NAGTROC.com discuss DI (Direct Injection)
04-28-10 | 10:09 AM
#31
I'm fine. And I'm not at all unsure if spraying meth and water "cools" the intake charge. The amount of heat in the system never changes, it only balances and because you sprayed the liquid it absorbed heat from the gas. There are four elements to any gas's properties - molecular count, temperature, pressure, and volume. Changing any one of these parameters will necessarily change the other three. It's inescapable. So, spraying meth adds moles - temperature, pressure, and volume are all subject to change. In a fixed volume system like an engine, temperature and pressure are going to change in response to spraying anything into the intake tract. How much can be calculated or directly measured, but it is very difficult to measure temperature accurately when evaporative cooling is part of the equation.
I get very picky about how this stuff is described because when it gets to the really important stuff about how to move air molecules and measure performance it gets very NOT intuitive. I ported cylinder heads for 10 years before I learned the errors of my ways after taking a high vacuum technology class. Understanding how the molecules behave on an individual basis completely changed the way I look at porting and improved my work by leaps and bounds.
So - regardless of the colloquial terms, I never talk about cooling, I talk about removing heat or creating a new equilibrium by adding two things with different amounts of heat. Do a little bit of study on geothermal HVAC systems or heat pumps and you'll quickly understand the professionals in these industries don't talk about cooling, they talk about moving heat from one location to another. The same is true when discussing gas behavior on a molecular level or on a mass/volume level.
Claiming 15 years of "accepted practice" means there is any truth to something only means you would have argued the world was flat when Columbus started his voyage.
You really should read up on Ricardo. The guy was incredibly brilliant.
I get very picky about how this stuff is described because when it gets to the really important stuff about how to move air molecules and measure performance it gets very NOT intuitive. I ported cylinder heads for 10 years before I learned the errors of my ways after taking a high vacuum technology class. Understanding how the molecules behave on an individual basis completely changed the way I look at porting and improved my work by leaps and bounds.
So - regardless of the colloquial terms, I never talk about cooling, I talk about removing heat or creating a new equilibrium by adding two things with different amounts of heat. Do a little bit of study on geothermal HVAC systems or heat pumps and you'll quickly understand the professionals in these industries don't talk about cooling, they talk about moving heat from one location to another. The same is true when discussing gas behavior on a molecular level or on a mass/volume level.
Claiming 15 years of "accepted practice" means there is any truth to something only means you would have argued the world was flat when Columbus started his voyage.
You really should read up on Ricardo. The guy was incredibly brilliant.
04-28-10 | 10:39 PM
#33
It's not just the RS 4 engine, it's basically happening in every VAG motor with direct injection (FSI) including the 2.0T, 3.2, 4.2 (not the 4.2 in the B7 S4, since that's port-injected), and the 5.2 V10. It's also happening on the DI porsche engines. The B8 S4's 3.0L S/C motor is also DI but is too new to have a baseline of power loss based on mileage/age.
Water injection, catch cans, different methods of keeping the top of the engine clean are likely to do nothing, as it seems the carbon build up is due more to valve overlap than aromized oil vapors baking onto the tops of the valves, though nothing has been proven or determined yet. Right now it's under the "it's a rich tapestry" logic.
Water or seafoam will NOT clean baked-on carbon off the tops of the intake valves. It may dislodge some, but that's even worse - can you imagine how hard a piece of carbon is - and what damage it would do inside the combustion chamber as it scratches the cylinder walls before it's thrown through the exhaust valves only to bake onto (and probably eventually destroy) the catalytic converters?
Right now there's no long-term solution, other than manual cleaning, which sucks. It's a by-product of new technology, it seems, but I wonder (and have wondered for two years now) why GM's 3.6L DI V6, in service in a million vehicles, doesn't seem to have this problem. Same thing for their Ecotec 2.0 and Ford's EcoBoost 3.5L...
Water injection, catch cans, different methods of keeping the top of the engine clean are likely to do nothing, as it seems the carbon build up is due more to valve overlap than aromized oil vapors baking onto the tops of the valves, though nothing has been proven or determined yet. Right now it's under the "it's a rich tapestry" logic.
Water or seafoam will NOT clean baked-on carbon off the tops of the intake valves. It may dislodge some, but that's even worse - can you imagine how hard a piece of carbon is - and what damage it would do inside the combustion chamber as it scratches the cylinder walls before it's thrown through the exhaust valves only to bake onto (and probably eventually destroy) the catalytic converters?
Right now there's no long-term solution, other than manual cleaning, which sucks. It's a by-product of new technology, it seems, but I wonder (and have wondered for two years now) why GM's 3.6L DI V6, in service in a million vehicles, doesn't seem to have this problem. Same thing for their Ecotec 2.0 and Ford's EcoBoost 3.5L...
04-29-10 | 03:17 PM
#34
You wrote that huge long thing and you are still unsure of whether water and meth sprayed into the intake path can cool- ( or as you would prefer removes some heat) from the incoming air......
AND Im the confused one?
ok.
The temperatures were usually measured at the throttle body, or right prior to it.
The fact you are unsure of this simple matter really makes me doubt it's worth writing anything, this isn't a difficult concept, and it's widely accepted throughout the automotive community.
If you want to rewrite that wiki page with your own theories, about how water and meth injection may or may not actually cool the incoming air charge.....then by all means do so, and duke it out with the others who wrote that. Refute it, it's right there, don't try and make this a personal thing about how much I know, address the words I gave you, they're right there on the wall, change it if the info is incorrect, it corroborates w/ my own experiences, but I guess not your mental calculations and theories?
Your last post above shows me you're really splitting hairs here, and it's clear you're more intent on just proving that you are right over getting the info out and understandable for people here.
I sent you a link, you can look at the sources, you can do independent research, I've already told you my own experiences, and its based off of configuring many different maps for many different cars after I added a water meth injection system, from difficult ecu's like a Bosch Me7 to more user friendly Japanese standalones, later logging the cars with programs that can record the data and then reviewing the data.
Additionally, you can use the word 'cool' when describing the lowering of a temperature.... it means to lower the temp of,
if you want to overcomplicate it go ahead, yes there is no such thing as cold, that's completely irrelevant and basically trying to obfuscate the simple matter Im talking about, you knew what I meant by 'cool' and if you go out and deal with other engineers and people, they will use the term 'cool'. When talking about InterCOOLERS, Radiators, Transmission COOLERS, Oil COOLERS etc, they will always use the term COOL, COOL DOWN, no one in the last 15 years of dealing with many different custom cars HAS ever said, 'Will remove the heat from' when they are talking about lowering a temperature, whether air or liquid! lol....If that's not splitting hairs I dont know what is.
As far as A/F ratios go, I never said running rich gave you power, and I never mentioned anything about WOT?? And you're wrong, if you want to be nitpicky-since you have been, stoic is best anyways for pure power, no matter how hard to obtain.
Again, it's clear to me you just want to have the final say and be the knowledgeable one. That's fine, I have no problem w/ that, but Im just relating what real results I know, not theories, not fancy words.
I've used meth and water on 3 DIFFERENT CARS, I've reaped real results from it, I've changed 100's of maps on different ecu's to take advantage of the difference, and you're telling me to go educate myself, when you disagree with a simple fundamental aspect of the whole area? the sensors dont lie, and they weren't just getting wet as you stated was possible.
I will look up that guy though.
You write whatever you want chief, I'm not saying anything more here, I jsut wanted to help the guys understand how you can introduce the meth and water into the engine, you seem to care alot over whether or not it 'COOLS' the intake charge.
I also wrote the original post because I do not think it is safe to introduce the water in the way you mentioned, especially not in that volume, unless we are talking about dwarf people hoses here. even then, thats too big. Maybe the hose of the size a large squirrel would use if it were to have a garden it tended and such.
lastly, I dont think you dumping water on the carb of a carb'd engine, is a good basis to assume it will be fine on a fuel injected engine imho. I dont think the same amount of water would be safe. I wont say anything else here. you go ahead and say what you need., all I'm trying to say, and all I ever mentioned originally is that meth and water injected into the stream can cool down the incoming charge and has a few perks, and that your method on these modern engines is not safe imo. thats all.
If you have real world results with water and meth injection by all means share them, especially if they differ from my experience.
AND Im the confused one?
ok.
The temperatures were usually measured at the throttle body, or right prior to it.
The fact you are unsure of this simple matter really makes me doubt it's worth writing anything, this isn't a difficult concept, and it's widely accepted throughout the automotive community.
If you want to rewrite that wiki page with your own theories, about how water and meth injection may or may not actually cool the incoming air charge.....then by all means do so, and duke it out with the others who wrote that. Refute it, it's right there, don't try and make this a personal thing about how much I know, address the words I gave you, they're right there on the wall, change it if the info is incorrect, it corroborates w/ my own experiences, but I guess not your mental calculations and theories?
Your last post above shows me you're really splitting hairs here, and it's clear you're more intent on just proving that you are right over getting the info out and understandable for people here.
I sent you a link, you can look at the sources, you can do independent research, I've already told you my own experiences, and its based off of configuring many different maps for many different cars after I added a water meth injection system, from difficult ecu's like a Bosch Me7 to more user friendly Japanese standalones, later logging the cars with programs that can record the data and then reviewing the data.
Additionally, you can use the word 'cool' when describing the lowering of a temperature.... it means to lower the temp of,
if you want to overcomplicate it go ahead, yes there is no such thing as cold, that's completely irrelevant and basically trying to obfuscate the simple matter Im talking about, you knew what I meant by 'cool' and if you go out and deal with other engineers and people, they will use the term 'cool'. When talking about InterCOOLERS, Radiators, Transmission COOLERS, Oil COOLERS etc, they will always use the term COOL, COOL DOWN, no one in the last 15 years of dealing with many different custom cars HAS ever said, 'Will remove the heat from' when they are talking about lowering a temperature, whether air or liquid! lol....If that's not splitting hairs I dont know what is.
As far as A/F ratios go, I never said running rich gave you power, and I never mentioned anything about WOT?? And you're wrong, if you want to be nitpicky-since you have been, stoic is best anyways for pure power, no matter how hard to obtain.
Again, it's clear to me you just want to have the final say and be the knowledgeable one. That's fine, I have no problem w/ that, but Im just relating what real results I know, not theories, not fancy words.
I've used meth and water on 3 DIFFERENT CARS, I've reaped real results from it, I've changed 100's of maps on different ecu's to take advantage of the difference, and you're telling me to go educate myself, when you disagree with a simple fundamental aspect of the whole area? the sensors dont lie, and they weren't just getting wet as you stated was possible.
I will look up that guy though.
You write whatever you want chief, I'm not saying anything more here, I jsut wanted to help the guys understand how you can introduce the meth and water into the engine, you seem to care alot over whether or not it 'COOLS' the intake charge.
I also wrote the original post because I do not think it is safe to introduce the water in the way you mentioned, especially not in that volume, unless we are talking about dwarf people hoses here. even then, thats too big. Maybe the hose of the size a large squirrel would use if it were to have a garden it tended and such.
lastly, I dont think you dumping water on the carb of a carb'd engine, is a good basis to assume it will be fine on a fuel injected engine imho. I dont think the same amount of water would be safe. I wont say anything else here. you go ahead and say what you need., all I'm trying to say, and all I ever mentioned originally is that meth and water injected into the stream can cool down the incoming charge and has a few perks, and that your method on these modern engines is not safe imo. thats all.
If you have real world results with water and meth injection by all means share them, especially if they differ from my experience.
Meth/Water injection *does not cool* the intake charge... there is simply no time for it to mix and achieve an equilibrium... the Meth/water is atomized and sprayed into the intake, and at such small volume and such high surface area, nearly instantly transitions through a phase change to gas in an endothermic process.
The molecules absorb enough heat for their kinetic energy (velocity) to break the intermolecular bonds and expand to a gas, increasing the distance between them by about 1,000 times.
The molecules that don't undergo a phase change before compression, do so during the combustion cycle, thereby absorbing more heat.
Lobux is right to correct you, as pseudo-science only ever leads to bad practices and extrapolation of ideas that are just plain wrong.
04-30-10 | 10:46 AM
#35
...Water or seafoam will NOT clean baked-on carbon off the tops of the intake valves. It may dislodge some, but that's even worse - can you imagine how hard a piece of carbon is - and what damage it would do inside the combustion chamber as it scratches the cylinder walls before it's thrown through the exhaust valves only to bake onto (and probably eventually destroy) the catalytic converters?...
05-03-10 | 07:24 PM
#36
Carbon chunks come off piston tops all the time without serious injury to the cylinders or catalysts. Water has, IME, cleaned off carbon from valves and pistons when I've used it to make the post tear down clean up easier. I've seen engines go from carbon to amazingly clean with water added through dedicated WI systems and through just hooking up a hose and allowing water directly into the intake. We can certainly agree to disagree, but this is my observation of real world engines.
Like I said, it's a rich tapestry. If water was the solution, you'd have a lot of ecstatic RS 4 owners whose engines' intake valves didn't look like this:
Intake Venturi Plates caked with carbon:
What they look like after being soaked, media blasted, and otherwise manually cleaned one valve at a time:
In some cases where water/meth injection was added post carbon cleaning, the system did nothing to solve the problem. Doing a google search on 'carbon build' up and '2.0T' will return some similarly nightmarish photos.
I don't have any problems believing that a water injection system may mitigate or eliminate CB issues with some engines, so please don't think I'm arguing with you there. For these Audi/VAG FSI motors, though, it doesn't seem to help.
-Matt
05-03-10 | 09:23 PM
#37
I saw an FZR1000 head that looked a lot like this a very long time ago. It only had 1000 miles on it, and it was carbureted, not injected. Clean up wasn't terribly hard, but it was tedious.
Tapestry, yes, but this looks like a cam timing and reversion issue. There should never be this much blow back from the combustion chamber. Are they using cam timing for EGR instead of a separate EGR system?
Tapestry, yes, but this looks like a cam timing and reversion issue. There should never be this much blow back from the combustion chamber. Are they using cam timing for EGR instead of a separate EGR system?
05-05-10 | 08:01 AM
#38
I believe the EGR is separate from the cam timing on the RS 4 engine, but I'm not sure about the other affected motors. There's no proven smoking gun yet, but likely culprits are:
-inefficient cyclonic oil separation system, preventing aromized oil vapors from draining back into the crankcase and instead settling and baking onto the backs of the intake valves
-short trip commutes
-valve overlap
-overfilling oil crankcase by dealers
-lack of proper detergents in fuel
-oil type and oil change intervals (fuel dilution)
-reduced 'tumble effect' of intake air once initial carbon deposits form, causing a domino effect of buildup due to how the air is sucked in and the necessary volumetric turbulence needed for efficient direct injection burn
-driving style and other external environmental factors
A carbon clean can run several thousand dollars at the dealer but third-party companies are capitalizing on the issue and offering cleanings starting around $600. Seems a bargain for the work involved, but it doesn't address the issue that it will all have to be done again in another year.
-inefficient cyclonic oil separation system, preventing aromized oil vapors from draining back into the crankcase and instead settling and baking onto the backs of the intake valves
-short trip commutes
-valve overlap
-overfilling oil crankcase by dealers
-lack of proper detergents in fuel
-oil type and oil change intervals (fuel dilution)
-reduced 'tumble effect' of intake air once initial carbon deposits form, causing a domino effect of buildup due to how the air is sucked in and the necessary volumetric turbulence needed for efficient direct injection burn
-driving style and other external environmental factors
A carbon clean can run several thousand dollars at the dealer but third-party companies are capitalizing on the issue and offering cleanings starting around $600. Seems a bargain for the work involved, but it doesn't address the issue that it will all have to be done again in another year.
05-05-10 | 02:58 PM
#39
I believe the EGR is separate from the cam timing on the RS 4 engine, but I'm not sure about the other affected motors. There's no proven smoking gun yet, but likely culprits are:
-inefficient cyclonic oil separation system, preventing aromized oil vapors from draining back into the crankcase and instead settling and baking onto the backs of the intake valves
This would mean there is a very large amount of oil vapor coming from the crankcase. I would not expect this in a properly running engine, and there is no indication the engines are not running properly. If oil temps were over 300F, I could see where this might be the root cause, but no modern engine should see 300F in the oil sump. Lexus uses a simple screen device inside the valve cover(s) to separate oil from the PCV stream.
-short trip commutes
Always a disaster no matter how you slice it.
-valve overlap
This is why I asked about EGR - Lexus uses cam timing and overlap to capture exhaust gas for EGR without having an EGR valve and plumbing. This looks a lot like reversion.
-overfilling oil crankcase by dealers
Or the factory spec isn't right?
-lack of proper detergents in fuel
Would be easy to determine statistically.
-oil type and oil change intervals (fuel dilution)
Unlikely. UOA would catch this pretty easily.
-reduced 'tumble effect' of intake air once initial carbon deposits form, causing a domino effect of buildup due to how the air is sucked in and the necessary volumetric turbulence needed for efficient direct injection burn
This is purely a port design problem and should not be typical across different engines.
-driving style and other external environmental factors
Again, this is statistical analysis, and if this is happening in many places, it's unlikely to be a root cause.
A carbon clean can run several thousand dollars at the dealer but third-party companies are capitalizing on the issue and offering cleanings starting around $600. Seems a bargain for the work involved, but it doesn't address the issue that it will all have to be done again in another year.
-inefficient cyclonic oil separation system, preventing aromized oil vapors from draining back into the crankcase and instead settling and baking onto the backs of the intake valves
This would mean there is a very large amount of oil vapor coming from the crankcase. I would not expect this in a properly running engine, and there is no indication the engines are not running properly. If oil temps were over 300F, I could see where this might be the root cause, but no modern engine should see 300F in the oil sump. Lexus uses a simple screen device inside the valve cover(s) to separate oil from the PCV stream.
-short trip commutes
Always a disaster no matter how you slice it.
-valve overlap
This is why I asked about EGR - Lexus uses cam timing and overlap to capture exhaust gas for EGR without having an EGR valve and plumbing. This looks a lot like reversion.
-overfilling oil crankcase by dealers
Or the factory spec isn't right?
-lack of proper detergents in fuel
Would be easy to determine statistically.
-oil type and oil change intervals (fuel dilution)
Unlikely. UOA would catch this pretty easily.
-reduced 'tumble effect' of intake air once initial carbon deposits form, causing a domino effect of buildup due to how the air is sucked in and the necessary volumetric turbulence needed for efficient direct injection burn
This is purely a port design problem and should not be typical across different engines.
-driving style and other external environmental factors
Again, this is statistical analysis, and if this is happening in many places, it's unlikely to be a root cause.
A carbon clean can run several thousand dollars at the dealer but third-party companies are capitalizing on the issue and offering cleanings starting around $600. Seems a bargain for the work involved, but it doesn't address the issue that it will all have to be done again in another year.
05-05-10 | 05:11 PM
#40
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: HI
If you want to continue to be ignorant of basic thermodynamic terms while discussing thermodynamics, by all means go ahead... but don't rage out at those who attempt to correctly explain what is actually happening.
Meth/Water injection *does not cool* the intake charge... there is simply no time for it to mix and achieve an equilibrium... the Meth/water is atomized and sprayed into the intake, and at such small volume and such high surface area, nearly instantly transitions through a phase change to gas in an endothermic process.
The molecules absorb enough heat for their kinetic energy (velocity) to break the intermolecular bonds and expand to a gas, increasing the distance between them by about 1,000 times.
The molecules that don't undergo a phase change before compression, do so during the combustion cycle, thereby absorbing more heat.
Lobux is right to correct you, as pseudo-science only ever leads to bad practices and extrapolation of ideas that are just plain wrong.
Meth/Water injection *does not cool* the intake charge... there is simply no time for it to mix and achieve an equilibrium... the Meth/water is atomized and sprayed into the intake, and at such small volume and such high surface area, nearly instantly transitions through a phase change to gas in an endothermic process.
The molecules absorb enough heat for their kinetic energy (velocity) to break the intermolecular bonds and expand to a gas, increasing the distance between them by about 1,000 times.
The molecules that don't undergo a phase change before compression, do so during the combustion cycle, thereby absorbing more heat.
Lobux is right to correct you, as pseudo-science only ever leads to bad practices and extrapolation of ideas that are just plain wrong.
If you disagree , put it up online so others can benefit from the resolution of what is true. . coming from the VAG world, this was common knowledge. Not so here, but I dont see many people, or anyone who can say theyve actually logged the data with these systems...you can ramble all you want about thermodynamics and how there is no such thing as cooling, and how Im misinformed, but Ive had real results from it, anyone who disagrees, show me you've measured it yourself and seen no difference in IAT. Simple.. OR continue to use your words to try and make yourself look smart, this isnt a really difficult thing, apply system, measure air temp. you're getting lost in the why, fact is, the temps lowered. measured. logged. plotted. shoot I can probably even find the old logs!
Regardless , update the wiki please, bc I have never seen so much denial over whether it actually cools the incoming air. someone else will argue back and hopefully it will represent the truth eventually.
I dont see any rage in the post either, lobux and his info is fine with me, Ekorre is not important, the truth is
Last edited by Ekorre; 05-05-10 at 05:39 PM.
05-06-10 | 08:20 AM
#41
I'm new to Toyota/Lexus but I understand the IS-F engine uses both port and direct injection, depending on load and other variables. The IS 250 engine has only direct injection and is suffering from carbon buildup, as per any number of threads I've skimmed over. What's the remedy for that, and is water injection something that Toyota will approve without completely voiding the warranty?
It just seems that a hybrid port/direct setup is the best way to avoid carbon buildup, especially on the backs of the intake valves, since you have fuel spraying over them (port-style) there's the natural cleaning effect that DI-only engines don't have.
As far as the RS 4 engine, its oil separation/draining system and valve overlap, there has to be some combination of these or the above-mentioned factors as the non-DI 4.2L V8 in the previous-gen S4 uses port-injection and does not suffer from CB. The Q7 and RS 4 use a similarly designed 4.2 V8, one that makes 350hp and the other that makes 420 and both are hugely affected by CB. The tops of these engines are different enough (the RS 4 spins up to 8250rpm) to showcase the problem is shared even through varied engine designs, which is troubling.
Currently there's speculation that newer versions of DI engines (the 3.0 S/C S4 motor) are being tuned to run hotter to help reduce the formation of build-up by keeping the components in a state where carbon doesn't bond to them. The jury's WAY out on that one in my opinion. However, the point about fuel dilution in oil is worth mentioning because the more fuel you have in the oil, the more of a cleaning effect the oil will have, at least to the affected parts of the engine, because of the detergents in the fuel. But, and this is a HUGE but, the reduced lubricity of the oil due to fuel being present would seem to be far more damaging to the engine over the long term.
Getting Audi to admit to it should be...challenging to say the least.
It just seems that a hybrid port/direct setup is the best way to avoid carbon buildup, especially on the backs of the intake valves, since you have fuel spraying over them (port-style) there's the natural cleaning effect that DI-only engines don't have.
As far as the RS 4 engine, its oil separation/draining system and valve overlap, there has to be some combination of these or the above-mentioned factors as the non-DI 4.2L V8 in the previous-gen S4 uses port-injection and does not suffer from CB. The Q7 and RS 4 use a similarly designed 4.2 V8, one that makes 350hp and the other that makes 420 and both are hugely affected by CB. The tops of these engines are different enough (the RS 4 spins up to 8250rpm) to showcase the problem is shared even through varied engine designs, which is troubling.
Currently there's speculation that newer versions of DI engines (the 3.0 S/C S4 motor) are being tuned to run hotter to help reduce the formation of build-up by keeping the components in a state where carbon doesn't bond to them. The jury's WAY out on that one in my opinion. However, the point about fuel dilution in oil is worth mentioning because the more fuel you have in the oil, the more of a cleaning effect the oil will have, at least to the affected parts of the engine, because of the detergents in the fuel. But, and this is a HUGE but, the reduced lubricity of the oil due to fuel being present would seem to be far more damaging to the engine over the long term.
Getting Audi to admit to it should be...challenging to say the least.
05-06-10 | 08:27 AM
#42
post up your expertise on wiki, Ive had real world data gathering on that point, Ive seen the temp go down, have you run a WMI system and measured temps? Has anyone here actually measured it? Real world results to me are more valuable than theory, Ive seen the data. It appears that the wiki article is referencing some article by Crowes? in 1995
If you disagree , put it up online so others can benefit from the resolution of what is true. . coming from the VAG world, this was common knowledge. Not so here, but I dont see many people, or anyone who can say theyve actually logged the data with these systems...you can ramble all you want about thermodynamics and how there is no such thing as cooling, and how Im misinformed, but Ive had real results from it, anyone who disagrees, show me you've measured it yourself and seen no difference in IAT. Simple.. OR continue to use your words to try and make yourself look smart, this isnt a really difficult thing, apply system, measure air temp. you're getting lost in the why, fact is, the temps lowered. measured. logged. plotted. shoot I can probably even find the old logs!
Regardless , update the wiki please, bc I have never seen so much denial over whether it actually cools the incoming air. someone else will argue back and hopefully it will represent the truth eventually.
I dont see any rage in the post either, lobux and his info is fine with me, Ekorre is not important, the truth is
If you disagree , put it up online so others can benefit from the resolution of what is true. . coming from the VAG world, this was common knowledge. Not so here, but I dont see many people, or anyone who can say theyve actually logged the data with these systems...you can ramble all you want about thermodynamics and how there is no such thing as cooling, and how Im misinformed, but Ive had real results from it, anyone who disagrees, show me you've measured it yourself and seen no difference in IAT. Simple.. OR continue to use your words to try and make yourself look smart, this isnt a really difficult thing, apply system, measure air temp. you're getting lost in the why, fact is, the temps lowered. measured. logged. plotted. shoot I can probably even find the old logs!
Regardless , update the wiki please, bc I have never seen so much denial over whether it actually cools the incoming air. someone else will argue back and hopefully it will represent the truth eventually.
I dont see any rage in the post either, lobux and his info is fine with me, Ekorre is not important, the truth is
But this thread isn't about thermodynamics per se, it's about carbon build up and what causes and/or eliminates it. In the VAG world it's a huge problem. Lexus has not acknowledged it being a huge problem but we've seen indications of the same things the VAG world is suffering (fuel dilution in the oil, carbon build up, rough idle, etc.) so some of us are wondering if this is fundamental to DI or if it's manufacturer specific, fuel specific, oil specific,...
Water and meth injection, how it really works and what it can do is a different subject once we've covered the "carbon build up may be mitigated by water/meth injection."
10-29-10 | 08:14 AM
#43
Advanced
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
Hey yall.
Did some carbon cleaning work on my 4GR-FSE. Got some neat but rather poor quality pics too.
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/5896723-post339.html
Did some carbon cleaning work on my 4GR-FSE. Got some neat but rather poor quality pics too.
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/5896723-post339.html
10-29-10 | 06:21 PM
#44
11 Second Club
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 963
Likes: 2
From: IL
All I can say is that 24K miles later, 2 1/2 years later, my drag racing times have improved the first year (engine break-in) and since then, it has been VERY consistent so I must surmise that there is no appreciable power loss. So probably not too much carbon buildup on my valves. 
10-29-10 | 08:18 PM
#45
Rookie
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
From: Seoul, Korea
With my limited knowledge, I believe diesel engine is basically a direct-injected engine sans spark plugs.. Then should't the diesels be subject to the same problem?
Diesel engines have survived through a (relatively) long history - how does the diesel engine address this carbon buildup?
Diesel engines have survived through a (relatively) long history - how does the diesel engine address this carbon buildup?