Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I am new to the Forum and have a 2017 Sierra with 12K on it.  I understand the principle behind the catch can and it makes sense.  The problem I have is that there is a lack of evidence that it actually does what it says it will do.  I have no doubt it removes water and oil but does it actually reduce the carbon build up on your valves?  With the amount of money involved in selling an promoting these things I can believe that someone has not performed any type of controlled scientific study.  It would be simple for a company with a fleet of vehicles to take a group on new trucks and have some with and without catch cans.  After a certain amount of time or mileage you look at the valves and scientifically measure the amount of carbon on the valves.  I have not been able to find such a study.  does anyone know of the existence of one?

 

Alternatively, does anyone on the forum have a GDI truck with high mileage that does not have any carbon fouling problems?  How are you managing you maintenance?

 

I have no problems installing a catch can but I would like some actual proof that it does what it says it does. 

  • Like 1
Posted
On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 5:08 PM, SS502 said:

Emptied my RXP dual catch can...this is at 650 miles. I’ve posted the 100, 400 and now 650 miles. This is a total, I have been keeping a running total. 

04C95CC5-7756-4D80-A422-6D07474E1D4C.jpeg

 

10 minutes ago, CSI-WALLEYE said:

I am new to the Forum and have a 2017 Sierra with 12K on it.  I understand the principle behind the catch can and it makes sense.  The problem I have is that there is a lack of evidence that it actually does what it says it will do.  I have no doubt it removes water and oil but does it actually reduce the carbon build up on your valves?  With the amount of money involved in selling an promoting these things I can believe that someone has not performed any type of controlled scientific study.  It would be simple for a company with a fleet of vehicles to take a group on new trucks and have some with and without catch cans.  After a certain amount of time or mileage you look at the valves and scientifically measure the amount of carbon on the valves.  I have not been able to find such a study.  does anyone know of the existence of one?

 

Alternatively, does anyone on the forum have a GDI truck with high mileage that does not have any carbon fouling problems?  How are you managing you maintenance?

 

I have no problems installing a catch can but I would like some actual proof that it does what it says it does. 

A simple Google search can show you all sorts of DI intake valves with build-up. Not going to try to persuade you either way but the fact that other manufactures have gone to DI along with the older PI (it's a dual system) and GM designing an internal system should tell you plenty. I doubt you will find a specific controlled scientific study on the K2 trucks but (not trying to be a smart@ss) I don't need to rub poison oak all over my face to know I'm gonna have some itching really soon. The above picture is from only 650 miles on my personal truck. Even if it somehow didn't get baked onto the valves, I don't want it being sucked down my intake and into the combustion chamber. It's a personal choice obviously and one that I made for me. I believe that @Snowcamo is going to be tearing down his intake (if not already) and I asked him to take pictures, he is at about 100K but I am not sure if he runs a can or not. I plan on bore scoping my intake at 20K just to see how well OR bad my catch can is or isn't working. I didn't provide you with a study you seek but I did give you a nice long answer to help pass the time LOL :D

  • Like 2
Posted

Or use simple logic.  If oil isn't hitting the valves, what would be building up on them?  Exactly.  

 

If you reduce the amount of oil hitting the valves, common sense would tell you that your reduced the build up on the valves.  

 

You have seen the proof of catch cans catching oil. That is oil heading towards your intake.  That should be enough reason to know this should be used.  

 

GM even puts a catch can (be it an unfortunate design that dumps into the sump) on some of its DI motors.  So GM thinks they are worthwhile as well.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Posted

See picture above from SS502 and the "simple" logic Nitrousbird pointed out.  That should be all the evidence you need.

  • Thanks 1
Posted

I've been running a catch can on my truck since day 1. Empty it out once a week. I still had a puddle of oil in the bottom of my intake manifold when I pulled it off to bolt on the supercharger. There was still carbon build up on the back of the intake valves, not much, but some... Less than a 1/32" on some spots on the valve at most...

Posted
2 minutes ago, imiller1974 said:

I've been running a catch can on my truck since day 1. Empty it out once a week. I still had a puddle of oil in the bottom of my intake manifold when I pulled it off to bolt on the supercharger. There was still carbon build up on the back of the intake valves, not much, but some... Less than a 1/32" on some spots on the valve at most...

None of them are 100% not sure what brand you had but imagine (if you emptied weekly) what they would have looked like without it??

Posted
8 minutes ago, SS502 said:

 

A simple Google search can show you all sorts of DI intake valves with build-up. Not going to try to persuade you either way but the fact that other manufactures have gone to DI along with the older PI (it's a dual system) and GM designing an internal system should tell you plenty. I doubt you will find a specific controlled scientific study on the K2 trucks but (not trying to be a smart@ss) I don't need to rub poison oak all over my face to know I'm gonna have some itching really soon. The above picture is from only 650 miles on my personal truck. Even if it somehow didn't get baked onto the valves, I don't want it being sucked down my intake and into the combustion chamber. It's a personal choice obviously and one that I made for me. I believe that @Snowcamo is going to be tearing down his intake (if not already) and I asked him to take pictures, he is at about 100K but I am not sure if he runs a can or not. I plan on bore scoping my intake at 20K just to see how well OR bad my catch can is or isn't working. I didn't provide you with a study you seek but I did give you a nice long answer to help pass the time LOL :D

Yep im gonna pull mine. Ordering the intake gaskets friday. No catch can here, but if my intake valves are dirty ill put one in. 

  • Thanks 1
Posted

Hey Guys,

I appreciate the responses.  I am actually leaning toward buying an E2.  However this is just as a safety measure because I have not seen evidence that cans cause any harm.  However, correlation does not prove causation.  I remain skeptical because there is no data to show reduction in deposits.  Don't you think it is curious that there is an entire industry built on this piece of equipment with not actual study to show it actually works?  Sure the oil in the can is a good indicator, but it shows that it catches oil and not that it prevents deposits.  It could be that the oil is burned in the normal operation of the engine and that there is no difference between using a can or not.  You really can't know the outcome until you perform a study designed to answer the question.  By the way, I would not be surprised if they actually do work.  I just remain skeptical until I see proof.  Does that not make sense?  

 

I was hoping that there was a study out there that I had missed.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, CSI-WALLEYE said:

Hey Guys,

I appreciate the responses.  I am actually leaning toward buying an E2.  However this is just as a safety measure because I have not seen evidence that cans cause any harm.  However, correlation does not prove causation.  I remain skeptical because there is no data to show reduction in deposits.  Don't you think it is curious that there is an entire industry built on this piece of equipment with not actual study to show it actually works?  Sure the oil in the can is a good indicator, but it shows that it catches oil and not that it prevents deposits.  It could be that the oil is burned in the normal operation of the engine and that there is no difference between using a can or not.  You really can't know the outcome until you perform a study designed to answer the question.  By the way, I would not be surprised if they actually do work.  I just remain skeptical until I see proof.  Does that not make sense?  

 

I was hoping that there was a study out there that I had missed.

Last post, I promise but just how is it going to get burned if it doesn't get introduced into the combustion chamber via your intake valves? The old Port Injection used to wash the valves off DI does not.

Edited by SS502
Posted
I've been running a catch can on my truck since day 1. Empty it out once a week. I still had a puddle of oil in the bottom of my intake manifold when I pulled it off to bolt on the supercharger. There was still carbon build up on the back of the intake valves, not much, but some... Less than a 1/32" on some spots on the valve at most...
Something isn't right with this.
I am pro catch can. There is no question at all it helps. My friends and family in auto industry agree as donevery performance shop ever.
That said install I find a issue. Also in my option the css is mandatory. Then the issue is what is the vacuum source? I have one line with a check valve and believe me it can suck the paint off. But if that source is intake then whatever that percent is it goes back into intake.
I should take a video. I drain mine and it is a cup of water mixed with oil and depending on temp I can do that every day.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, 1SLOW1500 said:

Something isn't right with this.
I am pro catch can. There is no question at all it helps. My friends and family in auto industry agree as donevery performance shop ever.
That said install I find a issue. Also in my option the css is mandatory. Then the issue is what is the vacuum source? I have one line with a check valve and believe me it can suck the paint off. But if that source is intake then whatever that percent is it goes back into intake.
I should take a video. I drain mine and it is a cup of water mixed with oil and depending on temp I can do that every day.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

Man, I gotta break a promise...wasn't gonna post anymore in this thread BUT...I too am a CSS believer although my CSS is it's own second can but functions the same with the tiny additional catch, doesn't catch a lot but it's not really used as much. I saw yours, you have the valve covers bridged as do I. They both work great IMHO.

Posted
Man, I gotta break a promise...wasn't gonna post anymore in this thread BUT...I too am a CSS believer although my CSS is it's own second can but functions the same with the tiny additional catch, doesn't catch a lot but it's not really used as much. I saw yours, you have the valve covers bridged as do I. They both work great IMHO.
Like a breather? I now have both valve cover ports and the css going to a breather tank.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Posted
6 minutes ago, 1SLOW1500 said:

Like a breather? I now have both valve cover ports and the css going to a breather tank.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

No, I bridged the valve covers, T fitting off that to the small can then to the intake air box with a check valve. Most CSS go from the oil fill cap valve cover to the air box. I assume your breather tank eventually gets some in it?

Posted
No, I bridged the valve covers, T fitting off that to the small can then to the intake air box with a check valve. Most CSS go from the oil fill cap valve cover to the air box. I assume your breather tank eventually gets some in it?
See that is that one line back to intake issue. But so far it says clean. But its many feet of 5/8" line no t and a large breather tank. So it takes a lot for oil to make it there.
All my valve cover ports including the css go to breather. Only the valley port goes to can. And to the intake manifold.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, CSI-WALLEYE said:

Hey Guys,

I appreciate the responses.  I am actually leaning toward buying an E2.  However this is just as a safety measure because I have not seen evidence that cans cause any harm.  However, correlation does not prove causation.  I remain skeptical because there is no data to show reduction in deposits.  Don't you think it is curious that there is an entire industry built on this piece of equipment with not actual study to show it actually works?  Sure the oil in the can is a good indicator, but it shows that it catches oil and not that it prevents deposits.  It could be that the oil is burned in the normal operation of the engine and that there is no difference between using a can or not.  You really can't know the outcome until you perform a study designed to answer the question.  By the way, I would not be surprised if they actually do work.  I just remain skeptical until I see proof.  Does that not make sense?  

 

I was hoping that there was a study out there that I had missed.

:sigh:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

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

    • If everything checks out at the MAF, then the MAF is BAD, new or not.   You don't need a signal generator to troubleshoot this. PCM needs ALL powers and ALL grounds able to light a halogen headlight bulb - if it can light the bulb bright, then the wiring is good enough to run the PCM.   Best thing you can do for yourself is spend some time here: scannerdanner.com - Check out all his YouTube videos on similar issues. If you decide to subscribe it's the best bang-for-buck ratio in the automotive world, hands-down. He's got TONS of free vids on YouTube, too.
    • Yes, I used my multimeter to probe all of the wires at the MAF, both with the sensor connected, sensor disconnected, key on engine off, key on engine running, etc etc etc. I probed all of the wires again at the PCM, at the connectors, etc. All voltages are what they should be according to the service manual/wiring diagrams. All grounds are good, less than 20 millivolts from the battery negative under load. Both at the connector of the MAF, at the PCM connector etc.      I know this throws a pretty big wrench into things, but this truck was acting up before the swap. I don't have very much information, if any on what was causing it, but if you cleared all of the dtcs it would do the same thing where it would crank, fire, then die. And it would do the same thing a dozen or so times, and eventually it would start and run, but the difference is that it would run and actually be drivable. Whereas now if you can drive it at all, it goes into reduced power mode almost immediately, and even then it's not running correctly. When you come to a stop at a light it stumbles down to for 500 RPM before catching itself and returning to the smooth idle. And if you go more than about 50% throttle then it immediately goes back to doing the misfire thing.    Like I said, I know that throws a wrench into things, and unfortunately I was not able to pull any data or anything like that before I did this work, so I don't have much to go on.    I'm trying to not fixate on one particular thing as the cause of the problem, but it seems like all avenues are pointing me towards the PCM. Like I said I have tested the wiring extensively (see above), and during cranking the sensor does produce seemingly legitimate values at least according to my multimeter, but as soon as the engine fires those values quickly descend into gibberish. I've tried it with multiple different known working sensors, I have done literally every test I can think of multiple times on the wiring (probing the signals, probing the pins with the sensors unplugged, probing the pins at the PCM, voltage drop, voltage drop under load, continuity, ohms, and double-checking everything against the wiring diagrams/ proper values in the service data.)    Another thing that pushes me towards a possible PCM failure is, I have noticed in troubleshooting a little bit taking a break and coming back, that when I leave the truck to sit for a while and cool off, it starts and runs smoothly when I first start it up. However once it warms up. It starts having problems. For example, when I went out to the truck this morning after it had been sitting overnight, I was actually able to drive it down the block. And then once I got on the throttle a Little bit after going about a thousand ft, it started misfiring again. I pulled it back into the driveway, shut it down, and started it back up. It idled smoothly. As soon as I touched the throttle it did the misfire thing again. From then on as soon as I started it it would misfire. I shut the truck off and went to go get a coffee and do a bit more research. When I came back out I started the truck up and it immediately went into the smooth idle. After a couple of minutes of playing around with it, it would not idle smoothly anymore. Let it sit a couple of hours, rinse and repeat. This makes me think with temperature change something is going wrong inside the PCM. I have the PCM out of the 2007 donor vehicle and I'm thinking of getting a one-day subscription to the ACDelco programming service to try and program that and see if it helps.   Like I said, I'm really trying to not fixate myself on one potential cause, but it seems everything is pointing me towards PCM failure. I would really like to try to confirm that, but unfortunately I don't have an oscilloscope or a signal generator to do the GM service procedure where you feed 5 khz into the signal pin. 
    • Ahh, sorry about that - I got some bad info. Newdude is correct. That's what I get for working 13 hours straight ... on my "vacation", lol.   Should've checked the files I had instead of the internet.   Anyway ... this is GREAT news, since this would've been an absolute friggin nightmare to get working.   I don't think the lack of VVT is causing this - you've got another issue. Wiring, I'm betting.   I'm telling you right now, your computer isn't bad. If it worked before the swap, it's working now. You need to do some more (better) diagnostics and figure out exactly what you're missing. Did you test every wire directly at the MAF? Have 5V reference? Ground? If you're reading ZERO g/s, your Hz isn't much use - it's going to be the wrong value anyway. The MAF is not working, and you need to find out WHY.   I got this off the net, so VERIFY first: Pin A: Black (BLK) wire, Circuit 552, serves as the Sensor Return (Ground).  Pin B: Tan (TAN) wire, Circuit 472, carries the Intake Air Temperature (IAT) signal.  Pin C: Yellow (YEL) wire, Circuit 492, is the primary MAF Sensor Signal output to the PCM. Pin D: Pink (PNK) wire, Circuit 339 or 539, provides Ignition 1 Voltage (Power).  Pin E: Tan/Black wire, Circuit 552 or similar, often associated with the Intake Air Temperature ground or signal return.  Global-A list: https://postimg.cc/KKJnQC85    
    • Correct....the end user can't reach to Realtruck directly like they can if they purchase a Bak, Undercover, etc...  It has to go through a dealer.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...