That's more like it, but do you have more than one example to establish a trend? I have seen at least 6 that didn't improve and the engines were later replaced. The reason I'd question the results is because yes, immediately after the cleaning is not a good time to retest because the sealing oil has been washed out so the additional test several days of good use later is how it needs to be done. However, it would be unusual for the compression to continue to improve over a longer time like 5000 miles as indicated. Very unusual ...

 

interesting results! when i did mine, i put a vacuum T in and had one branch going to air, and then the side in the water had a .8mm weber idle jet in it. think wine aerator. engine is happier, however a gallon would take like an hour!

 

I presume you are asking if I have test results from more than 1 car, since I have 4 tests from mine? Well, I only have 1 RX-8.

Perhaps you want to step up and volunteer, to provide test results that back up your claims that it has no benefit? Or have you previously done testing to show that it has no benefit and have just declined to share any quantitative or qualitative data to support it?


Doesn't that same same burden of proof exist for anyone claiming that it does not have any benefit?

 

Yeah, doing about 1/5th of a gallon at a time with breaks in between, it took about 2.5 hours.

The RX-7 guys highly recommend doing both rotors at the same time and basically giving it as much water as the engine will pull in, but I think they can get away with that with the peripheral ports. I think I'm going to do both at the same time today to see what happens. I suspect it's going to flood out the engine, given how much difficulty it has with 1 rotor. But I'm willing to take that risk and deal with the consequences before a noob tries it that has no chance at recovering.

What I don't know yet is exactly WHY the engine has so much trouble running when it's getting fed that much water. I mean, there are plenty of theories, but not all of them are "it's actually quenching the spark". STFT goes to +25% when the water was being fed in, AFRs sit in the 17s and 18s, so it's entirely possible that it's actually struggling from the rotor that isn't under ingestion, just getting flooded out from fuel.

I'm going to think about it some more, and definitely have a restrictor of some sort on the water pickup end.


It's tempting to do this with water/meth this time (basic windshield washer fluid), instead of just straight water. See what happens.

 

this is good stuff.

 

there are plenty of people here who found no improvement

Otherwise I have no problem with being questioned or not believed, or having a bunch of n00bs go bat crazy dumping water and solvents through their engines without doing any testing to qualify their efforts

you might want to at least advise them to separate their cat converter from exhaust manifold first ...

 

The proof is always in the pudding. Results, however, may depend considerably on how that particular car is normally driven. One could speculate that one which sees considerable track time has less carbon buildup, but that carbon is more securely baked onto the surfaces. One that does considerable city, short-distance miles will likely have more carbon inside, but is less securely attached.

Confirming or disproving this would be a bit of a project.

Still, RWWPs experiment is interesting and goes quite a bit beyond the normal butt-dyno claims.

 

sometimes experience should speak for itself.

thanks for posting your results RIWWP.

also some food for thought, 124:1 or lower premixing ratios loosen up carbon further and help prevent it from sticking to the rotors. 1 ounce per gallon seems to be the sweet spot though. if using less i tend to see almost no oil film on the rotors when disassembling engines.

you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, some people will just want to believe what they want. this will not fix engines in which hard parts are not sealing properly like worn rotor housings, apex or side seals. however it does tend to loosen up the seals so that they spring more freely, which is the point of the excercise.

carbon buildup on rotor faces can be detrimental if it is severe, because as it loosens and is combusted where does it go? it collects on the apex and side seals in the seal channels. the majority does go out the engine, but not all. premixing helps keep the carbon from jamming the seals and treatments help get it out of the channels.

 

Do they have compression numbers to back that up? If not, then you are allowing them to have conclusions without anything to support it. (Which is what you are accusing me of)

I didn't do this to prove that it has a benefit. I did this to just see what happened. I was entirely open to the possibility that i'd be proven wrong, and if I was proven wrong, i'd still post results. But instead I showed that even at small amounts, carbon can indeed be removed to some degree.

The only evidence so far that people have used to support 'it doesn't work' claims is post-teardown pics of an engine that had been seafoamed 'at some point in the past'. No before data to even know what did or didn't change, and not even any info on how the seafoam was completed.

Allowing yourself to accept that at face value without allowing evidence to the contrary is more than a little hypocritical.



This supposedly cleans the cat too, though I could also see it shortening the life of the cat. I simply don't know and can't test that. So it would be 'bat crazy' for me to recommend a course of action there, wouldn't it?

 

Just waiting for it to warm up a little here and I'll be doing what is becoming my annual seafoam exercise.

perhaps this year I'll just do water and let her run throughout the process.

Thanks, RIWWP!

 

and in the case that it does in fact wash lubricant from the housings and seals, that is not necessarily a bad thing. it allows the seals a clean surface to re-lap themselves into the housings to actually improve compression. it is only temporary so it isn't cutting engine life severely, if much at all. most engines i tore down with water injection had almost no wear, even after many many thousands of miles.

carbon seems to cause more wear than the treatments do, as it drags along the faces during combustion.

i have and will continue to do decarbs, regardless of the naysayers because i have never noticed any detriment from doing it and the proof is right here that it does get carbon out. cat fouling is more a problem from burning oil or severely rich running engines, not from decarbs. but i'm sure someone will want proof of that as well and want a 10 car side by side comparison.

the renesis is already an extremely high compression rotary engine and carbon buildup will never be equal, resulting in imbalances in air/fuel delivery and combustion(misfires and poor performance and fuel economy).

 

a couple years back one member ran a valve between his washer bottle and the nipples and would periodically give her a "flush".

can't remember who it was or what has become of them. there's a thread with pictures somewhere around here.

 

Karack: For the calculation of gas:oil ratio, one cannot ignore the contribution of the MOP.

Example 1: MOP alone.

Assume 1 qt per 1500 miles and 19 mpg. 1500 miles @ 19 mpg = 79 gallons = 316 quarts.
316 quarts gas / 1 quart oil = 316:1

Example 2: MOP plus 8 oz premix/13 gallons (a typical value)

13 gallons x 128 = 1664 oz
1664 oz gas / 8 oz oil = 208:1

However, the MOP is still on.
In 1500 miles, (79/13) = 6 tanks will be used.
So 6 x 8 oz = 48 oz = 1.5 quarts of premix will be used.
Since 79 gallons = 316 quarts,
The overall gas to oil to gas ratio is 316 / (1 + 1.5) = 126:1

(That's quite a lot of oil. It's important to remember though, that the injected oil goes into a place where it's considered most effective. Eric Meyer, and likely other racers too, keep the stock injection system. His claim is that EGTs are lowered and engine life is better through longer-lived side seal springs when keeping the injection vs removing it and going with premix only.)

Example 3: MOP + 13 oz per tank

1664 / 13 = 128:1 (duh)

However the MOP is still on -

6 tanks x 13 oz = 78 oz = 2.4 quarts in 1500 miles

316 qts / (2.4 + 1.0) qts = 93:1

=

So 1 oz / gallon plus the injected oil gives a 93:1 average mix, more at idle, and much less at WOT, well into 2 stroke territory. I'd worry a bit about unintended consequences of using that much oil on a full-time basis. (But perfectly happy for others to report their results).

 

racers do oil changes likely after each race, running clean fresh oil would likely give better results versus running an engine with blackened carbon fouled 3,000 mile city driven used oil.

would like to try and avoid arguing about premixing here but i would have to disagree that even fresh oil through the OMP would provide better lubrication than premixing with oil that is meant as an internal combustion lubricant.

even with the OMP functioning i see no oil film on internals with less than a 1 ounce per gallon ratio. yes this is considered extremely heavy, which is why i usually tell people to decide one way or the other, strictly premix or strictly OMP. if running the OMP only, keep your engine oil clean.

the engines i setup are meant to last many years, not several thousand miles or a few seasons before getting a teardown and refresh.

engines that were well cared for had less wear tracking from the OMP nozzles than those with as many miles that had filthy internals(poor maintenance). the wear i attribute to carbon fouled oil causing more wear as the seals drug the dirty oil across the surface.

 

The problem with the Renesis with no OMP is side seal heat. The oil is pretty critical for cooling those seals, more-so than reduced wear. This is something the peripheral port engines don't have a problem with. Best all around benefit for the Renesis should be OMP with SOHN adapter for clean oil rather than fouled oil, plus premixing.

But agreed, a bit off-topic.


Just got back from getting some t-vacuum fittings and basic unmodified winshield washer fluid. Going to run that through both rotors at the same time, and then take some more pics. Front rotor still only has had the 6oz of seafoam, so we will see the impact on a more-clean rear rotor vs a more carboned front rotor.

Lets see what happens. (including the possibility of ending up with a flooded engine )


I'm also going to do an oil change once I'm done testing, and will take a look to see if there is visible water contamination in the oil. If I can't tell by eyeballing it, I'll probably send an oil sample off for testing.

 

Personally I like soaking both rotor chambers with ATF and let it sit for a couple of days....and then giving it a water or Seafom decarb.

Have used Mopar combustion chamber cleaner and it seamed to work well too

Never had huge carbon issues on any engine that I pulled apart after I had been tracking it hard......

Pulled apart an engine that had been run in cold climate and back and forth to work...and It took me 2 days to get the APV valves out because of all the carbon..and the SSV was seized solid....

Guess all I can say on this is from my limited ( 4 engines) sample...they seem to get carboned up on short drives that don't get the motor hot...and seem to be clean if they are run hard...

 

Had to stop for now, a neighbor was frowning quite severely at me with the steam cloud I was generating.

It does appear that doing both rotors at the same time is a bit easier to keep the engine running, suggesting that the +25% STFT when doing 1 rotor is most of the problem with trying to keep the engine running. However, I did completely stall the engine when I submerged the tip of the ingestion hose at idle. Took a a minute or so of cranking to fire back up again.

I then added a 2nd T, so there are 2 points that are pulling in air, and using one to ingest the fluid does produce a very nice air/liquid mix in a cloudy look for some distance after the point of ingestion. I think I need to move the 2nd T closer to the LIM to keep that in effect however, as it condenses back to liquid before it gets there at the moment (takes a few feet though). It also appears to make it MUCH easier for the engine to stay running with this method though.


Once the steam clouds fade and my neighbor goes away, I'll get back started on it.

 

run a hose to his front door!

actually i'd just tell him it's freaking steam, it's not collapsing the ozone layer... if anything it will help prevent pollution in a few miles.

the older management systems didn't have LTFT and STFT, so there was less issue with fuel dumping.

biggest headache with the 8 is fly by wire, isn't a one man process anymore.

 

He went away

I'm the only one doing it here. I can submerge the hose in the washer fluid completely, the first t fitting pulling in air shortly after for a good mixture, then the hose out the passenger window to a t fitting before the LIM where it feeds both ports. At ~3,100rpm, AFRs were holding around 13.1-13.4, no problem keeping the engine alive at all. Lower RPM would richen, higher RPM would lean out.

I tried shifting the air-introduction T closer to the LIM, but the weight of the liquid in the tube is too much and it largely just sits there, preferring to pull air through the other section instead.

Here is how I'm doing it:


After about a minute of that, the amount of steam diminished dramatically. Only thing that might have changed is the amount of carbon to eject? Unknown. About 1/3rd of the way through, it does pull it through very slowly.

 

Putting my thumb over the air end for solid fluid the engine struggles. With the air mixing in it will actually keep idling. Although at 11.6-11.9 afrs

 

i'm rather aggressive about it, trying to keep the liquid solid as it enters the LIM. but still only do it one rotor at a time on the renesis. i suppose i just don't worry as much about carbon buildup on the opposing rotor from such a short burst of time. running it to both rotors should actually keep the exhaust cooler though, preventing any bumper melting or cat overheating issues but probably would take a little longer.

usually in all i run a gallon of water through an engine in about 5 minutes of run time, if that gives you an idea how much i inject and at what rate(in about 4 steps allowing the exhaust to cool between each).

the opposing rotor running rich to compensate is what causes the exhaust to heat up rapidly.

 

It will hold idle with this, so I'm thinking this is probably the most efficient in the long run?

Here is the whole setup in one shot:



It is certainly slow though. But an owner doing it once a year isn't much of a time concern.


No exhaust glow, though I don't have a cat.

The ecu is pulling fuel, so the methanol content is offsetting the gas I imagine, probably a leaner burn overall during this? Not enough of a chemist to know for sure.

 

The gallon of washer fluid is complete. Letting everything cool down for an hour or so, then more pictures of both rotors.

Estimate probably ~35-45 minutes to consume one gallon of the liquid of your choice at idle.

 

Building the side by side now.

If anything, I'd say that the gallon of washer fluid at idle added MORE carbon than it removed, even on the rear rotor. Not caked carbon, but the lump carbon, especially around the seals, looks darker and more substantial. The plugs are much darker as well.

Is this because I did it at idle? Is it because of the methanol content in the washer fluid?

I don't know those answers yet. I'll probably run the test again, only with just water at idle, Tuesday. I'll be working from home, and can let it idle through a gallon without immediate supervision. If it's still not much of a change, then the RPMs would seem key, and I will repeat with water next weekend to see.

Pics pending.

 

Alright, I should have done pics like this from the beginning, but ah well, something learned. Namely, rotating the engine by the front pulley bolt is WAY easier when the air box is out of the way

So here are the complete pics of front and rear rotor after the 1gal washer fluid treatment, largely at idle.

See the file names for which rotor each is. Each pic has all 3 faces of that rotor.

I am less than impressed with the results. It appears that there has been more carbon deposited than cleaned off, note the patch of carbon in the center of each rotor. This was nearly gone in the rear rotor by the end of the gallon of water.