Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The more actually do these test's, the better we can all see what works well and what does not. This never bothered me much in the past unless a big boost build where any oil was causing detonation, but now everything is GDI, all needs to be stopped (or as much as possible).

 

Thanks!

Posted

Well, I ordered a e2-x kit. $344 out the door and it'll get here next week. Any recommendations on installation? (I don't need a torque wrench or anything right?)

Thanks

Posted (edited)

Well, I ordered a e2-x kit. $344 out the door and it'll get here next week. Any recommendations on installation? (I don't need a torque wrench or anything right?)

Thanks

 

You can install with basic hand tools. Click the link below to see a video of installing a catch can.

 

 

Edited by fondupot
Posted

 

You can install with basic hand tools. Click the link below to see a video of installing a catch can.

 

 

Ah, Fondupots various tutorials. I like them.

Thanks a lot man! (no sarcasm if it sounds like it)

  • Like 2
Posted

 

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 doubt there will ever be enough of a performance loss to make up the cost of one BG treatment with the performance gains the treatment will provide, much less a treatment every 15,000 miles. Unfortunately, owner's of GDI engines just need to accept that a $250-$350 cleaning every 15,000 miles is part of the new maintenance routine with these vehicles. And there's no going back as port injection is slowly phased out. Until someone comes up with a new engine design that fixes the valve coking issue and matches or exceeds the MPG's of a DI engine, this is the new standard going forward.

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.

It depends on how much driving you do with it mounted in either location...I have mine mounted up front and it gets hot enough from the hot air passing through it to evaporate most moisture in winter, but I also put 300 miles on in a stint too...I rarely get the milkshake looking stuff, and only if I do local short trips.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted

It depends on how much driving you do with it mounted in either location...I have mine mounted up front and it gets hot enough from the hot air passing through it to evaporate most moisture in winter, but I also put 300 miles on in a stint too...I rarely get the milkshake looking stuff, and only if I do local short trips.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

Mine is mounted at the brakebooster where it's hotter and I get plenty of milky stuff. About 1 oz of fluid every 100 miles. I have to drain it every 600 miles max. I don't think temperature is the issue I think it's the quality of the catch can. I'm guessing you don't have an RX or an Elite E2X? I'm not trying to be mean or anything but the consensus is those cans catch more than anything else on the market and my RX is catching plenty of moisture and condensation where it's mounted at the brakebooster.

Posted

 

Mine is mounted at the brakebooster where it's hotter and I get plenty of milky stuff. About 1 oz of fluid every 100 miles. I have to drain it every 600 miles max. I don't think temperature is the issue I think it's the quality of the catch can. I'm guessing you don't have an RX or an Elite E2X? I'm not trying to be mean or anything but the consensus is those cans catch more than anything else on the market and my RX is catching plenty of moisture and condensation where it's mounted at the brakebooster.

Dude, drive more than 10 miles at a time, you won't have the milkshake because the can gets hot...doesn't matter what can.

 

Sorry I tried to explain it correctly...this is why I don't like fan boy threads.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Posted

Mine is milky in winter, even after a 400 mile trip hauling 6k lbs.. Happens in the cold.

Posted

99% of all "catchcans" are very ineffective and only trap a small amount of mainly oil. These anyone can test and see at best trap 15%-30% of the damaging compounds you want to trap and remove. A truly effective air/oil separation system like those Hareek mentions will trap 95% plus, so they are removing far more. What they trap are also the water, unburnt fuel (especially in the cold winter months with cold start and cold running enrichment), sulfuric acid, abrasive soot/carbon/ash, and more keeping it out of the crankcase and the oil. So you should always see milky looking mix when emptying them except in the hot summer, and then they will still settle out to different layers like this:

 

DSCN1941_zpsfvaa6wdv.jpg

DSCN1942_zpsindmqknn.jpg

Posted

Dude, drive more than 10 miles at a time, you won't have the milkshake because the can gets hot...doesn't matter what can.

 

Sorry I tried to explain it correctly...this is why I don't like fan boy threads.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I do drive more than 10 miles at a time. I don't think you understand how catch cans work or the physics of an engine in cold weather versus warm weather. Before name calling, you should do some research on this stuff and educate yourself.

 

What kind of catch can do you have? That information could be helpful in determining why you aren't catching as much water as we are.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

I do drive more than 10 miles at a time. I don't think you understand how catch cans work or the physics of an engine in cold weather versus warm weather. Before name calling, you should do some research on this stuff and educate yourself.

 

What kind of catch can do you have? That information could be helpful in determining why you aren't catching as much water as we are.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct. Most cans (99%) only trap a small portion of the contaminants as they are very ineffective in design. Almost none take into consideration all the principals of flow dynamics, etc. so even those with coalescing media inside, or baffles, rarely take into consideration what will allow the condensed liquids to still be carried back out with the exiting flow. If the media is within 3" of an outlet, most will be pulled back out a cans outlet as the Bernoulli Principal and the Venturi Effect pick up liquid and carry it with the flow. Plenty other factors come into play, and nearly all are designed purely from assumptions the can designer thought works. Look at a Moroso can for example, (and many others with the same design and construction just labeled different) and you will see two chambers filled with coalescing media. The inlet and outlet are not designated, so no direction of flow specific. The side you use as the inlet will trap these effectively, but the side used as an outlet will saturate as well and as it is tight against the outlet (not the 3" minimum needed) it is the same as taking a wet wash cloth and placing it to your mouth and sucking. You suck water right from it. Now imagine the much stronger and greater flow out of the can...it pulls most of the oil and other compounds right back out. Then you have to look at internal volume. Anything less than close to a quart cannot allow the velocity, or speed of the flow through to slow to the point of the condensed/separated droplets to fall from suspension.

 

Tons more go into a proper effective design, but will save that.

  • Like 2
Posted

Here's my 1,000 mile can drain......surprised me, but now I know to keep an eye on it and check it often.

post-87636-0-21463700-1454813875_thumb.jpg

post-87636-0-21463700-1454813875_thumb.jpg

post-87636-0-21463700-1454813875_thumb.jpg

post-87636-0-21463700-1454813875_thumb.jpg

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • The timing marks are ok, that is #1, you can turn it over until they line up and it won't change anything, the crankshaft turns twice for every camshaft revolution, I have always set up SB Chevs as your pic shows using a straight edge
    • Someone's been here before.... There is a receipt for a 3-piece timing set, purchased earlier this year.   Is this picture something, or, nothing?   I have the timing cover off and my crank is perfectly TDC and the keyed gear's locating mark is dead on 12 o'clock.   The cam gear locating mark is also at 12 o'clock. Now, I'm not an expert, but all the install guides say the two locating marks should meet and be perfectly aligned when installing a timing set. The mark on the crank should be dead on 12:00 and the cam gear's mark should be dead on 6:00, and both marks should be perfectly vertically aligned.   I believe the timing gear is keyed or has a dowel that ensures it can only be installed on the cam in one position, so I have to believe the cam is out of phase somehow. At the very least, with a triangular bolt pattern, it can only be installed in one of 3 different positions.   Before I pulled the front cover, the truck was running alright, no service engine soon lights except an occasional P0172 / rich condition. Timing -16 timing at idle (should be +16), and total -35% fuel trim, two conditions I haven't been able to figure out.   In related news, my injector tested pretty well, wasn't leaking, but I had it rebuilt anyway, and it's on it's way back to me.         Along with this discovery, the good and bad:   Good: The oil pan seal appears undamaged.   Bad: -The timing cover has been reused, and the positioning dowels have been broken. That could explain some of the leaking. -Some kind of white paste or grease was used to try to seal the oil pan seal and timing cover (since wiped off..). -Then, someone globbed silicone all over the front of the cover and also buried the ckp sensor in it. But, they didn't put any inside the cover or use RTV to try to seal the oil pan seal with the timing cover (good).
    • The guy that owns K&P filters last I checked in with him has over 300,000 miles on his Dodge base Hemi using his own 35 micron absolute stainless mesh filter from its first oil change.    The GM study I've posted a dozen times shows the relationship in engine life based in multiples of base units, not miles or years. That is the base unit is the number of miles the motor ran using the reference filter efficiency.    The above two paragraphs dismantle anecdotal arguments IF one changes oil often enough to prevent particle formation and the motor is in otherwise good shape. That is not full of silica (no air filter) or suffering a metallurgical issue that is not part of the lubrication discussion. Poor heat treat in example.   Data from UOA's I've reviewed from more than a few engines can show remarkably broad variations in oil cleanliness using the exact same filter over the course of an engines life.     Lastly there is the common sense of it. Wear debris WILL circulate the engine BEFORE it ever sees a filter in route to that filter and WILL harm the pump which NEVER sees filtered oil.    Alpha question then becomes, given the facts, how long do you believe is a reasonable service life from a vehicle you are certain you will not pass down? That is the junk yard will be it's resting place when you're done with it? (the moral issue most don't care about).    Omega question is then how diligent are you prepared to be in general mechanical, air & oil maintenance? Preventing particulates and keeping them sufficiently dilute; preventing the precursors from generation, amalgamation and precipitation.    If I get a good look at the engine bay of a vehicle I have a fair idea of the owners commitment to the inside of the power train. That 30 micron WIX is still more efficient than a sieve.                 
    • It also depends on what criteria someone is using for “best” when talking filters.  Are we going off best efficiency?   Best quality/QC?  Etc. because the two may not mutually exclusive.  
    • They’re not the same wiz as 10-15 years ago.  QC has fallen pretty hard.  The XP line was never good though in the first place.    https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/wix-filter-rusted-through.386492/post-6991372   https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/i-ve-used-my-last-wix-filter.27299/   https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/looking-for-a-better-replacement-for-wix-51258.403977/   https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/convince-me-in-using-the-purolator-boss.401537/post-7420147   the forums are littered with posts and examples of not great wix filters the last couple years 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...