Oil Catch Can. Yes or No?

Floyd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Threads
38
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
3,113
Location
illinois
Vehicle(s)
'19 Ranger SCab,'16 Connect,'95 MustangGT,'50 Ford
Considering that ford is moving from DI to a combination of DI and PFI, yes.


I am not claiming Ford's engineers to be incompetent or incapable of solving the buildup issues PCV systems cause, those are all your words. Adding more parts to a vehicle which then need to be serviced regularly, and which were never present in previous vehicles would be the equivalent of marketing suicide in the US. Many people dont like to bother maintaining their vehicles, that's why the oil change industry is so big for a task which is so easy on nearly every vehicle. Heck, just look back on the outrage people had over needing to remove three screws to access the oil filter on the ranger!

As someone else mentioned, a separator costs around $450, when we're talking car parts that's a significant cost for something which then has to be maintained and for little perceivable benefit to the 5-year owners. While Ford's engineers do their best to put vehicles into production that will last decades, their marketing team; however, does their best to make sure those only last 100k miles. The perfect case-study is the PTU on the Explorer. Original production did not require that the fluid in the PTU be changed. This was because the engineers said "The fluid needs to be changed every 100k miles" and marketing's reply was "100k miles? that's the lifespan of the vehicle! drop it from the maintenance tasks" The drain port was promptly moved to the most asinine location requiring you to lay under the vehicle and reach shoulder-length upwards into the engine bay to find a port that you can only see from above, not below (Yes, i have done this, it sucks). After complaints rolled in about needing to drop the entire sub-frame to replace the PTU after only about ~150k miles there was a model-year refresh in which the drain port for the PTU got moved somewhere serviceable and changing fluid in the PTU every 100k miles became a PM task. (And if you'll note the Ranger's manual also lists changing the PTU fluid, but at 150k miles)

Solving the issue with an additional injection method instead of adding parts that need regular service is an obvious choice, it quite possible also costs less than a separator. There's also the concerns about emissions with any additional system you hook up to the PCV. You have to make sure the entire system is sealed to prevent any of the gasses from being released (otherwise the whole point of the PCV is lost) and for a catch can in particular, how do you make sure it's evacuated of gasses before the user removes the reservoir releasing all the contaminants into the air?
Is it fair to say that you are one adherent to the aforementioned consensus?
I assume that you agree at least with the point numbered 1] of my post to which you refer.
, Fine, I too may join in time!;)

There are of course some good points to your post and some conjecture and anecdotes as well.
While it is correct that my post is written in my words (no quotes),
they are the result of conclusions based on solid logic.

Notice that my post is about the addition of a catchcan, not a separator .
A catchcan would cost pennies to manufacture and maintenance of it would add very little effort and cost nothing,

The aftermarket has often been ahead of manufacturers in automotive development, the proof of which is the adoption of those developments by the manufacturers. Before that time, close scrutiny is prudent.
Sponsored

 

Kataphrakt

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Threads
6
Messages
144
Reaction score
227
Location
Grand Rapids Michigan
Vehicle(s)
Ranger XLT FX4 Offroad
Occupation
Mechanical Engineer - Mirrors
Is it fair to say that you are one adherent to the aforementioned consensus?
I assume that you agree at least with the point numbered 1] of my post to which you refer.
no, because your "consensus" pushes the logic of our arguement to the extreme rather than what we are saying which is "A catch can will extend the life of your vehicle over a long time." It is not entirely imperative if you dont care for lifespan.

Notice that my post is about the addition of a catchcan, not a separator .
A catchcan would cost pennies to manufacture and maintenance of it would add very little effort and cost nothing,
A catch-can potentially violates emissions regulations, and is not legal for a manufacturer to put on their vehicles marketed for road use. I mentioned the issues one has with unfiltered emissions when the operator removes said can. To solve this you'd need an entire filter assembly to separate the oil and air, at that point you've got an oil-air separator anyways. And as i said before the backlash over three more screws to remove to change the oil filter on the ranger is a good example of how few people want anything to do with maintaining their vehicle, no matter how simple it is. If the Ford ecoboost engine has any officially documented extra PM requirements it is that much more ammunition for GM to throw back at Ford, while the ability of GM to prove the Ford PCV system has issues would be expensive to risk just for marketing stunts.

Ford Ecoboost engines have had this issue in the past, carbon buildup caused by the PCV was inhibiting engine function at even as low as 20,000 miles. If a 20,000 miles issue made it to production then, what's to say their internal processes have changed such that they have perfectly implemented their current PCV system? I fully expect that Ford has made improvements to their PCV system, but there is no evidence to suggest that it has been improved to the point that additional PCV filters are unnecessary over the actual lifespan of the vehicle.

And i'll say it again that Ford themselves sells a catch can for the 2.3l Ecoboost engine
 

Floyd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Threads
38
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
3,113
Location
illinois
Vehicle(s)
'19 Ranger SCab,'16 Connect,'95 MustangGT,'50 Ford
I think it's also worth pointing out that Ford sells a catch can for the 2.3l ecoboost engine.


And of course, a strawman argument. because clearly we're all saying your engine will explode in 2000 miles if you dont use a catch can. You also neglect a scholarly article published by SAE, as well as literally every consideration that goes into the engineering design process and the marketing process, aside from simple function.




A) The previously mentioned SAE article that shows any connection of the PCV to the intake contributes significantly more intake valve buildup than the EGR does.

B) The previously mentioned SAE article that shows the presence of PCV to the intake compounds the issue of EGR

C) The fact that a simple catch-can is able to catch anything after Ford's brilliant PCV system?

D) The following video about this exact carbon buildup issue with ecoboost engines:
Thank you for that first sentence!... good information
It adds some credibility although it is in fact a separator, not a catchcan!
Your second sentence is patently false, and I believe, intentionally inflammatory.
That's Ok and understandable, considering that you think I am profoundly ignorant :crazy:and just won't listen to common sense!:crackup:
 

Floyd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Threads
38
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
3,113
Location
illinois
Vehicle(s)
'19 Ranger SCab,'16 Connect,'95 MustangGT,'50 Ford
Some folks here just don't read well, and thus misrepresent my position.
At no point have I rejected the use of a catchcan except to say that
I would lean toward an oil separator should I choose to go that route.

I appreciate the information presented here on the subject, some of which is persuasive.
The fact that I don't and never have just run out and bought every jar of snake oil available, has served me well over the last 50years of driving, years often spent fixing the mistakes of the impetuous.
If after some consideration I decide on a separator it will not be due to any coercion or pressure to conform, but rather due to an informed decision.
In my years of SCCA I learned more from the mistakes of the novice rather than his advice.
In my years as a fleet mechanic I found the manufacturer to generally provide the best procedures.
Of course there have been many exceptions, but other sources require more time for consideration.
 

Kataphrakt

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Threads
6
Messages
144
Reaction score
227
Location
Grand Rapids Michigan
Vehicle(s)
Ranger XLT FX4 Offroad
Occupation
Mechanical Engineer - Mirrors
Your second sentence is patently false, and I believe, intentionally inflammatory.
Perhaps you should read through your own comments before complaining about someone who is just pointing out your blatant attempt to misconstru others arguments.

consensus is ...that despite the unique and maybe arcane PCV system devised for this application by Ford...,it is inadequate?
Implying that Ford is not competent to solve a problem which could easily be eliminated with the installation of a simple catchcan?
Another possibility is that they conspired to limit the longevity of the engine to enhance repeat sales.
Would you buy another if it was designed to fail at 80,000miles?
 


DavidR

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
388
Reaction score
323
Location
Eastern CA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT Supercab Saber FX4
Occupation
Engineer
It's almost like we need a society of engineers from the automotive industry to do some testing on how much impact the PCVs have on buildup... oh wait...
Great Find.

Just so all this information is in one place, here's the link I posted earlier to the SAE paper comparing different types of oil separators, which is the other half of the story (free registration required):

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/03-12-01-0001/

The end result is that this is the oil separator that worked the best by virtually all metrics:

https://www.amazon.com/Mann-Hummel-...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=4ZRRP61CT3H58N5PC93E

Surprisingly (or not), it's not one of the more popular ones. I decided to go with their data and just installed one of those a few days ago. With only a hundred miles or so, there's no oil coming from the drain yet, but there's already a thin oil film condensing on the input-side hose to the seprator. I have short pieces of transparent hose at the input and output since I needed to adapt from 1/2" ID hose coming from the manifold and PCV valve to the very-large 1" ID fitting on the Mann-Hummel oil separator.
 

DavidR

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
388
Reaction score
323
Location
Eastern CA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT Supercab Saber FX4
Occupation
Engineer
how do you make sure it's evacuated of gasses before the user removes the reservoir releasing all the contaminants into the air?
You can't, but you also can't prevent crankcase gasses from escaping when you change the oil, add oil, or any other time you open the oil cap. So unless you need to empty the catch can far more frequently than your oil change interval, it shouldn't add much to escaped gasses.

The point about the whole system affecting emissions is valid, though. There's no easy way to guarantee that all of the various after-market catch can kits out there don't affect emissions in a negative way on every possible vehicle. Even Ford doesn't certify their oil separator kit for on-road use. They could if they want, but they don't bother since they have no intention to include them on stock models due to all of the other marketing issues that have been correctly pointed out.

Ultimately, with PFI being reintroduced to solve other emissions issues, this will become a thing of the past, at least in so far as valve deposits are concerned, and we will be members of a shrinking transitional group who got stuck dealing with it using after-market solutions.
 

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
A properly plumbed catch can should not be open vented. It's installed in between the intake and crankcase. Any gases are still pulled into the intake but without the oil. It should not affect the emissions.
 

Floyd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2019
Threads
38
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
3,113
Location
illinois
Vehicle(s)
'19 Ranger SCab,'16 Connect,'95 MustangGT,'50 Ford
Perhaps you should read through your own comments before complaining about someone who is just pointing out your blatant attempt to misconstru others arguments.
I am truly sorry if my part in this discussion has offended your sensibilities.
I see that you are a mechanical engineer.:like:
 

DavidR

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
388
Reaction score
323
Location
Eastern CA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT Supercab Saber FX4
Occupation
Engineer
A properly plumbed catch can should not be open vented. It's installed in between the intake and crankcase. Any gases are still pulled into the intake but without the oil. It should not affect the emissions.
I think his point was that even if it's closed, as it should be, it is momentarily opened to drain the oil, so some small amount of gas can escape. I personally think it would be a pretty insignificant amount since the vast majority will still get recirculated. The other thing I think he was getting at is that inserting the catch can in the system, even if it's closed, does change the dynamics of the system to some degree, and might have some effect. Even if it doesn't cause gas to escape, it could potentially change pressures and flows in such a way as to change emissions in some other way. Not saying that will necessarily happen, just that it could happen, and any system would need to be tested and certified to be sure.

I agree with you that it won't change things enough to make a difference, assuming the hoses and can are properly sealed, which is fine for us, but companies can't meet government requirements based on hunches, they need to go through expensive testing and certification.
 
Last edited:

rmr76

Active Member
First Name
Ryan
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Threads
2
Messages
26
Reaction score
53
Location
Wylie, TX
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT FX4 (Daily), 1969 Chevy C10 (Weekend Toy)
I ran a catch can on my 2014 F150 Tremor I just got rid of to get my Ranger this past week. It does seem the 2.3s PCV system is better designed than that of the Gen 1 3.5 EcoBoost. However, I'm sure that using one on the 2.3 is a net benefit. How much, hard to say? Too many variables in climate and driving style to say for certain that someone will have appreciable valve coking in a given amount of miles. However, I will watch my options as time goes on. I think the JLT can is too simplistic to be very effective. I appreciate what RCMUSTANG has done, but I don't have the desire (or time) to fab up something like that myself right now. My opinion is most people probably won't notice a major performance degradation while they own their Ranger. But, it may be a worthwhile investment for those who know they're keeping it for 100,000+ miles.
 

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 ran a catch can on my 2014 F150 Tremor I just got rid of to get my Ranger this past week. It does seem the 2.3s PCV system is better designed than that of the Gen 1 3.5 EcoBoost. However, I'm sure that using one on the 2.3 is a net benefit. How much, hard to say? Too many variables in climate and driving style to say for certain that someone will have appreciable valve coking in a given amount of miles. However, I will watch my options as time goes on. I think the JLT can is too simplistic to be very effective. I appreciate what RCMUSTANG has done, but I don't have the desire (or time) to fab up something like that myself right now. My opinion is most people probably won't notice a major performance degradation while they own their Ranger. But, it may be a worthwhile investment for those who know they're keeping it for 100,000+ miles.
The original setup I did without including the breather is quite simple. Only took a few hours. It took some more thought to include the breather side but based on what I posted it shouldn't be very hard. This was all me figuring it out from scratch.
 

DavidR

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
388
Reaction score
323
Location
Eastern CA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT Supercab Saber FX4
Occupation
Engineer
My opinion is most people probably won't notice a major performance degradation while they own their Ranger. But, it may be a worthwhile investment for those who know they're keeping it for 100,000+ miles.
That's a big part of it for me. This Ranger is replacing the last one that we had for 27 years and 260,000 miles (and still running fairly well). There are a lot of variables, but dirty PCV gas seems to be a sizable factor. I don't know how much longer it will take for the valves to coke up with the catch can than without, but given how long we tend to keep our vehicles, any significant improvement is welcome if it results in fewer walnut shell blastings.
 

DavidR

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
388
Reaction score
323
Location
Eastern CA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT Supercab Saber FX4
Occupation
Engineer
The original setup I did without including the breather is quite simple. Only took a few hours. It took some more thought to include the breather side but based on what I posted it shouldn't be very hard. This was all me figuring it out from scratch.
I can vouch for that. I just installed one two days ago and it took less than an hour. The fittings are in a tight area that you can't see and you need to find them by feel, but once you find them, the QR fittings just pop right off and you now know where they reconnect. RCMUSTANG's build thread is a good read on it.
 

Kataphrakt

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tim
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Threads
6
Messages
144
Reaction score
227
Location
Grand Rapids Michigan
Vehicle(s)
Ranger XLT FX4 Offroad
Occupation
Mechanical Engineer - Mirrors
My opinion is most people probably won't notice a major performance degradation while they own their Ranger. But, it may be a worthwhile investment for those who know they're keeping it for 100,000+ miles.
For me it's a lot like 5000 mile oil changes. The owners manual says only to change the oil every 10,000 miles, but if your oil is getting dirty after 5000 it's clearly beneficial to change the oil (And as a side note, it is important to point out that SAE study i linked found that whatever was in your oil is what ends up on your valves too, both through the PCV and EGR).

Just because i change my oil ever 5000 miles doesnt mean I think the engine will explode if i didnt, nor does it mean i think Ford's oil system is poorly designed, i just want to get the maximum lifespan out of my vehicle.
Sponsored

 
 



Top