Oil Catch Can. Yes or No?

[HenryMac]

But the question should be is the catch can making vapor into liquid or is there truly liquid going back into the engine?

Of course the can is condensing / separating vapors into liquids. How else do you think the liquids got into the can?

Of course there are liquids going into the engine... that's what vapor is.. fine droplets of a substance and air.

Sponsored

 

[lawrench]

Not exactly what I was asking. I understand that vapor is liquid in a gas state. The point I was trying to make, is the catch can creating a need where there is not a need? If the engine is designed to recycle the oil and gas, is the catch can doing more harm than good?

I do not think I would want to empty a catch can out multiple times a week (depending on driving habits). It would seem to be a poor design if the engine is not properly recycling the oil/fuel.

 

[jmurph]

just depends if you wanna have to clean your valves farther down the road is all if you mean by design?

 

[puckdodger]

You have a supercharged F-150 engine in your Ranger?

yeah, it was included when I bought the catch can?

was a PITA to install though.

 

[HenryMac]

Not exactly what I was asking. I understand that vapor is liquid in a gas state. The point I was trying to make, is the catch can creating a need where there is not a need? If the engine is designed to recycle the oil and gas, is the catch can doing more harm than good?

I do not think I would want to empty a catch can out multiple times a week (depending on driving habits). It would seem to be a poor design if the engine is not properly recycling the oil/fuel.

.... the data acquired by (2) motors running side by side, one with a can and one without, followed by a tear down, would be better than no data whatsoever.

There's gotta be a reason Ford added the oil separator to every GDI Ranger.. I'm betting their in-house testing showed it worked good enough to get the motor through the warranty period without any coking issues.

 

[the5Gmartian]

No. It’s not needed.

 

[puckdodger]

But the data acquired by (2) motors running side by side, one with a can and one without, followed by a tear down, would be better than no data whatsoever.

There's gotta be a reason Ford added the oil separator to every GDI Ranger.. I'm betting their in-house testing showed it worked good enough to get the motor through the warranty period without any coking issues.

That's the whole point why some folks feel the need to run a CC. I don't have any level of trust that something "good enough" for Ford, or GM, or the government, or virtually any corporation that sells anything to consumers has the best interest of that consumer at heart. I have spent wayyy too many years on this planet to trust big business. If you want to blindly accept their version of the truth as gospel so be it.

I plan to keep this truck beyond the warranty period and that's why I put a CC on. For a relatively small cost, from my own pocket--not yours BTW, and a bit of work to empty it from time to time, along with regular maintenance I expect this engine to last a long time.

But you go right ahead and do what you feel is right for you. But maybe you should start to save your old walnut shells for the eventual intake blasting many GDI engines seem to need after a while...

 

[dtech]

After seeing the Ford oil separator that HenryMac posted for $36 I'm beginning to feel better about my purchase of a UPR catch can. It (oil separator) looks very rudimentary to me and not a whole lot of surface area to condense vapors. As engines age many will produce more blow by and I have to wonder how effective that small OEM separator will be.

 

[HenryMac]

That's the whole point why some folks feel the need to run a CC. I don't have any level of trust that something "good enough" for Ford, or GM, or the government, or virtually any corporation that sells anything to consumers has the best interest of that consumer at heart. I have spent wayyy too many years on this planet to trust big business. If you want to blindly accept their version of the truth as gospel so be it.

I plan to keep this truck beyond the warranty period and that's why I put a CC on. For a relatively small cost, from my own pocket--not yours BTW, and a bit of work to empty it from time to time, along with regular maintenance I expect this engine to last a long time.

But you go right ahead and do what you feel is right for you. But maybe you should start to save your old walnut shells for the eventual intake blasting many GDI engines seem to need after a while...

What's with the condescending attitude, Jim?

Opinions vary. Good luck to you.

 

[JohnnyO]

I like the idea of a catch can, OTOH my Ranger was technically a Certified Pre-Owned and I got a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty so I'm leaning in favor of not worrying about it. Seems to me that a CC would be needed more if you do a lot of short trips, which I do not, I have an 18 mile commute to work, uphill both ways. If the factory put one on it would be a small maintenance item that 99% of owners would not pay attention to.

 

[puckdodger]

What's with the condescending attitude, Jim?

I got it right around the same time you asked if I had an F150 engine in my Ranger.

 

[task65]

I have the MM catch can on my 19 ranger and have a fuel smell from it. I just spray the hoses and can with simple green when I empty it. Does anyone else have that smell? I have read that most catch cans do this and it is normal

 

[VAMike]

Of course there are liquids going into the engine... that's what vapor is.. fine droplets of a substance and air.

No, that's an aerosol. A vapor is a gas below the critical temperature of the corresponding liquid.

 

[HenryMac]

No, that's an aerosol. A vapor is a gas below the critical temperature of the corresponding liquid.

Actually they are both correct definitions. But thank you for the physics lesson.

 

[VAMike]

Actually they are both correct definitions. But thank you for the physics lesson.

Even your obnoxious screen shot doesn't support that claim. The words "fine droplets of a substance and air" aren't anywhere in that. Now, if you check the dictionary.com definition of "aerosol" you'll find "colloidal particles dispersed in a gas", which sounds a lot more like what you originally wrote. It's an important distinction, because what you need to do to get a liquid out of a vapor is different from what you need to do to get a liquid out of an aerosol.

Sponsored