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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,782
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    ShowMeShooter1332
    Newest Member
    ShowMeShooter1332
    Joined
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 7,877 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I was around and remember that era very well, so I'm calling b/s on that statement. If they were that bad no police department or taxi company would've bought a single one ... but they were used in both services (and fire) for DECADES. They were bulletproof and proven. Even the early 21st century ones weren't too bad! The early models were legendary.   Mine is proof, but people like atlas are blinded by agenda and refuse to believe facts right before their very eyes.   Even decades after they were built, a new generation started driving them, posting all their builds and shenanigans on Grandmarq.net and Crownvic.net. The failures would show up then, since they all were deep past 100k-150k miles by that point, and younger drivers tend to be a little aggressive, especially with vehicles than can lay a one-tire fire for as long as you hold your foot in it. They've more than proven themselves over the decades.   The only thing that'll really take them out is road salt. The bodies and sheet metal were garbage. A victim of the cheapout FoMoCo and GM have been partaking in before then, and since.   Today it's the stuff that counts - the undercarriage that rots away first!    GMs Caprice was no slouch either. Reliable as a stone ax - the opposite of what they build now.    
    • Let me know how your vehicles do in 10 years. You don't know ******, kid. 😂    There's a reason that Panther platform was used as police, fire, and taxi service for DECADES ... long before you were born, apparently.
    • If your connector also has a big lever to get the connector on and off, you don't want to force the lever either way, as it becomes a bigger problem if you bust the lever or the mechanism it works.
    • It's just useful to disconnect the battery to prevent odd shorting out when unplugging/plugging stuff together.  I also  touch the two cable ends together (after disonnecting) to drain the small amount of stored battery energy in various modules.   I believe the main system where you need to be more concerned with, so you need to do the above and then wait some time, iss when you are working on the air bag system, to prevent inadvertent firing of the air bags.   The in-cab switches are just that, plain switches, it's generally not a problem to swap them in/out.  For my '12, I'll get an error message on the dash if I power up the truck w them unplugged, but that's it (power up= turn the ignition on).   The ITBC located above the spare tire is a computer that manages the trailer brake system.  That is probably more important to have the battery disconnected.  It does have to be programmed to the truck, either before or after it's installed, for it to work.  For my '12, I had a very hard time reinstalling the main connector to it (IDK if yours is the same or not), it turned out the silicon seal was jamming up, preventing it from going on all the way.  I finally got it fully installed by lubing the seal with a bit of dielectric grease, then it slid on and latched in place easily.
    • JR ! I just got the truck back from the Dealership today . The technician did a cold remote start on the truck this morning and it made the noise . It was determined that it was a starter issue and replaced it under warranty . Of course   it did not make the sound after a new starter was put in because the truck was not cold . We will we see what happens tomorrow morning when I start the truck cold  . Keep tuned !   Oh I found a video on YouTube of a cold start and it did the same thing your truck and mine do , I will see if I can find it and post it up
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...