Recently the Wife and I visited a local custom and classic car show. One of the trade stands was that of EDT Automotive. EDT had on display their Engine decontamination device that completely cleans out the old oil and gunk from your engine. Now any one that knows us will agree we are more than protective of our vehicles and I was more than sceptical of the claims made. After an in depth conversation with both David and Simon from EDT my Octavia VRS was booked in the next week for treatment.

On arrival at My local garage that are agents for EDT I was greeted by Simon who explained the procedure. My car was then raised on the ramp and I was offered refreshments while work was carried out. After about 20 minutes the job was completed and fresh oil filter, oil and sump plug installed.

Simon and I chatted some more and he showed me the filter that captured foreign bodies that were in my engine. A fair bit of broken dip stick tube and other horrors just waiting to block my oil pick up that the 1.8t's are prone of.

A quick test drive and the car seemed a lot smoother but maybe that was the placebo effect of work carried out. The real test would be an economy run to see if there was a change.

Result was that my previous all time best MPG was 46.4 and now was indicated at 51.1 quite remarkable.

I was very impressed with the way that EDT conducted themselves and as such the wife's Fabia VRS tdi was booked in the following week for the same treatment. The little Fabia instantly had less visible smoke from exhaust under boost.

If anyone is interested in the excellent service from EDT they can be contacted on 01233 712341 the website is www.edtautomotive.com

From the EDT automotive website:

"Lowering CO2 emissions by an average of 59%"

 

 

Ah, the '2' shouldn't be there on that page, they talk about 58% reduction of CO on this page, which makes a tiny bit of sense, possibly. Big difference between claiming an average 59% reduction on one page, and 'have experienced 58%' on the other...

From the EDT automotive website:

"Lowering CO2 emissions by an average of 59%"

 

 

Ah, the '2' shouldn't be there on that page, they talk about 58% reduction of CO on this page, which makes a tiny bit of sense, possibly. Big difference between claiming an average 59% reduction on one page, and 'have experienced 58%' on the other...

Yes indeed, and a very big difference between CO and CO2, which casts aspirations on their proff reiding if nothing else.

 

Also, for the OP, just how did they extract "a piece of dipstick tube" during what must be a sump-on procedure?

As the procedure uses a pulsed pump any foreign bodies are sucked out and filtered via the filter in the EDT machine.

Do you have any personal connection with this company, other than as a customer?

Do you have any personal connection with this company, other than as a customer?

I'm not in anyway involved in a personal connection to EDT Automotive. As a satisfied customer and Skoda enthusiast I thought I would post my review here. I also have no financial gain in doing so.

Ta.

As the procedure uses a pulsed pump any foreign bodies are sucked out and filtered via the filter in the EDT machine.

Thanks, but the question was really "what hole was there that was big enough for a piece of dipstick tube to get out of the sump through?"

Thanks, but the question was really "what hole was there that was big enough for a piece of dipstick tube to get out of the sump through?"

Out of the sump drain hole. And the plastic pieces were small. However they probably wouldn't come out with a normal oil change.

Out of the sump drain hole. And the plastic pieces were small. However they probably wouldn't come out with a normal oil change.

So just plastic chips really? You gave me an impression that it was a sizeable piece and still recognisably from a tube that's a similar diameter to the sump drain.

So just plastic chips really? You gave me an impression that it was a sizeable piece and still recognisably from a tube that's a similar diameter to the sump drain.

Sorry if you got the wrong impression. The filter in the EDT machine was removed after the process. The glass EDT filter housing was where the particles of dipstick tube and other horrors were collected. Recognisable as dipstick tube as they were plastic and of the same colour.

Thanks for posting.

 

Are these all of the results of cars you've before/after tested?

 

No control data, showing what changes in these measurements occur when just a normal oil change is done?

 

To be fair, I guess you don't actually claim that these differences are relative to a normal oil change. Just relative to running around with old oil.

Can you suggest a mechanism for how an EDT treatment could make such a large difference to the AFRs in that video?

  :wonder:

You know that lower AFR means more fuel for a given amount of air, right?

 

No thanks.