EcoBOSS
Well-Known Member
Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes.There's no documented evidence actually.
So...
Sponsored
Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes.There's no documented evidence actually.
LOLz, I don't NEED to do anything.
If you don't want a catch can, don't buy a catch can.
If you have more than 40K miles on your EBM - take off the intake manifold and look at the valves. Have you done this? I have.
If you have more than 4K miles on your EBM - take off the clean or dirty side hoses and run a Q-tip through them. Have you done this? I have.
YOU can come up with any number of theories on this and apply them to YOUR vehicle any way YOU see fit. It is not ANYONES responsibility to prove to you, or provide evidence to you as YOUR education is YOUR business.
Unless I've missed something, you are not the Mod-Police and I haven't seen a subpoena, until then, enjoy.
So if you know our engines have carbon build up and some people make the choice to run a catch can because they think it may help what's the issue better safe than sorry. You guys can argue this till your blue in the face but until some one performs a test catch can vs non catch can all we have are opinions. Some opinions make more sense than others but it still comes down to choice. I would rather know that I took all the measures to keep my car protected and if someone proves after 50000 miles that a catch can wasn't necessary then I spent a couple hundred dollars and added some unnecessary hoses and a can to my car.What's funny here is that you are getting defensive of the choice you made to get a catch can, yet you then blow it off and act like you don't need to prove anything.
You've provided no real evidence here other than saying you have "anecdotal evidence." Your anecdotal evidence is pure bullshit unless you have pictures or a trustworthy source like Ford. On top of that, you aren't defending the need for a catch can, you are just stating that our engines have carbon deposits because they are direct injected. As I stated earlier, I am aware our engines have carbon deposits, but that doesn't justify the need for a catch can. Show me an engine that has a catch can versus one that doesn't instead of talking nonsense.
So much irony on internet forums. ;)
I don't need to prove anything to [Troll].
I did my research, I checked my factory parts, I researched available parts and decided it was best to go with a complete custom set up to address issues I found on MY vehicle. I've been doing this for some time and I write my own tunes.
I refuse to provide "evidence" to someone not willing to look - "You can lead a troll to water, but you can't make them think."
You can also choose to not get a catch can. Someone famous once said "If you like your current PCV System, you can KEEP your PCV system." - or something like that.
Anyhow, you too can enjoy.
You are right, I did say our engines have carbon build up. It's a product of the combustion engine in general, carbon. I never said it was enough to be an issue though. Instead of using a catch can, something more worth your while would be WMI or E85.So if you know our engines have carbon build up and some people make the choice to run a catch can because they think it may help what's the issue better safe than sorry. You guys can argue this till your blue in the face but until some one performs a test catch can vs non catch can all we have are opinions. Some opinions make more sense than others but it still comes down to choice. I would rather know that I took all the measures to keep my car protected and if someone proves after 50000 miles that a catch can wasn't necessary then I spent a couple hundred dollars and added some unnecessary hoses and a can to my car.
I stated unequivocally that I DID look for data. There is a lot of discussion of carbon buildup around the internet, especially regarding cars from BMW, VW and Audi. I haven't found any data suggesting the same problem exists for Ford's 4cyl EB engines. I've found exactly the opposite, in fact.I don't need to prove anything to [Troll]. I refuse to provide "evidence" to someone not willing to look
Note that this article dates from 2011.Stephen Russ, technical leader for combustion for Ford’s 2-liter Duratec DI engine, said that similar to GM, engineers have determined the proper injection-timing calibration to help eliminate the carbon deposits. But Russ also said the technology of injection components – particularly the high-pressure solenoid injectors – has quickly matured, meaning excess valve deposits in most DI engines should become a thing of the past as these improved components are incorporated into production.
Can you be more specific? Ford issued a TSB to address smoking issues in 2015 and early 2016 EB Mustangs. It required replacing the factory vent oil separator. Do you know if this TSB applied to your car or not?On my current setup, no CC would mean that my 2.3 would smoke (burn oil) immediately on startup and beyond. CC completely eliminated that 100%. So my theory and opinion is that my CC works.
I don't believe it's an issue of being finicky, I think the oil separator they installed initially wasn't up to the task. My car doesn't smoke at all.In my case, I installed a catless DP. If the PCV system is that finicky, I feel that a CC is a good purchase. I went through BBQ cake valves with a few turbo engines to know better than betting against one. Most recent was my 2012 Flex 3.5 TT. I have pics of those at 80k if you'd like them.