Saturn Sky Forum banner

21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,298 Posts
While I have heard of Ford refusing to cover some of the 3.5L Twin Turbo Ecoboost motors I cannot find another manufacturer that states this. I called a Chevy, GMC, Honda and Hyundai dealer today and spoke to their service managers. I also spoke to a couple of Master Tech's. Not one of them ever heard of the manufacturer not covering a turbo or motor due to cleaning the intake valves using the CRC Intake Valve cleaner. I also called CRC and spoke to a technical engineer who was very knowledgeable in regards to the workings of the GDI motor and has one in her car. She stated that this product has been thoroughly tested and has been sold worldwide for years. Other than stating your opinion to never use any chemical or solvent to clean the air intake valves of a GDI motor neither you or RTE have offered any credible information to support your statements.
First of all, I never stated CRC was unacceptable. I said everything was unacceptable....LOL. I made a general statement that you shouldn't use anything. I deal with Hyundai, Kia, MB, GM, Toyota and JLR. I am in dealership's service departments 40 weeks a year all over the country. I can tell you for a fact, that a Hyundai dealer I was at 6 months ago declined a turbo replacement due to a fuel induction cleaning (FIC)...
Warranty claims are subjective. I have seen a warranty claim for a motor where it looked like the customer beat the crap out of the car and never maintained it. Then the warranty company approved a short block replacement.
I'm quoting these for one reason, Hyundai is KNOWN for being real azzhats when it comes to warranting engine service work. The fact a Hyundai dealer declined a warranty on a turbo because the customer did a FIC is pretty meaningless for me and I'll tell you why. My GF owns a Hyundai Veloster Turbo and it's pretty tricked out. I've done the work on it and I have gotten rather involved in the Veloster and KDM (Korean Domestic Market) world as a result. We have seen Hyundai deny engine warranty claims for the following reasons:


  • Not using an OEM oil filter
  • Not using OEM brand oil even though oil used met OEM criteria
  • Having an aftermarket exhaust
  • Having a K&N air filter
  • Having aftermarket wheels
  • Having a carbon fiber hood
  • Having considerable amounts of dirt and mud on the underside of the car.
Really, Hyundai in essence says "If you have done anything that isn't OEM, the warranty is void." Aftermarket wheels do not cause engine failures but Hyundai will deny your warranty claim and force you to take it to court if you want them to honor it...which will cost the owner more money than just paying to fix the engine to begin with. Hyundai has a horrible reputation for denying warranty claims for outrageous reasons and leaving the customer with the burden of trying to enforce the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

So just a dumb question.... If Ford has an issue with this....what makes you think others won't eventually?
This though is very true. I can see other manufacturers following suit if for no other reason than it gives them one more cause to save money by denying warranty coverage AND making them more money by forcing the consumer to come to the dealership to perform a service like valve deposit cleaning. If you detect I'm a little jaded towards steale...uhhhh...dealerships, you'd be right. :D

First off, I have NO clue what your problem is. I never attacked you or the product you’re pushing. I said don’t use anything. And you have done nothing but attack me.
I don't think anyone is really personally attacking one anther but I do believe both you guys are taking it a little personal. It sounds like you BOTH have extensive experience in this and obviously very different perspectives on the issue. I encourage you two to continue to debate both sides of this but admonish you to review your posts once write them and strive to remove any emotionally based statements before you hit that Submit Reply button. I think both of your insights into this are very valuable and would hate to lose the good information and knowledge you may be able to share because this got personal.

Thanks guys. Now back to a logical debate...

:lurk:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,223 Posts
You don’t know about VIN history? Toyota and GM, IMSCM now share ALL VIN data during RO write up so that if a vehicle is taken to another same OE dealership, they can see what was recommended and declined at the previous dealership...if the dealer has said it was okay, and last I heard, 95% of Toyota dealers said yes and GM had just rolled it out. First off, I have NO clue what your problem is. I never attacked you or the product you’re pushing. I said don’t use anything. And you have done nothing but attack me. I also have over 20 years in the dealer world. 15 years in the dealership and almost 6 doing what I’m doing now. I work directly with the OEs, the DPSMs and the RPSMs. Not one OE recommends doing a FIC!! Look in the owner’s manual. Does it say FIC? Why? Because it is nothing more then mere snake oil and a way for the dealer to make money. Does it work? Sure, in some cases. But DI and turbo motors it does nothing. So when you can show me where it states FIC in an owner’s manual under maintenances, let me know. About 90% of the dealers that do FICs use BG products or Valvoline. The other 10% don’t do them because they don’t want to cheat their customers. Their exact words.
Of course I know about VIN history. What VIN history is there when someone cleans their intake valves in their driveway or in their buddy's garage? None. If a dealer performed an intake valve cleaning procedure and then there was a turbo or engine failure as a result of that cleaning that dealer should be liable. No problems or attacks here. Your are right, I checked in the maintenance section of the owners manual and it does not state you should run a FIC but it also doesn't say you should run "several bottles of Techron over a 1000 mile period" (your exact words) but you did????


______________________________________________________________________________________
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
Robo, that’s what caught me so off guard at this Hyundai dealer. I’ve watched complete, tricked out street racers come in and watched them warranty motors. But this one that they declined was completely odd to me. They stated that because he had a FIC done at a quick lube place, they weren’t warrantying the turbo. I ran one bottle every other tank for a total of 3 bottles. Once I cleared the one code with it, the other code started which was the HPFP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
If anyone is interested, I just finished cleaning my intake valves. I removed a lot of carbon build up with walnut blasting as I was apprehensive using the GDI sprays that say they are good for any engine, even the turbo, so CNC claims. I posted my results in pictures on the Solstice site as that is where I found most of the information. Here is the link. Intake Manifold Removal I thought that it would be good here as well, although a quick search with Google would find it. Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob the Elder

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,298 Posts
If anyone is interested, I just finished cleaning my intake valves. I removed a lot of carbon build up with walnut blasting as I was apprehensive using the GDI sprays that say they are good for any engine, even the turbo, so CNC claims. I posted my results in pictures on the Solstice site as that is where I found most of the information. Here is the link. Intake Manifold Removal I thought that it would be good here as well, although a quick search with Google would find it. Cheers
Where did you get it done at SAR and what did it set you back? (If you don't mind me asking.)

I don't need it done (benefits to the LE5 being port injected) but I'm sure there are some other 2.0 owners out here that would be curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Yes, turbine blades are easy damages by impurities such a carbon chunks in the exhaust stream, dirty or wet steam on a steam turbine, or birds or other foreign objects in a jet engine.
Direct injection does offer many advantages over port injection. One of the major disadvantages is the build up of carbon on the intake valves. Direct injection is also nosier at idle conditions.
The best is a combination of direct and port injection this applies to force induction as well as naturally aspirated engines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Yes sir, I did it at SARBlade's Garage Inc!! SGI, I like it. Not quite the same set up as DEI!

By all accounts, I think I paid $20 for media blaster, $12 for the walnut shells, $15 for a set of torque sockets (I didn't have any for the 2 x studs that are on the top of the manifold), and at $1000/hr, the total was , hmmmm, $3047! I figure I'd up my hourly wage to $1000/hr since I don't want anyone else to ask me to do it, lol!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
The carbon that build up on the valves is very hard. When CRC, Seafoam or some other carbon deposit remover is sprayed on the valves, it has to remain on the valves for a while and allow it to soak for it to work.

Spraying it into the manifold while the engine is running will not allow the CRC to soak effectively. And it certainly will not soften the carbon enough to dissolve it. What it does is cause some of the carbon to come off in chunks and flow into the cylinder and out the exhaust port. I would not want the hard chunks in my cylinder, on my piston rings, and certainly not through the turbo.

Before the naysayers chime in, I'll tell you about the carbon that I removed from a DI engine using CRC last year. No, I did not stupidly spray it into a running engine.

I took the intake manifold off, masked off the rest of the engine compartment with only the valve ports uncovered. I turned the engine so the intake valves were closed on one cylinder. I taped off the other ports and sprayed CRC on the valve stem, back of valves, port walls and let it soak about 30 minutes. I sprayed CRC on the valves from time to time to keep the valves wet. After 30 minutes, I scraped the carbon with a dental pick and pieces of carbon flaked off in 1/8" to 1/16" pieces. I felt the removed carbon and they were very hard and sharp. There was no soft/melted carbon residue. I was able to remove about 50% of the carbon with the pick and sprayed more CRC on the valves. I picked the rest of the carbon off but the valves were still not completely clean. I chucked a brass wire brush, the kind used for cleaning gun barrels, into a drill and used that at medium speed to clean the rest of the carbon off. Used a shop vacuum to remove CRC and carbon bits, flushed with more CRC until clean. The first cylinder took about 1 1/2 hours and when completed, the valves and port were completely clean.

I turned the engine so the valves on the next cylinder were closed and proceeded to clean that one. The second cylinder only took an hour. Used the wire brush more and at a faster speed. Did all four valves in one day. The engine had 36,000 miles on it, no catch can.

When I eventually clean the valves on the GXP, I may switch to walnut blasting, if a port adapter becomes available for these engines. Without a properly fitting port adapter, the walnut shells most likely will create a mess. I walnut blasted a DI diesel engine using a thick, stiff hose with similar diameter to the valve ports but the media would blow out of the edges. Whatever is used has to be the same shape as the port to make a tight fit. And it would be ideal if it could be bolted to the head using the manifold fastenings. Possibly cut up an intake manifold and use the individual runners for each port.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
The carbon that build up on the valves is very hard. When CRC, Seafoam or some other carbon deposit remover is sprayed on the valves, it has to remain on the valves for a while and allow it to soak for it to work.

Spraying it into the manifold while the engine is running will not allow the CRC to soak effectively. And it certainly will not soften the carbon enough to dissolve it. What it does is cause some of the carbon to come off in chunks and flow into the cylinder and out the exhaust port. I would not want the hard chunks in my cylinder, on my piston rings, and certainly not through the turbo.

Before the naysayers chime in, I'll tell you about the carbon that I removed from a DI engine using CRC last year. No, I did not stupidly spray it into a running engine.

I took the intake manifold off, masked off the rest of the engine compartment with only the valve ports uncovered. I turned the engine so the intake valves were closed on one cylinder. I taped off the other ports and sprayed CRC on the valve stem, back of valves, port walls and let it soak about 30 minutes. I sprayed CRC on the valves from time to time to keep the valves wet. After 30 minutes, I scraped the carbon with a dental pick and pieces of carbon flaked off in 1/8" to 1/16" pieces. I felt the removed carbon and they were very hard and sharp. There was no soft/melted carbon residue. I was able to remove about 50% of the carbon with the pick and sprayed more CRC on the valves. I picked the rest of the carbon off but the valves were still not completely clean. I chucked a brass wire brush, the kind used for cleaning gun barrels, into a drill and used that at medium speed to clean the rest of the carbon off. Used a shop vacuum to remove CRC and carbon bits, flushed with more CRC until clean. The first cylinder took about 1 1/2 hours and when completed, the valves and port were completely clean.

I turned the engine so the valves on the next cylinder were closed and proceeded to clean that one. The second cylinder only took an hour. Used the wire brush more and at a faster speed. Did all four valves in one day. The engine had 36,000 miles on it, no catch can.

When I eventually clean the valves on the GXP, I may switch to walnut blasting, if a port adapter becomes available for these engines. Without a properly fitting port adapter, the walnut shells most likely will create a mess. I walnut blasted a DI diesel engine using a thick, stiff hose with similar diameter to the valve ports but the media would blow out of the edges. Whatever is used has to be the same shape as the port to make a tight fit. And it would be ideal if it could be bolted to the head using the manifold fastenings. Possibly cut up an intake manifold and use the individual runners for each port.
I used the CRC valve cleaning product as well but only after I walnut blasted. I did this as I couldn't really get everything with the media blasting blindly doing it. I sprayed CRC on, let it soak, then used a toothbrush to brush off. A rag stuffed in there to soak up any product left over. I also used a piece of pool hose for a valve intake channel adapter. It worked very well and very little walnut shell was thrown. See my pictures here. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: syjos

·
Registered
Joined
·
528 Posts
My experience with carbon on intake valves is as follows.

In 1991 I bought a 5 year old 1986 Pontiac Fiero-GT with the stock unmodified MFI 2.8L V6 engine with roughly 50,000 miles. I found it odd that the owners manual stated to use 87 octane gas but the engine pinged unless I used premium gasoline. Further research indicated the values had carbon build-up on them preventing them from seating properly which caused the ping. I learned about THIS PRODUCT and treated the engine with it. The pinging was eliminated and I was able to use regular 87 octane from then on.

I also learned that the excessive carbon build up was the result from using premium fuel in an engine that required regular. The fuel burned less efficiently leaving micro deposits of carbon soot behind. Practiced for so long a time, the carbon built up to the point of causing the pinging. The messy carbon buildup also deposited inside the upper intake manifold from the EGR system. I had to clean the intake manifold the old fashion way.

I have no idea how this would apply to the Sky/Solstice 2.0L turbo or the 2.4L N/A engine. I don't know the risk of using the D-Karbonizer product on either of them. All I know is my success with the product used on a Fiero-GT 2.8L-V6 engine.

It is funny that you can buy OTC D-Karbonizer so cheap now. I recall paying a small fortune for it back in 1992.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,940 Posts
..........
I also learned that the excessive carbon build up was the result from using premium fuel in an engine that required regular. The fuel burned less efficiently leaving micro deposits of carbon soot behind. .............

I have no idea how this would apply to the Sky/Solstice 2.0L turbo or the 2.4L N/A engine. ...........
You have mentioned this before. Is it documented anywhere, or is this "tribal knowledge" of some sort? I would like to learn more because I have never heard this mentioned.

Anything added to the Direct Injection 2.0's fuel system will have no effect, since the valves never see fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
My car has 92,000 miles on it, has never had the valves cleaned, has the original water pump and runs great. I will not be changing ANYTHING until I have a problem. I was earlier thinking about changing antifreeze, but with the car running at 194 to 196 degrees always, and no fluid loss, I wont "fix" it. I feel the same about the intake valves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,101 Posts
JohnWR said, "Anything added to the Direct Injection 2.0's fuel system will have no effect, since the valves never see fuel."

That is true, so deposits are not burned fuel, just old oil from the crank case. Re route the blow by and dont put it in the intake manifold !!!!!!! The vent is just there to vent pressure from the crank case. Put the hose to an oil filter housing and then to the atmosphere. I would suspect a standard oil filter would take all the oil out of it for years.

Or if you dont want to do that, inject the valve cleaner at the point where the crank case vent is attached. Should be safe there.
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top