Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Capt Bob said:

Well then in an effort to stay on point, it appears by this statement that if your engine is in good shape, you should have minimal oil in the blow-by gas so the question is.....

What constitutes "minimal"?

I read an article on emission system design that stated that an engine in fine tune should have a measured blow-by oil content of 1gram or less per hour under load. That would equate to a little over 3.5 ounces every 100hrs. if I did the math correct. One might want to measure the can droppings based on an hourly drain rather than mileage to see if they're in that ball park.

If the results are higher, then logic would indicate a poorly designed motor or bad sealing aka rings. I'm leaning toward the latter. If so then the use of quality oil and filter with consistent change times may provide just as much protection as the can itself. A lot to ingest and think about with these motors.

Sorry, I did not quite follow the part about the clean, high quality oil reducing the amount of blow-by.  Does the low quality or dirty oil interfere with proper seal or is it that they cause wear and eventually cause poor fit?

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CSI-WALLEYE said:

Sorry, I did not quite follow the part about the clean, high quality oil reducing the amount of blow-by.  Does the low quality or dirty oil interfere with proper seal or is it that they cause wear and eventually cause poor fit?

I'm not sure how well any type of oil acts as a sealant so yes I'm referring to premature wear and deposit buildup on the rings. Aside from a holed piston, blow-by gets into the crankcase in three spots. Between the cylinder wall and ring face/lands, the ring grooves on the piston and the ring gap itself. From what we are bombarded with about oil, the highest quality stuff contains an additive package to combat buildup of carbon in these areas as well as prevent excessive wear. That in turn helps keep blow-by at a manageable level or so it would seem. This of course predisposes that one renews (changes) this magical fluid on a regular and timely basis. There's the "rub" so to speak.

 

I'm still on the fence with this can but my interest has peaked with the thought of using it to monitor my blow-by amounts as the engine ages and to get a better feel on the emission designs built into this engine. A lot to ponder at this point.

 

Edited by Capt Bob
Posted

Hows this for a solution.

image.jpeg.9b2372af6db14923c4ae0693a5524e9a.jpeg

You call it.

 

:)

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

What can do you think is the best bang for the buck?

A homemade setup like BigBlue posted a couple pages back. If you want something name brand then I’d say the standard can from Elite Engineering 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 4/1/2019 at 9:46 AM, Silverado-Hareek said:

 

Agreed I don't think they care.  Their primary focus is selling vehicles and turning a profit.  Keep in mind, most manufacturers are using DI engines and none are using catch cans except in rare instances of high performance vehicles.  GM isn't going to spend the money on a catch can if their competitors aren't.  Again, the primary issue is that it requires the user to drain the can which most people don't even know how to pop their hoods much less drain an oil catch can and monitor the differences between cold weather and warm weather and how full the can is getting and so on.  And if someone forgets and the can fills up too much and the contents gets sucked back into the intake manifold, GM is on the hook for that design.  No, if GM (and all other manufacturers except Toyota) can get the DI engine to last past the warranty period, they're off the hook and they'll gladly sell you an engine cleaning service at that point as part of "routine maintenance."  I don't really blame the manufacturers completely.  This is evolving technology in response to regulations that mandate fuel economy.  However, now that manufacturers like Toyota are coming up with a fix or rather a design update to the platform, I do blame the manufacturers that don't follow suit and keep selling DI engines with this inherent design flaw.

My friend just bought a f150 5.0 and ford has a set of multi port injectors to clean the valves on there DI engines.

Posted
44 minutes ago, Gagliano7 said:

My friend just bought a f150 5.0 and ford has a set of multi port injectors to clean the valves on there DI engines.

You're right I forgot Ford had been working on this as well.  It's a promising sign that manufacturers are catching on to the issue and coming up with solutions.

32 minutes ago, Jacoby said:

And GM will soon follow and do the same

Hopefully

Posted

I don’t think carbon buildup was a major factor in ford addding port injection with DI. The truth is Ford doesn’t have any claims of motor issues from premature carbon buildup. I don’t care what you find on YouTube. Ford has been running DI in the F series since 09. That’s millions of trucks with millions of miles and no mass claims of any motor problems from carbon buildup. I’m sure the whole washing the valves thing is just a by product or added benefit of adding PI. Truth is having both forms of injection adds more power and fuel efficiency and that’s why they did it.  I’d still run a catch can on a motor with both but that’s just me. 

Posted

That's like a tennis match with all the back and forth over there.

Posted
2 hours ago, Capt Bob said:

That's like a tennis match with all the back and forth over there.

I think the discussion was more in-depth than this thread.

Posted

Unless you're foot is constantly in the gas on this thing, I don't think you'll truly need a catch can.  The pcv valve is spring loaded and will open and close based on crank case pressures.  Crank case pressures vary directly to rpm/load of the motor.  Also, there are tons of articles out where catch can systems can fail causing an over pressure of the oil system.  They end up with blow rear main seals among other items.  Its across the board with different vehicle makers, not just a GM thing.  

 

My advice, be diligent on research and form your own opinion.  Whatever you choose, I hope it works in your favor.  

Posted (edited)

Removed post

Edited by Capt Bob

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

    • Question @diyer2 on this line if you please. Are you saying the shudder is the system turning on and off at the frequency of the shudder? Guess I'm asking if you are saying you have seen it do this with the bi-direction scan tool in graph mode? If so have you been able to discern the 'trigger'. Something is telling to cycle rapidly.    My truck just started doing this recently. 197K on the clock. My response has been M5 anything under 55 mph. I treat it like a lugging stick shift. Gear down and let it spin a bit. Engauge M5, then tow mode and then M6 lets the trans stay in 5th but the AFM is active. Smooth like Skippy.    My thought was that as a machine ages the friction gets lower and as the system is load based, the lower friction would allow it to turn on at ever lower rpm until it reaches the lugging point. And yes I am ignorant of any minimum rpm requirement for the system. If you know that would be useful information.    As you know I run a Scan-Gauge II which allows me to watch the On/Off of the signal to the VLOM. While in the shudder mode I'm not seeing is cycle at that frequency or at all for that matter outside the triggers @newdude posted a few years back. Now is it possible that the refresh rate isn't fast enough to catch it? Maybe. It is why I asked my first question about graphing and trigging parameter.     As we have observed from members here the failure point is all over the map miles wise as you note yourself in your opening post. That by itself begs a few questions like fellows that comment on these lifters failing even after the system has been disabled. Long after. 😬   https://www.enginelabs.com/news/tech-tips-replacing-ls-active-fuel-management-lifters-with-melling/   The Gen5 lifters operate the same as the LS versions. In fact they are the same lifter.    https://www.enginelabs.com/tech-stories/sorting-out-gen-v-lt-lifter-failure-with-a-simple-valvetrain-fix/        
    • UPDATE 2: Steering wheel control backlights and control of the cluster can supposedly be achieved by adding a wire to pin 20 of the cluster and tapping it to pin 2 of the main clock spring harness. I'm going to give it a shot - will update  
    • GM Global A pickups 2019-2022 can do OTA programming for the radio.  GM VIP (GM Global B) can do OTAs for almost every module on board.  So a 2022.5 and newer pickup can do OTAs for recalls like the 2.7 fuel flow recall.  EVs get OTAs that improve one pedal driving, radio issues, HVAC issues, updated battery management software, etc.     So age of the vehicle/what GM electrical platform its on will alter what amount of updates can be pushed on OTAs.  
    • Thank You.   So far my new ride is making me look like a genius for going with the 3.0L, as my first fuel refill occurred over three weeks from when I took delivery.  This engine combination is very amazing.  So far no issues and had not done a regen yet.
    • I am curious as to how much fluid you put back in the transmission ( assuming you had replaced the filter to compare to my findings ) and then went through the process of warming up the trans before pulling the check plug to drain out the excess and if you measured how much came back out.    I just found it surprising that some claimed a certain amount less fluid being put in and then draining some back out. The attitude of the truck as per if the surface is level and how the trucks stance is would make quite a difference since the check plug is right at the front of the transmission. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...