Oil Catch Can. Yes or No?

[beetlespin]

Didn't have one on my 3.5, not getting one on my Ranger.

Only people that benefit from a catch can on these vehicles are the ones selling them.

Sponsored

 

[rmr76]

I still have my old UPR can from my 3.5, with hoses, connectors, and check valves. I'm sure I could fab it up to work if I looked at what RCMUSTANG did. But, I'm also curious what companies like Mishimoto may come up with for a Ranger specific kit. I'll also be curious to see updates from RCMUSTANG on how much accumulates in his can. I know on my F150, I'd get minimal accumulation during the summer months (per 1000 miles), but a lot more in the winter months due to moisture being mixed in. But, I'm in Texas and I saw people on the F150 forums that lived up North that would have ounces of oil/water mix in a few hundred miles. I do agree that for someone who wants to maintain max performance over a long time, this can be beneficial. On a side note, this was a long contested topic in the F150 world too. At the end of the day, do what you think will suite you best based on your driving habits and goals for your Ranger.

 

[DavidR]

I am truly sorry if my part in this discussion has offended your sensibilities.
I see that you are a mechanical engineer.

I think the problem is that while someone might decide not to add one of these for various reasons like their driving habits preclude the necessity, it's hard to argue against them from a purely technical perspective. Ford has good engineering talent and makes good products (or we all wouldn't be here), and nobody has said that engines will explode without a catch can, but as with most end-user products, they are faced with tough marketing choices. They are not immune from market pressures for lower maintenance or from competitive product cost issues where every dollar counts to consumers in a competitive market. Also, Ford might be squeezed tighter on fuel economy since such a large share of their US sales is from trucks, hence the push toward EcoBoost engines in the first place. They may be faced with covering a few in-warranty repairs for cases where symptoms occur during the 60,000 mile powertrain warranty, but most cases where it happens will happen after that.

So if you're leasing one for 3 years then you don't have anything to worry about, but for longer term owners, it's hard to make a technical argument against one of these, especially given the relatively low cost of most after-market units, even the better ones.

 

[Floyd]

I think the problem is that while someone might decide not to add one of these for various reasons like their driving habits preclude the necessity, it's hard to argue against them from a purely technical perspective. Ford has good engineering talent and makes good products (or we all wouldn't be here), and nobody has said that engines will explode without a catch can, but as with most end-user products, they are faced with tough marketing choices. They are not immune from market pressures for lower maintenance or from competitive product cost issues where every dollar counts to consumers in a competitive market. Also, Ford might be squeezed tighter on fuel economy since such a large share of their US sales is from trucks, hence the push toward EcoBoost engines in the first place. They may be faced with covering a few in-warranty repairs for cases where symptoms occur during the 60,000 mile powertrain warranty, but most cases where it happens will happen after that.

So if you're leasing one for 3 years then you don't have anything to worry about, but for longer term owners, it's hard to make a technical argument against one of these, especially given the relatively low cost of most after-market units, even the better ones.

I plan to keep this truck for the haul,
I have not made any technical argument against the catchcan.

You are right in one respect...
Nobody has said that engines will explode without a catch can, or with it.
That includes me.

I understand the issue and am considering all options.
Hey... I just got the truck!

Tell you what... lets take this up in ten years, If I'm still alive and well, I will still have my Ranger.
If not wrecked, it will still be running as it should. Surely yours will too?
At that time I will be glad to compare your truck, including service records, to mine.

I respect your decision in this matter, and expect no less in return.

 

[DavidR]

I plan to keep this truck for the haul,
I have not made any technical argument against the catchcan.

You are right in one respect...
Nobody has said that engines will explode without a catch can, or with it.
That includes me.

I understand the issue and am considering all options.
Hey... I just got the truck!

Tell you what... lets take this up in ten years, If I'm still alive and well, I will still have my Ranger.
If not wrecked, it will still be running as it should. Surely yours will too?
At that time I will be glad to compare your truck, including service records, to mine.

I respect your decision in this matter, and expect no less in return.

I agree with a lot of that. I don't think there are any technical arguments that can be made against it. I do think there are other arguments that can be made, though, such as driving style, usage patterns, past experience, etc., and I do respect everyone's personal decisions made based on that.

In fact, the catch can doesn't completely solve the problem -- some oil mist will still make it through even the best of them, plus there's always EGR, etc. To me, it mainly just nudges things in a good direction.

You could even argue that a walnut shell blasting, if necessary, can be considered just a normal maintenance item for DI-only engines. I forget which, but I read somewhere (maybe here) that either BMW or Volkswagen has taken that stance. It might be an expensive maintenance item, but for most people it will be at least 6-10 years down the road, so possibly that compares favorably with paying $250-$400 up front for a decent catch can right now.

Of course, it will be interesting to see how it plays out in 10 years, but the problem is that it is influenced by so many factors that it will need to be looked at statistically. Due to the variables, it will be hard to compare two specific cases, but it would be fun

 

[Kataphrakt]

You could even argue that a walnut shell blasting, if necessary, can be considered just a normal maintenance item for DI-only engines. I forget which, but I read somewhere (maybe here) that either BMW or Volkswagen has taken that stance. It might be an expensive maintenance item, but for most people it will be at least 6-10 years down the road, so possibly that compares favorably with paying $250-$400 up front for a decent catch can right now.

With previous Ford DI engines which had buildup issues there were no cleaning options for the valves, only replacing the entire valve unit. The guy in the video i linked previously commented about that. Not sure why, it might just be that they had yet to test and approve any methods of cleaning for the valves.

 

[DavidR]

With previous Ford DI engines which had buildup issues there were no cleaning options for the valves, only replacing the entire valve unit. The guy in the video i linked previously commented about that. Not sure why, it might just be that they had yet to test and approve any methods of cleaning for the valves.

Yeah, I saw that also somewhere, that if it happens during the warranty period, Ford would just do head replacements. It might actually be cheaper for them since they don't have to train 1000's of techs for something else. Outside of warranty, though, I'm not sure why you couldn't do a walnut shell blast, but you'd probably want to find a technician who has had some experience doing it on EcoBoost engines, and you won't find many of them at Ford dealers

 

[Floyd]

I live in IllAnnoy,
I have seen lots of vehicles go to the salvage yard with rusted bodies,rusted and worn chassis components.
They often sell the drivetrain components
Replacing an engine would be pure joy compared to dealing with that stuff.

Anyone ever seen a glider truck?
You get a new cab, harness, interior, steering axle and chassis,...keep your old engine, transmission and differential!
I sometimes wish I could do that at the 1/2 ton level!

Do everything you can to keep your Ranger nice, even if its add a catchcan.
That may turn out to be the least of your worries!
Oh! and get off the couch and move, take care of yourself so you can be around to enjoy it!
God Bless!

 

[Floyd]

Yeah, I saw that also somewhere, that if it happens during the warranty period, Ford would just do head replacements. It might actually be cheaper for them since they don't have to train 1000's of techs for something else. Outside of warranty, though, I'm not sure why you couldn't do a walnut shell blast, but you'd probably want to find a technician who has had some experience doing it on EcoBoost engines, and you won't find many of them at Ford dealers

Kinda makes you consider the merits of an extended warranty?

 

[Kataphrakt]

Yeah, I saw that also somewhere, that if it happens during the warranty period, Ford would just do head replacements. It might actually be cheaper for them since they don't have to train 1000's of techs for something else. Outside of warranty, though, I'm not sure why you couldn't do a walnut shell blast, but you'd probably want to find a technician who has had some experience doing it on EcoBoost engines, and you won't find many of them at Ford dealers

Good point about the training! I wonder if you can actually just take the valves out so you could do something like clean them by hand? (or at least without specialized tools) TBH if there is a way at all to clean them, then really the point of a catch can seems to go away, as like Floyd keeps mentioning we dont entirely know if the PCV is an issue on the ranger, just that the ford PCVs have been not great in the past. A cleaning procedure would let us just fix the issue if it happens later.

Or perhaps by the time any buildup could be an issue, we could just pull new valve covers from scrapyard rangers and replace them

 

[Fredness]

Oh Look! Another forum, another Catch Can thread!
When you get to 80,000 miles and start to get the EcoBoost Miss that isn't solved with new plugs, you'll know what you need.
Enjoy!

[Ford knows this, and has known for over a decade about soot, build up and the GTDI platform. That's why the Coyote has a supplemental fuel system. Sadly, the EcoBoost will be ignored until Federal Regulations require exhaust particulate filters on GDI engines.]

 

[DavidR]

Good point about the training! I wonder if you can actually just take the valves out so you could do something like clean them by hand? (or at least without specialized tools) TBH if there is a way at all to clean them, then really the point of a catch can seems to go away, as like Floyd keeps mentioning we dont entirely know if the PCV is an issue on the ranger, just that the ford PCVs have been not great in the past. A cleaning procedure would let us just fix the issue if it happens later.

Or perhaps by the time any buildup could be an issue, we could just pull new valve covers from scrapyard rangers and replace them

From an engineering perspective, there's some merit in idea of making the valve train be a modular removable unit that can be removed from the head for easier service, but there would likely be cost consequences that would make it non-competitive. What might be a bit easier for them to swallow would be to engineer things so that the intake manifold is easy to R&R for something like walnut shell blasting. That sort of requires them to admit it's a problem.

And yeah, there are a lot of unknowns, which is probably part of the reason people are installing these, since a lot of evidence seems to point to PCV gasses being at least *part* of the problem. There are secondary reasons of performance, but I think most folks wouldn't be bothering if not for the valve coking issues.

A cleaning procedure, something less expensive than walnut shell blasting, would be ideal, especially if it were Ford-approved, so as not to void the warranty. As @Floyd has brought up before, it's tempting to use the CRC cleaner, but everyone seems convinced it is likely to damage the turbine. I don't know if that's a highly likely thing, or mostly fear fanned by the internet based on one or two cases. My guess is that it's probably okay if used religiously every 5-10K miles, so there never get to be large enough chunks of deposits to cause damage. The problem again is that no one *really* knows how often is good enough, since Ford has never approved such a thing

 

[mrsmith]

https://5startuning.com/product/201...arator-kit-black-powdercoated-finish-3037d-b/

Looks like a custom kit is available for the Ranger now pretty inexpensive.

 

[dallas121469]

I will never run a newer car without a catch can anymore. Put one on my 2017 Mustang GT and the amount of oil that was separated was disgusting. I couldn't imagine that much oil going back into my injection system.

 

[HarryD]

I do not have a Ranger yet, as I will placing my order in January, but I will be adding a quality air-oil separator.
I don't want to add to any debate as to its necessity, but I simply would not want any PCV generated oil vapors running through my intercooler and intake tract. I recently communicated with Kyle Sargent at Ford Performance, and he stated that they were working on one for the Ranger.
When ready, it will show up on the Ford Performance website.
I am assuming that it will be similar to the one for the Ecoboost Mustang, but adjusted for the Ranger's engine layout.
In my opinion, Ford realizes the need for this on the DI motors, but would not want to be liable for the regular inspection/maintenance of an air-oil separator on the general population of future owners who for the most part would probably ignore it. This of course would most likely lead to even worse maintenance issues of excessive contaminated oil ingestion into the intake tract.

Sponsored