Oil Catch Can. Yes or No?

[ToothRanger]

What's weird is that everyone selling them says they're essential

Yup, just like flossing.

Sponsored

 

[SubVet]

What's weird is that everyone selling them says they're essential

I am always leary of one telling me my engine NEEDS something,,,,, Especially when they make a video to SELL their product. I feel the same about GFB+ I have heard from an engineer it is not necessary and he made a good case. I did install one on my Fiat124 ....Didn't notice any difference and I drove that baby hard.

Many useless things are sold using FEAR... "If you use my product ,this dastardly thing won't happen to your truck"......Fear Sells.

 

[Rinn69]

I put a catch can on my 04 Lightning. I checked the intake when I put it on (it had about 3000 miles on it) and it was coated in oil, so I cleaned it up good. I checked it after a few weeks and it and the inside of had about a 1/4 cup of "stuff" in it and the intake was just slightly oily.

I look at it this way: Is it going to hurt to put a catch can on ? No. Will it help ? Maybe, but it won't hurt either (except the wallet).

 

[RCMUSTANG]

If it actually catches the oil it helps from getting that oil in your turbo, intake, valves and down the line. Just because everything is "fine" doesn't mean keeping oil out is hocus pocus. They're are some that don't work and those that do.

 

[jonb347]

The factory doesn't do it because it has potential to mix oil and fuel in the same location which is not CARB legal. Look under the hood of the Mustangs at any event with Ford Performance and youll see them

 

[Floyd]

If it actually catches the oil it helps from getting that oil in your turbo, intake, valves and down the line. Just because everything is "fine" doesn't mean keeping oil out is hocus pocus. They're are some that don't work and those that do.

Just how much oil are we discussing here?
I've never had a Ford which lost a measurable amount of oil between changes.
Small amounts of contaminants like gasoline and condensation from short trips evaporate from a warm crankcase and are vented, along with excessive crankcase pressure through the PCV....
Is that what is contended causes the carbon deposits on the intake valves

What about EGR ??? With the intake valves playing a direct role in that function...
doesn't it seem more logical that EGR would be the primary carbon culprit?
Wouldn't that sorta obviate the catch can's minor contribution to any intake valve carbon mitigation?

 

[RCMUSTANG]

Just how much oil are we discussing here?
I've never had a Ford which lost a measurable amount of oil between changes.
Small amounts of contaminants like gasoline and condensation from short trips evaporate from a warm crankcase and are vented, along with excessive crankcase pressure through the PCV....
Is that what is contended causes the carbon deposits on the intake valves

What about EGR ??? With the intake valves playing a direct role in that function...
doesn't it seem more logical that EGR would be the primary carbon culprit?
Wouldn't that sorta obviate the catch can's minor contribution to any intake valve carbon mitigation?

I get into my engines. They get plenty of oil coating everything in the inside. I posted a pic of the inside of my intake with 600 miles and it has a coating already. It has nothing to do with measurable loss. You can see oil coating everything that's post crankcase connected. The only thing I'm talking about is that oil does get into the system and a catch can will help reduce, almost eliminate that situation. I've built plenty of motors over the last 30 years and anything that has a pcv and sealed breather system introduces oil into the intake tract on down. I've run separators, now called catch cans, and it's virtually eliminated the problem.

 

[Floyd]

I get into my engines. The get plenty of oil coating everything in the inside. I posted a pic of the inside of my intake with 600 miles and it has a coating already. It has nothing to do with measurable loss. You can see oil coating everything that's post crankcase connected. The only thing I'm talking about is that oil does get into the system and a catch can will help reduce, almost eliminate that situation. I've built plenty of motors over the last 30 years and anything that has a pcv and sealed breather system introduces oil into the intake tract on down. I've run separators, now called catch cans, and it's virtually eliminated the problem.

Not really the point, the question is carbon build-up on intake valves and its primary cause. How much is actually the result of PCV as opposed to EGR ,or to appease some adherents...How much does PCV affect the effect of EGR?

If oil from PCV has coated "everything that's post crankcase connected" in only 600 miles, how effective would removing a teaspoon a month really be?
I'm not taking sides or being argumentative here, just trying to examine the issue objectively.

I too have some experience with each of the dozen factors involved here, but not all in one application.
I tend to think (so far) that the real culprit may be that portion of the variable valve timing dedicated to EGR.
I.E...Does this valve "overlap" strategy continue at Idle and WOT or only at mid throttle like some of the old school EGR valves?
I'm still thinking this whole issue may be a solution searching for a problem??
But; We've got more room here to learn and share information.
I'm gonna hate to read this a year from now when I (we?) have a better understanding!

BTW; I drive Fords so I seldom get into my engines (unless its a project).
I have , however spent a good part of my life getting into other people's engines!

 

[dmeyer302]

Just how much oil are we discussing here?
I've never had a Ford which lost a measurable amount of oil between changes.
Small amounts of contaminants like gasoline and condensation from short trips evaporate from a warm crankcase and are vented, along with excessive crankcase pressure through the PCV....
Is that what is contended causes the carbon deposits on the intake valves

What about EGR ??? With the intake valves playing a direct role in that function...
doesn't it seem more logical that EGR would be the primary carbon culprit?
Wouldn't that sorta obviate the catch can's minor contribution to any intake valve carbon mitigation?

The amount of oil “lost” in this engine will be the same as any other engine. EGR isn’t any more responsible for buildup than any other engine. The difference, of course, is direct injection. With a port injection engine, you have that fuel constantly washing the back side of the intake valve off.

I’d like to address the “Ford doesn’t install it and therefore I don’t need it” guys. I trust the engineers. I’m a mechanical engineer myself. But you have to consider the bigger picture. The engineers don’t get the final say. It’s the bean counters who remove that $100 component that doesn’t have a great effect during the only time period they really care about: 3/36000. If you’re trading every few years, great. I agree that you won’t need the catch can. I’m in this for the long haul though. I’m expecting 150,000+ miles by the time my kids are done with it. I’ll be installing a catch can.

 

[Floyd]

The amount of oil “lost” in this engine will be the same as any other engine. EGR isn’t any more responsible for buildup than any other engine. The difference, of course, is direct injection. With a port injection engine, you have that fuel constantly washing the back side of the intake valve off.

I’d like to address the “Ford doesn’t install it and therefore I don’t need it” guys. I trust the engineers. I’m a mechanical engineer myself. But you have to consider the bigger picture. The engineers don’t get the final say. It’s the bean counters who remove that $100 component that doesn’t have a great effect during the only time period they really care about: 3/36000. If you’re trading every few years, great. I agree that you won’t need the catch can. I’m in this for the long haul though. I’m expecting 150,000+ miles by the time my kids are done with it. I’ll be installing a catch can.

I have no objection to the use of a catch can, but I'm no groupie.
I will reserve judgement until I am convinced of its effectiveness.
It is fine that you are convinced, with no more information or credentials than my own.
We have just not come to the same epiphany as yet .

I see no harm from the use of a catch can, if I choose to go that route I may well opt for an actual air/oil separator. (more effective and less maintenance).

Your first paragraph is really nothing more than a regurgitation of orthodoxy, And I am sure everyone has heard it ad nauseam,
As for the claim that EGR through variable valve timing is not a factor, I disagree.
It is of course clearly at least as much a factor as PCV.

If either proves to be a significant problem, we can at least find common ground in acknowledging the role played by Direct Injection.

Still I reiterate my point...
The question is carbon build-up on intake valves and its primary cause and even whether it presents a real problem.

As I previously stated...
I'm not taking sides or being argumentative here, just trying to examine the issue objectively.
I think you are within reason to opt for a catch can, and I invite you to please attempt to convince me and everyone else here to do so, using reasoned arguments and empirical evidence of course.
I certainly did not set out to offend your sensibilities or cast aspersions on your qualifications to come to your own conclusions.

 

[dmeyer302]

No offense taken here, Floyd. I think you (we) would be really hard pressed to find real data supporting the need here. It would have to be a fleet of trucks driven similarly, one with the can and one without. If anybody has such a study handy, I’d love to see it.

But, in the absence of that, I think the arguments “for” are outweighing the arguments “against” in my mind.

Daniel

 

[bandit67]

Everyone told me " you must put a catch can on your 2011 3.5 Ecoboost". I went with my gut and trusted the Ford engineers.

8 years later and that motor was as strong as ever after many miles of towing my boat. I really hated to get rid of it but I really didn't need a full size truck any more.

A lot of money has been made by these aftermarket guys. Sorry, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid.

"Everyone" was wrong, because the early 3.5L EcoBoost had Port Injection, which washed the oil pushed through the intake off the intake valves, making an oil catch can unnecessary on your 2011. Around 2014, I believe, it was changed to Direct Injection, and once there was no more fuel to wash the intake valves, coked oil would slowly build up on the intake valves, and over time, affect performance and fuel economy. In 2017, the 3.5L EcoBoost got both Port and Direct Injection, so oil catch cans were again no longer necessary.

All other EcoBoost motors, including the 2.3L in the Ranger, have Direct Injection. The reason that Ford Engineers didn't put Oil Catch Cans on the EcoBoost equipped vehicles is maintenance related. Catch cans need to be checked monthly, at least initially, to get a baseline on how much oil the can will collect. If the can is allowed to fill and then overflow, it could be problematic. Something that no manufacturer would be willing to warranty against when the customers cannot be trusted to drain it regularly. The buildup of coked oil on the intake valves will impact performance and fuel economy over the long haul on any motor without Port Injection. Since many customers do not hold onto vehicles for 100k miles, they won't care, and many, probably won't notice the slow decrease in performance and fuel economy compared to when it was newer.

My NA 5.0L on my Mustang GT pushes 3-4oz of oil through the intake every 1,000 miles. My catch can keeps that oil off my intake valves. A turbocharged or supercharged version of that motor would probably be pushing double that amount. My guess is the Ranger motor is pushing 2-4 oz of oil back through the intake, so in the interest of not loading up my intake valves with coked oil, I will be installing a catch can on my Ranger, as I plan on hanging onto it for at least 100k miles.

 

[Floyd]

"Everyone" was wrong, because the early 3.5L EcoBoost had Port Injection, which washed the oil pushed through the intake off the intake valves, making an oil catch can unnecessary on your 2011. Around 2014, I believe, it was changed to Direct Injection, and once there was no more fuel to wash the intake valves, coked oil would slowly build up on the intake valves, and over time, affect performance and fuel economy. In 2017, the 3.5L EcoBoost got both Port and Direct Injection, so oil catch cans were again no longer necessary.

All other EcoBoost motors, including the 2.3L in the Ranger, have Direct Injection. The reason that Ford Engineers didn't put Oil Catch Cans on the EcoBoost equipped vehicles is maintenance related. Catch cans need to be checked monthly, at least initially, to get a baseline on how much oil the can will collect. If the can is allowed to fill and then overflow, it could be problematic. Something that no manufacturer would be willing to warranty against when the customers cannot be trusted to drain it regularly. The buildup of coked oil on the intake valves will impact performance and fuel economy over the long haul on any motor without Port Injection. Since many customers do not hold onto vehicles for 100k miles, they won't care, and many, probably won't notice the slow decrease in performance and fuel economy compared to when it was newer.

My NA 5.0L on my Mustang GT pushes 3-4oz of oil through the intake every 1,000 miles. My catch can keeps that oil off my intake valves. A turbocharged or supercharged version of that motor would probably be pushing double that amount. My guess is the Ranger motor is pushing 2-4 oz of oil back through the intake, so in the interest of not loading up my intake valves with coked oil, I will be installing a catch can on my Ranger, as I plan on hanging onto it for at least 100k miles.

why not an air/oil separator? Then you could skip the maintenance. Initial cost and install would cost more though.
Do you know what system Ford uses to separate oil for PCV?

 

[beetlespin]

"Everyone" was wrong, because the early 3.5L EcoBoost had Port Injection, which washed the oil pushed through the intake off the intake valves, making an oil catch can unnecessary on your 2011. Around 2014, I believe, it was changed to Direct Injection, and once there was no more fuel to wash the intake valves, coked oil would slowly build up on the intake valves, and over time, affect performance and fuel economy. In 2017, the 3.5L EcoBoost got both Port and Direct Injection, so oil catch cans were again no longer necessary.

All other EcoBoost motors, including the 2.3L in the Ranger, have Direct Injection. The reason that Ford Engineers didn't put Oil Catch Cans on the EcoBoost equipped vehicles is maintenance related. Catch cans need to be checked monthly, at least initially, to get a baseline on how much oil the can will collect. If the can is allowed to fill and then overflow, it could be problematic. Something that no manufacturer would be willing to warranty against when the customers cannot be trusted to drain it regularly. The buildup of coked oil on the intake valves will impact performance and fuel economy over the long haul on any motor without Port Injection. Since many customers do not hold onto vehicles for 100k miles, they won't care, and many, probably won't notice the slow decrease in performance and fuel economy compared to when it was newer.

My NA 5.0L on my Mustang GT pushes 3-4oz of oil through the intake every 1,000 miles. My catch can keeps that oil off my intake valves. A turbocharged or supercharged version of that motor would probably be pushing double that amount. My guess is the Ranger motor is pushing 2-4 oz of oil back through the intake, so in the interest of not loading up my intake valves with coked oil, I will be installing a catch can on my Ranger, as I plan on hanging onto it for at least 100k miles.

Not sure where your getting your info from but 2011 was the first year with direct injection.

"In regards to the F-150, the introduction of the EcoBoost engines back in 2011 simultaneously featured the first use of direct injection in the F-150 truck lineup."

https://www.americantrucks.com/f150-direct-injection-engine.html

 

[bandit67]

Not sure where your getting your info from but 2011 was the first year with direct injection.

"In regards to the F-150, the introduction of the EcoBoost engines back in 2011 simultaneously featured the first use of direct injection in the F-150 truck lineup."

https://www.americantrucks.com/f150-direct-injection-engine.html

Yep, you're right, sorry I was wrong on that progression. Still, not having fuel washing the intake valves does cause them to coke over time, and the Ranger will have that issue with the Direct Injection. Whether or not to address it with a catch can is up to each owner, as they are a pain to deal with.

Sponsored