Or a variation: Take a small sponge, soak thoroughly in the solvent of your choice (see all discussions above for a partial list of possible products), then place the sponge on the dirty side of the air cleaner element and drive a 100 miles then remove the sponge, it should be dry by that time.
Oil's Effects on Direct Inj Intake Valve Deposits?
- Thread starter lubricatosaurus
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
I think I would use water injection into the intake manifold if I owned one of these GDI smogger engine cars. Maybe use the system to inject some PEA or other substance to keep the valves clean.
I'd try something because I tend to keep a daily driver for a long time. For most people, they should just ignore the problem and trade up before the factory warranty runs out. Keeping a car beyond the warranty can sometimes be an unreasonable risk.
Sure, you can dissolve PEA in IPA, or any alcohol, and spray onto intake tube and the valves will get PEA directly.
Some will and some won't.
Modern injected engines all have a 'dry' manifold design. It is designed only for air, and if moisture is introduced it may puddle and be very unevenly delivered. Vaporized would be ok if the intake was hot enough, but many engines with larger displacements have manifolds with larger passages and cooler temps.
Introducing any liquid into a modern intake can cause a real problem...
Why the air wouldn't drive most of the spray misted on it, as a carrier, specially when warm, I don't get you on that one.
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
I think I would use water injection into the intake manifold if I owned one of these GDI smogger engine cars. Maybe use the system to inject some PEA or other substance to keep the valves clean.
I'd try something because I tend to keep a daily driver for a long time. For most people, they should just ignore the problem and trade up before the factory warranty runs out. Keeping a car beyond the warranty can sometimes be an unreasonable risk.
Sure, you can dissolve PEA in IPA, or any alcohol, and spray onto intake tube and the valves will get PEA directly.
Some will and some won't.
Modern injected engines all have a 'dry' manifold design. It is designed only for air, and if moisture is introduced it may puddle and be very unevenly delivered. Vaporized would be ok if the intake was hot enough, but many engines with larger displacements have manifolds with larger passages and cooler temps.
Introducing any liquid into a modern intake can cause a real problem...
Why the air wouldn't drive most of the spray misted on it, as a carrier, specially when warm, I don't get you on that one.
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Some will and some won't.
Modern injected engines all have a 'dry' manifold design. It is designed only for air, and if moisture is introduced it may puddle and be very unevenly delivered. Vaporized would be ok if the intake was hot enough, but many engines with larger displacements have manifolds with larger passages and cooler temps.
Introducing any liquid into a modern intake can cause a real problem...
Why the air wouldn't drive most of the spray misted on it, as a carrier, specially when warm, I don't get you on that one. [/quote]
As long as the manifold is heated and the liquid you use vaporizes readily at or below that temp then you'll be fine. I like the vaporizing technique above.
Take a good look at a dry manifold on a GDI car and then a carbureted manifold on an older one. The carbed ones are usually heated and specially baffled to direct liquid fuel.
Some will and some won't.
Modern injected engines all have a 'dry' manifold design. It is designed only for air, and if moisture is introduced it may puddle and be very unevenly delivered. Vaporized would be ok if the intake was hot enough, but many engines with larger displacements have manifolds with larger passages and cooler temps.
Introducing any liquid into a modern intake can cause a real problem...
Why the air wouldn't drive most of the spray misted on it, as a carrier, specially when warm, I don't get you on that one. [/quote]
As long as the manifold is heated and the liquid you use vaporizes readily at or below that temp then you'll be fine. I like the vaporizing technique above.
Take a good look at a dry manifold on a GDI car and then a carbureted manifold on an older one. The carbed ones are usually heated and specially baffled to direct liquid fuel.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: afree
I don't get why everyone thinks catch cans don't work. If you have ever seen the contents of a properly made catch can (baffles/screens/filters) you would be amazed at the contents of just a few thousand miles on some cars. Otherwise this vapor would all be collecting in the intake manifold and valves.
I believe the reason manufacturers and engineers don't add them to cars is because of either emissions or the fact that it adds another maintenance item. If you neglect to check the can you could risk sucking up that condensed fuel/oil/water liquid mixture which would be far worse than burning the vapor directly.
I would think by now the auto engineers would have come up with some kind of catch-can or super PCV separator arrangement on these DI engines to prevent oil ingestion into the intake that causes all the valve coking.
I don't get why everyone thinks catch cans don't work. If you have ever seen the contents of a properly made catch can (baffles/screens/filters) you would be amazed at the contents of just a few thousand miles on some cars. Otherwise this vapor would all be collecting in the intake manifold and valves.
I believe the reason manufacturers and engineers don't add them to cars is because of either emissions or the fact that it adds another maintenance item. If you neglect to check the can you could risk sucking up that condensed fuel/oil/water liquid mixture which would be far worse than burning the vapor directly.
I would think by now the auto engineers would have come up with some kind of catch-can or super PCV separator arrangement on these DI engines to prevent oil ingestion into the intake that causes all the valve coking.
So many comments, I don't know where to begin...
To the folks advocating the use of PEA or neat polyamines, yes I could imagine they will might work. However, they will also be extremely effective at attacking any fluor-elastomer (aka Viton/AK6) seals you have in your engine. Personally, I wouldn't risk it.
Someone mentioned that GDI engines from Audi, BMW and Subaru seem to have suffered most with IVD problems. It's no coincidence that these are the very OEMs whose engines have the worst reputation for oil consumption. These are all marques that trade on 'performance'. Given that ring/bore friction is one of the biggest 'sucker-uppers' of potential engine power output, I do wonder if their engine designers, in an attempt to minimise friction and maximise power, compromised the efficiency of the ring pack.
As I have said before on other BITOG posts, the big problem you get with compromised rings is fuel dilution and it's the fuel which 'powers' the transfer of oil to the inlet. Oil taken fully into the vapour phase by fuel will defeat all physical oil separation devices. Is this pure conjecture and speculation on my part? Yes. Do I have hard info to back this up? No. Am I right? Well I wouldn't be shouting this from the roof tops if I didn't think so...
Having said the above, I do think modern GDIs are probably okay. If you put in a decent ring pack to knock fuel dilution on the head, then you stop the transfer mechanism dead in it's tracks.
If you are unlucky enough to have an old GDI that consumes gargantuan amounts of oil and is dumping said oil in your inlet system and baking it onto valves, then using a low Noack oil should be something you should definitely consider.
PS - the physical oil separation devices I referred to are the standard fit, legal ones. Obviously if you physically disconnect the crankcase blow-by from the inlet system or instal a cooled catch can, this will work but it creates its own subset of problems...
To the folks advocating the use of PEA or neat polyamines, yes I could imagine they will might work. However, they will also be extremely effective at attacking any fluor-elastomer (aka Viton/AK6) seals you have in your engine. Personally, I wouldn't risk it.
Someone mentioned that GDI engines from Audi, BMW and Subaru seem to have suffered most with IVD problems. It's no coincidence that these are the very OEMs whose engines have the worst reputation for oil consumption. These are all marques that trade on 'performance'. Given that ring/bore friction is one of the biggest 'sucker-uppers' of potential engine power output, I do wonder if their engine designers, in an attempt to minimise friction and maximise power, compromised the efficiency of the ring pack.
As I have said before on other BITOG posts, the big problem you get with compromised rings is fuel dilution and it's the fuel which 'powers' the transfer of oil to the inlet. Oil taken fully into the vapour phase by fuel will defeat all physical oil separation devices. Is this pure conjecture and speculation on my part? Yes. Do I have hard info to back this up? No. Am I right? Well I wouldn't be shouting this from the roof tops if I didn't think so...
Having said the above, I do think modern GDIs are probably okay. If you put in a decent ring pack to knock fuel dilution on the head, then you stop the transfer mechanism dead in it's tracks.
If you are unlucky enough to have an old GDI that consumes gargantuan amounts of oil and is dumping said oil in your inlet system and baking it onto valves, then using a low Noack oil should be something you should definitely consider.
PS - the physical oil separation devices I referred to are the standard fit, legal ones. Obviously if you physically disconnect the crankcase blow-by from the inlet system or instal a cooled catch can, this will work but it creates its own subset of problems...
Last edited:
Oil has no effect on intake valve deposits.
Recycling engine waste through your inlet tract causes intake valve deposits.
Recycling engine waste through your inlet tract causes intake valve deposits.
Originally Posted By: buster
One of the local Mazda dealers offers BG's DI service. Any word on how that works?
BG has some before and after pics of their DI service on a taurus showing it works but it is a more in depth process. I think they have to spray two different solutions directly on the intake valves. One to soften and one to remove. it isn't just a treatment through the intake while the engine runs.
Not sure why your mazda dealership would have that service, though. The mazdas don't seem to have any problems. Mine are still fine at 45k miles but I also don't use regular unleaded and I make sure to heat the valves up every 5k miles. I might be an outlier.
One of the local Mazda dealers offers BG's DI service. Any word on how that works?
BG has some before and after pics of their DI service on a taurus showing it works but it is a more in depth process. I think they have to spray two different solutions directly on the intake valves. One to soften and one to remove. it isn't just a treatment through the intake while the engine runs.
Not sure why your mazda dealership would have that service, though. The mazdas don't seem to have any problems. Mine are still fine at 45k miles but I also don't use regular unleaded and I make sure to heat the valves up every 5k miles. I might be an outlier.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: VR6OOM
My engine doesn't have an EGR...just PCV. What is in the PCV gunk exactly then?
Crankcase (and PCV vapor) has H2O, C02, C0, N2, NOx, O2, fuel, OIL, etc. in it. Oil has zddp, sulfur, moly, boron, PMA VII, oxidized polymer remnants, Wow, just a witch's brew of whatever. Wish we had Teflon coated intake valve backs.
My engine doesn't have an EGR...just PCV. What is in the PCV gunk exactly then?
Crankcase (and PCV vapor) has H2O, C02, C0, N2, NOx, O2, fuel, OIL, etc. in it. Oil has zddp, sulfur, moly, boron, PMA VII, oxidized polymer remnants, Wow, just a witch's brew of whatever. Wish we had Teflon coated intake valve backs.
I chanced upon the analysis of the contents of a catch can fitted to an F150.
http://www.f150ecoboost.net/forum/45-rx-...t-analysis.html
This is interesting in that levels of additive in the oil are very low and the KV100 of the oil is just 3.9 cst. I'd judge this to be nine parts 'distilled' light base oil and one part entrained oil.
http://www.f150ecoboost.net/forum/45-rx-...t-analysis.html
This is interesting in that levels of additive in the oil are very low and the KV100 of the oil is just 3.9 cst. I'd judge this to be nine parts 'distilled' light base oil and one part entrained oil.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
I chanced upon the analysis of the contents of a catch can fitted to an F150.
http://www.f150ecoboost.net/forum/45-rx-...t-analysis.html
This is interesting in that levels of additive in the oil are very low and the KV100 of the oil is just 3.9 cst. I'd judge this to be nine parts 'distilled' light base oil and one part entrained oil.
Makes a ton of sense. Lighter fractions in the engine oil vaporize into the crankcase, mix with a little blow-by fuel, then the fuel evaporates out of the catch-can (leaving only 1% per Blackstone). Certainly if you put in a PEA-based solvent product in your sump it would end up in the PCV flow.
I chanced upon the analysis of the contents of a catch can fitted to an F150.
http://www.f150ecoboost.net/forum/45-rx-...t-analysis.html
This is interesting in that levels of additive in the oil are very low and the KV100 of the oil is just 3.9 cst. I'd judge this to be nine parts 'distilled' light base oil and one part entrained oil.
Makes a ton of sense. Lighter fractions in the engine oil vaporize into the crankcase, mix with a little blow-by fuel, then the fuel evaporates out of the catch-can (leaving only 1% per Blackstone). Certainly if you put in a PEA-based solvent product in your sump it would end up in the PCV flow.
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: ccap41
You are correct. Which is why I was hesitant to use anything in the first place. But, the CRC specifically says it is safe for turbo engines. I know that doesn't magiaclly make it okay but it made me feel better and, let's be honest, if the turbo went out from that it would have gone out in the next few thousand miles, right? It would have still been covered under warranty and I have no clue how it could have been proved that I used something like this anway.
Maybe a good solution: Dampen 3/4 of your paper-element air filter in CRC or Gumout MultiSystem or B-12 Chemtool or Gumout All-In-One (most of those have PEA in it or wicked solvents at least). Then drive normally, letting air flow gradually vaporize the chemicals to mix with air and wash over the intake valves as you drive.
That is similar to the idea of what that stuff is. It is a spray that you spray into your intake. Granted, it is more powerful than the process you explained but it is similar. I may have to attempt your suggestion.
Originally Posted By: ccap41
You are correct. Which is why I was hesitant to use anything in the first place. But, the CRC specifically says it is safe for turbo engines. I know that doesn't magiaclly make it okay but it made me feel better and, let's be honest, if the turbo went out from that it would have gone out in the next few thousand miles, right? It would have still been covered under warranty and I have no clue how it could have been proved that I used something like this anway.
Maybe a good solution: Dampen 3/4 of your paper-element air filter in CRC or Gumout MultiSystem or B-12 Chemtool or Gumout All-In-One (most of those have PEA in it or wicked solvents at least). Then drive normally, letting air flow gradually vaporize the chemicals to mix with air and wash over the intake valves as you drive.
That is similar to the idea of what that stuff is. It is a spray that you spray into your intake. Granted, it is more powerful than the process you explained but it is similar. I may have to attempt your suggestion.
To me it sort of explains why oil like this can create deposits on inlet valves. The distilled, light front-end of the base oil has been separated from most of the additives in the DI pack because these tend to be heavier molecules. Specifically the base oil hitting the back of the inlet valves will be essentially free of antioxidant. As a result it will be very oxidatively reactive in an environment which is both very hot and rich in oxygen. Do I have absolute conclusive proof of this? No. Does the theory sound plausible? I'd say definitely yes.
so, avoid oil with a fair amount of light base oils in it?
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
To me it sort of explains why oil like this can create deposits on inlet valves. The distilled, light front-end of the base oil has been separated from most of the additives in the DI pack because these tend to be heavier molecules. Specifically the base oil hitting the back of the inlet valves will be essentially free of antioxidant. As a result it will be very oxidatively reactive in an environment which is both very hot and rich in oxygen. Do I have absolute conclusive proof of this? No. Does the theory sound plausible? I'd say definitely yes.
+1
Interesting and plausible deduction you have.
To me it sort of explains why oil like this can create deposits on inlet valves. The distilled, light front-end of the base oil has been separated from most of the additives in the DI pack because these tend to be heavier molecules. Specifically the base oil hitting the back of the inlet valves will be essentially free of antioxidant. As a result it will be very oxidatively reactive in an environment which is both very hot and rich in oxygen. Do I have absolute conclusive proof of this? No. Does the theory sound plausible? I'd say definitely yes.
+1
Interesting and plausible deduction you have.
Originally Posted By: VR6OOM
Originally Posted By: Olas
Oil has no effect on intake valve deposits.
Recycling engine waste through your inlet tract causes intake valve deposits.
My engine doesn't have an EGR...just PCV. What is in the PCV gunk exactly then?
Oil vapour, fuel vapour, water vapour and exhaust gas in varying concentrations. It seems they cool, condense and solidify when they contact the relatively cooler valve.
Originally Posted By: Olas
Oil has no effect on intake valve deposits.
Recycling engine waste through your inlet tract causes intake valve deposits.
My engine doesn't have an EGR...just PCV. What is in the PCV gunk exactly then?
Oil vapour, fuel vapour, water vapour and exhaust gas in varying concentrations. It seems they cool, condense and solidify when they contact the relatively cooler valve.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
so, avoid oil with a fair amount of light base oils in it?
Use whichever oil best suits your bearings.
To avoid deposits, avoid polluting your inlet tract.
so, avoid oil with a fair amount of light base oils in it?
Use whichever oil best suits your bearings.
To avoid deposits, avoid polluting your inlet tract.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
To me it sort of explains why oil like this can create deposits on inlet valves. The distilled, light front-end of the base oil has been separated from most of the additives in the DI pack because these tend to be heavier molecules. Specifically the base oil hitting the back of the inlet valves will be essentially free of antioxidant. As a result it will be very oxidatively reactive in an environment which is both very hot and rich in oxygen. Do I have absolute conclusive proof of this? No. Does the theory sound plausible? I'd say definitely yes.
The problem is there is no evidence showing that what is in the catch can is what is forming deposits. Like I have said previously in this thread, people with catch cans still get intake valve deposits. So whatever is forming the deposits isn't getting caught in the catch cans. I don't think you can take anything from the catch can analysis.
To me it sort of explains why oil like this can create deposits on inlet valves. The distilled, light front-end of the base oil has been separated from most of the additives in the DI pack because these tend to be heavier molecules. Specifically the base oil hitting the back of the inlet valves will be essentially free of antioxidant. As a result it will be very oxidatively reactive in an environment which is both very hot and rich in oxygen. Do I have absolute conclusive proof of this? No. Does the theory sound plausible? I'd say definitely yes.
The problem is there is no evidence showing that what is in the catch can is what is forming deposits. Like I have said previously in this thread, people with catch cans still get intake valve deposits. So whatever is forming the deposits isn't getting caught in the catch cans. I don't think you can take anything from the catch can analysis.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
