Oil Catch Can. Yes or No?

[RCMUSTANG]

If you're under boost a lot you'll see more on the throttle body, inlet pipes, intercooler. I routed the breather side into my can and everything is dry. Anything in the back side of the throttle body in the intake is mostly from the PCV. The back valves will pick up the most is the PCV is routed to the back of the intake unlike the Mustang intake.

Sponsored

 

[Roofhopper]

If you're under boost a lot you'll see more on the throttle body, inlet pipes, intercooler. I routed the breather side into my can and everything is dry. Anything in the back side of the throttle body in the intake is mostly from the PCV. The back valves will pick up the most is the PCV is routed to the back of the intake unlike the Mustang intake.

If @Mishimoto develops and releases a plug n play setup that does this I’ll jump on it, but anything to potentially save me on preventative maintenance or prolong the life of the engine even a little is a good thing

 

[RCMUSTANG]

If @Mishimoto develops and releases a plug n play setup that does this I’ll jump on it, but anything to potentially save me on preventative maintenance or prolong the life of the engine even a little is a good thing

I just made my own with one of their universal cans.

 

[DavidR]

If @Mishimoto develops and releases a plug n play setup that does this I’ll jump on it, but anything to potentially save me on preventative maintenance or prolong the life of the engine even a little is a good thing

Like @RCMUSTANG , I just implemented this myself, though I did it a little differently, using a separate catch can since I had the JLT sitting round after I replaced it with a different can. There's another Mishimoto specific thread and they are working on a plug-n-play CCV side solution, but they are just starting out so it might be a while.

Instead of waiting, you could get the new Mishimoto PCV-side kit, and then look at Ray's build thread to rig up the CCV side. His approach makes more sense if you don't already have a second can sitting around like I did.

EDIT: Although I wouldn't do the two-can approach unless you already have a second can lying around, a side-benefit of it is that you can pretty clearly see how much oil you're picking up on each side. Without a load in the truck and going easy on the pedal, I pick up more oil on the PCV side, but with our 1200-lb. 4WC camper on the back it's the opposite, I get more oil in the CCV side, probably due to considerably more time in boost.

 

[Rick - Saber]

And thanks. But from what I'm seeing, I'm not convinced that this small amount of "junk" in 1100 miles will be an issue. What oil are you running? Do you use 93 octane top tier fuel?

I'm not trying to single you out John. You seem to be asking questions in a genuine search for knowledge so I am trying to help offer what could be answers from my viewpoint. You are right that does not seem like much stuff over roughly a thousand miles. Extrapolate that amount out over 150,000 plus miles and it does add up. I've kept most of my vehicles well past 150k.

Hard to tell from that picture but wild guess let's say that is roughly half an ounce that got collected. Half an ounce per thousand miles times 150 comes to 75 ounces which is almost 2 and a quarter liters. That is a fair amount of stuff being fed into the intake track over the lifetime of owning a vehicle.

 

[HenryMac]

I'm not trying to single you out John. You seem to be asking questions in a genuine search for knowledge so I am trying to help offer what could be answers from my viewpoint. You are right that does not seem like much stuff over roughly a thousand miles. Extrapolate that amount out over 150,000 plus miles and it does add up. I've kept most of my vehicles well past 150k.

Hard to tell from that picture but wild guess let's say that is roughly half an ounce that got collected. Half an ounce per thousand miles times 150 comes to 75 ounces which is almost 2 and a quarter liters. That is a fair amount of stuff being fed into the intake track over the lifetime of owning a vehicle.

Thanks.

I've got the money, time and a 2 post lift that would make installing a catch can a piece of cake, but I've also got a 5 year warranty.

Seems like with as many folks as we have here on the Ranger 5g site we should be able to tell over a period of time how much and what the cans are collecting .... then compare that to warranty issues / repairs folks are having that don't have the catch cans.

Knowledge is good. I started another thread in hopes we could get some actual real world data based on our Rangers (not Mustangs, audi's or diesels). https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/the-my-catch-can-collected-this-thread.5076/

 

[RedlandRanger]

I'm not trying to single you out John. You seem to be asking questions in a genuine search for knowledge so I am trying to help offer what could be answers from my viewpoint. You are right that does not seem like much stuff over roughly a thousand miles. Extrapolate that amount out over 150,000 plus miles and it does add up. I've kept most of my vehicles well past 150k.

Hard to tell from that picture but wild guess let's say that is roughly half an ounce that got collected. Half an ounce per thousand miles times 150 comes to 75 ounces which is almost 2 and a quarter liters. That is a fair amount of stuff being fed into the intake track over the lifetime of owning a vehicle.

I think the question that has never been answered is "does it really matter?" Yes, the catch cans are catching "stuff", but is there any scientific proof that catching that "stuff" will increase the engine life or reduce issues. The only thing I've ever seen is the argument that that "stuff" is bad, and catching it will help the engine. I've also seen recent arguments that the oil that does get by the PCV circuit helps to protect the valve seats, so I really don't know what to believe. There seem to be valid arguments on both sides.

I doubt there will ever be scientific proof that is released (maybe Ford has some internal engineering data) to determine the answer one way or the other.

 

[Floyd]

I'm curious why you think that's flawed logic? If it's beneficial to a measurable extent then I feel like depending on your definition of worth I would think it should be done.

Cost benefit analysis is a valid approach.
Example:
If you have a fleet of trucks which are worked in the field and you find that, at replacement time..... the bodies, interiors, wiring harnesses, steering, and chassis components are worn out before the engine is, when changing the oil only once per year with conventional oil, ...there would then be no real benefit to a more frequent oil change regimen or to the use of synthetic oil.

 

[PNW_Ranger87]

Cost benefit analysis is a valid approach.
Example:
If you have a fleet of trucks which are worked in the field and you find that, at replacement time..... the bodies, interiors, wiring harnesses, steering, and chassis components are worn out before the engine is, when changing the oil only once per year with conventional oil, ...there would then be no real benefit to a more frequent oil change regimen or to the use of synthetic oil.

Fair analogy. I think I'm going to stick to the "I don't always drive like an old man on a Sunday morning cruise" way of thinking and probably won't end up getting a catch can.

 

[Floyd]

The factory PCV system on the the 2019 Ranger is pretty impressive. Can anybody describe the differences in PCV systems across DI engines, or between the early Ecoboost engines and the new Ranger?

 

[DavidR]

The cost-benefit analysis is actually not that complicated, and it's part of what leads to all the controversy. If you don't have a catch can, you may never have an issue, but if you do, the worst case is that you will need a walnut shell blasting at some point. More than likely, that won't be for at least 70-80K miles or so. If you need one, the average cost is around $600 (based on today's prices), but that cost will be at least 5 years or more down the road for most people. In addition to the walnut blasting, there will probably be a period of declining fuel economy, which is impossible to estimate, so I won't try.

On the other hand, a catch can setup, assuming a DIY install which most people are doing, costs around $150-$200, and it's an immediate, up-front cost, plus, as many will point out, you don't have any absolute guarantee that it will prevent problems, though it's likely to at least extend the time. It also requires ongoing maintenance, and if you can't quickly return your setup to stock, there could be some warranty or smog-check implications, but I won't try to quantify that.

To keep things simple, let's say that having a catch can will prevent the need for a walnut blasting. We are then comparing a $200 up-front cost with a possible $600 cost 5-7 years down the road.

The point here is that we are NOT talking about a huge difference in the big picture. From an economic point of view, neither of these options stands out as being particularly horrible or particularly awesome. That's why there is so much disagreement - it all comes down to personal preference, not some incredibly huge difference in cost-benefit. If there were enough hard data one way or the other, it might be possible to settle the debate, but without the data, the cost-benefit analysis points mostly to personal preference, which is impossible to settle.

 

[PNW_Ranger87]

In addition to the walnut blasting, there will probably be a period of declining fuel economy, which is impossible to estimate, so I won't try.

The point here is that we are NOT talking about a huge difference in the big picture. From an economic point of view, neither of these options stands out as being particularly horrible or particularly awesome. That's why there is so much disagreement - it all comes down to personal preference, not some incredibly huge difference in cost-benefit. If there were enough hard data one way or the other, it might be possible to settle the debate, but without the data, the cost-benefit analysis points mostly to personal preference, which is impossible to settle.

When it comes to calculating cost/benefit you need to consider all variables. I think the one you're leaving out might be one of the biggest determining factors. Even if it's 5%, that will surpass the $600-ish in cost of walnut blasting depending on how much you drive. According to my calculations if you drive about 18k mi/year it'll just about break even at 60K mi. with my region's gas prices.

 

[DavidR]

When it comes to calculating cost/benefit you need to consider all variables. I think the one you're leaving out might be one of the biggest determining factors. Even if it's 5%, that will surpass the $600-ish in cost of walnut blasting depending on how much you drive. According to my calculations if you drive about 18k mi/year it'll just about break even at 60K mi. with my region's gas prices.

Hi Erik,
I agree, gradually declining fuel economy can add up over time. At $4.00 per gallon like we have here in CA, a 5% reduction over enough miles could end up approaching the repair cost. It's just hard to know exactly what it will be so I left it out. There are some things that go the other way too - a very small number of people might be affected by refusal to honor the warranty, for example, but again, those numbers are hard to quantify.

Overall, when going with a catch can, the economic difference between the best case and the worst case is not that huge in the big picture of Ranger ownership. There are non-economic reasons as well, though. Some people just don't want to see their intake system coated with oil and carbon deposits even if the long term economic impact isn't that huge.

The other point is that it's guesswork because we don't have enough publicly available data to know what percentage of vehicles will end up having problems. A few patterns are known, however, from experience with other GDI cars. If your driving is biased toward shorter, lower-speed trips with the engine not fully warmed up a lot of the time, and you never carry much of a load, a catch can seems more likely to be beneficial than if you do mostly long highway trips.

The end result is that while I've installed a catch can setup myself, the probability of encountering problems by not having one is not known and I can also understand folks who don't want one.

 

[HarryD]

There are non-economic reasons as well, though. Some people just don't want to see their intake system coated with oil and carbon deposits even if the long term economic impact isn't that huge.

I, for one, am in agreement with David's statement above. Our turbo motor requires a good air to air intercooler efficiency to keep the air density high as it is injected by our motor providing good power efficiency. In my opinion, having the intake tract coated with oil would negatively affect the intercooler efficiency. Granted, the modern PCV system on the Ranger is better than the original systems. If there were no need for improvement, Ford Performance would not have a need to be developing an Air-Oil Separator System similar to the one that they have for the ecoboost Mustang. This system works on both the PCV and the CCV systems removing the blow-by oil in on-boost as well as on off-boost conditions.

 

[HenryMac]

.... If there were no need for improvement, Ford Performance would not have a need to be developing an Air-Oil Separator System similar to the one that they have for the ecoboost Mustang. .....

Is that actually something that is in the works, being developed by Ford, for a 2019 Ranger?

Sponsored