Question about LCD's FP PLUS and GDI engines.

[MolaKule]

Q: How well does FP Plus do in DI engines?

A: There is a theory that some of the cleaning molecules may swirl around and affect the carbon up above (at the valve faces and exposed stems) but I have no experimental evidence to support that.

All testing was done before GDI came out.

 

[Shannow]

I dunno, you've been pretty scathing about anything UCL surviving combustion, do you have a mechanism whereby a much more volatile product could ?

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I dunno, you've been pretty scathing about anything UCL surviving combustion, do you have a mechanism whereby a much more volatile product could ?


If "scathing = very skeptical" then guilty-as-charged.

The theory is not mine and I am still skeptical.

The theory is based on the ester type and content.

I am skeptical because of these questions: 1) how many surviving, dissassociated ester molecules would be left, 2) how many molecules and in what concentration does it take to really remove hard-baked hydrocarbons, 3) how much dosage is really effective?

The only way to determine effectivity would be an expensive, multi-sequence lab test. The original hypothesis would only be proven if subsequent bore scope examinations showed carbon being removed over time.

 

[MolaKule]

In answer to the last question, I feel fuel injection above or BEFORE the valve system would be the only way to remove carbon over time.

There are some solvents that could do the job, but their "nastiness" might outweigh their effectivity.

 

[Tegger]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I feel fuel injection above or BEFORE the valve system would be the only way to remove carbon over time.

Roll back emissions-laws to what they were in, say, 2005, guarantee that via a Constitutional amendment, and manufacturers will stop playing around with direct injection.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: Tegger
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I feel fuel injection above or BEFORE the valve system would be the only way to remove carbon over time.

Roll back emissions-laws to what they were in, say, 2005, guarantee that via a Constitutional amendment, and manufacturers will stop playing around with direct injection.



I don't see why you could not design a dual wet/dry intake plenum in which a single injector could be mounted.

Have the ecm activate the injector when the engine is cold, this would provide cleaning and be part of the cold enrichment, have it dormant once the engine is warm. This would keep the DI valves clean.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
In answer to the last question, I feel fuel injection above or BEFORE the valve system would be the only way to remove carbon over time.

There are some solvents that could do the job, but their "nastiness" might outweigh their effectivity.

I tend to agree there.

 

[mkosem]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I feel fuel injection above or BEFORE the valve system would be the only way to remove carbon over time.

Roll back emissions-laws to what they were in, say, 2005, guarantee that via a Constitutional amendment, and manufacturers will stop playing around with direct injection.



I don't see why you could not design a dual wet/dry intake plenum in which a single injector could be mounted.

Have the ecm activate the injector when the engine is cold, this would provide cleaning and be part of the cold enrichment, have it dormant once the engine is warm. This would keep the DI valves clean.


This technology exists in production vehicles and works to keep the valve deposits at bay.

--Matt

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: mkosem
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I feel fuel injection above or BEFORE the valve system would be the only way to remove carbon over time.

Roll back emissions-laws to what they were in, say, 2005, guarantee that via a Constitutional amendment, and manufacturers will stop playing around with direct injection.



I don't see why you could not design a dual wet/dry intake plenum in which a single injector could be mounted.

Have the ecm activate the injector when the engine is cold, this would provide cleaning and be part of the cold enrichment, have it dormant once the engine is warm. This would keep the DI valves clean.


This technology exists in production vehicles and works to keep the valve deposits at bay.

--Matt


On DI engines? Cool! I didn't know that. Do you know which ones? I'd be curious if it is as effective as i think it would be.

 

[mkosem]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: mkosem
Originally Posted By: spasm3

I don't see why you could not design a dual wet/dry intake plenum in which a single injector could be mounted.

Have the ecm activate the injector when the engine is cold, this would provide cleaning and be part of the cold enrichment, have it dormant once the engine is warm. This would keep the DI valves clean.


This technology exists in production vehicles and works to keep the valve deposits at bay.

--Matt


On DI engines? Cool! I didn't know that. Do you know which ones? I'd be curious if it is as effective as i think it would be.


Yep. It is referred to as dual injection where I've seen it. I believe Toyota was the first to implement it. VW has it in at least one of their engines (GEN3 TSI), but not in the states.

--Matt

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Q: How well does FP Plus do in DI engines?

A: There is a theory that some of the cleaning molecules may swirl around and affect the carbon up above (at the valve faces and exposed stems) but I have no experimental evidence to support that.

All testing was done before GDI came out.


I could envision that swirling , if you had a lot of camshaft overlap. I just don't think that todays engines, with emissions concerns, could have enough overlap to clean the intake valves.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: spasm3

I don't see why you could not design a dual wet/dry intake plenum in which a single injector could be mounted.

Have the ecm activate the injector when the engine is cold, this would provide cleaning and be part of the cold enrichment, have it dormant once the engine is warm. This would keep the DI valves clean.


Toyota has it nailed. If the rest of them learn from this there will be far less fear about GDI.
Funny thing is the basic idea was from GM who used it on the original ZR1 over 25 years ago although not with GDI. In 09 Nissan was getting in on the act calling it new high tech.

http://wardsauto.com/news-analysis/toyotas-twofold-strategy