Oil Catch Can. Yes or No?

[tjanok]

I'm heavily surprised by the amount of resistance some people have to a catch can. Manufactures know valve build up is a long running issue, but installing a catch can IS NOT ever going to be a recommend fix from Ford (or anyone). It's another maintenance item that won't be followed.

Ford gave up and started doing secondary multi-point injection because there just isn't a better alternative yet.

And after seeing the build up on my Focus with 30k, there's no way I'd hesitate installing one.

For shits and giggles I used a scope on my dads F150 (3.5 eb) with 150k and no catch can, an absolutely nightmare on the valves. However, he runs regular fuel and sub-par oil. But so do most uninformed owners.

Your basic owner for this truck will never need one, and that's the way Ford intended. But for others (like myself) who may run a tune, enjoy treating this truck like a "performance vehicle", or want to absolutely extend the maximum life expectancy of this engine (and it's intended power, no - valve build up isn't going to throw a rod). It's a no brainer.

Sponsored

 

[Taterbootz]

Open the hood of any stock modern day direct injection car or truck (performance built or not) and look for the factory installed catch can......you'll be looking for a long time.

That's a ridiculous statement lol

If it came from the factory, why would we modify it and add one?

 

[landiscarrier]

That's a ridiculous statement lol

If it came from the factory, why would we modify it and add one?

That’s a ridiculous response. The point is DI engines are all over the place and not one manufacturer has one installed from the factory. If it was so necessary why wouldn’t the automobile engineers put one on it.

if you want one. Go for it!

 

[P. A. Schilke]

Hi Folks,

Many of you may not follow the Formula 1 racing, where the manufacturers suppositorly are the forefront of technology....The engines are Di with secondary intake injection...not for carbon build up but because of the power increase. Mercedes has achieved a 50% efficiency...unheard of before with a internal combustion engine. So to imply that Ford installed secondary injectors to solve this carbon buildup on the intake valves may or not be the reason. Efficeniency and power were likely the reason... This is JMO. Do not infer that when Ford installed intake injectors it was because they did not install catch cans.

You want to install a catch can....great...the aftermarket is happy to take your money. You like the look...install chrome tire valve stem caps. Are they necessary? Nope... But I guess the catch can looks cool and you get to drain them to justify your expense and installation. If you have data of the long term durability of the motor with and without a catchcan it would be interesting.

Have been stated before...if Ford determined that a catch can was needed it would be there.

Another back story of sorts. Not really a back story. Ford tests and tests every new vehicle and every powertrain as well as many interim mods or changes. These changes are not done in a vacuum. There is much testing and more importantly, documentation. There is a process called DVPR...Design Verification and Proveout Report. The operative word here is Report. We engineers spend much time writing reports of our testing and these reports are archived as part of the vehicle program. These reports are reviewed and signed off by two levels of management if not more and are kept as part of the development or revision of a model, Ie Ranger for a government requirement as well as our corporate record retention directive. We do not launch a vehicle with a bunch of nebulous and hidden tests or decisions. All our documentation is subject to discovery in any lawsuit. We are trained to document specifically what testing was preformed and what the results were in detail including conclusions and recommendations as it may apply. For example...if a test vehicle broke a suspension bolt... The lab analysis of this failure was documented. Our overall report would include more than the fact the bolt broke, but what testing was being conducted under what parameters were specified...eg loaded to GVW. What we will not write as you see here on these forums as inflammatory statements is "this catastrophic failure". Simply stated...the bolt broke in half. See what I mean?

I see on these forums the statements...How did Ford screw this up...omit this and so on. The take way is that we do not do vehicle development or modification in a vacuum...there is documentation and this documentation is archived with the program per government or corporate requirements.

I am done with my stand on the soap box.

best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[Big Blue]

Hi Folks,

Many of you may not follow the Formula 1 racing, where the manufacturers suppositorly are the forefront of technology....The engines are Di with secondary intake injection...not for carbon build up but because of the power increase. Mercedes has achieved a 50% efficiency...unheard of before with a internal combustion engine. So to imply that Ford installed secondary injectors to solve this carbon buildup on the intake valves may or not be the reason. Efficeniency and power were likely the reason... This is JMO. Do not infer that when Ford installed intake injectors it was because they did not install catch cans.

You want to install a catch can....great...the aftermarket is happy to take your money. You like the look...install chrome tire valve stem caps. Are they necessary? Nope... But I guess the catch can looks cool and you get to drain them to justify your expense and installation. If you have data of the long term durability of the motor with and without a catchcan it would be interesting.

Have been stated before...if Ford determined that a catch can was needed it would be there.

Another back story of sorts. Not really a back story. Ford tests and tests every new vehicle and every powertrain as well as many interim mods or changes. These changes are not done in a vacuum. There is much testing and more importantly, documentation. There is a process called DVPR...Design Verification and Proveout Report. The operative word here is Report. We engineers spend much time writing reports of our testing and these reports are archived as part of the vehicle program. These reports are reviewed and signed off by two levels of management if not more and are kept as part of the development or revision of a model, Ie Ranger for a government requirement as well as our corporate record retention directive. We do not launch a vehicle with a bunch of nebulous and hidden tests or decisions. All our documentation is subject to discovery in any lawsuit. We are trained to document specifically what testing was preformed and what the results were in detail including conclusions and recommendations as it may apply. For example...if a test vehicle broke a suspension bolt... The lab analysis of this failure was documented. Our overall report would include more than the fact the bolt broke, but what testing was being conducted under what parameters were specified...eg loaded to GVW. What we will not write as you see here on these forums as inflammatory statements is "this catastrophic failure". Simply stated...the bolt broke in half. See what I mean?

I see on these forums the statements...How did Ford screw this up...omit this and so on. The take way is that we do not do vehicle development or modification in a vacuum...there is documentation and this documentation is archived with the program per government or corporate requirements.

I am done with my stand on the soap box.

best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

Very well put Phil. Many of the point you make apply across all types of industry, not just automotive. In my 45 years as a designer of converting equipment for a consumer products company. It was constantly impressed on us that we are liable for our designs. Both for the people working them producing the product and the end consumer. Thank heaven in my career I never had a design of mine fail "catastrophically" and somebody get hurt. Had it happened all my notes would have been subject to discovery as you pointed out and I could have been called to testify in court and possibly liability in the case. As you said nothing is done in a vacuum all designs are subject multiple reviews for both functional and safety aspects. As well as many walk throughs during installation and startup. This practice is industry wide not exclusive to the automotive industry.

This thread is so two sided that there is no right answer. Put on catch can or don't, your truck your decision. Continued bickering will not convince anyone to change their mind if they already have it made up. I could go on but why, there are already 30 pages of arguments for both sides with very little documented independent evidence on either side.

Like Phil now off my soap box. Thank for your time.

 

[PierreD]

Open the hood of any stock modern day direct injection car or truck (performance built or not) and look for the factory installed catch can......you'll be looking for a long time.

Why are people then changing/adding shocks, exhaust, tires, Tunes, transmission coolers, superchargers etc etc etc

 

[landiscarrier]

Why are people then changing/adding shocks, exhaust, tires, Tunes, transmission coolers, superchargers etc etc etc

Not even a close comparison. It’s your truck, do whatever you want to it.

 

[Racket]

Hi Folks,

Many of you may not follow the Formula 1 racing, where the manufacturers suppositorly are the forefront of technology....The engines are Di with secondary intake injection...not for carbon build up but because of the power increase. Mercedes has achieved a 50% efficiency...unheard of before with a internal combustion engine. So to imply that Ford installed secondary injectors to solve this carbon buildup on the intake valves may or not be the reason. Efficeniency and power were likely the reason... This is JMO. Do not infer that when Ford installed intake injectors it was because they did not install catch cans.

You want to install a catch can....great...the aftermarket is happy to take your money. If you have data of the long term durability of the motor with and without a catchcan it would be interesting.

Have been stated before...if Ford determined that a catch can was needed it would be there.

Another back story of sorts. Not really a back story. Ford tests and tests every new vehicle and every powertrain as well as many interim mods or changes. These changes are not done in a vacuum. There is much testing and more importantly, documentation. There is a process called DVPR...Design Verification and Proveout Report. The operative word here is Report. We engineers spend much time writing reports of our testing and these reports are archived as part of the vehicle program. These reports are reviewed and signed off by two levels of management if not more and are kept as part of the development or revision of a model, Ie Ranger for a government requirement as well as our corporate record retention directive. We do not launch a vehicle with a bunch of nebulous and hidden tests or decisions. All our documentation is subject to discovery in any lawsuit.

I am done with my stand on the soap box.

best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

Ford admitting a catch can will provide any benefit would certainly open them to potential lawsuits. The factory warranty is the closest guarantee for durability consumers are going to get, and the point that deposits aren't going to break the engine is valid. I read somewhere of a performance shop offering injector rails to put even more juice in the motor (and ahead of the intake) but really - that's going to tank efficiency and emissions completely besides increasing the risk of blowing the motor.

I have my body of proof every time I've emptied my catch can. That's stuff that didn't go through the intake. That may be about efficiency as much as performance. Interesting what else ends up in the crankcase.

 

[tjanok]

Ford admitting a catch can will provide any benefit would certainly open them to potential lawsuits. The factory warranty is the closest guarantee for durability consumers are going to get, and the point that deposits aren't going to break the engine is valid. I read somewhere of a performance shop offering injector rails to put even more juice in the motor (and ahead of the intake) but really - that's going to tank efficiency and emissions completely besides increasing the risk of blowing the motor.

I have my body of proof every time I've emptied my catch can. That's stuff that didn't go through the intake. That may be about efficiency as much as performance. Interesting what else ends up in the crankcase.

Stratified offers their "aux fueling" that, for all intensive purposes, completely eliminates carbon build up. Plus, (although some people just aren't going to bend their opinion) each modern DI engine from Ford, Mazda and VW DO HAVE a catch can. The PCV baffle is pretty much doing the same thing, by just keeping the junk in the crank case. Abit just not as well obviously.

 

[Sashimi_Moto]

That’s a ridiculous response. The point is DI engines are all over the place and not one manufacturer has one installed from the factory. If it was so necessary why wouldn’t the automobile engineers put one on it.

if you want one. Go for it!

Engineers don't build cars - finance does. The CBA doesn't justify the inclusion of said device.

 

[jsphlynch]

Ford admitting a catch can will provide any benefit would certainly open them to potential lawsuits.

Lawsuits for what, exactly? Let's assume for the sake of the argument that a catch can has a tangible benefit. If Ford suddenly start including them, that doesn't mean that Ford was in any way negligent with their prior design, it just means that the prior design was suboptimal.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

Lawsuits for what, exactly? Let's assume for the sake of the argument that a catch can has a tangible benefit. If Ford suddenly start including them, that doesn't mean that Ford was in any way negligent with their prior design, it just means that the prior design was suboptimal.

Hi Joe,

Yep. Agree, The 5G Range does not mean the 4G was suboptimal either. It met the customer and engineering Requirements at that time. The mind set that if Ford makes a change it infers that the previous design was subpar.... Anyone updated their cell phone? Was the old one defective?

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[txquailguy]

Based on what I just emptied out of my newly installed Mishimoto catch can...better get one on quick! Nasty stuff going back to your ecobeast...
Check it out

 

[txquailguy]

btw...nothing wrong with my Ranger...she runs like the wind!!?

 

[Taterbootz]

That’s a ridiculous response. The point is DI engines are all over the place and not one manufacturer has one installed from the factory. If it was so necessary why wouldn’t the automobile engineers put one on it.

if you want one. Go for it!

That's my point. If any modification was necessary, it would be factory installed. You can say the same thing about any modification that people believe are "necessary". Including lifts, air intakes, oil catch cans, lights, or anything else.

Nobody modifies vehicles because they're "necessary". They modify vehicles because they want to. Their desires for wanting to are always subjective, even if they have objective reasoning behind it.

But acting like you're right that they're "not needed" because no manufacture installs them, while still acting like other modifications are " needed" is facetious and self righteous at best.

Sponsored