Re: MotorVac carbon removal update - now *very* long.

[Bryan Kamerer <kamerer@concentric.net>]

At 09:56 PM 10/15/97 -0400, Micahel Murphy wrote:

>I stopped at a local MotorVac dealer today (thread appeared last week) and
>talked to the owner about the service.  Below are some of his
>answers/comments:
>
>1.  What is the process?
>System developed/manufactured by SUN.
>Cleans carbon/gum deposits from fuel system (Fuel distributor, manifold,
>injectors),
>and upper engine (valves and piston heads).
>Uses a naptha-based solvent, mixed with super unleaded fuel.  System is
>connected between FP and FD, and car is run for up to 1 hour.
>
>Endorsed by all major car manufacturers.  Audi?  He doesn't know, but VW
>does.
>

System was developed/manufactured by Motorvac Technologies of Santa Ana, CA.
Technology was patented by Frederick Mosher, who receives the greater each
year of a)$10,000, or b)$50 per cleaning machine sold. (He is not an officer
of the co. making a windfall - just an inventor getting his due).

Motorvac has an exclusive distribution agreement with Snap-On Tools, who
distribute it nationally through their Sun Electric division.  Machines sold
this way to automotive repair shops have the SUN name on them.  They are
manufactured and warrantied by Motorvac, not SUN or Snap-on.  Snap on
distributes about 50% of Motorvac's machines, so about half say "Sun" and
the rest say "Motorvac Carbon Clean."


>2.  What are the benefits?
>Those associated with a "cleaner engine": increased vacuum, valves seat
>better after being "decarbonized", more power, lower emissions (the system
>is touted for vehicles that fail emission tests), increased mileage.  Snake
>oil?
>

Works well from 5 cars/owners I have found who commented on the process.
This is a sample of 5 cars from 3 owners who all paid to have it done and
have no stake in any auto shop or the company.

>3.  What about guarantees or damage?
>This dealer will refund cost if you don't see an improvement.  He charges
>$100.00.
>SUN, according to this dealer, guarantees that if a vehicle sustains
>damage, as a result of this process, they will repair same (they may have
>figured out someone else to blame).  
>

As above, SUN only distribute the machine/cleaning detergent (mixed 3:1
gas:detergent during the cleaning).  Motorvac would be on the hook for
repairs.  Motorvac carries a product liability insurance policy which will
pay up to $10,000 per event for a liability.  As of their last 10Q, the
company was involved in no litigation for product claims/damages.

Warranty expenses for its products cost the company $53,000 in 1995 and
$41,000 in 1996.  Notice the fall year over year, despite an increase in
sales of machines and detergent from $5.0 million to $8.2 million for the
same periods.

>This dealer WILL NOT DO the service on high mileage (>150K) imports (Audi
>included).  He was vague when I asked why (mumbling alot about fuel
>distributors leaking, quitting, etc.).  They will do the service on similar
>mileage 'merican engines.
>

No facts here, but what distinguishes Motorvac from, say, throwing some
Techron in the tank, is that they pressurize the fuel system from the fuel
pump forward.  This is to achieve two things - make certain that leaks are
not the cause of poor performance, and to make sure the detergent has the
requisite pressure to scrub effectively.  I would surmise they are willing
to take the risk of blowing something out on an older/high mileage Chevy
Caprice, but not with a '60's era Alpha Romeo Spider Giulietta.

>Realllly "dirty" cars are known to run crummy, for up to several days,
>after this cleaning.

My V8 ran rough with an erratic idle for 50 miles or so.  Then smoothed out.
Mechanics recommend resetting idle/basic specs. after cleaning, so do this
before an expected tune-up (my strategy).

>
>Anyone care to comment about the use of naptha-based solvent on non-metal
>parts and having specks of carbon flying around in the engine/exhaust/O2
>sensor for a day or two.  I'm not one to jump in until I know how deep the
>water is.

Don't know, but the co. states explicity that electronic/computer sensors
cannot be harmed.  Just their word, here.


>
>MJ Murphy
>89 100
>if it ain't broke, it just means the gods haven't figured out what to do
>next.
>
>
>
No, I don't work for the company - I just got interested in it.  Most of the
above info came from the co.'s 10K and 10Q which I requested from investor
relations and reviewed after my original post.  I do not own stock in the
company.  I am a professional money manager and request/review this kind of
information daily for my job, so I looked over this company out of curiosity.

Bryan Kamerer