blown 87

It depends on engine size Bob, but on a 928 maybe 15 minutes and it is ten PSI per cylinder in the pressure tank. Personally I would at least buy the atomizer, you are going to need that "S" shape tube.

There are screens and a orfice in the atomizer, maybe tomorrow I can take mine apart and give yo a better idea of what is there and the diameter of the orfice.

worf928

Ah hah. Ok. Got it now.

RKD in OKC

I had a 2001 Boxster S. The dealer did an intake cleaning with a system like this. Not sure what solvent they used. Two weeks after getting the car back it spun a bearing. Luckily the car was still under warranty and Porsche replaced the motor. Makes me very leery of pumping solvents through a motor.

On my 90GT I ran injector cleaner in the gas a couple of tanks. Cleaned the front side of the valve stems very nicely but didn't help the unbalanced injectors or overall gunk in the heads and on the valves.. Ended up sending the injectors off to have them cleaned and balanced, and while they were out, had the heads and cylinders walnut hull blasted. Before dynoed 283 rwhp and 278 tq, After 301 rwhp, 296 tq. I'm sure the injector cleaning made the most difference some of them were just squirting a stream of fuel.

The 944 Turbo guys have been using Sea Foam to clean their motors.

blown 87

A lot of the Corvette guys use SeaFoam and they put some of it into the oil, which I think is unwise.
I wonder if that is what happened to you Boxster.

RKD in OKC

On the boxster the dealer mechanic said they have a pressure system that runs solvent through the head to clean the carbon off the valves. I thought you just poured the SeaFoam in and watched it smoke.

The really interesting part is they were trying to fix it backfiring bad enough on deceleration to blow holes in the muffler and cats. The new motor didn't fix the problem. Turned out they had installed the wrong MAF. The new motor was everything AFTER the MAF thru the headers. Took them a whole year to figure out they had put on the wrong MAF. They all assumed it was correct and didn't double check part numbers. There were 2 MAFs for the 2001 Boxster S depending on when the car was built and what ECU was used. The factory engineer working with the local mechanic went on vacation and his supervisor took over. New to the problem the first thing he did was have them check the MAF part number.

The really frustrating part is that I kept telling them I did not have the problem until they replaced the MAF and I thought it was the MAF. They replaced the MAF again once in the process, but the parts guy just pulled up the old ticket and ordered the same wrong MAF.

The new motor didn't run as good or have as much power as the original one in the car.

dr bob

IIRC, the SeaFoam product is off-the-shelf at exotc places like Wal-Mart. It's been a hot-rodder's staple for a long time. While the BG method uses the pressurized container to spray/atomize/dispense the produt into the intake, the SeaFoam stuff was just poured in. Now, with sensitve MAF wires and the like, you really can't pour stuff in upstream of the MAF any more since it risks damage to the MAF wire, and at best gives a false large airflow reading which would cause the FI brain to artificially richen the mixture even more. Maybe the SeaFoam stuff should be injected the same way the BG is. It is more readily available than the BG, just concerned that it doesn't do the same good job.

-----

Might make it to the plumbing store today or tomorrow. Film at 11 if I do.

danglerb

Maybe we could do some tests on a few dirty, uninstalled intakes?

For some looks inside the cylinder Amazon.com had the Milwaukee inspection camera on sale for about $90, looks like its up to $130 now.

http://www.amazon.com/ProVision-PV10...1399984&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/Milwaukee-2300...1399984&sr=1-9

dr bob

Mike--

I have a dirty installed intake that will get the treatment, then will be removed later this fall. The only thing I won't have is the 'before' pictures for a comparison. I ave a few weeks to go to get the smog done. It's 103º outside right now, so not likely I'll be out driving around in a black untinted 928 much today, scrounging plumbing parts. Maybe over the weekend, on the way back from VCR.

IcemanG17

Interesting how you gained 18whp after the cleaning......Sharky already dyno's quite high at 286whp...... I figured an x pipe puts it over 300whp....not too shabby for a auotmatic S4

blown 87

I would not put anything upstream of a MAF, nothing good will come of that.

Sometimes we will use a cleaner on MAF's that would have to be replaced any way to try and clean them, but always cold and off the car.

I know you were not suggesting that, but I wanted to make that clear.

RKD in OKC

Cylinder/head cleaning AND injector balancing. Oh, and the car did have gutted cats. This was before x-pipes and with the gutted stock cats the RMB was too loud.

dr bob

OK, updating the group on progress--

I ordered and received the H-F pressure cleaning thing. It arrived today, so I took a few minutes to read the instructions inside. It's still too warm to spend a lot of afternoon time in the garage anyway. Try http://www.harborfreight.com/manuals...5999/95834.pdf if you want to read along at home.

The instructions are as good as any H-F tool, with a few pages of safety warnings. The rest is good too, pretty much duplicating what we've discussed so far for the BG unit. The interesting part is when they suggest that the intake cleaner is introduced via a vacuum port on the throttle (not ported vacuum though), rather than spraying it between the MAF and the throttle plate as the BG instruction recommends. On our cars, the oil vent hoses are attached to the boot between the MAF and throttle, so any oil in the boot would be ignored if we use their procedure. Of course that also means that we don't need a spray nozzle either, be that good or bad. So how much oil puddle in the boot between the throttle and the MAF on these cars? If I need to pull the MAF to install the spray tube and nozzle, I can wipe it up anyway I guess. Still, is there a benefit to spraying the throttle plate with the cleaner vs. letting it go in via a vacuum port on th throttle?

I bought a piece of steel brakeline tubing, and with some fittings and a nozzle it will easily duplicate the B-G functionality. No issues using one method over the other for me.

Greg, you've had experience with the stuff. What are your thoughts?


Oh-- Once we get a car or two done and get the methods dialed in, the tool will be available for others who want to use it prior to smog testing, for instance. There will be an option to participate in some of the cost of the tool, and you will supply your own chems. Maybe if there's enough immediate interest, we can buy a case of the stuff from the B-G rep that Steve Porter found here locally. Maybe a show-and-tell at Sharktoberfest would be appropriate.

----

In other related news, my car easily passed Cali smog yesterday, with bettter numbers than it has had in quite a while. In the last year it's had the LH controller rebuilt, and had the rear knock sensor replaced. I also rerouted the FOE wiring harness at the Hall sensor bracket by the pass side cam drive gear to clear a Hall sensor fault in the LH. It also had a few tanks of non-Cali fuel run through it rather quickly on the way to OCIC in Dallas last month, the oft-recommended 'Italian tune-up' if you will. All together, these improved performance, fuel economy, and both CO and NOx numbers significantly. No need to test in second gear this time. It obviously pays to run the LH and EZK diagnostics every once in a while, and fix the things that are causing stored fault codes. Thanks to Rob Edwards for the use of the Spanner tool for the sensor diagnostics, and the west-coat caravan to OCIC for the brisk pace part of the intake and valve cleaning exercise.

blown 87

Dr Bob, from what I have seen on other cars it seems to work better when sprayed aft of the MAF and before the throttle body.

Stephen Porter

Dr. Bob,

Thanks for the update. That HF tool sure looks similar to the "Injecta-Flush-Apparatus."

(Newb question: why does the BG "apparatus" have the 2nd guage (input?) at the top and the HF not? I see HF manual says "incorporate a regulator" on the airhose side, to control the input pressure on the canister. Is that the function of the top guage on the BG tool, which would be redundant if you have the regulator/guage on the airhose? OK, reading the HF manual I see there is an "air regulator"-part 7 at the top also. I'm confused, but sure this is something that would be clear on one demonstration.)

Anyway, looking forward to hearing from Greg and figuring out the best point/method for introducing the intake cleaner stuff.

I'm keeping an eye out on eBay for good deals on the chems also.

---------------------

Maybe I'll get the V1 firmware updated and try one of them I-talian tuneups soon.

blown 87

? I thought I was the Greg Dr Bob was asking, if not, sorry.

As far as two gauges, you need a regulator for line input pressure, a gauge for tank pressure, and a gauge for feed line pressure.

If you are not going to use the BG atomizer, not sure how much help the pressures I use will be for you.

Sorry, I did not remember to take mine apart to get the size of the orffice, I will try to remember next week.

Greg Nettles