Decarb a Mercruiser 7.4 LX MPI

tpenfield

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
17,869
My end of season compression and leak test on my Mercruiser 7.4LX MPI engines (2 of them) showed some problems that appeared to be needing a valve job. In the process of doing some research, I came across some information on ‘decarbonization’ that looked like it had some potential for the situation with my engines. I figured that perhaps carbon in the cylinders and valve seats were causing a fair amount of leak. . . . 830 hours on the engines.

Sooo, I did the SeaFoam thing with some results. I ran a 50/50 mix of SeaFoam and gasoline through the engines (32 oz each engine) . . . Then I sprayed SeaFoam into the cylinders via the spark plug holes and then purged the excess, let it sit and ran the engines.

I used a borescope to get a look inside the cylinders and there still seemed to be a fair amount of carbon on the valve faces and the pistons, etc. So, I thought about doing some more decarb'ing. . . Finally, I read about using water as a decarbonizing agent, apparently the conversion of water to steam during the combustion process loosens/dislodges carbon and makes for a clean combustion chamber.

I did a quick compression test after doing the sea foam and it showed some improvement. So, I figured that maybe a water ‘injection’ treatment would provide some additional benefit.

There are a variety of Youtube videos and Internet posts about decarb’ing with water. Big concern was to not ‘spray’ too much water into the engine all at once and cause a hydrolock situation.

Since I have an MPI engine, I could not use the common process used on carburated engines, which is to pour a trickle of water down the carb while the engine is rev’ed to about 2500-3000 RPM. So, I came up with a ‘mist sprayer’ that I could attached to a garden hose.

IMG_5304.jpg

This sprayer created a decent mist of water and I measured the amount of water that it dispensed . . . about 1 Litre / minute.

IMG_5305.jpg

I was curious if this amount of water would cause a problem with the engines, i.e. over pressurize the cylinders during the combustion/vaporization process. So, I did some calculations using the parameters of my Mercruiser engines and the water rate that I had measured.

Doing some Math . . .

I figured on running the water through the engines at 2500 RPM and hopefully the water would slow the engine only down to about 2000 RPM.

From the specs of my engines . . . The displacement of each cylinder is 929 ml, and the cylinder heads have a 118 CC (ml) combustion chamber, to the total volume is 1047 ml.

1 litre per minute is 125 ml for each cylinder per minute. . . . the engine running at 2000 RPM will equate to 1000 combustion cycles each minute. So, each combustion cycle gets about 0.125 ml of water.

The 0.125 ml of water will rapidly turn into steam (water vapor). The density of water vapor is about 0.804 g/l . . . or about 1200 times less dense than liquid water. So, the .125 ml of water would turn into 155 ml of vapor during the combustion cycle.

Comparing the 155 ml versus the 1047 ml of the cylinder (at BDC) did not seem like an excessive amount of extra pressure. So, it looked like for my engines, 1 litre per minute at 2000 RPM would be OK.

I warmed the engines up for about 10 minutes and then set the throttle up to 2500 RPM and applied the water.

IMG_5308.jpg

The water would tend to slow down the engine to about 2000 RPM, and as the engine started to bog, I let up on the water until the RPM started to rise. Total time of applying the water was 6-8 minutes at about a 50% duty cycle, so about 3 litres of water into/thru each engine. Lots of steam came out the exhaust while the water was being sprayed.

Then I ran the engines for another 10-15 minutes to make sure things were cleared of water.

* * * Continued on Next Post * * *
 
Last edited:

tpenfield

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
17,869
After the decarbing, I ran a set of compression tests and cylinder leak tests. Below is my data set from the compression and leak tests done in the past as well as the ones after the decarb. In the graphs, the light brown lines are the results before I did the decarb and the dark brown lines are the after the decarb results. the '2014' columns are BEFORE the decarb and the '2014C' columns are AFTER the decarb.

In the graphs, the blue lines are the original tests done by the surveyor and the green is my 2013 tests.

Overall, it looked like some decent improvement to the starboard engine, with some improvement to the port engine. One caveat is that I ran the latest set of compression tests with the outdrives removed, so probably the engine was turning a bit faster than with the outdrives installed.

The leak test show pretty dramatic improvement of the starboard engine from the decarbing :thumb:

In the data tables below . . . Compression data is on the left and Leak test data is on the right. I did not run leak tests each year
Compression-Test-330SS-Nov-2014-B.jpg
 
Last edited:

alldodge

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
41,059
I see some good results from the water. As before I don't think you can put enough water in (unless you try real hard) to create a hydrolock, but your results are irrefutable. Very good data :thumb:
 

achris

More fish than mountain goat
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
27,468
...Since I have an MPI engine, I could not use the common process used on carburated engines, which is to pour a trickle of water down the carb while the engine is rev'ed to about 2500-3000 RPM...

Why not? It still has a throttle body, which the air for the engine must be drawn in though. Just trickle the water in through there, just like a card'eb engine...

.... One caveat is that I ran the latest set of compression tests with the outdrives removed, so probably the engine was turning a bit faster than with the outdrives installed...

Not really. The Bravos only have the input shaft turning when out of gear, not the whole drive train like an Alpha... So any difference in cranking speed will be very slight...

Overall sounds like a great job and a really nicely presented report. Just a quick question... Did you take any images from the borescope, before and after?

Cheers,

Chris........
 

Bondo

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
70,658
I see some good results from the water. As before I don't think you can put enough water in (unless you try real hard) to create a hydrolock, but your results are irrefutable. Very good data :thumb:

Ayuh,.... Agreed on all points,...

I've tried, it takes Alota water to really bother the motor,.....
I ain't been able to stop one, with a soda bottle,....
 

tpenfield

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
17,869
I see some good results from the water. As before I don't think you can put enough water in (unless you try real hard) to create a hydrolock, but your results are irrefutable. Very good data :thumb:

Thanks, AllDodge. It was a busy day running the engines, doing the tests and then putting everything to bed for the winter.

One of the concerns I had, and the reason for doing some calculations, was that even if I did not hydro-lock the engine, too much water in the cylinder that turns into too much steam 'could possibly' create enough pressure in the cylinder to bend a connecting rod. After doing the math, I felt comfortable with the amount of water being inducted into the engine.
 

thumpar

Admiral
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
6,138
As long as the motor is running water though the intake won't hurt it unless you crank a garden hose in. I have had a couple Saab turbo cars and some of the guys running high pressures use water injection to keep the detonation down.
 

tpenfield

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
17,869
Overall sounds like a great job and a really nicely presented report. Just a quick question... Did you take any images from the borescope, before and after?

Cheers,

Chris........

Thanks, Chris. I did look into a few cylinders with the borescope, but did not really see too much. I think I need to get a better borescope . . . does not seem to have enough light.
 

superbenk

Commander
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
2,033
Is this a good annual maintenance idea? What are the downsides to steam cleaning too much?
 

achris

More fish than mountain goat
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
27,468
Is this a good annual maintenance idea? What are the downsides to steam cleaning too much?

Washing the oil off the bores and having the rings running on the cylinder walls without lubrication. Also, if you don't run the engine long enough (and get it warm enough) to boil off ALL the water, you can end up with 'wet' oil, not good for bearings. And also the valves. You need to keep the engine running long enough to get the oil back on the valve stems... Most of the times I've seen 'steam cleaning' done was immediately prior to a hard fast run in offroad competition rally driving.... By the time the run was finished, that engine was definitely warm enough to boil any water away! :eek: You know the run's been hard when the brake discs are glowing a dull red, and the driver is keeping the vehicle in place with the clutch, not the brakes, because if the brakes are applied when they are that hot, they don't come off when the pedal is released! Quite literally, the pads would melt into the discs.

Chris.....
 

tpenfield

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
17,869
I ran the 'MPI fogging mix' as the fuel (10:1 fuel to 2-cycle oil) while I did the water decarb and then ran the engines for at least another 10 mins. at 2000+ RPM afterwards. I am wondering if that is enough protection of the engine from disadvantages of water :noidea:
 

alldodge

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
41,059
I ran the 'MPI fogging mix' as the fuel (10:1 fuel to 2-cycle oil) while I did the water decarb and then ran the engines for at least another 10 mins. at 2000+ RPM afterwards. I am wondering if that is enough protection of the engine from disadvantages of water :noidea:

I think your fine, while a longer run wouldn't hurt, you have closed cooling which helps more. Closed cooling allows you to run around 180 instead of an open system running cooler. While the best would be to take it out for a good run, IMO your intake design is the main thing I think about. I think you will be fine for the reason that your water input was not that large
 

HT32BSX115

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
10,083
I am still trying to wrap my head around why "de-carbonization" would ever be needed in any 4-stroke EFI engine. (I totally get it in a 2 stroke though, since you're "burning oil" intentionally)

If the engine is running too rich to start with, Isn't that the real cause for the excessive "carbon" ?

And, If the engine is running at the correct "mixture" (Fuel:Air ratio) there'd be NO excessive carbon in the exhaust and it wouldn't be left in the combustion chamber etc.

Also, if you "fogged" the engine prior to winterization, that would have caused SERIOUS carbon to be deposited everywhere in the combustion chambers, plugs, valves etc.

In a carbureted engine, just doing a "choked" start, would dump a huge amount of carbon into the combustion chambers that would eventually "burn-off" during normal running (un-choked) unless the jets were too "rich" to begin with and no amount of (water-mist) decarbonization would prevent it because it would be back.

In an EFI engine, same applies when there's a "cold-rich" start.......... Then after warm-up (and subsequent ECM leaning) , normal running at "normal-lean" mixtures will clean up (burn-off) most of the carbon left behind........



I wonder if you had done the same "test" by checking the engine after a cold start, idle or unloaded run..............THEN take the boat out and do a high power (80%-WOT) run and do the same test and see if the results are the same........

I have done similar tests with aircraft engines. (normal yearly [I.E. an annual/100hr insp] always includes a compression leak-down check)

Doing a "leak-down" on a cold engine almost ALWAYS produces poorer results vs doing it on an engine that was just shut down after a full throttle run (Take-off, "fly around the traffic pattern" land and shutdown)

I'm not trying to pour cold water (PUN ABSOLUTELY INTENDED!!!) on your results but I don't think "de-carbonization" using water-injection fixes anything in a 4-stroke engine.

If you have excessive carbon, it's being "caused" by a real problem............. I.E. too "rich" jets/excessive choke in a carbed engine.......... OR, an EFI system running way too rich......

Just saying........


Regards,

AND Merry Chrismas y'all!!!!!



Rick
 
Last edited:

tpenfield

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
17,869
Yea, all I know is that I got really crappy leak test results at the end of the season this year and was considering a valve job. I did a bunch of 'decarb' with seafoam and water . . . then I ran another set of leak tests and got much better results. So, the valve job is back on the shelf for the time being.

Each leak test was done substantially the same - warm engine after having been run for about 30 minutes.
 

HT32BSX115

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
10,083
Each leak test was done substantially the same - warm engine after having been run for about 30 minutes.
I was just wondering out loud if you might get the same results after a 30 min WOT run around the bay!:D
 

bruceb58

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
30,512
I really don't understand the need for a decarb. I guess maybe if you are getting some detonation because of hot spots on a piston but not likely in a marine engine.
 

Tail_Gunner

Admiral
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
6,237
I was just wondering out loud if you might get the same results after a 30 min WOT run around the bay!:D

His engine's are not carbed and efi....tbi marine fuel injection runs very rich on average 10/1 id almost be willing to bet. Now couple that with age old 80's vintage instrumentation...how hot or cold is it really... thermostats that run from 140/160 and you have the perfect storm for heavy carbon build up's. EFI is no more than turn key starting in a marine motor..Cold block's hot piston's no way to run grandma's little buggy.. Below is a link where carb's out perform efi and the engine had a custom tune..., disappointing actually and to think Volvo will be releasing Direct fuel inject this yr in a 4.3 with no OS sensors...

http://onthedyno.com/GM-LS-motor/art...hi-ram-468-ls/

http://www.emconsultinginc.com/Digital_Publications/AMTech/Fall_2014/#24 page 23
 
Last edited:

alldodge

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
41,059
Agree carbs will always out perform injected engines at upper rpm band, the reason for injection is throttle response, fuel savings, and a more even torque curve. A 17 to 20 ft lb of torque makes a difference at WOT but next to none anywhere else

Agree the first MPI's used by Merc most ran rich, I had one and couldn't not find any reason for it with a scanner. The MEFI-1 has little tuning capabilities. This is another reason for my engine build and going to a MEFI-3 setup. Every time I pulled my plugs they were fowled up. Never did do a WOT, stop and pull the plugs because I saw no reason for it. Here is my engine pistons with only 250 or so hours, this also is with a complete new tune up at the beginning of the season. The clean spots around the outer edge was determined by Young Performance from water coming back in from a hard stop

Photo371.jpg

Photo368.jpg
 
Last edited:

tpenfield

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
17,869
Oh Boy that looks like carbon . . . you should have tried the water decarb before you took the engine apart AD :D

The starboard engine on my boat does run rich, based on how the plugs look (black, but not fouled) Port engine plugs look normal. Both engines seemed to run OK. I was figuring maybe the carbon was building up on the valve seats and causing the lower compression and the high leak readings.

My initial thoughts, based on the compression and leak test was that the starboard engine might be needing a valve job. So, I tried the decarb just to see if it would make a difference. . . . and it did. If it had not done much, then it would probably be on the track to a valve job.

Port engine had a valve job at some point during its 18 years
 
Last edited:

Tail_Gunner

Admiral
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
6,237
Mefi 1 mefi 3 same same to me.....Ive been playing with a mefi 3 now for yrs on a 4.3... same tables yes more flexibility I have my time up 3..4 degree's to 1200 rpm for cam timing but other than that as soon as the fuel cell fails Pow off it come's.:flame:Ive tried tuning the mid band and as soon as I get it up to 13/1 there's this little thing called knock count's that creep up on ya.
 
Last edited:
Top