 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / November 2009Subaru Upper Engine Cleaner
Is it snake oil? Manufactured for Subaru, in Australia, by Bar's Leaks (snake oil purveyors from way back) it's part of the 12,500km service schedule listed in the "Warranty and Service Handbook". Strangely, it doesn't get a mention in either the owner's manual or the service manual, so it might be Oz only. Mine's 1,500km overdue for the treatment and the can's still rattling around in the glove box. Possibly there are warranty implications, to do or not to do is the question! For those who're not aware of it, the idea is to squirt half a can into the intake manifold, via one of the vacuum connections, leave stand for 10 minutes, start the engine and squirt in the rest while it's running (150 ml or so all up). It's supposed to clean the crap out of the engine's internals. Over the years there's been at least two products promoted for the same purpose. One's Redex, the other's Seafoam. Both are snake oil in that they claim a number of unlikely benefits when used in various ways... eg Seafoam is also claimed to clean injectors when used as a fuel additive (pigs might fly) or you can tip some into the sump to keep the moisture away. Redex was also promoted as a fuel additive, and possibly an oil additive as well. (Subaru also market a separate fuel additive, which is recommended in Australian supplement to the owner's manual, but it's not part of the service schedule.) I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies anything similar... what's different about a Subaru?  SignatureJohn H > Is it snake oil? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies > anything similar... what's different about a Subaru? I've seen people pour small amts of water into the carby-throat,..engine up to temp. This seems to cause some evacuation of carbon and crap out of the exhaust. But if you've cleaned up valves, and have noted just how stuck on the deposits can get, (especially the browny-orange stuff) then water may not do much more than loosen soft deposits,..but a constant water-ijection over years, apparently, according to those who have done it, does work. I've seen Barr's leaks added to a 253 with a rusted Welch-plug actually work. On strip-down, the plug behind the block had a hard extrusion of Barr's ooze which did effectively stop the leak. Just took 6 cans :-) Upper cylinder cleaner can only work if the deposits are already loose, and as such, probably would come unstuck by themselves. Have you seen a car on an expressway, blowing huge clouds of bluey-grey smoke? That is because light pedal driving, has allowed excess soft deposits build-up. My FILs 173 Commy was driven very quietly and any heavy throttle, suddenly, dislodged vast amounts of oil-soaked carbon. It cleared after a couple of minutes. Install water-injection :-) Jason > Is it snake oil? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can's still rattling around in the glove box. Possibly there are > warranty implications, to do or not to do is the question! One of the products that many seem to rave about, even outside of Subaru. I don't think it is any different to your run of the mill Throttle Body cleaner in a can. At 12,500kms, I would not imagine it should need it - unless ofcourse the PVC system is of a design that lets excess oil to enter the intake. IMHO, best way to clean your intake manifold and throttle body is to remove it and clean it. All that shite (if there is any) end up in your combustion chamber in an excessive dose. If you do get it done, ensure its done *before* the oil change. >One of the products that many seem to rave about, even >outside of Subaru. I don't think it is any different to >your run of the mill Throttle Body cleaner in a can. The specific instructions are to apply it via one of the vacuum hoses connected directly to the inlet manifold... which suggests they don't want it to get anywhere near the throttle body. Nor do they (Subaru) say exactly what it's supposed to do, though the instructions tend to suggest it's primary purpose is to clean the intake tracts. Whether the intended target is bats, cobwebs or something else remains a mystery. :) SignatureJohn H > The specific instructions are to apply it via one of the vacuum hoses > connected directly to the inlet manifold... which suggests they don't > want it to get anywhere near the throttle body. Hmmm, maybe its just easier and more convenient to pull off a vacuum hose than it is to remove intake plumbing. It may also be quite harsh on various sensors, like air intake, throttle position sensors and perhaps even the MAF. > Is it snake oil? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies > anything similar... what's different about a Subaru? The reason it's specified in Australia for all Subies is that our petrol has a high sulphur content. For whatever reason, the very long inlet branching on Subaru engines encourages sulphur (and presumably other gunk) to build up there. It *is* part of the service schedule in Oz. If you don't do it at least every 25,000 I don't think you'll void your warranty but IME with Subies, your fuel consumption may gradually increase about 10% and then revert to its usual level once things are cleaned out again. If you know you're using low sulphur fuel (you lucky fellow!) then the spray's probably not worth bothering with. Cheers >> I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies >> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >using low sulphur fuel (you lucky fellow!) then the spray's probably not >worth bothering with. Yours is the only explanation I've heard, or managed to find, that's consistent with the instructions (obviously aimed at removing something from the intake tracts) as well as what appears to be a peculiarly local issue! Can you provide anything further to support it... eg Subaru service advisory note, detrimental effects of sulphur in petrol, etc? Also.... I don't recall you saying how long you've been here so you may not be aware of the stink associated with the first cat converters. I bought a new VN in 1990 that was as vile as the rest. As the years went by the stink subsided and I assumed the cat had gotten tired... I now know it's down to the reduction in sulphur content. None seem to stink anymore! I've no idea at what levels the stink ceases but obviously there's a lot less sulphur than there used to be. Nor can I recall any problems arising from the earlier high levels in any make of car, including Subaru's. The other issue is the increased fuel consumption you mention. To my way of thinking, any deposits in the runners are no more likely to increase fuel consumption than a hiclone would be likely to decrease it. A possible explanation would be something forming in the manifold that might migrate to the combustion chambers forming deposits there. I do monitor fuel consumption closely and it's always been consistent, 10½ to 11litre/100km. The exception being when I'm forced to run 91 RON, which increases consumption by around 10% (as you'd reasonably expect from adaptive ignition timing). The Subaru sh.t costs around $15 a can, which isn't a major impediment... I'm more interested in what it might do, if anything. Current thinking after reading your post is to administer it at the next service and see if I can notice any difference, if I can't I'm unlikely to buy a second can. On a similar theme, I know lots of people who run their 91 RON engines on Premium, fit hiclones, etc, and do notice the difference. I never can. For some odd reason if a plug lead drops off the same people never seem to notice but I always do. Which makes me think there just might be an underlying principle in all of this. ;-) SignatureJohn H > >> I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies > >> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru? [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > never seem to notice but I always do. Which makes me think there just > might be an underlying principle in all of this. ;-) I've been here since '72 and used to drive 50-90,000Km a year, so yes, I remember the smell all too well. I can't say I miss our VN awfully much, although it did hold heaps of sound gear on occasions.... We had a 1991 Liberty and a 1999 OB, both wagons. AFAIR, the upper engine cleaner was listed as a service item in the service book for both cars. The books stayed with the cars when they moved on, so I can't check that. I questioned both the Service manager at a local dealership and someone at Subaru Australia. I *think* that both of them gave me the same explanation at the time - prob mid 90s. In our experience over about 500,000Km in the two cars, not using it started to increase fuel consumption after about 15K in the Liberty and 18K in the OB. Mind you, using 98 in our Outback always *increased* fuel consumption by about 1Km/L too! Possibly by now the gradual lowering of allowable sulphur in Oz fuels means that it's no longer a problem, but I missed doing it at one oil change late in '07 and still noticed the usual difference about 5,000 Kms later, so there you go. Try it and see, after all, one particular car / pair of drivers means nothing statistically. Cheers >We had a 1991 Liberty and a 1999 OB, both wagons. AFAIR, the upper engine >cleaner was listed as a service item in the service book for both cars. >The books stayed with the cars when they moved on, so I can't check that. Interesting info, which tells me it's been around for yonks. Also be interesting to know if it predates EFI, where whatever it might remove would presumably have been a worse problem in the days before knock sensors. >I questioned both the Service manager at a local dealership and someone at >Subaru Australia. I *think* that both of them gave me the same explanation >at the time - prob mid 90s. In our experience over about 500,000Km in the >two cars, not using it started to increase fuel consumption after about >15K in the Liberty and 18K in the OB. Mind you, using 98 in our Outback >always *increased* fuel consumption by about 1Km/L too! Any measurable increase in fuel consumption is something I'd soon notice and it hasn't happened yet (with only 14k from new). It's a 3.0R Outback and 98 RON has never affected it one way or the other but 91 RON certainly does (as well as the overall performance). It normally gets 95 RON, as specified, unless unavailable. On the strength of your observations I'll withhold the treatment until the next service unless something untoward happens in the meantime. By then, if it's going to do anything useful the effect ought be obvious. ;-) FWIW SeaFoam has been around since the end of WW2 but has never had a big following here AFAIK. It's used in a similar fashion to the Subie stuff (some say it's the same thing). There's a video at the bottom of the page.... http://www.seafoamsales.com/motor-treatment/index.html SignatureJohn H >> We had a 1991 Liberty and a 1999 OB, both wagons. AFAIR, the upper engine >> cleaner was listed as a service item in the service book for both cars. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > of the page.... > http://www.seafoamsales.com/motor-treatment/index.html Just as a note I use water injection/methanol on my boosted motors and have done for years , on pull down they are always spotless and usually unless a silly amount of boost is used they dn't ping either so I assume it's a useful thing to do I just bought a 20 litre Methanol last week and it's cheaper than petrol . >Just as a note I use water injection/methanol on my boosted motors and >have done for years , on pull down they are always spotless and usually >unless a silly amount of boost is used they dn't ping either so I assume >it's a useful thing to do > I just bought a 20 litre Methanol last week and it's cheaper than >petrol . I'm aware of the benefits, as well as water being about the only thing that does reliably remove carbon. It's just not something I want to muck about with in this instance. The majority of modern engines produce very little by way of deposits in combustion chambers and on piston tops. I've only ever found it to be an issue on engines with way too high a CR and fixed ignition timing... anything that's stock n.a. with a knock sensor should retard the timing to the point where pinging stops. Not that I can be certain since I haven't heard an engine ping for years (the accumulated effect of straight out exhausts, crawler tractors, and centre fire rifles). Wife still has good hearing though and can usually be depended upon to make loud low frequency noises I can hear (which hasn't ever happened for an engine with a knock sensor). ;-) She tells me that the Mazda ute pings immediately before it kicks down to 4th when it's lugging in 5th, but it's on 91 RON without a knock sensor. Not that the occasional brief ping ever hurt anything! :) SignatureJohn H >>Just as a note I use water injection/methanol on my boosted motors and >>have done for years , on pull down they are always spotless and usually [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > to 4th when it's lugging in 5th, but it's on 91 RON without a knock > sensor. Not that the occasional brief ping ever hurt anything! :) The Camry (9.8:1) pings for the duration of the anti-knock attack time when down low in 4th with a throttle increase,..on E10 its OK. Jason >The Camry (9.8:1) pings for the duration of the anti-knock attack time when >down low in 4th with a throttle increase,..on E10 its OK. I'd suspect any difference in 91 RON E10 vs ULP would be down to batch variations or age. Even slight differences in octane rating can have a significant effect in some instances (a fact that's long been exploited by many commercial products sold as octane boosters). In any case, a cheaper option would probably be to use 95 RON PULP, since the increased fuel consumption of the E10 will more than offset the price difference. Theoretical increase is 4%, based on energy content. Many people (me included) reckon it's nearer 10%, based on real life fuel consumption figures. With adaptive ignition timing (knock sensor) the difference between E10 and conventional PULP could be even greater. SignatureJohn H <snip> :The reason it's specified in Australia for all Subies is that our petrol :has a high sulphur content. Does that also apply to our 98RON? > <snip> > > :The reason it's specified in Australia for all Subies is that our petrol > :has a high sulphur content. > > Does that also apply to our 98RON? Permissible sulphur content in Oz fuel has been lowered significantly over the last 20 years. MAybe someone who still has a Subie can ring Tech Support in Moorebank(?) and ask them the pertinenet question for 98RON. I don't have the number anymore and finding it is currently low on a rather large list of Fings To Do - although I would be interested in their response. Cheers >Jeßus wrote: >> : [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >large list of Fings To Do - although I would be interested in their >response. Cheers Better still, check the Australian fuel standards for petrol (google should find 'em). According to figures I've got.... From Jan 2002 500ppm max sulphur. From Jan 2005 150ppm max sulphur. Since Jan 2008 50ppm max sulphur. The standards make no distinction between octane ratings. In other words (and in spite of rumours spread by oilcos) there's absolutely no reason to presume that 98 RON is in any way superior to 91 RON, or 95 RON, for other than its octane rating. AFAIK the current Australian standard for sulphur content (50ppm) is identical to Euro IV (google should confirm it). SignatureJohn H > >Jeßus wrote: > >> : [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > AFAIK the current Australian standard for sulphur content (50ppm) is > identical to Euro IV (google should confirm it). ..so I guess there *should* by now be absolutely no reason to use the stuff, unless it's worth doing a cleanout at the major (100K) interval. It's already four figures, so another 30 bucks isn't going to make much difference :) >John_H wrote: >> >Jeßus wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >It's already four figures, so another 30 bucks isn't going to make much >difference :) If the sulphur explanation is correct, and I'm yet to hear a better one, it's probably been in the same realm as snake oil since at least January 2008. AFAIK it's still included in the 12,500 km maintainance schedule though. SignatureJohn H > >John_H wrote: > >> >Jeßus wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > January 2008. AFAIK it's still included in the 12,500 km maintainance > schedule though. Well, I'll guarantee that's the explanation I was given at the time and it was entirely credible. If I was buying another one now though, I don't think I'd bother unless the car was showing a lack of performance &/or increased thirst for no other apparent reason. For now though, I'll keep my elderly Saab and drive my wife's 206GTi whenever the opportunity presents itself :) > I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies > anything similar... what's different about a Subaru? Apart from attitude? Nothing. I think you answered your own question when you mentioned that the stuff is made for Subaru by Bars. There's nothing intrinsic about an opposed engine that I'm aware of that demands this kind of "special treatment", nor has it been something that's been a regular Subaru service requirement for many years. Personally I think it's snake oil, and I'd be more concerned with regular oil and filter changes (which I'm sure you are) than using any "clean out crap" that's likely to do little other than lighten your wallet. I'd like to see the fine print that states this is stuff is a warranty requirement myself. -- Regards, Noddy. > Is it snake oil? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies > anything similar... what's different about a Subaru? Boxer engine, and it significantly reduced hotspots by removing the carbon that causes it and consequently helps reduce pinking that Subaru engines are prone to. >> I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies >> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru? > >Boxer engine, and it significantly reduced hotspots by removing the carbon >that causes it and consequently helps reduce pinking that Subaru engines are >prone to. Engine is a 3.0R, which doesn't ping even on 91 RON, no doubt because the ignition timing is sufficiently adaptive. Of course any tendency to ping, as seen by the knock sensor, would result in reduced performance (and increased fuel consumption). Being made in Australia, and not mentioned in any of the manuals, strongly suggests the product is local market only... if that's the case what's different about Australian carbon? :) The other problem I have with the carbon explanation is its being insoluble... you can either scrape it off or burn it off. The instructions say to leave soak for 10 minutes without running the engine which also suggests it's intended to dissolve something in the intake tract, rather than the combustion chambers. Obviously any combustion chambers behind closed valves won't even get to see it before the engine is started! The instructions for SeaFoam (US made snake oil) are to pour it in with the engine idling until it stalls... the intention being to make sure there's plenty of it in the combustion chambers. It'd be a pretty safe bet it doesn't remove carbon either, in spite of the claims. Some say the Subaru product is SeaFoam (same recipe) but I've got no idea if that's true. SignatureJohn H >>> I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies >>> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > strongly suggests the product is local market only... if that's the > case what's different about Australian carbon? :) People often using fuel that isn't 91 RON. > The other problem I have with the carbon explanation is its being > insoluble... you can either scrape it off or burn it off. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > combustion chambers behind closed valves won't even get to see it > before the engine is started! Whatever, all I know is that it works and carbon in the combustion chamber causing pinking has been an issue for a long time with using regular ULP with Subaru engines and the upper cylinder cleaner removes it. > The instructions for SeaFoam (US made snake oil) are to pour it in > with the engine idling until it stalls... the intention being to make [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Some say the Subaru product is SeaFoam (same recipe) but I've got no > idea if that's true. The genuine stuff seems to work very well with the Subaru engines, no idea who made/makes it. >The genuine stuff seems to work very well with the Subaru engines, no idea >who made/makes it. Try reading what's written on the can. ;-) It's made in Australia by Bar's Leaks!!! :-) SignatureJohn H >>The genuine stuff seems to work very well with the Subaru engines, no idea >>who made/makes it. > > Try reading what's written on the can. ;-) The stuff we used to use when I was working for Subaru had Subaru written on it, along with the corporate logo and Japanese writing. > It's made in Australia by Bar's Leaks!!! :-) Maybe it is these days, but not when I was working for Subaru. >>>> I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies >>>> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > causing pinking has been an issue for a long time with using regular ULP > with Subaru engines and the upper cylinder cleaner removes it. Would using 98 PULP remove the need for the treatment? We have never used anything other than 98 in ours and I've never heard any pinging. Daryl >Would using 98 PULP remove the need for the treatment? >We have never used anything other than 98 in ours and I've never heard >any pinging. Fuel consumption increase, without any other reason, would be the result of the engine backing off the timing to avoid audible pinging. Retarding the timing reduces the peak pressure because the flame propagates later into the combustion space that's expanding more rapidly. (Sinusoidal) Reduced pressure means less torque. So either you drive a bit slower or subconsiously compensate, opening the throttle further and using a bit more fuel. i.e. higher fuel consumption. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >> Would using 98 PULP remove the need for the treatment? >> We have never used anything other than 98 in ours and I've never heard [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > or subconsiously compensate, opening the throttle further and using > a bit more fuel. i.e. higher fuel consumption. Haven't noticed any fuel consumption increase but since the car hasn't been used much in the last couple of months due to my wife's broken foot I'll have to keep an eye on the consumption when she starts driving again. Daryl >>> Would using 98 PULP remove the need for the treatment? >>> We have never used anything other than 98 in ours and I've never heard [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > been used much in the last couple of months due to my wife's broken foot > I'll have to keep an eye on the consumption when she starts driving again. Using 98RON you shouldn't have too much to worry about. >>Boxer engine, and it significantly reduced hotspots by removing >>the carbon that causes it and consequently helps reduce pinking >>that Subaru engines are prone to. >Engine is a 3.0R, which doesn't ping even on 91 RON, no doubt because >the ignition timing is sufficiently adaptive. Of course any tendency >to ping, as seen by the knock sensor, would result in reduced >performance (and increased fuel consumption). That's how it's supposed to work. When you're no longer happy with the reduced performance, time for the enem^wtop-end cleaner. >Some say the Subaru product is SeaFoam (same recipe) but I've got no >idea if that's true. Subaru stuff is a top-end cleaner. As I understand it, not one for the combustion chamber. The main point is to clean the vales, seats and inlet tract. Don't know about SeaFoam ... but I've used the Subaru stuff on my Golf GTI a few times. (like at 120 Mm and 240 Mm) NB: Never use the stuff if your neighbours are having a BBQ. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >>>Boxer engine, and it significantly reduced hotspots by removing >>>the carbon that causes it and consequently helps reduce pinking [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the combustion chamber. The main point is to clean the vales, seats > and inlet tract. It was called upper cylinder cleaner - make of that what you will. >> Subaru stuff is a top-end cleaner. As I understand it, not one for >> the combustion chamber. The main point is to clean the vales, seats >> and inlet tract. > >It was called upper cylinder cleaner - make of that what you will. Snake oil, by any other name. ;-) What Subaru Australia currently list in the 12,500km service schedule is called "Upper Engine Cleaner" (part # SA459). Nowhere in the instructions, or on the label, is upper cylinder mentioned and nor is there any claim it removes carbon or combustion chamber deposits. They also recommend a "fuel additive" (part # SA718), which isn't listed in the service schedule. I have no idea what it's supposed to do. SignatureJohn H > Is it snake oil? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies > anything similar... what's different about a Subaru? Very good questions that I have thought about but not come up with any answers for. Our Impreza hasn't had either the Upper Cylinder Cleaner or the fuel treatment for more than 20,000klms and its running perfectly. Maybe its needed for cars that do a lot of stop start type driving? Daryl > Very good questions that I have thought about but not come up with any > answers for. > Our Impreza hasn't had either the Upper Cylinder Cleaner or the fuel > treatment for more than 20,000klms and its running perfectly. > Maybe its needed for cars that do a lot of stop start type driving? More than anything else it's probably needed for dealerships to whack an extra hunjie in their bank account :) -- Regards, Noddy. >Our Impreza hasn't had either the Upper Cylinder Cleaner or the fuel >treatment for more than 20,000klms and its running perfectly. >Maybe its needed for cars that do a lot of stop start type driving? Upper _Engine_ Cleaner is needed at every service according to Subaru Australia, irrespective of what type of running (or what type of fuel)... see your Warranty and Service Handbook. It's therefore included in the dealer service and you'd be charged accordingly. It doesn't claim to clean the combustion chambers BTW, only the intake tracts. Their recommended fuel additive (which may or may not be an upper cylinder treatment) isn't part of the maintenance schedule. See the Australian supplement to your Owners Manual. SignatureJohn H |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.