None to date....but, if you design one for the LT engines, it will be universal for all GM V8's that are GDI (2014 and up Stingray and trucks, 2016 and up all other GM platforms including Camaro. I would but one! Just need to have provisions for the blast tube to fit through.

All one has to do is search for the problems with all the GM L4 and V6 GDI engines to date. Very few go more than 50k miles w/out random misfires, off idle stumbles, and rough running. That is where BG, Seafoam, CRC, etc. are all spending $ millions$ in advertising and marketing as a fix. And GM would have kept the 100k miles warranty as it is embarrassing to have Korean and Japaneses vehicles with 100k miles if they did not have confidence in these new engines.

The main issue I think you guy's have is accepting the automakers don't produce "perfect" cars that are mass produced, but that is what marketing is all about. We also would not be having these constant seminars on the coking issues with GDI engines as SAE members. Non-stop by engineers World Wide. If you really want to understand how widespread this is I suggest if your an Engineer, Join SAE and attend some of these for a "behind the facade" look at how huge of a issue this is facing the Automotive Industry: (No "assumptions" or "opinions" based on a consumers controlled view of what is happening, just actual engineers in the industry that are scrambling for answers and solutions. That is how serious this is).



SAE International Lubrizol


Industry experts discuss TGDI technology and advanced lubricants that enable fuel efficiency and durability


Register Today! Join SAE International for a FREE 60-Minute Webinar!

TGDI Technology and Higher Performing Lubricants

Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 2 p.m. U.S. EDT





Register Here!



Presenters:

Bruce M. Belzowski Bruce M. Belzowski
Managing Director,
Automotive Futures,
UMTRI

Martin Birze Martin Birze
Regional Business Manager,
Passenger Car Motor Oils,
Americas, Lubrizol

Thomas E. Briggs, Jr., Ph.D. Thomas E. Briggs, Jr., Ph.D
Program Manager,
Spark Ignited Engines R&D Department, SwRI

Geoffrey L. Duff Geoffrey L. Duff
Director of Application Engineering,
North America,
Honeywell Transportation Systems

Alex Sammut Alex Sammut
Technical Marketing Manager, Lubrizol

Moderator:

Lisa Arrigo Lisa Arrigo
Custom Electronic
Products Editor,
SAE International


Industry experts are coming together to provide insight into one of the passenger car industry's most impactful powertrain strategies: turbocharged gasoline direct injection (TGDI) technology. The global demand for TGDI engines is increasing as emission regulations become more stringent, consumer expectations for vehicle performance shift, and industry demand for fuel economy grows.

In this 60-minute Webinar, experts will discuss TGDI technology and advanced lubricants that enable fuel efficiency, performance, and durability.

Other topics discussed will include:

• Turbocharger technology adoption and future development

• The role of higher performing lubricants in TGDI engines

• Chain wear, LSPI, and GDI soot

• Consumer demand for performance and fuel efficient technology

An audience Q&A will follow the technical presentations

Click to Register





Sponsored by:

Lubrizol


Hosted by:

SAE International


If you have any additional questions, please contact:

SAE Customer Service:
Phone: 1*-8*77-6*06-7*323 (U.S. & Canada)
1-7*24-7*76-4*970 (Outside U.S. & Canada)
Fax: 1-7*24-7*76-0*790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

 

This really isnt the case, because I understand auto makers need to make money. If they make perfect cars that run perfectly, the business model wont work.

In my opinion, a engine should hold up for a reasonable amount of time. If your having problems at 50k miles lets say, that isnt reasonable. The public isnt going to take that kind of stuff, they will demand better engines.

 

time will tell....but the problem is that only the manufacturer, through warranty claims or dealer repairs done out of warranty would be definitive.....and that is company proprietary data for all manufacturers.....

whatever reports are made in forums like this one on the internet or word of mouth at car shows and clubs etc all would not be statistically reliable due to lack of sampling control

 

I agree, that is why it is frustrating being a member of SAE and an automotive engineer for most of my adult life working in the industry and providing documentation, facts, photos, etc. are discounted by some. Coming from the auto industry side of things we see a ton the public is never aware of. And also the reason we share so much of this in great detail, and also give instructions for any that wish to verify how to do so themselves. 90% of what is on forums and the internet in general some times is incorrect, or misleading at best as most is only "opinion" and "assumptions" made by those with little or no experience or qualifications.

What the consumer has available to try and learn about any of this is greatly limited, and manipulation is the rule in marketing and influencing a consumers decisions, and no one does it better than the auto Industry.

Taking the proper steps to avoid most of this is a very inexpensive move VS the alternative. In a fleet application where these are bought purely for fuel economy improvement and savings the average ROI is reached at app. 5.7 months depending on the miles driven per month per vehicle. Most could care less about the other benefits, they lease most and the fuel savings is easily documented and proven by the fleet manager/owner. Stop the oil mist and other contaminates from the intake air charge and any gasoline engine will produce more power and run more efficiently. They can also go longer between oil changes as the oil remains cleaner far longer than w/out one of these and that is a savings as well, but that is secondary for most fleet owners. The fuel savings is un-arguable and immediate.

 

I feel like DI engines have been out for so long now. Seeing how many people are driving cars with over 100k miles.

On top of that, dealerships recommend running a top engine cleaner. According to info here, those cleaners cause more damage.

We have major build up at 20-50k miles
we have dealerships causing more damage than good.

Why hasnt the sky fallin already ?

 

Sorry to be rude, but this is such an ignorant post Mike. Where have you been researching on this?

I know you read my posts, and all of the articles in automotive publications with stories on how much problems the early GDI engines have/had? Tons of examples from every brand, yet when I bring up any aside from the GM LT1/LT4 engine, you always come on and attack that as not being relevant. But here are some again to read and see. The world is not ending, the sky is not falling, and no where can you show me I have ever stated such.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...ines/index.htm

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...-engines-.html

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2015...rbon-deposits/

http://www.britishamericanauto.com/c...s-mini-coopers

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...in-a-nutshell/

http://www.aa1car.com/library/intake...di_engines.htm

http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-...-adopters.html

http://www.rennology.com/bmw-engine-...aning-service/

http://atlanticmotorcar.com/mini-coo...intake-valves/


These are just a few of the publications readily available to the consumer concerning this.

There are hundreds more Mike, but let me anticipate your next reply IF you actually read all of these, you will say " The automakers all claim to have solved this now" and that as you can see, is not the case. Improvements have been made for sure, but not solved by a long shot.

So, please take the time to actually research and read as you are making uneducated/uninformed assumptions as always. Bring some facts and data to the table and you appear at least making some effort to learn instead of arguing every fact with opinion.

Very few GDI cars run fine for 100k miles, if any. The driver may not realize how much performance has degraded, but read, look at pictures, and data. Again, why are you so dead set on stopping others from learning about this when this is hardly your area of expertise? If you actually worked as an automotive engineer, or a service tech in a dealership today where you would see all of this up close and personal it would hold far more water than "because I think so".

List your degrees and qualifications and certifications any time you want to demonstrate to others here you have that you are experienced in any of this. I surely don't seek out a enrolled agents forum to argue tax law I have no clue about, or a mortgage originators, or a hair dressers, etc. as I have nothing in my background to be able to argue with professionals in any of those fields. This is where I have decades of experience, and am sharing it with those that DO want to learn, yet you have a mission to disrupt and argue.

 

The problem with those references is they do not back up your claims. GM has built millions of GDI engines and there is a slight mention of maybe a problem with the Ecotech 4 cylinder engine but the data is so sparse they can't say there is a problem. Timing chain breakage on V6s get a lot of mention but effectively nothing, zippo about intake valve carbon deposits with GM engines. Most of the references relate to German Autos and the hit rate seems to be about 1 in 6 with one of those brands. If you want to be believed you need to show there truly is a problem with GM GDI engines and for Corvette Owners some data showing the problem exists with the LT1 and LT4 engines specifically.

Somebody's picture of the intake of their car with puddles of oil in it doesn't prove that intake valve carbon deposits are a problem on that engine. You have to show some specifics that are relevant to Corvette owners. Most owners of new Corvettes really don't care about a problem that will show up when the car has 50K miles on it. For most of them that is 10 to 20 years down the road from now. They are either going to sell it before it gets any where near that number of miles or they are going to be so old when it gets to that number of miles their great grand children will have to drive the car for them. If there is a problem it will show up when the 3rd or 4th owners of the cars have them.

Bill

 

Article quotes:
These are from articles you posted.

So yes it CAN be an issue but NO it does not appear to be a major issue with every DI vehicle.

In fact just about every single article points out that it was early Audi/VW/BMW designs that had the biggest problem with it.

So using your own evidence it backs my own summation of the situation.
Yes DI engines can suffer from coking, and it would not hurt to take measures to limit it (like getting a catch can), but no its not some major issue (at this point) that will rob your engine of 50+hp over the course of the engines lifetime.

 

Stop people from learning ?

This thread is filled with info and opinions.

I simply have not seen enough info to say engines are having major carbon problems at 50k miles.

All i see is pictures of old BMWs, audis, and random articles.

What i see in the real world is my dads 60k mile GMC truck with no problems.

I am pretty sure if he was down 50WHP, got terrible fuel economy, had rough idles, or even a CEL i would have noticed it when i drive it time to time. Do i believe the car has carbon on the valves ? i sure do, but its not as crazy as you make it seem.

and until we start to see high mileage c7 corvettes, you are not going to fully convince everyone.

 

Seriously, this thread is getting ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that GDI engines do coke. Its proven time and time again with all GDI cars. I have had two BMW'S with over 100,000 miles on them with GDI motors. Both ran great until I traded them. One was a Mini Cooper JCW. Now who knows, was there a performance issue ? There may have been but I couldn't notice it on either car.

Now my daily is a Benz and like clockwork the car gives me red flags for service at different mileages. Every service is is 500 to 1K. My point being is that if you had a manual valve cleaning at 10K or 20K at a reasonable cost it wouldn't be out of line for a regular maintenance.

Also lets face it, not to many guys put that much mileage on there C7's. Thats why theres not to much data available on the C7 and coking.

I for one did put a FSP catch can in my car to prolong any possible issues. I also have meth injection. I probably won't put 30,000 miles on this car ever so its a non issue for me, but I would also have the valves checked at 15 or 20 K to be sure. Its a small price to pay for peace of mind. I actually did check the valves at 5K when I added the meth injection and I can say they looked clean as a whistle.

One last note, my buddy just bought a 2012 Mini Cooper with 80K on it and when we pulled the head the valves were seriously coked up.

 

What about all the GDI GM v8 truck/SUV out there? What about the new LT1 camaros that are on the road now.

my dad has a 2015 GMC 5.8L truck that he uses for work and puts about 30k miles a year on it(has 60k miles today). When I am at my parents house i tend to drive his truck. The car gets the same fuel economy as when he bought it, also runs completely fine (engine wise). In terms of being down on power i really wont know.

I just feel like if this problem was pass the point of being down on 5-10% power. I would hear about it more from friends ,family at car meets etc...

google something like GM truck carbon build up, see the lack of pictures and data.

 

saw a 2013 cayenne turbo that was pretty nasty at 18k miles....what they don't address, the real problem, is when oil find its way in, either via a failing PCV filtering system, a badly engineered PCV or leaking valve seals. The latter is most likely the biggest issue: if you get a leaking valve seal/guide, you are totally screwed.

Mercedes had thought about adding an injector in the intake with a solvent, that would need to be refilled at every oil change to help keep things cleaned. Unfortunatly they decided not to implement it.
Toyota and Audi (or maybe just Audi) has implemented a hybrid DI, using one injector in the intake track and one DI injector, also to help combat their issues

What I can't wait to see is the result of cam'd LT1/LT4 and with the massive reversion they will get from the large cam (ya know so they have your favorite rumpety rump sound)...

 

I have yet to find a single person that has done the before and after dyno tests with a manual cleaning that thought they had lost ANY power. Look back at the engineer that had done the 20k miles test on his 2015 Stingray. He stated several times vefore hand "I highly doubt I have lost any power, I sure can notice it" but after the cleaning, it was evident. Power loss that is that gradual is rarely noticed. Same as the BMW tech that did hi 5 series BMW dynos every years for 3 years and then performed the cleaning. He also had no "feel" of power loss, yet look at his graphs ver 3 years and then the final one. He was also surprised and his was an even greater loss as a percentage than the Stingray.

Same with the BMW Mini, and the Focus ST at 9k miles. All had made the same comments, and that is where opinion and documented fact differ.


GM only offers the 5.3L and 6.2L engines in a V8 for 2015. Ford had the 5.8 way back in a non GDI engine, the 351. And I will make you a bet here in front of the World, bring his truck in, and be present while before and after dynos are done with the manual intake valve cleaning done before the after and it will be there. Undeniable. If you REALLY believed what your trying to convince yourself of, you would run out and do this. Then there are no "assumptions" or "opinions". Just fact. Let's set this up and invite ALL that want to be present and document it all. Are you confident enough with your "assumptions to take the bet? Say $1000?




You sir, are an intelligent and informed person and understand this. NO GDI engine is immune form this. The solution to prevent is inexpensive in the long run and proven. To do a valve cleaning every 10k or so miles still allows the deposits on the valve stem to be drawn into the guide where they wear the softer brass alloy material rapidly VS a port injection engine that had NO coking over it's life.

Again, if you as a car owner (any reading this) are NOT concerned, then by all means do NOT change a thing. But to argue assumptions against facts and data is crazy. If your not in agreement please stay out of the discussions and do as you choose. I am not following any of the few that are arguing against this and trying to change your mind or disrupting your threads, I am only wanting to educate those that want to learn and care for their investment the best possible.

As for Mercedes, and others, most Euro and Asian GDI vehicles now have the small port injectors to help combat this, yet what is actually happening is very little reduction, and many negatives as now they are allowing a combustible air/fuel mixture to be present during the compression stroke increasing detonation and knock retard. The internal air/oil separators are also retaining a far greater amount of the damaging compounds present in the PCV vapors that used to be evacuated in the past. This is adding premature wear to all internal parts and shortening engine life. Thus the reduced engine warranty periods.

Great intelligent post.

 

If i lived near you guys, i would have had my car in your shop months ago.

This is a honest question.

(yes he has the 5.3L engine) Is it possible that my fathers truck is down on major power, yet it has no other symptoms ? I feel like if a engine is down 50WHP, you would have a check engine light on.

I am just little pissed off that my beautiful corvette has problematic direct injection. Thats why i rant all the time about this.

Then I hear a story over at camaro5 forums about a guy who got his engine replacement denied because of a catch can. Ya maybe GM illegally denied it, but it happen and thats the world we live in.

 

LOL!! Challenge goes out to you as well Bill. Ignorance and cherry picking quotes form the automakers PR releases does not equate fact. I offer you the same $1000 bet/challenge. If you actually tore these engines down, did the testing we do I doubt you would continue this stance. And bring Tadge with you, and any media from any automotive publication to document it all for the World to see. A will put up $1,000 cash personally as well as cover all the cost of the dyno before and after and the cost for the shop to do the manual intake valve cleaning. Put your money where your keyboard is and prove your stance. To date, I seem to be the only one willing to do so. If your so confident in your stance, why not prove your point? Only more accurate info will result, and if your "right". then you make a fool out of me in front of the World!!! What could be better? You would have facts to support your opinions, and shut me up forever! Take ANY GM GDI vehicle with over 40k miles on it and bring it in and verify your stance....as you claim only the L4 ecotech has issues, yet easy to see that's not the case:

This compilation is mainly Euro and Aisian GDI engines, but there are GM LLT 3.6L V6, LFX GM 3.0 and 3.6L V6, and LT1 based V8's in both 5.3 and 6.2L size in these as well:

https://www.google.com/search?q=my+i...UQsAQIMg&dpr=1

GM LLT engine before and after:

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328400

And many more (most of course are Euro cars as they have been using GDI for far longer than US makers, but the only way to get more accurate data on the latest GM engines is to actually inspect, dydno, clean, and re-dyno)

http://my1series.com/2014/04/28/fina...alves-cleaned/


Generally as you can see reading the articles random misfires may be the first CEL light triggered, it is the gradual and accumulative effects. My offer is worth the drive as we will cover all costs of the dyno's and the manual valve cleaning.

I am right there with you on the anger in our cars now not being as reliable as the past, but I also study the industry as a whole, and understand Chrysler may be the true "smart one" in all of this holding out with ALL their engines to retain port injection and pay the fee's. GM and others I still stand behind them being forced into this adoption of a technology not yet perfected.

On the Camaro, as there are hundreds of posts in those threads, one only has to read it to see this is the first, and only case, and is absolutely crazy to somehow blame a common oil pump failure (google search "LS3 oil pump failure" and see how common this is) on a "catchcan" when the tech drove the car w/no oil pressure after the owner had it towed to the dealer. And yes, it was not legal for GM to void his warranty, but the OP decided NOT to pursue it even though many of us donated $ t his cause (thousands of $ total) and provided him with the FTC page and form to file a complaint as well as law forms that specialize in Magnasun/Moss act violations. If there was a trend of denials then it would be a concern, but there are 100's of thousands of "catchcans" in use, and dealers that endorse, sell, and install these on new vehicles. There are no negatives to a properly designed system, only positives. BUT look at j=how the vented/breather "tanks" defeat and delete all the functions of the PCV system and it is only a matter of time before those engines are damaged and this becomes an issue that may spill over to affect the proper systems that do nothing to reduce, delete, defeat the OEM PCV system.

Mike, Really, take the few days to make the trip as a "mini" vacation and put this to rest. Bring your dads truck and see all of this first hand. Document it all, every step and the before and after dyno results.

It is well worth it to finally know first hand and no more assumptions.

 

Here is anther thread showing the LT1 up close:

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...post1592437436

 

I love how Z06BAIT loves to tell people who dont question him how intelligent they are.

But I go through all the "evidence" articles he posted, actually read them, then post quotes from them that are in some ways contradictory to his own exaggerated opinion and I get crickets.

Yet since my post he has responded to several people over two days so its not like he has not been on this board.

Guess I'm not "intelligent" since I dont completely support him and even have the ignorance to quote the very articles he posted.

 

Ask me a specific question. You keep picking one comment from a automakers PR department as gospel, yet nothing technical and detailed. Also, you keep saying "crickets". I have a full time job and only get online at breaks or lunch, etc. so how are you coming up with the "crickets"? You may be able to spend your life online, but I cannot. And if you ask a specific detailed question WITH technical descriptions, etc. I can answer you specifically. Looking back I answered your past questions in other answers trying not to duplicate post's.

So, ask me a specific question that I have not already answered. And be technical with some facts to reference. To date, you mainly seem to harass and insult. That is not acceptable. Mike at least, even if he comes across as rude, etc. still seems to want to learn. To date you seem only focused on disruptions and fighting.

 

If I click on reply, it does not include your quotes here, so I am trying to copy and paste. I have answered all of these before, but here they are again:

Article quotes:
Quote:
It’s important to note that not all cars with direct injection experience long-term problems. But if your engine stumbles more than it used to, or it suddenly lacks power, ask your dealer about it. A fix may be available, and you may not have to pay for it.

This is a false statement based upon GM and others responding to his inquiries and his "canned for public release" response.
Quote:
Many automakers’ gasoline DI engines do not appear to exhibit any carbon build-up issues at all, however. Digging into online threads about Cadillac’s 3.6-liter DI V6 in its popular CTS lineup does reveal some owner concerns about carbon build-up, but it’s difficult to find even a single report that any build-up has actually occurred – a record that is notable considering that Cadillac has sold more than 200,000 CTS models with DI V6s (Audi sold fewer than 2,000 RS 4s in the US during its two-year sales run).

Haider, GM’s V6 assistant chief engineer, explained how GM has designed its DI engines to combat carbon buildup: “We maintain great engine function and performance in our all our DI engines through an optimization strategy with our valve events,” he said. “Our intake-cam timing, injector targeting and timing of the injection events are optimized to avoid direct fuel contact on the intake valves. This strategy keeps smoke and soot formation to an absolute minimum, which in turn prevents excessive deposit formation.”

Again, I gave you plenty of examples that this is an outright lie by Haider. No other GM GDI engine except the earlier L4 Ecotech has experienced this in such severity. I gave several links to others that have examined, and cleaned theirs with before and after. Please read each link I supply. I challenge Haider to the same challenge. Pick ANY GM 3.6L GDI engine from the LLT, LFX, LGX with 40k miles on it and we remove the intake manifold after a base dyno run, have as many people present to document every step, and do a manual valve cleaning and then an after dyno. Bring automotive media staff as well to document all and print publicly what was proven. He won't come just as Tadge has not in the over a year we have invited/challenged him. I show proof, they only give marketing and management approved PR releases. Not once has, or will any of these "talking heads" meet in a public test session to document all. Also, I personally at my job designed the PCV barb fixed orifice design currently used in all GM 3.0 and 3.6L GDI engines to address a proper PCV evacuation issue that had plagued the engines from 2008 to 2014 when they implemented it. That is part of my full time job.

Quote:
Chick reached his conclusion after inspecting dozens of different DI engines at his shop and finding some, like the V8 in Boyadjiev’s Audi RS 4, regularly choked with carbon while others, like the DI version of Porsche’s horizontally opposed 6-cylinder, remained much cleaner.

If he’s right, the rapid adoption of DI has actually illuminated an issue, not caused one. A “dirty” intake or exhaust-recirculation design can easily go undetected in a conventional port-injected engine due to the cleaning effect of gasoline passing over the intake valves. When the same engine designs are adapted to direct-injection fueling, however, that cleaning effect is suddenly lost – and the carbon layers can build.

This is a correct and accurate statement. Compare any older BMW/Audi?etc. engine with the newer versions and you will see coking levels at app. 1/2 of what they used to be. But, that is not a fix. The same issues all happen from the loss of power, misfires, lazy off-idle response, and worn valve guides (only way to prevent that is stop the deposits from forming in any amount). None of that is a solution, but shows all automakers are working steady to find solutions, and to date only a reduction of the rate and severity of coking has been the result, and many negatives have popped up since that are equally as damaging or detracting from engine longevity. I go into great detail on all of this.

Quote:
Assuaging potential sky-is-falling fears, Michael Karesh, the developer of TrueDelta.com said carbon buildup is “not an issue for all direct-injected engines” based on the data he collects. His website surveys the owners of around 33,000 different vehicles to acquire relevant and timely data about vehicle reliability and fuel economy among other things.

But of course there are some instances of deposit-related issues that have popped up. Karesh said, “The only engines it’s reported quite a bit is [with] the VW/Audi 2.0T and then the Audi V6s.” He also said, “I know there are some BMWs that end up with carbon buildup as well.”

And again this is false. There is not a single GDI engine not negatively afected by these deposits. Are there people that do not realize the degradation of power, etc.? Most do not as the "out of sight, out of mind" saying comes into plat here. The facts are still show me a SINGLE example of a make/model/engine that is not affected. There are none. Go to my latest links and see plenty of other examples.
Quote:


“I think even though direct-injection technology is far superior today compared to a decade ago that with varying fuel qualities, different driving techniques and overall aging of the engines it will be an issue for some,” Laskowski said. Going on he said Ford should develop a cleaning process for EcoBoost powerplants so carbon can be addressed without completely tearing engines down.

DecarbonizingConventional induction-cleaning services aren’t recommended with Ford’s EcoBoost engines. Laskowski said turbochargers can be damaged and they ain’t cheap to replace. “Again I believe the bulk of this problem can and will be eliminated with future PCM software-calibration updates.”

For the time being Karesh said that according to his data, “Clearly it’s a VW/Audi problem and not much else.” Elaborating he also said, “We’ve got other direct-injected engines and it’s not showing up for those.”

Brian Laskowski was driven out of being a Ford Tech communicating with Ford engineers that shared info not approved for public release. He is one of the most knowledgeable and intelligent techs out there from Ford, and because he brought this out in the open and did not stop when warned. He now travels the country sharing his skills and knowledge with other techs/shops. He also echo's what I have continued to warn of the damage using a solvent based upper induction cleaner causes.

Want to read more from Brian?:


This guy went against the policy of Ford and other automakers and continued to expose these issues with accurate and correct information. He is one of the most knowledgeable of his kind and his youtube channels provide a ton of good helpful information. Watch him and listen to what he duplicates of by posts here. You can't cherry pick parts to support your opinion.

Since this video, he has now found the explanations of the variable valve and fuel events he was told by Ford solved these issues has not proven to be accurate or truthful. Even the 2016 ecoboost still have all of these issues.

Pay attention to Laskowski, the guy is young and open minded, and when someone misleads him, or lies to him, he corrects previous videos and statements he made trusting the "talking heads".

How is that?