Catch Can... Science or Snake Oil? - ModernCamaro.com - 5th Generation Camaro Enthusiasts
V6 Engine Discussion 3.6L LLT V6 | Exhaust | Ignition | Induction | Intakes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 112 Old 04-16-2013, 10:24 AM Thread Starter
Livin' the dream!
 
INTIMIDAT3R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hiding in your closet...
Posts: 573
 
Garage
Catch Can... Science or Snake Oil?

Looking at possibly getting a catch can for Trigger Happy.

Are they science or snake oil?

Which one is the best?

"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith."... 2 Timothy 4:7
INTIMIDAT3R is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 112 Old 04-16-2013, 11:16 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 258
 
From what I understand if you're staying NA with the DI V6, you don't need one. I spun a bearing 9 days after installing my RX catchcan when I was NA with full bolt ons. When I was was FI with an RX SC kit my IM was full of oil so you I guess you can say I'm not sold...not on the brand I was using anyway.
SIXJAK is offline  
post #3 of 112 Old 04-16-2013, 02:34 PM
Junior Member
 
BigVic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SE Florida
Posts: 33
 
I don't believe it's snake oil.
IMO, on my V6, it works pretty well. I catch about an ounce to an ounce and a half of oil every +/- 1000 miles.
Not alot, but that's oil that is not going to the combustion chamber. I have an Rx brand, and I drive my V6 manual pretty hard on occassion. I have a CAI, Trifecta tune and a ported TB as far as mods.
Each user/application will be different as far as amount of oil captured. Driving style, engine mods and I'm sure other factors weigh in on what's captured.


Last edited by BigVic; 04-16-2013 at 02:36 PM.
BigVic is offline  
 
post #4 of 112 Old 04-16-2013, 04:04 PM Thread Starter
Livin' the dream!
 
INTIMIDAT3R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hiding in your closet...
Posts: 573
 
Garage
Thanks guys!!!

I think I'll be getting an RX catch can.

"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith."... 2 Timothy 4:7
INTIMIDAT3R is offline  
post #5 of 112 Old 04-16-2013, 05:29 PM
Member
 
S.Bretz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lutz, FL
Posts: 384
 
WIth no fuel flowing over the intake valves to help clean the sludge/carbon build up, any amount of oil you can stop going threw the intake manifold is good. Plus the detergants in the modern oils promote detontation (that's why race oils don't use detergants).
S.Bretz is offline  
post #6 of 112 Old 04-16-2013, 07:43 PM
Junior Member
 
Calikenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 73
 
I had the same questions but decided to give it a shot and went with elite cause of the easier oil removal. It's been about 500 mikes so I'll check at the 1000 mile mark and see what it catches.

2012 1LT/RS AGM convertible M6

Calikenn is offline  
post #7 of 112 Old 04-16-2013, 09:57 PM
Veteran Member
 
CyCam1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,285
 
Our engines DO NOT need catch cans. They are made much better than the German and Japanese DI engines. You are wasting your money if you buy a catch can. Here is an article from Edmund's about DI engines from GM< Ford and Chrysler. It is a great article on this subject. Please read it and see how good GM's engines are compared to Audi's. You won't buy a catch can.

All Engines Not Designed Equally
Many automakers’ gasoline DI engines do not appear to exhibit any carbon build-up issues at all, however. Digging into online threads about Cadillac’s 3.6-liter DI V6 in its popular CTS lineup does reveal some owner concerns about carbon build-up, but it’s difficult to find even a single report that any build-up has actually occurred – a record that is notable considering that Cadillac has sold more than 200,000 CTS models with DI V6s (Audi sold fewer than 2,000 RS 4s in the US during its two-year sales run).

Haider, GM’s V6 assistant chief engineer, explained how GM has designed its DI engines to combat carbon buildup: “We maintain great engine function and performance in our all our DI engines through an optimization strategy with our valve events,” he said. “Our intake-cam timing, injector targeting and timing of the injection events are optimized to avoid direct fuel contact on the intake valves. This strategy keeps smoke and soot formation to an absolute minimum, which in turn prevents excessive deposit formation.”

At the Detroit Auto Show in January, Ford was confident enough about its popular 3.5 liter EcoBoost direct-injection V6 to have technicians tear down an example engine that had accumulated the equivalent of 160,000 miles through an intentionally abusive regimen of log dragging, high-speed towing and desert racing. When they opened it up before a live audience, they found some light carbon deposits on the valves and pistons, but not enough to affect performance. In fact, the engine showed a loss of just one horsepower afterwards – roughly what Boyadjiev’s RS 4 engine lost every 500 miles.

Stephen Russ, technical leader for combustion for Ford’s 2-liter Duratec DI engine, said that similar to GM, engineers have determined the proper injection-timing calibration to help eliminate the carbon deposits. But Russ also said the technology of injection components – particularly the high-pressure solenoid injectors – has quickly matured, meaning excess valve deposits in most DI engines should become a thing of the past as these improved components are incorporated into production.

Tony Chick, principal engineer at European Performance Labs in Stratford, Connecticut, has made a career of repairing and rebuilding high-performance engines from Audi, Porsche AG and BMW, among others and his operation has garnered a reputation among car enthusiasts as a go-to place for cleaning DI engines that have become choked with carbon. Chick thinks the problem for most affected engines can be traced to the breathing system – specifically, the design of its crankcase ventilation and exhaust-gas recirculation components.

All modern gasoline engines return some crankcase and exhaust gases back through the intake manifold in order to help control emissions, but, according to Chick, some exhaust-gas recirculation designs are “dirtier" than others. Some, he said, are less-effective at preventing the passage of tiny bits of oil, carbon and other particulates that eventually get baked onto the intake ports and valves.



Chick reached his conclusion after inspecting dozens of different DI engines at his shop and finding some, like the V8 in Boyadjiev’s Audi RS 4, regularly choked with carbon while others, like the DI version of Porsche’s horizontally opposed 6-cylinder, remained much cleaner.

If he’s right, the rapid adoption of DI has actually illuminated an issue, not caused one. A “dirty” intake or exhaust-recirculation design can easily go undetected in a conventional port-injected engine due to the cleaning effect of gasoline passing over the intake valves. When the same engine designs are adapted to direct-injection fueling, however, that cleaning effect is suddenly lost – and the carbon layers can build.

There is no simple fix for engines that are prone to carbon build-up, Chick says. What’s needed is a complete redesign of the crankcase ventilation and exhaust-gas recirculation systems to prevent particulates from getting through. Fortunately, the manufacturers whose engines are frequently cited in carbon build-up reports – mainly VW, Audi and Lexus – appear to have taken this step with many of their latest models. For instance, Audi’s new 3-liter supercharged V6, used in the S4 and A6 models, has so far been free from carbon-related complaints – a far cry from the 3.2 liter V6, which has numerous threads dedicated to the condition.

If Ford and GM engineers and Chick are correct, the carbon-buildup problem now may be relegated to previous engine designs that were not well-adapted for DI. But that’s probably little consolation to some early adopters like Boyadjiev, who must add regular carbon cleaning services to their cars’ ongoing maintenance requirements – a cost that, for now at least, they are expected to absorb entirely on their own as they grapple with the “dirty” secret of this emerging technology.

Mark Holthoff manages customer support for Edmunds.com.
Matt Landish oversees digital media development and publishing for Edmunds.com.

AutoObserver Staff: Mark Holthoff and Matt Landish

Silver Ice Metallic 2013 Camaro 2LT
Born 7/29/2012 Delivered 4/24/2013
CyCam1
CyCam1 is offline  
post #8 of 112 Old 04-17-2013, 05:19 AM
Veteran Member
 
Guapo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crestview Fl
Posts: 2,495
 
Garage
CyCam1,
I talked to a friend that is in the know about catch cans and was told the unless I just want to spend money, to save it and buy something else. I.E. not needed..at least for direct injection engines.

2013 LT2/RS, Crystal Red Metallic, TAZ Jr.
2016 H-D Ultra Classic, Black Fire Purple, (PPE)
2015 H-D Street Glide, Superior Blue. (Old Blue) Traded
2012 Big Horn, RAM, Crew Cab, SLT, Dark Cherry Red Pearl (Betty Boop)
1998 Honda Accord 2d, daily driver.
Guapo is offline  
post #9 of 112 Old 04-17-2013, 06:05 AM
Member
 
S.Bretz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lutz, FL
Posts: 384
 
I work for cadillac....that edmunds article is completely false. All the DI's build up sludge. We had one a few monthes ago that was so bad it was stalling...at that was with less than 10K miles on it.

..Heck GM even has a service bulletin out telling the techs to inspect the valves for build up...they konw it happens.


Some build up faster than others....but by 15-20 they all get a nasty thick layer or crap on them.
S.Bretz is offline  
post #10 of 112 Old 04-17-2013, 07:20 AM
Veteran Member
 
hypurone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Cali. North Bay
Posts: 1,925
 
Garage
CyCam1 & Guapo,

The premise behind a catch can is NOT carbon buildup reduction as it pertains to that article which is talking about deposits created by fuel.

It is about crankcase ventilation and oil vapor being pulled into the intake tract then back into the combustion chamber to be burned off.

A properly operating/designed catch can will reduce/eliminate this... Now as far as if there is some difference between a V6 and a V8 in their PCV system that negates the need, I doubt it.

Chuck
2010 SIM 2SS/RS A6 SC - Born on 10/05/09
MyCamaroBuildInfo

"You Were Really Flyin' When I Passed You Back There!"
February-2013-MOTM-Winner
hypurone is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the ModernCamaro.com - 5th Generation Camaro Enthusiasts forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome