sludge

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 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 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.

'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.

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.

Another bad example. The oil from a K&N can damage your air flow sensor.

I'll interject here that Dave's experience is one of the few actual benefits of an engine flush. If you do happen to get something lodged in a small passage, the flusher could possibly push it out.

If I had a customer with a valve tap, I'd recommend trying an engine flush prior to engaging in extensive and costly engine repairs. What's to lose?

But it's also important to know that success in these endeavors is mixed. I've stopped some valve taps with the machine, but others still remained. I had one car flushed after the owner failed to change the oil and the delivery passages were restricted. It bought the customer about 6 months before the bearing clearances were bad enough that the oil pressure was low.

I don't have a problem with the flusher, particularly. Like most things, it has a usefulness that cannot be denied. But the issue is that services like this marketed as some sort of regular maintenance service or some magic bullet. Well, they aren't. There's no benefit to flushing an engine crankcase that has no problem.

If your engine is sludged, but you are having no actual oiling issues, the procedure has no more value than adding 1/2 qt. of ATF with each oil change, and, like Matt correctly pointed out, the flush can *cause* problems if pieces of sludge are knocked loose into the oil pan. With no oiling issues, it'd be far better to try to gradually dissolve the sludge.

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

As the dirt passed by the filter damages your rings, pistons and cylinder walls.

Matt

What's to lose is your engine if you dislodge a large piece of gunk and clog up the passage to a main bearing in the process of opening up the passage to the lifter. Personally, I'd try running a synthetic oil for a change or two first. Jumping right to an engine flush is like driving a finishing nail with a 5 lb maul. Sure, it'll drive the nail, but it'll also leave a large dent in the finished wood!

Matt

Yep. No better than using an old sock flooded with oil.

JS

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 even close).

Matt

Dave, I gotta tell you there's almost nothing I dislike more than Christian proselytizing. One thing I dislike more would be Atheistic proselytizing.

Let's talk Hyundai's friend! :)

All one has to do is tear down an older engine that has been well-maintained and have a look. It's amazing how clean everything is... including the oil pan. Only in cases of abuse or overheating will you normally find anything that flushing would help.

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.

Let's see, so far we've discovered that he believes in the Bilstein

And perhaps uses a water injection (Adds 80 HP INSTANTLY!) add-on?

Water injection systems are predominantly useful in forced induction (turbocharged or supercharged), internal combustion engines. Only in extreme cases such as very high compression ratios, very low octane fuel or too much ignition advance can it benefit a normally aspirated engine.

While I agree there's a chance of engine damage, that's very small. I don't see the point in doing the flush in the case where there is no actual oiling problem to begin with, but if you've already got a clogged or partially clogged passage, you're far more likely to do damage by driving than by flushing. And remember, this would be for people facing costly repairs in the first place. If it's inexpensive to clean by hand whatever's clogged, that's a far better alternativbe.