UPR Catch Can

[Marvinmadman]

I can't imagine Ford would leave that tech out of the 3.5 EB. That's something I can't fathom.

Sponsored

 

[EcoBOSS]

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?



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

Dude, it's like you're not even trying...
Valve overlap and direct port injected engines are not the issue, it's not a solution and it's "Apples and Cinder Blocks". I was SPECIFICALLY, by manufacturer name, vehicle brand, engine and date referring to the fact that FORD is aware of the GTDI/GDI (direct injection) issue of drivability and carbon build it and SPECIFICALLY addressed it by ADDING port injectors to the GTI 5.0L Coyote (actually using GDI heads with an existing intake design).

With any luck, the 2019 EBM will have something similar with a 4 lobe cam for the HPFP or improved output HVFP.

Now, the article you referenced covers this issue 100% (and you said you couldn't find anything on the issue?). GTDI/GDI engines - ALL gasoline versions of this technology, regardless of manufacture (as of this moment) have this issue.

 

[TorqueMan]

Dude, it's like you're not even trying...GTDI/GDI engines - ALL gasoline versions of this technology, regardless of manufacture (as of this moment) have this issue.

I HAVE acknowledged this, many times. What you haven't acknowledged is that carbon deposits cause driveability issues for some cars, but not others. The article I posted specifically addresses that fact.

I appreciate this discussion, but I think we're going around in circles. You can end the debate by answering these two questions:

1. Why can't I find even a SINGLE owner complaint of engine problems--an actual problem that affects engine operation--related to carbon deposits for the 2.3L EB motor?
   
2. Given that it is crankcase vapors rather than oil droplets which results in the carbon deposits, and that a catch can--like the factory air/oil separator--does not prevent crankcase vapors from circulating back into the intake system, how does a catch can prevent carbon deposits on intake valves?

 

[dgc333]

[*]Given that it is crankcase vapors rather than oil droplets which results in the carbon deposits, and that a catch can--like the factory air/oil separator--does not prevent crankcase vapors from circulating back into the intake system, how does a catch can prevent carbon deposits on intake valves?
[/LIST]

A catch can will cause the oil in the vapors to emulsify into to liquid and be captured in the can, that is what they are designed to do. How well the can is designed will determine how effective it is at doing that.

None of the catch cans are 100% effective but a well designed one like the UPR will remove a couple of ounces of oil from the vapor passing into the intake manifold every couple of thousand miles.

The manufactuers don't install catch cans because they require maintenance that if not performed can result in solid oil being sucked into the engine with potential catastrophic damage.

The other thing to consider is the oil vapor in the fuel/air mix in the combustion chamber reduces the octane of the fuel which could be the difference between detonation or not.

Whether you feel it is worth the cost and hassle of emptying it is your decision.

 

[EcoBOSS]

Timely - July 2017

[I just typed a 3 paragraph reply on my phone that didn't post - FML]

dgc333 summed it up nicely.

Carbon is mostly oil vapors coming in contact with hot metal surfaces and/or EGR (another thread that will get Cancer... :( ) - anything we can't due to limit EGR, reduce PCV vapors and keep our intakes, valves and TURBOs clean will help.

Our EBM platform is too new - we have maybe 36-40k on the clock and these issues don't surface for 40-80k. Start early, it will happen.

I predict - almost as if it was to coincide with the release of the 2018s - that we will see "Why does my EBM idle like $#!+?" posts are coming in the next year.

I also predict that Ford will release an EcoBoost "refresh" for 2019 or 2020 with increased static compression, revised PCV, and a supplimentary port injection fuel system...

 

[TorqueMan]

A catch can will cause the oil in the vapors to emulsify into to liquid and be captured in the can, that is what they are designed to do. How well the can is designed will determine how effective it is at doing that.

The factory air/oil separator does the same thing, right? I realize that catch can manufacturers claim their systems work better than the factory system, but claims of superiority (and sometimes scare tactics) are the basis of marketing materials for a great many aftermarket products.

From my study, part of Ford's strategy in limiting carbon deposits (as well as mitigating LSPI) is a new oil specification that limits evaporation loss. This raises yet more questions: How much and what kind of oil vapor is enough to cause carbon deposits? Is a catch can more effective at limiting the kind of vapor that will cause deposits than the factory system? If so, by how much?

The manufactuers don't install catch cans because they require maintenance that if not performed can result in solid oil being sucked into the engine with potential catastrophic damage.

So those claiming there is no downside to installing a catch can are not correct.

Whether you feel it is worth the cost and hassle of emptying it is your decision.

Correct. And part of that determination is understanding the pros and cons based on facts, not conjecture and supposition. As far as I know, there are still no owner complaints of driveability issues related to carbon deposits on the 2.3L EB motor. In addition, we have no comparison of cars with and without to determine if a catch can actually does anything to prevent carbon deposits for the 2.3L EB. Given the lack of owner complaints, is it possible that Ford's carbon deposit mitigation strategies are working?

 

[TorqueMan]

Carbon is mostly oil vapors coming in contact with hot metal surfaces ...

The primary source of carbon in the crankcase vapor is from combustion by-products: CARBON monoxide, CARBON dioxide, etc. Engine manufacturers work from the premise that carbon deposits on intake valves occur primarily during engine operation when the intake valve protrudes into the combustion chamber where it's exposed to combustion by-products that then stick to the neck and back side of the valve. (You seem to be good with Google, so I'll let you do your own research on that. You might start with those links you included in your last post). Part of Ford's strategy to mitigate intake valve fouling is changes in timing to limit intake valve exposure to combustion by-products.

The idea that carbon deposits result from oil vapors in the PCV system is a relatively new idea that I can't find in any scholarly work.

Our EBM platform is too new - we have maybe 36-40k on the clock and these issues don't surface for 40-80k. Start early, it will happen.

I predict - almost as if it was to coincide with the release of the 2018s - that we will see "Why does my EBM idle like $#!+?" posts are coming in the next year.

I also predict that Ford will release an EcoBoost "refresh" for 2019 or 2020 with increased static compression, revised PCV, and a supplimentary port injection fuel system...

So in other words your claim that a catch can is necessary to prevent carbon deposits on intake valves for the 2.3L EB motor is based not on any data that there is an actual problem with carbon deposits for the 2.3L EB motor, but on a prediction.

 

[dgc333]

Don't discount the contribution of oil vapor from the PCV system causing carbon build up on the intake valves. I have been building, rebuilding and repairing engines for 40 years, if you had ever taken apart and engine with bad valve guide seals you would be shocked at the carbon build on the valves from oil being drawn into the intake. It can almost completely block flow into the cylinders.

Read any technical article on GDI engines and they will all recomend an oil with a low NOACK value to minimize the amount of oil evaporating in the crank case and being sucked into the engine through the PCV system.

A catch can may not stop carbon build up on the valves but it certainly helps and is cheap enough that it is a no brainer in my book.

 

[TorqueMan]

Don't discount the contribution of oil vapor from the PCV system causing carbon build up on the intake valves. I have been building, rebuilding and repairing engines for 40 years, if you had ever taken apart and engine with bad valve guide seals you would be shocked at the carbon build on the valves from oil being drawn into the intake. It can almost completely block flow into the cylinders.

Read any technical article on GDI engines and they will all recomend an oil with a low NOACK value to minimize the amount of oil evaporating in the crank case and being sucked into the engine through the PCV system.

I have acknowledged this time and again, but I have yet to see any data this phenomenon is problematic for the 2.3L EB motor.

A catch can may not stop carbon build up on the valves but it certainly helps and is cheap enough that it is a no brainer in my book.

The only way to prove this claim is to first define "helps," then to compare carbon deposits on engines with and without a catch can. Can you share a link to such data? If a catch can doesn't actually do what you claim then it isn't "cheap," especially compared to doing nothing. I've seen catch cans advertised for as much as $500. How much does a valve cleaning cost?

 

[DavidEcobeast]

I plan on upgrading to a larger turbo with port injection soon from Stratified. Port injection with direct injection will be freaking awesome. I can't wait to see what Ford brings to the Ecoboost. I am thinking they will update the fuel system only to down size the engine. Just watch! LAME!!!

Yesterday I finally drained the factory fill oil for some new Amsoil 5/30w sig series. It claims to eliminate lspi 100%. Will it eliminate carbon build up in the intake ports? who knows... Either way, I will be pulling the intake off soon enough. A catch will help, but it is not a definite fix to DI problems. Use quality oil, fuel, and don't lug or accelerate a heat soaked engine. I like to leave my engine running when going in and out most places. If it sits off for awhile I try to let it idle for a bit and drive it easy. I think that exhaust integrated manifolds cause serious hot spots within the head when the engine is off. I am no engineer, but I would imagine that cylinder 2 and 3 take the most abuse until the turbo cools off and the cooling system pulls the heat away from the head.
Upgrading to a big turbo might actually be safer, since most use a adapter which mounts the turbo to the head. Plus they use turbo blankets.

 

[EcoBOSS]

So in other words your claim that a catch can is necessary to prevent carbon deposits on intake valves for the 2.3L EB motor is based not on any data that there is an actual problem with carbon deposits for the 2.3L EB motor, but on a prediction.

No, My predictions are predictions.
Which is why I specifically used the words "I predict..." :lol:

 

[EcoBOSS]

I have acknowledged this time and again, but I have yet to see any data this phenomenon is problematic for the 2.3L EB motor.

"[P]henomenon": that is an exemplary choice of wording; "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question." - so it looks like you are FINALLY coming to the "dark side" now that you've admitted this issue exists! Admitting there is a problem is the first step to getting help! :clap2:

So, this "phenomenon" occurs between 40-80,000 miles (long term), I have a 2015 with 47,000 on the clock - again, religiously maintained, quality full synthetic low calcium oil, BRANDED 93 octane gas and all - and I have carbon build up. It is not enough to affect idle, but it is there, it is visible. My attempts to reduce it thus far appear to be working as I've read about/found vehicles with idle problems attributed to carbon with as little as 40K and I have less then half of their build up (visually).

So, according to USDOT, the average driver puts 13,476 miles on their vehicle per year, that means the average EBM won't start having issues until 2018ish (as I predicted above). This is why you haven't "seen" this problem - it exists, and it will become common place and in 2 years we will be openly mocking people who DIDN'T know this (again, a prediction). Heck, there may even be a "sticky" thread on Catch Cans that doesn't cause Colorectal Cancer in our future...

Your assertion that

The primary source of carbon in the crankcase vapor is from combustion by-products: CARBON monoxide, CARBON dioxide, etc.

is a "search term failure" - Yes, the primary source of "CARBON in the crankcase vapor is from combustion by-products", but we are discussing "CARBON BUILD UP", it's different.

In the 80's (the emissions decade) carbon was directly related to unhandled PCV/crankcase vapors coming into contact with hot metal associated with the EGR system - been there, regularly scraped that.


https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm

 

[EcoBOSS]

Article dated 2012: “GDI systems are showing drivability issues related to carbon buildup on the intake valves as early as 3,000 miles,” says Tenpenny. “This is causing hard starting and random misfire codes. Since fuel is not sprayed on the backside of the intake valves where fuel detergents can do their job, deposits build quickly.” According to a U.S. patent application filed by Volkswagen in 2002 (and referenced by AutoObserver in June 2011), these deposits are described as a sticky coating of oil and fuel elements that serve as a base for future deposits, kind of like a stalactite in a cave. These deposits significantly reduce engine performance and can even lead to catalytic converter damage, or damage to turbochargers when bits of this hardened deposit break off and enter the exhaust."

 

[TorqueMan]

Yesterday I finally drained the factory fill oil for some new Amsoil 5/30w sig series. It claims to eliminate lspi 100%.

You gotta read that small print carefully. What Amsoil claims is that its product "achieved 100 percent protection against LSPI in the engine test required by the GM dexos1 ® Gen 2 specification." Any oil that meets GM dexos 1 Gen 2 specification (there are many--see below) will perform the same on tests required by the specification--that's how they achieve qualification for the specification. You can find a list of oils meeting the spec here:

www.centerforqa.com/dexos-brand2015/

Scroll to near the bottom of that list and you'll see Walmart's Supertech brand (5W-30 full synthetic) listed. If you have a few minutes take a look at this article from Blackstone Labs, an outfit specializing in oil analysis. Blackstone measures wear metals in oil samples taken after an oil has been used. The amount of wear metal is a direct measurement of how well the oil is doing its primary job of lubricating internal engine parts. This article was a response to the question many of Blackstone's customers ask: Which oil is the best?

https://www.blackstone-labs.com/Newsletters/Gas-Diesel/July-1-2017.php

If you don't want to read the entire thing here's the summary:

Well, we’re no closer to saying that one type of oil is better than another, that’s for sure. We see much more variation in wear levels from the type of engine, the time on the oil, the viscosity, the use the engine sees, etc. Whatever differences exist from oil brand to oil brand, we don’t see a lot of difference in terms of wear for most types of engines.

Now, some people report better fuel economy or other benefits from using one type of oil instead of another, and if that’s you, that’s great. Our point here is not to tell you that you should or shouldn’t use a certain type of oil, so by all means, feel free to stick with what’s working for you. All we’re saying is, if you want to try an oil that maybe costs a little less, you probably don’t need to worry about it causing any problems. Send us a sample of what you’re using, and then try a similar oil run with the new stuff – by comparing those results, you might find that you can get the same great results, and save a little money as well! Good luck!

Use quality oil, fuel, and don't lug or accelerate a heat soaked engine.

And change your oil according to manufacturer guidelines. I would bet that these will do more for avoiding engine problems than a catch can.

If it sits off for awhile I try to let it idle for a bit and drive it easy.

This I understand.

I like to leave my engine running when going in and out most places.

This I don't. Care to explain? Is it because of this?

I think that exhaust integrated manifolds cause serious hot spots within the head when the engine is off.

The heat generated from the pressure and fire of combustion is far hotter than the heat coming from the turbo, and as soon as you remove the source of heat the temps will go down. Ford (and most manufacturers) specifically calls out extended idling as "severe duty" requiring more frequent oil changes.

As far as I know no one has published anything suggesting increased engine wear resulting from integrated exhaust manifolds. The millions of ecoboost engines in service make a very strong case that this is a sound design feature requiring no unusual operating procedures such as extended idling before shutdown.

 

[TorqueMan]

Article dated 2012:

Also from the same article:

But not all makes suffer equally from this problem. It seems the European makes have struggled more with this issue than the domestic manufacturers.

Sponsored