Floyd
Well-Known Member
Is it fair to say that you are one adherent to the aforementioned consensus?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?
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