Oil's Effects on Direct Inj Intake Valve Deposits?

[Joe90_guy]

I agree that the spectacularly bad problems of GDI IVDs (and oil loss) were very much an Audi 2.0L TFSI thing. Poor VAG. They do seem to have lost the plot in recent years!

I spent a lot of time trying to understand the Audi TFSI problem. I had theories but I never quite got to the bottom of what was so badly wrong with the original piston rings and how Audi modified the rings/piston/con-rod assembly to cure the problem (which they undoubtedly did). Given that Audi tend to specify extremely high quality synthetic engine oils, I can't quite believe they had problems with ring stick (and more especially stuck oil control rings). I sort of concluded that they had put in low friction rings that were just too thin or had too low a tension rating.

Did anyone on BITOG ever truly get to the bottom of this and if do, might some kind person point me in the appropriate thread?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Uber_Archetype
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
The millions upon millions of cars WITHOUT catch cans are the most revealing statistic of all.

The only thing that statement reveals is a generalization fallacy basically saying all cars are the same in terms of intake deposits.

Oh, and also the fact that this so-called "statistic" you refer to was pulled from your nether-region - unless you'd care to throw out a cite.


The only thing your post reveals is a lack of knowledge regarding the issue. keep reading...

 

[MuzzleFlash40]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


The millions upon millions of cars WITHOUT catch cans are the most revealing statistic of all.



But man is it entertaining to watch people debate about them. The threads about these on Ramforumz.com usually go on forever with people that go either way on the Hemi's. You either swear by them, or you disbelieve in them. There usually is no middle ground. lol

 

[Uber_Archetype]

Originally Posted By: wemay
“Clearly it’s a VW/Audi problem and not much else.”

Apparently his limited knowledge of the issue leaves him unaware of the BMW service bulletins regarding the topic.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
The only thing your post reveals is a lack of knowledge regarding the issue. keep reading...

Just not the misleading tripe spouted here. Have you any actual experience with the issue? Or do you just like to repeat or create your own Internet myths?

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
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.

I wouldn't do that.

Those chemicals are not approved for cleaning mass air sensors, and the mass air sensor is always immediately downstream of the engine air filter.

There may be a GDI engine that uses speed density, but I have never seen one. If there exists a speed density GDI engine, your method might be safe to use.


It will be OK to use that when MAF is downstream. It was oil in the air filter element that would cause the MAF to be coated, and these chemicals will not leave a residue coating like oil in the element is infamous for doing.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: artificialist

I wouldn't do that.

Those chemicals are not approved for cleaning mass air sensors, and the mass air sensor is always immediately downstream of the engine air filter.

There may be a GDI engine that uses speed density, but I have never seen one. If there exists a speed density GDI engine, your method might be safe to use.


It will be OK to use that when MAF is downstream. It was oil in the air filter element that would cause the MAF to be coated, and these chemicals will not leave a residue coating like oil in the element is infamous for doing.


I think you're actually right here. I see there are now MAF cleaner chemicals. Maybe there is some chemical compatibility issues. See:

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Uber_Archetype

Apparently his limited knowledge of the issue leaves him unaware of the BMW service bulletins regarding the topic.


The article does mention some BMW have the issue as well.

 

[ccap41]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
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.

I wouldn't do that.

Those chemicals are not approved for cleaning mass air sensors, and the mass air sensor is always immediately downstream of the engine air filter.

There may be a GDI engine that uses speed density, but I have never seen one. If there exists a speed density GDI engine, your method might be safe to use.


You are 100% correct. I forgot about that aspect of it. The CRC stuff I posted comes with a hose specifically for that reason to start spraying past the mass air sensor.

Nice call/reminder.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Uber_Archetype
Originally Posted By: wemay
“Clearly it’s a VW/Audi problem and not much else.”

Apparently his limited knowledge of the issue leaves him unaware of the BMW service bulletins regarding the topic.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
The only thing your post reveals is a lack of knowledge regarding the issue. keep reading...

Just not the misleading tripe spouted here. Have you any actual experience with the issue? Or do you just like to repeat or create your own Internet myths?


The only Internet myth here is that a catch can helps deposits on DI vehicles. Have you been to the other forums? Tons of vehicle owners report zero results with deposits. And of course there are special exceptions, BMW issuing a TSB means little to the hundreds of thousands of unaffected BMW owners.

Catch cans are NOT needed by the overwhelming majority of cars, just wanted. If there was any necessity they would be standard equipment. The MILLIONS (much more cars than people) of cars that run every day without them proves far more than the hearsay evidence on the Web...

 

[Uber_Archetype]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
The MILLIONS (much more cars than people) of cars that run every day without them proves far more than the hearsay evidence on the Web...

Yeah - they run great - right up until the intake chokes off with carbon and sludge buildup from EGR and CCV deposit buildup. We never hear about the vast majority, MILLIONS (should've used BILLIONS - it's a more impressive number you could pull from your nether region) because they are either designed well enough to avoid it or don't get run long enough to fail, for whatever reason.

Got any more hearsay for us Steveie?

 

[Jetronic]

Once a month or so we get a car in where the intake is coked up. All diesels though, mostly Hyundai's

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Uber_Archetype
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
The MILLIONS (much more cars than people) of cars that run every day without them proves far more than the hearsay evidence on the Web...

Yeah - they run great - right up until the intake chokes off with carbon and sludge buildup from EGR and CCV deposit buildup. We never hear about the vast majority, MILLIONS (should've used BILLIONS - it's a more impressive number you could pull from your nether region) because they are either designed well enough to avoid it or don't get run long enough to fail, for whatever reason.

Got any more hearsay for us Steveie?


Hey, you are the one with the drum to beat. Put a can on your ride and leave the rest of us out of it. Your nonsense and attempt to get personal just shows how weak your argument is. BTW, there are more than 250 million cars in the US according to registrations. If you were correct the highways would be littered with failed cars, all choked up with carbon. 1% of that number would be a quarter million cars!

All you got is a couple of noisy friends who squeal about it on the internet. Mazda, Audi, and Mini owners have all stated that catch cans did nothing for valve deposits. Nothing but Internet Amplification by folks too wrapped up in the battle to see there is no war.

I'm sure you have some more baloney. Let's hear it! And at least produce those citations you spoke of earlier, or did you run out of things to pull from your nether regions?

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Uber_Archetype
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
The MILLIONS (much more cars than people) of cars that run every day without them proves far more than the hearsay evidence on the Web...

Yeah - they run great - right up until the intake chokes off with carbon and sludge buildup from EGR and CCV deposit buildup. We never hear about the vast majority, MILLIONS (should've used BILLIONS - it's a more impressive number you could pull from your nether region) because they are either designed well enough to avoid it or don't get run long enough to fail, for whatever reason.

Got any more hearsay for us Steveie?


Hey, you are the one with the drum to beat. Put a can on your ride and leave the rest of us out of it. Your nonsense and attempt to get personal just shows how weak your argument is. BTW, there are more than 250 million cars in the US according to registrations. If you were correct the highways would be littered with failed cars, all choked up with carbon. 1% of that number would be a quarter million cars!

All you got is a couple of noisy friends who squeal about it on the internet. Mazda, Audi, and Mini owners have all stated that catch cans did nothing for valve deposits. Nothing but Internet Amplification by folks too wrapped up in the battle to see there is no war.

I'm sure you have some more baloney. Let's hear it! And at least produce those citations you spoke of earlier, or did you run out of things to pull from your nether regions?


Ouch....!

 

[Joe90_guy]

I think one of the interesting features of the Audi TFSI oil loss/IVD problem was that provided you kept adding oil to the engine, the cars kept going. So no dead cars littering the streets fortunately.
Also as I recall there were something like 180,000 Audi's covered by the successful US class action. So not millions fortunately.
So the question is precisely how 'nothing' was this problem? Might I suggest that if you were one of the 180,000 is was a big deal for you. Also I suspect Audi didn't regard it as a minor irritant either.
Of course if you want to ring up Wolfberg and tell them the problem was just a figment of the imagination of a few guys on BITOG, I'm sure they would be pleased to hear some good news right now...

 

[Vuflanovsky]

Unfortunately, this board has had a tendency in the past to intimate that "a DI engine is a DI engine" and pontificate that we're all gonna die...or have coked up cars sitting on the side of the road. Sentiment has now swung to there aren't problems in any numbers, it's more make-specific, and at least some of the same people who were predicting "Carbogeddon" are now the same ones who say there isn't much of an issue as many of these DI cars pass 75-100K plus miles.

There's empirical evidence that the VW/Audi, BMW designs are probably the worst offenders and there's apparently a difference between the newer Asian and domestic designs ( for example ) whether that be generational or otherwise. There also seems to be evidence that a catch can is not particularly effective in many designs that are prone to IVD anyway. My guess is that a "designer" catch can wouldn't likely improve upon that result in the majority of cases involving daily drivers.

Personally, I would never say someone will or won't get x result with their 8 year old Audi DI versus their two year old Ecoboost, but I would say that patterns seem to be emerging and apparent at this stage.

 

[Uber_Archetype]

Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
Personally, I would never say someone will or won't get x result with their 8 year old Audi DI versus their two year old Ecoboost, but I would say that patterns seem to be emerging and apparent at this stage.

Thank you. Too bad some would lead us to believe it's not an issue. Even some of the manufacturers say so! Carbon buildup must be just some hallucination dreamed up after being confused by reading BITOG posts.

Of course the car companies are going to deny it. That would imply higher warranty repair costs and negative PR. Makes me wonder if Stevie has some connection to the auto industry. It's interesting to note how the first SIB BMW issued on the topic attempted to blame the problem on fuel quality. Then they finally fessed up and and made intake cleaning a fully covered warranty repair 2 years later after being inundated with the problem in certain models.

So let's just focus on the millions of cars on the road Stevie, and keep our heads buried deeply in the sand, right?

 

[blakegeo]

Using a motor oil with smaller amounts of calcium might help. The back of the intake stem is relatively untouched by fuel, so fuel injector cleaners like Techron will not help much. Long oil change intervals would be detrimental.

 

[Snoman002]

Yes, catch cans do nothing...which is why manufactures are now designing in elaborate PCV oil reclamation systems.

Millions of cars lack long runner tubular exhaust manifolds, so those must be of no benefit as well.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: Uber_Archetype

Yeah - they run great - right up until the intake chokes off with carbon and sludge buildup from EGR and CCV deposit buildup.


Yep, after 156k miles the DI turbo motor in my MS3 is running miserably- only returning 30+ mpg at 70 mph. Even worse, it will only roast the tires in first and second. I'm done with DI motors.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: Uber_Archetype

Yeah - they run great - right up until the intake chokes off with carbon and sludge buildup from EGR and CCV deposit buildup.


Yep, after 156k miles the DI turbo motor in my MS3 is running miserably- only returning 30+ mpg at 70 mph. Even worse, it will only roast the tires in first and second. I'm done with DI motors.

As is the case with the vast majority of DI applications.