Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I threw a catch can on at roughly 1000 miles. Since I live in the northeast and we've had a lot of cold days Im sure there's condensation in the catch can as well. The can is roughly the size of a coke can and in just 1200 miles( I'm at 2200 total) the can was full. Same color as ^^^ Macks. Def glad I installed it early. I cringe to think of this crap getting into the intake and cylinders

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Posted (edited)

 

There's 3 different products as I remember it. One get's fed through your throttle body like seafoam but more potent and dispensed through a special tank system with a pressure gauge. Another can get's fed through your fuel system starting at the fuel tank. And I forget what the 3rd product is and how it's installed...maybe through the intake as well. I'm due for another one in about 3,000 miles I'll ask my mechanic to explain it again. There are a ton of youtube videos detailing the process as well. Here's the promo video BG put together:

 

 

I found out there's a GM dealer about 2 hours away from me that does the BG service and they promote it with all of their vehicles with DI every 18k miles (not sure about turbo engines though), which has got me interested. I am sitting at 11000 miles so I got time plus with my catch can it probably prolongs it. The say it does not harm the power train warranty. They also say that it SHOULD start to be implemented as a service requirement in the manual because of the immediate benefits and for longevity of the vehicle, mind you this is their opinion. The cost of the service could easily be made up in the mileage gains if your vehicle has been hit hard enough with coking.

 

I am still surprised by my mileage with my 6.2 even in sub zero temps and crappy winter fuel, I am still achieving 11-12L/100km (20 mpg roughly) on the highways and some mixed town driving.

Edited by Jordan18
Posted (edited)

Yep - that time of year again:

post-65085-0-71854700-1453821507_thumb.jpg

post-65085-0-71854700-1453821507_thumb.jpg

post-65085-0-71854700-1453821507_thumb.jpg

post-65085-0-71854700-1453821507_thumb.jpg

Edited by Jsdirt
Posted

I threw a catch can on at roughly 1000 miles. Since I live in the northeast and we've had a lot of cold days Im sure there's condensation in the catch can as well. The can is roughly the size of a coke can and in just 1200 miles( I'm at 2200 total) the can was full. Same color as ^^^ Macks. Def glad I installed it early. I cringe to think of this crap getting into the intake and cylinders

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Not sure have far north in the northeast you are but in the winter you will probably want to start emptying sooner. In cold temps they will easily fill up in only a few hundred miles - especially if you're taking shorter trips.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Posted

Not sure have far north in the northeast you are but in the winter you will probably want to start emptying sooner. In cold temps they will easily fill up in only a few hundred miles - especially if you're taking shorter trips.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Massachusetts, yea that's what I was thinking. It was about 1/2 from the top. I'm sure some made it past since it was so high. Didn't think it would happened in just 1000 miles but def gonna check a whole lot more

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Posted

A manual cleaning with removal of the intake manifold will show and then get you back to new at this stage. Just hard to do in the cold.

Posted

Has anyone done a comparison of condensation buildup between a can mounted above the exhaust manifold on the brake booster, and one at the spare battery location? I ran my temperature gun on those locations after a long drive at 35f ambient air temp. The truck was still running, and I popped the hood as soon as I got home and recorded the temps. The manifold was 89.5, the BB was 86.4,and the spare battery tray was 52f. That's a 34.4 degree difference. So my question is have people noticed less condensation in the winter at the brake booster location because of the hotter temperatures? I'm wondering if the spare battery tray would only be beneficial in the warmer times of the year.

Posted (edited)

I put mine there mainly because I figure the longer the length the oil mist has to travel, the less likely it is to end up in the intake. I can deal with frequent emptying for 4 months a year. Good part about having the glass can on the Conceptual Polymer unit is being able to see when it's time to empty it. I don't drive the truck much, so I could go 2 months before dumping it.

 

Either way, I believe the condensation is a result of a cold engine block, so locating the catch can even 1" from the exhaust manifold won't make a difference, aside from maybe introducing some steam into the intake.

Edited by Jsdirt
Posted (edited)

I mounted my Mike Norris can on the alternator bracket on my 2011. Seemed like a good spot. That's probably where I'll put it on my 06 also.

Edited by Daryl Z71
Posted

Has anyone done a comparison of condensation buildup between a can mounted above the exhaust manifold on the brake booster, and one at the spare battery location? I ran my temperature gun on those locations after a long drive at 35f ambient air temp. The truck was still running, and I popped the hood as soon as I got home and recorded the temps. The manifold was 89.5, the BB was 86.4,and the spare battery tray was 52f. That's a 34.4 degree difference. So my question is have people noticed less condensation in the winter at the brake booster location because of the hotter temperatures? I'm wondering if the spare battery tray would only be beneficial in the warmer times of the year.

Mine is mounted up higher between the engine manifold and the brake booster and mine collects a ton of condensation in the winter. If the manifold location actually works it'd have to be closer than mine is. In these cold temps my can in barely warm after a 35 mine drive.

post-138443-0-38399400-1453850079_thumb.jpg

post-138443-0-38399400-1453850079_thumb.jpg

post-138443-0-38399400-1453850079_thumb.jpg

post-138443-0-38399400-1453850079_thumb.jpg

Posted

That's probably the hottest part of the engine compartment too - up high and towards the firewall.

 

I checked mine after a long highway run towing a car to FL. Somewhere in AL in the 80's outside - underhood temps were HOT. Don't know exactly, but guessing well north of 150°, for sure. Can was ambient to the touch.

Posted (edited)

Mine is mounted up higher between the engine manifold and the brake booster and mine collects a ton of condensation in the winter. If the manifold location actually works it'd have to be closer than mine is. In these cold temps my can in barely warm after a 35 mine drive.

I just got home from salting some parking lots (I do snow removal) and my truck was idling for 30 minutes. At your location the temp was 131.3, at the brake booster bolt it was 142.7 and 238.4 at the manifold. At the spare battery tray it was only 2 degrees cooler than your location. The ambient air temp was 32 degrees. Thanks for your response, and picture!

Edited by 1300c
Posted

I really don't think it matters. The gases passing through the can are doing it at such a high rate that the internal temperate is likely staying relatively constant. The only difference i see is the length of time it takes the can to heat up and match the temperature of the gases.

 

With that being said mine is mounted to the break booster near the intake manifold and in this cold weather after about a 20 minute drive home, the outside of the can is still cool to the touch. In the winter I average about an ounce of oil/water every 100 miles in the cold temperatures.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

On the Mike Norris can, they are not bad for a port injection engine that can tolerate oil pulling through, but will do little for a GDI engine. They let app 70% of the oil and gunk to pull right through them. And here is the Conceptual Polymer separator (a home style air compressor separator costing $200-$300 plus) with a cheap home depot separator inline behind it. You can see very few cans, not matter what the brand or the claims do much at all, but ALL will catch some:

 

CP%20can%20results_zpsjvnyxbsb.jpg

 

Daryl, can you pick up one of those cheap separators and plumb it inline AFTER your Mike Norris/CCA/(and a dozen or so others that label that same can)? Then share your findings. Very eye opening to see how ineffective a can like that one is (and I used to run 2 of them in series years ago as Mike was one of the only games in town).

 

And ALWAYS check how quickly your can, no matter the brand, fills in the cold. You do not want to let them overfill or you can suck in a gulp all at once and that is not good.

 

That's why I like the Elite E2-X Ultra at 40 oz's (20 oz capacity for effectiveness) VS most at 1.5-3 oz capacity as winters fill these fast.

Posted (edited)

On the Mike Norris can, they are not bad for a port injection engine that can tolerate oil pulling through, but will do little for a GDI engine. They let app 70% of the oil and gunk to pull right through them. And here is the Conceptual Polymer separator (a home style air compressor separator costing $200-$300 plus) with a cheap home depot separator inline behind it. You can see very few cans, not matter what the brand or the claims do much at all, but ALL will catch some:

 

CP%20can%20results_zpsjvnyxbsb.jpg

 

Daryl, can you pick up one of those cheap separators and plumb it inline AFTER your Mike Norris/CCA/(and a dozen or so others that label that same can)? Then share your findings. Very eye opening to see how ineffective a can like that one is (and I used to run 2 of them in series years ago as Mike was one of the only games in town).

I may consider it once I finally get a new unit. Looking to order one next month.

Edited by Daryl Z71

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,947
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Sothpaw27
    Newest Member
    Sothpaw27
    Joined
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 452 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...