Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The pages of history seldom value all those memories of which you speak. All those details that caused us grief and frustration whilst we learnt the tricks of the trade for each product, are seld

Octave, no I wasn't putting down the Poshydon test. I was making the point that many labs in Universities come up with solutions in their labs that, many times, do not become commercially viable.

Coal fired power stations, generally have a hydrogen generator. I know this because, years ago, there were a couple of explosions in power stations. . Apparently, the membrane between the electrodes f

Posted Images

Spacey, the Subaru "Upper Engine Cleaner SA459" is still readily available for around $20 a can. Penrite and other manufacturers also make a "Foaming Intake Cleaner", which I'm sure is identical to the Subaru product.

 

There are also Diesel and Petrol versions of the product, obviously tailored to the specific requirements of each engine. The Amsoil product appears to be for petrol engines only.

 

https://www.prospeedracing.com.au/Subaru-Upper-Engine-Cleaner-SA459

 

https://www.penriteoil.com.au/products/p26-petrol-foaming-intake-cleaner

 

https://penriteoil.com.au/products/p26-diesel-foaming-intake-cleaner

 

https://mildrenamsoil.com.au/equipment/small-equipment/apfsc-amsoil-powerfoam-carbon-cleaner-18-oz.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about to try some Penrite P26 "Foaming Intake Cleaner" in a spray can, in a 3.0L diesel 2010 Ford Ranger ute that I've just bought. It didn't run when I bought it, and I've just spent $3500 at the local Ford dealer, getting it operational.

It had a broken wire in the harness to the MAF and MAP sensors, then they found the MAF sensor was faulty ($189) - then all 4 injectors were found to be faulty, and wouldn't pass testing.

 

So I bought 4 good, low km, tested and guaranteed ones for $200 each - mostly because I'm not inclined to spend $475 each on aftermarket injectors - or $800 each on genuine Ford injectors.

Now it's throwing a couple of EGR codes, and these Rangers (along with many other makes) are notorious for clogged EGR valves, clogged intakes and clogged catalytic converters, thanks to oily residue recirculating into the engine via the EGR..

 

The general feedback is that the Penrite stuff works. I don't know what's in it, but Penrite reckon the foam mixture (which is no doubt some exotic petroleum solvent) is what cleans out the engine from intake to catalytic converter.

It's worth a try at $23 a can, because taking off the EGR and cleaning it, is a mongrel of a job. I believe it's about 4 hrs work to get it off - and there's gaskets required, too, no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EGR

Forget that gasket, and use a blanking plate !.

I can talk bought mine many tears sgo and never used it.

A lot of people just put a little bearing into the vacume line to stop the EGR from working.

spacesailor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spacey, the EGR is part and parcel of the emissions system in vehicles, and its also a large part of the ECU-controlled systems on the engine. Once you start "fiddling" with the EGR system, the ECU starts producing fault codes - and these are actually logged in the ECU memory, and can be retrieved. It's not understood by many people how much information your car stores in its computer system.

 

Not only could this "fiddling" interfere with proper engine operation (such as increasing combustion temperatures above design limits - because the EGR cools combustion temperatures) - but it also leads to the fact that you are disabling emission-control devices, which is a criminal offence.

 

Now, I do have a small social conscience, and I do understand that vehicle engines are designed and built to meet emissions standards, and thereby try to improve our air quality.

 

I know many people don't give a rats rectum about how much pollution their engine is producing, as long as they get what they want, and bugger anyone choking on their dirty exhaust.

But I believe that these engines work quite satisfactorily, provided steps are taken to ensure the conditions for proper engine operation are met.

 

That simply means that one ensures undesirable carbon buildup is removed, to ensure proper functioning of emission control devices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some posts back I mentioned that hydrogen is sometimes used in coal fired power stations. Get your head around this....

"

 

"A turbine-driven electrical generator contains a stationary stator and spinning rotor. In operation, it generates up to 21,000 amperes at 24,000 volts of three-phase alternating current (approx. 500 MW).

 

The rotor spins in a sealed chamber cooled with hydrogen gas. The system requires special handling during startup, with air in the chamber first displaced by carbon dioxide before filling with hydrogen. This ensures that a highly explosive hydrogen-oxygen environment is not created."

 

(Borrowed from a training website)

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get onto Pentrites site you can check there Product PDF  (same as with most makes of petroleum products). One component is a small amount of NaOH . (caustic soda) the rest is mainly organic solvents of various kinds. I think I would use it just before an oil and filter change, to eliminate any residuals in the oil.

  EGR valve modulates continuously with lower combustion temps with reduced efficiency, (more CO2), but reduces NOx  IF it sticks, you can pour out heaps of soot  Not friendly and you can be reported and put off the road (and so you should). Nev

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 I do understand that vehicle engines are designed and built to meet emissions standards, and thereby try to improve our air quality. "

The trouble with EGR is the lowering of ' power ' when needed, So when that egr opens & lets the dirty gas in, you immediately put your foot further down on the accelerator, to replace the lost power. really bad on those big hills, when towing.

Even the car maker has acknowledged that it's detrimental to the Engine.

So were is the cleaner air coming from, Less boot should mean Less pollutants. and It shows in your Lts used per 100 Klmts.

spacesailor .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Less boot should mean Less pollutants

No, it doesn't work that way. The combustion process controlled by the emissions devices results in lower levels of nitrous oxides, which are amongst the most damaging of the emissions.

While the EGR system does result in a lower power output, it is done to keep the noxious emissions to within mandated limits, and lower if possible.

Just keeping a light foot on an engine with higher power output and no EGR doesn't result in lower nitrous oxide emissions, because a complete fuel burn at high combustion temperature seriously increases nitrous oxide output.

 

I don't like emission-control devices any more than you do. They are additional cost and complexity, and they come with increased fuel costs - but the long-term benefit is lower pollution levels, than if we didn't have them.

You have to remember that the Govts of the world forced emission controls onto car manufacturers, they didn't want to install anything to reduce emissions, or affect power outputs - but there was little option for them once the collective Govts decided that vehicle noxious emissions had to come down. In America, the long-term effects of low-level lead poisoning of the population are still being felt, thanks to tetraethyl lead additives (TEL) in petrol, from the 1920's to the 1980's.

 

https://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/80(10)768.pdf

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/herbert-needleman/

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all that black smoke out of the leadfoot s exhaust pipe, I don.t think it's a complete fuel burn.

Also throwing away Good oil just to try and keep the engine clean because of that egr, has,t to be wasteful.

5000 klms with egr OR 10,000 klms without egr, oil change figures, on my motor.

spacesailor 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Todays engines send the pollution-making compounds and soot, down past the rings, into the engine oil. The oil captures them.

The engine designers believe this is better than having them spewing out into the air, and it gets the engines past the emissions tests.

 

Edited by onetrack
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

NoX is a problem in Cities, but it comes down with rain in storms produced by lightning and is a fertiliser. One of the reasons RAIN makes things grow much better than the garden hose does. Lots of people live in cities and it does adversely affect them..

 Any drive by wire accelerator won't blow soot if everythings OK. Earlier injector system s over fuelled slightly at sea level on full throttle, let alone altitude where they blacken the SNOW with soot. The stuff that goes back through the egr valve won't be that sooty either, but problems do abound. It's entering before the turbo and pollutes all the way to the combustion chamber with the blowby gases (and oil) added to the mix. and the whole induction system has this obnoxious black oozy $#!t in it and it can build up on the underside of the inlet valves also and that's harder. This will reduce power output. It's also through your intercooler when fitted.  Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I ran the Ford Ranger up to operating temperature today, sat it on between 2000 and 3000RPM (with a block of wood holding the accelerator pressed down), as recommended on the Penrite can.

I shook up the can, lifted the top off the aircleaner and poked the nozzle tubing way down into the intake and gave it everything in the can (it only contains 130ml, but it seems a lot more, and it took about 3 mins to empty the can).

The engine never faltered, apart from one small burp, and I was expecting to be smothered in a cloud of smoke - but even that didn't happen. Funnily, enough, the engine dropped back to an idle without me doing anything.

I thought the bloke of wood had fallen out - but no, it was still there. The engine ECU must have decided something wasn't right and dropped the revs back to an idle.

I brought it back up to 2500RPM and made sure the can was empty - and the engine promptly dropped back to an idle again. I suspect the MAF sensor was involved in that somehow.

 

I hooked up my OBD reader and sure enough, there was a MAP sensor fault recorded - as well as the previous EGR fault. I cleared them both, and took her for a fast lap up the highway.

The engine fault light never came back on again, so the Penrite brew fixed the stuck EGR valve. On top of that, the engine has more get-up-and-go, particularly when the turbo really comes on song at about 2500RPM.

 

Overall, I'm quite pleased at the results of the Penrite P26 treatment. I looked up the MSDS and the can contains less than 1% Caustic Soda, and about 5% of some exotic hydrocarbon, which is almost certainly a strong solvent.

No indication of what the other 94% is - apart from saying the other ingredients are non-toxic. It's interesting some of the odd hydrocarbon compounds the chemists find, that have a range of uses.

I only found out recently that the essential oils from some trees and bushes make for an excellent fuel booster and fuel system cleaner in diesels, when added to the fuel tank. The terpenes from pines and other plants, are just one these chemicals.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

I have an example where spacey was right. We had a ( new at the time ) toyota corona  where the emission-control included an air blower which diluted the noxious gas in the exhaust system to make the emissions legal.

This was when I discovered that total emissions were not what mattered. If they did then most small cars would beat most big cars.

That this air blower would only increase the total emissions ( by the extra power needed to run the blower) was ignored. Needless to say, as soon as I found this out, I removed that blower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bludi back yard mechanics !.

My mechanic grandson has given that game away, as not profitable anymore, 

He maintains air compressors. And is happy with the pay & conditions.

Much better than the top mechanics job he left.

SO

No more free cans of carbon cleaner for me.

spacesailor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those motors were deliberately run rich to reduce NOx and the extra air pumped in to burn the soot and CO. (Outside the engine) Inefficient AND power reducing. Probably supported by big oil. THAT idea was fairly short lived. Nev

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Nev, you know more than the guy at the car place in Gawler. I didn't know it was set up rich, maybe I did the wrong thing by removing the drive belt from that blower.  The car was the particular Corona which had the 4 cylinder "holden" engine in it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar to the Vauxhall Velox /Wyvern and the Ford Zephyr/Consul. That  GM (aust) motor was considered the greatest dud of all time, pretty much. I wonder what Toyota thought of it. I guess it was to UP Australian content.. for the least outlay.. Austin  did the reverse and made a four into an Australian six. Had crankshaft counterweighting issues and main bearing rumble... Nev 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Nev, I had one of those six cylinder austin's for years. Good car. It dragged a caravan around quite well. I believe the parent company sneered at that motor, which I think was a BMC 1600 with an australian six pot block and a couple of extra standard BMC pistons, etc . Made it into 2400cc.

Aussies didn't like four cylinder cars.

So it was counter intuitive when holden cut a couple of cylinders off their standard six cylinder motor they called it the Starfire.  We called it the 'Missfire'. I think they even fitted it to some early 'economy' Commodores?

Edited by nomadpete
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the best Pommy 6 cylinders was the 6 cyl Vanguard. Although it was only 2 litres and smaller in capacity than the 4 cyl Vanguard, it produced 80bhp, as compared to the 68bhp of the 4 cyl version.

 

Another couple of 6 cyl Pommy beasts were the Morris Isis and the Austin A95/A105. All these cars were equipped with massive 2.6L six cyl engines and were real flyers in their day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had 2 GMs.. A 186 on a HR (oh, if I could find that car again). Despite the reputation of the engines, it went and went.. I probably put 100k kms on it with one or two services and it never missed a beat (OK.. I did drain the oil and change the filter myself). The other, a 3.8L Chev in the VS Commodore. I had it form new and put over 200K kms on it (80K in the first year).

 

Most engines are built to be driven at sustained kms (temps) over a longer distance. In both cars, that was the order of the day for me.

 

The rest of both cars crumbled around the engine, nc. gearbox (3spd), diff (on the VS), drive shafts, etc. The interiors were fragile as an egg laying sideways.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...