While browsing something entirely different, I got introduced to this 'The Italian tune-up' method. I wrote this post primarily for a
different thread (Is break-in really required for modern bikes?) for a different reason. But only at the last moment did it occur to me check for separate thread about this, which of course there is.
Before I read posts here, I took it to good old fashioned Wikipedia, to learn what this 'Italian tune-up' is. Here's a screenshot of a book that I found via Wikipedia, that suggests this method, among many others, to fix engine 'run-on'- a condition where the engine continues to run even after the ignition is turned off, by picking up heat from hot spots (carbon deposits in this case) and continuing combustion.
The book is from 1993, and the issue sounds like a bit of a predecessor of the 'higher compression ratio' issue, drivebyfire has explained in this helpful post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by drivebyfire [...]
ECUs can go leaner and leaner to promote fuel economy and reduce emissions. Then how can carbon build up inside at all in the first place??
Fact is that modern ECUs learn to respond to required output vs driver input over time. A high demand driver input re-trains the ECU to change air-fuel mixtures accordingly so that the engine produces the required output. Not only are the air-fuel mixtures changed but also parameters such as throttle response and ignition timing. This is why the "Italian tune up" feels to have worked in modern engines as well.
This is also why for some cars it works and for some it does not - as it depends on type of ECU as well as individual driver.
[...] |
I think, I have something to add to this; hence this post. I'm only familiar with motorcycles; so, I'll stick to what I know.
I may be am just stating the obvious, but it is better to clarify for the uninitiated- It is not that carburetors can't go as lean as ECUs; only that ECUs offer more granular control, and can go leaner when needed, and still provide a cool and knock-free ride with a richer mixture, better than a carb with a similar lean setting would.
The 'ECU re-training' is a bit confusing to me, and I request you or other members to explain how it does that. Do you mean ECUs on cars 'adapt' to a drivers style and basically tunes itself!? Because, motorcycle ECUs don't do that- at least as far as I know. My understanding is just that there's 'Map' of outputs to inputs loaded on to the ECU, with which it decides what tested input is closest to my actual input, and just proceeds to follow what is on the output on the corresponding entry in the Map. It is for this reason, the stoichiometry that the FI offers is not so much more ideal than what a carburetor would, and carbon fouling is still common in motorcycles.
Also, note that even the old book (from 1993), mentions that it is not necessary in 'modern FI cars and high-energy electronic ignitions'. The Wikipedia article, expands on the FI part and mentions 'direct and port injected engines'. I don't know how it is in cars, but most- if not all- motorcycles are only port injected and not direct injected (certainly not both)- meaning the FI sprays fuel on the intake manifold, which is carried forward by the air, as opposed to directly on the compressed chamber.
This is what I wanted to add with this post- it depends on the injection type as well. Port injection will help with cleaning carbon deposits on the inlet valves, but doesn't do much for what is inside the cylinder, as the petrol sprayed by the FI would hit the outsides of the valves, and lose much of its momentum to do any cleaning on piston head or insides of the valves, by sheer force, mixture density and/or additives. It doesn't really offer the cooling and performance benefits of the direct injection either, for the same reason.
So, at least in motorcycles, occasional 'Italian tune-ups' would be beneficial. More so, older and/or more 'pampered' by only lower RPMs, the motorcycle is.