Catch Can Install - Page 6
Cadillac
 

Cadillac Forums | Help Us Help You | Advertise | Cadillac Parts | Cadillac News | Cadillac Classifieds / (Old System)

Cadillac Technical Archive | Cadillac Dealers | Cadillac Reviews | Cadillac Dealer Reviews | Cadillac Vendors

CadillacForums.com is the premier Cadillac Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 107
Like Tree11Likes
2008-2013 Cadillac CTS Performance Mods Discussion, Catch Can Install in Cadillac CTS Second Generation Forum - 2008-2013; It should be counter clockwise all the way out. This close the valve. Fully clockwise, in, opens the valve....
  1. #76
    cawengr's Avatar
    cawengr is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): 2011 CTS Performance Coupe -3.6 DI 6 Speed Manual
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oak Lawn Il.
    Posts
    186

    Re: Catch Can Install

    It should be counter clockwise all the way out. This close the valve. Fully clockwise, in, opens the valve.

  2. #77
    monogram124 is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    46

    Re: Catch Can Install

    Thanks so much for the help cawengr!

    Now time for some pics. I wanted to keep more of a stock look. So I cut the PCV tube right where it bends up & attached the hoses from there. I had the one from the top of the manifold continue straight back to the can & I had the one from the back come forward around the shield to the can. As other members, I also liked the extra space having it mounted in the back on the firewall.
    Front: photo-3.JPG
    Side: photo-5.JPG
    Front Complete: photo6.JPG
    Side Complete: photo7.JPG

  3. #78
    Mistercoffee2's Avatar
    Mistercoffee2 is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    516

    Re: Catch Can Install

    ! remain undecided as to which Catch Can I will install and my 2008 has never had one so it may be to late anyway. So, I decided to do a test. I got an Air/Water separator made for a paint sprayer for $4.50 on eBay, added some hose and elbows and, Voila!

    As you can tell by the elbows and hose it is very small, and it's collecting oil. There is a little valve the size of those in a tire valve stem for draining. I'll run it a while longer and see if the filter starts to deteriorate.


    bluefleetwood and D VADER like this.

  4. #79
    D VADER's Avatar
    D VADER is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): 2013 CTS Sport Wagon
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    40

    Re: Catch Can Install

    Very creative idea!

  5. #80
    DMill's Avatar
    DMill is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): '09 1SB - Crystal Red w/Light Titanium
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bellevue, WA - USA
    Posts
    243

    Question Re: Catch Can Install ... Hose routing?

    Quick question regarding routing of the Catch Can hoses:
    * Does it matter which port the intake hose and valve cover hose hook up to on the Catch Can?
    Because of the check valve in the Catch Can I thought it might matter. I see no where in the instructions regarding this query.

    Thanks in advance!

    ps: Found this photo ... Even though this application has a twin-check valve catch can, note that the check valve port goes to the intake, leaving the valve cover hose to the non-check valve port.

    Still ... Does it matter???

  6. #81
    arw1510 is online now Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 2004 CTS 3.6, 2004 SRX 4.6 AWD, 2012 CTS 3.6 DI AWD
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    906
    It does matter!

  7. #82
    SC2150's Avatar
    SC2150 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): CTS
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Palmetto, FL
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,602

    Re: Catch Can Install

    The air compressor separators are what we tried 15 years ago in hopes they were a solution. They caught oil but we still had detonation, took IM off and was still getting soaked in oil. Added another in series and thought "That should do it" no, both caught oil but let 80-90% to still flow right past.

    Lots of cheap solutions that will catch oil, but if they don't stop it all you still have the issue.

    An upper induction cleaning can help, but don't do it more than a few times as some of the hard abrasive deposits will be forced between the piston and cylinder wall as they break off and cause scouring:

    Today’s Direct Injection engines and the
    intake valve coking issue.


    First off lets visit how direct injection works VS traditional port injection systems, the advantages of DI over PI and the unintended issue that has risen and how it affects today's gasoline cars and light trucks.

    Port injection, and old carburated applications, the air/fuel mixture would travel into the intake ports of an engine and the fuel spray would coat the intake valves and stems and with the detergent additives of top tier fuels, this prevented deposits from forming on the valves keeping them clean and not effecting the flow, or volumetric efficiency of the port and valve design.

    Most have seen the placards on a Shell, Mobil, or other top tier fuel pump showing the effects of not using a good fuel with detergent additives, and these also helped keep fuel injectors clean as well.

    Below is a illustration of how a port injection system introduces fuel to the combustion chamber, and you can clearly see how the intake valve is constantly drenched with the detergent fuel to keep them clean:



    And, as you can see below, this has been very effective in keeping valves clean. The picture below is of a GM 3.6L LY7 V6 non DI engine with app. 140,000 miles. Note how the valves, and any portion of the intake port that the fuel contacted has been kept deposit free:



    Now, these additives also keep the fuel injectors clean as these systems operate at between 45 and 60 PSI so over time, varnish and other deposits can form in the injectors causing incomplete atomization in the spray as well as reduced fuel delivery.

    Enter Direct Injection. With DI, the fuel is delivered at 2,000-3,000 PSI so the injectors have very little chance of any build up.....rendering the cleaning properties of top tier fuel pretty much not needed. It also allows for the engine to operate with a much higher compression ratio (11.3:1-11.5:1 vs 9.5:1-10:1) without the danger of detonation that would occur with a PI engine, as the fuel is introduced directly into the combustion chamber in the final 20-30% of the compression stroke, so the air/fuel mixture is only present for milliseconds VS a PI or carburetor where the A/F mixture is drawn in during the intake stroke and is present during the entire compression stroke allowing for the chance of pre-ignition, or detonation which has catastrophic results suck as burnt or melted pistons.

    This also allows more power, better fuel economy, from smaller displacement engines, as well as the use of lower octane fuels. We would have never dreamed of running a 11.5:1 engine on any less than 100 octane race fuel in the past....now these engine run fine on 87-91 octane.

    Below is an illustration of how a DI system works:



    As you can see, the fuel is introduced directly into the combustion chamber and never touches the intake valves so there is nothing to prevent buildup/coking of the intake valves. How serious is this problem? In as little as 3,000 miles a new DI engine has already begun to experience valve coking and power and fuel economy begin to suffer, although most will never notice until 15-20,000 miles when the deposits have accumulated to such an extent that the volumetric efficiency has dropped 10-15% plus from how the engine was designed.

    Below are pictures of the same GM 3.6L engines valves at 12,000 miles. Compare with the picture of the LY7 non-DI with 140,000 miles we have earlier in this paper:


    And one with only 3,000 miles on it:



    or 20K miles:


    or 50k miles:



    This buildup is caused by the oil mist/vapors that are present in the crankcase gasses being evacuated and drawn through the intake manifold and without separating them effectively, the result is an engine gradually loosing power and fuel economy as well as prematurely worn valve guides and other internal engine wear as these hard abrasive particles break loose.

    This is NOT a GM only issue, this plagues every gasoline direct injection engine from cars & light trucks to 4 stroke outboards and snowmobiles as well as motorcycles, and it is an issue with every brand auto in the world. Want to see more? Do a Google search on “direct injection intake valve coking” and click on images to see contributions by auto techs from throughout the world and every auto brand there is. NO manufacturer is immune to this! And none seem to acknowledge it is an issue (understandably so as this is a huge problem).

    Now the Non DI v8's (as of 2014 GM V8's are now DI as well). Take any PD blower equipped car. Maggie, KB, Whipple, or the LSA & LS( engines where the oil ingestion is coating the intercoolers where the deposits and residue begin to coat and obstruct the air flow through them as well as insulate them reducing the ability to transfer heat and effectively cool you charge air. This is a typical intercooler after only 15k miles of allowing this oil ingestion:



    And the issues with buildup on the pistons and ringlands where the oil residue and coking will cause the rings to stick and not seal properly....many have a car that used little oil and now uses more and more:



    And for the NA owner, even if you don't have performance mods, (LS3 here) the oil ingestion causes detonation, poor fuel economy, and less power is made than the same engine w/out oil contaminating the combustion chamber:



    Upper induction cleaning is a good short term fix, but every time you break the deposit loose a small amount of these cause scouring of the pistons and cylinder wall as the small particles get forced between the piston and cylinder wall during the cleaning and this is the result...so do this service sparingly:



    After installing one of the few cans that actually stop most or all the oil (most allow as much oil to pass through as they catch, ALL cans will catch oil so you cannot judge effectiveness by how much it catches, it is measured by no oil getting past the can and still entering the intake manifold) you should need one upper induction cleaning and no more.

    Now, can you ignore these issues and enjoy your car? Yes.....but why if it is such an obvious determent to the cars fuel economy and performance?

    A common comment is "My car runs fine as it is". And that is fine as well. If your not aware of what is going on inside the motor, then the phrase "out of sight, out of mind" or "ignorance is bliss" are good analogies of that mindset, and the vast majority of car owners fall into this and do just fine getting a few MPG less, having the engine consume oil and wear out far sooner than it should, so this is only for those that want to care for their engine the best possible and intend to keep their baby for a while.

    Any questions, ask (please keep it civil) and I will answer it all from a technical and engineering view point. Tons of data is available for those that want to learn.

    With the RX can the center is always the inlet coming from the crankcase, the outer fittings are always the outlet leading to the intake manifold vacuum barb.

    V8 Escalade:



    V6 CTS/camaro:
    http://www.revxtreme.com/instruction...atch%20Can.pdf


    LSA:



    Turbo or Centri blower:
    RX Performance Products/RevXtreme.com 941-721-1826

  8. #83
    DMill's Avatar
    DMill is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): '09 1SB - Crystal Red w/Light Titanium
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bellevue, WA - USA
    Posts
    243

    Re: Catch Can Install

    Quote Originally Posted by SC2150 View Post
    With the RX can the center is always the inlet coming from the crankcase, the outer fittings are always the outlet leading to the intake manifold vacuum barb.
    Thanks for the hose routing confirmation ... and looking at your instruction photos on pages 4 and 5, one can see this. BUT ... there is no verbage telling of how to route the hoses; just the photos. I suggest that you also have some wording within the instructions, since this is a critical item regarding installation (IMHO).

  9. #84
    SC2150's Avatar
    SC2150 is offline Cadillac Owners Connoisseur
    Automobile(s): CTS
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Palmetto, FL
    Age
    58
    Posts
    1,602

    Re: Catch Can Install

    Good suggestion. Will have it changed.

    Thanks for the input!
    RX Performance Products/RevXtreme.com 941-721-1826

  10. #85
    DMill's Avatar
    DMill is offline Cadillac Owners Fanatic
    Automobile(s): '09 1SB - Crystal Red w/Light Titanium
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bellevue, WA - USA
    Posts
    243

    Re: Catch Can ... Installed!l

    Finally got a moment to install the RexExtreme catch can. As everyone has mentioned, not that difficult. Coincidentally, I used the same mounting location as monogram124 ... that is, the bolt on the firewall that's about 8" inward from (those of you that still have) your windshield washer heater unit. I was also able to use most of the factory hose for both valve cover and intake connection, using just some of the supplied hose for making the final connections.

    Here's a photo of the final install ...
    CatchCan-Install.JPG
    ... NO clearance problems whatsoever for any of the cosmetic covers.

    Now to see how much "crap" is being removed from the intake stream on my next oil change.

  11. #86
    UpstateJonNY is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): CTS4 1SB
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    I have seen a lot of talk about intake valve buildup, but the article below suggests that in GM DI engines this problem is NOT endemic.

    I would suggest asking your dealer or mechanic to show you your valves on the boroscope before accepting other pricy fixes.

    Direct Injection Fouls Some Early Adopters

    By*AUTOOBSERVER STAFF*June 15, 2011*Comments (4)In their efforts to wring more power and efficiency from the internal combustion engine, automakers are increasingly turning to gasoline direct-injection technology – also known as GDI or DI. Originally developed to produce more economical and quieter combustion for diesel engines, DI is inherently more efficient and helps generate more power than port injection. And advances in engineering and engine management, fueled by fierce industry competition and consumer demand, are making DI technology more cost-effective than ever for manufacturers: gasoline DI engines are appearing in entry-level models from Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co.’s Chevrolet and Hyundai Motors. Currently, more than 60 2011 and 2012 models in the U.S. offer DI engines as standard equipment.But there has been a dark side to the technology: carbon build-up around intake valves that, over time, can degrade power and efficiency, eroding the bonus DI is supposed to provide. While there’s evidence that the most recent designs and technical enhancements have greatly reduced the issue, carbon buildup has been a distinct and well-documented issue in some DI engines from a variety of manufacturers over the last few years.Known ProblemsA U.S. patent application filed in 2002 by Volkswagen AG explains the DI-engine carbon-deposit dilemma this way: “Gasoline engines with direct injection of the fuel into the combustion chamber…suffer especially from the problem of the formation of carbon deposits…especially in the neck region of the intake valves.”The document describes these deposits as a sticky coating of oil and fuel constituents that, once formed, serves as a base for further deposits, creating “a circular process, by which the coating thickness of the carbon deposits continuously increases.” Excessive carbon deposits “have extremely negative effects,” the patent application concludes, citing significant performance losses, sporadic ignition failures and, potentially, holes burned in the structure of the catalytic converter (should bits of carbon break from the valves and pass though the combustion chamber).Ameer Haider, GM’s assistant chief engineer for V6 engines, certainly knows the problem, telling*AutoObserver, “DI engines are prone to forming oily deposits on the intake valves, unlike in port fuel-injected engines, where a constant spray of fuel into the port allows any deposits to wash away. With DI engines, the fuel gets injected directly into the combustion chamber, so there isn't a chance for the deposits to wash away. Typically, deposits form when soot – which is an end-product of combustion – adheres to the valve stem.”The main purpose of VW’s patent application was to propose a fix for DI engine carbon deposits: specifically, applying “a catalytic surface” to the engine valves that “counteracts the formation of carbon deposits.” But nearly 10 years later, there’s ample evidence that this and other potential solutions have failed.Constantine Boyadjiev works as a risk management officer at a financial firm in New York and has been an auto enthusiast for most of his life. In 2008, he decided it was time to part with his beloved 2001 BMW M5, mainly due to escalating maintenance costs – but also because he discovered that a number of fellow owners were dealing with expensive-to-fix*carbon build-up*in their vehicles’ engine cylinder heads.When Boyadjiev replaced his BMW with a barely-used 2008 Audi RS 4, he thought he had put all worry about carbon build-up behind him. But, as he said, “Little did I know that there was a much uglier carbon-build-up problem awaiting me.” Boyadjiev became involved with the online RS 4 owner community when he was searching for his car, in particular a group of veteran Audiworld.com members who later migrated to QuattroWorld.com. He kept active with the group as he took delivery of the car and enjoyed the first few months of ownership. Not long after, though, he was dismayed to see that “the message boards caught fire with plenty of formally*documented cases” of carbon build-up with fellow RS 4 owners’ engines.Boyadjiev admits to some initial “wishful thinking” that perhaps the problem might only affect earlier production models or that the forum members were merely trumpeting an isolated issue. But then, despite his own “religious” maintenance practices, including using only 93-octane premium fuel and avoiding short, in-town trips that failed to bring the engine up to proper operating temperatures, it soon was apparent his Audi’s 4.2-liter direct-injected V8 also was plagued by carbon buildup.“The loss of performance became very noticeable over time,” he says. He decided to document it, taking the car to a local automotive performance specialist in nearby Stamford, Connecticut, to have its power measured by a dynamometer.At its first measurement, Boyadjiev’s RS 4 had 15,000 miles and produced 324 all-wheel horsepower, measured at the wheels (AWHP). Roughly one year and 5,000 miles later, the same test showed 317 AWHP. After another year and 5,000 miles, power was down to 305 AWHP. Power from the 4.2-liter V8 had degraded by almost 5 percent in just 10,000 miles.Considering the RS 4’s performance pedigree – and correspondingly large price tag (in excess of $70,000 MSRP) – this was an alarming trend, something Boyadjiev thought Audi would want to address head-on, especially since parent company VW had earlier documented these very issues in its DI engines. But Boyadjiev and his fellow RS 4 owners found Audi quick to dismiss the issue as a byproduct of poor-quality U.S. gasoline and American-style driving habits (i.e. the absence of high-speed runs on the Autobahn). Audi offered no assistance.So Boyadjiev took an action to which many other RS 4 owners already had resigned themselves: he had an independent mechanic disassemble the engine and clean it – a $1,200 expense at the time. He returned to the dynamometer to see if the cleaning had made any difference. It had. Engine output soared by 41 AWHP and the car felt new again. For the moment, at least.Boyadjiev said he is prepared to pay for such a maintenance cleaning every 10,000 miles. And while he is certainly not happy about that, he’s willing to endure the hassle and cost. “The car is so rewarding and a joy to drive,” he says. He is far less complimentary about Audi’s response to the issue. Despite the evidence Boyadjiev and many of his fellow RS 4 forum members have presented, “the company continues to deny this is a very serious issue,” he said. “I have very little respect for a company that refuses to stand behind its name, especially when professing a motto of ‘Progress through Technology,’” he added. And experiences like Boyadjiev’s are not uncommon.A Google search for “direct injection carbon build up” reveals a flood of owner complaints about the issue across vehicle brands and models, including particularly active threads for the*VW GTI, the*Lexus IS 250, and a variety of*Audi models*in addition to the RS 4.All Engines Not Designed EquallyMany automakers’ gasoline DI engines do not appear to exhibit any carbon build-up issues at all, however. Digging into online threads about Cadillac’s 3.6-liter DI V6 in its popular CTS lineup does reveal some owner concerns about carbon build-up, but it’s difficult to find even a single report that any build-up has actually occurred – a record that is notable considering that Cadillac has sold more than 200,000 CTS models with DI V6s (Audi sold fewer than 2,000 RS 4s in the US during its two-year sales run).Haider, GM’s V6 assistant chief engineer, explained how GM has designed its DI engines to combat carbon buildup: “We maintain great engine function and performance in our all our DI engines through an optimization strategy with our valve events,” he said. “Our intake-cam timing, injector targeting and timing of the injection events are optimized to avoid direct fuel contact on the intake valves. This strategy keeps smoke and soot formation to an absolute minimum, which in turn prevents excessive deposit formation.”At the Detroit Auto Show in January, Ford was confident enough about its popular 3.5 liter EcoBoost direct-injection V6 to have technicians tear down an*example engine*that had accumulated the equivalent of 160,000 miles through an intentionally abusive regimen of log dragging, high-speed towing and desert racing. When they opened it up before a live audience, they found some light carbon deposits on the valves and pistons, but not enough to affect performance. In fact, the engine showed a loss of just one horsepower afterwards – roughly what Boyadjiev’s RS 4 engine lost every 500 miles.Stephen Russ, technical leader for combustion for Ford’s 2-liter Duratec DI engine, said that similar to GM, engineers have determined the proper injection-timing calibration to help eliminate the carbon deposits. But Russ also said the technology of injection components – particularly the high-pressure solenoid injectors – has quickly matured, meaning excess valve deposits in most DI engines should become a thing of the past as these improved components are incorporated into production.Tony Chick, principal engineer at European Performance Labs in Stratford, Connecticut, has made a career of repairing and rebuilding high-performance engines from Audi, Porsche AG and BMW, among others and his operation has garnered a reputation among car enthusiasts as a go-to place for cleaning DI engines that have become choked with carbon. Chick thinks the problem for most affected engines can be traced to the breathing system – specifically, the design of its crankcase ventilation and exhaust-gas recirculation components.All modern gasoline engines return some crankcase and exhaust gases back through the intake manifold in order to help control emissions, but, according to Chick, some exhaust-gas recirculation designs are “dirtier" than others. Some, he said, are less-effective at preventing the passage of tiny bits of oil, carbon and other particulates that eventually get baked onto the intake ports and valves.Chick reached his conclusion after inspecting dozens of different DI engines at his shop and finding some, like the V8 in Boyadjiev’s Audi RS 4, regularly choked with carbon while others, like the DI version of Porsche’s horizontally opposed 6-cylinder, remained much cleaner.If he’s right, the rapid adoption of DI has actually illuminated an issue, not caused one. A “dirty” intake or exhaust-recirculation design can easily go undetected in a conventional port-injected engine due to the cleaning effect of gasoline passing over the intake valves. When the same engine designs are adapted to direct-injection fueling, however, that cleaning effect is suddenly lost – and the carbon layers can build.There is no simple fix for engines that are prone to carbon build-up, Chick says. What’s needed is a complete redesign of the crankcase ventilation and exhaust-gas recirculation systems to prevent particulates from getting through. Fortunately, the manufacturers whose engines are frequently cited in carbon build-up reports – mainly VW, Audi and Lexus – appear to have taken this step with many of their latest models. For instance, Audi’s new 3-liter supercharged V6, used in the S4 and A6 models, has so far been free from carbon-related complaints – a far cry from the 3.2 liter V6, which hasnumerous threads*dedicated to the condition.If Ford and GM engineers and Chick are correct, the carbon-buildup problem now may be relegated to previous engine designs that were not well-adapted for DI. But that’s probably little consolation to some early adopters like Boyadjiev, who must add regular carbon cleaning services to their cars’ ongoing maintenance requirements – a cost that, for now at least, they are expected to absorb entirely on their own as they grapple with the “dirty” secret of this emerging technology.Mark Holthoff manages customer support for Edmunds.com.Matt Landish oversees digital media development and publishing for Edmunds.com.AutoObserver Staff:**Mark Holthoff and Matt Landish

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    kurtamaxxxguy says:10:51 AM, 06.15.11Perhaps this is why the Audi A4 Avant Edmunds tested long term had deteriorated performance at the end of its stint? Worrisome as its 2.0 DI engine is one of their newer ones.Report Itcsmanagermark says:1:58 PM, 06.16.11@kurtamaxxxguyWe spoke to some of the Edmunds editors while doing our research, and they were considering such an evaluation for the long-term Audi. But this was right at the end of the car's stay, and it sold too quickly for any action to be taken...Report Ittimlange says:11:02 AM, 08.26.11DI has been in the Solstice/Sky since 2006 without an unusual number of problems encountered. Nothing anyone has related to DI. It appears these engines run leaner than non DI, that may be a significant factor.Report Ittimlange says:11:03 AM, 08.26.11DI has been in the Solstice/Sky since 2006 without an unusual number of problems encountered. Nothing anyone has related to DI. It appears these engines run leaner than non DI, that may be a significant factor.Report It

    ----------

    PS :I was quite amazed at how bad my mileage was when I first acquired my used 08 3.5DI.
    At 75 mph cruise for at least 30 minutes I was getting 19mpg. I upped my tire pressure from spec to 90% of Max, [40psi in my case, by sidewall], and returned 21 mpg under same conditions.
    Finally, yesterday was an abnormally warm and dry day in upstate NY, so I really flogged the CTS for about 30 minutes.

    I reset the mpg and drove for another 3 hours at 75 mph with spirited on/off ramp action.
    Viola! 24.5 mpg for the trip average.

    Later last night I read about the "Italian Tuneup" quite incidentally. I had assumed that was for carbeurated engines, but I think the higher engine temps can even burn away intake gunk. What a change!

    Do your research and Try a few things before parting with your cash!

  12. #87
    arw1510 is online now Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 2004 CTS 3.6, 2004 SRX 4.6 AWD, 2012 CTS 3.6 DI AWD
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    906
    So what's that article saying that we don't already know?

  13. #88
    UpstateJonNY is offline Cadillac Owners Member
    Automobile(s): CTS4 1SB
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by arw1510 View Post
    So what's that article saying that we don't already know?
    I am not aware of what you may or may not know. The point is that I have seen dozens of posts of owners modifying their cars with catch cans. This may be an expense to address a non-issue, and be an excuse for GM to void the powertrain warranty. (It alters the emissions system and the intake system.)
    Mistercoffee2 likes this.

  14. #89
    arw1510 is online now Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Automobile(s): 2004 CTS 3.6, 2004 SRX 4.6 AWD, 2012 CTS 3.6 DI AWD
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    906
    But doesn't the article acknowledge that it is an issue, but that as time and technology progresses they ate getting better with it?

  15. #90
    Mistercoffee2's Avatar
    Mistercoffee2 is offline Cadillac Owners Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    516

    Re: Catch Can Install

    Quote Originally Posted by arw1510 View Post
    But doesn't the article acknowledge that it is an issue, but that as time and technology progresses they ate getting better with it?
    I guess I have to ask myself why, if a catch can fixes the problem, the best engineers at VW, GM and others have not just installed one? I have to agree with UpdateJonNY, a lot to do about nothing.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Bookmarks

Cadillac Posting Rules

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Read about Lincoln | Buick | Kia Forte Forum
Need products for your Cadillac? Check out your options at the links below:

custom floor mats | Cadillac Chrome and Black Chrome Wheels | window tinting