Techron, Seafoam, or Thinner?

[precopster]

I wonder if using compressed air to blow out the "coked up" stuff inside the breather box would work? or maybe a way to suck it out with a strong shop vac?

has anybody tried this?

I was also flirting with the idea of running a hanger down into the black box and wiggling it around in there to knock some of the coke out of the hole. then suck it out with a shop vac.

has anybody tried THIS?

Thanks JRL I've seen afew threads here with the same jist. There was an older guy doing up a T5 here afew years ago....the thread's lurking around if I look for it. He started with really low compression numbers and with Seafoam managed to get them all higher and pretty even across the board.

As far as poking stuff down the tubes to clear them, why not? Personally I would later flush with 100% hydrcarbons (Shellite) to get the crud moving further down and into the sump then change the oil.

Last week I changed the oil on my newly acquired '02 XC70 and poured 2-3 quarts of Shellite down the oil filler with the sump plug removed. All sorts of black crud came out!! Then I poured about 1.5 quarts of cheap mineral oil down the oil filler with the sump plug removed to wash and dilute any Shellite away.

Sure this oil change cost me about $20 more but I could see how effective the Shellite was at cleaning the internals. And it's cheap to buy in large quantities. My aim was to get rid of sludge and crud near the cams and also at the base of the sump without disassembling.

As far as cleaning valve seats and/or injectors of course this doesn't do anything at all. It was more about keeping the new oil clean.

[instarx]

While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, JRL, it doesn't address the stated questions and if anything is counter to the goal of the thread. Testimonials are a dime a dozen and mire down a technical discussion more than they move it forward -- not helpful. Thread is aimed towards those into chemistry, engineering, the scientific method or the like, if that makes it any clearer.

Wow. Good luck finding very many ChemE's in this board to answer your questions. And even if you did they would have had to have done specific studies designed to answer your questions - otherwise they would just be posting testimonials and opinions from chemE's.

People posting their experiences are where the back and forth of a discussion comes from. And the back and forth is where the jewels of knowledge appear. Remember, just because data is anecdotal does not mean it isn't data and it does not mean it isn't true. Nearly everyone agrees that if you press your accelerator the car goes faster, but technically this is just anecdotal evidence because no one has done a controlled experiment. But I strongly suspect it is true based solely on experience and, yes, anecdotal evidence.

Just my opinion, of course. lol

It's pretty obvious that no one on this board will have plunked down the $500,000+ needed to prove if Product A even works, much less if it works better than Product B. If any large companies have done these expensive studies then they are going to keep the result to themselves. That means if you want hard technical data you are going to have to become a multi-millionaire and pay for the studies yourself... but why? If you have a problem try Product C or Product B and see if it helps, or ask on a board what others have experienced. It's a hell of a lot faster and cheaper than spending millions of dollars on studies so you "know".

Some things are worth developing non-anecdotal evidence (the efficacy of drugs comes to mind), but whether Techron is better than Seafoam? lol, no.

[j-dawg]

in QS' defense there very much are ways that an owner can "take data": long-term MPG trends bifurcated by an application of an engine or fuel treatment, oil analysis numbers before and after the use of a particular oil, dyno graphs for things that involve power, emissions sniffer tests, etc. these don't require a huge investment, and lots of owners take the data anyway. the values will vary from one car to the next, but with a large enough sample size you may be able to draw some reasonable conclusions.

can enough data be taken from MVS, or even from all of the english-language volvo sites out there? who knows. but if you don't start collecting data at some point, you'll never start to spot any trends. there are a thousand threads out there with conflicting data on what treatment did or did not work, but there is precious little by way of numbers. seeing this thread might inspire someone to break out the OBD reader or call up blackstone labs for a test kit before pouring in that bottle. if one approaches the treatment with an eye to quantifying its effectiveness, the numbers aren't always hard to get.

i don't mean to diminish the value of using anecdotal or subjective evidence. as you say, that's the biggest part of how these car forums produce knowledge. but i disagree that you need a chemical engineering degree and a tribology lab to get a quantifiable characterization of a product or procedure.

[precopster]

The only company that I have seen produce testing reports ob their products' efficacy is Neways out of Utah. Known more as a Vitamin company LOL.

They don't sell their Roil treatment to the USA yet have proved over and over in independant tests that their products work. http://roilplatinum.neways.com.au/

If you look deep enough on the website you'll find all the testing and lab reports.

[instarx]

i don't mean to diminish the value of using anecdotal or subjective evidence. as you say, that's the biggest part of how these car forums produce knowledge. but i disagree that you need a chemical engineering degree and a tribology lab to get a quantifiable characterization of a product or procedure.

Sorry if I sounded like I meant there was no in-between for data. There is a lot of very valuable information between the extremes of "the car felt like it ran better" and "statistical analysis gave a probability value of p<0.001".
I read the original post as saying that only chemical engineer types, scientists, and people with data gained by the scientific method need reply; and the second post as saying that posts recounting mere "experience" were not wanted. I was trying to say in my post that there is valuable valid data available that does not meet that almost impossible standard. Sorry if I was not clear.

[98T5]

I tried the Laquer thinner treatment on 1/4 tank as I didn't want to ride for 400 mniles to burn all the gas out, and I was leary about this shade tree method in the first place. well, the results on my test was goose egg. it felt like it worked the first 20 mile after I ran all the gas out and refilled with $20 bucks. but then it went back to having that "jerky" feel. I ended up going down in gas grade from 93octane to 89octane and the symptoms cleared up immediately.