Intake Valve Cleaning with CRC - Before/After Results

Status
Not open for further replies.
Didn't someone on here say not to use this on an Ecoboost?

Those are very impressive results.
 
Originally Posted by Greggy_D
Didn't someone on here say not to use this on an Ecoboost?

Those are very impressive results.



I believe Ford's stance is that cleaning like this can result in material damaging cylinders, turbos or the cats. I don't know how likely this is, but I haven't cleaned our Explorer Ecoboost.
 
Originally Posted by Greggy_D
Didn't someone on here say not to use this on an Ecoboost?

Those are very impressive results.


On a turbo car you need to make sure it goes into the engine, not the pre-intake. That way it won't go into the turbo. Other than that it will work fine.

I have used the CRC DI cleaner a several cars with good success.
 
I'm glad the stuff worked...to whatever degree but that video was way too long. It was essentially unwatchavble.
With editing it could've delivered its message and images in one minute.
 
I'm using it to keep a first generation veloster valves clean. It loves to cake the valves and it's now a high miler and we found this product after the first dealer valve cleaning and have used it at every oil change since and it's now a high miler without issues.

I think if it's used before the valves get this bad then it's not a concern with a minute amount of stuff being washed off the valves.

As for the Turbo part, I'm sure CRC did their testing on it as on the can it says it's for Turbo vehicles and they advise spraying it through the Throttle Body in a specific manner and then doing a heat soak before taking the vehicle for a drive.
 
I don't like the idea of burning up the carbon in such an "aggressive" manner. It's like adding sand into the combustion chamber... sure most will burn off but some will surely scratch up the cylinder walls, tiny particles will get down into the piston rings, others will clog up the CAT, exhaust, etc.

Seems the best method is to remove the intake manifold, soak the valves with this chemical and then extract the goo.

Sure it might be more time consuming but this is the CORRECT method. This type of ghetto backyard "rolling coal" for petrol engines (
lol.gif
) type of "pollution" is designed for rednecks and their barely running beaters. I'd never do this on a new-ish $20,000+ vehicle as part of preventive maintenance or cleanup attempt.

Just my
49.gif


No offense to anyone.
 
Some vehicles need this every 30,000 miles or so and that can get expensive.

I think the method with the CRC is fine if you don't let it get to this point. I know we have been spraying this stuff in the Veloster every oil change far before the 60,000km or so when the valves would normally be caked to this level and it has been fine since the original dealer valve cleaning under warranty. It has over 200,000km on it now with the original catalytic.

PM is the key here.

This video is more so to show it works even on heavy duty carbon deposits like this.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Oildudeny
both products are sensor safe i take it.


Yes as indicated on their respective containers. (I've used both)
 
Last edited:
Did I miss something ? He's using the same car, cleaned it with CRC and then did a 2nd cleaning with Seafoam ? Was this a CRC vs Seafoam thing 'cause if that's what it was supposed to be, it wasn't.
 
I thought the same but if you read the YouTube comments he responded to that question to a user and said that the Seafoam and CRC although in the same video were actually done thousands of miles apart.

Regardless, it has been my experiences that the Seafoam isn't great for carbon cleaning off valves and the CRC is so even if it was done one after another I suspect the CRC loosened all the junk and did most of the work anyway.

I have used both products as well.
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
I thought the same but if you read the YouTube comments he responded to that question to a user and said that the Seafoam and CRC although in the same video were actually done thousands of miles apart.

Thousands of miles apart ? Bull****. When he drives off in both cars, the same Isuzu and bread delivery truck are sitting next to him ! Look at 5:19 and 8:43.

Besides, the vehicle has 85k miles on it when one cleaning was done so it's only "fair" if the 2nd cleaning was done after another 80k + miles.
 
Originally Posted by hallstevenson
Originally Posted by StevieC
I thought the same but if you read the YouTube comments he responded to that question to a user and said that the Seafoam and CRC although in the same video were actually done thousands of miles apart.

Thousands of miles apart ? Bull****. When he drives off in both cars, the same Isuzu and bread delivery truck are sitting next to him ! Look at 5:19 and 8:43.

Besides, the vehicle has 85k miles on it when one cleaning was done so it's only "fair" if the 2nd cleaning was done after another 80k + miles.



Which is why I said this in the next line...

Quote
Regardless, it has been my experiences that the Seafoam isn't great for carbon cleaning off valves and the CRC is so even if it was done one after another I suspect the CRC loosened all the junk and did most of the work anyway.
 
But at least it's a look in the valves after the CRC which was the first product he used. Whether he actually drove that mileage between then and using the Seafoam who cares. I know along with others here that Seafoam doesn't work for carbon on the valves. The ingredients listed on it's SDS alone would indicate that it's really nothing more than possibly an extremely light duty cleaner / UCL. The reason it has such a fanboy base is because of the smoke it generates which they think indicated that it's "working".

There is limited before/after pics/video on CRC which is why I posted the video. That's all. I know from my own experience with the product on a few vehicle but mainly the first gen Veloster in the family that required valve cleaning under warranty from Hyundai when it was new and hasn't needed it since, that the product is working or the problem would have reappeared already many times with it being a high mileage engine now.
 
Last edited:
While the CRC appeared to have done better, I wouldn't be satisfied with the results of either. It looked like another two or three treatments were in order, although that might create some other kind of issues.
 
It should never have gotten that bad in the first place if the maintenance with the CRC was done regularly IMO.
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
It should never have gotten that bad in the first place if the maintenance with the CRC was done regularly IMO.


Yes, regularly like every 10K miles, from new.
wink.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top