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

    • Yep, just a quick reference point.    My main point being I’d do a thousand other things before I’d pay 10k for a transmission.    Speaking in ignorance cause I don’t look at these trucks, what is it worth? 20k?
    • I think users are going to want to pick their monitored parameters, which parameters they want to see first.    It should probably start with baseline at a minimum and adjust to learned, but be able to overlay baseline for comparison.   A simple severity level would be able to determine what type of alerting is appropriate or user selectable.    Why not use the OBD port though?   I think a phone connection would be a good idea, push notifications type deal.   Number 1 issue is having data is useless if you don’t know what the data should be under normal conditions. 
    • I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
    • 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.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...