Do I really need an oil catch can?

[NightmareMoon]

Thoughts on a supercharged street car? UPR makes a driver/passenger side combo kit for cars with the Roush supercharger.

With a blower, my tolerances for funny stuff going on in the combustion chamber under boost goes waaaay down. A detonation event on an NA car is not at all likely to blow up the motor. On a boosted car it could matter a lot more, depending on when it happens..

That said, I'm not entirely up to speed on the ins and outs of the PCV system on a Roush supercharged car.

Sponsored

 

[Qcman17]

I'd love to see that hold up in court. They'd literately have to prove that the catch can caused a failure. Any dealer can deny work for whatever reason and most people just go oh ok. If anyones dealership is like that simply remove the darn thing before going in.

It wasn't the dealership who denied it but was GM corporate. The dealer sent photos of the engine bay iirc to GM asking what the thing was under the hood and GM basically said the guy modified the PCV system's function and he was therefore it for tag. Meanwhile it was an oil pump failure which the LS3 motors were known to suffer from caused by debris left in the block during milling.

And he couldn't remove it as the car died on the side of the road a fair ways from home and got towed to a nearby dealer. Shit happens and you can't always have an out I guess. But it is a cautionary tale for modifications.

 

[Mspider]

I'd love to see that hold up in court. They'd literately have to prove that the catch can caused a failure. Any dealer can deny work for whatever reason and most people just go oh ok. If anyones dealership is like that simply remove the darn thing before going in.

If you have to go to court over a catch can, you already lost.

Which is why in my mind its foolish to mess around with the PCV system on stock car.

Here is the guy who lost a battle to GM due to a catch can.

https://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=451361

 

[young at heart]

I think maybe a little reality check is needed here. While Ford isn’t blind to the fact that many guys modify these cars, they have never engineered and built them to accommodate any mod of any kind, ever. They build these cars with the expectation that you’ll put gas in them, air up the tires and change oil as suggested. That’s it, period. If it isn’t in the owner’s manual they don’t want to hear about it. The simple fact is your stock car does not need a catch can. Don’t you think Ford engineers would have included one if they felt it was necessary? If you think you’re smarter than the Ford engineers, you probably have a job opportunity.

On the other hand maybe your modded car does need one. But the moment you mod the car in any substantial way, as far as Ford is concerned you might as well have a Chevy. They don’t want to hear about your problems. You just need to deal with it best way you can.

All this may sound harsh but it’s the only way a manufacturer can stay viable.

 

[Weyland-Yutani]

Don’t you think Ford engineers would have included one if they felt it was necessary? If you think you’re smarter than the Ford engineers, you probably have a job opportunity.

Maybe. I mean, I’m not involved in automotive but I’ve worked on projects that me and the other engineers really wanted something and had it shot down because of budget or deadline constraints.

Not arguing for catch cans. Just sayin

 

[BigR4444]

Maybe. I mean, I’m not involved in automotive but I’ve worked on projects that me and the other engineers really wanted something and had it shot down because of budget or deadline constraints.

Not arguing for catch cans. Just sayin

I was thinking the same thing.
How many S550s sold since 2015?
500 thousand-ish?

If it costs them let's say 50 bucks per catch can, that's $25 million Ford saved by not putting them in the car.

Especially because, as was pointed out, it would have to be manually emptied by the owner. They would probably have had to come up with something that disposed of the oil in some way where the owner didn't have to do anything... which would cost more money.
Your average car owner doesnt even know where the oil goes.

Again, the argument here isn't that it's completely necessary. We're just arguing that it might not be completely useless.

Ford did it the way they did for the sake of simplicity and cost effectiveness.
And if we, the more car-savvy Mustang owners in the forum, chose to add on this part, and handle the minimal maintenance of periodically emptying the can, then power to us.

 

[Mike Pfeifer]

ice445 has the best reply so far.

Forget to empty it or it becomes blocked say good bye to your engine seals.
Poof, in an instant !!!
The OEM's don't install serviceable catch cans for a reason.

In the early to mid 2000’s, BMW used a crankcase ventilation system that included an air / oil separator with a drain connected to the dipstick tube. Kind of like a catch can, but you don’t need to empty it. This thing was notorious for freezing, and caused all sorts of problems depending on where the blockage was. Most common was on a cold start, the engine would literally suck all the oil out through the dipstick tube and hydro-lock the engine. Sometimes it would window the block. If you were lucky, the blockage was only partial and it would slowly suck the oil and burn it, creating a cannonball run style endless giant cloud of smoke trailing behind the car. I certainly don’t want that on my car.

 

[GregO]

The newer Jaguar Land Rover 5.0 V8’s has an intelligent designed oil separator PCV system built into the right side valve cover. No mess no fuss zero maintenance, that is until the PCV dual diaphragms rupture at the 70k mark. Then the SC has to come off to replace (2) $40.00 diaphragms. $2,000 dollars later that intelligently designed OEM no mess no fuss oil separator isn’t looking so intelligent, at least for the JLR SC 5.0’s

 

[young at heart]

You know, I’m often guilty of reminiscing about how we did things back in the day. We had a pretty simple but very effective solution. We’d cut the rubber crankcase hose off where it ran into the carburetor base and leave about 1-1/2” that we’d then plug up with a bolt or screw. All that was left was to route the rest of the hose out the bottom of the engine bay to the ground and let nature take it’s course.

Probably wouldn’t get through emissions today.

 

[Mspider]

I was thinking the same thing.
How many S550s sold since 2015?
500 thousand-ish?

If it costs them let's say 50 bucks per catch can, that's $25 million Ford saved by not putting them in the car.

Especially because, as was pointed out, it would have to be manually emptied by the owner. They would probably have had to come up with something that disposed of the oil in some way where the owner didn't have to do anything... which would cost more money.
Your average car owner doesnt even know where the oil goes.

Again, the argument here isn't that it's completely necessary. We're just arguing that it might not be completely useless.

Ford did it the way they did for the sake of simplicity and cost effectiveness.
And if we, the more car-savvy Mustang owners in the forum, chose to add on this part, and handle the minimal maintenance of periodically emptying the can, then power to us.

Its not really a cost savings thing more of a industry standard. A 1 millions dollar plus Bugatti does not have a catch can. They could have easily charged customed a few extra grand for one.

I think there is enough data to suggest a catch can is beneficial to some degree. But in my opinion its not worth adding extra maintenance, complexity, and risk of warranty issues. especially on a engine that has port injection. Part of the reason I bought a mustang was the fact it still had part port injection.

Just about every single video or article you read about catch cans is centered around direct injection.

 

[Firsttexan]

With dual injection the need is negligible. So no, unless you are road racing.

 

[Firsttexan]

RT

You know, I’m often guilty of reminiscing about how we did things back in the day. We had a pretty simple but very effective solution. We’d cut the rubber crankcase hose off where it ran into the carburetor base and leave about 1-1/2” that we’d then plug up with a bolt or screw. All that was left was to route the rest of the hose out the bottom of the engine bay to the ground and let nature take it’s course.

Probably wouldn’t get through emissions today.

Road draft tubes also left oil spots under the car and tons of fumes inside the car.

 

[The Demon]

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

[young at heart]

RT

Road draft tubes also left oil spots under the car and tons of fumes inside the car.

Likely but nobody ever noticed fumes inside the car, ever.

And when you’re 17 or 18 in 1969 nobody cared about spots under the car.

The more I think about it, I’m thinking that many if not most brand new cars came from the factory with such a system up till around 1960 or maybe a bit later. I could be off some on the date but not by like 20 years.

 

[Firsttexan]

Likely but nobody ever noticed fumes inside the car, ever.

And when you’re 17 or 18 in 1969 nobody cared about spots under the car.

The more I think about it, I’m thinking that many if not most brand new cars came from the factory with such a system up till around 1960 or maybe a bit later. I could be off some on the date but not by like 20 years.

They didn't notice the cigarette smoke at the dining table but it was there. And it's very noticeable today.
Road draft systems ended in the late 50s because of their pollution. They didn't just leave an oil spot. They left the whole underside of the car coated in oil.

I have a perfectly restored 49 Hudson. I have had and restored multiple vettes from the era.

ALL classics of that era pollute bad. Fumes are an everyday thing from that era. Whether gas or exhaust.

They are better to look at than to drive.

Sponsored