So I picked up a few Moroso Air Oil Separators. I got them for nothing so I figured why not. I know what some of you are going to say, they are inferior to the RX. Probably they are, but at this price I figure I have nothing to loose. I have mounted one on the "clean side" and one on the PVC return to the intake. See pics. I have had them on for a few days and will report back on the progress of the test. I will pull them both out of the car and tear them down and take pics, I'm not sure about the RX but these can be taken apart for cleaning and there is a drain also. The one thing I do like about it this way is that I can see during the test if during boost how much oil is going into the intake pipe just before the turbo, and how much is going there vs the intake manifold. Which should be interesting. There is a fellow on an F150 that did essentially the same idea here. http://www.f150forum.com/f70/installing-dual-air-oil-separators-ecoboost-242660/ (http://www.f150forum.com/f70/installing-dual-air-oil-separators-ecoboost-242660/) He has had interesting results, anyone else notice that the air supply (Clean side) is located in a different location on the valve cover on the F150? I wonder if it has any impact on how the system functions. I just saw that in the other forum. This will probably be a short term test as I have promised to return these to a friend, maybe a month or 1000km. Whichever comes first, let me know what you think.
What a joke ...IMHO
Stirring up all that crap about the RX and Tracy .
If Livernois said to you that all OCC were a bad idea and then this .....
Some sort of ulterior motive going on here ...
The question begs to be asked why?
If I get some heat on this I'm fine , something feels fishy about all of this .
I'm all for the; "someone had this available for free so, what the hell, let's throw it on there and see what happens" mantra...but I gotta say, I think I'm with SwampRat on this one.
It just seems like with everything else going on with LMS/Rx, maybe it's just poor timing.
Just for the record the Moroso separators retail for about $150/ea (x2) and the Rx OCC retails for $299, + $99 for the clean side separator.
Let's give Shoboat some room, guys, and prove he has honest intentions by providing detailed and factual data, i.e., via his actions. Same as with any other member on this forum. Let's question the data collected, if anything. Nobody has to accept anything if they don't want to, it is perfectly OK, and that is their right, as long as civility is maintained.
I am all in favor of comparing vendors IF you actually have data for both vendors because you ACTUALLY TRIED both vendors. Anybody see those side-by-side oil filter comparisons on BITOG?
Fair enough.
Quote from: SwampRat on April 11, 2014, 01:40:30 AM
What a joke ...IMHO
Stirring up all that crap about the RX and Tracy .
If Livernois said to you that all OCC were a bad idea and then this .....
Some sort of ulterior motive going on here ...
The question begs to be asked why?
If I get some heat on this I'm fine , something feels fishy about all of this .
And you should get some heat for this. He states clearly that this is nothing more than a test for about a month of duration. The parts cost him nothing and they will be returned to his friend following the trial. The OP is conducting his own tests to determine if a catch can does anything for these vehicles.
So just go buy your RX catch can system and follow the claims of the manufacturer. Maybe they can get you a package deal on a throttle body spacer and Turbonator as I have heard some amazing manufacturer claims from those products as well.
PSA: No ulterior motives were used in the creation of the post.
Quote from: SwampRat on April 11, 2014, 01:40:30 AM
What a joke ...IMHO
Stirring up all that crap about the RX and Tracy .
If Livernois said to you that all OCC were a bad idea and then this .....
Some sort of ulterior motive going on here ...
The question begs to be asked why?
If I get some heat on this I'm fine , something feels fishy about all of this .
I don't think this had anything to do with lms because Dan said don't use one at all. On the f 150 forums a guy is running both at the same time to test and compare. Some people don't want to spend extra dollars but want to share their testing, kind of the reason why my own company exists.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
JLT has adapted their kit for us, got an email. Trying to get ahold of Tucker about doing a true cold air.
http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=378&products_id=653 (http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=378&products_id=653)
http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=378&products_id=656 (http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=378&products_id=656)
I'm entitled to my opinion that when ShoBoat brought this whole business of the Livernois / RX thing to light that in quite a few of his posts it Was VERY clear that he was questioning the need or necessity of any OCC . A lot of his questions had a very condescending and overly critical tone towards the RX system and Tracy .
His attitude was based in my opinion on his assumption that since Livernois was against the use of ANY OCC that because Livernois said so it is the Gospel truth and Must be headed.
I get VERY tired of this approach by not only ShoBoat but by other Members as well . Livernois products and services are not the end all be all / only option available .
Too many members here suck up to them .
If you like there offerings and products Fine but don't demonize other vendors or products based on Livernois Opinions .
It's' Very clear that many member posts and comments are made because of there thoughts that since the Livernois GODS say so it must be right ..... B.S. .......
Livernoise has good solid products and services for the most part but Damn folks , other options exist .
^^^^So much for you stating "If I get some heat on this I'm fine".
I only started what I was told by LMS and I said it carried weight. I felt a need to share it with you guys. me After seeing all the data that Tracy posted made me curious. Are you telling me that it didn't make you curious? Like I said in my first post here it's a short term test on a SHO not an F150. I don't believe that 30 days of a catch can on my car will damage it. It's the only way for me to determine which path is for me. Hell I may wind up with an RX under my hood, but I wasn't willing to spend $500.00 to figure it out. LMS doesn't sell these they are against all catch cans. I called them on a tune question and toll him that I was going to be putting a catch can on the car, he said he wouldn't. Tracy says you can't live without one? This is how I would determine for myself what if right for me.
Wow guys take it easy, I have nothing against RX.
One more thing, if you spoke to your tuner and said not to do ..... Wouldn't you post it here? Heck that is how I do it to get the feedback of you guys. That's why I am on here, I have dealt with LMS for over a year, and you are correct they are one opinion among many. Some people live royal purple, I hate the stuff. I had a terrible experience with that stuff in my 1971 corvette 454.
Quote from: ShoBoat on April 11, 2014, 10:11:04 AM
I only started what I was told by LMS and I said it carried weight. I felt a need to share it with you guys. me After seeing all the data that Tracy posted made me curious. Are you telling me that it didn't make you curious? Like I said in my first post here it's a short term test on a SHO not an F150. I don't believe that 30 days of a catch can on my car will damage it. It's the only way for me to determine which path is for me. Hell I may wind up with an RX under my hood, but I wasn't willing to spend $500.00 to figure it out. LMS doesn't sell these they are against all catch cans. I called them on a tune question and toll him that I was going to be putting a catch can on the car, he said he wouldn't. Tracy says you can't live without one? This is how I would determine for myself what if right for me.
Wow guys take it easy, I have nothing against RX.
Please do the testing... I AM very interested, and I own an RX can and a Cleanside Separator... My install is on hold because the info for the SHO and other transverse 3.5 EB GDI engines is not in. Thanks to the forum members who pointed this out tome Go for It... i agree, very important and useful info is likely to come to light... and it won't need special fonts, it will speak for itself!
From personal communication with Dan, I'd (I have posted his email somewhere here)... They don't recommend it... They are not against the concept or any manufacturer... Dan has the same unanswered questions we all do. His words were... we don't recommend it... explained by him as not necessarily meaning that you shouldn't....
Everyone knows there are alot of options in catch cans... The issue at this time, in my thinking, is the concept for our SHO GDI's, Once this is settled each will make their own decision on the obvious options.
We all need more info... Please do the test and help us start getting objective answers for
OUR GDI platform.
Please continue with your testing, Shoboat. We are all adults here, we can handle the truth :) And guys, let's keep this thread on topic please?
ShoBoat ... the basis off concern here is that the whole issue was on the argument that Livernois advised against any OCC and you were in agreement after learning so .Based on your " faith " in what you were told you still decided on this latest experiment .
That is puzzling to me ...
Livernois will more than likely never explain there reasoning to the forum .
Yes I was curious and somewhat concerned especially since I all ready have the RX .
I as well post information that I learn from vendors here.
Sorry SHOdded, I feel I need to answer SwampRat, as I trully respect him and pretty much all the guys on here. Like I said I have nothing agains RX. I did not mean to sound condescending to Tracy. They don't have any good data on this system on a SHO, the only install that we know of has 0 stuff in their can. I stated questions on the function of their system. Which I still have doubts about the reduction of flow and the long runs of hoses to make it work in our cars. Also the location of the can just above the exhaust manifold to me is questionable. You really need the can to be cooler than the air passing through it for max effect. Otherwise you are not going to get any condensing effect. I like the RX it has done wonders for the f150. But we don't drive the f150.
Quote from: SwampRat on April 11, 2014, 10:33:01 AM
ShoBoat ... the basis off concern here is that the whole issue was on the argument that Livernois advised against any OCC and you were in agreement after learning so .Based on your " faith " in what you were told you still decided on this latest experiment .
That is puzzling to me ...
Livernois will more than likely never explain there reasoning to the forum .
Yes I was curious and somewhat concerned especially since I all ready have the RX .
I as well post information that I learn from vendors here.
That's what I believe that this is all about, interesting enough. I called a local engine builder this morning and they are against catch cans also? Weird. And you are correct when they told me I got freaked out and posted it here. I respect you for speaking your mind. Not everyone does, debate is healthy. It's all good.
Ps I decided on this experiment so I can make up my own mind. Faith can only get you so far. And after Tracys posts (and great responses) it got me curious. Hence here we are.
So on to the test, I am planning to pull the system apart on Sunday and post the results.
One week of testing ... NYC and back .
I don't see much from just a few miles ... ahead with testing though .
Constructive criticism and debate is good for all here.
Quote from: ShoBoat on April 11, 2014, 10:55:24 AM
So on to the test, I am planning to pull the system apart on Sunday and post the results.
Excellent! Thanks for all your work on this issue.
I wonder who has the highest mileage SHO on here and any input about this thay may have ? I know when I changed out my 3bar MAP on the upper intake it had a tad bit of oil dripping from the one I removed. I hate to spend the money on something unecessary, but I sure don't want my engine gunked up either. I plan to keep mine for a long time.
The alternative, if your want to keep valves from coking up would be regular scheduled maintenance. Such as B&G service or 3m fuel system cleaning at least every 15k.
The intake manifold looks pretty simple to yank off.
I don't see why the valves can't be cleaned at home. And of course, the intake tract and intercooler can be cleaned easily.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
IHeartGroceries, do I sense a "How-To" in the making? Hint, hint :D BTW, is the intake manifold 1 piece or 2 pieces? We have a 2 pc on the Edge.
Quote from: SHOdded on April 11, 2014, 01:55:33 PM
IHeartGroceries, do I sense a "How-To" in the making? Hint, hint :D BTW, is the intake manifold 1 piece or 2 pieces? We have a 2 pc on the Edge.
Intake manifold on the transverse is one piece .
Shodded , I have a confession to make . Before I bought my SHO I was looking hot n heavy at the 13 Edge but as you know and I found out while looking , there is no 3.5 EB for it .... sigh ..... wish they could shoehorn one it to it .
Just really like the looks of the Edge .
Damn can u imagine an Edge sport with the 3.5eb? That would be a hoot to drive!
It's pretty fun with the base 3.5L actually, but we have been pushing for the 3.5EB for some time :D Trying to keep my foot out of it to keep the MPGs high, soooo tempting!!! Rumors are though that the V6 will meet its demise in favor of the smaller 4-banger EBs, maybe a 2.5L (makes me glad to have my V6)!
There have been a couple of one-off turbo projects, one private and one for SEMA, but nothing even close to the wondrous EB motor.
Official Moroso Air/Oil Separator video for the V:
Moroso TV: Moroso Air/Oil Separator / Catch Can test 2009 Cadillac CTS-V www.moroso.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9klkDCItEY#ws)
Independent user review on a Mustang:
Moroso Oil Catch Can Review - 2013 Mustang GT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vRxAGYAYHw#ws)
Well, while it's not a SHO... my daughter in law's Edge sport is pretty spirited and is a truly fun cross-over to drive.
Manu... I fear your right about the V6... I too am glad i have it and hope Ford will continue to develop it. BUT, if they don't the objective things we learn from all these little experiments we do become ever more important!.......Like this thread on Testing Oil Separators
Ok so after about 500km I pulled the units off the car, and guess what I found? Nothing! when I mean nothing I mean nothing nada not even dirty. I wiped the units down to see if they had any residue on the inside and it was clean? Now either these are the worst catch cans ever or possibly I haven't given it enough time. But I expected to find something at least a bit of residue. See the attached pics, this has got me wondering. During the Ecoboost torture test, they ran that thing at full boost for pretty much 24 hours right? You would think that that poor engine would be running on oil after just a few miles. Unless they faked it? I am starting to wonder if most of the oil that we are seeing in the throttle body and intake is coming from leaky turbo seals and not the PCV system. According to ford "some oil" is normal coming from the turbo seals. I had cleaned the intake manifold 2 weeks ago and I am not seeing any evidence of oil behind the throttle body where the inlet is from the rear PCV port. But I did see evidence of oil on the TB? I will continue to run the catch cans for another 3 weeks. I think I might pull the tube off my rear turbo and see if there is evidence of oil there. This would be up stream of the "clean side" and would be impossible to get anything from the PCV back there.
Or one other thing, I am running 1/2 tube and fittings throughout. I wasn't crazy about the reduction in flow for the stock 3/8 fittings that the kit came with. The stock hose and fittings is 1/2.
I wouldn't expect much of anything in only 310 miles of testing .
It has been conclusively proven that the PCV system on the SHO and other DI engines contributes to the detrimental inherent issues that DI engines have .
I have stated that the torture test / tear down video that Ford uses is nothing more than a marketing tool and I love my Ford's.
Just as many here have done the the BOV VTA ( no no says EPA ) the only way to eliminate the deposits and harm associated with PCV systems is to use some type of containment system or vent the crankcase to air . This could be done ....... Not an ideal solution but for off road , its common place .
BG's real world 60,000 mile testing of there company owned 2010 SHO proves this .
http://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/ (http://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/)
Perhaps longer testing on your part may show accumulation , my guess is even though the Moroso cans MAY not be the ideal choice ; the plumbing choice or PCV routing needs to be reconsidered .
You MAY end up with accumulation results with this test with more time and driving .
Weather or not this oil is bulding up from leaky turbo seals or a poorly designed PCV system or a combination of the two , you still have a need to remove it from the intake CAC and associated plumbing to prevent these harmfull deposits and other internal component damage from occuring .
I plan on keeping my SHO a VERY long time and anything I can do to keep things purring is worth the investment .
Tracy readily admits there are SOME OCC's on the market that are good ones but most are garbage.
I appreciate his honesty but most of us here are not knowledgeable enough to buy one from whomever else and hook the plumbing up correctly .
Tracy at RX did a fix as he determined the initial install on painterpats Flex by him was faulty . We will see soon whether or not this has been remedied , I think it will end up with possitive results .
His F150 system works as stated , I think its simply a matter of working out the bugs .
Hey SwampRat, that link is dead?
Quote from: ShoBoat on April 13, 2014, 11:45:10 AM
Hey SwampRat, that link is dead?
http://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/ (http://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/)
Quote from: ShoBoat on April 13, 2014, 11:45:10 AM
Hey SwampRat, that link is dead?
Fixed in earlier post and here ...... http://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/ (http://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/)
Quote from: ShoBoat on April 13, 2014, 11:13:22 AM
Ok so after about 500km I pulled the units off the car, and guess what I found? Nothing! when I mean nothing I mean nothing nada not even dirty. I wiped the units down to see if they had any residue on the inside and it was clean? Now either these are the worst catch cans ever or possibly I haven't given it enough time. But I expected to find something at least a bit of residue. See the attached pics, this has got me wondering. During the Ecoboost torture test, they ran that thing at full boost for pretty much 24 hours right? You would think that that poor engine would be running on oil after just a few miles. Unless they faked it? I am starting to wonder if most of the oil that we are seeing in the throttle body and intake is coming from leaky turbo seals and not the PCV system. According to ford "some oil" is normal coming from the turbo seals. I had cleaned the intake manifold 2 weeks ago and I am not seeing any evidence of oil behind the throttle body where the inlet is from the rear PCV port. But I did see evidence of oil on the TB? I will continue to run the catch cans for another 3 weeks. I think I might pull the tube off my rear turbo and see if there is evidence of oil there. This would be up stream of the "clean side" and would be impossible to get anything from the PCV back there.
Or one other thing, I am running 1/2 tube and fittings throughout. I wasn't crazy about the reduction in flow for the stock 3/8 fittings that the kit came with. The stock hose and fittings is 1/2.
Thanks ShoBoat!...Progress report on your testing much appreciated. :thumb:
All comments since your OP acknowledged, as well as your further questions.
Your research may help to narrow down the appropriate choices for a catch can system for us all! :beer2:
Quote from: SwampRat on April 13, 2014, 12:23:25 PM
Quote from: ShoBoat on April 13, 2014, 11:45:10 AM
Hey SwampRat, that link is dead?
Fixed in earlier post and here ...... http://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/ (http://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/)
Now that's what i am talking about! That's a ton of data on the SHO. If we could get this kind of data on Catch cans that's where we could all put this to bed. I am defiantly going to get this done on mine.
Great link thanks SwampRat.
Hey the one thing not mentioned in the Torture test on the EB was what maintenance they did on it. I wonder if it included the BG service? Or something similar. Also when looking at the teardown pics did anyone else notice that the TB looked almost brand new? Crap mine has nowhere near as many miles and it doesn't look like that.
Thanks ShoBoat! I know we're all chomping at the bit for results to come in. As far as 350 miles being enough to see some results; have we all forgotten about the F-150 video? That was 350 miles and he filled up most of a mason jar! Not saying you should be seeing THAT much or not, but I agree that I expected to find SOMETHING in there...residue at least, regardless of the Moroso's effectiveness.
...very interesting.
ShoBoat ......the thanks should be directed towards panther 427 as it was his find .
I was just using the new found info as further proof.
Quote from: panther427 on April 13, 2014, 01:28:45 AM
Here you go everyone having sleepless nights over this issue.... BG products...the very company we have talked about,and there wonderful additives and machines have there very own taurus sho. They have been keeping tract of the valves and injectors over 60,000 miles. With excellnt boroscope photos and there take.
http://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/ (http://www.bgprod.com/bgfueltest/)
Shoboat, is there filter media in the Moroso catchcan setup? If so, is it possible that the vapors are condensed into the filter media and just haven't made their way into the container yet? Pressure drop caused by larger tubing affecting the effectiveness? Just throwing some ideas out there.
Sorry I am late to this thread. You could have saved the time on the Morso test as there are videos and others that have done it already.
Same as the JLT.
Lets start at the Moroso (or Billet Prototypes, Diablosport, and 30 some others branded from the same manufacturer).
If you install a simple air compressor separator....$10-$15 behind it, you will see more passes through that design than it catches, and very simple to see why.
It has only app 1.5 oz's of capacity. This does not allow the flow through (velocity) to slow enough to prevent the Bernoulli effect from carrying droplets through with the flow. It is impossible. (The RX standard can is 12 oz's, Monster is over 22).
One weeks drain from the shop ecoboost f150 is 6-7 ozs's on average:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/DSCN0405_zps9838b715.jpg)
And side by side w/RX bottom:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/DSC00075_zps39442a2b.jpg)
Also look at the design:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitadiffcatchcans016.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitadiffcatchcans017.jpg)
Which side is the inlet, and which is the outlet? The coalescing media will trap oil on the side you use as the inlet, but it will also trap that same oil on the side used as the outlet (try this at home right now and see if I am BSing).
Take a wet wash cloth, put it to your mouth, now suck on it. What happens? Now, the flow and amount of suction from the PCV system is many times what you can produce with your mouth. Think about this.
Now, watch this video. This is on a Caddy CTSv with a ring/blow-by issue. Now a PD blower has least suction at idle, and greatest at top RPM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9klkDCItEY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9klkDCItEY)
See app 1/2 way how the oil is dripping down the right side at low rpms, and at high rpms it is pulled across from right to left and up and out the left side. That shows the Bernoulli effect over powering any possible chance for this to retain most of the oil and other compounds a proper separator will.
Now on to JLT (and ALL of these are first class quality in machining, appearance, etc, but no one considered all the pricniplas and functions needed to design an effective can. They all catch oil, even a beer can with 2 fittings will trap nearly as much as the Moroso if you test, you will see.
So, watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H257bOs3gn8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H257bOs3gn8)
This is an excellent way to test, but they are using a GT 500 Mustang, again, a PD blower similar to the caddy CTS-V. But they never go above idle, so suction is at its lowest. We duplicated this test and as soon as you rev up on the dyno even with almost no oil already trapped, a good amount pulled right through.
Go back and watch it again. Now we tried this with a NA car that has suction at the highest at idle (same as a Turbo would) and it starts to show oil pull through as soon as you start to introduce the oil. You dont have to take my word for it, try this yourself. It does not involve much cost, just a little time.
No one has put more time and research into these designs than we have, period.
Look at how the RX can is designed:
We take and purchase and test every can on the market we see, then dissect and determine why some do well, and others do poorly.
Here are how they rank. Any not listed allowed far to much pull through to be considered effective:
RX
Saiku Micchi (SMC)
Elite Engineering's E2
Apex.
And thats it.
We have the same car we know the amount of blow by and what it produces. We run every can with the RX can behind it so we can measure the primary can and then what the RX caught behind it AFTER it did its best. The RX can will catch nearly as much, or more than almost every can out there AFTER the vapors have already passed the primary can, EXCEPT those listed above as they are also excellent cans we have tested and seen first hand. Now we also do the test in reverse, and the RX catches all, or nearly all the compounds letting none through (unless an excessive blow-by engine then trace amounts do make it past). We have had this challenge out there for years, and all those that have done it independently have seen the same results (most never tell the results afterwards though) and have never been embarrassed (imagine how it would look) by the results.
Want more proof?
Every other can listed is a direct competitor. most very unfriendly to us even though we post they are the best.
Contact Elite Engineering, and ask their opinion of RX's Tracy's engineering knowledge and qualifications on this subject (they are a direct competitor)
http://www.eliteengineeringusa.com/elite-engineering-catch-can/ (http://www.eliteengineeringusa.com/elite-engineering-catch-can/)
We have done the testing. The Elite is app the same price as the ones that dont function well, and is just about as effective as the RX (the E2 version).
So, try this, email or call Elite direct (the other wont talk about it, or are negative and dismiss the testing) and see what they say.
I can build a race trans good, but I am far from the best, so I defer to the experts I respect. I can tune well, but am far from an expert so I defer to those I do respect as the best. I can build and set up rear diff gears as good as most, but I am far from the best. I have been installing and using Methanol inject systems for ages and know as much as most, but I am far from the best....I consider Julio from Alky Control the best...he has forgotten more than I know. I only claim engine building , forced induction designs, and crankcase evacuation as areas I am considered among the most knowledgeable. And only am above average in engine building so that leaves only 2 areas I am considered, and consider myself one of the authorities in that area.
Hope this helps....and please watch the videos and consider all I am sharing. And those still skeptics, Contact Elite's CEO Steve and ask his opinion. For any others, I know I can't please or convince all, so as this is a free country, use whatever solution you are comfortable with. That is the main thing. Your peace of mind.
Cheers!!
Oh, one other thing. Only the RX system corrects the PCV systems evacuation issue, adding another can only dealing with the vapors after they have accumulated in the crankcase already and contaminated the oil.
Some of the other cans can be modified to do the same, but you will need the checkvalves, fittings, lines, etc. to accomplish this.
The RX system is complete with all needed.
To compare, you would want to use the RX single valve can for $199 if you dont want to correct the PCV system flaw.
Quote from: 68_GT on April 11, 2014, 11:30:34 AM
I wonder who has the highest mileage SHO on here and any input about this thay may have ? I know when I changed out my 3bar MAP on the upper intake it had a tad bit of oil dripping from the one I removed. I hate to spend the money on something unecessary, but I sure don't want my engine gunked up either. I plan to keep mine for a long time.
104k here, been using home depot/lowes compressor inline filters with no problems and no oil in the throttle body yet
here is my setup w approx 4k after an oil change approx 104k on car 75+dragstrip runs
Thanks for sharing, that engine bay does not look like it has 104k on it. Looks like those inline filters actually do some good.
Good job keeping it clean !!!
2010 RCM non PP
K&N panel filter
sp534 @ 30
unleashed 93 performance+firm shift+boost
more to come.....
Quote from: Night Hawk on April 13, 2014, 07:34:19 PM
here is my setup w approx 4k after an oil change approx 104k on car 75+dragstrip runs
Damn that is clean! I like the inline filters too, clean install! Thanks for sharing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those are what you use to put behind any filter to test for flow through. They are not an effective solution, but better than nothing for sure.
But again, this is after the ingestion/accumulation occurs. A true solution must first correct the flow issue of the OEM PCV system.
Nice install.
Yea, I figured some was still getting though, but with the mill getting long in the tooth, these were nice to stop the oil smell during warmer days at startup and a noticeable lack of residue on the components, lines and connectors around the intake during maintenance.
Quote from: Tuner Boost on April 13, 2014, 03:56:43 PM
Oh, one other thing. Only the RX system corrects the PCV systems evacuation issue, adding another can only dealing with the vapors after they have accumulated in the crankcase already and contaminated the oil.
Some of the other cans can be modified to do the same, but you will need the checkvalves, fittings, lines, etc. to accomplish this.
The RX system is complete with all needed.
To compare, you would want to use the RX single valve can for $199 if you dont want to correct the PCV system flaw.
Hey Turner Boost,
What I am trying to achieve through this simple experiment is determining how much if any oil is being ingested through the intake tube (clean side) vs the PCV side, and 2 are the Moroso really that bad. (These are on loan from a friend) I know that the RX is superior in terms of the catch rate, and correcting flow (for your dual catch can). What you have done for the F150 is simply amazing from what I have seen and read. That said this thread seems to be predominantly about transverse mounted EBs, which as you know presents a different set of challenges in terms of mounting compared to the F150. I am eagerly awaiting the responses from those members with the RX mounted in their SHOs. I may or may not end up with a catch can in my own car, I can tell you this. If I do it will probably be the RX. I will take your advice and mount a simple compressor separator after the Moroso's and see what we get there. The Moroso is not that much cheaper in terms of cost. You need 2 cans and that is about $300.00. The RX is only $100 more, with the clean side separator. For a mod you will do once, I don't believe that cost is an issue.
You will have to forgive my ignorance, the defect in the PCV system. Is this not present in all boosted cars? Like the CTS-V or ZR1? I am not familiar in how GM routes the PCV on their boosted cars. But from the CTS-V vid I would assume this would be the case.
A few questions, if efficient evacuation and constant is what we are looking for what about connecting a simple vacuum pump to the 2nd port on the RX? This would eliminate the need to drill into the intake tubing and would ensure a constant rate of evacuation, I understand that this would bypass routing the PVC gases back to the intake. However this would only happen under boost and would completely eliminate any chance of crud getting into the CAC. The RX would not be reliant on vacuum that may or may not be present in the intake tube. And with the RX before it there would be minimal chance of fouling the pump. It sounds complicated but with all the different configurations on the EB intake tubing depending on the car or truck, this would ensure that the system is performing at peak efficiency regardless of the application.
In mounting the RX, it seems that the only 2 locations that we are able to mount the unit (on the SHO) are above the exhaust manifold and behind the coolant reservoir. In comparison to the F150 which is mounted in front of the rad which is the coolest spot to put it. There is space to mount the RX there on the SHO, Flex and Explorer. However reaching the drain valve would be a real pain, is it possible to either hard plumb the tubing to a valve lower down. This way you could simply reach under the front bumper and turn the valve there. Or a have a remote release for valve attached to a cable release for example? This would really free up where the can could be mounted, and then mounted somewhere cooler to maximize the condensing effect.
ShoBoat .... How much smoke ya got pouring out your ears ?
Just curious what is you job ?
I don't have enough time to think that hard ... L O L
Contributions appreciated .
Quote from: SwampRat on April 13, 2014, 09:52:26 PM
ShoBoat .... How much smoke ya got pouring out your ears ?
Just curious what is you job ?
I don't have enough time to think that hard ... L O L
Contributions appreciated .
I am part of a secret government think tank..... oh wait that was my previous life.
I have been told that I think too much LOL, I am just trying to ensure that what I do is the best that I can and I am usually not satisfied with that will just have to do. And by judging by the mods on your SHO neither are you. Which is why I like to share ideas on here, hell if it makes it better for all of us then BONUS!
ShoBoat... good questions. I can answer at least the one about connections.
Tracy has told me that all the connections to the RX can, except the center top (exit) can be removed and replaced with different ones without damaging the can or compromising function... He and I talked about a remote drain location which is easily done removing the drain, replacing it with a fitting, and extending from there with fuel resistant tubing to a remotely placed drain valve,... so not a problem.
I too wonder the same things you asked... and I am still learning about the way our cars function.
BTW, ......I remember you from that think tank! LOL
Bigmac, I thought you looked familiar! I think this would work as a vacuum pump.
http://m.ebay.com/itm/140953736405 (http://m.ebay.com/itm/140953736405)
Or these
http://m.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=up28+volvo&_pgn=1 (http://m.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=up28+volvo&_pgn=1)
second link only goes to generic ebay page... no product.
Your idea is interesting... I'll be interested in the outcome.
Where do I look familiar from?
Quote from: BiGMaC on April 13, 2014, 11:02:42 PM
...the connections to the RX can, except the center top (exit)...
I think that's backwards...the center port that cannot be moved should be the access into the can, not egress. The two check valves that are installed on the other two ports identify the flow traveling away from the can; so those should be outlets x2 and the center is the inlet.
**please correct me if I'm wrong
Quote from: ShoBoat on April 13, 2014, 09:59:22 PM
I have been told that I think too much LOL, I am just trying to ensure that what I do is the best that I can and I am usually not satisfied with that will just have to do. Which is why I like to share ideas on here, hell if it makes it better for all of us then BONUS!
ShoBoat;
I think you and I are very similar in that regard.
I spent about 25 minutes staring into my engine bay this afternoon, pondering this very issue. ...plus who knows how long writing this post. LOL Oh well, that's what down time on the ambulance is for! (EMS - Earn Money Sleeping ...or in this case typing)
First, if it's ok; I would like to establish
my interpretation of how the EB TxVerse PCV system works, so it can be broken down and examined by us all (and to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly).
NOTE: If you want to skip the breakdown, go to the end of the green type. - The
inlet port of the Rx can is located in the
center, and fed from the
PCV valve on the rear valve cover. -
PCV stands for
Positive Crankcase
Ventilation, which tells me the gasses passing through this PCV-valve are being
pushed out by pressure, rather than
pulled by vacuum.
- PCV by definition, dictates that air pressure inside the crankcase is slightly higher than 1bar (1bar = standing atmospheric pressure).
- As the intake air flows --->
through the TB, --->
past the IM vacuum barb, --->
and through the IM itself, a venturi effect is caused on the
IM vacuum barb, resulting in a
pulling effect on the gasses that
were being
pushed out of the PCV valve. They are now being
pulled into the IM.
- This is what tells the system which direction to flow, since the positive pressure inside the crankcase would otherwise try to escape in all directions.
**stick with me here**
- On the "clean side" of the OEM set up, air enters via the airbox, ---> and is drawn through the split intake pipes to the front and rear of the engine. In the
front intake pipe only is a barbed port, with a line running to the
front valve cover; this feeds the clean air
into the crankcase that supplies the positive pressure for the PCV system to work.
The problem with the EB PCV system is that
under boost, the PCV valve (located o the rear valve cover) closes, and does not allow for ventilation of the positive air pressure within the crankcase that is
still being created by the clean side inlet AND "blow-by" in the cylinders; as a result the gasses are now forced to go the wrong way to escape. The flow has been reversed and the gasses are evacuated through the
always open port on the front valve cover (clean side). These gasses (and oils) are now being sucked through the intake pipe, turbo, intercooler (/CAC), TB, IM, etc.
Am I understanding all of this correctly?
The plethora of information Tracy has been able to provide us has identified two major concerns with the EB platform: A: Intake Valve Coking
B: Harmful sludge accumulating in the CACProblem A: is caused by the evacuated gasses/oils, from the
rear PCV vent under
non-boost conditions passing through the IM and onto the valves;
- This is what the
catch can is there to collect, non-boost operation gasses/oil mixture
Problem B : - During boost, the gas oil mixture is evacuated backwards through the front valve cover port and enters the intake system. The mixture then becomes trapped in the intercooler (where it is damaging), until it is 'gulped' out in large quantities and continues through the intake system resulting in contact with intake valves (and potentially leading to hydrolock).
- This is what the
separator is there for; to separate the oil from the air being drawn through the intake pipes and into the CAC. The oil gets trapped and drips back down into the crankcase, and the air flows through the cap and re-enters the intake system.
SO...Here are my questions:1. If the air is returned into the IM vacuum barb after being filtered / separated through the catch can; why does the catch can have a second outlet, that is plumbed into both front and rear intake pipes?
- If the can is there to separate the oil and particulate from the air, shouldn't the
positive pressure from the PCV system and the
vacuum from the IM vacuum barb supply enough draw?
- I can only surmise that the second outlet is there to supply additional vacuum to the catch can to aid in evacuation through the PCV and out of the catch can. Possibly due to the fact that the PCV system has been extended 800% from its factory design via tubing and the addition of a can.
2.
If the second outlet
is required for additional vacuum, why does it have to go to both the front
AND rear intake pipes?
3.
The problem with PainterPatt's Flex install was that the clean side separator was getting too much vacuum (due to the clean side line being too proximal the turbos compared to the evac line from the can), which kept the system in a constant state of running backwards (like it does when under boost with the PCV valve closed); the coalescing material in the separator was doing all of the work, rather than acting as a back-up for the catch can.
- This was resolved by extending the clean side line, and installing it where there would be less vacuum supplied to the separator.
- What if the
second outlet from the can was attached to the
OE barb on the front intake pipe only, rather than tapped into the front and rear intake pipes? THEN, the
clean side line was
tapped into the intake pipe near the airbox? Does a second line need to be drilled in the rear pipe?
- Or better yet, is there a way to find out how much vacuum is at each barb? If so, it would be interesting to see how much draw is needed for each aspect of the system, then make the determination as to which line would be better served where... Maybe even a system that requires no drilling.
4. If Tracy is correct in his explanation that the EB is under boost 80% of the time, which is why the reverse flow is so hazardous to our platform; Is the coalescing material in the new oil cap enough to fully protect our CAC?
- I hate to purchase two catch cans, one for boost and the other for non-boost operation...but is that what it would take to be fully effective?
Just seems odd to me that the F-150 with
virtually the same motor, mounted differently, is turning out gallons of this crap into the can...and we're not finding relatively any. I too am very curious to see what the difference is between the front and rear PCV ports, and which is producing more crap...but I'm not sure the Moroso can is going to give us that data. (Not that I'm not grateful for your attempt ShoBoat! Experimentation is paramount, and I respect how you addressed the concerns of your intentions initially in this thread) Not to take every word Tracy says as Gospel, but I believe he's absolutely correct with his theory of the Bernouli effect on such a small receptacle. Anything that does enter the can is being pulled right back out.
If you made it this far; WOW! I'm impressed...I don't know if I would have had it in me if I were you. LOL But, that means you're as concerned with the details as ShoBoat and I. Congrats! You get the
tech-nerd merit badge we hand out at the meetings.
As usual, Thank you to all the people that are helping with this project; any and all feedback about this stuff is greatly appreciated! Let's get this system optimized!
Hopefully this helps: (excuse the shoddy 'Paint' drawing LOL; hope it's not too confusing)
Outlined in green is the flow of PCV gasses while in non-boost operations.
Outlined in red is the flow of PCV gasses while under boost.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-637X-ikWKLc/U0uhvP6cFFI/AAAAAAAADaA/8pk3gpWmH7Y/w716-h476-no/Engine.png)
JimiJak... You are correct about the action of the ports on the RX can.
I really would like to see Tracy's responses rather than our conjectures about JimiJaks questions and mine... Thanks guys.
I too am anxious to see Tracy's response... As I am about to to have a custom set of ceramic coated hard turbo intake pipes fabbed I want the first install to be the best one there will be a separate pipe for each turbo with each exiting the filter box separately... don't want multiple holes... and prefer not to drill. So I want to be able to have bungs put on the pipes here's a slight variation on the questions you had.
What is the optimal location for the intake of air from the system into the intake in a two separate pipe turbo feed system? can it be put into the side of the OEM airbox on the pre-filter side... which might use the filter for an extra level of protection?
BigMac ... on this CAI you are having fabricated there are two pipes exiting the filter box assy . How is the actual filter element attached inside the box ? Is there a conjoined juction or does the element have two separate openings ?
Just a bump to the top for these questions..
Quote from: BiGMaC on April 14, 2014, 09:17:13 AM
JimiJak... You are correct about the action of the ports on the RX can.
I really would like to see Tracy's responses rather than our conjectures about JimiJaks questions and mine... Thanks guys.
I too am anxious to see Tracy's response... As I am about to to have a custom set of ceramic coated hard turbo intake pipes fabbed I want the first install to be the best one there will be a separate pipe for each turbo with each exiting the filter box separately... don't want multiple holes... and prefer not to drill. So I want to be able to have bungs put on the pipes here's a slight variation on the questions you had.
What is the optimal location for the intake of air from the system into the intake in a two separate pipe turbo feed system? can it be put into the side of the OEM airbox on the pre-filter side... which might use the filter for an extra level of protection?
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 04:55:00 AM
Quote from: BiGMaC on April 13, 2014, 11:02:42 PM
...the connections to the RX can, except the center top (exit)...
I think that's backwards...the center port that cannot be moved should be the access into the can, not egress. The two check valves that are installed on the other two ports identify the flow traveling away from the can; so those should be outlets x2 and the center is the inlet.
**please correct me if I'm wrong
Quote from: ShoBoat on April 13, 2014, 09:59:22 PM
I have been told that I think too much LOL, I am just trying to ensure that what I do is the best that I can and I am usually not satisfied with that will just have to do. Which is why I like to share ideas on here, hell if it makes it better for all of us then BONUS!
ShoBoat;
I think you and I are very similar in that regard.
I spent about 25 minutes staring into my engine bay this afternoon, pondering this very issue. ...plus who knows how long writing this post. LOL Oh well, that's what down time on the ambulance is for! (EMS - Earn Money Sleeping ...or in this case typing)
First, if it's ok; I would like to establish my interpretation of how the EB TxVerse PCV system works, so it can be broken down and examined by us all (and to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly).
NOTE: If you want to skip the breakdown, go to the end of the green type.
- The inlet port of the Rx can is located in the center, and fed from the PCV valve on the rear valve cover.
- PCV stands for Positive Crankcase Ventilation, which tells me the gasses passing through this PCV-valve are being pushed out by pressure, rather than pulled by vacuum.
- PCV by definition, dictates that air pressure inside the crankcase is slightly higher than 1bar (1bar = standing atmospheric pressure).
- As the intake air flows ---> through the TB, ---> past the IM vacuum barb, ---> and through the IM itself, a venturi effect is caused on the IM vacuum barb, resulting in a pulling effect on the gasses that were being pushed out of the PCV valve. They are now being pulled into the IM.
- This is what tells the system which direction to flow, since the positive pressure inside the crankcase would otherwise try to escape in all directions.
**stick with me here**
- On the "clean side" of the OEM set up, air enters via the airbox, ---> and is drawn through the split intake pipes to the front and rear of the engine. In the front intake pipe only is a barbed port, with a line running to the front valve cover; this feeds the clean air into the crankcase that supplies the positive pressure for the PCV system to work.
The problem with the EB PCV system is that under boost, the PCV valve (located o the rear valve cover) closes, and does not allow for ventilation of the positive air pressure within the crankcase that is still being created by the clean side inlet AND "blow-by" in the cylinders; as a result the gasses are now forced to go the wrong way to escape. The flow has been reversed and the gasses are evacuated through the always open port on the front valve cover (clean side). These gasses (and oils) are now being sucked through the intake pipe, turbo, intercooler (/CAC), TB, IM, etc.
Am I understanding all of this correctly?
The plethora of information Tracy has been able to provide us has identified two major concerns with the EB platform:
A: Intake Valve Coking
B: Harmful sludge accumulating in the CAC
Problem A: is caused by the evacuated gasses/oils, from the rear PCV vent under non-boost conditions passing through the IM and onto the valves;
- This is what the catch can is there to collect, non-boost operation gasses/oil mixture
Problem B :
- During boost, the gas oil mixture is evacuated backwards through the front valve cover port and enters the intake system. The mixture then becomes trapped in the intercooler (where it is damaging), until it is 'gulped' out in large quantities and continues through the intake system resulting in contact with intake valves (and potentially leading to hydrolock).
- This is what the separator is there for; to separate the oil from the air being drawn through the intake pipes and into the CAC. The oil gets trapped and drips back down into the crankcase, and the air flows through the cap and re-enters the intake system.
SO...Here are my questions:
1. If the air is returned into the IM vacuum barb after being filtered / separated through the catch can; why does the catch can have a second outlet, that is plumbed into both front and rear intake pipes?
- If the can is there to separate the oil and particulate from the air, shouldn't the positive pressure from the PCV system and the vacuum from the IM vacuum barb supply enough draw?
- I can only surmise that the second outlet is there to supply additional vacuum to the catch can to aid in evacuation through the PCV and out of the catch can. Possibly due to the fact that the PCV system has been extended 800% from its factory design via tubing and the addition of a can.
2. If the second outlet is required for additional vacuum, why does it have to go to both the front AND rear intake pipes?
3. The problem with PainterPatt's Flex install was that the clean side separator was getting too much vacuum (due to the clean side line being too proximal the turbos compared to the evac line from the can), which kept the system in a constant state of running backwards (like it does when under boost with the PCV valve closed); the coalescing material in the separator was doing all of the work, rather than acting as a back-up for the catch can.
- This was resolved by extending the clean side line, and installing it where there would be less vacuum supplied to the separator.
- What if the second outlet from the can was attached to the OE barb on the front intake pipe only, rather than tapped into the front and rear intake pipes? THEN, the clean side line was tapped into the intake pipe near the airbox? Does a second line need to be drilled in the rear pipe?
- Or better yet, is there a way to find out how much vacuum is at each barb? If so, it would be interesting to see how much draw is needed for each aspect of the system, then make the determination as to which line would be better served where... Maybe even a system that requires no drilling.
4. If Tracy is correct in his explanation that the EB is under boost 80% of the time, which is why the reverse flow is so hazardous to our platform; Is the coalescing material in the new oil cap enough to fully protect our CAC?
- I hate to purchase two catch cans, one for boost and the other for non-boost operation...but is that what it would take to be fully effective?
Just seems odd to me that the F-150 with virtually the same motor, mounted differently, is turning out gallons of this crap into the can...and we're not finding relatively any. I too am very curious to see what the difference is between the front and rear PCV ports, and which is producing more crap...but I'm not sure the Moroso can is going to give us that data. (Not that I'm not grateful for your attempt ShoBoat! Experimentation is paramount, and I respect how you addressed the concerns of your intentions initially in this thread) Not to take every word Tracy says as Gospel, but I believe he's absolutely correct with his theory of the Bernouli effect on such a small receptacle. Anything that does enter the can is being pulled right back out.
If you made it this far; WOW! I'm impressed...I don't know if I would have had it in me if I were you. LOL But, that means you're as concerned with the details as ShoBoat and I. Congrats! You get the tech-nerd merit badge we hand out at the meetings.
As usual, Thank you to all the people that are helping with this project; any and all feedback about this stuff is greatly appreciated! Let's get this system optimized!
Hopefully this helps: (excuse the shoddy 'Paint' drawing LOL; hope it's not too confusing)
Outlined in green is the flow of PCV gasses while in non-boost operations.
Outlined in red is the flow of PCV gasses while under boost.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-637X-ikWKLc/U0uhvP6cFFI/AAAAAAAADaA/8pk3gpWmH7Y/w716-h476-no/Engine.png)
Kevin...
the tubes are completely separate. The box is reconstructed containing the filter and is sealed under all circumstances....
I respectfully request again that we get an answer to the questions from Tracy to JimiJak's questions and mine before we bury them in our postings... He is the only one who will have the answers...
Thanks for you consideration my friend...
BigMac ... Perhaps you should send a PM or call Tracy as you seem to have done so on prior occassions and ask him to address you concerns and make a reply here . He has done so for me on multiple occassions . This will also ensure your questions don't get buried and are answered in a timely manner .
It will also free up this thread for others with questions , concerns or further ideas.
My questions are valid and perhaps would provide insight to Tracy so that your questions may be answered.
None the less you still did not answer my questions , which is odd as you are usually a little more forthcoming.
The think tank lol.
Apparently the Volvo's came with electric brake booster vacuum pumps. They can be had for about $50 on eBay. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of not using the intake piping for evacuation under boost.
That was supposed to be the 2nd link.
Quote from: BiGMaC on April 14, 2014, 01:40:35 AM
second link only goes to generic ebay page... no product.
Your idea is interesting... I'll be interested in the outcome.
Where do I look familiar from?
I'm sure Tracy can back-track to his last post just like the rest of us. ;)
My only concern regarding the stand alone vacuum pump idea is that it would provide a static level of draw rather than being variable with the demand from the engine. Yes?
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 12:10:44 PM
I'm sure Tracy can back-track to his last post just like the rest of us. ;)
My only concern regarding the stand alone vacuum pump idea is that it would provide a static level of draw rather than being variable with the demand from the engine. Yes?
It would be static yes, however I would assume that if it's designed for a brake booster it would provide enough lift and flow for our application. We could perform a simple test to determine the lift and flow of the current setup on a RX installed on a SHO. Just to be safe. Under boost I would assume you would want lots of flow. I would be more afraid that it would be too much with the electric and start sucking oil. It may need a reducer or in some cases the 12v vacuum pump can be dialed in to provide the exact lift and flow for the correct evacuation of gases.
Quote from: ShoBoat on April 13, 2014, 09:44:50 PM
Quote from: Tuner Boost on April 13, 2014, 03:56:43 PM
Oh, one other thing. Only the RX system corrects the PCV systems evacuation issue, adding another can only dealing with the vapors after they have accumulated in the crankcase already and contaminated the oil.
Some of the other cans can be modified to do the same, but you will need the checkvalves, fittings, lines, etc. to accomplish this.
The RX system is complete with all needed.
To compare, you would want to use the RX single valve can for $199 if you dont want to correct the PCV system flaw.
Hey Turner Boost,
What I am trying to achieve through this simple experiment is determining how much if any oil is being ingested through the intake tube (clean side) vs the PCV side, and 2 are the Moroso really that bad. (These are on loan from a friend) I know that the RX is superior in terms of the catch rate, and correcting flow (for your dual catch can).
Your experiment is a good one, but due to the PCV system only evacuating at idle and low throttle (at cruise there is boost present so no evacuation) so as is, the PCV system app. 80% of the time is building crankcase pressure to the point that it is forcing vapors out backwards through the cleanside, when a proper system always retains flow of "fresh in one bank, foul oil laden out the opposite". So that must be corrected or no catchcan can really do much but trap some after the fact. The cleanside should rarely have flow reversion so the foul side will be the one that should catch 95% of the oil mix. But as the PCV system is OEM, most will be on the fresh side. Yes, the Moroso and the 30 some others are not much better than a $15 air compressor separator. Easy to test and see. What you have done for the F150 is simply amazing from what I have seen and read. That said this thread seems to be predominantly about transverse mounted EBs, which as you know presents a different set of challenges in terms of mounting compared to the F150. I am eagerly awaiting the responses from those members with the RX mounted in their SHOs. I may or may not end up with a catch can in my own car, I can tell you this. If I do it will probably be the RX. I will take your advice and mount a simple compressor separator after the Moroso's and see what we get there. The Moroso is not that much cheaper in terms of cost. You need 2 cans and that is about $300.00. The RX is only $100 more, with the clean side separator. For a mod you will do once, I don't believe that cost is an issue.
The transverse applications the only thing I can see different is the size and efficiency of the CAC, but that in it'self should not make as drastic of a difference in the two....so there is still some mystery that until I have steady access to a few to test different functions, I can't answer exactly why. But I sure will figure out why.
You will have to forgive my ignorance, the defect in the PCV system. Is this not present in all boosted cars? Like the CTS-V or ZR1? I am not familiar in how GM routes the PCV on their boosted cars. But from the CTS-V vid I would assume this would be the case.
One would think so, but there are several types of forced induction. The Caddy CTSv, Vette ZR1, camaro ZL1 Mustand GT500 and cobra, are all a positive displacement top mount blower that replaces the intake manifold. These do not pressurize the intake manifold as they are delivering the boost directly to the intake ports and the intercooler is water to air and mounted under the supercharger between it and the cylinder heads. These provide vacuum at all times as it comes from the inlet side of the supercharger so it always supplies vacuum/suction, but the least at idle and low rpms, and the most at high RPM's SO there is no pressure/boost issues as far as evacuation like a turbo or a centrifugal supercharger that pressurizes the air charge before it travels through the intercooler and then pressurizes the intake manifold. That is why the issues unique to those types of FI.
A few questions, if efficient evacuation and constant is what we are looking for what about connecting a simple vacuum pump to the 2nd port on the RX? This would eliminate the need to drill into the intake tubing and would ensure a constant rate of evacuation, I understand that this would bypass routing the PVC gases back to the intake. However this would only happen under boost and would completely eliminate any chance of crud getting into the CAC. The RX would not be reliant on vacuum that may or may not be present in the intake tube. And with the RX before it there would be minimal chance of fouling the pump. It sounds complicated but with all the different configurations on the EB intake tubing depending on the car or truck, this would ensure that the system is performing at peak efficiency regardless of the application.
Absolutely correct. The issue is, we have not been able to, nor has anyone developed one that can do what needs. That is maintain enough vacuum and CFM of flow, and not be damaged by the mix of oil/gasoline/sulfuric acid, etc. All to date only last a short time before failure (we have been trying different solutions for the past 10 plus years) and a belt driven unit like we use on our race applications that will maintain the correct amount of vacuum and flow will not last on the street. We do use the GM small unit for a big cam build where there is not enough vacuum for a brake booster and add them with great success, but they will fail in no time if used for crankcase evac, and only provide a fraction of the volume needed to work.
In mounting the RX, it seems that the only 2 locations that we are able to mount the unit (on the SHO) are above the exhaust manifold and behind the coolant reservoir. In comparison to the F150 which is mounted in front of the rad which is the coolest spot to put it. There is space to mount the RX there on the SHO, Flex and Explorer. However reaching the drain valve would be a real pain, is it possible to either hard plumb the tubing to a valve lower down. This way you could simply reach under the front bumper and turn the valve there. Or a have a remote release for valve attached to a cable release for example? This would really free up where the can could be mounted, and then mounted somewhere cooler to maximize the condensing effect.
Yes, excellent ideas and we are working on a remote drain. Currently we can have the option for any that want with the 1/4 turn drain valve that is located under the car near the oil drain, but a remote cable operated would be great.Good job Jimijak.....you have most of it correct. I hope I answered all the rest of the questions above. This is a great thread (thanks shoboat and others!) as this is probably the most misunderstood system on todays cars. In the "old days" all were the same basically domestic and import.
Why does the EB only evacuate only under low and no boost? The 6.0 intake for the CCV is right before the turbo. So you always have vac on the CCV system. That way you have more vac under heavy boost when it is needed/
Quote from: krdiesel on April 14, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Why does the EB only evacuate only under low and no boost? The 6.0 intake for the CCV is right before the turbo. So you always have vac on the CCV system. That way you have more vac under heavy boost when it is needed/
To prevent liquid ingestion into the CAC from increased vacuum at higher boost creating more vacuum on the RX catch can.
Just thinking "out side" have a hose from air filter to valve cover, then from other valve cover to rx catch can, then to right in front of turbo.
Per the emissions standards this all has to be self contained so any gasses coming out will get ingested back into the system. The "best" thing would be the off road replacement for the oil cap that is just an air filter. It lets in fresh air and any oil that would be blown back out during reversal hits the inside of the filter and doesn't go anywhere near the intercooler.
It's my understanding our pcv system fails under boost because there is pressure instead of vacuum at the inlet in the throttle body. The inlet into the "intake" port on the valve cover is also too close to the turbo so lower pressure in this region create a small vacuum on this line as well. This vacuum is normally equaled out by the vacuum at the throttle body port so the positive nature of the exhaust port would keep stuff flowing in the right direction under non-boost.
The 2 lines added in front of each turbo serve as the highest vacuum source for the pcv system (through the can) while in boost. The clean side separator's intake (as well as the clean sides intake from the factory) should be to open atmosphere but since thats illegal its placed as close to the main intake filter as possible so it will have as little vacuum on this line as possible.
What I think would work is a check valved T on the clean side intake. When there is no pressure in the line it would pull fresh air in from its own standalone filter. When the engine flips to boost the line would get pressurized changing the check valve to a line in the intake system. That should give a zero vacuum source for fresh air and still plumb gasses back into the system when required.
krdiesel. Proper evacuation must maintain a constant flow of fresh air in one bank, and foul air out the other as this basic training video describes. This is a good video on the basics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPIfI9aZHt4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPIfI9aZHt4)
The clean side fresh air comes from the one side turbo inlet pipe, but really should come from just after the air filter so it does not overcome the "flushing" or "purging" flow direction of the PCV system. So on the Flex and the other longitudinal oriented engines the cleanside should be tapped into the air box, or the main intake tube just after the air filter so there is little suction, and still filtered fresh air. Then the opposite bank (pass side in truck, rear side in cars) is where these oil/fuel/water/sulfuric acid laden vapors are evacuated. If you allow the turbo inlet to switch the flow direction, this allows these gasses to accumulate and collect in the crankcase causing contamination to the engine oil. So the OEM system works fine at idle and low throttle when zero boost is present, maintaining a constant evacuation of these compounds not allowing them the chance to accumulate in the crankcase. But as soon as the engine begins to make boost, which is quite rapid due to the design of the turbo system and the small size of them, the checkvalve in the pass side valve cover (rear on transverse) closes and then there is NO evacuation taking place. Then blow by produces crankcase pressure that eventually builds to the point that it pushes "out the in" and it is during this time that these compounds accumulate and condense. Then as the pressure is pushing out the inlet, some of this concentrated mix is also drawn with it and sucked into the turbo on that side, and pushed into the CAC where some of it condenses and accumulates there. Since this is backwards of the intended flow path/direction, and there is no opening of an alternative fresh air source from the other bank, most of the mix accumulates in a concentration that causes what you see drained from the cans on the trucks. So, this is similar to a smoke filled room. Open one window, and only a small amount of smoke will escape. Open one on the opposite end of the room and have a fan attached, and the room clears in no time. The easiest way to correct this flaw and retain emissions compliancy, is to simply add an alternate suction source so that there is a nearly seamless switch of evacuation suction source, and the correct direction of flow, and the constant evacuation of the damaging compounds, remains constant so these are removed at a pretty steady rate, and a small amount steadily than a gulp of concentrate.
Quote from: dalum on April 14, 2014, 03:25:33 PM
Per the emissions standards this all has to be self contained so any gasses coming out will get ingested back into the system. The "best" thing would be the off road replacement for the oil cap that is just an air filter. It lets in fresh air and any oil that would be blown back out during reversal hits the inside of the filter and doesn't go anywhere near the intercooler.
It's my understanding our pcv system fails under boost because there is pressure instead of vacuum at the inlet in the throttle body. The inlet into the "intake" port on the valve cover is also too close to the turbo so lower pressure in this region create a small vacuum on this line as well. This vacuum is normally equaled out by the vacuum at the throttle body port so the positive nature of the exhaust port would keep stuff flowing in the right direction under non-boost.
The 2 lines added in front of each turbo serve as the highest vacuum source for the pcv system (through the can) while in boost. The clean side separator's intake (as well as the clean sides intake from the factory) should be to open atmosphere but since thats illegal its placed as close to the main intake filter as possible so it will have as little vacuum on this line as possible.
Excellent understanding!! But the next post would not work correctly. We always want a flow of fresh in one side, foul out the other, but an excellent idea. This is good thinking and understanding all.
The ideal system is a belt driven vacuum pump like we run on all of our alky drag engines.
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RXproducts/ReherFTI001.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RXproducts/RXFIcan004.jpg)
We have the vacuum pump maintain a steady 14-15" of vacuum at all times on the crankcase, this removes ALL water, unburnt fuel, etc. from the crankcase constantly and also reduces the amount of energy required for the pistons to move downward in the bore (why most with the RX system claim more power, etc.) as well as prevent ring "flutter" from pressure (we always want the rings steady and sealing as best they can against the cylinder wall). We have an adjustable vacuum relief valve on the opposite valve cover as we pull from so we maintain the flow direction. The picture above shows the vac relief valve plumbed into the system near the pump. It will maintain vac level, but will not allow cross flow so we changed it's location before installation of the engine in that dragster.
I wonder if there defective PCV was really the cause of the F150 issues with stalling and stuff... they would get too much flow into the CAC and once it hit the CAC the vapor would condense into water.. Then going Full throttle would pull a gulp of condensed liquid into the motor...
It's been a long day...but why not put a check valve on the clean side line??
Also, I'm confused; I know the system must be self-containable, but why are we trying to supply positive pressure into the crankcase with a line connected to an area with vacuum?
Quote from: krdiesel on April 14, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Why does the EB only evacuate only under low and no boost? The 6.0 intake for the CCV is right before the turbo. So you always have vac on the CCV system. That way you have more vac under heavy boost when it is needed/
According to Ford, that info is inaccurate.
It does evacuate under boost and routs the vapors through the crankcase into the LH turbo inlet.
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 10:46:12 PM
Quote from: krdiesel on April 14, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Why does the EB only evacuate only under low and no boost? The 6.0 intake for the CCV is right before the turbo. So you always have vac on the CCV system. That way you have more vac under heavy boost when it is needed/
According to Ford, that info is inaccurate.
It does evacuate under boost and routs the vapors through the crankcase into the LH turbo inlet.
The LH turbo inlet (which in our txverse mount should be the rear side)?? The PCV line doesn't go anywhere near the rear turbo. OEM setup; it goes directly into the IM.
The clean side is plumed into the front side intake pipe, just before the turbo...but that would only evac if the system were flowing backwards...
Regardless, even if it was plumbed into the rear turbo inlet, that would mean its next stop post-turbo would be the CAC...and that's bad.
Where did you read that??
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 10:46:12 PM
Quote from: krdiesel on April 14, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Why does the EB only evacuate only under low and no boost? The 6.0 intake for the CCV is right before the turbo. So you always have vac on the CCV system. That way you have more vac under heavy boost when it is needed/
According to Ford, that info is inaccurate.
It does evacuate under boost and routs the vapors through the crankcase into the LH turbo inlet.
The LH turbo inlet (which in our txverse mount should be the rear side)?? The PCV line doesn't go anywhere near the rear turbo. OEM setup; it goes directly into the IM.
The clean side is plumed into the front side intake pipe, just before the turbo...but that would only evac if the system were flowing backwards...
Regardless, even if it was plumbed into the rear turbo inlet, that would mean its next stop post-turbo would be the CAC...and that's bad.
Where did you read that??
Routed through the crankcase
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 10:54:38 PM
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 10:46:12 PM
Quote from: krdiesel on April 14, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Why does the EB only evacuate only under low and no boost? The 6.0 intake for the CCV is right before the turbo. So you always have vac on the CCV system. That way you have more vac under heavy boost when it is needed/
According to Ford, that info is inaccurate.
It does evacuate under boost and routs the vapors through the crankcase into the LH turbo inlet.
The LH turbo inlet (which in our txverse mount should be the rear side)?? The PCV line doesn't go anywhere near the rear turbo. OEM setup; it goes directly into the IM.
The clean side is plumed into the front side intake pipe, just before the turbo...but that would only evac if the system were flowing backwards...
Regardless, even if it was plumbed into the rear turbo inlet, that would mean its next stop post-turbo would be the CAC...and that's bad.
Where did you read that??
Routed through the crankcase
Ok...I must be missing something.
What does that mean? I mean...I get what that should mean...but how would the vapors be routed through the crankcase into a turbo??
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 10:54:38 PM
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 10:46:12 PM
Quote from: krdiesel on April 14, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Why does the EB only evacuate only under low and no boost? The 6.0 intake for the CCV is right before the turbo. So you always have vac on the CCV system. That way you have more vac under heavy boost when it is needed/
According to Ford, that info is inaccurate.
It does evacuate under boost and routs the vapors through the crankcase into the LH turbo inlet.
The LH turbo inlet (which in our txverse mount should be the rear side)?? The PCV line doesn't go anywhere near the rear turbo. OEM setup; it goes directly into the IM.
The clean side is plumed into the front side intake pipe, just before the turbo...but that would only evac if the system were flowing backwards...
Regardless, even if it was plumbed into the rear turbo inlet, that would mean its next stop post-turbo would be the CAC...and that's bad.
Where did you read that??
let me rephrase this...under boost the PCV check valve shuts and crankcase vapor is routed through the fresh air tube into the LH turbo inlet.
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 11:00:20 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 10:54:38 PM
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 10:46:12 PM
Quote from: krdiesel on April 14, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Why does the EB only evacuate only under low and no boost? The 6.0 intake for the CCV is right before the turbo. So you always have vac on the CCV system. That way you have more vac under heavy boost when it is needed/
According to Ford, that info is inaccurate.
It does evacuate under boost and routs the vapors through the crankcase into the LH turbo inlet.
The LH turbo inlet (which in our txverse mount should be the rear side)?? The PCV line doesn't go anywhere near the rear turbo. OEM setup; it goes directly into the IM.
The clean side is plumed into the front side intake pipe, just before the turbo...but that would only evac if the system were flowing backwards...
Regardless, even if it was plumbed into the rear turbo inlet, that would mean its next stop post-turbo would be the CAC...and that's bad.
Where did you read that??
let me rephrase this...under boost the PCV check valve shuts and crankcase vapor is routed through the fresh air tube into the LH turbo inlet.
Right...isn't that what I said?
bascially...If I'm reading what you're typing correctly. Ford has not only published an article that confirms the PCV system flowing in reverse under boost, but they mis-spoke and should have said RH turbo.
What you're describing is the rear PCV closing, and the pressure being evacuated through the front clean side inlet, and into the air intake piping where it then goes to the turbo, followed by the CAC.
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 11:06:21 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 11:00:20 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 10:54:38 PM
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 10:46:12 PM
Quote from: krdiesel on April 14, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Why does the EB only evacuate only under low and no boost? The 6.0 intake for the CCV is right before the turbo. So you always have vac on the CCV system. That way you have more vac under heavy boost when it is needed/
According to Ford, that info is inaccurate.
It does evacuate under boost and routs the vapors through the crankcase into the LH turbo inlet.
The LH turbo inlet (which in our txverse mount should be the rear side)?? The PCV line doesn't go anywhere near the rear turbo. OEM setup; it goes directly into the IM.
The clean side is plumed into the front side intake pipe, just before the turbo...but that would only evac if the system were flowing backwards...
Regardless, even if it was plumbed into the rear turbo inlet, that would mean its next stop post-turbo would be the CAC...and that's bad.
Where did you read that??
let me rephrase this...under boost the PCV check valve shuts and crankcase vapor is routed through the fresh air tube into the LH turbo inlet.
Right...isn't that what I said?
Yes, that is what is happening, the fresh air pipe is bidirectional
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 11:10:43 PM
bascially...If I'm reading what you're typing correctly. Ford has not only published an article that confirms the PCV system flowing in reverse under boost, but they mis-spoke and should have said RH turbo.
What you're describing is the rear PCV closing, and the pressure being evacuated through the front clean side inlet, and into the air intake piping where it then goes to the turbo, followed by the CAC.
Correct.
Correct, this is what the Rx system fixes. It should turn the PCV system into a unidirectional system by increasing vacuum on the catch can, resulting in draw through the PCV valve 100% of the time, rather than only in non-boost.
Ha, you ninja'd me. Snuck a reply in there before I was finished typing. LOL
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 11:19:57 PM
Correct, this is what the Rx system fixes. It should turn the PCV system into a unidirectional system by increasing vacuum on the catch can, resulting in draw through the PCV valve 100% of the time, rather than only in non-boost.
So have we found oil in the fresh air tube?
When I installed my Rx sys, I had oil in both front and rear lines already...after just 1,700 total miles on the XSport since it left the factory.
I have four big questions for TunerBoost: Or anyone else able to provide accurate information
1. Is the rear PCV valve just a check valve, or is it mechanical? What causes this valve to "close" while under boost? How does the additional vacuum supplied by the intake pipe lines on the Rx system, re-open the closed PCV valve?
2. Why not install a check valve in the clean side line to prevent ALL backflow into the CAC?
3. Would re-routing the catch can to a location in front of the radiator be beneficial due to increased condensation, or detrimental due to decreased flow caused by too much hose distance?
4. Is there a way to proved true positive pressure through the clean side rather than just minimal vacuum, and would that be beneficial?
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 11:23:05 PM
When I installed my Rx sys, I had oil in both front and rear lines already...after just 1,700 total miles on the XSport since it left the factory.
What's the issue with oil in the rear line?
Isn't it supposed to go through the separator?
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 11:43:10 PM
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 11:23:05 PM
When I installed my Rx sys, I had oil in both front and rear lines already...after just 1,700 total miles on the XSport since it left the factory.
What's the issue with oil in the rear line?
Isn't it supposed to go through the separator?
Let me rephrase -
while I was installing the rx system; I took off the OEM lines, and both of them had oil in them already.
To answer your second question; the separator is there to catch any oil that comes in contact with the front PCV port. This isn't supposed to act like a filter, but to serve as a last ditch method of protection while flow is momentarily reversed during transitions between boost and non-boost. once the transition is complete, the flow should continue in the correct direction, which is:
air intake --> front intake pipe --> barb fitting --> clean side separator --> front valve cover --> crankcase --> rear valve cover --> PCV valve --> Catch Can --> then the return flow is split between the IM vacuum barb and the front AND rear intake pipes where it re-enters the system.
Quote from: JimiJak on April 15, 2014, 12:04:24 AM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 14, 2014, 11:43:10 PM
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 11:23:05 PM
When I installed my Rx sys, I had oil in both front and rear lines already...after just 1,700 total miles on the XSport since it left the factory.
What's the issue with oil in the rear line?
Isn't it supposed to go through the separator?
Let me rephrase -
while I was installing the rx system; I took off the OEM lines, and both of them had oil in them already.
To answer your second question; the separator is there to catch any oil that comes in contact with the front PCV port. This isn't supposed to act like a filter, but to serve as a last ditch method of protection while flow is momentarily reversed during transitions between boost and non-boost. once the transition is complete, the flow should continue in the correct direction, which is:
air intake --> front intake pipe --> barb fitting --> clean side separator --> front valve cover --> crankcase --> rear valve cover --> PCV valve --> Catch Can --> then the return flow is split between the IM vacuum barb and the front AND rear intake pipes where it re-enters the system.
The oil separator "impactor plate" is active during all no boost conditions, not just transitions. It is just a plate that droplets collect on and drop back into the crankcase
Intake>fresh air tube> front valve cover>crankcase>Rear valve cover>separator>"impactor plate>pcv valve>"pcv orifice"
Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to reconcile the different terminology with the animation I am watching about the GTDI PVC system.
It has given me one helluva headache.
I am Liking the gauge in this guys setup. It would be cool to read the vacuum under different conditions. Would be easy to checkout using a gopro or similar.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=znxsJzvpWcE (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=znxsJzvpWcE)
Another interesting install
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AT2w-ejVE14 (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AT2w-ejVE14)
Quote from: ShoBoat on April 15, 2014, 01:51:23 AM
I am Liking the gauge in this guys setup. It would be cool to read the vacuum under different conditions. Would be easy to checkout using a gopro or similar.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=znxsJzvpWcE (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=znxsJzvpWcE)
Another interesting install
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AT2w-ejVE14 (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AT2w-ejVE14)
I noticed on the eclipse install, when the engine was under load, the vacuum gauge quickly dropped to zero...thoughts?
I am guessing it's a boosted car, that would be reason that the vac dropped to 0. It's hard to tell from the vid, it is normal for a NA engine when you open the TB like that for it to drop for a second before it recovers the vacuum. Unless it was under load it's kind hard to get an accurate read on the vacuum doing what he did in the vid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Panther, your correct. The water accumulation (well water, oil, unburnt fuel, sulfuric acid, etc. mix) is what causes the shudder....and plug gap as well needs to be .028-.030. When sudden full boost is applied it forces this mix into the intake manifold in a big "gulp" and that can cause hydro-lock as well. The RX system fixes all of that.Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 11:31:03 PM
I have four big questions for TunerBoost: Or anyone else able to provide accurate information
1. Is the rear PCV valve just a check valve, or is it mechanical? What causes this valve to "close" while under boost? How does the additional vacuum supplied by the intake pipe lines on the Rx system, re-open the closed PCV valve?
It is a positive closing checkvalve (referred in the parts list as a PCV valve). As soon as vacuum is not present and any boost is occuring it closes and then NO evacuation takes place. What FoMoCo is refering to is pressure venting out the clean side. That is not evacuation. It would have to have a fresh air source the opposite flow to evacuate, and that does not. They refer to it in PR releases as evacuating but that is a spin when asked about the mistake in design.
2. Why not install a check valve in the clean side line to prevent ALL backflow into the CAC?
Good question. When the brief transition from non-boost to boost occurs there is a short period that the flow will reverse (only a few seconds) so we need to leave a unrestricted path for pressure to relive.
3. Would re-routing the catch can to a location in front of the radiator be beneficial due to increased condensation, or detrimental due to decreased flow caused by too much hose distance?
No. We even have them mounted in the back of road race cars, etc. as long as it is not obstructed (kinked lines, etc.)
4. Is there a way to proved true positive pressure through the clean side rather than just minimal vacuum, and would that be beneficial?
We never want pressure in the crankcase. There are brief periods where it is unavoidable, but the goal is vacuum/suction at all times to avoid seal failure issues, oil leaks, and to prevent the parasitic power loss of the pistons moving down in the bore having to fight that pressure.
Here is how GM does it with their turbos. They actually have a circuit cast/machined into the turbo intake side housing to provide this:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/DSCN0413_zpse68afc08.jpg)
What GM's mistake was they relied totally on the turbo inlet suction for evacuation and no intake manifold vacuum so it does not evac at idle and low throttle causing similar, but less issues as the EB. The systems we do for GM just tie into the intake manifold vacuum to correct those.
That is where Ford went wrong. They expected this to work like a NA engines PCV system, or the PD Blower applications that do not have this issue (and Ford does great with). And since they are now focusing on the 2.7 turbo for the future, I dont think they will revise production at this stage just as they did not do the simple fix of the 6.0 diesel (weak head bolts...simple ARP head stud replacement cured the issue, and that was a huge debacle). They will just discontinue this engine (which is crazy IMHO as the engine is amazing).And last, a NA engine will have (depending on the cam profile) 18-22" of vacuum at idle or deceleration, a turbo will usually not see more than 8-12" at idle or deceleration. But either as soon as you go WOT there is no vacuum. The turbo due to boost, and NA due to reversion pulses from valve overlap move into the IM and defeat any measurable vacuum, but only at WOT.
Quote from: Tuner Boost on April 15, 2014, 11:10:36 AM
Panther, your correct. The water accumulation (well water, oil, unburnt fuel, sulfuric acid, etc. mix) is what causes the shudder....and plug gap as well needs to be .028-.030. When sudden full boost is applied it forces this mix into the intake manifold in a big "gulp" and that can cause hydro-lock as well. The RX system fixes all of that.
This is what I'm having trouble with in the "animation". It appears under boost that everything just reverses which I feel is too simplistic and doesn't really tell the whole story. It also shows air being diverted from the IM to PVC but I don't really understand how the crap is removed from the rest of the charge which apparently is the problem?
Please excuse my ignorance on the subject, this is the first time I've actually bothered to understand how a PVC system works.
Quote from: JimiJak on April 14, 2014, 10:28:12 PM
It's been a long day...but why not put a check valve on the clean side line??
Also, I'm confused; I know the system must be self-containable, but why are we trying to supply positive pressure into the crankcase with a line connected to an area with vacuum?
Exactly :banghead:
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 15, 2014, 01:09:13 PM
Quote from: Tuner Boost on April 15, 2014, 11:10:36 AM
Panther, your correct. The water accumulation (well water, oil, unburnt fuel, sulfuric acid, etc. mix) is what causes the shudder....and plug gap as well needs to be .028-.030. When sudden full boost is applied it forces this mix into the intake manifold in a big "gulp" and that can cause hydro-lock as well. The RX system fixes all of that.
This is what I'm having trouble with in the "animation". It appears under boost that everything just reverses which I feel is too simplistic and doesn't really tell the whole story. It also shows air being diverted from the IM to PVC but I don't really understand how the crap is removed from the rest of the charge which apparently is the problem?
Please excuse my ignorance on the subject, this is the first time I've actually bothered to understand how a PVC system works.
No problem.
The video is great to understand the function of a PCV system in general. The damaging compounds that are combustion by-products and are introduced to the crankcase as part of the blow-by all engines experience. In the video they do a good job of explaining the pressure, evacuation functions, and clean air that must enter the opposite bank that the foul vapors are evacuated from (or sucked out from).
Pressure is to be avoided at all costs, so as long as the intake manifold vacuum is providing suction to constantly be removing these vapors as soon as they enter, all is good. But with a turbo system, there is only vacuum (suction) present when no boost is being made. And with the ecoboost since the turbos are small and efficient, they spool very quickly and begin to produce boost as soon as any throttle is applied. When this happens, then there is no vacuum in the intake manifold, only pressure. So all evacuation halts. The checkvalve closes (if it didn't, the boost would flow into that cam cover and pressurize the crankcase immediately causing oil leaks and failed seals) so at that time on, until back at idle and no boost, there is not suction/evacuation taking place to continue removing these compouns as the video shows should be. So a turbo or centri SC system is unique in this way. So then since all evacuation has halted. These vapors quickly accumulate (avg PCV system pulls 400-500 CFM of flow out steadily, so it takes only a few seconds to fill the crankcase with concentrations of this gunk) and begin mixing with the ebgine oil, etc. Now, all engine have blow-by. So after a few minutes this blow-by creates pressure in the crankcase and it has to go somewhere, so it seeks the path of least resistance, and that is "out the inlet" pushing some of this mix (not all...and that is why it is damaging mixed with the oil, etc.) into the turbo inlet on the cleanside where it is pushed (after sucked past the turbo) into the CAC and condense into this accumulation.
Also, on the cleanside. We must allow this to be able to flow both ways to make sure any pressure that could build during the brief transition from non-boost to boost (until the turbo inlet suction takes over on the RX mod) so any pressure can escape.
Tuner Boost,
I assume by your response you know the specific animation I'm referring too?
So here's a dumb question....What constitutes "under boost"?
I always thought anything over zero was considered boost and anything under is vacuum.
Cause I feel like I'm really not in boost that often. (well at least when I'm driving like a normal human) :)
And I feel like that was Ford's strategy....they assumed that most of the time the car would be under vacuum most of the time which would pull the gunk that did get in the tube when we're getting on it.
Maybe they underestimated how their target market would actually drive these cars?
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 16, 2014, 07:29:56 PM
Tuner Boost,
I assume by your response you know the specific animation I'm referring too?
So here's a dumb question....What constitutes "under boost"?
I always thought anything over zero was considered boost and anything under is vacuum.
Cause I feel like I'm really not in boost that often. (well at least when I'm driving like a normal human) :)
And I feel like that was Ford's strategy....they assumed that most of the time the car would be under vacuum most of the time which would pull the gunk that did get in the tube when we're getting on it.
Maybe they underestimated how their target market would actually drive these cars?
I know this question wasn't directed at me...but I'm offering my $0.02 on this topic.
Are your eBOVs VTA?
Mine are, and even just in driving around, I notice how often the eBOVs open to relieve pressure. In the past Tracy's mentioned typical driving resulting in being under boost 80% of the time...I'm inclined to think that's probably pretty accurate.
Quote from: JimiJak on April 16, 2014, 07:36:26 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 16, 2014, 07:29:56 PM
Tuner Boost,
I assume by your response you know the specific animation I'm referring too?
So here's a dumb question....What constitutes "under boost"?
I always thought anything over zero was considered boost and anything under is vacuum.
Cause I feel like I'm really not in boost that often. (well at least when I'm driving like a normal human) :)
And I feel like that was Ford's strategy....they assumed that most of the time the car would be under vacuum most of the time which would pull the gunk that did get in the tube when we're getting on it.
Maybe they underestimated how their target market would actually drive these cars?
I know this question wasn't directed at me...but I'm offering my $0.02 on this topic.
Are your eBOVs VTA?
Mine are, and even just in driving around, I notice how often the eBOVs open to relieve pressure. In the past Tracy's mentioned typical driving resulting in being under boost 80% of the time...I'm inclined to think that's probably pretty accurate.
All $.02 gladly accepted...
The more I research, the more I'm swinging toward Tracy's side, Ford may have effed up.
Me spending $500 to correct a design flaw is a bit hard to swallow.
There is a condition that I have where if I'm playing on the highway, romping on the gas and lifting repeatedly then the car will start to hesitate and lose throttle response, as in none. I think crash has also alluded to this behavior. I also know of an Ecoboost cruiser exhibiting this behavior, I have always though it was the ECU getting confused, Now I'm not so sure.
I may very well end up with an RX system on my car, but a trip to the dealership is in order first.
I'm gonna have them pull my fresh air tube and the tube on the turbo inlet.
Assuming oil is found, I'm very curious what their response will be.
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 16, 2014, 10:05:33 PM
Quote from: JimiJak on April 16, 2014, 07:36:26 PM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 16, 2014, 07:29:56 PM
Tuner Boost,
I assume by your response you know the specific animation I'm referring too?
So here's a dumb question....What constitutes "under boost"?
I always thought anything over zero was considered boost and anything under is vacuum.
Cause I feel like I'm really not in boost that often. (well at least when I'm driving like a normal human) :)
And I feel like that was Ford's strategy....they assumed that most of the time the car would be under vacuum most of the time which would pull the gunk that did get in the tube when we're getting on it.
Maybe they underestimated how their target market would actually drive these cars?
I know this question wasn't directed at me...but I'm offering my $0.02 on this topic.
Are your eBOVs VTA?
Mine are, and even just in driving around, I notice how often the eBOVs open to relieve pressure. In the past Tracy's mentioned typical driving resulting in being under boost 80% of the time...I'm inclined to think that's probably pretty accurate.
All $.02 gladly accepted...
The more I research, the more I'm swinging toward Tracy's side, Ford may have effed up.
Me spending $500 to correct a design flaw is a bit hard to swallow.
There is a condition that I have where if I'm playing on the highway, romping on the gas and lifting repeatedly then the car will start to hesitate and lose throttle response, as in none. I think crash has also alluded to this behavior. I also know of an Ecoboost cruiser exhibiting this behavior, I have always though it was the ECU getting confused, Now I'm not so sure.
I may very well end up with an RX system on my car, but a trip to the dealership is in order first.
I'm gonna have them pull my fresh air tube and the tube on the turbo inlet.
Assuming oil is found, I'm very curious what their response will be.
Do you want the official response? The same one that I got? "Some oil being present in the intake tubes is normal, this is due to the intended design of the PCV system. This should not be taken for any abnormal issues with the operation of the system." Ok then tell me what is normal and what is not? How about when it effects the performance of the car? The next time you are out "playing" at higher speeds, when you get home, remove the intake tube from the TB and inspect the tube and TB for "excessive oil". I don't know who to believe anymore, FMC and some of the engine builders say it's normal. Others say it's not, and we get effed trying to figure out what to do and who to believe.
One other thing, most of the people that drive an EB powered car or truck will not "get on it" like most of us will. They will go to pass a guy once in a while and notice a small shudder or hesitation and think nothing of it. I guess if anything that is what they are counting on. Kinda like the 2 engineers at GM with the ignition locks that was linked to 13 deaths and denied it for 10 years on a $0.50 part and not calling a recall. That's what they call a calculated risk.
Alan Mulally - The guy that turned Ford around...made a Global Ford, and denied the bailout money: has done incredible things with the brand, and I believe he's a great leader, and a marketing genius...however...
with all that being said; Mulally has summarized what the Ford customer wants into 5 areas: Quality. Fuel efficiency. Safety. Smart design. Value.
and unfortunately none of those are performance. So I agree, the members of this forum are in the minority, by a long shot.
This gives you an idea where Ford's sights are set...and it's no wonder they've made a performance engine that truly performs, featuring one huge oversight.
Although, you have to wonder; is there just not enough money in a motor that should run without a hitch for 300K-400,000 miles? Maybe it wasn't an oversight after all... Just seems funny to me that a company loaded with brilliant engineers would design such a fantastic piece of functional, high performance, reliable, artwork...and yet "fail" to recognize a simple PCV system failure.
At least $.04 of excellent insight :D
Ford will never admit to this being an issue / design flaw because it'll open up a new feeding frenzy for the Land Sharks.
Quote from: JimiJak on April 17, 2014, 01:27:10 AM
Alan Mulally - The guy that turned Ford around...made a Global Ford, and denied the bailout money: has done incredible things with the brand, and I believe he's a great leader, and a marketing genius...however...
with all that being said; Mulally has summarized what the Ford customer wants into 5 areas: Quality. Fuel efficiency. Safety. Smart design. Value.
and unfortunately none of those are performance. So I agree, the members of this forum are in the minority, by a long shot.
This gives you an idea where Ford's sights are set...and it's no wonder they've made a performance engine that truly performs, featuring one huge oversight.
Although, you have to wonder; is there just not enough money in a motor that should run without a hitch for 300K-400,000 miles? Maybe it wasn't an oversight after all... Just seems funny to me that a company loaded with brilliant engineers would design such a fantastic piece of functional, high performance, reliable, artwork...and yet "fail" to recognize a simple PCV system failure.
I agree with what you say...except I don't believe it's a simple oversight. Maybe you're right, but just how would the engineers design a PCV system to meet EPA without a catch can of some sort?
I stand by what Tracy stated in that the oem's designed the pcv system this way because there is no other way (maybe economical way?) without using some sort of catch can.
I also think the engineers are well aware of the "situation" of the PCV system and either eccept it themselves or are made to except it by the bean counters.
Lets start from a clean sheet so to speak. How would one ventilate the crankcase meeting EPA?
On a side note, I know most over the road trucks have a manual drain on the intercooler...but that's a whole different animal.
Quote from: POPSTAGE2 on April 17, 2014, 10:09:53 AM
Lets start from a clean sheet so to speak. How would one ventilate the crankcase meeting EPA?
Well for starters, having a PCV system that doesn't undergo any kind of reversion that dumps crap into the CAC while flowing backwards. Having a system that "closes" under boost is bad business...
Hi Gang,
Start with the EB engine and when it is in boost. The turbos on the EB are small and very efficient, and they begin to spool up as soon as you apply any throttle, and that is where the good low and mid range power comes from. Excellent design by the engineers. So there is really when measured at the intake manifold only vacuum (and low vacuum at that, 6-9") at idle and even low throttle (not enough to cruise and maintain speed) there is only 1-3" we can measure. As soon as we even lightly accelerate there is .5-1# of boost, and the check valve in the valve cover has closes as soon as it see's even a fraction of a # of pressure or 0 vac. So 80% of the operating time is conservative. It is probably closer to 90% of the time, but lets say 80%. There should never be more than a few seconds of non evacuation taking place anytime. That is why even with the RX PCV mod, you will have that brief transition from non-boost to boost when some pressure does build in the crankcase thus the cleanside spearator has to allow flow both ways. But were talking seconds VS most of the time as stock.
Now, the engineers know very well the how and why of all of this, but just as most of you that work for a big company, rarely can you go above your immediate supervisors head and argue something be done differently....it is not good for job security. The auto makers are the worst. So what happened is the PCV system is closed, and meets EPS guidelines even though it is designed the same as a naturally aspirated engine such as the 5.0 or 6.2, and the top mount supercharger cobra and GT500's that all work great. So somewhere a mid management decision maker along with the bean counters decided (NOT the very talented and skilled engineers, they know better) "we dont need to reinvent the wheel here. it passes EPA regs and works on the other engines, so this is how were doing it". and of course any engineers that argued, really did not have a good day. Just the politics of how this works from the industry side. So, once the engines and vehicles are in production, just like GM and the inexpensive ignition switch issue, change does not happen easy, and I can bet right now there will be no real change as all the work is now on the 2.7 eb that will replace the 3.5. Just as happened with the 6.0 diesel. All Ford had to do was replace the head bolts with ARP studs and the engine was fine, yet I wasted $52,000 on a new F350 crew cab loaded with every option possible and Ford voided my warranty because I had a K&N filter on it. (Lincoln dealer honored it and replaced engine twice until I finally did the head studs to correct the issue at the source). So what did Ford do? for 100k miles replace entire engines instead of a inexpensive proven solution. And then dropped the engine. And they are not alone, this is STANDARD in the entire industry. It cost millions and millions to make a .02 cent change. They will never admit to an issue (unless sued by the NTSB), and then dance around all sorts of spin.
I can tell you dozens and dozens of examples over the years since the Pinto and the Pontiac sport wheels paint flaking off in the 70's up through today on all makes/models.
So, the EB PCV system is the same as a 5.0 NA engine, and that cannot work period as any turbo system pressurizes the IM and the IM vacuum is what is relied on with this design.
Is pressure on the IM what closes the check valve in the valve cover? Just wondering since the Rx can would fix that problem.
Quote from: dalum on April 17, 2014, 08:28:19 PM
Is pressure on the IM what closes the check valve in the valve cover? Just wondering since the Rx can would fix that problem.
Yes and correct.
Update to my first OCC drain and video + CSS re-route posted on original install thread!! (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2536.msg39756#msg39756)
I managed to suck the crap out of my CAC, (not fun) I plan on pulling the tubes off the turbos tonight to see how much if any oil is in these tubes just after the turbos (back vs front) I am determined to figure out exactly where the oil is coming from and how much from where. In my CAC there was a measurable over 1/2 inch (more like 3/4) at the bottom of the CAC. I don't care who you are and what your experience is, that can't be good. And FMC or anybody else if you are trying to tell me that's normal? I don't think so.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sounds like the IC could use a drain plug! Did you disconnect hoses to do this, Shoboat, without having to pull the unit out? N/M, just saw your post in the other PVC thread :)
I know of an ecoboost cruiser at the dealership right now with oil in the turbo. hopefully they will investigate before and after the turbo.
Quote from: SHOdded on April 18, 2014, 02:36:29 PM
Sounds like the IC could use a drain plug! Did you disconnect hoses to do this, Shoboat, without having to pull the unit out? N/M, just saw your post in the other PVC thread :)
This is exactly how I did it, I pulled off the intake tube from the TB and CAC. I then attached a 3/16 washer tube to a compressed air cleaner like this. The compressed air cleaner has a port for chemical or water. Using Venturi it pulls the oil from the bottom of the CAC. I decided to do it this was as there is minimal risk of fire or explosion. Using an electric vacuum the vapors must travel through the head of the vacuum. If there is gasoline vapor there is the risk of FIRE! So better safe than sorry, unless of course you have access to a vacuum that is explosion proof and rated to pick up flammable liquids.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7137/13904216156_05a83389be_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nbEK3L)Intaking draining 9 (https://flic.kr/p/nbEK3L) by sho.boat (https://www.flickr.com/people/123563504@N08/), on Flickr
I then inserted the clear tube into a 3/8 fuel line, this was necessary as the thinner tube did not have enough rigidity to stay straight as I dropped it into the CAC.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7012/13927385003_1daa44b22a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ndHukD)Intaking draining 2 (https://flic.kr/p/ndHukD) by sho.boat (https://www.flickr.com/people/123563504@N08/), on Flickr
I then inserted this tube down into the CAC, plugged the cleaning wand into compressed air source and put the discharge into a garbage can with a plastic bag lining it. To avoid getting oil all over the place.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2923/13927774424_e77baf7bb4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ndKu6N)Intaking draining 13 (https://flic.kr/p/ndKu6N) by sho.boat (https://www.flickr.com/people/123563504@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2938/13927385523_15b3925577_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ndHuuB)Intaking draining 11 (https://flic.kr/p/ndHuuB) by sho.boat (https://www.flickr.com/people/123563504@N08/), on Flickr
I tested oil level after with the dipstick from the car, when I started I had about 3/4 of an inch of oil in the bottom of the CAC. When I was done it didn't really register. I also did a bit of wicking like this. Just to ensure I got as much as I could out.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2922/13927384873_8f1629168d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ndHuip)Intaking draining 3 (https://flic.kr/p/ndHuip) by sho.boat (https://www.flickr.com/people/123563504@N08/), on Flickr
And the final operation, I must stress that extreme care be taken not to drop anything into the CAC. If you do the only way to get it out is to remove the CAC from the car. Also if you do the wicking use non shedding lint free material. I used acrylic string just to be safe.
http://youtu.be/8xbeo93n4Lg (http://youtu.be/8xbeo93n4Lg)
Excxellent idea!! This will make it SOOOO much easier to do, and this is critical to prevent hydro lock in the future as in say your cruising don the highway and have to pass a car....floor it and that sudden jump to max boost can push that mix in to the IM in a "gulp" causing hydro-lock and broken pistons and bent rods.
I think I'll do a better write up and put it in the how to. That will make it easier to find.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RX OCC - RE-MOUNTED OUTSIDE THE ENGINE BAY WITH REMOTE DRAIN ON XSPORT. (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2536.msg37571#msg37571)
SHOboat; Wondering if I missed a post somewhere...
What ever ended up happening with your oil separators?
Not much as of yet, my last inspection had some oil in the tubes leading to the separators. Nothing visible in or after the cans. Also there is no evidence of new oil in the cac or the throttle body as of yet. I am going to take apart the system this weekend to take a look and I'll let you guys know.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Excellent, thank you for the update!
I had my second 500mi. Rx drain today HERE (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2536.0).
So I tore the system apart last night, and nada, nothing zip in the cans. 2 tanks of gas about 900km. There is evidence of oil in the tubes leading to the separators nothing in and nothing after. I am beginning to think that either it's going straight through or it's too restrictive and not getting into the cans. Weird, I thought the pcv side would get something. I'll have them on for about another week and we will see where I stand. But it doesn't look good for the morso cans.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No signs of any oil/misc compounds coming to a rest in the catch can, no matter how brief? The Moroso can does not use coalescing material, correct? I wonder if an internal packed layer of steel wool would help.
It does have filtering material at the inlet and outlet. I'll take some pics when I get them out again. But nada in there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No can. no matter what the internal design is will work unless it nears 1 qt of internal volume to allow the speed of the flow, or velocity to slow enough to prevent the Bernoulli effect from pulling much of the liquid through.
Here is a good read:
There is always debate about catchcans and effectiveness. We, for several years have had a challenge out to any brand catach-can to demonstrate there is no equal to the effectiveness of the RX system, and get plenty of flak from some on this. Our challenge has been, and continues to be as follows:
Install the RX can inline AFTER any other can, no matter the brand or model, especially the popular ones like Moroso, Billet prototypes (any of the dozens branded different but the same design) JLT, etc. and the RX can will catch as much or more, than any of these other "Placebo" cans. All cans catch oil, that is not in debate. What is the concern is if your only trapping a small amount, and most of the oil most is still traveling right through any can and still being ingested into your intake air charge, your not correcting the issues related to oil ingestion. So, since we have done the tests ourselves on dozens of popular cans, it is hard for a consumer to see this as accurate and unbiased (the Elite E2 has turned out to be a close second and performs excellent) we have extended this challenge to anyone that will demonstrate they will do an unbiased test for 1000-2000 miles and document all in detail starting with both cleaned and oil free, and also at the end of the test are free to do it in reverse order (RX first, any can after) and I stress again, un-biased with no relationship with any of the vendors, post up the results in an accurate manor. We are looking for some here as well to do this on the CTS-V, and any other model/engine.
This is to wade through the hype and BS.....this is an open challenge ongoing.
Here is the most recent result:
I've had a UPR catch can on my 5.0 since last summer. It catches a lot, especially in the cold months. But I'll get right to my test. I added an RX can inline after my UPR can to see if the UPR was missing anything. And if it was allowing some to pass through, was it enough for the RX to catch anything? I don't drive a lot of miles regularly since my F150 is not a daily driver, so my results will take some time. This thread is to document how I set it up and what I catch over time.
I installed the RX can just as the directions explained, but I routed the hoses differently. I left my UPR can right where it's been for months, but rerouted one hose. I left the hose from the passenger side of the engine to the inlet of the UPR can. Then a new hose from UPR can outlet, routed to the inlet of the RX can. The RX outlet hose goes back to the engine. The PCV exhaust now flows from the engine, through the UPR, then through the RX, and finally back up to the engine intake.
Before installing everything for the test, I cleaned the UPR can thoroughly. The bottom of the can (inside) was covered with a thin layer of stiff sludge that I could only clean out using gas. I'm glad that was caught, along with the ounces of oil, water, etc, over the months I've been emptying it. But I was surprised at the outlet hose from the UPR can. It was wet with oil. Obviously some was getting through the can and back to my intake. I've never let the can get close to half full before emptying it. Nearly every time I've emptied it, there was 1/4" or less in the bottom. I'm noting this in case someone thinks I left the UPR get overfilled and it flowed through. Nevertheless, I started this test after cleaning everything for a fresh start.
I plan to leave this setup on for a thousand miles or so, and report my findings from each can.
1st picture: UPR can as it was originally installed.
2nd: CleanUPR can.
3rd: RX can installed. The hose in the top center of the can is the inlet. The outlet hose on the right has a check valve.
4th: Engine outlet to UPR inlet on left of can. UPR outlet on right side of can routed around (smaller hose) to the RX inlet. You can also see the other smaller hose coming back up from the RX can and ending at the intake on the engine.
And the 1000 mile result:
1000 Miles of Testing Results
- The Weather has been warmer lately. So the test began with sub freezing temperatures, and gradually increased through the 70's and topped off in the mid 80's yesterday. I couldn't have asked for a better range of temperatures for this test.
- What they caught was astounding to me. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the UPR might miss.
The UPR stayed on track with what it has been accumulating for many months. Each time I emptied them, it had about the same amount. It's contents were mostly oil which smelled like used oil. It caught 17cc total which is just under 3 1/2 tsp.
The RX had more than the UPR each time I emptied them. It's contents were an oil/fuel/water type mix that had a much stronger odor. Not a fuel smell, but a sharper chemical smell compared to the odor of used oil. It caught a total of 67cc which is just over 13 1/2 tsp.
- Final totals:
UPR - 17cc
RX - 67cc
So, who has a Moroso or other can installed that is willing to do a completely unbiased test...let us know.
Hey I'm up for the test. Shoot me a pm and we can work something out.
I want to clear something first. I posted some advice on here that got a lot of buzz, I still trust their advice. That said Tracy makes a compelling argument. So I have been dabbling in my own car.
I trust my dealer for the most part, they also said don't modify your car that's bad. I didn't exactly listen to them...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To understand the Moroso design, the top section has to be looked at closely:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitadiffcatchcans016.jpg)
The coalescing material they used is fine, but think carefully on how the vapors are routed through it. What side is the inlet? And what side is the outlet? Lets say the right is the inlet and the left is the outlet. The right side the oil and gunk laden vapors will travel into the media, and as the internal volume is so small, the 600 CFM of flow running through cannot slow, so most is pulled through due to the speed, or velocity of this flow. So where does it go? Some of the larger drops will fall to the bottom and collect, but most will pull right into the left side (assuming that is the outlet). Now some will also collect in the media...but as it saturates, most is pulled right out just as if you would put a wet wash cloth to your mouth ans uck. What happens, the water is sucked right out of the wash cloth. Now at 5---600 CFM of flow, that is many times the suction and volume that your able to duplicate with your mouth, so imagine there is very little of that oil able to remain in the media. When you shut the engine down, there will be some that then drops to the bottom and accumulates there from each sides media, but overall, it can only stop and trap a fraction of what is actually entering it so most is drawn right through. And then, if ere is more than say app. 1 oz collected over time, after that you can see it pulls some of the amount collected each time the engine is run and drawn out from the bottom as well.
This is hardly an isolated example. There are hundreds of cans to choose from out there, and all make bold claims. But we purchase and test and dissect all we see, and 99% are not worth installing. They ALL catch enough for the end user to have the "Placebo effect" and THINK they are doing the job, but unless one actually tests and sees for themselves, most never have any idea.
Why do we need to t the intake plumbing?
Quote from: panther427 on May 09, 2014, 09:44:33 PM
Why do we need to t the intake plumbing?
To get the maximum vacuum you need to tap into the intake. As close to the turbos as possible. Since we have two turbos, we have two intakes, so tapping into
both of them doubles the vacuum to evacuate the gasses in the can.
With an otherwise stock setup, drilling the pipes is the only solution. Once you start modding, and freeing up other lines / barbs, your options increase, and you won't have to tap the pipes anymore.
If anyone wants to get a different brand catch can, or oil separator in my hands, I will gladly do the in-line tests and comparison.
While I am a big proponent of Tracy and his product, I have no affiliation with him or Rx, and will provide a scientific test. Like the rest of you, I am just concerned with finding whatever solution is best.
I already have some upcoming experiments, and another drain planned the with Rx system, so adding this would work out perfect.
Well good get that but the main line is same size as feed lines. From what I understand having two into one of same size really doesn't do anything. If it was two 3/8 into a 1/2 inch line I would understand and wouldn't be question this. I still need to relocate factory front value cover line to the air box :-(
Quote from: panther427 on May 10, 2014, 12:49:11 AM
Well good get that but the main line is same size as feed lines. From what I understand having two into one of same size really doesn't do anything. If it was two 3/8 into a 1/2 inch line I would understand and wouldn't be question this. I still need to relocate factory front value cover line to the air box :-(
Sorry...I wasn't trying to over simplify it. I was just pointing out why the IM vac barb isn't enough vacuum from the can.
I agree with what you're saying in respect to the same size lines; but that's only true if you're using the line to it's maximum flow potential.
Example:
If a line will only flow a max of 10cfm, and you're pulling 10cfm into a space, 1, 2, or 50 evac lines pulling 10cfm/ea. won't make a difference.
But, take that same scenario and say you're only flowing 5cfm through the intake line, and evacuating 5cfm through each vac line. The addition of a second line would double your intake and overall flow.
So it's been over a month and one trip to the track. I took the catch cans out last night. Still NADA! In either can. I have given them back to my friend. It's really weird. I expected something even a little. Just wanted to give you guys an update
Also, for those of you that have the RX are you still monitoring the oil in the CAC and intake piping? Just curious, I have noticed in mine that I have some in the rear pipe coming from the rear turbo. I have read that on some cars the turbo seals are a bit leaky by design. I am wondering if this is contributing to the issue. (http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/23/ga7adegy.jpg)(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/23/5y7ame3e.jpg)
These are the pipes I'm talking about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wanted to let you guys know that I have come to an arrangement with Tracy at RX. I will be holding on to one if the Moroso cans. I will be installing the RX system in my car in line with the Moroso. This test should put to bed a few issues. With my own observations and Tracy's posts on the forum I am beginning to believe that we need these on our cars. I will do a separate write up once I have the RX to do the side by side comparison. More to come!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's awesome. Thanks for the update. I an doin my own little test with just the catch can. Different levels of installs and will end up with a Css to see what it does
You guys rock! :thumb:
One of the components to the monster can is on backorder... When that all wraps up, we'll see what effect can size has on all this too. ;)
Tempted to crack another lame joke :D but I'll spare the good folks this time!
Quote from: SHOdded on May 24, 2014, 03:54:33 AM
Tempted to crack another lame joke :D but I'll spare the good folks this time!
You better CAN it!
Quote from: SHOdded on May 24, 2014, 03:54:33 AM
Tempted to crack another lame joke :D but I'll spare the good folks this time!
AHHHHH .... go ahead , a little more humor is needed here !
Haven't looked at the designs for our applications (or even the F150s) but this was what I used in my Spec.B
http://www.grimmspeed.com/air-oil-separator-wrx-sti-lgt-fxt/ (http://www.grimmspeed.com/air-oil-separator-wrx-sti-lgt-fxt/) Seemed to do the job. Plus it looked pretty. :)
I had a chance to pull off both front CAC tubes leading to the CAC on the drivers side (rear turbo pipe and lower tube from the from pipe). An inspection of both tubes I noticed very little oil in these tubes, which surprised me. I was expecting to see a lot more on the inside of the tubes. So from this I believe that we can deduce the oil is coming out in a vapour form from the front clean side predominantly. And it's condensing in the CAC. This could explain why I saw almost nothing in my test cans, without better coalescing media and a temperature drop the cans will not be very effective. I am now even more interested in the RX and testing on my car. More to come.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Condensing the vapors seems to be key here, hence the greater effectiveness of JimiJak's relocated catch can in the front left bumper area. Keep it hot enough to stay in circulation but not bake on, and then hit the cool confines of the catch can for precipitation.
The Grimmspeed unit is one of the least effective, but sure looks nice. It also combines clean and dirty side together defeating any evacuation which is why it appears to work. It leaves all the combustion byproduct mix in the crankcase mixing with the oil if used with the 3 barbs.
Here is the latest test result of the RX can done in reverse to be fair:
Test Results
- I'll summarize the test to date. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR.
Phase 2 Test Results
- The Weather has been average northern Ohio spring weather. Some rain, fog, cool nights, warm and hot days.
- Driving has been about the same through both phases. I good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 40% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, with a few very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling, and no towing.
- What they caught this time might have been predicted by some (after the results of phase 1). RX was first in line, with the UPR after it to catch anything the RX might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was half of that caught in the first phase. The first phase had some cold weather which accounted for more water in the mix and the higher volume.
The contents from the RX can was mostly oil/fuel, and had a strong chemical/solvent smell again. It caught 35.5cc total which is approximately 7 1/8 tsp.
The UPR can caught about the same mix of oil/fuel, but didn't smell quite as strong. Halfway through this phase, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh on the exit side of the UPR can. I did that, but noticed no difference in what it was catching. But since it was second in line, and there was little to catch, that's understandable. The UPR can caught 1.75cc total which is approximately 1/3 tsp. With so little collecting this time, I monitored the contents of the UPR can but didn't empty it until the end of the test.
- Phase 2 Totals:
RX - 35.5cc
UPR - 1.75cc
- Other tidbits include the 'first in line' RX can caught 95% of the total volume. The exit hoses were very clean from both cans. The last few tanks of gas have produced slightly higher than my normal MPGs, but it's too early to tell on that (more to follow after phase 3).
Here is the entire test to date step by step this owner has done.....lots of work on his part and props to him:
5.0 UPR vs RX Catch Can Effectiveness Test
I've had a UPR catch can on my 5.0 since last summer. It catches a lot, especially in the cold months. But I'll get right to my test. I added an RX can inline after my UPR can to see if the UPR was missing anything. And if it was allowing some to pass through, was it enough for the RX to catch anything? I don't drive a lot of miles regularly since my F150 is not a daily driver, so my results will take some time. This thread is to document how I set it up and what I catch over time.
I installed the RX can just as the directions explained, but I routed the hoses differently. I left my UPR can right where it's been for months, but rerouted one hose. I left the hose from the passenger side of the engine to the inlet of the UPR can. Then a new hose from UPR can outlet, routed to the inlet of the RX can. The RX outlet hose goes back to the engine. The PCV exhaust now flows from the engine, through the UPR, then through the RX, and finally back up to the engine intake.
Before installing everything for the test, I cleaned the UPR can thoroughly. The bottom of the can (inside) was covered with a thin layer of stiff sludge that I could only clean out using gas. I'm glad that was caught, along with the ounces of oil, water, etc, over the months I've been emptying it. But I was surprised at the outlet hose from the UPR can. It was wet with oil. Obviously some was getting through the can and back to my intake. I've never let the can get close to half full before emptying it. Nearly every time I've emptied it, there was 1/4" or less in the bottom. I'm noting this in case someone thinks I left the UPR get overfilled and it flowed through. Nevertheless, I started this test after cleaning everything for a fresh start.
I plan to leave this setup on for a thousand miles or so, and report my findings from each can.
1st picture: UPR can as it was originally installed.
2nd: CleanUPR can.
3rd: RX can installed. The hose in the top center of the can is the inlet. The outlet hose on the right has a check valve.
4th: Engine outlet to UPR inlet on left of can. UPR outlet on right side of can routed around (smaller hose) to the RX inlet. You can also see the other smaller hose coming back up from the RX can and ending at the intake on the engine.
Report 2:
I thought I'd add a post to keep this thread alive since it is taking me awhile to get enough miles on the truck for valid results. Now that spring weather is finally arriving, I haven't been putting as many miles on it since I'm busy. But I have around 600 miles on the test set up so far. I emptied the cans recently and recorded the volumes to date. I'd like to wait until I get to 1000 miles before posting the results from the test, but I'll give some preliminary feedback.
- Emptying process -
First the UPR. I'm used to emptying the UPR can regularly, so it's not a big deal to unscrew, guide the can out from between the hoses, pour it out, guide it back in between the hoses, get it lined up carefully (so I don't cross thread the soft aluminum) and screw it back up snug. All that takes less than a few minutes so it's rather easy.
Now the RX can. Raise the hood, hold an empty water bottle under the drain tube, open the valve, close the valve, close the hood. I kid you not, it takes no more time than it took to read those steps. I knew it would be easy to empty, but it is ridiculously easy.
_ The weather so far -
During the first week of the test we had winter weather, with some snow. Since then we have had mild weather. Temperatures are in the 50's and 60's most days.
- What they caught so far -
I won't share the amounts yet, but I'll give some info. The UPR can has caught a 'mostly oil with a bit of water' mixture so far. The RX can (in line after the UPR) has had just the opposite. It's collected mostly water or fuel, with some oil mixed in.
I emptied the UPR first, and I would estimate it has collected the normal amount compared to what it usually does I empty it. I was pleased that my set up with 2 cans didn't seem to change the normal flow and collection I was used to seeing with just the UPR can. When I was about the turn the valve to empty the RX, I paused to a few seconds wondering if anything would come out. After all it was a new can that would need to get some oil/water coated on the inside before there would be enough to drip to the bottom (The UPR can had been in use for many months and although I cleaned the can I did not rinse off the filter material). Plus I wondered if the valve of the RX can protruded up into the can, and if it required some liquid to collect before there was enough to spill over that valve nipple and exit the can. Then I opened the valve and I had to smile when I had some liquid drain out. I thought all along that if it caught more than 10% of what the UPR was collecting, I would be surprised. It's still early in the test, and I would like to redo the test after reversing the order of the cans later, but I am surprised so far. I'm hoping to get more miles on the truck soon so I can wrap up this phase of the test.
Report 3:
1000 Miles of Testing Results
- The Weather has been warmer lately. So the test began with sub freezing temperatures, and gradually increased through the 70's and topped off in the mid 80's yesterday. I couldn't have asked for a better range of temperatures for this test.
- What they caught was astounding to me. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the UPR might miss.
The UPR stayed on track with what it has been accumulating for many months. Each time I emptied them, it had about the same amount. It's contents were mostly oil which smelled like used oil. It caught 17cc total which is just under 3 1/2 tsp.
The RX had more than the UPR each time I emptied them. It's contents were an oil/fuel/water type mix that had a much stronger odor. Not a fuel smell, but a sharper chemical smell compared to the odor of used oil. It caught a total of 67cc which is just over 13 1/2 tsp.
- Final totals:
UPR - 17cc
RX - 67cc
The RX can caught 4 times the amount the UPR can caught, after the UPR can removed what it could. I said from the beginning I would be surprised if the RX can could pull 10% of what the UPR caught, since it was second in line. If someone told me it would catch an equal amount I would have said BS. For it to catch 4 times what the UPR can caught is unreal.
Report 4:
The routing of cans has been reversed so the second phase of the test is underway. I cleaned the cans and hoses so neither has an advantage. I also checked the inside of the hoses as I disassembled everything. The exit hose from the UPR was dripping with oil and it made a mess as I took it apart. The exit hose from the UPR was clean and dry. It still looked new. That is what prompted me to clean all the hoses before starting this phase. Is the double can routing helping the second can that much, or is one can that much better. Time will tell again.
Report 5:
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
Phase 2 is almost complete now, thanks to some extra mileage for work. I'll report on that soon and begin phase 3.
As I said above, UPR shipped parts for me to do phase 3 of the test. I bought my UPR can in June, and they changed the can slightly since then. The new diffuser/extension will only fit cans made after that, so they shipped a full new kit to test. Thank you UPR for helping with this, and for your input in this thread.
After shipping the kit, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh from the exit side of my existing can for the remainder of phase 2, and to remove the mesh from the exit side of the new can before starting phase 3. I removed it from both (phase 2 was half way done when I removed it from the existing can). When I was removing the mesh from the short side of the new can (in preparation for phase 3), I realized the diffuser was assembled backwards. For our 5.0 F150's the long side of the diffuser must be on the passenger side of the can when installed. I disassembled, removed the mesh packed up in the can top on the exit/passenger side, and reassembled the can with diffuser. For anyone who might have received their cans assembled by UPR, you should check to see if it was assembled correctly before installing. (EDIT: Joe notes below they assemble the cans for shipping, and all cans should be assembled for your own installation needs) I also had a small piece of the stainless steel mesh (1/8") drop out when I was doing that. I wasn't thrilled with that so I unrolled, and lightly tapped the mesh in case there were any other loose pieces, but there weren't. A quick note on the UPR kit... it is much improved since I bought mine. The hoses are pre cut to the proper lengths, the elbow fittings are nickel rather than plastic, and they include Ford OEM snap on valve cover and intake fittings.
More to come soon!
Report 6:
Test Results
- I'll summarize the test to date. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR.
Phase 2 Test Results
- The Weather has been average northern Ohio spring weather. Some rain, fog, cool nights, warm and hot days.
- Driving has been about the same through both phases. I good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 40% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, with a few very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling, and no towing.
- What they caught this time might have been predicted by some (after the results of phase 1). RX was first in line, with the UPR after it to catch anything the RX might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was half of that caught in the first phase. The first phase had some cold weather which accounted for more water in the mix and the higher volume.
The contents from the RX can was mostly oil/fuel, and had a strong chemical/solvent smell again. It caught 35.5cc total which is approximately 7 1/8 tsp.
The UPR can caught about the same mix of oil/fuel, but didn't smell quite as strong. Halfway through this phase, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh on the exit side of the UPR can. I did that, but noticed no difference in what it was catching. But since it was second in line, and there was little to catch, that's understandable. The UPR can caught 1.75cc total which is approximately 1/3 tsp. With so little collecting this time, I monitored the contents of the UPR can but didn't empty it until the end of the test.
- Phase 2 Totals:
RX - 35.5cc
UPR - 1.75cc
- Other tidbits include the 'first in line' RX can caught 95% of the total volume. The exit hoses were very clean from both cans. The last few tanks of gas have produced slightly higher than my normal MPGs, but it's too early to tell on that (more to follow after phase 3).
-Phase 3, using the UPR can extension and diffuser, is underway. Details will follow.
I should be able to add my 2 cents to this list also soon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looking forward to it. Need to see it both ways as well to be fair in the testing like the last report in the UPR test.
Quote from: Tuner Boost on June 06, 2014, 04:00:25 PM
Looking forward to it. Need to see it both ways as well to be fair in the testing like the last report in the UPR test.
That's the plan. :)
Just a quick update, I got my hands on the RX monster. Needless to say it won't really fit anywhere in my SHO. Tracy is kind enough to swap it out with the standard can. So be warned order the standard can if you want it to fit. Once I get the other can I will be sure to post an update.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bummer! I guess they managed to build more room into the X. I thought the right wheel well where some people mount their methanol kits might've been workable.
Quote from: SHOdded on June 21, 2014, 07:25:26 PM
Bummer! I guess they managed to build more room into the X. I thought the right wheel well where some people mount their methanol kits might've been workable.
Possibly, 2 reasons I didn't go that route. 1 I may add a meth kit at a later date, and 2 the distance to the intake port was really far. It might work. But it really limits you on the install location.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Understood :)
i have not caught anything in my car :(
Quote from: panther427 on June 23, 2014, 01:10:00 AM
i have not caught anything in my car :(
Can you post some pictures of how your lines are run? And make sure the checkvalves flow AWAY from the can.
We will figure it out for you!
Quote from: Tuner Boost on June 23, 2014, 12:31:36 PM
Quote from: panther427 on June 23, 2014, 01:10:00 AM
i have not caught anything in my car :(
Can you post some pictures of how your lines are run? And make sure the checkvalves flow AWAY from the can.
We will figure it out for you!
T
This is my install post and video. I can get other photos later.
http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php/topic,2626.30.html (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php/topic,2626.30.html)
Can't find the link.....thx!
Sorry updated
http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php/topic,2626.30.html (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php/topic,2626.30.html)
Final results of the long term, totally independent test over 3 months, and thousands of miles:
5.0 UPR vs RX Catch Can Effectiveness Test
I've had a UPR catch can on my 5.0 since last summer. It catches a lot, especially in the cold months. But I'll get right to my test. I added an RX can inline after my UPR can to see if the UPR was missing anything. And if it was allowing some to pass through, was it enough for the RX to catch anything? I don't drive a lot of miles regularly since my F150 is not a daily driver, so my results will take some time. This thread is to document how I set it up and what I catch over time.
I installed the RX can just as the directions explained, but I routed the hoses differently. I left my UPR can right where it's been for months, but rerouted one hose. I left the hose from the passenger side of the engine to the inlet of the UPR can. Then a new hose from UPR can outlet, routed to the inlet of the RX can. The RX outlet hose goes back to the engine. The PCV exhaust now flows from the engine, through the UPR, then through the RX, and finally back up to the engine intake.
Before installing everything for the test, I cleaned the UPR can thoroughly. The bottom of the can (inside) was covered with a thin layer of stiff sludge that I could only clean out using gas. I'm glad that was caught, along with the ounces of oil, water, etc, over the months I've been emptying it. But I was surprised at the outlet hose from the UPR can. It was wet with oil. Obviously some was getting through the can and back to my intake. I've never let the can get close to half full before emptying it. Nearly every time I've emptied it, there was 1/4" or less in the bottom. I'm noting this in case someone thinks I left the UPR get overfilled and it flowed through. Nevertheless, I started this test after cleaning everything for a fresh start.
I plan to leave this setup on for a thousand miles or so, and report my findings from each can.
1st picture: UPR can as it was originally installed.
2nd: CleanUPR can.
3rd: RX can installed. The hose in the top center of the can is the inlet. The outlet hose on the right has a check valve.
4th: Engine outlet to UPR inlet on left of can. UPR outlet on right side of can routed around (smaller hose) to the RX inlet. You can also see the other smaller hose coming back up from the RX can and ending at the intake on the engine.
Report 2:
I thought I'd add a post to keep this thread alive since it is taking me awhile to get enough miles on the truck for valid results. Now that spring weather is finally arriving, I haven't been putting as many miles on it since I'm busy. But I have around 600 miles on the test set up so far. I emptied the cans recently and recorded the volumes to date. I'd like to wait until I get to 1000 miles before posting the results from the test, but I'll give some preliminary feedback.
- Emptying process -
First the UPR. I'm used to emptying the UPR can regularly, so it's not a big deal to unscrew, guide the can out from between the hoses, pour it out, guide it back in between the hoses, get it lined up carefully (so I don't cross thread the soft aluminum) and screw it back up snug. All that takes less than a few minutes so it's rather easy.
Now the RX can. Raise the hood, hold an empty water bottle under the drain tube, open the valve, close the valve, close the hood. I kid you not, it takes no more time than it took to read those steps. I knew it would be easy to empty, but it is ridiculously easy.
_ The weather so far -
During the first week of the test we had winter weather, with some snow. Since then we have had mild weather. Temperatures are in the 50's and 60's most days.
- What they caught so far -
I won't share the amounts yet, but I'll give some info. The UPR can has caught a 'mostly oil with a bit of water' mixture so far. The RX can (in line after the UPR) has had just the opposite. It's collected mostly water or fuel, with some oil mixed in.
I emptied the UPR first, and I would estimate it has collected the normal amount compared to what it usually does I empty it. I was pleased that my set up with 2 cans didn't seem to change the normal flow and collection I was used to seeing with just the UPR can. When I was about the turn the valve to empty the RX, I paused to a few seconds wondering if anything would come out. After all it was a new can that would need to get some oil/water coated on the inside before there would be enough to drip to the bottom (The UPR can had been in use for many months and although I cleaned the can I did not rinse off the filter material). Plus I wondered if the valve of the RX can protruded up into the can, and if it required some liquid to collect before there was enough to spill over that valve nipple and exit the can. Then I opened the valve and I had to smile when I had some liquid drain out. I thought all along that if it caught more than 10% of what the UPR was collecting, I would be surprised. It's still early in the test, and I would like to redo the test after reversing the order of the cans later, but I am surprised so far. I'm hoping to get more miles on the truck soon so I can wrap up this phase of the test.
Report 3:
1000 Miles of Testing Results
- The Weather has been warmer lately. So the test began with sub freezing temperatures, and gradually increased through the 70's and topped off in the mid 80's yesterday. I couldn't have asked for a better range of temperatures for this test.
- What they caught was astounding to me. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the UPR might miss.
The UPR stayed on track with what it has been accumulating for many months. Each time I emptied them, it had about the same amount. It's contents were mostly oil which smelled like used oil. It caught 17cc total which is just under 3 1/2 tsp.
The RX had more than the UPR each time I emptied them. It's contents were an oil/fuel/water type mix that had a much stronger odor. Not a fuel smell, but a sharper chemical smell compared to the odor of used oil. It caught a total of 67cc which is just over 13 1/2 tsp.
- Final totals:
UPR - 17cc
RX - 67cc
The RX can caught 4 times the amount the UPR can caught, after the UPR can removed what it could. I said from the beginning I would be surprised if the RX can could pull 10% of what the UPR caught, since it was second in line. If someone told me it would catch an equal amount I would have said BS. For it to catch 4 times what the UPR can caught is unreal.
Report 4:
The routing of cans has been reversed so the second phase of the test is underway. I cleaned the cans and hoses so neither has an advantage. I also checked the inside of the hoses as I disassembled everything. The exit hose from the UPR was dripping with oil and it made a mess as I took it apart. The exit hose from the UPR was clean and dry. It still looked new. That is what prompted me to clean all the hoses before starting this phase. Is the double can routing helping the second can that much, or is one can that much better. Time will tell again.
Report 5:
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
Phase 2 is almost complete now, thanks to some extra mileage for work. I'll report on that soon and begin phase 3.
As I said above, UPR shipped parts for me to do phase 3 of the test. I bought my UPR can in June, and they changed the can slightly since then. The new diffuser/extension will only fit cans made after that, so they shipped a full new kit to test. Thank you UPR for helping with this, and for your input in this thread.
After shipping the kit, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh from the exit side of my existing can for the remainder of phase 2, and to remove the mesh from the exit side of the new can before starting phase 3. I removed it from both (phase 2 was half way done when I removed it from the existing can). When I was removing the mesh from the short side of the new can (in preparation for phase 3), I realized the diffuser was assembled backwards. For our 5.0 F150's the long side of the diffuser must be on the passenger side of the can when installed. I disassembled, removed the mesh packed up in the can top on the exit/passenger side, and reassembled the can with diffuser. For anyone who might have received their cans assembled by UPR, you should check to see if it was assembled correctly before installing. (EDIT: Joe notes below they assemble the cans for shipping, and all cans should be assembled for your own installation needs) I also had a small piece of the stainless steel mesh (1/8") drop out when I was doing that. I wasn't thrilled with that so I unrolled, and lightly tapped the mesh in case there were any other loose pieces, but there weren't. A quick note on the UPR kit... it is much improved since I bought mine. The hoses are pre cut to the proper lengths, the elbow fittings are nickel rather than plastic, and they include Ford OEM snap on valve cover and intake fittings.
More to come soon!
Report 6:
Test Results
- I'll summarize the test to date. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR.
Phase 2 Test Results
- The Weather has been average northern Ohio spring weather. Some rain, fog, cool nights, warm and hot days.
- Driving has been about the same through both phases. I good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 40% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, with a few very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling, and no towing.
- What they caught this time might have been predicted by some (after the results of phase 1). RX was first in line, with the UPR after it to catch anything the RX might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was half of that caught in the first phase. The first phase had some cold weather which accounted for more water in the mix and the higher volume.
The contents from the RX can was mostly oil/fuel, and had a strong chemical/solvent smell again. It caught 35.5cc total which is approximately 7 1/8 tsp.
The UPR can caught about the same mix of oil/fuel, but didn't smell quite as strong. Halfway through this phase, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh on the exit side of the UPR can. I did that, but noticed no difference in what it was catching. But since it was second in line, and there was little to catch, that's understandable. The UPR can caught 1.75cc total which is approximately 1/3 tsp. With so little collecting this time, I monitored the contents of the UPR can but didn't empty it until the end of the test.
- Phase 2 Totals:
RX - 35.5cc
UPR - 1.75cc
- Other tidbits include the 'first in line' RX can caught 95% of the total volume. The exit hoses were very clean from both cans. The last few tanks of gas have produced slightly higher than my normal MPGs, but it's too early to tell on that (more to follow after phase 3).
-Phase 3, using the UPR can extension and diffuser, is underway. Details will follow.
Final Test Results
- I'll summarize the test phases. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details on phase 1. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR. The second phase results were: RX - 35.50cc, UPR - 1.75cc. The 'first in line' RX caught 95% of the total volume. See post 143 for more details on phase 2.
Phase 3 Test Results
- This time the UPR can was first in line as in phase 1, but it had the new can extension and diffuser added. It also had the mesh material removed from the exit side of the can.
- The Weather has been average northern Ohio early summer weather. Some rain with warm and hot days.
- Driving has been a good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 60% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, some steep hill climbs, and some very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling again, and no towing. I'll add some more thoughts on driving and MPGs below.
- What they caught was a mixed bag. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the extended UPR might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was down from the last phase, again. I assume it is due to the warmer weather and maybe my engine is using less oil with more miles? Either way, my test looks at the percent each can catches, compared to the total caught for that phase, so the volume isn't critical.
The contents from the extended UPR can was mostly oil, and had a used oil smell. The UPR caught 14.75cc which is approximately 3 tsp.
The RX can caught a fuel/water/oil mix. It smelled much more harsh again. The RX can caught 16.00cc which is approximately 3 1/4 tsp.
- Phase 3 Totals:
UPR - 14.75cc (48%)
RX - 16.00cc (52%)
- Other thoughts on the results. The contents of each phase showed me the RX does a better job of removing more than oil. It always contained more water/fuel type liquids, while the UPR contained mostly oil. I don't know if it is due to the can design, the 'out front' mounting style of the RX, or both.
For anyone buying or thinking of upgrading their UPR can, I strongly recommend figuring out how to mount it out front, and would definitely add the valve that Joe@UPR is offering. I really think the 'out front' cooling effect will help it catch even more, and the valve would be worth the price for ease of emptying it. Having the RX can to compare to when emptying, the front mount and valve are no brainers.
As I said at the end of phase 2, my MPGs have increased slightly. I have done nothing different to my truck over the past year, other than adding the RX can to the UPR for this test. My driving style is very similar from tank to tank, I fill up at the same stations, etc. But since having both cans in series, and essentially removing 95% or more of the PCV byproducts, my MPGs have increased. Up to that point my lifetime MPGs were 17.5. Nearly every tank for the past year gave me the same results, 17.5. I would have some trips that would net 20 MPG, but the other short trips would always pull it back down for the same tank average - close to 17.5. My recent tank averages have all been over 18 MPG, with a few over 19, and as high as 19.5. My last tank included hauling approximately 1000 lbs of payload, through some long hills/mountains of PA, and I got 18.8 MPG. It could be the summer fuel mix combined with an engine that is broken in, but the timing is peculiar. Whatever the reason, I like it!
Thank you Eco Tuner (Tuner Boost) and Joe@UPR for your support, feedback, and willingness to listen to open criticism and suggestions through this test. Looking back though this thread today, I realized how rare it is to get input and support from competing manufacturers, through a comparison test like this. We have all learned quite a bit, and have real data to help make decisions. Hats off to you both!
It's not an Ecoboost but here is the install on a buddy's Trailblazer SS. Since I couldn't make it fit in mine.
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/07/01/unatydyh.jpg)
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/07/01/eda2yzyq.jpg)
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/07/01/uvuby2ut.jpg)
I will post some results from his experience with the RX also.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Finally got my RX yesterday, after a week and 1/2 stuck in customs. I hope to install it this weekend. The Moroso will be installed before the RX for the beginning of this test. I will run both cans for 2k KM and then report my findings here. At that time I will see if it warrants a 2nd test with the RX 1st in line.
Very cool, good luck!
Ok since we seem to be making headway on the intake, I can resume on this one. So I did install the RX. I have the "regular" can. As I didn't seem to be able to get the Monster to fit any where reasonably. So the can has been in the car for about 2 weeks now, I dismantled the entire system to check for leaks, oil ect. First off there was just a slight bit of oil in the Moroso can. I mean slight the filter media was damp. The RX was also dry, now with the RX I can't dismantle the can like the Moroso. So I could not examine the inside of the can. So I take this to mean that there wasn't enough accumulation in the can to pour out. Upon examining the hoses there was evidence of oil in the uptake tubes to the Moroso and after it into the RX. However there was no real evidence of anything after the RX. I have done about 1200KM so far, which isn't a ton considering. So after a another 1K KM. I will check in again.
Interesting. Any accumulation in the CAC? Planning on swapping the RX and Moroso?
Quote from: SHOdded on August 16, 2014, 06:20:39 AM
Interesting. Any accumulation in the CAC? Planning on swapping the RX and Moroso?
Nothing in the CAC since I drained it at the beginning of this test. Once I have done about 4k km. I will swap placement of the 2.
This topic makes my head hurt.
^^ lol. I finally have the clean side separator. Thanks to Tracy! I will be installing it this weekend. Update soon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
oh yeah!!!
A long term update, the pic is a 5K km drain. Looks like it's doing what it's supposed to. (http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/04/01/11509ecd88f31482935d095388f0cd24.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hey! Long time no hear :) SHO still behaving? Still the RX system, right? That's what 8 ounces? How's the intercooler looking?
Quote from: SHOdded on April 01, 2015, 12:57:21 PM
Hey! Long time no hear :) SHO still behaving? Still the RX system, right? That's what 8 ounces? How's the intercooler looking?
Still running strong, yup it's the RX can. It's a little over 1/2 of a 500ml bottle. The intercooler still had a little bit in it but nothing major.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Getting ready for track season, then?
Working on it lol. I need to order my down pipes and then some meth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: Welcome back ShoBoat and hows the ride,and are the wheel hubs holding up,cause mine are back with a vengeance just in time fir Spring.Z
Quote from: ZSHO on April 01, 2015, 09:34:32 PM
Welcome back ShoBoat,hows the car treating you and are the wheel hubs holding up,cause my tick sound is back just in time for spring.Z
Thanks Guys, ya been really busy as of late... Just the right one is gone on mine again. 2 sets later lol. I can't be bothered to have ford replace them again. I'm going to wait for a bit and replace them with the HD Timken hubs on my own dime and be done with it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just picked ordered this. Hope it helps the vaporization!
Mike
Quote from: black99lightning on April 11, 2014, 08:58:46 AM
JLT has adapted their kit for us, got an email. Trying to get ahold of Tucker about doing a true cold air.
http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=378&products_id=653 (http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=378&products_id=653)
http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=378&products_id=656 (http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=378&products_id=656)
I just read a all the pages and I am still not sure there was a winner.
RX seems to be best but their website in the link on this thread does not list the SHO. Did I miss which one to order?
JLT I did not see here other than a link but no testing?
My head hurts
Quote from: m3dragon on August 26, 2015, 04:34:44 PM
I just read a all the pages and I am still not sure there was a winner.
RX seems to be best but their website in the link on this thread does not list the SHO. Did I miss which one to order?
JLT I did not see here other than a link but no testing?
My head hurts
I would try contacting Mike.B here at Ecopowerparts,he has a UPR catch can which concists of a plug and play unit and is a great quality piece. info@ecopowerparts.com Z
Already been talking to mike. UPR is double the price and if I read this long thread chain is the RX collects more.
I emailed JTL and they only collect one side.
Need a oil off LOL of the new products on the market is seems.
Quote from: m3dragon on August 26, 2015, 07:16:10 PM
Already been talking to mike. UPR is double the price and if I read this long thread chain is the RX collects more.
I emailed JTL and they only collect one side.
Need a oil off LOL of the new products on the market is seems.
I guess if you want the one that collects more get ready to dish out some more,i'm very familiar with the RX catch can and definetly a top quality performer,you can try to email them at www.rxperformanceproducts.com (http://www.rxperformanceproducts.com) great group of guys over there and best of luck to you. Z
Yeah, UPR is looking better just for easy of use.
If you go RX Performance be sure to get the clean side separator. And ask the for a lotto extra hose. They gave me some... I think it is the best and won't increase CC pressure.
RX looks to be a build your own kit?
The clean side separator is an option...,but the can size can't be changed... There is no room for the monster can in any EB except the f150. The ca comes sealed with 2 inlets with check valves and one exit. Not a truly a build it yourself... There is an option for the color.
Was the UPR test done before the kit was made or after? Trying to see the timing for which is best and when.
JLT replied and said only passenger side is what has the oil issue?
I purchased my RX catch can a while back from (BMC) overall great quality piece of art,also have the upgraded hoses and fittings,for now only installed the front clean side seperator,hopefull will kill two birds withy one stone by hopefully installing a meth kit and the catch can by the front bumper,BTW the front clean side will help,but without correcting the lack of evacuation during boost ,it will push alot through the front side,check it every couple of weeks and indeed it does get dirty with oil buildup,pics below. Z
Heres a diagram that RX was kind enough to send me. Z
Quote from: ZSHO on August 27, 2015, 07:48:56 AM
Heres a diagram that RX was kind enough to send me. Z
Thanks Z, I saw that diagram on this or another thread.
What I am trying to see is if the RX test was done before the new UPR plug and play kit was done. I am trying to figure out between those two. Reading this thread as it is, UPR did not do anything but I can't tell which setup that was.
I have the rx in my SHO. Happy with it so far. I modded the air supply to vent to atmosphere. Instead of the intake box. I feel that it works better this way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: ShoBoat on August 27, 2015, 12:04:52 PM
I have the rx in my SHO. Happy with it so far. I modded the air supply to vent to atmosphere. Instead of the intake box. I feel that it works better this way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A question if you will... Doesn't this pull unfiltered air consistently into the system?
Quote from: BiGMaC on August 27, 2015, 06:24:29 PM
Quote from: ShoBoat on August 27, 2015, 12:04:52 PM
I have the rx in my SHO. Happy with it so far. I modded the air supply to vent to atmosphere. Instead of the intake box. I feel that it works better this way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A question if you will... Doesn't this pull unfiltered air consistently into the system?
No, in my case I have dual filters on the clean side. I'll have to take a pic to illustrate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pics (http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/08/28/689efb5ea6a9da0b6bb1b5c1cbb4215c.jpg)
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/08/28/f3817b0fa141b7c78ece25dd20a63143.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is it me or is that airfilter getting oil soaked.
Quote from: m3dragon on August 28, 2015, 01:52:10 PM
Is it me or is that airfilter getting oil soaked.
Lol no they are black, there is a white strip on the far side that you can't see that tells you when it's time for a cleaning. You can see it on the other pic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AH ok. I thought the white was the filter color and black was oil HAHA.
Hey ShoBoat, where is your reservoir located? Tracy at RX installed mine personaly and re checked everything again but I still don't catch anything. My tank is wedged in between fans and motor so now i'm wondering if it is actually getting to hot to cool the vapors down fast enough to catch them.
Mine is located by the passenger shock tower. Mine doesn't catch much in summer. More in winter. I do believe that location is a major factor in how well it works.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would also check and monitor the front clean side oil seperator,sometimes if to much is being pushed through the front side its not a good thing,instead of only focusing how much oil residue has accumulated inside the can. Z
Quote from: ZSHO on October 02, 2015, 04:22:39 PM
I would also check and monitor the front clean side oil seperator,sometimes if to much is being pushed through the front side its not a good thing,instead of only focusing how much oil residue has accumulated inside the can. Z
I always have oil in the clean side separator. Is there anyway to prevent this? It was making its way towards the air box until I rerouted the hose. Now it just sits in the separator.
Quote from: glock-coma on October 02, 2015, 06:15:03 PM
Quote from: ZSHO on October 02, 2015, 04:22:39 PM
I would also check and monitor the front clean side oil seperator,sometimes if to much is being pushed through the front side its not a good thing,instead of only focusing how much oil residue has accumulated inside the can. Z
I always have oil in the clean side separator. Is there anyway to prevent this? It was making its way towards the air box until I rerouted the hose. Now it just sits in the separator.
Do you have any pics of the front setup. Z
Not near the sho at this moment. Take some in a few.
I mentioned this a while back and figured let me just share my experience,purchased my RX catch can from a member here on the forum which was brand new never installed with all the extra goods,personally sent an email to (TEAM RX)and honestly was amazed at the service and information they provided me,and commend them. www.rxperformanceproducts.com (http://www.rxperformanceproducts.com) hope this helps anyone that has an RX oil catch can in getting any questions they have answered accordingly. Z :thumb: :thumb:
Quote from: ZSHO on October 02, 2015, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: glock-coma on October 02, 2015, 06:15:03 PM
Quote from: ZSHO on October 02, 2015, 04:22:39 PM
I would also check and monitor the front clean side oil seperator,sometimes if to much is being pushed through the front side its not a good thing,instead of only focusing how much oil residue has accumulated inside the can. Z
I always have oil in the clean side separator. Is there anyway to prevent this? It was making its way towards the air box until I rerouted the hose. Now it just sits in the separator.
Do you have any pics of the front setup. Z
sorry so late
White is current setup where oil doesn't go to the filter
Green is previous run that would fill hose with oil and saturate corner of filter.
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/03/3c277dc1d12e11a35952fed0dff4d925.jpg)
This is only about 2 weeks after cleaning the clean side.
I did notice that if I stay out of boost its much cleaner. But what fun is that. (http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/03/c982242977b8d73f2c40836e57ac78e8.jpg).
Quote from: glock-coma on October 03, 2015, 11:10:58 AM
Quote from: ZSHO on October 02, 2015, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: glock-coma on October 02, 2015, 06:15:03 PM
Quote from: ZSHO on October 02, 2015, 04:22:39 PM
I would also check and monitor the front clean side oil seperator,sometimes if to much is being pushed through the front side its not a good thing,instead of only focusing how much oil residue has accumulated inside the can. Z
I always have oil in the clean side separator. Is there anyway to prevent this? It was making its way towards the air box until I rerouted the hose. Now it just sits in the separator.
Do you have any pics of the front setup. Z
sorry so late
White is current setup where oil doesn't go to the filter
Green is previous run that would fill hose with oil and saturate corner of filter.
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/03/3c277dc1d12e11a35952fed0dff4d925.jpg)
This is only about 2 weeks after cleaning the clean side.
I did notice that if I stay out of boost its much cleaner. But what fun is that. (http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/10/03/c982242977b8d73f2c40836e57ac78e8.jpg).
Glock did the issue with all that excessive oil start recently? The problem seems to be a worn out gasket,that goes right under that rubber grommet inside the oil seperator. Z
No. It's been like that since I installed it. Every couple weeks I have to sop up the extra oil.
Quote from: glock-coma on October 03, 2015, 02:04:13 PM
No. It's been like that since I installed it. Every couple weeks I have to sop up the extra oil.
Had the same issue,read the above post,that gasket gets brittle and does not provide a secure fit and then it leaks through. Z
I think if you get a new gasket you will be good to go and then you could face that oil seperator hose the way you had it originally,facing downwards,oics below. Z
Quote from: ZSHO on October 03, 2015, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: glock-coma on October 03, 2015, 02:04:13 PM
No. It's been like that since I installed it. Every couple weeks I have to sop up the extra oil.
Had the same issue,read the above post,that gasket gets brittle and does not provide a secure fit and then it leaks through. Z
doesn't leak, oil just accumulates inside the css. Is that normal?
I'll prob message Tracy to confirm.
Quote from: glock-coma on October 03, 2015, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: ZSHO on October 03, 2015, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: glock-coma on October 03, 2015, 02:04:13 PM
No. It's been like that since I installed it. Every couple weeks I have to sop up the extra oil.
Had the same issue,read the above post,that gasket gets brittle and does not Dprovide a secure fit and then it leaks through. Z
doesn't leak, oil just accumulates inside the css. Is that normal?
I'll prob message Tracy to confirm.
Do you have a filter inside ?
Quote from: ZSHO on October 03, 2015, 02:36:57 PM
Quote from: glock-coma on October 03, 2015, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: ZSHO on October 03, 2015, 02:12:48 PM
Quote from: glock-coma on October 03, 2015, 02:04:13 PM
No. It's been like that since I installed it. Every couple weeks I have to sop up the extra oil.
Had the same issue,read the above post,that gasket gets brittle and does not Dprovide a secure fit and then it leaks through. Z
doesn't leak, oil just accumulates inside the css. Is that normal?
I'll prob message Tracy to confirm.
Do you have a filter inside ?
yes, the green scotch brite pad material
Glock it sounds like your not collecting any oil inside the can,instead pushing everything on the cleanside,explains all the extra oil,definetly contact Tracey because you need to correct the lack of evacuation during boost,mines pretty clean with over a month. Z
As an aside, I gotta say I love this thread, with the "battle" of pics & ideas :thumb:
Quote from: SHOdded on October 03, 2015, 07:09:31 PM
As an aside, I gotta say I love this thread, with the "battle" of pics & ideas :thumb:
-MANU the night is still young,you guys wanted pics your going to get pics,you wanted ideas your going to get ideas because thats how we ROLE HERE AT E.B.P.F its called commitment.lol. Z
True dat, Z, true dat!
Glock how many miles on your SHO? If all looks good with the oil catch can install might want to revert into looking at something different such as a possible faulty oil pressure switch,just a thought,just trying to help ya out. Z http://www.fordparts.com/Commerce/PartDetail.aspx?n=Z2LyMZzMcxglhDhR9%2fB%2bfw%3d%3d&id=329806221&m=2&search=true&year=2013&make=Ford&model=Taurus (http://www.fordparts.com/Commerce/PartDetail.aspx?n=Z2LyMZzMcxglhDhR9%2fB%2bfw%3d%3d&id=329806221&m=2&search=true&year=2013&make=Ford&model=Taurus) There is to much oil on the front seperator for my taste.
Quote from: ZSHO on October 04, 2015, 07:50:48 AM
Glock how many miles on your SHO? If all looks good with the oil catch can install might want to revert into looking at something different such as a possible faulty oil pressure switch,just a thought,just trying to help ya out. Z http://www.fordparts.com/Commerce/PartDetail.aspx?n=Z2LyMZzMcxglhDhR9%2fB%2bfw%3d%3d&id=329806221&m=2&search=true&year=2013&make=Ford&model=Taurus (http://www.fordparts.com/Commerce/PartDetail.aspx?n=Z2LyMZzMcxglhDhR9%2fB%2bfw%3d%3d&id=329806221&m=2&search=true&year=2013&make=Ford&model=Taurus) There is to much oil on the front seperator for my taste.
just turned 43,000.
I'll recheck everything with the install, pretty sure it's correct. The only thing I can think of is the connection to the airbox is causing too much suction.
But, I have put just a breather filter on the end of the hose with the same results.
I thought the pressure switch was just for the dummy light on the instrument panel.