[qcman]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

I will absolutely apologize for the 90's Bryan and where do I even begin apologizing for Beiber

We don't have to apologize for Beiber now that our fine American friends have adopted him LOL. And we are fine with that up here. On topic I still say the CC changes the Emissions enough to provide any easy out legally or otherwise for the manufacturers.

And it certainly has happened on here before with a 5th Gen 1LE owner.

[verdicaysen]

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

I'm kidding, Reckless is a great album. Lets just not talk about the 90's...

Ok good. We're cool we're cool.

[Nsxmatt]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

I've said this before, but your stance of using any and ALL excuses to void warranties is perfectly clear given your profession.

Nobody said anything about voiding a warranty, it's about denying a claim based off of modifications to the car. If you install a catch can and have constant evap and purge leak codes, they will not cover the claim. If you have a catch can and your wheel speed sensor goes out, they will cover the claim.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

Nobody said anything about voiding a warranty, it's about denying a claim based off of modifications to the car. If you install a catch can and have constant evap and purge leak codes, they will not cover the claim. If you have a catch can and your wheel speed sensor goes out, they will cover the claim.

On this we agree

[cellsafemode]

i know it was just used as an example, and probably not meant to be accurate, but improper installation of a catch can should only lead to lean codes being generated as the system is a low pressure system (lower pressure than atmo - since it's not closed by any valves and open to the intake bridge, so it being hotter and at times the venturi effect being active to some degree while air is moving in the intake bridge means air will be sucked into any leaks ...not escape out of them.

So you should only throw lean bank codes with a leaky install and I can't imagine any other code getting thrown unless you're doing more than installing your catch can in-line. The lean code being thrown because unmetered air is entering the system.

evap and such systems are pressurized and so would be completely independent from where you're hooking up a catch can ....at least on 6th gen cars.

[Memphis SS]

Originally Posted by Glen e

just to add a diff perspective, this was written over at the corvette forum in 2014 when the c7 was introduced. This guy is like Becky here (and there) Becky knows him:

He writes:

I was the one that contacted someone from the Stingray Consultant team from GM...Here comes is what he wrote back on this matter.

"The Stingray was evaluated with over one million development miles on 200 captured test fleet cars. There are tens of thousands of direct injection vehicles on the road from General Motors alone. During the evaluation hundreds of engines were literally torn down in to part piles and evaluated. There are hundreds of thousands of LSx family of motors (where part of this catch can hype started) on the roads and the many of these motors are running well past 250,000 miles without a catch can.

The cars have a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty and that includes mechanical failure of the engine. Trust me when I tell you that there are not reams of data (not even pages of data) on cars coming up lame because of oil at the MAF. It just isn't the problem that the "internet" makes it out to be. When you ask a GM Powertrain engineer about a catch can the reply is that the only thing you get is added weight.

In looking at the extra effort and added cost that went in to the Stingray, do you really believe for one second that if a $20.00 part attached to the engine would improve reliability, limit warranty claims and replacement costs, that GM wouldn't have put it on if it was necessary as part of their evaluation?

Every single GM engineer that I have spoken with told me in one form or another that a catch can is predominately a "gimmick" device created by tuners looking to make a few extra bucks on their engine modifications.

As a by-product of the PCV system, excess oil vapor is recycled to prevent it from leaching out in to the environment. It will condense back in to liquid if the temperature and environmental conditions are right. A catch can is an oil separator device. It allows the heavier oil in liquid to condense in the bottom of the can and only pass the air (gases) back. This is basically the same thing that is happening at the front of the MAF where most of the oil can be found.

The theory is that this oil in the intake system will collect on the valves and in the cylinders and cause excess carbon deposits. The catch can will reduce (not eliminate) oil pooling in the MAF.

Where the plan breaks down is that there aren't thousands of cars detonating because of the oil. As I told you on the phone, This isn't new. The engines are designed to deal with a quantity of oil mist presented via the intake.

You asked what I should tell the customer, my answer is I'm not sure because I don't know what his question is. If the question is is this normal? The answer is yes. If the question is should I put a catch can on? The answer is what ever makes you feel better. If the question is do I need a catch can? The answer is a resounding no. If the reply is that they saw it on the internet, apologize politely and tell them virtually every thread about it has started with a vendor selling a product or a consumer that was fooled by the hype and trying to make themselves feel better about their purchase by getting others to agree with them.

If he has concerns about his condition he should take the car to his dealer for evaluation.

Here is my standard response to the dozens of emails I get each year with a link to a thread like you posted (and often, that very same thread).

Simply stated, absolutely not on the catch can. It simply isn’t warranted for any street driven car. We can talk in more detail about it tomorrow and Dan will appreciate it as I’ve all ready had this conversation with him as well. Since the advent of the PCV system, cars have released some oil in places where it wouldn’t normally have gone in a fully sealed system. It ends up in vapor which condenses back in to liquid form in the intake path. As a result of that, the system is designed to ingest and subsequently digest some extra oil. Higher revving produces more oil and repeated higher revving (drag racer, track duty car, etc.) would be in the realm of uses that I might consider adding the can. Daily driving, occasional back road romp or stop light to stop light burst, not so much.

With all of that said, they won’t hurt anything. For those that don’t want to take my word for it, can feel comfortable adding it but it won’t make an appreciable difference in the life of the motor or the efficiency of the system.
If you dig deep enough in to forum information about catch cans, all roads generally lead back to a performance tuner, aftermarket part supplier or fabricator who has a vested interest in selling catch cans." Stingray Consultant


Mike Furman ~
"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle"

Good Read.. Thanks Glen for the post
With that info and the fact it voids the warranty. Why? My neighbor's son just put one on his Camaro, I called both the dealers I use here in the Memphis area and both said don't get caught with it on the car at the dealer. I passed on the info to him but he still thinks it worth the risk.

[DC5]

Thank you for sharing that post, Glen!

In summary, oil catch cans are tantamount to snake oil.

[Nsxmatt]

Originally Posted by DC5

Thank you for sharing that post, Glen!

In summary, oil catch cans are tantamount to snake oil.

Not at all. In modified cars especially forced induction cars where there is more blow by and it's more dangerous to have lower octane due to oil mixing with your air/fuel mix then they are very much needed. The point here is in stock or basic bolt on car, it's not needed and the claims of buildup is false. The vendor on here is using older BMW's which were notorious for DI problems. Cars made now don't have that problem.

Not snake oil, but on stock cars not needed also.

[00 Trans Ram]

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.

You don't take them to court. You file a complaint with your state Dept of Insurance. Those complaints are free to file. And, they are taken VERY seriously by companies, because they are required by law to respond.

[00 Trans Ram]

Originally Posted by Nsxmatt

That is not a simple filtration system for engine or transmission oil, it's modifying the emission control system on the evap side which is NOT allowed. Argue all you want, there is no way you're going to bat against a manufacturer.

Surely you must be joking?!!

As I said right above, file a complaint with the Dept of Insurance, and you have a VERY big hitter in your corner. Let me tell you how I took on Allstate Insurance Corp, and won.

In 2007, I got into a wreck with my 2006 Saturn Ion. It was the other guy's fault. He had only $10k coverage, and my costs to repair exceeded $10k, so my insurance began paying for anything above $10k.

Louisiana has a law that if the cost to repair a car is more than 75% of the NADA value of the car at the time of the accident, the car must be declared a total loss. My car was worth $17,250 at the time of the accident. I worked closely with the body shop, continuing to point out damaged items (scrape on the steering wheel from my ring, scuff on the door from my knee, etc.). I exercised my right to insist on new/reman parts.

Once the running tally of costs approached $12,500, I talked with Allstate and told them that they would be better off to stop spending money on the car, because I was going to find another $437, which would send it over that 75%. They argued that only parts are calculated in the 75% calculation.

I reviewed the law, and it didn't say one way or the other. So, I consulted the Dept of Ins. Sure enough, according to a DOI regulation, labor is supposed to be included, not just parts. I called Allstate back, and they still refused to comply.

So, I filed an official complaint. The DOI investigated, and found that Allstate had been following this policy, in violation of DOI regulations. The DOI mandated that Allstate calculate my costs correctly, which resulted in a totaled car.

Furthermore, DOI found a pattern of non-compliance, and fined Allstate more than $1 million.

(Epilogue - I stayed with Allstate as my insurance. To this day, whenever I call for a claim, the first rep that I speak with always says, "Hmmm, I see a note here. Looks like I will need to transfer you to a supervisor who can handle your claim." Evidently, they don't allow regular reps to talk to me, because I have a history of making them do what they were supposed to be doing. Which is fine by me.)

[00 Trans Ram]

Originally Posted by Memphis SS

Good Read.. Thanks Glen for the post
With that info and the fact it voids the warranty. Why? My neighbor's son just put one on his Camaro, I called both the dealers I use here in the Memphis area and both said don't get caught with it on the car at the dealer. I passed on the info to him but he still thinks it worth the risk.

I have a problem with that post. Not with Glen, who I like. But with the information written by Furman.

The cars have a 100,000 mile powertrain warranty

No, they don't. They have a 60k warranty just like ours.

do you really believe for one second that if a $20.00 part attached to the engine would improve reliability, limit warranty claims and replacement costs, that GM wouldn't have put it on if it was necessary as part of their evaluation?

Yes, I do. There is no way that any kind of buildup is going to cause a driveability problem at 30k miles. It will take years to develop. And, by then, the car will be out of warranty and no longer the company's problem. But, as others have attested in this thread, it WILL cause a power loss during that time. Of course, no one will ever notice this loss, because it's probably a loss of something like 0.00434 hp/mile. But, that adds up.

As for cost . . . GM sold roughly 32,000 Corvettes last year, and 68,000 Camaros. That's almost exactly 100,000 cars (100,722, to be exact). A catch can isn't a $20 part. The retail cost of materials is around $125. Let's assume a 25% markup for retail, which makes COGS $100.

So, it would cost $10,000,000 ($10 million) for GM to include these systems with the car. When faced with this, GM would do a profit/loss analysis to determine if potential warranty claims and other costs would exceed $10 million. If potential losses are less, then you don't install. You take the warranty claims and eat them, knowing that you are saving money in the long run.

If the question is is this (oil in the intake system collecting on the valves and in the cylinders and cause excess carbon deposits) normal? The answer is yes. If the question is should I put a catch can on? The answer is what ever makes you feel better. If the question is do I need a catch can? The answer is a resounding no.

I agree with his last. Is it needed? Nope. Your car will likely run for 250k miles (as stated previously in that post) without it. Heck, I have a 1984 Chevy C20 with 340k miles, still on the original engine. But, the question isn't "Will my engine grenade itself and explode without a catch can" - the question is "Will a catch can improve/preserve performance at a factory-like level?"

And, Mr. Furman luckily answers that for us, although I'm not sure that he meant to.

The catch can will reduce (not eliminate) oil pooling in the MAF.

So, it reduces the amount of oil going into the combustion chambers. And, we will all agree that oil in a combustion chamber is not good (reduces power, among other things).

In conclusion, it is no longer a question of "Do catch cans work" - they work by reducing the amount of oil going into the engine. It's no only a matter of "How well do catch cans work?"

[Mountain]

This is the last post I am going to make in this thread. There is a lot of very loose conversation going on and mixed points.

Consideration #1: What side of the PCV system are we talking about?
This matters as there is a clean and dirty side. Each sees different type of pressures and will carry different amounts of oil vapor. The dirty side carries more oil vapor and routes between the PCV valve and post throttle body (it will not affect MAF do this the location). There is, typically, significantly less oil vapor at the clean side, which routes between the engine/valve cover and pre-throttle body.

Consideration #2: The Corvette LT1 does not have the Oil Separator ("Catch-Can") System the Camaro LT1 has
Here is the Corvette side of things: https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...-engine-3.html

The C7 Corvette has two different type of oiling systems: wet-sump and dry-sump. The wet-sump cars (base) do not have any kind of oil vapor separation system. The dry-sump cars (Z06, ZR1, GS, Z51) do within the dry-sump components (this is normal for dry-sump setups).

This is from C7 Corvette Chief Engineer Tadge Juechtner:

To answer the second question first: No, the 2017 Corvette LT1 will not have the Camaro V8 PCV air/oil separator (what the questioner calls a "catch can") added to its oil management system. For those not familiar with the abbreviation PCV, it stands for "positive crankcase ventilation"

Even though the Corvette and Camaro share the LT1, they are very different in execution detail. The LT1 in the Corvette sits lower and very close to the ground to enable an industry-leading low profile hood and good sight lines despite a very low seated position. Having the engine close to the ground is great for keeping the vehicle's center of gravity down, but means the oil pan is relatively shallow. Having little depth in the oil pan means it is very challenging to scavenge oil in high G loading conditions. For this reason we add dry sump lubrication to our high performance models. The Camaro's higher engine position allows for a deeper oil pan and a reliable configuration for picking up oil for delivery to all parts of the engine. Thus the Camaro is able to avoid the cost and mass of the dry sump tank and resulting complexity of the lube system.

The Corvette's dry sump tank looks relatively simple on the outside but the internals are really quite complex. The top third of the tank contains a PCV air/oil separation system. On the Corvette, PCV lines route from the valve covers to the air/oil separator on top of our dry sump tank. Oil from PCV air is separated and returned to the lube system through the oil tank. The PCV separation system on Camaro V8 performs a similar function except oil is returned to the engine oil pan from the PCV separator's drain back tube. The Camaro V8 PCV air/oil separator is more complex than a "catch-can" since it not only separates oil from PCV air it provides a drain back path for this oil to be reused by the lube system. "Catch-can" systems that do not have a drain back path for separated oil run the risk of poor oil pressure performance over time as oil is removed from the lube system.

The bottom line is that both cars use optimized engineering solutions for their lube systems based on vehicle architectural considerations.

Consideration #3: Aftermarket Catch-Cans vs. OEM Oil Separation Systems
This gets thrown around a lot: If a catch-can works, then why isn't it on the car from the factory? Why didn't the engineers implement one?

When you talk about an aftermarket catch-can system, that type of system will never be one easily acceptable to implement on a production car. Why? It requires close maintenance by the customer. Close maintenance... Add in that we are in an era where the OEM's are striving to reduce maintenance and customer's fiddling with things. Then you have to balance that maintenance factor against what the benefits are and can they get away with not having it. At the end of the day, OEM's can get away with it and they don't want to deal with the liability of requiring customers to pay attention to this maintenance item.

The second portion of this is in regards to an OEM oil separation system... An OEM will implement a system if it can be closed-loop. In fact, one is implemented on the Camaro LT1; however, it's on the clean side of the PCV system, where there is less oil vapor. So, then, we must ask, why would GM even implement such a system? If it's on the side with less oil vapor AND they can get away with simply not having one because the base Corvette does, why? This is actually a very good question that I can only suggest an answer: 1. an oil separator on the LT1 does something (as said in argument against catch-cans - GM wouldn't have invested in the implementation if it did nothing) and 2. it must have something to do with the different pressures seen between the clean and dirty side (the clean side will see more pressure and the dirty side will see more vacuum).

Point: Catch-Cans Don't Do Anything
Oh, yes they do. This entire thread is about this and there are plenty of discussions across the internet. Think about the fact that there is oil vapor at either end of the PCV system: dirty and clean. Think about the fact that the dirty side accumulates more oil vapor than the clean side. Then think about the fact that GM decided to place an [complex] oil separator system on the clean side of the Camaro LT1 (years after the LT1 was introduced in the Corvette)...

It does something.

I have personal experience that very strongly says they do something. The other point I'll throw in is this: Look at any professional race car, wet-sump or dry-sump, as they all have some sort of catch-can/oil separation system. All of them.

Do you have to run one? No, absolutely not.

Point: Catch Cans Void Warranty
Honestly, this is going to come down to the dealership. Yes, the PCV system is an "emission" device. So, modifying it is non-warrantable. However, unless you have a failure that can be related to the system, it shouldn't be a worry. In reality, as long as you are using a system that doesn't cause a restriction (it will cause your catch-can to fill quicker/pull more oil vapor rather than just separate what needs to), is sealed well, put together with the right parts (i.e. the right kind of hose) and you check it regularly (can size defendant), it should be a non-issue.

[Nsxmatt]

Originally Posted by 00 Trans Ram

Surely you must be joking?!!

As I said right above, file a complaint with the Dept of Insurance, and you have a VERY big hitter in your corner. Let me tell you how I took on Allstate Insurance Corp, and won.

In 2007, I got into a wreck with my 2006 Saturn Ion. It was the other guy's fault. He had only $10k coverage, and my costs to repair exceeded $10k, so my insurance began paying for anything above $10k.

Louisiana has a law that if the cost to repair a car is more than 75% of the NADA value of the car at the time of the accident, the car must be declared a total loss. My car was worth $17,250 at the time of the accident. I worked closely with the body shop, continuing to point out damaged items (scrape on the steering wheel from my ring, scuff on the door from my knee, etc.). I exercised my right to insist on new/reman parts.

Once the running tally of costs approached $12,500, I talked with Allstate and told them that they would be better off to stop spending money on the car, because I was going to find another $437, which would send it over that 75%. They argued that only parts are calculated in the 75% calculation.

I reviewed the law, and it didn't say one way or the other. So, I consulted the Dept of Ins. Sure enough, according to a DOI regulation, labor is supposed to be included, not just parts. I called Allstate back, and they still refused to comply.

So, I filed an official complaint. The DOI investigated, and found that Allstate had been following this policy, in violation of DOI regulations. The DOI mandated that Allstate calculate my costs correctly, which resulted in a totaled car.

Furthermore, DOI found a pattern of non-compliance, and fined Allstate more than $1 million.

(Epilogue - I stayed with Allstate as my insurance. To this day, whenever I call for a claim, the first rep that I speak with always says, "Hmmm, I see a note here. Looks like I will need to transfer you to a supervisor who can handle your claim." Evidently, they don't allow regular reps to talk to me, because I have a history of making them do what they were supposed to be doing. Which is fine by me.)

Cool story bro. We are talking about warranty not insurance.

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by 00 Trans Ram

But, as others have attested in this thread, it WILL cause a power loss during that time. Of course, no one will ever notice this loss, because it's probably a loss of something like 0.00434 hp/mile. But, that adds up.

This is the issue I disagree with and we have evidence this is not likely. In fact, the motor will likely GAIN power despite the GDI issues. Also check out the video I posted which goes over temperatures where oil deposits are likely to form and the fact that higher temps seen at higher rpms may diminish the buildup. So while high rpm operation will cause more oil to get pushed thru the PCV system, the temps of the parts in question may raise above the point where these deposits occur. So. it may very well be that periodic operation of the motor at high loads/high rpms may in fact reduce deposits.

Also, while it's true the oil mist will reduce octane the stock motor is tuned for this, so unless you have a modded car with a custom tune it may not matter at all.

So, if there is no issue with power loss, no issue with knock, no issue with needing periodic cleaning and there IS an issue with a possible denial of warranty claim, I just don't see the advantage of using a can.


Again... nobody is saying they are BAD, but the cost to benefit ratio seems poor for a stock motor under warranty.