For anyone who has ever doubted catch can...

[GunMonkeyINTL]

This doesn't pass the smell-test.... so the EPA "wants" us to burn more motor oil?

No.
There have two choices, drip it on the highway, or burn it- so they prefer that it gets burned.

A catch can offers a thirds choice: catch it and then dispose of it with your oil going in for recycling.

 

[tplee]

No.
There have two choices, drip it on the highway, or burn it- so they prefer that it gets burned.

A catch can offers a thirds choice: catch it and then dispose of it with your oil going in for recycling.

That's my point...if there were anything to this catch-can technology, it would seem that 1) Ford would have incorporated it or 2) the EPA would have mandated it.

I think this is maybe--just maybe--something we are all ready to believe is a problem, but is actually not a problem at all. It is, however, very lucrative for the aftermarket vendors. You know, the ones with all the experts telling you how important it is to buy and install their product?

I admit, it appeals to my own intuition; but if fails to withstand logic.

 

[pastorwug]

hoping @Mishimoto will get an update on their catch-can availability

 

[Droid]

If I had a purely direct-injection engine I'd be all over the catch can. With a newer engine that is both port and direct injected to solve this exact issue, I'm probably not going to worry unless someone can show a proper A/B comparison (i.e., valves after 25k miles with/without).

That said, even if catch cans are a fantastic idea and double the life of the HO EB, Ford would not add them. They require "frequent" maintenance and additional manual waste recycling. And if not maintained, they can cause major problems (reliability and damage).

 

[GunMonkeyINTL]

That's my point...if there were anything to this catch-can technology, it would seem that 1) Ford would have incorporated it or 2) the EPA would have mandated it.

I think this is maybe--just maybe--something we are all ready to believe is a problem, but is actually not a problem at all. It is, however, very lucrative for the aftermarket vendors. You know, the ones with all the experts telling you how important it is to buy and install their product?

I admit, it appeals to my own intuition; but if fails to withstand logic.

I think your logic is flawed. Neither your #1 or #2 outcomes stand up to reason.

The EPA doesn’t care if your intake valves get dirty. They just don’t want your crankcase breath getting on the road and into the waterways. They’ve mandated a solution where the stuff ends up back in your engine- problems solved in their eyes.

In order for Ford to care, the catch can would have to solve a problem serious enough to be causing enough engine failures, within the warranty term, to offset them having to put the $20 or so worth of parts into EVERY DI engine they build. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone claim that this has caused an engine failure within the warranty period- so it never was a problem to Ford.

In fact, Ford may end up with worse problems on their hands if they put these into every car they sell to the masses. Think about how many people use their Check Engine Light as their crankcase dipstick. At least twice that number would never drain their catch-can.


I don’t think this is one of those issues where, if you don’t install one, you’re going to quickly ruin your engine.

It’s a fairly well-grounded solution to a relatively minor problem, for people who take maintaining their machinery seriously.

 

[COBB Tuning]

That's my point...if there were anything to this catch-can technology, it would seem that 1) Ford would have incorporated it or 2) the EPA would have mandated it.

I think this is maybe--just maybe--something we are all ready to believe is a problem, but is actually not a problem at all. It is, however, very lucrative for the aftermarket vendors. You know, the ones with all the experts telling you how important it is to buy and install their product?

I admit, it appeals to my own intuition; but if fails to withstand logic.

All you need to do is look towards motorsports to understand the real value of a catch-can breather system - no one will waste weight or engine bay space for something that doesn't work. It's no myth that the oil vapor in blow-by can contribute to detonation. I don't think anyone will try to convince you that a stock, normally-driven Raptor wouldn't make it to 100k without a catch can. But, for an aggressively tuned truck that sees aggressive use, there is legitimate value - either in the form of peace of mind, or by allowing your tuner to push ignition timing further without undue risk.

All that the EPA has really regulated is that crankcase pressure and oil vapor cannot be vented directly to the atmosphere. We've even gotten a CARB EO for our Subaru AOS system. But I think that 'normal customer' expectations from a manufacturer like Ford is to limit maintenance as much as possible, not to mention cost. I mean, most folks struggle to keep up with oil changes! So, if Ford installs a catch can that may need draining every 3-5k, people either avoid purchasing the vehicle due to the 'unreasonable' maintenance intervals and/or increased cost, or ignore the maintenance and let the systems overflow. For Ford, I think the conventional PCV system design makes a lot of sense. But that doesn't mean that we, as enthusiasts, can't alter that system's design to meet our needs.

The science is there, it's just cost/benefit analysis from a variety of perspectives.

 

[tplee]

I think your logic is flawed. Neither your #1 or #2 outcomes stand up to reason.

The EPA doesn’t care if your intake valves get dirty. They just don’t want your crankcase breath getting on the road and into the waterways. They’ve mandated a solution where the stuff ends up back in your engine- problems solved in their eyes.

In order for Ford to care, the catch can would have to solve a problem serious enough to be causing enough engine failures, within the warranty term, to offset them having to put the $20 or so worth of parts into EVERY DI engine they build. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone claim that this has caused an engine failure within the warranty period- so it never was a problem to Ford.

In fact, Ford may end up with worse problems on their hands if they put these into every car they sell to the masses. Think about how many people use their Check Engine Light as their crankcase dipstick. At least twice that number would never drain their catch-can.


I don’t think this is one of those issues where, if you don’t install one, you’re going to quickly ruin your engine.

It’s a fairly well-grounded solution to a relatively minor problem, for people who take maintaining their machinery seriously.

I didn't reveal to you any of my "logic". I assure you, it goes much deeper than I'm prepared to go into on this forum.

I don't pretend to know what motivates the EPA. But I do know that burning fossil fuels is at or near the top of a list of environmental concerns.

I'll also concede the point that Ford would be very slow if not downright resistant to implement any change that is not absolutely necessary in their manufacturing line. History proves this out.

But for anyone that wants to, run the catch can by all means. It seems like a neat idea. But the reasons for doing so are not founded in logic or backed up by data... at least so far as I can tell.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[tplee]

All you need to do is look towards motorsports to understand the real value of a catch-can breather system - no one will waste weight or engine bay space for something that doesn't work. It's no myth that the oil vapor in blow-by can contribute to detonation. I don't think anyone will try to convince you that a stock, normally-driven Raptor wouldn't make it to 100k without a catch can. But, for an aggressively tuned truck that sees aggressive use, there is legitimate value - either in the form of peace of mind, or by allowing your tuner to push ignition timing further without undue risk.

All that the EPA has really regulated is that crankcase pressure and oil vapor cannot be vented directly to the atmosphere. We've even gotten a CARB EO for our Subaru AOS system. But I think that 'normal customer' expectations from a manufacturer like Ford is to limit maintenance as much as possible, not to mention cost. I mean, most folks struggle to keep up with oil changes! So, if Ford installs a catch can that may need draining every 3-5k, people either avoid purchasing the vehicle due to the 'unreasonable' maintenance intervals and/or increased cost, or ignore the maintenance and let the systems overflow. For Ford, I think the conventional PCV system design makes a lot of sense. But that doesn't mean that we, as enthusiasts, can't alter that system's design to meet our needs.

The science is there, it's just cost/benefit analysis from a variety of perspectives.

I can't disagree with any of your points....save perhaps for the drastic differences between consumer vehicles and race vehicles.

Weather snake oil or not, I am grateful for the vibrant aftermarket that these trucks attract. And I appreciate folks like you on this forum humoring schlubs like me.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[COBB Tuning]

I can't disagree with any of your points....save perhaps for the drastic differences between consumer vehicles and race vehicles.

Weather snake oil or not, I am grateful for the vibrant aftermarket that these trucks attract. And I appreciate folks like you on this forum humoring schlubs like me.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Skepticism and discussion is how we all learn (and keep each other honest)!

 

[Muchmore]

I really want to find a way to drain the catch cans back into the dipstick tube. Just let it go into the pan with all the other crap and be drained at oil change time.