Valves- carboning up

[P_G]

Mal,

Taking the information as you have presented it in 10 points and commenting on that as it appears to be the most continuous and complete assessment of your issues and without knowledge of the test carried out in point 2, all the issues you have had could be directly attributable to carbon build up but could also be to a number of other things.

No power after 6k rpm could be fuel pressure, air volume, throttle body or vacuum issue, all of which others on this forum IIRC have experienced on dyno tests.

As much as the manifold was cleaned and then properly cleaned and you saw a notable increase in performance it may not have fixed the underlying problem. What you expressed in point 9 is what happens when the EPC light comes on and point 10, as careful as your people were in cleaning the manifold what's to say their work didn't cause this. caldy; the first time he opened up his manifold he inadvertedly broke a part.


Low air volume which is what you state in point 3 can be attributable to so many factors, some measurable by logs, some not (and who is to say the logs are accurate?) I'm sure carbon deposits are there, and I'm sure a clean manifold will have higher air flow than one with carbon on it, however that does not constitute an issue as the design of the engine may compensate for build up. Whether it fully compensates is key and the question that really needs answering.

I too hope you car gets fixed, but in the meantime I would say with thre greatest of respct to you Mal your manner is far from exemplary and can be construed as condasceding, so if you do not want sarcastic or indeed condascending responses to your posts don't precipitate the matter with you delivery of your own posts.

[2manytoys]

You too assume I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's not very hard to conclude carbon (retarded timing) causes power loss over 6000 rpm. Find a car with large amounts of carbon, drive it, clean it, and drive it again, simple! Forget the other issues, they didn't exist at the time.

Power was gone, carbon cleaned, power come back. Power then left due to other problems, fixed that, power come back. It's not hard. No maths, no mechanical engineering degree, no internet experts, just plain and simple real life testing, something that is lacking by most people dissagreeing with the problem.

The only other conclusion I can come up with is that people are working for Audi, or working in related industries, and want these posts shut down. The easist way is to be arguementative and state facts without any actual evidence.

Oh, why are they replacing the Cyclonic Seperator if carbon isn't a problem? Let me clarify, it's the excessive carbon that causes problems, but I would have thought most people are smart enough to understand that it's excessive carbon I'm talking about.

[2manytoys]

Just in case anyone is wondering what excessive is:


These are how they look when cleaned


So the pinging, and retarded timing (power loss) was thought to be the valves not seating properly or bit of carban breaking off. Seems resonable given the way they looked doesn't it?

[Terry1948]

2manytoys I think that carbon build up has been blamed for power loss in too many cases and as a result it has become a case of crying wolf too often. Carbon build up will happen. In your case if the seperator is faulty it may help but it will not stop carbon build from happening. There apparently is no cure and perhaps if it does start to affect performance we will have to get used to having them cleaned every now and then being old it used to be fairly common.

[2manytoys]

Yep, that's exactly what I said to Audi. If I knew that every 30-40,000 a "major" service is done, then at least I would have to opportunity to say ok when I bought the car. That's the big issue, at this stage, assuming that my carbon buildup is normal (and I'm not sure it is) then you'd have this extra cost that you are not expecting.

I was ready to sell the car because of the performance problems, but after it was cleaned I was happy again. Very happy actually, to the point I'll just live with the problem even after warranty has ended.

[Sims]

Just in case anyone is wondering what excessive is:


So the pinging, and retarded timing (power loss) was thought to be the valves not seating properly or bit of carban breaking off. Seems resonable given the way they looked doesn't it?

That does not look good Cannot imagine the engine designers had that image in their mind.

[P_G]

You too assume I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's not very hard to conclude carbon (retarded timing) causes power loss over 6000 rpm. Find a car with large amounts of carbon, drive it, clean it, and drive it again, simple! Forget the other issues, they didn't exist at the time.

Power was gone, carbon cleaned, power come back. Power then left due to other problems, fixed that, power come back. It's not hard. No maths, no mechanical engineering degree, no internet experts, just plain and simple real life testing, something that is lacking by most people dissagreeing with the problem.

The only other conclusion I can come up with is that people are working for Audi, or working in related industries, and want these posts shut down. The easist way is to be arguementative and state facts without any actual evidence.

Oh, why are they replacing the Cyclonic Seperator if carbon isn't a problem? Let me clarify, it's the excessive carbon that causes problems, but I would have thought most people are smart enough to understand that it's excessive carbon I'm talking about.

And there you go again being belittling. Where in my post did I actually say 'I assume you know nothing about what you are posting'?

All you have demonstrated is a fundamental lack of respect for anyone's views based on the information you provided. Like I said I made my suggestion based on the 10 points you posted; at no time in those 10 points was there mention of replacing cyclonic separators.

I don't work for Audi, have no intention of doing so but am becoming extremely irritated to closed minded bigots like you being condascending when someone suggests all the facts you quote are attributable to other factors which you have done nothing to say these factors have been ruled out as the issue.

Carbonsiation happens in FSI / GDI engines and your poor attempts to justify it as the problem with your engine without mitigating the other potential causes by involving sacrcasm and poorly constructed humour does nothing to convince anyone else that is it the issue.

If you enforced absence before please feel free to do so again, your brand of contribution wouldn't be missed by me.

[ArthurPE]

no I do not...you are entitled to your opinion, as apparently I am not...

I disagree with you, without passing judgement on, or ridiculing you for, your opinion...

I try to lay out the technical train of thoght that lead me to my perspective, and you insult me for doing so...as below 'most people smart enough', which I guess mean I'm not...or somehow I'm on Audi's payroll and am disingenuous in my beliefs...we must move beyond the continuous, veiled, yet obvious character attacks...

edit: thought this was directed at me (could be anyways) but I find it more offensive you taking cheap shots at P_G, who has been nothing but kind, objective and diplomatic...

we get it: you are right, everyone else is wrong...but please allow us to at least enjoy the bliss of our ignorance without heaping insult upon us

You too assume I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's not very hard to conclude carbon (retarded timing) causes power loss over 6000 rpm. Find a car with large amounts of carbon, drive it, clean it, and drive it again, simple! Forget the other issues, they didn't exist at the time.

Power was gone, carbon cleaned, power come back. Power then left due to other problems, fixed that, power come back. It's not hard. No maths, no mechanical engineering degree, no internet experts, just plain and simple real life testing, something that is lacking by most people dissagreeing with the problem.

The only other conclusion I can come up with is that people are working for Audi, or working in related industries, and want these posts shut down. The easist way is to be arguementative and state facts without any actual evidence.

Oh, why are they replacing the Cyclonic Seperator if carbon isn't a problem? Let me clarify, it's the excessive carbon that causes problems, but I would have thought most people are smart enough to understand that it's excessive carbon I'm talking about.

[ArthurPE]

2manytoys I think that carbon build up has been blamed for power loss in too many cases and as a result it has become a case of crying wolf too often. Carbon build up will happen. In your case if the seperator is faulty it may help but it will not stop carbon build from happening. There apparently is no cure and perhaps if it does start to affect performance we will have to get used to having them cleaned every now and then being old it used to be fairly common.

a pragmatic approach...kudos

from the great evidence shared by members of this forum (and others) the seperator is not the issue, as blow-by is not an significant factor, it appears to be valve seal seepage...

cleaning: pointless...it was back in force in <2k miles...

having said this, and after reviewing real world (not dyno) performance numbers, I can see no impact...
my undertsanding of the physics/engineering coincide with this result..

please do some runs, EVERYONE
3k to 8k, 3rd gear, use OBC timer
start at 2000, full throttle by 2500, time at 3000 to 8000
note temp, fuel load, passenger, etc.

PM me if you don't feel comfortable being asociated with me, lol

[wellzieRS4]

2manytoys I think that carbon build up has been blamed for power loss in too many cases and as a result it has become a case of crying wolf too often. Carbon build up will happen. In your case if the seperator is faulty it may help but it will not stop carbon build from happening. There apparently is no cure and perhaps if it does start to affect performance we will have to get used to having them cleaned every now and then being old it used to be fairly common.

a pragmatic approach...kudos

from the great evidence shared by members of this forum (and others) the seperator is not the issue, as blow-by is not an significant factor, it appears to be valve seal seepage...

cleaning: pointless...it was back in force in <2k miles...

having said this, and after reviewing real world (not dyno) performance numbers, I can see no impact...
my undertsanding of the physics/engineering coincide with this result..

please do some runs, EVERYONE
3k to 8k, 3rd gear, use OBC timer
start at 2000, full throttle by 2500, time at 3000 to 8000
note temp, fuel load, passenger, etc.

PM me if you don't feel comfortable being asociated with me, lol

What time should this test be? i dont know if i should have my valves cleaned or not nor do i know if my car is under powered, it feels quick a bit quicker than my E39 M5 but i think it could be quicker

[ArthurPE]

What time should this test be? i dont know if i should have my valves cleaned or not nor do i know if my car is under powered, it feels quick a bit quicker than my E39 M5 but i think it could be quicker

I've got 2 dyno runs on cleaned cars, 1 on a low mileage (7k) uncleaned and 3 magazine roadtests: average ~8.4 to 8.5 sec

I've got 4 or 5 magazine tests, using all gears, using the same speed range (36 mph to 96) that average 8.0 to 8.1 sec...

the average of all my test data is 8 sec...in other words as fast as using all gears! the worse time is 8.5 for a first run, and he ran better on a retry...

the high average of any group of runs (4 runs) is 8.3 (a 60k mile car, never cleaned, avant, ie, heavier, 3/4 fuel, slight incline)...

this is what leads me to believe deposits aren't an issue


I need the mileage on the car too

[Terry1948]

Arthur I am happy at being associated with you as I am with the other members I am over the 60 barrier now and have seen family, neighbours & friends not talk to one another because of a argument,misunderstanding and both parties thinking the other at fault no wonder there are wars. I no longer suffer road rage or any other form of rage just sadness at that way it is going. Keep on with your threads and enjoy Easter

[ArthurPE]

Arthur I am happy at being associated with you as I am with the other members I am over the 60 barrier now and have seen family, neighbours & friends not talk to one another because of a argument,misunderstanding and both parties thinking the other at fault no wonder there are wars. I no longer suffer road rage or any other form of rage just sadness at that way it is going. Keep on with your threads and enjoy Easter

right back at you

I'm rapidly approaching that milestone, and with the grace of God will make it, lol

'class' is in short supply, but your post confirms it's not dead yet...
Happy Holidays to you and yours

[caldy]

An interesting thread starting on a US based forum.....

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6178944.html

[2manytoys]

P_G and Arthur, do you guys need a cuddle, seriously, why are you so precious.

P_G - maybe I've left some details out this time, but when I say the car had no power above 6000rpm, then the valves were clean, and then the car had power, how difficult can this be to understand. Let me try to explain it again. The manifold was taken off on a Friday afternoon, cleaned all day Saturday, and put back on Sunday. The car then felt like a "Turbo Boost" after about 5500.

So, the questions is, am I argueing with someone that has done this procedure? Do you have pictures/video? I've now been in another car that doesn't have a "Turbo Boost" after 6000, and a bore scope shows carbon (no engine and EPC). So, that's two, and I have no doubt as soon as it's cleaned it will go hard again.

So again, just so everyone else knows, have you actually done this, or are your comments just opinion?

Regarding the 3000-8000rpm run, 8 sec thing, I can't get my head around how this can be accurate (just so Arthur doesn't get upset, I'm not having a go at him, it's a genuine question). How long does it take to go from 6000-8000 in the test? I'm concerend that most cars feel the same between about 3000-6000 so any time difference is going to be higher in the rev range. So, a 0.2 sec difference, and assuming in the higher rpm range, this would be huge.

Free cuddles for all

>-- ' ' ---<