This technician did a pretty good test on Techron by bore scoping all 6 cylinders of a Mazda V-6 before and after using 2 bottles of Techron. The results are basically nothing! Techron claims to clean piston tops but this video speaks for itself. I've used a lot of various fuel system cleaners in my Corolla and every time I change spark plugs I shine a flashlight down the holes and the piston tops always look carboned up. Since the intake valves on non GDI engines get washed with fuel, I'd hope the results for valves would be better than the combustion chamber claims.
Techron Test: Bad Results...
- Thread starter Drew99GT
- Start date
Whole idea of GDI is that fuel shouldn't touch the piston tops or cylinder walls.
Crevices and quench areas should be running pure air...which is why they are starting to have to investigate oil related engine knock, because there is no "octane" in the air near the bores.
Crevices and quench areas should be running pure air...which is why they are starting to have to investigate oil related engine knock, because there is no "octane" in the air near the bores.
Carbon = very tough
PEA cleans the piston top the least since the piston moves away from the PEA during the intake stroke. Also, I don't see Chevron claiming that Techron cleans piston tops (and usually the "combustion chamber" only includes the portion of the head, not the piston tops or cylinder walls).
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Whole idea of GDI is that fuel shouldn't touch the piston tops or cylinder walls.
Crevices and quench areas should be running pure air...which is why they are starting to have to investigate oil related engine knock, because there is no "octane" in the air near the bores.
can you translate this
Whole idea of GDI is that fuel shouldn't touch the piston tops or cylinder walls.
Crevices and quench areas should be running pure air...which is why they are starting to have to investigate oil related engine knock, because there is no "octane" in the air near the bores.
can you translate this
I've seen 3 videos now for cylinder cleaning and none of them really do much after 1 or 2 treatments. I have seen now...
Techron
Regane
Water Decarb
So, I believe these treatments may in fact work but, we may have to use the products at every tankful of gas for quite a few treatments.
Techron
Regane
Water Decarb
So, I believe these treatments may in fact work but, we may have to use the products at every tankful of gas for quite a few treatments.
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
I've seen 3 videos now for cylinder cleaning and none of them really do much after 1 or 2 treatments. I have seen now...
Techron
Regane
Water Decarb
So, I believe these treatments may in fact work but, we may have to use the products at every tankful of gas for quite a few treatments.
I saw pretty much the same results. I think a maintenance dose since day one might be the way to go, although a maintenance dose might not be enough to do much of anything.
I've seen 3 videos now for cylinder cleaning and none of them really do much after 1 or 2 treatments. I have seen now...
Techron
Regane
Water Decarb
So, I believe these treatments may in fact work but, we may have to use the products at every tankful of gas for quite a few treatments.
I saw pretty much the same results. I think a maintenance dose since day one might be the way to go, although a maintenance dose might not be enough to do much of anything.
It took a whole lot more than 2tanks of gas to accumulate those deposits so rest assured it will take much more than 2 treatments to get rid of them.
A piston soak,and vacuum line administered solvent type cleaner is the most effective way to remove layered deposits.
Though it may not look like the techron did much I'll bet the deposits are a bit softer and a few microns of depth have been removed,so just because it doesn't look like much happened doesn't mean nothing happened
For example this is exactly how fast a sludged up engine will get cleaned up using just oil with shorter intervals. Does sludge looked cleaned up in 2 tanks?
Nope
And neither will this
A piston soak,and vacuum line administered solvent type cleaner is the most effective way to remove layered deposits.
Though it may not look like the techron did much I'll bet the deposits are a bit softer and a few microns of depth have been removed,so just because it doesn't look like much happened doesn't mean nothing happened
For example this is exactly how fast a sludged up engine will get cleaned up using just oil with shorter intervals. Does sludge looked cleaned up in 2 tanks?
Nope
And neither will this
Originally Posted By: Clevy
It took a whole lot more than 2tanks of gas to accumulate those deposits so rest assured it will take much more than 2 treatments to get rid of them.
A piston soak,and vacuum line administered solvent type cleaner is the most effective way to remove layered deposits.
Though it may not look like the techron did much I'll bet the deposits are a bit softer and a few microns of depth have been removed,so just because it doesn't look like much happened doesn't mean nothing happened
For example this is exactly how fast a sludged up engine will get cleaned up using just oil with shorter intervals. Does sludge looked cleaned up in 2 tanks?
Nope
And neither will this
Clevy FTW.
It took a whole lot more than 2tanks of gas to accumulate those deposits so rest assured it will take much more than 2 treatments to get rid of them.
A piston soak,and vacuum line administered solvent type cleaner is the most effective way to remove layered deposits.
Though it may not look like the techron did much I'll bet the deposits are a bit softer and a few microns of depth have been removed,so just because it doesn't look like much happened doesn't mean nothing happened
For example this is exactly how fast a sludged up engine will get cleaned up using just oil with shorter intervals. Does sludge looked cleaned up in 2 tanks?
Nope
And neither will this
Clevy FTW.
He should pick a different test vehicle for each product. That mazda has already been cleaned somewhat. We dont really know the history of that vehicle, perhaps he has ran cleaners in the past or always used top tier. 10% cleaning in a vehicle that has already seen many cleaning cycles is pretty significant.
Here is how u show if something works or not. (circa 1976)
Here is how u show if something works or not. (circa 1976)
Because I have a different driving style where, it takes me about 2 weeks to burn through a tank of gas, I may(myself) get some better results though, IDK!
My slower & longer driving time on a tank of gas may net me better results and allow for some soaking to remove the carbon. And too, what we don't know is, whether the injectors or intake valves got some cleaning as the camera can't show this!
My slower & longer driving time on a tank of gas may net me better results and allow for some soaking to remove the carbon. And too, what we don't know is, whether the injectors or intake valves got some cleaning as the camera can't show this!
Originally Posted By: krismoriah72
He should pick a different test vehicle for each product. That mazda has already been cleaned somewhat. We dont really know the history of that vehicle, perhaps he has ran cleaners in the past or always used top tier. 10% cleaning in a vehicle that has already seen many cleaning cycles is pretty significant.
Here is how u show if something works or not. (circa 1976)
Back in the early 80's, I would wax my FIL's pickup truck in Florida. He never did anything all year long with this truck and it would only see wax when I went down to Fl.
His trucks paint looked like the paint in the video but, it took me about 3-4 coats of Nu-Finish to achieve the same results. And the truck paint did look quite nice when I was done. One waxing per year in the Florida sun isn't enough by any stretch of the imagination.
He should pick a different test vehicle for each product. That mazda has already been cleaned somewhat. We dont really know the history of that vehicle, perhaps he has ran cleaners in the past or always used top tier. 10% cleaning in a vehicle that has already seen many cleaning cycles is pretty significant.
Here is how u show if something works or not. (circa 1976)
Back in the early 80's, I would wax my FIL's pickup truck in Florida. He never did anything all year long with this truck and it would only see wax when I went down to Fl.
His trucks paint looked like the paint in the video but, it took me about 3-4 coats of Nu-Finish to achieve the same results. And the truck paint did look quite nice when I was done. One waxing per year in the Florida sun isn't enough by any stretch of the imagination.
The problem is that Mazda V6 has some very OLD and hard deposits built up over a long time. His previous tests showed the cleaners can remove the softer deposits as they are building and before they have super hardened.
Not all deposits are the same.
Not all deposits are the same.
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
I've seen 3 videos now for cylinder cleaning and none of them really do much after 1 or 2 treatments. I have seen now...
Techron
Regane
Water Decarb
So, I believe these treatments may in fact work but, we may have to use the products at every tankful of gas for quite a few treatments.
It also shows the need to do something. Just running gas doesn't keep it clean.
I've seen 3 videos now for cylinder cleaning and none of them really do much after 1 or 2 treatments. I have seen now...
Techron
Regane
Water Decarb
So, I believe these treatments may in fact work but, we may have to use the products at every tankful of gas for quite a few treatments.
It also shows the need to do something. Just running gas doesn't keep it clean.
Indeed!
Originally Posted By: Clevy
It took a whole lot more than 2tanks of gas to accumulate those deposits so rest assured it will take much more than 2 treatments to get rid of them.
A piston soak,and vacuum line administered solvent type cleaner is the most effective way to remove layered deposits.
Though it may not look like the techron did much I'll bet the deposits are a bit softer and a few microns of depth have been removed,so just because it doesn't look like much happened doesn't mean nothing happened
For example this is exactly how fast a sludged up engine will get cleaned up using just oil with shorter intervals. Does sludge looked cleaned up in 2 tanks?
Nope
And neither will this
The problem with that is, Chevron claims one bottle of Techron will clean 2/3rds of combustion chamber deposits. If it's gonna take 20 bottles, they need to say so.
It took a whole lot more than 2tanks of gas to accumulate those deposits so rest assured it will take much more than 2 treatments to get rid of them.
A piston soak,and vacuum line administered solvent type cleaner is the most effective way to remove layered deposits.
Though it may not look like the techron did much I'll bet the deposits are a bit softer and a few microns of depth have been removed,so just because it doesn't look like much happened doesn't mean nothing happened
For example this is exactly how fast a sludged up engine will get cleaned up using just oil with shorter intervals. Does sludge looked cleaned up in 2 tanks?
Nope
And neither will this
The problem with that is, Chevron claims one bottle of Techron will clean 2/3rds of combustion chamber deposits. If it's gonna take 20 bottles, they need to say so.
Maybe the question Chevron deliberately left unanswered is: Will a bottle of Techron clean off two thirds of the deposits accumulated over 10,000 miles or deposits accumulated over 100,000 miles?
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
If it's gonna take 20 bottles, they need to say so.
While I agree 100% with you, I'd say that would be wishful thinking.
If it's gonna take 20 bottles, they need to say so.
While I agree 100% with you, I'd say that would be wishful thinking.
Originally Posted By: edwardh1
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Whole idea of GDI is that fuel shouldn't touch the piston tops or cylinder walls.
Crevices and quench areas should be running pure air...which is why they are starting to have to investigate oil related engine knock, because there is no "octane" in the air near the bores.
can you translate this
No problems.
Back in the era of carbs, the air and the fuel were sort of mixed (about 10% of the fuel ran as a stream down the floor of the inlet manifold in my engineering thesis testing, so barely mixed is the reality). That meant that the cylinder was full of air and fuel mix.
As the compression stroke progressed, that air and fuel mix was jammed down into the crevice volume between the piston crown and the top ring, where it simply could not burn. The squish/quench areas (remember the old BBC "closed chamber heads where there were large flat areas, and a small kidney shaped chamber) did no support combustion, and the fuel/air in these location simply wasn't burned and came out of the exhaust simply as hydrocarbons.
The fuel/air mix also interacted, with the fuel absorbing into the oil film, during compression, and being released during the exhaust stroke.
BUT the fuel in the oil film meant that the oil that did interact with the oil film gave it a pseudo octane rating.
In the world of GDI, all these crevice locations are supposed to be filled with only air, which will reduce hydrocarbon emissions massively, and mean that the fuel that's ingested is used efficiently.
The fuel shouldn't interact with the piston under those circumstances.
And now, any oil that migrates into the chamber doesn't have the anti knock effect brought on by fuel dilution...and the OEMs are having to take it seriously. Low speed knock on GDI gas engines is becoming problematic, and being reviewed in GF6
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Whole idea of GDI is that fuel shouldn't touch the piston tops or cylinder walls.
Crevices and quench areas should be running pure air...which is why they are starting to have to investigate oil related engine knock, because there is no "octane" in the air near the bores.
can you translate this
No problems.
Back in the era of carbs, the air and the fuel were sort of mixed (about 10% of the fuel ran as a stream down the floor of the inlet manifold in my engineering thesis testing, so barely mixed is the reality). That meant that the cylinder was full of air and fuel mix.
As the compression stroke progressed, that air and fuel mix was jammed down into the crevice volume between the piston crown and the top ring, where it simply could not burn. The squish/quench areas (remember the old BBC "closed chamber heads where there were large flat areas, and a small kidney shaped chamber) did no support combustion, and the fuel/air in these location simply wasn't burned and came out of the exhaust simply as hydrocarbons.
The fuel/air mix also interacted, with the fuel absorbing into the oil film, during compression, and being released during the exhaust stroke.
BUT the fuel in the oil film meant that the oil that did interact with the oil film gave it a pseudo octane rating.
In the world of GDI, all these crevice locations are supposed to be filled with only air, which will reduce hydrocarbon emissions massively, and mean that the fuel that's ingested is used efficiently.
The fuel shouldn't interact with the piston under those circumstances.
And now, any oil that migrates into the chamber doesn't have the anti knock effect brought on by fuel dilution...and the OEMs are having to take it seriously. Low speed knock on GDI gas engines is becoming problematic, and being reviewed in GF6
