User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 11:59:25 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This used to happen with fuel injected cars as well. Carbon build up was bad even though the fuel was being sprayed directly at the valves. Carbureted cars have also had the issue in the past, depending on how they were driven and serviced. To solve the issue on FI, additives were added to the fuel to clean the carbon. Have you heard of Techron? It was Chevrons trademarked name for the additive. All fuel suppliers were required to add cleaners, they just didn't use a "brand name" cleaner. There is no way to stop EGR from making carbon on the valves, but we used to use a chemical to clean carbon from engines. It was sold by GM under the name "Top Engine Cleaner" and was around before I was working on cars starting in the '80's. It is designed to clean carbon from the intake, valves and combustion chamber. It used to be pour in, but now comes in an aerosol can. It works really well. I hear Seafoam does pretty good at the same thing, but I know Top Engine Cleaner is Catalytic converter safe. Toyota/Subaru has the right idea, but it seems a bit complicated and expensive, I still like it. This is just my opinion and observations, YMMV. I don't think my 2001 honda had EGR(EXHAUST GAS RE CIRCULATION). M 2008 F350 Diesel has it and i haven't had problems YET but others have......see 6.0 ford. Not sure if these DI motors have it either. They do have PCV |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 4:09:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think my 2001 honda had EGR(EXHAUST GAS RE CIRCULATION). M 2008 F350 Diesel has it and i haven't had problems YET but others have......see 6.0 ford. Not sure if these DI motors have it either. They do have PCV Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This used to happen with fuel injected cars as well. Carbon build up was bad even though the fuel was being sprayed directly at the valves. Carbureted cars have also had the issue in the past, depending on how they were driven and serviced. To solve the issue on FI, additives were added to the fuel to clean the carbon. Have you heard of Techron? It was Chevrons trademarked name for the additive. All fuel suppliers were required to add cleaners, they just didn't use a "brand name" cleaner. There is no way to stop EGR from making carbon on the valves, but we used to use a chemical to clean carbon from engines. It was sold by GM under the name "Top Engine Cleaner" and was around before I was working on cars starting in the '80's. It is designed to clean carbon from the intake, valves and combustion chamber. It used to be pour in, but now comes in an aerosol can. It works really well. I hear Seafoam does pretty good at the same thing, but I know Top Engine Cleaner is Catalytic converter safe. Toyota/Subaru has the right idea, but it seems a bit complicated and expensive, I still like it. This is just my opinion and observations, YMMV. I don't think my 2001 honda had EGR(EXHAUST GAS RE CIRCULATION). M 2008 F350 Diesel has it and i haven't had problems YET but others have......see 6.0 ford. Not sure if these DI motors have it either. They do have PCV Most gas engines have some type of EGR even today. Newer engines simply(in a complicated way) use valve overlap to retain exhaust gas in the combustion chamber by varying the cam timing. Often called VVT (variable valve timing) the camshaft is rotated on the cam gear using hydraulic pressure from the oiling system. When the exhaust valve closes there is still exhaust gas in the combustion chamber, this used to be introduced into the intake directly from the EGR valve. The VVT provides better all around performance and allows the elimination of the EGR valve and related components with out increasing emissions. I am not an engineer, this is a very simple explanation and auto engines are continuously changing so don't bet your life on this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 2:42:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A member here is a mechanic and he's posted about having to routinely take apart Lexus engines to clean some nasty ass carbon deposits. It may be the "new way", but I am thankful that both of my vehicles are NOT DI, and I use Techron on a regular basis, and can feel it work. But on the other hand, there are plenty of Porsche owners that have no issues with it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2014 3:15:49 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What car? How many miles? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A member here is a mechanic and he's posted about having to routinely take apart Lexus engines to clean some nasty ass carbon deposits. It may be the "new way", but I am thankful that both of my vehicles are NOT DI, and I use Techron on a regular basis, and can feel it work. But on the other hand, there are plenty of Porsche owners that have no issues with it.
http://jtbaker.smugmug.com/Other/Camera-Awesome-Photos/i-zfwKR4c/0/L/CA_05221316245812-L.jpg http://jtbaker.smugmug.com/Other/Camera-Awesome-Photos/i-pfN5GsP/0/L/CA_05231315270932-L.jpg http://jtbaker.smugmug.com/Other/Camera-Awesome-Photos/i-cBK63Q7/0/L/CA_05231315274480-L.jpg http://jtbaker.smugmug.com/Other/Camera-Awesome-Photos/i-7nCHhw5/0/L/CA_05231315275779-L.jpg What car? How many miles? Is250. I think that one was between 40-50k Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 9:01:52 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nailed it. Tie crankcase gases loaded with oil recirculated into the intake, with no more washing of the valves by injectors (moved from intake runner firing into intake port, to firing directly into the combustion chamber) and you get carbon. I advise all my D.I. customers is to run quality 93 fuel, and too put your right foot down once in a while. Don't just baby it everywhere. When I test drive, I'll usually get on a customer car, not full throttle, but "accellerated" for a couple thousand rpms. I can tell who listens to me and who doesn't. They can look like diesels if the valves are carboned up and WOT'd through 1st and 2nd. ETA: Yes it does rob performance. It's night and day before and after a clean. Symptoms don't show up to the customer because to them it's a gradual degradation of performance. Most customers won't notice till it affects cold idling, causing misfires, and a CEL. Easy to diagnose if you have a borescope. But can cover up a faulty coil or injector, due to multiple cylinder misfires till after the valves are clean. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Normally the fuel spray with its added detergents sprays over the intake valves on its way in to the cylinder, thus cleaning them. In direct injection engines the fuel never sees the valve as it is sprayed at high pressure directly in to the cylinder. So the intake valves do not benefit from this cleaning effect. They get carbon build up from crankcase ventilation fumes and exhaust gas reversion and stuff like oil from the slight leakage of turbocharger seals and oil from the crankcase that was carried out with gases but didn't quite get removed in the oil separators. The intake valves operate cooler than exhaust valves so stuff sticks rather than getting burned off on the really hot exhaust valves. I assume the reduction in airflow causes a significant performance drop and possibly uneven idling and running as the deposits might vary from cylinder to cylinder. I've heard on port injection vehicles the carbon build up on intake valves can absorb fuel and make cold starts an iffy proposition. I've never run in to this. Usually carbon build up on the stuff I see causes cold start knocks and some top engine cleaner or various carbon removal techniques will make a marked difference in the noise. Nailed it. Tie crankcase gases loaded with oil recirculated into the intake, with no more washing of the valves by injectors (moved from intake runner firing into intake port, to firing directly into the combustion chamber) and you get carbon. I advise all my D.I. customers is to run quality 93 fuel, and too put your right foot down once in a while. Don't just baby it everywhere. When I test drive, I'll usually get on a customer car, not full throttle, but "accellerated" for a couple thousand rpms. I can tell who listens to me and who doesn't. They can look like diesels if the valves are carboned up and WOT'd through 1st and 2nd. ETA: Yes it does rob performance. It's night and day before and after a clean. Symptoms don't show up to the customer because to them it's a gradual degradation of performance. Most customers won't notice till it affects cold idling, causing misfires, and a CEL. Easy to diagnose if you have a borescope. But can cover up a faulty coil or injector, due to multiple cylinder misfires till after the valves are clean. .... My only input is to question the " Quality " of fuel having any effect, as the direct injected fuel never touches the back side of the inlet valve, detergency, or lack of will have ZERO effect on the condition of intake valve deposit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 7:05:10 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: .... My only input is to question the " Quality " of fuel having any effect, as the direct injected fuel never touches the back side of the inlet valve, detergency, or lack of will have ZERO effect on the condition of intake valve deposit. Quote HistoryQuoted: .... My only input is to question the " Quality " of fuel having any effect, as the direct injected fuel never touches the back side of the inlet valve, detergency, or lack of will have ZERO effect on the condition of intake valve deposit. I'd guess injectors are a big part of it. Clean injectors make a big difference when you are so dependent on multiple clean, well timed squirts for each stroke. The spray pattern from the injector needs to be very precise. I religiously run Shell 93 in my GTI.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2014 9:32:25 AM EDT
[#8]
I pulled my intake manifold and cleaned my 06 Mazdaspeed6 valves at 84K miles and they were not as bad as those VW valves. They were bad but not that bad. I'm curious as to what you VW techs use to clean the valves. I used denatured alcohol and a .22 bore brush bent in a J shape and it took forever.
With over 90k miles on my DI turbo motor my next car will be a DI turbo. Even with the valves gunked up after 84K miles it ran OK. It didn't have much power off boost because of the airflow restriction but otherwise ran fine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
VW tech here. on the newer (06 and up) 4 cylinder turbos with direct injection, we have to remove intakes and manually clean intake valves. I've seen them get NASTY at as low as 40,000 miles. Before <a href="http://s247.photobucket.com/user/KeasbeyNights_01/media/20131121_113742.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg147/KeasbeyNights_01/20131121_113742.jpg</a> After <a href="http://s247.photobucket.com/user/KeasbeyNights_01/media/20131122_082408.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg147/KeasbeyNights_01/20131122_082408.jpg</a> So for me MPI it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2014 10:06:24 AM EDT
[#9]
It'd be interesting to see how much a Seafoam top end cleaning would reduce that buildup.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2014 1:24:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It'd be interesting to see how much a Seafoam top end cleaning would reduce that buildup. It's generally too thick and dried up to have any impact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 9:32:48 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's generally too thick and dried up to have any impact. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It'd be interesting to see how much a Seafoam top end cleaning would reduce that buildup. It's generally too thick and dried up to have any impact. The stuff I cleaned off of my intake valves was like a hard tar. It's a carbon and oil mixture that is then baked until it's hard. The exhaust valves get hot enough to burn deposits off but the intake valves just bake it on. No fuel additive would help because it doesn't go through the intake manifold. The EGR and PVC systems feed the carbon and oil mixture into the intake manifold and then with no fuel mixture to wash it off it just bakes on. Once it's baked on Seafoam won't remove it. Even with the intake manifold off and soaking the valves for hours doesn't dissolve it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 9:48:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The stuff I cleaned off of my intake valves was like a hard tar. It's a carbon and oil mixture that is then baked until it's hard. The exhaust valves get hot enough to burn deposits off but the intake valves just bake it on. No fuel additive would help because it doesn't go through the intake manifold. The EGR and PVC systems feed the carbon and oil mixture into the intake manifold and then with no fuel mixture to wash it off it just bakes on. Once it's baked on Seafoam won't remove it. Even with the intake manifold off and soaking the valves for hours doesn't dissolve it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It'd be interesting to see how much a Seafoam top end cleaning would reduce that buildup. It's generally too thick and dried up to have any impact. The stuff I cleaned off of my intake valves was like a hard tar. It's a carbon and oil mixture that is then baked until it's hard. The exhaust valves get hot enough to burn deposits off but the intake valves just bake it on. No fuel additive would help because it doesn't go through the intake manifold. The EGR and PVC systems feed the carbon and oil mixture into the intake manifold and then with no fuel mixture to wash it off it just bakes on. Once it's baked on Seafoam won't remove it. Even with the intake manifold off and soaking the valves for hours doesn't dissolve it. I think you eliminate/ vent to atmosphere the pcv system 87% of those deposits won't be there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 12:21:53 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The stuff I cleaned off of my intake valves was like a hard tar. It's a carbon and oil mixture that is then baked until it's hard. The exhaust valves get hot enough to burn deposits off but the intake valves just bake it on. No fuel additive would help because it doesn't go through the intake manifold. The EGR and PVC systems feed the carbon and oil mixture into the intake manifold and then with no fuel mixture to wash it off it just bakes on. Once it's baked on Seafoam won't remove it. Even with the intake manifold off and soaking the valves for hours doesn't dissolve it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It'd be interesting to see how much a Seafoam top end cleaning would reduce that buildup. It's generally too thick and dried up to have any impact. The stuff I cleaned off of my intake valves was like a hard tar. It's a carbon and oil mixture that is then baked until it's hard. The exhaust valves get hot enough to burn deposits off but the intake valves just bake it on. No fuel additive would help because it doesn't go through the intake manifold. The EGR and PVC systems feed the carbon and oil mixture into the intake manifold and then with no fuel mixture to wash it off it just bakes on. Once it's baked on Seafoam won't remove it. Even with the intake manifold off and soaking the valves for hours doesn't dissolve it. Top ending via Seafoam isnt a fuel additive, it's added via vacuum line and would go via the manifold, hitting the intake valves. (I know the rest of what you said makes this moot, just stating there are multiple methods by which Seafoam is used). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 5:18:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BMW came out with a special tool to blast the valves with walnut shells. And it's definitely needed. 62k 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2014 5:48:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Wonder if a gun Coating like NP3 or Nickel boron would also prevent the buildup.....if it can take the heat that is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 7:04:32 AM EDT
[#16]
Got my intake valves blasted over the weekend, I was at 33K.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 8:51:59 AM EDT
[#17]
I get why this is a problem with DI gas engines...
But why aren't diesels seemingly so afflicted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 2:20:47 PM EDT
[#18]
Ford has had the walnut shell blaster since the early 80's. Don't see them around much anymore, but I have a feeling it might come right on back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 2:37:46 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I get why this is a problem with DI gas engines... But why aren't diesels seemingly so afflicted? I deal with it a bunch on Ford stuff that has been abused and neglected. When it's sick, it barfs up all kind of crap into the intake. I had one so low on power and fuel economy it was unreal. It was an Econoline 350 Club Wagon 6.0L diesel used for roadside detail, meaning it idles A LOT. Other shops had thrown every part in the book at it. Injectors, turbos, fuel pumps, you name it. So naturally I end up with it per Ford engineering to sort it out. I did a basic check and stated "It needs a valve job"  figuring if I take the engine out and apart I'll find the problem. Engineering called B.S., but grudgingly approved it. I tore it down and I swear it was so coked up I couldn't put my little finger through the intake port in the head or manifold.  I honestly don't know how it ran at all with just little straws to get air in. Sent all the parts to be cleaned at the machine shop, back together and GTG. Someone before me had already replaced the part that caused it, so I never knew what the root cause was, but "valve job" got it fixed.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 3:59:20 PM EDT
[#20]
So how do I best care for a 2011 Nissan 3.5 V6? I run 93 and techron cleaner a few times per month. What else can I do to help my engine last. I am running full synthetic oil, tranny was just done at 30K. So can you experts help me not sludge up the Nissan. My old 5.3 Vortec in the Tahoe was still going strong at 219K when a fire killed it. Is there anything a average non mechanic can do? The BG fuel treatment work?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 5:39:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got my intake valves blasted over the weekend, I was at 33K. http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/millersho/IMAG0449_zps8d3e64c3.jpg http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/millersho/IMAG0452_zps8cf363f9.jpg Yours looked to be about as caked up as mine with half the mileage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 7:46:01 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yours looked to be about as caked up as mine with half the mileage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Got my intake valves blasted over the weekend, I was at 33K. http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/millersho/IMAG0449_zps8d3e64c3.jpg http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/millersho/IMAG0452_zps8cf363f9.jpg Yours looked to be about as caked up as mine with half the mileage. To put it simply I bought this car at 23k miles and it's spent the last 10K modded out and floored everywhere. 
FWIW though, the guy who helped me has done at least 15 of these jobs and he said mine were not nearly as bad as most. I run it at about 19psi, E60 mix with no catch can and no meth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2014 8:00:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So how do I best care for a 2011 Nissan 3.5 V6? I run 93 and techron cleaner a few times per month. What else can I do to help my engine last. I am running full synthetic oil, tranny was just done at 30K. So can you experts help me not sludge up the Nissan. My old 5.3 Vortec in the Tahoe was still going strong at 219K when a fire killed it. Is there anything a average non mechanic can do? The BG fuel treatment work? Is it direct injection? If not, don't worry about it. If so, no fuel or additive will help as fuel doesn't wash over the intake valves as outlined eariler in the thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 2:57:11 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To put it simply I bought this car at 23k miles and it's spent the last 10K modded out and floored everywhere.
FWIW though, the guy who helped me has done at least 15 of these jobs and he said mine were not nearly as bad as most. I run it at about 19psi, E60 mix with no catch can and no meth. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Got my intake valves blasted over the weekend, I was at 33K. http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/millersho/IMAG0449_zps8d3e64c3.jpg http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/millersho/IMAG0452_zps8cf363f9.jpg Yours looked to be about as caked up as mine with half the mileage. To put it simply I bought this car at 23k miles and it's spent the last 10K modded out and floored everywhere.
FWIW though, the guy who helped me has done at least 15 of these jobs and he said mine were not nearly as bad as most. I run it at about 19psi, E60 mix with no catch can and no meth. I'm just glad to see mine were in similar condition. I cleaned mine myself so I haven't seen anything other than pictures and most seemed to have similar mileage as mine. It was a nasty mess and I really don't plan on doing it again. I'm just running auto tune with 93. I need to order a catch can this week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 3:20:32 AM EDT
[#25]
One would think that a smooth surface [VS a rough casting] and some type of teflon coating would help immensely since sooner or later, most every engine will have DI due to mileage and emission standard revisions.
Yes, a smoother casting would cost a bit more as would a coating but the only other option that seems to work is an engine with PF injectors and DI and that adds cost also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 3:30:23 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would love to learn more about this. I just got this 2011 Murano SL AWD and want it to last. I have been reading the Murano forums. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do any of these issues relate to a 2011 Nissan 3.5 like in the Maxima,Murano,etc? Certainly does. There are a lot of people putting them on 3.5 Nissans after seeing how bad the intake valves look. I would love to learn more about this. I just got this 2011 Murano SL AWD and want it to last. I have been reading the Murano forums. Nissan doesn't build a direct injected V6. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:13:38 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm just glad to see mine were in similar condition. I cleaned mine myself so I haven't seen anything other than pictures and most seemed to have similar mileage as mine. It was a nasty mess and I really don't plan on doing it again. I'm just running auto tune with 93. I need to order a catch can this week. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Got my intake valves blasted over the weekend, I was at 33K. http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/millersho/IMAG0449_zps8d3e64c3.jpg http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/millersho/IMAG0452_zps8cf363f9.jpg Yours looked to be about as caked up as mine with half the mileage. To put it simply I bought this car at 23k miles and it's spent the last 10K modded out and floored everywhere.
FWIW though, the guy who helped me has done at least 15 of these jobs and he said mine were not nearly as bad as most. I run it at about 19psi, E60 mix with no catch can and no meth. I'm just glad to see mine were in similar condition. I cleaned mine myself so I haven't seen anything other than pictures and most seemed to have similar mileage as mine. It was a nasty mess and I really don't plan on doing it again. I'm just running auto tune with 93. I need to order a catch can this week. Honestly, I'm not sold on catch cans for our cars. Sounds like the right thing to do but most guys that buy them find hardly any oil pools up in the can. I would rather pay someone $200-$300 every 30-40k miles to walnut blast the valves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2014 5:58:42 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One would think that a smooth surface [VS a rough casting] and some type of teflon coating would help immensely since sooner or later, most every engine will have DI due to mileage and emission standard revisions. Yes, a smoother casting would cost a bit more as would a coating but the only other option that seems to work is an engine with PF injectors and DI and that adds cost also. http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/id/2105/pageid/3529/131-compression-and-40-mpg-on-87-octane-fuel-introducing-mazdas-skyactiv-technology.aspx http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-archive/2011/06/direct-injection-fouls-some-early-adopters.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 11:23:35 AM EDT
[#29]
I swear my GTI has become a little less responsive at lower rpm and light to moderate load. I'm thinking it might be time for valve cleaning. 58k miles.
The bad thing is I actually bought a catch can a long time ago and never installed it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2014 3:36:23 PM EDT
[#30]
Thanks for the reply. I was researching the VQ series V6. Seems like they are solid. I still do not trust this for long term reliability like my 2000 Tahoe.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2014 6:31:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Audi's newer TFSI engines (Turbo Fuel Stratified Injection) aren't having carbon buildup problems. They invented it and first ran it in the 2001 Le Mans. Took a while to get into production cars but they have had it for years now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2014 3:07:41 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Audi's newer TFSI engines (Turbo Fuel Stratified Injection) aren't having carbon buildup problems. They invented it and first ran it in the 2001 Le Mans. Took a while to get into production cars but they have had it for years now. Seems to be tons of threads of guys with TFSI and getting carbon build up. Also, why do they call turbo fuel when it's a supercharged engine? Why do lots of their cars have a "T" at the end of their engines but again, supercharged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2014 5:24:27 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to be tons of threads of guys with TFSI and getting carbon build up. Also, why do they call turbo fuel when it's a supercharged engine? Why do lots of their cars have a "T" at the end of their engines but again, supercharged. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Audi's newer TFSI engines (Turbo Fuel Stratified Injection) aren't having carbon buildup problems. They invented it and first ran it in the 2001 Le Mans. Took a while to get into production cars but they have had it for years now. Seems to be tons of threads of guys with TFSI and getting carbon build up. Also, why do they call turbo fuel when it's a supercharged engine? Why do lots of their cars have a "T" at the end of their engines but again, supercharged. Got a link to any of these threads? Over in the Audi forums they created a thread asking for reports and of carbon buildup and got Zero posts. I'm talking about the present generation Audi TFSI engines, not the older ones. Yes, Audi stayed with the T for their supercharged 3.0 TFSI. However, the rest are turbo. Lots of us had the same question but in the end it doesn't really matter. They are both forced induction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2014 7:18:51 AM EDT
[#34]
Are they running a suppliment port injection system to wash the valves? As far as I know there is no other way to prevent this on a DI engine, no free lunch here.
That means a 2nd fuel system, tuning/modding will be more difficult, twice as many injectors. SC vs. Turbo, no difference to you, both the same? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2014 2:05:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are they running a suppliment port injection system to wash the valves? As far as I know there is no other way to prevent this on a DI engine, no free lunch here. That means a 2nd fuel system, tuning/modding will be more difficult, twice as many injectors. SC vs. Turbo, no difference to you, both the same? No second port injection system. I cannot explain how they do it, just reporting what I know. You should call or write Audi and tell them what you said here because I am not privy to their technical details. I didn't say there is no difference between SC and TC. Of course there is, don't be a fool. I am a retired Marine Engineer (Merchant Marine) and know my way around a diesel engine especially medium speed and the huge slow speed diesels you see in documentaries about container ships. Those engines have direct injection so it isn't like it hasn't been done before. ETA - like I asked earlier - Got a link to any of these threads? I doubt that current production Audi TFSI engines are in any of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2014 2:37:52 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The carbonized intake valve is a result of the crank case ventilation exhausting into a dry manifold. Install a blow by tube and catch can and eliminate entirely the problem for under $100 Hit the nail on the head. The deposits don't come from the gas so fuels and fuel injector cleaners don't clean the carbon off. My Genesis Coupe has a manual transmission. I remember my dad telling me (45 years ago) that there were two good ways to loosen/break up the build up on the valves (since this was before EGR valves/system the junk on the intake valves had to be from the fuel and the exhaust valves had to have been carbon buildup). One was to get the engine up to operating temperature and then run it up near redline in any 1st or 2nd gear and just let up on the gas pedal and let the engine/gears slow the car down. Do this a few time every now and then and the cooler air/fuel mixture coming into the cylinder when engine conditions didn't require it would break up the build up on the valves/stems. The other way was to get a spray bottle and spray a little water down in the intake every little bit with the engine revved up. I've never tried the second method but I do the first one and have for many years, even before I got the Coupe. I used to love to hear the 350 in my 81 Z28 rev up and "cackle" when I dropped it into 2nd gear at 55 mph and let the engine slow the car down while coming up on a stop light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2014 7:53:18 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No second port injection system. I cannot explain how they do it. ETA - like I asked earlier - Got a link to any of these threads? I doubt that current production Audi TFSI engines are in any of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are they running a suppliment port injection system to wash the valves? As far as I know there is no other way to prevent this on a DI engine, no free lunch here. That means a 2nd fuel system, tuning/modding will be more difficult, twice as many injectors. SC vs. Turbo, no difference to you, both the same? No second port injection system. I cannot explain how they do it. ETA - like I asked earlier - Got a link to any of these threads? I doubt that current production Audi TFSI engines are in any of them. The only things I find say that tfsi still has carbon buildup issues like every other DI setup and that recently they're fitted a port system to deal with the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 5:28:46 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only things I find say that tfsi still has carbon buildup issues like every other DI setup and that recently they're fitted a port system to deal with the issue. Quote HistoryQuoted: The only things I find say that tfsi still has carbon buildup issues like every other DI setup and that recently they're fitted a port system to deal with the issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 6:29:14 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only things I find say that tfsi still has carbon buildup issues like every other DI setup and that recently they're fitted a port system to deal with the issue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are they running a suppliment port injection system to wash the valves? As far as I know there is no other way to prevent this on a DI engine, no free lunch here. That means a 2nd fuel system, tuning/modding will be more difficult, twice as many injectors. SC vs. Turbo, no difference to you, both the same? No second port injection system. I cannot explain how they do it. ETA - like I asked earlier - Got a link to any of these threads? I doubt that current production Audi TFSI engines are in any of them. The only things I find say that tfsi still has carbon buildup issues like every other DI setup and that recently they're fitted a port system to deal with the issue. That isn't true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 9:54:42 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No second port injection system. I cannot explain how they do it, just reporting what I know. You should call or write Audi and tell them what you said here because I am not privy to their technical details. I didn't say there is no difference between SC and TC. Of course there is, don't be a fool. I am a retired Marine Engineer (Merchant Marine) and know my way around a diesel engine especially medium speed and the huge slow speed diesels you see in documentaries about container ships. Those engines have direct injection so it isn't like it hasn't been done before. ETA - like I asked earlier - Got a link to any of these threads? I doubt that current production Audi TFSI engines are in any of them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Are they running a suppliment port injection system to wash the valves? As far as I know there is no other way to prevent this on a DI engine, no free lunch here. That means a 2nd fuel system, tuning/modding will be more difficult, twice as many injectors. SC vs. Turbo, no difference to you, both the same? No second port injection system. I cannot explain how they do it, just reporting what I know. You should call or write Audi and tell them what you said here because I am not privy to their technical details. I didn't say there is no difference between SC and TC. Of course there is, don't be a fool. I am a retired Marine Engineer (Merchant Marine) and know my way around a diesel engine especially medium speed and the huge slow speed diesels you see in documentaries about container ships. Those engines have direct injection so it isn't like it hasn't been done before. ETA - like I asked earlier - Got a link to any of these threads? I doubt that current production Audi TFSI engines are in any of them. This may or may not be what he was referring to: www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/596777-Carbon-Buildup-on-the-3-0-TFSI-Pics!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 10:05:19 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That isn't true. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are they running a suppliment port injection system to wash the valves? As far as I know there is no other way to prevent this on a DI engine, no free lunch here. That means a 2nd fuel system, tuning/modding will be more difficult, twice as many injectors. SC vs. Turbo, no difference to you, both the same? No second port injection system. I cannot explain how they do it. ETA - like I asked earlier - Got a link to any of these threads? I doubt that current production Audi TFSI engines are in any of them. The only things I find say that tfsi still has carbon buildup issues like every other DI setup and that recently they're fitted a port system to deal with the issue. That isn't true. I think that's where we're at in the discussion, I guess some of us are wondering how is that not true when it seems to be the norm other then adding a port injection system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 2:39:32 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only things I find say that tfsi still has carbon buildup issues like every other DI setup and that recently they're fitted a port system to deal with the issue. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are they running a suppliment port injection system to wash the valves? As far as I know there is no other way to prevent this on a DI engine, no free lunch here. That means a 2nd fuel system, tuning/modding will be more difficult, twice as many injectors. SC vs. Turbo, no difference to you, both the same? No second port injection system. I cannot explain how they do it. ETA - like I asked earlier - Got a link to any of these threads? I doubt that current production Audi TFSI engines are in any of them. The only things I find say that tfsi still has carbon buildup issues like every other DI setup and that recently they're fitted a port system to deal with the issue. BOLD = Pure Bullshit. Do you believe everything posted on the internet? That is a total fabrication. Sold my B8 S4 (3.0 TFSI) last year so I haven't been to that particular forum for a while. I see where there has been some carbon buildup on those engines since then, but not bad compared to other direct-injected brands. Also, I now remember a letter from Audi giving 10 years free carbon cleaning. So there you go, I have been proven wrong and will now throw myself down the stairs. It is still a lot better than the older engines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 3:23:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BOLD = Pure Bullshit. Do you believe everything posted on the internet? That is a total fabrication. Sold my B8 S4 (3.0 TFSI) last year so I haven't been to that particular forum for a while. I see where there has been some carbon buildup on those engines since then, but not bad compared to other direct-injected brands. Also, I now remember a letter from Audi giving 10 years free carbon cleaning. So there you go, I have been proven wrong and will now throw myself down the stairs. It is still a lot better than the older engines. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are they running a suppliment port injection system to wash the valves? As far as I know there is no other way to prevent this on a DI engine, no free lunch here. That means a 2nd fuel system, tuning/modding will be more difficult, twice as many injectors. SC vs. Turbo, no difference to you, both the same? No second port injection system. I cannot explain how they do it. ETA - like I asked earlier - Got a link to any of these threads? I doubt that current production Audi TFSI engines are in any of them. The only things I find say that tfsi still has carbon buildup issues like every other DI setup and that recently they're fitted a port system to deal with the issue. BOLD = Pure Bullshit. Do you believe everything posted on the internet? That is a total fabrication. Sold my B8 S4 (3.0 TFSI) last year so I haven't been to that particular forum for a while. I see where there has been some carbon buildup on those engines since then, but not bad compared to other direct-injected brands. Also, I now remember a letter from Audi giving 10 years free carbon cleaning. So there you go, I have been proven wrong and will now throw myself down the stairs. It is still a lot better than the older engines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 4:01:04 PM EDT
[#44]
I'm not really interested in proving anyone (including myself) right or wrong, I just want to get to the bottom of this and if other manufactures have found a fix/work around I would love to hear it for my own benefit cause I own a DI car and all cars coming out are DI so it interests me.
About the dual injection, it could be internet banter like you mentioned but I think it's a real thing and I think I saw talk of the euro/Aus models getting it but not the US engines? It's possible that's where I saw that. Again if anyone has information on a DI platform that doesn't have carbon issues on intake valves I would love to hear about the tech that makes it all work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 7:17:40 PM EDT
[#45]
According to this, Audi is doing that port/DI combination for emissions reasons:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2014 9:34:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think that's where we're at in the discussion, I guess some of us are wondering how is that not true when it seems to be the norm other then adding a port injection system. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are they running a suppliment port injection system to wash the valves? As far as I know there is no other way to prevent this on a DI engine, no free lunch here. That means a 2nd fuel system, tuning/modding will be more difficult, twice as many injectors. SC vs. Turbo, no difference to you, both the same? No second port injection system. I cannot explain how they do it. ETA - like I asked earlier - Got a link to any of these threads? I doubt that current production Audi TFSI engines are in any of them. The only things I find say that tfsi still has carbon buildup issues like every other DI setup and that recently they're fitted a port system to deal with the issue. That isn't true. I think that's where we're at in the discussion, I guess some of us are wondering how is that not true when it seems to be the norm other then adding a port injection system. http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/id/2105/pageid/3529/131-compression-and-40-mpg-on-87-octane-fuel-introducing-mazdas-skyactiv-technology.aspx |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2014 12:44:23 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryNice, can't wait to see if other manufactures have the same findings and apply them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2014 6:02:16 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice, can't wait to see if other manufactures have the same findings and apply them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice, can't wait to see if other manufactures have the same findings and apply them. Great. I have a new CX-5 with the 2.5L SkyActiv. So I guess this means I won't be installed the catch can?
Hopefully there will be no carbon buildup.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
