[94boosted]

Originally Posted by hotlap

At that point I decided to remove the can and change the oil. The oil reeked like gasoline so bad the garage smelt like I spilt gas on the floor.

Do you think the CC was the cause of your oil smelling like gasoline? If the CC is functioning properly I just don't see how that would be possible.

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by Whocares05050

I am convinced this forum is full of idiots...

Me too! Look in the mirror buddy!

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by TOP WHOP

I guess the word of the GM engineers who designed the motor isn't enough, lol.

How about, I want an engineer who agrees with me to support my opinion? Sounds closer to what's actually intended.

Meanwhile, the thread about providing real proof that a CC is needed is doing exactly the opposite. It's proving that in the real world a CC is not necessary for the LT1. People actually post evidence and pics in that thread, yet people see that and than post their garbage opinions here anyways, despite GM engineers and all evidence pointing to NOT needing the CC.

So for all you folks thinking you NEED a catch can, how about posting some EVIDENCE that top end cleaning is required for LT1s? That the oil mist is causing actual problems with LSPI (low speed pre-ignition) or intake valve deposit build up?

Then many of you same folks who think you need CCs refuse to use the new 0W-40 ESP oil which has lower volatility and is made with a completely different base stock vs the euro 0w40, and will further reduce oil mist in the intake? This is just too much...

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by 94boosted

Do you think the CC was the cause of your oil smelling like gasoline? If the CC is functioning properly I just don't see how that would be possible.

IMO, the catch can wasn't functioning properly. It filled with water and prevented proper ventilation.

[94boosted]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

I guess the word of the GM engineers who designed the motor isn't enough, lol.

How about, I want an engineer who agrees with me to support my opinion? Sounds closer to what's actually intended.

Meanwhile, the thread about providing real proof that a CC is needed is doing exactly the opposite. It's proving that in the real world a CC is not necessary for the LT1. People actually post evidence and pics in that thread, yet people see that and than post their garbage opinions here anyways, despite GM engineers and all evidence pointing to NOT needing the CC.

So for all you folks thinking you NEED a catch can, how about posting some EVIDENCE that top end cleaning is required for LT1s? That the oil mist is causing actual problems with LSPI (low speed pre-ignition) or intake valve deposit build up?

Then many of you same folks who think you need CCs refuse to use the new 0W-40 ESP oil which has lower volatility and is made with a completely different base stock vs the euro 0w40, and will further reduce oil mist in the intake? This is just too much...

A manufacturer would never explicitly support use of a catch can as it would require people to actually check & empty their CC's themselves, the average person can't be bothered to check tire pressures or oil level let alone empty a catch can.

Definitive proof as to whether or not it's required will come when more people with higher mileage cars take off their intake manifolds and post pictures of the condition of their valves (people with and without catch cans).

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

I guess the word of the GM engineers who designed the motor isn't enough, lol.

How about, I want an engineer who agrees with me to support my opinion? Sounds closer to what's actually intended.

Meanwhile, the thread about providing real proof that a CC is needed is doing exactly the opposite. It's proving that in the real world a CC is not necessary for the LT1. People actually post evidence and pics in that thread, yet people see that and than post their garbage opinions here anyways, despite GM engineers and all evidence pointing to NOT needing the CC.

So for all you folks thinking you NEED a catch can, how about posting some EVIDENCE that top end cleaning is required for LT1s? That the oil mist is causing actual problems with LSPI (low speed pre-ignition) or intake valve deposit build up?

Then many of you same folks who think you need CCs refuse to use the new 0W-40 ESP oil which has lower volatility and is made with a completely different base stock vs the euro 0w40, and will further reduce oil mist in the intake? This is just too much...

Originally Posted by 94boosted

A manufacturer would never explicitly support use of a catch can as it would require people to actually check & empty their CC's themselves, the average person can't be bothered to check tire pressures or oil level let alone empty a catch can.

Definitive proof as to whether or not it's required will come when more people with higher mileage cars take off their intake manifolds and post pictures of the condition of their valves (people with and without catch cans).

You two need to stop making sense or this thread's gonna get locked.

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by 94boosted

A manufacturer would never explicitly support use of a catch can as it would require people to actually check & empty their CC's themselves, the average person can't be bothered to check tire pressures or oil level let alone empty a catch can.

Definitive proof as to whether or not it's required will come when more people with higher mileage cars take off their intake manifolds and post pictures of the condition of their valves (people with and without catch cans).

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

[Memphis SS]

Originally Posted by Silverado57

Sorry I opened this catch can of worms!

Thanks for your responses - all of them. It seems that it's a mixed bag with some possible drawbacks and no guarantee of benefit for the car.

Yes you did..I would recommend searching the forum and Youtube first before starting threads on stuff that has been beat to death.

At the end of the day I think your going to find that If you are not concerned with the engine warranty or you think you will remember to take it off before Chevy service then it's your call on if you will feel better with it on the car.

If you go with the group that thinks Chevy has got it covered as it is and you want to make sure you never have warranty issues then leave it off.

I personally have been told by three different local dealers not to get caught with it on the car when it is in for service, one of the service writers I've known for 20 years so It's your call

I don't run one on my car and have no concerns about the factory setup.

[Whocares05050]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

Me too! Look in the mirror buddy!

Why? Am I making too much sense?

[DaveC113]

On the subject, what's often misunderstood is the conditions in which carbon buildup on the valves occurs.

The video linked below goes over this, and the temperatures involved. It turns out at higher temps carbon build up does not happen, and that build up may be reduced at higher temps. This lines up with many anecdotal reports from VW techs who work on motors where intake deposit build up has been a problem, and who say that motors used at high rpm/high loads don't have an issue with deposits while grandma who never drives on the highway or over 3000 rpms may have issues.

There's no doubt that a CC will catch some oil, but no evidence the oil is causing any issues with a stock motor. With a non-stock motor greater blowby caused by forced induction, increased boost and aggressive timing may make a CC a very good idea.

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by Whocares05050

Why? Am I making too much sense?

More like completely unwilling to change your beliefs based on available evidence and advice of the experts who designed your motor.

[Whocares05050]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

More like completely unwilling to change your beliefs based on available evidence and advice of the experts who designed your motor.

Advice from experts who designed my motor? That aint you or anyone here on the forum. Not a SINGLE auto manufacture WILL recommend an oil catch can because of A. Required, end user maint. And B. Emmissions laws requiring the re-circulation of the pcv gases through the intake.

I have said before over and over I could care LESS if someone wants to run a catch can or not. It really doesnt matter to me because I only care about MY car, MY investment.

However, what you repeatedly do is use the same talking points by putting people down and shaming them if they dare use a catch can. There is NOTHING wrong with using one. It captures in my camaro 3 OZ of oil every 500 miles. That is a TON of oil by the time you reach 30-60k miles.

Also, again, nobody is saying you WILL have issues if you leave the car stock and not run a CC. HOWEVER, 3 OZ of oil every 500 miles WILL start collecting and coating intake valves, intake manifold, throttle body, etc. Oil also lowers octane #s and over time all that oil will affect performance.

You obviously feel there are tons of issues with catch cans ( with zero proof) Can you provide any forum threads on blown motors and denied warranty claims due to catch cans? Or are you just going to call people stupid and then keep refering back to GM? I think all that weed has taken a toll on some of those brain cells...

[*pay attention here*] I am of the position that catch cans are a great preventative maint. Item for those looking for long term care by preventing 90+% of all oil from coking up the valves. Not using a catch can is also fine as well but will cost money down the road. It is all a matter of personal preference.

The DIFFERENCE is that some of you put others down, claiming to sit on some higher moral authority because it isnt what GM designed. You are not better than anyone else for remaining stock and you dont know any more about it than anyone else.

GM also didnt intend for people to lower their cars, put race headers and an intake on, cam and heads, nitrous, blowers, full exhaust, tuning, and so on and so forth but a f*cking CATCH CAN of ALL THINGS gets your panties in a twist.

Install one, or dont install one, but move on already and STFU about how you think you are some LT1 expert...

[Elite Engineering]

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.

[Memphis SS]

Originally Posted by Elite Engineering

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....