But why clean them? The exhaust valves are going to have the same amount of build up and look identical to the intake valves. No one has suggested cleaning the exhaust valves, why do the intake valves need to be clean?
Intake manifold off with pics of intake valves
- Thread starter gonefishing
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dishdude
But why clean them? The exhaust valves are going to have the same amount of build up and look identical to the intake valves. No one has suggested cleaning the exhaust valves, why do the intake valves need to be clean?
Probably because the direction of air flow means they have different effects.
But why clean them? The exhaust valves are going to have the same amount of build up and look identical to the intake valves. No one has suggested cleaning the exhaust valves, why do the intake valves need to be clean?
Probably because the direction of air flow means they have different effects.
Why not just unhook the PCV system.
1.) Remove the PCV tubes from the intake
2.) Stick a filter onto the end of the manifold inlet that is under vacuum so it draws in filtered air.
3.) Let the PCV tubes coming out of the valve covers simply burp into a vented catch can
Would this not work?
1.) Remove the PCV tubes from the intake
2.) Stick a filter onto the end of the manifold inlet that is under vacuum so it draws in filtered air.
3.) Let the PCV tubes coming out of the valve covers simply burp into a vented catch can
Would this not work?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I don't understand why thy don't design the intake so that you can have one injector mounted and let the computer run it during the warm up phase or occasionally so the the intakes get washed with fuel now and then. Design the intake to be wet flowable as well as dry.
I think this is exactly what Lexus did with the direct-injected version of its 3.5L V-6. I don't know if they still use that "7th injector", though. And to my knowledge, nobody else is using an extra injector, so in the grand scheme of things, it may not make a difference.
I don't understand why thy don't design the intake so that you can have one injector mounted and let the computer run it during the warm up phase or occasionally so the the intakes get washed with fuel now and then. Design the intake to be wet flowable as well as dry.
I think this is exactly what Lexus did with the direct-injected version of its 3.5L V-6. I don't know if they still use that "7th injector", though. And to my knowledge, nobody else is using an extra injector, so in the grand scheme of things, it may not make a difference.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I don't understand why thy don't design the intake so that you can have one injector mounted and let the computer run it during the warm up phase or occasionally so the the intakes get washed with fuel now and then. Design the intake to be wet flowable as well as dry.
I think this is exactly what Lexus did with the direct-injected version of its 3.5L V-6. I don't know if they still use that "7th injector", though. And to my knowledge, nobody else is using an extra injector, so in the grand scheme of things, it may not make a difference.
VW is doing one but like Lexus, it has nothing to do with keeping intakes and valves clean. It is for better low RPM control and some emissions.
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I don't understand why thy don't design the intake so that you can have one injector mounted and let the computer run it during the warm up phase or occasionally so the the intakes get washed with fuel now and then. Design the intake to be wet flowable as well as dry.
I think this is exactly what Lexus did with the direct-injected version of its 3.5L V-6. I don't know if they still use that "7th injector", though. And to my knowledge, nobody else is using an extra injector, so in the grand scheme of things, it may not make a difference.
VW is doing one but like Lexus, it has nothing to do with keeping intakes and valves clean. It is for better low RPM control and some emissions.
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: dishdude
But why clean them? The exhaust valves are going to have the same amount of build up and look identical to the intake valves. No one has suggested cleaning the exhaust valves, why do the intake valves need to be clean?
Probably because the direction of air flow means they have different effects.
Gosh, guys, the TEMPS are a bit different, ya think?
Originally Posted By: dishdude
But why clean them? The exhaust valves are going to have the same amount of build up and look identical to the intake valves. No one has suggested cleaning the exhaust valves, why do the intake valves need to be clean?
Probably because the direction of air flow means they have different effects.
Gosh, guys, the TEMPS are a bit different, ya think?
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I don't understand why thy don't design the intake so that you can have one injector mounted and let the computer run it during the warm up phase or occasionally so the the intakes get washed with fuel now and then. Design the intake to be wet flowable as well as dry.
I think this is exactly what Lexus did with the direct-injected version of its 3.5L V-6. I don't know if they still use that "7th injector", though. And to my knowledge, nobody else is using an extra injector, so in the grand scheme of things, it may not make a difference.
VW is doing one but like Lexus, it has nothing to do with keeping intakes and valves clean. It is for better low RPM control and some emissions.
Mostly spot on.
Toyota engineers specifically stated their extra injector was for part throttle cylinder filling issues. Porsche is on record saying that DI presented serious issues with part throttle operations.
It's pretty obvious that some mfgrs have got this figured out, and some do not...
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: spasm3
I don't understand why thy don't design the intake so that you can have one injector mounted and let the computer run it during the warm up phase or occasionally so the the intakes get washed with fuel now and then. Design the intake to be wet flowable as well as dry.
I think this is exactly what Lexus did with the direct-injected version of its 3.5L V-6. I don't know if they still use that "7th injector", though. And to my knowledge, nobody else is using an extra injector, so in the grand scheme of things, it may not make a difference.
VW is doing one but like Lexus, it has nothing to do with keeping intakes and valves clean. It is for better low RPM control and some emissions.
Mostly spot on.
Toyota engineers specifically stated their extra injector was for part throttle cylinder filling issues. Porsche is on record saying that DI presented serious issues with part throttle operations.
It's pretty obvious that some mfgrs have got this figured out, and some do not...
Pure DI systems are also known for higher particulate (soot) emissions which are the next target for regulators. The hybrid system addresses that too.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: philipp10
so is it your theory that the 6 oz of oil you did catch would have made the carbon worse? I wonder just what the effect would be. Maybe your making it worse by catching this oil. Secondly, seems to me that GM would have added some type of baffle that could impact this oil out if it was such a big deal. As far as the amount of carbon, it does look bad at such low miles. Will it continue to grow? What can be done? I have a DI motor also.
No theories. Just comfort level. I like not having that oil heading for the intake. Conceptually, by stopping it from going there, that should be beneficial. But since oil in the mix in the combustion chamber can reduce the octane rating of the fuel in the burn, and generate some more soot in the process, it just makes sense to stop it before it gets there. We'll see in the future if it does make a difference on valves. I like the idea and will stick with it. Someday, it may make me look like a fool. But, unlike some folks, I didn't just sit and wait and see if the oil was going to be a problem. Kinda tough to swallow a major engine repair when it could have been mitigated by a $100 PCV catch can.
There is a flaw to your reasoning that the OEM would have done something to mitigate the problem. I have been around auto production facilities enough over the years to know that they will only do what they have to, will only address issues in a reactive way and not a proactive way, and even $1 saved in production by not doing something and taking gamble that most owners will get out of the warranty before a major problem occurs is the way to go. After all, just $1 in savings on a motor equates to millions over the production run. Just get thru the warranty with as little claims as they can. They have no vested interest in owners getting maximum life out of the motors. So I figure, the catch can picks up where the OEM left off.
so is it your theory that the 6 oz of oil you did catch would have made the carbon worse? I wonder just what the effect would be. Maybe your making it worse by catching this oil. Secondly, seems to me that GM would have added some type of baffle that could impact this oil out if it was such a big deal. As far as the amount of carbon, it does look bad at such low miles. Will it continue to grow? What can be done? I have a DI motor also.
No theories. Just comfort level. I like not having that oil heading for the intake. Conceptually, by stopping it from going there, that should be beneficial. But since oil in the mix in the combustion chamber can reduce the octane rating of the fuel in the burn, and generate some more soot in the process, it just makes sense to stop it before it gets there. We'll see in the future if it does make a difference on valves. I like the idea and will stick with it. Someday, it may make me look like a fool. But, unlike some folks, I didn't just sit and wait and see if the oil was going to be a problem. Kinda tough to swallow a major engine repair when it could have been mitigated by a $100 PCV catch can.
There is a flaw to your reasoning that the OEM would have done something to mitigate the problem. I have been around auto production facilities enough over the years to know that they will only do what they have to, will only address issues in a reactive way and not a proactive way, and even $1 saved in production by not doing something and taking gamble that most owners will get out of the warranty before a major problem occurs is the way to go. After all, just $1 in savings on a motor equates to millions over the production run. Just get thru the warranty with as little claims as they can. They have no vested interest in owners getting maximum life out of the motors. So I figure, the catch can picks up where the OEM left off.
Which year did GM start direct injection on the Sierra?
As a thought, instead of a boy-racer style catch-can why not use a professional solution like the Mann-Hummel Provent? They are not that expensive, start at about $90.
https://www.mann-hummel.com/fileadmin/user_upload/service/catalogues/pdf/ProVent_en_2013.pdf
https://www.mann-hummel.com/fileadmin/user_upload/service/catalogues/pdf/ProVent_en_2013.pdf
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
As a thought, instead of a boy-racer style catch-can why not use a professional solution like the Mann-Hummel Provent? They are not that expensive, start at about $90.
https://www.mann-hummel.com/fileadmin/user_upload/service/catalogues/pdf/ProVent_en_2013.pdf
Take a look at this - http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=780051
Ed
As a thought, instead of a boy-racer style catch-can why not use a professional solution like the Mann-Hummel Provent? They are not that expensive, start at about $90.
https://www.mann-hummel.com/fileadmin/user_upload/service/catalogues/pdf/ProVent_en_2013.pdf
Take a look at this - http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=780051
Ed
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Why not just unhook the PCV system.
1.) Remove the PCV tubes from the intake
2.) Stick a filter onto the end of the manifold inlet that is under vacuum so it draws in filtered air.
3.) Let the PCV tubes coming out of the valve covers simply burp into a vented catch can
Would this not work?
Interesting, would there be any sensors that would trigger codes?
Why not just unhook the PCV system.
1.) Remove the PCV tubes from the intake
2.) Stick a filter onto the end of the manifold inlet that is under vacuum so it draws in filtered air.
3.) Let the PCV tubes coming out of the valve covers simply burp into a vented catch can
Would this not work?
Interesting, would there be any sensors that would trigger codes?
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
As a thought, instead of a boy-racer style catch-can why not use a professional solution like the Mann-Hummel Provent? They are not that expensive, start at about $90.
https://www.mann-hummel.com/fileadmin/user_upload/service/catalogues/pdf/ProVent_en_2013.pdf
Yes, I'm speaking from experience. Did one myself over 10 years ago.
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?p=793114#post793114
As a thought, instead of a boy-racer style catch-can why not use a professional solution like the Mann-Hummel Provent? They are not that expensive, start at about $90.
https://www.mann-hummel.com/fileadmin/user_upload/service/catalogues/pdf/ProVent_en_2013.pdf
Yes, I'm speaking from experience. Did one myself over 10 years ago.
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?p=793114#post793114
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Why not just unhook the PCV system.
...
3.) Let the PCV tubes coming out of the valve covers simply burp into a vented catch can
Would this not work?
Interesting, would there be any sensors that would trigger codes?
Not only interesting but illegal as well.
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Why not just unhook the PCV system.
...
3.) Let the PCV tubes coming out of the valve covers simply burp into a vented catch can
Would this not work?
Interesting, would there be any sensors that would trigger codes?
Not only interesting but illegal as well.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: philipp10
so is it your theory that the 6 oz of oil you did catch would have made the carbon worse? I wonder just what the effect would be. Maybe your making it worse by catching this oil. Secondly, seems to me that GM would have added some type of baffle that could impact this oil out if it was such a big deal. As far as the amount of carbon, it does look bad at such low miles. Will it continue to grow? What can be done? I have a DI motor also.
No theories. Just comfort level. I like not having that oil heading for the intake. Conceptually, by stopping it from going there, that should be beneficial. But since oil in the mix in the combustion chamber can reduce the octane rating of the fuel in the burn, and generate some more soot in the process, it just makes sense to stop it before it gets there. We'll see in the future if it does make a difference on valves. I like the idea and will stick with it. Someday, it may make me look like a fool. But, unlike some folks, I didn't just sit and wait and see if the oil was going to be a problem. Kinda tough to swallow a major engine repair when it could have been mitigated by a $100 PCV catch can.
There is a flaw to your reasoning that the OEM would have done something to mitigate the problem. I have been around auto production facilities enough over the years to know that they will only do what they have to, will only address issues in a reactive way and not a proactive way, and even $1 saved in production by not doing something and taking gamble that most owners will get out of the warranty before a major problem occurs is the way to go. After all, just $1 in savings on a motor equates to millions over the production run. Just get thru the warranty with as little claims as they can. They have no vested interest in owners getting maximum life out of the motors. So I figure, the catch can picks up where the OEM left off.
Thats the old model of GM and maybe Ford but the world's changed. So much competition nowdays I cannot imagine the attitude is to "just get out of warranty". If that is what you had saw in your automotive career, well that vindicates what I have been saying since the early 80's when I bought my first Toyota and my eyes were opened to what "could" be built as opposed to the status quo.
Originally Posted By: philipp10
so is it your theory that the 6 oz of oil you did catch would have made the carbon worse? I wonder just what the effect would be. Maybe your making it worse by catching this oil. Secondly, seems to me that GM would have added some type of baffle that could impact this oil out if it was such a big deal. As far as the amount of carbon, it does look bad at such low miles. Will it continue to grow? What can be done? I have a DI motor also.
No theories. Just comfort level. I like not having that oil heading for the intake. Conceptually, by stopping it from going there, that should be beneficial. But since oil in the mix in the combustion chamber can reduce the octane rating of the fuel in the burn, and generate some more soot in the process, it just makes sense to stop it before it gets there. We'll see in the future if it does make a difference on valves. I like the idea and will stick with it. Someday, it may make me look like a fool. But, unlike some folks, I didn't just sit and wait and see if the oil was going to be a problem. Kinda tough to swallow a major engine repair when it could have been mitigated by a $100 PCV catch can.
There is a flaw to your reasoning that the OEM would have done something to mitigate the problem. I have been around auto production facilities enough over the years to know that they will only do what they have to, will only address issues in a reactive way and not a proactive way, and even $1 saved in production by not doing something and taking gamble that most owners will get out of the warranty before a major problem occurs is the way to go. After all, just $1 in savings on a motor equates to millions over the production run. Just get thru the warranty with as little claims as they can. They have no vested interest in owners getting maximum life out of the motors. So I figure, the catch can picks up where the OEM left off.
Thats the old model of GM and maybe Ford but the world's changed. So much competition nowdays I cannot imagine the attitude is to "just get out of warranty". If that is what you had saw in your automotive career, well that vindicates what I have been saying since the early 80's when I bought my first Toyota and my eyes were opened to what "could" be built as opposed to the status quo.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
As a thought, instead of a boy-racer style catch-can why not use a professional solution like the Mann-Hummel Provent? They are not that expensive, start at about $90.
https://www.mann-hummel.com/fileadmin/user_upload/service/catalogues/pdf/ProVent_en_2013.pdf
Yes, I'm speaking from experience. Did one myself over 10 years ago.
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?p=793114#post793114
About how often (time/miles by usage) did you have to replace the filter element??
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
As a thought, instead of a boy-racer style catch-can why not use a professional solution like the Mann-Hummel Provent? They are not that expensive, start at about $90.
https://www.mann-hummel.com/fileadmin/user_upload/service/catalogues/pdf/ProVent_en_2013.pdf
Yes, I'm speaking from experience. Did one myself over 10 years ago.
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?p=793114#post793114
About how often (time/miles by usage) did you have to replace the filter element??
- Status