Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

From a catch can to smoking thread.

What's next? diet?

What ever my can catches and keeps from going into my motor even though it's not a GDI motor is a good thing IMO.

I don't need a test, the proof is when I empty the can.

:)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 hours ago, diyer2 said:

From a catch can to smoking thread.

What's next? diet?

What ever my can catches and keeps from going into my motor even though it's not a GDI motor is a good thing IMO.

I don't need a test, the proof is when I empty the can.

:)

 Is that too simple or what? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted
Don't get mad at me?  I don't care where you live Cold/Hot....Your can is 90% liquid water at the very most 10% oil?  Most likely 5-8%
 
I don't need to see your pyrex container anymore either..........we have seen quite enough of that already.  


Actually, climate has lots to do with it as those living in colder conditions do seem to collect a more diluted mixture of oil mixed with condensation. I applaud SS502 for even taking the time to show all of us the proof that this “OILY” substance captured before re-entering the air induction. Imagine what you see in the pan was not captured by the catch can but was sucked into the air induction, not being burned off but causing carbon buildup as it gunks up the valves etc.
I don’t have a catch can, mainly cause I don’t feel like dealing with emptying it and cause I don’t keep vehicles long enough to actually give a crap but I am loving my GMC. Meanwhile, I’m using fuel treatments as well as the best oil in the market (Amsoil) along with best oil filters in hopes to avoiding a dirty engine. I’m having my vehicle professionally cleaned if and when it’s time to do so. I’m always intrigued with the findings members like SS502 have provided us all while on their dime and time.



Sent from above
  • Like 1
Posted

I surely don't want to die from lung cancer so I just added a second catch can in series to be safer!  Whew!

 

100_0479.jpg

  • Like 1
Posted

Yes, but modified somewhat for better filtration without clogging.

Works better than the high-priced spread and WAY cheaper.

  • Like 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, BigBlueLB756 said:

Yes, but modified somewhat for better filtration without clogging.

Works better than the high-priced spread and WAY cheaper.

Much cheaper and not in a bad way. Member @flyingfool made his own too. In my mind, it’s the objective not the way you get there. No matter which way anyone goes, it still beats sitting in a Prius wishing you had a truck :D

Posted

I would think there are way more 14-18 's without cans then with them, with well over 100,000 miles. Like others have said if you wanna put one on put one on. If you dont then dont. I dont think it matters either way. 

Posted
14 hours ago, TXGREEK said:

 


Actually, climate has lots to do with it as those living in colder conditions do seem to collect a more diluted mixture of oil mixed with condensation. I applaud SS502 for even taking the time to show all of us the proof that this “OILY” substance captured before re-entering the air induction. Imagine what you see in the pan was not captured by the catch can but was sucked into the air induction, not being burned off but causing carbon buildup as it gunks up the valves etc.
I don’t have a catch can, mainly cause I don’t feel like dealing with emptying it and cause I don’t keep vehicles long enough to actually give a crap but I am loving my GMC. Meanwhile, I’m using fuel treatments as well as the best oil in the market (Amsoil) along with best oil filters in hopes to avoiding a dirty engine. I’m having my vehicle professionally cleaned if and when it’s time to do so. I’m always intrigued with the findings members like SS502 have provided us all while on their dime and time.



Sent from above

 

Actually, What you see from cold and hot climates is different appearances .  Nothing more the percentage of oil in the can is same at the very.very,very most 10%  The rest is liquid and byproducts!

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 15 Z71 said:

I would think there are way more 14-18 's without cans then with them, with well over 100,000 miles. Like others have said if you wanna put one on put one on. If you dont then dont. I dont think it matters either way. 

I'm sure you are correct there. I'd be willing to bet that only 2% of all 14-18 trucks even have a catch can. Almost 4.5 million trucks have been sold since 2014. I doubt if 100,000 trucks have catch cans .

Just a guess but I bet I'm pretty close.

Edited by dieselfan1
  • Like 3
Posted

This is why I’m just gonna opt out of Pro vs Con on these things lol...it’s like any Mod we choose to do, do it if ya like it :thumbs:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 hours ago, dieselfan1 said:

I'm sure you are correct there. I'd be willing to bet that only 2% of all 14-18 trucks even have a catch can. Almost 4.5 million trucks have been sold since 2014. I doubt if 100,000 trucks have catch cans .

Just a guess but I bet I'm pretty close.

It’s not because they’re not beneficial. It’s because the other 4.4 million probably don’t know what a catch can even is. I bet over a million of those truck owners have never even thrown anything in the bed. This very forum is full of people that turn their trucks into badass rock crawling mud bogging trucks and never even get em dirty. What is that about lol. 

  • Like 2

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

    • Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
    • 2024 Silverado 2500 HD LTZ grille no camera Parts list   84603331 84913656 84913657 84913654 84913655 84911567 84911568 85646092 85646093 85797921 85797922   11570637  x10-15   grille/bumper bolts 11546500  x10      grille clips 11571006  x10      push/retainer clips 11546454  x6       nut retainers 11611609  x6       M5 bolts 11610700  x6       molding/trim retainers
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...