Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: NOT all FUELS are created equal!

  1. #11
    Verified VCDS User
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Norristown, PA
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like
    I discussed this with my local VW dealer about a year ago. The service writers and techs at the desk all laughed. They thought the can of fuel system treatment was silly but said it is what "VW" recommends. I thought their choice of words said volumes about their true feelings.

    VW is not alone in there denial. During my last car shopping crusade, I asked the service writers at the Audi, Cadillac, Ford, Mazda, Volvo, Honda and BMW dealers about carbon buildup and they all said it wasn't an issue in their direct injection engines if you used high quality gasoline.

  2. #12
    NostraJackAss Jack@European_Parts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    1001 State Route 17K Montgomery New York 12549
    Posts
    12,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    I discussed this with my local VW dealer about a year ago. The service writers and techs at the desk all laughed. They thought the can of fuel system treatment was silly but said it is what "VW" recommends. I thought their choice of words said volumes about their true feelings.

    VW is not alone in there denial. During my last car shopping crusade, I asked the service writers at the Audi, Cadillac, Ford, Mazda, Volvo, Honda and BMW dealers about carbon buildup and they all said it wasn't an issue in their direct injection engines if you used high quality gasoline.
    Pass the buck .............I call BS on the OEM's!

    All gasoline has to meet a specific EPA criteria to be sold, so therefore manufacture's shouldn't be building cars that require an alternate specification above what is required in mass distribution or available to the customer.
    European Parts Emporium/Performance / Immobilizer Solutions EPE
    Certified Master Trained NY/BAR/BAD 7076062/ASE/SAE/NASTF Legal Factory Authorized/Licensed GeKo/FaZit # 403738
    Specializing in Custom Services IE: "welding-fabrication" / EPA-SMOG Update or Pass-Thru-Programming / Data Transfer / Immobilizers & OEM Quality Parts
    Above Magic!
    www.FixMyEuro.com <<<<<CLICK HERE! or vwemporium@aol.com ( JPPSG & Unverified members need not PM me & Please don't email for free tech support...use the forum )
    Getting you CONTROL again of your property - TAKE IT! In Conjunction with.........

  3. #13
    NostraJackAss Jack@European_Parts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    1001 State Route 17K Montgomery New York 12549
    Posts
    12,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://www.oilem.com/turbo-fuel-stra...ld-up-problem/

    Turbo Fuel Stratified Injection (TFSI) & Direct Port Injection Carbon Build-up Problem


    The Problem of Turbo Fuel Stratified Injection (TFSI) & Direct Port Injection Carbon Buildup
    The problem with carbon buildup on the back face and stem area of intake valves in direct fuel injection petrol engines is not news. Fortunately, a major breakthrough has occurred recently on the buildup issue and the exact cause of the problem has been isolated.
    Carbon buildup in direct fuel injection engines running on petrol became prominent in 2007 and 2008 when the engine warning codes and Malfunction Indicator Lights (MIL) began to light up in many vehicles with direct injection engines, including the BMW Mini, and those made by Audi and Volkswagen.
    The presence of excessive carbon buildup has generally been attributed to the direct port injection design. This design enables a more complete and efficient combustion process because fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber rather than behind the inlet valve, which is where it is injected in conventional port injection designs. However, with this design any cleaning capability of the fuel — or more importantly, the fuel additives — is non-existent in the inlet tract because the liquid fuel never comes into contact with the back of the intake valves. The cleaning effect on the front of the valves on the combustion chamber side, on the combustion chamber surfaces, and on the exhaust valves is easily achieved as a consequence of the clean-burning characteristics of high-quality fuel and/or additives. But the downstream surfaces of the inlet valves are left untouched, and therefore accumulate deposits. The volume of these deposits eventually alters the air-flow dynamics within the inlet tract, which in turn inhibits airflow and ultimately reduces volumetric efficiency considerably.
    The impact of this is more noticeable on normally aspirated engines as they are less able to overcome air-flow restriction, whereas forced induction engines can overcome minor restrictions as air is “forced” into the combustion chamber under pressure.
    The images below illustrate the direct fuel injection and port fuel injection design. You will notice on the port injection design that fuel is injected behind the inlet valve and the mixture of fuel and air is then drawn into the combustion chamber as the valve opens. This is not as efficient as a direct injection design but it helps prevent deposit buildup on the intake valves.
    Port Fuel Injection vs Direct Fuel Injection

    So what has changed?
    A major breakthrough recently on the buildup issue has led to the exact cause of the problem being isolated. The port injection design is actually not the cause but merely the reason why the issue cannot be controlled and managed through normal fuel-derived cleaning processes.
    It is now understood why even the most advanced post-combustion cleaning fuel additives or solvent-based cleaning through the fuel /air intake tract have had little effect. Furthermore, it also is understood why rerouting the byproduct from the crankcase breather into segregated catch cans or using water/methanol injection are of limited value when it comes to reducing carbonaceous buildup in the inlet port and inlet valve surfaces.
    Post combustion cleaning additives, solvent-based intake cleaning, and water/methanol injection are not effective because the carbon species responsible for the buildup are predominantly from lube oil and produce active but very dense layers of carbons. In some cases even grit blasting techniques have failed to remove the buildup because of the integrity, toughness, and adherence of the deposits. In contrast to these deposits from lube oil, ones resulting from the decomposition of fuel tend to produce a satin black buildup that can be scraped off easily with a finger nail. This type of deposit can be removed with fuel-borne additive technology. However, the deposits formed from the decomposition of lubricating oils during engine operation have been found far more difficult to remove. This deposition and growth of carbonaceous debris has been demonstrated on a test engine with inspection ports positioned in the inlet tract.
    In the pictures below you will notice the solidity of the lube-based buildup on the inlet valve of an Audi RS4 (4.2 V8 TFSI) versus the fuel-only carbon buildup on an EGR valve in a different vehicle. The carbon on the latter is easily removed either manually or via fuel additive technology that is still active post combustion.

    Audi RS4 Inlet Valve Carbon Buildup

    EGR Valve Part Cleaned

    Oil on valve stems – It should be noted that the presence of lubricating oil in this location is normal. Having a controlled amount of oil there keeps the valve stems lubricated. One reason why NA engines tend to suffer more from inlet-valve deposits is simply that in the created vacuum, the oil from the valve stems is more difficult to “control” because it is sucked through by the pressure differential existing between inlet manifold and the atmosphere. In comparison, forced-induction engines (turbo or supercharged) generally operate with the intake manifold under positive pressure so less oil is pulled through the seals.
    So if the small amount of oil bypassing the valve stem seals is normal, and indeed required, then why is there an excessive buildup of deposits on the valves? One hypothesis is that:
    The oil is being broken down by the catalytic (reacting) action of the materials used to manufacture or coat the valve stems. In particular, nickel and chrome alloys. This pyrolytic decomposition is widely recognised in the industrial power generation sector where hydrocarbons are in contact with superalloys used in the construction of combustors, nozzle guide vanes, and exhaust components.
    In layman’s terms, this means the materials used to manufacture and harden the valves are reacting with the lubricating oil and creating an aggressive bond between the lube and the valves!
    Although this hypothesis seeks to explain the mechanism behind the formation of these carbonaceous deposits, there are still many challenges ahead. As carbon is the constituent part of all lubricating oils and fuels and each of these is fundamentally required by engines in their present form, a method of reducing or eliminating carbon buildup must be sought.
    Once oil has initially decomposed and formed a bonded carbon deposit with the valves, it remains chemically active. This allows further carbons — whether from engine oil or recirculating fuel emissions – to adhere to the existing mass with ease.
    Some manufactures have incorporated a more complicated fuel system with a combined port/direct port engine design to retain the benefits of direct port injection whilst injecting some fuel behind the valves to help keep them clean. However, for existing direct port engine designs there are few viable options. One can change the valve material and/or use a coating that doesn’t catalyse with carbons or enable the adherence of carbon, or introduce an additive pack that can inhibit carbon formation.
    Valves have to work very hard and current valve materials are chosen for their toughness and durability. Any replacement material and/or coating would have to at least share or improve upon these properties. There are proposals in the area of material and surface coating choice but we are not at liberty to share them at this stage.
    Other theories consider that at certain engine operating conditions there is a small amount of backwash as the early injection of fuel occurs whilst the inlet valve is still open. The contribution of EGR also needs to be considered. For compression-ignition engines – diesels – the heavy contamination of inlet tracts with a dense, but greasy, carbon-based deposit is well known. There are many EGR deletion methods that focus on the prevention of this deposit buildup, which as in the case of their petrol-fuelled counterparts, can seriously impede the flow of inlet air to the combustion chamber.
    Operating temperatures of engines have tended to increase with commensurate increases in combustion chamber parts. And heat soaking on shutdown, as well as extensive idling periods, have been shown to affect the amount of buildup on upper cylinder parts and valve gear.
    Regardless, the issue of removing existing deposits does not go away. The use of more advanced polar solvents will be investigated but this process is still constrained by the hardness of the carbon buildup, as well as the risk of unmanageable chunks of carbon being dislodged and damaging valves or cylinder bores during engine operation. Managing the gradual fluidising of deposits so that they can be safely consumed during combustion is a significant challenge.
    There is some data to suggest that the use of certain oil additives or group IV and above base stock oils (pure PAO, esters, etc.) reduces the speed of buildup. However, this is not fully substantiated as back-to-back tests were not conducted on the exact same vehicle. The tests show visual buildup compared to other similar vehicles of similar mileage that are not using additives or group IV and above engine oils. Furthermore, some of the PAO-derived oils are more readily broken down by catalytic action and tend to have better high-temperature resistance to degradation, thus keeping a fluid film on the valve stems where decomposition may occur. One area of interest is the use of mineral oils containing carbon fluidising additives as found in many two-stroke engine oils; however these compositions generally do not meet the lubrication specifications required by modern engines.
    Archoil® has been using proprietary esters and fluidising technology for some time and we have initiated further tests relating to this technology and direct port engines. We will keep you posted as soon as we have more information.

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...in-a-nutshell/





    “Ask an Engineer” is hosted by Andrew Bell, a mechanical engineer and car enthusiast. Andrew has his MASc in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Toronto, and has worked on Formula SAE teams, as well as alternative fuel technologies in Denmark and Canada. Andrew’s column will explore engineering topics in the most accessible manner possible


    Even though every other car nowadays seems to offer gasoline direct injection (GDI), Mercedes-Benz was the first to exploit this technology in the 1955 300SL. But it wasn’t until the mid-1990’s that other automakers started to use GDI in mass produced vehicles. GDI promises marginal increases in fuel economy (3% reduction in BSFC ) but its real benefits include reduced cold start/low load emissions and higher power outputs. While the technology offers engineers incredible flexibility from an engine design perspective, it is not without faults. As with any new technology it is important to understand both the positives and negatives before you choose, say a compact car with GDI or one regular fuel injection. If you want to keep your car for a long period of time, the long-term reliability of a GDI engine is an important factor.
    The effect of increased percentages of ethanol on injector longevity.
    The percentage of ethanol in gasoline at the pumps is steadily increasing. Ethanol has a tendency to increase the corrosion rate of the various metals used in an engine. Add this to the elevated fuel pressure and the fact the injector is directly exposed to in-cylinder combustion events, and you have a recipe for a recall. Furthermore, these injectors are very sensitive to fuel quality due to outrageously tight tolerances. It is very important to use high quality fuels and keep the filters clean.
    Higher pressures in general.
    GDI requires significantly higher fuel inlet pressures than port injection. This puts a great deal of strain on every piece of the fuel delivery chain. This is not a problem on a new engine. 50,000 miles down the road, and it may be. Manufacturers have been relatively proactive in this department by specifying robust, stainless steel fuel lines and connections. That hasn’t stopped fuel pump recalls from already occurring
    Carbon buildup on intake valves.
    This is the big problem with most current GDI engines. Due to modern unburned hydrocarbon (UHC) regulations, vapors from the crankcase are usually vented into the intake stream in order to prevent oil droplets from escaping through the exhaust. In a port injection engine, these droplets are ‘washed off’ the neck of the intake valve by a relatively constant stream of gasoline droplets. In a GDI engine, the gasoline doesn’t touch intake side of the valve. As a result, the droplets have a tendency to bake onto the valve and significantly reduce performance. To add to this effect, many advanced GDI engines also include exhaust gas recirculation in order to lean out the combustion mixture and reduce in-cylinder temperatures for certain combustion modes (reducing NOx emissions). Since GDI combustion has the ability to produce far more soot than premixed combustion (port injection), the problem is magnified.
    Even more alarming is that these deposits can dislodge and damage other downstream components (turbochargers, catalytic converters, etc.). Manufacturers have added systems to capture these oil droplets and particulates, but no system is 100% effective. As a result, there are many disappointed early adopters with large repair bills. Even diesel engines haven’t been immune to these issues.
    The reason these issues have slipped through to production is that they won’t show up in a 500,000 mile torture test. These types of issues will appear after years of short trips (preventing the engine from reaching operating temperature), bad batches of fuel, etc. As we approach the efficiency limits of the internal combustion engine, the engines themselves (and associated support systems) have become more complex. As with the transition from carburetors to electronic fuel injection, there will be some overlap between relatively bombproof port injected engines and the unproven, first-generation GDI engines.





    European Parts Emporium/Performance / Immobilizer Solutions EPE
    Certified Master Trained NY/BAR/BAD 7076062/ASE/SAE/NASTF Legal Factory Authorized/Licensed GeKo/FaZit # 403738
    Specializing in Custom Services IE: "welding-fabrication" / EPA-SMOG Update or Pass-Thru-Programming / Data Transfer / Immobilizers & OEM Quality Parts
    Above Magic!
    www.FixMyEuro.com <<<<<CLICK HERE! or vwemporium@aol.com ( JPPSG & Unverified members need not PM me & Please don't email for free tech support...use the forum )
    Getting you CONTROL again of your property - TAKE IT! In Conjunction with.........

  4. Likes Uwe liked this post
  5. #14
    NostraJackAss Jack@European_Parts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    1001 State Route 17K Montgomery New York 12549
    Posts
    12,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Now that we have established the fact that the gasoline Top Tier additives, or lower octane leads to higher combustion temps, and don't do a thing for the intake, and what happens due to blow by in the oil channeling down the intake valves in aforementioned post...........!

    Now does anyone agree with me why the need for segregated oil sumps for turbo's, and the significant benefit to chains or carbon deposit control from non synthetic oils?

    Less blow by....... due to ring seal and valve stem seals stops this as much as by 75%.

    Additionally I just don't see why the OEM's don't install a redundant secondary valve stem seal, & with scrapper drain channel, to deviate the oil from the stem to the sump.

    Less is more for over engineered ideas!

    NostraJackAss Has Spoken!
    European Parts Emporium/Performance / Immobilizer Solutions EPE
    Certified Master Trained NY/BAR/BAD 7076062/ASE/SAE/NASTF Legal Factory Authorized/Licensed GeKo/FaZit # 403738
    Specializing in Custom Services IE: "welding-fabrication" / EPA-SMOG Update or Pass-Thru-Programming / Data Transfer / Immobilizers & OEM Quality Parts
    Above Magic!
    www.FixMyEuro.com <<<<<CLICK HERE! or vwemporium@aol.com ( JPPSG & Unverified members need not PM me & Please don't email for free tech support...use the forum )
    Getting you CONTROL again of your property - TAKE IT! In Conjunction with.........

  6. #15
    Professional User Jetta ,97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Dallas (McKinney) ,TX ,USA
    Posts
    632
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jack I agree with this , specially Diesel fuel. I use on My TDI only Shell, or Valero( Valero Only in Texas) .

    But also it has to do with Octane , in Europe you can not find anything less then 95.So this is #1 problem here in USA.
    Second thing is that most of the people drives like old lady , Specially turbo engine. Turbo means Power, Mean get on it and drive it like you stole it .
    Third thing is that 70% people use 87 to save money , but they actually wasting money.
    I had customer that was using 87 on 2.5L engine, and I told him to try for month 93, and after month he call me and he was so happy on phone, I asked hem what up, and he said my car drives like never before, it has so much better performance, and here comes best part, he said I saved $25 this month in fuel( he drives every month almost same distance) , so with 93 his mpg went up, much less waste of the fuel and money .And one more good thing is that with 93 carbon build much less then with 87.
    Master Technician for German cars
    Immobilizer/ECU
    /Cluster Programing (Used or NEW) and Key Programing
    Mk6 COLOR cluster in Mk5 -CLIK

    email : marinmm2001@gmail.com

  7. Likes Jack@European_Parts liked this post
  8. #16
    NostraJackAss Jack@European_Parts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    1001 State Route 17K Montgomery New York 12549
    Posts
    12,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jack I agree with this , specially Diesel fuel. I use on My TDI only Shell, or Valero( Valero Only in Texas) .

    But also it has to do with Octane , in Europe you can not find anything less then 95.So this is #1 problem here in USA.
    Second thing is that most of the people drives like old lady , Specially turbo engine. Turbo means Power, Mean get on it and drive it like you stole it .
    Third thing is that 70% people use 87 to save money , but they actually wasting money.
    I had customer that was using 87 on 2.5L engine, and I told him to try for month 93, and after month he call me and he was so happy on phone, I asked hem what up, and he said my car drives like never before, it has so much better performance, and here comes best part, he said I saved $25 this month in fuel( he drives every month almost same distance) , so with 93 his mpg went up, much less waste of the fuel and money .And one more good thing is that with 93 carbon build much less then with 87.

    Yup Marin , I said that! post 14

    Now that we have established the fact that the gasoline Top Tier additives, or lower octane leads to higher combustion temps, and don't do a thing for the intake, and what happens due to blow by in the oil channeling down the intake valves in aforementioned post...........!

    That and there are people making videos online or on the news that say running the lowest possible octane won't hurt anything in the long run + claims of output.

    This guy needs a lesson in the follow through of what happens, not just what an adaption completes.





    FLAT OUT BS

    Knock sensors re-curve ignition timing to reduce knock, however, you also have less output, MPG loss & increased emissions due to increased heat!

    HEAT BREAKS DOWN OIL EVEN IF SYN!

    I don't think its fair to blame the oil companies...........
    Last edited by Jack@European_Parts; 10-22-2016 at 12:15 PM.
    European Parts Emporium/Performance / Immobilizer Solutions EPE
    Certified Master Trained NY/BAR/BAD 7076062/ASE/SAE/NASTF Legal Factory Authorized/Licensed GeKo/FaZit # 403738
    Specializing in Custom Services IE: "welding-fabrication" / EPA-SMOG Update or Pass-Thru-Programming / Data Transfer / Immobilizers & OEM Quality Parts
    Above Magic!
    www.FixMyEuro.com <<<<<CLICK HERE! or vwemporium@aol.com ( JPPSG & Unverified members need not PM me & Please don't email for free tech support...use the forum )
    Getting you CONTROL again of your property - TAKE IT! In Conjunction with.........

  9. Likes Jetta ,97 liked this post
  10. #17
    NostraJackAss Jack@European_Parts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    1001 State Route 17K Montgomery New York 12549
    Posts
    12,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    About 5 years ago, I took a CBFA 2.0 and modified it for lab purposes.

    We did this to see the benefits of dual injection by installing a 1.8T intake, with a segregated fuel rail.

    This allowed the second set of fuel injectors to wash the valves, and optimize power output when in a proper RPM range, & while using the stratified injection during critical emission needs.

    This with the aid of a segregated synthetic sump for turbo, allowed for the engine to run on SAE oil.

    This reduced, & significantly produced less NOX due to curved detonation, and lowered the need for still not require an EGR system; further it lowered detonation temps, or scavenger fires from poor oil remediation.

    Performance rose, with lowered SMOG output, and MPG under controlled speeds improved by almost 10 MPG!

    Now this was tested as time went by for wear for endurance, not just what a new engine will do!

    Power units need to be designed to the fuel specs which are available legally, and last past the specified warranty period for SMOG.

    It can be done......... and it should be done!

    All OEM's........... I'm calling you OUT! I order you to do it!

    NostraJackAss Has Spoken!
    European Parts Emporium/Performance / Immobilizer Solutions EPE
    Certified Master Trained NY/BAR/BAD 7076062/ASE/SAE/NASTF Legal Factory Authorized/Licensed GeKo/FaZit # 403738
    Specializing in Custom Services IE: "welding-fabrication" / EPA-SMOG Update or Pass-Thru-Programming / Data Transfer / Immobilizers & OEM Quality Parts
    Above Magic!
    www.FixMyEuro.com <<<<<CLICK HERE! or vwemporium@aol.com ( JPPSG & Unverified members need not PM me & Please don't email for free tech support...use the forum )
    Getting you CONTROL again of your property - TAKE IT! In Conjunction with.........

  11. Likes smokey08 liked this post
  12. #18
    VCDS Distributor Boki Ar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Arandjelovac, Serbia
    Posts
    843
    Post Thanks / Like

  13. Likes Jack@European_Parts, Eric liked this post
  14. #19
    Verified VCDS User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    120
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack@European_Parts View Post
    Petrol Dave also gets an A+

    I think two ways can help this problem..............

    Chemically remove and fog the intake every 10 K.
    Use a non synthetic oil changed more frequently, & that sticks to the cylinder walls better, so you don't lose the compression by means of the oil being contaminated by blow by gases/fuel and water or remediated into the combustion process.

    When a oil remediation process uses a "labyrinth"............ you have a problem!
    Can you share more detail with your thoughts running non synth oil and any thoughts on its suitability for the NA V10?

    Thanks

  15. #20
    NostraJackAss Jack@European_Parts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    1001 State Route 17K Montgomery New York 12549
    Posts
    12,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can you share more detail with your thoughts running non synth oil and any thoughts on its suitability for the NA V10?

    Thanks

    See Marin's thread we discussed this a while back.
    http://forums.ross-tech.com/showthread.php?2224-Oil

    Engine code and or scan data?
    European Parts Emporium/Performance / Immobilizer Solutions EPE
    Certified Master Trained NY/BAR/BAD 7076062/ASE/SAE/NASTF Legal Factory Authorized/Licensed GeKo/FaZit # 403738
    Specializing in Custom Services IE: "welding-fabrication" / EPA-SMOG Update or Pass-Thru-Programming / Data Transfer / Immobilizers & OEM Quality Parts
    Above Magic!
    www.FixMyEuro.com <<<<<CLICK HERE! or vwemporium@aol.com ( JPPSG & Unverified members need not PM me & Please don't email for free tech support...use the forum )
    Getting you CONTROL again of your property - TAKE IT! In Conjunction with.........

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •