|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,345
Addicted CEG\'er
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,345 |
Originally posted by HockaLoogie:
...I hear of all these posts about people cleaning their Uppers and lowers but see no mentions about performance gains. I'm sure they go without saying but there seems to be more posts about what went wrong in the prosses. ...
LOL. Most will not post if the engine is performing well.
"Help, I did the UIM/LIM rebuild and now the car performs very well. Did I do something wrong?" 
If something did go wrong, they would probably post to solicit advice/suggestions on how to fix it and to let other CEGers know what to avoid doing in the future.
"Always do the cheap and easy ones first."
1996 V6 ATX 96K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693 |
In partial defense here about cleaner sitting in the manifold and helping to clean things up, I would like to pass on some history.
The genisis of this whole "vacuum suck" method of cleaning up the intake manifold as well as intake ports, combustion chambers, and valves, goes back before fuel injection was common. The technique was to spray or pour "combustion chamber cleaner" down the carb throat with the engine running. You would increase the throttle opening enough to keep the engine running, but allow it to run a bit rough from "loading up". When you would get near the end of the container of cleaner, you would allow the engine to die from increasing the cleaner or decreasing the throttle or both. You would then allow the cleaner to soak for usually about 15 to 30 minutes and then start the engine and blow all that crap out. The cleaner used went in sort of like a foam, and tended to cling onto the sides of the manifold and ports.
I know of at least three products that were probably canned by the same supplier that were used in this manner. One was Rochester X-88, another was Ford Combustion Chamber Cleaner, and another was a Shell product. I'm sure that Mopar had one as well.
When I had an engine that seemed to have a burned valve, I would often run the cleaner through it before pulling the heads. Rarely, the cleaning would restore the compression, but more importantly, it was much easier to clean the heads once they were off as most of the carbon was cleaned out. If I didn't have the Ford cleaner available, I would use water or sometimes hot water mixed with equaly parts of ATF. The water and water ATF mix didn't clean as well, and it didn't do much for the areas outside the combustion chambers, but it still made a difference.
So you can laugh all you want about the "vacuum suck" method not being effective, but in my lifetime I've had too many engines apart that had just had a similar service. It saved a lot of labor time in cleaning things up. Roughly speaking it saved about an hour per head.
If you are not getting that result, perhaps we need to continue to look for a product that will soak in and do a better cleaning. The Ford stuff is still available, although it is hard to find as many dealers don't bother to stock it. Just from the name, I wonder if SeaFoam would do it.
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
03 Escape Limited
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693 |
Originally posted by HockaLoogie:
This weekend I decideed to clean my UIMs w/out removal. At wall mart I picked up 2 cans of B-12, and a beer bong looking thing. The first method I tried was to let the b12 run thru each vaccum line with engine running. I did not get much smoke out of the back and the only difference I noticed was probably from the TB cleaning I did. I just sprayed some Valvoline carb cleaner in and used a tooth brush, then a clean rag to get the crap out. I did notice a slight improvement in throttle response but nothing big.
The next day, I tried something different. I had the engine running and poured some b12 in. The engine stalled and I kept if off. I poured some more b12 in one hose, then the other. I let the car sit like this for about 1/2 hour. When I started the car, it sounded bad, nasty idle, bad smell and of course the smoke. The engine eventually smoothed out and I started driving. The difference from the second method was much more noticable. Must be from the b-12 sitting on the valves and breaking up the carbon. Tonight I'll do it again only I'll use Sea Foam. I've heard people say it's worth the extra $. I reccomend this 2nd method for anyone who like me is scared to remove the IMs.
By the way, your screen name is still disgusting. Can't you find something a little less disagreeable?
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
03 Escape Limited
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 7
Newbie
|
|
OP
Newbie
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 7 |
c'mon Big Jim, a name like Tourgasm and not one person on this fourm has thought of it? How long has this site been up anyway? You gotta give me credit. And Hocka Loogie is just darn brilliant  Gross? yeah, but creative.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
Originally posted by Big Jim:
The technique was to spray or pour "combustion chamber cleaner" down the carb throat with the engine running. You would increase the throttle opening enough to keep the engine running, but allow it to run a bit rough from "loading up". When you would get near the end of the container of cleaner, you would allow the engine to die from increasing the cleaner or decreasing the throttle or both.
Using a cleaner in an atomized state in a running engine to clean the combustion chamber is completely different than pouring liquid into a non running one to clean the UIM.
Again, I want to know how Mr. Hockaloogie 1) expects to get Berryman's to an intake valve in an engine that isn't running and 2) how he expects it to "sit on the valves" considering many aren't closed.
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 893
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 893 |
ok.  me and get it over with. However it worked, it worked.
98.5 SVT FOR SALE
$5000
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,116
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,116 |
like he said, if it worked it worked. Most likly not as good as taking the stuff off...but I am sure it got a lot of the "loose" stuff off.
95 SE MTX
svt exhaust
intake
deer killer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,872 |
Originally posted by elraido:
like he said, if it worked it worked. Most likly not as good as taking the stuff off...but I am sure it got a lot of the "loose" stuff off.
yea but imagine if EVERYTHING was cleaned..it be worth the tear down IMHO
#0009
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,637
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,637 |
Originally posted by Goonz SVT:
Originally posted by elraido:
like he said, if it worked it worked. Most likly not as good as taking the stuff off...but I am sure it got a lot of the "loose" stuff off.
yea but imagine if EVERYTHING was cleaned..it be worth the tear down IMHO
ever get your car running?
99 TRed Contour SVT # 1853 out of 2760
230.2 WHP @ 6500
237.0 WTR @ 2250
Originally posted by MxRacer:
Originally posted by RawBurt:
I'll be keeping it to myself, until the time comes. It'll be hard to find. 
much like your weiner.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 893
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 893 |
ZZZZZING!
Next weekend, I'm going to work on removing the manifolds. I'm enlisting the help of my friend and badd player Mitch who's owned and worked on everything from a prelude, to a Buick GN. I recomended he do the same to his blazer. The only thing is as I was looking up the part numbers for gaskets on Napa, I realized some of the parts cost much more than posted in the how-to. Most are accurate but one gasket listed at $18 is going for aroud $45 on napa. What could be goin on here? would some of them be cheaper throught ford? Thanks for the help so far.
98.5 SVT FOR SALE
$5000
|
|
|
|
|
