The "Catch Can" Explained - By Elite Engineering

[Jacoby]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

The average intake deposits minus the exhaust deposits came to 1/10th of a gram over 10,000 miles (16K kilometers) per valve. That's the data from the graph. Look yourself. Don't take Grumpy Ol' Homer's word for it. 

 

A penny weighs about 2 grams. So 1/20th of a penny weight. Put a penny in your hand and ask if 1/20th of that mass is significant. IF the rate is linear, that is a penny worth over 200,000 miles. Hold that penny again. Get out the wife food scale and weigh one yourself. Do you trust your own tactile senses? 

 

Why half the exhaust deposits? 1.) Not all deposits are PCV related. EGR also leaves deposits as does guide as does reversion. Catch can wont prevent those deposits. 2.) Catch Can did not remove ANY deposits from the exhaust valves. None, zip. Thus supporting point #1. If you don't buy this then double the figures and ask if it matters. 

 

The actual test wasn't a backyard YouTube video. SAE report so I give it some weight. The motor was turbo and subject to more 'blow-by' than an NA motor. The mileage on the motor was insane...worst case test if ever one I saw. 

 

Graphed and on a PERCENTAGE basis it looks huge but given the point of reference of a penny.... hold that penny again. 

 

Asides. Jason pulled liquid from his motor and it was water with a film of oil. Looked awful? Nope, looked normal. Water and fuel returned by the PCV is a good thing and hurts nothing. Second, the filter media in the cans shown was a bronze filter. Same type used in oil separators for air compressors. Someone on this forum was being beat up for using such a device he bought at a Tractor Supply on the cheap. Guess he didn't spend enough money. 

 

If I were inclined, and I am not, the $25 unit will have a HUGE impact PERCENTAGE wise even if it is only 30% efficient. So I need to spend 10 to 20 times that amount for what reason again? 

 

But hey, it's your money and I'm just a Donut eat' n Homer. 

[Genuine RX]

On 4/25/2019 at 11:06 AM, Jacoby said:

A few things to clarify with the above statements.

 

First, I am a long standing member of SAE as an Automotive Engineer for over 43 years, and a catchcan will have NO significant impact on the exhaust valves, they are not the issue on GDI engines,  it is the Intake valves that suffer from coking deposits.

 

EGR valves have not been used in over a decade. BUT the variable valve timing events will emulate the old EGR's function by allowing some back filling of the intake ports with spent gasses to be part of the next combustive event, so that can contribute up to 15% of the total deposits. A "catchcan" has no impact on this.

 

The deposits that form are ONLY on GDI engines, old port injection engines had no issues over decades as fuel sprayed directly on them kept them clean and cool. Here is an example of a LS head at 142,000 miles:

 

And a LY7 GM 3.6 Port Injection engine at 115,000 miles:

 

As you can see, wherever the fuel makes contact, zero deposits form. Th valves were kept cool and clean, and for the past 30 years app. valve guide wear had disappeared where the old timers will remember coking of the old carbureted engines pre-Fed mandated detergent fuel additives had to be done every 30-40k miles.  Port fuel injection combined with detergent additives eliminated this.

 

Now, what happens with GDI?  Not fractions of a gram, but ounce plus is commonly removed from the intake valves during a manual cleaning. Here are examples: (Note, I am including examples from several brands of GDI engines to show it is universal, and also from mild to extreme examples. MOST GDI engines built in the past 2-3 years have far less rapid build up than GDI engines form 5-10 years ago due to internal separation, adding in small port injectors, and other advancements I will cover later.....not all good)

 

So note, the amount will vary from valve to vale as it is never an equal amount. Those closest to the point of ingestion, both the PCV vacuum access point and the ports closest to the throttle body will also build faster and more severe. What occurs then? Look at a valve when it comes new. Note the shape, the undercut of the stem, the seating angles, and the satin swirl finish on the valve tulip itself. All of this has an impact on flow and velocity. Both are critical for an engine to run at peak efficiency:

 

So, what does this mean to the average 5.3 or 6.2 LT based GDI V8 owner?  Well, at 20k miles when we do before and after dyno pulls to show what was lost and regained from a manual intake valve cleaning, the average regained/restored power is 20 whp.  That also results in 1-2 MPG.  As the degradation is gradual, not a single owner over the years that signed up for the study thought they had lost any power, but after wards were surprised as it is night and day:

 

Now, lets get back to "catchcans". Almost all cans, I estimate 95% plus, sold today are not going to have much of any impact on any of this. Why? 95% trap less than 30% of the oil mist and other contaminants allowing most to simply "pass through" to still be ingested. Do they catch oil? Of course, even a beer can or mayonnaise jar will catch just as much. Its not what is caught, it is what gets past a can design. Second, almost all of these "catchcans" simply install inline between the intake manifold and the crankcase. So they still only reply on IM vacuum to evacuate these offending vapors from the crankcase. This only provides part time evacuation as on a NA engine, usable vacuum is only present at idle, light cruise, and deceleration. When your accelerating and at WOT no evacuation tales place, and this is when the combustion byproducts that cause most internal wear  and damage have a chance to settle and mix with the engine oil. Once it falls from suspension, it is in the crankcase for the most part to stay. Elite Engineering's dual valve E2-X system uses two separate evacuation vacuum suction sources so it provides full time evacuation and a series of check valves will automatically default to the strongest source at any given time.

 

Now, the question was asked "what happens when the can fills?"  The average catchcan has a capacity of 2-6 oz's. The base Elite E2-X is close to one quart, and the Ultra is close to 2 quarts, but this is one of the reasons mass produced vehicles will never have them from the factory. They MUST be emptied every 3-5k miles with this capacity, small one that let most oil through, every few hundred miles.

 

Now, how does one determine if a can or system they are looking at is good or bad?  Well, any that vent to the atmosphere are illegal in all 50 States and and also can be grounds to void a warranty as they defeat/delete/or open the system to the atmosphere reducing or defeating the functions that keep today's engines alive. Bot a system that retains a closed system, does not in any way defeat or delete any function of the OEM system by federal law cannot void your warranty. This is FEDERAL law and here is a set of guidelines by the FTC:  

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-routine-maintenance

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/04/ftc-staff-warns-companies-it-illegal-condition-warranty-coverage

 

The other way is to simply do this test. This is the ONLY way to be fair and accurate in determining a cans effectiveness, and although it is time consuming, it is fairly simple. You install any can design you wish to test on your vehicle. Start with both cans clean of all residue. Install the Elite E2-X design second in series with the outlet of the first can hooked to the inlet of the Elite (center fitting) Drive 1000 miles (2,000 will be more accurate) and at the end of the period, drain both and document what they trapped. Then clean both, reverse the order (all must be done equally and fairly) and duplicate your driving as closely as possible to the first stage of the test. Drain and document and you will see that the E2-X design trapped as much or MORE than the first can AFTER it did its best. When reversed, mere droplets get past the E2-X.  This video shows every step as a promoter of the Moroso's best can took the challenge and was a bit amazed with the results: (start at the 17 minute mark to see the end results, but the entire video is very good)  

 

Now, I also saw reading back through that some cans, like most newer engines, return oil and the other contaminants back to the crankcase. This would be no problem if this was only clean oil, but oil is a small percentage of what the proper systems will remove. Look at this example after a 2500 mile interval. The contents were spun in the labs centrifuge and then analysed to determine the contents:

  

 

This is 70% water and acids (no, you want nothing but air/fuel in your combustion mixture, and no, water and acids are not in any way "good" for your oil or engine!), 23% raw fuel (this is due to the extreme pressures the fuel is introduced at which pushes 812 times the raw fuel past the rings than old port injection engines and that will not show in a oil analysis unless the sample is drawn directly through the dipstick tube and sealed. Most collect a sample at drain and fuel flashes off when exposed to the air so you wont get a accurate reading), and 7% is oil saturated with abrasive particulate matter (soot, ash, carbon). So that would be horrible to reintroduce to the crankcase and your oil. In fact, that is what most of the newest GDI engines do as shown in the previous posts by others. As the industry has dropped engine warranties from the standard of 100,000 miles in the past with port injection engines to 60, 50, as low as 36k miles due to the high rate of wear and failures with GDI engines due to all this they are exposed to.  In order to slow and reduce the rate of coking, most all have built in separators that do just that. Retain and return all of these contaminants that used to be evacuated back into the crankcase!  This, along with the excessive amounts of raw fuel washing the protective film from the cylinder walls and diluting the already super thin oils specified to allow the vehicle to meet international CAFE fuel economy standards is a recipe for greatly shortened engine life and increased wear and damage. Just Google "GDI engine timing chain failures" and other failures common to these engines such as rod bearings, etc. As these engines are running, some of the coking deposits will shed, and although most is expelled out the exhaust, some of these are pushed between the cylinder and piston causing scouring. This was not an issue with the "soft carbon" of the past, but there deposits are exposed to intense heat now form as a very hard and abrasive crystalline structure very similar to sand in abrasiveness. So this contributes to excessive wear as well.  

 

Now, one of the common questions that has merit is, "can anyone show comparisons between the intake valves of an engine run without a system vs one with". Well, we have been doing just that for the past 10 or so years, and for most cans, there is no real reduction. But with the E2-X family or same designs there is a pretty dramatic difference. Remember we went over the 15% or so that cannot be prevented as it comes from the EGR emulation of back filling the port with burned gasses, and also a tiny amount of oil used to lubricate the guides will get past. But here are examples of at 60k miles with the E2-X design installed when the car was new vs comparable miles without:

 

This shows with the system installed within 100 miles of new:

 

This is without (same year, same 3.6L V6 GM engine):

 

So that may not be impressive to some, but think about the valves and how they restrict the incoming air charge when coked up as such. As no two are equal in severity, the cylinders will receive unequal amounts of the air charge meaning as each bank the injectors are commanded to deliver the same amount of fuel per cylinder as the exhaust is measured as an aggregate of all cylinders. Some will be too rich, some too lean, and 1-2 close to stoich. The worse the buildup, the greater the disparity.

 

And to close, this is the summary of that 2 year study one of the Worlds most respected lubrication labs conducted over a 2 year period ending in 2017. Read it all several times to see the findings:

 

 

So, hope this clarifies this again and sorts through myth and facts.

 

Cheers!!

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

I’ve made a few million gallons of gasoline. My livelihood. While some will argue I’m just a donut eater. I’m a really good one.

 

Meaning I’m familiar with the law, the test, the manufacturing and blending of Auto, and Piston Aviation fuels, Diesel, LPG and JP*. I’ve run thousands of ASTM D86, weathering and fractional GC. Lots of knock lab hours. Taught and wrote the operating manuals for some refinery units. FCC i.e. for majors.

 

Quote: (speaking of fuel dilution) …will not show in an oil analysis unless the sample is drawn directly through the dipstick tube and sealed. Most collect a sample at drain and fuel flashes off when exposed to the air so you won’t get an accurate reading),

 

EPA 40 CFR 80 under these laws the boiling range for gasoline is set in stone. The ASTM D86 is the gold standard.

IBP 95F, 10% 150F, 50% 203 to 213 F, 90% 295 to 305 F, End point typical 395 F.

 

Consider that C4H10, Butane is used to control the Reid vapor pressure which boils at 30.2 F. Begs the question how gasoline which contains C4 would have an IBP of 95F doesn’t it. It’s called ‘The law of partial pressures’. You as an automotive engineer should be familiar. Gasoline in oil raises the initial boiling point of entrained gasoline even higher due to this law as oil is just a heavier range of hydrocarbon and 100% soluble. There is actually some overlap. Even without that there is less than 10% available to ‘flash off’.

 

See the problem I might have with gasoline weathering or boiling off in oil on a sample draw at temperatures you do with your bare hands?

 

The second would be the inference that the catch can sample is somehow the same as the crankcase sample as would be indicated by the idea that a low UOA reading is inferred to be equivalent to the condensed vapor sample. Thus the discourse on its lack of meaning due to sampling errors.  That would sort of mean that distillation isn’t possible wouldn’t it? They are not a proxy for each other.

 

There is also the inference that the water collected is not just acid but ‘ACID” I drink apple cider vinegar but wear a HAZMAT suit for hydrofluoric. Water by itself is not only harmless but can be beneficial. Water injection isn’t new and it isn’t dangerous and it doesn’t know how it got there. A humid day helps hold back knock. Coming from the air it’s an atmospherically condensed product or a chemical product of combustion that is a bit acid but free of ‘hard water’ chemistries. There is darn little sulfur in modern fuels.

 

There is also the matter of reference point. A cold motor generates allot of water (condensation) and while water is a natural byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion darn little of it gets in the crankcase. 99.5% is expelled out the tail pipe in a warm motor with good sealing. What little gets by the rings becomes the job of the PCV. It is why it was invented. To reduce water concentrations in the oil that precipitated acid sludge in sulfur bearing fuels. Not to reduce oil misting.

 

Water can’t cause valve deposit build up. Gasoline isn’t a bad thing and actually should be good and would have the O2 sensor reaction to lean the map if significant holding AFR in balance. The acid is a non-starter. So the only thing left is the oil and some elemental metal carried in the mist from additives. Trace at best.

 

By your own word the last few years, and for GM that is 2014 or newer, baffling removes 300% more mist than previous designs. (The percentage is GM’s) Also you’ve confirmed that 95% of the cans made are useless which was sort of my point going in so thank you for that.

 

I assume from your letter than the SAE paper Jason referenced and was the central focus of the previous post you give little credence. I will have to disagree.

 

I cannot argue than they have no value. I can argue that their value is case by case and dependent on factors not currently under consideration.

[Genuine RX]

So Grumpy, everything you reference is old port injection, Carbureted, or LPG. None of your reference is GDI as I cover.  I take it you ignored all of the pictures and documentation and your calling the Lubrication lab a liar, correct?  I am in my mid 60's as you are that or older I am guessing. I hope I never get to the point I will ignore science and validated data.  That would be a sad day.

 

[Grumpy Bear]

4 hours ago, Genuine RX said:

So Grumpy, everything you reference is old port injection, Carbureted, or LPG. None of your reference is GDI as I cover.  I take it you ignored all of the pictures and documentation and your calling the Lubrication lab a liar, correct?  I am in my mid 60's as you are that or older I am guessing. I hope I never get to the point I will ignore science and validated data.  That would be a sad day.

 

Yes, mid 60's. Nothing I wrote can be construed into ignoring DI systems. 

 

I did not ignore the photos at all. I do know if I'm selling burgers that I show photos of the best ones I have and the one I get never looks like the one in that advert.  If I'm selling flood insurance I display the worst case possible. Fear is a classic motivator. Two semesters of marketing were part of my education. I paid very careful attention. 

 

Ignore science? I upheld science. I didn't claim the impossible nor the unlikely. I included the specific laws that applied. I provided verifiable scientific data. I also didn't ignore the SAE tech paper your are.  

 

One can make the statement that the back seat of a car is the safest place in the car and show validated data showing only 8% of traffic deaths happen to passengers in the back seat. The statement can in fact be validated and verified. It can even be used to promote some new safety device. This is a real world current event by the way. What I failed  to point out is the fact that 90% of all crashes involving a fatality is that the rear seat is EMPTY of passengers. Why would I fail to mention it? Because it is inconvenient for my position to do so. 

 

You've already agreed that the current batch of motor tech oil separation is way better than pre 2014 and that the incidence of issue with Di system induced valve issues is far less than in the past. 

 

I also addressed my comments to the material and didn't get personal with you. I thanked you for your support of certain points others scoffed at you validated AND I made it a point to assure the others reading that there are indeed, on a case by case bases, a very real need for a product as well made as yours. 

 

I do understand that when the science is infallible and unassailable that it is quite popular to discredit the source which is what I see your last few sentences doing. Problem is...any one that wishes can verify the information I posted. Like in a college physics book. Second problem....I'm not selling anything. 

 

 

 

 

[Genuine RX]

As knowledgeable as you are with a wide variety of old school, you certainly are not with GDI. Yes, your replies are eloquent and written so the layman has no idea what your saying, yet you still have not addressed one thing related to GDI engines. I'm not here to have a pissing match, only to share with those that wish to learn.

 

[Grumpy Bear]

Then simpler it shall be.

I give more credit to the reader. However...just in case your right...and you may very well be. 

 

Let's try an analogy. Women are carbureted. Men are GDI. Everyone with me? Good. We are only talking about GDI then. 

 

Because men are fitted with certain equipment some percentage of men will unavoidably get testicular cancer. EVERY man COULD get it. About 9,560 a year in the USA do. That could be considered a significant number. Especially if you're one of the nearly the thousand men.

 

By your current reasoning you would have every male castrated at birth; 

 

as statistically speaking it's nonexistent before puberty. 

 

A person can get lost in the argument and loose site of the truth. 100% of all people die.

 

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 12:04 PM, Genuine RX said:

As the industry has dropped engine warranties from the standard of 100,000 miles in the past with port injection engines to 60, 50, as low as 36k miles due to the high rate of wear and failures with GDI engines due to all this they are exposed to.  In order to slow and reduce the rate of coking, most all have built in separators that do just that. Retain and return all of these contaminants that used to be evacuated back into the crankcase!  This, along with the excessive amounts of raw fuel washing the protective film from the cylinder walls and diluting the already super thin oils specified to allow the vehicle to meet international CAFE fuel economy standards is a recipe for greatly shortened engine life and increased wear and damage.

Bold. You've have stated an opinion based on a conclusion you've made about a third parties intent then 'stated it as a convenient fact'. Strawman defense. Non starter. My opinion is they are cooking frogs slowly. At some point it will be "Caveat Emptor" and warranty work will cease to be. They are indeed working to that goal. So...there's another opinion.....I'm sure there are others. 

 

Green & Red. This is a brilliant argument for changing your oil more frequently, not a catch can if your motor is GDI equipped and an your agreement in writing that the industry has indeed successfully addressed the valve fouling issue.  ALL is pretty inclusive and by your leave. Not my words, yours. 

 

Blue: Odd statement. The very point of GDI is fuel efficiency. Over 10% more in most cases. That is, for the others.. A carb motor converts about 25% of the fuels energy to mechanical work. GDI is between 30-40%. Some Benz motors near 50% (racing). LESS fuel remains liquid, not more. Admittedly this could be an issue for those whose regular service is mainly short tripping and never getting fully warmed. 

 

This isn't a case of which is it. This is a case of context. Specifically cold start scenarios. And yet they use less fuel 'overall' getting to cat temp, a minute or so, than a manual choke carburetor.  

 

You state a 'industry standard acceptable 5% raw fuel oil dilution'. Yet in shared UOA's with list members with GDI less than 1/2 percent is pretty common. About the same as any other delivery method. I've already addressed "flash off'. 

 

Let's lets bring it to a boil.

 

I ENDORSED your product in previous post as the best pup in the litter IF/AND on a case by case basis. 

 

While fear and shame may sell products I personally detest the practice. Conditional Endorsement is as good as it going to get. I'm keeping my pair as long as possible, thank you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Elite Engineering]

Well, I think we have beat this horse to death...moving on.... 

 

 

[kennerz]

Here is a test I'm going to do and document. For all the fellow 14+ owners on this site. In coming months I'm going to walnut blast my intake valves. I've been following issues with DI from various mfg's since say 2010~on. Cases of buildup and the detrimental effects are well documented across the net.

 

I have had a basic Elite catch can installed on my 2015 L86 since about 3k miles from new, now

approaching  60k miles.  Will take pictures when I pull my intake so we can see what shakes out. I clean out my can every 1~3k miles, Have pulled as much as 2~3oz at a given time. Much rather would pour it out than be ingested. 

 

Looked inside my TB the other night and could see a brown film in the intake runners that was not horrible , but no where near clean.  This may not be a definitive test, however it will be a "real world" example one way or the other. And no I'm not going to dyno it twice, not that important to me, but I do expect to gain back mileage and HP after the walnut blast. No GDI intake cleaner for me.

 

I appreciate Grumpy's input, however this one is not a myth. The ways to approach the problem are mostly bogus, but the fact that it occurs and degrades performance has tons of evidence. Done years of research on this topic and fully believe a catch can (you figure out which one works for you) and blasting using the correct media is "the Way". When I find out I'll share.

[jgraves13]

Here is a test I'm going to do and document. For all the fellow 14+ owners on this site. In coming months I'm going to walnut blast my intake valves. I've been following issues with DI from various mfg's since say 2010~on. Cases of buildup and the detrimental effects are well documented across the net.
 
I have had a basic Elite catch can installed on my 2015 L86 since about 3k miles from new, now
approaching  60k miles.  Will take pictures when I pull my intake so we can see what shakes out. I clean out my can every 1~3k miles, Have pulled as much as 2~3oz at a given time. Much rather would pour it out than be ingested. 
 
Looked inside my TB the other night and could see a brown film in the intake runners that was not horrible , but no where near clean.  This may not be a definitive test, however it will be a "real world" example one way or the other. And no I'm not going to dyno it twice, not that important to me, but I do expect to gain back mileage and HP after the walnut blast. No GDI intake cleaner for me.
 
I appreciate Grumpy's input, however this one is not a myth. The ways to approach the problem are mostly bogus, but the fact that it occurs and degrades performance has tons of evidence. Done years of research on this topic and fully believe a catch can (you figure out which one works for you) and blasting using the correct media is "the Way". When I find out I'll share.

Looking forward to the pics of your valves before the Walnut blast!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KARNUT]

As long as the valve seat a little build up on the stems doesn’t worry me. I have a DI non GM vehicle with 100K miles on it. Runs like a champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grumpy Bear]

Pepper, my 2015 4.3 now has 90K on the clock. 

 

Reduced fuel mileage is suppose to be a sign of valve deposit build up, correct? 1 to 3 mpg the claim? 

 

Her lifetime average is 27.14 mpg. Last 23,409 miles which includes this past winters mileage has netted 28.71 mpg. September 2018 entire months mileage over 3695 miles netting 30.52 mpg using only 121.056 gallons of fuel. Always her best month of the year. 

 

The EPA 'combine' number for this combination is 21 mpg. The Universal average for this model is 17 mpg and small change according to the government web site.  First summer was about 24 mpg and she been building ever since. NOT dash instrument numbers. Hand calculated. GPS correct, VASCAR checked speed/odometer. No tune. AFM active. 87 pump E10 her main diet. I drive reasonable but I am not a hyper-miler. No stunts. Just sane operation and maintenance. 

 

If declining fuel efficiency is the mark of valve trouble what do we call adding 7 or 8 mpg to the base numbers?  

 

If my Ecotec3 factory baffles, lack of a Catch Can and 'light oils' are hurting me.....PLEASE....Hurt me some more. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Penguin VII]

I'm a little afraid to bring this topic back to life after reading the last page of back and forth but here goes. I watch some of Engineering Explained's videos online from time to time. Mostly binge watch them. I find his information entertaining and informative, and somewhat makes me regret not following my fathers footsteps as an engineer but I digress.

 

I thought it was good information from a trusted third party source online. Seems to concur with a lot of the points made on this thread and others and I personally will be looking into buying one in the coming week(s) after looking into having my intake walnut blasted.

[Genuine RX]

Here is a recent oil analysis done by a long term field tester. His goal is to determine how the system impacts engine oil. This was done at just over 13k miles and it is a twin turbo GDI engine making over 20# of boost, so it is subject to more stress on the engine oil than the average passenger vehicle.  His next drain and sample will be done at 20k miles. Note the lab techs comments:

 

And as some are still confusing GDI with the Port injection engines of old, here is a good illustration showing:

 

The other benefit rarely mentioned is the increase in fuel economy. we guarantee 8-10% increase if your intake valve coking is not too severe.  We have 167 trucks (about 1/4th brand new) we are installing these on currently and that company has verified and validated that claim as well.  The goal is savings on operating costs.  double the oil change intervals (documented with oil analysis) and they track fuel economy.  

 

[Genuine RX]

3 minutes ago, Penguin VII said:

I'm a little afraid to bring this topic back to life after reading the last page of back and forth but here goes. I watch some of Engineering Explained's videos online from time to time. Mostly binge watch them. I find his information entertaining and informative, and somewhat makes me regret not following my fathers footsteps as an engineer but I digress.

 

I thought it was good information from a trusted third party source online. Seems to concur with a lot of the points made on this thread and others and I personally will be looking into buying one in the coming week(s) after looking into having my intake walnut blasted.

Each of those cans only traps between 15% for the two left most, and app 30% for the Mishimoto.  Here is an extended test to show the results VS the 95% effective spearation of the Elite E2-X Patented system:

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=512223

 

This is a good read and he documents each step. Similar to this test done on a GDI Chevy truck:

Start at the 18 minute mark to see results, but then watch entire video: