Catch Cans, and Is there evidence???

Maggneto said:

You must be really fun at parties. Who gives a fucking rats ass about how much oil vapor is present? It's a car, treat it like one.

Click to expand...

Please keep the post on track with the OP and do not use foul language as this is a family forum and will not be tolerated.

Thank you, Joe

This thread could be as bad as the election watching people get mad at each other, it was funny to watch for a while, but no longer, so ill give you my results and theory on why a catch can is useful, and also when its not.

When I 1st started racing my Mustang, I didn't want a catch can cause I felt I was getting away without having one, and I was, the car was only on a 93 octane mix and it was only a high 12 second car, it was well broke in at 9k miles. As Lund starting adding more boost and timing with the tune, more octane was needed, Jon really wanted me to put a catch can on in fear of oil being introduced into the intake tract which in theory lowers octane. Being in CA, I knew id have to take it off for smog, and I also liked to have a car that was pretty much stock other than a tune, I himmed and hawwed for a long time, it wasn't the money, I was I was having no problems.
Moving forward I added a UPR catch can, meth injection, exhaust and Jon kept pushing the tune, I mixed a higher percentage of race fuel , and the car got faster. To date I run full E85 lots of boost and have a 10 second street driven Ecoboost.
So ive learned a lot from racing and street driving the car for 18k miles. I monitor my logs constantly, inspect spark plugs, and monitor my catch can as well. What ive learned from monitoring my catch can is on regular street driving, the catch can wont fill up that much, I wish I could give you a true oil volume amount, but I cant, so in theory, the factory PVC plate actually does a pretty good job if the car is driven like intended and not raced like a madman. This of course is assuming the ring pack is sealed well on the engine in question using the factory system, on my car, it must be sealed, I personally would give it a " pass " for passenger car use.
Now racing and hard driving, which to me is what my car is used for, I see from my constant monitoring of logs, spark plugs and catch can, the more aggressive the tune, i.e: more boost and timing the faster that catch can fills up. One could only assume as the boost and timing are raised, cylinder pressure is passing the ring pack and creating crankcase pressure moving air and oil vapor along with it. When I have a race tune in the car, you can really see that catch can fill up quickly, even after a dozen hard pulls, it will be roughly 1/4 full. So back to the theory of oil in the intake charge lowering the octane, for my car, I simply don't want it in there.
So take my results for what there worth to you, stock car, no tune, my opinion is probably not needed, aggressive tune , driven hard, 22 - 24 psi of boost, well why not, its a cheap investment, high boost 25 plus, well your crazy not to when octane is so important.

5 pages long, and not one bit of hard proof that a catch can has saved a motor or made one operate better than one without...but we now have a catch can manufacturer preaching how their $20 part is needed, and it will only cost you $250 to install one.

I have had many forced injected/direct injected vehicles over the years, and have always been able to find trace amounts of oil in the intake manifold after numerous miles had been put on the car...but not once has it ever hurt anything and it's actually designed to do this from the factory.

I stand by the thought that manufacturers would not allow any oil in the intake path if it had possible warranty implications, and could cause LSPI issues, as the money they would spend designing a better PDF system would more than make up the cost of replacing and/or rebuilding engines during the warranty period. There has already been a TSB released for the 2015 EB using a redesigned separator, thus would have been the time to release a redesigned part if there was a bigger issue.

I don't believe adding a catch can will do any harm, but I do believe unless you are running a tune right on the edge of blowing up with 93octane fuel, you might as well take that money and throw it in a fire instead. When someone can show some hard proof that a catch can has kept their previously caked valves clean for the last 30k miles, I'll take note.

solodogg said:

5 pages long, and not one bit of hard proof that a catch can has saved a motor or made one operate better than one without...but we now have a catch can manufacturer preaching how their $20 part is needed, and it will only cost you $250 to install one.

I have had many forced injected/direct injected vehicles over the years, and have always been able to find trace amounts of oil in the intake manifold after numerous miles had been put on the car...but not once has it ever hurt anything and it's actually designed to do this from the factory.

I stand by the thought that manufacturers would not allow any oil in the intake path if it had possible warranty implications, and could cause LSPI issues, as the money they would spend designing a better PDF system would more than make up the cost of replacing and/or rebuilding engines during the warranty period. There has already been a TSB released for the 2015 EB using a redesigned separator, thus would have been the time to release a redesigned part if there was a bigger issue.

I don't believe adding a catch can will do any harm, but I do believe unless you are running a tune right on the edge of blowing up with 93octane fuel, you might as well take that money and throw it in a fire instead. When someone can show some hard proof that a catch can has kept their previously caked valves clean for the last 30k miles, I'll take note.

Click to expand...

YEAH! no proof! Besides all that oil in the catch can but that's probably fine. actually I want that all over all my shit. Plus everyone knows that Perfweld has no idea what hes talking about and that the earth is flat as a table.

Dirty-EB-Chicago said:

YEAH! no proof! Besides all that oil in the catch can but that's probably fine. actually I want that all over all my shit. Plus everyone knows that Perfweld has no idea what hes talking about and that the earth is flat as a table.

Click to expand...

I mean, I would hate for engine oil to be anywhere in the engine. Maybe we should run a dry sump system, and just continuously filter the oil without putting it back into the engine where it just gets dirty...:doh:

Seriously, you base all of your thoughts on what someone else tells you on the internet without any substantial proof? There is not a single manufacturer that uses a catch can on any PCV system, whether $20k car or $200k car...WHY? It would quite literally cost them a few dollars per part to install on each car, and could become a maintenance item just like DEF and exhaust filters have become on diesel engine cars, yet they still don't exist outside of full blown race cars. With the way emissions are these days, you don't think manufacturers would be rewarded greatly if adding a simple catch can could possibly reduce emissions and octane requirements, while also adding to the longevity of their engines?

Maybe do some real investigation instead of believing everything you read on the internet. But, if that's what you prefer....

solodogg said:

I mean, I would hate for engine oil to be anywhere in the engine. Maybe we should run a dry sump system, and just continuously filter the oil without putting it back into the engine where it just gets dirty...:doh:

Seriously, you base all of your thoughts on what someone else tells you on the internet without any substantial proof? There is not a single manufacturer that uses a catch can on any PCV system, whether $20k car or $200k car...WHY? It would quite literally cost them a few dollars per part to install on each car, and could become a maintenance item just like DEF and exhaust filters have become on diesel engine cars, yet they still don't exist outside of full blown race cars. With the way emissions are these days, you don't think manufacturers would be rewarded greatly if adding a simple catch can could possibly reduce emissions and octane requirements, while also adding to the longevity of their engines?

Maybe do some real investigation instead of believing everything you read on the internet. But, if that's what you prefer....

Click to expand...

Just explain to me real quick why oil makers are wasting millions in R&D money on LSPI-resistant oil if it isn't a problem? Your logic is incredibly flawed but the confirmation bias is strong so it doesn't appear to matter to you. Correlation =/= causation.

Automakers haggle over 10ths of a penny in parts pricing, and they only have to warranty the powertrain for a few years not the life of the vehicle. This means whatever they do only needs to last for so long with warranty costs calculated less than the cost of the part they would need to put on the car to make it last longer. Its fairly clear you have absolutely no idea how any of this works, so why not just say you don't want a catch can and leave it at that?

Has anyone found oil in the clean side of the JLT and Mish systems?

ForYourOwnGood said:

Just explain to me real quick why oil makers are wasting millions in R&D money on LSPI-resistant oil if it isn't a problem? Your logic is incredibly flawed but the confirmation bias is strong so it doesn't appear to matter to you. Correlation =/= causation.

Automakers haggle over 10ths of a penny in parts pricing, and they only have to warranty the powertrain for a few years not the life of the vehicle. This means whatever they do only needs to last for so long with warranty costs calculated less than the cost of the part they would need to put on the car to make it last longer. Its fairly clear you have absolutely no idea how any of this works, so why not just say you don't want a catch can and leave it at that?

Click to expand...

So, allow me to understand this...it's fairly clear that I have no idea how any of this works, yet I have provided more factual information to this thread than you have thus far? Good argument...

So, which engine have you had the liberty of dissecting that had these miracle piston rings that prevented any oil from getting past their seal? You do realize that if you are trying to resolve the issue of oil contaminating the fuel in the combustion chamber, you are going to need to address the ring gap prior to addressing the PCV in most cases, right?

Once you understand how an internal combustion engine works, and that burning minimal amounts of oil is a normal byproduct of a properly functioning engine, you will also understand that the correlation between the amount of oil lost through a PCV system also has a lot to do with the overall tightness of the engine. Thus, a catch can is nothing more than the equivelant of placing a band-aid on a scratch.

These fractions of a cent manufacturers are saving are the reason there are build tolerances in place, and why not every engine has the same compression values and horsepower readings. I believe that you will see many more costly parts on a car that were simply created to help reduce the number of potential warranty claims and increase the lifespan of the engine, while not exceeding the amount of R&D that would make the repairs less costly in the first place.

In the grand scheme of things, modifications to a PCV system would be rather cheap (especially since there has already been an updated part and PCM configuration created) if there would be any potential benefits for the manufacturer and consumer. I mean lets be honest...how much do you think they spent in R&D to create a baffle to help redirect airflow from the seat blower motor to mitigate customer complaint of no cooling from the seat back, a part which they will install free of charge on any affected vehicle.

With regard to your "oil makers are WASTING millions in R&D money on LSPI-resistant oil", that's because of the normal amounts of oil that seeps past the piston rings, something that cannot be eliminated. Auto manufacturers have their own teams in house who spend many hours analyzing lubrication for all engines produced, working hand in hand with the oil makers. You can be assured that if this was determined to be something that would seriously affect all DI engines a part would be created to rectify the situation instead of trying to figure out how to modify the oil to work with a poor design.

Oh...I don't want a catch can.

solodogg said:

So, allow me to understand this...it's fairly clear that I have no idea how any of this works, yet I have provided zero factual information.

Click to expand...

Yeah, thats about right. Nobody is ever going to convince you, and nobody was trying to.

ForYourOwnGood said:

Yeah, thats about right. Nobody is ever going to convince you, and nobody was trying to.

Click to expand...

Well hello Nobody, nice to meet you.

opcorn:

solodogg said:

Well hello Nobody, nice to meet you.

Click to expand...

Nah you're right. I apologize, I was having a crappy night at work and shouldn't have been posting, that was uncalled for.

I understand your points, like I said I'm not a catch can salesman it just gives me some peace of mind so I got one. Hopefully everyones engine lasts a long time either way.

ForYourOwnGood said:

Nah you're right. I apologize, I was having a crappy night at work and shouldn't have been posting, that was uncalled for.

I understand your points, like I said I'm not a catch can salesman it just gives me some peace of mind so I got one. Hopefully everyones engine lasts a long time either way.

Click to expand...

:cheers:

Here is a good visual explanation of how a catch can works and why DI engines can benefit from one with nice pictures for those that need visuals to learn.

ATLDesigns550 said:

Here is a good visual explanation of how a catch can works and why DI engines can benefit from one with nice pictures for those that need visuals to learn.

Click to expand...

Is the video showing how a single catch can works and is this really all we need?