Mainly a question for those that have experimented with substituting LC or FP for seafoam cleaning, but followed the seafoam instructions as per Terry’s post almost a year ago in the Seafoam cleaning experiment thread that was resurrected a week ago.
My main question is if Terry or someone else could elaborate on this experiment as to whether the results with LC or FP or combination of both produced any significant results as compared to seafoam.
Not to be confused with LC and FP directions. This would have to do with sucking in LC or FP through the brake booster or a vacuum line to clean the combustion chamber as per seafoam instructions.
I believe that Terry said that either LC or FP did produce more significant results, yet I would like to elaborate on this topic more. My main concern would be the dosage instructions and application to prevent the engine from hydro lock, and any side effects such as smoking and ect.
If I had an older vehicle with lots of carbon build up I would be experimenting already, but that’s not the case at this time.
My main question is if Terry or someone else could elaborate on this experiment as to whether the results with LC or FP or combination of both produced any significant results as compared to seafoam.
Not to be confused with LC and FP directions. This would have to do with sucking in LC or FP through the brake booster or a vacuum line to clean the combustion chamber as per seafoam instructions.
I believe that Terry said that either LC or FP did produce more significant results, yet I would like to elaborate on this topic more. My main concern would be the dosage instructions and application to prevent the engine from hydro lock, and any side effects such as smoking and ect.
If I had an older vehicle with lots of carbon build up I would be experimenting already, but that’s not the case at this time.