Texas_Ace

They all do different things so I think the combo of them all is what helped the most.

The water will clean a lot of the carbon and "bulk" junk out of the combustion chamber prepping it for the seafoam to come along and clean up some of the finer stuff.

The seafoam will get some of the harder to clean dirt out.

The MMO will clean the inside of the engine (along with seafoam if put in the oil) and will help free up stuck rings along with cleaning it out.

The injector cleaners will also help clean out everything.

So basically everything does it's part and helps get things clean. I also have water injection on my truck which I am sure is also helping clean things out over time. But it does the same thing as putting water through the intake, just over a longer period of time.

SPARKS89

iTrader: (1)

I did this to my truck last weekend. I used distilled water and regular blue washer fluid. I didn't take pictures while I was doing it but I used the one of the vacuum lines you see here going across the valve cover and I know it's a 6mm line.



I hooked up my timing light and set it in a little spot next to my sure filter so I could read it while I was doing this. I mixed the water and washer fluid 50/50, held the throttle close to 3000 by hand and stuck the vacuum line in the bottle letting it suck up about 1/3 of the bottle before I pulled it out. I reattached the vacuum line while still holding the throttle open and didn't let off until the spitting and sputtering stopped. Then I went for a drive and watched the tailpipe in my mirror until no more steam came out. I did this 3 times with no issues and went thru the whole gallon of mix. Then I moved on to the Seafoam. Using the same vacuum line I let it suck in half a bottle and let the throttle go so the engine would stall itself. After letting it sit for about 2 hours I fired it up and pissed off the neighbors. After the smoke cleared (about 10 minutes) I let the engine get good and warm and then went for another drive. When I got back home I added half a can of Seafoam to the oil and did the treatment one more time. This time I let it sit overnight. The smoke the next morning compared to the night before was like comparing a forest fire to a campfire. I'd be willing to bet a cockroach couldn't have survived that stuff. That afternoon I changed my water...i mean oil.

I have to say the engine runs smoother now. I'm sure I'll have to continue this on a regular basis as the truck has 23 years worth of crap in it, but I can tell the difference.

I also took pictures of my spark plugs before and after and did before and after compression tests too just to see if it made a difference. Unfortunately I can't load the pictures from my phone right now. I'll have to adjust the size on a computer first.

Here are the results of the compression tests:
Before
#1: 166 PSI
#2: 170 PSI
#3: 170 PSI
#4: 165 PSI

After
#1: 175 PSI
#2: 174 PSI
#3: 170 PSI
#4: 165 PSI

The vacuum line I used is lined up more with cylinders 1 & 2 which explains why the compression changed for them but not for 3 & 4. I would recommend using a more central vacuum line or maybe doing half in that vacuum line and half in a line father back on the intake to make it even. Regardless I'm happy with the results and I'm glad for the chance to learn something new.

I hope this helps someone or at least gives them something to think about.

andlours

iTrader: (1)

On a 22RE would the brake booster vacuum line be a good one to evenly supply all cylinders with water or seafoam?

Texas_Ace

Glad to see another happy user!

It does appear that you are getting more to #1/2 so changing the injection location should improve that. Every intake manifold is different and flows different. There is no perfect solution for them all. Just got to play with it and see what works best for your engine.

The most important thing is to not use a line that is obviously biased or only feeds 1 cylinder.

Next time I would change 2 things besides the injection location. I would put the seafoam into the oil at the start of this process or even a week or 2 before you plan to do it. I generally put ~100 miles on the seafoam before running the rest of the treatment and changing the oil.

I would also put some MMO into the oil at least a week or 2 ahead of time. The MMO is recommended that you run it in the oil at every oil change on the bottle anyways so I doubt that it will hurt anything but it is up to you.

I am running it in my oil on a constant basis right now at least until I feel that it has cleaned everything out of the engine. Just doing more frequent oil changes to compensate for the junk it cleans out.

It was after I started putting the MMO and seafoam in the oil that I noticed the big gains in compression. Before that it was just minor gains of a few psi here and there although other things were improved such as vacuum, idle and power.

Still took time for it to work though, it has taken about a year to go from my mixed results of 135psi-170psi to my now 205psi across the board. Running MMO in the oil constantly in that time and running the seafoam treatment with every oil change (which admittedly has only been a few, I don't put many miles on it).

In my case though I am pretty much positive that the cause of my low compression was stuck rings and the MMO/seafoam in the oil will work on those better then through the intake.

The intake side will work better on carbon build up, bad valve seal, hot spots the top compression ring among other stuff. So it will really depend on where your engine is dirtiest and needs the most help. I do both to ensure that everything gets clean.

Texas_Ace

Sorry, I don't work with those engines so I really cant say. You just want to find a line that is preferably as close to the TB as possible and appears to evenly feed all the cylinders. A smaller line can work better since it will provide smaller droplets which will help them get to all the cylinders easier.

DRCOFFEE

I have never used MMO before. Gotta say, the packaging looks a bit like snake oil from the 1800's but I am willing to give it a go.

My question though is what's the risk of cleaning the crud so well with MMO that the rear main and camshaft seals start leaking? At 160,000 miles, I won't use Mobil1 oil for fear of creating oil leaks.

Texas_Ace

Yeah, I thought the same when I saw it which is why I never really used it until I kept reading about how guys had great luck with it. Tried it and now I am a believer as well.

Honestly I have found all those myths of swapping over to synthetic oil causing problems/leaks to be way overblown. I run synthetic in all my cars and most of them have had WELL over 100k miles when I switched them over. Have not had a single issue with any of them that was not there at least to some extent before.

That said it is still a popular myth. If you won't run mobile 1 then MMO is most likely not for you. It works better at cleaning out the engine then mobile 1 as I ran mobile 1 in my truck for some time a few years back before switching to AMSoil or rotellaT. It did clean it out but didn't boost the compression much at all (or if it did it was REALLY bad before).

So it is up to you, just do what you feel comfortable with.

DailyDrive

This math is pure nonsense. I can't even logically follow it.

The way to figure out hydrolock limit is to know the total chamber volume on the upstroke (I don't know that) and to know how many PSI the rods can take before damager (don't know this either).

Let's roughly say that the 3.4L has a 'stroke' x 'bore' of 35 cubic inches, and let's say the chamber volume at the upstroke is 2 cubic inches.

Now imagine pulling in 2 cubic inches of water + 35 inches of air/gas. On the upstroke, both the air/gas and water will have to compress into 2 cubic inches. Water will not compress, period. Air/gas will compress to infinity PSI, and the rods certainly can't handle infinity PSI.

When feeding water into the intake there is no guarantee how much each cylinder will suck in either, so using math to find hydrolock limit is ridiculous. Just by roughing the numbers, it's possible to hydrolock it with just a few cubic inches of water.

Texas_Ace

I understand my math perfectly, yours on the other hand I am not following although it appears to be the same thing I am saying only forgetting to add time into the equation. We are not dealing with a single combustion event here.

The total volume of the cylinder is easy to calculate.

93.5mm bore and 82mm stroke = .56l of displacement for each cylinder of a 5vz.

Or in the case of the engine I ran the math on above, a 2.0l 4 banger. 86mm bore and 86mm stroke = .50l of displacement per cylinder.

Those numbers mean nothing for what we are trying to calculate. We don't care what the total displacement of the engine is. We care about how much room there is for water or other incompressible fluid inside the cylinder.

THAT is determined by one thing, the combustion chamber (including piston dish/valve reliefs).

I could not find the combustion chamber volume for the 5vz which is why I used an engine I do know to do the math.

In the case of the 3sgte I used in the example the combustion chamber is ~60cc per cylinder. That means you have ~60cc of room in the cylinder for any incompressible fluid before the engine will hydrolock.

I won't run through the math again as you can see it in the post you quoted but it is very simple to me. If you see a problem with it, do point it out.

You simply figure the volume for each cylinder, multiply it by the number of cylinders. Then you have to apply time as a factor since the engine is running and we are not putting the fluid into a single combustion event.

The outcome is the numbers I posted above.

The numbers don't lie. Now I will agree that 1 cylinder getting more fluid then another is possible but there is such a MASSIVE amount of room for error it is not something to worry about. Even if all the fluid went to a single cylinder, at 3000rpm you would have to inject a heck of a lot more then 1 gallon of water in 1 minute to get it to hydrolock.

Got to realize that at 3000rpm that gallon of water is being split up into 1500 smaller bites (4 stroke engine, only intakes every other revolution) even if it all goes to 1 cylinder.

Each bite is only 2.5cc per combustion event. WELL WELL below the 60cc we have room for.

Now if it goes to all 6 cylinders then that is only .4cc per cylinder per combustion event.

So you see, the MASSIVE room for error you have means the chance for hydrolocking is virtually non-exsistant with the RPM's at 3000rpm and it sucking the fluid in via a smaller hose.

SPARKS89

iTrader: (1)

I've used the brake booster line before to do Seafoam. It's good for a slow pour, but I wouldn't use it for what we're talking about here. It's too big and will suck in too much at once. I also think it would favor cylinders 3 & 4 over 1 & 2.

SPARKS89

iTrader: (1)

Does anybody else need tylenol for their headache? I just picked up a bottle...

Texas_Ace

LOL, I tried to make it as simple as possible but re-reading it I see it is just not real possible.

Lets think of it another way. Think of the engine as you. A cylinder is your mouth. The gallon of water is a 1lb ham.

Now eating that entire ham in 1 bite would be way outside the realm of possibility and would "lock" your mouth trying to get it down.

If we instead break that ham into 1500 pieces (engine at 3000rpm = 1500 intake strokes) then it becomes much more manageable. In fact a normal 1lb ham broken up into 1500 pieces is a mere half a teaspoon per bite. Tiny and would not even qualify as a bite by most peoples standards.

Not even close to the ~1/4 cup that a normal mouth could fit while fully closed. Leaving us a TON of room for error in case the bites are not totally uniform or we take 2 at once ect.











Or here is a more technical example.

Even if an entire gallon went to a single cylinder you have to remember that the cylinder will break it up into 1500 smaller meals (4 stroke so it only intakes every other revolution).

A gallon broken up into 1500 pieces is a mere 2.5cc apiece (~3750cc / 1500). That is a VERY small amount of fluid, 0.09oz or half a teaspoon to be exact as a comparison.

We have ~60cc of room in the cylinder for fluid before hydrolocking becomes an issue. Or 1/4 cup for those wanting a more relateable medium.

Does anyone really think that a mere half a teaspoon is enough to hydrolock an engine?

In a nut shell, the chance for hydrolocak at 3000rpm is virtually non-exsistant with what we are discussing in this thread.

Now, all of that said. I will say that the real world is not as cut and dried as paper. There are factors such as engine VE, uneven flow, not clearing out all of the fluid from the last cycle ect that could effect the real world. But as you can see there is such a massive amount of room for error this is not really a concern.

SPARKS89

iTrader: (1)

Now I need some Pepto Bismol too! Haha jk. I get what you're saying. The engine can only suck in so much water. And given the fact that there are several other openings into the intake manifold that are sucking in air there's no way it will suck in ALL water so even with all of the calculations you've done, with that factored in there's even less chance of hydrolocking.

DailyDrive

I would not recommend anything like that to anyone, even if anecdotal evidence is available.

How much of either of those can you account for in your math? I'd say none of it. Clearing heavy water from the bottom of a cylinder is a little bit different than clearing the gaseous remains of combustion.

Texas_Ace

I never did recommend that to anyone, I was just showing that I put my money where my mouth is.

The uneven flow I did take into account, see above where I showed that even if it all went to a single cylinder you are still about 25 times less fluid then you need to hydrolock it.

That means you would have to suck the entire gallon in less then 3 seconds or 1/4 cup in 0.04 seconds to hydrolock it.

This is simply not possible using the method I outlined in the OP. The fastest I could suck down a gallon of water using a line over 3x as big as the 1/4" I recommend was 30 seconds. That is over 10 times what is needed to hydrolock it IF it was all going to 1 cylinder @ 3000rpm.

With the 1/4 line I recommend it will generally take you about 1-2 minutes to suck down a whole gallon of water.

So with a factor of 10 as a margin for error for a worst case scenario IF all the fluid was going to a single cylinder, no there is no much to worry about.

The cylinder not clearing out all the old fluid is possible. It is possible that some fluid would stay in the valve reliefs and maybe even the piston dish. Even if the entire piston was full of water the heads combustion chamber will be cleared out and that still leaves ~50cc of space for more water. That still gives us a margin of error of about 8x what we need under a worst case scenario.

All of those numbers are actually multiplied by 6 in the real world since we are feeding 6 cylinders, so the margin for error is not 10 times what we need but closer to 60 times.

The point is that the margin for error is so massive that the chance for hydrolock is virtually non-existent if does as outlined in the OP.

In the real world we are looking at feeding a gallon of water into the engine over a 1-2 minute time span @ ~3000rpm. This will give you about .25cc of a cc per cylinder per intake.

Roughly 240 times less then you need to hydrolock the engine.

Some interesting tidbits for you, I know of lots of methanol powered cars that regularly inject 5000-10000cc of methanol PER CYLINDER via MASSIVE fuel injectors. It is common for these cars to burn over a gallon of fuel in a single sub 8 second drag pass. That is WAY faster then we could hope to suck in water via the method in the OP. You should see the massive fuel systems these cars have.

There is a 3sgte like I used in the examples running methanol that runs 3500cc+ injectors on methanol making ~1300whp+. Total they are injecting over 12,000cc of methanol/min, that is over 3 gallons of fuel per min. Pretty mild compared to some methanol cars.

That is over 2cc of methanol fuel for every combustion event that the car is running on and it is not even making that much power. compared to other engines I am around. That is about 10 times more then we are getting and it is still FAR from being maxed out or coming close to hydrolocking.

If you really want to get extreme, top fuel cars burn about 1.5 gallons of fuel PER SECOND. They can burn 12 gallons of fuel on a single drag pass lasting 4 seconds and burnout.

Using the method I outlined in the OP, I have nothing to worry about when it comes to hydrolock.

DailyDrive

The NASA space shuttle burned 1000 gallons per second, I'm not sure what it has to do with mass produced small displacement gasoline engines, but there you are.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I just think your's is dangerous, and the logic supporting its safety is flawed. I personally would not go over 1000rpm for cleaning purposes, and if it sounds like the engine is more than just slightly sputtering, that means back off the flow.

Texas_Ace

The space shuttle is a rocket, doesn't apply.

Methanol engines are the EXACT same as what we run. The methanol 3sgte is IDENTICAL to the 3sgte engine I based these calculations on. Could not be more apples to apples.

If anything the methanol engine has the disadvantage since they run a higher compression ratio in them and thus a smaller dish on the piston.

They inject over 2cc of fluid with every intake stroke and are no where close to hydrolocking or the limits of the engine. That is also 10 times what we are doing with the process outlined here.

Heck normal street motors regularly run 2200cc injectors (ID2000's are THE most popular injectors for E85) on E85 flowing between 1-2cc of fluid per intake stroke. I know of another 3sgte that maxed out 2200 injectors, that is a total of 8800cc of fuel flow into the engine/min. Or almost 2.5 gallons per min.

Also the lower the RPM's the more dangerous it is, that is basic logic. Plus you want more RPM's to keep more heat in the engine since that is what allows the cleaning to work.

The sputtering is going to happen, if you don't let it sputter then you will never get enough fluid (be is water or seafoam) into the cylinder to do any cleaning. Enough fluid has to get into the cylinder to stick to the carbon or else it can't clean it off.

You say it is flawed yet I have provided ample proof for my feelings combined with REAL world results from REAL cars running way more then what I am suggesting not to mention doing it myself. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support your theory.

If you don't want to do the treatment that is perfectly fine. I am not forcing anyone to do it. Simply showing what I do and have had great luck with. It is 100% up to the individual user weather they want to do it and if so what parts they want to do.

If using a 1/4" OD vacuum line and letting it suck the fluid in, there is virtually ZERO chance of a hydrolock. It would not be on the seafoam can that MILLIONS of people follow if there was even a slight risk of hydrolock, they would get sued so fast....

Gamefreakgc

Just did the water injection and seafoam on my truck. I'm not noticing any improvement atm, but I haven't changed the spark plugs yet so that may change.

I have to say, when I first drove the truck after the first 1/3 gallon of water and it wouldn't accelerate past 2500 RPM the "Oh shoot, what did I just do to my truck" thought went through my mind but it cleared up fast and ran just fine. I had use the PCV pipe on my air intake hose on my truck and at one point a small amount of carbon buildup puffed out of the pipe, leaving behind a residue of greasy mess. The water works just fine.

Thanks for the tip, it definitely helped clean out my gunked-up engine.

SPARKS89

iTrader: (1)

You used the PCV hose?? Thats a pretty big line to use for this I would think. Do you know what RPM you had to keep the engine at so it wouldn't die?

Texas_Ace

I use the PCV line as well, I just stuff a smaller line into it to realistic the flow most of the time. Although I have done it with the big line as well with no ill effects.