Oil consumption cut in half after 'solvent' flush?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: dargo
Originally Posted By: va3ux
Hello Frank,

Are you sure you meant to post that statement on this thread ?


I agree but they always find a way to push this product..LMAO!


Maybe we are both wrong...
33.gif
 
Solvent flushes work best with gooey types of sludge, which might be the case in the valve cover but not in the ring pack. AutoRx should have handled all the sludge if one used it as directed. Cannot see what more a solvent flush could do. Have you pulled the valve cover and looked at the condition of the valve stem seals?
 
Originally Posted By: Donald
Solvent flushes work best with gooey types of sludge, which might be the case in the valve cover but not in the ring pack. AutoRx should have handled all the sludge if one used it as directed.

This engine had 3 ARX treatments back in 2006. No change in compression, no change in oil consumption, no change is gas mileage, no sludge or deposits in filters, no change in operating characteristics at all. Maybe it was fairly clean to start with - who knows ? In the year and a half since the final ARX was done, I have seen a small area on one of the exhaust cam outboard bearings clean up nicely. Very slow and gradual, but it is significantly cleaner. It's also all I can see through the oil filler cap. But I attribute that to ARX, and assume that similar deposits that I can not see may also have gradually cleaned-up.

A solvent would not work on ring pack deposits ? Please explain. Based on the cause/effect I've reported in this thread, you might want to re-think that.
Quote:
Cannot see what more a solvent flush could do.

Apples and oranges. A solvent flush should attack nearly any HC based deposit and do it quickly, of course with the apparent risk of sloughing deposit too quickly and possibly blocking an oil passage. ARX is far gentler, takes longer, and is safer on a number of fronts. But based on many posts here over the past several years, it apparently does not work equally in all engines, or equally with all deposits.
Quote:
Have you pulled the valve cover and looked at the condition of the valve stem seals?

No, but I would like to have done it before I ever started ARX in May 2006. Unfortunately it's a 3 hour job to remove and replace valve covers on this engine, consequently I've never done it. Wished I'd done it, but never did. It's interesting that you mention valve stem seals because worn exhaust valve stem seals are a common source of oil consumption and blue smoke with this engine. Mine doesn't smoke at all and never has.
 
Originally Posted By: va3ux

Apples and oranges. A solvent flush should attack nearly any HC based deposit and do it quickly, of course with the apparent risk of sloughing deposit too quickly and possibly blocking an oil passage. ARX is far gentler, takes longer, and is safer on a number of fronts. But based on many posts here over the past several years, it apparently does not work equally in all engines, or equally with all deposits.


I'd just caution everyone that a solvent flush doesn't work equally on all deposits either. When I came on here I talked up Berryman Chemtool so much for flushing that people thought I was a salesman. Why? Because I had SEEN it work! I'd seen it blast carbon off of piston crowns and spark plugs (much better than Seafoam, BTW). I also knew that any time I had dabbed some on a deposit, it would rub it right off. That being said, for my particular engine in my current car with its particular circumstances, it never did a thing. Even with ten ounces.

And let me be totally honest here, I recently tried a flush again, against my better judgment. Arx has done a great job of cleaning out my major deposits but a recent failed thermo had left me with a nice new coat of varnish on my valve train in my destiney-to make deposits SAAB b235 engine. Well, out of exasperation that my recovered engine was now faced with another hurdle to overcome, I succumbed to mixing up a brew for flushing. I mixed up about 8 ounces of toluene, acetone, MEK, and ethanol. I took a shop towel and dabbed some on a spot on the valve train. Yep. wiped the varnish right off and left shiny, clean metal. So, I giddily poured the stuff into my oil and cranked up the engine. I ran it for roughly 15 minutes, maybe a tad longer. I drained the oil out and then pulled the valve cover off.

Result... Nothing... not a bit of visual change to anything. Same varnish was there. Same remaining gooey deposits were still there. Same remaining hard carbon deposits-still there. Of course, I have no idea what else it might have done. In a sheer panic that all I'd done was more harm to my engine, I grabbed my coathanger-based oil pickup mesh scraper that I use to check for clogs. Nothing there either! So all I seemed to get out of this was the possibility that I might have added a bit of extra wear to my engine's internals from thinned out oil. I base this on the squeak, squeak squeak I got from some un-lubricated internal part rubbing metal that I got as I cranked the engine on fill-up. Same squeak I got the 1st time I used a flush in this car. I never get that from draining oil alone or oil with arx. Just the two times I've flushed it.
21.gif
So, I filled the engine back up with oil and in went another maintenance dose of arx.

So to say without a doubt that a strong aromatic is going to clean up every type of deposit is just as dubious a statement.

The moral being there is no silver bullet for every person and no miracle cure for every situation. Frank knows that and that's why, from what I've seen on here he'll help customers try and tailor arx for their individual application to try and get the most out of it. And if it the customer isn't impressed, he offers a money back guarantee. Frank's fair to you if you're fair to him. Lol, no commercial intended. He's just pointing out there ARE potential problems with using solvents that don't exist with arx. And he's right.

FYI, my personal list of routes I've tried to cleaning my engine other than arx include: Berryman Chemtool (toluene, hexanes, methanol and acetone), Redline (ester/PAO with high levels of zddp/calcium), HDEOs (high levels of ZDDP/calcium), LC20 (cyclohexanone), Neutra 131 (N-butyl alcohol and cresylic acid), my homebrew flush (MEK, toluene, methanol, acetone)... So please don't think I've got "following the crowd" mentality for my post. I've tried several routes. None of the sure-fire methods were very sure-fire for me except arx.
 
The only explanation I can see for the likely temporary reduction in oil consumption would be that the solvent swelled the stem seals. This 2.7 was likely consuming from both worn rings and valve stem seepage. The solvent did not alter the ring packs performance at all based on compression readings. Obviously the motor is pretty well worn. So some oil is being used working up through the rings and still is. So the only logical result from the long solvent run must be stem seal swell.

Hopefully they did not swell to the point of causing any physical wear to the polymer material. Eventually the solvent will evaporate out of the polymer and the seals will shrink down.
At that point the consumption will likely return to the old level, if not worse.

ARX does not swell seals. However, normally if you remove the contaminants that had been packed onto the seal material, the seal will rebound by itself. Perhaps it was a good thing to run the ARX before this extended solvent flush so that the seal material was relatively clean so that the solvent swelled the seals evenly.
 
Originally Posted By: Rick20
The only explanation I can see for the likely temporary reduction in oil consumption would be that the solvent swelled the stem seals. This 2.7 was likely consuming from both worn rings and valve stem seepage. The solvent did not alter the ring packs performance at all based on compression readings. Obviously the motor is pretty well worn. So some oil is being used working up through the rings and still is. So the only logical result from the long solvent run must be stem seal swell.

Those are some enormous conclusions based on essentially zero operating data. I've provided one observation. You've got quite a crystal ball there.

1) The absence of any change in compression is meaningless. Only the top ring is responsible for compression. The two rings below the top ring are responsible for oil control (and consumption), but not compression. I "suspect" that the solvent flush may have removed some of the gummy deposits from the oil control rings and hence restored some their functionality. Again, "suspect" - not conclude. I don't actually know. And none of us ever will know either. You really can't conclude anything from what I've presented. You can observe and wonder/conjecture, but that's about it.

2) The motor is not obviously well worn. What data have you seen that would lead you to that conclusion ? You should look at the library of UOA I've posted from this engine. The wear numbers are so low it isn't funny. The compression readings are the same now as they were 5 years ago (and 160K miles ago). And still 60 - 70 psi above what Chrysler specs as the minimum normal. That is not indicative of a 'well worn motor'.

3)Your valve stem seal theory is plausible. Do you know what material the valve stem seals are made of, and if that material will swell in the presence of a 5% solvent/95% motor oil solution, with the solvent composition being unknown ? I don't.

Quote:
Hopefully they did not swell to the point of causing any physical wear to the polymer material. Eventually the solvent will evaporate out of the polymer and the seals will shrink down.
At that point the consumption will likely return to the old level, if not worse.

Well if this happens - and I'll report it if it does - it will add more weight to your swelling valve stem seal theory.

One more possibility : the majority of the oil consumption in these engines (in the absence of worn rings or valve stem seals), is the PCV system. The intake plenum is always dripping with oil in all of these 2.7s, oil inducted from the PCV system. The oil/vapor baffle in the left valve cover is notoriously lousy. The undersized oil drain holes get plugged, which increases the amount of entrained oil in the PCV flow. Here again, I 'wonder' if the flush perhaps partially cleaned the baffle and drain holes, which has reduced the amount of entrained oil in the PCV flow.
 
Perhaps the oil undersized oil drain holes had been plugged for some time. This would certainly impeed the flow of oil out of the valve train. This would certainly result oil getting processed back through the PCV. ARX requires proper flow to work.

This is the most plausible theory to date of what the solvent did. However if this is true, we will never know without visual inspection. With respect to the baffle perhaps the solvent acted as a vapor cleaner.

With regards to ring packs the middle ring is usually refered to as the intermediate compression ring, although it does perform a secondary function as oil control. So I do disagree with your comments that the top ring performs all of the sealing with regards to compression.

So at the end of the day, how will you maintain your oil consumption gains? Change your oil more often? Run dino, for whatever reseason your consumption was less? Run the ARX maintenance dose? Or run solvents again any time oil usage goes up? I hope it never goes back up. My best advice is to run the maintenance dose.
 
I've followed the thread and it's funny to watch everyone's reaction. People are still reaching for theories around the AutoRX. Maybe sometimes it just doesn't work. So what, not every thing is a 100%.
 
Originally Posted By: cosynthetics
I've followed the thread and it's funny to watch everyone's reaction. People are still reaching for theories around the AutoRX. Maybe sometimes it just doesn't work. So what, not every thing is a 100%.


very true but some do not feel this reaction....
 
Rich was providing a perfectly sound observation and nowhere did he claim to be the end all be all brain on the engine in question. Seems there's more than one source of "hostility" on here.
 
Originally Posted By: cosynthetics
I guess I don't understand your reply or what other 'hostility' there is.

Who was singling out "Rich"?


All I'm saying is vau3x's comment on Rich's hypothesis seemed unnecessarily harsh to me. Rich was just providing a hypothesis that SHOULD be considered. There's always been an undercurrent on this board to try and prove a solvent flush is just as safe and effective as arx. I was once part of it. The effectiveness is debatable and this is certainly the place to do so. I don't think the safety is AS debatable. Now, if you have stout internals and use relatively low doses of aromatic, perhaps the safety ISN'T as big of an issue. But then you'd more than likely get diminishing effectiveness as well.

There was a guy on here a few months back that was flushing a Sienna (I think) with kero or something like that. And yes, he was getting rid of big chunks of deposits. But he was also doing repeated low miles oil changes to make sure he wasn't clogging everything up. And of course, who knows if there was any potential damage done to any of the more sensitive seals. Now, I wonder, with the newer E85 compatible vehicles if seal swell is less of an issue???
 
Thanks Brian WC. But I don't find any comments offensive. The bottom line is that the original poster himself is grasping for straws on what the solvent flush might have done to correct his oil consumption some what.

At the end of the day, my crystal ball still says stem seal swelling. If not then the drain holes up at the top end may have been clogged shut. If so then ARX would have not had an opportunety to work. As most of us know ARX needs flow of oil to work. So at the end of the day, perhaps the best thing to remedy the problem would have been to remove the valve covers and verify that oil could not drain back to the sump. It was not done so the whole string is nothing but theory of why the oil consumption is alledgedly down.

I wonder how long the consumption existed in the first place. Perhaps the oil drains were plugged at 50K when the new owner perchased the unit. If so why did he wait a couple of years to correct. Why was dino better against consumption in the past? Dino should have been the worst regarding volatility burn off.

The whole string seems to be a mystery, beyond science, or absent thereof.
 
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
Originally Posted By: cosynthetics
I guess I don't understand your reply or what other 'hostility' there is.

Who was singling out "Rich"?


All I'm saying is vau3x's comment on Rich's hypothesis seemed unnecessarily harsh to me. Rich was just providing a hypothesis that SHOULD be considered. There's always been an undercurrent on this board to try and prove a solvent flush is just as safe and effective as arx. I was once part of it. The effectiveness is debatable and this is certainly the place to do so. I don't think the safety is AS debatable. Now, if you have stout internals and use relatively low doses of aromatic, perhaps the safety ISN'T as big of an issue. But then you'd more than likely get diminishing effectiveness as well.

There was a guy on here a few months back that was flushing a Sienna (I think) with kero or something like that. And yes, he was getting rid of big chunks of deposits. But he was also doing repeated low miles oil changes to make sure he wasn't clogging everything up. And of course, who knows if there was any potential damage done to any of the more sensitive seals. Now, I wonder, with the newer E85 compatible vehicles if seal swell is less of an issue???


Ok. I thought you meant my post was attacking Rick. I'm not trying to attack anyone or anything.

I don't think the original poster was bashing AutoRX nor was he promoting solvents. He was only stating his results and so many in here jumped all over him. They acted like there was no way AutoRX could have failed and something else could have worked.

On the E85 front, their materials "should" have been chosen with that in mind. Isn't that the main reason all of us can't run E85 (besides the ECM programming)? It's the material compatibility.
 
Originally Posted By: Rick20
Thanks Brian WC. But I don't find any comments offensive. The bottom line is that the original poster himself is grasping for straws on what the solvent flush might have done to correct his oil consumption some what.


Rick, I think Brian is right. I re-read that reply of mine and it does sound harsh. I didn't intend it that way but it certainly reads that way. Sorry about that. My intent is to stay objective and neutral, which perhaps leads to somewhat 'sterile' replies.

Quote:
At the end of the day, my crystal ball still says stem seal swelling. If not then the drain holes up at the top end may have been clogged shut. If so then ARX would have not had an opportunety to work. As most of us know ARX needs flow of oil to work. So at the end of the day, perhaps the best thing to remedy the problem would have been to remove the valve covers and verify that oil could not drain back to the sump. It was not done so the whole string is nothing but theory of why the oil consumption is alledgedly down.


Could be; we'll see. I don't think it's restriction of oil drain passages only because when that has happened in these engines, they don't last long. Either the #1 rod bearing fails or the Main Tensioner fails. The oil consumption isn't allegedly down; it IS down. I've just passed my first full quart of make-up oil at the 6K mile mark on this OCI. Never happened before.

Quote:
I wonder how long the consumption existed in the first place.

Consumption of 1 quart per 3K miles (+/- a bit) is fairly typical for these engines.

Quote:
Why was dino better against consumption in the past? Dino should have been the worst regarding volatility burn off.

I'd love to know that myself. It never made any sense. Sky-high oil consumption (prior to this) with Amsoil or M1 HM 10W30 and lower consumption with dino - I still don't get it.

Quote:
The whole string seems to be a mystery, beyond science, or absent thereof.

There's only one difference between this thread and any other thread where ARX is being credited with whatever improvement : the claimed improvement in the ARX thread is accepted without question, with "high-fives" all around. There's no science in most of those threads either and they should appear as 'mysterious' as this one does. In either case, the bottom line is that something was added to a crankcase that is supposed to do something. It's no more complicated than that.
 
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
cosynthetics said:
There's always been an undercurrent on this board to try and prove a solvent flush is just as safe and effective as arx.

That's certainly not what I'm doing here Brian. But I understand what you're saying because there been some threads aimed that way.
Quote:
The effectiveness is debatable and this is certainly the place to do so. I don't think the safety is AS debatable.

Agreed. Despite what I reported in post#1 in this thread, I still 'wonder' how a 5% or 6% solution of solvent can do much. Maybe it can, but there's a heck of a difference between dissolving organic deposits with straight (100%) solvent and 5% solvent - as you observed and reported recently in another thread.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted By: va3ux
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
cosynthetics said:
There's always been an undercurrent on this board to try and prove a solvent flush is just as safe and effective as arx.

That's certainly not what I'm doing here Brian. But I understand what you're saying because there been some threads aimed that way.
Quote:
The effectiveness is debatable and this is certainly the place to do so. I don't think the safety is AS debatable.

Agreed. Despite what I reported in post#1 in this thread, I still 'wonder' how a 5% or 6% solution of solvent can do much. Maybe it can, but there's a heck of a difference between dissolving organic deposits with straight (100%) solvent and 5% solvent - as you observed and reported recently in another thread.


I have a knack for trying stupid things with my engine...Even though I could NOT afford to blow it up at the moment.
crazy2.gif


I still love aromatics for cleaning combustion chamber deposits and fuel injectors. But it's a whole different petri dish there.
57.gif
Click to expand...
 
va3ux

I am glad you posted this. My toyota dealer actually promotes and uses Wynns Engine Flush to get the oil out and then adds 300ml of Wynns Engine Treatment with fresh oil. This is done year.

This is not to promote Wynns, but there are alternatives used by other that achieve result. The toyota dealer does this to all the vehicles that are under the 3 year new car warranty, backed by the manufacturere.

Good for you, be happy as your engine now uses less oil during the OCI. Potentially with another Revive solvent engine flush in 20000km time it could stop further.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
BG EPR - New Oil Filthy after Running EPR
2
Replies
24
Views
595
50yr Street Mech
T
Kreen is kool
Replies
3
Views
315
wlk
D
Bentley Turbo Oil Screen
Replies
6
Views
474
twX
A
HPL Cleaner - Drain Interval?
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
AdmiralYoda
skaughtz
Does anyone use BG EPR as a maintenance item?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Revving2Redline
Back
Top Bottom