FYREANT

I can only imagine the cost on that recall LOL

Senior Teen

That listing states this part is not for a 2014-15 corvette.

FYREANT

FYI, catch cans are not quite model specific. Only if your car requires a weird bracket which the C7 does not.

Oskee

Can a catch can be used on the LT4 ??? Have looked on line at Apex, Elite and RX and non of them show application for the LT4 only for the LT1 !

robert miller

CriticalmassGT

Excessive blow-by. can be caused by improperly seated rings, bad rings, etc.

On DI Engines the Catch Cans only delay the inevitable. The real fix is both port injection and DI.

FYREANT

I'm sure you can use one on the LT4, but, it will be a different routing of lines and such since it has a completely redesigned PCV system on the LT4.

Skylane765

Yes, a CC just goes between the PVC dirty side out of the engine to the intake of the blower snout, PVC valve. I have heard that GM has worked out the PVC on the LT4 as to not need one.

CriticalmassGT

It only delays the issue.

The problem will occur given enough time. THere's a reason why car manufacturers are moving to Port & Direct Injection, and this is it.

You also have to be very careful when installing the can and the lines. Any air leak whatsoever is going to cause a lean condition at WOT that you may not even notice (unless it is a huge leak) without a data logger.

The only reliable non-manufacturing method That I know of to fix this issue is to run a water/meth injection system to clean the valves. I can guarantee you that even a good can is only going to lengthen the cleanings bout 5-10k, and not the 70-80k some were mentioning. A lot of oil still gets by the can. Regardless of the marketing hype.

When Ford was running it's endurance tests on its new DI engines, they failed to mention that the valves were so clean because those engines were run all-out, all the time. The amount of heat they generated was enough to burn off most of the coking build-up, and they quietly added their own return system to the ST models so the oil drained back into the crankcase.

meyerweb

That sounds to me like it "helps." No one claimed it solved the problem 100%, but if I can double the mileage or time until I need to do something more drastic, or triple it, I think a catch can is money well spent. The car may be sold by then.

How can you "guarantee" anything? Have you done scientific comparisons with and without catch cans? Have you seen any published results of such comparisons? If not, you're just guessing in the absence of data.


Pffft! No more so than replacing the PCV valve, or doing anything else with a vacuum line. It may sound like a miracle to you, but people have been maintaining PCV systems and replacing vacuum lines for decades, without major problems. You act like the LT1 is somehow more likely to have a vacuum leak than the other 100 million car engines on the road.

As for meth injection, please provide some scientific evidence that it helps. Meth isn't much of a detergent, and water not at all, so I'm unconvinced it will make any significant difference at all. Maybe if you run top tier gas through your meth injection setup.

Not sure why you're trying so hard to spread FUD, but I ain't buyin' it.

C2367

Added a CC about 200-300 miles ago and checked it, found a small amount of oil in it. So I am glad I added it now.

FYREANT

While I personally do not Have the proof you are looking for off hand, I have read several places that Meth does indeed keep the valves clean, at least when running 100% methanol and NO water mixed in. At that point the methanol works like gas does to clean the valves since you are using it as an additional fuel source.

EcoBrick Bob

Methanol is a solvent and will definitely clean your intake manifold and the tops of your intake valves. It will clean everything from where you start spraying, all the way to where it burns up in the engine. Been there with my DI Twin Turbo Flex. My intake was SPOTLESS! It works at concentrations from just below 50% and up. I never ran over 70% methanol.

robert miller

I always run 100% in the c5.

COSPEED

Definitely helps with 100% meth, but the 50/50 mix not so much. What to keep in mind though is what is still happening to the intake valves as your not spraying 100% of the time like the old port injection engines did:


And the DI engines:




what this does to the valves and the wear it causes to the valve guides:



I would add the Elite or RX cleanside to ANY wet or dry-sump system and the ELite E2 and RX dualvalves will, if installed correctly, unlike most any cans, always pull suction for evacuation even underacceleration for NA applications when intake vacuum disappears AND turbo or centri blower boosted applications.

The OP and any others with the E2 can that want to convert it to evac at all times PM me and I can give instructions.


Here is a good video showing what is happening in the LT1 and LT1 engines:

And finally, here is a DI car that the owner did annual dyno sessions on the same dyno with close to same weather conditions over 3 years and then had the intake valves cleaned with the walnut shell media blasting method. Study this chart for those that do not think it degrades performance over time...it is gradual so most do not notice. The last run is after the cleaning:


Thanks!

www.coloradospeed.com

0Cajun @ Edgyvette

That amount of oil is in no way normal. But just in case I am wrong BER has billet dual chamber billet catch cans for $99 shipped EVERYDAY

COSPEED

Correct. Would you be interested in allowing that can to be tested like in this example to determine how effective it is in stopping all or nearly all?

This is a very in depth and detailed test dome independently and really helps show the customer how well it does. There is a guy doing this currently with several different brands and has dedicated a year to do all anyone asks:


Independent Catchcan Effectiveness Test


I’ve had a *** catch can on my ## since last summer. It catches a lot, especially in the cold months. But I’ll get right to my test. I added an BrandX can inline after my *** can to see if the *** was missing anything. And if it was allowing some to pass through, was it enough for the BrandX to catch anything? I don’t drive a lot of miles regularly since my ## is not a daily driver, so my results will take some time. This thread is to document how I set it up and what I catch over time.
I installed the BrandX can just as the directions explained, but I routed the hoses differently. I left my *** can right where it’s been for months, but rerouted one hose. I left the hose from the passenger side of the engine to the inlet of the *** can. Then a new hose from ***can outlet, routed to the inlet of the BrandX can. The BrandX outlet hose goes back to the engine. The PCV exhaust now flows from the engine, through the ***, then through the BrandX, and finally back up to the engine intake.
Before installing everything for the test, I cleaned the *** can thoroughly. The bottom of the can (inside) was covered with a thin layer of stiff sludge that I could only clean out using gas. I’m glad that was caught, along with the ounces of oil, water, etc, over the months I’ve been emptying it. But I was surprised at the outlet hose from the *** can. It was wet with oil. Obviously some was getting through the can and back to my intake. I’ve never let the can get close to half full before emptying it. Nearly every time I’ve emptied it, there was 1/4“ or less in the bottom. I’m noting this in case someone thinks I left the *** get overfilled and it flowed through. Nevertheless, I started this test after cleaning everything for a fresh start.
I plan to leave this setup on for a thousand miles or so, and report my findings from each can.
1st picture: ****can as it was originally installed.
2nd:*Clean*** can.
3rd: BrandX can installed. The hose in the top center of the can is the inlet. The outlet hose on the right has a check valve.
4th:*Engine outlet to *** inlet on left of can. *** outlet on right side of can routed around (smaller hose) to the BrandX inlet. You can also see the other smaller hose coming back up from the BrandX can and ending at the intake on the engine.



Report 2:



I thought I'd add a post to keep this thread alive since it is taking me awhile to get enough miles on the truck for valid results. Now that spring weather is finally arriving, I haven't been putting as many miles on it since I'm busy. But I have around 600 miles on the test set up so far. I emptied the cans recently and recorded the volumes to date. I'd like to wait until I get to 1000 miles before posting the results from the test, but I'll give some preliminary feedback.

- Emptying process -*
First the ***. I'm used to emptying the *** can regularly, so it's not a big deal to unscrew, guide the can out from between the hoses, pour it out, guide it back in between the hoses, get it lined up carefully (so I don't cross thread the soft aluminum) and screw it back up snug. All that takes less than a few minutes so it's rather easy.
Now the BrandX can. Raise the hood, hold an empty water bottle under the drain tube, open the valve, close the valve, close the hood. I kid you not, it takes no more time than it took to read those steps. I knew it would be easy to empty, but it is ridiculously easy.

_ The weather so far -*
During the first week of the test we had winter weather, with some snow. Since then we have had mild weather. Temperatures are in the 50's and 60's most days.

- What they caught so far -
I won't share the amounts yet, but I'll give some info. The *** can has caught a 'mostly oil with a bit of water' mixture so far. The BrandX can (in line after the ***) has had just the opposite. It's collected mostly water or fuel, with some oil mixed in.
I emptied the *** first, and I would estimate it has collected the normal amount compared to what it usually does I empty it. I was pleased that my set up with 2 cans didn't seem to change the normal flow and collection I was used to seeing with just the *** can. When I was about the turn the valve to empty the BrandX, I paused to a few seconds wondering if anything would come out. After all it was a new can that would need to get some oil/water coated on the inside before there would be enough to drip to the bottom (The *** can had been in use for many months and although I cleaned the can I did not rinse off the filter material). Plus I wondered if the valve of the BrandX can protruded up into the can, and if it required some liquid to collect before there was enough to spill over that valve nipple and exit the can. Then I opened the valve and I had to smile when I had some liquid drain out. I thought all along that if it caught more than 10% of what the *** was collecting, I would be surprised. It's still early in the test, and I would like to redo the test after reversing the order of the cans later, but I am surprised so far. I'm hoping to get more miles on the truck soon so I can wrap up this phase of the test.

Report 3:

1000 Miles of Testing Results

- The Weather*has been warmer lately. So the test began with sub freezing temperatures, and gradually increased through the 70's and topped off in the mid 80's yesterday. I couldn't have asked for a better range of temperatures for this test.

- What they caught*was astounding to me. *** was first in line, with the BrandX after it to catch anything the *** might miss.
The *** stayed on track with what it has been accumulating for many months. Each time I emptied them, it had about the same amount. It's contents were mostly oil which smelled like used oil. It caught 17cc total which is just under 3 1/2 tsp.
The BrandX had more than the *** each time I emptied them. It's contents were an oil/fuel/water type mix that had a much stronger odor. Not a fuel smell, but a sharper chemical smell compared to the odor of used oil. It caught a total of 67cc which is just over 13 1/2 tsp.

- Final totals:
*** - 17cc
BrandX - 67cc

The BrandX can caught 4 times the amount the *** can caught,*after*the *** can removed what it could. I said from the beginning I would be surprised if the BrandX can could pull 10% of what the *** caught, since it was second in line. If someone told me it would catch an equal amount I would have said BS. For it to catch 4 times what the *** can caught is unreal.

Report 4:

The routing of cans has been reversed*so the second phase of the test is underway. I cleaned the cans and hoses so neither has an advantage. I also checked the inside of the hoses as I disassembled everything. The exit hose from the *** was dripping with oil and it made a mess as I took it apart. The exit hose from the *** was clean and dry. It still looked new. That is what prompted me to clean all the hoses before starting this phase. Is the double can routing helping the second can*that*much, or is one can that much better. Time will tell again.

Report 5:

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming…


Phase 2 is almost complete now, thanks to some extra mileage for work. I'll report on that soon and begin phase 3.


As I said above, *** shipped parts for me to do phase 3 of the test. I bought my *** can in June, and they changed the can slightly since then. The new diffuser/extension will only fit cans made after that, so they shipped a full new kit to test. Thank you *** for helping with this, and for your input in this thread.*
After shipping the kit, ***** asked me to remove the mesh from the exit side of my existing can for the remainder of phase 2, and to remove the mesh from the exit side of the new can before starting phase 3. I removed it from both (phase 2 was half way done when I removed it from the existing can). When I was removing the mesh from the short side of the new can (in preparation for phase 3), I realized the diffuser was assembled backwards. For our ##'s the long side of the diffuser must be on the passenger side of the can when installed. I disassembled, removed the mesh packed up in the can top on the exit/passenger side, and reassembled the can with diffuser. For anyone who might have received their cans assembled by ***, you should check to see if it was assembled correctly before installing. (EDIT: *** notes below they assemble the cans for shipping, and all cans should be assembled for your own installation needs) I also had a small piece of the stainless steel mesh (1/8") drop out when I was doing that. I wasn't thrilled with that so I unrolled, and lightly tapped the mesh in case there were any other loose pieces, but there weren't. A quick note on the *** kit... it is much improved since I bought mine. The hoses are pre cut to the proper lengths, the elbow fittings are nickel rather than plastic, and they include ## OEM snap on valve cover and intake fittings.


More to come soon!

Report 6:

Test Results

-*I'll summarize*the test to date. The first phase was to test the *** vs the BrandX catch cans on a ##, both base models, with the *** first in line and BrandX installed to catch anything the *** missed. Those first phase results were: *** - 17cc, BrandX - 67cc. The 'first in line' *** caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, BrandX first and then ***.

Phase 2 Test Results
- The Weather*has been average northern Ohio spring weather. Some rain, fog, cool nights, warm and hot days.

-*Driving*has been about the same through both phases. I good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 40% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, with a few very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling, and no towing.

- What they caught*this time might have been predicted by some (after the results of phase 1). BrandX was first in line, with the *** after it to catch anything the BrandX might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was half of that caught in the first phase. The first phase had some cold weather which accounted for more water in the mix and the higher volume.
The contents from the BrandX can was mostly oil/fuel, and had a strong chemical/solvent smell again. It caught 35.5cc total which is approximately 7 1/8 tsp.
The *** can caught about the same mix of oil/fuel, but didn't smell quite as strong. Halfway through this phase, ****** asked me to remove the mesh on the exit side of the *** can. I did that, but noticed no difference in what it was catching. But since it was second in line, and there was little to catch, that's understandable. The *** can caught 1.75cc total which is approximately 1/3 tsp. With so little collecting this time, I monitored the contents of the *** can but didn't empty it until the end of the test.

- Phase 2 Totals:
BrandX - 35.5cc
*** - 1.75cc*

-*Other tidbits*include the 'first in line' BrandX can caught 95% of the total volume. The exit hoses were very clean from both cans. The last few tanks of gas have produced slightly higher than my normal MPGs, but it's too early to tell on that (more to follow after phase 3).

-Phase 3,*using the *** can extension and diffuser, is underway. Details will follow.


Final Test Results

-*I'll summarize*the test phases. The first phase was to test the *** vs the BrandX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the *** first in line and BrandX installed to catch anything the *** missed. Those first phase results were: *** - 17cc, BrandX - 67cc. The 'first in line' *** caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details on phase 1. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, BrandX first and then ***. The second phase results were: BrandX - 35.50cc, *** - 1.75cc. The 'first in line' BrandX caught 95% of the total volume. See post 143 for more details on phase 2.

Phase 3 Test Results

- This time the *** can*was first in line as in phase 1, but it had the new can extension and diffuser added. It also had the mesh material removed from the exit side of the can.

- The Weather*has been average northern Ohio early summer weather. Some rain with warm and hot days.

-*Driving*has been a good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 60% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, some steep hill climbs, and some very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling again, and no towing. I'll add some more thoughts on driving and MPGs below.*

- What they caught*was a mixed bag. *** was first in line, with the BrandX after it to catch anything the extended *** might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was down from the last phase, again. I assume it is due to the warmer weather and maybe my engine is using less oil with more miles? Either way, my test looks at the percent each can catches, compared to the total caught for that phase, so the volume isn't critical.
The contents from the extended *** can was mostly oil, and had a used oil smell. The *** caught 14.75cc which is approximately 3 tsp.
The BrandX can caught a fuel/water/oil mix. It smelled much more harsh again. The BrandX can caught 16.00cc which is approximately 3 1/4 tsp.

- Phase 3 Totals:
*** - 14.75cc (48%)
BrandX - 16.00cc (52%)

-*Other thoughts*on the results. The contents of each phase showed me the BrandX does a better job of removing more than oil. It always contained more water/fuel type liquids, while the *** contained mostly oil. I don't know if it is due to the can design, the 'out front' mounting style of the BrandX, or both.
For anyone buying or thinking of upgrading their *** can, I strongly recommend figuring out how to mount it out front, and would definitely add the valve that ***** is offering. I really think the 'out front' cooling effect will help it catch even more, and the valve would be worth the price for ease of emptying it. Having the BrandX can to compare to when emptying, the front mount and valve are no brainers.
As I said at the end of phase 2, my MPGs have increased slightly. I have done nothing different to my truck over the past year, other than adding the BrandX can to the *** for this test. My driving style is very similar from tank to tank, I fill up at the same stations, etc. But since having both cans in series, and essentially removing 95% or more of the PCV byproducts, my MPGs have increased. Up to that point my lifetime MPGs were 17.5. Nearly every tank for the past year gave me the same results, 17.5. I would have some trips that would net 20 MPG, but the other short trips would always pull it back down for the same tank average - close to 17.5. My recent tank averages have all been over 18 MPG, with a few over 19, and as high as 19.5. My last tank included hauling approximately 1000 lbs of payload, through some long hills/mountains of PA, and I got 18.8 MPG. It could be the summer fuel mix combined with an engine that is broken in, but the timing is peculiar. Whatever the reason, I like it!

Great info for those looking to stop all, or nearly all of this oil and "gunk" that causes the intake valve coking and other issues. Let me know and I can forward you his contact info and get yours inline. They have the MM, Phastek, Mike Norris/CCA, and a few others going up next and are just finishing the Moroso test.

MikeLsx

So whats going to happen to 90-95% of stingrays thats are going without cans ? are we going to have a bunch of corvettes down on power in 4 years?

find it so hard to believe GM would put a car on the road that in a matter of year of driving you are already losing power. I believe this is a real problem, but after one year?

so every 20k miles we will lose 13HP, so by 100k miles we are down about 50HP! ******** that would be a major problem.

COSPEED

All DI engines have this issue and yes, as the deposits form, several things occur.

1. excessive premature wear of the valve guides (haven't had to deal with this since the 60's/70's)

2. A/F mixture in each cylinder becomes unequal as the amount of air entering is obstructed yet the DI injectors will still deliver the same amount of fuel to each based on the upstream O2's, MAF, MAP, etc. so unequal power contribution from each. As the deposits do not form equally. The valves b\nearest the oil ingress will have more severe build-up than the furthest ones in general.

3. At idle and during the transition from idle hesitation/stumble and misfires will become more common at low rpms vs higher as the disruption of the air entering each cylinder has more of a negative effect when the flow and velocity is low VS higher RPM's when the flow can overcome the disruption. As build up increases it will effect all operating levels.

4. If/when the deposits build to a certain point large chunks can and do break off and can/do get stuck between the valve and seat causing lost compression and if open far enough a bent valve from PTV contact.

5. As the deposits shed smaller particles they can/do get forced between the piston and cylinder wall causing scouring.

Anyone doubting the severity and how quickly these deposits build, just ask a tuner shop that has removed the intake manifold what they see (if they actually look into the intake ports at the intake valves).

Every time I do a Google search on "intake valve deposits with direct injection" or similar more examples pop up in the images including more articles and papers from the industry, but only the "PR Talking heads" from any of the auto makers, and they all deny they have an issue with this, yet every tech that tears DI engines down can attest to what they see.

https://www.google.com/search?q=inta...ih=775:cheers:

-HAIRBALL-

Not sure you need one for a Z06. My Z has about 5k miles on it and I check the oil regularly and the stick still marks in the exact same place since I brought it home so I have not lost any. I filled it to the same mark on my 500 mile change and have no issues/need for a catch can.