30,000 Mile, No Catch Can Report

[Turbong]

One engineers posted opinions not changing my mind that oil doesn't belong in the combustion chamber nor on the intake valves. Nor does posting one random engineers post from another forum end a discussion, but like I said before you do you man.

I would expect nothing less... cause random forum poster non Ford Engineer turbotigger604 knows best right, gotcha. It wasn't meant to bring closure but more of asking valid questions instead just accepting an aftermarket catch is the answer to a problem you seek.

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member]

I would expect nothing less... cause random forum poster non Ford Engineer turbotigger604 knows best right, gotcha. It wasn't meant to bring closure but more of asking valid questions instead just accepting an aftermarket catch is the answer to a problem you seek.

I never have once said I know everything, but apparently I sure as hell know more about how the PCV system functions in this car than you do.

Every single time i have posted a fact about how the system functions to back up why i believe a catch can is necessary, your only rebuttal is "snake oil! a Ford engineer said it's not necessary so that means snake oil".

You've yet to pose a decent argument on how oil in the manifold/ on the valves/ and being burned is good for a direct injected engine.

How is oil being burned creating hot spots in the cylinder and creating a potential LSPI situation a good thing?
A little oil added to our AFR's suddenly a good thing?
How is contributing to carbon build up more than the natural combustion process creates a good thing?
Does modern oil magically not turn to carbon after it has combusted?

Last time I checked we don't have 2 strokes and oil doesn't belong in the combustion chamber.

You've yet to pose any argument about how using a catch can to prevent any of the above could be detrimental to a healthy even stock motor.

 

[3oostdmstng]

The same people keep arguing with each other about how one is wrong and one is right lol and keep on going and going.

One stance is that a catch can is a must for the health of the engine, the other is that it is not a must for a stock car and we have yet to collect enough evidence to prove it. I agree with the latter.

Im sure the average buyer of the entry level mustang will never visit this forum nor visit any aftermarket parts vendor site. Without knowing the numbers, I'm sure there are plenty of STOCK mustang EB's out there not running a catch can piling up miles without any issues, and I'm also sure there are plenty of modded EB's with catch cans running plenty of issues. I am stock ECU, only mbrp race catback with a K&N filter, always pump 93 octane, and I'm almost at 77k without any engine issues, yet. I don't drag my car but do some occasional racing. I ALWAYS take my car for maintenance every 5k miles. ALWAYS.

As someone already posted before, the burden lies on the ones making the claims. Is a catch can a MUST? I'd think not. Is it doing any bad? probably not. The guy saying he has had one since 25k and is reaching 100k should post some pics. Either way, hasnt the EB engines been around for a while now? in other trucks, cars? lincolns? no catch cans....and still around?

The auto aftermarket is like the sports nutrition marketing...drink this youll live to 100, gain more muscle, lose more fat. You can take preventative measures and still get sick LOL... jus' sayin'...

 

[Deleted member 35644]

I do wish someone with a 75,000 mile un-modded 2.3 would come along and post some valve pictures. I only found a couple of pictures via Google, but they're not really verifiable.

 

[Deleted member]

The same people keep arguing with each other about how one is wrong and one is right lol and keep on going and going.

One stance is that a catch can is a must for the health of the engine, the other is that it is not a must for a stock car and we have yet to collect enough evidence to prove it. I agree with the latter.

Im sure the average buyer of the entry level mustang will never visit this forum nor visit any aftermarket parts vendor site. Without knowing the numbers, I'm sure there are plenty of STOCK mustang EB's out there not running a catch can piling up miles without any issues, and I'm also sure there are plenty of modded EB's with catch cans running plenty of issues. I am stock ECU, only mbrp race catback with a K&N filter, always pump 93 octane, and I'm almost at 77k without any engine issues, yet. I don't drag my car but do some occasional racing. I ALWAYS take my car for maintenance every 5k miles. ALWAYS.

As someone already posted before, the burden lies on the ones making the claims. Is a catch can a MUST? I'd think not. Is it doing any bad? probably not. The guy saying he has had one since 25k and is reaching 100k should post some pics. Either way, hasnt the EB engines been around for a while now? in other trucks, cars? lincolns? no catch cans....and still around?

The auto aftermarket is like the sports nutrition marketing...drink this youll live to 100, gain more muscle, lose more fat. You can take preventative measures and still get sick LOL... jus' sayin'...

2K Miles away from 100k and I'll be pulling the intake on video.

 

[3oostdmstng]

I do wish someone with a 75,000 mile un-modded 2.3 would come along and post some valve pictures. I only found a couple of pictures via Google, but they're not really verifiable.

I'd love to know as well.
I just dont have the tools.
Maybe on my upcoming maintenance with Ford ill ask if we can take a look...see what they say.

 

[3oostdmstng]

The same people keep arguing with each other about how one is wrong and one is right lol and keep on going and going.

One stance is that a catch can is a must for the health of the engine, the other is that it is not a must for a stock car and we have yet to collect enough evidence to prove it. I agree with the latter.

Im sure the average buyer of the entry level mustang will never visit this forum nor visit any aftermarket parts vendor site. Without knowing the numbers, I'm sure there are plenty of STOCK mustang EB's out there not running a catch can piling up miles without any issues, and I'm also sure there are plenty of modded EB's with catch cans running plenty of issues. I am stock ECU, only mbrp race catback with a K&N filter, always pump 93 octane, and I'm almost at 77k without any engine issues, yet. I don't drag my car but do some occasional racing. I ALWAYS take my car for maintenance every 5k miles. ALWAYS.

As someone already posted before, the burden lies on the ones making the claims. Is a catch can a MUST? I'd think not. Is it doing any bad? probably not. The guy saying he has had one since 25k and is reaching 100k should post some pics. Either way, hasnt the EB engines been around for a while now? in other trucks, cars? lincolns? no catch cans....and still around?

The auto aftermarket is like the sports nutrition marketing...drink this youll live to 100, gain more muscle, lose more fat. You can take preventative measures and still get sick LOL... jus' sayin'...

I want to correct / edit my post.
When I say if a catch can is a must ...is it doing any bad? I meant is it doing any bad BY HAVING ONE installed, probably not.

 

[StealthStang]

Well, i may not be a Ford engineer but I do have some first hand knowledge on this from my experience.

I used to own an Audi 2.0 FSI (first gen DI) and one of my friends had an A5 3.2 FSI and another a RS4. These were all early DI engines, my A3 suffered major carbon buildup after 8 years, my friends A5 after 5 years and my friends RS4 after 4 years. The RS4 engine was so bad that the dealership said they wanted to install a new cylinder head.

Now, going a few years later a friend of mine that works as a VAG master mechanic was telling me about the carbon buildup issues they were still having on the Golf 6 and Golf 7 cars, these are still DI engines, but the interesting thing was that the Golf 7 GTI uses a dual injection system which he thought was going to eliminate most of the carbon buildup...but strangely it didnt in practice they had carbon buildup as well, bad in some cases.

Now as mentioned already oil vapour coming in via the PCV system is the supposed problem here, however there are DI Ford 2.0L and 1.6L ecoboost engines not suffering as badly despite being single DI systems. There are other platforms as well that are DI but no suffering as badly though im not sure off hand which ones exactly.

Basically this leads me to believe, theres several factors here at play that dictate how much carbon buildup you have, i suspect things like intake airspeed, valve angles, temperatures all play their part here and putting a catch can isnt going to solve this issue, maybe it might improve it but the amount of oil in there is no indication of how much would have went into the engine because it fundamentally changes the PCV function, it could very well be causing more oil to come through but catching it at least. To be honest im not convinced based on what ive seen, we also dont have enough available research to understand what the form of the oil vapour is (how turbulent etc) and the criteria for it to cause LSPI.
Now one thing i can say for sure, is that the OEMs have done this research since severe engine knock would cause them to loose substantial money via drivetrain warranties, and the accounts guys wont like that. So almost certainly the stock system is designed such that any oil vapour going through is not a significant factor for detonation, and i think if you had to see the warranty claim stats from Ford (which we probably never will) im willing to bet that the amount of lost engines attributable to this is very very small. In fact it could be such a small percentage that the percentage of users suffering damaged engines and having catch cans installed is similar or maybe higher.

Until the major engine manufacturers make this info publicly available i dont think any catch can manufacturer has enough data to say their product significantly reduces the chance of LSPI let a lone a less likely chance of stopping carbon buildup.

 

[Deleted member]

@StealthStang

Oil burning in the combustion chamber creates a higher potential for hotspots in the cylinder, hotspots contribute to LSPI.

 

[StealthStang]

@StealthStang

Oil burning in the combustion chamber creates a higher potential for hotspots in the cylinder, hotspots contribute to LSPI.

Yes im aware of this, however i think its most likely designed by Ford to not be an issue within its expected lifespan, and i think we can see that by the low number of ecoboom problems with stock cars. This engine is used in a wide variety of cars over many years now, i certainly havent been hearing about many failures or knock related issues on stock cars even running low quality fuel.

Id like to see any evidence to show that the catch can is preventing LSPI on a stock car, if youre lugging the car with a manual and a catch can installed you can still get LSPI not related to oil burn or deposits. At high enough RPM the flow process is changing and the flow pattern averages out, the engineers at the factory actually analyse this quite extensively, and you may find that at those levels it can handle a certain tolerance of oil vapour burn without issue, in fact race engines (eg F1) intentionally burn oil vapour on purpose to increase power.

Don't under estimate the extent of research thats done on this by the makers, theres a reason these engine designs cost millions and take years to develop, they have already looked at things that you cant even fathom to think about if they hadnt told you. They have done a hell of a lot more testing on the engine and its PCV system than any catch can company can ever afford to do, those companies are just banking on theory, whereas Ford knows the actual data.
Ford do offer a factory catch system for track use, so of course theres a benefit but probably not for street usage. I think the generic systems that people are putting on their cars is not really helping much at all, and if you are doing stupid things like lugging the engine (which a lot of the manual drivers do) and you think a catch can is going to protect you, youre expecting miracles.

 

[Radiation Joe]

I don't have a problem with catch cans, and the fact (and it is a fact) that they collect a not insignificant amount of oil in 5k miles says that they do the job they are supposed to do.
However, it is my understanding that the main problem in DI engines with oil vapor entering the intake is the long term buildup of deposits on the intake valves and not LSPI. This is the issue that the vast majority Audi/VW customers have had to deal with, not LSPI. This is why many manufacturers have programs to clean the intake tracks of DI engines periodically.
I don't want to detract from the other fact, that oil standards have been developed to minimize the oil's effect on LSPI. So oil getting into the intake track (or bypassing the rings) is a known contributor to LSPI and cannot logically be argued against.
So if you want to run a catch can, go ahead. I'm confident that it will result in less intake deposits. Will it reduce the chance of LSPI? Probably. But what is the probability that LSPI was going to be a problem in the first place?
People on car forums are typically anal retentive types that over analyse everything and then argue irrelevant details ad nauseam. Let's move on to the next minuscule detail.

 

[Walt]

It also depends on how hard you beat on the car. Daily driving my Mustang doesn't catch a lot, maybe a few drops each 1000km depending on the weather. But when I take her out on the track I catch loads of blow by, only 4 laps on the Nürburgring is enough to fill my 8oz can halfway. I'd rather not have all that crap going back in the engine. If you just use your car to commute and don't plan on tuning it or taking it out on the track I suppose it's not really necessary. But having one doesn't do any harm either other than the cost.

Having that said only a fraction of Mustang buyers will ever look on forums and care about this kind of stuff. The majority of the people will just drive it without asking questions and most are probably doing just fine.

 

[StealthStang]

It also depends on how hard you beat on the car. Daily driving my Mustang doesn't catch a lot, maybe a few drops each 1000km depending on the weather. But when I take her out on the track I catch loads of blow by, only 4 laps on the Nürburgring is enough to fill my 8oz can halfway. I'd rather not have all that crap going back in the engine. If you just use your car to commute and don't plan on tuning it or taking it out on the track I suppose it's not really necessary. But having one doesn't do any harm either other than the cost.

Having that said only a fraction of Mustang buyers will ever look on forums and care about this kind of stuff. The majority of the people will just drive it without asking questions and most are probably doing just fine.

Im very interested i learning about your experiences driving the Mustang Ecoboost on the Nurburgring (especially if it was nordschleife). Im assuming it has the Performance pack installed. Feel free to private message me if you want to discuss it further

 

[Deleted member]

Yes im aware of this, however i think its most likely designed by Ford to not be an issue within its expected lifespan, and i think we can see that by the low number of ecoboom problems with stock cars. This engine is used in a wide variety of cars over many years now, i certainly havent been hearing about many failures or knock related issues on stock cars even running low quality fuel.

Id like to see any evidence to show that the catch can is preventing LSPI on a stock car, if youre lugging the car with a manual and a catch can installed you can still get LSPI not related to oil burn or deposits. At high enough RPM the flow process is changing and the flow pattern averages out, the engineers at the factory actually analyse this quite extensively, and you may find that at those levels it can handle a certain tolerance of oil vapour burn without issue, in fact race engines (eg F1) intentionally burn oil vapour on purpose to increase power.

Don't under estimate the extent of research thats done on this by the makers, theres a reason these engine designs cost millions and take years to develop, they have already looked at things that you cant even fathom to think about if they hadnt told you. They have done a hell of a lot more testing on the engine and its PCV system than any catch can company can ever afford to do, those companies are just banking on theory, whereas Ford knows the actual data.
Ford do offer a factory catch system for track use, so of course theres a benefit but probably not for street usage. I think the generic systems that people are putting on their cars is not really helping much at all, and if you are doing stupid things like lugging the engine (which a lot of the manual drivers do) and you think a catch can is going to protect you, youre expecting miracles.

While I don't disagree with any of your points above, if all auto manufacturers were perfect in all R&D theoretically we would never have any issue with cars ever correct? I do believe It is entirely possible that Ford engineers could over estimate something simple like the PCV system and it's capability to keep up with the crankcase pressures this motor sees especially when you start to mod, I do believe manufacturers have to make cost cutting decisions at some point. Just look at the stock intercooler, it's inadequate from the factory. I can guarantee you that Ford engineers knew this.

If Ford R&D was perfect they wouldn't have given the 2.3 the open deck block, or the other side of that of course they knew the semi closed deck could be a stronger option, but then you have a 4 cylinder with the right bolt ons that will hurt a 5.0s feelings and not pop the block.

"Ford do offer a factory catch system for track use, so of course there's a benefit but probably not for street usage." Here's the other side of the coin, of course Ford knows the PCV system is inadequate and recommencd their catch can for "track use" that is them legally saying "hooning your car".

To think that most Mustang owners won't be hooning their car or driving it hard to some extent is ridiculous, especially now that eco's are going to 2nd and 3rd hand owners, young kids will start buying them. They'll go "oh I've got boost now" and start driving the piss out of them, we all still do it...

Does the stock PCV work just fine tif we all drove like grandma, hardly ever saw boost and tucked the car in with an electric blanket yes probably, but i still believe that it is entirely possible for even our beloved Ford motor co to under engineer or simply cut cost on a pcv system.

 

[rvercitypony]

I installed an UPR CC on my car at 5k miles. The car now has 19k miles, and I recently emptied the CC when installing a bigger turbo. I would say there were 3-4 oz. of oil. However, now that the car is tuned for this turbo and has full motor bolt-ons, it gives me more confidence because I'm peaking at WOT at 25 or more lbs. boost. Also, a CC helps reduce crank case pressure and this can't hurt. However, I do agree with those that it probably isn't needed on a mildly modded or tuned car.

Sponsored