[xgnxs]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

My question is, if the new Camaro has an oil separator already, where exactly is the oil going, and do we need to empty it, like an aftermarket catch can?

From http://www.*********media.com/produc...wertrains.html under "Return of the LT1":

PCV-integrated rocker covers: The patented integrated positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system enhances oil economy and oil life, while reducing oil consumption and contributing to low emissions. The rocker covers also hold the direct-mount ignition coils for the coil-near-plug ignition system. Between the individual coil packs, the domed sections of the covers contain baffles that separate oil and air from the crankcase gases – about three times the oil/air separation capability of previous engines. In the Camaro, the system also includes a unique track PCV separator tank, which provides a significant benefit during track driving, separating liquid oil from the PCV system and returning it to the oil pan.

It doesn't sound like you'll need to empty anything, as the oil should just go back to the oil pan.

[IneedAZ]

So, if they do a Supercharged option or do a ZL1, you think it will be a supercharged LT1?

[xgnxs]

Originally Posted by IneedAZ

So, if they do a Supercharged option or do a ZL1, you think it will be a supercharged LT1?

That's basically what the LT4 is, a supercharged 6.2L. Granted, there's other differences between the two engines other than the supercharger.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by xgnxs

From http://www.*********media.com/produc...wertrains.html under "Return of the LT1":

PCV-integrated rocker covers: The patented integrated positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system enhances oil economy and oil life, while reducing oil consumption and contributing to low emissions. The rocker covers also hold the direct-mount ignition coils for the coil-near-plug ignition system. Between the individual coil packs, the domed sections of the covers contain baffles that separate oil and air from the crankcase gases – about three times the oil/air separation capability of previous engines. In the Camaro, the system also includes a unique track PCV separator tank, which provides a significant benefit during track driving, separating liquid oil from the PCV system and returning it to the oil pan.

It doesn't sound like you'll need to empty anything, as the oil should just go back to the oil pan.

Hopefully they have fixed the problem correctly by now. Sounds like it.
Took damn near 20 years.

[Criticalmass]

Originally Posted by Stex

There is a video of them cleaning a 15 vett valves (coking I think is what they call the issue) with 15,000 mile if I remember the mileage correctly. I am looking for it now. I guess GM means catch can by saying oil separator. IF not I would put one on. GM tends not to get it right, right off the bat. Would not slow me down getting the LT1 engine though.

The guys/gals running the new trucks with the DI 5.3 and 6.2 are throwing the catch cans on just as added measure. At 150-300 bucks not a bad mod and see what you catch.

Edit: some on Vett sites are saying problems even with a catch can some not. GM maybe working on this but I will go into a DI with catch can. May have to use cleaning services in future.

The issue with adding a catch can is that you could be introducing unmetered air into the system causing you to run lean at WOT. It's barely noticeable and requires a data-logger to really find out if unmetered air is getting into the system and causing you to run lean. Most people just throw the can on and think they are fine and have no idea their engine's are slowly being starved of fuel. If GM is adding an oil separator that returns oil to the crankcase to the LT1, I would stick with that and be happy. Sometimes mods like Catch Cans fix one issue and causes worse issues to arise down the road.

The ultimate fix is port AND DI injection. Port fuel injection, just enough to keep the valves clean, and DI for everything else. Until that happens, a separator is the best they can do.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Criticalmass

The issue with adding a catch can is that you could be introducing unmetered air into the system causing you to run lean at WOT. It's barely noticeable and requires a data-logger to really find out if unmetered air is getting into the system and causing you to run lean. Most people just throw the can on and think they are fine and have no idea their engine's are slowly being starved of fuel. If GM is adding an oil separator that returns oil to the crankcase to the LT1, I would stick with that and be happy. Sometimes mods like Catch Cans fix one issue and causes worse issues to arise down the road.

The ultimate fix is port AND DI injection. Port fuel injection, just enough to keep the valves clean, and DI for everything else. Until that happens, a separator is the best they can do.

How does a catch can allow unmetered air into the system if the catch can is closed? It wouldn't add anymore air than the PCV does normally unless the catch can was open to the atmosphere.

[wakespeak]

Originally Posted by xgnxs

From http://www.*********media.com/produc...wertrains.html under "Return of the LT1":

PCV-integrated rocker covers: The patented integrated positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system enhances oil economy and oil life, while reducing oil consumption and contributing to low emissions. The rocker covers also hold the direct-mount ignition coils for the coil-near-plug ignition system. Between the individual coil packs, the domed sections of the covers contain baffles that separate oil and air from the crankcase gases – about three times the oil/air separation capability of previous engines. In the Camaro, the system also includes a unique track PCV separator tank, which provides a significant benefit during track driving, separating liquid oil from the PCV system and returning it to the oil pan.

It doesn't sound like you'll need to empty anything, as the oil should just go back to the oil pan.

That sounds like an improvement over the C7 engine, which doesn't have a clean side separator in the the threads I looked at, or the current 1LE oil separator, which drains back into the passenger side head.

We may still be installing a dirty side catch can to supplement the factory system as with the LS3.

[MrChrisLS3]

Originally Posted by wakespeak

That sounds like an improvement over the C7 engine, which doesn't have a clean side separator in the the threads I looked at, or the current 1LE oil separator, which drains back into the passenger side head.

We may still be installing a dirty side catch can to supplement the factory system as with the LS3.

In the LT1 engine, for lack of a better description, the valve covers themselves act as catch cans, seperating liquid oil from the air.

[Stex]

As one that has been thru GMs oil consumption test and GM people telling me that 1 qt lost per 2,000 miles is normal, any GM engine I drive in the future will have a catch can. It may not solve all the issues with DI but it dang sure will not hurt the valve coking or possible piston ring clogging.

It is simple, put a catch can on and drive 3-5000 miles and see what you drain out. You will drain out oil and water mixture. Or do not put one on but inspect the throttle body area after 5000 and see if signs of oil etc...just be aware of the possibility that GM does not have it down pat.

Still a good engine and better than the way complicated overhead cam engines the others use.

[Thor142]

Originally Posted by Stex

As one that has been thru GMs oil consumption test and GM people telling me that 1 qt lost per 2,000 miles is normal, any GM engine I drive in the future will have a catch can. It may not solve all the issues with DI but it dang sure will not hurt the valve coking or possible piston ring clogging.

It is simple, put a catch can on and drive 3-5000 miles and see what you drain out. You will drain out oil and water mixture. Or do not put one on but inspect the throttle body area after 5000 and see if signs of oil etc...just be aware of the possibility that GM does not have it down pat.

Still a good engine and better than the way complicated overhead cam engines the others use.

Sooner or later pushrod engines are going to go the way of the wagon wheel. Their "way complicated overhead cam" counterparts are just better. Its not a slam against the LT1 I'm 99% sure I'm buying an SS. Granted pushrod engines are a tad bit easier to work on but it's not that big a deal. I've worked on both.

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by obzidian

Old ls1's used to suck down a quart of oil every oil change.

they also had horrible piston slap issues.

But that was primarily due to the manufacturing and assembly process of just grabbing any 8 pistons and just using rings to accommodate differences between cyl bore and piston size.

and ask any OEM, 1qt per 3000 miles is still considered "normal"

they keep that little bit to cover their ass.

Originally Posted by Thor142

Sooner or later pushrod engines are going to go the way of the wagon wheel. Their "way complicated overhead cam" counterparts are just better. Its not a slam against the LT1 I'm 99% sure I'm buying an SS. Granted pushrod engines are a tad bit easier to work on but it's not that big a deal. I've worked on both.

define better please.

[Thor142]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

define better please.

Better breathing, higher redline, better torque and horsepower curve, more efficient power production..... Do I need to keep going? Anyone can google this stuff. I agree that detroit has pushed the push rod design farther than anyone thought possible but it's not an efficient design. If we're gonna go down the nostalgia road then sure pushrod is better but that the only check it has in the win column.

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by Thor142

Better breathing, higher redline, better torque and horsepower curve, more efficient power production..... Do I need to keep going? Anyone can google this stuff. I agree that detroit has pushed the push rod design farther than anyone thought possible but it's not an efficient design. If we're gonna go down the nostalgia road then sure pushrod is better but that the only check it has in the win column.

anyone can google information to fit their opinions... lol

links to your data defining your better breaking/redline/torque/hp/power/etc.?

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Thor142

Better breathing, higher redline, better torque and horsepower curve, more efficient power production..... Do I need to keep going? Anyone can google this stuff. I agree that detroit has pushed the push rod design farther than anyone thought possible but it's not an efficient design. If we're gonna go down the nostalgia road then sure pushrod is better but that the only check it has in the win column.

DOHC offers more power per liter, if you live in a country which taxes displacement, and more rev friendly. It doesn't make better torque, it isn't any more fuel efficient and it is no where near as packaging friendly as a OHV engine.

The OHV engine is very space efficient. As for fuel efficiency, I don't see the Mustang getting substantially better fuel economy.

Saying nostalgia is the only win for pushrods is just plain ignorant.