Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
It was done with a water and kerosine emulsion. The bottle was shaken, and the emulsion was dribbled into the carb., while the engine was running at a high RPM. The mechanic had to use a pair of safety goggles, in case of a "back fire" through the carb..---Carbon production from the fuel,(not the lubrication oil), is a BIG problem in engines today. ----It not only accumulates on the valves and piston heads, but it also gets behind the compression rings of the piston, and locks them in the lands. In addition, it forms on the tip of the fuel injector. Not all fuels contain the same additive packages. I run a fuel additive in my vehicles at every fill up. I know, I am wasting my money!
Oh, a carbed engine, well that's an old car using old technology. Carburetors are notoriously inefficient anyway.
Sounds like you are describing a heavily "coked" car--by cleaning out the carbon you have only cured the symptom, not the cause. If indeed that engine carbonized so much as to cause sticking rings or a leaking valve, then there's something wrong with that engine or its management systems. That was my point---not that carbonization doesn't happen but that when it does, it's because of a defect, not because it's something modern engines are 'subject to' as a rule.
In order to actually hear air escaping, it would have to REALLY have a problem. We detect this if a compression/leakdown test shows a low cylinder or a car comes in with a rough idle.
These are normally on high mileage cars and the problem rarely comes back.
Read posting #203. This is "new technology" in a land based vehicle. The "carbon problem" shows itself very early in the life of a marine engine. For every 100 hours of operation on a marine engine, that would be equivalent to 10,000 miles on a land based vehicle's engine. Products such as "carbon guard" and "sea foam" are used in both 2 and 4 cycle engines to remove this carbon and keep it from forming on the pistons, valves and rings. Even with the new technology, (direct fuel injection), on two cycle outboards, carbon formation from the fuel, (not the oil), is a BIG maintenance problem. You will see the results of operational problems faster on a marine engine, because they work harder and they operate at a higher RPM. The same land based engine might take three times the mileage to develop the same problem. The modern fuel today is causing engine damage through the formation of carbon in the upper cylinder area. The fuel today contains alcohol and no lubricant. Everything in the upper cylinder area is "hot and dry". It is a great place for carbon to form and stick.
...to substantitate your statements as I would be interested in these facts:
..they (marine engines) operate at a higher rpm range. Aren't most marine engines tuned for low end torque, and thus cruising rpm ranges are kept fairly low compared to automotive car engines?
The fuel today contains alcohol and no lubricant. How much alcohol, and what chemical type? Did fuel previously have lubricants that have since been reduced or removed?
Everything in the upper cylinder area is hot and dry. Then why doesn't it sieze due to this apparent lack of lubrication? Do the engineers not calculate the operating temperatures for all parts of the engine, including the combustion area to select the proper alloys to use? Sure, it may be hot, but it is designed to be, in order to combust the fuel properly. Should the fact that the engines continue to operate for years and years with the maintenace specified in the manual not be enough to conclude that the combustion chamber is not overly hot or dry?
It is a great place for carbon to form and stick. Why? There is great emphasis on achieving proper flame front propagation as well as ensuring a fairly uniform temperature so that there are not undue hot or cold spots that may decrease efficiency.
I would be interested in any information that would educate me in this regard.
"For every 100 hours of operation on a marine engine, that would be equivalent to 10,000 miles on a land based vehicle's engine."
And your point is? After all, even after 200,000 miles a modern automobile engine should have precious little (as in virtually non-existent) evidence of carbon deposits.
"Even with the new technology, (direct fuel injection), on two cycle outboards, carbon formation from the fuel, (not the oil), is a BIG maintenance problem."
I have a problem with that statement as well. Assuming a modern fuel injected engine is properly leaned (regardless of its stroke count), there will be virtually zero carbon deposits left behind from the fuel. My guess is that if there is carbon, it is from the burned oil, not the fuel. Then again, maybe 2-Stroke engines cannot be leaned past stoichiometric, I doubt that but since I have not studied the 2-Stroke leaning process I must consider it as a very distant possibility.
"You will see the results of operational problems faster on a marine engine, because they work harder and they operate at a higher RPM."
Hmmm, it seems to me that piston airplane engines work even harder pound for pound and cubic inch for cubic inch, and yet they accumulate virtually no carbon deposits after thousands of hours, regardless of the fuel type. All of this of course assumes that the operator of said engine leaned properly.
"The modern fuel today is causing engine damage through the formation of carbon in the upper cylinder area."
Sorry, not buying. Since the advent of properly controlled fuel injection systems, I have never heard of, read about or seen any evidence of upper cylinder carbon, except of course from you. Do you have any scientific research to back up what you are saying?
"The fuel today contains alcohol and no lubricant."
Are we to infer from that statement that you think that fuel used to contain lubricant? Preposterous! To the best of my knowledge, fuel has not contained any lubricative properties since at least the mid to late 1920s.
"Everything in the upper cylinder area is "hot and dry". It is a great place for carbon to form and stick."
Another highly suspect comment. It is supposed to be dry (forgetting for the moment the water vapor that is a by-product of combustion). The reason that carbon doesn't stick to everything is that there shouldn't be any left behind after combustion, once again, assuming a properly leaned engine.
Biggest problem with marine engines is that they run too cold and generally not so high rpm as a car. Now if you are talking about two-stroke outboards, then I can see carbon being more of an issue of course.
Yep, more bilge water, little facts to back it up.
Other than once with my last 1990 Taurus, which was experiencing a rough idle once it got in the upper 70K mile range, did I ever use any fuel additive, or need any, and this was an injector cleaner, not any decarburization stuff. The additive did seem to do it's job and then I went back to just using plain old gas from the lowest priced station I could find, like I have for all my driving life.
In 40 years of driving I have yet to experience a carboned up engine, in a climate that sees all kinds of weather. All this bolony about requiring upper engine lubricants and devices to eliminate carbon deposits is pure bunk with modern engines.
More likely, in my estimation, is if you add any kind of lubricant to gas, you would be more likely to have carbon buildup, as those lubricants can never burn as cleanly as straight lighter gasolene.
Additionally, the 10% ethanol used in many modern fuels actually would burn even cleaner than regular gas. Ever see ethanol burn? No smoke at all!(Smoke is unburned carbon particles by the way.)
Facts: Marine, (inboard and I/O), engines operate between 175 and 190 degrees. These are automobile and truck engines, that have been converted for marine use. Most cruise at about 3,200 RPM, which pushes the average 27' cruiser at about 20 mph. These engines still have the automotive cam in the block, which is why they have "valve overlap", and water intake problems, which is another issue. Lead was the lubricant in the old fuel formula. A land based vehicle at 2,000 rpm will do about 60 mph.
What I meant was that you never redline in a boat engine, you aren't constantly shifting. Your rpm is steady. As for 190 degrees, by car standards that is on the cold side. Most cars run near 212 and often beyond because of pressurized systems, turbo heat and heat being trapped under a hood. Automotive gauges are often made a bit "slow" and are often not numbered, so as not to alarm people to the actual high temperatures.
"Facts: ...Lead was the lubricant used in the old fuel formula..."
Ummm, sorry, you got it wrong again. A fact it is not, an "Old Wives Tail", yes, an "Urban Legend", yes. A fact? No. Lead is not now nor had it ever been a gasoline borne lubricant for internal combustion engines. This falls into the category of something that has been repeated so often that folks "think" that it's so.
"Did you ever read about "lead" in the fuel? Lead is a lubricant!"
Dude, you have consistently proven to be quite a source of entertainment for this topic (and apparently several others as well), and for that we all owe you a tip of our hats, however, as a source of information regarding intermittent combustion piston engines, you have proven to be a source of misinformation on an almost epic scale. Maybe that's your plan; to offer information that is so blatantly wrong that folks have no choice but to disregard it and then do their own research in an effort to get it right. If that's the case, then thanks, you've been a great help.
Regarding Tetraethyl Lead (TEL), it was discovered to be an effective Anti-Knock agent in automotive gasoline by a certain Mr. Thomas Midgely (the same guy who gave us Freon as a coolant) who worked for Charles Kettering, then the head of General Motors. This happened shortly after WWI, and by the early to mid 1920s TEL was well on its way to becoming a standard ingredient in both aviation and automotive grade gasolines.
The reason that TEL is so important is that it served to delay the organization of the flame front just a little, allowing the fuel to burn in a controlled manner instead of simply exploding. Think of it this way, conventional gasoline of the era went "BANG" when the spark plug sparked, and that was hard on pistons, valves and gaskets and everything connect to them. With the addition of TEL, the fuel went more like "WOOSH" when the spark plug sparked, and that was MUCH easier on the various internal engine components. It had NOTHING to do with lubrication of the valve seat/valve face interface.
To take it a step further, unless a remedial scavenger was added to the witches brew called gasoline, the lead simply hung around and made a general mess of the combustion chamber, the spark plugs, the exhaust system and the rings. The scavenging agents that were finally settled upon were bromide salts, which by the way are not only not a lubricating agent, they are actually abrasive, so much so that the aviation community has been trying to eliminate them from aviation grade gasoline for at least 60 years!
Please, for your own sake, take the advice you so smugly offered to vcheng and "Search the net on the subject!"
Kind soul that I am, I will actually give you a bit of a start.
For two references discussing why Mr. Midgely developed TEL application in the first place (please note, any mention of the lubricating qualities of lead is consciously absent from both dialogs):
The three following links regarding issues with leaded aviation fuels were published by the NACA (precursor to NASA) back in the 1940s, and once again, please note that striving to replace the lost lubricity of lead is noticeably absent from these dialogs. What is present however is documentation showing the effort to find an octane enhancer/anti-knock agent to replace TEL has been going on for at least 60 years.
There are many scientific studies regarding the effects of lead on the burning properties of gasoline. Said studies are well documented and readily accessible, however, literally every reference that I have ever seen, heard or read that supports your claims have been simply anecdotal or hearsay. To the best of my knowledge, there has NEVER been any scientific evidence to support the "Lubricity Theory" as I am going to call it. In fact, if you have a reference to valid scientific evidence to support your Lubricity Theory, I would love to see it. If you can provide such, I will humbly retract everything I have written about you being misinformed and gladly eat a huge helping of crow. ;-)
I note that my LeSabres have about 194-198 degrees as the measured temp for cooling water. Is this measured at a location where the water is returning from the radiator and is cooler than the water around the cylinder heads?
Thatkeeps the reading lower than the effective water temperature in the jackets. I notice that this reading flucuates with the type of driving environment at the time.
You've got to be kidding, that last post of yours must have been a joke. I asked you for scientific evidence and/or published scientific research to support your unfounded assertion that TEL is some kind of a lubricant for engine valves. Instead of offering something of value to this discussion you offer the following:
Site 1) http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-13239.html -- A message board/FAQ site that lets just any Tom, Dick or Sally offer their opinions. Yeah, I think that I'm going to believe a poster named "IDbuffalo" over the NACA.
Site 2) http://www.epa.gov/seahome/leadenv/src/leadg.htm -- Hmmm, from the EPA, that looked like it might have had a little promise. It even starts out looking good for your case as well with an opening sentence of, "Leaded gasoline was first used in the 1920's as a lubricant." Unfortunately it offers no reference to supporting science, and given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it becomes an irrelevant source of information. My guess is that the writer for the EPA just parroted the "Lubricity Theory" Old Wives Tail without even checking to see if it was true.
Site 3) http://www.asbcc.com/mboard/messages/495.html -- Yikes, another message board, and this one doesn't even work. Now there’s a resource that I can really sink my teeth into.
In the end, I'm afraid that you are going to have to try a little harder than this last effort to prove your point.
You know, it depends on where they put the sensor. In reality, the only accurate way to measure temperature might be with either a thermometer (tough because then you have to depressurize the system) or an external sensing device.
Most modern cars can run at 220-230 degrees with no problem I'm told.
Also keep in mind that car engine temperatures vary a lot more than boat engines. You don't find too many boats in bumper to bumper traffic, and usually ambient temps are cooler on the water. Last of all, you have heat exchangers on boats, which offer a constant supply of cool water.
should be in that 225 range after the system is hot enough it's pressurized. The temps with the electronic readout have gotten to 212 and up to 217 after the cooling fans kicked on in the summer, but it goes back to 204 and such really quickly. That's why I think the temp gauge is reading the temp of water coming in from the radiator.
I am still listening to the automotive repair show on my radio. The mechanic just talked about the tetraethyl lead serving to "lubricate" the valves in an engine on a 1968? Camaro. Someone called in with the question about the lack of leaded fuels now.
To be a lubricant for one metal against another a material doesn't have to be an oil. He said that the material left after burning is lead. And he said that additives put in every few tanks of fuel will serve to keep the valve lubed.
to all: Why not just let the topic drop. I've read enough rudeness for one day.
1.) As little as a 10% reduction in fuel flow from an injector can result in driveability problems. These problems include: uneven engine idle, reduced power, poor fuel economy, hard starting and stalling.
2.) Valve deposits are more fuel related, and much harder since today's engines are built to tighter tolerances, and the valves are exposed to less oil through the valve guides, and there is a lack of a lubricant in the modern fuel.
3.) Intake valve deposits affect the flow characteristics of the air / fuel mixture robbing the engine of power.
4.) Intake valve deposits also absorb fuel on "start-up", until they become saturated. As a result, these deposits can cause a lean condition during warm up. Short trips contribute to this type of deposit formation. Short trips also contribute to the formation of "sludge" in the crankcase!
5.) Here are a list of some operational symptoms which are caused by poor fuel distribution and / or by faulty fuel injectors: a.) Hard Starting b.) Poor Fuel Economy c.) Rough Idle d.) Engine runs fine when cold, and terrible when warm e.) Engine will start just fine when cold, and not when warm f.) Getting a fuel smell inside the vehicle g.) Loss of power on acceleration h.) Fuel leaking from injector seals or the injector
6.) Fuel injectors should be kept clean, on an on-going basis, with a gasoline additive that is introduced into the tank at the time of "fill up"! To keep the engine running efficiently, the injectors should be replaced every 100,000 miles, as a regular maintenance item. They should be replaced because the internal parts start to weaken and malfunction, and as a result, the fuel injector will not open and close properly. Most fuel injectors can remain in operation for a long period of time, by cleaning them on an "on-going basis", but eventually, the constant movement of the internal parts causes the fuel injector to just wear out. (Remember, there is no lubrication in the fuel).
7.) Using a high quality fuel will always help to keep the injectors clean, which will make the injectors perform better and last longer overtime
8.) Fuel injectors suffer from deposits that can build up around the injector nozzle. Deposits can also build up inside the injector and reduce the amount of fuel being delivered.
9.) When the fuel delivery decreases, the injector pulse width will increase, creating additional heat in the injector.
10.) Classic symptoms of dirty injectors: a.) Lean misfire b.) Rough idle c.) Hesitation d.) Stumbling on light acceleration e.) Loss of power f.) Higher Hydrocarbons g.) Higher Carbon Monoxide
11.) It doesn't take much of a restriction in an injector to "lean out" the fuel mixture. Only an 8 -to - 10% restriction in a single fuel injector can be enough to cause a misfire, (and related engine damage).
12.) The shape and orifice size of the nozzle determines: a.) How much fuel flows through the injector b.) The shape of the spray pattern. Injector deposits play a roll in the spray patterns over time.
If fuel deposits accumulate in the nozzle area, it can restrict fuel delivery, and break up the spray pattern causing a lean fuel condition, (and related engine damage).
13.) Deposits come from the fuel itself. The formation of these deposits is a normal consequence of engine operation. Detergents are added to the fuel by gasoline refiners to help keep the injectors clean. The build up of deposits can quickly outpace the cleaning efforts of the added fuel detergents, ---(if the vehicle is used primarily for short trip driving). Injector clogging also can be accelerated by the type of fuel used. (Not all fuels have the same quality of additive packages).
14.) On the other side of the fuel system, we have the electric fuel pump.
Pumps fail because: a.) The pumps run constantly b.) After many years of service, they can experience wear in the: ----armature, brushes, bushings, and commutator c.) Pump vanes, rollers and gears can also wear causing a gradual loss of pressure and flow. d.) Fuel pumps rely on fuel passing through it for lubrication and cooling. Remember, there is alcohol in the fuel, and no lubricant. e.) Fuel starvation, (low fuel level in the tank), can be another factor that accelerates wear.
For every 100 hours of operation on a marine engine, that would be equivalent to 10,000 miles on a land based vehicle's engine. I disagree, it would be more like 4,000 miles.
Products such as "carbon guard" and "sea foam" are used in both 2 and 4 cycle engines to remove this carbon and keep it from forming on the pistons, valves and rings. Even with the new technology, (direct fuel injection), on two cycle outboards, carbon formation from the fuel, (not the oil), is a BIG maintenance problem. I won't even address this one, as all the marine engines I work on will never see those additives.
You will see the results of operational problems faster on a marine engine, because they work harder and they operate at a higher RPM. Most of the gas marine engines I work on will never see more than 3,500 rpms. Far less than any automotive engine. Diesels rarely see above 2,500 rpms. So that comment is not accurate.
The same land based engine might take three times the mileage to develop the same problem. Acutally, it is the other way around, unless you are refering to electrical, then marine sees more problems.
The modern fuel today is causing engine damage through the formation of carbon in the upper cylinder area. The fuel today contains alcohol and no lubricant. Only in California. Not in every state and as far as the lubricant, only diesel fuel has that problem and even that is addressed by the manufacturers.
Marine, (inboard and I/O), engines operate between 175 and 190 degrees. Rarely do any of the marine inboard engiens run above 180 degrees.
These are automobile and truck engines, that have been converted for marine use. WRONG, not even close. The heads and most blocks are different, even though automotive heads will fit, the coolant passages on the marine engines are different.
These engines still have the automotive cam in the block, which is why they have "valve overlap", and water intake problems, which is another issue. Wrong again. First, there are no LH rotation automotive cams made, they are all marine. While automotive cams will work, there are specific marine cams made and used.
A land based vehicle at 2,000 rpm will do about 60 mph. On a long flat stretch with OD. Put it on a hill and that changes. Look at it realistically and those rpms go up.
I agree with your comments, but..... To the best of my knowledge, fuel has not contained any lubricative properties since at least the mid to late 1920s. Lead was the lubricant up until the mid 80s when leaded fuel was done away with.
I guess you work on boats, but you don't own a pleasure boat! The average 27' boat,(cruiser), ----(SeaRay, Larson, Rinker, Bayliner, Doral, Maxum), with a single 7.4 V8 MerCruiser gasoline engine, and a Bravo 3 I/O drive will "plane out" at a minimum of 3,200 rpm, (20mph). The maximum range of the engine in terms of RPM would be 4,600 RPM. For these engines, every 100 operating hours is equivalent to 10,000 miles. The average cruiser runs between 3,200 and 4,000 RPM. This is why the life span of these engines is very short, and YES, they are converted automotive engines with the automotive cam. They do have "valve overlap",(because of the automotive cam) and they do injest water into the cylinders in a following sea, or in a quick shut down from a "planing attitude." I am not referring to older diesel engines. Even new diesel engines run at high RPMs. Get your facts straight! The marinas are selling a new fuel called ValveTec for both 2 and 4 cycle, gas and diesel engines. I contains a lubricant in the fuel for the upper cylinder area of the engine. You work on marine engines. I am surprised that you do not know about this product!!!!!!!! Yes Sea Foam and Carbon Guard are used in many marine engines. It is the additive of choice in the fuel for many boaters who run outboard motors. Carbon gets behind the rings on the pistons, and locks them in the lands. This action destroys the power head. People who run Evinrude, Johnson, Suzuki, Mercury and Yamaha outboards use a "carbon control product in the fuel". In terms of the four cycle marine engines, there are other products on the market for that purpose. Valve Tec makes one of these products.
I'd be rather freaked out to have to replace the injectors on a Porsche every 100K miles. That's going to be a mighty expensive 100K service!
the only injector problems I've had have been on diesel cars (common problem) and very very old cars, where the injectors actually start to rust internally.
I dose my cars with a strong, mean and nasty fuel additive about once a year, that seems to do the trick.
If car engines suddenly gave all the trouble and required all the maintenance of marine engines, most owners would revolt. Marine conditions are much more severe, corrosive and laborious for the engine. Push a barrel through air and then through water and you'll see.
Injectors are no longer efficient after 100,000 miles of use. When Carbs. were on engines, they were rebuilt long before 50,000 miles, and by 100,000 miles they were replaced with a new unit. Injectors simply wear out over time. They are an electromechanical device, and as such, they wear out over time. Yes, they will continue to work after 100,000 miles, but they have lost their efficiency. Whether or not you use any kind of additive is not important. That is your choice. It doesn't mean your are right, and I am wrong. It simply means that we have made an individual choice on this subject. I believe in 3,000 mile oil and filter changes, you may have a different opinion. After 100,000 miles I do not consider any vehicle to be dependable, and I choose not to own it! On the other hand, there are people who will run their vehicles up over 200,000 miles, because they are willing to spend the money on repairs to keep these vehicles on the road. I would rather spend my money on a new vehicle, with new technology, because you only live once, and I want to enjoy life right up until the very end. In terms of fuel, I choose to use a fuel additive at every fill up, because I feel that the quality of the fuel today is "garbage". That is my opinion, and you a welcome to your opinion on this subject. It doesn't mean that you are right, and I am wrong! I drive Honda vehicles today, because they are the best quality for the money, and they hold their value. If I let my emotions rule my vehicle purchase decisions, I would rather drive a PT Cruiser, or a Dodge Intrepid, or a Dodge Suv, but the quality of the Chrysler Vehicles is poor, they do not hold their value, and they have major oil related problems with their engines. (Some PT Cruisers are know to burn large quantities of oil. This is possibly a "blow-by" condition that causes the PVC system to pull oil out of the crankase. Some Dodge truck and SUV engines produce "sludge" (2.7 engine). The Dodge Intrepid has engine, brake and steering issues.)You see, everyone has opinions based on their experience and research. I choose to maintain my vehicles in a certain manner. If you disagree with that "process", that is "ok" with me as long as we don't get personal!
Nothing personal at all and I didn't say I was "right" and you were "wrong".
I did, however, walk out into our shop where two long term technicians were working. I asked them..." How often do we replace injectors on a Honda?"
One guy..." Never" The other tech..." Well...almost never but very rarely...I can't remember when I last changed any injectors".
I don't know, maybe other makes have a higher failure rate?
So, I guess maybe I haven't been so "lucky" after all!
I just wonder why you take such preventative care of your cars when you dump them before 100,000 miles? Hell, an abused Honda that rarely gets an oil change will go farther than that!
Haven't had the need to replace an injector on any engine in over 20 years. My Camry still has the originals at 170,000 miles. Use a concentrated injector cleaner about every tankful though along with 7500 mile changes with synthetic.
Here in New York, on radio, a company called Evergreen America is advertising an additive that is put in the gas, oil, and transmission fluid called MotorSilk. They claim it was developed by NASA and is used by our military in all vehicles. It supposed to be based on a metallic compound. The three package set, which only has to be added once in the life of the car costs about $75. Anyone out there have any comments or experience with this product? I've got a 2001 Acura CL TypeS S that runs just great the way it is now but I've got to admit I'm intrigued!
... will make you healthy, wealthy and wise. You will be virile and attractive for always and always, and your heart's deepest desires will all come true. REALLY! Just try it out, it was after all developed by NASA and is used by our military, therefore it must be all good! And if you sign up for our long term maintenance plan, it will make you and your vehicle immortal. All this for four easy payments of 29.95! And if you call within the next thirty minutes, we will throw in mini-MotorSilk for your pet at no charge. (Please specify cat or dog.)
Actually, I owned a 32' cabin cruiser with twin 302s. velvet drives with 14" props. The both turn about 2800 rpms.
I also own a 44' fishing boat with twin Perkins 6 cylinders that turn about 2000 rpsm.
This boat is a work boat, not a pleasurecraft.
The last boat is a 20' Searay with a 351 windsor and a Mercruiser outdrive. I does run int the 3500 rpm range, but mainly because it was designed to go fast.
And yes, I have used Seafoam.
I live in an area where the toughest boats in the world are run (Pacific Ocean at the Columbia River) and used to work on my step dad's fishing vessels in the toughest waters in the world (Bristol Bay).
Believe what you want to believe. Doesn't hurt my feelings. But remember, before you make personal attacks, read the rules of this forum again.
[quote from EvergreenAmerica website]creates a permanent Crystal Lattice Structure on all metal surfaces - 85% the hardness of a diamond - virtually eliminating friction and wear in fluid systems. [end quote]
This is just like the additive manufacturers who claimed that Teflon in their product sticks to the cylinder lining. Not possible. Teflon requires a special primer to adhere to anything.
Anytime someone makes the comments, crystal, ballbearing or teflon in an additive, I wonder how much harm it is doing, instead of good.
Crystals are not smooth, are not a lubricant and have no lubricating properties, so I am not sure how that would prevent wear.
I checked out the http://www.evergreenamerica.com link as well as the http://www.motorbond.com link (a site dedicated to Motor Silk), and found zero supporting evidence that this stuff works. None, zero, zip, nada. True they say lots of stuff like "Tested by Argonne National Labs" and "Developed and Patented by the U.S. Government, Patent number 5431830", but they somehow forgot to publish the actual scientific supporting evidence from even one of the testing agencies that they refer to. Odd.
Then I looked up that patent on the USPTO web site, and Shock of all shocks, it's not assigned to the government, it's assigned to an individual. An individual who by the way happens to live in Argonne, IL. Hmmm, is it possible that it was developed by an employee of ANL, who used government labs to test his personal project? Could be.
I then checked the ANL web site and could find no reference to "Motor Silk" or "Boron CLS" or anything else even remotely connected with this stuff. Hmmm again. This stuff is starting to sound like Snake Oil. Gee, what a surprise.
Think about it this way. If this stuff was the REAL DEAL, and if I were marketing it, given the bad reputation in the market for additives in general, I would have a down loadable PDF of EVERY test plastered all over the splash page of my web site. Did they do that? Nope. They just followed the time honored tradition of other products of their ilk (Motor Honey, MMO, Royal Purple, etc...) of posting wonderful sounding claims, and even referenced (apparently) non existent tests (or presented them in a light that is essentially a lie).
In the end, unless someone can come up with a few scientific studies of the long term efficacy of Motor Silk, I hereby dub it "Snake Oil".
I just saw an infomercial about some Mossionite(sp) gem that is clearer and brighter than a diamond at lower cost. A little later they slipped in the word silicon carbide. Don't think she would be impressed with a hunk of sandpaper on her finger. I love the spins they can put on anything. Does anyone here really think that 20% of you engine power goes to friction?
Developed by NASA, used by our military AND endorsed by Shipo!
What more evidence does one need? Just send four easy payments of 29.99 and start contributing to our national security by reducing dependence on foreign oil, and help save the caribou in Alaska too!
that when you wrap your engine in it, it never gets cold on a minnesota winter night. in two weeks, your engine turns into a MotorButterfly! your drivers license turns into a flying license!! and you can throw bombs out your windows and avenge all your bad investments in snake oil products!!!
I prefer to drop cans of Marvel Mystery Oil, and let them wonder what hit 'em :-D
"we haf tested MotorSilk undt can substantiate all of its major claims. we can not publish our test results and methodology due to pending registrations with the government by the maker, und by a contract must refer all inquiries of detail to the maker."
that takes care of THAT, and I could use the $500 LOL
Back in the late sixties, there was an additive company called Motor Purr. They sent areound to shops and gas stations peddling their wares.
I remember they sold a auto transmission sealer like none other. As a demonstration they had a wheel cylinder cup in a bottle of it. After a couple of hours, the seal would swell to twice it's normal size.
And they sold the BEST radiator sealer. It looked like honey with brass filings in it. It would stop the leak without fail. It also had a nasty tendency to plug up your heater core.
Comments
Sounds like you are describing a heavily "coked" car--by cleaning out the carbon you have only cured the symptom, not the cause. If indeed that engine carbonized so much as to cause sticking rings or a leaking valve, then there's something wrong with that engine or its management systems. That was my point---not that carbonization doesn't happen but that when it does, it's because of a defect, not because it's something modern engines are 'subject to' as a rule.
These are normally on high mileage cars and the problem rarely comes back.
..they (marine engines) operate at a higher rpm range. Aren't most marine engines tuned for low end torque, and thus cruising rpm ranges are kept fairly low compared to automotive car engines?
The fuel today contains alcohol and no lubricant. How much alcohol, and what chemical type? Did fuel previously have lubricants that have since been reduced or removed?
Everything in the upper cylinder area is hot and dry. Then why doesn't it sieze due to this apparent lack of lubrication? Do the engineers not calculate the operating temperatures for all parts of the engine, including the combustion area to select the proper alloys to use? Sure, it may be hot, but it is designed to be, in order to combust the fuel properly. Should the fact that the engines continue to operate for years and years with the maintenace specified in the manual not be enough to conclude that the combustion chamber is not overly hot or dry?
It is a great place for carbon to form and stick. Why? There is great emphasis on achieving proper flame front propagation as well as ensuring a fairly uniform temperature so that there are not undue hot or cold spots that may decrease efficiency.
I would be interested in any information that would educate me in this regard.
Thanks.
"For every 100 hours of operation on a marine engine, that would be equivalent to 10,000 miles on a land based vehicle's engine."
And your point is? After all, even after 200,000 miles a modern automobile engine should have precious little (as in virtually non-existent) evidence of carbon deposits.
"Even with the new technology, (direct fuel injection), on two cycle outboards, carbon formation from the fuel, (not the oil), is a BIG maintenance problem."
I have a problem with that statement as well. Assuming a modern fuel injected engine is properly leaned (regardless of its stroke count), there will be virtually zero carbon deposits left behind from the fuel. My guess is that if there is carbon, it is from the burned oil, not the fuel. Then again, maybe 2-Stroke engines cannot be leaned past stoichiometric, I doubt that but since I have not studied the 2-Stroke leaning process I must consider it as a very distant possibility.
"You will see the results of operational problems faster on a marine engine, because they work harder and they operate at a higher RPM."
Hmmm, it seems to me that piston airplane engines work even harder pound for pound and cubic inch for cubic inch, and yet they accumulate virtually no carbon deposits after thousands of hours, regardless of the fuel type. All of this of course assumes that the operator of said engine leaned properly.
"The modern fuel today is causing engine damage through the formation of carbon in the upper cylinder area."
Sorry, not buying. Since the advent of properly controlled fuel injection systems, I have never heard of, read about or seen any evidence of upper cylinder carbon, except of course from you. Do you have any scientific research to back up what you are saying?
"The fuel today contains alcohol and no lubricant."
Are we to infer from that statement that you think that fuel used to contain lubricant? Preposterous! To the best of my knowledge, fuel has not contained any lubricative properties since at least the mid to late 1920s.
"Everything in the upper cylinder area is "hot and dry". It is a great place for carbon to form and stick."
Another highly suspect comment. It is supposed to be dry (forgetting for the moment the water vapor that is a by-product of combustion). The reason that carbon doesn't stick to everything is that there shouldn't be any left behind after combustion, once again, assuming a properly leaned engine.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Other than once with my last 1990 Taurus, which was experiencing a rough idle once it got in the upper 70K mile range, did I ever use any fuel additive, or need any, and this was an injector cleaner, not any decarburization stuff. The additive did seem to do it's job and then I went back to just using plain old gas from the lowest priced station I could find, like I have for all my driving life.
In 40 years of driving I have yet to experience a carboned up engine, in a climate that sees all kinds of weather. All this bolony about requiring upper engine lubricants and devices to eliminate carbon deposits is pure bunk with modern engines.
More likely, in my estimation, is if you add any kind of lubricant to gas, you would be more likely to have carbon buildup, as those lubricants can never burn as cleanly as straight lighter gasolene.
Additionally, the 10% ethanol used in many modern fuels actually would burn even cleaner than regular gas. Ever see ethanol burn? No smoke at all!(Smoke is unburned carbon particles by the way.)
Marine, (inboard and I/O), engines operate between 175 and 190 degrees. These are automobile and truck engines, that have been converted for marine use. Most cruise at about 3,200 RPM, which pushes the average 27' cruiser at about 20 mph. These engines still have the automotive cam in the block, which is why they have "valve overlap", and water intake problems, which is another issue. Lead was the lubricant in the old fuel formula. A land based vehicle at 2,000 rpm will do about 60 mph.
...Lead was the lubricant used in the old fuel formula..."
Ummm, sorry, you got it wrong again. A fact it is not, an "Old Wives Tail", yes, an "Urban Legend", yes. A fact? No. Lead is not now nor had it ever been a gasoline borne lubricant for internal combustion engines. This falls into the category of something that has been repeated so often that folks "think" that it's so.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Dude, you have consistently proven to be quite a source of entertainment for this topic (and apparently several others as well), and for that we all owe you a tip of our hats, however, as a source of information regarding intermittent combustion piston engines, you have proven to be a source of misinformation on an almost epic scale. Maybe that's your plan; to offer information that is so blatantly wrong that folks have no choice but to disregard it and then do their own research in an effort to get it right. If that's the case, then thanks, you've been a great help.
Regarding Tetraethyl Lead (TEL), it was discovered to be an effective Anti-Knock agent in automotive gasoline by a certain Mr. Thomas Midgely (the same guy who gave us Freon as a coolant) who worked for Charles Kettering, then the head of General Motors. This happened shortly after WWI, and by the early to mid 1920s TEL was well on its way to becoming a standard ingredient in both aviation and automotive grade gasolines.
The reason that TEL is so important is that it served to delay the organization of the flame front just a little, allowing the fuel to burn in a controlled manner instead of simply exploding. Think of it this way, conventional gasoline of the era went "BANG" when the spark plug sparked, and that was hard on pistons, valves and gaskets and everything connect to them. With the addition of TEL, the fuel went more like "WOOSH" when the spark plug sparked, and that was MUCH easier on the various internal engine components. It had NOTHING to do with lubrication of the valve seat/valve face interface.
To take it a step further, unless a remedial scavenger was added to the witches brew called gasoline, the lead simply hung around and made a general mess of the combustion chamber, the spark plugs, the exhaust system and the rings. The scavenging agents that were finally settled upon were bromide salts, which by the way are not only not a lubricating agent, they are actually abrasive, so much so that the aviation community has been trying to eliminate them from aviation grade gasoline for at least 60 years!
Please, for your own sake, take the advice you so smugly offered to vcheng and "Search the net on the subject!"
Kind soul that I am, I will actually give you a bit of a start.
For two references discussing why Mr. Midgely developed TEL application in the first place (please note, any mention of the lubricating qualities of lead is consciously absent from both dialogs):
http://www.1903to2003.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/piston_en- - gines/Tech23.htm
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi684.htm
The three following links regarding issues with leaded aviation fuels were published by the NACA (precursor to NASA) back in the 1940s, and once again, please note that striving to replace the lost lubricity of lead is noticeably absent from these dialogs. What is present however is documentation showing the effort to find an octane enhancer/anti-knock agent to replace TEL has been going on for at least 60 years.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-wr-e-181/naca-wr-e-18- - 1.pdf
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-wr-e-183/naca-wr-e-18- - 3.pdf
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1949/naca-rm-9d13/naca-rm-9d13.- - pdf
There are many scientific studies regarding the effects of lead on the burning properties of gasoline. Said studies are well documented and readily accessible, however, literally every reference that I have ever seen, heard or read that supports your claims have been simply anecdotal or hearsay. To the best of my knowledge, there has NEVER been any scientific evidence to support the "Lubricity Theory" as I am going to call it. In fact, if you have a reference to valid scientific evidence to support your Lubricity Theory, I would love to see it. If you can provide such, I will humbly retract everything I have written about you being misinformed and gladly eat a huge helping of crow. ;-)
I await your response.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Thatkeeps the reading lower than the effective water temperature in the jackets. I notice that this reading flucuates with the type of driving environment at the time.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://www.epa.gov/seahome/leadenv/src/leadg.htm
http://www.asbcc.com/mboard/messages/495.html
Site 1) http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-13239.html -- A message board/FAQ site that lets just any Tom, Dick or Sally offer their opinions. Yeah, I think that I'm going to believe a poster named "IDbuffalo" over the NACA.
Site 2) http://www.epa.gov/seahome/leadenv/src/leadg.htm -- Hmmm, from the EPA, that looked like it might have had a little promise. It even starts out looking good for your case as well with an opening sentence of, "Leaded gasoline was first used in the 1920's as a lubricant." Unfortunately it offers no reference to supporting science, and given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it becomes an irrelevant source of information. My guess is that the writer for the EPA just parroted the "Lubricity Theory" Old Wives Tail without even checking to see if it was true.
Site 3) http://www.asbcc.com/mboard/messages/495.html -- Yikes, another message board, and this one doesn't even work. Now there’s a resource that I can really sink my teeth into.
In the end, I'm afraid that you are going to have to try a little harder than this last effort to prove your point.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Most modern cars can run at 220-230 degrees with no problem I'm told.
Also keep in mind that car engine temperatures vary a lot more than boat engines. You don't find too many boats in bumper to bumper traffic, and usually ambient temps are cooler on the water. Last of all, you have heat exchangers on boats, which offer a constant supply of cool water.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
shipo is the one who has his facts right. Time to back off I would think.
To be a lubricant for one metal against another a material doesn't have to be an oil. He said that the material left after burning is lead. And he said that additives put in every few tanks of fuel will serve to keep the valve lubed.
to all: Why not just let the topic drop. I've read enough rudeness for one day.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2.) Valve deposits are more fuel related, and much harder since today's engines are built to tighter tolerances, and the valves are exposed to less oil through the valve guides, and there is a lack of a lubricant in the modern fuel.
3.) Intake valve deposits affect the flow characteristics of the air / fuel mixture robbing the engine of power.
4.) Intake valve deposits also absorb fuel on "start-up", until they become saturated. As a result, these deposits can cause a lean condition during warm up. Short trips contribute to this type of deposit formation. Short trips also contribute to the formation of "sludge" in the crankcase!
5.) Here are a list of some operational symptoms which are caused by poor fuel distribution and / or by faulty fuel injectors:
a.) Hard Starting
b.) Poor Fuel Economy
c.) Rough Idle
d.) Engine runs fine when cold, and
terrible when warm
e.) Engine will start just fine when cold,
and not when warm
f.) Getting a fuel smell inside the vehicle
g.) Loss of power on acceleration
h.) Fuel leaking from injector seals or
the injector
6.) Fuel injectors should be kept clean, on an on-going basis, with a gasoline additive that is introduced into the tank at the time of "fill up"! To keep the engine running efficiently, the injectors should be replaced every 100,000 miles, as a regular maintenance item. They should be replaced because the internal parts start to weaken and malfunction, and as a result, the fuel injector will not open and close properly. Most fuel injectors can remain in operation for a long period of time, by cleaning them on an "on-going basis", but eventually, the constant movement of the internal parts causes the fuel injector to just wear out. (Remember, there is no lubrication in the fuel).
7.) Using a high quality fuel will always help to keep the injectors clean, which will make the injectors perform better and last longer overtime
8.) Fuel injectors suffer from deposits that can build up around the injector nozzle. Deposits can also build up inside the injector and reduce the amount of fuel being delivered.
9.) When the fuel delivery decreases, the injector pulse width will increase, creating additional heat in the injector.
10.) Classic symptoms of dirty injectors:
a.) Lean misfire
b.) Rough idle
c.) Hesitation
d.) Stumbling on light acceleration
e.) Loss of power
f.) Higher Hydrocarbons
g.) Higher Carbon Monoxide
11.) It doesn't take much of a restriction in an injector to "lean out" the fuel mixture. Only an 8 -to - 10% restriction in a single fuel injector can be enough to cause a misfire, (and related engine damage).
12.) The shape and orifice size of the nozzle determines:
a.) How much fuel flows through the injector
b.) The shape of the spray pattern. Injector deposits play a roll in the spray patterns over time.
If fuel deposits accumulate in the nozzle area, it can restrict fuel delivery, and break up the spray pattern causing a lean fuel condition, (and related engine damage).
13.) Deposits come from the fuel itself. The formation of these deposits is a normal consequence of engine operation. Detergents are added to the fuel by gasoline refiners to help keep the injectors clean. The build up of deposits can quickly outpace the cleaning efforts of the added fuel detergents, ---(if the vehicle is used primarily for short trip driving). Injector clogging also can be accelerated by the type of fuel used. (Not all fuels have the same quality of additive packages).
14.) On the other side of the fuel system, we have the electric fuel pump.
Pumps fail because:
a.) The pumps run constantly
b.) After many years of service, they can experience wear in the: ----armature, brushes, bushings, and commutator
c.) Pump vanes, rollers and gears can also wear causing a gradual loss of pressure and flow.
d.) Fuel pumps rely on fuel passing through it for lubrication and cooling. Remember, there is alcohol in the fuel, and no lubricant.
e.) Fuel starvation, (low fuel level in the tank), can be another factor that accelerates wear.
I disagree, it would be more like 4,000 miles.
Products such as "carbon guard" and "sea foam" are used in both 2 and 4 cycle engines to remove this carbon and keep it from forming on the pistons, valves and rings. Even with the new technology, (direct fuel injection), on two cycle outboards, carbon formation from the fuel, (not the oil), is a BIG maintenance problem.
I won't even address this one, as all the marine engines I work on will never see those additives.
You will see the results of operational problems faster on a marine engine, because they work harder and they operate at a higher RPM.
Most of the gas marine engines I work on will never see more than 3,500 rpms. Far less than any automotive engine. Diesels rarely see above 2,500 rpms. So that comment is not accurate.
The same land based engine might take three times the mileage to develop the same problem.
Acutally, it is the other way around, unless you are refering to electrical, then marine sees more problems.
The modern fuel today is causing engine damage through the formation of carbon in the upper cylinder area. The fuel today contains alcohol and no lubricant.
Only in California. Not in every state and as far as the lubricant, only diesel fuel has that problem and even that is addressed by the manufacturers.
Marine, (inboard and I/O), engines operate between 175 and 190 degrees.
Rarely do any of the marine inboard engiens run above 180 degrees.
These are automobile and truck engines, that have been converted for marine use.
WRONG, not even close. The heads and most blocks are different, even though automotive heads will fit, the coolant passages on the marine engines are different.
These engines still have the automotive cam in the block, which is why they have "valve overlap", and water intake problems, which is another issue.
Wrong again. First, there are no LH rotation automotive cams made, they are all marine. While automotive cams will work, there are specific marine cams made and used.
A land based vehicle at 2,000 rpm will do about 60 mph.
On a long flat stretch with OD. Put it on a hill and that changes.
Look at it realistically and those rpms go up.
To the best of my knowledge, fuel has not contained any lubricative properties since at least the mid to late 1920s.
Lead was the lubricant up until the mid 80s when leaded fuel was done away with.
And I've never used any kind of an additive either.
the only injector problems I've had have been on diesel cars (common problem) and very very old cars, where the injectors actually start to rust internally.
I dose my cars with a strong, mean and nasty fuel additive about once a year, that seems to do the trick.
If car engines suddenly gave all the trouble and required all the maintenance of marine engines, most owners would revolt. Marine conditions are much more severe, corrosive and laborious for the engine. Push a barrel through air and then through water and you'll see.
I did, however, walk out into our shop where two long term technicians were working. I asked them..." How often do we replace injectors on a Honda?"
One guy..." Never" The other tech..." Well...almost never but very rarely...I can't remember when I last changed any injectors".
I don't know, maybe other makes have a higher failure rate?
So, I guess maybe I haven't been so "lucky" after all!
I just wonder why you take such preventative care of your cars when you dump them before 100,000 miles? Hell, an abused Honda that rarely gets an oil change will go farther than that!
Whatever floats your boat
Best Regards,
Shipo
I also own a 44' fishing boat with twin Perkins 6 cylinders that turn about 2000 rpsm.
This boat is a work boat, not a pleasurecraft.
The last boat is a 20' Searay with a 351 windsor and a Mercruiser outdrive. I does run int the 3500 rpm range, but mainly because it was designed to go fast.
And yes, I have used Seafoam.
I live in an area where the toughest boats in the world are run (Pacific Ocean at the Columbia River) and used to work on my step dad's fishing vessels in the toughest waters in the world (Bristol Bay).
Believe what you want to believe. Doesn't hurt my feelings. But remember, before you make personal attacks, read the rules of this forum again.
Have fun.
[quote from EvergreenAmerica website]creates a permanent Crystal Lattice Structure on all metal surfaces - 85% the hardness of a diamond - virtually eliminating friction and wear in fluid systems. [end quote]
This is just like the additive manufacturers who claimed that Teflon in their product sticks to the cylinder lining. Not possible. Teflon requires a special primer to adhere to anything.
Anytime someone makes the comments, crystal, ballbearing or teflon in an additive, I wonder how much harm it is doing, instead of good.
Crystals are not smooth, are not a lubricant and have no lubricating properties, so I am not sure how that would prevent wear.
Then I looked up that patent on the USPTO web site, and Shock of all shocks, it's not assigned to the government, it's assigned to an individual. An individual who by the way happens to live in Argonne, IL. Hmmm, is it possible that it was developed by an employee of ANL, who used government labs to test his personal project? Could be.
I then checked the ANL web site and could find no reference to "Motor Silk" or "Boron CLS" or anything else even remotely connected with this stuff. Hmmm again. This stuff is starting to sound like Snake Oil. Gee, what a surprise.
Think about it this way. If this stuff was the REAL DEAL, and if I were marketing it, given the bad reputation in the market for additives in general, I would have a down loadable PDF of EVERY test plastered all over the splash page of my web site. Did they do that? Nope. They just followed the time honored tradition of other products of their ilk (Motor Honey, MMO, Royal Purple, etc...) of posting wonderful sounding claims, and even referenced (apparently) non existent tests (or presented them in a light that is essentially a lie).
In the end, unless someone can come up with a few scientific studies of the long term efficacy of Motor Silk, I hereby dub it "Snake Oil".
Best Regards,
Shipo
Best Regards,
Shipo
What more evidence does one need? Just send four easy payments of 29.99 and start contributing to our national security by reducing dependence on foreign oil, and help save the caribou in Alaska too!
I prefer to drop cans of Marvel Mystery Oil, and let them wonder what hit 'em :-D
MotorSilk... It sure took that itch away from me!
Well I'll be a darned, someone has finally come up with a good use for MMO. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
just like the finest products, "As Seen On TV!" these here computer golliwog gizmos are kinda like TVs, aren't they?
next we can sell geniune Honduran "(prestigious watch brand here)"-like inspired products by email.................
that takes care of THAT, and I could use the $500 LOL
MotorSilk... put a tsunami in your tank! (tm)
I remember they sold a auto transmission sealer like none other. As a demonstration they had a wheel cylinder cup in a bottle of it. After a couple of hours, the seal would swell to twice it's normal size.
And they sold the BEST radiator sealer. It looked like honey with brass filings in it. It would stop the leak without fail. It also had a nasty tendency to plug up your heater core.
Someone mentioned they may still be in business?