Jeg's PCV oil separator

[BigBlueLB756]

The latest mod. It just looks like it's full to the camera because I painted the inside of the metal "cage" white in order to see how much "snot" the can has caught.

 

 

Mod on.

[GDI Tech]

And you can see how much your trapping with what is essentially a home air compressor separator. Put 2 of them inline and see how much gets past the first one:

 

 

The one on the right is first in line, the left traps what gets past the first one.

[BigBlueLB756]

In my set-up as shown in Post #195, the red can is the primary and gets most of the "snot". The blue secondary can has collected just enough to darken the bottom of the collection chamber. I'd say a properly set up home-made catch can can give those "mega-buck" (over $50.00) catch cans a good run.

 

JMO Just get ONE for your engine.

[GDI Tech]

Any capture is better than no capture, so for that I commend you for doing something. And I will also agree you can spend up to $1000 plus on some that do no better than what you are seeing, but take one of the very few that are 95% plus effective and put one of those behind your other two and you will be surprised. There are several scientific principals that come into play for effective separation and containment, and air compressor separators can only do so much. But doing your 2 in series is better I bet than 99% of the cans for sale out there!

[BigBlueLB756]

Four basic facts to consider:

 

1. There must be flow of the PCV vapor from the valve cover to the plenum.

2. The filter material must be porous enough to allow air flow and have enough structure to condensate the oil into droplets to be precipitated out.

3. The collection chamber should be of enough volume (at least 6 fl. oz.) to allow adequate collection with out deterring air flow on to the intake plenum.

4. The collection chamber should be easily drained so as to encourage frequent maintenance by the average user.

 

Any catch can meeting these specifications should be worthy of consideration.

[GDI Tech]

Four basic facts to consider:

 

1. There must be flow of the PCV vapor from the valve cover to the plenum.

2. The filter material must be porous enough to allow air flow and have enough structure to condensate the oil into droplets to be precipitated out.

3. The collection chamber should be of enough volume (at least 6 fl. oz.) to allow adequate collection with out deterring air flow on to the intake plenum.

4. The collection chamber should be easily drained so as to encourage frequent maintenance by the average user.

 

Any catch can meeting these specifications should be worthy of consideration.

I'll go a bit further for the actual science of this w/out goining to much away as far as proprietary information:

 

The minimum internal volume of a can to over come the Bernoulli principal, the Venturi effect, Gravity, and flow dynamics has to be at least 20 oz's capacity. And less and the 6.5 CFM flow of the average V8 engine PCV system will carry much of the condensed droplets through and out of any design.

 

The outlet must be a minimum of 3" (if vertical) from any oil droplets formed and falling to avoid the flow carrying them out as well.

 

There are 2 main vapor separation principles that are needed, coalescing (which the filter material performs) and condensation. Plastic is a very poor heat transfer material and so is glass. Metal comes in as very effective with aluminum the most effective of the common metals used.

 

So, with those key factors considered, that is the minimum needed to be effective. Anything smaller or lacking in any of those will result in a good deal of what is entering being pulled right through any device and still be ingested. This is demonstrated by installing several devices in series as the picture of 2 air compressor type separators. Add a third and it as well catches a good amount. Take a Elite E2-X and place it inline behind ANY air compressor separator, or most any can brand and see as much or more caught AFTER the other devices did their best. Then perform this in reverse to be fair and see almost nothing will pass the E2-X or similar designs.

 

Almost all owners of a device of any kind judge effectiveness by the fact that they are catching some, which is far better than nothing, but as GDI engines cannot tolerate even small amount of ingestion, where port injection engines could quite a bit, this becomes even more critical in the choice.

[GDI Tech]

One other thing, air compressor separators are designed to operate with 100 PSI plus of pressure, where a PCV system operates on vacuum alone, and in inches. So what may work well for a pressurized flow will be restricted when used with a PCV system operating on from a strongest of 20-22" during deceleration, to as little as less than an inch at mild acceleration or cruise.

[BigBlueLB756]

"Over complication of a simple process results in confusion and discouragement to many who would otherwise benefit from it." T. A. Edison.

 

The slower the air flow, the more likely solids will fall out of it.

[GDI Tech]

"Over complication of a simple process results in confusion and discouragement to many who would otherwise benefit from it." T. A. Edison.

 

The slower the air flow, the more likely solids will fall out of it.

Correct. And air compressor separators are designed for high pressure, low volume. The PCV system is just the opposite.

[BigBlueLB756]

That's exactly why the porous bronze filter element was removed and the other medium substituted.

If anyone is worried about high pressure vs. low pressure vacuum, just blow through the can you have selected to use. Any resistance to your breath flow is an obstruction and will impede PCV operation.

 

It's your choice.

[GDI Tech]

That's exactly why the porous bronze filter element was removed and the other medium substituted.

If anyone is worried about high pressure vs. low pressure vacuum, just blow through the can you have selected to use. Any resistance to your breath flow is an obstruction and will impede PCV operation.

 

It's your choice.

Good post!!

[WilliamBos]

After reading this thread, you guys have me sold on adding a catch can to my next truck.

 

Whether newor an off lease, it will be added after I disable the afm.

 

Moroso makes a nice one too.

[GDI Tech]

The Moroso is very nice looking, quality billet construction, but only comes in around 15-20% effective due to the design. They are the same as app. 20 other brands all made by the same Company near Miami. Very little of Moroso is designed and made by them. Much is merely labeled their brand.

 

Cheers!!

[BIG THUNDER II]

The Moroso is very nice looking, quality billet construction, but only comes in around 15-20% effective due to the design. They are the same as app. 20 other brands all made by the same Company near Miami. Very little of Moroso is designed and made by them. Much is merely labeled their brand.

 

Cheers!!

 

Moroso products are designed and manufactured in house in Connecticut. Below is a link to their behind the scenes video.

 

 

[GDI Tech]

Only Moroso's signature parts are made there. Not the catchcans. The Moroso billet oil pumps, vacuum pumps (3 & 4 vane) oil pans with kick-outs, etc. are quality made by Moroso, but not most products with the brand just as most big brand names make little to no products themselves.

 

The catchcans are here:

 

 

You can also have this machine shop make the same cans with your brand on them if you choose. I estimate there are app. 20 different brands on the same base can.

 

Most Moroso products are among the most respected in the race industry and we have personally used many for decades on our Championship winning dragsters and door cars, but the catchcan is not one of their proprietary products. This in no way takes away form the rest of the quality products they produce, it is just a fact of business as most do similar. Just as Jegs does not make the air compressor separators sold as "catchcans".

 

As you can see this is the basic form before the brand is machined in depending on who the customer is. Moroso, Diablo, Phastek, and on and on. Only a small portion of Moroso's branded products are made by Moroso. There legacy products like oil pans, vacuum pumps, etc. are all Moroso and we as racers have used them as a standard for years. The catchcan also you can test and see just how ineffective it is. Here is the challenge. Place ANY Moroso inline first and then one of the truly effective cans like Elite E2-X, RX, etc. and see the E2-X will trap 2-3 times as much as the Moroso first in line. Then do this in reverse. No arguments, no debates, fact right there that cannot be denied.

 

Why? For one, the internal size will not allow the droplets after they are coalesced to not be pulled through (most of them, only largest will remain in can). Then, there is the media. There is no designated inlet or outlet, and with the media tight against both openings, it is just like taking a wet wash cloth and putting it up to your mouth. Now suck on it, what happens? You suck the liquid out of the wash cloth. Now a PCV system's CFM of flow AND the strength (20-22" avg at idle) is far stronger than the human mouth.

 

So each of the critical scientific principles that must be taken into consideration when designing a air/liquid separation device were ignored in this design. But don't take my word for it, try what I am saying and see first hand.

 

 

There is also a great video on youtube of their can with a clear bottom on a CTSV with excessive blow-by showing the oil enter and drip down the right side of the clear bottom when vacuum is at the least, and then it is pulled right up and out the left side when suction is strongest.

 

And then this months long test over thousands of miles where the same can (but with upr as the brand) is put to the test I describe Read in detail, and anyone that wants to try this for themselves, let me know and I can guide you.

 

The disparity between cans that trap 15-30% (99% of them on the market) and the very few that actually are effective enough to stop the ingestion and related coking issues (1%) is so dramatic that if people actually tried this and could see how little of the total amount most cans actually trap (all cans trap some, so that is not a indication of effectiveness...a beer can w/2 fittings catches as much as most cans for sale out there) they would never buy or install most:

 

5.0 UPR vs E2X Catch Can Effectiveness Test

I’ve had a UPR catch can on my 5.0 since last summer. It catches a lot, especially in the cold months. But I’ll get right to my test. I added an E2X can inline after my UPR can to see if the UPR was missing anything. And if it was allowing some to pass through, was it enough for the EX to catch anything? I don’t drive a lot of miles regularly since my F150 is not a daily driver, so my results will take some time. This thread is to document how I set it up and what I catch over time.
I installed the EX can just as the directions explained, but I routed the hoses differently. I left my UPR can right where it’s been for months, but rerouted one hose. I left the hose from the passenger side of the engine to the inlet of the UPR can. Then a new hose from UPR can outlet, routed to the inlet of the EX can. The EX outlet hose goes back to the engine. The PCV exhaust now flows from the engine, through the UPR, then through the EX, and finally back up to the engine intake.
Before installing everything for the test, I cleaned the UPR can thoroughly. The bottom of the can (inside) was covered with a thin layer of stiff sludge that I could only clean out using gas. I’m glad that was caught, along with the ounces of oil, water, etc, over the months I’ve been emptying it. But I was surprised at the outlet hose from the UPR can. It was wet with oil. Obviously some was getting through the can and back to my intake. I’ve never let the can get close to half full before emptying it. Nearly every time I’ve emptied it, there was 1/4“ or less in the bottom. I’m noting this in case someone thinks I left the UPR get overfilled and it flowed through. Nevertheless, I started this test after cleaning everything for a fresh start.
I plan to leave this setup on for a thousand miles or so, and report my findings from each can.
1st picture: UPR can as it was originally installed.
2nd: CleanUPR can.
3rd: EX can installed. The hose in the top center of the can is the inlet. The outlet hose on the right has a check valve.
4th: Engine outlet to UPR inlet on left of can. UPR outlet on right side of can routed around (smaller hose) to the EX inlet. You can also see the other smaller hose coming back up from the EX can and ending at the intake on the engine.

Report 2:

I thought I'd add a post to keep this thread alive since it is taking me awhile to get enough miles on the truck for valid results. Now that spring weather is finally arriving, I haven't been putting as many miles on it since I'm busy. But I have around 600 miles on the test set up so far. I emptied the cans recently and recorded the volumes to date. I'd like to wait until I get to 1000 miles before posting the results from the test, but I'll give some preliminary feedback.

- Emptying process -
First the UPR. I'm used to emptying the UPR can regularly, so it's not a big deal to unscrew, guide the can out from between the hoses, pour it out, guide it back in between the hoses, get it lined up carefully (so I don't cross thread the soft aluminum) and screw it back up snug. All that takes less than a few minutes so it's rather easy.
Now the EX can. Raise the hood, hold an empty water bottle under the drain tube, open the valve, close the valve, close the hood. I kid you not, it takes no more time than it took to read those steps. I knew it would be easy to empty, but it is ridiculously easy.

_ The weather so far -
During the first week of the test we had winter weather, with some snow. Since then we have had mild weather. Temperatures are in the 50's and 60's most days.

- What they caught so far -
I won't share the amounts yet, but I'll give some info. The UPR can has caught a 'mostly oil with a bit of water' mixture so far. The EX can (in line after the UPR) has had just the opposite. It's collected mostly water or fuel, with some oil mixed in.
I emptied the UPR first, and I would estimate it has collected the normal amount compared to what it usually does I empty it. I was pleased that my set up with 2 cans didn't seem to change the normal flow and collection I was used to seeing with just the UPR can. When I was about the turn the valve to empty the EX, I paused to a few seconds wondering if anything would come out. After all it was a new can that would need to get some oil/water coated on the inside before there would be enough to drip to the bottom (The UPR can had been in use for many months and although I cleaned the can I did not rinse off the filter material). Plus I wondered if the valve of the EX can protruded up into the can, and if it required some liquid to collect before there was enough to spill over that valve nipple and exit the can. Then I opened the valve and I had to smile when I had some liquid drain out. I thought all along that if it caught more than 10% of what the UPR was collecting, I would be surprised. It's still early in the test, and I would like to redo the test after reversing the order of the cans later, but I am surprised so far. I'm hoping to get more miles on the truck soon so I can wrap up this phase of the test.

 

Report 3:

 

1000 Miles of Testing Results

- The Weather has been warmer lately. So the test began with sub freezing temperatures, and gradually increased through the 70's and topped off in the mid 80's yesterday. I couldn't have asked for a better range of temperatures for this test.

- What they caught was astounding to me. UPR was first in line, with the EX after it to catch anything the UPR might miss.
The UPR stayed on track with what it has been accumulating for many months. Each time I emptied them, it had about the same amount. It's contents were mostly oil which smelled like used oil. It caught 17cc total which is just under 3 1/2 tsp.
The EX had more than the UPR each time I emptied them. It's contents were an oil/fuel/water type mix that had a much stronger odor. Not a fuel smell, but a sharper chemical smell compared to the odor of used oil. It caught a total of 67cc which is just over 13 1/2 tsp.

- Final totals:
UPR - 17cc
EX - 67cc

 

The EX can caught 4 times the amount the UPR can caught, after the UPR can removed what it could. I said from the beginning I would be surprised if the EX can could pull 10% of what the UPR caught, since it was second in line. If someone told me it would catch an equal amount I would have said BS. For it to catch 4 times what the UPR can caught is unreal.

 

Report 4:

 

The routing of cans has been reversed so the second phase of the test is underway. I cleaned the cans and hoses so neither has an advantage. I also checked the inside of the hoses as I disassembled everything. The exit hose from the UPR was dripping with oil and it made a mess as I took it apart. The exit hose from the UPR was clean and dry. It still looked new. That is what prompted me to clean all the hoses before starting this phase. Is the double can routing helping the second can that much, or is one can that much better. Time will tell again.

 

Report 5:

 

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming…


Phase 2 is almost complete now, thanks to some extra mileage for work. I'll report on that soon and begin phase 3.


As I said above, UPR shipped parts for me to do phase 3 of the test. I bought my UPR can in June, and they changed the can slightly since then. The new diffuser/extension will only fit cans made after that, so they shipped a full new kit to test. Thank you UPR for helping with this, and for your input in this thread.
After shipping the kit, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh from the exit side of my existing can for the remainder of phase 2, and to remove the mesh from the exit side of the new can before starting phase 3. I removed it from both (phase 2 was half way done when I removed it from the existing can). When I was removing the mesh from the short side of the new can (in preparation for phase 3), I realized the diffuser was assembled backwards. For our 5.0 F150's the long side of the diffuser must be on the passenger side of the can when installed. I disassembled, removed the mesh packed up in the can top on the exit/passenger side, and reassembled the can with diffuser. For anyone who might have received their cans assembled by UPR, you should check to see if it was assembled correctly before installing. (EDIT: Joe notes below they assemble the cans for shipping, and all cans should be assembled for your own installation needs) I also had a small piece of the stainless steel mesh (1/8") drop out when I was doing that. I wasn't thrilled with that so I unrolled, and lightly tapped the mesh in case there were any other loose pieces, but there weren't. A quick note on the UPR kit... it is much improved since I bought mine. The hoses are pre cut to the proper lengths, the elbow fittings are nickel rather than plastic, and they include Ford OEM snap on valve cover and intake fittings.


More to come soon!

 

Report 6:

 

Test Results

- I'll summarize the test to date. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the EX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and EX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, EX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, EX first and then UPR.

Phase 2 Test Results
- The Weather has been average northern Ohio spring weather. Some rain, fog, cool nights, warm and hot days.

- Driving has been about the same through both phases. I good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 40% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, with a few very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling, and no towing.

- What they caught this time might have been predicted by some (after the results of phase 1). EX was first in line, with the UPR after it to catch anything the EX might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was half of that caught in the first phase. The first phase had some cold weather which accounted for more water in the mix and the higher volume.
The contents from the EX can was mostly oil/fuel, and had a strong chemical/solvent smell again. It caught 35.5cc total which is approximately 7 1/8 tsp.
The UPR can caught about the same mix of oil/fuel, but didn't smell quite as strong. Halfway through this phase, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh on the exit side of the UPR can. I did that, but noticed no difference in what it was catching. But since it was second in line, and there was little to catch, that's understandable. The UPR can caught 1.75cc total which is approximately 1/3 tsp. With so little collecting this time, I monitored the contents of the UPR can but didn't empty it until the end of the test.

- Phase 2 Totals:
EX - 35.5cc
UPR - 1.75cc

- Other tidbits include the 'first in line' EX can caught 95% of the total volume. The exit hoses were very clean from both cans. The last few tanks of gas have produced slightly higher than my normal MPGs, but it's too early to tell on that (more to follow after phase 3).

-Phase 3, using the UPR can extension and diffuser, is underway. Details will follow.

 

Final Test Results

- I'll summarize the test phases. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the EX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and EX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, EX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details on phase 1. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, EX first and then UPR. The second phase results were: EX - 35.50cc, UPR - 1.75cc. The 'first in line' EX caught 95% of the total volume. See post 143 for more details on phase 2.

Phase 3 Test Results

- This time the UPR can was first in line as in phase 1, but it had the new can extension and diffuser added. It also had the mesh material removed from the exit side of the can.

- The Weather has been average northern Ohio early summer weather. Some rain with warm and hot days.

- Driving has been a good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 60% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, some steep hill climbs, and some very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling again, and no towing. I'll add some more thoughts on driving and MPGs below.

- What they caught was a mixed bag. UPR was first in line, with the EX after it to catch anything the extended UPR might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was down from the last phase, again. I assume it is due to the warmer weather and maybe my engine is using less oil with more miles? Either way, my test looks at the percent each can catches, compared to the total caught for that phase, so the volume isn't critical.
The contents from the extended UPR can was mostly oil, and had a used oil smell. The UPR caught 14.75cc which is approximately 3 tsp.
The EX can caught a fuel/water/oil mix. It smelled much more harsh again. The EX can caught 16.00cc which is approximately 3 1/4 tsp.

- Phase 3 Totals:
UPR - 14.75cc (48%)
EX - 16.00cc (52%)

- Other thoughts on the results. The contents of each phase showed me the EX does a better job of removing more than oil. It always contained more water/fuel type liquids, while the UPR contained mostly oil. I don't know if it is due to the can design, the 'out front' mounting style of the EX, or both.
For anyone buying or thinking of upgrading their UPR can, I strongly recommend figuring out how to mount it out front, and would definitely add the valve that Joe@UPR is offering. I really think the 'out front' cooling effect will help it catch even more, and the valve would be worth the price for ease of emptying it. Having the EX can to compare to when emptying, the front mount and valve are no brainers.
As I said at the end of phase 2, my MPGs have increased slightly. I have done nothing different to my truck over the past year, other than adding the EX can to the UPR for this test. My driving style is very similar from tank to tank, I fill up at the same stations, etc. But since having both cans in series, and essentially removing 95% or more of the PCV byproducts, my MPGs have increased. Up to that point my lifetime MPGs were 17.5. Nearly every tank for the past year gave me the same results, 17.5. I would have some trips that would net 20 MPG, but the other short trips would always pull it back down for the same tank average - close to 17.5. My recent tank averages have all been over 18 MPG, with a few over 19, and as high as 19.5. My last tank included hauling approximately 1000 lbs of payload, through some long hills/mountains of PA, and I got 18.8 MPG. It could be the summer fuel mix combined with an engine that is broken in, but the timing is peculiar. Whatever the reason, I like it!

 

When you go back and read you can see after the first portion of the test the same design was doing so poorly they had the test person stop and add modifications to the can to make it more effective (they should have tried the test in private first before doing the challenge in public and they would have known the outcome). Before this test was done above, they advertised it as the best. So, most selling cans have no idea how effective they are either no matter the brand as no one actually does comprehensive testing against others. It is more a "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" approach.

 

So hope that helps sort through fact VS assumptions.