Subaru Crosstrek and XV Forums banner

Carbon Buildup on Valves

39K views 72 replies 20 participants last post by  AstroKats  
#1 ·
I have researched and read multiple threads on this forum and others regarding best motor oil to use, positives and negatives of Direct Injection vs Port Injection, and oil catch cans.


Does anyone have any information or experience regarding issues with carbon buildup on their valves with the FB20 engines in the newer Crosstrek models? Perhaps it is too soon for any problems to manifest themselves. Based on all my reading the potential is there for carbon buildup on the back of the valves because DI does not "wash" that area with fuel whereas the PI does. So my thinking was to use the proper grade of oil which also has the lowest Noack volatility rating. However most oils I have researched (0W20, 5W30, etc.) all have Noack ratings of around 10-15%. But statistically, I would think that even if an oil has a volatility rating of 2 or 3% those vapors would still be recycled back for secondary combustion via the PCV valve and could still potentially build up on the valves.


So I am trying to determine if an oil catch can would be a good idea (even on a non-turbo Crosstrek) or is it just an unnecessary expense since it is a solution looking for a problem?


P.S. I apologize in advance if this is starting a new oil thread -- it is not my intent.
 
#2 ·
Actually, its a reboot of a reboot of this topic. Obviously, there is not any data on carbon buildup at this point. Use qualty top tier gas & good synthetic oil & don't worry about it. But if you cant sleep, add a can & we can compare engines in 4-5 years.
 
#6 ·
Damn it, too late.

Logged in late today, read the first post and got excited to go and tell Okie that SOMEBODY ELSE started an oil thread! Instantly crushed, only three posts later.
 
#10 ·
So I am trying to determine if an oil catch can would be a good idea (even on a non-turbo Crosstrek) or is it just an unnecessary expense since it is a solution looking for a problem?


P.S. I apologize in advance if this is starting a new oil thread -- it is not my intent.
There is a 2018 Crosstrek owner (wolverine) with 600,000 miles on his odometer who participates in a different forum. He installed a oil catch can for the same reason you are discussing. The end result was that it provided no benefit.
 
#18 ·
#31 ·
It seems to me a good oil catch can might be the best option to mitigate the potential carbon build up GDI engines seem to be prone to (if you don’t mind the regular maintenance of emptying it). I’m concerned about the purity of the “oil” that would drain back into the engine in an AOS system. Does anyone have personal experience with either of these options?
 
#32 ·
My friend uses a oil catch can in his direct injection Dacia (Renault). Speaking about knock sensor counter and visual inspections, it has a minimal effect.

He also switched to low residue oil (I have name and specs somewhere) and fills up with 100+ Octane every 3rd time, plus lets the engine fly then, which seems to have more effect on keeping residues low and the cylinders clean.

Subarus 180 degree engine is less prone to this problem than other engines, as there is no extra heat middle cylinder.
 
#33 ·
He also ... fills up with 100+ Octane every 3rd time.
What is the benefit of higher octane here? Unless my understanding of what octane does is completely wrong, there is no benefit of using higher octane fuel than what the vehicle/engine is rated for.


An where the heck does your buddy get 100+ octane fuel? Sneak onto the racetrack at night?
 
#34 ·
Any discussion about octane invariably leads to statements from some cars’ owners that their engine performs better when they use the 91 or 93 (or higher) fuel blends in their vehicles.

For most modern, computer-controlled cars on the road today, this perception is more mental than it is factual. For classic car owners, octane can make a difference from an engine-efficiency standpoint; however, the octane rating of your gasoline has very little to do with the horsepower or torque output of your classic engine as is often alluded to in these conversations.

Octane is simply a measure of the fuel makeup, and its tendency or resistance to cause engine knock or ping when used under duress (higher RPM). The octane index rating is not based on a quantity of a chemical in the fuel mixture, but is a measure of the efficiency of the fuel blend, expressed as a ratio, relative to the efficiency of a pure hydrocarbon, which would have an octane index rating of 100 (or 100 percent). Because gasoline is made up of many different hydrocarbons, the octane rating is a comparison of the anti-knock characteristics of the blend relative to the anti-knock characteristics of a pure hydrocarbon with a 100 percent rating. Aircraft or racing fuels have a rating above 100 because the additives in the fuel raise the efficiency beyond that of a pure hydrocarbon.

Engine knock is caused when the fuel mixture ignites too early, often before the spark plug has fired. Knock often presents itself when there is an increase in engine RPM and cylinder combustion chamber pressures are also increased. The higher the cylinder pressure, the more likely the engine will knock.

Octane is measured by operating an engine under two different conditions and averaged to result in the rating you see displayed on the pump. The first method (R) is to test the fuel mixture for its anti-knock characteristics (as a percentage of efficiency to pure hydrocarbon) when the test engine is under load, the second test (M) measures the anti-knock tendencies when the engine is free-wheeling. The average of the two results is the percentage that is shown on the pump (R+M/2).

octane_450Fuel is required to meet minimum octane efficiency standards of 87 percent to be sold at the pump, with more efficient blends having an efficiency rating of 88 percent to 90 percent considered mid-range gas. Efficiency ratings above 91 percent get the “Premium” designation. Premium gas must be, by law, at or above 91 percent, although you do also see 93 percent octane ultra-premium at many stations.

Although higher octane can cost substantially more per gallon, it does not necessarily mean it is better for your car. Higher octane gas is processed through additional steps that further refine the blend and cause it to burn more slowly than lower octanes. These additional processes are what contribute to the higher pricing, but that does not mean the higher octane will offer any advantage over other blends in many engines. Octane does not offer any better fuel mileage, increase engine horsepower, or make the engine start quicker. Higher octane only reduces the likelihood of engine knock or ping.

On modern computer-controlled cars with fuel injection, the computer is constantly monitoring fuel trim and detonation and making appropriate adjustments in the timing and fuel air mixture to compensate for engine knock. Most of these late-model engines have a sonic knock sensor installed in the cylinder block for just this reason.

As you go back in time to earlier fuel and ignition systems, the octane content becomes more important because the old point distributors and early electronic ignition distributors had only a vacuum advance to correct for engine knock. Exhaust gas recirculation systems were also in their infancy and were not as efficient as modern systems, so they had less effect on reducing knock as well.

Because higher octane gas burns slower, it is more resistant to knock when subjected to higher RPM and cylinder pressures. Compression ratios also factor into cylinder pressures. Higher ratios cause higher cylinder pressures and therefore cause the engine to be more susceptible to pre-detonation or knock.

The introduction of ethanol in fuels further complicates the octane debate. Ethanol has a higher octane rating than hydrocarbons and also ignites at much higher temperatures. Blending ethanol into pump gas will slow the combustion process and reduce the likelihood of engine knock. The delay in the ignition of the mixture, caused by the addition of ethanol, allows the fuel burn to occur while the engine piston is in the down stroke, when there is less cylinder pressure, and this reduces the likelihood of engine knock.

Ethanol can also be used as a method of increasing the octane of a fuel blend by lacing lower octane hydrocarbon-based fuels with higher octane-rated ethanol to arrive at the required octane index rating.

In summary, most modern vehicles do not require higher octane fuels, unless specifically expressed in your owner’s manual (read carefully, because there is a difference between higher octane being “recommended” and “required” in the manual). There are a few high-performance engines that were built with higher compression ratings or use higher RPM camshafts where 91 octane may be needed, but your average Subaru or V-6 Explorer will see no noticeable benefit from using the more expensive blends.

In classic V-8 muscle cars and vintage engines, a higher octane fuel is probably a good idea, but we recommend that you not buy more than you can use quickly. The disadvantages of ethanol-laced fuels are most prevalent when stored inside your gas tank over longer periods of time. The higher octane fuels are slightly less efficient than the lower grades because the retarded ignition will lead to a little less overall power and a scant fewer miles per gallon, but the reduction of wear and tear on your engine should outweigh the extra cost of the higher-rated blends.

Source:https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2014/04/11/tech-101-octane-the-facts-and-the-fiction-behind-those-higher-priced-fuels/#comments-block
 
#36 ·
My buddy (and subsequently I) do not use 100+ octane once in a while to unleash the tiger in the tank. XV ain't no tiger anyway. He tested different fuels and found out (no science, just observation) that revving high for 50+ km on the highway with 100 octane fuel visibly reduces residues, presumably by burning them.

100+ is sold here (good ol' Germany) as Aral Ultimate 102 or Shell V-Power.
 
#42 ·
OK. After reading the posts in this thread I have a question about our GDI and carbon buildup that remains unanswered but that doesn't mean that it was unanswered. I just didn't glean it out of the expert dissertations:

Maybe my view of GDI is too simplistic. Considering the intake valves, isn't there just air passing over the stem surfaces? Here's my picture of the process with GDI: The intake valves open, air only is sucked in by the receding piston, the intake valves close, gas is squirted directly in by the injector, the gas is detonated pushing the piston down, the exhaust valve opens to let the piston push the gas out after which the cycle repeats. How in tarnation does carbon get on the intake valve stems? In both types of injection, carbon will build on the head surface of the valves that experience the combustion. So I fail to see how this is a problem different from port injection. In both cases the valve heads experience the fuel with the cleaning agents. Or do I have it all wrong?
 
#45 ·
OK. After reading the posts in this thread I have a question about our GDI and carbon buildup that remains unanswered but that doesn't mean that it was unanswered. I just didn't glean it out of the expert dissertations:

Maybe my view of GDI is too simplistic. Considering the intake valves, isn't there just air passing over the stem surfaces? Here's my picture of the process with GDI: The intake valves open, air only is sucked in by the receding piston, the intake valves close, gas is squirted directly in by the injector, the gas is detonated pushing the piston down, the exhaust valve opens to let the piston push the gas out after which the cycle repeats. How in tarnation does carbon get on the intake valve stems? In both types of injection, carbon will build on the head surface of the valves that experience the combustion. So I fail to see how this is a problem different from port injection. In both cases the valve heads experience the fuel with the cleaning agents. Or do I have it all wrong?
Maybe carbon is the equivalent to sand when you go to the beach - despite any precautions you may have taken, sand will get into everything even things that were sealed up tight.
 
#43 · (Edited)

Attachments

#44 ·
^^^^ Great read! It explains a lot! Since I tend to be OCD with my cars and engines, my first impression is to get rid of our Subies in favor of port injection cars. In the meantime, my best preventive measure is to change my oil more often than even 5K miles since my drives any more are in 5-mile spurts 2-3 times/day. OMG!
 
#46 ·
^^^^ Great read! It explains a lot! Since I tend to be OCD with my cars and engines, my first impression is to get rid of our Subies in favor of port injection cars. In the meantime, my best preventive measure is to change my oil more often than even 5K miles since my drives any more are in 5-mile spurts 2-3 times/day. OMG!
Here you go bringing up oil in a non-oil thread... :)
 
#55 ·
Use of a fuel system cleaner such as Sea Foam was briefly mentioned and almost dismissed as a preventative measure for carbon buildup. "We don't have any claims that we know for certain that works." That's a particularly non-committal statement.

I have used BG 44K for many years in my older vehicles for overall fuel system **** and spanning, especially my old carbureted Toyota. It does seem to make a difference, but then again I have not disassembled my engines to determine this specifically - it is a purely subjective.

BG 44K is different than others because it does not contain alcohol in the formulation.

A couple of links:

BG 44K product description:

https://www.bgprod.com/catalog/gasoline-fuel-system/bg-44k-fuel-system-cleaner/

BG 44K review and analysis:

https://www.carbibles.com/bg-44k-fuel-system-cleaner/


Here is a link to the Sea Foam site for auto and truck engines. Also an interesting analysis on fuel aging:

https://seafoamsales.com/sea-foam-motor-treatment/
 
#52 · (Edited)
OK kids. In summary and as I have gleaned from everything posted, here's what we need to do in addressing this carbon buildup issue on valves:

1) Use a top tier gas. I use ethanol-free.
2) Keep the fuel injectors clean. With the use of a top tier gas, this may not be too necessary. Per the owners manual page 7-3: If you continuously use a high quality fuel with the proper detergent and other additives, you should never need to add any fuel system cleaning–
3) Change spark plugs per the owners manual.
4) Use full synthetic O I L changed every 5K miles per Seattle's excellent post
5) The effect of a catch can seems to be minimal especially if you do 1) - 4) above.
6) The effect of Seafoam apparently can't be substantiated. But use it only if it gives you a warm fuzzy.

Again, this has been an extremely informative thread. :eek:ccasion14:

UPDATE: added quote from the owners manual
 
#56 ·
I have also heard good things about CRC intake valve cleaner and Subaru actually sells a similar Carbon Clean product. I have had good experience with Sea Foam on prior vehicles. But, this is my first GDI vehicle. From what I understand, to address the kind of carbon build up we are discussing on this thread, the product must be administered through the intake- not as a fuel additive in the tank. It is the position of the injectors with respect to the intake valves (see post 43 above) that keeps fuel additives from helping.