Jump to content

DIY Catch can for the LV3 4.3 V6

WHITESSTOWPIG

By WHITESSTOWPIG
in Engines & Drivetrain

 Share

Recommended Posts

WHITESSTOWPIG Enthusiast

WHITESSTOWPIG

Posted
Posted

I occasionally see guys ask about catch cans for the 4.3 so I am putting this out there hoping they will run across this in the future.Currently there is no catch can directly for this application however for DIYers like myself the Elite can kit for the 5.3 V8 in the Silverado will also work.You would just need to purchase some 3/8" hose and a few 3/8" hose clamps.A catch can is probably not absolutely needed in this application but for the OCD guys who occasionally ask the information is now out there for you. dasda.thumb.jpg.bf32c1491f5c5dc16294a4ab7708c98f.jpgadad.thumb.jpg.01cfd251db0bdb373707427afcab8f67.jpgadsa.thumb.jpg.93f7cf6ec481ef42c2f497647cbf6f32.jpg

  • Like 1
Doublebase Enthusiast

Doublebase

Posted
Posted

There's no catch can for the 4.3? I always figured any catch can would work with 3/8's hose and a couple clamps.

 

My thought on catch cans is this...they don't hurt anything as long as you empty them. And they probably help.

WHITESSTOWPIG Enthusiast

WHITESSTOWPIG

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Couldnt agree more.Also one could theoretically use any can but the universal chinese cans wont have baffling inside to trap nearly as much oil.You would be looking to spend $100+ for a well made one from a known vendor like UPR or Elite.Additionally the ones intended for the 5.3 will come with a bracket intended for fitment on the Silverado so there is no need to fabricate one.The main difference installing on the 4.3 is the pcv ports will be in different locations from that of the 5.3 but its a bolt on deal for the most part

Doublebase Enthusiast

Doublebase

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, WHITESSTOWPIG said:

Couldnt agree more.Also one could theoretically use any can but the universal chinese cans wont have baffling inside to trap nearly as much oil.You would be looking to spend $100+ for a well made one from a known vendor like UPR or Elite.Additionally the ones intended for the 5.3 will come with a bracket intended for fitment on the Silverado so there is no need to fabricate one.The main difference installing on the 4.3 is the pcv ports will be in different locations from that of the 5.3 but its a bolt on deal for the most part

I've actually had some good luck with a cheap Chinese can, plenty of baffling, does a nice job. These cheap brands - at least some of them - have done a nice job copying the better products. But yeah you won't get the bracket, you'll have to buy your own hose and clamps...not as nice as the expensive ones...not as big, no quick disconnects, etc. But they sure catch oil.

 

I wonder if the ports are easier to get to on the 4.3, with the port being in the rear instead of the front?

mookdoc6 Senior Enthusiast

mookdoc6

Posted
Posted

What? No clean side separator for those PULLS out of the grocery store?  LOL 

 

Side note: looks good!

  • Haha 1
WHITESSTOWPIG Enthusiast

WHITESSTOWPIG

Posted
  • Author
Posted
14 hours ago, Doublebase said:

I've actually had some good luck with a cheap Chinese can, plenty of baffling, does a nice job. These cheap brands - at least some of them - have done a nice job copying the better products. But yeah you won't get the bracket, you'll have to buy your own hose and clamps...not as nice as the expensive ones...not as big, no quick disconnects, etc. But they sure catch oil.

 

I wonder if the ports are easier to get to on the 4.3, with the port being in the rear instead of the front?

Definitely easier and both ports are on the same side of the motor.I am thinking the intake manifold itself must have a check valve built into it because the line itself didnt when I cut it open to reuse the factory quick connects.If I had to do it again I would probably use a can from UPR.Its much cheaper and looked just as well built if not better than the Elite when I installed one on my other vehicle.

Doublebase Enthusiast

Doublebase

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, WHITESSTOWPIG said:

Definitely easier and both ports are on the same side of the motor.I am thinking the intake manifold itself must have a check valve built into it because the line itself didnt when I cut it open to reuse the factory quick connects.If I had to do it again I would probably use a can from UPR.Its much cheaper and looked just as well built if not better than the Elite when I installed one on my other vehicle.

I think the piece that the line attaches to at the manifold is an orifice. I believe it unscrews. At least it looks that way on the 5.3

  • 1 year later...
Need More Coffee New Member

Need More Coffee

Posted
Posted

A year old post and I made an account to ask this question. 

 

On the 4.3 I see 2 lines that look like they could be vent lines. There is the one like the first/second photo. It is on the drivers side of the motor. There looks like a second one on the passenger side on the front of the motor. It runs from the valve cover to the intake box thing, not the air filter. Does anything need to be done with that line? 

Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

No. The line on the passenger side is the fresh air inlet from the air box to the rocker cover. 

There is a PCV valve at the back of the drivers side head with a hose that goes to the drivers side center of the inlet manifold. There is no orifice. The can is placed between the PCV valve and the manifold. Couldn't be more straight forward. 

  • Like 1
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted

My turn for a question. Why are catch cans so small? I almost understand it in a baffled can  but the ones without baffles need sufficient volume to lower space velocity enough to allow the separation of liquid from gas. Not sure a pop can sized volume would be enough. 

Need More Coffee New Member

Need More Coffee

Posted
Posted

From the photos I've seen they work decent enough. I would make sure it has some good baffling an even a bronze filter to help more vapor condense. I just got a cheap one from amazon that looks like a mishimoto but twice the size. Looks like 1.5 soda cans stacked. I'm also going to mount it next to the fender so it can have a little room from the engine heat. 

  • 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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      I went to the county a few years back to dispute my property taxes. To do that I hired an appraiser and a lawyer. The County Assessor wished to argue that the homes in my neighborhood the appraiser used were all 'distressed properties" and not representative of the "Market Average".    My response was," Of the 50 homes in our subdivision 43 of them were "distressed properties" under bank foreclosure and as such "Distressed IS the market". Lawyer about choked on his coffee and handed the Assessor the 'receipts'.    I won that case on the evidence provided by the Lawyer and the Appraiser.    We have the same thing going on here. My statements were based on the GOVERNMENTS NATIONAL DATA and yours on local markets in areas of your interest. They are both correct....   Thing is, this divergence was based on NATIONAL and not on LOCAL. I think you even understand that. But like you said, we are both stubborn and hardheaded.    I do not see any advantage to disengagement.  But that said we can step back to compose ourselves. 
    • revmanii
      Looking at ordering a '26 WT because I want a std cab, std bed

      By revmanii · Posted

      Trust me I appreciate the comments and concerns. It's what I was looking for to help me evaluate the situation and what I want to do. I have decided to move forward with the BORA hubcentric slip on 3/8" (.375") with the extended lugs nuts. Fedex says they should be here Monday :). Meanwhile, the dealer got the remote start and Patriot spray in bed liner done over the last couple of days. Also, I installed an inline stop/start eliminator today. Starts back up in what whatever mode you shut it off in, so you don't have to hit the button every time you fire up.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Gas Prices

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      $2.20 E-85 down from $2.59 Around $3.80 for regular and about $5 on average for Premium.  Propane $3.99 a gallon. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...