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

    • That's interesting, I assume that would add to the cost of the oil but also I was forgetting to bring up the issue of the low tension rings allowing more oil past which in turn forces the cats to have more oil additives pass through them that wouldn't otherwise so they are creating that problem and of course its all in the name of fuel economy. Mind you the other issue would be the lack of additives that fight the formation of carbon within the piston ring grooves which turn the engine into an oil burner and with in this GM forums case is your average off the shelf Dexos licensed oil, meanwhile the other off the shelf oil being Valvoline's R&P isn't licensed and the only one that is which is that certain Mobil oil that came out recently ( its not even being marketed in Canada ) and only a fraction of vehicle owners are going to be using it out of all the other oils on the shelf or the quickie lube bay that meet the Dexos spec by way of actual licensing.    Also I suspect that its an easy excuse to pool the non turbo DI engines in with the turbo DI engines and design the oil to not have LSPI issues in the most demanding engines and short change the naturally aspirated DI by not offering a higher concentration of additive package they could handle and still not be at risk of LSPI.    I wonder if Amsoil flipped the switch just lately and did whatever packaging designation at the same time as I wonder what oil formulation I would have bought in May, of course I don't know when it was packaged at the factory vs how long it was in storage at the Edmonton warehouse. I know its been said at least in the past that the big players switch over to a reformulated oil but the packaging has not changed until they make that move as well so there is that cross over time where its a new formulation in a predated formula marked package. 
    • Hmm. A real reason to not just use the odometer to determine OCI?    
    • Sad thing is that this doesn't have to be the case. LSPI can be solved without a reduction in TBN. Swap Ca for Mg.  Cats are not a issue if the OEM can get a ring and valve guide seal even at SN levels of SAPS. Dizzy is purring like a kitten with a bowl of warm milk. 200K of Full SAPS oil and zero detonation issues and nice a clean inside and out. This shouldn't be an issue. It isn't 1920.    Tell ya what AMSOIL SS is excellent at, internal cleanliness. The new formula is even a step up from their already outstanding cleanliness levels. Can't say the OEM offering is quite that clean. There marketing suggest the SS is cleaner.     That is the only defense with at shelf oil. Nothing wrong with them if you ignore the marketing and OEM 'recommended' OCI and use a thimble full of common sense. 😉 You go sir. 
    • I started with a folding cover by BAK PAC on my 2500. It went bad after close to 5 years. Bent and vinyl coming loose. Contacted BAK and they gave me a very good discount on a Revolver. Had it a number of years. Mostly outdoor storage. Some garage storage. Vinyl started to come loose. Still under warranty so they replaced to cover. Sold the 2500, bought the 1500 and got another revolver for it. Had it a couple years now and no issues. I store it indoors. Got a bit of discount when buying it as well. If you are seeing problems, contact BAK or real truck and let them know. Customer service was pretty good. But I think they changed their warranty.
    • I agree, there is no one answer fits all as every rig is different, one may be pulling some little aluminum fishing boat while another is towing a monstrosity that weighs a lot and hopefully the owner if the rig has some prior experience to know what drive mode they should choose.    It also struck me and this is from watching a few of those boat ramp escapades videos in the past, Ford being one of the vehicles that has the auto front axle hubs and sure enough its found out that one hub has crapped out and won't engage and may not have manual hubs to even select on both sides so they are on the boat ramp stuck with no four wheel drive and spinning .... they flat out need a tow to get up the ramp and deal with the vehicles new found issues. That can happen to all brands of pickup, finding out either four wheel drive or 4 low isn't working right at the time its needed it to work as some electronic crap has failed. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...