Valve Stem Carbon Build-up from Oil in DI Engines

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing you did there simulated engine operation and combustion. For a chemical cleaning vaildation to be accurate the entire cycle has to replicated. Although this demonstration was had it's effect it's not realistic.

This is what I'm talking about.

https://youtu.be/48JSlXlvMC0
 
Originally Posted by Doublehaul
I've got a top shelf borescope (bad rifle addiction) and run full saps oils in a couple of Japanese port injection jobs. Anyone want to see a movie ?


Sure!
 
Originally Posted by Doublehaul
I've got a top shelf borescope (bad rifle addiction) and run full saps oils in a couple of Japanese port injection jobs. Anyone want to see a movie ?


in summary..the plot will be very boring especially the 4.0l in that 4r
 
Anybody know how much a walnut blast on a modern 4-cylinder costs?
And, if we do it, we can ask them to make sure they vacuum out the debris as best as possible.

I do see one place will do a BMW for $250. Sounds cheap. They say its "required" every 40k miles. Not by BMW, but I see their argument.
http://socalbmwinstalls.com/walnut-shell-blasting/
Other places charge more I'll bet.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dave1251
Nothing you did there simulated engine operation and combustion. For a chemical cleaning vaildation to be accurate the entire cycle has to replicated. Although this demonstration was had it's effect it's not realistic.

This is what I'm talking about.

https://youtu.be/48JSlXlvMC0

Good vid. ðŸ‘

I suspect after a 2nd treatment there'd be even more (a fair amount of) clean metal. Obviously staying on top of things by regular treatments will help keep it from getting that bad to begin with.

Edit: there are videos on Chevron's site where they run 2 engines on a dyno out to 100k (IIRC) and pull the valves and compare by weight the valves exposed to Techron and just regular non top tier fuel. It's obvious that the Techron (pea) fuel cleans and prevents IVDs.
 
Last edited:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a...nes-have-both-port-and-direct-injection/

"The ultimate strategy is combining both PI and DI benefits, using each to diminish the other's negatives. Toyota, for example, fires both injectors during low to medium load and rpm conditions—in other words, during normal driving. This raises the density of the incoming charge without boosting and flushes carbon deposits off the intake valves. During high load and rpm circumstances, when maximum combustion chamber cooling is needed because detonation is more likely, DI handles all the fuel delivery."

Some engines have better pvc baffling than others as well.

But automakers who are using both injection methods are able to do more than just keep the intake valves clean, they improve tuning variables.
 
I can't help but feel that the tail has wagged the dog here. We've been force fed a bunch of non-proven technology that improves nothing for the owner. Instead it helps the mfgr skirt around epa regs and avoid penalties at the cost of the owner.

I'm not anti tech...I hated carbs. EFI was a huge step...forced induction is great for performance applications.

But...Why do I have to literally search out old technology to get a reliable vehicle?

No brand is beyond reproach here...

GDI...TGDI = GFY
 
Thank you I agree with both a 2nd treatment would likely do more cleaning and Techron at least in my experience plays a role on reducing the formation of carbon deposits.
 
Originally Posted by dave1251
Nothing you did there simulated engine operation and combustion. For a chemical cleaning vaildation to be accurate the entire cycle has to replicated. Although this demonstration was had it's effect it's not realistic.

This is what I'm talking about.

https://youtu.be/48JSlXlvMC0


Ok I agree, but I'd say what I did was actually more beneficial to that valve than just spraying one can into a throttle body and hoping it directly hits every single valve on an engine. Never mind the amount that flies right past the valve into the cylinder and out the exhaust...or the amount that sticks to the manifold.

I sprayed an entire can directly onto the valve. Then I added a bottle of intake/engine cleaner...let it soak for four hours. I rapidly moved the valve back and forth in that solution every half hour. Then I took the valve out and heated it with a torch (while the solution was on the valve). Then I put the valve back into the solution for another hour. Then I took the valve out and sprayed another can onto it. Almost no carbon came off. A few specs here and there.

I agree it's not engine simulation, but I more than reached engine temps to that valve. I saturated that valve much more than any valve would have gotten with a can or two induced into an intake manifold.

I've seen that video before, I've also seen others where there is minimal (at best) removal of carbon from various products. I would venture to bet water would work just as good. I'd also venture to guess that if you boroscoped an engine...before and after...without adding anything at all...you'd also see "something". Something would happen. Moisture from the PCV valve...engine heat...rapid up and down movement of the valve...turbulence of air passing the seat/stem of the valve. I'd venture that you would see some sort of change/improvement, until the valve cokes again.

I think every one of these companies that sell carbon cleaning solutions should be required to pull the manifold, take video and pictures of the valves (before)...put the manifold back on, run their solution through and then remove the manifold and show the results. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be required to show this. Maybe some do? I haven't seen it. I've seen some before and after photos...probably of one port (either right by the PCV or directly in front of the throttle body). Show the whole story...one run with one can. Video evidence. One can.
 
Originally Posted by Railrust
Originally Posted by dave1251
Nothing you did there simulated engine operation and combustion. For a chemical cleaning vaildation to be accurate the entire cycle has to replicated. Although this demonstration was had it's effect it's not realistic.

This is what I'm talking about.

https://youtu.be/48JSlXlvMC0


Ok I agree, but I'd say what I did was actually more beneficial to that valve than just spraying one can into a throttle body and hoping it directly hits every single valve on an engine. Never mind the amount that flies right past the valve into the cylinder and out the exhaust...or the amount that sticks to the manifold.

I sprayed an entire can directly onto the valve. Then I added a bottle of intake/engine cleaner...let it soak for four hours. I rapidly moved the valve back and forth in that solution every half hour. Then I took the valve out and heated it with a torch (while the solution was on the valve). Then I put the valve back into the solution for another hour. Then I took the valve out and sprayed another can onto it. Almost no carbon came off. A few specs here and there.

I agree it's not engine simulation, but I more than reached engine temps to that valve. I saturated that valve much more than any valve would have gotten with a can or two induced into an intake manifold.

I've seen that video before, I've also seen others where there is minimal (at best) removal of carbon from various products. I would venture to bet water would work just as good. I'd also venture to guess that if you boroscoped an engine...before and after...without adding anything at all...you'd also see "something". Something would happen. Moisture from the PCV valve...engine heat...rapid up and down movement of the valve...turbulence of air passing the seat/stem of the valve. I'd venture that you would see some sort of change/improvement, until the valve cokes again.

I think every one of these companies that sell carbon cleaning solutions should be required to pull the manifold, take video and pictures of the valves (before)...put the manifold back on, run their solution through and then remove the manifold and show the results. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be required to show this. Maybe some do? I haven't seen it. I've seen some before and after photos...probably of one port (either right by the PCV or directly in front of the throttle body). Show the whole story...one run with one can. Video evidence. One can.

Are you suggesting the Illuminati is behind some deep state like IVD cleaner conspiracy??...¨...‚

Have you thought about calling GM and telling them their Delco Top Engine spray cleaner (that is literally specd in GM TSB's) is BS?...While you're at it, call Chevron, Gumout and CRC Ind. and let us know what they say in re to your thoughts...oh and call Valvoline too while you're at it because they mfg a spray in IVD cleaners too.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by Railrust
Originally Posted by dave1251
Nothing you did there simulated engine operation and combustion. For a chemical cleaning vaildation to be accurate the entire cycle has to replicated. Although this demonstration was had it's effect it's not realistic.

This is what I'm talking about.

https://youtu.be/48JSlXlvMC0


Ok I agree, but I'd say what I did was actually more beneficial to that valve than just spraying one can into a throttle body and hoping it directly hits every single valve on an engine. Never mind the amount that flies right past the valve into the cylinder and out the exhaust...or the amount that sticks to the manifold.

I sprayed an entire can directly onto the valve. Then I added a bottle of intake/engine cleaner...let it soak for four hours. I rapidly moved the valve back and forth in that solution every half hour. Then I took the valve out and heated it with a torch (while the solution was on the valve). Then I put the valve back into the solution for another hour. Then I took the valve out and sprayed another can onto it. Almost no carbon came off. A few specs here and there.

I agree it's not engine simulation, but I more than reached engine temps to that valve. I saturated that valve much more than any valve would have gotten with a can or two induced into an intake manifold.

I've seen that video before, I've also seen others where there is minimal (at best) removal of carbon from various products. I would venture to bet water would work just as good. I'd also venture to guess that if you boroscoped an engine...before and after...without adding anything at all...you'd also see "something". Something would happen. Moisture from the PCV valve...engine heat...rapid up and down movement of the valve...turbulence of air passing the seat/stem of the valve. I'd venture that you would see some sort of change/improvement, until the valve cokes again.

I think every one of these companies that sell carbon cleaning solutions should be required to pull the manifold, take video and pictures of the valves (before)...put the manifold back on, run their solution through and then remove the manifold and show the results. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be required to show this. Maybe some do? I haven't seen it. I've seen some before and after photos...probably of one port (either right by the PCV or directly in front of the throttle body). Show the whole story...one run with one can. Video evidence. One can.

Are you suggesting the Illuminati is behind some deep state like IVD cleaner conspiracy??...¨...‚

Have you thought about calling GM and telling them their Delco Top Engine spray cleaner (that is literally specd in GM TSB's) is BS?...While you're at it, call Chevron, Gumout and CRC Ind. and let us know what they say in re to your thoughts...oh and call Valvoline too while you're at it because they mfg a spray in IVD cleaners too.


Yes, my goal is they'll have to pay me enough money to keep me quiet...or I'll end up in a ditch. Netflix will probably make a new "original" film about it...they'll call it "Selling Fear, carbon cleaning conspiracies".

But you're really on to something about the GM TSB. Yeah GM has never failed at one of those. Bawahaha. I remember their "remedy" for their noisy intermediate shafts...inject the shaft, then stroke it fifteen times. Yeah, that worked like a charm. We all looked like we were giving hand jobs to steering systems. Never did get rid of that noise...well it may have gotten a few out of the warranty period. Good old GM.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Railrust

But you're really on to something about the GM TSB. Yeah GM has never failed at one of those. Bawahaha. I remember their "remedy" for their noisy intermediate shafts...inject the shaft, then stroke it fifteen times. Yeah, that worked like a charm. We all looked like we were giving hand jobs to steering systems. Never did get rid of that noise...well it may have gotten a few out of the warranty period. Good old GM.

TMI
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Doublehaul
I can't help but feel that the tail has wagged the dog here. We've been force fed a bunch of non-proven technology that improves nothing for the owner. Instead it helps the mfgr skirt around epa regs and avoid penalties at the cost of the owner.

I'm not anti tech...I hated carbs. EFI was a huge step...forced induction is great for performance applications.

But...Why do I have to literally search out old technology to get a reliable vehicle?

No brand is beyond reproach here...

GDI...TGDI = GFY

Sorry Tiger but my GDI engine has been the best engine I've owned and there has not been any issues. Very few engines have legitimate issues.
 
I put a catch can on my 2018 Crosstrek. After 2k using 5W30 PUP I recovered 1.5 oz. of oil. Much more than I anticipated and that much prevented from entering the valves fwiw.
 
There are many benefits to direct injection and apparently there are some downsides as well. The first benefit that comes to mind is the ability to run higher compression ratios on regular gasoline without detonation. Basically you can get significantly more power out of the same displacement without having to run premium fuel. But I keep telling anyone who will listen: there are pros and cons to everything... LOL
 
Originally Posted by 1bioguy
I put a catch can on my 2018 Crosstrek. After 2k using 5W30 PUP I recovered 1.5 oz. of oil. Much more than I anticipated and that much prevented from entering the valves fwiw.

Your new vehicle warranty and dealer inspection allows this catch can installation?
 
Just a thought. Instead of running seafoam down the intake tract, couldn't one just run gasoline? Much cheaper, similar solvency. I think this could definitely be a good top engibe intake-tract-fed cleaner for GDI
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top