Mike, I've never understood why some always recommend ATF which costs
money over water which does not cost money. Water works just fine, I
know of no benefit whatsoever to using ATF over water.

Do you know of some benefit that ATF provides over water when used for

this purpose?

Mike Romain wrote:
> No you need a steady slow stream of 'water' to shock the carbon off.
>
> I have had excellent results using a pint of ATF instead of water to
do
> this. The ATF makes a massive cloud of smoke though. I have heard
from
> enough people about the water instead that I will use that next time
and
> see how it goes.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
> (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
>
> Steve Foley wrote:
>
> Would a spray-bottle work better than pouring it in? I have one I
use to
> check for bad plug wires. Mist under the hood at night and look for
the
> light-show.
>
> "Jerry Bransford" <jerrypb@***.net> wrote in message
> news:juwdg.1012$sP1.459@fed1read07...
>
>
> The cure, if this is the problem and it sounds like it is, is to get
rid
> of the carbon build-up. The easiest way to do this is to slowly
(!!)
> feed 12-16 ounces of plain water into the air intake as the engine
is
> running, keeping the RPMs up slightly. NO, this will NOT cause
> hydrolock providing you feed the water in slowly and in a controlled
> manner over a minute to two minutes. Just slowly trickle it and
> maintain control over the water so you don't dump it in too quickly
by
> accident.
>
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL N6TAY
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.***.net/jerrypb/


-------------= Posted from Ugroups.com =-------------
---= Fast & Free Web Portal to Usenet Newsgroups =---
-------------= http://www.ugroups.com/ =-------------

 

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:02:37 -0500,
jerrypb@***-dot-net.no-spam.invalid (Jerry Bransford) wrote:

>Do you know of some benefit that ATF provides over water when used for
>
>this purpose?


Water is corrosive and not the best thing to put into intake. Some
have damaged engine from getting carried away with this. (water usage)
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:02:37 -0500,
jerrypb@***-dot-net.no-spam.invalid (Jerry Bransford) wrote:

>Do you know of some benefit that ATF provides over water when used for
>
>this purpose?


Water is corrosive and not the best thing to put into intake. Some
have damaged engine from getting carried away with this. (water usage)
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:02:37 -0500,
jerrypb@***-dot-net.no-spam.invalid (Jerry Bransford) wrote:

>Do you know of some benefit that ATF provides over water when used for
>
>this purpose?


Water is corrosive and not the best thing to put into intake. Some
have damaged engine from getting carried away with this. (water usage)
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:02:37 -0500,
jerrypb@***-dot-net.no-spam.invalid (Jerry Bransford) wrote:

>Do you know of some benefit that ATF provides over water when used for
>
>this purpose?


Water is corrosive and not the best thing to put into intake. Some
have damaged engine from getting carried away with this. (water usage)
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

Jerry Bransford wrote:
> Mike, I've never understood why some always recommend ATF which costs
> money over water which does not cost money. Water works just fine, I
> know of no benefit whatsoever to using ATF over water.
>
> Do you know of some benefit that ATF provides over water when used for
>
> this purpose?

It produces a better smoke screen!

:)

--
DougW

 

Jerry Bransford wrote:
> Mike, I've never understood why some always recommend ATF which costs
> money over water which does not cost money. Water works just fine, I
> know of no benefit whatsoever to using ATF over water.
>
> Do you know of some benefit that ATF provides over water when used for
>
> this purpose?

It produces a better smoke screen!

:)

--
DougW

 

Jerry Bransford wrote:
> Mike, I've never understood why some always recommend ATF which costs
> money over water which does not cost money. Water works just fine, I
> know of no benefit whatsoever to using ATF over water.
>
> Do you know of some benefit that ATF provides over water when used for
>
> this purpose?

It produces a better smoke screen!

:)

--
DougW

 

Jerry Bransford wrote:
> Mike, I've never understood why some always recommend ATF which costs
> money over water which does not cost money. Water works just fine, I
> know of no benefit whatsoever to using ATF over water.
>
> Do you know of some benefit that ATF provides over water when used for
>
> this purpose?

It produces a better smoke screen!

:)

--
DougW