Adding Seafoam into a Hemi prior to an oil change

[rule18]

The difference under the valve covers was dramatic and the black goo that came out of the oil pan was really nasty.

Motor ran great until I sold the car. Should have kept it.

WTF, why is the word s-w-i-n-g-e-r being starred out on a Dodge truck site?

Yeah, noted. It's an automated list that's filled with all kinds of words. As we catch them they get sent to the Owner for review and action.

 

[PoMansRam]

Hello, looking for feedback with regards to adding Seafoam in my Hemi a little prior to an oil change..
I’m told it helps clean out any possible clogged up debris.

Sorry if I missed it here, but have we ever seen a late model hemi powered Ram have issues with enough sludge/varnish build-up to cause issues? Even in the MDS lifters? Lifter issues seem to stem more from a materials/build quality thing, although specific oil makes/models do seem to quiet noisy ones. This makes you wonder if certain oils/additives can mitigate some of these design and materials concerns.

These suckers do hold ~7qts of oil and the average truck guy does tend to maintain well, if not overboard.

I know I've run Liqui Moly MoS2 or Lubegard biotech in my 2019 Ram 1500 classic hemi, along with my normal regimen of lower cost synthetic 5w30 and inexpensive filters changed at a 5K mile interval. I rotate between the two adds and skip adding it for an oil change in between. The purchase of these additives were more of an impulse buy when I first got my ram in 2020 w/ 15K as an ex-rental, so when my bottles of additives run out, they're out. I'm currently at ~58K miles. My thoughts are they may only lighten your wallet.

I don't think additives such as seafoam are harmful in any way either, aside from maybe a waste of cash provided your engine is reasonably maintained.

 

[Sherman Bird]

FCA has a current standing Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 26-001-18 advising against Fluid Flushing with exception of coolant that has sediment. The bulletin is very specific in date starting with the 2005 model year to current production. The bulletin specifically calls out the impact and resulting contamination of the component fluid due to the break down of the seals from the flush compound. Calling out a specific model year tells me FCA changed the seal i.e. the compound that forms the seal. There is some "general" component across flushing products that has a negative reaction with the seal causing it breaks down.

ALL manufacturers have a "standing" TSB against flushing anything. They do not WANT their vehicles to last! Otherwise, they would collectively be "out of a job". That is a quote I heard from a GM engineer 40 years ago.

The world of automotive reality has changed radically in those 40 years. Physics is still rock solid consistent. I had a customer who was a retired GM driveline engineer. He had a crew cab truck that I performed some work on. Under the hood were 2 homemade boxes with hoses running in and out and electric cooling fans on both. one was an ATF oil cooler and the other was an engine oil cooler. See, he knew that heat was/is the greatest enemy of fluids. He had me pull the transmission dipstick and take note that the fluid was pure pretty red and looked brand spanking new. He informed me that this fluid was original with over 90K miles on the clock and him pulling a goose neck travel camper trailer behind this truck.

Engine oil, unfortunately, has other factors that exacerbate it's demise. Keeping motor oil cool does help, but it still gets contaminated with combustion by products.

All the prattle aside, I've noted that vehicles I've owned and those which I've maintained for others over the years have benefitted more from regular maintenance intervals being adhered to AND the truly worthy additives being used.

My 2004 Truck with 165K miles on the clock certainly does better with the additives. I'll continue to flush and change fluids on it.

 

[GTyankee]

Sherman Bird​

The reason that i did not go into more detail, that would better qualify my statement on additives, is that the vehicles that i was referring to, did not have computers,
i have only had 3 vehicles that were manufactured with computers.
1999 Chevy 1/2 ton
2009 Ram 1/2 ton
2016 Ram 1/2 ton

Most of my vehicles were 1950's, 1960's
I think that i had 2 1970's flippers, a Buick & a Ford, i bought them as junkers & sold them as quick as an engine rebuilder could rebuild the engines.

 

[Dodge 1500 4X4]

The only thing that should go into the oil is Lubegard for its Moly content and that's it you see guys putting in that Marvin the Magnificent Mystery oil that's thick as molasses, why are you worrying about your 2019 engine that has Zero sludge, I would worry more about damage that could occurs to the lifters and the MDS system seafoam is only good in the fuel system in later model vehicles to clean the injectors.

 

[Ron Boggio]

ALL manufacturers have a "standing" TSB against flushing anything. They do not WANT their vehicles to last! Otherwise, they would collectively be "out of a job". That is a quote I heard from a GM engineer 40 years ago.

The world of automotive reality has changed radically in those 40 years. Physics is still rock solid consistent. I had a customer who was a retired GM driveline engineer. He had a crew cab truck that I performed some work on. Under the hood were 2 homemade boxes with hoses running in and out and electric cooling fans on both. one was an ATF oil cooler and the other was an engine oil cooler. See, he knew that heat was/is the greatest enemy of fluids. He had me pull the transmission dipstick and take note that the fluid was pure pretty red and looked brand spanking new. He informed me that this fluid was original with over 90K miles on the clock and him pulling a goose neck travel camper trailer behind this truck.

Engine oil, unfortunately, has other factors that exacerbate it's demise. Keeping motor oil cool does help, but it still gets contaminated with combustion by products.

All the prattle aside, I've noted that vehicles I've owned and those which I've maintained for others over the years have benefitted more from regular maintenance intervals being adhered to AND the truly worthy additives being used.

My 2004 Truck with 165K miles on the clock certainly does better with the additives. I'll continue to flush and change fluids on it.

@Shermanbird I posted the details of a document that can be verified as a fact. Fact is different than opinion, assessment, point of view, speculation, impression or judgement. I neither endorsed nor condemn it. However, it is a fact, something that has actual existence.

I made my foray into the automotive world the summer of 1976, building fiberglass body parts for corvettes. I, like you obtained GM certification, ASE certification, Several hundred hours through GMs STG. I was part of the GM TAN (Technical Assistant Network). I was Pit Crew Chief of a race team in the 80s. I have a “I love me” book about 3 inches thick of certifications. BLA BLA BLA!

I had the opportunity to work with some wonderful engineers, mechanics etc., that had the greatest pride in what they did. Funny along the way I never heard a whim of “they don’t want a vehicle to last”. One singular fact of “physics” holds true, an internal combustion engine in a carriage put into the elements is not going to last, period.

While physics are important, chemistry is too. The TSB calls out a specific date. That tells you the chemical composition of the seals etc. changed. My challenge, go to the additive makers and ask, did they change the chemistry of their product to coexist with the new chemical composition of the seals etc?

With that said do you realize how absurd the statement “All manufacturers have a “standing” TSB against flush anything. They don’t want their vehicles to last! Otherwise, they would be collectively “out of a job”” sounds? A disgruntled engineer with an ax to grind does not qualify, period. I find it a bit ironic I even mention, in the TSB, FCA DOES recommend “FLUSH CHEMICAL” for the coolant in the presence of sediments. I guess that part of my statement just slipped by.

Here is my experience, I do not “endorse” additives or flush chemicals as “routine” maintenance. I will recommend using quality fluids of the type required. All oils are not equal, all transmission fluids, not equal etc etc. My 78 Camaro with an inline six had 516 thousand miles on it when it died. That car was as reliable as god. Not one additive or flush chemical was introduced. My 98 Ram, 277 thousand miles on it, not one additive or flush chemical was introduced. My 2007 Ram, 369 thousand miles on it, not one additive or flush chemical was introduced.

Here is what I will “recommend”, routine maintenance based on the individual’s driving habits. The maintenance schedule in the owner’s manual is a guideline not a rule. The driver’s habits govern all. I will recommend and encourage the owner to learn about the maintenance and why it’s important. However, that is the owner’s choice, my "word" is not good enough and I will not become the reason why an owner does or does not make a choice to do something.

In the final analysis “you” have to answer this question, while you may “endorse” something that is contrary to a manufacture guidance, does the manufacture endorse you?

 

[Mister Luck]

Sorry if I missed it here, but have we ever seen a late model hemi powered Ram have issues with enough sludge/varnish build-up to cause issues? Even in the MDS lifters? Lifter issues seem to stem more from a materials/build quality thing, although specific oil makes/models do seem to quiet noisy ones. This makes you wonder if certain oils/additives can mitigate some of these design and materials concerns.

These suckers do hold ~7qts of oil and the average truck guy does tend to maintain well, if not overboard.

I know I've run Liqui Moly MoS2 or Lubegard biotech in my 2019 Ram 1500 classic hemi, along with my normal regimen of lower cost synthetic 5w30 and inexpensive filters changed at a 5K mile interval. I rotate between the two adds and skip adding it for an oil change in between. The purchase of these additives were more of an impulse buy when I first got my ram in 2020 w/ 15K as an ex-rental, so when my bottles of additives run out, they're out. I'm currently at ~58K miles. My thoughts are they may only lighten your wallet.

I don't think additives such as seafoam are harmful in any way either, aside from maybe a waste of cash provided your engine is reasonably maintained.

Here’s my experience,

Rebuilding late Mitsubishi engineered engines. I came across design flaws in lubrication and oil return that were corrected back to previous designs that although where more complicated in assembly allowed a less restrictive flow of lubricants over a greater period of operation.
Yes I’ll agree that material selection by supply chains can be an issue in component integrity.

The obvious issues that heat transfer between components directly associated with the combustion process sometimes is not immediately communicated between those at the chalkboard and service disassembly.


Essentially the design flaws were made because of a lack of testing in real environmental conditions.
Scientific testing is the accumulation of data in a controlled environment like a laboratory.
Variables are countless, the more variables introduced the greater the lack of consistency and predictably in results.

If ether by the accumulation of service tickets at a garage or experiences through salvage of neglected vehicles.
The truth eventually becomes evident.

 

[Sherman Bird]

Here’s my experience,

Rebuilding late Mitsubishi engineered engines. I came across design flaws in lubrication and oil return that were corrected back to previous designs that although where more complicated in assembly allowed a less restrictive flow of lubricants over a greater period of operation.
Yes I’ll agree that material selection by supply chains can be an issue in component integrity.

The obvious issues that heat transfer between components directly associated with the combustion process sometimes is not immediately communicated between those at the chalkboard and service disassembly.


Essentially the design flaws were made because of a lack of testing in real environmental conditions.
Scientific testing is the accumulation of data in a controlled environment like a laboratory.
Variables are countless, the more variables introduced the greater the lack of consistency and predictably in results.

If ether by the accumulation of service tickets at a garage or experiences through salvage of neglected vehicles.
The truth eventually becomes evident.

I clearly remember one of the visiting engineers teaching at the Houston GM training campus way back in the very early 80's stating that some locales such as Houston, Texas exhibited a more unstable range of conditions in temperature and humidity fluctuations which were more telling after design flaws which never showed up in controlled testing ground conditions reared their ugly heads in real world extremities such as here. This came from warranty and dealer service data compiled over some years across the country and in Canada, so he said.

I think his intent was to say that not all probabilities can be anticipated, even in Beta testing (pre production prototypes).

Kia recently had production problems on a lot of their engines. All car manufacturers have had their share of them. My reference about all this flushing/additives debate is across the board, production flaws aside. I've seen and experienced more success with it over 46 years that not.

I've actually observed near 290F degree temperature readouts for transmission fluid temperatures on late model vehicles. That high temp exceeds the stock additive in ATF. I've added auxiliary coolers to these and reduced read out temps 100 degrees cooler, and with additive, another 10-15 degrees cooler.

As a long time repair shop owner and technician, I've observed more good from the additives than not. IOW, it works for me.

 

[Mister Luck]

I clearly remember one of the visiting engineers teaching at the Houston GM training campus way back in the very early 80's stating that some locales such as Houston, Texas exhibited a more unstable range of conditions in temperature and humidity fluctuations which were more telling after design flaws which never showed up in controlled testing ground conditions reared their ugly heads in real world extremities such as here. This came from warranty and dealer service data compiled over some years across the country and in Canada, so he said.

I think his intent was to say that not all probabilities can be anticipated, even in Beta testing (pre production prototypes).

Kia recently had production problems on a lot of their engines. All car manufacturers have had their share of them. My reference about all this flushing/additives debate is across the board, production flaws aside. I've seen and experienced more success with it over 46 years that not.

I've actually observed near 290F degree temperature readouts for transmission fluid temperatures on late model vehicles. That high temp exceeds the stock additive in ATF. I've added auxiliary coolers to these and reduced read out temps 100 degrees cooler, and with additive, another 10-15 degrees cooler.

As a long time repair shop owner and technician, I've observed more good from the additives than not. IOW, it works for me.

That’s great, and as much as you describe it, because of the uniqueness across as many vehicles as you have stated, but is it really applicable to someone who uses premium products that already contain the needed additives under regular maintenance schedules?

Of course we have all seen the threads generated by product comparisons. Again my opinion is from experience that consistency whether observed or not during service life is the one consistent denominator.

My one personal caveat is fuel quality and its affect of the combustion process over time and I am not adverse to using a fuel additive as a supplement but I keep to one and observe the results over a long period of time.

I personally like and use Sea Foam products like Deep Creep for lubrication and metal to metal contact but even Sea Foam has fallen victim to environmental oversight and have changed some of their products formulas.

 

[Sherman Bird]

That’s great, and as much as you describe it, because of the uniqueness across as many vehicles as you have stated, but is it really applicable to someone who uses premium products that already contain the needed additives under regular maintenance schedules?

Of course we have all seen the threads generated by product comparisons. Again my opinion is from experience that consistency whether observed or not during service life is the one consistent denominator.

My one personal caveat is fuel quality and its affect of the combustion process over time and I am not adverse to using a fuel additive as a supplement but I keep to one and observe the results over a long period of time.

I personally like and use Sea Foam products like Deep Creep for lubrication and metal to metal contact but even Sea Foam has fallen victim to environmental oversight and have changed some of their products formulas.

I recently became aware of the REALLY effective fuel and oil flush additives from the boys in Albuquerque at ATS (Automotive Test Solutions) Their fuel additive works hands-down WAY faster and better than ANYTHING I've ever used. Bernie Thompson is the owner and he has 2 full time engineers on staff. They are consummate automotive nerds! Word is, they spent 8 years developing this formula. I bought 2 kits initially (Their Crankcase flush with the fuel additive). The first one was used on my wife's VERY high mileage 2007 Kia Sorento with the 3.8L engine. 226,000 miles. WOW! What a difference in smoothness this treatment made! We thought the car was running just fine! That was until I tried Bernie's flushes on it. The second one was used, as happenstance would have it, on a customer's 2014 Kia Sorento with 128,000 miles on a GDI 3.3L V-6. Afterwards, she just couldn't say enough how it runs as good as it did when it was brand new! I've since used it on 2 more customers' vehicles with the same rave as to how well it works! I now stock the fuel additive.

I've been on board with BG products for 2 decades, and have had great results as well. But their 44K can't hold a candle to the ATS stuff!

Fuel in these parts is akin to donkey *****. So there's that!

 

[Docwagon1776]

If we're doing anecdotes, I got a 4.0 Jeep well over 200k miles and a 4.6 Ford (well, actually Lincoln but samey-same) to a touch over 300k. We probably don't care about diesels, but a 7.3 Ford to a bit over 250k which isn't remarkable in the slightest. I didn't take them apart to look at the guts since I sold them off to someone else who continued to rack up miles presumptively. No additives or special regimes other than oil changes, filters, spark plugs, etc as scheduled.

I wish I could remember how many miles on my 318 when the transfer case decide to retire and I needed a new truck anyway due to family expansion. Well into the six digits. It did not live an easy life, either. It got worked well beyond the original specs of that truck, and did so with 35" tires. What a great truck.

 

[LoneStarHemi]

Sherman Bird, why no extra zdpp for vvt engines?

 

[DC Tradesman]

Sea Foam is a good product. I used it for a stuck lifter on a Ford Tarius. I ran the engine till warm up, drained a quart of oil. Added a full can & ran the engine at idle (ONLY) for about 5 minutes. The lifter unclogged and completely quieted up . I drained & serviced with fresh oil.
I never had a problem with Leakes or lifter tap again.
If I had a high milage engine I wouldn't think twice about using it to flush the lifters of sludge. I have 40+ years in the maintenance field.
I really don't think one treatment is going to impact any seals.

 

[Sherman Bird]

Sherman Bird, why no extra zdpp for vvt engines?

Let me clarify: The GM additive is akin to molasses. Therefor, I won't put it into a VVTi engine. I use BG 115 MOA for all VCM/VVT/VVTi engines. BG is thinner and will not cause any flow resistance in the tiny cam phaser passages.

 

[Sherman Bird]

Sea Foam is a good product. I used it for a stuck lifter on a Ford Tarius. I ran the engine till warm up, drained a quart of oil. Added a full can & ran the engine at idle (ONLY) for about 5 minutes. The lifter unclogged and completely quieted up . I drained & serviced with fresh oil.
I never had a problem with Leakes or lifter tap again.
If I had a high milage engine I wouldn't think twice about using it to flush the lifters of sludge. I have 40+ years in the maintenance field.
I really don't think one treatment is going to impact any seals.

I had a friend/customer who told me of growing up in the forests of West Virginia; his father was in the logging/ sawmill business. These saw mills were powered by gasoline in-line 6 cylinder automotive engines, and they saw a tough existence. This friend's dad would drain the engine oil during maintenance, add back about a 50/50 mix of oil and diesel fuel into the crankcase and run the engine for 10-15 minutes. He'd then change that out and replace the filter and the engine ran another period of time til it's next scheduled maintenance. These engines would look like brand new inside anytime a repair was done where the rocker cover, oil pan, or any other disassembly bared the internals.

This friend would bring me diesel fuel, 8 quarts of oil, and 2 new filters (here in Houston) and have me perform the same service as his dad did on those sawmill powerplants, on his car. This was on a 1983 Mustang GT with a 302 engine. Later, he had me install a performance intake manifold on the engine when it had nearly 100K on the odometer. The lifter valley and under the valve covers looked like a brand new engine.

 

[hallmarc47]

Funny, not too long ago I read all of the posts about adding products like LubeGard or other named products to the syn oil as being the gold standard of Hemi care. Wonder where those guys are on this question?

 

[IDSandman]

46 years as an ASE Master L1, GM Master, GMC Truck expert technician. Formally trained at GM and Ford factory schools, Many independent educational professional "keep up with technology" courses. Owning my own shop and actively using these products in my own and customers' cars. Seeing before and after in engines when I do internal repairs and see how clean these products keep the internal workings of engines. E.G. I replaced a leaky oil pan gasket on a 2002 Taurus 3.0L "U" engine. At high mileage and having used the cleaning products on it (BG in this case) along with BG additives. The pistons and rods were perfectly clean as new, the inside of the oil pan and block surfaces were shiny and impressively clean given the high mileage on the odometer. This is only one of many examples where I've seen no varnish or sludge inside due to diligent periodic maintenance.

Seafoam, BG, and ATS (Automotive Test Solutions) additives have been the ones I chiefly use because they work for me and my customers. I recently put a bottle of ATS fuel additive in my wife's car and a customer's car (both Kia Sorentos). ATS also makes a very good oil change treatment such as seafoam, only WAY better. It is very effective on GDI engines. The customer has absolutely raved about how the car runs as good as it did new! I have a large following of customer with very high mileage on their cars and they still run perfectly, and these customers routinely go on long trips in dependable cars which have had superior maintenance.

Thank you for your reply. You sounded as in the trade hence my asking. Also thank you for not getting offended with my truly curious question for clarification.

 

[David James]

Hello, looking for feedback with regards to adding Seafoam in my Hemi a little prior to an oil change..
I’m told it helps clean out any possible clogged up debris.

Just say no. Any 5w20 synthetic oil that attains factory service spec changed on a regular basis of 5k to 7.5k along with a good quality filter is all you need.

 

[Dusty]

FCA has a current standing Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 26-001-18 advising against Fluid Flushing with exception of coolant that has sediment. The bulletin is very specific in date starting with the 2005 model year to current production. The bulletin specifically calls out the impact and resulting contamination of the component fluid due to the break down of the seals from the flush compound. Calling out a specific model year tells me FCA changed the seal i.e. the compound that forms the seal. There is some "general" component across flushing products that has a negative reaction with the seal causing it breaks down.

Toyota has a similar advisement.

Regards,
Dusty
2019 Ram 1500 Billet Silver Quad Cab 2WD, 5.7 Hemi, 8HP75, 3.21 axle, 33-gallon fuel tank, factory dual exhaust, 18” wheels. Build date: 3 June 2018. Now at 74797 miles

 

[Sherman Bird]

The treatments you add to the vehicles you mentioned are still routinely changed at specified intervals.?
Are any of the aforementioned vehicles candidates for severe duty maintenance ?

We all have one or the other favored brands and when it comes right down to the similarity we all change on schedule whether earlier than later for severe or extreme duty it is a measure of sensibility.

There really is no substitute for consistency in maintenance.

Houston, Texas is considered a severe duty area for routine automotive use. I was on Interstate 45 heading south from Huntsville towards home recently from a trip. After clipping along at 80+ MPH in my high mileage 2004 Ranger, traffic came to a complete stop near Conroe. I had been on the road on back road highways for 2 hours prior. Sadly, a Harley rider had been killed in a collision up ahead. I sat in the stopped traffic at idle with the A/C running and the engine at idle for nearly 2 hours waiting to be allowed to go through after authorities cleared the scene. From that point to home, I averaged over 70 MPH.

Stopping and creeping on Houston freeways, then accelerating to 80 mph or so repeatedly, to go to work during the week is routine here in Space City. Then vehicles are routinely putted around for errands on weekends.... all this with radical and frequent temperature/ humidity changes. These are harsh demands on automobiles.

As I've alluded to in prior posting, GM engineers lamented in several of my classes that Houston, Texas seemingly exceeded their proving grounds simply because we do have such rapid and diverse weather patterns combined with brutal traffic. Their qualification for these comments was that they saw some of the most unusual failures at premature expectation levels FOR these failures!

I use all the additives in my Ranger that I tout. Are they a magic elixir? I won't go that far. But, they do provide a level of protection that helps to stave off breakdowns. BG products actually provides financial recompense in the event of failure in engines, transmission, brake hydraulics, cooling system components, power steering.

They paid twice for a heater core failure on one of my customer's vehicles where their products were/are used. THAT is a company putting their money where their mouth is.