[torqueaddict]

The burden of proof lies with the catch can users or proponents, not the thousands of other drivers out there with DI engines running just fine, or the engineers who thought they weren't necessary.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Whocares05050

What proof is 1 sample size? Do you know any other variables? Highway miles? Racing miles? I hope you are not a lab technician lol

What evidence do you have that a CC does harm vs does good? Added oil vapors in the intake system on DI engines not only lower octane levels but coat parts that will never be washed off with fuel. For this one picture I can show you others totally packed with carbon. It has so many variable like driving habits, types of oils, etc. If you don't want one then great, of you do then great. I am not sure why so many guys need to justify "not" having one.

My opinion is based on this LT1 experience (below) and that I daily drove a LS1 for 11-1/2 years without one. No issues.

Catch cans have the potential to prevent your crank case ventilation from functioning properly.

New price... I’ll take $40 plus shipping

Originally Posted by hotlap

Senario 4.1

I have a Mishimoto can that I’ll sell for $50 plus shipping.

I took it off my 2016 SS at 7,300 miles because it was condensing water and filling in one weeks time during freezing temperatures. The oil reeked of fuel so badly that I changed it and took the can off. The closed garage smelt like gasoline while draining the oil. The crank case wasn’t venting properly (in my opinion) and (I guess) direct injection magnifies the situation.

I now have a 18 SS with 840 miles and wouldn’t consider installing the can I already own.

[Whocares05050]

Originally Posted by hotlap

My opinion is based on this LT1 experience (below) and that I daily drove a LS1 for 11-1/2 years without one. No issues.

Catch cans have the potential to prevent your crank case ventilation from functioning properly.

Catch cans are more beneficial to GDI than port...



Did you have your oil tested? Was there fuel present?


Reading through this entire thread it's like catch cans are like politics haha hard to find someone in the middle either all the way for or against them. I guess in about 3-5 years we will all have a better idea.

[6spdhyperblue]

Originally Posted by Whocares05050

Catch cans are more beneficial to GDI than port...



Did you have your oil tested? Was there fuel present?


Reading through this entire thread it's like catch cans are like politics haha hard to find someone in the middle either all the way for or against them. I guess in about 3-5 years we will all have a better idea.

The pictures, where are the pictures lol. We need more samples, you’re right. Please post them

[Whocares05050]

Originally Posted by torqueaddict

The burden of proof lies with the catch can users or proponents, not the thousands of other drivers out there with DI engines running just fine, or the engineers who thought they weren't necessary.

Nobody said the car wouldnt run just fine. My previous car ran just fine. pured like a kitten. after a dyno day at 38k miles I had the intake valves blasted and re-dynoed same day and picked up almost 40WHP. Idled better and drove better but before I cleaned them you were not convincing me there was anything wrong with the car. to each their own...

[fastball]

Forget all the banter and evidence and just bring it back down to simple common sense..... if a product was, by all accepted engineering standards, going to reduce warranty claims and improve the life of the engine, it would be included at the factory. For a $20 part believe me the engineers would use it. EVERY car company on the planet would use it on their direct inject engines.

It’s the same principle with cold air intakes. If it really made more power they’d use it at the factory from the manufacturer.

Catch can and CAI attributes are right there with the Lochness Monster and Roswell, New Mexico.

[torqueaddict]

Originally Posted by Whocares05050

Nobody said the car wouldnt run just fine. My previous car ran just fine. pured like a kitten. after a dyno day at 38k miles I had the intake valves blasted and re-dynoed same day and picked up almost 40WHP. Idled better and drove better but before I cleaned them you were not convincing me there was anything wrong with the car. to each their own...

May I ask what make / model car this was?

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by torqueaddict

The burden of proof lies with the catch can users or proponents, not the thousands of other drivers out there with DI engines running just fine, or the engineers who thought they weren't necessary.

Incorrect:

Also, there is often warranty issues related to the installation of aftermarket products and/or services on a vehicle that is still under a new car warranty. Often people install custom, non-factory aftermarket products or use certain services for vehicle maintenance. The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act addresses such issues, stating that if a customer installs an aftermarket product (it could be a fluid, filter, hard part, software...virtually anything that was not installed on or in the vehicle from the factory when it was new), and if the vehicle fails as a result of the installation or use of the aftermarket product/service, the carmaker cannot arbitrarily deny a warranty claim and/or void the new car warranty because of the installation or use of the aftermarket product. In fact, the automaker must prove beyond a doubt that the failure was indeed caused by the installation or use of the aftermarket product. More recently, the Federal Trade Commission provided an advisory on this same consumer issue and regulatory theme.

https://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/28/...-car-warranty/

[drperry]

Is there crank case pressure sensors on this engine? If not, why not vent to atmosphere? Without the vacuum from the air intake, I doubt there would be any oil consumption issues. Unless these engines have excessive blow by from the factory.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[fastball]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Incorrect:

Also, there is often warranty issues related to the installation of aftermarket products and/or services on a vehicle that is still under a new car warranty. Often people install custom, non-factory aftermarket products or use certain services for vehicle maintenance. The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act addresses such issues, stating that if a customer installs an aftermarket product (it could be a fluid, filter, hard part, software...virtually anything that was not installed on or in the vehicle from the factory when it was new), and if the vehicle fails as a result of the installation or use of the aftermarket product/service, the carmaker cannot arbitrarily deny a warranty claim and/or void the new car warranty because of the installation or use of the aftermarket product. In fact, the automaker must prove beyond a doubt that the failure was indeed caused by the installation or use of the aftermarket product. More recently, the Federal Trade Commission provided an advisory on this same consumer issue and regulatory theme.

https://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/28/...-car-warranty/

I've been burned using the MMA as an explanation, it's not all it's cracked up to be as I've discovered. A manufacturer can basically do whatever they want, they can void your factory warranty if they see you put an Autozone serpentine belt on instead of a genuine GM belt, knowing that if you take them to court over MMA it will cost you more in court costs and attorney fees than it would to pay to fix the problem.

[Nsxmatt]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Incorrect:

Also, there is often warranty issues related to the installation of aftermarket products and/or services on a vehicle that is still under a new car warranty. Often people install custom, non-factory aftermarket products or use certain services for vehicle maintenance. The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act addresses such issues, stating that if a customer installs an aftermarket product (it could be a fluid, filter, hard part, software...virtually anything that was not installed on or in the vehicle from the factory when it was new), and if the vehicle fails as a result of the installation or use of the aftermarket product/service, the carmaker cannot arbitrarily deny a warranty claim and/or void the new car warranty because of the installation or use of the aftermarket product. In fact, the automaker must prove beyond a doubt that the failure was indeed caused by the installation or use of the aftermarket product. More recently, the Federal Trade Commission provided an advisory on this same consumer issue and regulatory theme.

https://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/28/...-car-warranty/

You're talking about aftermarket replacement parts. Not those that alter the factory operation of the emission system which is federally mandated. Modifying the evap system is like messing with the converters. They don't follow the same rules as putting on a different air filter or axle back and they don't need to prove anything to deny a claim.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by drperry

Is there crank case pressure sensors on this engine? If not, why not vent to atmosphere? Without the vacuum from the air intake, I doubt there would be any oil consumption issues. Unless these engines have excessive blow by from the factory.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Welcome to the 1960s.

See the chrome sleeve on the front with a cap? Fill and case vent in one

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by fastball

I've been burned using the MMA as an explanation, it's not all it's cracked up to be as I've discovered. A manufacturer can basically do whatever they want, they can void your factory warranty if they see you put an Autozone serpentine belt on instead of a genuine GM belt, knowing that if you take them to court over MMA it will cost you more in court costs and attorney fees than it would to pay to fix the problem.

There are options before you get to court, other service departments, dealing with Manufacturer national rep, etc. Social media is powerful tool...and none of these take away from the fact that in court, the burden of proof lies with the warranty provider.

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

You're talking about aftermarket replacement parts. Not those that alter the factory operation of the emission system which is federally mandated. Modifying the evap system is like messing with the converters. They don't follow the same rules as putting on a different air filter or axle back and they don't need to prove anything to deny a claim.

The law states aftermarket parts, this includes additional filtration systems - whether they are inline oil filter systems or in this discussion, catch cans. The burden of proof lies with the warranty provider - period, as quoted and referenced.

[qcman]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

There are options before you get to court, other service departments, dealing with Manufacturer national rep, etc. Social media is powerful tool...and none of these take away from the fact that in court, the burden of proof lies with the warranty provider.



The law states aftermarket parts, this includes additional filtration systems - whether they are inline oil filter systems or in this discussion, catch cans. The burden of proof lies with the warranty provider - period, as quoted and referenced.

While I don't disagree with what you're saying in principal I just don't believe it fits with what actually happens. To me a CC changes the way things work enough to give them a decent out. And it has certainly happened before.

I would like to see these EE guys pushing these cans put their money where their mouth is and offer some sort of guarantee with the product that they would step up if a warranty were denied due to it being used. Maybe they have I don't know?