[TrackClub]

What kind of an LT1 motor is it? If my LT1 can do 427WTQ "dirtly" I will be VERY pleased
But what the heck happened to HP numbers? They don't resemble LT1 ratings at all. Am I missing something obvious? Thx!

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by TrackClub

What kind of an LT1 motor is it? If my LT1 can do 427WTQ "dirtly" I will be VERY pleased
But what the heck happened to HP numbers? They don't resemble LT1 ratings at all. Am I missing something obvious? Thx!

Chassis dyno numbers are relative, the number itself is irrelevant. It's the delta percentage that matters, assuming both sets are done with SAE correction and the same operational circumstances (gear, CLT, IAT, and oil temps). Given almost nobody gives the relevant accompanying data, dyno graphs are pretty pictures at worst, and just a coarse data plot at best.

[TrackClub]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Chassis dyno numbers are relative, the number itself is irrelevant. It's the delta percentage that matters, assuming both sets are done with SAE correction and the same operational circumstances (gear, CLT, IAT, and oil temps). Given almost nobody gives the relevant accompanying data, dyno graphs are pretty pictures at worst, and just a coarse data plot at best.

You are very correct. Yet as a representative dyno of an LT1 motor this graph makes little sense to me, all things considered. I'd also ask what fuel was used for those pulls...

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by TrackClub

You are very correct. Yet as a representative dyno of an LT1 motor this graph makes little sense to me, all things considered. I'd also ask what fuel was used for those pulls...

It's not "representative", that would be a certified SAE published power curve.
How does this one not make sense? Have you seen other LT1 torque curves on this particular dyno? You cannot judge the shape versus other dyno's, that's my whole point. Comparisons can only happen on the exact same dyno using the same correction factor style.

[TrackClub]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

It's not "representative", that would be a certified SAE published power curve.
How does this one not make sense? Have you seen other LT1 torque curves on this particular dyno? You cannot judge the shape versus other dyno's, that's my whole point. Comparisons can only happen on the exact same dyno using the same correction factor style.

Good point: I haven't. Yet Camaro LT1 was dynoed on several different dynos and the numbers were similar +/- 5% or so. What makes no sense to me is that the HP value is so much lower vs the TQ value (which is in line with other published dynos - let's assume: by pure coincidence). But why would the HP number be so off if the TQ isnt?

[Ryephile]

I can't give you a good answer because I don't know the dyno, the car, or the testing procedure....other than it appears to maybe be a 6MT with the pulls in 5th gear for some reason. The dyno might have an increasing measurement attenuation at those really high roller speeds, but that's just a wild guess.

This is why it's so important to do back-to-back dynos on the *same* dyno. That way whatever error you're introducing is the same error for all measurements. It's the delta percentage that matters, not the shape, tilt, and definitely not the absolute number.

If Elite did the "before" measurement on one dyno, and then the "after" on a different, there would be zero compatibility with the data sets.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by Elite Engineering

Here is a before and after dyno at 19k miles on a new LT1. a restoration of 19 RWHP after manual valve cleaning. The problem with relying on the manual valve cleaning is the wear to the softer brass alloy valve guides from the abrasive coking deposits.


We do NOT suggest a solvent based engine running cleaning as scouring to the pistons and cylinder walls results from the loosened deposits being forced between them. These deposits are a hard abrasive make up vs the "soft" carbon of the past. Only a manual cleaning done properly is safe.

Now, I am someone who agrees with using a real catch can, so I am not picking that apart at all. But this is a C7 LT1, which is slightly different then the Camaro LT1. This one doesn't have the factory "catch can" among other things. So I would think this wouldn't be as bad on a Camaro LT1 that wasn't running a real catch can. Just my thoughts...

[TrackClub]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Yea adding a dirty side PCV catch can (like the one from Elite) is a good idea to keep the valves clean, not having one doesn't hurt anything but your long term power level and really long term valve seats condition.

A walnut shell service a few times in the engines lifetime would be the obvious alternative to installing a dirty side PCV catch can, and even with such a can installed, it'll just delay the walnut shell cleaning, not eliminate it.

Rye, I think this post says it best. Specifically your last sentence. So keeping this in mind, validity of the posted dyno aside, why would they post data regarding manual cleaning results? These results don't belong here, as they are NOT representative of the product/service they sell.

Yet, it is easy to jump to an *assumption* that a can will yield the same results and that manual cleaning will never be required (they seem to recommend against it) and that a motor will stay clean for its life.

So the bottom line (I stand to be corrected) seems to be:

1) a can should slow down the "evils" of direct injection but won't eliminate it
2) the actual effectiveness of the can vs none hasn't been demonstrated as the posted dyno doesn't apply (per #1)
3) a loss of warranty is a possibility imo. Unless one has it installed by a dealer and receives an assurance to the contrary in writing. Or unless the vendor arranges for same from GM for their product. Anything less and the proverbial ice gets very thin. IMO.

[zryan]

Excellent content and discussion here fellas.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by TrackClub

Rye, I think this post says it best. Specifically your last sentence. So keeping this in mind, validity of the posted dyno aside, why would they post data regarding manual cleaning results? These results don't belong here, as they are NOT representative of the product/service they sell.

Yet, it is easy to jump to an *assumption* that a can will yield the same results and that manual cleaning will never be required (they seem to recommend against it) and that a motor will stay clean for its life.

So the bottom line (I stand to be corrected) seems to be:

1) a can should slow down the "evils" of direct injection but won't eliminate it
2) the actual effectiveness of the can vs none hasn't been demonstrated as the posted dyno doesn't apply (per #1)
3) a loss of warranty is a possibility imo. Unless one has it installed by a dealer and receives an assurance to the contrary in writing. Or unless the vendor arranges for same from GM for their product. Anything less and the proverbial ice gets very thin. IMO.

[Elite Engineering]

Lots of great questions, and we'll do our best to answer them.


First, the car is a C7 Corvette. The dyno and valve cleaning was done on the same day with SAE correction (we did not do the dyno or the cleaning, the customer performed all). Dyno was a Dynocom AWD eddy current loaded unit and yes, dyno's are only a tool. I have yet to see any 2 dyno's give the same results. The car owner is a Aerospace Engineer and very knowledgeable. He accepted a open invitation to participate in the testing along with owners of several makes and models of new/newer GDI engines. These included a BMW Mini, and Ford Focus ST, and several others. All had to have as close to 20k miles as possible to establish baselines and then manual cleanings the same day and back on the same dyno. NOTHING else was done to the cars but a manual intake valve cleaning. Each owner participated in every step and only guidance and supplies for the cleaning were provided, so they personally participated in the cleaning. Immediately after the base runs were performed, the intake manifold was removed and the crushed walnut shell media blasting was performed. (for details, go to camaro5.com and search "V6 intake valve cleaning" and make sure the threads are the recent ones where each step is documented to see how anyone can do these)


Then, the intake manifolds were reinstalled and back on the dyno.


Before and after pictures were also taken as well as every step of the cleaning.


Why the dip in torque we have no idea. Most likely some KR pulled timing at that RPM range as that is where the engine is "loaded" and most susceptible to KR, put that is an assumption only.


Can a catchcan stop all coking? No. Ours will prevent up to 85% but all GDI engines no longer have the old EGR valve, so this function is emulated by variable valve timing events. The intake valve is opened momentarily to allow some exhaust gasses to back fill into the back side of the intake valves to be re-burnt in the next combustive event, and that will always result in some coking. Also, every engine will ingest a small amount of oil past valve seals as this is what lubricates the valve guides and stems and eventually a small amount of oil will enter via this path.


On oil filtration. All oil filters give rates of filtration, but the bottom line is up to 70% of all internal engine wear occurs from abrasive particulate matter in the 2-10 micron size and little of this is every trapped. An oil filter than would trap down to that size would be far too restrictive to allow proper flow rates, so no, there is no oil filter that can prevent this wear so preventing the accumulation of these particles is the best way to reduce wear. A premium filter such as Amsoil and other premium brands do a far better job than a low priced production filter. Want more proof? After just a 1000 miles, look at the dark color of the new oil, that is the result of the increased ash/soot/carbon particulate matter you will see with all GDI engines. Think about the DI engine. Fuel is no longer introduced at 45-55 PSI, it is 2,000-3,000 PSI and combine this with the 11.5:1 standard compression ratio of these engines and cylinder pressures are far greater than the port injection engines of the past. This results in far more raw fuel and other wear causing compounds entering the crankcase past the piston rings. This is one of the main reasons GM and others have dropped engine warranties nearly in 1/2. The trend in the past as port injection engines lasted longer and longer engine warranties increased to an industry standard of 100k miles, and now 60, and as low as 36k miles are being seen.


The effectiveness of our internal design can be easily tested by anyone as well. Simply install our can after ANY other cans outlet starting with both totally clean and oil free. Drive 1,000-2,000 plus miles and then drain each can (open them to make sure all contents are measured). Then document and clean both cans again, and reverse the order with our E2 or E2-X first, and the other can second. Drive the exact same miles as the first portion of the test, and duplicate the style of driving as well to be as fair as possible and drain and document. We will trap as much or more than any of these other can designs, no matter who's brand they are, and when done in reverse almost nothing gets past ours. And it does so by NOT restricting or reducing the flow rate so the factory CFM is retained.


I may have missed a question or point, and if so, just ask. This is a great thread going here and we have tons of data to share.

We have worked with some of the most respected labs and knowledgeable automotive engineering firms to be able to understand every aspect of today's GDI engines, and as anyone in business knows, it takes a huge investment in time and money to share this information with all. Our goal is education, and we provide help and assistance with all no matter if you buy our solutions or anyone else. That is a commitment we have not seen by anyone else.





Elite Engineering USA

[JBones81]

Elite,

After I read your last post, I decided I'm on board and Im going back to your site to make the order. However, when I choose the E2 Can, I am presented with tons of options that I'm not sure how to navigate...single port or dual? Check Valve? Clean side separator? ETC...

please advise proper configuration for my 1LE that isn't tracked or driven more than 3k/yr

[TrackClub]

Elite,
1) GM hasn't halved its motor warranty, it is still 100,000 miles or 5 yrs.
2) I change my oil at 50% and by NO means is it dirty when it comes out and that's including track duty
3) Note that a Camaro LT1 has been re-engineered (vs Vette LT1) by "20%" (GM estimate) incl oil return system.
4) Have you got an agreement from GM that your catch cans won't cancel out their warranty?
Thanks!

[EV2DEMON]

I think the dyno results only raise more questions. Too many uncontrolled variables to be a meaningful result. If the torque dip is a result of KR pulling timing, was that even related to the valve cleaning?

I have a bad taste in my mouth regarding the marketing of catch cans on pervious generation port injected engines. No doubt they capture oil, but I've yet to see any evidence of any harmful effects other than a bit of oil pooling in the intake. Therefore, what's the point?

I do not deny the long term effects of oil on the valves in a DI engine. However, blow by is not the only factor involved, oil getting past the valve seals will not be stopped with a catch can. My question was and continues to be, is the factory separation system sufficient to prolong the build up of coke on the valves in the Camaro LT1, and how much additional protection does a catch can actually provide?