When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
"Catch can" is quoted because the name of the device tells you exactly what it is....it "catches" oil. Now, if the aftermarket C7 "catch cans" operated like the one on the 6the gen Camaro (returning oil back to the sump), we'd be talking about a different thing. I don't feel he "dodged" the question at all, he explained how it works on the Camaro and the dry sump Z51's and also why they don't use it on wet sump (Non Z51) Corvettes (shallow oil pan).
Somewhere on the way to the forum, a small, vocal minority here decided that ANY answer Tadge gave on ANY subject was some kind of CYA on his part. You guys have fun wringing your philosophical mitts, I going to drive my car.
No auto manufacturer is going to come out and say, "Yes, we screwed up and forgot to take that into account."
They don't do that even after a recall is issued. They just quietly b!tch about repairing the problem.
Is a "catch can" needed? Should I put OEM "splash guards" on my car?
Who cares??? I don't...it's your vehicle...
No auto manufacturer is going to come out and say, "Yes, we screwed up and forgot to take that into account."
They don't do that even after a recall is issued. They just quietly b!tch about repairing the problem.
Is a "catch can" needed? Should I put OEM "splash guards" on my car?
Who cares??? I don't...it's your vehicle...
GM didn't screw up anything. you really think GM doesn't know the effects of this ?
This is the ONLY documented example, but if you read it all you will see the dealer "manipulated" GM to void the warranty. The owner did it all right. Stopped as soon as the low oil pressure warning came on, did NT start the car again, and had it towed to the dealer. Then the tech at the dealer drove the car w/no oil pressure and of course turned a bearing so we covered his idiocy. The document oil pump failures are one of the more common warranty repair service performed by dealers and has been documented for years. Sad to see him treated such a way!
1. My take is if you have a wet sump system (non-dry sump system) the correct way to perform proper PCV air/oil separation is to have a system thats: ...>>>
...>>> Tadge quote: >>>
>>> "... not only separates oil from PCV air it provides a drain back path for this oil to be reused by the lube system. "Catch-can" systems that do not have a drain back path for separated oil run the risk of poor oil pressure performance over time as oil is removed from the lube system.
2. Potential Lessons Learned are, if you purchase a "catch can" make sure it has a path to the oil pan with some filtering to minimize oil contamination, because you can be removing oil from the system without knowing it.
3. I do not think Tadge will supply any drama on Chevrolet wet sump engines (non-dry sump), and i do not know of any chief engineers in their right mind will, so i am very thankful about his responses and subtle messages.
Can you explain why re-introducing this "gunk" back to the oil pan is not going to cause premature wear and damage? The PCV system removes the damaging combustion byproducts and contaminates that prior to the implementation of the PCV system in the mid 1960s that wore out the average engine in 40-50K miles on average. In the years following the PCV system mandate, these same engines running the same oils now started lasting 100-150k miles before needing rebuilds. There is far more caught in a "Good" system than oil. In fact if you look at an analysis of what is caught you would never return it to the crank case:
Keep in mind, this is NOT oil being analysed but what was caught in the cans first drain. And, this was the base analysis from Blackstone. A more in depth analysis will show the acid content and the other particulates:
So, while a simple "catchcan" like most are that only trap a fraction of the coking causing compounds (mainly dirty oil) are not trapping all of what flows through the PCV system. Oil is only a small amount of what a ColoradoSpeed or Elite E2-X system traps, and as app. 70% of internal engine wear is caused by these contaminates, returning them to the crankcase is one of the most crazy things to be suggested or done.
The problem is most would never empty a external air/oil separator and if left to overfill will be like having no separator at all, or worse if a "slug" was ingested at one time causing hydrolock.
The only type of devices that can purify the oil to the extent it can safely be re-introduced to the crankcase is a Racor or Alfa Laval industrial centrifuge style system. These start at hundreds of pounds and go to tons in weight, require 3 phase power supply, and they also separate and purify the un-burnt fuel as well and return it to the fuel tank. Only industrial engines use these and cost runs from $8k to several hundred thousand $$.
BUT, the average consumer understands so little of this so the Automakers are betting they will log have traded the vehicles before this is very evident.
Think about it, one of the largest Synthetic lubricant companies is doing in depth analysis of the contents caught & I hope to get my hands on that data soon to post. Draining the concentrate of contaminates back into the engine oil is the same as taking your drain oil and filtering out the contaminates like one of the commercial systems and putting back in the ash/soot/water/sulfuric acid/carbon/un-burnt fuel, etc. and pouring it into your engine. Absolutely crazy!
And, hear the silence on my on-going challenge? Tadge or any of his engineers are invited, along with anyone else that wishes to be present to document the effects of GDI coking, and that is with an engine that DOES have GM's latest "catchcan". Think how easy that would be to put all of this to rest? How better than to prove to the World I am full if BS and they are being truthful! Then all would be able to rest easy that all of this is not an issue.
This is the ONLY documented example, but if you read it all you will see the dealer "manipulated" GM to void the warranty. The owner did it all right. Stopped as soon as the low oil pressure warning came on, did NT start the car again, and had it towed to the dealer. Then the tech at the dealer drove the car w/no oil pressure and of course turned a bearing so we covered his idiocy. The document oil pump failures are one of the more common warranty repair service performed by dealers and has been documented for years. Sad to see him treated such a way!
You're right, but it does set a precedence. Spin it any way you want to, if he hadn't had a catch can the motor would have been replaced under warranty.
You're right, but it does set a precedence. Spin it any way you want to, if he hadn't had a catch can the motor would have been replaced under warranty.
the FACT is that installing a catch can is not 100% warranty safe mod. From what I understand it was a oil pump failure.
GM blamed a oil related problem to the persons air/oil separator.
Its now on the customer to take legal action, which is a pain in the *** from a money/time stand point.
the thing is that for most warranty claims a catch can is probably safe, but when something big happens it MAY be different.
Can you explain why re-introducing this "gunk" back to the oil pan is not going to cause premature wear and damage? The PCV system removes the damaging combustion byproducts and contaminates that prior to the implementation of the PCV system in the mid 1960s that wore out the average engine in 40-50K miles on average. In the years following the PCV system mandate, these same engines running the same oils now started lasting 100-150k miles before needing rebuilds. There is far more caught in a "Good" system than oil. In fact if you look at an analysis of what is caught you would never return it to the crank case:
Keep in mind, this is NOT oil being analysed but what was caught in the cans first drain. And, this was the base analysis from Blackstone. A more in depth analysis will show the acid content and the other particulates:
So, while a simple "catchcan" like most are that only trap a fraction of the coking causing compounds (mainly dirty oil) are not trapping all of what flows through the PCV system. Oil is only a small amount of what a ColoradoSpeed or Elite E2-X system traps, and as app. 70% of internal engine wear is caused by these contaminates, returning them to the crankcase is one of the most crazy things to be suggested or done.
The problem is most would never empty a external air/oil separator and if left to overfill will be like having no separator at all, or worse if a "slug" was ingested at one time causing hydrolock.
The only type of devices that can purify the oil to the extent it can safely be re-introduced to the crankcase is a Racor or Alfa Laval industrial centrifuge style system. These start at hundreds of pounds and go to tons in weight, require 3 phase power supply, and they also separate and purify the un-burnt fuel as well and return it to the fuel tank. Only industrial engines use these and cost runs from $8k to several hundred thousand $$.
BUT, the average consumer understands so little of this so the Automakers are betting they will log have traded the vehicles before this is very evident.
Think about it, one of the largest Synthetic lubricant companies is doing in depth analysis of the contents caught & I hope to get my hands on that data soon to post. Draining the concentrate of contaminates back into the engine oil is the same as taking your drain oil and filtering out the contaminates like one of the commercial systems and putting back in the ash/soot/water/sulfuric acid/carbon/un-burnt fuel, etc. and pouring it into your engine. Absolutely crazy!
And, hear the silence on my on-going challenge? Tadge or any of his engineers are invited, along with anyone else that wishes to be present to document the effects of GDI coking, and that is with an engine that DOES have GM's latest "catchcan". Think how easy that would be to put all of this to rest? How better than to prove to the World I am full if BS and they are being truthful! Then all would be able to rest easy that all of this is not an issue.
hey man
Just a quick question
Does the Natural Based Oil helps with this situation with the Carbon depositeds?
I've deleted several posts in this thread due to them not being germane to the "Catch Can" topic. Please keep your posts on topic or they'll be deleted.
This is refreshing to have an ongoing dialog with someone intelligent! Here are some facts I would love Tadge to explain in detail how a proper catchcan could possible have any effect on an oil pump failing....or loss of oil pressure. It is impossible, as all the PCV air/oil separator does is rout PCV vapors through a non flow restrictive air/oil separation device. Also, with a rash of oil pump failures on LS3/L99 engines that GM has TSB's out for years.
For someone of his stature to go this far, assuming all Corvette owners are ignorant sheep with no mechanical sense will back fire and further erode is credibility.
Crazy!
A simple Googles search on LS3 oil pump failures should be posted:
Here is a search result showing 13,300 results, and that is on the LS3 alone. The same oil pump is used in the LS2 a, L99, and ALL GM truck V8's as well. We searching those the search results come up into the 100's of thousands. 99.9% of all of these had no aftermarket products. Feel free to verify this and post.
Tadge is in a very difficult position. Generally an individuals is chosen for his position not based upon knowledge and experience with the actual technical understanding of all involved, that is his staff of some of the best engineers in the World (and they are) that actually do the design and study work. I have a few that still to this day communicate "off the record" at risk of termination for violating NDA's they are under. A person in Tadeges position is chosen because they have the ability to filter what the general public is told, and also have a great talent to be able to be in front of those that buy, or are considering buying a vehicle. That very few of us engineers are able to do as our brains are wired far differently and if it is not pure "tech speak" So, here are a few "facts":
Here are some facts I would love Tadge to explain in detail how a proper catchcan could possible have any effect on an oil pump failing....or loss of oil pressure. It is impossible, as all the PCV air/oil separator does is rout PCV vapors through a non flow restrictive air/oil separation device. Also, with a rash of oil pump failures on LS3/L99 engines that GM has TSB's out for years.
Other GM techs have posted the actual TSB's so I won't duplicate that here to save space, but urge anyone to search themselves and verify.
For someone of his stature to go this far, assuming all Corvette owners are ignorant sheep with no mechanical sense will back fire and further erode is credibility.
Crazy!
A simple Googles search on LS3 oil pump failures should be posted:
Here is a search result showing 13,300 results, and that is on the LS3 alone. The same oil pump is used in the LS2 a, L99, and ALL GM truck V8's as well. We searching those the search results come up into the 100's of thousands. 99.9% of all of these had no aftermarket products. Feel free to verify this and post elsewhere.
I STILL invite Tadge to have a direct open dialog with myself here and provide facts and explanations, but GM would never approve this, so I do this on my own. There is absolutely NO possible way for a properly designed "catchcan" ( and Catchcan is truly a misnomer as those are what 99% of what is on the market. They do little to combat or prevent the issues people purchase them to combat or prevent as they only trap a small part of the oil and other contaminants and allow the majority to still pass through and cause the issues. Even the biggest most recognized names fall into this) A true Air/oil PCV vapor separation system is a correct term.
He has a valid warning and concern as so many can and do cause issues that can and will give legal and just cause to void a warranty (the "Tanks" and those that vent to the atmosphere, basically ANY that do alter negatively, defeat, or degrade the functions the PCV system perform. Now, back to the LT1's PCV system. As it only relies on the vacuum present in the intake manifold to provide the evacuation suction needed to remove these contaminants, and almost all of these that reduce your engine oils ability properly protect your engines moving parts, when you delete/defeat ANY of the critical functions the PCV system does to both keep engine oil clean of the contaminates constantly entering as blow-by (past the piston rings) and that would open any portion of the PCV system to the atmosphere....such as mixing the "fresh" and "Foul" sides of the PCV system. These are proven to not only violate Federal emissions guidelines AND cause accelerated engine wear and damage over time. And Tadge can verify this). (Tadge, you could do a little investigating and easily find I personally have helped your engineers "off the record" in the recent designs to improve PCV function and air/oil separation internally).
Now, as said, ask ANY engine builder or automotive engineer and it is physically impossible for these systems I endorse to have ANY effect on an oil pumps failure. And I will go as far as to state even my most unscrupulous enemy, Dave form MM, his can ALSO cannot in any way cause an oil pump failure, but it has more than enough other issues I invite him to have an open dialog to discuss at another time.
As the LT1 engine in both dry-sump and wet-sump variations rely entirely on intake manifold vacuum to perform this, when ever you accelerate or go WOT, this vacuum is negated by the reversion pulses caused by cam lobe overlap, and these contaminant laden vapors then settle and mix with the engine oil. These systems I endorse add a secondary evacuation suction source that greatly improves the OEM PCV systems functions.
I have to end now, but will be back later today to expand on all of this as I have spent the past week in the lab with a group of other engineers working on all things GDI and the very serious issues facing the industry as a whole. AND, I learned I was mistaken on a few things I have been stating as fact as well and will cover this and clarify then.
But, it would do GM a great deal of benefit to actually have Tadge engage me directly (I have no problem doing so in private to not undermine him) on all of this.
jvp, we all thank you for this opportunity to have this interaction. My goal, which may be far to lofty, is to find some balance between the "PR" spin and fact, as the Corvette owner is one of GM's most loyal follower, and this issue is creating more distrust and an ever widening divide, and that benefits no one.
For someone of his stature to go this far, assuming all Corvette owners are ignorant sheep with no mechanical sense will back fire and further erode is credibility.
You need to be really careful of what you say and what you read. At no point in Tadge's response did he mention "oil pump failures", nor did he acknowledge or address anyone's engine failures due to catch cans. He merely said
"Catch-can" systems that do not have a drain back path for separated oil run the risk of poor oil pressure performance over time as oil is removed from the lube system.
And that's it. Please don't conflate the two issues being discussed in this thread. Further, I strongly discourage you calling out the VLE by saying he "assumes all Corvette owners are ignorant sheep." That kind of text isn't going to get you far here.
This is refreshing to have an ongoing dialog with someone intelligent! Here are some facts I would love Tadge to explain in detail how a proper catchcan could possible have any effect on an oil pump failing....or loss of oil pressure. It is impossible, as all the PCV air/oil separator does is rout PCV vapors through a non flow restrictive air/oil separation device. Also, with a rash of oil pump failures on LS3/L99 engines that GM has TSB's out for years.
For someone of his stature to go this far, assuming all Corvette owners are ignorant sheep with no mechanical sense will back fire and further erode is credibility.
Crazy!
A simple Googles search on LS3 oil pump failures should be posted:
Here is a search result showing 13,300 results, and that is on the LS3 alone. The same oil pump is used in the LS2 a, L99, and ALL GM truck V8's as well. We searching those the search results come up into the 100's of thousands. 99.9% of all of these had no aftermarket products. Feel free to verify this and post.
Tadge is in a very difficult position. Generally an individuals is chosen for his position not based upon knowledge and experience with the actual technical understanding of all involved, that is his staff of some of the best engineers in the World (and they are) that actually do the design and study work. I have a few that still to this day communicate "off the record" at risk of termination for violating NDA's they are under. A person in Tadeges position is chosen because they have the ability to filter what the general public is told, and also have a great talent to be able to be in front of those that buy, or are considering buying a vehicle. That very few of us engineers are able to do as our brains are wired far differently and if it is not pure "tech speak" So, here are a few "facts":
Here are some facts I would love Tadge to explain in detail how a proper catchcan could possible have any effect on an oil pump failing....or loss of oil pressure. It is impossible, as all the PCV air/oil separator does is rout PCV vapors through a non flow restrictive air/oil separation device. Also, with a rash of oil pump failures on LS3/L99 engines that GM has TSB's out for years.
Other GM techs have posted the actual TSB's so I won't duplicate that here to save space, but urge anyone to search themselves and verify.
For someone of his stature to go this far, assuming all Corvette owners are ignorant sheep with no mechanical sense will back fire and further erode is credibility.
Crazy!
A simple Googles search on LS3 oil pump failures should be posted:
Here is a search result showing 13,300 results, and that is on the LS3 alone. The same oil pump is used in the LS2 a, L99, and ALL GM truck V8's as well. We searching those the search results come up into the 100's of thousands. 99.9% of all of these had no aftermarket products. Feel free to verify this and post elsewhere.
I STILL invite Tadge to have a direct open dialog with myself here and provide facts and explanations, but GM would never approve this, so I do this on my own. There is absolutely NO possible way for a properly designed "catchcan" ( and Catchcan is truly a misnomer as those are what 99% of what is on the market. They do little to combat or prevent the issues people purchase them to combat or prevent as they only trap a small part of the oil and other contaminants and allow the majority to still pass through and cause the issues. Even the biggest most recognized names fall into this) A true Air/oil PCV vapor separation system is a correct term.
He has a valid warning and concern as so many can and do cause issues that can and will give legal and just cause to void a warranty (the "Tanks" and those that vent to the atmosphere, basically ANY that do alter negatively, defeat, or degrade the functions the PCV system perform. Now, back to the LT1's PCV system. As it only relies on the vacuum present in the intake manifold to provide the evacuation suction needed to remove these contaminants, and almost all of these that reduce your engine oils ability properly protect your engines moving parts, when you delete/defeat ANY of the critical functions the PCV system does to both keep engine oil clean of the contaminates constantly entering as blow-by (past the piston rings) and that would open any portion of the PCV system to the atmosphere....such as mixing the "fresh" and "Foul" sides of the PCV system. These are proven to not only violate Federal emissions guidelines AND cause accelerated engine wear and damage over time. And Tadge can verify this). (Tadge, you could do a little investigating and easily find I personally have helped your engineers "off the record" in the recent designs to improve PCV function and air/oil separation internally).
Now, as said, ask ANY engine builder or automotive engineer and it is physically impossible for these systems I endorse to have ANY effect on an oil pumps failure. And I will go as far as to state even my most unscrupulous enemy, Dave form MM, his can ALSO cannot in any way cause an oil pump failure, but it has more than enough other issues I invite him to have an open dialog to discuss at another time.
As the LT1 engine in both dry-sump and wet-sump variations rely entirely on intake manifold vacuum to perform this, when ever you accelerate or go WOT, this vacuum is negated by the reversion pulses caused by cam lobe overlap, and these contaminant laden vapors then settle and mix with the engine oil. These systems I endorse add a secondary evacuation suction source that greatly improves the OEM PCV systems functions.
I have to end now, but will be back later today to expand on all of this as I have spent the past week in the lab with a group of other engineers working on all things GDI and the very serious issues facing the industry as a whole. AND, I learned I was mistaken on a few things I have been stating as fact as well and will cover this and clarify then.
But, it would do GM a great deal of benefit to actually have Tadge engage me directly (I have no problem doing so in private to not undermine him) on all of this.
jvp, we all thank you for this opportunity to have this interaction. My goal, which may be far to lofty, is to find some balance between the "PR" spin and fact, as the Corvette owner is one of GM's most loyal follower, and this issue is creating more distrust and an ever widening divide, and that benefits no one.
A catch can installed wrong CAN cause problems, OR a poor designed/made one. Plus GM doesn't know the long term/short term effects of installing catch cans on there engines. Its really all theory, and putting faith into people like you. Remember i am just talking about this warranty case when you make your response. Not debating anything else in this thread. (we talk about carbon build up on the other thread)
If the guy blew his transmission, i bet GM would over look the catch can.
But its a engine problem that had to do with starving of oil. The guy had a device that takes oil out of the engine that would otherwise be ingested. The worse part was he had a port injection LS3 engine....
GM denied the claim . The customer also has the right to take GM to court where GM would then have the proof they are right.
Rather GM had the legal right to do what they do, doesn't matter because it happen. Thats the world we live in.
Plus GM doesn't know the long term/short term effects of installing catch cans on there engines.
We do not know what GM does and does not know. All following this subject on this and other forums longs for the evidence of proof. Theory based upon historically validated examples can have different results because of the technology built into the LT1 and later engines.
We have an open invitation from Tadge for questions about Corvettes. If we can construct questions that are very specific in a non-confrontational manner, we may be able to get eye opening insight into their research. We must first develop a thorough understanding of the subject matter such as the specific differences between the LT1 used in the Camaro and the Corvette. We do know the Camaro oil pan is deeper and the valve covers are different because the clean side PCV connections are located differently. Z06Bait has described the Corvette valve covers in a post or two with the built in oil/air separators. Does the Camaro valve covers have the same separators? Perhaps not and that is why they added an external separator.
Let's think through the questions before they are asked rather than complaining about the answers and trying to read between the lines of the answers.
06-25-2016, 03:18 PM
