lildisco Posted May 23, 2018 Report Share Posted May 23, 2018 So it's only going to catch the gunk under non boost situations & only on 1 side. I like the ease of install & placement, but it just doesn't seem like it will do much in preventing most of the gunk from getting by. It certainly is better than nothing! This unit would probably be ok for the average consumer merging onto the Freeway. I'd be a little more concerned if you're a spirited driver or track it. I'm not advocating or promoting any product! Just stating my opinion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmjim Posted May 23, 2018 Report Share Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) Pull the clean side off every time you change oil and swab it with a Q-tip, there's your proof no matter how you drive... Edited May 23, 2018 by snmjim 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmjim Posted May 28, 2018 Report Share Posted May 28, 2018 Buyers be ware: Great find Xtra! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randhj Posted May 28, 2018 Report Share Posted May 28, 2018 (edited) TeamRXP update: drained the car today after putting on 3,052 miles. Retrieved 12.5 mL of what appears to be 90% oil. I first drained by ball valve and then opened up bottom plate of can to get remainder. When looking inside the can, the filter does have some residual caught inside. Seems like a very minor amount. I contacted RXP to troubleshoot. Additionally I checked out the clean side seperator(CSS). Remember the CSS is not connected to the can and is a self contained system. Visually, it definitely is catching oil. I will pick up a small scale and weight the can and CSS from drain to drain to see any additional oil being caught by weight differences. I would imagine this would have been ideal to do at the onset of the installation as the media should be fully saturated at this point. I will be alternating my frequency of collection to try and plot a trend line to see if the rate of collection is linear. Edited May 28, 2018 by Randhj 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xtra Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 Finally got around to installing the JLT catch can today. The install is super easy and quick, it only takes a few minutes with basic hand tools. It took me around 15 minutes because I had to R&R the Strut Tower Cross Brace otherwise it is a 10 min job. Having the hose pre cut to length with snap on connectors makes it super easy and neat. The finished install looks OEM except the JLT logo is cut into the bracket. If the JLT logo was not there you would never know it was a aftermarket item. I gave it a test drive and everything check out fine. I will report what it catches after 1,000 miles. For cost, ease of install and OEM looks the JLT catch can is hard to beat. I can also restore the car to stock for smog inspections just as easy and fast. The peace of mind it gives protecting the heads and valves is worth the price alone. It is a good fix for a basic design flaw by Ford. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1004ron Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) Finally got around to installing the JLT catch can today. The install is super easy and quick, it only takes a few minutes with basic hand tools. It took me around 15 minutes because I had to R&R the Strut Tower Cross Brace otherwise it is a 10 min job. Having the hose pre cut to length with snap on connectors makes it super easy and neat. The finished install looks OEM except the JLT logo is cut into the bracket. If the JLT logo was not there you would never know it was a aftermarket item. I gave it a test drive and everything check out fine. I will report what it catches after 1,000 miles. For cost, ease of install and OEM looks the JLT catch can is hard to beat. I can also restore the car to stock for smog inspections just as easy and fast. The peace of mind it gives protecting the heads and valves is worth the price alone. It is a good fix for a basic design flaw by Ford. I'll need a few reports confirming the performance of any of the catch-can systems mentioned in this thread before I claim "peace of mind". Do we have any evidence that the Sport has a "basic design flaw by Ford". or is it just hype and hearsay? Edited June 19, 2018 by 1004ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randhj Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 The second gen 3.5 ecoboost has gone to dual port and direct injection. To my knowledge Ford hasnt claimed that this is to help relieve issues of coking by washing the intake valves, but why would they. If they did it would be an admission to a design flaw with gen 1 V6 ecoboost motors. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmjim Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) Per the engineering field terms and qualifiers the following applies... It wouldn't qualify as a flaw but more of a design characteristic that manufactures accepted after enough historical data came available deeming it preferable to mitigate the issue since it deteriorates performance & fuel economy over the long term life (40-50k) of the engine. So since then manufactures have come up with various designs to resolve this issue i.e. adding an additional injector behind the intake valve to wash it at every intake stroke. However, for those of us with this design and who want to mitigate it they should install a catch can, that's if longevity of performance and fuel economy are concerns for you. Recommend referencing my post on page #5 of this topic string for incremental measurements of catch can drainage... Edited June 18, 2018 by snmjim 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmjim Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) Per Randj's post... It appears this is for the 2nd Gen 3.5 ecoboost and does "NOT" apply to the Edge Sport 2.7 ecoboost... Edited June 18, 2018 by snmjim 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omar302 Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 Just read the attached General Service Bulletin (GSB - Gasoline Engine oil and coolant leaks at the turbocharger) and found an interesting bit of info: NOTE: It is normal for a small amount of combustion gas to pass into the crankcase. This gas is scavenged into the air intakesystem through the PCV system, which incorporates a crankcase vent oil separator. Some engine oil, in the form of a vapor iscarried into the air intake system with the blow-by gases (this engine oil also contributes to valve seat durability). This means thatoil will collect inside the air intake components and the turbocharger. This is not an indication that the turbocharger oil seal hasfailed. The turbocharger oil seal will generally not fail unless the bearings fail first, which will cause the turbocharger to becomenoisy or seize. Do not install a new turbocharger due to oil inside the turbocharger or the air intake components. If a leak isdetected in the oil supply or return tubes or connections, locate and rectify the source. Do not install a new turbocharger due toan oil leak. G0000185.pdf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmjim Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 Seriously not trying to be a Richard Cranium but what does this have to do with this topic string??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omar302 Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 I thought it is the same oil that is collected in the catch can, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmjim Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) I thought it is the same oil that is collected in the catch can, isn't it? Yes, but what & how does it contribute to this topic string? It appears to be more of a notice not to change Turbos due 2 this issue. Edited June 19, 2018 by snmjim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLinNBC Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 The statement about the oil in the intake tract contributing to valve seat durability (which Omar highlighted in red) speaks directly to this topic, I believe, in that it says the oil is a good thing so maybe taking it out with a catch can is not a good thing. Appears to be the Furd position. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1004ron Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 Just read the attached General Service Bulletin (GSB - Gasoline Engine oil and coolant leaks at the turbocharger) and found an interesting bit of info: NOTE: It is normal for a small amount of combustion gas to pass into the crankcase. This gas is scavenged into the air intakesystem through the PCV system, which incorporates a crankcase vent oil separator. Who 'can' confirm if our Sport incorporates the crankcase vent oil separator - if it does, that would explain why Beez reports that his expensive catch-can installation doesn't catch anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmjim Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 Totally get your point KLinNBC However, if U Ref the Pics in my 2nd post on page 5 of this topic string I seriously doubt any rational engineering minded individual can call that amount of coking as acceptable? Do U not agree? SpecialK. your perspective on the issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1004ron Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 Totally get your point KLinNBC However, if U Ref the Pics in my 2nd post on page 5 of this topic string I seriously doubt any rational engineering minded individual can call that amount of coking as acceptable? Do U not agree? SpecialK. your perspective on the issue? No, SpecialK's S4 Audi direct injection V6 after 57k It would be more credible if we posted reports and images of a Ford Sport in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmjim Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) It would be more credible if we posted reports and images of a Ford Sport in this thread. Ok then Pg 1 post #4 of this topic string. Intake valve coking is coking no matter what 4 stroke direct injected motor it's on. Recommendation: Read from the beginning of this entire topic string to have a full understanding of where Xtra, SpecialK & myself where going with this topic string... Edited June 19, 2018 by snmjim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmjim Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 Just read the attached General Service Bulletin (GSB - Gasoline Engine oil and coolant leaks at the turbocharger) and found an interesting bit of info: Omar, what year & model do U have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omar302 Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 2016 Sport. I wasn't trying to say catch cans are good or not, but was stated in the bulletin is interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1004ron Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 Ok then Pg 1 post #4 of this topic string. Intake valve coking is coking no matter what 4 stroke direct injected motor it's on. Recommendation: Read from the beginning of this entire topic string to have a full understanding of where Xtra, SpecialK & myself where going with this topic string... Ordered a billet one with standard hose. The braided hose cost to much and is unnecessary bling. Braided hose is great for high pressure or wear resistance. I paid $498.99 + shipping for a total of $517.99. If it prevents things like in these photos then it is money well spent . What is the use of porting heads or a 3 angle valve job if they collect junk like in these photos. The point I'm making is that as yet we have no evidence that the Sport is indeed fouling anything similar to the pictures presented of other non-Ford vehicles, and once we know that, we can make an educated decision on the need to add an aftermarket catch-can. You could present argument that there's no harm done adding a catch-can whether we need it or not, but why not present it as such in the absence of actual model specific data. This gas is scavenged into the air intake system through the PCV system, which incorporates a crankcase vent oil separator Can anyone confirm if the above is true for the Sport? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLinNBC Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 Like Omar, I'm not saying that a catch can is good or bad. Ford, however, is saying that the oil in the intake tract is beneficial to valve seat life which infers that a catch can to remove the oil is detrimental. First time I ever heard that valve seats benefit from lubrication. I do agree that coking in SOME direct injection engines has been a problem, often a big problem. Whether it's an issue specifically in the EB 2.7 would be good to know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snmjim Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) Great & healthy discussion here and as I said before...not trying to be the ass hat downer but just trying to contribute to the Info share so everyone can draw educated conclusions with a full deck. Ref my ongoing Eval in this topic string (Pg 5 SnmJim 5th post) which provides the hard evidence that a catch can on a 2016 Edge Sport is needed and if the oil vapors are in fact needed for valve lubrication then what gets by the catch can should be sufficient. Valve lubrication issue: Back in the days of leaded gas, one of the primary purposes of lead in the fuel was to cushion & lubricate the valve seats,,,fact... Crankcase vent oil separator issue: if you once again Ref my post (Pg 5 SnmJim 5th post Pics) I can say with 99% assurance that an oil separator does not exist where the PCV vents to the intake. In the Pics you can see the stock hose & connection points that connects the PCV to the intake, just after the throttle body. FYI... SpecialK & I will be pulling the intake off sometime this Summer/Fall time frame to validate what 55k worth of PCV venting does to your intake valves. Maybe with a little luck NOTHING... Edited June 19, 2018 by snmjim 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWPerfA_ZN0W Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 ya i am interested to see what you find by way of PCV emissions and valve seat lubrication. Sounds like a bit of hoke-dom to me, since the seats are supposed to be hardened. Is the same warning true in PFI engines too? Fuel washes over the valves and valve seats, so I imagine there is NO lubrication there. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randhj Posted June 20, 2018 Report Share Posted June 20, 2018 To prove the Catch Can is not necessary we would need to pull the heads and evaluate it on a car with high miles that has not had a catch can. To my knowledge this has not been done to our engines. For me it was worth a relatively small investment to get the can on early in the vehicles life, as I look to get a 150k miles out of this vehicle before moving to the next one and I would rather not be the person to experiment not having it on. If I were one to trade a car every 36k ofcourse I would not care and run it without a can. From everything I read this is an inherent problem with having a direct injection only engine and exasperated by the turbochargers. My father recently purchased a brand new 2018 Raptor and I did not recommend he buy a catch can based on the fact they added port injection to that motor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.