Oil Catch Can. Yes or No?

Sashimi_Moto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
225
Reaction score
319
Location
WA
Vehicle(s)
2012 E450 C-Class, 2019 Ranger Lariat 501A FX4
I have a question about the Quick Release fittings. On the PCV side the fittings the male end of the fitting is 1/2".

I want to fit the JLT can to the CCV side but once I had the QR fitting separated from the intake tube I noticed they were larger - 5/8" or maybe 3/4". It would be the cleanest install to remove the 1/2" fittings that came with the JLT kit with the proper size and the bang - CCV side solved.

Anyone know where I can find them?

Picture for reference: This is where I will tie-in the JLT can setup.
RangerHose.jpg



EDIT: Nevermind - a major part of finding a thing, is knowing what the thing is called. Once I discovered these were called Bundy Quick Connect lines the search got a whole bunch easier.

I'll post up once I've installed it.
Sponsored

 
Last edited:

Porpoise Hork

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bret
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Threads
19
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
2,350
Location
Houston
Vehicle(s)
2022 F150 XLT Powerboost FX4 302A Oxford White
Occupation
IT
So I have been doing some reading on this engine design as well as information put out from Mishimoto. It appears that Ford has been aware of the valve deposit issue for some time and has installed components to mitigate it. In the Mishimoto's engineering articles ( Pt 1, Pt 2, and Pt 3) they did fairly extensive testing on prototype catch cans and reported that the 2.3L in our trucks has an air/oil separator integrated the PCV system. In pt3 they show the results and it appears that their catch can captured separated out what appeared to be a water/fuel mix from the PCV system with almost no oil in it.

Now it's well known that engine blow-by is significantly higher during the break-in period. It has also hotly debated for decades on the length of time needed and exact process to properly break in a new engine, but the general guidelines are the time period being somewhere between 500 and 2000 miles. Once broken in the engine blow-by does drop significantly as the rings (the primary source of blow-by gasses) seat in and a new baseline can be set for your engine's blow-by level.

The Mishimoto test results showing the capture and separation of the heavy fuel laden mix with minimal oil in it shows how efficient the factory oil separator system actually is. Ford's system appears to not only do an impressive job separating oil vapor before being returned to the intake plenum, but also how well it captures the unburned fuel that made it past the rings during the compression stroke preventing it from mixing with the oil in the crank case. This leads me to think that Ford's engineering team saw how the valve deposit problem was being resolved or largely mitigated from the Ford Performance team's oil/air separator for the 2015-2020 EcoBoost-equipped Mustang 2.3L and 2.3 HO engines. With it in place it allows fuel particles to come in contact with the valves and possibly prevent or significantly reduce the carbon buildup and excessive oil consumption. It also may by why they have not included the 2.3l in the dual port injection setup that the larger EcoBoost engines are being updated to. That would explain the implemented a very similar solution on the Ranger version of the 2.3L.

This makes me wonder if similar results are seen across the board, and adding a catch can to the PCV system, is actually preventing the system from working properly by filtering out the unburned fuel before it makes it back to the intake valves. The only way to know if this theory is correct is to run a bore scope down and inspect the valves on 2.3l engines with the factory separator installed as well as some with a catch can to see how the valves look over the life of the engine.

Anyway.. I'm not an engineer so I may be completely wrong but it was something I started to wonder as I was researching the different catch cans and found this additional information about the 2.3L in the Ranger.
 

P. A. Schilke

Well-Known Member
First Name
Phil
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Threads
141
Messages
7,012
Reaction score
36,169
Location
GV Arizona
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger FX4 Lariat 4x4, 2020 Lincoln Nautilus, 2005 Alfa Motorhome
Occupation
Engineer Retired
Vehicle Showcase
1
So I have been doing some reading on this engine design as well as information put out from Mishimoto. It appears that Ford has been aware of the valve deposit issue for some time and has installed components to mitigate it. In the Mishimoto's engineering articles ( Pt 1, Pt 2, and Pt 3) they did fairly extensive testing on prototype catch cans and reported that the 2.3L in our trucks has an air/oil separator integrated the PCV system. In pt3 they show the results and it appears that their catch can captured separated out what appeared to be a water/fuel mix from the PCV system with almost no oil in it.

Now it's well known that engine blow-by is significantly higher during the break-in period. It has also hotly debated for decades on the length of time needed and exact process to properly break in a new engine, but the general guidelines are the time period being somewhere between 500 and 2000 miles. Once broken in the engine blow-by does drop significantly as the rings (the primary source of blow-by gasses) seat in and a new baseline can be set for your engine's blow-by level.

The Mishimoto test results showing the capture and separation of the heavy fuel laden mix with minimal oil in it shows how efficient the factory oil separator system actually is. Ford's system appears to not only do an impressive job separating oil vapor before being returned to the intake plenum, but also how well it captures the unburned fuel that made it past the rings during the compression stroke preventing it from mixing with the oil in the crank case. This leads me to think that Ford's engineering team saw how the valve deposit problem was being resolved or largely mitigated from the Ford Performance team's oil/air separator for the 2015-2020 EcoBoost-equipped Mustang 2.3L and 2.3 HO engines. With it in place it allows fuel particles to come in contact with the valves and possibly prevent or significantly reduce the carbon buildup and excessive oil consumption. It also may by why they have not included the 2.3l in the dual port injection setup that the larger EcoBoost engines are being updated to. That would explain the implemented a very similar solution on the Ranger version of the 2.3L.

This makes me wonder if similar results are seen across the board, and adding a catch can to the PCV system, is actually preventing the system from working properly by filtering out the unburned fuel before it makes it back to the intake valves. The only way to know if this theory is correct is to run a bore scope down and inspect the valves on 2.3l engines with the factory separator installed as well as some with a catch can to see how the valves look over the life of the engine.

Anyway.. I'm not an engineer so I may be completely wrong but it was something I started to wonder as I was researching the different catch cans and found this additional information about the 2.3L in the Ranger.
HI PH,

I are a train driver... I find your assessment above to be very interesting, well done and well stated!

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

RCMUSTANG

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ray
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Threads
21
Messages
1,789
Reaction score
1,935
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicle(s)
2017 Fusion 1995 Ranger
I regularly check my can and there's still plenty of oil. It's not an insignificant amount. I'm just over 11,000 miles.
 

Sashimi_Moto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
225
Reaction score
319
Location
WA
Vehicle(s)
2012 E450 C-Class, 2019 Ranger Lariat 501A FX4
Porpoise Hork, everything you stated has been covered. Plenty of folks have looked at the valves (and had to clean them) on ecoboost engines. Others have looked at the CCV side as well. Just pulling off the quick connect line on my truck shows a totally oil coated hose feeding the turbo inlet.

What ford has in place on this engine does in fact reduce what makes it onto the back of the intake valves - however this is not a passenger car, driven lightly from place to place - this is a vehicle that has a high likelihood of being worked hard. When an engine is worked hard (high rpm/load/heat) it produces exponentially higher oil vapor and crankcase pressures and the OEM measures are not enough.

An additional oil/air separator is only an extra measure and a good thing. The crank case is still venting and that air is still being recycled. Here’s the thing - theres a OEM air/oil separator in place on the pcv side but not so much on the valve cover for the CCV tube that feeds the turbo/intercooler. Imho, cleaning intake valves is cheaper than cleaning intercoolers and replacing turbos. My qc connectors come in tomorrow and I’m looking forward to installing a 2nd catch can to keep the air that goes through my turbo and intercooler as clean as possible.
 


Porpoise Hork

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bret
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Threads
19
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
2,350
Location
Houston
Vehicle(s)
2022 F150 XLT Powerboost FX4 302A Oxford White
Occupation
IT
Porpoise Hork, everything you stated has been covered. Plenty of folks have looked at the valves (and had to clean them) on ecoboost engines. Others have looked at the CCV side as well. Just pulling off the quick connect line on my truck shows a totally oil coated hose feeding the turbo inlet.

What ford has in place on this engine does in fact reduce what makes it onto the back of the intake valves - however this is not a passenger car, driven lightly from place to place - this is a vehicle that has a high likelihood of being worked hard. When an engine is worked hard (high rpm/load/heat) it produces exponentially higher oil vapor and crankcase pressures and the OEM measures are not enough.

An additional oil/air separator is only an extra measure and a good thing. The crank case is still venting and that air is still being recycled. Here’s the thing - theres a OEM air/oil separator in place on the pcv side but not so much on the valve cover for the CCV tube that feeds the turbo/intercooler. Imho, cleaning intake valves is cheaper than cleaning intercoolers and replacing turbos. My qc connectors come in tomorrow and I’m looking forward to installing a 2nd catch can to keep the air that goes through my turbo and intercooler as clean as possible.
Thank you for the information on this topic. I'm still learning about this engine and what to lookout for and probably will inadvertently post up things that have already been covered. I agree that in the absence of dual port injection, keeping oil vapor out of the intake system especially the intercooler is important. When my GTI had about 120K miles on it I pulled the intercooler and drained about a 1.5 cups worth of oil out of it. That car never had a catch can on it so I am very interested in your adding a second catch can to the CCV side as well.

As for cleaning the valves I am looking at options to perform this in a similar way that I had done on the GTI using a garden sprayer and Seafoam that did a fairly decent job. There's a couple of promising sensor ports that might be perfect for this and very easy to access from topside. I just need to run the part numbers to see what they are and if the engine will idle with them removed/disconnected as well as any possible DTC's doing so would generate.
 

Sashimi_Moto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
225
Reaction score
319
Location
WA
Vehicle(s)
2012 E450 C-Class, 2019 Ranger Lariat 501A FX4
CCV side using the JLT can setup.

The lines provided with the JLT can are 1/2" bundy connectors because they're intended to be used for the PCV side fittings. The CCV side uses 5/8th Bundy connectors so I had to get 5/8th Bundy fittings (with 1/2" barb) at FIttings.space or Amazon:
Fittings.Space LINK

I used some effort to remove the existing fitting and installed the new.
IMG_1682.JPG


Then I disconnect the OEM fittings:
IMG_1683.JPG


Then Attached new hoses and start figuring out routing

IMG_1685.JPG


IMG_1686.JPG


IMG_1687.JPG


All Done

IMG_1688.JPG



I may swap out a fitting. The MALE bunding fitting that goes to the Female CCV line would serve me better if it was a 90degree elbow fitting instead. So if you're doing this: get the MALE fitting that's 1/2" barb to 5/8th" BUNDY.
 

Racket

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Threads
21
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
2,353
Location
Here and There
Vehicle(s)
2019 Lariat Supercrew 2WD
Occupation
Transient
After reading through this thread a d some of the very detailed, well researched posts, it seems we Ranger owners have good choices for this amendment. The JLT as sold is the value proposition and easiest to install, the Mishimoto the mid-level product and the UPR dual-vacuum catch can top of the line. The prices follow those progressions, as does install difficulty.
 

deton8r

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Threads
2
Messages
107
Reaction score
138
Location
Snohomish, WA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger Lariat FX4, 2008 F150 Foose Edition, 2006 Pontiac GTO, 2004 Buell XB12S, 1995 Yamaha TW200
Vehicle Showcase
1
I installed the UPR catch can (original version) today. I got a great deal on it on eBay. I believe the seller gave up on removing the OEM pcv line or something. This one isn't tapped for the 2nd port so the upgrade kit isn't an option for me.

The install went better than expected and I only cut my hand once :frown:. People are not kidding about how cramped that area is and having to remove oem pcv line by feel. Getting the factory pcv line out is the only bad part, installing the mount, catch can, and hoses went smoothly.

The Mishimoto install video was extremely helpful. If all I had to go on was the UPR instructions I might have given up and listed it on eBay myself.

A couple weeks ago I also installed a CFM breather.
 

HenryMac

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Threads
65
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
5,266
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2019 SuperCab XL - FX4 - Magnetic - Rocksliders
Occupation
Mech. Engineer - Retired
IMG_1688.JPG



I may swap out a fitting. The MALE bunding fitting that goes to the Female CCV line would serve me better if it was a 90degree elbow fitting instead. So if you're doing this: get the MALE fitting that's 1/2" barb to 5/8th" BUNDY.
Wow... that location for the can looks horrible.
 

Racket

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Threads
21
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
2,353
Location
Here and There
Vehicle(s)
2019 Lariat Supercrew 2WD
Occupation
Transient
I installed the UPR catch can (original version) today. I got a great deal on it on eBay. I believe the seller gave up on removing the OEM pcv line or something. This one isn't tapped for the 2nd port so the upgrade kit isn't an option for me.

The install went better than expected and I only cut my hand once :frown:. People are not kidding about how cramped that area is and having to remove oem pcv line by feel. Getting the factory pcv line out is the only bad part, installing the mount, catch can, and hoses went smoothly.

The Mishimoto install video was extremely helpful. If all I had to go on was the UPR instructions I might have given up and listed it on eBay myself.

A couple weeks ago I also installed a CFM breather.
I have one of the first UPR catch cans (before the second vacuum line was developed) and there should be a cap on the opposite side of your existing one that looks like a square-top threaded plug. When I upgraded mine, they sold me the parts and called it the 'WOT accessory'. It is not as hard to put in as the basic kit.

The install was very, very tight and I still have scars to prove it.
 

mtsoxfan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2020
Threads
36
Messages
575
Reaction score
1,015
Location
NEK VT
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger Lariat
I know we're talking vapors here but it looks to be a mighty step incline for oil to travel. Even with vacuum...
 

deton8r

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Threads
2
Messages
107
Reaction score
138
Location
Snohomish, WA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger Lariat FX4, 2008 F150 Foose Edition, 2006 Pontiac GTO, 2004 Buell XB12S, 1995 Yamaha TW200
Vehicle Showcase
1
I have one of the first UPR catch cans (before the second vacuum line was developed) and there should be a cap on the opposite side of your existing one that looks like a square-top threaded plug. When I upgraded mine, they sold me the parts and called it the 'WOT accessory'. It is not as hard to put in as the basic kit.

The install was very, very tight and I still have scars to prove it.
Thanks, I know what you're referring to but the one I have doesn't have that 2nd plug. I think UPR would probably sell me the part or I could also drill and tap it. Maybe this one was a prototype or something.

I'm impressed that UPR gives customers an upgrade path.
Sponsored

 
 



Top