Review on AUTOOL Injector Automotive Injection Cleaners by Mike Walters

Very happy with this device. I'm a do-it-yourself mechanic so I don't expect this to be a TON of use, but it will save you the "secret" of injectors. This is a 4 injector system. This made the most sense to me compared to larger units, and here's why. If you have a 4 cylinder engine, no problem, check everything at once. If you have a 6 cylinder engine you can test 3 injectors with a plug on the 4th allowing you to test the entire row of injectors at once. Yes, you have to do the exercise twice to cover all the jets, but it's not that difficult. If you have an 8 cylinder engine, the same as a 6 cylinder except you don't need a connector to check each bank. I had a hard time figuring out the difference between the CT150 and CT160 other than the aesthetics. Here's what I decided to be different: 1. The bottles on the CT160 are shorter. CT150 shows 140ml vials while CT160 has 100ml vials. This can be an issue when testing aftermarket, performance, or E85 injectors. 100ml fills up quickly but is great for testing standard atomizers.2. The CT150's fuel rail is fixed with 2 threaded rods at each end, while the CT160's fuel rail is fixed with a single rod in the middle. This was a bit of a concern for me initially as running with an odd number of injectors could cause fuel line leakage problems with all injectors. I can say that 3 nozzles do not cause any problems for this device. It is possible to run a single injector (haven't tested this yet), but this can easily be remedied by either installing a junk injector against the single injector being tested, or installing a simple shim to hold the fuel line level to hold.3 . The photos show that the CT150 comes with an ultrasonic bath lid. My CT160 had no lid. This is problematic, so I will make a lid to prevent household waste from getting into the ultrasonic and so that the liquid does not evaporate. 4. The controls are slightly different as the CT150 has knobs to control fuel pressure while the CT160 has one knob. I'd say the stylus feels better without the physical use of the CT150 and I'd call it an upgrade. In addition, the control scheme is slightly different.5. I'm not sure how the CT150 controls the ultrasonic bath. But I can speak for CT160. The controls for the CT160 are the two red switches on the right front of the unit. One for ultrasound, the other for heat. The injector pulse is set independently using the control panel and one of the menu items. This is ideal as you can use the ultrasonic cleaner independently when needed.6. The CT160 appears to be a much more compact system. As a do-it-yourselfer this was preferred as storage space is valuable and it will not be a workhorse. However, I can't see how a larger unit could be any better, except when it comes to large CT150 vials. The instructions for this leave a lot to be desired. I kept seeing in the listing and instructions that "special fluid" is mentioned for cleaning injectors. I still don't know what this "special liquid" is. Given the atomization of the liquid and the heat and the open ultrasonic tank, I didn't want to use a highly volatile cleaner like gasoline or most gasoline injector additives. I've seen some people use mineral spirits, but I went with kerosene because I had it on hand and it's a bit less volatile than mineral spirits. I might look into the Lucas injector cleaner since it comes in a gallon size, but to be honest kerosene seems to work great. I'm having trouble with all of these devices and the method of fuel delivery is fed into the rail. Both the CT150 and CT160 have an entry to the fuel rail and the pressure will pulsate significantly during high flow testing as the injectors pulsate. This means that nozzles that are farther from the inlet will see pressure drops that can lead to incorrect readings. The CT150's dual rod design means the intake is centered on the fuel rail and this problem is less common. However, because the CT160 has a center bar, the inlet needs to be offset and located between the 3rd and 4th nozzle positions. While I haven't tested this yet, I expect Position 1 will suffer during high-flow testing on the estate. In the long run I will most likely put a tee on the inlet hose and create a second inlet in the fuel rail between positions 1 and 2 to equalize the fuel pressure. This may not be a problem for most, but if you are trying to adapt atomizers to a power build it should be taken into account. Finally, some have complained about how dirty the device is when removing the atomizers. If you create a method to add air to the fuel rail and then run the ultrasonic selection in the menu, the system will pulse the injectors without activating the pump. However, you must pass air over the nozzles, otherwise the vacuum will prevent liquid from passing through the nozzles.