: Catch Can Install



ncscons
07-30-12, 11:01 PM
I finally got my PCV catch can installed last weekend and here's a few pics of the install. I took my time and the whole install probably took about an hour and change after trying a few different approaches for routing the hoses and mounting the can.

Instead of cutting the stock PCV hose in two places and ditching the extra piece I just cut the hose in one place and used the supplied hoses to route into the can. The attached pics show where I routed the hoses and installed the can. The engine cover isn't a perfect fit with the can in place but after some minor trimming the fit is clean enough that i'll probably just leave it as it is.

To install the breather kit just pull the hose that connects the air tube to the driver's side valve cover and plug both holes that are left behind. I originally wanted to keep the original hose intact so I could go back to stock anytime, but I ended up just cutting the end off the stock hose then using one of the supplied plugs to make a cork that pushes into the air tube. That way when I upgrade the intake this same plug will connect to the aftermarket tube. The other plug supplied is a nice tight fit on the valve cover inlet. Then just replace the stock oil cap with the breather cap and you're all set.

Here's a few pics:

This one is of the catch can without the engine cover on. I ended up routing the inlet hose to the right of the outlet hose before putting the cover back on.
http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd373/spinningplate/Installed-Front.jpg

A shot of the hoses routing over the passenger valve cover:
http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd373/spinningplate/Hoses-Front.jpg

Same shot from the passenger side:
http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd373/spinningplate/Hoses-Side.jpg

The plug on the air tube from the breather kit:
http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd373/spinningplate/Breather-IntakeTube.jpg

Plug on the drivers side valve cover:
http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd373/spinningplate/Breather-ValveCover.jpg

And the final install with the catch can in place, the cover on and the breather oil cap installed:
http://i1216.photobucket.com/albums/dd373/spinningplate/FinishedInstall.jpg

ncscons
07-30-12, 11:03 PM
Fail on the pics but you can copy/paste the http links to see them!

EDIT: Scratch that ;)

SC2150
07-31-12, 03:17 PM
Excelent job with not cutting the OEM lines.

Did you remove the plenum cover and clean the existing oil out?

Keep us posted on the results.

:thumbsup:

ncscons
07-31-12, 08:24 PM
I didn't think to do that but it would have been a good idea. Too bad because I had the time. I did pull off the throttle body and clean in there again.

The CNC TB went on only about 2000kms ago and I was still greeted with oil when I pulled it off. Seems this motor likes oil about as much as the tranny hates first gear!

Planning to empty the can in a couple of weeks and i'm real curious to see how much oil comes out. Betting it'll be surprising.

SC2150
08-02-12, 05:01 PM
:thumbsup:

How do you like the TB?

ncscons
08-03-12, 01:03 PM
Real happy with it and still surprised that such a quick and simple mod made such a difference! Now that the computer has adjusted i'm seeing a slight increase in fuel economy and more importantly the around-town driveability of the car is hugely improved. The car actually accelerates up slight hills without needing a downshift. Yes, it accelerates slowly, but at least it accelerates without the eternal wait for a downshift ;)

jbelot
08-04-12, 10:31 PM
Hey SC2150,

I am ordering the catch can and breather on Monday. I have the 09 CTS 4, will the fit be similar? If anyone has another way and pics it would be great to see alternative solutions to this install.

Cheers

ncscons
08-05-12, 09:45 PM
Pretty sure the fit would be identical (or really, really close) between a 2009 and a 2011. I also remember seeing a few other pics of the catch can install posted here so if you do a search you'll probably turn up some other approaches.

jbelot
08-06-12, 01:29 AM
Thanks,

Your install looks good, clean and easy. The mounting of the can looks critical. Ant issues with the motor cover?

tinman
08-06-12, 02:10 PM
ncscons: Whose catch can did you end up using?

jbelot: I have some other installation details if you need them. PM me if interested.

SC2150
08-06-12, 02:46 PM
The main difference with the Ly7 is there will be a vacuum barb on both the outer edges of the IM and they run together to the valve cover evac valve.

Rest is the same principal.

:thumbsup:

ncscons
08-06-12, 07:00 PM
I used the RX catch can from SC250. Got it with their throttle body and the TB is something that's easy to recommend if you don't have it on yet. It's the easiest install you'll ever do and the difference still surprises me more than 2500 kms later.

The engine cover didn't fit perfectly after putting the can on (doesn't push all the way down onto the pin). In order to get a 'fine' fit I trimmed the cover a tiny bit and pushed the catch can as far back as I could on the mount. If I revisit it i'll probably try extending a hole in the bracket so it squeezes in closer to the stud and trim a little more of the cover. There was no point in trimming more with the install I did because the catch can valves were already hitting the bottom of the cover.

Overall for the price and time i'm 100% satisfied with both and would do it again.

tinman
08-06-12, 08:13 PM
Thanks.

ncscons
08-19-12, 09:35 PM
I just drained the catch-can after about 800 kms just to check how much oil it was accumulating and after just 30 seconds of draining about a teaspoon of oil came out. That's after only 800 kms so i'd bet after a full oil change cycle i'll be seeing a frightening amount of oil being grabbed by the can.

Real happy not to have my intake sucking in that oil anymore. Makes me feel much better as I accumulate mileage on the car!!

pote87
08-20-12, 10:07 AM
well done, thanks for the pics and input! I am thinking about getting the rx can for my 08 cts4. where did you get your TB?

pote87
08-20-12, 10:10 AM
PS you should get the AIRAID intake itll look great with the can and breather

ncscons
08-20-12, 11:15 AM
The Airraid is next on the agenda! I'm going to put the RX spacer on also but that'll probably wait until next spring.

I got the TB direct from RX Performance (SC2150 on the forums). If you're thinking about it stop thinking and pull the trigger - it's well worth it, specially if you have an AWD CTS. Power under 2500 rpms is actually usable now and the torque delivery is so much more linear from idle all the way to redline. After a tad over 3000 kms with the new TB i'm also seeing about a 2 mpg increase in fuel economy, which is an added bonus!

SC2150
08-20-12, 04:11 PM
Excellent ncscons.

This has probably been the hardest forum to be a vendor on as far as the attacks and rudness & I have about given up. These are the results we want to see. Those that have tried the products and can document they do as advertised. :thumbsup:

pote87
08-20-12, 05:50 PM
sorry to do this but sc2150 how can I contact you? it won't let me dm you

SC2150
08-20-12, 06:38 PM
Call direct: 941-721-1826 or email: RXProducts@aol.com

:thumbsup:

ncscons
08-21-12, 10:27 AM
Don't give up on us SC! There's at least one goof in every crowd - best bet is to just ignore 'em ;)

SC2150
08-21-12, 01:12 PM
Thats guys.

We and Mace in Australia (who we work close with) are two of the few companies developing performance parts for these motors (as well as we have developed and manufactured V8 parts for the past 10 plus years) and there are more in the works we will release as we prove they do as designed.

:thumbsup:

jpsomnermd
08-25-12, 07:41 PM
Just installed the catch can and throttle body from RX Performance. Both very simple and straightforward. Catch can is of high quality, fitment is well engineered and the instructions were right on. Ported throttle body well worth the investment. Highly recommended as I am very pleased with the products, installation and especially the customer service.

SC2150
08-26-12, 01:57 PM
Here is a 3.6 DI that has had the RX catchcan system on since a few thousand miles....(7k miles ago). No oil in the intake, and almost zero build up on the intake valves. Its in getting heads and cams and tune:

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakita002.jpg
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakitaintakevalves001.jpg
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakita010.jpg
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakita011.jpg
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Chakita012.jpg

:thumbsup:

Wag-O-Neer
08-26-12, 03:15 PM
I've been M.I.A. for a bit, but I felt compelled to check back in on this catch can subject. My wife has put about 6-7k miles on the car since installing the RX catch can. Consumption was an additional qt and half over that time.

I changed the oil yesterday and drained the can. I was shocked to see about 5-6 oz of oil come pouring out. I can't thank Tracy enough for the education he's given me on this engine, and my 3.6 DI intake manifold thanks him too.

The next oil change, I'm gonna make a video, so those that are on the fence can make a more informed decision. Running without a catch can on this engine, is a disaster waiting to happen at some point. Unless you frequently do an upper intake cleaning, get a can folks.

SC2150
08-31-12, 10:13 AM
Thanks man.

The problem w/too many upper induction cleanings is everytime you break the deposits loose some do get pulled between the piston and cylinder walls causing minor scouring and over time that will increase oil useage and blow by.

:thumbsup:

cubbie641
08-31-12, 02:34 PM
is this for the di engine only?

jimtreber
09-01-12, 01:14 AM
It doesn't look like my 08 has as much room to play with in front as the 2011. And not wanting to restrict air flow, I went to the rear of the right wheel well and had plenty of room for my catch can install.

96880

pote87
09-01-12, 01:22 AM
Nice set up jimtrebo! Do you happen to have the 08 3.6L non di? I am waiting on both the tb and catch can as well.

jimtreber
09-01-12, 02:04 AM
Nice set up jimtrebo! Do you happen to have the 08 3.6L non di? I am waiting on both the tb and catch can as well.

No, I have DI AWD.
I learned a difference recently when I bought intake manifold gaskets. Naturally, I bought the wrong ones. If anyone needs a set for the non DI, I have a new set cheap.

jbelot
09-05-12, 01:33 AM
Hello,

I have installed my catch can and breather cap on my 2009 CTS4 3.6 DI. The catch can went in super easy. I mounted mine on the lower side of the cover bracket and used a spacer on the snap pin so I could lower the can enough so I did not have to trim the cover. It would be nice if that mounting bracket was a half inch longer, I will post a picture this weekend. I am having a little problem with the breather cap. It is to tall and hits the hoods shielding. What have others done in this case? Cut the hood shielding? I canít see another alternative in this situation unless there is a shallower breather cap.

Other than the breather cap this install was a snap. I looked at it for maybe twenty minutes including unpacking the box and reading the instructions, the install took another 20 min. Two wrenches and a cutter is all you need. I will be cleaning the plenum this weekend and I will get a couple of pictures then.

Cheers

jbelot
09-05-12, 01:40 AM
Hey SC2150. I did the catch can on my 09 CTS4 3.6. I also own a 2005 CTS 3.6. This one consumes oil very well from new. Is this the same principal as the DI motor or is this a differant issue.

SC2150
09-05-12, 10:36 AM
Yes. Same principal with all engines. The port injection though will not have nearly the valve gunk build up the DI motors have if you run a top tier gasoline as it prevent deposits from forming.

On the hood liner.....that is an issue we have not seen but is real for sure it appears on the caddy's.

Without the iceolator there should be clearance, and the caps we use to make these are a low profile. You could do a remote mount breather as well.......let us know and we will exchange it for you but keep us posted on ideas you have.

:thumbsup:

tinman
09-05-12, 10:49 AM
jbelot, I might be able to fabricate a stainless steel bracket for you. PM me.

jbelot
09-05-12, 11:50 AM
Thanks tinman for the offer but I’m pretty happy with the way this catch can installed, just a suggestion to lengthen the bracket. My son is a welder so if it doesn’t work out in the long run I will get him to hammer out a bracket.

Cheers!

tinman
09-05-12, 12:55 PM
You're welcome.

SC2150
09-05-12, 03:19 PM
:thumbsup:

jimtreber
09-05-12, 10:38 PM
Hello,

I am having a little problem with the breather cap. It is to tall and hits the hoods shielding. What have others done in this case? Cut the hood shielding? I can’t see another alternative in this situation unless there is a shallower breather cap.

Cheers


I am relieved that I am not the only one with this problem. I had all kinds of things going through my mind like a broken motor mount or bent frame. I got an email from Tracy today who is working on a solution.

jbelot
09-06-12, 12:53 AM
I am hoping to trim a small piece out of the hood liner, I don’t want to but it may be the only way to use the breather. It is looking like the liner is very thin in that exact spot so cutting that small piece might not be enough. I hope the hood liner is easy to remove so I can test it before I cut.

jbelot
09-09-12, 10:53 PM
I need assistance. I installed the catch can and went to clean out the plenum this weekend. I cannot access the two front bolts directly under the stabilizing plate/bar. What tool did you guys use to access these two bolts? I cannot get a wrench on it. Socket fits but no way will it with a ratchet. HELP!

HurstGN
09-10-12, 12:01 PM
Remove the bar first.

jbelot
09-10-12, 04:15 PM
That's what I thought. I was hoping for a super cool tool. I am lazy and didn't want to lift the car to get to the underside bolt. Oh well, I have not been under this car yet, time to get a good look. Too bad I had the oil changed by the dealer a couple of weeks ago. Thanks for the reply. I will have to wait until next weekend.

arw1510
09-13-12, 11:04 AM
any one have any pictures of it installed on the LFX engine? or for that matter, any toher mods for the 2012 or 13 model year?

SC2150
09-13-12, 12:30 PM
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/2012LFXcaninstall.jpg

tinman
09-13-12, 12:45 PM
There are quite a few excellent threads about the RX catch can and the Trifecta tune. Good stuff.

HurstGN
09-14-12, 06:22 PM
That's what I thought. I was hoping for a super cool tool. I am lazy and didn't want to lift the car to get to the underside bolt. Oh well, I have not been under this car yet, time to get a good look. Too bad I had the oil changed by the dealer a couple of weeks ago. Thanks for the reply. I will have to wait until next weekend.
When I removed mine, the 3 bolts stayed in place. I didn't have to go underneath at all. Maybe I was just lucky, but torquing them down, they didn't spin at all.

jbelot
09-17-12, 11:23 AM
Thanks. I have a bolt coming up from the under side as well as one from the top on both sides of the car. I was golfing all weekend so this weekend comimg up I will be playing with my car. I hope the weather is nice.

tinman
09-17-12, 11:26 AM
Sounds like life is tough...sigh.

I suppose you have to take those good days while you still have them.

arw1510
09-28-12, 05:08 PM
just finished the catch can install on my 2012 cts 3.6 di lfx engine. There wasn't as much room as i thought there was in the front so i decided to put in towards the firewall on the passenger side. 98036 The car has 15,000 miles on it and the oil was changed yesterday so i think it will be a good test to see how much it catches during this next period. I didn't bother to take the car further apart to see how much oil was in there. depending on how much i drain out the next time if i think its worth cleaning out the intake and everything i guess ill have to.

arw1510
12-07-12, 09:46 PM
emptied it today after 3000 miles. about 8 ounces of dirty brown liquid

shmiddy
12-08-12, 02:35 PM
I did an oil change today and drained my RX catch can at the same time. And WOW
it had like 100ml of foamy disgusting oil. Do not want that going through my engine. So glad i installed this, and recommend everyone does

stagow
12-08-12, 05:10 PM
I am still waiting on mine, ordered back in early November. I am glad the RevXtreme is busy but I would certainly like to get my catch can installed. Maybe for Christmas

stagow
12-26-12, 03:29 PM
Installed my RevXtreme catch can today. I used a 6mm fastner on the passenger side shock tower that was not being used.
101590
101591
I then just cut the stock tube as seen in the pictures and completed my hose routing. I will see how it goes, may change it later.
101592
101593
101594
101595
Interestingly I half expected to see some oil residue in the vent tube when I cut it but did not see any. The only other thing I learned was the plastic facia pieces do not like cold. I did it on Christmas Eve day and it was around 20 degrees and I broke the tab off that is right by the catch can :(.

I will see how it goes now that the can is intalled.

Interested in any comments that you all might have especially SC2150.

Thanks and Happy New Year

HurstGN
01-03-13, 12:11 PM
Nice job. Did you order the breather? I don't see it on your oil fill. I'm just wondering if the new lower profile ones are out yet.

stagow
01-03-13, 03:57 PM
Nice job. Did you order the breather? I don't see it on your oil fill. I'm just wondering if the new lower profile ones are out yet.

Thanks

I did but need to send it back as it hits the hood and I do not want to start chopping away at things. I will have to wait for the new lower profile one.

HurstGN
01-09-13, 12:36 PM
I'm in the same boat...I need the breather since my TB was all gunked up, but the current one is too tall.

SC2150
01-10-13, 10:35 AM
Any with the to tall breather return it (www.RevXtreme.com) and include a note that it from a CTS and is to tall so we can send the lower profile one in exchange as we source it to fit.

:thumbsup:

jbelot
01-21-13, 12:42 PM
Any with the to tall breather return it (www.RevXtreme.com) and include a note that it from a CTS and is to tall so we can send the lower profile one in exchange as we source it to fit.

:thumbsup:

I tossed the one i purchased but when you have a new low profile breather I will get 2 of them.

xCCTer
03-31-13, 10:58 AM
Ordered one today. Planning on the firewall install. Thanx all for the tips and pix.

D VADER
04-16-13, 01:19 PM
I don't see any hose clamps being used. I think I would if for other reason than appearance.

SMKNTRLS
05-23-13, 02:00 PM
Just joined the forum to hopefully share some information and get some information on a potential wagon purchase.

I just wanted to alert everyone doing this mod that when you go to get your smog check, I'm assuming any state that does them, you will fail for a modified PCV valve. So I wouldn't suggest cutting your original line I'd buy an extra one and mod that if the kit your using doesn't have it already for you.

Smkntrls

arw1510
05-23-13, 02:53 PM
Just joined the forum to hopefully share some information and get some information on a potential wagon purchase.

I just wanted to alert everyone doing this mod that when you go to get your smog check, I'm assuming any state that does them, you will fail for a modified PCV valve. So I wouldn't suggest cutting your original line I'd buy an extra one and mod that if the kit your using doesn't have it already for you.

Smkntrls

I've had no trouble passing inspections here in ny with one

Wayne's World
05-23-13, 08:15 PM
I have been thinking about installing a catch can but I'm obsessed with keeping my vehicles original or at least not doing anything that can't be reversed. I was hoping there was some way to remove the PVC hose & substitute it with the catch can hoses but that doesn't seem to be possible. I hate to cut the PVC hose without having a replacement but I haven't been able to locate it online. Does anyone know the number or where I could find it? Does the hose come with a PVC valve? They seem to be molded together. Thanks!

SC2150
05-24-13, 10:46 AM
You can get a replacement stock line, but the RX can with integrated valve has never been not passed in an inspection, and there are over 12,000 of them in use over the past 9-10 years and no customer has ever told us they did not pass. But its possible with the cheap ones.

:thumbsup:

To order, call direct: 941-721-1826

----------

Here is a Email we recently received from a CTS owner:

Hey Tracy, Just wanted to thank you, and everyone at RevXtreme. I bought a catch can from you, for my 2005 CTS. Well since installing it i'm not consuming any oil anymore. I've had a close eye on the oil level since i have installed it and it hasn't used a drop. I don't know how or what that catch can has done to prevent the oil consumption. (I've read your tech tips article and understand the concept of how a catch can work.) I guess i am just baffeled that it something so simple like that could work.



Anyway just wanted to thank you. I was at my last wits end with this car and was about to put it back on the market, after the dealer replaced two motors under warrenty.



I'll be purchasing another catch can from you in the future. I have a 2000 Camaro SS that is getting a turbo as we speak, as a fun project street car.



But thanks again. It was definetly worth the wait.



Gabe Moulden

Wayne's World
05-24-13, 11:08 AM
Thanks for the reply, SC2150. I'm not worried about passing inspection, I just have an unnatural hang-up about altering anything. I think the first emissions test isn't for five or six years in NJ & I don't keep a car that long. I'll probably order a catch can as soon as I deside how I want to mount it, which could take a while.

Bandit1
05-24-13, 11:59 AM
SC2150-Sent you a PM.

Wayne's World
05-24-13, 03:50 PM
Bandit1, if you are referring to me could you tell me how to access it. I'm not too smart & I don't know anything about PMs. Thanks!

Tbbt
05-24-13, 05:57 PM
Bandit1, if you are referring to me could you tell me how to access it. I'm not too smart & I don't know anything about PMs. Thanks!

Wayne's World,

From another oldie, Bandit was saying he sent a PM (private Message) to Gabe at SRX. You can send a private message by clicking on the author's name in a post and choosing to send them a PM (this option has to be set up in profile). Hope this helps! Marv

Wayne's World
05-24-13, 06:36 PM
Thanks for clearing that up for me, Tbbt. I misunderstood his post but I should have known that he wouldn't have any way of knowing I had a message. I think. I said I wasn't too smart.

Bandit1
05-26-13, 05:59 PM
Bandit1, if you are referring to me could you tell me how to access it. I'm not too smart & I don't know anything about PMs. Thanks!

Wayne's World--My post was directed at "SC2150" (RX Performance) letting him know that I had sent him a PM (Private Message). Sometimes they receive a ping from a thread posting before noticing a PM notification. He received it and we connected. Tbbt beat me to it and was kind enough to explain the forum tech stuff...Thanks Tbbt.

Bandit1
05-28-13, 05:29 PM
SC2150--PayPal payment sent. Thanks

SC2150
05-30-13, 10:05 AM
:thumbsup:


I just saw my PM box was full as well.

denny2000
07-06-13, 03:08 PM
SC2150 - What is the difference between the single and dual check valve catch cans? The web site seems to have the same description for both models.
Is the dual check valve just for forced induction? Or does it just have two check valve to catch more oil?

Thanks!

Bandit1
07-13-13, 08:09 AM
:thumbsup:


I just saw my PM box was full as well.

SC2150--Sent you a PM and an e-mail for order status inquiry. Let me know ASAP please.

monogram124
08-12-13, 07:56 PM
Hey everyone. Just installed my RX catch can & had a question. I searched for an answer with no avail. Is the drain valve supposed to be all the way up (fully screwed) or all the way down (fully unscrewed)? It came out of the box all the way unscrewed. Thanks for any help

cawengr
08-12-13, 08:29 PM
It should be counter clockwise all the way out. This close the valve. Fully clockwise, in, opens the valve.

monogram124
08-13-13, 09:24 PM
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: 136170
Side: 136178
Front Complete: 136186
Side Complete: 136194

Mistercoffee2
08-25-13, 06:36 PM
! 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.


http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l586/mistercoffee2/2013-08-25163542.jpg

D VADER
08-27-13, 08:03 AM
Very creative idea!

DMill
11-16-13, 06:46 PM
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! :thumbsup:

ps: Found this photo (http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Copy_of_RXCatchCan009-1.jpg) ... 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???

arw1510
11-16-13, 09:26 PM
It does matter!

SC2150
11-17-13, 11:29 AM
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:
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/TRaditionalportinjection_zpsc5053606.png


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:
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Cleanvalveson36L.jpg


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:
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Traditionaldirectinjection_zps401e58d4.gif


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:
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/81vetterestoandcarbon022.jpg
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/LLTgunkonvalves.jpg

or 20K miles:
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/reardiffand36valves004_zps59fed3f9.jpg

or 50k miles:
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/junkcatchcanresults_zps03279f6b.jpg


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:

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Maggieintercoolerwithoilcontamination-1_zpsd4d22ca8.jpg

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:

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Pistonringlifted-1.jpg

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:

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/2011C6woilinintake001.jpg

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:

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/pistonscouring001_zps2deb69e8.jpg

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. :thumbsup:

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:

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/HoodandSilveradocatchcanpics013_zpsdbb1ebf3.jpg

V6 CTS/camaro:
http://www.revxtreme.com/instructions/20102011%20V6%20Camaro%20Catch%20Can.pdf


LSA:
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/ZL1dualvalveinstallation018_zps0a82a438.jpg


Turbo or Centri blower:
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Copy_of_RXCatchCan009-2.jpg

DMill
11-17-13, 01:03 PM
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).

SC2150
11-17-13, 07:15 PM
Good suggestion. Will have it changed.

Thanks for the input!

DMill
11-23-13, 08:46 PM
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 ...
163562
... 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. :rolleyes:

UpstateJonNY
12-06-13, 12:06 PM
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!

arw1510
12-06-13, 05:13 PM
So what's that article saying that we don't already know?

UpstateJonNY
12-07-13, 04:47 PM
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.)

arw1510
12-07-13, 10:47 PM
But doesn't the article acknowledge that it is an issue, but that as time and technology progresses they ate getting better with it?

Mistercoffee2
12-07-13, 11:23 PM
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.

arw1510
12-08-13, 08:32 AM
Well if it came with one from the factory, what are the consequences if it wasn't drained for 20k miles? Idk if they would want the liability of it with people who aren't good on regular maintenance

SC2150
12-08-13, 02:18 PM
Anyone wanting to see their valves in person, stop in. Will not charge to slip the boroscope in and show you in person just how bad this issue is. And arw150 summed it up properly. The factory solutions to date are all returning the trapped oil to the crankcase and if a solution is any better than app 20% effectiveness then it begins to also trap the damaging combustion byproducts and that will kill a motor quicker than most anything if not constantly evacuated while still in a suspended state. So there is no way (to date at least) to have an effective solution and NOT have to add another maintenance step to drain the junk at regular intervals.

And anyone that has any assumption that this is a GM only issue just has to look at all the pictures contributed by techs from every make of DI engine out there domestic and import, and this includes 4 stroke outboards, motorcycles, and snowmobiles:


https://www.google.com/search?q=intake+valve+buildup&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=K4U2UZufFI-W8gSW9oDQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=2021&bih=875#hl=en&q=Direct+Injection+intake+valve+buildup&tbm=isch&imgdii=_

http://drivegeek.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/gdi-carbon-buildup-issue-and-a-solution/

https://www.google.com/search?q=intake+valve+buildup&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=K4U2UZufFI-W8gSW9oDQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=2021&bih=875

Mistercoffee2
12-08-13, 02:38 PM
Well if it came with one from the factory, what are the consequences if it wasn't drained for 20k miles? Idk if they would want the liability of it with people who aren't good on regular maintenance

What's the liability, you get oil in the intake? I think that's what we have now. Any 2nd year engineering student could design a bypass system. How about building an air/oil separator into the valve cover so no, or very little, oil comes out.

Just saying. But as was said in the article, the solution may very well be to stop the buildup on the valves with some coating and burn the oil as non DI engines do.

It's not realistic to think VW and GM didn't try and reject the simple catch can.

Mistercoffee2
12-08-13, 06:09 PM
Anyone wanting to see their valves in person, stop in. Will not charge to slip the boroscope in and show you in person just how bad this issue is. And arw150 summed it up properly. The factory solutions to date are all returning the trapped oil to the crankcase and if a solution is any better than app 20% effectiveness then it begins to also trap the damaging combustion byproducts and that will kill a motor quicker than most anything if not constantly evacuated while still in a suspended state. So there is no way (to date at least) to have an effective solution and NOT have to add another maintenance step to drain the junk at regular intervals.

And anyone that has any assumption that this is a GM only issue just has to look at all the pictures contributed by techs from every make of DI engine out there domestic and import, and this includes 4 stroke outboards, motorcycles, and snowmobiles:


https://www.google.com/search?q=intake+valve+buildup&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=K4U2UZufFI-W8gSW9oDQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=2021&bih=875#hl=en&q=Direct+Injection+intake+valve+buildup&tbm=isch&imgdii=_

http://drivegeek.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/gdi-carbon-buildup-issue-and-a-solution/

https://www.google.com/search?q=intake+valve+buildup&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=K4U2UZufFI-W8gSW9oDQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=2021&bih=875


I think your constant use of these ugly photos in your posts is designed to alarm and very much self serving.

UpstateJonNY
12-08-13, 07:36 PM
I think your constant use of these ugly photos in your posts is designed to alarm and very much self serving.

Agreed mistercoffee2. The gentleman may be correct, but he has a financial interest in convincing owners they need this product. The most telling indicator: had Cadillac addressed this for the 3rd gen CTS?
MT car of the year, and designed to be a world beater. I don't think they would allow a potential issue this big after all the lessons they have learned in the last 5 years.

UpstateJonNY
12-08-13, 09:32 PM
Agreed mistercoffee2. The gentleman may be correct, but he has a financial interest in convincing owners they need this product. The most telling indicator: had Cadillac addressed this for the 3rd gen CTS?
MT car of the year, and designed to be a world beater. I don't think they would allow a potential issue this big after all the lessons they have learned in the last 5 years.

I also do not buy the argument that a catch can is needed, but left off, because consumers could not handle the maintenance. See MB Bluetec Diesels. These use urea injection to treat emissions. I don't know of any aftermarket urea suppliers, aside from the obvious. So I believe it must be dealer serviced. When the urea container nears empty the system gives several warnings. If not remedied the vehicle eventually will not start.
Cleaning a catch can filter seems relatively simple by comparison.

SC2150
12-09-13, 12:37 PM
What's the liability, you get oil in the intake? I think that's what we have now. Any 2nd year engineering student could design a bypass system. How about building an air/oil separator into the valve cover so no, or very little, oil comes out.

Just saying. But as was said in the article, the solution may very well be to stop the buildup on the valves with some coating and burn the oil as non DI engines do.

It's not realistic to think VW and GM didn't try and reject the simple catch can.

They have improved the valve cover baffle system to (quote from GM) " reduce oil ingestion by up to 300% better than previous designs". But they cannot make a separator that returns the oil to the crankcase any more efficient than app. 20% or it begins to also trap and return the damaging combustion byproducts that the PCV system must evacuate and remove while still in suspension. Only an external device can do this. If you thinkkoil ingestion in your intake air charge is not harmful, by all means live with it....most do.

Then by all means don't use one...the photos are actual 3.6DI and non DI engines and more, I did not submit all of them...they are from techs from every manufacturer you can think of and they certainly have nothing to gain by sharing them. And to bypass the PCV system will result in drastically shortened engine life if your not removing the combustion byproducts while still in a suspended state. And anyone is welcome to bring their car in and see this in person, on their car, at not charge...then there is no "he said, she said"...it is right there to see in person.


I think your constant use of these ugly photos in your posts is designed to alarm and very much self serving.


Agreed mistercoffee2. The gentleman may be correct, but he has a financial interest in convincing owners they need this product. The most telling indicator: had Cadillac addressed this for the 3rd gen CTS?
MT car of the year, and designed to be a world beater. I don't think they would allow a potential issue this big after all the lessons they have learned in the last 5 years.

If all my goal was purely financial, I certainly would not endorse competitors products that also do a good job at preventing these issues. And why does GM and every other auto manufacturer try to sell you upper induction cleaning services to "remove harmful intake valve deposits and restore lost power & fuel economy" every 10k miles at a cost of more than a good catchcan that eliminates the need for it?

GM did address one of the issues, the PCV barb fixed orfice is now of a larger diameter than in the past...just as I have shared on these forums to mod for years. But that is only a partial fix.




I also do not buy the argument that a catch can is needed, but left off, because consumers could not handle the maintenance. See MB Bluetec Diesels. These use urea injection to treat emissions. I don't know of any aftermarket urea suppliers, aside from the obvious. So I believe it must be dealer serviced. When the urea container nears empty the system gives several warnings. If not remedied the vehicle eventually will not start.
Cleaning a catch can filter seems relatively simple by comparison.

Apples and oranges. Diesels and urea injection is for emission's, this is on a gasoline 4 stroke engine and for internal build up. And a diesel engine is nothing like a gasoline engine. Try and fill up with diesel and see how well your car runs.

These threads are not for those that are satisfied with the way your car came from the factory. These are for those that care about the best care, best performance, best economy, and longest life from their pride and joy. And there would hardly be so many non-stop industry publications and engineering blogs on this issue if it was not a concern. You have an engine used in some of the lowest cost vehicles in America.....the engineers hardly have unlimited budgets for the best solutions to issues....these are not Ferrari's or Bentley's costing several hundred thousand $ where engineers can develop the best solutions. If your logic was sound there would never be a need for an aftermarket CAI, exhaust, suspension, camshaft, blowers, heat exchangers, tires, brakes, etc. as they would already be the best possible. And GM certainly would not have changed the design of the 3.67L fixed orfice PCV barb after over 10 years of the problem prone one to a copy of the modified one we have been posting about with instructions on how to modify for years.

It is a free country, you can treat your vehicle as you choose...but to argue opinion (I assume you are not a GM tech or engine builder such as I am, correct? and I have been for over 39 years) VS actual facts and industry data serves no one here that does want the best.

calif phil
12-09-13, 01:28 PM
SC2150 What year did GM change the PCV barb to a bigger one?

p.s. thanks for all the info you provide to this forum. It's nice to hear from someone who has as much experience as you do with these 3.6's

UpstateJonNY
12-09-13, 09:54 PM
They have improved the valve cover baffle system to (quote from GM) " reduce oil ingestion by up to 300% better than previous designs". But they cannot make a separator that returns the oil to the crankcase any more efficient than app. 20% or it begins to also trap and return the damaging combustion byproducts that the PCV system must evacuate and remove while still in suspension. Only an external device can do this. If you thinkkoil ingestion in your intake air charge is not harmful, by all means live with it....most do.

Then by all means don't use one...the photos are actual 3.6DI and non DI engines and more, I did not submit all of them...they are from techs from every manufacturer you can think of and they certainly have nothing to gain by sharing them. And to bypass the PCV system will result in drastically shortened engine life if your not removing the combustion byproducts while still in a suspended state. And anyone is welcome to bring their car in and see this in person, on their car, at not charge...then there is no "he said, she said"...it is right there to see in person.

If all my goal was purely financial, I certainly would not endorse competitors products that also do a good job at preventing these issues. And why does GM and every other auto manufacturer try to sell you upper induction cleaning services to "remove harmful intake valve deposits and restore lost power & fuel economy" every 10k miles at a cost of more than a good catchcan that eliminates the need for it?

GM did address one of the issues, the PCV barb fixed orfice is now of a larger diameter than in the past...just as I have shared on these forums to mod for years. But that is only a partial fix.

Apples and oranges. Diesels and urea injection is for emission's, this is on a gasoline 4 stroke engine and for internal build up. And a diesel engine is nothing like a gasoline engine. Try and fill up with diesel and see how well your car runs.

These threads are not for those that are satisfied with the way your car came from the factory. These are for those that care about the best care, best performance, best economy, and longest life from their pride and joy. And there would hardly be so many non-stop industry publications and engineering blogs on this issue if it was not a concern. You have an engine used in some of the lowest cost vehicles in America.....the engineers hardly have unlimited budgets for the best solutions to issues....these are not Ferrari's or Bentley's costing several hundred thousand $ where engineers can develop the best solutions. If your logic was sound there would never be a need for an aftermarket CAI, exhaust, suspension, camshaft, blowers, heat exchangers, tires, brakes, etc. as they would already be the best possible. And GM certainly would not have changed the design of the 3.67L fixed orfice PCV barb after over 10 years of the problem prone one to a copy of the modified one we have been posting about with instructions on how to modify for years.

It is a free country, you can treat your vehicle as you choose...but to argue opinion (I assume you are not a GM tech or engine builder such as I am, correct? and I have been for over 39 years) VS actual facts and industry data serves no one here that does want the best.

I think you may have missed my point on the diesel reference. And as I said, you may even be correct, but I was simply reminding folks of caveat emptor. You would probaby agree that the conversation is often steered towards these products that owners must have or risk severe consequences, across different sections and models in this forum, perhaps on different forums as well. A skeptic asks himself these questions. And as I said, a boroscope on one's own engine answers a lot of questions.

SC2150
12-10-13, 02:02 PM
SC2150 What year did GM change the PCV barb to a bigger one?

p.s. thanks for all the info you provide to this forum. It's nice to hear from someone who has as much experience as you do with these 3.6's

Mid 2013. We see some of the early 2013's still have the smaller orfice, but later and all 2014 have the larger size now. Eliminates much of the cleanside ingestion especially over time as the tiny orfices would clog with buildup.


I think you may have missed my point on the diesel reference. And as I said, you may even be correct, but I was simply reminding folks of caveat emptor. You would probaby agree that the conversation is often steered towards these products that owners must have or risk severe consequences, across different sections and models in this forum, perhaps on different forums as well. A skeptic asks himself these questions. And as I said, a boroscope on one's own engine answers a lot of questions.

Have to agree 100% on the boroscope. We offer this service free just to show.

If you have a DI engine, I would like to have you do so and take pictures to show. Simple to pull the intake manifold itself and see with a flashlight as well as the ports are not that deep.

Here is how GM redesigned the new V8 valve covers with a very complex baffle/oil separating system:
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/LT1valvecoverdesign_zps47d5da79.jpg

compared to the V8's from 1997 to 2013:
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii115/RevXtreme1/Billtwinturbo002_zps46689137.jpg

:thumbsup:

calif phil
12-10-13, 02:51 PM
Thanks for the clarification on the barb. Can the bigger barb be retrofitted to my 2012?

Mistercoffee2
12-10-13, 04:02 PM
If you have a DI engine, I would like to have you do so and take pictures to show. Simple to pull the intake manifold itself and see with a flashlight as well as the ports are not that deep.


Don't misunderstand my rants, I have no doubt the photos you show are real. I doubt your product fixes it.

Any photos of a car that has run your can for 30K miles?

TNSS
01-22-14, 10:34 PM
I just bought a 2009 cts with the 3.6DI motor with 50k miles. I run a catch can on my LS2 TBSS and am a firm believer in them. My first mod will be a catch can. My question is once I get this installed how do I clean the top end and get all the old oil that has already gotten into it?

bluefleetwood
01-22-14, 11:58 PM
Only because I'm ignorant, someone please help me understand how the intake valves acquire such build up when they are in the closed position during detonation and exhaust. If only filtered air is passing through them when they are opened? :confused:

----------


Only because I'm ignorant, someone please help me understand how the intake valves acquire such build up when they are in the closed position during detonation and exhaust. If only filtered air is passing through them when they are opened? :confused:

Never mind, I just realized after I posted. That whole pcv......

cawengr
01-31-14, 07:35 PM
Just checked my catch can today as I am going in for an oil change tomorrow morning. I was very surprised at what I found, it was about 3/4 full. I had just emptied it about a month ago. I live in the Chicago area and we have had some unusually cold weather. The content of the can was mostly what looked like water. Probably moisture, condensation out of the crankcase being caught in the can along with the normal oil mist. The can is doing a superb job of condensing the liquids out of the air stream.
Everyone in a cold climate should take heed to empty it more frequently in the cold weather.

bluefleetwood
01-31-14, 07:53 PM
Just checked my catch can today as I am going in for an oil change tomorrow morning. I was very surprised at what I found, it was about 3/4 full. I had just emptied it about a month ago. I live in the Chicago area and we have had some unusually cold weather. The content of the can was mostly what looked like water. Probably moisture, condensation out of the crankcase being caught in the can along with the normal oil mist. The can is doing a superb job of condensing the liquids out of the air stream.
Everyone in a cold climate should take heed to empty it more frequently in the cold weather.

WOW a month ago? How many miles from a month ago?

cawengr
02-01-14, 03:49 PM
I only go about 800 miles a month. Mostly to and from work about 20 min trip at 45 mph or less in city traffic. I believe this accelerates the moisture issue as the car just gets warm and I am shutting it off again. Good place for the condensation to build.
No Issue I will just keep a better eye on it, I'll check it every two to three weeks in the winter.