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

    • The LCA bolts are NOT a one time use fastener.  GM does not have them called out as such at all.   They are torque plus degree, but not a one time use TTY.  Nowhere in the service manual does it call out for replacing the LCA bolts for being one time use.  Think about it.  The LCA bolts are now the alignment adjustment point, instead of the UCA bolts like the prior generation.    A bolt that is meant to be adjusted for alignment...would it make sense to make it a one time use component?  How would you get an alignment done in the first place?  You couldn't.       Also.  What TSB exactly?  There is no TSB that I see for 2019-2026 for over-torquing LCA bolts.  There was a PI, PIT5533C, but that covered 2014-2018 body trucks for re-torquing LCA mounting bolts.  But those trucks to a 2019-2026?  Not the same, so PIT5533C does not apply.    
    • Nice looking setup!  Is this the kit you got?  If so 211 is a great deal!  https://accessories.chevrolet.com/product/trailering-camera-system-86584184   My TT came with a wireless rear camera but it only works on an app or a separate screen they sell so I've decide it's not worth the hassle since it keeps disconnecting and with wireless android auto it's a hassle trying to connect my phone to it.  So I've been thinking about adding the GM camera so it's integrated into the rest of the camera views.   I also found this one which seems to be a different PN & retail price that explicitly states the invisible trailer view https://www.shopchevyparts.com/chevrolet/2024/silverado-2500-hd/electronics/85825715-silverado-2500-trailer-camera-transparent-view-requires-trg-camera-provisions-p-92326971.html?sort=2a    
    • You didn't say what year it is. I have a '17 5.3 6l80e & used the Range AFM delete for a while to stay in V8 mode. Then I got a local tuner to preform a HPTune on my 6l80e & love it. He did a AFM delete, torque matching between engine & transmission, removed converter slip and mild engine tune that helps the transmission. Gears shift better, at specific speeds, no hunting for gear, no 2 gear down shifts, no spark plug miss feel. Drives like a different truck. I highly recommend it.
    • I know this old thread but I just replaced the left side engine mount on my 2018 5.3 2wd and it was a pain. A quick search showed that it was probably going to cost around $600 to $900 to get it replaced. I researched how to replace it and decided to do it myself being that I'm retired and have the time and tools. What should have taken a day took me 4 days plus a couple trips to my chiropractor and some blood. Why a mount failed at 150k miles is beyond me but such is life.   Peace  
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...