Catch Cans, and Is there evidence???

tw557 · Mar 22, 2017

I wouldn't doubt there is some truth to the first statement but I think the manufactures are doing designs to work well and drain back on its own such as our PCV connects to a lower part on the engine with I think baffles in the cover. Higher turbo pressures and lots of High revving runs will probably start to bypass the stock system possibly.

Juben · Mar 22, 2017

tw557 said:
I wouldn't doubt there is some truth to the first statement but I think the manufactures are doing designs to work well and drain back on its own such as our PCV connects to a lower part on the engine with I think baffles in the cover. Higher turbo pressures and lots of High revving runs will probably start to bypass the stock system possibly.

It seems as though they have their minds set as to the viability of a catch can system, so I'd save my typing for something else. I'm not trying to be a dick, but if anyone had disassembled the PCV system on these cars and had a solid understanding of how it works and why manufacturers don't have a factory catch can on them, then discussion would be futile against them.

So, I'll sum it up like this, if you don't want to run one, don't. I could sit here and type till my fingers feel off, but if everyone is convinced against them already, then it isn't gonna do much in the way of changing anyone's mind. Plus, I have to leave to work in a few minutes and don't have time yet to discuss and dissect the inherent flaws of factory PCV systems and why they're designed in the way that they are.

jacknifetoaswan · Mar 22, 2017

Ebm said:
Have any proof to back up your first statement?

How would you even prove that? No auto manufacturer is going to admit to NOT installing something that could help the long term life of the engine and components because people are too stupid to properly maintain their vehicle.

JR

Ebm · Mar 22, 2017

.

jacknifetoaswan said:
How would you even prove that? No auto manufacturer is going to admit to NOT installing something that could help the long term life of the engine and components because people are too stupid to properly maintain their vehicle.

JR

Thought someone might mention the auto manufacturer not wanting to admit. This is for you...

I was the one that contacted someone from the Stingray Consultant team from GM...Here is what he wrote back on this matter.

"The Stingray was evaluated with over one million development miles on 200 captured test fleet cars. There are tens of thousands of direct injection vehicles on the road from General Motors alone. During the evaluation hundreds of engines were literally torn down in to part piles and evaluated. There are hundreds of thousands of LSx family of motors (where part of this catch can hype started) on the roads and the many of these motors are running well past 250,000 miles without a catch can.

The cars have a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty and that includes mechanical failure of the engine. Trust me when I tell you that there are not reams of data (not even pages of data) on cars coming up lame because of oil at the MAF. It just isn't the problem that the "internet" makes it out to be. When you ask a GM Powertrain engineer about a catch can the reply is that the only thing you get is added weight.

In looking at the extra effort and added cost that went in to the Stingray, do you really believe for one second that if a $20.00 part attached to the engine would improve reliability, limit warranty claims and replacement costs, that GM wouldn't have put it on if it was necessary as part of their evaluation?

Every single GM engineer that I have spoken with told me in one form or another that a catch can is predominately a "gimmick" device created by tuners looking to make a few extra bucks on their engine modifications.

As a by-product of the PCV system, excess oil vapor is recycled to prevent it from leaching out in to the environment. It will condense back in to liquid if the temperature and environmental conditions are right. A catch can is an oil separator device. It allows the heavier oil in liquid to condense in the bottom of the can and only pass the air (gases) back. This is basically the same thing that is happening at the front of the MAF where most of the oil can be found.

The theory is that this oil in the intake system will collect on the valves and in the cylinders and cause excess carbon deposits. The catch can will reduce (not eliminate) oil pooling in the MAF.

Where the plan breaks down is that there aren't thousands of cars detonating because of the oil. As I told you on the phone, This isn't new. The engines are designed to deal with a quantity of oil mist presented via the intake.

You asked what I should tell the customer, my answer is I'm not sure because I don't know what his question is. If the question is is this normal? The answer is yes. If the question is should I put a catch can on? The answer is what ever makes you feel better. If the question is do I need a catch can? The answer is a resounding no. If the reply is that they saw it on the internet, apologize politely and tell them virtually every thread about it has started with a vendor selling a product or a consumer that was fooled by the hype and trying to make themselves feel better about their purchase by getting others to agree with them.

If he has concerns about his condition he should take the car to his dealer for evaluation.

Here is my standard response to the dozens of emails I get each year with a link to a thread like you posted (and often, that very same thread).

Simply stated, absolutely not on the catch can. It simply isn’t warranted for any street driven car. We can talk in more detail about it tomorrow and Dan will appreciate it as I’ve all ready had this conversation with him as well. Since the advent of the PCV system, cars have released some oil in places where it wouldn’t normally have gone in a fully sealed system. It ends up in vapor which condenses back in to liquid form in the intake path. As a result of that, the system is designed to ingest and subsequently digest some extra oil. Higher revving produces more oil and repeated higher revving (drag racer, track duty car, etc.) would be in the realm of uses that I might consider adding the can. Daily driving, occasional back road romp or stop light to stop light burst, not so much.

With all of that said, they won’t hurt anything. For those that don’t want to take my word for it, can feel comfortable adding it but it won’t make an appreciable difference in the life of the motor or the efficiency of the system.
If you dig deep enough in to forum information about catch cans, all roads generally lead back to a performance tuner, aftermarket part supplier or fabricator who has a vested interest in selling catch cans." Stingray Consultant

jtmat · Mar 22, 2017

Ebm said:
It simply isn’t warranted for any street driven car.

You can say that about a lot of the parts pushed on this forum.... :lol:

If you dig deep enough in to forum information about catch cans, all roads generally lead back to a performance tuner, aftermarket part supplier or fabricator who has a vested interest in selling catch cans."

This as well.... or one or two people who have decided something is "fact" and everyone goes with it because they don't know or don't have time to research themselves.

My specific thought on a catch can: I won't get one.... I'll trade this car in for the 2020 model in about three years. But I've not read where catch can is absolutely necessary... couple of people are really convinced though.

Anyway, let me blow my motor in peace.

tcman54 · Mar 22, 2017

It works on my ecoboost, get about 2 tablespoons of oil every 2000 miles.

Marvinmadman · Mar 22, 2017

I'll never run an engine without one. Even if all it did was stop my Ecoboost from smoking at idle, its worth it.

ForYourOwnGood · Mar 22, 2017

Ebm said:
Thought someone might mention the auto manufacturer not wanting to admit. This is for you...

stuff

Like I said, don't use one if you don't want to. I have personal experience with the DI motor this 2.3 is based on and it needs one. GM has a well designed stock system, the one on the Turbo 4cyl Camaro is especially good. The point of the catch can isn't to put one on every car on the road as you seem to be implying, but to put one on these cars with poorly designed stock PCV systems that don't do well with boosted DI motors. This motor is heavily related to the Mazda DISI which is notoriously bad for burning so much oil through the PCV that the turbo seals fail and it begins to smoke. I don't see any problem if I want to capture a cup of junk every 3000 miles and take it out of the intake tract, its not like I'm hurting the car by doing so.

Here is an article from Edmunds about observing multiple different brands of cars, remember DI tech is fairly new and they're still working out the kinks:

All Engines Not Designed Equally
Many automakers’ gasoline DI engines do not appear to exhibit any carbon build-up issues at all, however. Digging into online threads about Cadillac’s 3.6-liter DI V6 in its popular CTS lineup does reveal some owner concerns about carbon build-up, but it’s difficult to find even a single report that any build-up has actually occurred – a record that is notable considering that Cadillac has sold more than 200,000 CTS models with DI V6s (Audi sold fewer than 2,000 RS 4s in the US during its two-year sales run).

Haider, GM’s V6 assistant chief engineer, explained how GM has designed its DI engines to combat carbon buildup: “We maintain great engine function and performance in our all our DI engines through an optimization strategy with our valve events,” he said. “Our intake-cam timing, injector targeting and timing of the injection events are optimized to avoid direct fuel contact on the intake valves. This strategy keeps smoke and soot formation to an absolute minimum, which in turn prevents excessive deposit formation.”

At the Detroit Auto Show in January, Ford was confident enough about its popular 3.5 liter EcoBoost direct-injection V6 to have technicians tear down an example engine that had accumulated the equivalent of 160,000 miles through an intentionally abusive regimen of log dragging, high-speed towing and desert racing. When they opened it up before a live audience, they found some light carbon deposits on the valves and pistons, but not enough to affect performance. In fact, the engine showed a loss of just one horsepower afterwards – roughly what Boyadjiev’s RS 4 engine lost every 500 miles.

Stephen Russ, technical leader for combustion for Ford’s 2-liter Duratec DI engine, said that similar to GM, engineers have determined the proper injection-timing calibration to help eliminate the carbon deposits. But Russ also said the technology of injection components – particularly the high-pressure solenoid injectors – has quickly matured, meaning excess valve deposits in most DI engines should become a thing of the past as these improved components are incorporated into production.

Tony Chick, principal engineer at European Performance Labs in Stratford, Connecticut, has made a career of repairing and rebuilding high-performance engines from Audi, Porsche AG and BMW, among others and his operation has garnered a reputation among car enthusiasts as a go-to place for cleaning DI engines that have become choked with carbon. Chick thinks the problem for most affected engines can be traced to the breathing system – specifically, the design of its crankcase ventilation and exhaust-gas recirculation components.

All modern gasoline engines return some crankcase and exhaust gases back through the intake manifold in order to help control emissions, but, according to Chick, some exhaust-gas recirculation designs are “dirtier" than others. Some, he said, are less-effective at preventing the passage of tiny bits of oil, carbon and other particulates that eventually get baked onto the intake ports and valves.

Chick reached his conclusion after inspecting dozens of different DI engines at his shop and finding some, like the V8 in Boyadjiev’s Audi RS 4, regularly choked with carbon while others, like the DI version of Porsche’s horizontally opposed 6-cylinder, remained much cleaner.

If he’s right, the rapid adoption of DI has actually illuminated an issue, not caused one. A “dirty” intake or exhaust-recirculation design can easily go undetected in a conventional port-injected engine due to the cleaning effect of gasoline passing over the intake valves. When the same engine designs are adapted to direct-injection fueling, however, that cleaning effect is suddenly lost – and the carbon layers can build.

There is no simple fix for engines that are prone to carbon build-up, Chick says. What’s needed is a complete redesign of the crankcase ventilation and exhaust-gas recirculation systems to prevent particulates from getting through. Fortunately, the manufacturers whose engines are frequently cited in carbon build-up reports – mainly VW, Audi and Lexus – appear to have taken this step with many of their latest models. For instance, Audi’s new 3-liter supercharged V6, used in the S4 and A6 models, has so far been free from carbon-related complaints – a far cry from the 3.2 liter V6, which has numerous threads dedicated to the condition.

If Ford and GM engineers and Chick are correct, the carbon-buildup problem now may be relegated to previous engine designs that were not well-adapted for DI. But that’s probably little consolation to some early adopters like Boyadjiev, who must add regular carbon cleaning services to their cars’ ongoing maintenance requirements – a cost that, for now at least, they are expected to absorb entirely on their own as they grapple with the “dirty” secret of this emerging technology.

Mark Holthoff manages customer support for Edmunds.com.
Matt Landish oversees digital media development and publishing for Edmunds.com.

AutoObserver Staff: Mark Holthoff and Matt Landish

jc1804 · Mar 22, 2017

well time for my .02. personally i drive mine very lightly, sometimes not even enough to really get warmed up to the point water vapors are removed. I have a catch can on mine & it collects the water that would have gone right back to the oil pan. Ask me how i know this? well I had a 12 mustang & it didnt have CC & on my first oil change my oil was milky grey. Hmm havent had that issue since & the water dumped out of the CC is always milky grey.

you do the math.

im all in for a CC

ForYourOwnGood · Mar 22, 2017

Its not bad to be skeptical, the GM engineer has a point that a lot of people pushing catch cans happen to be catch can salesmen. But for me, I can see the results of running one, and even if overall it isn't a huge impact it gives me a little peace of mind that the collected stuff isn't going in the engine.

lightNfast · Mar 22, 2017

Did I start this... :doh: lol

It seems that the general consensus is it is a good idea if you run it at the track, and like to floor it a lot.

I appreciate you guys pulling together information that you know off-hand about BMWs, older ford motors, V8s, etc... but the majority of those motors are different than our turbo 4banger. What information do we have on our motor (or related motors) like the post from ForYourOwnGood.

ForYourOwnGood said:
Like I said, don't use one if you don't want to. I have personal experience with the DI motor this 2.3 is based on and it needs one. GM has a well designed stock system, the one on the Turbo 4cyl Camaro is especially good. The point of the catch can isn't to put one on every car on the road as you seem to be implying, but to put one on these cars with poorly designed stock PCV systems that don't do well with boosted DI motors. This motor is heavily related to the Mazda DISI which is notoriously bad for burning so much oil through the PCV that the turbo seals fail and it begins to smoke. I don't see any problem if I want to capture a cup of junk every 3000 miles and take it out of the intake tract, its not like I'm hurting the car by doing so.

What makes the Camaro's PVC system good that our EB's lack? Did they not improve the pvc system or seals in the Mazda motor?

Do other set ups (American, foreign, whatever) have baffling or other elements that ours lack causing a larger problem? Have there been comments or studies done by true full-time experts (i.e. engineers, mechanics, professional drivers, etc.)?

I'm trying to sway the conversation away from opinions about longevity, and towards facts about the design and operation of the EB motors. Like I said before, I'm a "peace of mind guy" and will probably get one next, but it would be cool to get evidence that's on our pvc system or a directly related set-up. Spending time on google hasn't given me much.

lightNfast · Mar 22, 2017

Oh and I almost forgot... What's the best "bang for your buck" system you guys have found?

Marvinmadman · Mar 22, 2017

Used UPR

ForYourOwnGood · Mar 22, 2017

lightNfast said:
What makes the Camaro's PVC system good that our EB's lack? Did they not improve the pvc system or seals in the Mazda motor?

Do other set ups (American, foreign, whatever) have baffling or other elements that ours lack causing a larger problem? Have there been comments or studies done by true full-time experts (i.e. engineers, mechanics, professional drivers, etc.)?

I'm trying to sway the conversation away from opinions about longevity, and towards facts about the design and operation of the EB motors. Like I said before, I'm a "peace of mind guy" and will probably get one next, but it would be cool to get evidence that's on our pvc system or a directly related set-up. Spending time on google hasn't given me much.

I'm sure the physical construction, baffling, etc is different. The proof is in the pudding as they say, most of the GM motors and even the newer Ford designs like the 2.7 simply don't have the problem we do with coking the valves. The engineer said some of it has to do with the fuel spray pattern as well.

Like I said, I learned the hard way with a smoking turbo and valves that looked like the remains of a camp fire. Do I think the catch can is the be-all end-all solution? No, but for the small price it adds to the length of time before I need my valves blasted, thats all. If I was going to be scared away by a $200 mod I wouldn't have bought a 30k dollar car. I'm not arguing that it will prevent all problems and result in squeaky clean valves, just saying it doesn't hurt anything and any extra crap staying out of the intake is a good enough reason for me. I've gotten almost a quart of stuff out of the can in the 9500 miles I have now. In the warmer months its almost exclusively oil.

On top of that the root causes for LSPI are oil passing the rings and coked on debris coming off of the valves causing pre-ignition. I'll avoid as much of that as possible.

speedfrk · Mar 23, 2017

I will sell or trade this car long before carbon build-up is a problem. It's a DD that cruises up and down I-20 80% of the time. I did have the new PCV done under warranty since it was free so I think Ford recognized a potential problem and fixed it. I used to obsess over oil too, but any name brand oil I use will be fine on a DD for 200K miles. If you track your car, use the expensive stuff and get a CC but other than that, you are wasting your money.

Catch Cans, and Is there evidence???

tw557

Well-Known Member

Juben

Well-Known Member

jacknifetoaswan

Well-Known Member

Ebm

Well-Known Member

jtmat

Well-Known Member

tcman54

Stanghead

Marvinmadman

Well-Known Member

ForYourOwnGood

Well-Known Member

jc1804

Well-Known Member

ForYourOwnGood

Well-Known Member

lightNfast

Active Member

lightNfast

Active Member

Marvinmadman

Well-Known Member

ForYourOwnGood

Well-Known Member

speedfrk

Well-Known Member