C7 owners that are mechanically inclined!!
10-21-2015, 05:49 PM
#21
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
Make sure it is the Elite new E2-X line. Great job on the cleaning!!! Very impressed!
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...-deposits.html
No, GM still takes the stance (to the public) that this is NOT occurring despite all the pictures and videos showing the severity of it.
No, they changed the dry sump cyclonic separator for 2015 and up stopping most of the oil "puking" into the air box, but the rest is the same. Still and issue with no solution in site other than to clean and then install a Colorado Speed or ELite E2-X system to stop it.
If I am not mistaken, the $200 UR is this one, and does little to stop the oil ingestion. RX no longer makes the original RX system only some guys selling cheap China made cans from their homes with the RX label on them, but the ColoradoSpeed and Elite E2-X's are improvements over that even:
I’ve had a UPR catch can on my 5.0 since last summer. It catches a lot, especially in the cold months.
But I’ll get right to my test. I added an RX can inline after my UPR can to see if the UPR was missing
anything. And if it was allowing some to pass through, was it enough for the RX to catch anything? I
don’t drive a lot of miles regularly since my F150 is not a daily driver, so my results will take some time.
This thread is to document how I set it up and what I catch over time.
I installed the RX can just as the directions explained, but I routed the hoses differently. I left my UPR
can right where it’s been for months, but rerouted one hose. I left the hose from the passenger side of
the engine to the inlet of the UPR can. Then a new hose from UPR can outlet, routed to the inlet of the
RX can. The RX outlet hose goes back to the engine. The PCV exhaust now flows from the engine,
through the UPR, then through the RX, and finally back up to the engine intake.
Before installing everything for the test, I cleaned the UPR can thoroughly. The bottom of the can
(inside) was covered with a thin layer of stiff sludge that I could only clean out using gas. I’m glad that
was caught, along with the ounces of oil, water, etc, over the months I’ve been emptying it. But I was
surprised at the outlet hose from the UPR can. It was wet with oil. Obviously some was getting
through the can and back to my intake. I’ve never let the can get close to half full before emptying it.
Nearly every time I’ve emptied it, there was 1/4“ or less in the bottom. I’m noting this in case someone
thinks I left the UPR get overfilled and it flowed through. Nevertheless, I started this test after cleaning
everything for a fresh start.
I plan to leave this setup on for a thousand miles or so, and report my findings from each can.
1st picture: UPR can as it was originally installed.
2nd: CleanUPR can.
3rd: RX can installed. The hose in the top center of the can is the inlet. The outlet hose on the right has
a check valve.
4th: Engine outlet to UPR inlet on left of can. UPR outlet on right side of can routed around (smaller
hose) to the RX inlet. You can also see the other smaller hose coming back up from the RX can and
ending at the intake on the engine.
Report 2:
I thought I'd add a post to keep this thread alive since it is taking me awhile to get enough miles on
the truck for valid results. Now that spring weather is finally arriving, I haven't been putting as
many miles on it since I'm busy. But I have around 600 miles on the test set up so far. I emptied
the cans recently and recorded the volumes to date. I'd like to wait until I get to 1000 miles before
posting the results from the test, but I'll give some preliminary feedback.
- Emptying process -
First the UPR. I'm used to emptying the UPR can regularly, so it's not a big deal to unscrew, guide
the can out from between the hoses, pour it out, guide it back in between the hoses, get it lined up
carefully (so I don't cross thread the soft aluminum) and screw it back up snug. All that takes less
than a few minutes so it's rather easy.
Now the RX can. Raise the hood, hold an empty water bottle under the drain tube, open the valve,
close the valve, close the hood. I kid you not, it takes no more time than it took to read those steps.
I knew it would be easy to empty, but it is ridiculously easy.
_ The weather so far -
During the first week of the test we had winter weather, with some snow. Since then we have had
mild weather. Temperatures are in the 50's and 60's most days.
- What they caught so far -
I won't share the amounts yet, but I'll give some info. The UPR can has caught a 'mostly oil with a
bit of water' mixture so far. The RX can (in line after the UPR) has had just the opposite. It's
collected mostly water or fuel, with some oil mixed in.
I emptied the UPR first, and I would estimate it has collected the normal amount compared to what
it usually does I empty it. I was pleased that my set up with 2 cans didn't seem to change the
normal flow and collection I was used to seeing with just the UPR can. When I was about the turn
the valve to empty the RX, I paused to a few seconds wondering if anything would come out. After
all it was a new can that would need to get some oil/water coated on the inside before there would
be enough to drip to the bottom (The UPR can had been in use for many months and although I
cleaned the can I did not rinse off the filter material). Plus I wondered if the valve of the RX can
protruded up into the can, and if it required some liquid to collect before there was enough to spill
over that valve nipple and exit the can. Then I opened the valve and I had to smile when I had some
liquid drain out. I thought all along that if it caught more than 10% of what the UPR was collecting, I
would be surprised. It's still early in the test, and I would like to redo the test after reversing the
order of the cans later, but I am surprised so far. I'm hoping to get more miles on the truck soon so
I can wrap up this phase of the test.
Report 3:
1000 Miles of Testing Results
- The Weather has been warmer lately. So the test began with sub freezing temperatures, and
gradually increased through the 70's and topped off in the mid 80's yesterday. I couldn't have asked
for a better range of temperatures for this test.
- What they caught was astounding to me. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch
anything the UPR might miss.
The UPR stayed on track with what it has been accumulating for many months. Each time I emptied
them, it had about the same amount. It's contents were mostly oil which smelled like used oil. It
caught 17cc total which is just under 3 1/2 tsp.
The RX had more than the UPR each time I emptied them. It's contents were an oil/fuel/water type
mix that had a much stronger odor. Not a fuel smell, but a sharper chemical smell compared to the
odor of used oil. It caught a total of 67cc which is just over 13 1/2 tsp.
- Final totals:
UPR - 17cc
RX - 67cc
The RX can caught 4 times the amount the UPR can caught, after the UPR can removed what it
could. I said from the beginning I would be surprised if the RX can could pull 10% of what the UPR
caught, since it was second in line. If someone told me it would catch an equal amount I would have
said BS. For it to catch 4 times what the UPR can caught is unreal.
Report 4:
The routing of cans has been reversed so the second phase of the test is underway. I cleaned
the cans and hoses so neither has an advantage. I also checked the inside of the hoses as I
disassembled everything. The exit hose from the UPR was dripping with oil and it made a mess as I
took it apart. The exit hose from the UPR was clean and dry. It still looked new. That is what
prompted me to clean all the hoses before starting this phase. Is the double can routing helping the
second can that much, or is one can that much better. Time will tell again.
Report 5:
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming…
Phase 2 is almost complete now, thanks to some extra mileage for work. I'll report on that soon
and begin phase 3.
As I said above, UPR shipped parts for me to do phase 3 of the test. I bought my UPR can in June,
and they changed the can slightly since then. The new diffuser/extension will only fit cans made
after that, so they shipped a full new kit to test. Thank you UPR for helping with this, and for your
input in this thread.
After shipping the kit, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh from the exit side of my existing can
for the remainder of phase 2, and to remove the mesh from the exit side of the new can before
starting phase 3. I removed it from both (phase 2 was half way done when I removed it from the
existing can). When I was removing the mesh from the short side of the new can (in preparation for
phase 3), I realized the diffuser was assembled backwards. For our 5.0 F150's the long side of the
diffuser must be on the passenger side of the can when installed. I disassembled, removed the mesh
packed up in the can top on the exit/passenger side, and reassembled the can with diffuser. For
anyone who might have received their cans assembled by UPR, you should check to see if it was
assembled correctly before installing. (EDIT: Joe notes below they assemble the cans for shipping,
and all cans should be assembled for your own installation needs) I also had a small piece of the
stainless steel mesh (1/8") drop out when I was doing that. I wasn't thrilled with that so I unrolled,
and lightly tapped the mesh in case there were any other loose pieces, but there weren't. A quick
note on the UPR kit... it is much improved since I bought mine. The hoses are pre cut to the proper
lengths, the elbow fittings are nickel rather than plastic, and they include Ford OEM snap on valve
cover and intake fittings.
More to come soon!
Report 6:
Test Results
- I'll summarize the test to date. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a
5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed.
Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total
volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in
reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR.
Phase 2 Test Results
- The Weather has been average northern Ohio spring weather. Some rain, fog, cool nights, warm
and hot days.
- Driving has been about the same through both phases. I good mix of rural roads, some small
towns, highways, and approximately 40% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average
style driving, with a few very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling, and no towing.
- What they caught this time might have been predicted by some (after the results of phase 1). RX
was first in line, with the UPR after it to catch anything the RX might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was half of that caught in the first phase. The first phase had some
cold weather which accounted for more water in the mix and the higher volume.
The contents from the RX can was mostly oil/fuel, and had a strong chemical/solvent smell again. It
caught 35.5cc total which is approximately 7 1/8 tsp.
The UPR can caught about the same mix of oil/fuel, but didn't smell quite as strong. Halfway
through this phase, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh on the exit side of the UPR can. I did
that, but noticed no difference in what it was catching. But since it was second in line, and there was
little to catch, that's understandable. The UPR can caught 1.75cc total which is approximately 1/3
tsp. With so little collecting this time, I monitored the contents of the UPR can but didn't empty it
until the end of the test.
- Phase 2 Totals:
RX - 35.5cc
UPR - 1.75cc
- Other tidbits include the 'first in line' RX can caught 95% of the total volume. The exit hoses were
very clean from both cans. The last few tanks of gas have produced slightly higher than my normal
MPGs, but it's too early to tell on that (more to follow after phase 3).
-Phase 3, using the UPR can extension and diffuser, is underway. Details will follow.
Final Test Results
- I'll summarize the test phases. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch
cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch
anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The
'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more
details on phase 1. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2,
RX first and then UPR. The second phase results were: RX - 35.50cc, UPR - 1.75cc. The
'first in line' RX caught 95% of the total volume. See post 143 for more details on phase
2.
Phase 3 Test Results
- This time the UPR can was first in line as in phase 1, but it had the new can
extension and diffuser added. It also had the mesh material removed from the exit side
of the can.
- The Weather has been average northern Ohio early summer weather. Some rain with
warm and hot days.
- Driving has been a good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and
approximately 60% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style
driving, some steep hill climbs, and some very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little
heavy hauling again, and no towing. I'll add some more thoughts on driving and MPGs
below.
- What they caught was a mixed bag. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch
anything the extended UPR might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was down from the last phase, again. I assume it is due to
the warmer weather and maybe my engine is using less oil with more miles? Either way,
my test looks at the percent each can catches, compared to the total caught for that
phase, so the volume isn't critical.
The contents from the extended UPR can was mostly oil, and had a used oil smell. The
UPR caught 14.75cc which is approximately 3 tsp.
The RX can caught a fuel/water/oil mix. It smelled much more harsh again. The RX can
caught 16.00cc which is approximately 3 1/4 tsp.
- Phase 3 Totals:
UPR - 14.75cc (48%)
RX - 16.00cc (52%)
- Other thoughts on the results. The contents of each phase showed me the RX does a
better job of removing more than oil. It always contained more water/fuel type liquids,
while the UPR contained mostly oil. I don't know if it is due to the can design, the 'out
front' mounting style of the RX, or both.
For anyone buying or thinking of upgrading their UPR can, I strongly recommend figuring
out how to mount it out front, and would definitely add the valve that Joe@UPR is
offering. I really think the 'out front' cooling effect will help it catch even more, and the
valve would be worth the price for ease of emptying it. Having the RX can to compare to
when emptying, the front mount and valve are no brainers.
As I said at the end of phase 2, my MPGs have increased slightly. I have done nothing
different to my truck over the past year, other than adding the RX can to the UPR for this
test. My driving style is very similar from tank to tank, I fill up at the same stations, etc.
But since having both cans in series, and essentially removing 95% or more of the PCV
byproducts, my MPGs have increased. Up to that point my lifetime MPGs were 17.5.
Nearly every tank for the past year gave me the same results, 17.5. I would have some
trips that would net 20 MPG, but the other short trips would always pull it back down for
the same tank average - close to 17.5. My recent tank averages have all been over 18
MPG, with a few over 19, and as high as 19.5. My last tank included hauling
approximately 1000 lbs of payload, through some long hills/mountains of PA, and I got
18.8 MPG. It could be the summer fuel mix combined with an engine that is broken in,
but the timing is peculiar. Whatever the reason, I like it!
Thank you Eco Tuner (Tuner Boost) and Joe@UPR for your support, feedback, and
willingness to listen to open criticism and suggestions through this test. Looking back
though this thread today, I realized how rare it is to get input and support from
competing manufacturers, through a comparison test like this. We have all learned quite
a bit, and have real data to help make decisions. Hats off to you both!
If you PM me a picture I can verify for you. And you can always remove the IM and look for oil residue to see.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...-deposits.html
Are you saying that GM on the 15 and 16 models have this cured and any with a 14 are screwed and what can we do or ask GM to do under warranty ?? can we ask for them to clean and add a catch can at N/C under warranty nad if not what do you suggest Im at 7k miles on a 14.9 model z 51 thanks
I think I got the UPR. It was $200ish. I have a non Z51 wet sump. Catches about 1.5 oz every 2000mi or so? Car already has 5k on it. I'm handy enough to take it apart but I'm also rather busy. I think my dad has the same brand on his Z51 that was installed early on too.
I’ve had a UPR catch can on my 5.0 since last summer. It catches a lot, especially in the cold months.
But I’ll get right to my test. I added an RX can inline after my UPR can to see if the UPR was missing
anything. And if it was allowing some to pass through, was it enough for the RX to catch anything? I
don’t drive a lot of miles regularly since my F150 is not a daily driver, so my results will take some time.
This thread is to document how I set it up and what I catch over time.
I installed the RX can just as the directions explained, but I routed the hoses differently. I left my UPR
can right where it’s been for months, but rerouted one hose. I left the hose from the passenger side of
the engine to the inlet of the UPR can. Then a new hose from UPR can outlet, routed to the inlet of the
RX can. The RX outlet hose goes back to the engine. The PCV exhaust now flows from the engine,
through the UPR, then through the RX, and finally back up to the engine intake.
Before installing everything for the test, I cleaned the UPR can thoroughly. The bottom of the can
(inside) was covered with a thin layer of stiff sludge that I could only clean out using gas. I’m glad that
was caught, along with the ounces of oil, water, etc, over the months I’ve been emptying it. But I was
surprised at the outlet hose from the UPR can. It was wet with oil. Obviously some was getting
through the can and back to my intake. I’ve never let the can get close to half full before emptying it.
Nearly every time I’ve emptied it, there was 1/4“ or less in the bottom. I’m noting this in case someone
thinks I left the UPR get overfilled and it flowed through. Nevertheless, I started this test after cleaning
everything for a fresh start.
I plan to leave this setup on for a thousand miles or so, and report my findings from each can.
1st picture: UPR can as it was originally installed.
2nd: CleanUPR can.
3rd: RX can installed. The hose in the top center of the can is the inlet. The outlet hose on the right has
a check valve.
4th: Engine outlet to UPR inlet on left of can. UPR outlet on right side of can routed around (smaller
hose) to the RX inlet. You can also see the other smaller hose coming back up from the RX can and
ending at the intake on the engine.
Report 2:
I thought I'd add a post to keep this thread alive since it is taking me awhile to get enough miles on
the truck for valid results. Now that spring weather is finally arriving, I haven't been putting as
many miles on it since I'm busy. But I have around 600 miles on the test set up so far. I emptied
the cans recently and recorded the volumes to date. I'd like to wait until I get to 1000 miles before
posting the results from the test, but I'll give some preliminary feedback.
- Emptying process -
First the UPR. I'm used to emptying the UPR can regularly, so it's not a big deal to unscrew, guide
the can out from between the hoses, pour it out, guide it back in between the hoses, get it lined up
carefully (so I don't cross thread the soft aluminum) and screw it back up snug. All that takes less
than a few minutes so it's rather easy.
Now the RX can. Raise the hood, hold an empty water bottle under the drain tube, open the valve,
close the valve, close the hood. I kid you not, it takes no more time than it took to read those steps.
I knew it would be easy to empty, but it is ridiculously easy.
_ The weather so far -
During the first week of the test we had winter weather, with some snow. Since then we have had
mild weather. Temperatures are in the 50's and 60's most days.
- What they caught so far -
I won't share the amounts yet, but I'll give some info. The UPR can has caught a 'mostly oil with a
bit of water' mixture so far. The RX can (in line after the UPR) has had just the opposite. It's
collected mostly water or fuel, with some oil mixed in.
I emptied the UPR first, and I would estimate it has collected the normal amount compared to what
it usually does I empty it. I was pleased that my set up with 2 cans didn't seem to change the
normal flow and collection I was used to seeing with just the UPR can. When I was about the turn
the valve to empty the RX, I paused to a few seconds wondering if anything would come out. After
all it was a new can that would need to get some oil/water coated on the inside before there would
be enough to drip to the bottom (The UPR can had been in use for many months and although I
cleaned the can I did not rinse off the filter material). Plus I wondered if the valve of the RX can
protruded up into the can, and if it required some liquid to collect before there was enough to spill
over that valve nipple and exit the can. Then I opened the valve and I had to smile when I had some
liquid drain out. I thought all along that if it caught more than 10% of what the UPR was collecting, I
would be surprised. It's still early in the test, and I would like to redo the test after reversing the
order of the cans later, but I am surprised so far. I'm hoping to get more miles on the truck soon so
I can wrap up this phase of the test.
Report 3:
1000 Miles of Testing Results
- The Weather has been warmer lately. So the test began with sub freezing temperatures, and
gradually increased through the 70's and topped off in the mid 80's yesterday. I couldn't have asked
for a better range of temperatures for this test.
- What they caught was astounding to me. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch
anything the UPR might miss.
The UPR stayed on track with what it has been accumulating for many months. Each time I emptied
them, it had about the same amount. It's contents were mostly oil which smelled like used oil. It
caught 17cc total which is just under 3 1/2 tsp.
The RX had more than the UPR each time I emptied them. It's contents were an oil/fuel/water type
mix that had a much stronger odor. Not a fuel smell, but a sharper chemical smell compared to the
odor of used oil. It caught a total of 67cc which is just over 13 1/2 tsp.
- Final totals:
UPR - 17cc
RX - 67cc
The RX can caught 4 times the amount the UPR can caught, after the UPR can removed what it
could. I said from the beginning I would be surprised if the RX can could pull 10% of what the UPR
caught, since it was second in line. If someone told me it would catch an equal amount I would have
said BS. For it to catch 4 times what the UPR can caught is unreal.
Report 4:
The routing of cans has been reversed so the second phase of the test is underway. I cleaned
the cans and hoses so neither has an advantage. I also checked the inside of the hoses as I
disassembled everything. The exit hose from the UPR was dripping with oil and it made a mess as I
took it apart. The exit hose from the UPR was clean and dry. It still looked new. That is what
prompted me to clean all the hoses before starting this phase. Is the double can routing helping the
second can that much, or is one can that much better. Time will tell again.
Report 5:
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming…
Phase 2 is almost complete now, thanks to some extra mileage for work. I'll report on that soon
and begin phase 3.
As I said above, UPR shipped parts for me to do phase 3 of the test. I bought my UPR can in June,
and they changed the can slightly since then. The new diffuser/extension will only fit cans made
after that, so they shipped a full new kit to test. Thank you UPR for helping with this, and for your
input in this thread.
After shipping the kit, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh from the exit side of my existing can
for the remainder of phase 2, and to remove the mesh from the exit side of the new can before
starting phase 3. I removed it from both (phase 2 was half way done when I removed it from the
existing can). When I was removing the mesh from the short side of the new can (in preparation for
phase 3), I realized the diffuser was assembled backwards. For our 5.0 F150's the long side of the
diffuser must be on the passenger side of the can when installed. I disassembled, removed the mesh
packed up in the can top on the exit/passenger side, and reassembled the can with diffuser. For
anyone who might have received their cans assembled by UPR, you should check to see if it was
assembled correctly before installing. (EDIT: Joe notes below they assemble the cans for shipping,
and all cans should be assembled for your own installation needs) I also had a small piece of the
stainless steel mesh (1/8") drop out when I was doing that. I wasn't thrilled with that so I unrolled,
and lightly tapped the mesh in case there were any other loose pieces, but there weren't. A quick
note on the UPR kit... it is much improved since I bought mine. The hoses are pre cut to the proper
lengths, the elbow fittings are nickel rather than plastic, and they include Ford OEM snap on valve
cover and intake fittings.
More to come soon!
Report 6:
Test Results
- I'll summarize the test to date. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a
5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed.
Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total
volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in
reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR.
Phase 2 Test Results
- The Weather has been average northern Ohio spring weather. Some rain, fog, cool nights, warm
and hot days.
- Driving has been about the same through both phases. I good mix of rural roads, some small
towns, highways, and approximately 40% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average
style driving, with a few very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling, and no towing.
- What they caught this time might have been predicted by some (after the results of phase 1). RX
was first in line, with the UPR after it to catch anything the RX might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was half of that caught in the first phase. The first phase had some
cold weather which accounted for more water in the mix and the higher volume.
The contents from the RX can was mostly oil/fuel, and had a strong chemical/solvent smell again. It
caught 35.5cc total which is approximately 7 1/8 tsp.
The UPR can caught about the same mix of oil/fuel, but didn't smell quite as strong. Halfway
through this phase, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh on the exit side of the UPR can. I did
that, but noticed no difference in what it was catching. But since it was second in line, and there was
little to catch, that's understandable. The UPR can caught 1.75cc total which is approximately 1/3
tsp. With so little collecting this time, I monitored the contents of the UPR can but didn't empty it
until the end of the test.
- Phase 2 Totals:
RX - 35.5cc
UPR - 1.75cc
- Other tidbits include the 'first in line' RX can caught 95% of the total volume. The exit hoses were
very clean from both cans. The last few tanks of gas have produced slightly higher than my normal
MPGs, but it's too early to tell on that (more to follow after phase 3).
-Phase 3, using the UPR can extension and diffuser, is underway. Details will follow.
Final Test Results
- I'll summarize the test phases. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch
cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch
anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The
'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more
details on phase 1. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2,
RX first and then UPR. The second phase results were: RX - 35.50cc, UPR - 1.75cc. The
'first in line' RX caught 95% of the total volume. See post 143 for more details on phase
2.
Phase 3 Test Results
- This time the UPR can was first in line as in phase 1, but it had the new can
extension and diffuser added. It also had the mesh material removed from the exit side
of the can.
- The Weather has been average northern Ohio early summer weather. Some rain with
warm and hot days.
- Driving has been a good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and
approximately 60% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style
driving, some steep hill climbs, and some very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little
heavy hauling again, and no towing. I'll add some more thoughts on driving and MPGs
below.
- What they caught was a mixed bag. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch
anything the extended UPR might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was down from the last phase, again. I assume it is due to
the warmer weather and maybe my engine is using less oil with more miles? Either way,
my test looks at the percent each can catches, compared to the total caught for that
phase, so the volume isn't critical.
The contents from the extended UPR can was mostly oil, and had a used oil smell. The
UPR caught 14.75cc which is approximately 3 tsp.
The RX can caught a fuel/water/oil mix. It smelled much more harsh again. The RX can
caught 16.00cc which is approximately 3 1/4 tsp.
- Phase 3 Totals:
UPR - 14.75cc (48%)
RX - 16.00cc (52%)
- Other thoughts on the results. The contents of each phase showed me the RX does a
better job of removing more than oil. It always contained more water/fuel type liquids,
while the UPR contained mostly oil. I don't know if it is due to the can design, the 'out
front' mounting style of the RX, or both.
For anyone buying or thinking of upgrading their UPR can, I strongly recommend figuring
out how to mount it out front, and would definitely add the valve that Joe@UPR is
offering. I really think the 'out front' cooling effect will help it catch even more, and the
valve would be worth the price for ease of emptying it. Having the RX can to compare to
when emptying, the front mount and valve are no brainers.
As I said at the end of phase 2, my MPGs have increased slightly. I have done nothing
different to my truck over the past year, other than adding the RX can to the UPR for this
test. My driving style is very similar from tank to tank, I fill up at the same stations, etc.
But since having both cans in series, and essentially removing 95% or more of the PCV
byproducts, my MPGs have increased. Up to that point my lifetime MPGs were 17.5.
Nearly every tank for the past year gave me the same results, 17.5. I would have some
trips that would net 20 MPG, but the other short trips would always pull it back down for
the same tank average - close to 17.5. My recent tank averages have all been over 18
MPG, with a few over 19, and as high as 19.5. My last tank included hauling
approximately 1000 lbs of payload, through some long hills/mountains of PA, and I got
18.8 MPG. It could be the summer fuel mix combined with an engine that is broken in,
but the timing is peculiar. Whatever the reason, I like it!
Thank you Eco Tuner (Tuner Boost) and Joe@UPR for your support, feedback, and
willingness to listen to open criticism and suggestions through this test. Looking back
though this thread today, I realized how rare it is to get input and support from
competing manufacturers, through a comparison test like this. We have all learned quite
a bit, and have real data to help make decisions. Hats off to you both!
If you PM me a picture I can verify for you. And you can always remove the IM and look for oil residue to see.
10-22-2015, 11:45 AM
#23
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
So my hope is this does NOT attract the few trouble makers that do wish to disrupt and confuse.
Proper crankcase evacuation, especially when forced induction is involved is critical to maintaining and engine, and so much misinformation is out there this subject needs a good discussion.
Thanks!!
10-22-2015, 11:49 AM
#24
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
Here is a very good article that is pretty accurate for all to read as well:
GDI ENGINE COMPLAINTS OFTEN MYSTERIOUS, HARD TO RESOLVE
JANUARY 7, 2015 JLEMAN LEAVE A COMMENT
Article describes effective remedy for high oil consumption, misfires, and performance loss showing up in these engines in as little as 3,000 miles
By Jim Leman
Many modern vehicles powered by Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) engines are showing up in service departments with mysterious complaints. These problems can put the diagnostic skills of even the best techs to the test.
Diagnosing and remedying these engines’ issues early is important. Problems can affect engine performance in as little as 3,000 miles. Neglected treatment may require a costly upper end teardown or vigorous mechanical cleaning to restore vitality.
Article published in Fixed Ops magazine, Jan/Feb issue, 2015
Article published in Fixed Ops magazine, Jan/Feb issue, 2015
A dealer (and OEM) can only hope the repairs will restore the vehicle owner’s brand trust.
Shawn Crow, service manager for Bob Robinson Chevrolet-Buick-Cadillac-GMC near Wheeling, W.VA, told me his shop sees GDI engine issues every day. “It involves ’07 models forward,” he said. “It is even more a problem in turbo versus naturally aspirated GDI engines because the intake gases in turbo engines are even hotter.”
Intake port deposits at 21,000 miles on 2009 BMW 3.5L
Intake port deposits at 21,000 miles on 2009 BMW 3.5L
Pat Goss, Motorweek’s resident master technician and owner operator of Goss’s Garage near Washington, D.C., for the last 43 years, told me that part of the diagnostic challenge is that many technicians have not been educated about issues associated with GDI engines.
Sticky deposits on piston in 2013 Porsche 4.8L after 6,454 miles
Sticky deposits on piston in 2013 Porsche 4.8L after 6,454 miles
OEMs developed GDI engines to meet 2016 CAFE fuel economy standards and they have been increasing use since 2000. The technology, however, has been around since WW II. Mercedes-Benz used it in the early ‘50s for its 300SL Gullwing, which won LeMans in 1952.
One reason GDI problem diagnosis is often elusive is that some of the diagnostic skills to identify it are long out of practice. For instance, the industry’s heavy reliance on sensor codes and scan diagnostics have eroded many techs’ ability to diagnose based on observation, knowledge and instinct.
Also disconcerting, Goss said, is that many techs and motorists still check a vehicle’s tailpipe for bluish exhaust. That diagnose for cylinder oil burning was valid in the days before cars had to use catalytic converters. These devices burn away all gases entering them, leaving zero telltale oil smoke at the tailpipe.
Problem details
GDI engines burn leaner than port fuel injection engines, a 40 to 1 versus 14.7 to 1 air-to-fuel ratio. This leaner mixture results in more conservative fuel usage but contributes to much hotter engine operating temperatures.
GDI engine concerns:
Higher cylinder temperatures and pressures released into the crankcase accelerate oil vaporization. Eventually this causes oil droplets to coat intake valves.
Cylinder injector spray position means fresh fuel is not sprayed onto intake valves and flush away vapor build up. This build up can accumulate and bake on intake valves in as little as 10,000 miles (16,000 km).
Rings can become stuck into their lands by carbonized oil sludge. This can prevent these engine’s low-tension rings from properly sealing the piston. This also causes sludge, oil, and fuel deposits to bake onto piston tops.
Since inception, GDI engines have had known problems with coking—buildup of cooked fuel deposits that foul injectors.
Konrad DeLong is a former regional field engineer for General Motors. He now is Development Coordinator for Lubrication Specialists, Inc. of Houston. In both roles, he has learned well how major vehicle engine problems like those showing up in GDI engines can shake consumer confidence.
“Customers would bring vehicles into the shop complaining of misfires or performance lags, but when techs run diagnostics the PCM [power control module] might show a diagnostic trouble code but no indicator of the cause,” DeLong recalled from his GM experiences.
“The technician would perform an intake cleaner service perhaps, but the vehicle would return with the same problem,” he added. “The cleaners and the cleaning process used couldn’t reach these deposits, and did little to address the stuck rings and crankcase vapor deposits that were the core issues.
“Having to tear down an engine to address a problem can be a real confidence shaker for the customer, causing loss of trust in the brand, so remedying the situation correctly is critical,” he said.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes that 60 percent of the fleet by 2016 will use GDI technology. Service centers can expect to see an increasing volume of GDI-powered vehicles in their shops. OEMs reluctance to talk about these engines’ issues, Goss believes, has hampered techs’ ability to understand, diagnose and remedy these problems for their customers.
To be fair, OEMs are studying and hoping to resolve GDI combustion chamber and valve design to prevent these issues. For instance, General Motors service bulletin document ID 3650687 addresses “engine misfires due to major carbon deposits on the intake and or exhaust valves.” It covers 17 GM models from 2009 to 2014. In other cases, motorists have sued Ford for performance issues related to its EcoBoost GDI engine. According to reports, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating.
However, as is often the case, the aftermarket provides a remedy.
Solution details
Experts’ observations and my personal research of literature on the topic led to BGFuelTest.com. This site bristles with photography, obtained by borescope, of what the combustion chambers of these engines can look like even after only a few thousand miles. Other borescope studies on these engines show:
Oil sucked into the air intake and into the turbocharger at 6,454 miles on 2012 Porsche 4.8L
Intake port deposits at 21,000 miles on 2009 BMW 3.5L
ylinder scoring from deposits at 25,600 miles on Ford F-150 3.5L EcoBoost
Sticky deposits on piston in 2013 Porsche 4.8L after 6,454 miles
Goss and Crow described a supplements-based treatment they have found to be effective in remedying GDI issues. One or both described the service they do on these cars as:
A detergent- and additives-rich fuel tank and fuel system cleaner to clean deposits in the fuel line, intake manifold, fuel injectors, valves and combustion chambers
A crankcase cleaner (added to the engine and the engine operated for 15 minutes prior to an oil and filter change and then introduced as supplement treatment with the fresh oil change) to loosen and dissolve heat-baked oil sludge in the crankcase, piston rings, and oil screens and passages, rocker arms and other critical areas of engines.
An engine-performance restoration treatment to control future oil deposits.
How advisors present this remedy is important, Crow said.
“Presenting customers a supplement treatment solution can be a fine line,” said Crow, a former master-certified GM technician. “No customer who just purchased a new vehicle powered by a GDI engine wants to hear that more than routine oil and filter maintenance may be necessary.
“This is especially true now that new GM models come with a two-year free maintenance program. Why then should a customer want to pay for an out-of-pocket preventive service? However,” Crow stressed, “treating GDI engines with a motor oil additive that reduces acidity and sludge buildup between oil changes, and fuel tank and valve cleaners from BG Products is the only way we’ve found to deliver a solid, proven maintenance investment for these vehicles.”
Goss of Goss’s Garage agreed. “We have had tremendous luck with this treatment for these engines, which uses a chemical engine cleaner that dissolves and removes deposits from piston rings to help restore compression,” he said.
Summary
GDI engines deliver superior fuel economy, performance, and reduced emissions. However, these advantages come with some potentially costly problems.
Finally, where a solution is available and presented knowledgeably for GDI engine performance problems – and its use in their engine agreed to by vehicle owners — this noninvasive remedy may save them frustration, money, and lost confidence and get their vehicles running like new again.
About the author: Jim Leman, who has faced carbon and sludge buildup in the ‘30s and ‘40s engines he has rebuilt, writes often about automotive technologies and automotive retail. Reach him at jimleman@gmail.com.
GDI ENGINE COMPLAINTS OFTEN MYSTERIOUS, HARD TO RESOLVE
JANUARY 7, 2015 JLEMAN LEAVE A COMMENT
Article describes effective remedy for high oil consumption, misfires, and performance loss showing up in these engines in as little as 3,000 miles
By Jim Leman
Many modern vehicles powered by Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) engines are showing up in service departments with mysterious complaints. These problems can put the diagnostic skills of even the best techs to the test.
Diagnosing and remedying these engines’ issues early is important. Problems can affect engine performance in as little as 3,000 miles. Neglected treatment may require a costly upper end teardown or vigorous mechanical cleaning to restore vitality.
Article published in Fixed Ops magazine, Jan/Feb issue, 2015
Article published in Fixed Ops magazine, Jan/Feb issue, 2015
A dealer (and OEM) can only hope the repairs will restore the vehicle owner’s brand trust.
Shawn Crow, service manager for Bob Robinson Chevrolet-Buick-Cadillac-GMC near Wheeling, W.VA, told me his shop sees GDI engine issues every day. “It involves ’07 models forward,” he said. “It is even more a problem in turbo versus naturally aspirated GDI engines because the intake gases in turbo engines are even hotter.”
Intake port deposits at 21,000 miles on 2009 BMW 3.5L
Intake port deposits at 21,000 miles on 2009 BMW 3.5L
Pat Goss, Motorweek’s resident master technician and owner operator of Goss’s Garage near Washington, D.C., for the last 43 years, told me that part of the diagnostic challenge is that many technicians have not been educated about issues associated with GDI engines.
Sticky deposits on piston in 2013 Porsche 4.8L after 6,454 miles
Sticky deposits on piston in 2013 Porsche 4.8L after 6,454 miles
OEMs developed GDI engines to meet 2016 CAFE fuel economy standards and they have been increasing use since 2000. The technology, however, has been around since WW II. Mercedes-Benz used it in the early ‘50s for its 300SL Gullwing, which won LeMans in 1952.
One reason GDI problem diagnosis is often elusive is that some of the diagnostic skills to identify it are long out of practice. For instance, the industry’s heavy reliance on sensor codes and scan diagnostics have eroded many techs’ ability to diagnose based on observation, knowledge and instinct.
Also disconcerting, Goss said, is that many techs and motorists still check a vehicle’s tailpipe for bluish exhaust. That diagnose for cylinder oil burning was valid in the days before cars had to use catalytic converters. These devices burn away all gases entering them, leaving zero telltale oil smoke at the tailpipe.
Problem details
GDI engines burn leaner than port fuel injection engines, a 40 to 1 versus 14.7 to 1 air-to-fuel ratio. This leaner mixture results in more conservative fuel usage but contributes to much hotter engine operating temperatures.
GDI engine concerns:
Higher cylinder temperatures and pressures released into the crankcase accelerate oil vaporization. Eventually this causes oil droplets to coat intake valves.
Cylinder injector spray position means fresh fuel is not sprayed onto intake valves and flush away vapor build up. This build up can accumulate and bake on intake valves in as little as 10,000 miles (16,000 km).
Rings can become stuck into their lands by carbonized oil sludge. This can prevent these engine’s low-tension rings from properly sealing the piston. This also causes sludge, oil, and fuel deposits to bake onto piston tops.
Since inception, GDI engines have had known problems with coking—buildup of cooked fuel deposits that foul injectors.
Konrad DeLong is a former regional field engineer for General Motors. He now is Development Coordinator for Lubrication Specialists, Inc. of Houston. In both roles, he has learned well how major vehicle engine problems like those showing up in GDI engines can shake consumer confidence.
“Customers would bring vehicles into the shop complaining of misfires or performance lags, but when techs run diagnostics the PCM [power control module] might show a diagnostic trouble code but no indicator of the cause,” DeLong recalled from his GM experiences.
“The technician would perform an intake cleaner service perhaps, but the vehicle would return with the same problem,” he added. “The cleaners and the cleaning process used couldn’t reach these deposits, and did little to address the stuck rings and crankcase vapor deposits that were the core issues.
“Having to tear down an engine to address a problem can be a real confidence shaker for the customer, causing loss of trust in the brand, so remedying the situation correctly is critical,” he said.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes that 60 percent of the fleet by 2016 will use GDI technology. Service centers can expect to see an increasing volume of GDI-powered vehicles in their shops. OEMs reluctance to talk about these engines’ issues, Goss believes, has hampered techs’ ability to understand, diagnose and remedy these problems for their customers.
To be fair, OEMs are studying and hoping to resolve GDI combustion chamber and valve design to prevent these issues. For instance, General Motors service bulletin document ID 3650687 addresses “engine misfires due to major carbon deposits on the intake and or exhaust valves.” It covers 17 GM models from 2009 to 2014. In other cases, motorists have sued Ford for performance issues related to its EcoBoost GDI engine. According to reports, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating.
However, as is often the case, the aftermarket provides a remedy.
Solution details
Experts’ observations and my personal research of literature on the topic led to BGFuelTest.com. This site bristles with photography, obtained by borescope, of what the combustion chambers of these engines can look like even after only a few thousand miles. Other borescope studies on these engines show:
Oil sucked into the air intake and into the turbocharger at 6,454 miles on 2012 Porsche 4.8L
Intake port deposits at 21,000 miles on 2009 BMW 3.5L
ylinder scoring from deposits at 25,600 miles on Ford F-150 3.5L EcoBoost
Sticky deposits on piston in 2013 Porsche 4.8L after 6,454 miles
Goss and Crow described a supplements-based treatment they have found to be effective in remedying GDI issues. One or both described the service they do on these cars as:
A detergent- and additives-rich fuel tank and fuel system cleaner to clean deposits in the fuel line, intake manifold, fuel injectors, valves and combustion chambers
A crankcase cleaner (added to the engine and the engine operated for 15 minutes prior to an oil and filter change and then introduced as supplement treatment with the fresh oil change) to loosen and dissolve heat-baked oil sludge in the crankcase, piston rings, and oil screens and passages, rocker arms and other critical areas of engines.
An engine-performance restoration treatment to control future oil deposits.
How advisors present this remedy is important, Crow said.
“Presenting customers a supplement treatment solution can be a fine line,” said Crow, a former master-certified GM technician. “No customer who just purchased a new vehicle powered by a GDI engine wants to hear that more than routine oil and filter maintenance may be necessary.
“This is especially true now that new GM models come with a two-year free maintenance program. Why then should a customer want to pay for an out-of-pocket preventive service? However,” Crow stressed, “treating GDI engines with a motor oil additive that reduces acidity and sludge buildup between oil changes, and fuel tank and valve cleaners from BG Products is the only way we’ve found to deliver a solid, proven maintenance investment for these vehicles.”
Goss of Goss’s Garage agreed. “We have had tremendous luck with this treatment for these engines, which uses a chemical engine cleaner that dissolves and removes deposits from piston rings to help restore compression,” he said.
Summary
GDI engines deliver superior fuel economy, performance, and reduced emissions. However, these advantages come with some potentially costly problems.
Finally, where a solution is available and presented knowledgeably for GDI engine performance problems – and its use in their engine agreed to by vehicle owners — this noninvasive remedy may save them frustration, money, and lost confidence and get their vehicles running like new again.
About the author: Jim Leman, who has faced carbon and sludge buildup in the ‘30s and ‘40s engines he has rebuilt, writes often about automotive technologies and automotive retail. Reach him at jimleman@gmail.com.
10-22-2015, 12:13 PM
#25
Melting Slicks
Well I guess at least I don't feel the need to tear apart my car and check the valves. My UPR catch can I got April '15 is apparently worthless. Kind of a bummer...
10-22-2015, 02:36 PM
#26
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
Make sure...if you can PM me a picture I can verify as they also have a $400-$500 copy of the RX system.
10-22-2015, 04:09 PM
#27
Pro
In the ask Tadge section of the forum we have the Chief Engineer saying its purely cosmetic while we have you saying it isn't. How are us non-engineer, non-mechanic types supposed to know who is right without some sort of actual test?
PS: I don't believe I'm being "rude" or "interfering" when I say that I would like to see a real world test of some kind that would allow me to judge for myself.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...on-valves.html
Last edited by ratman6161; 10-22-2015 at 04:13 PM.
The following users liked this post:
owc6 (10-23-2015)
10-22-2015, 04:51 PM
#28
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
OK, but you make a lot of claims about power loss but what I hear is only a theory. To be as "technical as possible" you would need to prove there is power loss. One way would be to take a C7 that has 20K miles or so and has never had the procedure you are recommending. Then you could do before and after dyno tests to demonstrate that there is actual rather than theoretical power loss.
In the ask Tadge section of the forum we have the Chief Engineer saying its purely cosmetic while we have you saying it isn't. How are us non-engineer, non-mechanic types supposed to know who is right without some sort of actual test?
PS: I don't believe I'm being "rude" or "interfering" when I say that I would like to see a real world test of some kind that would allow me to judge for myself.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...on-valves.html
In the ask Tadge section of the forum we have the Chief Engineer saying its purely cosmetic while we have you saying it isn't. How are us non-engineer, non-mechanic types supposed to know who is right without some sort of actual test?
PS: I don't believe I'm being "rude" or "interfering" when I say that I would like to see a real world test of some kind that would allow me to judge for myself.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...on-valves.html
If you look at the pictures many have taken and the videos, it is impossible to make equal power once the intake valves are encrusted with deposits that alter and restrict the flow as how they are initially designed.
You also run into detonation as I describe many times that the PCM will pull timing and enrich fuel to eliminate. When you are not running at optimum timing advance and optimum A/F ratio, power and economy both suffer. The engineers put in thousands of hours and GM millions into the port , valve, and seat design to obtain the power as designed. So when this design is altered my the uneven and non uniform deposits, none of the design factors matter any more.
Then it is easy to see by dynoing your car when new (after break-in seats the rings) to get a base line, and then every year come back to the same dyno, same settings and try and duplicate weather conditions and re-dyno documenting the results. The average driver in the US puts 15k miles a year on but some less, some more. Note this and watch.
Here is a 3 years test done with a late model GDI car (the first dyno was not done until app 15k miles as this Tech wanted to document just what your asking, and the tech works at the dealership he purchased the car from)
http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/te...l?sort=3&o=113
Note app 15k miles between yearly dyno sessions on the same dyno for a 3 year period, and then a crushed walnut shell cleaning is performed (by the tech, car always maintained as well as a tech owner will) and then the final results bring it to where it should make power when new.
Ask any more on this. I have gone over all in several threads and take flack for re-posting, but it is all there to see and do.
But think about it.....why would the engineers even bother to optimize flow/velocity/grind valve angles, piston topography to squeeze such efficient power form these engines if it did not matter what happened to the valve shape and flow?
10-22-2015, 06:02 PM
#29
If you look at the pictures many have taken and the videos, it is impossible to make equal power once the intake valves are encrusted with deposits that alter and restrict the flow as how they are initially designed.
You also run into detonation as I describe many times that the PCM will pull timing and enrich fuel to eliminate. When you are not running at optimum timing advance and optimum A/F ratio, power and economy both suffer. The engineers put in thousands of hours and GM millions into the port , valve, and seat design to obtain the power as designed. So when this design is altered my the uneven and non uniform deposits, none of the design factors matter any more.
Then it is easy to see by dynoing your car when new (after break-in seats the rings) to get a base line, and then every year come back to the same dyno, same settings and try and duplicate weather conditions and re-dyno documenting the results. The average driver in the US puts 15k miles a year on but some less, some more. Note this and watch.
Here is a 3 years test done with a late model GDI car (the first dyno was not done until app 15k miles as this Tech wanted to document just what your asking, and the tech works at the dealership he purchased the car from)
http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/te...l?sort=3&o=113
Note app 15k miles between yearly dyno sessions on the same dyno for a 3 year period, and then a crushed walnut shell cleaning is performed (by the tech, car always maintained as well as a tech owner will) and then the final results bring it to where it should make power when new.
Ask any more on this. I have gone over all in several threads and take flack for re-posting, but it is all there to see and do.
But think about it.....why would the engineers even bother to optimize flow/velocity/grind valve angles, piston topography to squeeze such efficient power form these engines if it did not matter what happened to the valve shape and flow?
You also run into detonation as I describe many times that the PCM will pull timing and enrich fuel to eliminate. When you are not running at optimum timing advance and optimum A/F ratio, power and economy both suffer. The engineers put in thousands of hours and GM millions into the port , valve, and seat design to obtain the power as designed. So when this design is altered my the uneven and non uniform deposits, none of the design factors matter any more.
Then it is easy to see by dynoing your car when new (after break-in seats the rings) to get a base line, and then every year come back to the same dyno, same settings and try and duplicate weather conditions and re-dyno documenting the results. The average driver in the US puts 15k miles a year on but some less, some more. Note this and watch.
Here is a 3 years test done with a late model GDI car (the first dyno was not done until app 15k miles as this Tech wanted to document just what your asking, and the tech works at the dealership he purchased the car from)
http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/te...l?sort=3&o=113
Note app 15k miles between yearly dyno sessions on the same dyno for a 3 year period, and then a crushed walnut shell cleaning is performed (by the tech, car always maintained as well as a tech owner will) and then the final results bring it to where it should make power when new.
Ask any more on this. I have gone over all in several threads and take flack for re-posting, but it is all there to see and do.
But think about it.....why would the engineers even bother to optimize flow/velocity/grind valve angles, piston topography to squeeze such efficient power form these engines if it did not matter what happened to the valve shape and flow?
10-22-2015, 07:13 PM
#30
Pro
......
Here is a 3 years test done with a late model GDI car (the first dyno was not done until app 15k miles as this Tech wanted to document just what your asking, and the tech works at the dealership he purchased the car from)
http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/te...l?sort=3&o=113
Note app 15k miles between yearly dyno sessions on the same dyno for a 3 year period, and then a crushed walnut shell cleaning is performed (by the tech, car always maintained as well as a tech owner will) and then the final results bring it to where it should make power when new.
.......
Here is a 3 years test done with a late model GDI car (the first dyno was not done until app 15k miles as this Tech wanted to document just what your asking, and the tech works at the dealership he purchased the car from)
http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/te...l?sort=3&o=113
Note app 15k miles between yearly dyno sessions on the same dyno for a 3 year period, and then a crushed walnut shell cleaning is performed (by the tech, car always maintained as well as a tech owner will) and then the final results bring it to where it should make power when new.
.......
From the parts I can make out, there were some pretty significant differences in run conditions. For example 12 degrees difference in temperature, humidity from 17% to 57% What mileage does each color represent? Which ones are before and which ones after.
Bye.
10-23-2015, 12:07 AM
#31
Pro
Member Since: Jun 2015
Location: New Orleans LA
Posts: 696
Received 191 Likes
on
116 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15-'16
JV
10-23-2015, 10:26 AM
#32
Drifting
Hmmm ... whom shall I believe, the salesman obsessed with selling this one product, or the chief engineer of the engine?
So even if deposits form, they're not important. But they look different, giving salesmen a toehold to tell you something's wrong and sell you a non-solution to a non-problem. Not sure why in the world GM would plant a fatal defect in its own engines and then laugh at customers when their engines grenade. Especially if the engine is under warranty, in which case the joke's on GM.
Whole thread here: https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...on-valves.html
We intently looked for unusual deposit formation during the entire Gen 5 Small Block development phase (4 years) as well as the 200,000 mile in-vehicle long term testing. We have not seen anything unusual and zero performance degradation. Granted, deposit formation on SIDI engine intake valves is greater than what is seen with PFI engines, but the Gen 5 engines are typical for SIDI engines, and in fact better than other SIDI engines we have benchmarked. So the bottom line is that we believe the carbon build up is only an internal cosmetic issue, not anything that will affect customers over the life of their cars.
Whole thread here: https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...on-valves.html
10-23-2015, 10:56 AM
#33
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
I don't mean to be a jerk but the chart you linked to isn't proof, its an eye chart. Very small and blurry text that I can't read even if I zoom in on it and with a magnifying glass - literally used one.
From the parts I can make out, there were some pretty significant differences in run conditions. For example 12 degrees difference in temperature, humidity from 17% to 57% What mileage does each color represent? Which ones are before and which ones after.
Bye.
From the parts I can make out, there were some pretty significant differences in run conditions. For example 12 degrees difference in temperature, humidity from 17% to 57% What mileage does each color represent? Which ones are before and which ones after.
Bye.
You asked for proof as you accusation was there was none, now it is to blurry? Here is a guide. First run when car had app 15k miles on is in
lighter blue. The next run a year and app 15k miles later is in red.
3rd year with app 15k more miles (this is where the restriction and disruption in flow has progressed to really degrading performance and economy is becoming severe) is in green.
The last dark blue line is the run after performing a dealer crushed walnut shell cleaning.
HP drop 7 the second year, 20 by the 3rd year, and gained 40 after removal of the deposits. This does not show the wear to the valve guides or other related wear but clearly shows the degradation in power as the deposits form and worsen.
But please, take the few minutes and remove your own intake manifold and inspect your own valves and share pictures as the thread is to be about. Not debating and arguing or insulting. Present your own to show this is not happening. Just as I invite any GM engineer that claims otherwise to meet and take an untouched C7 with say 20k miles, have media to witness and document at a neutral dyno shop, and do a 3 pull baseline, then we remove the intake manifold and perform the cleaning and do an after 3 run average and show the same. That easy. Will make me look like a fool and all debate will be settled. Think what a great PR piece that would make!
I have a 2015 Z51 that is almost 9 months old and has 5500 miles on it. I installed an Elite Engineering dual port catch can at about 500 miles, and a K&N intake system a couple hundred miles later. I'll be installing a professionally ported intake manifold from BER next week, and I'll take some pictures and post them then.
JV
JV
Thanks again.
Now, any more so we can get back on track? To show your own is the only way to really show what is occurring, and the more and the greater variation in miles accumulated the better. This has to get a broad group to really show what is happening from someone other than myself and the few that have shown this to date.
It only takes a few minutes and could not be simpler with basic tools. Flat bladed screw driver and a metric socket set is all that's needed.
10-23-2015, 11:16 AM
#34
Drifting
^^^ No, the only way to show what is really occurring is by testing the effects on the engine of what you see. GM has already done this and found no power loss or engine failure through 200,000 miles. The LT1 has been on the road for over two years and we should be seeing catastrophic engine damage by now if carbon deposits are really a problem. If it happens even once, it'll be all over CF in seconds. I'm not holding my breath in anticipation.
10-23-2015, 11:42 AM
#35
^^^ No, the only way to show what is really occurring is by testing the effects on the engine of what you see. GM has already done this and found no power loss or engine failure through 200,000 miles. The LT1 has been on the road for over two years and we should be seeing catastrophic engine damage by now if carbon deposits are really a problem. If it happens even once, it'll be all over CF in seconds. I'm not holding my breath in anticipation.
Playing devils advocate, the highest mileage C7 that I have seen is in the 40k zone. Not exactly very high.
10-23-2015, 11:56 AM
#36
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
But if we can get some of the C7 owners with higher miles on them to remove their IM's and document, do a dyno to record power, and then have a manual cleaning performed (I am willing to set up the cleaning and cover it all to prove this) and then dyno the after to prove the loss at that stage of accumulation. Will have to be the same dyno, have to be SAE corrected, and I have a shop in the SE that would do it all and the owner and others should be present to witness and document it all.
THAT would be an excellent contribution to this thread and be undeniable proof of who is being truthful and accurate in their claims.
10-23-2015, 12:03 PM
#37
Racer
Perhaps OP is selling information with a touch of knowledge for "FREE," leaving it up to the individual to come to their own conclusions to do what they think is best for their individual needs and concerns..... Those that don't necessarily agree have the option of ignoring said information and knowledge in favor of continuing to do what they're doing. That said, they can move along and direct their attention to topics of more interest to them like car care products, such as waxes and polishes...
The following users liked this post:
JerryU (11-12-2015)
10-23-2015, 12:23 PM
#38
Le Mans Master
Would love to see that cars valves. My goal is really to get someone that has dynoed their C7 after rings were seated for a baseline when new and then at say 10k mileage increments to show the degradation in power as the deposits build.
But if we can get some of the C7 owners with higher miles on them to remove their IM's and document, do a dyno to record power, and then have a manual cleaning performed (I am willing to set up the cleaning and cover it all to prove this) and then dyno the after to prove the loss at that stage of accumulation. Will have to be the same dyno, have to be SAE corrected, and I have a shop in the SE that would do it all and the owner and others should be present to witness and document it all.
THAT would be an excellent contribution to this thread and be undeniable proof of who is being truthful and accurate in their claims.
But if we can get some of the C7 owners with higher miles on them to remove their IM's and document, do a dyno to record power, and then have a manual cleaning performed (I am willing to set up the cleaning and cover it all to prove this) and then dyno the after to prove the loss at that stage of accumulation. Will have to be the same dyno, have to be SAE corrected, and I have a shop in the SE that would do it all and the owner and others should be present to witness and document it all.
THAT would be an excellent contribution to this thread and be undeniable proof of who is being truthful and accurate in their claims.
Are you thinking that will force GM to make design changes, or stop producing the direct injection engines? OR maybe start making cleaning the valves as routine maintenance?
The following users liked this post:
Glen e (10-23-2015)
10-23-2015, 12:45 PM
#39
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
After reading through all this, I have to wonder what are you going to do with the information if you do prove these engines lose power caused by carbon deposits?
Are you thinking that will force GM to make design changes, or stop producing the direct injection engines? OR maybe start making cleaning the valves as routine maintenance?
Are you thinking that will force GM to make design changes, or stop producing the direct injection engines? OR maybe start making cleaning the valves as routine maintenance?
So, this involves the vehicle owner to learn all they can about GDI engines and care for them accordingly.
The Automakers have several solutions on the horizon, but I don;t see any implemented in the next 4-5 years as that is generally the time frame required to make even minor changes to production, and this will be more involved than the ignition switch issue they ignored for app 10 years and was reported to be far less than a $1 a vehicle to fix.
One only has to look at the BMW's and the issues they have to see the severity and the efforts to combat this as BMW was an early adopter of GDI and has done a ton of work on this.
Here is a good example:
Here is an example of the current C7:
So to date, only end user intervention can help prevent these issues.
10-23-2015, 12:56 PM
#40
Burning Brakes
Glen, I was warned ahead of time to watch for you to come into any of these threads and disrupt them and cause trouble. If that is not the case and you wish to have a civil technical discussion, then I am OK with that, but reading how you have attacked others trying to share this info and educate owners I suspect not.
But Glen is a constant and well respected advocate of car owners, and I've never heard of or seen him disrupt any thread or cause trouble. Indeed, this is a guy who gives out his personal phone number so he can help others.
So when you went on the offense with him, you lost me. His agenda is selfless, and it put your defensiveness under a spot light. First thing I asked is, 'geez, why is this guy so concerned about Glen's question?"
Anyway, looking forward to more data and analysis.
