Not much smoke during/after seafoam intake treatment. Good sign?

[MrPlow]

I used a full can of seafoam spray on my 300K+ mile 22re 2.4 Toyota engine. Besides a tiny bit of smoke during and right after applying, there wasn't much smoke at all compared to what other people experience. Less visible discharge than a semi-cold morning start. I assume the most likely takeaway is that the engine was already pretty clean to begin with? It gets Chevron the vast majority of the time (since new actually) and never any cheap gas. Also gets driven for long distances and very few short trips.

The worst thing is that I had to have visible contact with my neighbor the whole time. Was kind of hoping the smoke cloud would drive him away or make him disappear. LOL

 

[JC1]

I did the Seafoam treatment a few years back. Got some white smoke for maybe 15-20 seconds and that was it. Wasn't a gigantic cloud as well.

 

[spasm3]

Seafoam is alcohol and oil and a bit of naptha. The smoke is from burning the oil. No smoke? Engine is probably good and hot.

 

[wpod]

The white smoke is the light oils and solvents burning.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

The white smoke is the light oils and solvents burning.

I disagree. To your average shade tree mechanic it's the greatest show on earth.

 

[atikovi]

Was kind of hoping the smoke cloud would drive him away or make him disappear. LOL

Or call the fire department.

 

[AutoMechanic]

I’ve never used the spray I assume it’s like the kind you pour in. It probably means your engine is extra clean. The smoke show is always fun to see. Once the fire department showed up at school because the nursing home next to it called the fire department saying the school was on fire

 

[ondarvr]

I tried it in a couple of motors years ago, never had anything but a slight amount of white smoke.

It's used to de-carb outboards too, and people claim lots of smoke, I've never experienced it in that application either.

 

[MrPlow]

I think it may have to do with the difference between the spray and when people just guzzle it down with a vacuum hose from the regular bottle. The spray takes up to 7 minutes to empty, while the tube in the can method sucks it all up in a matter of seconds. The large clouds of smoke I've seen in videos were from guys sucking it from the can rapidly. Then, after the hot soak, there is still a lot of residual seafoam in the cylinders and intake system waiting to get burned off and does so in a shorter duration of time.

Next time, I might just try doing it through the brake booster with the liquid instead of through the throttle body with the spray.

It's like hydrogen peroxide in cuts. You can tell it's working better when it hurts more and bubbles a bunch. (calibrate you sarcasm detectors folks)

 

[Jethro_Bob]

Seems like bad or no catalytic converters would be needed for a big smoke show.

 

[JT20]

If there's not a lot of crud to burn there will be nothing or almost nothing.

 

[OVERKILL]

Seafoam is alcohol and oil and a bit of naptha. The smoke is from burning the oil. No smoke? Engine is probably good and hot.

This. The smoke is not your engine being "cleaned out", it's the product itself burning off. If introduced at a rate that's slow enough, the smoke "show" will be quite small.

 

[dogememe]

I tried it a couple times in my life on various vehicles for various reasons. Including boredom and a free leaking can of Seafoam.

Each time it does make a shuuuuuge smoke show when sucking in through a vacuum line. Love it. And then driving around the block after rolling white coal in a gas vehicle. Then the entertainment is over and you realize that it was a waste of time.

 

[Trav]

I used a full can of seafoam spray on my 300K+ mile 22re 2.4 Toyota engine. Besides a tiny bit of smoke during and right after applying, there wasn't much smoke at all compared to what other people experience. Less visible discharge than a semi-cold morning start. I assume the most likely takeaway is that the engine was already pretty clean to begin with? It gets Chevron the vast majority of the time (since new actually) and never any cheap gas. Also gets driven for long distances and very few short trips.

The worst thing is that I had to have visible contact with my neighbor the whole time. Was kind of hoping the smoke cloud would drive him away or make him disappear. LOL

For all the good that stuff does you may as well open the car window and throw the money out. Unless the engine has a real issue issue with carbon (some engines like the Cadillac N* had a real problem with it that caused a knocking sound) there is no reason to mess around with trying to remove carbon.

If there is a real issue causing carbon issue then a overnight piston soak is a better solution. There is a benefit to carbon, a minor coating provides some protection for the pistons heads and may actually save the piston head and top ring land from damage due to minor pre-ignition events.
Sometimes you can do more damage with kindness than leaving the engine to operate in peace.

 

[MrPlow]

I do find it a bit amusing how frugal people on this site can be when it comes to stuff like motor oil, filters, and additives. Compared to the operating and purchase costs of vehicles, spending $8 on a can of Seafoam after an engine has ran over 300,000 miles is somehow pissing money away. LOL. I'm not going to spend the time and/or money of taking the engine apart or buying a borescope to see if I need to run a treatment or take any other action. For $8 and 20 minutes of rallying around on a dirt logging road, which is fun, I don't care if it didn't end up doing anything. If it did do something, then great. It's not like my engine was in dire need of service and running poorly, expecting Seafoam to solve all my issues.

The only time I have ever heard of Seafoam causing harm is from people hydrolocking their engines. Otherwise it's the usual thing of either helping, or not doing anything at all. There is plenty of evidence that it can have a dramatic effect on some engines.

I know people on this site loath Project Farm and have a knee-jerk vomit reflex every time it is mentioned, but he did show, in his personal experience with a single engine copy, that Seafoam can work. The difference he saw was quite dramatic. Of course, he could be lying, but he comes across as genuine, even if his testing methods/goals can be called into question on some of his other videos.



I drive a nearly 30 year old pickup truck, that was handed down to me by a family member who no longer liked driving it. If I do some short OCI or add a bottle of additive, I'm somehow an idiot burning money away. Yet, if someone who drives a 2016 pickup truck and sells it to buy a 2021 pickup truck, burning FAR more money in depreciation, it's all "good work mate", and "atta-boys". LOL

 

[Trav]

It is throwing money away when there are better products that do more for not much more. Pouring a bit of pale oil, lighter fluid and IPA down the intake isn't doing much for the engine, tap water would more effective at carbon removal. Using a cleaner that uses PEA through the injectors into the cylinders is more effective.

 

[JT20]

It is throwing money away when there are better products that do more for not much more. Pouring a bit of pale oil, lighter fluid and IPA down the intake isn't doing much for the engine, tap water would more effective at carbon removal. Using a cleaner that uses PEA through the injectors into the cylinders is more effective.

Make it Distilled water and I agree

 

[Trav]

Good point, I guess it depends on where you are. Here the water is very soft though I dont think it would make a whole lot of difference seeing as it is not a long term thing.

 

[MrPlow]

So where exactly is the proof that SeaFoam does nothing at all going through the throttle body? I posted a video above of one example where it did make a difference, and it was quite dramatic. I'm not trying to be combative or obtuse, I genuinely would like to know if there is definitive proof SeaFoam does nothing through intakes. Lot's of mechanics and DIY guys have used it and seen positive results for decades. I think the burden of proof might weigh more on the guys who don't have first hand experience, but are also knowledgeable about oils and additives.

This is one of difficult things about internet forums. Me, not being an oil and engine expert, have no way to tell if some name with written text posting online is indeed someone with the credentials to state things as conclusive facts and be taken at face value for it. YOU might know you're right, but just saying so in plain text with nothing backing it up is a hard sell for people who don't know you.

For example, I'm actually an expert in the field of landscape photography. I would wager with near 100% confidence that there is not a single other member on this forum who knows more about this subject than I do, which is something I have been doing for 30 years, professionally at times. But I wouldn't expect anyone to take my opinion or knowledge at face value, as there is no way for others to gauge that I am someone who knows what they are talking about. Even with looking at my portfolio online and seeing all the pretty photos, one still couldn't be certain when I say something like "saving a 14 bit RAW file as 16 or 32 bit doesn't offer any advantage in tonal gradations and dynamic range." I would have to provide proof of this statement.

So, in my shoes, I have watched videos of very clear positive results from SeaFoam, along with countless recommendations from mechanics, and even my own local oil change shop that does the SeaFoam treatment through the intake. Lots of first hand anecdotal evidence that in certain cases, it just plain works. Do I discard all of that because some person with a lot of posts on a forum says it's basically snake oil and I am peeing away money that could be put into a new mullet at the barber shop?

 

[JT20]

So where exactly is the proof that SeaFoam does nothing at all going through the throttle body? I posted a video above of one example where it did make a difference, and it was quite dramatic. I'm not trying to be combative or obtuse, I genuinely would like to know if there is definitive proof SeaFoam does nothing through intakes. Lot's of mechanics and DIY guys have used it and seen positive results for decades. I think the burden of proof might weigh more on the guys who don't have first hand experience, but are also knowledgeable about oils and additives.

This is one of difficult things about internet forums. Me, not being an oil and engine expert, have no way to tell if some name with written text posting online is indeed someone with the credentials to state things as conclusive facts and be taken at face value for it. YOU might know you're right, but just saying so in plain text with nothing backing it up is a hard sell for people who don't know you.

For example, I'm actually an expert in the field of landscape photography. I would wager with near 100% confidence that there is not a single other member on this forum who knows more about this subject than I do, which is something I have been doing for 30 years, professionally at times. But I wouldn't expect anyone to take my opinion or knowledge at face value, as there is no way for others to gauge that I am someone who knows what they are talking about. Even with looking at my portfolio online and seeing all the pretty photos, one still couldn't be certain when I say something like "saving a 14 bit RAW file as 16 or 32 bit doesn't offer any advantage in tonal gradations and dynamic range." I would have to provide proof of this statement.

So, in my shoes, I have watched videos of very clear positive results from SeaFoam, along with countless recommendations from mechanics, and even my own local oil change shop that does the SeaFoam treatment through the intake. Lots of first hand anecdotal evidence that in certain cases, it just plain works. Do I discard all of that because some person with a lot of posts on a forum says it's basically snake oil and I am peeing away money that could be put into a new mullet at the barber shop?

Of course it wouldn't; it originated as 14-bit.

Fujifilm used to be my favorite, gave cool, crisp colors and I started liking it when I was young. Kodak (not Kodachrome. Regular Kodak. ISO 200 or 400, I used 400 a lot; 100 was pretty much just for stills.. 50 if you dare and had an SLR) produced warm colors and I preferred Fuji; since, again, photos are like sound, you have a preference even if one is better than the other.