On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 19:02:53 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org (Dave in Lake
OK Dave, I have had first-hand experience. I have torn down many, many
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.
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
''I wonder how cars have operated so well for 100 years without this
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.
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?
'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
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
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.
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.
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
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.