Oil Catch Can. Yes or No?

[THLONE]

It appears that true science is replaced by junk science so somebody can make money. How is muck measured? By particles per minute or particles per mile?

Sponsored

 

[Peterzo]

It appears that true science is replaced by junk science so somebody can make money. How is muck measured? By particles per minute or particles per mile?

I assume you are pointing this comment towards my post?
Will let your education on true science back your dissertation.
No I did not do a ppm test on the "muck" I can have that done for you, I have the ability available. But prior posts with Blackstone published results do back up the science end, have you actually analyzed any of those posts?
Some of us do talk from a background that can help, should ask that first before you publish a junk science post....

 

[mk842766]

I assume you are pointing this comment towards my post?
Will let your education on true science back your dissertation.
No I did not do a ppm test on the "muck" I can have that done for you, I have the ability available. But prior posts with Blackstone published results do back up the science end, have you actually analyzed any of those posts?
Some of us do talk from a background that can help, should ask that first before you publish a junk science post....

So, may I ask, since I am NOT a mechanical engineer....is there any proven science that says a catch can is necessary?? I would be interested in any information as to the necessity of a catch can, since I've never had either a direct injection engine, nor a turbo charged one. TIA

 

[Peterzo]

So, may I ask, since I am NOT a mechanical engineer....is there any proven science that says a catch can is necessary?? I would be interested in any information as to the necessity of a catch can, since I've never had either a direct injection engine, nor a turbo charged one. TIA

Feel free ask away,
Catch cans have been out in circulation for years (like 40 plus). So some findings that I have seen.
Back in 80's I worked with Caterpillar on the development of the power stroke engine for International, man talk about an engine with blow by. The only way we could control detonation on that unit under testing was, guess what, a puke can on the the ccv system. We ran them on the 3500 series industrial engines, Hell even Dodge was, from the manufacturer end (the 1st & 2nd Gen Cummins pickups had factory catch cans).
Same goes with modern cars, especially high compression and turbos, the blow by from the ccv (crankcase ventilation) raises all kinds of issues, build up on the back sides of the valves (gases have a tendency to attract and stick to hot metals) and of course detonation (or pre ignition).
That is only a couple of the up front issues. I can write a small book for you guys if you like, but the point was to the OP 'catch can or no catch can', I have always been a believer.
Next time I drain mine, I will send it out to the lab and have it broke down, let's really see what is in the "muck".
Have a great holiday, off to eat some ham

 

[viperwolf]

My thought is, Ford is going to do what ever it takes to comply with the EPA. If that means dumping crap into the intake, they will do it. Its all about money first, no matter what. If they can save a few dollars per unit, that adds up to millions over time. Maybe thats the reason that turbo-ed vehicles dont come with catch cans. I dont understand the politics the engineers face when designing vehicles.
We just need an actual Ford engineer to say, hey, we did not do this bc of this, or we did this bc of this.
My questions
1. is that fuel or condensation mixed with oil (we know oil being recycled back into the intake is bad)
2. If it is fuel, did they do this on purpose to help clean the valves
3. Did Ford do anything, design wise, to prevent oil from flying through the intake line or help clean the valves
If it is crap being recycled for EPA reasons only, then a catch can is not going to hurt anything by keeping that stuff out.
Personally when I pull my throttle body or intercooler, I dont want oil and whatever else pouring out.

 

[Andrew]

I’m still confused if it’s worth it or not. Interestingly, Ford Performance does make a catch can for the Mustang eco boost. So there’s possible merit there....wonder if they will do one for the Ranger.

 

[k1w1t1m]

There's reasons Ford didn't include a catch can other than the few bucks it may cost or save them. At first glance it may seem like a cheap addition but is it really?
How fast is it going to fill up? How big does it have to be? Now we have to find real estate to place it. What happens when it fills up? Now sensors have to be added and tied into the PCM. Now owners, techs, the high school kid at the local ***** lube place have to be educated.
Most of us on the forum will be enthusiasts or those that have come here to solve or to mouth off about a problem. There are a far greater number of Ranger owners out there that will never open the hood. In this age everything is being made to be untouched or touched less regardless of whether we think that is right or wrong.
Look at how far we've come, when I had my first cars they required weekly attention, sometimes attention was required daily whether it was a necessity or just because I wanted to tweak something. Checking fluid levels was weekly at a minimum. Now the hood is lifted by the majority of owners rarely and is likely only done when a "check light" comes on and even then it is more likely to be opened by a Technician.

Sorry that was a little off topic. I'm on the fence regarding catch cans.

 

[HenryMac]

your are right about about a lot of muck for sure!but lets say ford in all their wisdom cheated and uses this muck to wash the valve ? (I am not even close to being a mechanic but the fuel amount they are catching is suspect no?)

You're right if the can is catching 90% fuel and 10% oil (see Peterzo's post above). Having that fuel wash over the valves would have been a good thing. But it didn't... it's in the catch can.

 

[RCMUSTANG]

Again, where is everyone getting that the liquid aside from the oil is fuel? Mine does not smell like fuel and only started accumulating when it got colder (IE condensation).

 

[viperwolf]

Like I said earlier, we need an actual Ford Engineer to say we did this bc........................
I bet some of those mechanics at the dealers could talk to an actual Engineer.

 

[DavidR]

I'm still not convinced that on our Rangers the cans are a good thing. Most of the photo's I've seen of what the cans are catching is fuel. ...

It varies a lot. In my own case, during the summer, the cans accumulated only oil, from both the PCV and turbo inlet sides. The more volatile stuff like fuel and water never condensed out. Now that we're part-way through winter, I emptied the cans again (I use a separate one for the turbo inlet side), and this time there was quite a bit of condensation on both sides along with the oil. This is in northern CA. Depending on where you live, it can probably vary from almost always catching some condensation to almost never catching any. Either way, the oil is there too, but it can sometimes be dominated by the condensation.

 

[HenryMac]

It varies a lot. In my own case, during the summer, the cans accumulated only oil, from both the PCV and turbo inlet sides. The more volatile stuff like fuel and water never condensed out. Now that we're part-way through winter, I emptied the cans again (I use a separate one for the turbo inlet side), and this time there was quite a bit of condensation on both sides along with the oil. This is in northern CA. Depending on where you live, it can probably vary from almost always catching some condensation to almost never catching any. Either way, the oil is there too, but it can sometimes be dominated by the condensation.

In your 2019 Ranger?

 

[Doc]

I'm still not convinced that on our Rangers the cans are a good thing. Most of the photo's I've seen of what the cans are catching is fuel. That fuel when piped back into the intake of the engine will wash the back of the intake valves and help remove any carbon deposits.

Without a side by side comparison of (2) motors running in the same scenario, one with a catch can, one without, we'll never really know if the catch can helps the carbon issues... hurts the carbon issues... or does nothing at all.

You'd think one of the companies selling them would perform such a test.... if in fact they are as good as what they are advertised to be.

You will catch a lot if the rings were not seated properly..
Regards

 

[DavidR]

In your 2019 Ranger?

Yes. We took delivery in early July and I had the first catch can installed on the PCV side by sometime in August, so this is the first time I've drained them in colder weather.

Also, I agree with @RCMUSTANG that the condensation does not contain very much fuel. I didn't pick it apart in detail, but I did take a quick look and the vast majority of the stuff that isn't oil seems to be water. Again, this is in N. CA where our temps are mostly between the mid 20's to mid 60's where we do the most driving. It may be that in much colder climates you can also get significant fuel condensing, probably also depending on where you've mounted the catch can. I think there might be a fair amount of regional variation to this.

I agree with people who say that it's probably good to have the fuel and water vapor returned to the intake, and in the summer that seems to be what is happening, at least here, but it's not possible to have that happen all of the time in most areas.

I also agree that with no catch can, the stock PCV system probably doesn't return actual liquid water or fuel to the intake manifold. Without the loop through the catch can, the return gasses probably never get cool enough to have those things condense out even in winter.

 

[HenryMac]

Yes. We took delivery in early July and I had the first catch can installed on the PCV side by sometime in August, so this is the first time I've drained them in colder weather.

Also, I agree with @RCMUSTANG that the condensation does not contain very much fuel. I didn't pick it apart in detail, but I did take a quick look and the vast majority of the stuff that isn't oil seems to be water. Again, this is in N. CA where our temps are mostly between the mid 20's to mid 60's where we do the most driving. It may be that in much colder climates you can also get significant fuel condensing, probably also depending on where you've mounted the catch can. I think there might be a fair amount of regional variation to this.

I agree with people who say that it's probably a net positive to have the fuel and water vapor returned to the intake, and in the summer that seems to be what is happening, at least here, but it's not possible to have that happen all of the time in most areas.

I also agree that with no catch can, the stock PCV system probably doesn't return actual liquid water or fuel to the intake manifold. Without the loop through the catch can, the return gasses probably never get cool enough to have those things condense out even in winter.

Thanks, much appreciated. How often do you need to "dump" the cans... and which side seems to collect the most liquids?

Sponsored