UPR Catch Can

[Ebm]

.

And still no evidence of carbon deposits? Wow...

Yes, these threads always end in a crap show.

Here is another one. Catch Can Evidence Crap Show

Sponsored

 

[TorqueMan]

Yes, these threads always end in a crap show.

Interesting. No one ever responds to requests for evidence of carbon buildup problems with the 2.3L EB, you just get the same pics of catch can contents, which is proof that there is positive pressure in the crankcase.

I especially enjoyed UPRJoe's response:

>This forum is for learning and not wasting time with theory and internet claims about the ecoboost engines having no oil ingestion problems.

LOL! Asking for evidence has somehow become an "internet claim!" I don't think that's how it works.

1st man: "The sky is green."

2nd man: "Really? That's not my experience. What is your proof?"

1st man: "If you're going to pose an outlandish claim that I may be mistaken YOU need to provide proof."

2nd man: "Uh, I didn't make a claim. I'm just asking what makes you think the sky is green."

1st man: "Stop wasting our time with your theories!"

 

[Juben]

Find an EcoBoost motor with 80k-90k on it and use a borescope camera to look at the valves. Have you done it? I have. The next time I get the opportunity to pull the IM on a high mileage motor I will definitely get some pics of it. The problem is real. I've seen it vary to a degree depending on driving conditions, gas quality used, etc., but there is definitely carbon buildup on these engines. If I still had my 2.0EB Fusion, I'd pull the manifold just to show you.

 

[Turbong]

http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-your-pcv-system-upgrades-and-catch-cans/

 

[TorqueMan]

Find an EcoBoost motor with 80k-90k on it and use a borescope camera to look at the valves. Have you done it? I have. The next time I get the opportunity to pull the IM on a high mileage motor I will definitely get some pics of it. The problem is real. I've seen it vary to a degree depending on driving conditions, gas quality used, etc., but there is definitely carbon buildup on these engines. If I still had my 2.0EB Fusion, I'd pull the manifold just to show you.

I don't doubt there will be some carbon deposits, the question is are they a problem, as in do they interfere with engine operation. There are a lot of things that get dirty/worn inside an engine with 80-90K miles on it, but no one worries about them unless they cause driveability issues.

Did you experience driveability issues with the 2.0L EB in your Fusion? If so, what were they and when did they start? The 2.0L EB in my wife's 2014 Escape has 70K+ miles and runs like it did when we drove it off the lot--smooth idle and power delivery, same kick-in-the-pants power (for a 3800lb car with a relatively small four banger), and 28-30 MPG mixed/mostly highway driving. All I've ever done to the car is scheduled maintenance and a new set of tires.

All that said, how do we know your car(s) wouldn't still get carbon deposits even with a catch can? The catch can picks up liquids, not vapor. It's the combustion by-products--some of which are pushed out the intake valve during valve overlap, and some of which make their way past the rings into the crankcase and through the PCV system--that result in carbon deposits, not oil or water vapor. How does a catch can help with those?

 

[EcoBOSS]

TorqueMan and Ebm: STFU² (Step The F Up or Shut The F Up)

This is MY engine at 40K.
93 Octane "Tier One" [branded] fuel, regular maintenance on an accelerated schedule by the dealer and myself, 5K max on full synthetic oil, top end synthetic oil filters or Motorcraft only, regular air filter cleaning, 80/20 highway to in-town mix.

This is probably what most systems look like at 20K or less.
This is the forward most intake valve taken with an Android phone and CameraFi (<$20 online) with the intake manifold off.

I am NOT cleaning my valves as I'm going to add a CC system (one-way dual-valve system, with clean side protection) AND Methanol injection. I know which limits build up and which removes build up.

I'm waiting on YOUR evidence and not your "thoughts" - still waiting on QTip pix from the Inlet (follow the Valve Cover connection to the turbo inlet - swab there) and the dirty side (intake connection is easiest to reach).

When they BOTH come back dirty (assuming 20K+), I'll explain why.

Not a fan of "Feeding the Trolls", but now you two are just stirring the pot...

 

[EcoBOSS]

http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-your-pcv-system-upgrades-and-catch-cans/

Nice. They also use the Duratec/EB images from Ford - Bonus points awarded.

Sadly this:
"Under boost the PCV valve closes and prevents boost pressure from entering the crankcase so this side of the system does not flow at all under boost." [Their Emphasis]

This is not completely correct.
The system is a two-way system. If you put a check valve in the intake (dirty) side to block boost, every time you go into boost you will throw a code (P052x, Pxxx or other).

I did this because part way through my CC install, I had to put the intake back on the car and drive it - Bingo! Code.

The system flows 2 ways:
High Intake Manifold Vacuum or No/Low Boost: filtered air comes in at the turbo inlet, through the PCV Flow meter (wired sensor), to the valve cover, through the crankcase, to the FORD air to oil separator (another name for a Catch Can) installed from the factory ( :shocked, to the PCV and to the intake.

"The vent under boost. When the PCV valve is closed and the car is under boost as well as to a lesser extent under vacuum when it works together with the first system, this is where crankcase pressure is pulled from. The intake before the turbo has a vacuum effect from the turbo pulling in air through the intake tube and gases are PULLED from the top of the valve cover. The valve cover itself acts as an air to oil separator (a second OEM catch can which is also baffled) and returns the separated oil to the crankcase where it belongs." [Again, their emphasis]

This is the rub - the PCV does NOT CLOSE, it restricts the flow under boost, but flow is reversed: Filtered air from the Intake (under boost), to the FORD air to oil separator on the block, through the crankcase, to the valve cover that FORD installed baffles into creating a SECOND air to oil separator (another name for a Catch Can) installed from the factory ( :shocked, to the PCV Flow meter (wired sensor), and finally, the DIRTY PCV AIR enters the turbo inlet - so now the TURBO gets "sludged" (under boost).

Enjoy.

 

[TorqueMan]

TorqueMan and Ebm: STFU² (Step The F Up or Shut The F Up)

This is probably what most systems look like at 20K or less.
This is the forward most intake valve taken with an Android phone and CameraFi (<$20 online) with the intake manifold off.

I'm waiting on YOUR evidence and not your "thoughts" - still waiting on QTip pix from the Inlet (follow the Valve Cover connection to the turbo inlet - swab there) and the dirty side (intake connection is easiest to reach).

When they BOTH come back dirty (assuming 20K+), I'll explain why.

Not a fan of "Feeding the Trolls", but now you two are just stirring the pot...

I don't need to swab the inside of my engine, and I won't make you wait to explain why. Your photo, like the contents of your catch can, is further evidence of what we know--the inside of an internal combustion engine is dirty. You didn't mention you were experiencing any driveability issues, so I'm going to assume your engine is running fine.

There is a lot more disgusting and dirty stuff sitting in your engine after operating it for 40K miles than what we see in this photo, and like what we see in this photo, if it doesn't interfere with engine operation it is of no concern.

You have made a claim that a catch can is all but required for continued operation of the 2.3L EB engines installed in 2015- Mustangs. I and others have expressed doubt about that claim. It's not up to me to provide "evidence" of my doubt--that's just a silly misdirection. I have asked for evidence that carbon deposits are a problem with these engines. A problem, BTW, means something that interferes with engine operation, not something that's expected--like getting dirty--during normal operation. YOU have made this claim; YOU must explain and provide data to prove it.

Here's a fun thought experiment. What "evidence" would it take for you change your mind on this issue? Here's what it would take for me: There are literally MILLIONS of these engines in operation around the world. If carbon deposits were an issue with even a small percentage of them--as early as 20K miles as you claim--then I would expect to be reading TENS OF THOUSANDS of complaints online. As much money as people pay for their cars these days, they feel justified in complaining about the most inane things; I would expect to see complaints about a major engine repair (Ford's current guidance for dealing with this issue on the 3.5 EB is head replacement) at 20K miles.

What would it take for you to change your mind? If you can't answer that question--if nothing anyone can say will change your mind--then what's the point of discussing it in an online forum like this? We're all here because we want to learn something. If nothing anyone can say to you on this issue can teach you anything then why even read the forum? I have looked far and wide online and I've found exactly ZERO claims of carbon deposits interfering with engine operation on the 2.3L EB motor. Does that count as "evidence" for you? If not, what does?

I still remain open minded, I'll admit that perhaps I simply haven't looked hard enough for the evidence of carbon deposits causing problems with 2.3L EB motors. If you have some please share it.

 

[TorqueMan]

This is the rub - the PCV does NOT CLOSE, it restricts the flow under boost, but flow is reversed: Filtered air from the Intake (under boost), to the FORD air to oil separator on the block, through the crankcase, to the valve cover that FORD installed baffles into creating a SECOND air to oil separator (another name for a Catch Can) installed from the factory ( :shocked, to the PCV Flow meter (wired sensor), and finally, the DIRTY PCV AIR enters the turbo inlet - so now the TURBO gets "sludged" (under boost).

Enjoy.

Wow. I'm having trouble visualizing this. It seems like you are saying PCV vapors go through the turbo instead of into the intake manifold when the engine is under boost. Is that correct? If you have the capability a diagram might help. Maybe you can draw one out and take a photo with your phone?

This seems like it would be a far larger problem than carbon deposits on the valves...

 

[Marvinmadman]

Yes that is correct

 

[Marvinmadman]

This is what's going on under boost. The breather box on the block is supposed to be blocked, but no PCV valve on earth makes a 100% seal from any OEM. So you have a little bit of boost pressure leaking back into the crankcase. Turbo inlet is the only source of a vacuum supply under boost conditions. So that pulls from the valve cover to evacuate the crankcase pressure.

 

[TorqueMan]

...to the FORD air to oil separator (another name for a Catch Can) installed from the factory ( :shocked, to the PCV and to the intake.

This claim is a bit of a stretch. The air/oil separator performs ONE of the functions of a catch can, but the oil separated from the vapors goes back into the crankcase, where it is filtered and recirculated throughout the lubrication system. Any dangerous contaminants are held in suspension in the oil until you change it. This is pretty good evidence, in fact, that what you find in your catch can is really no danger to the engine as long as you use the correct grade/specification oil and replace it as recommended. Again, there are literally millions of these engines in operation without catch cans that don't appear to be suffering from the ill effects of reusing the oil from the air/oil separator.

Further, the vapors that go through the air/oil separator continue into the intake manifold, where the carbon from combustion by-products that circulate through the PCV system may collect on the intake valves. This is no different from a catch can, right?

 

[EcoBOSS]

I There are literally MILLIONS of these engines in operation around the world. If carbon deposits were an issue with even a small percentage of them--as early as 20K miles as you claim--then I would expect to be reading TENS OF THOUSANDS of complaints online.

Folks that are using their vehicles under city driving are having this issue at about 40k - which is why I looked.
This is not just EBM, this is EVERY SINGLE GDI/GTDI motor in the world. It is a KNOWN ISSUE industry wide. It has caused numerous white papers to be written, now to include
Low Speed Pre-ignition (LSPI).
To my knowledge, the 2018 Mustang GT is the FIRST (Ford anyway) to address the carbon issue with GTI, 12.0:1 compression AND port injection (traditional "wet" injection).

So to make it clear, NOBODY (especially you) "needs" or "has to" install anything, including a catch can.
I have to, I race, I tune, I drive hard and I've witnessed the difference since my first CC install in the early 80's. Every time, I can use more timing without knock or global spark retard in the tune - this means more HP.
If I can pull my intake components and NOT have them leaved a puddle on the garage floor that's a bonus.

 

[Marvinmadman]

This one is really simple to pull

 

[TorqueMan]

Folks that are using their vehicles under city driving are having this issue at about 40k - which is why I looked.
This is not just EBM, this is EVERY SINGLE GDI/GTDI motor in the world. It is a KNOWN ISSUE industry wide. It has caused numerous white papers to be written, now to include
Low Speed Pre-ignition (LSPI).

You keep saying EVERYONE knows this is a problem, yet I can find NOTHING online about carbon deposits affecting driveability problems for the EB Mustang. I understand this has been a problem for other manufacturers (I've mentioned that several times), but Ford holds a patent on technology meant to mitigate the problem. Once again, where is your evidence that carbon deposits cause driveability issues for the EB Mustang?

To my knowledge, the 2018 Mustang GT is the FIRST (Ford anyway) to address the carbon issue with GTI, 12.0:1 compression AND port injection (traditional "wet" injection).

This simply isn't true. Ford has employed a method of injecting a small amount of fuel during valve overlap to get raw fuel on the back side of the intake manifold for YEARS. The fact that Ford engines don't have the same problems as other manufacturers was discussed in this article from 2011.

https://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-archive/2011/06/direct-injection-fouls-some-early-adopters.html

Sponsored