see the benefit? Could it be that it’s not as trivial as you’re guessing? Only Ford know. End of the day though, you’re not convincing me of anything with this line of reasoning. Ford employs hundreds of spreadsheet jockeys and accountants whose sole job it is to squeeze every last dollar of profitability out of every nut and bolt of every vehicle they sell. If this was so trivial, and if it was a cost savings, and if it helped with warranty claims, then it either would have been done or those accountants have been making the same mistake over and over again for five years.

 

[Deleted member 6764]

The specs page is riddled with typos and mistakes, I wouldn't get too concerned about it just yet. There are many copy and paste errors, and flat out contradictions. It even at one point refers to the Raptor 3.0L as an "I-4".

 

[jdlapointe]

If it wasn't a typo, ford would have said it was a new generation containing direct and port injection. There is more to it than just swapping heads. The engine needs to know what to do with the fuel, and when to fire it. Not to mention the fuel pump is different since port isn't injected at 2000psi, and the high pressure pump requires ~50PSI which is still more than port injection takes.

The lifters were changed at some point in the 2.7 gen 1, and carried over to the gen 2. Smaller changes that are functionally/mechanically equal do not always mean a new generation of engine.

There is also a Gen 2 2.3l, but that is only going into the 2024 mustang for now. That one does have port and direct injection, while giving more power.

 

[anti-lag]

Bringing this thread back from the dead...

Every review I have seen so far specs the 3.0 in the RR as having direct AND port injection, but they could just be copying the Ford press release specs. This was a hot topic in this thread with most people leaning to that it was a typo by Ford. For longevity and tuning reasons I am hoping it was not a typo..

Now that people have taken delivery of their Raptors I am hoping we can get a definitive answer. Can someone go look under the hood and see if there are port injectors? Or better yet snap a pic of them?

Thanks! I am anxiously awaiting my 4/22 build and this would give something else to be excited about in the mean time.

 

[ckibue]

The 2024 Ranger Raptor 3.0L Ecoboost is direct injection only. The wiring diagram manual shows only six direct injectors, whereas an engine with port and direct injection would have a total of twelve injectors, six for direct and six for port. A physical look also confirms this.

 

[jrRaptor]

But are you sure though? It could be they just forgot to put them in the wiring diagram. And maybe you just can't see them because Ford did such a good job hiding them.

Oh, (insert sarcasm).

Case closed, Johnson!

 

[olefordguy]

Well, imo, that sort of sucks the 3.0L is direct injection only. That means future additional maintenance will likely be needed to clean the carbon deposits off the valves since no fuel with cleaning additives ever hits the valves. As I understand it, that involves removing the heads and walnut blasting the carbon deposits off the valves, usually by around 80-100k miles from what i've read

 

[anti-lag]

The 2024 Ranger Raptor 3.0L Ecoboost is direct injection only. The wiring diagram manual shows only six direct injectors, whereas an engine with port and direct injection would have a total of twelve injectors, six for direct and six for port. A physical look also confirms this.

Thanks for the reply. Looks like you are from Kenya? I should have specified, but I was looking for confirmation on a US spec ranger raptor. The specs for the internal RR have shown direct injection only, but the US RR spec sheet shows direct and port. Can one of the lucky few that has already received their RR take a look under the hood?

I will be honest shame on Ford if they have let a typo persist this long and trickle down to all of the online reviews...

 

[jrRaptor]

I mean we had Auto Start-Stop Delete when we ordered and all those delivered confirmed it wasn't deleted. Communication isn't Ford's strong suit and I'm sure that follows internally as well.

 

[ckibue]

Thanks for the reply. Looks like you are from Kenya? I should have specified, but I was looking for confirmation on a US spec ranger raptor. The specs for the internal RR have shown direct injection only, but the US RR spec sheet shows direct and port. Can one of the lucky few that has already received their RR take a look under the hood?

I will be honest shame on Ford if they have let a typo persist this long and trickle down to all of the online reviews...

Yes I am from Kenya. Screenshot is actually from the manuals on the USA site, and matches my VIN specific ones as well. Marketing sheets had also mentioned a dual port fuel injection system as does the Ford training manual, but I am 99.9% sure there are direct injection (GTDI) in the NA market too.

 

[PhoenixRanger]

Sorry to bring this thread back to life, but has it been definitively determined what injection system the 3.0 TT Ecoboost engine in the 2024 Ford Ranger has? Direct Injection only? Or Port and Direct?
Asking for a friend

 

[RANGER/HOBB]

Sorry to bring this thread back to life, but has it been definitively determined what injection system the 3.0 TT Ecoboost engine in the 2024 Ford Ranger has? Direct Injection only? Or Port and Direct?
Asking for a friend

Lets make this simple; https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/product/2024/ranger/2024 Ford Ranger Raptor Specs.pdf

ENGINE

3.0-liter EcoBoost® V6

Configuration Valvetrain Bore x stroke Twin-turbocharged and intercooled V6, compacted graphite iron block, aluminum heads

DOHC, four valves per cylinder, twin independent variable camshaft timing
Ignition Coil on plug

3.36 x 3.38 inches (85.4 mm x 86.0 mm)

Displacement Compression ratio 10.5:1

Recommended fuel 91 octane

180.0 cubic inches (2,949 cubic centimeters)

Fuel capacity 20.3 gallons

*****Fuel delivery Port fuel and direct injection******

Power 405 horsepower**

Torque 430 lb.-ft.

Sponsored