Catch can, worth it?

[Notes]

Every time I drain my can I'm impressed by how much oil/blow-by it catches, so definitely a good investment. Will be getting the clean side can as well and see what difference that will make.

Sponsored

 

[Lost]

When I read some of the replies in here its no wonder this subsection has ground to a halt and many of the seasoned guys with tunes/mods have migrated to facebook groups instead. Its easy to see how some boneheads blow these cars up.

Do you guys not read and see how much oil ppl are draining from these things? I can take a picture to show the ounce or two that mine has in it right now from 500 miles. Don't care if you buy one or not but some things are not really up for debate anymore and the redundancy is getting innocuous.

Plenty of long range comparisons to be had on the Mazdaspeed3 forums (with pictures). Same gene pool as this motor.

Original poster, for 4-5 years you can survive fine without a catch can. I just wouldn't want to be the owner for the next 5 years. If you are tuned, I would consider one now

Please tell me how an ounce of oil, spread out through (500 miles / 18 mpg) 28 gallons of fuel is going to affect ANYTHING? It certainly will not touch the octane rating.

 

[jbailer]

Please tell me how an ounce of oil, spread out through (500 miles / 18 mpg) 28 gallons of fuel is going to affect ANYTHING? It certainly will not touch the octane rating.

Deposits on valves.

 

[Lost]

On direct injection engines, it may be more of an issue. I dunno. But I have taken apart engines with 100K on them, and not really an issue (conventional injection). Some carbon is going to happen regardless, a natural byproduct of burning carbon based fuel. Direct injection engines will not have the benefit of being washed by fuel.
We'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully someone does a couple of side by side comparisons of a Coyote engines with similar mileage and one with/one without. Lots of open ended variables to be sure, but still cool to see. I have a real hard time buying that a couple ounces of oil/1000 miles over 100K miles is going to lead to an appreciative build up. A lot of that build up is there just from fuel. And the fuel certainly has a washing effect on oil vapors.

Bottom line, I personally need proof.

 

[Juben]

Direct injection is a completely different animal from port (conventional), and it has been well proven that catch cans make a measurable difference in carbon build up, fuel dilution, etc. I've taken apart plenty of engines with well over 100k as well (port injection engines), but that's an apples to oranges comparison. I empty 4-5 oz. of crud out of mine every 2,000 miles. What I see in the can would never be something I'd want running through my engine no matter how small or minute some would believe it or it's effects to be.

The effects on a Coyote will most certainly be different because your not only comparing a different fueling setup but rather also NA vs boost. A forced induction engine will have more blow-by than would a NA engine. There's many factors like that which contribute to the effects were discussing.

At the end of the day, believe what you want though. If you don't want to run one, then don't, but please don't try to deter others when you seemingly have no experience in area.

 

[therealdannye]

Can't say definitively yes or no as every car could be a little different.

I will say that I just installed mine last night at 26k miles and based on what I saw in my intake heads and my valves, wish I had done it sooner. Definitely had a noticeable amount of oil buildup. Another 3 years of this, who knows lol.

Same. I had a considerable amount in my intake manifold/throttle body and some residue in my turbo inlet. I believe that was the cause of my engine lugging and fouling my plugs a little.

 

[HappySquirrel]

Relevant discussion:
http://fordstnation.com/focus-st-ge...issues-plague-other-direct-injected-cars.html

Here's a good video of a FoST:
[ame]

There seems to be some debate about whether the valve build-up actually causes any significant performance issues.

 

[RubyRed15]

Direct injection is a completely different animal from port (conventional), and it has been well proven that catch cans make a measurable difference in carbon build up, fuel dilution, etc.

Link to proof (a photo of catch can output is not proof)?

 

[5.0yote]

Well there is a two fold issue to catch cans, one is obviously ingestion of oil into the intake causing valve gunk, as well as buildup in the intake itself, the second is the dilution of your octane rating from whatever gas you use by said oil getting into the cylinders and being burned off.

Right now on the dirty side I have just my Mishimoto can, and I have emptied it twice, both times it had a fair amount of oil in it, what I mean by fair amount after just over 1k miles had enough oil that had to be poured out, and it was enough that you had to be careful not to spill it, after 1800 miles on my first can it was more than 35% full. That was around 3K on my odometer so I have had mine on since nearly new. From just the two times I have poured it out I am always leaving mine on =)

 

[5.0yote]

Link to proof (a photo of catch can output is not proof)?

It stands to reason that if you see a can full of oil that otherwise would have made its way into your intake, can you not infer from that data that its doing what people claim the oil does when it gets into the intake?

I have worked on older late 60s and early 70s Ford V8s (mostly 351C and Windsor blocks) and those did not have any catch cans, were not direct enjected and I had to use a putty knife to remove the sludge left in the intake manifold & heads, it is silly to think it just stays there only does not make its way into the valve train too.

 

[RubyRed15]

It stands to reason that if you see a can full of oil that otherwise would have made its way into your intake, can you not infer from that data that its doing what people claim the oil does when it gets into the intake?

Scientifically speaking, no, you can't make that inference because you have changed the system by introducing new airflow paths. I have yet to see anything that constitutes actual proof of anything beyond collecting gunk.

I'm not saying catch cans are good or bad; I'm just saying I want to see some actual proof.

 

[5.0yote]

Scientifically speaking, no, you can't make that inference because you have changed the system by introducing new airflow paths. I have yet to see anything that constitutes actual proof of anything beyond collecting gunk.

I'm not saying catch cans are good or bad; I'm just saying I want to see some actual proof.

Well yes and no, you only extended existing path inline, in just a two port system anyway, and you do not change the direction of the flow at all. It is not flowing backwards and the facts are that that much oil going in the direction has to pass through the intake from there its obvious where the oil goes. I think you are putting too much thought into a fairly simple setup, and there is enough data online, with manufacturers and the race industry that shows they are effective in most uses providing they are implemented as intended.

I am not sure where the mystery is here though. For me I have collect I would say about 8 oz of fluid oil that normally would have just passed through the clean airways. There can only be few conclusions, the catch can did not suck the oil out of thin air nor did it promote the travel of the oil from the PCV to the can itself so its not the root cause of the oil passing through that , and all of it did not get past my catch can, other than not knowing 100% how much official oil actually passed in the 4k miles I had it in place, I can say where that 8 oz did not go. =)

 

[JStang15]

Here's a thread from the Focus ST forum comparing buildup on 2 cars, one with and one without a catch can.

http://www.focusst.org/forum/focus-...l-catch-can-vs-no-oil-catch-can-pictures.html

One of the cars in the comparison had just over 11,000 miles and the other had 15,000. I would imagine the difference in buildup would be magnified over a longer period of time/more mileage. I'm not sure anyone is going to find better "proof" than that right now.

 

[RubyRed15]

Here's a thread from the Focus ST forum comparing buildup on 2 cars, one with and one without a catch can.

http://www.focusst.org/forum/focus-...l-catch-can-vs-no-oil-catch-can-pictures.html

One of the cars in the comparison had just over 11,000 miles and the other had 15,000. I would imagine the difference in buildup would be magnified over a longer period of time/more mileage. I'm not sure anyone is going to find better "proof" than that right now.

That's the best evidence I've seen to date.

 

[dgc333]

Apparently the new camaro has some type of catch can that drains back to the oil pan on the LS V8. Also, someone on their forum said something about audi/vw having some kind of factory catch can setup on some models.

Most engines have some sort of oil seperator that limits the amount of oil that passes through the PCV valve . The Ecoboost has one of the more elaborate oil seperators on the side of the block where the PCV valve plugs in. These are not as effective as a well designed catch can but they are much much better than no baffling at all.

As others have stated they don't put on inline cans because they require maintenance that the manufactures can't ensure happens.

Read a post on the F150 forum where some one put two catch cans in series. One was a UPR and the other was an RX. They both collected a fair amount. The UPR contents appeared to be primarily oil and the RX the contents looked more like moisture and fuel. He also stated regardless of the order the RX always had the most volume.

Sponsored