Well unfortunately there are two many armchair engineers, who post information on subjects they know little or nothing about!

I am not arguing, I am offering advice based on practical fact and my experience and knowledge, if people wish to disbelieve or fail to understand the fundamental facts of steam as a cleaning solution to carbon deposit, then it's their loss.

 

As czar said, it essentially steam cleans your motor.

I think in the thread you are thinking of, most people said that they wouldn't want to do water/meth injection as a solution to the carbon, because most of them just drive street cars and didn't want to install a system like that.

Like czar, I am not doing it as a solution for carbon buildup, that's just a side benefit.

Wow, that's awesome! Do you have a picture of that?? What are your intake temps like with just the meth and no IC?

 

I don't have a picture, all I have done is replace the intercooler with a length of Titanium tube, (for now)

As for my intake temps they are now significantly reduced throughout the entire RPM range, if I look at the RPM for highway cruising 3-3500 RPM my intake temps are 18.7 degrees C lower in comparison to running the stock intercooler.

 

without an intercooler at all don't you have to spray a lot more often?

 

Titanium is very good at heat dissipation, as well as corrosion resistance VS Aluminium and stainless steel, yes I do spray in more than one area at the moment, and quite an amount, however I am doing lots of experimental testing for the ultimate for my particular project.

That said what I do may not be of much use or benefit to other Mini owners, I have a set goal in mind, and the engineering background and facilities at my disposal, so it's very easy for me to try this or that, till I get exactly what I want.

 

Ok, back home and in front of a real computer… It wasn't a "armchair engineers", it was BSH Speedshop.

Here: "We love methanol injection over here however the cleaning affects of the injection process are mostly seen in the combustion chamber. From all the DI manifolds I have pulled from cars with meth injection I cant say I have ever seen anything on the intake side that really said "wow this is the ticket""

and here: "My aim was very much to say that methanol is an excellent way to make clean power but is not the solution for carbon buildup on the intake valves that it is often made out to be."

Well, you were in the thread (the second link was a reply to you)… but it wasn't quite what you remember.

 

Firstly I agree with the point mentioned by BSH speedshop, regarding that the combustion chamber will get the best benefit from injecting water or a mix of water/meth.

That said, you will naturally over time soften and dissolve the carbon deposit on the inlet valves in any FSI/GDI engine, when injecting water or water/meth mix into the air intake flow stream.

If I had of known there was so much debate and disbelief regarding this issue, I would have taken before install photo's of the carbon deposit in my engine, and progress photo's to show the effects of how the carbon build up is reduced.

What I will do is, the next time I take the intake manifold off, I will take photo's of it now, and as I continue to use the water and meth, each time I remove the intake manifold I will photo the progress.

I think I may see greater results than most, as my system runs continuously.

 

Well, again, I don't personally know enough about water/meth systems to claim any authority on the subject. But the guidance from BSH, combined with Thumper's recommendation of (and reasoning behind) getting a tune after installing a water/meth system was enough for me to clear that option from the table in favor of a vapor separator catch can.

 

Lexus is having this problem as well. I have performed a few top engine cleanings on 250's & 350's. We basically use some BG products and scrub the intake valves, then vacuum out the gook.

 

So Tint, I don't suppose Lexus would ever officially endorse an OCC system as a solution

 

The problem I see with any manufacturer endorsing a catch can solution is that it introduces a new maintenance item: emptying the can. That will absolutely drive away mainstream consumers.

 

That's just a small obstacle. You need to remember that the PCV system is an emissions device which burns off crankcase vapors (oil, water, fuel). With a catch can, where is this liquid ending up? Hopefully at your local Pepboys along with your used oil, but you can see where I'm getting at.

My OCC is catching ridiculous amounts of oil with my new setup so I'm happy. Now I just need to clean out my valves. Expect a DIY on the procedure sometime in January while I'm on school break.

 

it's a small obstacle for most people in here, but not for the masses who want their car to "just work" with as little thought as possible. Those folks would likely go elsewhere if someone told them they had to keep an eye on the oily sludge level in some can under the hood.

 

OCC may have some benefits but I have my doubts that it is a solution to carbon buildup. What is actually known, or is it all speculation?

 

Well, I don't think its *all* speculation at this point. With the direct injection design, nothing should be flowing around the intake valve except clean intake air and air that's coming from the output of the PCV system.

But obviously, carbon buildup is a problem on some engines. And judging from the oil that's collecting in the catch cans of the people using them, it seems that the PCV system is allowing oil mist to be introduced into the intake air stream.

Unless someone can think of another way for the carbon to end up on the intake side of the intake valve, it makes sense that it's coming from the PCV system, and any oil collected in an OCC is oil that's not making it into the intake tract.

 

Ok, so just read through this entire post... Sorry for the naive question, but does anyone know if this carbon issue was fixed or reduced (or an attempt to do so) for the 2011 1.6 turbo engine? I know there were design changes made to the 2011 engines, but I am pretty sure the base design of the 2011 engine is the same and this carbon problem may still exist.

I have a new 2011 MCS with ~275 miles... I am just wondering what to do while I have this engine early in it's life with almost zero carbon (at least for now). Perhaps I need to stay on top of the carbon issue before it starts with some sort of regular preventative carbon build up maintenance - if such a preventative procedure even exists.

Thanks ahead of time for comments.

 

catch can is a good start

 

Recommendation from MINI (corporate, or just my nearest dealship? ... not sure) is to have a $200 carbon cleaning service done every 15,000 miles. And I don't believe that's covered by the maintenance plan.

Many people in here recommend running SeaFoam through a particular PCV line every so often to help manage the buildup problem. And the other most common recommendation on these and other forums seems to be the addition of a vapor separator (also called, but not precisely the same as, a catch can) on the PCV lines, of which there are two -- one from your crankcase to the intake manifold, and one from the crank case to the air intake line.

There is also a product offered by BSH that will alter the PCV system such that only one vapor separator is needed (which they also sell a kit for). But I'm not convinced this is the best choice for a long service life of the engine, as the PCV system alteration make crankcase ventilation less efficient and likely changes the negative pressure in the crankcase (good) to a slightly positive one (not so good). A lot of people seem happy with it, though.

 

So it sounds like I should plan on putting a catch can on my 2011 JCW when it arrives and plan on regular seafoam use.

Does anyone care to speculate on whether I might encounter difficulties with MINI over the use of a catch can? Could it be grounds for warranty denial? I guess the real question is, would MINI use the presence of a catch can as an excuse to shirk their responsibilities?

 

A properly functioning vapor separator should make regular seafoam use unnecessary.

For MINI to deny a warranty claim, they'd have to be able to make a reasonable argument that the modification was related to the failure in question. Some places may be a little overly-zealous about this at times, but I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Also, why not talk to them ahead of time? Express your concerns and what you'd like to do to mitigate the issue, and see what they have to say.

 

Hoping one day, someone can post up pics of a Seafoam after results of the internals to see how much was actually burnt off or cleaned off.

I know it's better to have taken the pics BEFORE the Seafoam is introduced, but don't think anyone wants to open their engines twice.

 

If you can find the thread where the guy hydrolocked his engine with too much Seafoam and bent a connecting rod, you can at least see some "after" pictures. There was still a lot of carbon left, but it looks like chunks of it had begun to flake away.

That being said, I still don't think a single application of Seafoam is going to be a good substitute for a mechanical scrubbing away of carbon buildup, but frequent applications over a period of time would probably help prevent/remove it.

 

That day was Sunday.