Seafoam + Maxima = FTW?
09-26-2006, 10:22 AM
#41
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Bobo
I strongly doubt that you would get much support for your findings on BITOG.
09-26-2006, 10:22 AM
#42
Originally Posted by dr-rjp
There are two major schools of thought with respect to additives:
1. One says, "Maintain your car the way the manufacturer intended it, and do not add anything to it that is not specifically recommended by the manufacturer."
2. Another says, "Additives are everywhere -- in the oil we put in our crankcases and in the gas we put in our tanks. So, if we find an additive that can help our cars without hurting it (according to the thousands of users who have used it in the past without adverse consequences), then what is the big deal?"
1. One says, "Maintain your car the way the manufacturer intended it, and do not add anything to it that is not specifically recommended by the manufacturer."
2. Another says, "Additives are everywhere -- in the oil we put in our crankcases and in the gas we put in our tanks. So, if we find an additive that can help our cars without hurting it (according to the thousands of users who have used it in the past without adverse consequences), then what is the big deal?"
Following the manufacturer's recommendations is clearly the safe route. Thing is, we don't have Bentleys or Ferraris, which are tested very strenuously and made by manufacturers that don't have to impress people with how easy, infrequent, and/or cheap the recommended maintenance is. Nissan's testing might have missed certain problems that would have had some bearing on their recommendations. And, like any mainstream car company, they have to balance giving the right recommendations with giving the right impression about their cars and preventing people from being inappropriately intimidated by the maintenance.
Then again, they will almost always know best. So, while their recommendations might not be exhaustive, they are very good baselines.
Originally Posted by dr-rjp
IMHO, additives are a little like drugs. They should be used to cure a specific problem, and not just to get a "performance high" (if that makes any sense).
09-26-2006, 10:33 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,190
You will get a lot of support on BITOG when it comes to bashing Lucas Oil Stabilizer.
However, you would get a lot of comments about Seafoam as the best product to use in fuel systems. The advocates of BG44K, Gumout Regane, Chevron Techron and LubeControl FP60 will be all over you like white on rice.
Similarly the advocates of LubeControl LC20, Marvel Mystery Oil and AutoRX would take exception to what you say.
You will, however, get support for using Seafoam for cleaning the intake manifold. But that is about it.
However, you would get a lot of comments about Seafoam as the best product to use in fuel systems. The advocates of BG44K, Gumout Regane, Chevron Techron and LubeControl FP60 will be all over you like white on rice.
Similarly the advocates of LubeControl LC20, Marvel Mystery Oil and AutoRX would take exception to what you say.
You will, however, get support for using Seafoam for cleaning the intake manifold. But that is about it.
Originally Posted by TempMaxMan
I actually use links to Bob Is The Oil Guy to bash Lucas Oil Stabilizer. Otherwise, I don't really care right now. What I know in this regard is this: SeaFoam has worked very well for me to date and I have seen no problems. It seems to do exactly what I expect it to do as it advertises, if not better, with no negative side effects.
09-26-2006, 12:29 PM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,190
I am referring to the knowledgeable members of that website who collectively have a gazillion times more experience and knowledge in matters related to oil, lubricants, additives etc. than is found on the .org.
Originally Posted by dr-rjp
BITOG is an idiot and a fraud. Please...can we refrain from mentioning him?
09-26-2006, 03:23 PM
#47
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by nismology
in my experience, seafoam is just a smoke show
I already told the story about the saturn inline 4 with 220k miles on it. I mentioned that I put SeaFoam in the crankcase, in the gas tank and sucked it into the manifold. On the Saturn, I used the PCV hole on the intank manifold. I probably did the SeaFoam process 6 times and each time the smoke got cleaner, less dense and there was less of it. Each time less black carbon and dirt left a stain on the ground behind the tailpipe. But, it still smoked. This kind of makes you think it could be either way .... as in the SeaFoam is not a smoke show because the more clean the engine got thanks to SeaFoam, the less smoke .... or ... since there never really came a time when there was absolutely no smoke ... it could still be a smoke show.
So, today, I used SeaFoam on the 1992 GXE VG30E with 170k miles on it. I opted to use the brake booster line instead of the PCV ... and that's the only difference in my treatment of the Saturn.
I put 1/4 can of SeaFoam in the crank case. I was going to use 1/3 can, but I opted for a little less because the engine was completely full of oil. I put 1/3 can of SeaFoam in the gas tank. I put just over 1/3 a can into the engine by sucking it in via the brake booster line. I did this while the engine was at normal operating temperature and had been for about 15 minutes. I then shot off the engine and let it sit for 25 minutes. I started the engine and BARELY VISIBLE amounts of smoke came out within the first few minutes ONLY when revving VERY high in the rpms ... as in to redline. If I didn't look carefully, I probably wouldn't have seen the smoke at all. This makes sense because the engine was not nearly as sluggish as the saturn ... not sluggish at all actually ... and was better maintained by oil changing more frequently and tuning up etc for more of it's life.
This tells me that SeaFoam is definitely not just a smoke show.
09-26-2006, 03:33 PM
#48
Originally Posted by TempMaxMan
I find that extremely interesting. It is directly contradictory to my experience.
I already told the story about the saturn inline 4 with 220k miles on it. I mentioned that I put sea foam in the crankcase, in the gas tank and sucked it into the manifold. On the Saturn, I used the PCV hole on the intank manifold. I probably did the SeaFoam process 6 times and each time the smoke got cleaner, less dense and there was less of it. Each time less black carbon and dirt left a stain on the ground behind the tailpipe. But, it still smoked. This kind of makes you think it could be either way .... as in the SeaFoam is not a smoke show because the more clean the engine got thanks to SeaFoam, the less smoke .... or ... since there never really came a time when there was absolutely no smoke ... it could still be a smoke show.
So, today, I used SeaFoam on the 1992 GXE VG30E with 170k miles on it. I opted to use the brake booster line instead of the PCV ... and that's the only difference in my treatment of the Saturn.
I put 1/4 can of SeaFoam in the crank case. I was going to use 1/3 can, but I opted for a little less because the engine was completely full of oil. I put 1/3 can of SeaFoam in the gas tank. I put just over 1/3 a can into the engine by sucking it in via the brake booster line. I did this while the engine was at normal operating temperature and had been for about 15 minutes. I then shot off the engine and let it sit for 25 minutes. I started the engine and BARELY VISIBLE amounts of smoke came out within the first few minutes ONLY when revving VERY high in the rpms ... as in to redline. If I didn't look carefully, I probbaly wouldn't have seen the smoke at all. This makes sense because the engine was not nearly as lsuggish as the saturn and was better maintained by oil changing more frequently and tuning up etc for more of it's life.
This tells me that SeaFoam is definitely not just a smoke show.
I already told the story about the saturn inline 4 with 220k miles on it. I mentioned that I put sea foam in the crankcase, in the gas tank and sucked it into the manifold. On the Saturn, I used the PCV hole on the intank manifold. I probably did the SeaFoam process 6 times and each time the smoke got cleaner, less dense and there was less of it. Each time less black carbon and dirt left a stain on the ground behind the tailpipe. But, it still smoked. This kind of makes you think it could be either way .... as in the SeaFoam is not a smoke show because the more clean the engine got thanks to SeaFoam, the less smoke .... or ... since there never really came a time when there was absolutely no smoke ... it could still be a smoke show.
So, today, I used SeaFoam on the 1992 GXE VG30E with 170k miles on it. I opted to use the brake booster line instead of the PCV ... and that's the only difference in my treatment of the Saturn.
I put 1/4 can of SeaFoam in the crank case. I was going to use 1/3 can, but I opted for a little less because the engine was completely full of oil. I put 1/3 can of SeaFoam in the gas tank. I put just over 1/3 a can into the engine by sucking it in via the brake booster line. I did this while the engine was at normal operating temperature and had been for about 15 minutes. I then shot off the engine and let it sit for 25 minutes. I started the engine and BARELY VISIBLE amounts of smoke came out within the first few minutes ONLY when revving VERY high in the rpms ... as in to redline. If I didn't look carefully, I probbaly wouldn't have seen the smoke at all. This makes sense because the engine was not nearly as lsuggish as the saturn and was better maintained by oil changing more frequently and tuning up etc for more of it's life.
This tells me that SeaFoam is definitely not just a smoke show.
09-26-2006, 03:36 PM
#49
Originally Posted by Bobo
Seafoam used through the brake booster hose will clean the intake manifold.
09-26-2006, 03:56 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,190
I suppose you are right. I have never used the product. I have no intentions of using Seafoam. I don't own a lawnmower, a weedwacker or a boat.
Originally Posted by nismology
It doesn't even do that. The only way to clean the intake manifold is to remove it and hot tank it or use industrial grade parts cleaner solvent (petroleum naphtha), period.
09-26-2006, 04:04 PM
#51
Water injection similar to the Seafoam method has been shown to work.
Also specific water injection systems have a side benefit of keeping the TB and intake manifold clean. So the theory is sound.
Also specific water injection systems have a side benefit of keeping the TB and intake manifold clean. So the theory is sound.
Originally Posted by nismology
It doesn't even do that. The only way to clean the intake manifold is to remove it and hot tank it or use industrial grade parts cleaner solvent (petroleum naphtha), period.
09-26-2006, 04:17 PM
#52
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
Water injection similar to the Seafoam method has been shown to work.
Also specific water injection systems have a side benefit of keeping the TB and intake manifold clean. So the theory is sound.
Also specific water injection systems have a side benefit of keeping the TB and intake manifold clean. So the theory is sound.
I used to be a fan...now i save my money.
09-26-2006, 04:31 PM
#53
There's also a DIY the miata site for water cleaning your engine. It might be more for the combustion chambers though. Which is the part that I'd want clean vs the intake manifold.
Not quite sure how much $ you really saved. I don't think a clean manifold is really going to net you that much.
Not quite sure how much $ you really saved. I don't think a clean manifold is really going to net you that much.
Originally Posted by nismology
Using seafoam is a one time, every-once-in-a-while thing so it can't be compared to water injection. Also, keeping it clean /= cleaning it once already dirty. I've looked inside my intake manifold before and after seafoam applications and it looked dirty as ever. Removing and scrubbing/hot-tanking is the only way. I'm speaking from my own experiences.
I used to be a fan...now i save my money.
I used to be a fan...now i save my money.
09-26-2006, 04:51 PM
#54
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
Not quite sure how much $ you really saved. I don't think a clean manifold is really going to net you that much.
09-26-2006, 07:07 PM
#56
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by nismology
All i read is "there was less and less smoke the more i applied".
That explains it.
You missed the part about how on a separate engine there was no smoke with the same process because there was nothing significant of carbon/dirt deposits to clean, burn up, spit out.
It's not just a smoke show.
09-26-2006, 07:10 PM
#57
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by nismology
What i meant was i don't waste money on seafoam. Now i get my .001 HP back for free!!!
09-26-2006, 09:56 PM
#58
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
I guess your time = $0. I know mine is worth more.
09-27-2006, 01:04 PM
#59
im a fan of seafoam. used on 76 chevy truck(my race truck) 89 honda prelude 94 accord , 98 ford winstar, and now 98 max se and no problems ever and in everyone i experienced a smoother idle and a grunt more power, the truck especialy and it only had 1000 miles (if that many) on the motor. did you guys ever think about area and conditions. i have high humidity and live around dirt roads(not on one). seafoam ftw
09-28-2006, 09:04 AM
#62
Originally Posted by d00df00d
How so?
Next, there's no telling how fast he whizzed that blender aparatus of his. Basically, you can get anything to foam if you mix it fast enough.
But, MOST OF ALL, he Photoshopped the results.
09-28-2006, 03:46 PM
#64
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by dr-rjp
First of all, the guy mixes Lucas Oil Stabilizer with 70wt gear oil -- NOT what it's meant for. Lucas is meant to be put in the crankcase and mixed w/ regular engine oil.
Next, there's no telling how fast he whizzed that blender aparatus of his. Basically, you can get anything to foam if you mix it fast enough.
But, MOST OF ALL, he Photoshopped the results.
Next, there's no telling how fast he whizzed that blender aparatus of his. Basically, you can get anything to foam if you mix it fast enough.
But, MOST OF ALL, he Photoshopped the results.
I also got straight A pluses in my physics class and that's not a typo.
To me, it's common sense that the original Lucas Oil Stabilizer, (which I have experience with) in it's Tree Sap or Glue like consistency ... is a horrible thing to add to an engine unless the engine is totally thrashed and you want to limp it for a bit. I don't care what flaws are found, or thought to be found, in Bob Is The Oil Guy's test of Lucas. I agree with his conclusion: Lucas Oil Stabilizer SUCKS/is horrible to put in an engine if you care about it, unless the engine is thrashed and you want to "glue it together" to "limp" it for a bit until it quits.
09-28-2006, 06:35 PM
#65
This ORG has saved me $$$$$$$$
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 665
Tried Seafoam, even watching a video a member made of doing it via the brake booster, didn't notice a d*mn bit of difference. Personnally I think it's a f*cking waste of time and whoever has done it is just imagining things.
Go stick a chrome tail pipe bit on and maybe tint your windows with some nice bubbles in the tint and call it a day.
Go stick a chrome tail pipe bit on and maybe tint your windows with some nice bubbles in the tint and call it a day.
09-28-2006, 07:11 PM
#66
Originally Posted by TempMaxMan
You missed the part about how on a separate engine there was no smoke with the same process because there was nothing significant of carbon/dirt deposits to clean, burn up, spit out.
09-29-2006, 04:49 AM
#67
Originally Posted by Juicey
Tried Seafoam, even watching a video a member made of doing it via the brake booster, didn't notice a d*mn bit of difference. Personnally I think it's a f*cking waste of time and whoever has done it is just imagining things.
Go stick a chrome tail pipe bit on and maybe tint your windows with some nice bubbles in the tint and call it a day.
Go stick a chrome tail pipe bit on and maybe tint your windows with some nice bubbles in the tint and call it a day.
Now, if doing my Deep Creep thing makes no difference, then that means you already have a nice, clean running engine to begin with...which is a good thing.
As they say on TV: "Your results may vary."
09-29-2006, 08:01 AM
#68
Originally Posted by Juicey
Tried Seafoam, even watching a video a member made of doing it via the brake booster, didn't notice a d*mn bit of difference. Personnally I think it's a f*cking waste of time and whoever has done it is just imagining things.
Go stick a chrome tail pipe bit on and maybe tint your windows with some nice bubbles in the tint and call it a day.
Go stick a chrome tail pipe bit on and maybe tint your windows with some nice bubbles in the tint and call it a day.
09-29-2006, 11:02 AM
#69
Originally Posted by Juicey
Tried Seafoam, even watching a video a member made of doing it via the brake booster, didn't notice a d*mn bit of difference. Personnally I think it's a f*cking waste of time and whoever has done it is just imagining things.
Go stick a chrome tail pipe bit on and maybe tint your windows with some nice bubbles in the tint and call it a day.
Go stick a chrome tail pipe bit on and maybe tint your windows with some nice bubbles in the tint and call it a day.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MaximaDrvr
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
16
08-19-2015 08:20 PM