[JB'sZL1]

Wow. Tough crowd. If you don't want it and think it's voodoo, don't install one.

The coking on the valve pic is clear as day. Assuming their chemical test is accurate, who would want that circulating in their engine? Finally, a challenge was put out to bring in your LT4 for a pre and post dyno with a valve cleaning.

I think that's pretty good evidence. Others that have installed them have already posted how much they drain from theirs every couple of weeks. Just sayin'. I'm having one installed on my LSA by Speed Inc. when I add 250-300 hp. They're behind preventative and safety measures on their mods, such as breather, Melling pump, cc, etc. Know I am not an advocate one way or the other, but when modding, I think a couple of safety measures is money well spent...unless it's pure voodoo, and I don't think a well engineered cc on a modded engine is that. Can you really argue (aside from just not wanting one on your engine) with the other members that have drained the acid and "stuff" from their cc, or with EE's chemical analysis? Just sayin'.

[Chutzpah]

Originally Posted by JB'sZL1

Wow. Tough crowd. If you don't want it and think it's voodoo, don't install one.

The coking on the valve pic is clear as day. Assuming their chemical test is accurate, who would want that circulating in their engine? Finally, a challenge was put out to bring in your LT4 for a pre and post dyno with a valve cleaning.

I think that's pretty good evidence. Others that have installed them have already posted how much they drain from theirs every couple of weeks. Just sayin'. I'm having one installed on my LSA by Speed Inc. when I add 250-300 hp. They're behind preventative and safety measures on their mods, such as breather, Melling pump, cc, etc. Know I am not an advocate one way or the other, but when modding, I think a couple of safety measures is money well spent...unless it's pure voodoo, and I don't think a well engineered cc on a modded engine is that. Can you really argue (aside from just not wanting one on your engine) with the other members that have drained the acid and "stuff" from their cc, or with EE's chemical analysis? Just sayin'.

To each his or her own... if it makes you feel good, why not? I’m installing a couple of smoked side markers this weekend... makes me feel good. I just don’t think there’s enough real validation on the LT4 CC to justify the risk verse reward. Especially among the majority that will dump our cars in less than 5 years for the next best thing. And no, the valve pictures (plural, especially the first one) are not clear as day (unless my vision is playing tricks on me). As far as tough crowd, seriously? The guy basically called out GM for lying previously and said the lie still exists..then showing us a non Zl1 engine as proof. That’s not being tough, that’s just using common sense and desiring back up.

Oh and one more thing about the LT4 challenge... I’d love to see” independent “ results, neutral, for, or against CC’s.

[Alain]

I’ll tell you what. I took the supercharger lid off yesterday while installing my CC and with only 1700 miles on the car, there was a pretty good amount of oil/fluid in there. I don’t want any of that shit near the cooling bricks in the supercharger, not to mention the rest of the motor.

[angryBits]

For those of you that installed a catch can, did you notice any performance improvements in regards to timing being pulled due to the oil in the air?

If so, was it immediate?

Thanks

[unavailablezl1]

The dealership I go to offered to install one when I mentioned some oil consumption. So I don't think it should be a big concern.

[kwav8r]

Originally Posted by angryBits

For those of you that installed a catch can, did you notice any performance improvements in regards to timing being pulled due to the oil in the air?

If so, was it immediate?

Thanks

There’s is absolutely no measurable performance improvement in running a catch can. All it is going to do is limit coking of the intake side of the motor and prevent power loss over time.

This debate is beyond tedious and I don’t understand the animosity from folks that don’t think they need one or don’t want to install one. If you do great, if you don’t equally great, but quit griping like a bunch of bitches about it. (Absolutely not directed at you Bits).

[angryBits]

Originally Posted by kwav8r

There’s is absolutely no measurable performance improvement in running a catch can. All it is going to do is limit coking of the intake side of the motor and prevent power loss over time.

This debate is beyond tedious and I don’t understand the animosity from folks that don’t think they need one or don’t want to install one. If you do great, if you don’t equally great, but quit griping like a bunch of bitches about it. (Absolutely not directed at you Bits).

Agreed on the debate. We don't all need to agree

Not sure I agree on the performance part. I'm not talking about big gains, I'm talking about fixing what's broken. I think for those that experience excessive blow-by and are getting sufficient oil recirculated into the intake via the PCV, the oil can reduce the octane rating and cause the computer to pull timing and run less than ideal. I agree fixing this would only result in a few HP at best (probably not even noticeable) but not having the car computer constantly discover varying amounts of oil and pull timing can lead to better throttle response.

My car is too new to comment on whether or not it will benefit, for me this is a preventive measure. I'm asking because I believe my 2015 ZL1 might have benefit from this.

Not trying to start a debate, just checking my logic / facts with others that have more experience.

Thanks

[Elite Engineering]

kwav8r,

Bits is correct. And you are as well if you are referring to most Catch Can designs on the market. But our E2 and E2-X systems at 95% plus effective reduces knock retard enough to provide a small gain in power (mostly the road track owners see quicker lap times) as we eliminate most of the cause of the KR. When the design of a Catch Can still lets most of the oil pass through and therefore gets ingested, there's not a lot as far as gains, but when you remove almost all as our patented design does, there is a small power gain just as we guarantee 8-10% fuel economy gains over no can. Plus we keep the engine oil clean longer by removing most of the damage and wear causing combustion byproducts from the crankcase with our full time evacuation before it can mix with the engine oil and accumulate in the crankcase.


Here is an example:





This GDI vehicle was run for 5943 miles and then leaving the same oil in, a sample was drawn from the dipstick tube to avoid the fuel flash-off/evaporation that occurs when a sample is collected when draining the oil. Our E2-X design system was then installed on that same oil fill and run another 3,468 miles and another sample was drawn and analyzed. Note how our system took oil already on the verge of being condemned due to fuel dilution and lowered it as well as increased viscosity at both temperature ranges. NO other design does this! Fuel economy, power, engine longevity, and oil lasts far longer. Intake valve coking is prevented up to 85% (we cannot prevent all due to back filling of the intake ports with EGR emulation of burnt gasses still contributes some).


So, your both correct. The other way we improve power fractionally is by pulling full time suction on the crankcase VS allowing pressure to build and vent, the pistons are not loosing power parasitically by fighting pressure on the down stroke as the suction slightly aids it. Not a ton, but the fuel economy and increased oil change intervals is why we see fleets of light trucks purchasing these for cost of operation savings.


As always, Tech@EliteEngineeringUSA.com before you choose the model/system for your build. Sales@EliteEngineeingUSA for pricing questions.


Thanks!

[TrackClub]

Originally Posted by ramairroughneck

I’m not against catch cans in any way. I’ve got one on my 18 SS and another one on my Sierra. Nothing bad will happen to your car not running one. This is way overhyped. This engine is totally fine without one. It sounds like your all about keeping your warranty anyway. Heck just be like the other 99.999% of cars on the road that don’t have a can and have been ingesting oil their whole life with really no downfall. All those pictures that you notice with all the gunk on the valves are not LTs. You can prevent some oil from going back in but really your stock vehicle has absolutely nothing to worry about. I’m far from being able to use a warranty and just don’t care. Run one if you can. No biggie if you don’t

Voice of reason: yay!

There are millions upon millions of GDI trucks, suvs and cars of various makes on the roads with a vast majority of owners not knowing how to open a hood, never mind worrying about anything getting coked. Amazing that dealers arent absolutely inundated with hundreds of GDI vehicles per day, because of coking issues by now. After all, GDI is hardly anything new.

Also, i have read the Magnuson-Moss act, because of a much earlier thread insisting the law was on our side and there were services "standing by" eager to defend us vigorously and successfully. Or something to this effect assuming my memory serves me right. But the Act does not allow anyone to start "improving" on original engineering designs, while expecting warranties to prevail.

Some manufacturers (not GM) have recently (and successfully) voided warranties for blown engines over "lack of proper maintenance", never mind extra parts being overtly bolted into a motor. Food for thought.

Use approved oil, change it frequently, use top gas, let the temps go up to operating before shutting her down, etc. Common sense goes a long way in maintaining good motor health. Especially a GDI one. Oh, and dont forget to enjoy your ride while you're at it!

[angryBits]

Originally Posted by TrackClub

There are millions upon millions of GDI trucks, suvs and cars of various makes on the roads with a vast majority of owners not knowing how to open a hood, never mind worrying about anything getting coked. Amazing that dealers arent absolutely inundated with hundreds of GDI vehicles per day, because of coking issues by now. After all, GDI is hardly anything new.

I agree in regards to the coking, for most its probably a preventive measure that we can live without and then just blast some walnuts at our engine around 45k.
But I'm under the impression that it can also help in some extreme cases of excessive blow-by causing pre-detonation.

I think the important thing to remember is that everyone's car is different and the benefits of a particular "mod" are more visible to some than others.

Originally Posted by TrackClub

Also, i have read the Magnuson-Moss act, because of a much earlier thread insisting the law was on our side and there were services "standing by" eager to defend us vigorously and successfully. Or something to this effect assuming my memory serves me right. But the Act does not allow anyone to start "improving" on original engineering designs, while expecting warranties to prevail.

Exactly right.
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act helps on paper but in reality can often be ignored depending on the quality of the lawyer. The Act is useful to throw around prior to legal action as a scare tactic, but once legal action begins, GM Lawyers know how to work the system and can easily find a way to blame any mod for any reasonable warranty claim. "Reasonable" because you won't see an a brake-failure claim denied due to aftermarket headers. However, a Catch Can may easily be related to any engine failure.

[Mark R]

I have the E2-X catch can, and I drain a lot of goo from it every 1000 miles or so. Nasty stuff.

[JB'sZL1]

Originally Posted by TrackClub

Voice of reason: yay!

There are millions upon millions of GDI trucks, suvs and cars of various makes on the roads with a vast majority of owners not knowing how to open a hood, never mind worrying about anything getting coked. Amazing that dealers arent absolutely inundated with hundreds of GDI vehicles per day, because of coking issues by now. After all, GDI is hardly anything new.

Also, i have read the Magnuson-Moss act, because of a much earlier thread insisting the law was on our side and there were services "standing by" eager to defend us vigorously and successfully. Or something to this effect assuming my memory serves me right. But the Act does not allow anyone to start "improving" on original engineering designs, while expecting warranties to prevail.

Some manufacturers (not GM) have recently (and successfully) voided warranties for blown engines over "lack of proper maintenance", never mind extra parts being overtly bolted into a motor. Food for thought.

Use approved oil, change it frequently, use top gas, let the temps go up to operating before shutting her down, etc. Common sense goes a long way in maintaining good motor health. Especially a GDI one. Oh, and dont forget to enjoy your ride while you're at it!

Hah. You make it sound as though all posts in disagreement with ramair's are unreasonable.

Are the members posts of their collections of acid and contaminants unfounded or untruthful? Is EE's chemical analysis unfounded or untruthful?

To be clear, a properly installed catch can will not harm an engine. If tracking a car, or pushing it hard often, or modding it (which, aside from a few garage queens, I think we all do), I do not see the wisdom of such resistance given the analysis of EE's collections and member's reportings (as well as on other sites).

Many members will run different pads and fluid when tracking, some run different fuels or blowers. Unless you're changing your oil ridiculously often (every 1-2k miles), I don't see the harm in this preventative measure. I mean if your oil is so clean, why not let it run 10-20k miles? It not only breaks down, acids, moisture and other contaminants start to build up in it. That is why we change the oil religiously. To me, a $300-$400 safety measure is peanuts on a $60-80k vehicle. I believe the chemical analysis, and I want to minimize that "stuff" in my engine.

[Lafourche1]

Originally Posted by JB'sZL1

Hah. You make it sound as though all posts in disagreement with ramair's are unreasonable.

Are the members posts of their collections of acid and contaminants unfounded or untruthful? Is EE's chemical analysis unfounded or untruthful?

To be clear, a properly installed catch can will not harm an engine. If tracking a car, or pushing it hard often, or modding it (which, aside from a few garage queens, I think we all do), I do not see the wisdom of such resistance given the analysis of EE's collections and member's reportings (as well as on other sites).

Many members will run different pads and fluid when tracking, some run different fuels or blowers. Unless you're changing your oil ridiculously often (every 1-2k miles), I don't see the harm in this preventative measure. I mean if your oil is so clean, why not let it run 10-20k miles? It not only breaks down, acids, moisture and other contaminants start to build up in it. That is why we change the oil religiously. To me, a $300-$400 safety measure is peanuts on a $60-80k vehicle. I believe the chemical analysis, and I want to minimize that "stuff" in my engine.

Except for the DOT 4 brake fluid, my car is stock and will stay that way till I return it off of lease. Even if I owned the car, I would still be careful of making a modification that might lead to a warranty claim denial. I track my car (I buy track day insurance) and I am more than religious about maintenance. That's just me. Mileage may very in other opinions.

[JB'sZL1]

Originally Posted by Lafourche1

Except for the DOT 4 brake fluid, my car is stock and will stay that way till I return it off of lease. Even if I owned the car, I would still be careful of making a modification that might lead to a warranty claim denial. I track my car (I buy track day insurance) and I am more than religious about maintenance. That's just me. Mileage may very in other opinions.

And you are certainly entitled to that. I have never stated otherwise.

Although this thread is titled cc v warranty, I was specifically writing about the merits of a cc, and the truthfulness and accuracy of EE's chemical analysis and member's postings of their experiences w/ a cc.