Air filter, cabin filter, fuel induction service needed???

Grumpy Bear · October 18, 2019

This is the 70K port cropped and rotated.

I see nothing there to clean.

Does this look like the 'horror' photo's from the can manufactures?

No.

It looks like hundreds of carbureted motors with similar miles.

I would expect the owner chose the worse one in the motor for the photo.

My motor stays together.

My money stays in my wallet.

I'll sleep just fine.

mookdoc6 · October 18, 2019

26 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

This is the 70K port cropped and rotated.

I see nothing there to clean.

Does this look like the 'horror' photo's from the can manufactures?

No.

It looks like hundreds of carbureted motors with similar miles.

I would expect the owner chose the worse one in the motor for the photo.

My motor stays together.

My money stays in my wallet.

I'll sleep just fine.

Gotta be Top Tier! That's the ticket...........................

Grumpy Bear · October 18, 2019

This could still be informative and entertaining. Doublebase says he is snapping manifold off photos every 60K. His truck is newer so it may take awhile to get a report but my eyes and mind will remain open. I'll try not to loose the above photo to compare.

Doublebase · October 18, 2019

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

This could still be informative and entertaining. Doublebase says he is snapping manifold off photos every 60K. His truck is newer so it may take awhile to get a report but my eyes and mind will remain open. I'll try not to loose the above photo to compare.

I'm about 20,000 miles away...should take me ten months to get there.

durandetto · October 18, 2019

This is the 70K port cropped and rotated.
I see nothing there to clean.

Does this look like the 'horror' photo's from the can manufactures?

No.

It looks like hundreds of carbureted motors with similar miles.

I would expect the owner chose the worse one in the motor for the photo.

My motor stays together.
My money stays in my wallet.
I'll sleep just fine.

It wasn't the worst one. 3 or 4 others were just as bad and there were a couple that looked like new. Not sure if that was a result of the intake cleaner not cleaning evenly or what.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Doublebase · October 19, 2019

21 hours ago, durandetto said:

It wasn't the worst one. 3 or 4 others were just as bad and there were a couple that looked like new. Not sure if that was a result of the intake cleaner not cleaning evenly or what.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Most likely the ones that were bad were the ones directly near where the PCV valve port is on the intake (Driver's side middle).

durandetto · October 19, 2019

The one in the picture is the one right by the pcv port. There's another one directly across from it that looks the same. 8 and 7 were probably the cleanest ones. Granted the valve on 7 was just replaced due to lifter failure.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Grumpy Bear · October 19, 2019

6 hours ago, durandetto said:

The one in the picture is the one right by the pcv port. There's another one directly across from it that looks the same. 8 and 7 were probably the cleanest ones. Granted the valve on 7 was just replaced due to lifter failure.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I get less worried by the post. Thanks!

16LT4 · October 19, 2019

Grumpy and I will be the null hypothesis candidates, I see. The catch can guys say they are necessary, or the engine won’t last. I say they’re needless. One can’t support the idea that a catch can is needed unless there are no cases of stock engines going the distance, but even then the results are vague. One can say “there are no Bigfoots”, but lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself, perhaps the searcher wasn’t trying hard enough? Likewise, all it takes is a single stock engine going the distance to disprove catch can claims. I don’t care how valve stems look. I care how the engine runs. I have a 45 year old engine in one of my daily drivers whose valvetrain looked like pure tar when I got it and the valve even worse, yet she fires up with the flick of the key and will run circles around my truck. The important part is what the valve seat looks like not the stem. It’s like the car version of “beauty is only a light switch away.”

Edited October 19, 2019 by dukedkt442

tbarn · October 20, 2019

On 10/16/2019 at 6:42 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

Taken as a complement. Thank you.

A study. Well, such an endeavor would need a benchmark. Something that says it's use is meaningful or advantageous. To know what that might be I would first have to not use one and fail the benchmark then repeat exceeding by some meaningful measure past the failure.

In other words I need to continue my present course until the motor fails some expectation, then repeat and exceed the that marker by some magnitude that says the device 'adds value' for the average person.

Cleanliness, in and of itself would not qualify as such a bench mark unless it's lack hinders something operational. Such as a drastic reduction in fuel efficiency for example. Something supporters of the device claim universally. At which time we pull the manifold and document and assign 'root cause'. Restore the OEM condition, fit a can and repeat. Does that sound about right?

If so then I'm 100K into the first stage and still gaining fuel efficiency. According to the Ford Class Action Suit on EPA mileage estimates the sides have agreed on 150K as a definition of a motors "Lifetime". Guess that would mean if I make it to 150K then I've already proved there is no added value for the product. I have but 45K to the finish line.

But I can't stop until it fails or else we have nothing to gauge results? If I make to 150K without a failure then we already have our result, correct?

If there is nothing there you disagree with then let the games begin!!

2 hours ago, dukedkt442 said:

Grumpy and I will be the null hypothesis candidates, I see. The catch can guys say they are necessary, or the engine won’t last. I say they’re needless. One can’t support the idea that a catch can is needed unless there are no cases of stock engines going the distance, but even then the results are vague. One can say “there are no Bigfoots”, but lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself, perhaps the searcher wasn’t trying hard enough? Likewise, all it takes is a single stock engine going the distance to disprove catch can claims. I don’t care how valve stems look. I care how the engine runs. I have a 45 year old engine in one of my daily drivers whose valvetrain looked like pure tar when I got it and the valve even worse, yet she fires up with the flick of the key and will run circles around my truck. The important part is what the valve seat looks like not the stem. It’s like the car version of “beauty is only a light switch away.”

Finally, some science to the argument!