CAMARO6 - School Me on Catch Cans

CAMARO6 (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/index.php)

- Mechanical Maintenance: Break-in / Oil & Fluids / Servicing (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=237)

- - School Me on Catch Cans (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=545273)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elite Engineering (Post 10399455)

Hope this helps as quite often we read people posting rumors as fact, or outright lies.

It is against Federal Law to void a warranty for the use of one of our catchcan systems. And if anyone ever does have an issue the FTC will aid you in filing the complaint. They will also send the dealership/company a written warning of the Magnuson/Moss act, and if need be prosecute the offending company(s).

Some cans on the market can be grounds. Those are any that in anyway delete, defeat, reduce the factory systems functions, especially venting to the atmosphere as is illegal in all 50 states.

ALL Elite cans are closed emissions compliant systems that in no way have any negative effect on an engine, only benefits.

We have different systems designed for different applications so make sure to verify with our Tech Support team which is right before ordering. They can be reached at: Tech@EliteEngineeringUSA.com

As it is impossible for an Elite system to cause and damage or failures (if you work in the industry and have basic knowledge of engines and the PCV system this is easy to understand) that could affect your warranty.

It is quite common for dealers and even company reps to give false information concerning your warranty as most will never question it, but read this release below form the FTC:

FTC staff sends warranty warnings
By: Lesley Fair | Apr 10, 2018 11:03AM
According to the Mag-Moss Warranty Act:
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer’s using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name.
In other words, companies can’t void a consumer’s warranty or deny warranty coverage solely because the consumer uses a part made by someone else or gets someone not authorized by the company to perform service on the product.
There are only two exceptions: 1) if the company provides the article or service to consumers for free; or 2) if the company gets a waiver from the FTC. Under 15 U.S.C. § 2302(c), the FTC may grant a waiver only if the company proves that “the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and the waiver is in the public interest.” Companies may, however, disclaim warranty coverage for defects or damage caused by the use of unauthorized parts or service.
FTC staff recently took a closer look at companies’ warranties and promotional materials and saw language that raised concerns that some businesses were telling consumers that their warranty would be void if they used unauthorized parts or service. The companies used different language, but here are examples of questionable provisions.
· The use of [the company’s parts] is required to keep your . . . manufacturer’s warranties and any extended warranties intact.
· This warranty shall not apply if this product . . . is used with products not sold or licensed by [company name].
· This warranty does not apply if this product . . . had had the warranty seal on the [product] altered, defaced, or removed.
FTC staff suggested that the companies review the Mag-Moss Warranty Act and, if necessary, revise their practices accordingly. The letters also put the companies on notice that we’ll be taking another look at their written warranties and promotional materials after 30 days.
What can other business glean from the warning letters?
Untie the NOT. Take a fresh look at your own warranties. Unless you meet one of Mag-Moss’ narrow exceptions, do not condition warranty coverage on consumers’ use of parts or service from you or someone you authorize.
Read your warranty through consumers’ eyes. Consider the literal wording of your warranties, of course. But like any other advertising representation, companies can communicate claims to consumers expressly and by implication. Subject to those two Mag-Moss exceptions, if the language you choose conveys to reasonable consumers that their warranty coverage requires them to use an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name, revise your practices to avoid a warranty whoops.
Section 5’s prohibition on deception applies to misleading warranty claims. A violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. But separate and apart from Mag-Moss, a claim that creates a false impression that a warranty would be void due to the use of unauthorized parts or service may be a stand-alone deceptive practice under the FTC Act. When evaluating what they say and do with regard to warranties, savvy companies approach the task by posing the same questions they ask themselves when looking at their ad claims: 1) What will consumers understand us to mean? and 2) Are we telling the truth?
The law’s reach can be global. If you represent foreign companies, counsel them about compliance with the Mag-Moss Warranty Act and the FTC Act. Those laws apply when business practices of non-U.S. companies constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices that either involve material conduct in the United States or are likely to cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the U.S.

Says the guys that wants to sell their product...hummm.
At the end of the day all your saying is a person denied a claim would have ways to fight it but, that doesn't always mean they would win.

IF you really want to sell to the guys who don't want to have their car sitting on a lot while they fight with GM or risk paying legal fees.. Put your money were your mouth is and get GM to approve your product as a add-on like some of the other manufactures have done with other products.

If not, all I'm hearing from you is words, words, words... Buy my product you can fight GM... words, words, words.... The Service Mangers that you've worked with for years don't know their jobs...word, words, words....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Memphis SS (Post 10399512)

Says the guys that wants to sell his product...hummm.
At the end of the day all your saying is a person denied a claim would have ways to fight it but, that doesn't always mean they would win.

IF you really want to sell to the guys who don't want to have their car sitting on a lot while they fight with GM or risk paying legal fees.. Put your money were your mouth is and get GM to approve your product as a add-on like some of the other manufactures have done with other products.

If not all I'm hearing from you is words words, words... Buy my product you can fight GM... words words words.... the Service mangers that you worked with for years don't know their jobs...word words words....

:word: ...or guarantee that the OE warranty will not be affected or they will step in to pay the bill and fight the dispute.

It would also be great for the Can manufactures to guarantee the valves will remain clean.

Thanks for the comments. While I completely agree, it just not an easy task.

We have worked with many of the engineers at GM Milford Proving Grounds (MPG) in Milford, MI for about 20 years, some are very close friends. Many of these engineers acknowledge the benefits, and actually have our Catch Cans installed on their own vehicles. But getting GM to approve any type of modification would take an act of congress.

I was at the proving grounds in September and spoke to a few engineers, and their response, "heck, we have a hard enough time getting the car owners to change their oil on a regular basis"

I think that last detail is the problem. If a CC is ignored in winter, you can bet the condensation will indeed freeze; and if full, will block the flow of crankcase fumes.
It wouldn't be long before a little crap on the intake stems of valves would be the least of worries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveC113 (Post 10399282)

I agree with those statements.

Here's a link to the thread with more pics and info. So far all evidence points to LSPI and intake valve deposits being non-issues so far.

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showt...gh+mileage+lt1

Thank you for sharing that thread, I've looked through all 19 pages of that thread and I think the thread does just the opposite (regarding deposits not LSPI). The only two posts with actual evidence (pictures):

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showp...&postcount=193

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showp...&postcount=232

Both clearly show what the intake valves look like with no CC, if we could get some pictures of motors with 50, 75 or even 100K miles I'm willing to bet we'd see a lot more carbon deposits.

Unfortunately 95% of that thread contains mostly anecdotal evidence (I don't have a catch can and I don't feel a difference in power after x miles) and banter from both sides.

A properly functioning catch can on the dirty side (PCV -> IM) of an LT1 will reduce the amount of oily vapor going past the intake valves, I don't think that statement can be argued. Exactly how much and whether or not it will lead to warranty issues is another issue.

Everyone just have to remember that GM engineers are GODS and they designed a PERFECT engine. Any modification done to it, no matter how minor, it will damage the engine. They also don't have bean counters in the accounting to make them cut cost and pennies on little things so the engineers have free range and can design and produce a perfect engines.

What is GM ROI (Return On Investment) on putting an oil separator on that side? $0. Car will be out of warranty by the time any problems (if any) would pop up. Out of their hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94boosted (Post 10399588)

I never said there would be no deposits, I said there's no evidence deposits accumulate to the point they cause a loss of power and require cleaning... the evidence so far supports that conclusion. If you drive at high load/high rpm and get the intake valves over the temperatures mentioned in the video I posted it may also mitigate the formation of deposits. So, not only do we need more pics of intake valves on LT1s, but we need to know how the car was driven as well.

I'm sure plenty of GM engineers know all the answers to this issue but can't say anything. If GM figured out how to make a GDI motor without deposit issues and without adding port injection that would be a competitive advantage. I think it's likely they did accomplish this on the LT1, they knew about these issues for years before the LT1 ever came out. I just can't see the LT1s requiring expensive cleanings like earlier GDI motors but who knows...

I'm not anti-catchcan, I'm anti-people spending money on something they don't need AND possibly losing the warranty on their motor just to make spending that cash they didn't need to spend all the sweeter. ;) It's questionable if the MM warranty act covers CCs, probably NOT, and who wants to find out? So much money and PITA...

As I said, if you're running a lot of boost/custom tune/tracking a lot by all means use a CC, I would.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveC113 (Post 10399796)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, the "evidence" in the thread you linked thus far shows quite a bit of deposits on lower mileage LT1's, it'll be some time before there is a larger sample pool, especially of higher mileage motors.

I personally feel that for the cost of a CC (~$150) it's money well spent as you're without a doubt reducing the amount of carbon deposits on the intake valves. Are you reducing the deposits by 10, 50 or 90% is not known and subject to many different factors, but you are reducing them.

As for the warranty issue, I've personally ran a CC on many of my own cars over the years and have never had any warranty/dealer problems nor have I ever heard of anyone having warranty troubles because of a CC. That's not to say it can't happen though. In the event of a serious warranty issue one could also spend the <10 minutes to remove their CC ;) but that's unscrupulous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 94boosted (Post 10400086)

How do you qualify "quite a bit of deposits?"

And how do you know they are having any effect at all? Why do you think they will continue to build up over time? That's FAR too many assumptions!

Your assumption that GM doesn't have the resources or knowledge to build a motor that won't suffer the same exact problems as motors many years ago is also quite a stretch. IDK why you'd buy the car if you felt that way.

As I said, people spending money they don't need to, risking screwing up the install or not emptying the can, and risking losing their warranty over a conspiracy theory is ridiculous. IMO you have far more to lose than to gain by using one on a stock motor. And all GM engineers seem to agree with me, so I'll just stop here.

As for LSPI, if you use one of the major brands of full synthetic, unlike just a year ago where only Amsoil had the new additive that now M1 and most big name brand full synthetics that renders the mixture of oil mist and fuel less explosive so the incidence of broken pistons has greatly been reduced, but is still an issue.

We have shared the results in pictures in the past to show examples, but here is more:

Here shows the most common failure we see, the land broken but piston as a whole is still mainly intact. Symptoms are excessive oil consumption and added blow-by:

https://i1083.photobucket.com/albums...pskl2xykip.jpg

And here is a more severe example where the piston has broken off completely resulting in severe damage:

https://i1083.photobucket.com/albums...ps6u3zcxy9.jpg

Now, lets address intake valve coking. And anyone can do this themselves. Simply on the same day, and same dyno, if you have 20k or more miles do a baseline dyno and then remove your intake manifold and perform a manual intake valve cleaning. Then do an after dyno and see right there the proof.

Here is a C7 LT1 before and after intake valve cleaning:

https://i1083.photobucket.com/albums...psudzvlz5x.jpg

As you can see studying the chart, the gains increase at higher RPM's, but coking's first symptom to be noticed is a stumble or hesitation off idle as these deposits disrupt the incoming airflow. But don't take our word for it, do it yourself and see.

Then we address the claim that we "fabricated" the FTC report to sell more cans? In the past decades, with over 20,000 of our cans in use, only 1 instance of a warranty being voided. And it was a failed oil pump (impossible to have any affect on the oil pump, and GM LS engines are well known for oil pump issues. When the owner had the oil pump replaced, they found it was in fact the stuck relief valve that is so common and that was disproved. That is the ONLY case. Now, some mentioned a "guarantee"? First of all, there is not a single parts supplier that offers such a guarantee. No header company, brake company, CAI company, zero. So, that would not be possible, and as the FTC site explains, it is a simple process to file a complaint. But again, as our systems retain a closed emissions compliant system that has zero negative effects, in fact it is impossible. And as our E2 and E2-X systems (unlike most every other can) traps far more at 90-95% effective, the mixture does not freeze solid. It is a mix of water, raw fuel, acids, oil, and abrasive particulate matter. Also keep in mind a small 2-3oz capacity can that is only 30% or so effective will trap mainly water and oil and over fill where our smallest E2 and E2-X is 16 oz's making this highly unlikely, and with many customers in Canada using these in -20-30 below temps, not a single instance has ever been seen with ours.

Now, on warranties again, a can that opens and vents to the atmosphere definitely could be grounds as un-metered air can enter causing a lean condition, and many do defeat, reduce, or otherwise alter the factory PCV system to be less effective where ours in every way improves on the engine life.

Lot's more to share technically if anyone wishes, and anyone believing they don't need one, we respect your opinion and while we provide facts and data, we ask why you are dead set on convincing others to not install one? Do you do this with a CAI or headers or even other tires? No, so please respect those that do choose to benefit from these.

Questions? Just ask us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elite Engineering (Post 10400150)

Questions? Just ask us.

I am afraid that you are just talking to the wall with "some" here. No matter how much.evidence and proof you provide, their response with always be "GM engineers are smarter than you and they said it doesnt need one and this LT1 is lightyears better than other DI engines"... 🤯🤣🤣

And all their brothers and sisters are working for FORD because they claim the same. :pound::pound:
It is so funny to follow those discussions. :pop2: If they want (every manufacturer)they could build a product wich never falls apart. But why should they. :gossip:
Think of our blender, washing machine, dryer, coffee machine, TV.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveC113 (Post 10400097)

They're present and very much visible on low mileage motors, that's how I'd qualify "quite a bit of deposits", it's not a quantitative term. As for their effects on the engine, power output, fuel mileage etc. I'm not claiming to know the exact impact.

Why I think they will continue to build up over time? Logic. If the deposits have built up when the engine has X miles they will continue building up when the engine is at Y miles, unless you remove the cause (oily vapor). The rate at which these deposits build up I don't claim to know, perhaps it's linear perhaps not.

Not once did I say that GM is incapable of building such a motor however it's easy to see why a manufacturer wouldn't install a catch can or catch can like device from the factory, it would require periodic maintenance by the customer. People can't be bothered to read the owners manual, check tire pressures or oil levels let alone drain a CC. Not to mention by the time these deposits are bad enough to actually cause a measurable power or fuel mileage loss chances are the Powertrain Warranty is over.

I'm certain that GDI Engine Technology as well as Oil's themselves have made improvements from the early days of GDI engines, which were awful (I personally had a BMW with an N54 and did my own walnut blast of the valves and intake runners when the car had ~45K miles and was appalled by how many deposits were presents). Again to reiterate, I'm NOT saying that the LT1 is as bad as the N54.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elite Engineering (Post 10400150)

Lot's more to share technically if anyone wishes, and anyone believing they don't need one, we respect your opinion and while we provide facts and data, we ask why you are dead set on convincing others to not install one? Do you do this with a CAI or headers or even other tires? No, so please respect those that do choose to benefit from these.

Questions? Just ask us.

With all due respect you are a little out of line here. This is the Camaro6 forum, last time I checked it is for Camaro owners to discuss and debate products, as well as express their opinion. As a supporting vendor I would think you would provide product specs and information and not try to dictate discussions.

And yes I've seen several other products come under fire or recommend in topics over the years.