sludge

Page 3 of 4  
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 19:02:53 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Dave in Lake Villa) wrote:


OK Dave, I have had first-hand experience. I have torn down many, many engines.
It's amazing how clean an old but well-maintained engine is. Only in cases of abuse or overheating will you normally find anything that flushing would help. Based on my experience, I don't think flushing has any value in a normal maintenance regime.
--
Bob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave in Lake Villa wrote:

OK, I viewed the web site. I'm now even more convinced this is simply another way to separate people from their money. The before and after pictures are particularly telling. There is a lot of stuff remaining in the after picture. For a real comparison, they should have also showed a new oil pan and oil pickup (at least that is what I think was in the picture). Then you could see how much stuff remains. Also, when an engine is running, it slings oil everywhere. Ever see a high-speed camera shot inside the crankcase of a running engine? I have and the oil is flying everywhere. The flush system, from what is shows on the web site graphic, is running fluid in and letting it drain back to the crankcase and then suctioning it out. The suggests that most of the engine is going to be cleaned as the oil only flows back through the oil passages. It isn't covering the entire inside of the engine the way the oil is when the engine is running.
In the end, all of this is irrelevant anyway as the sludge has virtually no effect on the operation of the engine. Even the "data" they show, was showing improvements that likely aren't even statistically significant. 1-3% is in the noise level of most measurement techniques. An engine on a dyno can experience a 1% change in torque from morning to afternoon must from temperature and humidity changes. To claim that a 1% difference was due to this flush is simply hogwash.
However, as has been often said "there's one born every minute" so these folks will probably get lots of business with their scare tactics. I wonder how cars have operated so well for 100 years without this magic machine?
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
'I wonder how cars have operated so well for 100 years without this magic machine? Matt'
REPLY: The same way they did before Capacitive Discharge Ignition Systems came along.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What's that got to do with normal, production vehicles - Sonata, Elantra, Taurus, etc?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
''I wonder how cars have operated so well for 100 years without this magic machine? Matt'
The same way they did before Capacitive Discharge Ignition Systems came along.
What's that got to do with normal, production vehicles - Sonata, Elantra, Taurus, etc?'
REPLY: Everything. Cars have been working reasonably well for nearly 100 years now ; but as time marches forward and technology increases....there are more advantageous methods and ways which were not known some 100 years ago. Such is the case with preventive maintenance / repair techniques on modern cars versus old ones.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But my question was: What point are you trying to make by relating the way cars have operated prior to the existence of the de-sludging machine - which I guess could be used on most any vehicle - to something like CDI, which is not present on, and cannot be adapted to be used with most normal vehicles?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
'But my question was: What point are you trying to make by relating the way cars have operated prior to the existence of the de-sludging machine - which I guess could be used on most any vehicle - to something like CDI, which is not present on, and cannot be adapted to be used with most normal vehicles?'
REPLY: I was indicating that many things that are now used or can be added on a vehicle (Desludging machine, CDI , EFI, etc, etc...) werent used on automobiles in the distant past yet they operated fairly well without them. This however, doesnt mean that they are not beneficial for us today.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think the underlying question is "is XXX really beneficial"? If a motor will predictably run 200,000 plus miles, and has reliably exhibited this capability using nothing more than regular changes of simple dino motor oil, what is the real world advantage of the flush? Sure - it demonstrates that it removes at least some of the sludge, but at what measurable benefit? The car as a whole is likely not worth the effort in attempting to get another 200,000 miles from, so that infamous rule of diminishing returns quickly becomes a consideration. For what it's worth - this is the very argument I use to support my continued use of dino oil instead of synthetics.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave in Lake Villa wrote:

CDI provided demonstrable advantages. That is why car makers switched to using them. Engine flushes don't have demonstrable advantages, that is why no car make recommends them.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Car makers determined that there were not enough advantages to CDI under normal operating conditions to use them. I'm pretty certain that high performance cars like the Viper, and whatever else along the same lines might use it, but I'm not sure. NASCAR doesn't use it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ooooooooo.... really bad example Bob. NASCAR doesn't use a lot of really beneficial technologies. Things like fuel injection, any sort of computer, traction control, etc. immediately come to mind. NASCAR cars are an excellent example of 1970's technology serving a very specific purpose, and not a very good example of technologies that have a purpose in modern day vehicles.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
'CDI provided demonstrable advantages. That is why car makers switched to using them. Engine flushes don't have demonstrable advantages, that is why no car make recommends them. Matt '
REPLY: Synthetic fluids have demonstrable advantages, yet not all Car Mfg's recommend them in their owners manual. Same with K and N intake air filters and a host of other things.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Another bad example. The oil from a K&N can damage your air flow sensor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hyundaitech wrote:

As the dirt passed by the filter damages your rings, pistons and cylinder walls.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

Yep. No better than using an old sock flooded with oil.
JS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave in Lake Villa wrote:

Because the advantages aren't needed in most cases. Chevrolet and Porsche do specify synthetics. My K1500 requires a specific Castrol synthetic gear lube in the manual transmission.
K&N filters are a great way to ruin your engine as they pass a lot more dirt than do conventional paper filters. Sure, you get a little more performance, but you give up engine life. If you are a racer, this is a worthwhile trade. It is a fool's choice for a street vehicle.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

Let's see, so far we've discovered that he believes in the Bilstein machine and K&N filters. Wanna bet whether he has one of those "Turbonators" in his intake and Slick 50 or Duralube in his crankcase? Perhaps he believes in E3 spark plugs, too?
Yeah, there's one born every minute.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've seen some comment here about K&N, and in fact I've watched these comments since they began here, but I've never seen anything that documents K&N problems. I don't use K&N, but they are one of the better reputed aftermarket items outside of this forum. I'm curious how K&N has achieved such a notable reputation as to now be deemed to ruin engines.
I'm aware of one (reported) case where K&N caused a problem with a MAF sensor, but to my understanding (admittedly not well researched), this is either not the norm or it has been resolved by the manner in which the filters are oiled. There are a ton of these filters out there and if MAF sensor problems were such a real threat, one would expect to see a lot of press about it - but one does not.
I've never seen any documentation of engines being ruined by K&N filters either. Is this an urban legend that has developed in this group or does someone actually have some empirical evidence of K&N problems?
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

You haven't looked very hard. This was from the very first page of a Google search using "K&N filter efficiency test" as search words.
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
Notice that the K&N supplied data provides no comparitive data. This is typical of a product that doesn't compare well to its peers. They show absolute numerical values and argue that they are good enough. Kind of like buying a cheap Chinese TV vs. a Sony. Sure, you will still see a picture, but never put a Sony beside it or you'll kick yourself.
http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab2.gif
I'm not at all saying that using a K&N is instant death for an engine. If you never drive on dirt roads or dusty areas, you may never see a difference. Then again, the difference in airflow is so small that you won't see a difference in performance that is measurable either. And the trade is that you now have to at least annually pull the filter, wash out the old oil and re-oil it. My paper filters last 50-100,000 miles (only replaced the filter twice on my minivan that went 178,000 miles) and I have a dirt driveway nearly 3/8 mile long and drive on dirt roads fairly often. Modern paper filters with modern vehicles that have the air intake being the grill, rather than in the engine compartment, simply last a long time.
If you are racing where you are running at full throttle much of the time, then the difference in airflow may matter and if you suck in more dust and shorten your engine life, you don't care. You will likely wear the engine out from abuse before you see the affect of the less efficient filter. However, if you are like me and plan to keep a vehicle at least 200,000 miles and longer if possible, then I think this is more of a concern. It's your money, but for me I see no reason to pay premium dollars for a filter that requires maintenance, is messy, passes more dirt and provides a performance advantage that isn't measurable in the type of driving I do (I rarely run full throttle or even close).
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't do a google search at all Matt - I was asking people here if they had good reasons for their disklike of K&N.
I do appreciate the link though.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.