Subaru Upper Engine Cleaner
John_H
Manufactured for Subaru, in Australia, by Bar's Leaks (snake oil
purveyors from way back) it's part of the 12,500km service schedule
listed in the "Warranty and Service Handbook". Strangely, it doesn't
get a mention in either the owner's manual or the service manual, so
it might be Oz only. Mine's 1,500km overdue for the treatment and the
can's still rattling around in the glove box. Possibly there are
warranty implications, to do or not to do is the question!
For those who're not aware of it, the idea is to squirt half a can
into the intake manifold, via one of the vacuum connections, leave
stand for 10 minutes, start the engine and squirt in the rest while
it's running (150 ml or so all up). It's supposed to clean the crap
out of the engine's internals.
Over the years there's been at least two products promoted for the
same purpose. One's Redex, the other's Seafoam. Both are snake oil
in that they claim a number of unlikely benefits when used in various
ways... eg Seafoam is also claimed to clean injectors when used as a
fuel additive (pigs might fly) or you can tip some into the sump to
keep the moisture away. Redex was also promoted as a fuel additive,
and possibly an oil additive as well. (Subaru also market a separate
fuel additive, which is recommended in Australian supplement to the
owner's manual, but it's not part of the service schedule.)
I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies
anything similar... what's different about a Subaru?
--
John H
Jason James
"John_H" <john...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:f5t1f5tlnqtui5o21...@4ax.com...
I've seen people pour small amts of water into the carby-throat,..engine up
to temp. This seems to cause some evacuation of carbon and crap out of the
exhaust. But if you've cleaned up valves, and have noted just how stuck on
the deposits can get, (especially the browny-orange stuff) then water may
not do much more than loosen soft deposits,..but a constant water-ijection
over years, apparently, according to those who have done it, does work.
I've seen Barr's leaks added to a 253 with a rusted Welch-plug actually
work. On strip-down, the plug behind the block had a hard extrusion of
Barr's ooze which did effectively stop the leak. Just took 6 cans :-)
Upper cylinder cleaner can only work if the deposits are already loose, and
as such, probably would come unstuck by themselves. Have you seen a car on
an expressway, blowing huge clouds of bluey-grey smoke? That is because
light pedal driving, has allowed excess soft deposits build-up. My FILs 173
Commy was driven very quietly and any heavy throttle, suddenly, dislodged
vast amounts of oil-soaked carbon. It cleared after a couple of minutes.
Install water-injection :-)
Jason
Fezbet Poppananniou
> Is it snake oil?
>
> Manufactured for Subaru, in Australia, by Bar's Leaks (snake oil
> purveyors from way back) it's part of the 12,500km service schedule
> listed in the "Warranty and Service Handbook". Strangely, it doesn't
> get a mention in either the owner's manual or the service manual, so
> it might be Oz only. Mine's 1,500km overdue for the treatment and the
> can's still rattling around in the glove box. Possibly there are
> warranty implications, to do or not to do is the question!
>
One of the products that many seem to rave about, even
outside of Subaru. I don't think it is any different to
your run of the mill Throttle Body cleaner in a can.
At 12,500kms, I would not imagine it should need it -
unless ofcourse the PVC system is of a design that lets
excess oil to enter the intake.
IMHO, best way to clean your intake manifold and
throttle body is to remove it and clean it. All that
shite (if there is any) end up in your combustion
chamber in an excessive dose.
If you do get it done, ensure its done *before* the oil
change.
hippo
The reason it's specified in Australia for all Subies is that our petrol
has a high sulphur content. For whatever reason, the very long inlet
branching on Subaru engines encourages sulphur (and presumably other gunk)
to build up there.
It *is* part of the service schedule in Oz. If you don't do it at least
every 25,000 I don't think you'll void your warranty but IME with Subies,
your fuel consumption may gradually increase about 10% and then revert to
its usual level once things are cleaned out again. If you know you're
using low sulphur fuel (you lucky fellow!) then the spray's probably not
worth bothering with. Cheers
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
John_H
>
>One of the products that many seem to rave about, even
>outside of Subaru. I don't think it is any different to
>your run of the mill Throttle Body cleaner in a can.
The specific instructions are to apply it via one of the vacuum hoses
connected directly to the inlet manifold... which suggests they don't
want it to get anywhere near the throttle body.
Nor do they (Subaru) say exactly what it's supposed to do, though the
instructions tend to suggest it's primary purpose is to clean the
intake tracts. Whether the intended target is bats, cobwebs or
something else remains a mystery. :)
--
John H
Fezbet Poppananniou
>
> The specific instructions are to apply it via one of the vacuum hoses
> connected directly to the inlet manifold... which suggests they don't
> want it to get anywhere near the throttle body.
Hmmm, maybe its just easier and more convenient to pull
off a vacuum hose than it is to remove intake plumbing.
It may also be quite harsh on various sensors, like air
intake, throttle position sensors and perhaps even the MAF.
Noddy
> I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies
> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru?
Apart from attitude? Nothing.
I think you answered your own question when you mentioned that the stuff is
made for Subaru by Bars. There's nothing intrinsic about an opposed engine
that I'm aware of that demands this kind of "special treatment", nor has it
been something that's been a regular Subaru service requirement for many
years. Personally I think it's snake oil, and I'd be more concerned with
regular oil and filter changes (which I'm sure you are) than using any
"clean out crap" that's likely to do little other than lighten your wallet.
I'd like to see the fine print that states this is stuff is a warranty
requirement myself.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Clocky
Boxer engine, and it significantly reduced hotspots by removing the carbon
that causes it and consequently helps reduce pinking that Subaru engines are
prone to.
John_H
>> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru?
>
>Boxer engine, and it significantly reduced hotspots by removing the carbon
>that causes it and consequently helps reduce pinking that Subaru engines are
>prone to.
Engine is a 3.0R, which doesn't ping even on 91 RON, no doubt because
the ignition timing is sufficiently adaptive. Of course any tendency
to ping, as seen by the knock sensor, would result in reduced
performance (and increased fuel consumption).
Being made in Australia, and not mentioned in any of the manuals,
strongly suggests the product is local market only... if that's the
case what's different about Australian carbon? :)
The other problem I have with the carbon explanation is its being
insoluble... you can either scrape it off or burn it off. The
instructions say to leave soak for 10 minutes without running the
engine which also suggests it's intended to dissolve something in the
intake tract, rather than the combustion chambers. Obviously any
combustion chambers behind closed valves won't even get to see it
before the engine is started!
The instructions for SeaFoam (US made snake oil) are to pour it in
with the engine idling until it stalls... the intention being to make
sure there's plenty of it in the combustion chambers. It'd be a
pretty safe bet it doesn't remove carbon either, in spite of the
claims.
Some say the Subaru product is SeaFoam (same recipe) but I've got no
idea if that's true.
--
John H
Clocky
> Clocky wrote:
>>"John_H" <john...@inbox.com> wrote in message
>>news:f5t1f5tlnqtui5o21...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies
>>> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru?
>>
>>Boxer engine, and it significantly reduced hotspots by removing the carbon
>>that causes it and consequently helps reduce pinking that Subaru engines
>>are
>>prone to.
>
> Engine is a 3.0R, which doesn't ping even on 91 RON, no doubt because
> the ignition timing is sufficiently adaptive. Of course any tendency
> to ping, as seen by the knock sensor, would result in reduced
> performance (and increased fuel consumption).
>
> Being made in Australia, and not mentioned in any of the manuals,
> strongly suggests the product is local market only... if that's the
> case what's different about Australian carbon? :)
People often using fuel that isn't 91 RON.
> The other problem I have with the carbon explanation is its being
> insoluble... you can either scrape it off or burn it off. The
> instructions say to leave soak for 10 minutes without running the
> engine which also suggests it's intended to dissolve something in the
> intake tract, rather than the combustion chambers. Obviously any
> combustion chambers behind closed valves won't even get to see it
> before the engine is started!
Whatever, all I know is that it works and carbon in the combustion chamber
causing pinking has been an issue for a long time with using regular ULP
with Subaru engines and the upper cylinder cleaner removes it.
> The instructions for SeaFoam (US made snake oil) are to pour it in
> with the engine idling until it stalls... the intention being to make
> sure there's plenty of it in the combustion chambers. It'd be a
> pretty safe bet it doesn't remove carbon either, in spite of the
> claims.
>
> Some say the Subaru product is SeaFoam (same recipe) but I've got no
> idea if that's true.
>
The genuine stuff seems to work very well with the Subaru engines, no idea
who made/makes it.
John_H
>John_H wrote:
>>
>> I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies
>> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru?
>
>The reason it's specified in Australia for all Subies is that our petrol
>has a high sulphur content. For whatever reason, the very long inlet
>branching on Subaru engines encourages sulphur (and presumably other gunk)
>to build up there.
>It *is* part of the service schedule in Oz. If you don't do it at least
>every 25,000 I don't think you'll void your warranty but IME with Subies,
>your fuel consumption may gradually increase about 10% and then revert to
>its usual level once things are cleaned out again. If you know you're
>using low sulphur fuel (you lucky fellow!) then the spray's probably not
>worth bothering with.
Yours is the only explanation I've heard, or managed to find, that's
consistent with the instructions (obviously aimed at removing
something from the intake tracts) as well as what appears to be a
peculiarly local issue! Can you provide anything further to support
it... eg Subaru service advisory note, detrimental effects of sulphur
in petrol, etc?
Also.... I don't recall you saying how long you've been here so you
may not be aware of the stink associated with the first cat
converters. I bought a new VN in 1990 that was as vile as the rest.
As the years went by the stink subsided and I assumed the cat had
gotten tired... I now know it's down to the reduction in sulphur
content. None seem to stink anymore!
I've no idea at what levels the stink ceases but obviously there's a
lot less sulphur than there used to be. Nor can I recall any problems
arising from the earlier high levels in any make of car, including
Subaru's.
The other issue is the increased fuel consumption you mention. To my
way of thinking, any deposits in the runners are no more likely to
increase fuel consumption than a hiclone would be likely to decrease
it. A possible explanation would be something forming in the manifold
that might migrate to the combustion chambers forming deposits there.
I do monitor fuel consumption closely and it's always been consistent,
10� to 11litre/100km. The exception being when I'm forced to run 91
RON, which increases consumption by around 10% (as you'd reasonably
expect from adaptive ignition timing).
The Subaru shit costs around $15 a can, which isn't a major
impediment... I'm more interested in what it might do, if anything.
Current thinking after reading your post is to administer it at the
next service and see if I can notice any difference, if I can't I'm
unlikely to buy a second can.
On a similar theme, I know lots of people who run their 91 RON engines
on Premium, fit hiclones, etc, and do notice the difference. I never
can. For some odd reason if a plug lead drops off the same people
never seem to notice but I always do. Which makes me think there just
might be an underlying principle in all of this. ;-)
--
John H
John_H
>
>The genuine stuff seems to work very well with the Subaru engines, no idea
>who made/makes it.
Try reading what's written on the can. ;-)
It's made in Australia by Bar's Leaks!!! :-)
--
John H
hippo
I've been here since '72 and used to drive 50-90,000Km a year, so yes, I
remember the smell all too well. I can't say I miss our VN awfully much,
although
it did hold heaps of sound gear on occasions....
We had a 1991 Liberty and a 1999 OB, both wagons. AFAIR, the upper engine
cleaner was listed as a service item in the service book for both cars.
The books stayed with the cars when they moved on, so I can't check that.
I questioned both the Service manager at a local dealership and someone at
Subaru Australia. I *think* that both of them gave me the same explanation
at the time - prob mid 90s. In our experience over about 500,000Km in the
two cars, not using it started to increase fuel consumption after about
15K in the Liberty and 18K in the OB. Mind you, using 98 in our Outback
always *increased* fuel consumption by about 1Km/L too!
Possibly by now the gradual lowering of allowable sulphur in Oz fuels
means that it's no longer a problem, but I missed doing it at one oil
change late in '07 and still noticed the usual difference about 5,000 Kms
later, so there you go.
Try it and see, after all, one particular car / pair of drivers means
nothing statistically. Cheers
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
John_H
>
>We had a 1991 Liberty and a 1999 OB, both wagons. AFAIR, the upper engine
>cleaner was listed as a service item in the service book for both cars.
>The books stayed with the cars when they moved on, so I can't check that.
Interesting info, which tells me it's been around for yonks. Also be
interesting to know if it predates EFI, where whatever it might remove
would presumably have been a worse problem in the days before knock
sensors.
>I questioned both the Service manager at a local dealership and someone at
>Subaru Australia. I *think* that both of them gave me the same explanation
>at the time - prob mid 90s. In our experience over about 500,000Km in the
>two cars, not using it started to increase fuel consumption after about
>15K in the Liberty and 18K in the OB. Mind you, using 98 in our Outback
>always *increased* fuel consumption by about 1Km/L too!
Any measurable increase in fuel consumption is something I'd soon
notice and it hasn't happened yet (with only 14k from new). It's a
3.0R Outback and 98 RON has never affected it one way or the other but
91 RON certainly does (as well as the overall performance). It
normally gets 95 RON, as specified, unless unavailable.
On the strength of your observations I'll withhold the treatment until
the next service unless something untoward happens in the meantime.
By then, if it's going to do anything useful the effect ought be
obvious. ;-)
FWIW SeaFoam has been around since the end of WW2 but has never had a
big following here AFAIK. It's used in a similar fashion to the Subie
stuff (some say it's the same thing). There's a video at the bottom
of the page....
http://www.seafoamsales.com/motor-treatment/index.html
--
John H
us...@domain.invalid
have done for years , on pull down they are always spotless and usually
unless a silly amount of boost is used they dn't ping either so I assume
it's a useful thing to do
I just bought a 20 litre Methanol last week and it's cheaper than
petrol .
John_H
>
>Just as a note I use water injection/methanol on my boosted motors and
>have done for years , on pull down they are always spotless and usually
>unless a silly amount of boost is used they dn't ping either so I assume
>it's a useful thing to do
> I just bought a 20 litre Methanol last week and it's cheaper than
>petrol .
I'm aware of the benefits, as well as water being about the only thing
that does reliably remove carbon. It's just not something I want to
muck about with in this instance.
The majority of modern engines produce very little by way of deposits
in combustion chambers and on piston tops. I've only ever found it to
be an issue on engines with way too high a CR and fixed ignition
timing... anything that's stock n.a. with a knock sensor should retard
the timing to the point where pinging stops.
Not that I can be certain since I haven't heard an engine ping for
years (the accumulated effect of straight out exhausts, crawler
tractors, and centre fire rifles). Wife still has good hearing though
and can usually be depended upon to make loud low frequency noises I
can hear (which hasn't ever happened for an engine with a knock
sensor). ;-)
She tells me that the Mazda ute pings immediately before it kicks down
to 4th when it's lugging in 5th, but it's on 91 RON without a knock
sensor. Not that the occasional brief ping ever hurt anything! :)
--
John H
Clocky
> Clocky wrote:
>>
>>The genuine stuff seems to work very well with the Subaru engines, no idea
>>who made/makes it.
>
> Try reading what's written on the can. ;-)
The stuff we used to use when I was working for Subaru had Subaru written on
it, along with the corporate logo and Japanese writing.
> It's made in Australia by Bar's Leaks!!! :-)
>
Maybe it is these days, but not when I was working for Subaru.
Clocky
"Bernd Felsche" <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:q79as6x...@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> John_H <john...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>Clocky wrote:
>
>>>Boxer engine, and it significantly reduced hotspots by removing
>>>the carbon that causes it and consequently helps reduce pinking
>>>that Subaru engines are prone to.
>
>>Engine is a 3.0R, which doesn't ping even on 91 RON, no doubt because
>>the ignition timing is sufficiently adaptive. Of course any tendency
>>to ping, as seen by the knock sensor, would result in reduced
>>performance (and increased fuel consumption).
>
> When you're no longer happy with the reduced performance, time for
> the enem^wtop-end cleaner.
>
>>Some say the Subaru product is SeaFoam (same recipe) but I've got no
>>idea if that's true.
>
> the combustion chamber. The main point is to clean the vales, seats
> and inlet tract.
It was called upper cylinder cleaner - make of that what you will.
John_H
>"Bernd Felsche" <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>news:q79as6x...@innovative.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> the combustion chamber. The main point is to clean the vales, seats
>> and inlet tract.
>
>It was called upper cylinder cleaner - make of that what you will.
Snake oil, by any other name. ;-)
What Subaru Australia currently list in the 12,500km service schedule
is called "Upper Engine Cleaner" (part # SA459). Nowhere in the
instructions, or on the label, is upper cylinder mentioned and nor is
there any claim it removes carbon or combustion chamber deposits.
They also recommend a "fuel additive" (part # SA718), which isn't
listed in the service schedule. I have no idea what it's supposed to
do.
--
John H
Jason James
The Camry (9.8:1) pings for the duration of the anti-knock attack time when
down low in 4th with a throttle increase,..on E10 its OK.
Jason
D Walford
answers for.
Our Impreza hasn't had either the Upper Cylinder Cleaner or the fuel
treatment for more than 20,000klms and its running perfectly.
Maybe its needed for cars that do a lot of stop start type driving?
Daryl
D Walford
Would using 98 PULP remove the need for the treatment?
We have never used anything other than 98 in ours and I've never heard
any pinging.
Daryl
Noddy
"D Walford" <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:007d8dec$0$26935$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Very good questions that I have thought about but not come up with any
> answers for.
> Our Impreza hasn't had either the Upper Cylinder Cleaner or the fuel
> treatment for more than 20,000klms and its running perfectly.
> Maybe its needed for cars that do a lot of stop start type driving?
More than anything else it's probably needed for dealerships to whack an
extra hunjie in their bank account :)
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Bernd Felsche
>Would using 98 PULP remove the need for the treatment?
>We have never used anything other than 98 in ours and I've never heard
>any pinging.
Fuel consumption increase, without any other reason, would be the
result of the engine backing off the timing to avoid audible pinging.
Retarding the timing reduces the peak pressure because the flame
propagates later into the combustion space that's expanding more
rapidly. (Sinusoidal)
Reduced pressure means less torque. So either you drive a bit slower
or subconsiously compensate, opening the throttle further and using
a bit more fuel. i.e. higher fuel consumption.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly
/ \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx
John_H
>
>Our Impreza hasn't had either the Upper Cylinder Cleaner or the fuel
>treatment for more than 20,000klms and its running perfectly.
>Maybe its needed for cars that do a lot of stop start type driving?
Upper _Engine_ Cleaner is needed at every service according to Subaru
Australia, irrespective of what type of running (or what type of
fuel)... see your Warranty and Service Handbook. It's therefore
included in the dealer service and you'd be charged accordingly.
It doesn't claim to clean the combustion chambers BTW, only the intake
tracts. Their recommended fuel additive (which may or may not be an
upper cylinder treatment) isn't part of the maintenance schedule. See
the Australian supplement to your Owners Manual.
--
John H
John_H
>
>The Camry (9.8:1) pings for the duration of the anti-knock attack time when
>down low in 4th with a throttle increase,..on E10 its OK.
I'd suspect any difference in 91 RON E10 vs ULP would be down to batch
variations or age. Even slight differences in octane rating can have
a significant effect in some instances (a fact that's long been
exploited by many commercial products sold as octane boosters).
In any case, a cheaper option would probably be to use 95 RON PULP,
since the increased fuel consumption of the E10 will more than offset
the price difference. Theoretical increase is 4%, based on energy
content. Many people (me included) reckon it's nearer 10%, based on
real life fuel consumption figures. With adaptive ignition timing
(knock sensor) the difference between E10 and conventional PULP could
be even greater.
--
John H
D Walford
> D Walford <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> Would using 98 PULP remove the need for the treatment?
>> We have never used anything other than 98 in ours and I've never heard
>> any pinging.
>
> Fuel consumption increase, without any other reason, would be the
> result of the engine backing off the timing to avoid audible pinging.
>
> Retarding the timing reduces the peak pressure because the flame
> propagates later into the combustion space that's expanding more
> rapidly. (Sinusoidal)
>
> Reduced pressure means less torque. So either you drive a bit slower
> or subconsiously compensate, opening the throttle further and using
> a bit more fuel. i.e. higher fuel consumption.
Haven't noticed any fuel consumption increase but since the car hasn't
been used much in the last couple of months due to my wife's broken foot
I'll have to keep an eye on the consumption when she starts driving again.
Daryl
Clocky
Using 98RON you shouldn't have too much to worry about.
Jeßus
am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au said...
:
<snip>
:The reason it's specified in Australia for all Subies is that our petrol
:has a high sulphur content.
Does that also apply to our 98RON?
hippo
Permissible sulphur content in Oz fuel has been lowered significantly over
the last 20 years. MAybe someone who still has a Subie can ring Tech
Support in Moorebank(?) and ask them the pertinenet question for 98RON. I
don't have the number anymore and finding it is currently low on a rather
large list of Fings To Do - although I would be interested in their
response. Cheers
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
John_H
Better still, check the Australian fuel standards for petrol (google
should find 'em). According to figures I've got....
From Jan 2002 500ppm max sulphur.
From Jan 2005 150ppm max sulphur.
Since Jan 2008 50ppm max sulphur.
The standards make no distinction between octane ratings. In other
words (and in spite of rumours spread by oilcos) there's absolutely no
reason to presume that 98 RON is in any way superior to 91 RON, or 95
RON, for other than its octane rating.
AFAIK the current Australian standard for sulphur content (50ppm) is
identical to Euro IV (google should confirm it).
--
John H
hippo
..so I guess there *should* by now be absolutely no reason to use the
stuff, unless it's worth doing a cleanout at the major (100K) interval.
It's already four figures, so another 30 bucks isn't going to make much
difference :)
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
John_H
If the sulphur explanation is correct, and I'm yet to hear a better
one, it's probably been in the same realm as snake oil since at least
January 2008. AFAIK it's still included in the 12,500 km maintainance
schedule though.
--
John H
hippo
Well, I'll guarantee that's the explanation I was given at the time and it
was entirely credible. If I was buying another one now though, I don't
think I'd bother unless the car was showing a lack of performance &/or
increased thirst for no other apparent reason. For now though, I'll keep
my elderly Saab and drive my wife's 206GTi whenever the opportunity
presents itself :)
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
barsle...@gmail.com
F Murtz
D Walford
they leak so bad they need Bars Leaks before they leave the factory.
Over the last several decades Bar's have been added as original
equipment on many types of machines all over the globe.
Something very wrong if Bar's Leaks is needed before a machine leaves
the factory.
Snake oils don't really last in the market.
Not saying that Bars Leaks doesn't work because I know it does but its
no substitute for a well made cooling system or a proper repair.
--
Daryl
Lindsay
>> -- Posted at www.usenet.com.au
>
> I am the Vice President of Bar's Products International, the company
> that formulated the product for our partner in Australia. We are the
> only manufacturer of TEC (Subaru Upper Engine Cleaner) in the world.
> It is very different than other products. Very aggressive. .
You
> are incorrect that Bar's Leaks is close to Sea Foam.
> I implore you
As the VP of a manufacturing Co, your actually imploring someone to use
your canned sludge, via a gmail account, and posting via Google groups..
Does your company not have it's own email accounts and mail server? :-D
> to try out product and you will see why it is a top seller.
BTW,
> Bar's Leaks is used in the manufacturing process of approx. 70% of
> american made vehicles. Over the last several decades Bar's have
> been added as original equipment on many types of machines all over
> the globe. Snake oils don't really last in the market.
Bar's has
> been in the international markets (USA Included) since 1959. Bar's
> saved the mission of a 300 million dollar (in 1958) submarine when
> the condenser system started to leak.
> Faced with failure the
> Commander order his men to go to port in Seattle and find all the
> bars they could.
Seattle, and sailors are renown for enjoying themselves in port.
> 140 liters later,
Is that beer intake per sailor?
> the mission was saved and the Submarine
into it's guts whilst in port? Not USS Nautilus, surely! The first sub
to cross the North Pole underwater, and it had a gut full of Bars leaks?
A nuclear powered sub? Bwahahahahahahahaha
Admiral Tommy! This dickhead is trying to usurp you!!!!
> successfully went under the ocean across the north pole!
The "sub" in question was supposedly in one of the US Navy's repair and
maintenance yards, Puget Sound, and the Commander sent the crew out for
Bars Leaks, rather than install a new condenser (I can only presume you
mean a condenser for the power plant) before it tried to do something no
submarine ever tried to do???
Really???
Did you say your name was Admiral Tom Clasener? He knows all about this
sort of shit. After all, he said boats use tyres as fenders, therefore
cars could as well.. : "Ah, got that sorted then. We'll hang old tyres
on the sides of our cars and that will serve two purposes, provide an
impact absorbing "marine bumper" and recycle old tyres." and of course,
what he doesnt know, is not on Google.
Is Tommy any help to you? Coz he's fucking hopeless here.. :-D
> Less Bar's and many would have been returning their vehicles due to
> leaks. So, I hope I could help clarify.
trolls i think I've seen.. You've absolutely flogged Felix..
But it's fucking hilarious anyway! :-D
Oh, and in case my memory has failed:
E&OE.
:-D
bars leaks in a nuclear powered sub.. oh fuck... Thats the funniest
thing I've heard since Tommy talked shit about calf feeders. :-D
Please. keep 'em coming.. :-D
Lindsay
> Bar's has
>> been in the international markets (USA Included) since 1959. Bar's
>> saved the mission of a 300 million dollar (in 1958) submarine when
>> the condenser system started to leak.
Bars has been in the market since 1959. As you say above.
No issue with that, none whatsoever. (much)
The next sentence, you say you saved a 300 million dollar (in 1958)
submarine...
So you're a Time Lord now, as well? Tommy will be impressed! :-D
Clocky
> Is it snake oil?
>
> Manufactured for Subaru, in Australia, by Bar's Leaks (snake oil
> purveyors from way back) it's part of the 12,500km service schedule
> listed in the "Warranty and Service Handbook". Strangely, it doesn't
> get a mention in either the owner's manual or the service manual, so
> it might be Oz only. Mine's 1,500km overdue for the treatment and the
> can's still rattling around in the glove box. Possibly there are
> warranty implications, to do or not to do is the question!
>
> For those who're not aware of it, the idea is to squirt half a can
> into the intake manifold, via one of the vacuum connections, leave
> stand for 10 minutes, start the engine and squirt in the rest while
> it's running (150 ml or so all up). It's supposed to clean the crap
> out of the engine's internals.
>
> Over the years there's been at least two products promoted for the
> same purpose. One's Redex, the other's Seafoam. Both are snake oil
> in that they claim a number of unlikely benefits when used in various
> ways... eg Seafoam is also claimed to clean injectors when used as a
> fuel additive (pigs might fly) or you can tip some into the sump to
> keep the moisture away. Redex was also promoted as a fuel additive,
> and possibly an oil additive as well. (Subaru also market a separate
> fuel additive, which is recommended in Australian supplement to the
> owner's manual, but it's not part of the service schedule.)
>
> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru?
>
Subaru have recommended the treatment for many, many years.
It's to clear out carbon deposits from the combustion chamber, which,
when they build up can cause pinging (or pinking depending on where
you're from) or so it was said.
Aussie fuel quality may be a factor.
Whether it makes a difference or not I'll let you decide. The idea is to
feed it into the manifold so it's distributed evenly to each cylinder
but I guess that's not news to you.
Jeßus
>On Monday, November 9, 2009 at 3:32:57 PM UTC-8, hippo wrote:
>> John_H wrote:
>> >
>> > hippo wrote:
>> > >John_H wrote:
>> > >> hippo wrote:
Noddy
>> mission was saved and the Submarine successfully went under the
>> ocean across the north pole! Less Bar's and many would have been
>> returning their vehicles due to leaks. So, I hope I could help
>> clarify.
>
> It's a bit early for popcorn, but fuck it...
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
>> I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies
>> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru?
>
> The boxer engine presumably.
cylinder down on it's side suddenly causes it to "carbon up" in a way
that other horizontally opposed engines don't :)
> Subaru have recommended the treatment for many, many years.
> It's to clear out carbon deposits from the combustion chamber, which,
> when they build up can cause pinging (or pinking depending on where
> you're from) or so it was said.
> Aussie fuel quality may be a factor.
>
> Whether it makes a difference or not I'll let you decide. The idea is to
> feed it into the manifold so it's distributed evenly to each cylinder
> but I guess that's not news to you.
"special", while at the same time making them pay for that privilege. If
it was branded "Wynns" or "Nulon" you'd be screaming "bullshit", but
because it's a "Subaru" product you think it's completely different :)
There is nothing intrinsically special about Subaru engines that
requires them to have any special, regular "cleaning process" any more
or less than any *other* engine.
D Walford
Subaru is dealer serviced because SWMBO insists so it gets the full
treatment, daughter in laws Subaru is lucky if it gets serviced at all,
both cars run perfectly:-)
--
Daryl
felix
> On 08/09/16 1:12 AM, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> I'd also be curious as to whether any other manufacturer specifies
>>> anything similar... what's different about a Subaru?
>>
>> The boxer engine presumably.
>
> It's got nothing to do with the engine, unless you believe that laying
> a cylinder down on it's side suddenly causes it to "carbon up" in a
> way that other horizontally opposed engines don't :)
>
>> Subaru have recommended the treatment for many, many years.
>
> And for each and every one of those years it's been nothing but snake
> oil.
>
>> It's to clear out carbon deposits from the combustion chamber, which,
>> when they build up can cause pinging (or pinking depending on where
>> you're from) or so it was said.
>> Aussie fuel quality may be a factor.
>>
>> Whether it makes a difference or not I'll let you decide. The idea is to
>> feed it into the manifold so it's distributed evenly to each cylinder
>> but I guess that's not news to you.
>
> The idea behind it is to make the owner feel that their engine is
> "special", while at the same time making them pay for that privilege.
everything with you, isn't there. couldn't be that Suburu are simply
wanting to do the right thing by their vehicles owners and keep their
cars in top condition
> If it was branded "Wynns" or "Nulon" you'd be screaming "bullshit",
> but because it's a "Subaru" product you think it's completely
> different :)
>
> There is nothing intrinsically special about Subaru engines that
> requires them to have any special, regular "cleaning process" any more
> or less than any *other* engine.
>
>
>
>
>
--
from the testimony of one pedophile"
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
Noddy
>> There is nothing intrinsically special about Subaru engines that
>> requires them to have any special, regular "cleaning process" any more
>> or less than any *other* engine.
>
> I sort of have a "controlled" experiment on that subject here, our
> Subaru is dealer serviced because SWMBO insists so it gets the full
> treatment, daughter in laws Subaru is lucky if it gets serviced at all,
> both cars run perfectly:-)
Noddy
>> The idea behind it is to make the owner feel that their engine is
>> "special", while at the same time making them pay for that privilege.
>
> there's always some sinister or deceptive or malicious reason for
> everything with you, isn't there. couldn't be that Suburu are simply
> wanting to do the right thing by their vehicles owners and keep their
> cars in top condition
them to make money. It's certainly not going to *hurt* the engine. It's
not going to to anything magically wonderful for it.
Of course, you're the mechanical expert here, so ask yourself why it is
that Subaru feel the need to do it but few others do.
Clocky
maintenance to help prevent the pinging and knocking the Subaru Boxer
engine is prone to under certain circumstances where carbon build up in
the combustion chamber causes hot-spotting and pre-ignition/detonation
in cars with higher mileage.
That is undesirable and regular removal of the carbon keeps it in check.
Noddy
>> I sort of have a "controlled" experiment on that subject here, our
>> Subaru is dealer serviced because SWMBO insists so it gets the full
>> treatment, daughter in laws Subaru is lucky if it gets serviced at all,
>> both cars run perfectly:-)
>>
>>
>
> The upper cylinder cleaner is nothing more then a preventative
> maintenance to help prevent the pinging and knocking the Subaru Boxer
> engine is prone to under certain circumstances where carbon build up in
> the combustion chamber causes hot-spotting and pre-ignition/detonation
> in cars with higher mileage.
pinging or "knocking" that makes it different to any other?
> That is undesirable and regular removal of the carbon keeps it in check.
highly unlikely to do anything other than lighten your wallet, but then
you used to work for a Subaru dealership.
Right?
John_H
>On 08/09/16 1:12 AM, Clocky wrote:
>
>> It's to clear out carbon deposits from the combustion chamber, which,
>> when they build up can cause pinging (or pinking depending on where
>> you're from) or so it was said.
>> Aussie fuel quality may be a factor.
>>
>> Whether it makes a difference or not I'll let you decide. The idea is to
>> feed it into the manifold so it's distributed evenly to each cylinder
>> but I guess that's not news to you.
>
>The idea behind it is to make the owner feel that their engine is
>"special", while at the same time making them pay for that privilege. If
>it was branded "Wynns" or "Nulon" you'd be screaming "bullshit", but
>because it's a "Subaru" product you think it's completely different :)
the service schedule for a Subaru BRZ but apparently not for a Toyota
86 (which is a rebadged BRZ).
Nor does it contain anything that's likely to remove carbon even if it
did cause pinging (which it won't if the knock sensor is doing it's
job).
--
John H
Jeßus
wrote:
>The idea behind it is to make the owner feel that their engine is
>"special", while at the same time making them pay for that privilege. If
>it was branded "Wynns" or "Nulon" you'd be screaming "bullshit", but
>because it's a "Subaru" product you think it's completely different :)
>
>There is nothing intrinsically special about Subaru engines that
>requires them to have any special, regular "cleaning process" any more
>or less than any *other* engine.
never used additives. Just scheduled oil changes with Magnatec and no
dramas here so far. Doesn't use a drop of oil between services.
Jeßus
>The upper cylinder cleaner is nothing more then a preventative
>maintenance to help prevent the pinging and knocking the Subaru Boxer
>engine is prone to under certain circumstances where carbon build up in
>the combustion chamber causes hot-spotting and pre-ignition/detonation
>in cars with higher mileage.
problem with Subarus.
Clocky
Jeßus
>As if any proof is needed... Subaru Upper Engine Cleaner is part of
>the service schedule for a Subaru BRZ but apparently not for a Toyota
>86 (which is a rebadged BRZ).
Noddy
>> The idea behind it is to make the owner feel that their engine is
>> "special", while at the same time making them pay for that privilege. If
>> it was branded "Wynns" or "Nulon" you'd be screaming "bullshit", but
>> because it's a "Subaru" product you think it's completely different :)
>
> As if any proof is needed... Subaru Upper Engine Cleaner is part of
> the service schedule for a Subaru BRZ but apparently not for a Toyota
> 86 (which is a rebadged BRZ).
>
> Nor does it contain anything that's likely to remove carbon even if it
> did cause pinging (which it won't if the knock sensor is doing it's
> job).
Noddy
>> As if any proof is needed... Subaru Upper Engine Cleaner is part of
>> the service schedule for a Subaru BRZ but apparently not for a Toyota
>> 86 (which is a rebadged BRZ).
>
> Case closed :)
Noddy
>> there's always some sinister or deceptive or malicious reason for
>> everything with you, isn't there. couldn't be that Suburu are simply
>> wanting to do the right thing by their vehicles owners and keep their
>> cars in top condition
>
>
> It's just preventative maintenance, simple as that...
Nothing more than that.
Noddy
>> There is nothing intrinsically special about Subaru engines that
>> requires them to have any special, regular "cleaning process" any more
>> or less than any *other* engine.
>
> My EJ20 engine has done 173000, I put 90000 of that on it and have
> never used additives. Just scheduled oil changes with Magnatec and no
> dramas here so far. Doesn't use a drop of oil between services.
years without so much as a hiccup despite not being subjected to the
"upper cylinder clean" treatment.
The stuff is of no more value than the "upper cylinder lubrication" kits
that a lot of lpg installers like to sell people, which is nothing other
than a bottle of oil fed into the inlet manifold by a small tube with a
fixed orifice jet.
No one has yet been able to explain how having oil run through the inlet
manifold is a good idea, or why an engine that was original designed to
run on unleaded fuel even *needs* such a kit installed to burn LPG :)
felix
suggesting they're just trying to scam their customers
felix
whatsoever. they're just wanting to rip off their customers
felix
felix
Xeno
--
Xeno
First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.
Mahatma Ghandi
Clocky
Xeno
> On 08/09/16 3:45 PM, Je�us wrote:
>
>>> As if any proof is needed... Subaru Upper Engine Cleaner is part of
>>> the service schedule for a Subaru BRZ but apparently not for a Toyota
>>> 86 (which is a rebadged BRZ).
>>
>> Case closed :)
>
> Absolutely :)
>
>
>
The upshot of that is you don't know *where* to look for the answers nor
even *what* to look for. Even Google can't help you in this case. It's
sad, truly sad!
The engine in question is GDI. Actually, in the case of the Toyota
iteration, it's a bit of a hybrid. You see, the engine used in the
Toyota isn't quite the same as used in the Subaru. The difference is
subtle but very, very relevant to this circumstance.
For a start, we're dealing with carbon buildup here. The first issue we
need to deal with is what causes carbon buildup to occur. The problem is
that it would take a rather large treatise to explain that and I
wouldn't want to get accused of providing a treatise that no one asked
for, would I? So, for that circumstance, do your own research. I already
have and that was years ago.
That leaves us with a rather less expansive question, where is the
carbon buildup? If we go back to basics and look at where carbon builds
up in a carbureted engine, that will give us some insight. Ok, in the
good old days carbon buildup occurred in three (3) places where it could
cause issues.
The first and most obvious of these is the combustion chamber where it
can interfere with combustion in a myriad ways and cause an increase in
the 'effective' compression ratio leading to detonation. Nasty!
A little less obvious is buildup of carbon on the back of the inlet
valve. In this position the carbon buildup can interfere with air flow.
In the days of carburetors this was rarely a problem and if you had a
basic handle on the fuel system operation, you would understand why this
was so
Even less obvious was carbon buildup in the *intake manifold*. Again, if
you understand why carbon buildup occurs, it's obvious. So where in the
manifold does it occur? The hot spot, the place where the exhaust and
intake manifold are connected and where heat is provided to assist with
the vapourisation of the fuel air mixture. Carbon buildup here provides
insulation thereby extending the warmup period as the fuel droplets take
longer to vapourise.
But the engine in question is GDI. Fuel isn't coarsely sprayed in to the
manifold. Instead, fuel is injected in a much finer spray and this
assists the vapourisation. So, no manifold of the same nature as a
carbureted engine so we are left with two potential spots for carbon to
build up - the combustion chamber and the back of the inlet valve. The
combustion chamber already has a system to deal with and prevent carbon
buildup. This system has been in use for over 30 years and was
introduced, either by accident or design, when engine management systems
started using feedback systems.
That leaves us with the back of the inlet valve. The system that manages
and controls carbon buildup cannot do anything about carbon buildup
here. The reason? The valve is *closed* when the combustion chamber
carbon management system is doing its job.
So where does the carbon on the back of the valve come from given the
engine is GDI?? It simply cannot come from the fuel system because of
GDI and the back of the inlet valve is *not exposed*. You can cogitate
on that for a while.
Here's a question posted on a forum;
I'm very curious what Subaru is going to do to combat the carbon
build up on the back of the valves that comes from only having
direct injectors. BMW and GM are already having lots of issues with
this.
THIS forum; http://tinyurl.com/hvhmk6q
One of the responses was this;
This. I would probably spray a bottle of Seafoam though the intake
each time I changed the oil, but how effective would it be?
Looks oddly like the solution Clocky was talking about, doesn't it?
Don't know what *Seafoam* is? Go look it up, Google is your friend!
Another response to the question was this;
Another reason why I think it wasn't Subaru ditching the d4s but
rather Toyota wanting to keep that technology firmly in their
grasp. Toyota's a business and one of the most successful in
history. I can't see them handing over all their d4s tech that
they took years to develop to a partner/competitor that never had
any DI tech prior who can potentially use it for their own
interests.
The clue is in there. Again, Google is your friend here. The clue is in
the mysterious *d4s tech*. Pump that into Google along with the word
*Toyota* and it will all become very clear.
You will realise that ALL OF YOU ARE WRONG and Clocky is right. The
Toyota 86 has ds4 tech, the Subaru with the same engine does not. It is
that simple! The Toyota system *washes* the back of the inlet valve, the
Subaru system cannot possibly do that because it does NOT have *ds4 tech*.
Yes, the engines are essentially the same but the engine management
system is DIFFERENT.
You can all apologise to Clocky any time after your faces have lost
their reddened hue.
In the mean time, I'll just be ROTFLMFAO.
Xeno
> On 08-September-2016 10:50 AM, Noddy wrote:
>> On 08/09/16 10:26 AM, felix wrote:
>>
>>>> The idea behind it is to make the owner feel that their engine is
>>>> "special", while at the same time making them pay for that privilege.
>>>
>>> there's always some sinister or deceptive or malicious reason for
>>> everything with you, isn't there. couldn't be that Suburu are simply
>>> wanting to do the right thing by their vehicles owners and keep their
>>> cars in top condition
>>
>> There is nothing "sinister" about it at all Felix. It's just a means
>> for them to make money. It's certainly not going to *hurt* the engine.
>> It's not going to to anything magically wonderful for it.
>>
>> Of course, you're the mechanical expert here, so ask yourself why it
>> is that Subaru feel the need to do it but few others do.
>>
>>
>>
>
> they have obviously thought there was a need for it, but you're
> suggesting they're just trying to scam their customers
>
Xeno
Clocky
Xeno
would have expected a company like Subaru to come up with a more
effective solution for the long term and one that doesn't require the
owners to be proactive. Most owners will not *see* the problem, as is
the case with some on this forum and will therefore see it as "Snake Oil".
Oddly enough, Felix would never have the problem were he to own one of
those Subarus and THAT is the irony here. All those who rail at him for
using "Nulon" would be the ones with problems long term with their
attitude to the use of additives!
Noddy
>> Of course, you're the mechanical expert here, so ask yourself why it
>> is that Subaru feel the need to do it but few others do.
>
> they have obviously thought there was a need for it, but you're
> suggesting they're just trying to scam their customers
they do.
I don't know how I can make it any more clear.....
Noddy
>> Must be a lot of mileage, because I've never known anyone to have that
>> problem with Subarus.
>
> Scour the forums, it's hardly uncommon.
Do you not know?
Xeno
> On 08/09/16 7:14 PM, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> Must be a lot of mileage, because I've never known anyone to have that
>>> problem with Subarus.
>>
>> Scour the forums, it's hardly uncommon.
>
> You're the Suby dealership "technician", are you not?
>
> Do you not know?
You, on the other hand, haven't got a clue.
Xeno
> On 08/09/16 5:21 PM, felix wrote:
>
>>> Of course, you're the mechanical expert here, so ask yourself why it
>>> is that Subaru feel the need to do it but few others do.
>>
>> they have obviously thought there was a need for it, but you're
>> suggesting they're just trying to scam their customers
>
> I'm not "suggesting" Felix. I'm flat out saying that's *exactly* what
> they do.
YOU do.
Wake up call!
Not everyone is a dishonest prick like you.
> I don't know how I can make it any more clear.....
>
good clean. That might improve your vision somewhat. Not sure how we're
going to improve your brain. Beyond help most likely!
Noddy
>> The upper cylinder cleaner is nothing more then a preventative
>> maintenance to help prevent the pinging and knocking the Subaru Boxer
>> engine is prone to under certain circumstances where carbon build up
>> in the combustion chamber causes hot-spotting and
>> pre-ignition/detonation in cars with higher mileage.
>>
>> That is undesirable and regular removal of the carbon keeps it in check.
>>
>>
>
> Oh no! not according to noddy. there's no practical reason for it
> whatsoever. they're just wanting to rip off their customers
gullible fuckwit, why don't you try this little experiment:
Clockwit likes to bang on about the "dealership experience", and he's a
Subaru dealership technician himself, or so he has previously claimed.
Why don't you ask *him* to explain how Subaru upper engine cleaner
SA459, which is made by the company who makes "Bars Bugs" washer fluid,
actually *does* anything.
Ask him to take the time to go into some detail, and explain how *this*
shit works, and how it's in any way different to the "Nulon" crap you
pour into your petrol tank which he seems overly critical of.
While you're at it, perhaps you can ask him if he knows if this Upper
Cylinder Cleaner SA459 is a *required* part of the Subaru service
schedule which needs to be used in order to maintain the vehicle's new
car warranty, or if it's just a *recommended* procedure that isn't
mandatory but one that all Suby dealerships like to push onto their
customers because it earns them an extra hundred bucks each time?
Educate yourself, you inbred silly cunt of a thing.
Noddy
>> It's just preventative maintenance, simple as that...
>
> well of course..
"prevent", Felix?
:)
Noddy
>> Agreed. It's snake oil, wrapped up in an OEM label.
>
> according to you ever engine and fuel additive is snake oil
even *remotely* close to living up to their ridiculous claims, and there
never has been.
Still, like your belief in overpriced cables, people like you don't need
to concern yourself with anything as boring as "proof" to believe what
you want to believe.
Ignorance is bliss, huh?
Noddy
>>> Nor does it contain anything that's likely to remove carbon even if it
>>> did cause pinging (which it won't if the knock sensor is doing it's
>>> job).
>>
>> Agreed. It's snake oil, wrapped up in an OEM label.
>
> Nonsense.
What's the active ingredient in SA459 Clockwit? How many comparative lab
tests have you observed where anything more than a poofteenth's worth of
difference was obtained by using it compared to not?
Is it a mandatory practice that's necessary to maintain the vehicle
warranty, or is it just a recommended one, like throwing a bottle of
"Injector Cleaner" in the tank at a Holden Dealership?
Jeez. Next you'll be telling me that Mobil's test running of a 3 series
BMW on a dyno using Mobil 1 and then pulling the engine apart after 350k
km's and finding "no noticeable wear" was "scientific" just because the
TV commercials featured an old guy in a white lab coat looking at a
hydraulic lifter through squinted eyes with glasses on :)
Like, fuck. Let's not bother with micrometers or anything :)
Xeno
>
>>> The idea behind it is to make the owner feel that their engine is
>>> "special", while at the same time making them pay for that privilege.
>>
>> everything with you, isn't there. couldn't be that Suburu are simply
>> wanting to do the right thing by their vehicles owners and keep their
>> cars in top condition
>
> It's just a means for them to make money.
cost them in the long term. You see, customers don't like to be told
they NEED to buy what people like YOU tell them is snake oil.
Compounding that problem is that most owners of Subarus have a
mechanical literacy level commensurate with your own. It will be
difficult for Subaru to convince them, in simple terms (the only kind
you seem to understand) that the stuff really is vital to maintaining
the long term performance of their car.
Frankly, it's a bit of a stuff up when they had the solution available
to them. Actually, I'm not so sure of that. Toyota might have refused
Subaru a licence to use the Toyota ds4 technology. The engine itself was
a Subaru/Toyota collaborative effort but the ds4 technology was Toyotas
own. Toyota may not have wanted to share the ds4 tech or Subaru may not
have wanted to PAY for the right to use it.
> It's certainly not going to *hurt* the engine.
> It's not going to to anything magically wonderful for it.
Yeah, that isn't magic.
> Of course, you're the mechanical expert here, so ask yourself why it is
> that Subaru feel the need to do it but few others do.
Xeno
> On 08/09/16 5:27 PM, felix wrote:
>
>>> It's just preventative maintenance, simple as that...
>>
>> well of course..
>
> Oh. So now you know exactly what it does. What does it actually
> "prevent", Felix?
>
> :)
>
Xeno
F Murtz
>
>>> The idea behind it is to make the owner feel that their engine is
>>> it was branded "Wynns" or "Nulon" you'd be screaming "bullshit", but
>>> because it's a "Subaru" product you think it's completely different :)
>>
>> As if any proof is needed... Subaru Upper Engine Cleaner is part of
>> the service schedule for a Subaru BRZ but apparently not for a Toyota
>> 86 (which is a rebadged BRZ).
>>
>> did cause pinging (which it won't if the knock sensor is doing it's
>> job).
>
>
>
>
an engine?
May be if it is harmless I could try some and see the miracles it would
work?
D Walford
will be hard to handle with all that extra power:-)
--
Daryl
John McKenzie
>
> I am the Vice President of Bar's Products International, the company
> that formulated the product for our partner in Australia.
And posting from a gmail account. That adds up.
--
John McKenzie
Noddy
Noddy
> What is this stuff that Felix is using? is it likely to do any damage to
> an engine?
> May be if it is harmless I could try some and see the miracles it would
> work?
you won't even know it's there :)
F Murtz
Noddy
>> What is this stuff that Felix is using? is it likely to do any damage to
>> an engine?
>> May be if it is harmless I could try some and see the miracles it would
>> work?
>
>
> If you do add some make sure your brakes are up to scratch, the Avalon
> will be hard to handle with all that extra power:-)
> http://www.deist.com/12-parachute-p-15.html
F Murtz
> On 08/09/16 9:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:
>
>> What is this stuff that Felix is using? is it likely to do any damage to
>> an engine?
>
> It won't do anything to the engine one way or the other.
jonz@ nothere.com
> Not at all Bogie boy.........It`s still *YOU* all the way!. More shit in U than in a large treatment plant.....
jonz@ nothere.com
> On 08/09/16 5:27 PM, felix wrote:
>
> >> It's just preventative maintenance, simple as that...
> >
> > well of course..
>
> Oh. So now you know exactly what it does. What does it actually
> "prevent", Felix
> Not at all Bogie boy.........It`s still *YOU* all the way!. More shit in U than in a large treatment plant.....
>
jonz@ nothere.com
>
>
>
>
>
felix
> On 8/09/2016 5:21 PM, felix wrote:
>> On 08-September-2016 10:50 AM, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The idea behind it is to make the owner feel that their engine is
>>>>> "special", while at the same time making them pay for that privilege.
>>>>
>>>> everything with you, isn't there. couldn't be that Suburu are simply
>>>> wanting to do the right thing by their vehicles owners and keep their
>>>> cars in top condition
>>>
>>> for them to make money. It's certainly not going to *hurt* the engine.
>>>
>>> is that Subaru feel the need to do it but few others do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> suggesting they're just trying to scam their customers
>>
>
noddy talks a lot of nonsense
--
"everything in Islam originates
from the testimony of one pedophile"
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
felix
about anything, and your interpretation, is always right, right?..
felix
> On 8/09/2016 8:07 PM, Noddy wrote:
>> On 08/09/16 5:21 PM, felix wrote:
>>
>>>> Of course, you're the mechanical expert here, so ask yourself why it
>>>> is that Subaru feel the need to do it but few others do.
>>>
>>> they have obviously thought there was a need for it, but you're
>>> suggesting they're just trying to scam their customers
>>
>> I'm not "suggesting" Felix. I'm flat out saying that's *exactly* what
>> they do.
>
> But Noddy, that's because YOU think that everyone else thinks just
> like YOU do.
>
> Wake up call!
>
> Not everyone is a dishonest prick like you.
>>
>> I don't know how I can make it any more clear.....
>>
> Might I perhaps suggest you take your glasses off and give them a very
> good clean. That might improve your vision somewhat. Not sure how
> we're going to improve your brain. Beyond help most likely!
>
>
Noddy
>> It won't do anything to the engine one way or the other.
>
> Bet it would if I used a monster cable as well.
Noddy
>>> they have obviously thought there was a need for it, but you're
>>> suggesting they're just trying to scam their customers
>>>
>> Noddy doesn't know what he doesn't know.
>>
>
> noddy talks a lot of nonsense
Felix with another of his lies....
Noddy
>> I don't know how I can make it any more clear.....
>
> and of course you're absolutely right, right? because whatever you think
> about anything, and your interpretation, is always right, right?..
clearly evident of that. However I am positively *certain* that you are
almost unequivocally wrong about everything you comment on.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I have never seen you be right
about anything you've ever discussed ever, and I honestly can't say that
about anyone else who has frequented here.
Even the Jonz moron.
Noddy
>> Might I perhaps suggest you take your glasses off and give them a very
>> good clean. That might improve your vision somewhat. Not sure how
>> we're going to improve your brain. Beyond help most likely!
>>
>>
>
> yeah, I think he's beyond hope. he should be buried now...
you silly whinging cunt :)
felix
> May be if it is harmless I could try some and see the miracles it
> would work?
https://www.nulon.com.au/products/Fuel_Treatments/Petrol_Injector_Cleaner
won't it be interesting if you report the same results as me! poor old
noddy will be tearing his hair out in anguish! :)
felix
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 08/09/16 9:35 PM, F Murtz wrote:
>>
>>> What is this stuff that Felix is using? is it likely to do any
>>> damage to
>>> an engine?
>>
>> It won't do anything to the engine one way or the other.
>
> Bet it would if I used a monster cable as well.
>
something up with.. a very expensive cable tie in that case