Water Cylinder Decarbonizing... Should I?

[Gary Allan]

The technique he's describing is the same theory as the MMO "inverse oiler" worked with. This would work. You merely have to assure that you maintain the water supply and, as you asserted, regulate the flow. The Marvel Mystery Oil inverse oilers went out of vogue ..but were still available to order in the late 70s (I dunno beyond that). They also required being filled every 500 miles. The expense they added to operations was not worth the gains.

The PCV valve is effectively a "manifold leak regulator" ..above a certain Hg ..it's open ..below it's closed. The hose behind it still sees full manifold vacuum.

For the "normal" method.
I still find the PCV hose the most convenient way to do this for those who have a centrally located PCV port. I also think it is much easier if you get a longer hose and allow yourself to regulate the throttle with your foot and using both hands. You can then just put the longer hose into a large jug of water and keep the engine running. The faster the engine runs ..the more water will be drawn in. ..and further more... I also think that this is most effective under load. For those of you willing to go through this ...you merely route the longer hose throgh the cowl and into the passenger compartment ..get going about 60 ..and shove it in the jug (you probably will need a copilot). I've done this many times with both water and ATF ..atf being my purge of choice simply because you don't stiffle the combustion process and it cleans spledidly. It also produces a massive white cloud that military smoke screans would be envious of.

Apparently they are still manufactured ..the "inverse oiler".

 

[BlazerLT]

Bumping seeing recent thread has been created on the same topic.

 

[kang]

I broke an engine with water decarbonizing. See my post here: http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002896

 

[kenw]

One key that many overlook is the need to run it at high RPM. Water/hydro lock is a ratio, the slower the RPM, the more water in each cylinder per stroke.

You will notice that some posts talk about doing it at 60+ mph. The times I've done it/seen it done, the engine was being goosed via the throttle cable tio at least highway speeds.

Even on an ancient 1970 GM 350 V* iron block, it was no more than a pencil-lead wide stream, ie, maybe 1/8", barely above a steady drip at the equivalent of about 60-70 mph.

 

[Kestas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenw:
One key that many overlook is the need to run it at high RPM. Water/hydro lock is a ratio, the slower the RPM, the more water in each cylinder per stroke....

---

....compounded by the fact that vacuum is higher at low rpm, which is critical to know if you're using a vacuum line suction technique to introduce water.

I plan on doing this some time to my 91 Marquis with 74K while running on the highway.

 

[kevm14]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlazerLT:
I did it, it didn't hurt anything and when properly administered, it cleans better than any plug fouling Seafoam or other treatments. Trust me I tried both. After the "Ac Delco Combustion Chamber Cleaner" my plugs were fouled pretty bad and I had to replace them all. Not because they losened up carbon, but because the cleaner coated the plugs. With the water treatment, nothing bad came about.

---

I've tried both too. Seafoam and GM top engine cleaner. Never had a problem. The last Seafoam I did, I did a plug change immediately after and they all looked perfect. Changed them anyway, because it was time. This was on my Caprice (350) with over 200k. I guess it wasn't that carboned.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

The times I've done it/seen it done, the engine was being goosed via the throttle cable tio at least highway speeds.

---

The point of doing it in the vehicle at highway speeds isn't to simulate the engine rpm level that you can duplicate sitting in your driveway. It's to take advantage of the high cylinder pressure/load that cannot be duplicated with no load.

 

[wetmuskrat]

This procedure was ok to do in a carburated vehicle without a cat. Those chunks of carbon that you break loose are going right on down the line and plugging your cat. You have got to use a chemical that breaks down the crystal structure of carbon. Then it can pass through your cat.

 

[oilpan49]

I have no facts to prove this but since I have done it to my Ranger, it seems to have lost alittle bit of it's low end but it's not a significant loss. I can say for sure that my truck ran like a new watch, literally, and it's been running like a new watch even since.

Here's my thread when I did it, check it out,,,AR http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=24;t=001458

 

[BlazerLT]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wetmuskrat:
This procedure was ok to do in a carburated vehicle without a cat. Those chunks of carbon that you break loose are going right on down the line and plugging your cat. You have got to use a chemical that breaks down the crystal structure of carbon. Then it can pass through your cat.

---

Nope, carbon is really soft and will easily dissolve when it is exposed to steam.

Whether it is carb or fuel injected makes no difference.

 

[JParrott]

Getting ready to do this come springtime with a 2000 Blazer LS. Only question I have is what OD/ID size line are most of you using?

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Whether it is carb or fuel injected makes no difference.

---

Except for the typical mangitude of the deposits. A carb engine has no where near the fine fuel managment that an EFI system has. Most OEM carbs were overly sophisticated and not reliable (leak, failure prone). 100k in a carb engine is not like 100k in an EFI engine. There's no comparison.

Now it's never happened to me (but I'm a "scoffer") but pros who use the purge technique have reported engine damage when larger chunks break loose and wreak havoc with the exhaust valves. This is naturally in engines with excessive deposits ...probably in excess of any that an EFI engine has ever seen.

quote:

---

carbon is really soft

---

You've got different "carbon" than I've seen. In carb engines that I've had the head off of ..the stuff required a wire wheel to remove. It could not be scored with a screw driver without a hammer on the other end of it. Although I do assert that purging agents, water being but one, do remove them very well. Only the duration of application varies depending on the depth of the formation.

Although I have seen true black rich mixture type carbon deposits in EFI engines ..I've also seen "leftovers" that don't quite match that definition of "carbon".

That is, all that is called "deposits" (as was inferred by another poster) are not necessarily "carbon" but other long term precipitates of fuel.

 

[Kestas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JParrott:
Getting ready to do this come springtime with a 2000 Blazer LS. Only question I have is what OD/ID size line are most of you using?

---

Will you be doing it on the driveway or on the freeway? Whatever the line, I suspect it would be too big. I recommend to set it up with pliable vacuum line and a clamp or vise grips to reduce the water flow to a managable level.

 

[BlazerLT]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kestas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JParrott:
Getting ready to do this come springtime with a 2000 Blazer LS. Only question I have is what OD/ID size line are most of you using?

---

Will you be doing it on the driveway or on the freeway? Whatever the line, I suspect it would be too big. I recommend to set it up with pliable vacuum line and a clamp or vise grips to reduce the water flow to a managable level.

---

You don't do this on the highway.

On a 2000 blazer, you simply take the PCV line out of the PCV valve in the driver's side valve cover, hold the engine rpms up to 2500rpms and hold a glass of water under the pcv line and let the pcv line suck up the water.

You will have to modulate the throttle to keep it from dying, but it will work.

 

[oilpan49]

I just used a cement block to hold my engine at 2500RPM. The more water you suck down, the more the engine will bog down and miss harder. This is normal due to the water interfering with the ignition process. You can for sure smell it that the water is doing it's job. For my experience with it, the cleaner your engine becomes the less harder it misses due to the carbon being cleaned out,,,AR

 

[New]

This guy had a coolant leak into one of the cylinders. Have a look at the piston that got the coolant treatment.
what coolant can do

the explanation is simple:
coolant is drawn into the combustion chamber on the down-stroke of the piston. When the coolant hits the piston crown the change in temperature makes the aluminium brittle and it eventually cracks.

Therefore, if you're going to spray water into your running engine, get the finest droplets possible.

[ March 17, 2005, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: New ]

 

[Kestas]

I took a look at that link and find no evidence that coolant was at fault. Cracking was at the cylinder wall, not the piston. The piston saw erosion. Not much was examined on a laboratory level and a lot was assumed - the cylinder wall was deemed a fatigue crack, but no examination was done to verify such a condition. Even on a laboratory examination, it is difficult to establish fatigue on grey cast iron.

Some statements simply made no sense...

"The metal in the cylinder wall fatigued under the extreme physical/ chemical forces at the molecular level caused by temperature extremes." (what chemical forces?)

"A close look at the surface of the piston shows severe pitting of the piston surface as the metal was literally eroded away by the chemical reaction of the hot metal atoms and molecules with coolant products." (assumed - no proof)

"The exhaust was a cloud of white oxides of metal, coolant steam and fuel hydrocarbons." (assumed - no proof)

I get completely turned off once a person starts talking about what happens on a "molecular" level, when I see that there is no science behind the statements. People in my field who understand metallurgy never use the word "molecular".

I believe this engine suffered simple overheating. Head gasket failure and coolant leak were the result of this overheating, not the cause of the engine damage presented.

 

[New]

I totally get your point Kestas.
I just think it's too much a coincidence the only chipped piston is the one where the leak occured. Any opinions of what might have chipped the piston head?

 

[Kestas]

For starters, aluminum doesn't quench-crack as does steel or cast iron.

It's hard to explain the piston condition just from the photos. If this were in my lab, I'd first do a high-mag (10X-40X) examination of the piston surface (and related components), then maybe a scanning electron microscope examination of the surface to determine if there is melting, corrosion, or mechanical damage. What else could it be? There is a good chance that, as things started breaking up, the loose material started knocking around and the observed damage is mechanical.

(You'd be surprised how much good information can be gained by a 10X-40X examination with a trained eye. I've had clients pay good money just to have such an examination made of their problem.)

A mounted metallurgical cross section through the surface can reveal a lot of information.

I've seen overheated heads where the material got slushy... some of the metal became liquid and oozed out onto the opposite water jacket surface from the combustion pressures. This is a blind surface and can only be examined by cutting the part open. The combustion side shows a skeletal (spongy) structure on a micro scale. This may be the dark gray on the piston where it has not yet been mechanically damaged.

As designed, aluminum alloys for powerplant application are already operating near the temperature limit where it still has usable strength. Any overheating will produce strange results.

 

[Shaman]

To limit the intake I suggest the basketball air pump nozzle. Much easier to limit the amount of water ingested than the amount of throttle needed.