Methanol vs GDI Induction Cleaning to resolve Intake Valve Coking / Carboning

[SHOdded]

This topic is intended to discuss the merits of methanol vs induction cleaning, including but not limited to the science behind each as well as the practical implementation aspects/timing of each.  Discussion of the carboning/coking issue is also welcome, as that is the reason why this topic exists.

Please post your personal experience and/or research material you find regarding this topic.  Keep discussion relevant as possible, TIA!!!

[ZSHO]

The is no guarantee or assertion that any aftermarket mod is safe so precaution is advised in this case.

IMO Methanol injection in my book has the advantage due to its consistency to deliver methanol to the intake on a daily basis and in my case to distribute,disperse methanol evenly to the intake port .\
Methanol injection is also safer than induction cleaning which there is a slight chance of damaging the fins.  Z

[Macgyver]

I was gonna post this today. Awesome.

I would think even a temporary Meth system would be worth it to remove any induction system fouling.

I hope people have some before and after experience.

[ZSHO]

I guess now I can prove to the wife that I wasn't lying about the benefits of having a DPM INSTALLED. Z 

Induction System and more.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8JUL90DXgdiMTZ3a0wyU0JCYkZJN1ZTT3VEd3Fic09JNTlv/view

[SHOdded]

Let's start this off with the famous BG cleaning test on a 2010 Taurus SHO.  Note that no GDI specific products were used at this time.  BG now has a line of GDI products available.
https://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/

Results: The Fast and The Fuel Test
In 2009, BG purchased a 2010 3.5L Ford Taurus SHO with an EcoBoost™ twin-turbocharged direct injection V6 engine. BG was one of the first in the nation to receive this car, which, according to Ford, "has higher performance, better fuel economy and fewer CO2 emissions" compared to a naturally-aspirated engine.

But, we weren't in it for the bragging rights; Ford's pride and joy was to be our newest test vehicle. We named her Dottie.

Now, the fuel test has ended. Let's take a look back and see what we've learned.

60,000-mile test
For the first 30,000 miles, we did not add any BG products. Every 5,000 miles, our pros performed an oil change, collected fuel system data using a scan tool, intake photos and performed a fluid system analysis. For the second 30,000 miles, we introduced BG products.
Basically, we wanted to educate ourselves on this twin-turbocharged direct injection engine so we could provide the best solutions to the automotive market.
To sum up our results, "Dottie has great acceleration power... as long as the engine is clean," says Dustin Willhite, Director of Technology.

Even at the first check-up (5,000 miles), borescope footage showed intake valve deposits forming. At each subsequent check-up, we noticed deposit buildup continued in the intake valves and intake ports. There was heavy deposit contribution from PCV gases.
By about 15,000 miles, our drivers noticed a loss of power. Fuel dilution started at 10,000 miles and occurred in every check-up until 40,000 miles.

At the 30,000-mile service, our pros performed the BG Direct Injection Service and added BG 109 and BG 44K,® Part No. 208. Results of the service were 8.2 gain in horsepower and a whopping 20 ft. lb. gain in torque! An evident acceleration improvement was duly noted by our drivers.

Additionally, our borescope videos showed BG 44K® cleaned up piston top and injector deposits.

The results are in
Near the end of the test, at about the 55,000-mile point, our pros started noticing more performance issues.

The conclusion from the two-year test was that BG 44K® can help keep performance high (combustion chambers clean, injectors clean), until deposit formation on the ports/intake valves built up enough to affect airflow.

"Until design improvements address the negative contribution made by crankcase vapors (which create intake deposits), Direct Injection (DI) engines will continue to have intake deposit buildup issues. DI simply lacks the necessary and traditional fuel rinsing afforded by indirect injector spray. The high heat environment experienced by the fuel injector tip is also a major contributor to driveability issues," says Dustin.

Solutions that specifically address reducing PCV vapors (engine oil evaporation) would be a welcome advancement by the manufacturers of DI engines. A combination of full synthetic, low volatility engine oil, combined with reasonable drain intervals would be one way to decrease these intake deposits. Dustin continues, "If DI is here to stay, then classical methods of engine 'keep clean' will need to be re-vamped to ensure trouble-free engine durability and performance."

[Macgyver]

So this is what I am taking from BGs report:

Change your oil sooner than later. 3500 miles for me.

Use a High quality synthetic.

Use Catch can(s).

Use intake cleaning products and fuel system cleaners religiously.

Get a BG service done or user Induction cleaning every 15k.

Anything else ?

All the above would add up over time. What this means to me is that a Meth system can be cheaper in the long run and the added fun factor of more power makes it appealing for some who may be on the fence about it. that is if it actually keeps everything clean. Which I think it will.

[SHOdded]

Once you are out of the warranty period, or if you are not concerned about the warranty, I would agree, a methanol injection kit, properly done, is the current best way to resolve this issue.

[bamsho]

The FORD rep at 2016 FORD Nationals said that they don't recommend catch cans, so who knows.  Yes good quality oils and changes are highly recommend.   I hope to scope the vlalves on my 2013 with winter while she is in hibernation.   Kinda curious to see how they look.

[J-Will]

The FORD rep at 2016 FORD Nationals said that they don't recommend catch cans, so who knows.  Yes good quality oils and changes are highly recommend.   I hope to scope the vlalves on my 2013 with winter while she is in hibernation.   Kinda curious to see how they look.

To be fair, they dont recommend modding their vehicles in any way so yea catch cans, meth and even fuel additives

[Macgyver]

Yeah I dont get the not using a catch can Mentality? Do car makers actually have proof that they cause harm or something? To me its just a part that is not needed to get a car past the warranty period before it breaks. You get my point. They cost $$$ and it cuts into the profit margin at what gain?

[bpd1151]

Never ran a cc on mine. Don't ever plan to either.

Just not necessary on this platform and I have yet to see a single person display any consistency in their (term used loosely) "performance".

I think they're gimmicky. FMC isn't the only one that doesn't recommend their use.

As it was explained to me, a cc draws necessary oil away from vital components as the cc is sucking it through their lines, filters, etc.

I've seen on other motors that they work well, but on the EB powerplant, everything I've seen over the years has been hit or miss, and wildly sporadic at best.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[sholxgt]

Lets not forget the old school engine cleaner...nitrous.  I've cleaned many engines with a wet kit

The other factor in the equation is fuel quality.  It's not something that comes up with us EB freaks, but poor fuel quality can also lead to worse valve deposits.

With the GDI system, the fuel is no longer cleaning the backside of the valves, but fuel quality does still play a small roll because lower quality fuels can, in theory, produce more vapor.

When a new Honda shows up at a dealer with valve deposit or fuel injector issues on a GDI car, the first thing that Honda corporate does is test the fuel in the tank to verify that it meets Top Tier requirements. 

[ZSHO]

FWIW I noticed when having my DPM installed that the ports were covered up with carbon buildup upon removal of the manifold. 
Here's my very own Vehicle Build thread.  Z
https://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php/topic,7881.0.html

[SHOdded]

I see mostly Bank 1, is that true, Z?  Maybe airflow is not the same, or it is due to heat soak being greater on Bank 1, thinking back to the melting snow pics once provided by Rich.

[ZSHO]

I see mostly Bank 1, is that true, Z?  Maybe airflow is not the same, or it is due to heat soak being greater on Bank 1, thinking back to the melting snow pics once provided by Rich.

True and valid points!! Rear Bank 1 is more susceptible to heat and the elements,especially with its PCV as compared to Front Bank 2 which is less prone due to sufficient airflow. Z