Debunking the carbon buildup myth. I don't think it's as bad as many people say

I have never really been 100% on board with either side on the carbon buildup issue. The two sides I’ve seen (and I am admittedly a pretty black and white thinker, so forgive me for generalising people’s positions on the issue) generally work out as follows:

group 1. carbon buildup is a disaster for the RS4, destroys the power the engine makes, is an all around terrible thing that needs to be cleaned annually, otherwise the car is a shadow of its true self

group 2. carbon buildup is a non-issue not worth worrying about, and has virtually zero impact on the car

So…my view is as follows.
I think it hurts performance - maybe enough to cost you a car length or so in a dragstrip run…which is about a tenth of a second on a timeslip…which is maybe half to one car length in a highway pull.

I think it is a scary foreign object to have inside our engine, so to that end, I think it needs to be cleaned periodically just for engine safety.

I think it hurts the dyno far more than it actually hurts performance. Fortunately, I don’t give a fuck about the dyno so this doesn’t bother me much.

I think RS4 owners need to get over worrying about carbon buildup all day with all the dyno and logs and blah blah blah.

Now that this is out of the way, I have to say BEFORE I owned an RS4, I was pretty squarely leaning towards group 1. I thought carbon hurt an RS4 quite a bit, performance wise. I thought it robbed big hp. I thought the car suffered as soon as 5000 miles after cleaning etc. I used to get into vicious arguments with Arthur who was squarely in group 2. Basically I believed the hype. I shouldn’t have trusted people’s opinions/hype, and should have formed my own opinion.

Now that I actually own an RS4, and have done tons of driving, data logging, dragstrip passes, pbox acceleration testing (and I would submit I’ve done more of the latter two than any RS4 owner on earth)…I have come to realise that it’s really not that big of a deal, performance wise. While it may rob you of power on a dyno sheet…it doesn’t rob you of enough power to really show up on the street. You might feel you’ve lost the kick at 5500 RPM (and I’ll address that later). You might feel you’re not winning races you should be winning. You might run shitty quarter mile times. It’s my belief that all of those results are explainable for almost all of the RS4s. Here are those reasons:

1. "I’ve lost the 5500 RPM kick"This makes the least sense to me. The tune is the tune. The throttle angle is the throttle angle. If the car is choked, the throttle angle is still going to open at 5500 RPM, allowing more air to pass, allowing the car to make more power, allowing you to feel a kick. The stock map restricts the throttle in gears 1-2-3 below 5250 RPM.

If we dig deeper, there’s another factor. Ever notice the kick is far more pronounced in the cold? Why? It’s because the engine’s stock map restricts throttle up until 5250 RPM or so in gears 1, 2 and 3, depending on a number of conditions. It’s my guestimation that it bases this on ‘engine torque’ made. Make too much (for its parameters) and it puts a bigger restriction on. Make not much torque (relatively) and it eliminates the restriction.
ON a cold day with dense air, the car makes more power/more torque and thus the ECU restricts throttle quite a bit. Around 52% even if you go WOT with your right foot.
On a mild-warm day, the car is making less power (torque) so the ECU allows the throttle to opena bit more…I’ve logged it in the 72% range a few times.
On a hot day with a heatsoaked car, the car is making far less power (torque) so the ECU allows the throttle to open 100% in those normally restricted gears in the normally restricted RPM range.

So there’s not always a 5500 RPM kick to be had. Sure the cam profile changes etc. etc…but the throttle restriction is the biggest reason for that kick…and the temperature/altitude/density has enough influence to eliminate the throttle restriction altogether in those gears…so when someone from Florida posts up that they’ve ‘lost the kick’…there’s a good chance they could go a full year without feeling it because their hot temperatures might mean the engine never has to implement the protective throttle restriction.

I have logs of all of this in case anyone wants to see it.

2. “I ran shitty quarter mile times” or "I lost a race I shouldn’t lose"People love to compare their quarter mile times/cars to the magazines etc. Quite often, people fall short of the 12.8-13.0 @ 107-108 times we saw from Road and Track, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Insideline…etc. There are two huge reasons for this. One is that people tend to go to the dragstrip in the summer. As we know, in the summer the air is less dense. As we know the less dense air means the car is making less power. So as a result, if you hit the dragstrip on a hot summer night, and sit around in line waiting to run your nicely heatsoaked car, guess what…you’re going to run a shitty time because you’re no longer making the car’s full potential power. Further, those magazines you’re comparing to ALL correct their times to 0 density altitude (and a humid, 25 celsius night at a dragstrip at 800 feet elevation above sea level is going to net out around 2000 feet of density altitude).
The second reason people run shitty quarter mile times is simple - they aren’t very good at it. They stage wrong. They launch wrong. They shift slow. They bounce off the rev limiter forgetting to change gears on time. I have seen a ton of RS4 videos of guys driving both on the dragstrip,and in exhaust/cruise videos etc. and plenty of them frankly leave performance on the table. We shouldn’t be surprised when they do this at the dragstrip. People also tend to go to the strip on a busy night…get maybe 2-3 runs in…then leave discouraged by all the waiting (and the shitty results). This is a pretty key factor because it takes a few passes to figure it out for most people.

Obviously this is just my opinion, as someone who has owned a ‘carboned up’ Rs4 for a year now. I will buy a carbonator if it is ever made available, because as I said above, the ‘foreign body’ in the engine doesn’t sit too well with me. If it preserves that last few hp carbon would otherwise rob, that’s a bonus to me.

I would like to hear input from other folks. Anything but dyno numbers. :smiley:

We really need to see some dyno plots before this discussion progresses any further.

;D

I am somewhat in the same mindset as you previously were. I haven’t done a whole lot of research, but I’ve read and heard some about carbon buildup, loss of performance, etc. It does worry me enough to the point that if I were to buy one, a carbon clean would be something I would do along with my other usual new-to-me car maintenance. After that, I would leave it normal maintenance and my driving style in hopes of keeping the engine cleaner/safer.

That being said, I’ve almost convinced myself that owning an RS4 and getting it cleaned every 20k miles or year would be acceptable because I would know that the engine is (should be) healthy performance and safety wise. An ease of mind kind of purpose I guess. That cleaning would depend on if I would daily the car or not as well.

Did you ever see any performance proof that the power loss that is evident in the dyno plots was affecting the car’s ability to accelerate etc.?

I have seen some logs from one guy who does lots of loggging and carbon cleans every 5 minutes (and who sucks at driving and blames carbon for just about everything he can’t blame JHM for), but lots of his logs are weird so I don’t put much stock in them franklly.

I can’t say I’ve seen anything solid in the form of data/numbers. Some people are automatically blaming low numbers or bad performance on carbon buildup, and vice versa, when it could have been a number of other factors. Like I said, not a whole lot of research, and no first hand experience. That’s one of those things I’d have to do myself or follow an intelligent and trustworthy RS4 owner. And what you have said and experienced so far is a good sign.

It’s just enough to create some uneasy feelings in my mind tho. Pretty much like the S4 rattle/oil consumption/failure, etc. I just passed 120k this week. I’m mostly comfortable with the car, but the uneasy feeling is still in the back of my head. Time for a lot of maintenance tho.

BTW, how many miles on your car and how many of those are yours?

40k miles on mine now
Bought with 29k on it
Ran 12.94 @ 107 with 30k miles, never cleaned, DA +400 feet
Ran 12.75 @ 108 with 35k miles, never cleaned, DA +280 feet
Ran 12.92 @ 108 with 40k miles, never cleaned, DA +1200 feet

[quote]Quote=Sakimano.

So…my view is as follows.
I think it hurts performance - maybe enough to cost you a car length or so in a dragstrip run…which is about a tenth of a second on a timeslip…which is maybe half to one car length in a highway pull.

I think it is a scary foreign object to have inside our engine, so to that end, I think it needs to be cleaned periodically just for engine safety.
[/quote]
Very well put.

I agree.

The largest reason for the debate is. Most people think that carbon is like changing your oil. With stuff like oil ware after 5,000 miles you need new oil because its been broken down (just an example. 5000 isn’t necessarily= broken down oil )… Its a constant and you know on every car sooner or later your gonig to have to change your oil. With carbon 5000 or 45000 miles on one car isn’t necessarily going to look the same or even be present on another and because of that. Having a FSI motor doesn’t guaranty that your gong to have a carbon issue.

Fact is, most drivers will be able to drive the car and maintain there cars in such a fashion that carbon might never be an issue. While others will (to put it simply) just drive and use the car in such a fashion that carbon starts to become an issue. If this continues and is left on checked, THEN performance loss can start.

From a OEM standpoint Carbon is an issue and its “Bad” however, how bad seems to be over stated by some and understated by others. It is indeed a grey area. “Bad” by OEM standpoints are anything that is out of the operational range of accepted amounts. “Bad” By others seems to be proportional to there needed excuse.

The effect is going to be based off just how bad how much and location of the carbon. Most people will never understand or see the real spectrum, as carbon has become the new “my clutch is slipping” of the car community.

Audi is taking great steps to address carbon build up due to the FSI and the non fuel wash. Again so is every other manufacture.

Your going to start seeing issues at this point.

http://audirevolution.net/addons/albums/images/341858523.jpg

The issue might be able to be sorted out like this.

Can carbon become an issue? Yes
Can carbon cause damage? yes
Can carbon cause performance loss? Yes

I have a FSI RS4 do a Have a carbon issue? not necessarily. Just because you have a RS4 doesn’t mean you have carbon issues after XXXXX miles or in some cases at all. Can it be an issue? yes. Is it necessarily or will it be an issue because you own a RS4? no

Count, Do you know if Audi did anything “special” on the RS5 4.2 motor to prevent/minimize the potential of carbon buildup?

they have port injection and fuel stratified injection on the 4.0T cars I believe. I would assume they have the same on the RS5, but that might be silly of me to assume.

Saki, all good info and I’ve been following the logic with temp/tq/restriciton % etc. One wrench to throw in that mix that maybe you’d like to jelp explain. 50K RS4 goes in for CB clean and it’s 60 degrees outside when he drops it off, feels almost zero kick in the upper RPM range that same morning. Next day, picks up the car and it is now CB clean, also about 60 degress since he is picking it up in the morning, drives home and the kick is very noticeable. How would you explain that?

I am in a similar position as you. I used to believe in the hype a lot more than I do now as far as perfromance is concerned. Although I saw the delta with my own eyes before and after a CB clean at an independent shop it doesn’t always translate to the street literally as we all know. That being said I haven’t done any 1/4 comparisons before and after a cleaning. I have done the 3rd gear logging before and after and I did see a very small benefit but it’s too hard to measure accurately due to the difference in ambient temps between the two days I did the testing.

Lastly, I’m not a fan of the gunk in the engine either and would love to know if the carbonator will actually come to market. If not, I still don’t have an issue with annual cleanings, it’s just another reason to get into an engine and see what’s going on.

I can’t explain everything, personally. I do know that some cars are clogged to fuck and having valves get stuck…and those cars are certainly not who I’m referring to in my main generalisation.

Your 60 degree/no kick, then carbon clean, then 60 degree/kick character is something I can’t explain. Could be
a) his carbon impact on performance was worse than the cars I’ve seen tested…maybe due to driving styles, local fuel, environment etc.
b) 50,000 miles is a lot of miles…so again, his carbon may have just been really bad because of the miles
c) maybe he was expecting a ‘kick’ and went in there gangbusters that this was going to restore 15% of his power and give him a huge boost
d) his carbon was causing problems with his intake manifold flap system

The other thing to think about…a noticeable ‘kick’ at 5500 RPM doesn’t mean you’re noticeably faster in a measured, timed performance run. My car has a bump at 5500 in the cold, but nothing legendary. That’s a great example. My car also shows engine torque plots in VAGCOM (similar to dyno output) that would indicate I’m missing 10-15 whp up top as my HP profile flattens out towards redline. Again though…my car is still fast. I may have a bunch of carbon buildup…but it’s not knocking 80 hp off the table the way the doomsdayers. I think that’s a way for them to not like a car that is inherently hard to not like lol.

George/2000S4 bought an RS4 with around 110,000 miles on it. It was never cleaned. He said the performance was noticeably shit when he bought it. He was driving a B7 S4 at the time, and when he stepped into his purchased (out of state/country) RS4, he thought he’d bought a lemon. When he got it home and removed the intake manifold, he said the ports were nearly closed over in spots and the carbon was epic. He has never seen any photos as bad as his car was.

He spent a day cleaning it, and put it back together and found it was a massive difference. He then ran 12.2 @ 112 with bolt ons, so we know his car came back from the brink.

In those situations where you have massive mileage, and maybe as count vohn alluded to, you also have factors that contribute to the buildup, I am 100% on board that it can cause loss of significant performance.

I’m of the mindset that when you’re at 30,000…even 50,000…it’s not really that bad (again, unlesss something else is going on to exacerbate it). The guys who are getting cleaned every 5000 miles, are wasting their money if performance maintenance is their big thing. I also beliieve that about the guys who are getting cleaned every 10,000 or 15,000 miles frankly. I don’t think you’re losing enough performance (note I have not once said ‘dyno hp’) to warrant a cleaning. Engine safety re: foreign object damage? Sure thing…I’d do it every 6 months if it was free.

Lots of variables to contend with. It is indeed a grey area. I do think what you and CV mentioned regarding other issues contributing can and will make a difference in perfromance. Seems obvious but others fail to include the potential for other issues affecting performance as well.

OT: Are you going to run your car at a track in Detroit when you go? I’d like to see the difference if any a level track with 93 pump makes vs. your track with a 9ft decline and with 94 pump makes. Hopefully you’ll have a similar ambient temp/DA etc to compare to.

a 0.6% decline is actually pretty flat. Many of the tracks are more like -1% or in primetime’s situation at Thompson raceway in Ohio (NHRA certified) there is a -1.3% decline. I would love to see what my stock RS4 could do with -2% decline like the 6speedonline guys allow in their 60-130 list. Ask Tsivas what a 2% decline vs. a 0% decline did to APEXIT’s 60-130 times. The difference was huge.

I always want to go to the strip when we do those meets in Detroit, but it seems like we start working on the cars at 9PM friday…go to bed at 8AM Saturday…wake up at 2PM saturday…work on cars at 7PM saturday…go to bed at 7AM sunday…then drive home after 3 hrs sleep. The plan is always to get the cars done Friday, then have fun. Never happens…although some people do sneak out to do some racing once in a while lol.

We need to do a meet where we just all get together to chill out and hit Milan or Lapeer dragway. Would be great.

Here you go: Primetime’s quarter mile data from his track in Ohio. It’s actually a 1.2% decline. From 1006 feet at the start to 989 feet at his trap.

http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn477/tsivas27/ronrun.jpg

Seeing THOUSANDS of carbon cases you can see why some people are more concerned then others.

In almost every case the amount of carbon is equal to the amount of power loss or damage done. When you figure not everone will experience the same levels of build up over the same stretch of time you can see why you have such a large spectrum of thoughts on the subject

In the case of my car, I didn’t feel much of any difference at all after a CC. I have about 1000 miles on the car post-clean now but haven’t gotten it back to the strip. I will at some point between now and mid-Oct, I am sure.

When you went last time was it hot out? If so go back in the heat. That would be good data.

One of the local b7 RS4s I take care of has had water/method injection since about 2500 miles, no carbon, 70k now. The owner drives the piss out of it. It is hands down the strongest of them that I drive and he just has exhaust for other mods.

I have cleaned a few of these that were so bad, as a N/A car I don’t know how it was even breathing. I agree there is no formula for development, miles, anything. I think usage and environment play the biggest roles. When you think about what a pcv system does and the conditions that must exist for it to be left to collect it makes a strong case to drive your car like it was meant to, reved out.

interesting. krytponik had water meth, and an oil catch can, and after 10,000 miles his car was back to carbony. Wasn’t tuned then…just injection as a cleanser kind of thing? In the intake?

I wish JHM would haul ass with the carbonator and get that thing out there. Would be nice to not care about the FOD part of the discussion, nevermind the performance.

A lot of catch cans don’t do a thing, just create a new res for oil amd water to hang out. I have never pulled this manifold, but my bore scope shows me its clean.

When I first got my car I was worried about performance loss due to CB but I stopped worrying after a while.

Just had mine cleaned yesterday with 56,000 miles on it since I was worried about any bits of carbon flying off into the cylinder.

I can’t really tell with my but-dyno about whether there’s any difference, but I can say for sure that there is no shuddering during a cold idle now and the car feels smoother overall.

How bad does this look?

Full album: imgur.com/a/PNvJn

http://i.imgur.com/WMdef.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/IjcaC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/sD1rL.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/W0jDo.jpg

Pretty standard to me, seen many way worse. I can at least still see valve profiles. The count posted a good example of very built up.