Absolutely

With breathing engine mods with a HPT E85 dyno tune, the Mightymouse Oil Catch Can is a go.

What we are really hearing from the GM Engineers is it's not a large enough problem having small amounts of oil go through the engines during the GM warranty period. They could give sheet after the warranty expires or if the engines have been upgraded or modified. A lot of Corvette owners keep their cars for years.

 

Even if that's true... where are the threads, the reports, the tales of woe from owners that went off warranty, only to start seeing valve issues related to intake oil? They don't exist...

This is one of those things where someone says something and it takes on a life of its own. Millions of dollars in catch cans are sold per year, for a problem that doesn't seem to actual exist. Its all based on people saying that it COULD happen, but no real examples of it ever happening... Its fascinating to watch, in a weird way...

 

That is the most ridiculous thing I have read in this thread. You don't like the question because it goes against your view of what the right thing to do is.

If any C8 Stingrays needed catch cans, it would be the Ron Fellows' C8s. 99 percent of what they do is hard high rev miles. If they needed them, they would have them. Our cars don't need them...

 

I tend to agree. His cars spend every weekend being beaten like a rented mule... A motor blowing up, costs him money. Significant money. If there was a problem with the design, and he could fix it for $200 per car, rather than $15k per motor, I am sure he would...

If anyone's cars were gonna fail due to this "issue", it would be cars that spend all their time ripping around on a race track...

 

Funny, with the DCT folks (some) view the reports of transmissions issues as evidence of a systematic problem, without any insight into the statistical significance of the failures. But absence of evidence of issues with respect to issues cause by oil getting to the manifold is dismissed as non-proof that we dont need a catch can.

I gotta say I still thinks its plausible that the insertion of the catch can does cause a change in dynamic pressure between in hose where the catch can is inserted. Most appear to include something that causes the vapors to swirl in a way that allows oil or vapor products to condenser and/or separate in the can. For instance, the ADD W1 V3 describes its internal bafflle system as "Special engineered TRIPLE Twister Chamber to trap more Oil". That has to affect the flow in some way - whether it cause additional vapor products to flow through the tube, I really just can't be sure. But it doesn't matter. What matters is how much was there before the catch can, and how much gets past the catch can when it is installed. You can't tell that from what is in the catch can.

Better evidence would be to evaluate the oil residue found inside the intake plenum with and without the catch can. Regardless of what is caught in the catch can, and why (whether caused by the catch can or not) the real question is how much got past the catch can. We have no idea how much is going though the tube, and what percentage of that the catch can removes. At least one person above reported seeing oil residue in the intake plenum without the catch can. That at least proves (anecdotally) that something can collect in the intake and therefor potentially on the valves. But I missed is any comparison of that with the addition of the catch can. That would be better proof that the catch can stops the oil from getting into the intake plenum.

Even better proof would be to determine if that amount residue in the intake plenum actually caused any issue with debris build up on the valves or in the combustion chamber leading to an engine problem. There seems to be evidence of a non-problem in certain driving situations without a catch can, based on the valve photos. But that evidence is dismissed because the car was not driven hard enough to elicit the problem (if there is one). I agree, while it does not show a problem, its inconclusive. That being the case, lets get some evidence from track use with and without the catch can and see what it says.

 

Honestly, that is the only part that matters. To me, doesn't matter if a little oil gets into the intake. If it doesn't cause a problem, why would I care or worry about it?

 

Originally we separated these vapors and expelled them into the air, though the breather in oil filler cap, or breather tube. Then we decided we needed to feed these vapors back to the engine intake where they would be "harmlessly burned and expelled with other combustion products". Hmmm. Are we hoping that the catch can removes oil but allow other volatile vapor products to be passed to the engine to be burned? Or, are we trying to remove all of it?

 

Why do we subscribe to the concept of" if it was needed the engineers would've included it"? They are not perfect, they're just human like you and I.

If engineers got everything right, there would be no need for a warranties, or design model upgrades/changes, or even the entirety of the aftermarket world.

 

I can see the desire to remove the vapors when tracking. They could cause the onset of detonation to occur earlier than it would otherwise and the computer would pull power. But I don't see vapors as a practical issue for street driving.

 

So I present a few questions that I (and likely others) might consider as providing useful data points, and your first response is to accuse me of being a blind-faith zealot? I think now we've all seen the most ridiculous thing in this thread. My questions are born out of the scientific process, which carried me well through earning my multiple engineering degrees... where is the blind faith in your own conclusions coming from?

 

No, your position is that the C8 Stingray needs the catch can so you challenge any position that might not agree with your opinion. That's not being a zealot. Your questions are intended to undermine the obvious conclusion one would draw when finding out the Ron Fellows' cars do not have an aftermarket catch can system installed. Your scientific process and multiple Engineering degrees mean nothing when you present no scientific process and GM engineers completely disagree with you.

If any C8 Stingray needed a catch can, it would be those used at Ron Fellows' school. They are driven consistently harder more often than any other C8 Stingrays around. Hard driving is what is supposed to exacerbate oil coming out the breather and into the intake. If they were having problems due to oil overflowing into the intake, they would install an aftermarket catch can system on all their cars. They don't. It's not like their C8s are garage queens. They have more miles on them than a lot of C8s driven by people on this forum.

 

Which brings us right back to the questions I asked, the ones you immediately dismissed as having an ulterior motive. I'd like answers to those questions as they more fully inform. You've obviously made up your mind catch cans aren't necessary, yet your evidence is "those guys don't use them", and you don't care to ask any further questions. You do you, man.

 

Ok.... let's let this devolve into a normal FB back and forth....

For me, it's simple. I'm keeping stuff that I don't want that would otherwise go past the intake valves from going past the intake valves.

And as far as Ron Fellows, how long and how many miles do they keep and have on their cars before they get sold into the market? I don't think the supposition that because Ron Fellows doesn't spend the money to install one is really a good set of data on whether or not they are needed.

If one doesn't think it's needed on their C8 don't install one. If one feels it's needed, put one one. Simple.

 

Well, the way that the scientific process was always explained to me, was that the person claiming something, in this case, that an issue exists and that a catch can addresses it... the burden of proof falls on them, no?

There is no data or proof that the PCV causes any issues on these cars, nor is there any data showing that a catch can would avert said issues.

So in the absence of any evidence, logic would demand that we side with the notion that the PCV isn't causing valve harm. If we suddenly saw even a mildly significant number of motors coming in with valve carbon issues related to the PCV, and then saw a considerably lower rate of issues with the catch can community, THEN one could draw the conclusion that it's an issue and that the catch can is a demonstrated remedy.

But right now, all we have are many years of... nothing. No problems... No valve failures from this...

I understand why people THINK that the catch cans would work. I get why people think that DI on these motors COULD cause issues. But the fact remains that it doesn't seem to actually be a problem...

 

Using vehicles from Ron fellows can be unrelated to street driving.

Lots of studies in the automotive engineering world on dgi and intake deposits. Short answer-depends

check out https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...642-33750-5_45

 

Agreed... but capturing data points (enough to be statistically useful) requires asking/answering questions like those I posted. To say "this group of cars don't show an issue" is jumping to a conclusion without enough data... data I'm trying to gather through the questions I posted (among others). Instead of getting answers, I'm getting guff. I have my own vague thoughts as to the usefulness of cans, but I'm also willing to be convinced otherwise if the data supports it. Data is not just "how many cars have failed" as that is a digital (binary) decision in an analog dataset (e.g., "hasn't failed yet, but is showing a 3% loss in airflow that continues to decrease at 0.5%/year"). I couldn't give a rat's *** if someone wants to fight for/against something until they're red in the face... but I prefer to see data that can be viewed in the appropriate light and let me make my own decision.

 

This is kinda like arguing about whether God exists. There is no way to prove or disprove it. There is no evidence of any kind, proving that god exists. None. There are questions we cannot answer, but that's not proof of god.

So in the absence of any such proof, many of us default to the side that he does not exist. Someone claiming that he does, should bear the burden of proof, and until that burden is met..

If anyone has any data showing failures, or degraded performance that is directly linked to the PVC system in this car, and that those with catch cans have a demonstrably lower incidence of said problem, then this debate is going nowhere. We can argue to the end of our days about what our opinions are... but until there is some sort of hard data, its all just mental masturbation...

 

The data we do have suggests there are no issues here. Considering how any problem people are having with their C8s is magnified on forums like these and places like YouTube, if there were any problem with LT2 engines because of a lack of catch cans, we would have heard something. Even if any problem were quickly fixed by Chevrolet. This is the 5th model year of the C8 Stingray and the LT2.

How would you go about obtaining more data or more definitive data? Are you going to pay people to have their otherwise properly functioning engines disassembled to the point you can see the intake valve area? I don't think so.

Are you willing to suggest that because we don't have the data you want, it would be wise to assume there is a problem until proven otherwise and that we should install catch cans just in case? That is not the scientific method. Not at all. Think COVID....

 

Yeah, that's where my head is at right now... Innocent until proven guilty. How anyone would look at the utter lack of data pointing to an issue, and conclude that that must mean that there is an issue... Not sure they arrive at that conclusion?

 

I was bored today, so I decided to check something out. I popped off the hose from the PCV system. On the end going into the manifold, there was zero oil in it. When I say bone dry, I mean literally nothing. No oil, no slight greasy film... It was just smooth black plastic, like someone just took it out of the package. Not a sign of anything in there, and I checked.

2024 C8 1LT, with 5,800 miles on it. Lots of hard launches with launch control, high RPM goofing around in the mtns in track mode, The occasional, 150mph spring down a deserted stretch of highway...

And that hose had no trace or even hint of oil...

So my next test might be to install a catch can, and see if it suddenly starts producing oil? Maybe the catch can itself, at least on this motor, is what CAUSES oil to come through the PCV system? Change in pressure, slowing if the gases, cooling and allowing it to condensate...

Either that, or what else? Maybe my motor, despite(Or because of) being broken in fairly firmly and driven hard, has excellent ring seal and so blow by is minimal? Maybe the 2024 motor's built in system works as advertised, as the Corvette Engineers said that it would?