[pjz1082]

Originally Posted by PolynesianPowerhouse

You can do it there but on the 2013, there was a pcv line on top of the manifold. I'd disconnect it and spray directly into the manifold hose as you have someone Rev and keep the rpms at 2000. Once done with the whole can, Rev it a few times and turn off for an hour to soak in.

Start up and go drive on the highway for a few minutes and your good

Awesome! How often would you do that?

[GTIanZ28]

Originally Posted by PolynesianPowerhouse

You can do it there but on the 2013, there was a pcv line on top of the manifold. I'd disconnect it and spray directly into the manifold hose as you have someone Rev and keep the rpms at 2000. Once done with the whole can, Rev it a few times and turn off for an hour to soak in.

Start up and go drive on the highway for a few minutes and your good

I'd imagine that either of these 2 spots would be good for that spray. I was thinking that the sound tube one (circled on the right) would be easiest.

[PolynesianPowerhouse]

Originally Posted by pjz1082

Awesome! How often would you do that?

the oil I run I change ever 10-13k under normal/spirited driving. so I'd do it every oil change.

on the months when the car saw track time, i'd change the oil around 6-7.5K and do it every other oil change.

If I snoozed on emptying the catch can, and I was driving around with it filled, I would do it right after emptying the can. that wasn't too many times, but there were times I'd forget to empty it at an oil change, then 2-3K into new oil, i'd empty it and run a can of the CRC.

runs about 9-11$.... I usually got mine from the local napa.

Originally Posted by GTIanZ28

I'd imagine that either of these 2 spots would be good for that spray. I was thinking that the sound tube one (circled on the right) would be easiest.

is that the sound tube? I thought the sound tube was the one under the bottom? I just disassembled that whole area last night for a part, and had to take all the hoses off.
the one on the left is a good possibility. I didn't pay much attention to see where they all ran. on the LFX, it was right on top and front of the manifold.

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

Not what I saw on mine. Where would the catch can be installed? I've yet to see or hear of anyone installing one on the v6.

Bought one assuming I'd have to use it months ago but the complete lack of evidence up until now and the absence of anyone actually installing one has lead me to leave mine on the shelf.

Edit, and what is that a picture of? Doesn't look like the lgx from the pics jacfab took of the lgx intake manifold

Ok, so this is a picture of a V8 intake manifold. Not a V6. in case anyone cared.

[The_Driver]

Originally Posted by bballr4567

On the LGX there is just no need for it. It is not the LLX or the LFX. It's a completely brand new motor that was designed to run on 87. Until someone comes out with absolute concrete evidence that the LGX will run better on 93, my car will use 87.

It may be a completely new motor, but that's only because of the increased bore centers in the block which I'm sure is for a future planned displacement increase to up the power in the future. However, the engine is almost a faithful copy of the previous LFX (except for the AFM feature) down to the integrated exhaust manifolds in the heads and 11.5:1 compression ratio.

As for the fuel octane argument, running at least 89 mid-grade will give you much better drivability at least with the fuel we have around here. Remember, the LGX has 11.5:1 compression. I don't know exactly what makes the LGX different in this regard, but with the LFX I can detect a difference between running 87 regular and 89 midgrade or above.

Having the computer switch into the lower octane fuel tables for spark advance timing will reduce drivability and performance. Running a higher octane fuel will enable the computer to switch into the higher octane fuel tables and spark adaptive cells which will increase spark timing providing slightly better performance and drivability. If that's the case with the LGX, then why not run the higher grade fuel if you can?

Just from a pure drivability perspective, I don't see why you wouldn't want to do that with these engines.

[ZKJR88]

I'm an idiot. I made my order thinking it was a naturally aspirated V6. My brother has been dead against direct injection and he's telling me to back out.

****

[bballr4567]

Originally Posted by The_Driver

It may be a completely new motor, but that's only because of the increased bore centers in the block which I'm sure is for a future planned displacement increase to up the power in the future. However, the engine is almost a faithful copy of the previous LFX (except for the AFM feature) down to the integrated exhaust manifolds in the heads and 11.5:1 compression ratio.

As for the fuel octane argument, running at least 89 mid-grade will give you much better drivability at least with the fuel we have around here. Remember, the LGX has 11.5:1 compression. I don't know exactly what makes the LGX different in this regard, but with the LFX I can detect a difference between running 87 regular and 89 midgrade or above.

Having the computer switch into the lower octane fuel tables for spark advance timing will reduce drivability and performance. Running a higher octane fuel will enable the computer to switch into the higher octane fuel tables and spark adaptive cells which will increase spark timing providing slightly better performance and drivability. If that's the case with the LGX, then why not run the higher grade fuel if you can?

Just from a pure drivability perspective, I don't see why you wouldn't want to do that with these engines.

You need to find jac fabs thread on all the different part numbers etc. It is not a copy of the LFX at all. Do they have the same methods? Yes, but not even close to being a copy.

[Boilermaker128]

Dont get too excited about DI coking it's not a massive sell your car problem. My DI LNF has 240,000+ km never an engine problem yet. Some people walnut blast and it's about $100 and 3-5 hours of your time. I am considering walnut blasting my engine but then again I have no lost mpg or driveability so I might not even bother until symptoms show. Maybe my car has lost 10 crank horsepower from the coking, no one knows it happens so gradually the butt Dyno doesn't work.

[keysersoze]

Originally Posted by ZKJR88

I'm an idiot. I made my order thinking it was a naturally aspirated V6. My brother has been dead against direct injection and he's telling me to back out.

****

the v6 is N/A. Also direct injection is better for fuel economy. Why does your brother hate it?

[ZKJR88]

Originally Posted by keysersoze

the v6 is N/A. Also direct injection is better for fuel economy. Why does your brother hate it?

is it? i checked all over and the fuel delivery method is DI. i havent been paying attention.

he works in a shop

[PolynesianPowerhouse]

Originally Posted by ZKJR88

I'm an idiot. I made my order thinking it was a naturally aspirated V6. My brother has been dead against direct injection and he's telling me to back out.

****

its naturally aspirated.... its just direct injection, as in the fuel is directly injected into the combustion chamber. carbureted, or other forms of injection that isn't direct, the gas mixes with the air at the runners on the manifold, mix and then flow into the combustion chamber together. Direct injection is just a more accurate and efficient way to meter fuel in the combustion chamber.

any car that takes in air through the 4 cycles, most gear heads know as "suck, squish, bang, blow" or intake, compression, ignition, exhaust.... will be called naturally aspirated.

a carbureted car is naturally asprirated, electronic fuel injection, sequential fuel injection, gasonline direct injection (GDI is what the LFX and LGX are called), etc... they are all naturally aspirated.

it just means the engine receives air by sucking it in, on its own. turbos and superchargers would be considered FORCED INDUCTION, to where the air is compressed and more or less STUFFED into the engine. but the engine itself is essentially a giant air pump, fueled by combustion.

[b4z]

DI is good. It makes more tq and hp and better mpg. On the 3.6L about 15- 20 hp/tq more. It's noticeable.

[PolynesianPowerhouse]

Here's the bigger problem.... so which company is keen to making a catch can for us?��

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by PolynesianPowerhouse

Here's the bigger problem.... so which company is keen to making a catch can for us?��

Catch cans are not motor specific. I don't think there is a pcv tube on the lgx to splice into. Everything I've seen and read seem to indicate a direct block to manifold connection.... But i could be wrong. I think the lack of any manufacturers stepping up with a plug and play kit or anyone doing a diy is telling though