Carbon Buildup on the 3.0 TFSI Pics!

[Jones2012s4]

Well gents,


Carbon build is confirmed on our motors(not that it wasn't already).


40,500 miles on the clock and intake valves look like this. While not as bad as the RS4s, clearly it starts, I imagine cars that are not injecting meth(intake or directly) will look worse. Don't be too alarmed by these photos, it is NOT as bad as it looks. My mechanic is amazing and wanted to tackle this after I sent him the 3.0 TFSI PDF.

Before Cleaning:

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/15/e5a2yvu3.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/15/e8e4upu3.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/15/nyme7u7e.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/15/ra4udaqy.jpg




After cleaning:

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/15/udehaje7.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/15/e7e3a8ep.jpg



My tech is fabricating a PCV system that will block off the port that sits on the bottom of the supercharger, along with venting the lines coming off the valve covers.

Going to use this Moroso Breather Tank to collect the oil vapors from the valve covers.


http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/16/asujume7.jpg



http://m.summitracing.com/parts/mor-85473




http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/15/ana7enyj.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/15/zymutyby.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/15/egavyvu5.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/15/e5esy6as.jpg

[saxon]

Thanks for the pictures, it doesn't look all that bad honestly. Especially when compared to my old n54, that intake runner was so clogged with carbon I'm not sure how it ran

[audistealth]

Audi recommends a service now to preventatively clean that crap up I think. Kind of wish I didn't decline it now, since it's not on my paperwork to prove.

[westwest888]

Looks very clean. Nothing to worry about. That blower rams air through at 2x atmosphere so even with a 50% blockage you won't even see a 5% decrease in power. NA engines can't overcome that.

[audistealth]

Looks very clean. Nothing to worry about. That blower rams air through at 2x atmosphere so even with a 50% blockage you won't even see a 5% decrease in power. NA engines can't overcome that.

Drink something with a straw. Easy. Now pinch the straw 50%. Now, no matter how much you suck, you can't cheat physics.

[NWS4Guy]

Very nice, and no, they are not very bad at all, I do like the cheater plate that stops allowing the garbage to come out of the PCV system!


Looks very clean. Nothing to worry about. That blower rams air through at 2x atmosphere so even with a 50% blockage you won't even see a 5% decrease in power. NA engines can't overcome that.

The bulk of the issue is not with congestion, it is that the air entering the cylinder is designed to come around the valves in an exact way to swirl and mix with the fuel as it's sprayed inside the cylinder. The carbon buildup on the back of the valve interrupts the clean airflow design, making the fuel mix less than optimally with the air, resulting in a poorer combustion, yielding less power.

This has nothing to do with ramming air in, or sucking through a straw - the choke point is the space around the edge of the valve and the seat of the valve in the cylinder, which is much narrower than the chamber above the valve opening.

[P Rock]

So with our cars being force-fed (supercharged), would that forced air help clean out the carbon? Think, giant, powerful canned air. Would it be beneficial to stomp on it once in awhile or would that not make a difference?

[shadycrew31]

Very nice, and no, they are not very bad at all, I do like the cheater plate that stops allowing the garbage to come out of the PCV system!



The bulk of the issue is not with congestion, it is that the air entering the cylinder is designed to come around the valves in an exact way to swirl and mix with the fuel as it's sprayed inside the cylinder. The carbon buildup on the back of the valve interrupts the clean airflow design, making the fuel mix less than optimally with the air, resulting in a poorer combustion, yielding less power.

This has nothing to do with ramming air in, or sucking through a straw - the choke point is the space around the edge of the valve and the seat of the valve in the cylinder, which is much narrower than the chamber above the valve opening.

Interesting...

I'd love to look into some catch cans for this issue, I havent fully inspected the PCV system though. I bet radium could come up with something sexy...

[AKPS4]

keep us posted on how the car drives after everything is reassembled and if there is a noticeable difference.

[svander]

Drink something with a straw. Easy. Now pinch the straw 50%. Now, no matter how much you suck, you can't cheat physics.

[:D]

[shadycrew31]

Also, this is an epic waste of money but its a cool little kit.

I plan on piecing together something like this and tackling the the carbon before winter. I'd want a few more brushes and some longer ones also I would use seafoam instead of brake cleaner as the seafoam doesn't dry everything out like brake cleaner does.

http://www.uspmotorsports.com/Complete-Carbon-Cleanup-Kit-3.0T-FSI.html

[Jones2012s4]

So with our cars being force-fed (supercharged), would that forced air help clean out the carbon? Think, giant, powerful canned air. Would it be beneficial to stomp on it once in awhile or would that not make a difference?

Maybe a little, but it will never prevent it.

I of all people romp my car more than most, and I have methanol injection.

[Jones2012s4]

Interesting...

I'd love to look into some catch cans for this issue, I havent fully inspected the PCV system though. I bet radium could come up with something sexy...

Pcv system diagram is attached, I am installing a solution right now.


Using this breather can,

http://m.summitracing.com/parts/mor-85473

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/16/asujume7.jpg

Routing the lines close to the motor to avoid freezing in cold temps.

[NWS4Guy]

So with our cars being force-fed (supercharged), would that forced air help clean out the carbon? Think, giant, powerful canned air. Would it be beneficial to stomp on it once in awhile or would that not make a difference?

Nope, the issue here is that non-direct injection engines spray the back of the intake valves with fuel as the air is sucked into the cylinder (or forced in if you have a turbo or supercharger). This is less efficient due to collision with the intake valve, but does clean the back of the valve. Direct injection (DI) cars have the injector inside the cylinder, which requires much higher pressure fuel pump and injectors, but only air is coming in and then fuel is added to better mix, meaning less fuel is required to get the same power out of each engine stroke - improved fuel economy, but no washing the valve off now. This is why Methanol injection can be helpful, as it's washing some fluids on the intake valves.

PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) take atomized oil and other particulates that are floating around in the crank case, and put it back into the engine to burn. The introduce this air with the sludge in it, into the intake airstream, so it can be burned then treated by the catalytic convertors and produce less pollution. Our system uses that small plug in the bottom of the SC to introduce it into the compressed airstream, it goes down the intake runners and hits the back of the valves. It sticks there as it's a thick and oily residue, building up slowly over time. The intake valves are made to be heat resistant so they are not getting hot enough to burn this stuff off, but just hot enough to bake it into a carbon crust. Each engine cycle adds a little more - sometimes it breaks off and is sucked in and burned, but slowly it can and does build up. As a result, short trips where the engine never reaches max temps is also more prone to encouraging buildup.

Various work has been done to better filter out the sludge before it hits the valves (catch cans which are not strictly speaking legal aftermarket devices which catch the crud for you to manually drain off every few tanks of gas), VW holds a few patents that makes subtle changes in the valves to be even cooler, so the sludge drips into the cylinder and never is hot enough to harden, but these have only half worked by slowing it down. With the B8 3.0T engine, you will notice it runs about 10C degrees hotter than previous Audi engines, this was done as another mitigation effort and has helped, but not stopped the Carbon Buildup issues.

The only way to really treat this is as seen above, where they Dremel or blast it off with something soft like very finely broken up walnut shells using highly compressed air, so it doesn't damage the valves. Another method that is supposed to work is an "Italian Tune-up" which involves driving engine very hard for 20-30 minutes (in excess of 4K RPMs) to heat the valves enough to bake things off to a large degree. I have not seen any empirical proof of this method though.

[shadycrew31]

Pcv system diagram is attached, I am installing a solution right now.


Using this breather can,

http://m.summitracing.com/parts/mor-85473

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/16/asujume7.jpg

Routing the lines close to the motor to avoid freezing in cold temps.


Interesting... We have two PCV pipes though right?

I'd like to use something like this, I am a bit anal when it comes to my engine bay.

http://www.radiumauto.com/Universal-Dual-Catch-Can-Kit-P189.aspx

[Jones2012s4]

Interesting... We have two PCV pipes though right?

I'd like to use something like this, I am a bit anal when it comes to my engine bay.

http://www.radiumauto.com/Universal-Dual-Catch-Can-Kit-P189.aspx


Yes the moroso can has two ports, one on each side, and the drain at the bottom. It is hard to see the ports in this pic, but this will work fine. That other piece is nice though.

The moroso also has a wall just inside the ports which forces the vapor to the bottom of the tank first to be deposited on the metal "scrunchies" as I call them, before the vapors can then go through the top mount air filter.

[shadycrew31]

Yes the moroso can has two ports, one on each side, and the drain at the bottom. It is hard to see the ports in this pic, but this will work fine. That other piece is nice though.

The moroso also has a wall just inside the ports which forces the vapor to the bottom of the tank first to be deposited on the metal "scrunchies" as I call them, before the vapors can then go through the top mount air filter.

Yeah most catch cans have that, the radium tanks have all types of engineering in them, they make some pretty sweet stuff.

I'd love to see your setup when its complete, I have about 60k on the clock I'd like to do this soon.

[Jones2012s4]

Yeah most catch cans have that, the radium tanks have all types of engineering in them, they make some pretty sweet stuff.

I'd love to see your setup when its complete, I have about 60k on the clock I'd like to do this soon.



I will make sure to report back!

[westwest888]

Show me a 3.0TFSI or a 2.0TSI with carbon buildup and a dyno result showing power deficiency greater than 20 HP. It doesn't exist in the wild.

[saxon]

Who is ok with losing 20hp? I know I'm not

sent from my s4

[adbender]

I got a letter in early 2013 from Audi confirming warranty coverage for carbon build-up for 10 years.

Did you guy s get one too?

[whts4]

I was under the impression that 2012 + S4 and maybe earlier yrs as well were covered to 100k for this problem by an Audi service bulletin. I bought a low mileage 2012 last yr and the service tech printed out the service history on my car and the statement about coverage for carbon buildup to 100k appeared on the printout.

[MrFunk]

Yup... it's there in all these engines... Just clean it every 4-5 years... Audi has extended coverage for this as well... so if you notice power loss or get CEL's they should clean under warranty. Hard/impossible to avoid.

[audistealth]

I got a letter in early 2013 from Audi confirming warranty coverage for carbon build-up for 10 years.

Did you guy s get one too?

Never got one of those. Care to post it?

[shadycrew31]

From what I understand they only clean out the check valve on the PCV system.

Westy: Just stick to being a racecar driver and leave the engine stuff to the mere mortals who aspire to achieve your greatness.

[adbender]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7366/14008610438_a62cb7868f_b.jpg

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2905/14215412873_30b4097679_b.jpg

[Usa]

Drink something with a straw. Easy. Now pinch the straw 50%. Now, no matter how much you suck, you can't cheat physics.

Yeah but that air is going 2x faster according to bernoulli's principle!

[Jones2012s4]

That warranty coverage is for the secondary air ports only. Not for the intake valves.

[RendyR]

I'm planning on using one of these on each bank:
http://www.silverhorseracing.com/SHR-Tru-Billet-Oil-Separator.html

[audistealth]

Thanks for posting the letter.

[Joe85sti]

Yeah but that air is going 2x faster according to bernoulli's principle!

But also losing pressure

[raudiace4]

It's inevitable.

[AKPS4]

Interesting... We have two PCV pipes though right?

I'd like to use something like this, I am a bit anal when it comes to my engine bay.

http://www.radiumauto.com/Universal-Dual-Catch-Can-Kit-P189.aspx

This radium auto setup is sweet! But i'd like to see that it actually does something other than look pretty in the engine bay for us. If someone sets this up and can post up their setup that'd be great.

[shadycrew31]

This radium auto setup is sweet! But i'd like to see that it actually does something other than look pretty in the engine bay for us. If someone sets this up and can post up their setup that'd be great.

Well its a catch can, it just looks nice and is very well manufactured.

[milk242]

I'm planning to use meth to clean it. Hopefully pre charger meth injection won't cause any harm to the supercharger.

[shadycrew31]

I'm planning to use meth to clean it. Hopefully pre charger meth injection won't cause any harm to the supercharger.

The meth will eat up the aluminum fins of the charge coolers.

[milk242]

The meth will eat up the aluminum fins of the charge coolers.

You think enough meth would stay around to damage the aluminum fins?

[infinkc]

You think enough meth would stay around to damage the aluminum fins?

The op is running meth pre charger, no issues.

[shadycrew31]

You think enough meth would stay around to damage the aluminum fins?


The op is running meth pre charger, no issues.

No clue, I just wouldn't risk it... I'm scared of those things.

[whts4]

I run a pair of these on my 2011 STI. Extremely well made (aircraft quality) billet aluminum with stepped grove internal cuts in tube to keep oil from creeping up sides.
http://www.accmachtech.com/catchcans.asp

[The_Transporter]

Pcv system diagram is attached, I am installing a solution right now.


Using this breather can,

http://m.summitracing.com/parts/mor-85473

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/16/asujume7.jpg

Routing the lines close to the motor to avoid freezing in cold temps.

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but do these REALLY work? I need a solution as I do short commutes daily. Thanks

[Tanner]

The bulk of the issue is not with congestion, it is that the air entering the cylinder is designed to come around the valves in an exact way to swirl and mix with the fuel as it's sprayed inside the cylinder. The carbon buildup on the back of the valve interrupts the clean airflow design, making the fuel mix less than optimally with the air, resulting in a poorer combustion, yielding less power.

This.

And tell-tale signs of buildup are misfires. They might be a subtle at first (usually right after a cold start for a few minutes and the misfires themselves will stop) but once the buildup is bad enough, you'll just get constant misfires and an eventual blinking check engine light.

Catch-cans will never be a 100% solution but it may reduce how quickly the buildup occurs. Some RS4 guys claims that it had zero benefit. There's also the valve overlap (know it's in the 2.0T and most likely in the 3.0T)... some of the exhaust gets sent up the intake so there's going to be some amount of deposit on the intake valves.

The ideal solution really is a combination of port and direct injection. The 3rd generation EA888 engine (one being used in the S3), has both port and direct injection, though only one is used at any given time. Port injection used under partial loads as Audi claims it's better at mixing the fuel with the air, less soot and better emissions compared to direct injection. Plus the added benefit of the intake valves getting some cleaning. Toyota has already been using this for quite some time.

And I swore I wouldn't get another Audi unless it came with both port/direct injection...... and here I am.

[shadycrew31]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but do these REALLY work? I need a solution as I do short commutes daily. Thanks

Its a basic catch can its been used for years across every platform. They wont pass smog in certain places, but most accept it so long as its not VTA and recirculated back to the block.

[NWS4Guy]

This.

And tell-tale signs of buildup are misfires. They might be a subtle at first (usually right after a cold start for a few minutes and the misfires themselves will stop) but once the buildup is bad enough, you'll just get constant misfires and an eventual blinking check engine light.

Catch-cans will never be a 100% solution but it may reduce how quickly the buildup occurs. Some RS4 guys claims that it had zero benefit. There's also the valve overlap (know it's in the 2.0T and most likely in the 3.0T)... some of the exhaust gets sent up the intake so there's going to be some amount of deposit on the intake valves.

The ideal solution really is a combination of port and direct injection. The 3rd generation EA888 engine (one being used in the S3), has both port and direct injection, though only one is used at any given time. Port injection used under partial loads as Audi claims it's better at mixing the fuel with the air, less soot and better emissions compared to direct injection. Plus the added benefit of the intake valves getting some cleaning. Toyota has already been using this for quite some time.

And I swore I wouldn't get another Audi unless it came with both port/direct injection...... and here I am.

I hear ya. Funny that I spent the time posting all that and it seems only you read it [:)]

[Jones2012s4]

I hear ya. Funny that I spent the time posting all that and it seems only you read it [:)]

NWS4! I read your posts thoroughly. Always appreciate the input.

I hope this PCV can with my meth injection will now keep these puppies clean for 50,000 miles. I do a lot of short drives, so I think we can contribute some of that small amount of buildup.

I am removing my separators and doing a full cleaning. Will report back with results and pictures of setup.

[Jones2012s4]

Sneak preview of PCV setup.

More to come.


Looking at mounting a tube and cutting an insert from the lower tray to direct more airflow from below towards the intake.


http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/24/uru3aha9.jpg

[raudiace4]

I have been dreading this inevitable day. Fuck you Audi

[audistealth]

Sneak preview of PCV setup.

More to come.


Looking at mounting a tube and cutting an insert from the lower tray to direct more airflow from below towards the intake.



Is that a heat wrapped RocEuro? Also, what's the filter in front of it? Finally, are you supporting the extra weight on the intake, or is the silicone hose to the throttle body doing all of the work?

[audistealth]

Never mind, I just scrolled up and found that front filter. Mobile version jumps to new posts.

[cspcrx]

The can does not need to be in the flow of air. They can be mounted anywhere. Not sure if that was the only spot you could find. Just incase others are considering.

[AKPS4]

Def does not look like a roc euro intake. The pipe looks too straight. Also that's one dirty engine bay lol.

Keep us posted. Would like to consider something like this as well

[shadycrew31]

I forgot how cramped the engine bay was...

[Jones2012s4]

Correct, no room to mount anywhere else, engine bay is tight!

It is a Roc Euro Intake that has been clipped shorter.

[audistealth]

Correct, no room to mount anywhere else, engine bay is tight!

It is a Roc Euro Intake that has been clipped shorter.

Why shorten the intake? Did you take a mid section out, or cut the flared end?

[saxon]

I quoted you in another post where you mentioned taking out the dividers in the intake runners. Can you explain why you'd do this. Had anyone else done it with good results

[Jones2012s4]

I quoted you in another post where you mentioned taking out the dividers in the intake runners. Can you explain why you'd do this. Had anyone else done it with good results

Sorry Saxon, I normally read these on my phone.

It is done in the B7 RS4 application. Obviously not comparable.

I don't think we are going to go forward with it. If we do I will post my findings.

[saxon]

Sorry Saxon, I normally read these on my phone.

It is done in the B7 RS4 application. Obviously not comparable.

I don't think we are going to go forward with it. If we do I will post my findings.

Np, thanks for the update

Any thing in the manifold etc that you think could be ported our didn't you take a look

[Jones2012s4]

Np, thanks for the update

Any thing in the manifold etc that you think could be ported our didn't you take a look

If you look at the first post you can see the shape of the inlet to the intake valves. There is some material that could be removed, but I am not ready to tear the engine apart for that as I am still under warranty. I imagine the exhaust ports could be done as well. How much gain would be had from that is unknown.

We wanted to tackle the carbon issues and the supercharger is fairly easy to remove, so we took care of anything that was easily accessible.

[MrFunk]

What's the cost to get the carbon cleaned out?

[MrFunk]

Sneak preview of PCV setup.

More to come.


Looking at mounting a tube and cutting an insert from the lower tray to direct more airflow from below towards the intake.


http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/24/uru3aha9.jpg

Get that Michigan winter cleaned out of there!!! :)

[Jones2012s4]

What's the cost to get the carbon cleaned out?

Not sure on price yet, picking car up today.

Yes I know engine bay is filthy. Been busy in there :)

[Moose201]

Not sure on price yet, picking car up today.

Yes I know engine bay is filthy. Been busy in there :)

Do you know the price yet?

[Jones2012s4]

Do you know the price yet?

Not yet... Will update when I know. There was a lot of work done to car so I am still waiting for overall price.

[Moose201]

Not yet... Will update when I know. There was a lot of work done to car so I am still waiting for overall price.

10-4, thanks for sharing the info and pics.

[Jones2012s4]

I can report that there is no smell being transferred into the cabin from the vapors.

[Jones2012s4]

Quick video of setup.

More detailed write up to come this weekend.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2feei78ki7U

[shadycrew31]

I only saw one line there... Hmmmm.

[BoostEasy]

Catch cans only work in certain circumstances. Yes they will catch some gunk but the question is, without a gunk-o-meter and structured testing, you'll never know if it's 5% or 95%. And a bit of what gets condensed into liquid is actually water.

What actually causes a lot of the build up on intake valves is oil draining down the valve guides (as it is supposed to) and you're not going to touch that with any catch can. I know this because I disassembled, ported and otherwise worked on a LOT of non-DI cylinder heads back in the day. Some had bad guides and it was always easy to tell because the build up looked somewhat similar to what I now see on modern DI engines- piles of gunk on the back of the valve heads. DI heads just have the added gunk on the port walls because there's no fuel hitting them but it's otherwise very similar.

IMO catch cans probably cause as many problems as they fix as a lot of people put ones on that are too restrictive in terms of airflow and cause crankcase pressure to build up which can be quite bad if the power level is high enough.

They might help if sized properly for airflow but I wouldn't expect anything substantial. You're still gonna wind up having the clean the intake valves in time with a DI engine. Every OEM knows this IMO and plan on your warranty running out before they have to deal with it. And they don't care if your engine is down some % on power. As long as it runs ok and passes emissions, hear no evil see no evil.

[Jones2012s4]

Catch cans only work in certain circumstances. Yes they will catch some gunk but the question is, without a gunk-o-meter and structured testing, you'll never know if it's 5% or 95%. And a bit of what gets condensed into liquid is actually water.

What actually causes a lot of the build up on intake valves is oil draining down the valve guides (as it is supposed to) and you're not going to touch that with any catch can. I know this because I disassembled, ported and otherwise worked on a LOT of non-DI cylinder heads back in the day. Some had bad guides and it was always easy to tell because the build up looked somewhat similar to what I now see on modern DI engines- piles of gunk on the back of the valve heads. DI heads just have the added gunk on the port walls because there's no fuel hitting them but it's otherwise very similar.

IMO catch cans probably cause as many problems as they fix as a lot of people put ones on that are too restrictive in terms of airflow and cause crankcase pressure to build up which can be quite bad if the power level is high enough.

They might help if sized properly for airflow but I wouldn't expect anything substantial. You're still gonna wind up having the clean the intake valves in time with a DI engine. Every OEM knows this IMO and plan on your warranty running out before they have to deal with it. And they don't care if your engine is down some % on power. As long as it runs ok and passes emissions, hear no evil see no evil.



Uhhh,


It is not a catch can, it is a breather tank. The lines DO NOT go back into the intake.

Also there are two lines(one for each valve cover) and a Y connector.

[evanpm]

Has anyone had trouble getting Audi to cover the carbon cleaning due to relatively minor mods? I'm talking something like an exhaust (stock downpipes).

[Chapman]

bump and subbed. I'm at 42k miles and had just purchased an awe exhaust w/ dp. Would it be wise to ask dealer for a carbon clean before installing exhaust?

[Tanner]

No, clean when you have to.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[NWS4Guy]

Has anyone had trouble getting Audi to cover the carbon cleaning due to relatively minor mods? I'm talking something like an exhaust (stock downpipes).

Not the SAI one, I was tuned and they did it. My dealer had to go back and press them once by saying "Look, this is something non-tuned cars get, so it's obvious that tunes are not the cause, why would this not be covered?" so Audi did the right thing and cleaned mine up.

[Jones2012s4]

Just an update.

No codes have been thrown after driving for 500 miles.

As shown, the port below the charger was block, and the oil separator that sits underneath it was completely sealed. All blowby gases are being routed directly to the breath tank.


And to repeat, THIS IS NOT A CATCH CAN. This is a breather tank, nothing that goes into this can is routed back into the intake, the PCV system has been completely isolated from getting back into the engine.

Breather Tank.


http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/12/su9e6usa.jpg

[saw76]

Question ,
If you have a little build up or think you may have a little build up . And you install methanol stage 3 . Will it clean it up or just keep it from getting worse .?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jones2012s4]

Question ,
If you have a little build up or think you may have a little build up . And you install methanol stage 3 . Will it clean it up or just keep it from getting worse .?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It would def help in keeping it from getting worse.

Not sure if it would clean it though, my pics were taken after about 5000 miles of running methanol about 50% of driving time. However, I do a LOT of short trips in winter when car had little to no time to warm up, and because I didn't ever go into boost on these short trips the methanol is not spraying.

It only sprays when I hit 5-6psi of boost. I almost never hit that during my short trips to work in the winter.


Also, not quite sure what "methanol stage 3" is. I hope your not just planning on installing methanol and running it without doing any logging.

[chaos2984]

Has anyone ever thought about running a car and misting water into the intake while its running. I know it would clean the pistons but what you think about cleaning the valves. You think the water would get vaporized into steam at the intake valves to clean them or break the carbon up. ??

[saw76]

It would def help in keeping it from getting worse.

Not sure if it would clean it though, my pics were taken after about 5000 miles of running methanol about 50% of driving time. However, I do a LOT of short trips in winter when car had little to no time to warm up, and because I didn't ever go into boost on these short trips the methanol is not spraying.

It only sprays when I hit 5-6psi of boost. I almost never hit that during my short trips to work in the winter.


Also, not quite sure what "methanol stage 3" is. I hope your not just planning on installing methanol and running it without doing any logging.

Ok thank you , this is the kit that's going in my car . It's a performance shop here local . They are an APR dealer and do these installs all the time . They will be logging and tuning the car .
This stage 3 kit is pretty nice and has many options for tuning . When you want it on or off . How much and all that stuff
http://www.snowperformance.net/stage-3-gasoline-boost-cooler.html



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jones2012s4]

Ok thank you , this is the kit that's going in my car . It's a performance shop here local . They are an APR dealer and do these installs all the time . They will be logging and tuning the car .
This stage 3 kit is pretty nice and has many options for tuning . When you want it on or off . How much and all that stuff
http://www.snowperformance.net/stage-3-gasoline-boost-cooler.html





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok that's a decent kit, I would upgrade the nylon hoses though.

Also, let me know how they go about tuning for it. Since you cannot change any variables on the APR tunes, or any tunes off the shelf at the moment.

[saw76]

Ok that's a decent kit, I would upgrade the nylon hoses though.

Also, let me know how they go about tuning for it. Since you cannot change any variables on the APR tunes, or any tunes off the shelf at the moment.

So you think it's safe to run the APR 100 octane tune , with the kit , on pump 91 for a while ? When it goes custom tune it will have to be a 034 Motorsports tune as I live right by them . I was told by a few people that the 100 APR on 91 gas mixed with methanol will be fine . Plus I'm doing this more for a maintenance purpose and won't be running like this daily .
I was also told the APR 93 tune with distilled water and pump 91 gas would be good for daily ?
What are your thoughts on those statements ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AndyUK]

There have been some significant developments in this area over the past few months and I understand the exact cause and engine conditions have been correctly isolated. I can't say too much at this time as I was informed in confidence and need to wait until I can publish the information. However, a catch can will have little to no benefit. The same applies to water/meth injection.

[infinkc]

There have been some significant developments in this area over the past few months and I understand the exact cause and engine conditions have been correctly isolated. I can't say too much at this time as I was informed in confidence and need to wait until I can publish the information. However, a catch can will have little to no benefit. The same applies to water/meth injection.

Id like to see your data, especially for meth injection as if you are using a direct port setup, you are spraying directly into the ports, which will clean them out.

[Jones2012s4]

Id like to see your data, especially for meth injection as if you are using a direct port setup, you are spraying directly into the ports, which will clean them out.

That and it is known that any oil vapors that make it pass the OEM Audi PCV/Oil Separator will directly pass over the valves. So any Catch system that completely eliminates any routing back into the intake(like mine) would clearly aid(not solve) in avoiding additional carbon buildup.

[AndyUK]

From the latest updates I have received, recirculating carbon species from both the crankcase breather and combustion process are only minor contributory factors. Testing has proved that the primary source is from the valve stem seals. The actual cause of the build-up is interesting but not surprising.

The efficacy of water/methanol injection is very limited because the build-up is primarily composed of very hard and chemically active long-chain carbons (engine oil), which create VERY hard layers of carbonaceous build-up.

I am in the fuel and oil modification business and have been working with numerous parties on this issue for a number of years now. I have written an article on this revealing to exact reason but I am awaiting permission before I can publish it.



That and it is known that any oil vapors that make it pass the OEM Audi PCV/Oil Separator will directly pass over the valves. So any Catch system that completely eliminates any routing back into the intake(like mine) would clearly aid(not solve) in avoiding additional carbon buildup.

[Jones2012s4]

From the latest updates I have received, recirculating carbon species from both the crankcase breather and combustion process are only minor contributory factors. Testing has proved that the primary source is from the valve stem seals. The actual cause of the build-up is interesting but not surprising.

The efficacy of water/methanol injection is very limited because the build-up is primarily composed of very hard and chemically active long-chain carbons (engine oil), which create VERY hard layers of carbonaceous build-up.

I am in the fuel and oil modification business and have been working with numerous parties on this issue for a number of years now. I have written an article on this revealing to exact reason but I am awaiting permission before I can publish it.


We never claimed that these were solutions. We only stated that they WILL aid in reducing buildup.

When meth is spraying, at that time there will be significantly less accumulation.

When the meth is not spraying, typical rules apply. Minus the minute amount also saved by not re routing oil vapors into intake.

In the end, a complete bypassed PCV system, combined with direct port methanol will prolong any significant carbon buildup.

[shadycrew31]

From the latest updates I have received, recirculating carbon species from both the crankcase breather and combustion process are only minor contributory factors. Testing has proved that the primary source is from the valve stem seals. The actual cause of the build-up is interesting but not surprising.

The efficacy of water/methanol injection is very limited because the build-up is primarily composed of very hard and chemically active long-chain carbons (engine oil), which create VERY hard layers of carbonaceous build-up.

I am in the fuel and oil modification business and have been working with numerous parties on this issue for a number of years now. I have written an article on this revealing to exact reason but I am awaiting permission before I can publish it.

Nothing will remove the hard carbon besides a brush and solvent, you can loosen it up with water while the engines running but that's a different story.... Once the surface is clean and clear methanol injection will dramatically improve carbon buildup. The alcohol thins the oil/gas particulate that is the base of all carbon buildup, this prevents the hard carbon from forming.

[saxon]

Nothing will remove the hard carbon besides a brush and solvent, you can loosen it up with water while the engines running but that's a different story.... Once the surface is clean and clear methanol injection will dramatically improve carbon buildup. The alcohol thins the oil/gas particulate that is the base of all carbon buildup, this prevents the hard carbon from forming.

i know on my 335i , i used walnut shell blasting to remove all the build up

[AndyUK]

Understood, but I never stated that anyone has made such claims. I am merely pointing out that the efficacy of such solutions is limited because it has been proven by test that the build-up is primarily from the valve stems seals. We know by test that W/M also has very limited effect on existing deposits because of the carbon makeup. W/M on fuel carbon species is extremely effective.

Also, the majority of the build-up is occurring when the vehicle comes to a standstill and when W/M is not active.



We never claimed that these were solutions. We only stated that they WILL aid in reducing buildup.

When meth is spraying, at that time there will be significantly less accumulation.

When the meth is not spraying, typical rules apply. Minus the minute amount also saved by not re routing oil vapors into intake.

In the end, a complete bypassed PCV system, combined with direct port methanol will prolong any significant carbon buildup.

[shadycrew31]

i know on my 335i , i used walnut shell blasting to remove all the build up

Well yeah, you can go that route if you want. Once it forms into hard carbon you need something other than a liquid solvent to remove it.

I have no idea why the BMW crowd trusts a shop vac to remove all of the walnut media, I've seen the DIY and videos of the process it makes my testicles hurt. I'd rather spend an extra hour per cyl using a brush and solvent.

[AndyUK]

There is evidence to suggest this is the case but the effect is still limited and it is very difficult to measure. The constraints are as follows:

1. Bench tests have shown that most of the build-up occurs as the vehicle comes off power and to a standstill hence M/W isn’t active at the times you need it most with regards to this particular issue.

2. Ideally you require polar solvents (rather than just methanol) to attract and remove the type of carbon chains we are dealing with. This would likely comprise an aggressive chemical mix not suitable for conventional W/M systems and certainly not suitable for regular use.

3. Once an initial catalysis of oil onto the valve has occured the surface is perfectly primed for future rapid build-up regardless of how clean you get it.




Nothing will remove the hard carbon besides a brush and solvent, you can loosen it up with water while the engines running but that's a different story.... Once the surface is clean and clear methanol injection will dramatically improve carbon buildup. The alcohol thins the oil/gas particulate that is the base of all carbon buildup, this prevents the hard carbon from forming.

[Tanner]

I have no idea why the BMW crowd trusts a shop vac to remove all of the walnut media, I've seen the DIY and videos of the process it makes my testicles hurt. I'd rather spend an extra hour per cyl using a brush and solvent.

Audi uses the same thing. Even the independent shops that services Audi.

The valves are closed, walnut is blasted into and at the same time the bits are vacuumed up. If some fine dust is left over from the walnut after the cleanup, it's harmless apparently, anything that gets past the valves will just get burned off.

One thing for sure, it is much quicker than picking away at it with a brush and solvent. Guess dealers are pressured to get things done as quickly as possible while the customer doesn't want to pay an arm and a leg as the amount of labour can easily be twice as much.

[AndyUK]

This process is effective and safe providing the operator is sufficiently skilled.


Audi uses the same thing. Even the independent shops that services Audi.

The valves are closed, walnut is blasted into and at the same time the bits are vacuumed up. If some fine dust is left over from the walnut after the cleanup, it's harmless apparently, anything that gets past the valves will just get burned off.

One thing for sure, it is much quicker than picking away at it with a brush and solvent. Guess dealers are pressured to get things done as quickly as possible while the customer doesn't want to pay an arm and a leg as the amount of labour can easily be twice as much.

[AndyUK]

We can now publish that the primary reason for the carbon build-up is due to a pyrolytic decomposition where the oil is broken down by the catalytic (reacting) action with the materials used to manufacture or coat the valve stems. In other words, the oil is reacting to the nickel and chrome alloys used to manufacture the valves.

The deposited material remains chemically active and further lube oil or recirculating carbon matter (such as from the combustion process) then deposits with ease.

[Tanner]

We can now publish that the primary reason for the carbon build-up is due to a pyrolytic decomposition where the oil is broken down by the catalytic (reacting) action with the materials used to manufacture or coat the valve stems. In other words, the oil is reacting to the nickel and chrome alloys used to manufacture the valves.

The deposited material remains chemically active and further lube oil or recirculating carbon matter (such as from the combustion process) then deposits with ease.

Is this your article?

http://www.oilem.com/turbo-fuel-stratified-injection-tfsi-direct-port-injection-carbon-build-up-problem/

[audistealth]

We can now publish that the primary reason for the carbon build-up is due to a pyrolytic decomposition where the oil is broken down by the catalytic (reacting) action with the materials used to manufacture or coat the valve stems. In other words, the oil is reacting to the nickel and chrome alloys used to manufacture the valves.

The deposited material remains chemically active and further lube oil or recirculating carbon matter (such as from the combustion process) then deposits with ease.

Got any recommendations you can share here?

[AndyUK]

Yes, I am the author of the article. However, it is now on my blog here https://www.fueltechexperts.com/turbo-fuel-stratified-injection-tfsi-direct-port-injection-carbon-build-up-problem/



Is this your article?

http://www.oilem.com/turbo-fuel-stratified-injection-tfsi-direct-port-injection-carbon-build-up-problem/

[mojangles69]

So, in hindsight and in light of our engineering friends, as a future S4 owner, what would you all recommend doing? I am expecting delivery sometime in September. It seems clear that there is no way to avoid carbon buildup but what is the best route/kit/routine in order to reduce/mitigate the buildup and make future cleanings easier?

As stated by Jones2012s4, "a complete bypassed PCV system, combined with direct port methanol will prolong any significant carbon buildup," is it the general consensus that this would be the best overall method? Thanks in advance!

Cheers!

[AndyUK]

Not many. The initial funding and test was funded by a known manufacturer and I wouldn't be surprised to see alternative materials used in the near future. However, this doesn't help the here and now.

We have been running tests for nearly 2 years on proprietary ester-based fluidisers that are showing promise. This included a year-long test on an RS4. The results are that it is unlikely that existing deposits can be removed in any volume using this technique. However, there are signs that it could prevent or at least reduce deposit formation, hence keep the valves clean once cleaned manually. The additive pack we tested in the RS4 I use in my S4 and previous S3 and V10 S8.

From other related tests I have always advocated the use of 502/505 spec oil (genuine full group IV or better base stocks only) on TFSI engines rather than the 504/507. 504/507 is marketed as superior oil but this is not the case. Many important ingredients were removed and replaced with inferior and more expensive alternatives in order to protect emission control components, such as the DPF, on VAG diesel engines. This doesn’t apply to VAG gasoline engines but to simplify long life oil changes 504/507 is now recommended across the board.





Got any recommendations you can share here?

[AndyUK]

This approach may help reduce formation but from the data and observation of the root cause it won't be "significant". Water/meth holds the highest potential but as previously mentioned it is limited because the majority of carbonaceous formation is occurring at times when W/M is not active. In order to be successful it needs to "wash" the valve as the oil is flowing and before any catalytic reaction

Actual observation on a purpose built test engine has demonstrated that build-up occurs after coming to a standstill. It is at its worst coming to a standstill following medium to heavy acceleration.



So, in hindsight and in light of our engineering friends, as a future S4 owner, what would you all recommend doing? I am expecting delivery sometime in September. It seems clear that there is no way to avoid carbon buildup but what is the best route/kit/routine in order to reduce/mitigate the buildup and make future cleanings easier?

As stated by Jones2012s4, "a complete bypassed PCV system, combined with direct port methanol will prolong any significant carbon buildup," is it the general consensus that this would be the best overall method? Thanks in advance!

Cheers!

[chaos2984]

honestly pulling the S/C off and doing a manual cleaning what every 60K isnt to bad i think.? Its not to bad to do Just crank the enigne over till you seal the intake valves and go to town in there and scrub them and then clean it up and move to the next one and do the same thing. Walnut shells will work if you have access to one of those machines. Id rather do that than install some injection kit with having to mount a tank somewhere.

[AKPS4]

So basically some oils will help minimize carbon buildup over others? Would frequency of oil changes make a difference or has testing of certain gasoline proven to make a difference either?

I have strictly used Pennzoil oil and shell gas only in my car. I wonder how things look if I keep it up.

[chaos2984]

So basically some oils will help minimize carbon buildup over others? Would frequency of oil changes make a difference or has testing of certain gasoline proven to make a difference either?

I have strictly used Pennzoil oil and shell gas only in my car. I wonder how things look if I keep it up.


I don't think any gas will help anything being that the fuel is DI right into the cyl. The only thing different fuel can do is the burn quality. That where this issue has come about is from the DI.

[BoostEasy]

Not many. The initial funding and test was funded by a known manufacturer and I wouldn't be surprised to see alternative materials used in the near future. However, this doesn't help the here and now.

We have been running tests for nearly 2 years on proprietary ester-based fluidisers that are showing promise. This included a year-long test on an RS4. The results are that it is unlikely that existing deposits can be removed in any volume using this technique. However, there are signs that it could prevent or at least reduce deposit formation, hence keep the valves clean once cleaned manually. The additive pack we tested in the RS4 I use in my S4 and previous S3 and V10 S8.

From other related tests I have always advocated the use of 502/505 spec oil (genuine full group IV or better base stocks only) on TFSI engines rather than the 504/507. 504/507 is marketed as superior oil but this is not the case. Many important ingredients were removed and replaced with inferior and more expensive alternatives in order to protect emission control components, such as the DPF, on VAG diesel engines. This doesn’t apply to VAG gasoline engines but to simplify long life oil changes 504/507 is now recommended across the board.

Wow, I'll have to keep this in mind as I hit 5k mi and need to do my first oil change.

I also liked your earlier comment on 7/3/14 that the main building on the valves from DI engines was from the valve guide oil- I've been saying this for years as I used to port/polish and rework dozens of cyl heads maybe 15 years ago. As soon as I saw the build up, I thought it might a mix of valveguide oil and PCV but as people tried catch-cans and it did basically nothing, it was pretty clear to me it was just the valveguide oil.

I knew because I'd seen plenty of old v8 heads with bad valve guides with exactly the same buildup before DI even became commonplace on OEM cars. So it was absolutely no shock to me when I looked at pictures people posted of such things.

The OEMs had to have known this was an issue but it's disappointing that it's rarely covered or mentioned unless it affects idle, drivability etc.

Thanks again.

[Tanner]

So really, the best setup out there is a combination of DI and port injection, like Toyota's D4-S. Read up on it and because they use port injection at low RPM, there's no need for tumble flaps also. Wished Audi engines would use that, any confirmation that the new 2.0T in the A3 here in North America doesn't have the port injection while in Europe they do? Read something that it might have to do something with emissions, it's not really needed yet to meet the emissions here while it's needed in Europe.

[iconoclast]

Very interesting read and definitely a new spin on the issue... What will come with new VAG engines which offer a supplemental injector and changes from DI to MPFI?

[mojangles69]

This approach may help reduce formation but from the data and observation of the root cause it won't be "significant". Water/meth holds the highest potential but as previously mentioned it is limited because the majority of carbonaceous formation is occurring at times when W/M is not active. In order to be successful it needs to "wash" the valve as the oil is flowing and before any catalytic reaction

Actual observation on a purpose built test engine has demonstrated that build-up occurs after coming to a standstill. It is at its worst coming to a standstill following medium to heavy acceleration.

Ah, okay. Understood, thanks for clarifying! And thanks for all the insight!
Also going to be looking into this: "From other related tests I have always advocated the use of 502/505 spec oil (genuine full group IV or better base stocks only) on TFSI engines rather than the 504/507."Very interesting and important info! [up]

[Hansel]

What about seafoam? I use it my my snowmobile and they run like champs.

[AndyUK]

Unfortunately this is the case and it is all relative. By using higher quality gas and/or supplementing with a fuel catalyst you can reduce the recirculating hydrocarbons but only a small proportion of the build-up is fuel related, thus the net improvement is minimal.

Carbon removal through fuel additives is now relatively easy using fuel borne catalysts and similar carbon removal technologies. However, efficacy is severely reduced in this case as these cleaning processes require heat in the recirculating gases to be effective. Add this to the fact that the build-up is comprised of tough long-chain carbons from the lube it just doesn’t work. We have already tested this.



I don't think any gas will help anything being that the fuel is DI right into the cyl. The only thing different fuel can do is the burn quality. That where this issue has come about is from the DI.

[AndyUK]

Yes, It has been known for while to be from the valve guides and this is part of the design. What is new is the observation of a catalytic reaction between the oil and valve material.


Wow, I'll have to keep this in mind as I hit 5k mi and need to do my first oil change.

I also liked your earlier comment on 7/3/14 that the main building on the valves from DI engines was from the valve guide oil- I've been saying this for years as I used to port/polish and rework dozens of cyl heads maybe 15 years ago. As soon as I saw the build up, I thought it might a mix of valveguide oil and PCV but as people tried catch-cans and it did basically nothing, it was pretty clear to me it was just the valveguide oil.

I knew because I'd seen plenty of old v8 heads with bad valve guides with exactly the same buildup before DI even became commonplace on OEM cars. So it was absolutely no shock to me when I looked at pictures people posted of such things.

The OEMs had to have known this was an issue but it's disappointing that it's rarely covered or mentioned unless it affects idle, drivability etc.

Thanks again.

[AndyUK]

Until (if?) an oil additive pack can be produced to inhibit build-up there are two options:

1. Multiport design as you have mentioned.

2. Manufacture valves with materials that won't react with carbons as they do now.


So really, the best setup out there is a combination of DI and port injection, like Toyota's D4-S. Read up on it and because they use port injection at low RPM, there's no need for tumble flaps also. Wished Audi engines would use that, any confirmation that the new 2.0T in the A3 here in North America doesn't have the port injection while in Europe they do? Read something that it might have to do something with emissions, it's not really needed yet to meet the emissions here while it's needed in Europe.

[AndyUK]

Yes, use a full or at least a mid-SAPS oil that is GENUINE 100% PAO/Ester base. Most fully synthetics are primarily group III. 504/507 is a low-SAPS oil originally designed for DPF equipped diesel engines. I always provide my own oil at service time.


Ah, okay. Understood, thanks for clarifying! And thanks for all the insight!
Also going to be looking into this: "From other related tests I have always advocated the use of 502/505 spec oil (genuine full group IV or better base stocks only) on TFSI engines rather than the 504/507."Very interesting and important info! [up]

[AndyUK]

Will barely touch the type of build-up on these valves. All manner of intake based cleaners have been tested with limited success. Only very aggressive polar solvents (containing many nasty’s like acetone and usually highly flammable) have a chance of moving it but as mentioned in the article, controlling the degree of deposit removal is incredibly difficult and risk of damage is very high. This is also supported by the Metallurgy Professor we have worked with on this and who is part of the team in the aforementioned test.


What about seafoam? I use it my my snowmobile and they run like champs.

[chaos2984]

Well you know when the EGR is working your not recirculating Hydrocarbons, its all inert gas under normal running engine. You has some hydro carbons in there but nothing to be concerned with something like 2% probably in that gas that gets recirculated. Also it would be more expensive to have port injection as well as DI. Im sure it has something to do with emissions. I believe that US has stricter emissions than europe does and i know the gov't has mandated a brand avg fuel economy also which is driving that. You loose fuel econ when you inject it into the ports vs cyl. Honestly i think they will come up with something to fix it but what that will be no one knows yet. I don't know if changing the valve make up to combat the build up will help they would have to try some sort of teflon coating and see if that helps. Hard to say.

[AndyUK]

I don’t view direct port as the enemy and using anti-friction coatings is not the direct answer. Just changing the valve material to one that doesn't catalyse with the oil would make a significant difference. This would prevent the pyrolytic reaction and thus enable oil to wash off more readily rather than forming into a mass.

And that is the point; there is an aggressive pro-active reaction that needs to be nulled. Prevent this and valve stem derived lube, recirculating crankcase or combustion matter becomes manageable. It is impossible to eliminate carbon completely because of the strong affinity between carbons and metals but it is postulated that build-up would “self-manage”.




Well you know when the EGR is working your not recirculating Hydrocarbons, its all inert gas under normal running engine. You has some hydro carbons in there but nothing to be concerned with something like 2% probably in that gas that gets recirculated. Also it would be more expensive to have port injection as well as DI. Im sure it has something to do with emissions. I believe that US has stricter emissions than europe does and i know the gov't has mandated a brand avg fuel economy also which is driving that. You loose fuel econ when you inject it into the ports vs cyl. Honestly i think they will come up with something to fix it but what that will be no one knows yet. I don't know if changing the valve make up to combat the build up will help they would have to try some sort of teflon coating and see if that helps. Hard to say.

[Compulsive]

Yes, use a full or at least a mid-SAPS oil that is GENUINE 100% PAO/Ester base. Most fully synthetics are primarily group III. 504/507 is a low-SAPS oil originally designed for DPF equipped diesel engines.

Which 502/505 spec oils are full or mid SAPS and 100% PAO/Ester based? Maybe Motul 5W-40 Specific? Something from Fuchs? I don't think M1 0W-40 falls into this category.

[drob23]

I don’t view direct port as the enemy and using anti-friction coatings is not the direct answer. Just changing the valve material to one that doesn't catalyse with the oil would make a significant difference. This would prevent the pyrolytic reaction and thus enable oil to wash off more readily rather than forming into a mass.

And that is the point; there is an aggressive pro-active reaction that needs to be nulled. Prevent this and valve stem derived lube, recirculating crankcase or combustion matter becomes manageable. It is impossible to eliminate carbon completely because of the strong affinity between carbons and metals but it is postulated that build-up would “self-manage”.

First off, a lot of the info you've provided is a little over my head, but thanks anyways! BTW, who is the funding source for this research?

With regards to the hypothesis you have largely supported from the testing, would it be fair to assume this is news to OEM's or the suppliers of these engine components? I understand that carbon build up could be seen as a "maintenance" item that doesn't really affect the OEM's bottom line, since the MPG benefit of DI is a much stronger profit enabler. But then why are they switching to dual port/direct injection? Is it just a stop-gap change to prevent the onset of CB? Why wouldn't they just change the valve coating if it was that simple, or does this involve a long R&D process to find alternatives that don't introduce new unrelated problems?

Also, I'd echo the others about your oil suggestion, could you put it into layman's terms lol? I.e. which oil should be buying? Would you say it's only a good stop-gap if you do it every time? I.e. if you've already been filling with the bad stuff...then the catalyst is already there and you can't really do much to prevent continuing CB. So changing to your suggested oil would only be something to consider after doing a proper CB clean up with walnuts or whatever method of scraping the valves clean.

Thanks for the answers, nice to hear an actual expert around here rather than all the keyboard engineers.

[mr shickadance]

Interesting article for sure, my argument is that the assumption that the oil is being pulled from the valve seals would not seem to aline itself with the reality that the carbon build-up is mostly found on the intake-side of the valves (meaning, if you take the valve and cut it in half, there is carbon build-up more prevalent on one side, and not the other)

I have my own ideas as to why this happens but I would think it's a fair assumption that the build-up issue if it was caused from the pulling of oil from the valve stems would be more uniform in nature wrapping around the entirety of the valve, and not so one-sided.

My theory on this is pretty basic, and comes from the Speed3 background, as the speed3 2.0t engine is actually not so different from the b7 2.0t engine in which carbon build-up also occurs.

The speed 3 guys solved their carbon build-up in it's entirety btw (google up) but given the slight differences in engine mechanics, the fix does not entirely apply to us german folks. Basically the speed 3 guys created a block for the EGR, which is a big emission no-no, but preventing recirc'd gases means that only clean unadulterated air hits the intake valves and presto, no carbon build up.


this is where my theory begins to take off in that I personally don't believe its the reaction to the valve metal and oil, but it's simply that the recirc'd exhaust gasses used to cool the engine during periods of idle, and other lean engine conditions which emissions requires. This would help explain why it's present primarily on one side of the intake valves, as the gases are coming from the intake track and not too existent on the back-side of the valve. This also helps explain why city-dwelling cars often have a more prevalent problem, as short trips, and stop and go would introduce a lot of re-circ and then followed by turning off the engine would let the residue 'cure' onto the valves more often.

Stop the recirc, stop the carbon build-up. the breather option does this I believe (but forgive me, not exactly 100% on the v6t engine) which should stop the problem in it's tracks.

anyways, those were my thoughts on the matter.

[AndyUK]

I am trying to avoid recommending particular oils as it is likely to open a can of worms and series of questions that I don't want to get into right now. My background is fuel modification, tribology and engine tuning in that order of experience. I am in the trade but not a registered trader on this forum (and don’t intend to), so I don’t in any way want to come across as pushing any products. I am here as a fellow S4 owner that can hopefully add value and nothing more.

I will mull it over and see if I can come up with a list. One thing I will say is that M1 would never be seen in my car. The other issue is that we know factually that oil manufacturers adjust blends for different countries/regions, to achieve market price expectations.



Which 502/505 spec oils are full or mid SAPS and 100% PAO/Ester based? Maybe Motul 5W-40 Specific? Something from Fuchs? I don't think M1 0W-40 falls into this category.

[AndyUK]

I can't reveal the source. However, if you had a wild guess you would probably be correct.

The rest of the questions are very good ones but I just don't have the actual answers to them right now. If you are asking my opinion then I expect all avenues will be investigated, including alternative valve materials as well as multi-port designs. Although more expensive to R&D and manufacture multiport at least has the advantage of removing many other possible variables with regards to carbon build-up.

I understand there is very little sacrifice on MPG and/or emissions with multi-port injection. Most fuel is still direct injected.



First off, a lot of the info you've provided is a little over my head, but thanks anyways! BTW, who is the funding source for this research?

With regards to the hypothesis you have largely supported from the testing, would it be fair to assume this is news to OEM's or the suppliers of these engine components? I understand that carbon build up could be seen as a "maintenance" item that doesn't really affect the OEM's bottom line, since the MPG benefit of DI is a much stronger profit enabler. But then why are they switching to dual port/direct injection? Is it just a stop-gap change to prevent the onset of CB? Why wouldn't they just change the valve coating if it was that simple, or does this involve a long R&D process to find alternatives that don't introduce new unrelated problems?

Also, I'd echo the others about your oil suggestion, could you put it into layman's terms lol? I.e. which oil should be buying? Would you say it's only a good stop-gap if you do it every time? I.e. if you've already been filling with the bad stuff...then the catalyst is already there and you can't really do much to prevent continuing CB. So changing to your suggested oil would only be something to consider after doing a proper CB clean up with walnuts or whatever method of scraping the valves clean.

Thanks for the answers, nice to hear an actual expert around here rather than all the keyboard engineers.

[AndyUK]

Very good points and I appreciate your thoughts.

This phenomenon has been proven over and over using correctly specified lubricants and under many driving conditions on a test engine purpose build by the university under the instruction and funding of a manufacturer. The test rig cost six figures to build and includes integrated cameras as well as open viewing areas. It’s uncanny but you can actually see the oil from the valve stem catalyse with the valve as the engine is running. It is undoubtedly the primary cause.

The shape and formation will be somewhat governed by air flow dynamics.

EGR has been tested and ruled out as the primary source. It is a minor contributory factor as is all recirculating matter from the crankcase breather and combustion process.

However, on most direct injection diesel engine the EGR IS, without question, the primary factor of build-up. Blocking the EGR and retuning the ECU accordingly is very successful for engines that are prone. That said, we ran a test on a 4.2 TDI A8 from 70 to 96k miles using a tailored oil additive pack and fuel catalyst and the EGR retained a very fine layer of fuel based carbons that were easily removed with a finger nail. The point being that there are other options. This layer never grew or exceeded 1.5mm in depth. It self-managed.



Interesting article for sure, my argument is that the assumption that the oil is being pulled from the valve seals would not seem to aline itself with the reality that the carbon build-up is mostly found on the intake-side of the valves (meaning, if you take the valve and cut it in half, there is carbon build-up more prevalent on one side, and not the other)

I have my own ideas as to why this happens but I would think it's a fair assumption that the build-up issue if it was caused from the pulling of oil from the valve stems would be more uniform in nature wrapping around the entirety of the valve, and not so one-sided.

My theory on this is pretty basic, and comes from the Speed3 background, as the speed3 2.0t engine is actually not so different from the b7 2.0t engine in which carbon build-up also occurs.

The speed 3 guys solved their carbon build-up in it's entirety btw (google up) but given the slight differences in engine mechanics, the fix does not entirely apply to us german folks. Basically the speed 3 guys created a block for the EGR, which is a big emission no-no, but preventing recirc'd gases means that only clean unadulterated air hits the intake valves and presto, no carbon build up.


this is where my theory begins to take off in that I personally don't believe its the reaction to the valve metal and oil, but it's simply that the recirc'd exhaust gasses used to cool the engine during periods of idle, and other lean engine conditions which emissions requires. This would help explain why it's present primarily on one side of the intake valves, as the gases are coming from the intake track and not too existent on the back-side of the valve. This also helps explain why city-dwelling cars often have a more prevalent problem, as short trips, and stop and go would introduce a lot of re-circ and then followed by turning off the engine would let the residue 'cure' onto the valves more often.

Stop the recirc, stop the carbon build-up. the breather option does this I believe (but forgive me, not exactly 100% on the v6t engine) which should stop the problem in it's tracks.

anyways, those were my thoughts on the matter.

[mr shickadance]

one other thing to consider i suppose would be if it was a catalyst reaction, once the valve is 100% saturated wouldn't the carbon build up halt as there is no more material left in contact with the valve in question?

look, obviously you have done far more research on it than i have, but it just seems like since this is cross-platform, cross-make issue only relating to direct injection engines, that exploring on just audi's engines seems like a niche way to derive conclusions from.

but i suppose i am happy there is at least a few people looking into this, the speed3 issue was solve by the egr delete, but they used a different system to pass emissions, and I think the b7'rs had a write-up for a carbon build up solution that essentially did the same, but there was no long-term evidence suggesting it was curing the problem, but the idea and the logic were there, the speed3 was confirmed, and therefore the only reason i used it as an example.

[achilleas101]

From other related tests I have always advocated the use of 502/505 spec oil (genuine full group IV or better base stocks only) on TFSI engines rather than the 504/507. 504/507 is marketed as superior oil but this is not the case. Many important ingredients were removed and replaced with inferior and more expensive alternatives in order to protect emission control components, such as the DPF, on VAG diesel engines. This doesn’t apply to VAG gasoline engines but to simplify long life oil changes 504/507 is now recommended across the board.

Most of this stuff is definitely beyond my understanding, so please excuse me if this question was addressed and i didn't get it. But i'm confused by this statement in bold above. did you mean to say "long life oil changes 504/507 is noT recommended across the board"?

and if so, are you basically saying shorter oil change intervals are better?

[Moose201]

I am trying to avoid recommending particular oils as it is likely to open a can of worms and series of questions that I don't want to get into right now. My background is fuel modification, tribology and engine tuning in that order of experience. I am in the trade but not a registered trader on this forum (and don’t intend to), so I don’t in any way want to come across as pushing any products. I am here as a fellow S4 owner that can hopefully add value and nothing more.

I will mull it over and see if I can come up with a list. One thing I will say is that M1 would never be seen in my car. The other issue is that we know factually that oil manufacturers adjust blends for different countries/regions, to achieve market price expectations.

A list would be appreciated. Curious though why you would never use M1?

[audistealth]

A list would be appreciated. Curious though why you would never use M1?

+1

[mojangles69]

A list would be appreciated. Curious though why you would never use M1?

+ 2!

No need to push a particular product, AndyUK. In our eyes, you are simply a fellow S4 owner recommending a or several different possible oils, that in your experience and through your research, would be best for our vehicles! [:)]
And again, thank you for all your insight thus far, you've been more than informative!

[AndyUK]

Very good point. The build-up proliferates because the carbon remains chemically active.



one other thing to consider i suppose would be if it was a catalyst reaction, once the valve is 100% saturated wouldn't the carbon build up halt as there is no more material left in contact with the valve in question?

look, obviously you have done far more research on it than i have, but it just seems like since this is cross-platform, cross-make issue only relating to direct injection engines, that exploring on just audi's engines seems like a niche way to derive conclusions from.

but i suppose i am happy there is at least a few people looking into this, the speed3 issue was solve by the egr delete, but they used a different system to pass emissions, and I think the b7'rs had a write-up for a carbon build up solution that essentially did the same, but there was no long-term evidence suggesting it was curing the problem, but the idea and the logic were there, the speed3 was confirmed, and therefore the only reason i used it as an example.

[AndyUK]

It's not you. After reading it again it’s clear I didn’t word it very well.

To clarify:

504/407 is a low-SAPs long-life oil with a good proportion of the good stuff taken out (such as sulphated ash) in order to protect diesel particulate filters on diesel engines. In Europe at least it seconds as the preferred long life oil for gasoline TFSI engines. Many dealers even use it on annual services as it's easier to stock one lube. 504/507 appears to have become the de facto oil across the range.

In my professional opinion a high-end 502/505 full-SAPs oil provides improved short and medium term benefits including improved protection and most importantly lower oil consumption on TFSI engines. The only downside is that it won’t last as long

The reason I originally posted this is because 504/507 is regularly touted as superior oil for TFSI engines. I don’t agree with this.

Shorter oil changes are simply good insurance but I don't have any direct evidence to suggest this reduces deposit build-up on the intake valves.

The engine in my S4 consumes less than 200ml per 5,000 mile oil change.



Most of this stuff is definitely beyond my understanding, so please excuse me if this question was addressed and i didn't get it. But i'm confused by this statement in bold above. did you mean to say "long life oil changes 504/507 is noT recommended across the board"?

and if so, are you basically saying shorter oil change intervals are better?

[AndyUK]

Sorry, don't want to go there but I will say this. When you have seen as much of the oil market as I have, met with manufacturers, discussed additives packs with chemists etc. etc., it becomes clear that the consumer oil market is just one big marketing competition.

Once you have determined the correct/recommend specification you should ask the following question rather than make a decision based on brand.

“What am I getting for my buck and who is offering the greatest value for every buck I spend?”

In other words, invest in the greatest value group IV+ base oil rather than pay inflated prices for over-marketed group III oils.




A list would be appreciated. Curious though why you would never use M1?

[mojangles69]

Sorry, don't want to go there but I will say this. When you have seen as much of the oil market as I have, met with manufacturers, discussed additives packs with chemists etc. etc., it becomes clear that the consumer oil market is just one big marketing competition.

Once you have determined the correct/recommend specification you should ask the following question rather than make a decision based on brand.

“What am I getting for my buck and who is offering the greatest value for every buck I spend?”

In other words, invest in the greatest value group IV+ base oil rather than pay inflated prices for over-marketed group III oils.

AMSOIL is what keeps showing up on Google. And this is the oil they recommend, on their website, for our B8 S4's.

It is not a Full-SAP but a Mid-SAP oil. --> http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/motor-oil/gasoline/european-car-formula-5w-40-synthetic-motor-oil/?code=AFLQT-EA

Here is the Full-SAP oil. Interestingly enough, it's cheaper! [confused] --> http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/motor-oil/gasoline/european-car-formula-5w-40-synthetic-motor-oil-efm/?code=EFMQT-EA

Homepage --> http://www.worldsbestoil.ca/oilforDieselCarsTrucks.php

Andy, give us a simple "thumbs up" if these meets the recommended criteria! [drool]

[AndyUK]

One of our European distributors is also a distributor for Amsoil so I will try and get hold of the ingredients disclosure and let you know.

Mid-SAPs = more expensive? YES! Low-SAPs even more expensive. This is because they are replacing the good stuff with more expensive alternatives to protect a component (DPF) no gasoline vehicle has!

I have to refrain from invalidating customers when they tell me that they have spent $100 on the best 504/507 specific for their Audi TFSI. I then ask how much oil it burns. “Um, quite a bit but it’s a great oil”.



AMSOIL is what keeps showing up on Google. And this is the oil they recommend, on their website, for our B8 S4's.

It is not a Full-SAP but a Mid-SAP oil. --> http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/motor-oil/gasoline/european-car-formula-5w-40-synthetic-motor-oil/?code=AFLQT-EA

Here is the Full-SAP oil. Interestingly enough, it's cheaper! [confused] --> http://www.amsoil.com/shop/by-product/motor-oil/gasoline/european-car-formula-5w-40-synthetic-motor-oil-efm/?code=EFMQT-EA

Homepage --> http://www.worldsbestoil.ca/oilforDieselCarsTrucks.php

Andy, give us a simple "thumbs up" if these meets the recommended criteria! [drool]

[mr shickadance]

so what is the oil you trust to put in your car?

[visualguy]

I'm curious about why the severity of this problem varies so much from engine model to engine model. For example, Porsche naturally aspirated DI engines (A91) don't seem to suffer from it nearly as much. Also, some Audi DI engine models suffer from it much more than others. Assuming the root cause is the oil reacting with the valve material, what explains the big differences between engine models?

[mojangles69]

One of our European distributors is also a distributor for Amsoil so I will try and get hold of the ingredients disclosure and let you know.

Mid-SAPs = more expensive? YES! Low-SAPs even more expensive. This is because they are replacing the good stuff with more expensive alternatives to protect a component (DPF) no gasoline vehicle has!

I have to refrain from invalidating customers when they tell me that they have spent $100 on the best 504/507 specific for their Audi TFSI. I then ask how much oil it burns. “Um, quite a bit but it’s a great oil”.

LOL! I love it. What we need and is the best option for our engines is the cheapest version of the oil and the most expensive version is the worst option bc they take out the good stuff and replace it with more expensive alternatives that do us no good. Perfect [headbang]

So glad you joined this thread AndyUK and spoke up! Learning a lot!
Gotta love marketing!

[Moose201]

so what is the oil you trust to put in your car?

+1

[AndyUK]

It's a custom blend.


so what is the oil you trust to put in your car?

[AndyUK]

There are many variables. I have listed some below with the #1 being the most important and working down from there:

1. Valve material
2. NA or forced induction
3. Driving style
4. General intake/valve/engine design
5. Lubricant

The 2.0T, 3.0T or 4.0T will never suffer as much as an NA engine. Interestingly, Audi appear to be moving to FI with all of its gas engines. Emissions is one factor but....

My knowledge of Porsche engines is limited so unable to comment.



I'm curious about why the severity of this problem varies so much from engine model to engine model. For example, Porsche naturally aspirated DI engines (A91) don't seem to suffer from it nearly as much. Also, some Audi DI engine models suffer from it much more than others. Assuming the root cause is the oil reacting with the valve material, what explains the big differences between engine models?

[Moose201]

Appreciate all the info and realize that you don't want to comment on M1. Would still be helpful if you could mention a few off-the-shelf oils that should be considered. Thanks.

[SwankPeRFection]

Sorry, don't want to go there but I will say this. When you have seen as much of the oil market as I have, met with manufacturers, discussed additives packs with chemists etc. etc., it becomes clear that the consumer oil market is just one big marketing competition.

Once you have determined the correct/recommend specification you should ask the following question rather than make a decision based on brand.

“What am I getting for my buck and who is offering the greatest value for every buck I spend?”

In other words, invest in the greatest value group IV+ base oil rather than pay inflated prices for over-marketed group III oils.

Are you insinuating that M1 is expensive? Because in our country, it's the easiest to find and least expensive of them all. Perhaps it's different in the UK. Look, I know you don't want to get in a oil pissing match here and hopefully people will avoid that, but I do want to know if some of your logic on this is also region based? I ask this because like you not wanting to put M1 in your car, Castrol won't be put in mine. The same thing would go with other off-brand ones because they are harder to get and if for some reason the specification ins't on the bottle (even though it's a better oil), the manufacturer WILL GET in a pissing match should something happen. While I can't speak for carbon buildup (even on my B7 A4), I will say that I've always used M1 in all my cars and they've all survived until 100k+ miles with no issues. It just seems to work and it sure is easier to find than the Redline oils I used to use years ago.

[gringoloco2000]

I found this link in an old oil thread. I know the list is a little dated, but I found it interesting that Amsoil is not listed anywhere. Maybe it was branded differently when this came out?

http://microsites.audiusa.com/ngw/09/media/downloads/pdfs/Audi_TechnialServiceBulletin_1997-2010.pdf

[mr shickadance]

It's a custom blend.

what brand of oil that you can buy would you put into your car.

[BoostEasy]

Yes, It has been known for while to be from the valve guides and this is part of the design. What is new is the observation of a catalytic reaction between the oil and valve material.

Thanks Andy.

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting I discovered anything that OEMs probably didn't know, but rather that it wasn't common knowledge on car forums I frequent.

[visualguy]

There are many variables. I have listed some below with the #1 being the most important and working down from there:

1. Valve material
2. NA or forced induction
3. Driving style
4. General intake/valve/engine design
5. Lubricant

The 2.0T, 3.0T or 4.0T will never suffer as much as an NA engine. Interestingly, Audi appear to be moving to FI with all of its gas engines. Emissions is one factor but....

My knowledge of Porsche engines is limited so unable to comment.

Even if we limit ourselves to naturally aspirated engines, there's a big difference between engine models... I mentioned Porsche, but even if you limit to Audi, there's a big difference in susceptibility to carbon buildup between the older 4.2 FSI (RS4, S5) and the new one (RS5). Do they use a different valve material? Something different in the design of the engine? It's pretty interesting... Too bad car companies aren't saying anything about this whole topic of intake valve carbon buildup.

[AndyUK]

I agree but unfortunately I don't have all the answers - wish I did. I'm not aware of any significant difference in valve materials across the Audi DI range.

We were hoping to establish more common denominators with regards to the speed and degree of build-up but with the many variables involved this takes time and money.



Even if we limit ourselves to naturally aspirated engines, there's a big difference between engine models... I mentioned Porsche, but even if you limit to Audi, there's a big difference in susceptibility to carbon buildup between the older 4.2 FSI (RS4, S5) and the new one (RS5). Do they use a different valve material? Something different in the design of the engine? It's pretty interesting... Too bad car companies aren't saying anything about this whole topic of intake valve carbon buildup.

[BoostEasy]

FWIW, I did a little checking and it appears the low-SAPS oil was developed to protect diesel particulate filters AND modern catalytic converters.

eg http://www.oelcheck.de/en/knowledge-from-a-z/faqs/low-saps-or-low-ash-oelchecker-spring-2010.html

It would appear that "Phosphorus and sulphur are highly poisonous to catalytic converters".

I'm no expert but that phrase came up fairly often in internet searches.

Maybe it's more of a question of degrees vs black/white re using low SAPS or not in a gasoline engine or perhaps there are differences in catalytic converter materials so this doesn't apply to all of them.

[Deckdout2]

Seafoam! hahahaha

[AndyUK]

Hi SwankPeRFection, from my short time on this board I respect you and the input you provide but I don't like the term "insinuating" as it implies I am trying to be underhand or derogatory in some way. I assure you that I am not and the moment readers think that is the case I no longer wish to contribute.

I am just trying to give some insight without putting all cards on the table as I also have a reputation and career to think off.

Did I get it wrong with the M1 comment? Possibly. This is my dilemma:

The ingredients and in particular, the base stocks vary considerably between regions due to varying market demands and conditions. Add this to the fact that manufacturers continue to move the goal posts so anything I say or recommend may not only leave me open to litigation but in 6 month’s time when someone else reads what I wrote, there is a good chance that it is no longer factual. Also, there are so many brands that it is impossible to keep up to date with who is using what. Then there is the issue of most ingredients being non-haz and therefore do not have to be declared on MSDS, so obtaining formulations is very difficult. The key is matching the correct oil to the engine type, engine demands, climate, driving styles etc. against your requirements with regards to price, performance and level of protection. Sometimes this can be achieved with off-the-shelf oils and sometimes it requires a custom blend or use of oils plus additives.

My initial response to the use of M1 was based on the UK market in general. I am not sure what you pay in the US? It also depends on what M1 product you are using or have used? If you can provide a link to what you use I can take a look and possibly provide a more informed view.

I would like to put the carbon issue back into context for the S4 and S5 models. Firstly, being of FI design the build-up is generally not that bad. Secondly, being FI means the effect of the carbon on performance is minimal. Therefore, significant running problems or warning lights are likely to be very rare except for abused and/or high mileage examples. You are not aware or inconvenienced by the issue to the degree it is actually not an issue.

Contrast this to the RS4 where the build-up is much more prolific and being NA the impact on performance much more severe. It’s a double whammy.



Are you insinuating that M1 is expensive? Because in our country, it's the easiest to find and least expensive of them all. Perhaps it's different in the UK. Look, I know you don't want to get in a oil pissing match here and hopefully people will avoid that, but I do want to know if some of your logic on this is also region based? I ask this because like you not wanting to put M1 in your car, Castrol won't be put in mine. The same thing would go with other off-brand ones because they are harder to get and if for some reason the specification ins't on the bottle (even though it's a better oil), the manufacturer WILL GET in a pissing match should something happen. While I can't speak for carbon buildup (even on my B7 A4), I will say that I've always used M1 in all my cars and they've all survived until 100k+ miles with no issues. It just seems to work and it sure is easier to find than the Redline oils I used to use years ago.

[Moose201]

AndyUK, this is the M1 that most of us are using:

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_0W-40.aspx#

At the bottom of the web page there are links to the Product Data Sheet as well as the MSDS. Many of us buy this oil at Wal-Mart where a 5 quart jug costs about $27.

[AndyUK]

Its swings and roundabouts. 504/507 is a “fuel economy” oil that is also supposed to control deposit build-up better mid-full SAPS oils by keeping insolubles lower. This should keep deposits lower. HOWEVER, this is not our experience. Its cleaning power is limited so the engine burns more oil if there are deposits on the pistons/rings, resulting in more oil recirculating through the system. Mid-full SAPS oils clean much better and there is good evidence that oil consumption is reduced. They need to be changed more frequently though.

Take any brand and check their flagship oil. The most expensive, highest performance lube and you will struggle to find a 504/507 approval.

I am speaking generally now and not specifically about the 504/507 – some oil specifications offer value to the quality of the lubricant whereas others actually restrict oil quality/performance. This means that some oils are inferior by design.



FWIW, I did a little checking and it appears the low-SAPS oil was developed to protect diesel particulate filters AND modern catalytic converters.

eg http://www.oelcheck.de/en/knowledge-from-a-z/faqs/low-saps-or-low-ash-oelchecker-spring-2010.html

It would appear that "Phosphorus and sulphur are highly poisonous to catalytic converters".

I'm no expert but that phrase came up fairly often in internet searches.

Maybe it's more of a question of degrees vs black/white re using low SAPS or not in a gasoline engine or perhaps there are differences in catalytic converter materials so this doesn't apply to all of them.

[BoostEasy]

Its swings and roundabouts. 504/507 is a “fuel economy” oil that is also supposed to control deposit build-up better mid-full SAPS oils by keeping insolubles lower. This should keep deposits lower. HOWEVER, this is not our experience. Its cleaning power is limited so the engine burns more oil if there are deposits on the pistons/rings, resulting in more oil recirculating through the system. Mid-full SAPS oils clean much better and there is good evidence that oil consumption is reduced. They need to be changed more frequently though.

Take any brand and check their flagship oil. The most expensive, highest performance lube and you will struggle to find a 504/507 approval.

I am speaking generally now and not specifically about the 504/507 – some oil specifications offer value to the quality of the lubricant whereas others actually restrict oil quality/performance. This means that some oils are inferior by design.

Thanks for the reply Andy but I'm not sure if this answered my question. I understand that the higher SAPS tends to protect the engine better vs low SAPS, but is it likely the mid/higher SAPS oil will shorten the effective life of the catalytic converter or reduce it's performance enough to fail an emission test (eg CA) after say 80k miles in a modern car like a B8 S4 3.0T? If it's not going to materially affect the catalytic converter I'm leaning towards a mid/high SAPS oil for the first oil change (5k) on my 2014 S5.

[AndyUK]

Apologies the first part of my response didn't get posted so I must have screwed up somewhere.


The missing part….

It is not that simple. Sulphated ash is much more damaging to DPFs than CATs plus NOT ALL ash is actually harmful. If it was then all the branded 502/505 spec oils wouldn’t actually meet the spec. There are limits to certain ingredients in order to meet the spec. With 504/507 there are very low limits but this is to protect the DPF because the ash is not easily combusted as part of the regeneration process.

If concerned then a mid-SAPs is always an option.


Thanks for the reply Andy but I'm not sure if this answered my question. I understand that the higher SAPS tends to protect the engine better vs low SAPS, but is it likely the mid/higher SAPS oil will shorten the effective life of the catalytic converter or reduce it's performance enough to fail an emission test (eg CA) after say 80k miles in a modern car like a B8 S4 3.0T? If it's not going to materially affect the catalytic converter I'm leaning towards a mid/high SAPS oil for the first oil change (5k) on my 2014 S5.

[mr shickadance]

Andy, still looking for a recommendation for off the shelf oil that you would run in your car?

[shadycrew31]

I've been sitting back enjoying this discussion.

Here is what I use.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_0W-40.aspx#

[RecklessactN]

I had my car in for A/C pressure switch issue, to be replaced under warranty. Not my usual service rep called me back and said I was throwing the code related to the carbon build up, but they will not cover under warranty because I am tuned. I said ,"so even though I am tuned and this being a known issue, I can't get the service?" She said pretty much, but I intend to press my case in person when I return with the service manager. I saw one other post in here with a success story, but has anyone else get told "no" flat out?

[visualguy]

I agree but unfortunately I don't have all the answers - wish I did. I'm not aware of any significant difference in valve materials across the Audi DI range.

We were hoping to establish more common denominators with regards to the speed and degree of build-up but with the many variables involved this takes time and money.

Right, but then we're basically back to square one - that is, we don't really know enough about how and why this buildup happens, or at least we don't know some key contributing factors. Sure, carbon bonds to the valve material and then to the carbon that already formed there, but this is a trivial observation - it just re-states the observed problem.

There seem to be ways to decrease the severity of this problem significantly without adding port injection (and without forced induction). I think if we understood what Audi does differently in the 4.2 FSI in the RS5, or what Porsche does differently in the A91 engine, we would have a better understanding of the root causes of this problem. If the difference is not in valve materials, then, like I said, we're back to square one in terms of our understanding of this. Oil is going to get on the valve stems in all these engines and it won't be cleaned by fuel, right? So, what's the difference?

[audistealth]

I had my car in for A/C pressure switch issue, to be replaced under warranty. Not my usual service rep called me back and said I was throwing the code related to the carbon build up, but they will not cover under warranty because I am tuned. I said ,"so even though I am tuned and this being a known issue, I can't get the service?" She said pretty much, but I intend to press my case in person when I return with the service manager. I saw one other post in here with a success story, but has anyone else get told "no" flat out?

There's a TSB for secondary air. That makes it a common issue recognized by Audi. Tell them they are full of shit and get back to work.

[RecklessactN]

There's a TSB for secondary air. That makes it a common issue recognized by Audi. Tell them they are full of shit and get back to work.

This made me laugh so hard, I forgot how mad I was. I get there and the rep tells me that my car didn't throw a code, it was just a notice that my vehicle had an extension... and then I was quoted for the work. You don't want to know the number...

[AndyUK]

If you don’t mind, what is the current mileage and what oil have you been using?

Did the dealer confirm if it was inlet valve carbon or somewhere else?

If you can get an oil sample we will pay for an oil analysis on our account with Blackstone.



I had my car in for A/C pressure switch issue, to be replaced under warranty. Not my usual service rep called me back and said I was throwing the code related to the carbon build up, but they will not cover under warranty because I am tuned. I said ,"so even though I am tuned and this being a known issue, I can't get the service?" She said pretty much, but I intend to press my case in person when I return with the service manager. I saw one other post in here with a success story, but has anyone else get told "no" flat out?

[AndyUK]

This is a full-SAPS oil in a low cost base. Contains some PAO and Esters but mainly group III. Looks about right for the price.

It is not a bad oil and meets 502/505.01.

Would I use it in my S4? No.


I've been sitting back enjoying this discussion.

Here is what I use.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_0W-40.aspx#

[AndyUK]

I am still mulling it over as I would never use an off-the-shelf oil on it own.


Andy, still looking for a recommendation for off the shelf oil that you would run in your car?

[AndyUK]

I am confused to how you have reached the conclusion that “we are back to square one?” I’m not sure if you have misunderstood the main facets of the research findings or if there are other reasons. The ROOT CAUSE of the problem has been established.

FACT 1: The majority of the build-up is oil from the valve stem lubrication process. This is the first common denominator and has been known for some time.

FACT 2: The oil is catalysing with the valve because of the nickel and chrome alloys used to harden the valve. This is the second common denominator and the ROOT CAUSE unforeseen by the manufacturer.

FACT 3: Due to a number of factors that I can’t detail now, the carbon remains chemically active to such a degree that it becomes a “magnet” for ALL CARBON SPECIES.
This provides us with very valuable information such as WHY the oil bonds so readily (FACT 2) and WHY it won’t self-manage (FACT 3). Are there other factors? Of course, but the fact remains that all TFSI engines suffer from build-up. We also know that NA engines are worse off etc., etc. The main variable is mileage.

If you have other data that negates this then I would be grateful to see it. There are some very clever minds working on this and I’m sure they are already aware of what other DI manufactures (i.e. Porsche), are doing. As one of the team is a Metallurgy Professor, I would certainly hope so. Moreover, I am not privy to all the information and some of the information that I am privy to I cannot publicise. If your response was based on a frustration that I was unable to answer all the questions then I apologise but please understand you are one of the first public to hear about this and it’s free, including my time to explain it.

The RS5 is also struggling. I’m sure that Audi have tried to mitigate the issue over the last few years with different valve seal materials, maybe a different hardening process with less active metals (knowingly or unkowingly), or similar design features that would explain differences between models etc. etc. etc. However, with this recent breakthrough I suspect attention will be focused on ways to eliminate the catalytic reaction and chemical activity rather than trying the wrestle with the huge array of variables as to why x TSFI engine has accumulated 25% more deposits that y TFSI engine.



Right, but then we're basically back to square one - that is, we don't really know enough about how and why this buildup happens, or at least we don't know some key contributing factors. Sure, carbon bonds to the valve material and then to the carbon that already formed there, but this is a trivial observation - it just re-states the observed problem.

There seem to be ways to decrease the severity of this problem significantly without adding port injection (and without forced induction). I think if we understood what Audi does differently in the 4.2 FSI in the RS5, or what Porsche does differently in the A91 engine, we would have a better understanding of the root causes of this problem. If the difference is not in valve materials, then, like I said, we're back to square one in terms of our understanding of this. Oil is going to get on the valve stems in all these engines and it won't be cleaned by fuel, right? So, what's the difference?

[Tanner]

Thanks Andy, much appreciated. This has to be one of the most informative posts I've ever come across on AZ.

[RecklessactN]

If you don’t mind, what is the current mileage and what oil have you been using?

Did the dealer confirm if it was inlet valve carbon or somewhere else?

If you can get an oil sample we will pay for an oil analysis on our account with Blackstone.

I am at 46,xxx miles. I have the audi service plan so every 10k service interval I had the dealer service (castrol), but in between the service intervals I had my oil changed (5k miles) with Motul. The service rep said I did not throw the code to indicate I needed the SAI's cleaned, but it was highly recommended to do it now... again not my usual service rep that takes care of me. I do have a oil analysis from blackstone from my last oil change @ 40,xxx miles when I changed out the castrol oil for Motul. I will be doing another analysis on my next oil change at 50k miles (I forgot the blackstone bottle this last one :-P). I can post this up or PM you a link to the image. Let me know!

[AndyUK]

Yes, please post it up or PM me. Do you know what Motul and what Castrol were used?


I am at 46,xxx miles. I have the audi service plan so every 10k service interval I had the dealer service (castrol), but in between the service intervals I had my oil changed (5k miles) with Motul. The service rep said I did not throw the code to indicate I needed the SAI's cleaned, but it was highly recommended to do it now... again not my usual service rep that takes care of me. I do have a oil analysis from blackstone from my last oil change @ 40,xxx miles when I changed out the castrol oil for Motul. I will be doing another analysis on my next oil change at 50k miles (I forgot the blackstone bottle this last one :-P). I can post this up or PM you a link to the image. Let me know!

[RecklessactN]

Yes, please post it up or PM me. Do you know what Motul and what Castrol were used?

Ask and you shall receive! Castrol Syntec 5W/40

http://i.imgur.com/Dv3OqJ9.jpg

[audistealth]

If you don’t mind, what is the current mileage and what oil have you been using?

Did the dealer confirm if it was inlet valve carbon or somewhere else?

If you can get an oil sample we will pay for an oil analysis on our account with Blackstone.

Awesome job putting your money where your mouth is, and for science!

[ex-quattro PETE]

From other related tests I have always advocated the use of 502/505 spec oil (genuine full group IV or better base stocks only) on TFSI engines rather than the 504/507. 504/507 is marketed as superior oil but this is not the case. Many important ingredients were removed and replaced with inferior and more expensive alternatives in order to protect emission control components, such as the DPF, on VAG diesel engines.
Interesting. Your position seems to go against the earlier findings by Lubrizol where in fact they've shown that lower SAPS oils (such as 504/507) help reduce DI valve deposits...

https://www.lubrizol.com/EngineOilAdditives/ACEA/ConferencePapers/LowerSAPS.pdf

See slide 19. Any comments on this?


Also, the VW 504.00 test sequence actually includes a specific test to address intake valve deposits; something not found on any of the other VW oil specs. Again, it just seems odd as this contradicts your findings.

[shadycrew31]

This is a full-SAPS oil in a low cost base. Contains some PAO and Esters but mainly group III. Looks about right for the price.

It is not a bad oil and meets 502/505.01.

Would I use it in my S4? No.

It's not the best thing out there but I get a 5qt jug of it for $25 at wal-mart and I change my oil every 4-5000 miles. I will be cleaning my valves in a month or so I've only owned the car for 14k the previous owner only did minimal maintenance to the car. We shall see how dirty the valves are.

For arguments sake I will keep using M1 and clean the valves again next year so we can see what garbage oil it is.

[AndyUK]

This looks OK. It was the insolubles I was looking for. I would like to see alu it little lower in relation to the iron but again, it's not bad.

I am trying to find more info in the Syntec and will get back to you when I have the info.


Ask and you shall receive! Castrol Syntec 5W/40

http://i.imgur.com/Dv3OqJ9.jpg

[AndyUK]

Yes, your point is very valid and important.

The point I was trying to make with regards to the 504/507 was that "good stuff" was removed. This good stuff helps keep the crankcase much cleaner and can help maintain engine compression so that the intake components see less oil in the first place.

I would also agree that a 504/507 would outperform a group III full or mid-SAPS oil but my recommendation was for a group IV+ (ideally group IV with added group V/VI) 502/505.01.

That said, I don’t want to unintentionally mislead so may amend a couple of posts at some point. The comments on the research are still valid.

We have customers using high end 502/505.01 with good success and with acceptable deposit build-up. We also have customers using 504/507 with acceptable deposit build-up but the engines consume more oil and wear particulates tend to be higher.

Are US Audi Dealers adding 502/505 by default?

We are testing a 504/507 base oil and other virgin base oils with an additive pack that dramatically improves crankcase cleaning, lubricity and reduces oil consumption.

Thanks for your input.


Interesting. Your position seems to go against the earlier findings by Lubrizol where in fact they've shown that lower SAPS oils (such as 504/507) help reduce DI valve deposits...

https://www.lubrizol.com/EngineOilAdditives/ACEA/ConferencePapers/LowerSAPS.pdf

See slide 19. Any comments on this?


Also, the VW 504.00 test sequence actually includes a specific test to address intake valve deposits; something not found on any of the other VW oil specs. Again, it just seems odd as this contradicts your findings.

[ex-quattro PETE]

The point I was trying to make with regards to the 504/507 was that "good stuff" was removed. This good stuff helps keep the crankcase much cleaner and can help maintain engine compression so that the intake components see less oil in the first place.
My question was: if the "good stuff" was removed, then why do these 504/507 oils show lower deposits in Lubrizol's study, compared to full SAPS 502 oils?


Are US Audi Dealers adding 502/505 by default?
I believe they use 502 for gasoline engines and 504 for diesel.

Most German car makers advise against the use of lower SAPS oils in their gasoline engines in the US due to our gasoline not being ultra low sulfur yet.

[AndyUK]

The comparison 502 spec will undoubtedly be a low-value group III base and to answer your question – not all oils are the same even if they meet the same specification.

I'm sure you are already aware that Lubrizol is the world’s largest supplier of additives packs, supplying most mainstream brands. That study will second as sales material to potential clients to demonstrate that their 504/507 spec additive packs and blends are the best.

With a 504/507 oil there are many similarities as you are heavily restricted with what you can or can’t do with the oil.

502 is much more of an open book and quality varies considerably. The low cost group III 502/505 spec oils mentioned on here I would never use in my Audi. There are also “SAPS” based additives that per the ASTM test contain more ash than a full-SAPS oil yet are proven to be harmless to DPFs. We know because we have tested one. The A8 that we mentioned previously contained one and the DPF very rarely had to regenerate. Per the ASTM test and propaganda from some these companies the DPF should have shat itself very quickly. The additives actually helped catalyse the particulate build-up. Some ASTM tests are outdated and no longer fit for purpose as they only measure content and can’t differentiate between harmful and harmless.

Other questions that should be asked:

What would the results be if Lubrizol compared the 504 with a much higher quality 502?

If the results are that conclusive why haven’t Audi stipulated 504/507 as the only recommended oil? We too have very low sulphur in Europe.

With oils it not all black and white.



My question was: if the "good stuff" was removed, then why do these 504/507 oils show lower deposits in Lubrizol's study, compared to full SAPS 502 oils?


I believe they use 502 for gasoline engines and 504 for diesel.

Most German car makers advise against the use of lower SAPS oils in their gasoline engines in the US due to our gasoline not being ultra low sulfur yet.

[SwankPeRFection]

Hi SwankPeRFection, from my short time on this board I respect you and the input you provide but I don't like the term "insinuating" as it implies I am trying to be underhand or derogatory in some way. I assure you that I am not and the moment readers think that is the case I no longer wish to contribute.

I am just trying to give some insight without putting all cards on the table as I also have a reputation and career to think off.

Did I get it wrong with the M1 comment? Possibly. This is my dilemma:

The ingredients and in particular, the base stocks vary considerably between regions due to varying market demands and conditions. Add this to the fact that manufacturers continue to move the goal posts so anything I say or recommend may not only leave me open to litigation but in 6 month’s time when someone else reads what I wrote, there is a good chance that it is no longer factual. Also, there are so many brands that it is impossible to keep up to date with who is using what. Then there is the issue of most ingredients being non-haz and therefore do not have to be declared on MSDS, so obtaining formulations is very difficult. The key is matching the correct oil to the engine type, engine demands, climate, driving styles etc. against your requirements with regards to price, performance and level of protection. Sometimes this can be achieved with off-the-shelf oils and sometimes it requires a custom blend or use of oils plus additives.

My initial response to the use of M1 was based on the UK market in general. I am not sure what you pay in the US? It also depends on what M1 product you are using or have used? If you can provide a link to what you use I can take a look and possibly provide a more informed view.

I would like to put the carbon issue back into context for the S4 and S5 models. Firstly, being of FI design the build-up is generally not that bad. Secondly, being FI means the effect of the carbon on performance is minimal. Therefore, significant running problems or warning lights are likely to be very rare except for abused and/or high mileage examples. You are not aware or inconvenienced by the issue to the degree it is actually not an issue.

Contrast this to the RS4 where the build-up is much more prolific and being NA the impact on performance much more severe. It’s a double whammy.

I like using big words who's meaning I don't understand. [;)]

Don't take it to heart man. Right now you're arguing your viewpoint and it's going against what others have found. It's an insinuation by the very definition. There's nothing wrong with that. The fact that you're standing behind your viewpoint proves that you have a strong opinion about it, so it's not like you're just making stuff up. So like I said, don't get bent all out of shape over a single word. lol

The whole oil debate has gone back and forth about a billion times. What ends up happening?.... People will end up running what works best for them and what they have experience with. For me, and given my past experience, I trust M1 0-40 in my cars because I've seen how well it stands up to wear of metals and it hasn't let me down yet. It also keeps the insides of the motor oil passages very clean and considering the sludge problem some of the Audi motors had, that to me is a much bigger issue than the carbon deposit problem... at least for now it is.

[SwankPeRFection]

Ask and you shall receive! Castrol Syntec 5W/40

http://i.imgur.com/Dv3OqJ9.jpg

If this engine tuned? If yes, with what?

[RecklessactN]

If this engine tuned? If yes, with what?

Mods are up to date in sig (see below [:)]) I have been APR STG 2 since 8-10k miles / Jan 2012.

[Chuuey]

Thank you AndyUK and others for you contributions and for making this an extremely informative thread. More of these are needed!

[achilleas101]

I would also agree that a 504/507 would outperform a group III full or mid-SAPS oil but my recommendation was for a group IV+ (ideally group IV with added group V/VI) 502/505.01.

so what are some group IV+ oils? how do you know what group an oil is? for example, you mention M1 is a group III, but i don't see that mentioned anywhere on their label or site. How does a guy find out this info?

[ex-quattro PETE]

how do you know what group an oil is?
That's tricky, in most markets. I think by now Germany is the only market where if you see "Full Synthetic" on the label it means predominantly group IV and above. So you could look up your oil on a respective German site, and see how it's labeled there. But then again, as AndyUK pointed out, formulations vary by region sometimes. So even if the product name is the same in Germany and in the US, it doesn't always mean it's the exact same formulation inside the container.

I would also like to hear AndyUK mention some group IV and above oils that officially meet the VW 502.00 spec.

[Moose201]

I would also like to hear AndyUK mention some group IV and above oils that officially meet the VW 502.00 spec.

+1

[mojangles69]

That's tricky, in most markets. I think by now Germany is the only market where if you see "Full Synthetic" on the label it means predominantly group IV and above. So you could look up your oil on a respective German site, and see how it's labeled there. But then again, as AndyUK pointed out, formulations vary by region sometimes. So even if the product name is the same in Germany and in the US, it doesn't always mean it's the exact same formulation inside the container.

I would also like to hear AndyUK mention some group IV and above oils that officially meet the VW 502.00 spec.

Excellent points and yes, any group IV oils in US? +2

And Andy, thank you again for all your insightful information! [hail][up]

[AndyUK]

I will see what I can dig up.....

[SwankPeRFection]

Mods are up to date in sig (see below [:)]) I have been APR STG 2 since 8-10k miles / Jan 2012.

So you have no concern about the amount of aluminum in the analysis? Do you see this with each one?

[RecklessactN]

I am a little concerned and that was my first analysis. I do a lot of highway driving and punish the car a little when I can.

[AndyUK]

I would like to see the alu a little lower and more proportionate to the level of iron, but it is not bad considering it’s a stage 2.

For the poster that mentioned Porsche, I understand from a reliable source that Porsche are coating the valves on their engines. This would explain why their engines don’t suffer in the same way as the TFSI.

[SwankPeRFection]

I would like to see the alu a little lower and more proportionate to the level of iron, but it is not bad considering it’s a stage 2.

For the poster that mentioned Porsche, I understand from a reliable source that Porsche are coating the valves on their engines. This would explain why their engines don’t suffer in the same way as the TFSI.

My first analysis on mine at 30k miles was 3 for Alu and 15 for Iron. Not sure I'd want to see Alu anywhere near what he's showing base on this.

[artemm]

If it's true that the oil itself is responsible for creating the initial conditions that lead to carbon buildup, wouldn't it make sense to try an oil additive?

Perhaps running a small amount of Kreen or adding it 1000 miles before the scheduled OCI...

Oh, and for what it's worth, I use M1 0w40 and my 3.0T burns no oil. I fill it to the top of the hatch marks on my dipstick and it's still at the top when I change my oil at 7,500 miles. I know this has little to do with the carbon issue at hand, but the fact that my engine consumes no oil and the price/availability of M1 make it hard to resist.

[Moose201]

Oh, and for what it's worth, I use M1 0w40 and my 3.0T burns no oil. I fill it to the top of the hatch marks on my dipstick and it's still at the top when I change my oil at 7,500 miles. I know this has little to do with the carbon issue at hand, but the fact that my engine consumes no oil and the price/availability of M1 make it hard to resist.

This has been my exact experience with M1 as well.

[ex-quattro PETE]

If it's true that the oil itself is responsible for creating the initial conditions that lead to carbon buildup, wouldn't it make sense to try an oil additive?

If I understood it correctly, it's the oil VAPORS that carbonize and deposit themselves onto the valves. So, you either make your oil out of some super stable base that does not vaporize easily, which is probably next to impossible to do given the high temps inside the engine, or you come up with some kind of an oil additive that prevents the vapors from reacting with the valve material so that the deposits don't stick, and I think that's what AndyUK has been working on.

[infinkc]

I would like to see the alu a little lower and more proportionate to the level of iron, but it is not bad considering it’s a stage 2.

For the poster that mentioned Porsche, I understand from a reliable source that Porsche are coating the valves on their engines. This would explain why their engines don’t suffer in the same way as the TFSI.

i wonder if its the case with the Macan as its using a very similar engine to the s4.

[audistealth]

i wonder if its the case with the Macan as its using a very similar engine to the s4.

Better yet, what if their valves have the Porsche coating, and are the exact same size :)

[ex-quattro PETE]

i wonder if its the case with the Macan as its using a very similar engine to the s4.

They're both V6, and they're both around 3 liters in displacement, but that's about where the similarities end.

[artemm]

If I understood it correctly, it's the oil VAPORS that carbonize and deposit themselves onto the valves. So, you either make your oil out of some super stable base that does not vaporize easily, which is probably next to impossible to do given the high temps inside the engine, or you come up with some kind of an oil additive that prevents the vapors from reacting with the valve material so that the deposits don't stick, and I think that's what AndyUK has been working on.

That's exactly the opposite of what I got from it... valve metals act as a catalyst and facilitate carbon buildup. Also, vapors (handled by the PCV) aren't directly to blame, so a catch can or other PCV-centric solution won't help.

Not sure what you mean by oil vaporizing. The gasses handled by the PCV are cylinder blowby and I'm not aware of an oil that can avoid it.

Actually, on other cars, I found that I "increase" oil consumption by adding a catch can. The PCV systems I've dealt with have a mechanism that separates oil blowby from gasses. Oil drips back into the sump and gasses go back into the intake and are burned. Catch cans circumvent all of this, so you just constantly siphon oil from the system.

[AndyUK]

Oil analysis should be used as a guide only as many factors can affect the results.

1. How well the oil transports particulates to the filtration media.
2. Journey types – 100 x 100 mile trips will have much lower wear than 500 x 20 mile trips.
3. How the sample is taken is also important. For example, Blackstone recommends ignoring the start or end of an oil drain as the first 100ml or last 100ml can affect results for the worse.
4. Engine tuning. We don’t have sufficient data on the S4 B48 yet but know from the S3 that wear particulates can increase 3 times when going from standard to stage 2. Demands on the pistons are much greater.
5. Fuel lubricity etc. etc.

3 ppm alu is very good but I am guessing your engine is standard tune? Follow up analysis that you can compare will provide more valuable data and help determine if any of the values are anomalies or trends.



My first analysis on mine at 30k miles was 3 for Alu and 15 for Iron. Not sure I'd want to see Alu anywhere near what he's showing base on this.

[AndyUK]

Oil addtives - we are testing......


If it's true that the oil itself is responsible for creating the initial conditions that lead to carbon buildup, wouldn't it make sense to try an oil additive?

Perhaps running a small amount of Kreen or adding it 1000 miles before the scheduled OCI...

Oh, and for what it's worth, I use M1 0w40 and my 3.0T burns no oil. I fill it to the top of the hatch marks on my dipstick and it's still at the top when I change my oil at 7,500 miles. I know this has little to do with the carbon issue at hand, but the fact that my engine consumes no oil and the price/availability of M1 make it hard to resist.

[AndyUK]

I have on good authority that Porsche made a significant investment with regards to anti-stick coating technologies (different to anti-friction).

I expect they are using a plasma vapour deposition process to coat the valves with a chosen material to around 2-5 microns thick. Either way these are expensive processes.


Better yet, what if their valves have the Porsche coating, and are the exact same size :)

[NWS4Guy]

I have on good authority that Porsche made a significant investment with regards to anti-stick coating technologies (different to anti-friction).

I expect they are using a plasma vapour deposition process to coat the valves with a chosen material to around 2-5 microns thick. Either way these are expensive processes.

Not to mention that the Macan has twin turbo, not a supercharger. Our engine design has the vapors (after traversing the labyrinth system) entering the bottom of the supercharger for introduction into the intake system (the small tube at the bottom of the SC if you remove it from the car). Not sure where or how Porsche introduces this back in for recombustion.

[mr shickadance]

Not to mention that the Macan has twin turbo, not a supercharger. Our engine design has the vapors (after traversing the labyrinth system) entering the bottom of the supercharger for introduction into the intake system (the small tube at the bottom of the SC if you remove it from the car). Not sure where or how Porsche introduces this back in for recombustion.

prolly similarly to the 2.0t fsi engine in the b8 a4's and a5's.

[shadycrew31]

Going to attempt this on Sunday IF the GF can occupy herself that day.... I am getting a small nozzle for the shop vac so I can suck up anything that comes loose, starting with the carbon steel to break it up, then nylon, the brass and steel brushes in the big kit wont be used.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10593075_10152613175474275_7998048890324428372_n.j pg?oh=a2fbff409686581680e9bc720ee38dfc&oe=544297C5&__gda__=1414180768_2b756a55222ea600f58e1b7535a54af 1

[Moose201]

Going to attempt this on Sunday IF the GF can occupy herself that day.... I am getting a small nozzle for the shop vac so I can suck up anything that comes loose, starting with the carbon steel to break it up, then nylon, the brass and steel brushes in the big kit wont be used.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10593075_10152613175474275_7998048890324428372_n.j pg?oh=a2fbff409686581680e9bc720ee38dfc&oe=544297C5&__gda__=1414180768_2b756a55222ea600f58e1b7535a54af 1

Make sure it's unloaded and pointed in a safe direction. Start from the breech side if possible.

[shadycrew31]

Make sure it's unloaded and pointed in a safe direction. Start from the breech side if possible.

Like this right?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t34.0-12/10572787_10152613309359275_1693456669_n.jpg?oh=864 022fff8b2eb888ded48acbf3b93b2&oe=53DE1196&__gda__=1407064891_6f3c68f90c38a9ff276d62897c526a3 d

[Moose201]

Like this right?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t34.0-12/10572787_10152613309359275_1693456669_n.jpg?oh=864 022fff8b2eb888ded48acbf3b93b2&oe=53DE1196&__gda__=1407064891_6f3c68f90c38a9ff276d62897c526a3 d

Yes, but only if you do it just the opposite of that!

[audistealth]

I am at 46,xxx miles. I have the audi service plan so every 10k service interval I had the dealer service (castrol), but in between the service intervals I had my oil changed (5k miles) with Motul. The service rep said I did not throw the code to indicate I needed the SAI's cleaned, but it was highly recommended to do it now... again not my usual service rep that takes care of me. I do have a oil analysis from blackstone from my last oil change @ 40,xxx miles when I changed out the castrol oil for Motul. I will be doing another analysis on my next oil change at 50k miles (I forgot the blackstone bottle this last one :-P). I can post this up or PM you a link to the image. Let me know!

My car is at the dealer now, carbon buildup got me. No CEL, but the codes were apparently present when they scanned it. I'll post more when I get her back after the weekend - they said it's going to take a while to clean, despite not having to pull the head.

80~90% highway driving. 55k service. AudiCare and AudiCarePlus.

EDIT: So I don't scare anyone, this is the SAI cleaning AFAIK.

[SwankPeRFection]

My car is at the dealer now, carbon buildup got me. No CEL, but the codes were apparently present when they scanned it. I'll post more when I get her back after the weekend - they said it's going to take a while to clean, despite not having to pull the head.

80~90% highway driving. 55k service. AudiCare and AudiCarePlus.

EDIT: So I don't scare anyone, this is the SAI cleaning AFAIK.

In all those miles of driving it, when you start the car cold (like in the mornings), do you let it idle until the RPMs go down or did you get in, start it, and take off?

[saw76]

In all those miles of driving it, when you start the car cold (like in the mornings), do you let it idle until the RPMs go down or did you get in, start it, and take off?

Ya id like to know this too.....

[NWS4Guy]

Yes, this is SAI cleaning for certain. I don't live in an exceedingly hot or cold climate, and I get in and drive right off, I keep RPM below 3K till I see 180F on the oil temps too. I had the SAI cleaning done about 8 months ago, mine threw the CEL shortly after they announced this campaign, probably one of the first on Audizine to have it done.

[audistealth]

In all those miles of driving it, when you start the car cold (like in the mornings), do you let it idle until the RPMs go down or did you get in, start it, and take off?

Almost always idle for a minute or two. I've done that a little less in the last two months or so, but it's still my default behavior. My former car was a turbo.

I do not leave it running for a minute after I park though (maybe 30 sec to turn off MMI and check driving time elapsed). I broke that habit pretty quickly.

[NWS4Guy]

Almost always idle for a minute or two. I've done that a little less in the last two months or so, but it's still my default behavior. My former car was a turbo.

I do not leave it running for a minute after I park though (maybe 30 sec to turn off MMI and check driving time elapsed). I broke that habit pretty quickly.

SAI is only open to collect gases (and build up carbon) during the first ~30 seconds of running as a cold engine. It's an emissions thing to get the catalysts hot faster to make the exhaust cleaner faster. You can actually hear the air pumps associated with it turn off if you are outside the car once they have run a short while, so cooling down after driving is moot for this issue. Frankly unless you have been driving it hard enough to have oil temps over 230F, you can just turn it right off, the SC doesn't deal with exhaust gasses like a turbo, so no need to cool the oil down.

[audistealth]

SAI is only open to collect gases (and build up carbon) during the first ~30 seconds of running as a cold engine. It's an emissions thing to get the catalysts hot faster to make the exhaust cleaner faster. You can actually hear the air pumps associated with it turn off if you are outside the car once they have run a short while, so cooling down after driving is moot for this issue. Frankly unless you have been driving it hard enough to have oil temps over 230F, you can just turn it right off, the SC doesn't deal with exhaust gasses like a turbo, so no need to cool the oil down.

About the cooldown, yes, I know. That's another turbo-ism, and felt like I'd mention it, since I didn't know the cause of the SAI buildup.

So, how does the oil get into the SAI if it isn't hot enough to vaporize/atomize?

[NWS4Guy]

About the cooldown, yes, I know. That's another turbo-ism, and felt like I'd mention it, since I didn't know the cause of the SAI buildup.

So, how does the oil get into the SAI if it isn't hot enough to vaporize/atomize?

Some from the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system. There is a labyrinth system that allows the crank vapors to traverse through the channels, the ideal is that they constrict smaller and smaller leading up to the opening and breather hole fed into the bottom of the SC. The oil particles are supposed to drop out of suspension and adhere to the channels in the labyrinth, dripping back down into the oil system as it enters the oil filter, but some make it through. These adhere to the backs of the intake valves causing the typical CB you hear about on Audis. Some makes it into the cylinder, and joins with that being produced by the engine being cold and the fuel mixture being rich. SAI has an actuator that opens a combination valve and triggers the air pump behind the passenger side fog lamp, which pulls exhaust from inside the cylinders through tiny holes just before the exhaust valve opens. This is channeled through the engine block and dumped right onto the cats to make them react and get very hot much sooner than they would otherwise - speeding up catalytic conversion of exhaust gasses to meet emissions standards.

Page 8 on this manual shows the port under the SC. Page 38 has the SAI system.

http://www.s4-mtm.com/images/925803_3.0V6TFSIengine.pdf

[audistealth]

Some from the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system. There is a labyrinth system that allows the crank vapors to traverse through the channels, the ideal is that they constrict smaller and smaller leading up to the opening and breather hole fed into the bottom of the SC. The oil particles are supposed to drop out of suspension and adhere to the channels in the labyrinth, dripping back down into the oil system as it enters the oil filter, but some make it through. These adhere to the backs of the intake valves causing the typical CB you hear about on Audis. Some makes it into the cylinder, and joins with that being produced by the engine being cold and the fuel mixture being rich. SAI has an actuator that opens a combination valve and triggers the air pump behind the passenger side fog lamp, which pulls exhaust from inside the cylinders through tiny holes just before the exhaust valve opens. This is channeled through the engine block and dumped right onto the cats to make them react and get very hot much sooner than they would otherwise - speeding up catalytic conversion of exhaust gasses to meet emissions standards.

Page 8 on this manual shows the port under the SC. Page 38 has the SAI system.

http://www.s4-mtm.com/images/925803_3.0V6TFSIengine.pdf

Well *that* was useful!

[svander]

Neal killing it with the info![up]

[NWS4Guy]

Well *that* was useful!

I try to be [;)]

[wwhan]

Theories on Carbon buildup intake valves, also mentioned in post 160, this thread (http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/596777-Carbon-Buildup-on-the-3-0-TFSI-Pics!?p=9947838&viewfull=1#post9947838):

http://www.oilem.com/turbo-fuel-stratified-injection-tfsi-direct-port-injection-carbon-build-up-problem/

"There is some data to suggest that the use of certain oil additives or group IV and above base stock oils (pure PAO, esters etc.) reduce the speed of build-up. However, this is not fully substantiated as back to back tests were not conducted on the exact same vehicle. The tests show visual build-up compared to other similar vehicles of similar mileage that are not using additives or group IV and above engine oils. Furthermore, some of the PAO derived oils are more readily broken down by catalytic action and tend to have better high temperature resistance to degradation, thus presenting a fluid film onto the valve stems where decomposition may occur. One area of interest is the use of mineral oils containing carbon fluidising additives as found in many two stroke engine oils; however these compositions generally, do not meet the lubrication specifications required by modern engines."

"In comparison forced induction engines (turbo or supercharged) generally operate with the intake manifold under positive pressure so less oil is pulled through the seals.

So if the small amount of oil bypassing the valve stem seals is normal, and indeed required, then why the excessive build-up on the valves? One hypothesis is that;

The oil is being broken down by the catalytic (reacting) action of the materials used to manufacture or coat the valve stems. In particular, nickel and chrome alloys. This pyrolytic decomposition is widely recognised in the industrial power generation sector where hydrocarbons are in contact with superalloys used in the construction of combustors, nozzle guide vanes and exhaust components.

In layman’s terms the materials used to manufacture and harden the valves is reacting with the lubricating oil creating an aggressive bond between the lube and the valves!"

[Jones2012s4]

Little update to my custom PCV setup, the catch can was catching more water vapor from the motor than oil vapor(good sign of healthily motor btw). As such, it was filling up quite quickly as temps dropped for the winter.

As a permanent solution, my tech came up with this.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/02/eaa8688183771db3ac4bc35090754e00.jpg

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/02/9087632753399074352c60abd6353ca1.jpg



The lines that used to go to catch can, are now routed directly into the exhaust, behind the rear O2 sensors, the lines are protected by heat wrap where they are near the exhaust, the PCV valve under the supercharger is still blocked using this:


http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/02/4e4e83a18ff3364f81e0323a9f178ed6.jpg

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/02/31de20acf219fc02c10b07f743427646.jpg

https://vimeo.com/113623689

[NWS4Guy]

Just so long as you understand that this solution is illegal. It's bypassing emission is a federal offense, and any circumvention or removal of an EPA approved system with one that is not EPA approved is considered illegal and something they can assess as much as a $10,000 fine for. What your mechanic did was to wilfully take pollutants and put them into the exhaust after the catalytic convertors which are meant to remove the wastes, dumping them in aerosol form directly into the environment.

[saw76]

Wow, now that's some important info for YA .

[mr shickadance]

Just so long as you understand that this solution is illegal. It's bypassing emission is a federal offense, and any circumvention or removal of an EPA approved system with one that is not EPA approved is considered illegal and something they can assess as much as a $10,000 fine for. What your mechanic did was to wilfully take pollutants and put them into the exhaust after the catalytic convertors which are meant to remove the wastes, dumping them in aerosol form directly into the environment.

hah....no

[drob23]

Lol at there being cats on his car and double lol at emissions laws in MI...I'll give you a hint: there are none.

[melomandn]

"For off-road use only"

[Jones2012s4]

Just so long as you understand that this solution is illegal. It's bypassing emission is a federal offense, and any circumvention or removal of an EPA approved system with one that is not EPA approved is considered illegal and something they can assess as much as a $10,000 fine for. What your mechanic did was to wilfully take pollutants and put them into the exhaust after the catalytic convertors which are meant to remove the wastes, dumping them in aerosol form directly into the environment.

Thanks tips....


Just doing my part to try and heat this planet up, so that us in the great north may have warmer winters. [:)]

[Vogz]

Just so long as you understand that this solution is illegal. It's bypassing emission is a federal offense, and any circumvention or removal of an EPA approved system with one that is not EPA approved is considered illegal and something they can assess as much as a $10,000 fine for. What your mechanic did was to wilfully take pollutants and put them into the exhaust after the catalytic convertors which are meant to remove the wastes, dumping them in aerosol form directly into the environment.



Captain save a tree to the rescue.

[shadycrew31]

Wait what? Dude thats not even legal on a racetrack, it has nothing to do with emissions. You are going to be spitting out oil from your tailpipes everywhere you go. Please don't take that thing to a drag strip you will cause an accident.

This is literally the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet today, but the day is young and I admin and RX-8 group on facebook.

[melomandn]

Wait what? Dude thats not even legal on a racetrack, it has nothing to do with emissions. You are going to be spitting out oil from your tailpipes everywhere you go. Please don't take that thing to a drag strip you will cause an accident.

This is literally the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet today, but the day is young and I admin and RX-8 group on facebook.

Spitting out oil vapor* Its the same as dumping your PCV straight to the ground. Its not shooting out oil like an oil slick, the amount is so minimal no one will ever be able to tell. Not dangerous to other drivers at all.

This is what E-vac Scavengers are used for
http://vibrantperformance.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=1022_1070_1340

[Jones2012s4]

Wait what? Dude thats not even legal on a racetrack, it has nothing to do with emissions. You are going to be spitting out oil from your tailpipes everywhere you go. Please don't take that thing to a drag strip you will cause an accident.

This is literally the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet today, but the day is young and I admin and RX-8 group on facebook.

Tail pipes are clean, not sure how much oil you think comes out of the evap system. Maybe RX-8's are oil spitters. It is vapor, it will come out of the tail pipes as vapor, then, when it cools, will be deposited into the local lakes and rivers.


This isn't spy hunter... :)

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/04/8842fee93a9eb6b18abcfc4908af5493.jpg

[mr shickadance]

Spitting out oil vapor* Its the same as dumping your PCV straight to the ground. Its not shooting out oil like an oil slick, the amount is so minimal no one will ever be able to tell. Not dangerous to other drivers at all.

This is what E-vac Scavengers are used for
http://vibrantperformance.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=1022_1070_1340



ehhh to a point yea, is it likely going to cause a drag strip accident? no. over time will the places you frequent (work, home, etc) begin to develop oil stains and such? absolutely.

each time you park your car you are pretty much give or take going to put like a drop or less of oil on the ground. Now, over time, maybe 1-2 years I would imagine it's gonna be noticeable and a problem to clean up.

I personally would never do this.

[Jones2012s4]

ehhh to a point yea, is it likely going to cause a drag strip accident? no. over time will the places you frequent (work, home, etc) begin to develop oil stains and such? absolutely.

each time you park your car you are pretty much give or take going to put like a drop or less of oil on the ground. Now, over time, maybe 1-2 years I would imagine it's gonna be noticeable and a problem to clean up.

I personally would never do this.


Def something I will keep an eye out for. So far, nothing.

I posted a cold start video after the car was driven hard, then dropped off to be detailed, sat for most likely 12-14 hours, then started. Water looks clean enough to drink!

[shadycrew31]

Spitting out oil vapor* Its the same as dumping your PCV straight to the ground. Its not shooting out oil like an oil slick, the amount is so minimal no one will ever be able to tell. Not dangerous to other drivers at all.

This is what E-vac Scavengers are used for
http://vibrantperformance.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=1022_1070_1340

Dumping PCV to the ground is also not legal on a track, you will not pass tech if its a legit event.

VTA catch cans wont pass emissions but they will pass track tech, and some events even require them


Tail pipes are clean, not sure how much oil you think comes out of the evap system. Maybe RX-8's are oil spitters. It is vapor, it will come out of the tail pipes as vapor, then, when it cools, will be deposited into the local lakes and rivers.


This isn't spy hunter... :)

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/04/8842fee93a9eb6b18abcfc4908af5493.jpg

Every engine burps up oil under high manifold pressure, that is how they operate. You are now shooting water/oil mix directly out of your tailpipes and all you need is one well placed drop of slick to lose traction.

The stuff that comes out of engines is as bad as it gets, its not straight oil its a frothy mix that creates a nasty slick.

[Jones2012s4]

Dumping PCV to the ground is also not legal on a track, you will not pass tech if its a legit event.

VTA catch cans wont pass emissions but they will pass track tech, and some events even require them



Every engine burps up oil under high manifold pressure, that is how they operate. You are now shooting water/oil mix directly out of your tailpipes and all you need is one well placed drop of slick to lose traction.

The stuff that comes out of engines is as bad as it gets, its not straight oil its a frothy mix that creates a nasty slick.

Based on what we were getting in the catch can, I would disagree with you 100%. Might have a picture after the mixture was emptied into a water bottle and particles separated, let me see if I one exists.


Catch can was in since May, it caught 80% water, maybe 20% oil. That's and over estimate as well. Which also might lead some to say this is extreme over kill.

[mr shickadance]

Def something I will keep an eye out for. So far, nothing.

I posted a cold start video after the car was driven hard, then dropped off to be detailed, sat for most likely 12-14 hours, then started. Water looks clean enough to drink!

you also may experience something simular to a test pipe exhaust problem where over time you may notice your bumper being a bit more gunky with residue as the hot exhaust during stop and go traffic will creep onto your rear bumper.

nothing that a more frequent trip to the car wash cannot fix tho.

[Jones2012s4]

you also may experience something simular to a test pipe exhaust problem where over time you may notice your bumper being a bit more gunky with residue as the hot exhaust during stop and go traffic will creep onto your rear bumper.

nothing that a more frequent trip to the car wash cannot fix tho.

Def will keep an eye out, I will report back with any new findings. This is my own on-taking as far as keeping the intake tract as clean as possible with no octane robbing vapors. Any addition to prevent carbon buildup as well.

[mr shickadance]

Def will keep an eye out, I will report back with any new findings. This is my own on-taking as far as keeping the intake tract as clean as possible with no octane robbing vapors. Any addition to prevent carbon buildup as well.

i mean FWIW the vapors do serve a purpose towards keeping the engine at a stable temp. Not that the coolant won't but i believe one of the jobs of the EGR system is to cool down the engine during periods of idle (most lean) conditions.

you already have a meth injection and it has been proven that the carbon build up is not completely terrible on our cars but i suppose every bit helps.

[NWS4Guy]

Considering that the water will go to vapor with exhaust heat and the oil will not - coupled with the oil will pool in the mufflers, until it fills these low spots, then on acceleration it could conceivably run out the tail pipes in larger quantities no?

[shadycrew31]

Considering that the water will go to vapor with exhaust heat and the oil will not - coupled with the oil will pool in the mufflers, until it fills these low spots, then on acceleration it could conceivably run out the tail pipes in larger quantities no?

Nah man, Gandolfs in the tailpipe saying "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!". Its a super secret Audi mod.

[Jones2012s4]

Time will tell, but I don't believe that is the case, I imagine it will all get blown out, considering the exhaust comes out at 1400 degrees f and by the time it gets past the secondary O2 sensors is still extremely hot I believe it is more than warm enough to push through.

Combined with how little oil is being presented in the blowby, I don't foresee any issues. If I do notice something I will be sure to post back.

So far exhaust tips are clean as a whistle. Been almost a month. Drain holes on muffler have no visible discoloration.

[QuiverKiller]

Looking for a little guidance. I'm not an engine guy so I understand little to none of this.

1. Just under a year ago my CEL came on for P0491. Car was under warranty so they chased down the problem to some solenoid valve or another, replaced it and was done. I vaguely remember something about them switching valves back and forth between banks to pinpoint the problem.

2. Sometime after this I went APR stage 2.

3. A week ago my CEL came on for the same P0491. Car is out of warranty but that fix was still within it's 12/12 warranty so the service should be no cost. Dealer said he would have to plug my car in to do the warranty work which was a "carbon cleaning" at which time it would be flagged for the tune and void the warranty. He was NICE enough to let me take my car to the tuner to have it re-flashed to audi stock and bring it back for the work. Now that it's back at the dealer they can't get the code to come up for both banks, which is an audi requirement to do the carbon cleaning. I think they are still swtiching valves between banks to try and get the code on both sides to warrant the cleaning. That's where I'm at.

I've read some things on this thread about preventing this problem: letting the car warm up, cool down, drive it hard, etc. I live in Denver so we do have cold weather, I do not let the car warm up but my first 2 minutes of driving is through alleys at <15 mph. I don't let the car "cool down". And I am a very conservative driver rarely shifting above 4k RPM.

Any insights or advice would be appreciated. The car has 40k on it and I would like to keep it for at least another 40k.

QK

[drexplode]

[QUOTE=Jones2012s4;9756466]Well gents,


Carbon build is confirmed on our motors(not that it wasn't already).


40,500 miles on the clock and intake valves look like this. While not as bad as the RS4s, clearly it starts, I imagine cars that are not injecting meth(intake or directly) will look worse. Don't be too alarmed by these photos, it is NOT as bad as it looks. My mechanic is amazing and wanted to tackle this after I sent him the 3.0 TFSI PDF.





My tech is fabricating a PCV system that will block off the port that sits on the bottom of the supercharger, along with venting the lines coming off the valve covers.

Going to use this Moroso Breather Tank to collect the oil vapors from the valve covers.



QUOTE]

Very interested to know which mechanic? German Motorwerks?