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.
The vendor invited debate and appears to be responding to questions and challenges. We'll try to leave the thread open as long as that is taking place.
Posts involving hijacking, hostility, personal attacks and/or criticism of Forum moderation have been removed as per the rules.
If the claims about crankcase gases diminishing performance are valid, then just go disconnect the pcv system from the intake, and plug the port. Run a tank of fuel through it. See what happens.
I don't think this is just any old catch can. Maybe I'm just a stupid old engineer. Link to the US patent is below. There are a number of interesting related documents. The device has multiple baffles that divide the can into sections. The patent lists one claim as listed below. I'm gonna have to get me some of that "coalescing material". I'm not knocking the product, just having fun with the lawyer speak.
This is our patent. The design is the most effective air/oil separation system for internal combustion engines on the market today. And we still have the "catchcan challenge" as the videos show.
This is why the system provides the benefits it does.
If the claims about crankcase gases diminishing performance are valid, then just go disconnect the pcv system from the intake, and plug the port. Run a tank of fuel through it. See what happens.
What happens if you defeat crankcase evacuation is all of the contaminants are left in the crankcase to saturate the engine oil and cause premature wear. You also end up with ring flutter issues compounding blow-by and pressure.
We invite any technical discussion that is civil and the purpose is to understand such a misunderstood subject.
What happens if you defeat crankcase evacuation is all of the contaminants are left in the crankcase to saturate the engine oil and cause premature wear. You also end up with ring flutter issues compounding blow-by and pressure.
We invite any technical discussion that is civil and the purpose is to understand such a misunderstood subject.
Yeah that's true, but you would have to put many thousands of miles on the vehicle before you would harm anything. So, if someone wanted to verify removing crankcase gases from combustion air, leads to improved mileage, then this would be a cheap and easy way to do it.
Last edited by PatternDayTrader; 08-21-2018 at 10:47 AM.
Yeah that's true, but you would have to put many thousands of miles on the vehicle before you would harm anything. So, if someone wanted to verify removing crankcase gases from combustion air, leads to improved mileage, then this would be a cheap and easy way to do it.
I agree, but it is not that simple as the fuel trims (short term) will not fit into the parameters the ECU is looking at. The MAF sensor will measure incoming air, and as the OEM system is some of that air is expected to enter the crankcase ans the "fresh" or "clean" side of the PCV system and ultimately becomes part of the intake air charge. So the MAF, MAP, IAT, and upstream O2's will provide data to the ECU and if it does not fit into the range in those cells, short term trims add and subtract fuel in an attempt to meet whats expected. That would throw off any fuel economy test as you will want all things equal. Good in theory, but won't be accurate if tried.
Install the system is the most accurate way as the PCV systems functions are not in anyway changed from factory, only the oil and other contaminants are removed so only cleaned vapors enter as intake air charge.
Not to take away from your can, im sure there are more than one way to skin a cat. The bay catch can crap for instance is probablyl worse than no can at all.
I agree, but it is not that simple as the fuel trims (short term) will not fit into the parameters the ECU is looking at. The MAF sensor will measure incoming air, and as the OEM system is some of that air is expected to enter the crankcase ans the "fresh" or "clean" side of the PCV system and ultimately becomes part of the intake air charge. So the MAF, MAP, IAT, and upstream O2's will provide data to the ECU and if it does not fit into the range in those cells, short term trims add and subtract fuel in an attempt to meet whats expected. That would throw off any fuel economy test as you will want all things equal. Good in theory, but won't be accurate if tried.
Install the system is the most accurate way as the PCV systems functions are not in anyway changed from factory, only the oil and other contaminants are removed so only cleaned vapors enter as intake air charge.
Of course the PCM can compensate for a blocked pcv system.
The entire point of using a pcv valve is to limit flow through the system anytime there is high vacuum in the intake manifold, and allow flow when vacuum is low. In other words the PCM will adapt to the extremes of each circumstance, because the system itself changes from zero flow to max flow.
Just how much volume of air do you think moves through the pcv system, at cruise ? (high manifold vacuum). Remember, under these conditions the pcv valve almost completely prevents flow through the system.
Last edited by PatternDayTrader; 08-21-2018 at 01:58 PM.
Just by the new Modern Engine Direct injection motor oil from Valvoline, they claim 30 percent reduction in carbon build-up on GDI engines.
if only every other motor oil lived up to the hype it would be easier to get excited about. with only 5/20 and 30 available i will be waiting for the JG driven oil.
Is this system specifically used to increase fuel economy? 1-3 MPG's? $400?
So round numbers for me and my vette. My car tells me I average somewhere around 20 MPG's. I will drive approx 2000 miles per year. That's approx 100 gallons of gas using easy math. I install this system and let's say I get an increase of 2 MPG (between 1 and 3). I now will burn 90.9 gallons of gas for the year saving me 9.1 gallons. That 9.1 gallons saves me $31.57 based on the price posted at my local pump today. It would only take me 12.67 years to recoup the cost of this device. What am I missing????
Sure, MAYBE if I ran a fleet of bread trucks up and down the coast every day but for my occasional use Vette?????
So round numbers for me and my vette. My car tells me I average somewhere around 20 MPG's. I will drive approx 2000 miles per year. That's approx 100 gallons of gas using easy math. I install this system and let's say I get an increase of 2 MPG (between 1 and 3). I now will burn 90.9 gallons of gas for the year saving me 9.1 gallons. That 9.1 gallons saves me $31.57 based on the price posted at my local pump today. It would only take me 12.67 years to recoup the cost of this device. What am I missing????
You are missing the fact that in a supporting vendor-initiated thread criticism of the issue is not allowed. The previous non vendor-initiated thread on this topic was closed. Basically what that means is that no criticism of this concept of Catch Can MPG improvement is allowed. This is not a democracy. Although science does not care what you believe, it has no standing here. Free speech is about the government preventing it in a public forum (and this "forum" is private), but nobody else. Internet Brands rules. Suck it up.
I don't doubt thatcath cans work, but the reputation for rx performance isn't that great. Search this guys name on camaro5 or pm me and I can share my experience.
Is this system specifically used to increase fuel economy? 1-3 MPG's? $400?
So round numbers for me and my vette. My car tells me I average somewhere around 20 MPG's. I will drive approx 2000 miles per year. That's approx 100 gallons of gas using easy math. I install this system and let's say I get an increase of 2 MPG (between 1 and 3). I now will burn 90.9 gallons of gas for the year saving me 9.1 gallons. That 9.1 gallons saves me $31.57 based on the price posted at my local pump today. It would only take me 12.67 years to recoup the cost of this device. What am I missing????
Sure, MAYBE if I ran a fleet of bread trucks up and down the coast every day but for my occasional use Vette?????
Every little bit counts, its more to show that its improving the combustion process more than anything. If you drove the car more, or it was a daily, you'd also avoid valve coking, which has its own price. That is, if you believe t he current system does or does not do an adequate job on its own. Catch can discussions are up there with oil and religion and politics.
You are missing the fact that in a supporting vendor-initiated thread criticism of the issue is not allowed. The previous non vendor-initiated thread on this topic was closed. Basically what that means is that no criticism of this concept of Catch Can MPG improvement is allowed. This is not a democracy. Although science does not care what you believe, it has no standing here. Free speech is about the government preventing it in a public forum (and this "forum" is private), but nobody else. Internet Brands rules. Suck it up.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. My post has simple math and simple questions specific to the topic of this thread directed at the C7 which I own - "Tracy Lewis Catchcan system and fuel economy".
Every little bit counts, its more to show that its improving the combustion process more than anything. If you drove the car more, or it was a daily, you'd also avoid valve coking, which has its own price. That is, if you believe t he current system does or does not do an adequate job on its own. Catch can discussions are up there with oil and religion and politics.
Appreciate the answers to my questions and agree that in many cases every bit of fuel economy does count. Seems like this would be something the major manufacturers would be looking at in order to improve their overall fuel economy numbers. Has that not been the case? I know they often times spend millions on technologies that improve fuel economy.
08-20-2018, 10:25 PM
