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.
I agree a Catch Can is not necessary, that is, the LT2 would continue to run just fine over the normal life of the engine without a Catch Can, There may be some, possibly measurable power loss from reduced volumetric efficiency due to intake valve carbon build up over time, but most would never notice it. However, I prefer to remove the unwanted blow-by vapors and condensed fluid from entering the intake to help reduce the intake valve deposits as much as possible. Just did an oil change at about 13,000mi, had about 6,500 miles on this interval. Here was the results;
I agree a Catch Can is not necessary, that is, the LT2 would continue to run just fine over the normal life of the engine without a Catch Can, There may be some, possibly measurable power loss from reduced volumetric efficiency due to intake valve carbon build up over time, but most would never notice it. However, I prefer to remove the unwanted blow-by vapors and condensed fluid from entering the intake to help reduce the intake valve deposits as much as possible. Just did an oil change at about 13,000mi, had about 6,500 miles on this interval. Here was the results;
Didja ever wonder how much didn't collect? When I see these, I always wonder if it caught all or a large percentage of what would otherwise get through. It sits between the line running from the air oil separator and the intake - so supposedly some or maybe most of the "foul vapor" material was already removed.
I don't use a catch can and don't plan on getting one. But I did notice that at least one supplier measures the performance using a several hours long test where atomized oil is drawn through the catch can. The amount of oil dispensed is compared to the amount caught under controlled conditions. And they measure impact on flow.
I'm not affiliated with them and do not have one of their products. But those that do use one or are thinking about one, I think the methodology might be interesting.
I installed one a few years ago and drove about the same mileage you did and it was about the same amount , mine is a C-7 . I was also curious about this .R
Had one on my C5 and it seems to do it's job very well have one for the C8 just haven't got it on yet. Guess it all how you look at it if it's worth it or not.
I ran a catch can in a heavily modified C5 I tracked. It definitely caught the blow-by. It seemed like a lot but, it was normal for high RPM driving.
My track days are done. I don't think my C8 will need one for my use.
Didja ever wonder how much didn't collect? When I see these, I always wonder if it caught all or a large percentage of what would otherwise get through. It sits between the line running from the air oil separator and the intake - so supposedly some or maybe most of the "foul vapor" material was already removed.
I don't use a catch can and don't plan on getting one. But I did notice that at least one supplier measures the performance using a several hours long test where atomized oil is drawn through the catch can. The amount of oil dispensed is compared to the amount caught under controlled conditions. And they measure impact on flow.
I'm not affiliated with them and do not have one of their products. But those that do use one or are thinking about one, I think the methodology might be interesting.
I am interested in this technology. I did a retrofit on my twin Cummins diesels CTA8.3 engines ventilation systems. It produced great results. Night and day difference with fumes and oil residue in the engine rooms.
The data provided in the Mighty Mouse link is interesting, but really hard for me to digest. I just don't know if the benefit out ways the cost. I am just the typical old person driver.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but I do wonder why OEMs don't include catch cans if they are worthwhile. It seems to me that it would be simple to add and would be a very minor add-on to scheduled maintenance (just add a step of draining the catch can at every oil change).
I am interested in this technology. I did a retrofit on my twin Cummins diesels CTA8.3 engines ventilation systems. It produced great results. Night and day difference with fumes and oil residue in the engine rooms.
The data provided in the Mighty Mouse link is interesting, but really hard for me to digest. I just don't know if the benefit out ways the cost. I am just the typical old person driver.
Indeed! I think their data establishes that the device is effective at removing most of the atomized oil under controlled circumstances, and that it does not put significant flow restriction in that PVC line. What it does not prove is that removing that stuff helps (not saying it does or does not, just saying their tests done prove it either way). Also, I think what is being removed in real life if more than just vaporized oil. I think there may be other contaminants - some fuel dilution for example - that are in the mix. The collected stuff is also typically dark, much darker than the oil in the crankcase. So there is clearly other stuff in there.
Indeed! I think their data establishes that the device is effective at removing most of the atomized oil under controlled circumstances, and that it does not put significant flow restriction in that PVC line. What it does not prove is that removing that stuff helps (not saying it does or does not, just saying their tests done prove it either way). Also, I think what is being removed in real life if more than just vaporized oil. I think there may be other contaminants - some fuel dilution for example - that are in the mix. The collected stuff is also typically dark, much darker than the oil in the crankcase. So there is clearly other stuff in there.
Some people also hypothesize that altering the PVC system causes more oil/contaminants to get past the OEM separation system and thus more is caught in the catch can. I haven't seen it proven either way.