Ecoboost Performance Forum

Hi All,

Lets start at the beginning with all of this, and what the issues are, how the are caused, why most cans on the market allow as much or more oil to pass right through, and what is needed to correct ALL of the shortcomings with the ecoboost. This will include the accumulation of unburnt fuel and water in the crankcase where it dilutes/contaminates the engine oil resulting in increased wear, timing chain failures/stretch, and catastrophic engine failure from hydrolock when a "gulp" of this mixture is pulled from the intercooler all at once.

I also ask everyone to please read, and reread all of this as well as the links to industry papers and photos from techs from every auto maker in the world on these issues, as they are not Ford exclusive, they are with all DI engines, and as of 2014 99% of all gasoline engine produced are now DI.  I also am not here to fight, or attack/be attacked. I am sharing over 40 years of experience in the industry, and am happy to list my qualifications and accomplishments if asked. And please understand, RX is not the only manufacturer with a good design, but 99% are only put out there to sell, meet a demand and are VERY poor in function. These companies/people take great offense to anyone laying out all the science and engineering behind what makes a can work, and not work well. and keep in mind, ALL cans (a beer can. mayonnaise jar, etc. will catch oil so it is not what is caught that matters, it is that it is ALL caught and the ingestion stopped).

Lets first address the billet cans (these will have 30 plus name brands including Moroso, etc. but are all the Billet Tech design made in Miami).

This can is beautifull to look at, is made extremely precise, but is one of the least effective on the market due to the following.  And I urge anyone with one to unscrew it, remove the mesh from the top chambers, and pull out the media (steel wool) so you can follow all of this as it is simple.

Here is what the RX system traps in 1000 miles or less, this would overfill any of the small cans on the market and this would be not just being ingested in small amounts, but would be ingested in "burps" or "gulps" once a small can has reached its capacity:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/DSCN0410_zps3638adfb.jpg)

Below is the RX monster can (for those with modified ecoboosts) next to a billet tech can. For a can to not allow oil/fluid to be pulled right through it at the rate of flow the PCV system needs to operate, it must be just under 1 qt of capacity to allow the speed of the flow, or velocity to slow to the point the droplets can fall out of suspension. The droplets will be carried through any can, no matter the design due to the Bernoulli effect that creates a low pressure area that will pull liquid into the flow path. Think of a straw placed near some spilled soda on a table. Suck on it and you will pull that liquid right into the flow and up the straw.  Now try it with a 3/4" piece of hose....you can't no matter how hard you try.  And the PCV flow is many times your ability to do so. So that alone will render any small container not much more effective that a beer can with 2 fittings:

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitadiffcatchcans015.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitadiffcatchcans016.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitadiffcatchcans017.jpg)

Look at how this design has no designated inlet, or outlet. It has two chambers next to each other with steel wool for a coalescing media (and that works well) so here is what happens.  The side used as the inlet will saturate with oil until it begins to form droplets that will be pulled through the mesh, and some will drop to the bottom and be caught, while as much or more is pulled right into the chamber next to it (due to the velocity, or speed of the flow carrying it) into the media against the outlet.  Now stop here. Go to the bathroom, take a washcloth and get it wet. Now place it to your mouth and suck on it. What happens?  You have sucked water right out of the washcloth the same as the oil is sucked right out of these type designs.

Want to see it in action?  Watch the right side app 1/2 way through the video.  (this is on a Caddy CTS-V with excess blow-by so it takes no time to begin to see oil:

Moroso TV: Moroso Air/Oil Separator / Catch Can test 2009 Cadillac CTS-V www.moroso.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9klkDCItEY#ws)

Note how as the oil saturates the right side (the side they use as the inlet here) it begins to fall to the bottom while in low vacuum/suction, but as soon as the PCV is at max vacuum/suction, that oil is pulled right up the left side and out of the can into the intake air charge. You do NOT want a can that allows oil to pass right through (does not matter that you see oil caught, it is what gets past a design). So this creates a "Placebo" effect for those that have installed them and when they open them, they see oil and figure they have corrected the issue. What has really happened is you have helped make someone $ while only preventing a small part of the real issue you were looking to correct.  Want to see more?  Place a RX can between any can and the intake manifold and it will catch cas much or more oil/mixture than the primary can so the proof is right in front of you.  Other cans that are design and work very well?

The Elite E2, the Apex, and the SMC all are excellent (and direct competitors) that catch most of the oil and will make a difference, but out of the hundreds offered, only these 4-5 are worth installing, and to date, none equal the RX in design and effectiveness (but some are coming close).

Now on to some others:

This is very popular:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitadiffcatchcans004.jpg)
has a site tube to see when it is getting full, and is marketed under dozen or so name brands. We cut it apart and we see this:

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitadiffcatchcans005.jpg)

The vapors enter one fitting and do a U turn out the other. Only the residual vapors that do swirl around drop oil. (almost all cans are a variation of this including the Mishimoto's best that allthough it has filtration, it is designed so the incoming oil laden vapors mix with the other vapors and a good amount still pulls through).

This one is billet, looks great, AND is large enough!  But when taken apart, it is just another empty can with 2 fittings attached:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitadiffcatchcans006.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitadiffcatchcans007.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitadiffcatchcans008.jpg)

We can post dozens of similar pictures.,...a company that takes a $8-12 Home Depot air compressor unit and charges $100 plus for, etc. there is no shortage of choices, just few that will do the job, and that is so confusing for those not understanding all that is involved.

The RX can has 4 separate chambers, 3 separate processes to separate, coalesce, and condense the oil/vaoprs and trap them:

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/DSC00065_zpsed84ff24.jpg)

The oil laden vapors enter the center fitting where they travel past the outlet chamber into the coalescing chamber where the dispersion tube is perforated allowing the vapors to evenly travel through all the media. This will trap 90% plus of the oil and other damaging compounds we don't want in the intake air charge. Then the droplets will fall out the bottom of the chamber to collect in the main condensing and collection chamber. The vapors as you will note, are never able to mix with the dirty vapors entering the RX can. No other can keeps them all separated through the entire path through a can. The then are forced between the outer cooling wall of the can as they pass the lower disc baffle. This forces all the vapors to make even contact with the outer surface and any remaining suspended compounds are condensed to droplets and fall to the bottom. The vapors will again slow after passing the lower disc baffle as the secondary condensing chamber will allow further cooling and capture an residual droplets before they again pass the upper disc baffle which again forces all to make contact one final time with the outer cooling wall before the cleaned vapors enter the separate outlet chamber where they the exit either outlet depending on whether in boost or non boost operation.

Now lets see how this applies to the Ford Ecoboost and the issues it has.

First, the ecoboost is one of the most advanced domestic v6's ever released. The design and principals are sound and it has the ability to produce more power, at less weight, and more efficiency than most earlier V8's ever could. It's design and tolerances will allow it to live 300-400k plus miles if cared for and the problematic PCV system is corrected. If not, it can be very problem prone and have a short lifespan due to one weak area, the PCV system.

Lets first look at the difference between traditional Port Injection engines that would never see intake valve coking issues as long as a good top tier fuel was used. With a port injection engine the intake valves are always showered in a fuel spray that kept the intake valves clean and deposit free:

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/TRaditionalportinjection_zpsc5053606.png)

Although this kept the intake valves clean, it was not the most efficient way to introduce fuel precisely like the direct injection of today.

Here is a direct injection diagram:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Traditionaldirectinjection_zps401e58d4.gif)


Direct injection introduces the fuel directly into the combustion chamber, and it does so in the final 20-30% of the compression stroke so the fuel is only present for milliseconds. Far less chance of detonation and as it is only during this time there is zero fuel back-flow from reversion pulses. The fuel is also at 2,000-3,000 psi VS 45-55 psi of old, no fuel injectors clogging anymore and the atomization is far better for a more complete and efficient combustion/burn. More power, less displacement, and great economy. In fact the use of expensive top tier fuels now make not difference from the discount brands. This also allows compression ratios of 11.3:1-11.5:1 with out needing race fuel to avoid detonation. Tons of advantages, but one huge draw back (not planned) is the intake valve coking issue as the oil and other compounds ingested as part of the PCV systems function cause rapid buildup on the intake valves gradually reducing the volumetric efficiency of the port/valve design and less power, MPG, etc. is the result. Here is a link to pictures submitted my techs from every auto manufacturer, motorcycle, 4 stroke snowmobile, and 4 stroke outboard to show how widespread this issue is. Please take the time to look closely at these pictures to see how this effects power and fuel economy over time:

http://isearch.avg.com/images?s=sideNav&cmpid=&q=DI+engines+intake+valve+buildup+coking&sap=hp&lang=en&mid=e2d20ddb3e3947d080e43909b45a757f-85d79d8eab41c5fe328337b5f1e509e263b79872&cid=%7bEE610A28-F04D-414F-A607-57AD2D81AD35%7d&v=17.0.0.9&ds=AVG&d=9%2f26%2f2012+6%3a46%3a11+PM&pr=fr&snd=hp&ctc=+&pid=avg&sg=0 (http://isearch.avg.com/images?s=sideNav&cmpid=&q=DI+engines+intake+valve+buildup+coking&sap=hp&lang=en&mid=e2d20ddb3e3947d080e43909b45a757f-85d79d8eab41c5fe328337b5f1e509e263b79872&cid=%7bEE610A28-F04D-414F-A607-57AD2D81AD35%7d&v=17.0.0.9&ds=AVG&d=9%2f26%2f2012+6%3a46%3a11+PM&pr=fr&snd=hp&ctc=+&pid=avg&sg=0)

Now, lets move to ecoboost specific issues. The ecoboost is a twin turbo system, and any time you are pressurizing the intake manifold during boost you cannot allow that pressure to enter the crankcase or blown oil seals, etc. are the results. So to prevent this, turbo applications will have a one way checkvalve in the PCV system that closes while in boost operation.

A properly functioning PCV system will constantly evacuate/flush the damaging combustion byproducts from the crankcase. It does this by clean, filtered fresh air entering one bank of an engine (the fresh, or clean side..in this case the drivers side) where it is flowing through the engine internals and the crankcase where they are sucked out the opposite bank (passenger side on ecoboost) and they are burned in the combustion process and further in the catalytic converters. The problem is today engines rev higher and have overhead cams and timing chains that create a good amount of oil mist/vapor. This is pulled out along with the damaging combustion byproducts and causes the oil coking on the valves, excess carbon deposits and residue in the ringlands that over time cause rings to stick and not seal properly. The rest of the compounds are water. sulfuric acid, abrasive carbon particles, and unburnt fuel (as well as several other hydrocarbons, etc. but these are the main compounds).

Where do these come from?

Mainly they are in the blow-by that all engines have, but in the past 10-15 years engines (except aircraft, etc. where safety is more important than inconvenience and ring seating is critical to safety) come prefilled with a synthetic blend or full synthetic. This oil is far to protective to allow the friction needed for the rings to seat, or wear in the the cylinder walls if driven per the owners manual (babied) so after 400-500 miles the cylinder walls will form a hard glaze that prevents any further seating and this brief window has passed. In the old days, engines came prefilled with break-in oil and this allowed enough friction to seat the rings in this short window, but it also required you drive very easy to prevent damage to bearings and journals, etc.  So now most drive esy during the first 100 miles and the rings never fully seat allowing excess blow-by and oil consumption.

Here is a good diagram to show this:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Ringseating2_zpsd13efa04.png)

So it is important to either drain the factory oil day one and fill with conventional to break in, or drive relatively hard (full accelerations and deceleration's are critical to produce side pressures needed to facilitate ring seating).

And all engines have a certain amount of blow-by, but anytime you are adding static CR or pressure to the combustion process you increase this. So were now back to the ecoboost and its PCV design flaws.  The ecoboost will have more unburnt fuel and water as part of the blow-by. Normally this would not be an issue if the PCV system was constatnlty evacuating these but since the ecoboost only evacuates at idel, and easy non-boost operation, everytime the engine transitions to boost the intake manifold vacuum source is closed byt the checkvalve in the passenger side valve cover (PCV valve) and the engine provides NO evac source during boost, so the pressure from the blow-by forces the crankcase vapors (laden with fuel/water/etc.) to reverse direction and seek a release. This is backwards through the drivers side cleanside tube and into the intake side upstream of the drivers side turbo.

All of this concentrated mix of nasty compounds is then ingest by the drivers side turb and porced through the intercooler and then into the intake manifold. In the intercooler this cools and condenses and accumulates as a "slduge" of oil/water/sufuric acid and other compounds. When this accumulates to the point a "gulp" is sucked through, it can casue hydrolock and busted pistooons and bent rods are the result. No matter what happens, you dont want any of this other than the unburnt fuel and some water vapor entering the combustion chamber, and onlu in small steady amounts which is impossible with the OEM design.  So as this mix is retained in good amounts in the crankcase instead of evacuated, it accumulates. Every time you shut the engine down and it cools, these compounds will condense and drop into the oil coating internal parts and contaminating the oil reducing it's ability to protect (oil cannot maintain its protective properties if contaminated with water and fuel) so we see timing chain stretch and bearing failures due to this.

Now just adding any catchcan will catch some of this mixture, but it does noting to correct the flaw in evacuation. To do this, we must provide a secondary suction/vacuum source for evacuation during boost as well as non boost operation. To do this we take the intake side of the turbos so the RX system will provide evacuation during non-boost using the intake manifold vacuum. And when the engine transitions into boost, the primary valve will close and the secondary valve opens using the suction side of the turbo pipes to continue the evacuation at a steady rate, and maintaining flow in the correct direct eliminating the intake valve coking, the water/oil ingestion into the intercooler and charge piping, and the cleanside separator (or breather for off-road use) prevents ingestion into the cleanside during that transition from boost to non boost (there will always be a moment of reverse flow during this depending on the level of blow-by).

So now the RX system is trapping all, or nearly all the ingestion from the dirty side, and also prevenmting ingestion into the cleanside by the separator or breather.

Here are some pictures showing this:

RX Dual Check Valve Catch Can and 2013 Ecoboost F150 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0kpHpGQJ8#ws)

As you can see anyone using any other cans you would exceed the capacity of the small can in 100-200 miles period, and then what happens? This mixture is pulling past those cans and directly into your system.

The RX system stops the unburnt fuel and water accumulation in the oil that is wearing engines out in a fraction of the time, and none of the TSB fixes from Ford cures the issues.

They replace the PCV valve and line to attempt better flow, but do nothing to address the no evacuation during boost. They alsore-program so the engine makes less boost/power and no one wants this.

The RX system cures most all of these issues, but requires weekly drains when below 45* F and monthly in summer months. There is no way to make a maintenance free system as you cannot return this concentration of damaging compounds to the crankcase, it must be disposed of properly.

ALL manufacturers are working on solutions, but there can never be an affordable one that does not require the extra step of draining. That requires a centrifuge based system that can purify and filter the oil such as an industrial system by Alfa Laval or similar ($3000-$100,000 plus) so dont expect the auto makers to solve this...they would rather pretend it does not exist (not a single auto maker acknowledges this is an issue).

I don't have a ton of time to spend on the forums, but I will check in from time to time to answer more questions. Please ask direct questions on any par not clear, and on ANY thing of a technical nature involving engines or related automotive subjects.

Been doing this for over 40 years and designing and engineering products for the aftermarket performance industry as well as some incorporated by the Big 3. Also have spent ages owning, racing, managing professional drag teams with (my drivers or myself) years of Divisional, National, and World Championships in several classes both NHRA & IHRA as well as starting as a GM tech in 1974. (if anyone wants a more comprehensive list of qualifications just ask....some are offended when I volunteer them so that is not my intent).

:thumbsup:

Tracy & Team RX

great wright up. Thank you, and looking forward to your release of products for the SHO.

Definitely don't want that stuff ruining the IC!  Any chance of having this product available for the NA 3.5L engines?  Lower cost maybe :D

Thank you for your post and write up explaining your product and its benifits.

If this needs to be dumped weekly or monthly, I hope it's easy to access.

Whew!

Your fingertips must need band aids after typing out all of that.

Interesting read & a wealth of information for sure!

Thank you for posting! :thank you:



Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

This is on my list too ....firm believer in catching that oil before it goes through my intake

The catch can is on my soon list... the RX is what I'm weighing, but will also probably add

Thanks for this detailed write-up.

Where can I get one for the SHO

Has anyone put one of these on their SHO as of yet?  I am wondering what location would be a good one for ease of access to drain. 

Tracey.... Do you have any recs for cleaning the intercooler and intake valves short of teardown? ... I'm about 7K miles into this '13 SHO.   
I really want to have a clean system when I install your product.  How is the drain protected between emptying times... see below in this post.  TIA

Quote from: Mac98SHO on February 24, 2014, 10:59:49 AM
Has anyone put one of these on their SHO as of yet?  I am wondering what location would be a good one for ease of access to drain. 

Mac98.... It has not yet been produced nor fitted as best I know (but soon!)... It is working well for the EB 3.5TT F150.  My only comment on draining would be that the drain needs to be contained... I'm not anxious to spread sulfuric acid, unburnt fuel, or oil around on my car, so I don't even want the drain tube exposed between draining.here's the thread:
http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=1944.msg30123#msg30123 (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=1944.msg30123#msg30123)

Far as the valves and the carbon deposits, you can sea foam the car via the vacum tube. And also water meth kits help clean the valves.  Though not sure what mixture is best for that benefit.

Thanks

My Flex is being used for r&d this Saturday !!

The NA version is only $199 plus S&H. Easy to install as you only have to place it in-line with the dirty side line. Crankcase (valve/cam cover) to the center fitting on the can, and intake manifold side to the outer fitting on the can.

Draining is simple for the trucks, and as long as we find a easy to fit location for the cars it should also be a breeze.  It has a 1/4 turn ballvalve on the bottom and a empty water bottle works nice for this.

Here is a video of how easy:
RX Dual Check Valve Catch Can and 2013 Ecoboost F150 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0kpHpGQJ8#ws)

As for cleaning the IC, remove, fill part way with a mixture of hot water and dawn dishwashing liquid, shake like crazy, drain and rinse.  If it is one with a good deal of miles on it, it will already have a "sludge" of oil/water/sulfuric acid built up into a semi solid sludge, and that will need to be removed by hand as much as possible, and then do the hot water/dawn mix. Brake clean will get the ones not real clogged clean.

As for the rest of the intake system, remove the TB and clean with brake clean and a rag, and sop up any oil pooled in the bottom of the intake manifold. The intake valves a manual cleaning is best, and ask for step by step anyone going to attempt it so it is done correctly, but a seafoam or similar upper induction cleaning service will expand and loosen much of the deposits already formed (I prefer BG's version), but keep in mind, every time an upper induction treatment is performed, those hard abrasive depsots that are broken loose and expelled out the exhaust, some of the smaller particles are always forced down between the piston and cylinder wall causing scouring.....not a big deal if done a few times infrequently, but we now and then get an engine in that the pistons are tore up and the owner will say "I do a seafoam every 5,000 miles to keep my engine clean"....so a little may be fine, but alot is NOT better. 

Another thing for those adding fuel treatment, or fuel injector cleaner/additives, they are not doing a thing on DI engines.  Use a good octane booster is good if you are running a tune and upped boost and don't have 93 octane available, but the fuel treatments that helped with port injection systems operating at 45-55 psi keep injectors and valve clean, are not doing a thing now that fuel never touches the valves and the injectors operate now at 2000-3000 psi so they never get a chance for deposits to form.

Keep questions coming. Our goal is to share as much knowledge on the PCV systems (and anything automotive engineering related) as possible to educate. To easy for manufacturers to just make claims and advertise, much better to educate as well.

First understanding that NO vehicle is 100% perfect as it is released is the biggest hurdle, as most believe mass produced vehicles are engineered to the best of their abilities, and that could not be further from reality. The engineers are some of the best in the world, but when they run into unforeseen issues, they don't halt production and quit shipping cars/trucks....it is dealt with very "politically".  These are not $500 k supercars, these are the best blend of technology with low cost production as well as being competitive in the different market segments, the target demographic, and the other car makers competing for the same customer.

And personally i like to change the oil 50-100 miles after doing any upper cylinder treatment. And the bg stuff is great.

Quote from: panther427 on February 24, 2014, 05:07:08 PM
And personally i like to change the oil 50-100 miles after doing any upper cylinder treatment. And the bg stuff is great.

Good point I forgot.   This is a critical part most don't do. Excellent post.

I run a JLT PERFORMACE  oil separator in the rear pcv and using a smaller one from Steeda in the front and works great..I recommend the new updated mesh screen filters from JLT too.The filter from the the steeda units I find are  restrictive and breaks down fast. The new Jlt filter fit perfect in the steeda unit. I don't get hardly any oil mist in the front.. but the rear pcv I get just about 1 tablespoon at 4000 miles..

(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/014_zps21f3ce59.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/016_zpsf7af849b.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/027_zps010b0c53.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/028_zps7072f5fc.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/033_zps4c3042bc.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/043_zps6aa480bc.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/023_zpsb138be8b.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/024_zpse2d4fd2a.jpg)
http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=357_359&products_id=635&zenid=bf65413fd3ae000afad590a1e73a483e (http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=357_359&products_id=635&zenid=bf65413fd3ae000afad590a1e73a483e)

The reason you are catching more on the cleanside, is the lack of proper flow in the ecoboost. It has marginal flow at non boost, and no evac during boost so you have excess crankcase pressure pushing the vapors out the cleanside.

Also, I have a test for you....install the RX can, or SMC/Elite E2, or Apex can after the JLT and watch them all catch as much or more than the JLT does first in line. The reasons are #1, the capacity of the JLT is app 1.5 oz's VS 8-16 of the others, so that small internal volume never lets the flow slow enough to avoid pull-through (unless on a supercharged vacuum port at idle when the CFM of flow is minimal). and 2, there has to be a clear separation of the incoming oil laden vapors from the separated vapors and that takes a series of totally separate chambers and processes. But even with a more robust baffle system, you will find all of the cans smaller than 12 plus ounces, there will always be pull through.

The JLT is first rate in quality and precision/appearance, but in the real world doing this simple test shows it, as most, will only catch a portion of the oil/water present.

Take a look at what is caught in a short time in the RX can, that is 3-4 times the entire capacity of any of the small cans:

RX Dual Check Valve Catch Can and 2013 Ecoboost F150 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0kpHpGQJ8#ws)

So my intent is not to offend as this is a very common misconception on most cans....a user will see it catches some oil, and assumes it does a complete job. There is far more to it than that as even a beer can with 2 fittings will catch as much as 99% of the cans marketed...and this does not mean the designer/manufacturer has intended to in anyway deceive or mislead (some do), it just means the amount of information and data needed to create a truly effective design is far more involved as this is the most misunderstood system on cars and light trucks today, so most that offer a can have put all they know into it, but without understanding all the flow dynamics, Bernoulli effect, Coalescing and condensing principals, etc. they are all made upon assumptions instead of the science needed.

So try the test I describe (will cost app $8-$10) and see for yourself. The few that do a good job are all direct competitors of ours and we would certainly do better in sales to not acknowledge those that have tested and shown to be so effective, but then we would be no different than the rest that claim they are the best and nothing else should be considered.

Oh, and one last very important point, everything JLT makes/offers is top quality. It is just the points made above that make this not the best choice.

Here is a link to photos of catchcan testing:

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198401 (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198401)

Quote from: Tuner Boost on February 25, 2014, 12:42:57 PM
Here is a link to photos of catchcan testing:

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198401 (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198401)

This thread treats the issue as a mostly "extreme cold weather" problem, true or not?

Tracey... Thank you for devoting so much time to explain the details of catch cans and various designs.  I have learned a lot that I didn't know.  Great work!  I will definitely want one when fitment is completed.  Please keep us advised.

Quote from: Courier6 on February 25, 2014, 07:21:06 PM

Quote from: Tuner Boost on February 25, 2014, 12:42:57 PM
Here is a link to photos of catchcan testing:

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198401 (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198401)

This thread treats the issue as a mostly "extreme cold weather" problem, true or not?

From my understanding the problem is worse in weather.. the cars in that tread all seemed to be still natrually asperated. With the turbo we have a larger problem.

Sat is fast approaching so we will post the step by step pictures and have the system finalized then.

The issue is far worse in the cold temps below 45* F, but even here in Florida, the ecoboost is the worst as far as water and unburnt fuel accumulating in the crankcase and oil due to the design as it only evacuates at idle and low rpms/throttle position. As soon as there is any boost detected the IM vac is shut from the integrated checkvalve in the pass side cam cover so there is no removal of the mix. That is why the RX system uses the inlet side of the turbos for evacuation during boost.

Most PCV systems do just fine, but this is a turbo application and that is where the issues come in with the poor design, and GM is no better with their turbo doing evac during boost only and none at non-boost. All of the water/gunk in the intercooler, the rough running during acceleration, the rapid engine wear from diluted oil (if you see your oil level rise it is from unburnt fuel and water and acid present) is all caused by the PCV system doing such a poor job of evacuating.

Another good read from a scientific point of view with flow formulas, etc.

http://www.106rallye.co.uk/members/dynofiend/breathersystems.pdf (http://www.106rallye.co.uk/members/dynofiend/breathersystems.pdf)

Quote from: Tuner Boost on February 27, 2014, 03:12:06 PM
Sat is fast approaching so we will post the step by step pictures and have the system finalized then.

The issue is far worse in the cold temps below 45* F, but even here in Florida, the ecoboost is the worst as far as water and unburnt fuel accumulating in the crankcase and oil due to the design as it only evacuates at idle and low rpms/throttle position. As soon as there is any boost detected the IM vac is shut from the integrated checkvalve in the pass side cam cover so there is no removal of the mix. That is why the RX system uses the inlet side of the turbos for evacuation during boost.

Most PCV systems do just fine, but this is a turbo application and that is where the issues come in with the poor design, and GM is no better with their turbo doing evac during boost only and none at non-boost. All of the water/gunk in the intercooler, the rough running during acceleration, the rapid engine wear from diluted oil (if you see your oil level rise it is from unburnt fuel and water and acid present) is all caused by the PCV system doing such a poor job of evacuating.

I am anxiously awaiting for you to get this to market . When this happens hopefully you will use 4Dr as an etailer  option .

Great write up Tracy! Really appreciate all the information. Can't wait for the Explorer kit to get released. THANKS

JimiJak... check out this thread from last Saturday's RX catch can on your platform.

http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2187.msg31056#msg31056 (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2187.msg31056#msg31056)

Ready for orders!
http://shop.ecoboostpowerparts.com/RX-Catch-Can-w-Dual-Check-Valve-Regular-or-Monster-sized-RXCatchCan.htm (http://shop.ecoboostpowerparts.com/RX-Catch-Can-w-Dual-Check-Valve-Regular-or-Monster-sized-RXCatchCan.htm)

These will ship in 2-3 weeks as they're made to order by RevXtreme

Quote from: Courier6 on February 25, 2014, 07:21:06 PM

Quote from: Tuner Boost on February 25, 2014, 12:42:57 PM
Here is a link to photos of catchcan testing:

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198401 (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198401)

This thread treats the issue as a mostly "extreme cold weather" problem, true or not?

I'ts worse the colder it gets from condensation but we are in Florida and I watched him drain an F150 can and there was about a half  of a cup of coffee worth from 500 miles

Quote from: 4DRHTRD on March 03, 2014, 11:22:55 AM
Ready for orders!
http://shop.ecoboostpowerparts.com/RX-Catch-Can-w-Dual-Check-Valve-Regular-or-Monster-sized-RXCatchCan.htm (http://shop.ecoboostpowerparts.com/RX-Catch-Can-w-Dual-Check-Valve-Regular-or-Monster-sized-RXCatchCan.htm)

These will ship in 2-3 weeks as they're made to order by RevXtreme

Awesome! I see the title of the video is not to use the Monster can; I assume this is only for the Flex?? With either size fit the XSport? Also, (I'm sure this is posted somewhere but I can't find it right now) is there any advantage to going with the larger or smaller can? (other than having to empty it less often of course)
Thanks!

Quote from: JimiJak on March 04, 2014, 02:28:29 AM

Quote from: 4DRHTRD on March 03, 2014, 11:22:55 AM
Ready for orders!
http://shop.ecoboostpowerparts.com/RX-Catch-Can-w-Dual-Check-Valve-Regular-or-Monster-sized-RXCatchCan.htm (http://shop.ecoboostpowerparts.com/RX-Catch-Can-w-Dual-Check-Valve-Regular-or-Monster-sized-RXCatchCan.htm)

These will ship in 2-3 weeks as they're made to order by RevXtreme

Awesome! I see the title of the video is not to use the Monster can; I assume this is only for the Flex?? With either size fit the XSport? Also, (I'm sure this is posted somewhere but I can't find it right now) is there any advantage to going with the larger or smaller can? (other than having to empty it less often of course)
Thanks!

JJ... just click on the link and order now without putting it in your cart.... most of your answers are there. Otherwise I'm pretty sure you want just the regular can size and you should consider the clean side separator if you're going to get the can... the info is on Tracy's website (search RX catch can to find the site).

The Monster can will fit easily into an F150 (due to engine layout).  A custom location will have to be found in the other vehicles.

http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2187.msg31056#msg31056 (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2187.msg31056#msg31056)
http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2200.msg31365#msg31365 (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2200.msg31365#msg31365)

Got it. Thanks guys.

Standard catch can and clean side separator; ORDERED!
I can't wait!!

I have created/built catch cans/breathers for all of my heavily modified turbo cars from the 80's and 90's but those were primarily to control detonation from the very low 'octane' of the oil vapor being reburned. The RX set up is light years ahead of the 'cans with mesh' things I have been building. Nice work :clap:. I've ordered mine up from EBPP I had no idea that the DI engines were even moreso susceptible than older port injected motors. Great write up on a level that I could understand :-[

You guys rock!
Thanks for the orders and thanks to Tracy for making an awesome product!

First ones I ever saw were early Maserati hemi 6 cylinders from the late 50's early 60's (Aluminum alloy block and head, integrated lower engine case/oil pan, 2 spark plugs per cylinder, etc.) very advanced for the time. In road racing they knew that the oil caused detonation....no one understood the rest of the contaminates at that time, but Maserati had a very effective unit back then that used a road draft tube for steady evacuation at speed. It did have to be emptied, and was crude, but it was real innovation from just the road draft tubes using the Venturi effect for suction.

We have always used belt driven vacuum pumps on all our drag engines (app 1000 HP NA running Methanol), but app 15 years ago when we were pushing 700-800 plus hp forced induction, we were always battling detonation and we started using the air compressor units thinking that would catch it, and we still had detonation, so we added 2 in series, later one caught as much as the first. Then we went to the larger ones (company call conceptual polymer sells them as catchcans) and still were not catching it. So we bought the cans on the market, and they were not any better. That lead us to start our own designs, and there have been dozen or so revisions since as we learned what does, and what does not work....(and some help from some science heads on flow dynamics and all the principals of separating liquids, etc.) to end up with what you see today. 

Thanks for the kind words....we also post the competitors that do a good job also, but most other can companies/vendors don't care for us to explain all that is involved and what works and what doesn't.

Thanks to Tracy @Tuner Boost and @4DRHTRD; Rx catch can and separator showed up today. Everything looks sweet. Can't wait to get "my ride" (*still unnamed) back from the dealership so I can hook everything up!

Pics to come!

Pay attention after the install to see your fuel economy improve and the power gain slightly after this is not being ingested.

:thumbsup:

Quote from: Tomc612 on February 24, 2014, 09:48:34 PM
I run a JLT PERFORMACE  oil separator in the rear pcv and using a smaller one from Steeda in the front and works great..I recommend the new updated mesh screen filters from JLT too.The filter from the the steeda units I find are  restrictive and breaks down fast. The new Jlt filter fit perfect in the steeda unit. I don't get hardly any oil mist in the front.. but the rear pcv I get just about 1 tablespoon at 4000 miles..

(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/014_zps21f3ce59.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/016_zpsf7af849b.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/027_zps010b0c53.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/028_zps7072f5fc.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/033_zps4c3042bc.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/043_zps6aa480bc.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/023_zpsb138be8b.jpg)
(http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc404/tomc612/024_zpse2d4fd2a.jpg)
http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=357_359&products_id=635&zenid=bf65413fd3ae000afad590a1e73a483e (http://jlttruecoldair.com/ZenCart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=357_359&products_id=635&zenid=bf65413fd3ae000afad590a1e73a483e)

I run a similar set up as tom which I first started running in 2003 on my Cobra. Its inline compressor filters that I usually find at Walmart or Home depot for about 25 bucks plus fittings.  I plumb PCV tubing. They work pretty well.

^^^^^
(http://chunersen.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/whatdoyoudo.jpeg?w=305)
I do love pictures! But; What exactly would you say, you're trying to say here? ;)

Quote from: JimiJak on March 19, 2014, 08:53:59 PM
^^^^^
(http://chunersen.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/whatdoyoudo.jpeg?w=305)
I do love pictures! But; What exactly would you say, you're trying to say here? ;)

I like to see the oil fill the compressor filters, it makes me smile lol

Ahhhhhhhh! That makes way more sense! lol

I'm still getting to know personalities around here, plus, this forum is a new experience from what I'm used to... Like the forums that post came from.

Carry on!

Quote from: JimiJak on March 19, 2014, 09:03:37 PM
Ahhhhhhhh! That makes way more sense! lol

I'm still getting to know personalities around here, plus, this forum is a new experience from what I'm used to... Like the forums that post came from.

Carry on!

yea some forums are pretty disturbing

Tracy, would there be any problems mounting it down low in the bumper? I have plenty of real estate down there for a mounting location.
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b11/auditrance/6142c4296236ad51caf872fbbc710f8d.jpg)

Also kind of hard to tell from the install pics on the flex, but does the oil filler cap with the filter turn it into vent to atmosphere during boost or vacuum?

No problem at all....just retain vertical mount and have a way to reach the drain....appreciate all the effort your going through!! 

Also, here is another pic of intake valve coking at 30k miles:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1022/ecoboost30kmiles_zps11bfc69f.jpg)

He pulled his intake manifold off before installing and this is what he found. He did the manual cleaning.

I'm impressed!... Hopefully no more gunked up manifold or turbos... and no more lower effective fuel octane rating!  Thanks for the pic... and the info.

Were still seeing on avg 1-3 MPG improvement after the install as well.

Quote from: Tuner Boost on March 23, 2014, 02:26:50 PM
Were still seeing on avg 1-3 MPG improvement after the install as well.

That will be an unexpected pleasant benefit ..

How important is the clean side seporator. What exactly is it doing.. the cost of the can doesn't bother me,but im having a hard time justifying the extra 100 dollars for the clean side separater.

Quote from: panther427 on March 31, 2014, 10:13:41 PM
How important is the clean side seporator. What exactly is it doing.. the cost of the can doesn't bother me,but im having a hard time justifying the extra 100 dollars for the clean side separater.

It's only $60.00 more . As to why it's needed ... it's in this thread somewhere .......

Quote from: panther427 on March 31, 2014, 10:13:41 PM
How important is the clean side seporator. What exactly is it doing.. the cost of the can doesn't bother me,but im having a hard time justifying the extra 100 dollars for the clean side separater.

Tracy's posts explain that it is working on the last 5% of blowby from the PCV/EGR... look at the Flex install post on the can and CSS.... How well does it work... I'll make a personal report after it's on 1000 miles or so... I bought one on faith. Hopefully others who purchased it will also report here.

Quote from: BiGMaC on March 31, 2014, 10:37:16 PM

Quote from: panther427 on March 31, 2014, 10:13:41 PM
How important is the clean side seporator. What exactly is it doing.. the cost of the can doesn't bother me,but im having a hard time justifying the extra 100 dollars for the clean side separater.

Tracy's posts explain that it is working on the last 5% of blowby from the PCV/EGR... look at the Flex install post on the can and CSS.... How well does it work... I'll make a personalreport after it's on 1000 miles or so... I bought one on faith.

painterpatt should be giving us an update with his install in his Flex as well.
He's had it on for over a month .

Quote from: panther427 on March 31, 2014, 10:13:41 PM
How important is the clean side seporator. What exactly is it doing.. the cost of the can doesn't bother me,but im having a hard time justifying the extra 100 dollars for the clean side separater.

I was thinking this exact same thing.
Is it just an oil cap with a 90° hose fitting in it?
An oil replacement oil cap is $6  and a metal 90° hose fitting is $2
Any downside to making your own?

I am guessing that the clean side separator has some sort of check valve or filter to prevent the vapors and oil into the intake tube (during boost) to ensure directional flow. Other than that I have no idea, but you are correct $100.00 seems a little steep for that. Maybe someone from RX can comment.

Hey you guys think we can get a group purchase going? 

I was just speaking to LMS and I mentioned that I was going to be installing a Catch can on the car. He said that the install manager recommends against installing it in Direct injection engines. He is going to get me the specifics on the why. But I would hold off just in case there is a good reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: ShoBoat on April 07, 2014, 12:53:29 PM
I was just speaking to LMS and I mentioned that I was going to be installing a Catch can on the car. He said that the install manager recommends against installing it in Direct injection engines. He is going to get me the specifics on the why. But I would hold off just in case there is a good reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WOW ... please let us know what Livernois  reason is .


Curious as to what TunerBoost's response to this will be and I'm also wondering why after 500 plus miles that painterpats Flex had 0 oil in the catchcan per his last post .

Quote from: ShoBoat on April 07, 2014, 12:53:29 PM
I was just speaking to LMS and I mentioned that I was going to be installing a Catch can on the car. He said that the install manager recommends against installing it in Direct injection engines. He is going to get me the specifics on the why. But I would hold off just in case there is a good reason.

Just got off the phone with Anthony at LMS... he's gonna discuss this recommendation, which Anthony confirmed, against using a catch can with this DI engine with Dan (tuner) and Andy (shop manager).  I asked the "why?" question.  DI seems to be the root of the rec per Anthony... but we'll see what the thinking is.

This intrigues me. I, too, would like to hear their reasoning.

Quote from: BiGMaC on April 07, 2014, 01:15:05 PMDI seems to be the root of the rec per Anthony.....

What is "rec"?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

Quote from: SwampRat on April 07, 2014, 01:23:47 PM

Livernois says NO to RX install ..

I think you may need to chime in on this ...

http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2142.0;topicseen (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2142.0;topicseen)

PM sent to TunerBoost  .... he's off line and should get PM email .

Oh boy..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anthony is supposed to get back to me also on this another issue. I'll let you know what he says hopefully today.

The RX cleanside separator is similar to GM's $190 plastic unit that is an empty canister, but the RX unit is metal and has a removable top and coalescing media in it:

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RX1LEstylecleanside2_zps9be34557.jpg)

This captures oil during the brief transition from non-boost to boost operation so it can be drawn back into the cam cover on the drivers side.
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/1LEstyle2_zpsa2a030f2.jpg)

As for wanting all this gunk entering the intake air charge, and creating the deposits that disrupt air flow past the valves, and also form on the valve stem wearing out valve guides rapidly, and the detonation this oil/gunk mix causes, I can't imagine anyone wanting this to be drawn into any engine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0kpHpGQJ8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0kpHpGQJ8)

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/junkcatchcanresults_zps03279f6b.jpg)

Also, with all the issues this corrects, the shudder under boost, the unburnt fuel accumulating in the crankcase oil, the water/sulfuric acid/gunk in the crankcase and the CAC, I would really like to hear of anything this could be "good" for.

Just like with the magnasun top mount supercharger intercoolers clogging with baked on oil residue:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Maggieintercoolerwithoilcontamination-1_zpsd4d22ca8.jpg) (this was at 15K miles!!!)

.............  there can be nothing but harm from allowing this ingestion, especially with a direct injection engine.

Quote from: ShoBoat on April 07, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
Anthony is supposed to get back to me also on this another issue. I'll let you know what he says hopefully today.

As this is a major issue for many of us here , a LOT of the RX evac systems have already been Sold to members .

Perhaps a member that is a customer of Livernois  could request them to respond directly to us on the forum .

^^ agreed, I will ask him to do so once I have spoken to him.

Ok so this has been freaking me out, and I can't find a negative effect on DI engines for adding Catch Cans. Don't know specifically about the RX can's design. Which I have questions about later on that.
BTW BMW does have an OEM catch can on their DI and turbo DI engines. And the PVC on the EB cars does drain and catch some of the oil vapors back to the valve cover. According to some other reading, it's probably not enough, especially on tuned and modified cars. I think the real problem with the EB is that under heavy boost the gasses are now being drawn out the "clean side" and considering that under heavy boost there is now a good amount of vacuum at the port just upstream from the turbo inlet (Venturi effect) the oil is literally being sucked out of the engine. With the guys running Meth this isn't such an issue due to the cleaning and octane raising qualities of the Meth. I will post my question regarding the design of the RX system a bit later.
   
Have a read below.

Direct Injection Fouls Some Early Adopters
By AutoObserver Staff June 15, 201


In their efforts to wring more power and efficiency from the internal combustion engine, automakers are increasingly turning to gasoline direct-injection technology – also known as GDI or DI. Originally developed to produce more economical and quieter combustion for diesel engines, DI is inherently more efficient and helps generate more power than port injection. And advances in engineering and engine management, fueled by fierce industry competition and consumer demand, are making DI technology more cost-effective than ever for manufacturers: gasoline DI engines are appearing in entry-level models from Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co.'s Chevrolet and Hyundai Motors. Currently, more than 60 2011 and 2012 models in the U.S. offer DI engines as standard equipment.

But there has been a dark side to the technology: carbon build-up around intake valves that, over time, can degrade power and efficiency, eroding the bonus DI is supposed to provide. While there's evidence that the most recent designs and technical enhancements have greatly reduced the issue, carbon buildup has been a distinct and well-documented issue in some DI engines from a variety of manufacturers over the last few years.

Known Problems
A U.S. patent application filed in 2002 by Volkswagen AG explains the DI-engine carbon-deposit dilemma this way: "Gasoline engines with direct injection of the fuel into the combustion chamber...suffer especially from the problem of the formation of carbon deposits...especially in the neck region of the intake valves."

The document describes these deposits as a sticky coating of oil and fuel constituents that, once formed, serves as a base for further deposits, creating "a circular process, by which the coating thickness of the carbon deposits continuously increases." Excessive carbon deposits "have extremely negative effects," the patent application concludes, citing significant performance losses, sporadic ignition failures and, potentially, holes burned in the structure of the catalytic converter (should bits of carbon break from the valves and pass though the combustion chamber).

Ameer Haider, GM's assistant chief engineer for V6 engines, certainly knows the problem, telling AutoObserver, "DI engines are prone to forming oily deposits on the intake valves, unlike in port fuel-injected engines, where a constant spray of fuel into the port allows any deposits to wash away. With DI engines, the fuel gets injected directly into the combustion chamber, so there isn't a chance for the deposits to wash away. Typically, deposits form when soot – which is an end-product of combustion – adheres to the valve stem."

The main purpose of VW's patent application was to propose a fix for DI engine carbon deposits: specifically, applying "a catalytic surface" to the engine valves that "counteracts the formation of carbon deposits." But nearly 10 years later, there's ample evidence that this and other potential solutions have failed.

Constantine Boyadjiev works as a risk management officer at a financial firm in New York and has been an auto enthusiast for most of his life. In 2008, he decided it was time to part with his beloved 2001 BMW M5, mainly due to escalating maintenance costs – but also because he discovered that a number of fellow owners were dealing with expensive-to-fix carbon build-up in their vehicles' engine cylinder heads.

When Boyadjiev replaced his BMW with a barely-used 2008 Audi RS 4, he thought he had put all worry about carbon build-up behind him. But, as he said, "Little did I know that there was a much uglier carbon-build-up problem awaiting me." Boyadjiev became involved with the online RS 4 owner community when he was searching for his car, in particular a group of veteran Audiworld.com members who later migrated to QuattroWorld.com. He kept active with the group as he took delivery of the car and enjoyed the first few months of ownership. Not long after, though, he was dismayed to see that "the message boards caught fire with plenty of formally documented cases" of carbon build-up with fellow RS 4 owners' engines.

Boyadjiev admits to some initial "wishful thinking" that perhaps the problem might only affect earlier production models or that the forum members were merely trumpeting an isolated issue. But then, despite his own "religious" maintenance practices, including using only 93-octane premium fuel and avoiding short, in-town trips that failed to bring the engine up to proper operating temperatures, it soon was apparent his Audi's 4.2-liter direct-injected V8 also was plagued by carbon buildup.

"The loss of performance became very noticeable over time," he says. He decided to document it, taking the car to a local automotive performance specialist in nearby Stamford, Connecticut, to have its power measured by a dynamometer.



At its first measurement, Boyadjiev's RS 4 had 15,000 miles and produced 324 all-wheel horsepower, measured at the wheels (AWHP). Roughly one year and 5,000 miles later, the same test showed 317 AWHP. After another year and 5,000 miles, power was down to 305 AWHP. Power from the 4.2-liter V8 had degraded by almost 5 percent in just 10,000 miles.

Considering the RS 4's performance pedigree – and correspondingly large price tag (in excess of $70,000 MSRP) – this was an alarming trend, something Boyadjiev thought Audi would want to address head-on, especially since parent company VW had earlier documented these very issues in its DI engines. But Boyadjiev and his fellow RS 4 owners found Audi quick to dismiss the issue as a byproduct of poor-quality U.S. gasoline and American-style driving habits (i.e. the absence of high-speed runs on the Autobahn). Audi offered no assistance.

So Boyadjiev took an action to which many other RS 4 owners already had resigned themselves: he had an independent mechanic disassemble the engine and clean it – a $1,200 expense at the time. He returned to the dynamometer to see if the cleaning had made any difference. It had. Engine output soared by 41 AWHP and the car felt new again. For the moment, at least.

Boyadjiev said he is prepared to pay for such a maintenance cleaning every 10,000 miles. And while he is certainly not happy about that, he's willing to endure the hassle and cost. "The car is so rewarding and a joy to drive," he says. He is far less complimentary about Audi's response to the issue. Despite the evidence Boyadjiev and many of his fellow RS 4 forum members have presented, "the company continues to deny this is a very serious issue," he said. "I have very little respect for a company that refuses to stand behind its name, especially when professing a motto of 'Progress through Technology,'" he added. And experiences like Boyadjiev's are not uncommon.

A Google search for "direct injection carbon build up" reveals a flood of owner complaints about the issue across vehicle brands and models, including particularly active threads for the VW GTI, the Lexus IS 250, and a variety of Audi models in addition to the RS 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

AutoObserver Staff: Mark Holthoff and Matt Landish

Or, if you want some insurance of cleanliness, get a service such as B&G's "plaque remover" to get those engine arteries cleaned out!

We all want our cars & bodies to be maintenance free forever and ever, but until we get pixie dust that actually works ...

Ok so I spoke to Andy at LMS, and here is his take on the great catch can debate. Now keep in mind that this is his opinion, which in my book carries a lot of weight for me. He has seen lots of examples where catch cans have compounded the issue. One car in specific on the dyno where the can caused some kind of vacuum effect and literally drained a quart of oil on a single pull. It was disconnected an they tried again and the oil level stayed constant. Second he believes that the DI engines need a bit of this lubrication that comes from the PVC valve. With port injection it came from the fuel, with a DI it comes from the small amount of oil vapour. This applies to the intake valves, some of the pictures that have been circulated around the net are extreme cases of this "cake" effect. Most likely due to poor maintenance (like lack of proper oil changes, cheap oil, air filter maintenance ect). He also mentioned something to the effect that the cans can in some cases interfere with normal flow of PVC gases (restriction) Which in his experience caused more trouble than they helped. It was his opinion that he would not run catch cans on his EB's, Maintenance is key. Although some of these products have their merits he would not use one. Only on extreme cases (1200hp crazy motors) He does not recommend them. If you are getting that much blow by then there is a mechanical issue with your car. He also made one last comment that kinda stuck with me. LMS could produce in-house a catch can and sell it, they have the capability. Because he sees no advantage to having it on my car for example he wouldn't want to recommend installing it. Hence why LMS does not make their own.  I trust LMS and they would not steer me wrong, a lot of what he had to say made sense.

I also askedd him about the issue with the clean side (where it exhausts under boost) about putting a can there (or a clean side separator). He had no objection to that, however he still wouldn't if it was his car only because he was unconvinced of the benefit to cost. If it makes you sleep better at night go for it.

This was my interoperation  of our conversation, I asked if they would post their official thoughts on the whole catch can debate and they will.

I will be monitoring my personal car, and I maintain my car religiously I am not too worried about it. I just know there are more than one SHO or F150 out there that is not getting maintained properly lol. Who knows.

I personally will do something on the "clean side" Just because. But as everything else in life this is just one of many opinions.

Edit, just one last thing before I forget. He had no specific opinion on the RX Catchcans, just catch cans in general.

Well articulated. :clap2:

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

The car that sucked out a quart of oil sounds like the can wasn't hooked up properly to me.  I have my Rx catch can and cleanside separator sitting here waiting for me to install it but now I'm not sure what to do.  I was already a little concerned with the stepping down of hose size from stock to Rx's lines restricting flow.  I also noticed the check valves had a lot of restriction when I blew through them as well.  I was hoping the guy with the first install had a cup of s*** after 500 miles but he didn't have anything at all?

On the other hand everything that TunerBoost has posted makes complete sense to me.

So we have...
Catch cans suck reserve oil out of the engine where its supposed to be.
Fluke? Bad install???

Oil in the intake air may help lubricate the intake valve.
Ok, but we see what oil accumulating and baking onto a hot intake valve looks like.

Check valves and smaller diameter hoses causing restrictions?

All the positives Tunerboost mentions?

Is there a reason why the factory line at the throttle body isn't capped, the check valves are deleted, and vacuum at the intake preturbo isn't used 100% of the time?

I believe that the intake piping just before the turbo isn't used all the time is you really don't want the vapour running through your turbos and the intercooler. I personally believe that the weak link is that on the EB during boost the clean side becomes the exhaust, thus tossing the oil down into the turbos. I personally will be installing a catch can or something on this side. Also mentioned in my talk with Andy during dyno pulls there was no detectable difference with or without a catch can. This would indicate that there is not enough vapour entering the system to cause a reduction in octane to cause the car to pull timing ect.

Just my 2 cents.   

I personaly have the RX crankcase evac with clean side physically installed in  my SHO but the lines are not not hooked up yet ... most of you know why .
At this time I'm tending to believe that Livernois does not  understand  the specialized qualities of the RX system and are basing there opinions on Generic catch cans that some people have used on other vehicles that have caused problem's .

Livernois's services  in general are exemplary however just because they say or have an OPINION on a subject matter does not make it a FACT .

There have been other issues that  Livernois is in disagreement with others such as E85 blending and t-stats where the members here have been left to decided the path they want to choose .
I for one want want HARD COLD FACTS and not opinions .

I will hold up on finalizing my install until Livernios updates the members here on this Major concern .
If this is based on there opinions and not factual based information from automotive indusry experts  , I will finsh my install as I tend to see a need for this based upon what Tracy says and the information that BG says on this issue as well as the tech articles that ShoBoat posted .

IF Livernois's info that we are waiting on Is HARD COLD FACTUALY based I will not use the RX .
Then the question is what can we get for these on ebay ?

Livernois Motorsports (LM) most likely sells more Ecoboost performance parts than any other company. LM would stand to probably make a tidy little profit from pushing a catch can into the hands of Ecoboost owners, even if it was just rebadging the product from another manufacturer. So if they are willing to pass on the opportunity for an easy sell, to me it further justifies their preliminary response as stated above to be their actual belief on the requirement of a catch can regardless of it being deemed right or wrong.
From the other side of things with the stance of RX calling for the use of the catch can, they have substantial benefits to be had by pushing a product for sales/profits. So if there is one side of the argument that would be more likely to be biased, one would lean towards the folks at RX.

I too am in a holding pattern as far as install of the RX catch can and Cleanside waiting on the new mounting bracket.  The 2011 Article that ShoBoat posted is very interesting where it speaks of Ford's public dismantling of the 3.5EB GDI engine and the stories of improvement.... If you haven't read it you should even though it's from 2011.

Like everyone, no matter what facts surface, ultimately I will have a decision to make here.... it's not any company's fault.  We all will decide what to believe individually.

As far as the info from Andy at LMS and recs: I can't just dismiss it.  Those folks are pretty sharp about cars in general and our platform ( this is not an issue to be confused with meth, fuel blending, or T-stats, etc).  This is a separate issue arising out of concern over the DI engine design (everyone's, not just Ford).   The anecdote Andy related could have been faulty install, etc... I have also considered that there might be a lubrication factor for the turbos involved. 

As far as Tracy's explanation:  The design and explanation makes perfect sense, but is not tested in my make and model. The pics are graphic, but truly, again they are not my car nor the same generation of GDI engine.  The only dyno testing of fuel dilution are not on my engine and gains are very small and I wonder if a check valve failure on the RX can could cause the same thing as occurred in the experience related by Andy.

The only real testing won't be done in time to help me.... Run 2 SHOs for 30-50K miles... one with a can and one without.... then tear down both engines and compare.... So decisions must be made on indirect information.

SRT8's point is VERY well taken.

I am excited about this can.... But I'll be studying  the situation for a while longer before I make final decisions of install  vs eBay.

^^ well said SRT8

SRT8 .... valid points made , however the question remains .

At this time I'm tending to believe that Livernois does not  understand  the specialized qualities of the RX system and are basing there opinions on Generic catch cans that some people have used on other vehicles that have caused problem's .

Livernois could make a profit on a  generic OCC but how knowledgeable are they on the Ecoboost PCV system as I understand it it is unique and differs from other engines ?

I hope  Livernoise addresses this issue SOON as I am concerned and am by no means bashing them .

Ok so my questions for the group and Tracy, forgive any typos as this was on my Ipad. On the issue of the RX can in particular I have only really seen the F150 vid of the guy emptying his can with all kinds of good stuff coming out of the can. Did you notice the location of the can? It's in front of the rad. The coldest location you could possibly mount it, I believe this contributes to the condensing attributes on this install. Otherwise why do inter coolers get mounted in front of the rad? This effect would be particularly intense in the winter with the can being so cold. On our cars it's mounted behind the rad just above the exhaust manifold? The can would be much warmer. The water vapour would pass right through and not condense only possibly catching some of the oil. I believe that if your attempt to catch the moist vapor this is not the best install location.

Now on to the question. The RX system employs a method of tapping into the intake tube to get vacuum to exhaust the PVC under boost. however the intake tube on the clean side is also tapped into the same tube? So in my thinking both sides of the can would have vacuum on them during this time? I don't understand how tapping into the same tube will follow much if anything under boost. With Venturi effect being applied to both tubes on opposite sides of the engine how do you get flow? I might be wrong here but until I see an actual flow test done on the EB during boost showing that it does what it says I can't see it working as advertised.

Just as a side note, the stock PVC system still does have Vacuum at both ends. However the port at the intake manifold pulls a lot more than the one in the intake tube, hence the flow under non boost.

The factory tube off the intake goes to the clean side separator not the can.  So under boost you have pressure going out of the rear valve cover, pressure at the throttle body (after turbos) and vacuum at the intake before the turbos.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I realize that the clean side separator is there and not the can. However both sides of the engine are trying to suck air from the same source at roughly the same vacuum (according to the install instructions just upstream of the turbo which is where the clean side is also tapped), that is my point. At least that is what I got from reading the install instructions. I might be wrong here but that's my understanding.

OK all.

As much as I respect most of what Livernoise does, and they are excellent in customer service, etc.  This is an area that all Any told you is dead wrong, and here is why. (unless they used some can hooked up wrong...the RX system is the most advanced in crankcase evacuation on the market, but there are a ton of snake oil or wrongly designed cans out there)

So, point by point.

First let me start with my background. I have been doing this for over 40 years and started as a GM factory trained tech in 1974 and have seen most anything in the automotive world as changes in technology and major flops have come and gone. I also do design work that GM has implemented in their advancements in correcting PCV and oil ingestion issues. I do systems for everything from Ford to Ferrari, from classic Maserati's that were the first to implement oil separating cans on their LeMans cars to todays championship drag racing applications.

Myself or my drivers through the years have multiple Divisonal, National, and World Championships in several classes both NHRA & IHRA in stock, super stock, super gas, super comp, top dragster, quick rod, and were one of the dominate teams for years in the Eastern US Big$ Bracket series. I am also a graduate of the Reher Morrison Racing engine building school, and our systems are used exclusively by some of the most respected builders of turbo and supercharged performance builds from the famous Nickey Chicago signature builds (all come with a RX system installed) to IPS turbo charging, SNL, and many more.

We have in the past, and continue to be pioneers in many industry first's (first GM V6 DI top mount supercharger systems, etc.) and when it comes to direct injection and any form of crankcase evacuation, we are among the most respected in the industry.

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Goldrush1_zps8e49983e.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1027/DSCN0621_zps914962be.jpg)

This is what I have done for longer than many have been alive, and we win or loose in Professional drag racing far to often by thousandths of a second. What we have learned in this lifetime we apply to the real world, and the EcoBoost has serious issues, all caused by a flaw in the PCV system.

So lets start with ANY engine, port injected, carb, or DI. All you ever want in the combustion chamber is air and fuel, and any amount of oil whatsoever has a negative effect in several areas during the combustion process. First, oil does not burn well at all (except 2 stroke oil formulated to mix with gas and burn clean) with the most obvious is the carbon and soot deposits it leaves. It also reduces the usable octane of the fuel and causes detonation (spark knock and spark retard is visible to any tuner logging and engine under load). It also disrupts the burn pattern, and this is critical in the design of the combustion chamber and piston tops (especially in a DI engine). It also reduces the quench areas ability to transfer and absorb heat. Then the deposits left that build up on the piston tops and the exhaust ports reducing the volumetric efficiency that the engineers worked so hard to achieve.

Here is a DI piston and you can see how complex this design is compared to a port injected flat top piston to see just how critical the burn pattern and quench areas are:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/latestforgedpistons1.png)

Now lets look at what could possibly be "lubricated" in the intake air charge system and the combustion chamber.  There is nothing good about oil in the intake manifold, nothing to lubricate. The valves are lubricated by the oil that is delivered on the valve spring/camshaft/valve train side and there are carefully designed seals to prevent to much from entering. All of this is to an exact science the engineers that designed the engines have arrived at. The lower side of the valves are the tulip and the lower stem. No oil should ever be touching them as it bakes on and forms deposits. With a port injection engine, these deposits are prevented from forming due to the constant shower of fuel from the injectors washing off any of the PCV oil mist from the valves BEFORE it can bake on and form the hard abrasive deposits that are drawn up and wear the valve guides:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/TRaditionalportinjection_zpsc5053606.png)

This keeps the intake valves clean and retains the shape of the valves and the ports so the engine can flow as designed with no obstructions or vortices created from deposits forming disrupting the complete intake port, valves, and pistons flow.

And that is where direct injection comes in, and the critical need to keep these deposits from forming.  Here you can see with direct injection, the fuel can never touch the intake valve as the fuel is introduced directly into the combustion chamber:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Traditionaldirectinjection_zps401e58d4.gif)

Ans since the fuel is not injected (and it is at 1000-3000 PSI depending on the system vs 45-55 PSI for port injection) until the final 20% or so of the compression stroke, there can be no residual fuel brought back from the valve overlap reversion pulses.

This is an un-planned side effect of DI and it must be dealt with. Every auto maker in the world is scrambling to try different techniques, but to date, there is no solution that does not involve the end user draining and disposing of what is trapped.

So, where is any part of the engine benefiting from oil mist (and the sulfuric acid, water, unburnt fuel, and abrasive hydro carbon particles that are part of the PCV vapors)?  Absolutely nothing but negative effects.

Now look at the crankcase. Watch this training video to understand what the PCV system does, why it does it, and the damage that an engine will sustain over time if the PCV system is not designed or functioning correctly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPIfI9aZHt4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPIfI9aZHt4)

Now the Ecoboost has a serious design flaw that only allows evacuation during idle or low throttle. Anytime their is any boost present (app 80% of the operating time) the system closes, and all of these damaging compounds are accumulating and settling into the crankcase and mixing with the engine oil (gas in the oil, water in the oil, high rates of wear and oil contamination) until the crankcase pressure builds enough to force some of this out the clean (fresh) side inlet tube in to the drivers side turbo inlet. Since this is steam and hot gasses, when they hit the CAC (intercooler) they condense into the sludge and gunk that you see when removing the CAC to clean it. It also pushes this mix into the combustion chambers and it there is to much water at one time ingested, then hydro-lock occurs and catastrophic engine damage.

So, lets stop here and again, what part of any of the intake air charge system or any of the moving parts that the intake charge would touch. These are not the inefficient engines of the 50's and 60's, every single moving part will get proper lubrication, and exactly where it needs it, and any parts that should not have any oil on them will experience deposit formation from this build up.

Now lets look at what is in the PCV vapors that he claims are "lubricating" . Oil mist is only part of what makes up these vapors. Sulfuric acid does no metal parts good. Neither does water. The abrasive hard carbon particles certainly dont. Un burnt fuel has no lubricating properties, so this toxic mix could not properly lubricate anything any way, in fact just the opposite.


And further, this is only 15k miles on a Livernoise installed Magnasun supercharger intercooler w/out a proper catchcan installed. This oil has already baked on a residue that has insulated the cooler and reduced it's ability to transfer heat and cool the charge air as well as slowly clogging the fins preventing air from flowing at all eventually.

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Maggieintercoolerwithoilcontamination-1_zpsd4d22ca8.jpg)

Then we come to another argument he posted in the past:  This involved a claim that these vapors lubricated the top mount superchargers and was good for them. What part I ask?  The bearings are all sealed, so no moving parts are touched that need lubrication, and depending on what type blower, most have a constant oil bath from the supercharger lubricant sealed into them. The rotors dont touch, unless oil residue builds up and causes interference and damage as they spin at extremely high rates and the clearance between them is minimal (some have a special coating on the leading edges that wear into each other for as close of tolerances as possible). Then, we have to look at the balance of the rotors. As they travel at such high speeds, 12-14,000 RPM plus, that when this oil residue builds up over time it throws off the balance and THEN we see bearing and shaft failure as well as damage/erosion to the rotors as the touch.

There are over 14,000 RX systems in use out there for over 12 years on every type application there is. If installed correctly, they all do exactly as advertised (as all the testimonials from all support).

Lets look at oil ingestion.  The current DI engines still have nearly as bad of intake valve coking and valve guide wear as the early ones. Several patents by Ford, Audi, etc. have different valve timing events and other changes to try and reduce the coking, but to date none have been effective. The EB has such a large amount of water ingestion due to the flaw it actually helps reduce the rate the valves coke with deposits, but the damages caused by all this water in the crankcase, etc. far outweigh the benefits.

Now lets look at how DI engines have improved as far as intake valve coking. 

Deposits such as this by 30-50k miles are still the norm:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/reardiffand36valves005_zps06508fd1.jpg)


And even in as little as 12k miles on this 2013:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/CTSAWDbuild003_zps5e345327.jpg)We can see some progress has been made, but there is a long way to go.

And then there is the buildup of this residue in the ringlands of the pistons. As this builds up the rings stick and are unable to seal properly and excess blow by and oil consumption is the result. Stopping the ingestion can allow them to self-clean and free up again if the issue is not to severe. If it is to severe only a tear down and manual cleaning will correct this.

So, anyone with any questions, ask and be as specific as possible. None of this is opinion that I have posted here, this is all documented fact and reference material is plentiful.  You cannot apply opinion and old wives tales to actual engineering and science. And plenty have post pictures of their own intake valves that they performed manual cleanings on to prove it (anyone can easily remove your own intake manifold and see first hand).

No auto maker admits to having the coking issue, yet they advertise how they are correcting it!  yet the pictures from techs from all over the world show otherwise.  From Audi adding back small port injectors, to GM stating their VVT valve events prevent ANY fuel from touching the valves, to Ford claiming they allow fuel to touch the valves (it does not).  So all are scrambling to correct the issues

To add to and clarify, the RX system uses the inlet side of the turbos for evacuation while in boost, and the checkvalves prevent any reversion or back flow. The cleanside tube is only on the drivers side, and the drill into this for evacuation underboost must be closer to the turbos. The pass side (or on a transverse the opposite side) turbo has not line tapped in to disperse suction, so it provides app 80% of the suction needed to evacuate properly.  On the clean side, every inch closer to the turbo there is less dispersion from the air filter, a the actual vacuum measured increases. So the clean is almost always at less suction at that barb allowing the flow to maintain cleanside flushing air in, dirty foul vapors out the opposite side. When the brief transition from non-boost to boost occurs the flow can reverse momentarily, thus the cleanside separator to trap that oil and allow it to be drawn back in as soon as the flow is correct again, or we would just leave the OEM clean side intact.

Here are a few more links to see just how this effects all manufacturers even today:

https://www.google.com/search?q=intake+valve+coking+deposits+with+direct+injection&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=ojZEU6iqK6O-0AGr54DYDQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAjgK&biw=1600&bih=775&dpr=1 (https://www.google.com/search?q=intake+valve+coking+deposits+with+direct+injection&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=ojZEU6iqK6O-0AGr54DYDQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAjgK&biw=1600&bih=775&dpr=1)

This is a great one, but they are assuming the PCV system has no no ingestion issues, and is also taking the PR statements that all is now solved, which we as engine builders on these new GDI engines see first hand it is not.  I wish the automakers could be honest instead of always down playing issues (see GM's latest lawsuits).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzXeeCiSL7k (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzXeeCiSL7k)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n-F73rQZDo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n-F73rQZDo)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-hQsL-FZWw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-hQsL-FZWw)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRiZOTTel34 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRiZOTTel34)

And this shows an upper induction cleaning service can only do so much. Either clean manually, or prevent it from the beginning with the RX system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuHxy2qdtC8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuHxy2qdtC8)

Has anyone thought about using a Racor CCV4500. Allot of us have one on my 6.0 and it works perfect.   On the 6.0 you can suck about a quart of oil into the turbo through the CCV every 5000 miles.

  We do not worry about water in the oil because oil temp cooled down to 200, when working hard the oil temp pre cooled is around 300.   

Tracy I don't believe anyone is saying that you do no have lots on knowledge on this subject and stating that LMS is wrong is a bit much as they have as much experience on the EB cars and trucks as anyone. That said I am still interested in your product if just the clean side separator. I would like to get your input on my previous question on the different install locations between the SHO and the F150.

Quote from: ShoBoat on April 08, 2014, 02:18:14 PM
Tracy I don't believe anyone is saying that you do no have lots on knowledge on this subject and stating that LMS is wrong is a bit much as they have as much experience on the EB cars and trucks as anyone. That said I am still interested in your product if just the clean side separator. I would like to get your input on my previous question on the different install locations between the SHO and the F150.

Tracy has more than adequately backed his claims with FACTS .
Livernoise , to be deemed credible should as well .

Although I don't claim to be anywhere near as knowledgeable on this topic, as either TunerBoost, or reps from Livernois, I do find the points and counterpoints, to be if nothing else, just plain interesting and informative.

To TB......

I am perplexed as to why you keep posting information regarding LMS's Supercharger, and also continue referencing specifically GM related products and examples in both video form, as well as still picture form that don't apply to the Ecoboost platform?

The piston you displayed is not a Ford Ecoboost factory piston. What piston product is that culled from?

The Ecoboost powerplants have never employed Superchargers, and to generically state "DI engines" in a general sense, I think is perhaps glossing over, and broadly labeling all DI engines as being related to specific perceived problematic issues to the Ecoboost platform individually.

Also, I'm pretty confident, based on my own driving habits (and mind you, I tend to drive more aggressively, than most) that to say all Ecoboost engines are "in boost" 80% of the time, is also merely an opinion.

I myself am not anywhere near "in boost" at this high of a stated percentage, so perhaps the evacuation system employed in the Ecoboost engines is operating more efficiently, more often, even in closed format?

Do you have any specific experiences related directly to the Ecoboost platform, including, but not limited to, actual teardowns of an Ecoboost engine, and it's related internals, and not just GM products?

Finally, can you render any opinions, or thought processes to those members here who are using Methanol (whether in 100% solution, or a lesser dilution) as to whether or not it's use is providing the "cleaning" abilities as currently believed, in lieu of running any type of catch can product?

Also curious if you have either spoken directly with, or exchanged any type of electronic communication with EBPF member PainterPatt and inquire as to why he has posted his experiences thus far with your product having caught zero oil deposits/contaminants/etc. after more than 500 miles of use?

Thanks in advance for your time! :thankyou:

Quote from: SwampRat on April 08, 2014, 03:12:16 PM

Quote from: ShoBoat on April 08, 2014, 02:18:14 PM
Tracy I don't believe anyone is saying that you do no have lots on knowledge on this subject and stating that LMS is wrong is a bit much as they have as much experience on the EB cars and trucks as anyone. That said I am still interested in your product if just the clean side separator. I would like to get your input on my previous question on the different install locations between the SHO and the F150.

Tracy has more than adequately backed his claims with FACTS .
Livernoise , to be deemed credible should as well .

I think Livernois Motorsports (LM) clearly stated on where they stand concerning the use of a catch can and RX takes a completely different stance. LM says there is not a use for one and RX says for you to install one. LM is trying to give you free guidance on a product they don't sell and RX is trying to convince you to buy their product. Completely different motives from either side of this topic.

Basically I don't think it is LM's responsibility to refute or agree with every other manufacturer's products claims when they do not represent the product.

^^ well said.
If we are taking facts, take 2 identical 3.5 EBs one with and one with out the RX or whatever catch can. Run them for 50k miles with the same maintenance schedule. Then tear them down and compare them that would be fact. Not some pics of different extreme cases and one video of some guy dumping some crud from a can (most of which didn't seem to be oil). As stated most of the pictures and related material is not from the Ecoboost platform.

fact or fiction? EB torture test tear down? I don't see a catch can on this one.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BFfRcwesqNg (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BFfRcwesqNg)

More valid points being being brought up that need to be addressed .

Why after 500 plus miles was painterpats RX bone dry as he stated ... I forgot I brought that up earlier .

What about the mounting choices that may make an impact on how much contaminate is caught in the actual canister , this does make some sense .

I still believe that the reason that this issue was stired up is do to Livernois saying to a member not to use any type of OCC .
No one is saying Livernois HAS to  address us as to there reasoning but according to ShoBoat .... he said they will .   So what gives ......
I just think it would be in Livernois's best interest to inform us as to there reasoning behind this .
If they can provide a valid reason I will not use MY RX .

Quote from: ShoBoat on April 08, 2014, 03:40:39 PM
If we are taking facts, take 2 identical 3.5 EBs one with and one with out the RX or whatever catch can. Run them for 50k miles with the same maintenance schedule. Then tear them down and compare them that would be fact.

This is a sensible and scientific approach, and I have stated before in the past, provide the data for objective comparison.  I too am curious about the methanol-"clean valves/intake" connection and would like a scientific discussion on that.  References, please, if you will.

Livernois does not have to state their opinion publicly, and we are awaiting their direct input on this topic if they so choose.  But until they provide objective data, we have only the battle of opinions to consider.

One thing to remember:  no one vendor is infallible and no one vendor is THE source for all information.  Otherwise there would be no need for feedback, no need for correction, and no need for invention.  The focus needs to be on getting objective data, and sometimes that means being the guinea pig (painterpatt in this case)!  And even that may not be statistically representative without a large enough sample.

sho,  any location you can mount is fine...but the water will be there any time a crankcase is not evacuating it in small steady amounts as soon as it enters.

The cooler, the better as both coalescing and condensation is used to separate these compounds.

The cleanside separator will do you no good without correcting the lack of evacuation......you must correct that (and a Ford dealer in the midwest with a 2013 that has had every TSB done and is still experiencing the issues has approval to install and test the RX system and monitor it's effectiveness, so watch for the results. It will be a long term test so I will report what I can as I get results from them).

bpd, you can easily test and see that the EB makes boost anytime your cruising.  It is part of what makes this engine so powerful and responsive.  The small turbos begin spooling up as soon as the throttle is opened. You can also put a flow gauge inline between the intake manifold vacuum port and the PCV valve that is integrated into the passenger side cam cover. You will see strong flow at idle only. Any time other than very light throttle, the flow ceases and thus the evacuation.

As to my qualifications and experience vs Livernoise, I dont question anything else they do, and do well. But I backed up all with easily verifiable facts and documentation. And yes, I show pictures from several makes of direct injection engines as well as actual EB engines. Since part of the issues the EB experiances are direct injection as a whole related, it is relevant to the discussion. Thats why I provided so much back up material to reference. The only thing the EB has different is the flaw in the PCV design, and with over 250 EB systems installed and in use over the past 3 months, every single end user has reported (the ones that have left feedback) all the issues have gone away.

The supercharger story is also directly related to their nit understanding proper crankcase evacuation and the issues related to it, and they are hardly alone. Most big known shops do not understand it...it is not taught anywhere any more so most just make assumptions. Look at LMR that is well known and respected. They delete the entire PCV system and allow all of these compounds to accumulate in the crankcase and just relive pressure. The example I gave with the top mount SC's is an example of that. One must first understand all the functions of the PCV system and all that it does. And I still want anyone here to tell me what this mix of gunk can do to help any part of an engine.  This is the ONLY area we really disagree on, and they have never in the 4 years since we began this debate have ever given any actual examples other than opinions. I have a ton of respect for them in every other area. Now I will point out one more thing. With a lifetime of Championship (not going to a test and tune day) drag racing, we experience what most never do. You can still find one of our team/family at most every NHRA National event, and our experience with proper crankcase evacuation is shared with every winning team out there. All constantly evacuate the crankcase to save these engines and anyone at a race simply needs to walk through the pits and stop at any teams area and see in person. An these we change oil after every event. On the street, with extended oil change intervals, this is even more critical.

Weekend before last, Peter won both Stock and Super Stock, and this weekend we had 6,900 plus runs down LVMS breaking all records of the history of the track as far as race cars down the track, and next month is Bristol (the family puts on the most driver attended drag races in history):
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1026/PeterwinatVegasNational_zpsbf9636e8.png)

The picture I showed of the piston is pour forged version. Here is the stock EB piston:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1028/ecoboostpiston-Copy_zps1ec3eef4.jpg)

Not much difference in the top design.

And more ecoboost specific pictures:

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1028/Ecoboostvalves1-Copy_zpsfce4d122.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1028/Ecoboostvalves-Copy_zps0117363b.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1028/ecoboost30kmiles_zpsdc6ee54d.jpg)
Each above is a different EB engine with as little as 30k miles, and the most was at 70k miles. Then after manual cleaning:

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1028/Ecoboostaftermanualvalvecleaningjpg_thumb_zps4b1a862a.jpg)

Below is an actual EB CAC:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1028/EcoboostIntercoolercrap_zps9731d1dd-Copy_zpsb66f7694.jpg)

From the shop EB truck showing as the liquids separate:

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1025/DSCN0616_zpsf5a82f17.jpg)


And finally,

if all we cared about was sales, we would just offer a can like everyone else and not design the complete systems that correct any shortcomings, and would not go into the intense technical details of all this...we would just sit back and sell cans. There is not a singe company in the world that does the R&D we do on such a wide variety of platforms. We purchase every can we see on the market, run the same tests, and dissect them for all to see.

And, Racor, Alfa Laval, etc. all have great systems....but for pretty pricey solutions. And all would have to be modified to correct the EB's flawed PCV system.

Look at all the oil analysis results of the EB's showing high levels of fuel. water, metals from wear.

And then the Ford endurance test. Watch the video. of the tear down. They never show the intake valves...only the underside of the cylinder heads up close. The EB engine is amazing, one of the best DI engines to date, but the PCV system flaw is not the engineers that designed the engines fault, those decisions are made by accounting, legal, and management that look at the bottom line only.


I am not here to force this on anyone. You buy your vehicles, and YOU decide how to care for them.  If your fine with this gunk being ingested, 99% plus of the owners today never know it and are happy, so dont change a thing. This is only for those wanting to learn more and to better care for their engines.

We have been building turbo and supercharging systems for direct injection V6's for longer than the EB has been in production, and learn a ton by experience...were sharing that experience here with those that do want to learn...but we are not here to fight or have arguments about who is the "best"....only to share, provide actual verifiable facts, and give the resources to search and learn for your self.

Anyone can verify all I have claimed here, on your own vehicle easy enough.

And again, Livernoise is one of the best one stop shops in the US and does mods and tuning for many different brands as well. I send them non stop referral business and if I didn't believe they were among the best, I certainly would not continue doing so. They have one of the best equipped facilities in the country as well. I endorse them and trust in most all they do. This is the only area where we have disagreed and watch, I expect when it comes to the ecoboost they will come around as it has such severe issues with the PCV system.

So again, not here to fight, I don't compete in anyway with Livernoise, and those that follow us know we also endorse direct competitors that also have effective functioning catchcans, and that certainly gains us noting in sales, just the opposite.

Painterpat, if you read this stop in so we can look at your install again and see whats up. 500 miles should show some caught.

TIA, painterpatt!  Hope you can get RX to check out the catchcan status soon :D

Tracy, do you think methanol injection (in the air intake) is serving the function that fuel previously served in MPI engines?  Cleaning gunk off the valves continuously while the engine is running?

Tracy, I respect you for defending your point of view. And I understand most of the reasons of the why. I am curios as to the issue with the Painterpat, if I order the complete system I would want to ensure that it works on the SHO not just the F150. Please let us know what you find.

In the Meth Injection equipped engines we look at we see very little valve coking, and I attribute this to the meth/water injection cleaning and keeping further deposits from forming, so yes. Even some GM ones that should show heavy deposits have very little backing this up.

Sho, fully understand & I would feel the same way as well.

Here is one of the posts from a EB owner that had the excess fuel in the oil issues. The RX system collected nearly all of the gas so he could document the issue with Ford (they claimed it was normal) and they were finally able to fix his issues (I believe it was a leaking HPDI pump):

I suppose it really depends on what you want/expect from it. From Ford, every DI engine will have some light fuel in the oil and the FI group will have more. Does the catch can get it all out? no. Does it get a lot out, yes. I drain mine every few days now and I always have oil and fuel in the can. If it is in the can then it is not in the intake. That i can attest.

What it does NOT do is prevent/stop the issue with fuel getting into the oil that causes the oil level to rise. This is fixed, supposidly, by the TSB 14-0440 (i think it was). When mine was dropping in fuel in the oil super fast the can could not fix it..... but it was pulling out a ton from being bypassed.

I'm very happy with mine and its performance, but I have no delusions about what it is capable of doing.

We need Painterpat back in here to see whats up with his though ASAP.

Here is another with a recent oil analysis:

Hi everybody, I've been away for few weeks... work related! Anyway, just to let you know. I had the new updated service bulletin done, the block heater in a different location, new PCV valve and everything... Surprisingly, my oil level went down! The service manager check himself the oil level before my truck leave the shop. He told me that the oil level was right at the hatch marks!!! Now it's down a 1/4" below that... I still notice, gas smell if I remove the oil filler cap though.

On another note, I had an oil analysis done before I went to the dealership, just to cover my ass in case of engine failure and Ford would like to give me a hard time! It reveals a severe concentration of gas. The critical limit is 3% Vol and the analysis reveal the oil was over 5% Vol... My oil only had 1362 KM since the last oil change.... So Ford if you want to "Go Further" with your wonderfull Ecoboost engine, just fixed the problem at the source instead of trying to band aid the problem. Oil dilution like that, I see big mechanical problems in a near future, let me tell you!!! I have an extended warranty for 7 years but, is the problems going to stop at one point... Anyway, sorry for my long story. Anyone have any new development, please all let us know!


He has NOT installed the RX system.

So if I read this right, all we need to do to avoid the build up is install a meth system? Why didn't you say so, I am marching over to my dealer right now and demanding that they install a meth system on my car right away! While we are at it we should petition ford to install them on all their EB's. What's not to like lots of powa and a clean engine! How can they refuse? ;)

I think the problem with the intake/valves is "solved" with methanol, but the problem of those unwanted vapors elsewhere in the system, including the combustion chamber, still has to be addressed.  Probably will get more breathing room with meth installed, though.

LOL @ ShoBoat.....

I absolutely love your rationale as it relates to FMC installing Methanol Systems from the factory.

TunerBoost thank you for the continued replies & coorelating info.

Well articulated on your end as well. Bravo good sir! :clap2:

Please keep the community posted as to what ever you find out specifically with PainterPatt's installation, as well as any installation tips that you may have for each of the EB platforms.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

Will do. And although meth injection definitely helps reduce the coking issue, but does nothing to reduce the rest of the gunk entering or accumulating in the crankcase and engine oil (the post where I quote a recent oil analysis from Blackstone shows that).

Pulled a CAC today to inspect and clean:

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1030/ecoboostCAC001_zps527efc4a.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1029/ecoboostCAC2001_zps4e02a427.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1029/ecoboostCAC2002_zpsa42dead5.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1029/ecoboostCAC2003_zpse3e4399a.jpg)

This is not a Flex or Taurus, but a 2013 F150....and it shows oil/gunk in both the inlet and the outlet tubes, so a good deal has been ingested.

And anyone can feel free to ask any tech questions automotive related, not just this subject. I'm not on here very often, but try and visit at least daily.

Wow, that is allot of oil for a gas engine.  Going back years, the Grand National had the same issue, we would have to pull the CAC every few months and clean them. 

You would think that Ford would know how to make a CCV system?

Now if those pictures were from a 6.0 PS i would think it was normal :)

Hey Tracy, how many miles in the F150 in the pics?

Not sure on the miles...but installed the RX system app 1000 miles ago so there was no water as usual, and the can has been catching a ton of the gunk mix, so only oil was left in the CAC. Putting on a new aftermarket intercooler so will track this to confirm the RX keeps all oil from it.  We will get the owner to come back later to do a manual intake valve cleaning and document it as well.

We did before dyno and will do after to see what difference the intake valve cleaning does.

Also, had a hydro lock engine we tore down yesterday......looked fine from the top except some slight scouring on the cylinder wall, but when we pulled the pistons here is what we found:
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1031/DSCN0641_zps2ddc6c46.jpg)
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/RevXtreme1031/DSCN0642_zpsebd1c240.jpg)

Ingested a slug of water and had a misfire...compression test showed low but boroscope all looked good. dropped engine out and removed heads, still looked good except a few score marks.  Found pieces in the pan so popped pistons out and bingo. But it still ran half way decent and NO knocks or noise. 

Holy crap! That's nuts.

That is flipping insane. It so odd what can happen to a motor and yet it will keep running and other time small stuff goes and causes a completely blown motor.

So if I run a rx catch can I will have to drain out 12 ounces of gunk out of it every 150 miles and if I don't I'm running the risk of gumming up the inside of my engine, hydrolocking it, or thinning out my oil to the point of a catastrophic failure !!!!!!!!? seriously !? ugh !!!!

I don't think the situation is THAT bad :) but regular maintenance per your driving style is a MUST.  I always equate frequent performance driving to a severe duty schedule.

did you see how much crap poured out of that can after 140 miles lol ! Seems like all of these engines with out a catch can would be destroyed all the time.

True.  Maybe boost multiplies the problem.  Maybe we should instead be looking at a PCV atomization-direct injection system to burn all this stuff in the combustion chamber!  I mean if Mercedes can have 2 spark plugs per cylinder, why can't we have 2 injectors, right?

great just another thing to worry about ha ha !

Let's keep in mind that the turbo seals on the EBs and every other turbo engine out there are known for leaking. At least a little bit, that may not all be from the PVC system. It seems a bit much just from the PVC, if that was the case these engines would not run for long at all lol.

So far, the cars do not seem to have anywhere near the amount caught as the trucks, and I suspect the intercooler has something to do with that as the truck gets a ton of air flow past and seems larger capacity, and that video is in below zero weather and anything below 45* F results in much more water as part of the mix. The shop truck we track we are still getting app 4-5 oz's a 1000 mile week out of, but were here in FL and temps are mild. In the 40 degree weeks we had in Jan/Feb we got twice the amount per drain, so until we have more results from the cars (have over 250 on ecoboost trucks, but only a handfull on the cars) we cant judge the severity of  or amount on average caught. You want NO oil ingestion on a DI engine, but I am suspecting the cars will have far less of the water, and there are stories from techs at Ford dealers seeing trucks hydrolock, but I have yet to hear of a car doing it (unless a low mount CAI scooped up water in a deep puddle).

Quote from: ShoBoat on April 10, 2014, 06:55:19 PM
Let's keep in mind that the turbo seals on the EBs and every other turbo engine out there are known for leaking. At least a little bit, that may not all be from the PVC system. It seems a bit much just from the PVC, if that was the case these engines would not run for long at all lol.

Some times we see small seepage from turbo seals, but the 250 plus EB's we have the RX system on the past 3 months have zero oil now (or water) in their CAC's (the ones checking) and the amount they keep catching is substantial. 4-8 oz's a 1000 miles or so. Also, oil leaking from a turbo seal wont be routed through the can to catch so it would be both in the CA and as when a seal fails, it is generally hot and cold sides due to shaft play, exhaust smoke is a sure give away, but not always. 

Quote from: Tuner Boost on April 10, 2014, 09:32:07 PM

Quote from: ShoBoat on April 10, 2014, 06:55:19 PM
Let's keep in mind that the turbo seals on the EBs and every other turbo engine out there are known for leaking. At least a little bit, that may not all be from the PVC system. It seems a bit much just from the PVC, if that was the case these engines would not run for long at all lol.

Some times we see small seepage from turbo seals, but the 250 plus EB's we have the RX system on the past 3 months have zero oil now (or water) in their CAC's (the ones checking) and the amount they keep catching is substantial. 4-8 oz's a 1000 miles or so. Also, oil leaking from a turbo seal wont be routed through the can to catch so it would be both in the CA and as when a seal fails, it is generally hot and cold sides due to shaft play, exhaust smoke is a sure give away, but not always. 

...and don't confuse the sooty exhaust tips that all ourn SHOs have with smoking exhaust....

In the vw diesels they put drain plugs in them lol. There is a vid on YouTube of a guy draining 1/2 a quart of oil from the cac from leaky turbo seals and that is normal.

Quote from: BiGMaC on April 10, 2014, 10:11:24 PM

Quote from: Tuner Boost on April 10, 2014, 09:32:07 PM

Quote from: ShoBoat on April 10, 2014, 06:55:19 PM
Let's keep in mind that the turbo seals on the EBs and every other turbo engine out there are known for leaking. At least a little bit, that may not all be from the PVC system. It seems a bit much just from the PVC, if that was the case these engines would not run for long at all lol.

Some times we see small seepage from turbo seals, but the 250 plus EB's we have the RX system on the past 3 months have zero oil now (or water) in their CAC's (the ones checking) and the amount they keep catching is substantial. 4-8 oz's a 1000 miles or so. Also, oil leaking from a turbo seal wont be routed through the can to catch so it would be both in the CA and as when a seal fails, it is generally hot and cold sides due to shaft play, exhaust smoke is a sure give away, but not always. 

...and don't confuse the sooty exhaust tips that all ourn SHOs have with smoking exhaust....

Not mine...

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 10, 2014, 11:03:39 PM

Quote from: BiGMaC on April 10, 2014, 10:11:24 PM

Quote from: Tuner Boost on April 10, 2014, 09:32:07 PM

Quote from: ShoBoat on April 10, 2014, 06:55:19 PM
Let's keep in mind that the turbo seals on the EBs and every other turbo engine out there are known for leaking. At least a little bit, that may not all be from the PVC system. It seems a bit much just from the PVC, if that was the case these engines would not run for long at all lol.

Some times we see small seepage from turbo seals, but the 250 plus EB's we have the RX system on the past 3 months have zero oil now (or water) in their CAC's (the ones checking) and the amount they keep catching is substantial. 4-8 oz's a 1000 miles or so. Also, oil leaking from a turbo seal wont be routed through the can to catch so it would be both in the CA and as when a seal fails, it is generally hot and cold sides due to shaft play, exhaust smoke is a sure give away, but not always. 

...and don't confuse the sooty exhaust tips that all ourn SHOs have with smoking exhaust....

Not mine...

you alchy!    LOL

That's another thing to look out for.  Does the catch can system cut back/eliminate the chimney-smoked/coal-mined look?

Quote from: SHOdded on April 11, 2014, 05:17:11 AM
That's another thing to look out for.  Does the catch can system cut back/eliminate the chimney-smoked/coal-mined look?

Great thought Manu!   Interested to get this feedback from those with installs of any make of catch can.

Quote from: BiGMaC on April 11, 2014, 09:10:06 AM

Quote from: SHOdded on April 11, 2014, 05:17:11 AM
That's another thing to look out for.  Does the catch can system cut back/eliminate the chimney-smoked/coal-mined look?

Great thought Manu!   Interested to get this feedback from those with installs of any make of catch can.

Hadn't thought much about that...Well let's see:
the Rx catch can got installed on the XSport Saturday and it got a bath Sunday. I just walked by the rear of it today and thought; "looks like it's time to wipe down the tips again." So, still accumulating soot? Yes, as much? Hard to say, I'll have to look at how many miles the girlfriend has put on this week and see where we're at. I would say it's not AS bad for it being 5 days, but not a huge world of difference.

Every time I clean out the tips it makes me wonder what the cats are going to look like in 30K miles...lol

Quote from: JimiJak on April 11, 2014, 07:19:44 PMEvery time I clean out the tips it makes me wonder what the cats are going to look like in 30K miles...lol

Exactly!  Should be getting water vapors/carbon dioxide etc. out the tailpipe and not much else.  The main culprit is still possibly running a little rich for that extra margin of safety on a boosted engine.

Another good read by industry experts on GDI issues.
By the way there is TONS of info on this subject mater online , also to specifically address it as GDI is NOT necessary . GDI is nothing more than Direct Injection with a G added for gasoline .

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/ask-an-engineer-gdi-problems-in-a-nutshell/ (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/ask-an-engineer-gdi-problems-in-a-nutshell/)


A lot of members have brought  up the tear down video of the 2011  3.5 EB  as " proof " that we will have no long term reliability problems .

Please don't take this the wrong way as I am a die - hard Ford enthusiast but this is nothing more than a marketing tool .
One car is NOT proof and over the years it has come to light that all Automotive Mfg have sold vehicles with major design flaws .
GM's ignition switch problem proves this and Ford is no exception to the rule ...... Remember the Pinto ?

Quote from: SwampRat on April 12, 2014, 08:07:58 AM
Another good read by industry experts on GDI issues.
By the way there is TONS of info on this subject mater online , also to specifically address it as GDI is NOT necessary . GDI is nothing more than Direct Injection with a G added for gasoline .

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/ask-an-engineer-gdi-problems-in-a-nutshell/ (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/05/ask-an-engineer-gdi-problems-in-a-nutshell/)


A lot of members have brought  up the tear down video of the 2011  3.5 EB  as " proof " that we will have no long term reliability problems .

Please don't take this the wrong way as I am a die - hard Ford enthusiast but this is nothing more than a marketing tool .
One car is NOT proof and over the years it has come to light that all Automotive Mfg have sold vehicles with major design flaws .
GM's ignition switch problem proves this and Ford is no exception to the rule ...... Rember the Pinto ?

Hey! I have a customer that just bought pistons and bearings for his stock Pinto...why, I dont know.
But really, they all have there problems. I eccept and understand the "why" of the PVC problem. I believe most if not all makes that don't have some sort "filter" or catch can have some level of problems.
I know my 04 Explorer Limited 4.6 had this problem...it,s just more important to resolve it with a turbo, supercharger, ic, Di, application imho.

Hopefully we will get enough of the community to install catch can systems (hint, hint) and report their objective findings.  Did FMC do a fair/good/great job with the OEM systems?  Inquiring minds want to know :)

Hey all, and any with the RX can installed on a flex or car please read. Simple minor change for the better:

PainterPat just left. What we found is the drill location for the front intake tube is before the fresh side barb, so at cruise it has been over powering the flow not allowing the can to work properly. So, everyone please note, no need to drill the front inlet pipe. Simply use the 5/8" barb to T into the back side one and then use a 90* 1/4 NPT x 3/8" barb for your clean side hose connection and drill it just after (down from) the air filter/air box. and connect the cleanside separator their. We tested and it worked properly, and it makes install easier. The trucks we can reach to drill downstream so that has never been an issue. Whichever fitting is closest to the turbo will over power the one up stream even if only by a few inches.  So, he is checking back in 500-800 miles to see the accumulation at that time.  Any questions, or anyone needing a fitting let us know and we will get it right out.

You want the fitting installed for the cleanside separator as close to the air filter as possible.

Pics please?  TIA

Has there been a catch can only install

Quote from: BiGMaC on April 12, 2014, 02:18:15 PM
Pics please?  TIA

PainterPatt posted more info with pics on the FLEX INSTALL (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?topic=2187.50) thread.

Quote from: panther427 on April 12, 2014, 07:30:28 PM
Has there been a catch can only install

Not that I'm aware of. Pretty sure the few rx installs that are complete have all been including CSS.

Quote from: Tuner Boost on April 12, 2014, 04:28:18 PM

I also recommend cleaning the CAC (remove to do) first as he still has a good bit of oil in his CAC.

Cheers!

Is there ANY way to clean the CAC while it is still mounted ?
From what I undestand removal is a royal PITA .

from what i/ve seen it would be a pain to try to clean it in the car.. you could discounect hoses and fill CAC with detergent and flush with water. then TRY to blow drive it out.. but then you would have oil residue on the outside the the CAC and front end. its MUCH better all around to pull it.  When i have cleaned Semi CAC there is alot of gunk.

I wouldnt try to clean it in the car.. to much chance of not getting the water out. And making a mess of the engine bay

Panther is correct. Big hassle, but no way around it.

And this really needs to be done at the time of any can installation to remove what has already accumulated, and will give you a good idea on how badly your car has the ingestion issue.

Quote from: Tuner Boost on April 13, 2014, 08:16:11 PM
Panther is correct. Big hassle, but no way around it.

And this really needs to be done at the time of any can installation to remove what has already accumulated, and will give you a good idea on how badly your car has the ingestion issue.

  Uuugghhh .....  that royally sucks !

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)

There is an easy way to measure how much stuff you have in the CAC, this is what I did. Take off the intake tube from the TB and the CAC, pull your dipstick out of the car. Ensure you wipe it off really well. From the side you took off the intake tube carefully insert the dipstick down into the CAC, I did say carefully right? You have a clear path down to the bottom of the CAC. I first used a snake cam to see the inside of the CAC to ensure there was nothing in the way. When I measured mine last night I had a 1/2 inch of liquid in the bottom of the CAC. I then used some fuel line to suck the crap out of the CAC. I used a compressed air vac to get it out so I couldn't measure the actual amount, but the CAC is pretty wide and thick to I assume there was a fair bit of crud in there. This is no substitute for cleaning, but when I was done I couldn't see any oil on the dipstick test. Oh I also jacked up the driver side of the car to try to get it to pool on the passenger side, it seemed to work. A word of caution, I used the compressed air method because I had no idea of what I was picking up. With the possibility of it being flammable I didn't want the risk of an explosion.   


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is excellent thinking. all.  This forum is great to be able to have other brains working on ideas here.  My average day is app 6 hours of tech support, and in between overseeing the entire facility, and then new application requests come in steady (Hyundai to Lambo's!) so this helps us all.

Now that your seeing what is accumulating, and what is being caught (even on the cars now) I would still love to have a technical discussion with the guys from Livernoise (again, friendly as I really think they are stuck on some old wives tale or something as much as they are so great at the rest of what they do) or others that would think in anyway this is not harmfull in ALL aspects of ingestion.

Never in all my years of interacting with Factory engineers, those int he professional race industry, etc. has anyone ever claimed it was OK to have oil ingestion much less what the ecoboost mix turns out to contain (water, sulfuric acid, oil, unburnt fuel, abrasive carbon mix, etc.).

But back to this. Thanks for those willing to take the time and effort to explore these ideas you have...and this one is a super time saver!!!  And should work well enough that any residual left should not cause damage.

The danger of NOT doing this (emptying some how) can result in hydro lock.

Quote from: Tuner Boost on April 19, 2014, 11:41:36 AM
This is excellent thinking. all.  This forum is great to be able to have other brains working on ideas here.  My average day is app 6 hours of tech support, and in between overseeing the entire facility, and then new application requests come in steady (Hyundai to Lambo's!) so this helps us all.

So when do we get our consultation checks?  :blah:

Or at the very least a sweet deal on some product? ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tracy I'm still curious as to why we need to run two lines into a T from the pre Turbo side of the intake. I would think one bigger line would be better.  I'm just looking for your explanation as the vendor. 

Also would a filter attached to the front valve cover port that is capped during the CCS provide enough flow into the crank case?  I'm trying to make this kit as easy as possible to return to stock at any time.  So I'm trying to avoid drilling into the air box. 

Best is to only drill pass side (on truck) and use the OEM cleanside barb to connect the line to T to the other. Then run the cleanside line to the upper (filtered) portion of the air box. This allows easy back to stock of desired by only plugging the drilled hole or replacing the one tube.

But we are getting calls every week now from Ford dealers wanting to try these systems and here is Fords latest: (note, some of the explanation of turbo failures is not 100% accurate, it is the constant ingestion of the concentrated water/fuel/gunk burping into the turbo inlet tube if left as is from factory damaging the hot turbine wheels. They are fragile and even a small amount of a liquid hitting the the turbine wheel when at speed will severely damage the wheel).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0irwbwpuEbQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0irwbwpuEbQ)

Specifically though Tracy, I think Panther is wanting to know why both front AND rear intake lines, instead of just one larger vac line to front OR rear?

Such as, why not just attach a large diameter hose to the front vac barb, rather than use two smaller hoses to t into the vac barb and then go to the rear intake line.

Gotcha.

The size of the line can improve CFM of flow, but the ultimate choke points are in the can itself and the OEM PCV/Checkvalve.  We want the amount of suction available from both turbos to maintain the dirty side (foul) evacuation so that is a great point. And all EcoBoost now come with the Monster can larger diameter -8 line so we have done this to both make install easier, and to see if it improves the actual evacuation.  You can get by using 1 turbo for suction as long as the clean side is tapped into the air box (or if a CAI the end or base of the cone filter) filtered side so the suction is not fighting the proper direction of flow. (See painterPats original results).

Good post.

Thanks. Tracy and Jimijak. Sorry I didn't explain my question properly. What I think in my head doesn't always transfer to paper correctly.

Tracy, just out of curiosity. Could we not just vent the clean side to atmosphere? And place a small air filter on that? I'm pretty sure I asked this before, just not sure if it has been answered yet.

Btw I owe you a phone call.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I did my first install like you did at first with painters flex. I did not catch anything either. I now have a filter on value cover using the hole left on intake tube for my second vac source.  I'll test that for a while.  Did notice some oil smell now entering the cabin with the value cover not being part of the closed system.

Quote from: panther427 on May 22, 2014, 12:59:31 PM
Well I did my first install like you did at first with painters flex. I did not catch anything either. I now have a filter on value cover using the hole left on intake tube for my second vac source.  I'll test that for a while.  Did notice some oil smell now entering the cabin with the value cover not being part of the closed system.

I noticed sometimes having that oil smell in cabin as well with the css tires into the air box.

Is the smell more noticeable under no-boost conditions, turbos spinning up, or turbos spinning down?

no boost. stop and go

Ditto, stop and go / idle.

Tracy is the factory pcv Check value needed with a catch can only or complete system install. You can get an after market value for around 8 dollars. Would it be of any benefit to get one and drill or some how remove the Check value.

What is the benefit of deleting pcv and going the full-race setup vs the rx can. Is the McNally can the same as the RevX?

Quote from: FordFox4 on August 17, 2016, 04:45:18 PM
What is the benefit of deleting pcv and going the full-race setup vs the rx can. Is the McNally can the same as the RevX?

FordFox4 if you would be kind enough and follow the NEW members INTRO simply by following this link and the type of vehicle you have,thanks.  Z   http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php/board,14.0.html (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php/board,14.0.html)

Quote from: Tuner Boost on February 27, 2014, 03:12:06 PM
As soon as there is any boost detected the IM vac is shut from the integrated checkvalve in the pass side cam cover so there is no removal of the mix. That is why the RX system uses the inlet side of the turbos for evacuation during boost.

This got me curious so I bought the valve. Its an actual old school PCV valve (the brown fitting sticking out of the factory vapor separator) with the valve that rattles when you shake it. They are not air tight seals. Under vacuum or boost air will flow maybe slightly restricted in one direction. These are also not computer controlled like another member was insinuating on the forum.

Here is some sort of valve above the front composite valve cover on my 16 SHO. Also the separator on the rear valve is different than earlier models. I know the 10k miles I have on my SHO is not much but doing an inspection with the CAC and inlet/TB I found zero amounts of any oil.(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161224/89ae7aab74eb1e6d1d1a4d097572b098.jpg)(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161224/dfd03079a9c2861ce5236e0b26973761.jpg)

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

Quote from: BlueSHO on December 23, 2016, 05:45:19 PM
Here is some sort of valve above the front composite valve cover on my 16 SHO. Also the separator on the rear valve is different than earlier models. I know the 10k miles I have on my SHO is not much but doing an inspection with the CAC and inlet/TB I found zero amounts of any oil.(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161223/ac692718f0ec781d9bdfb33bb9677493.jpg)(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161223/20002242c9dbf7f185e6e296fd1c1e99.jpg)

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

I still believe the 2016's have an electronically controlled check valve for the cleanside breather tube rather than a simple sensor. What would the sensor tell the ECU that it doesn't already know from the MAP sensors regarding boost/vacuum? The valve could block off the flow of vapors from the engine crankcase to the air inlet tract, reducing/eliminating oil buildup in the intake tract, intercooler, and throttle body.

I think you meant to post a pic of your 2016's PCV and not my 2014's PCV with vapor separator. The 2016 has the composite cam covers and no longer use the vapor separator but still retain the PCV valve.

Can you pull your MAP sensor and check the intake manifold for signs of oil? That would tell you if the PCV system needs an oil separator.

Seeing how FRPP has factory engineered oil separators for the PCV and breather of the Shelby GT350 leads me to believe it is worthwhile to pursue separators of some sort for both sides of the crankcase because the PCV isn't air tight when it is shut.

Yes your right wrong pic.(dam phone) I fixed it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

So after driving 221 miles, my JLT has collected about 1 oz of vapor/fluid and nothing that resembles engine oil when it has settled. The ambient temperatures were in the single digits the entire time. Not to question the validity of the Rx system or any OCC, but wouldn't this blowby simply be combusted by the engine? I'm assuming it enters the OCC as a vapor (and not globs of fluid as it has to travel out of the cam cover, through the OEM vapor separator, and condense in the catch can). If the OCC wasn't there, it looks like it would just enter the intake manifold and pass through the intake valves and be combusted. I also installed a breather filter on my cleanside and it hasn't collected any oil.

What I did notice is that I can smell a strong whiff of fuel vapor when cold starting the car. I'm not sure where it is coming from. I can also detect a hint of the vapor seeping out somewhere from the JLT. It's a very faint scent, I have to practically stick my nose next to the JLT to smell anything. After driving the car hard for some WOT tune testing, I can smell the vapor fumes from the HVAC system. It makes the car smell a bit like the cats were removed.

Are there actual quantifiable gains with using the separator and/or cleanside breather on the transverse EcoBoost vehicles? I can see the Rx catching a LOT of blowby, but the naturally aspirated engines are the ones really catching engine oil. All I've really seen with EcoBoost is the milky/clear fuel vapor.

Quote from: metroplex on December 25, 2016, 04:45:34 PM
So after driving 221 miles, my JLT has collected about 1 oz of vapor/fluid and nothing that resembles engine oil when it has settled. The ambient temperatures were in the single digits the entire time. Not to question the validity of the Rx system or any OCC, but wouldn't this blowby simply be combusted by the engine? I'm assuming it enters the OCC as a vapor (and not globs of fluid as it has to travel out of the cam cover, through the OEM vapor separator, and condense in the catch can). If the OCC wasn't there, it looks like it would just enter the intake manifold and pass through the intake valves and be combusted. I also installed a breather filter on my cleanside and it hasn't collected any oil.

What I did notice is that I can smell a strong whiff of fuel vapor when cold starting the car. I'm not sure where it is coming from. I can also detect a hint of the vapor seeping out somewhere from the JLT. It's a very faint scent, I have to practically stick my nose next to the JLT to smell anything. After driving the car hard for some WOT tune testing, I can smell the vapor fumes from the HVAC system. It makes the car smell a bit like the cats were removed.

Are there actual quantifiable gains with using the separator and/or cleanside breather on the transverse EcoBoost vehicles? I can see the Rx catching a LOT of blowby, but the naturally aspirated engines are the ones really catching engine oil. All I've really seen with EcoBoost is the milky/clear fuel vapor.

I would focus on the fuel smell IMO.  Did the fuel smell start after the OCC Install ? Does the JLT have a baffle ?

Yes. After the OCC and the open crankcase breather. It's not a pure fuel smell, more of the same type of fuel/vapor that comes out of the OCC or oil fill cover.

Quote from: metroplex on December 25, 2016, 04:45:34 PM
What I did notice is that I can smell a strong whiff of fuel vapor when cold starting the car. I'm not sure where it is coming from. I can also detect a hint of the vapor seeping out somewhere from the JLT. It's a very faint scent, I have to practically stick my nose next to the JLT to smell anything. After driving the car hard for some WOT tune testing, I can smell the vapor fumes from the HVAC system. It makes the car smell a bit like the cats were removed.

I have read some comments from a couple people who vent their clean side to atmosphere that they notice an initial fuel/oil smell on startup or in the garage if the door is left closed for many hours. A check valve installed between the cleanside port and filter seemed to resolve this.

Mine is VTA as well (no check valve), but I don't recall smelling anything out of the ordinary, nor do I get any weird smells after hard running (other than my crappy glazed brakes, haha).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A check valve may not be the best approach as air needs to flow through the crankcase both ways depending on boost.

Quote from: metroplex on December 25, 2016, 11:40:14 PM
A check valve may not be the best approach as air needs to flow through the crankcase both ways depending on boost.

That was my impression as well. However, when I first mentioned this idea to James @ TeamRXP, he said if you check valve the cleanside, the temporary reverse burps would just blow out the dirty side into the can.

I know cleanside is primarily an intake, but I don't know what % of the time flow is moving in the reverse direction. Seems, though, burping into the can would be best case as far as catching contaminants. Not sure of effects on crankcase pressure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How much oil comes out of the cleanside? I've only seen hints of oil droplets on the fittings and nothing on the filter. I'm wondering if it is even worth the effort.

Quote from: metroplex on December 26, 2016, 08:08:22 AM
How much oil comes out of the cleanside? I've only seen hints of oil droplets on the fittings and nothing on the filter. I'm wondering if it is even worth the effort.

Its from my understanding that roughly 10% is omitted through the front cleanside under boost so expect to see negligible results as far as any such oil passing thru the front cleanside especially if recently installed as you mentioned above. Z

Super Six Motorsports take on PCV bypass - breathers are GOOD.