Stingray Corvette Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The first pics of a C7's intake valves to prove what many won't choose to believe until it is severe enough to do damage.

3200 miles, and already look closely at the buildup in the intake ports and the valve back-sides as well as the stem. See where the valve guide is scrapping the buildup off? This is already causing wear to the valve guide from this abrasive coating, and look closely at the valve backside itself. See how this coking is already building up? With out a perfectly clean/smooth surface this is causing vortices and disrupting flow. Not much degradation in volumetric efficiency at this stage, but this is only 3200 miles. Think 10-15k miles how bad it will be. So, naysayers, and those that are choosing to ignore this.....just watch.




Wont be long before they look like this (app 20K miles):


Here are what the intake ports and valves of a port injection engine look like t 140,000 miles in comparison. I will take a picture of some LS1 heads up close and post Monday to show apples to apples:


So, those that have invested $70-$80k into this beautiful machine and choose to ignore the unique care a DI engine needs, fair warning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
In all fairness, in order to prove your contention we need to see some pictures of "catch can" engines after similar mileage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
I bought my C7 to drive it and enjoy the car as much as possible yet I wanted to protect my investment as much as possible in both it's appearance and performance. I installed splash guards for about $150 to protect the car from rocks being thrown off the tires and up against the paint, I installed a CQuartz sealant to the paint to preserve and protect the finish at about $1200 with paint corrections, I am about to drop $1500 + to protect the exposed paint with a PPG film to keep rocks and road debris from marking up the most vulnerable parts of my car. To me this is all preventative measures to keep my car looking it's best as long as possible, I did not need pictures of cars with and without these items to understand the benefits of these products and to prove to me their worth. I was not going to park my car and wait for someone to post pictures of their intake valves that were protected from oil ingestion with a catch can and compare it to cars without these cans before I purchased and installed this device. I had already found oil in my intake which proved to me that these engines have a problem and GM did not properly protect them.
I want to drive my car and not be concerned about how much I am building up deposits on the back of the intake valves. In my opinion the $400 investment for this peace of mind is a small price to pay. But then again this is only my opinion, but I am putting miles on my car every weekend and enjoying it. I already have 3800 miles and I was not willing to chance damaging my engine while I waited for someone to take a virgin engine and install a catch can, and then wait while they put 3000 miles on it and then took pictures to prove its value.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Good points... I'd say the $400 was worth it just for your peace of mind. My car arrives in 6 weeks and I hope we have real data on this modification so I can install one if needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
I have never keep a new car more than 4 years so I guess this will be the next owner’s problem. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCC74ME

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
I have never keep a new car more than 4 years so I guess this will be the next owner’s problem. ;)
If the next buyer is educated about the problem, it will affect the amount they may be willing to pay.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
739 Posts
I have never keep a new car more than 4 years so I guess this will be the next owner’s problem. ;)
While the "build up" might be the next guys problem, it will slowly degrade the performance of your car. The GM motors relieve themselves of crank case pressure by using the intake tube vacuum to pull it from itself and ingest it. While it solves a major problem, it does create a small secondary problem. If anything, the build up will cause the engine to slightly detune itself over time and probably saves GM money on the back end with warranty claims as the car won't make as much power as within the first year haha. Pretty clever General!

Catch cans are really nothing more than the "recycled" air cleaner. It just filters the air that is pulled from the motor and into the air intake tube and you can drain it at regular oil change intervals. The proof will be in there, I promise! This was the oil drained from a catch can on a 2012 GM V8 car after a couple thousand miles of hard driving:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
283 Posts
I'm not one to buy snake oil products, but I'm a believer in the catch can. I have one on my challenger and on my Ram. I've had to empty them with every oil change and been happy to do so knowing that the oil isn't being recycled back through the intake causing a bunch of gunk. For $80-$90, it's well worth the investment and reversible if you ever sale your vehicle. I'll be adding one to my corvette as well when I get it. Just my two cents...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,453 Posts
I'm not one to buy snake oil products, but I'm a believer in the catch can. I have one on my challenger and on my Ram. I've had to empty them with every oil change and been happy to do so knowing that the oil isn't being recycled back through the intake causing a bunch of gunk. For $80-$90, it's well worth the investment and reversible if you ever sale your vehicle. I'll be adding one to my corvette as well when I get it. Just my two cents...

I'm convinced....a friend had one and is not getting the c7 so I took it. I'll mount and report on how much oil I get in the can using it as a grocery getter...no perf use what so ever.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,672 Posts
I'm convinced....a friend had one and is not getting the c7 so I took it. I'll mount and report on how much oil I get in the can using it as a grocery getter...no perf use what so ever.....
I'm glad to see some of the senior members looking into the effectiveness of the catch cans for the C7.

Since the oil that exits the PCV valve in a normally functioning car is in an aerosol form (particles of oil stripped from the piston rings and cylinder wall by the blow-by gases), catch cans would only be expected to capture a portion of the aerosol oil (without using complex filtration).

Of course, most manufacturers claim that all oil is captured, which is false. There have been investigations where two catch cans were installed in series, and the second can actually "catches" more than the first, presumably due to the resistance of the first can to airflow leading to slower flow through the 2nd can (and thus more effective operation of the 2nd can). Here's an active thread on this topic: http://www.f150forum.com/f70/upr-vs-rx-catch-can-effectiveness-test-254381/ Initial results are in post #37, followed by more data in later posts.

Which brings up another point - resistance to air flow. By their nature, through the extra "plumbing" and re-routing of PCV gasses (often through media like steel wool) the catch can will reduce PCV air flow. It has to, it's just physics. How much is the PCV flow reduced? 5%, 10%, 20% - who knows, the manufacturers don't say. Reduced PCV flow, and the associated reduced removal of damaging combustion gases, will lead to faster oil degradation and other negative engine consequences.

And then there are the claims of increased fuel economy when a catch can is installed. A 2-3MPG increase is routinely claimed by one vendor. Think about that - an item that can be mass produced for less than $25 and can produce a 2-3MPG increase? Certainly every manufacturer around the globe would install catch cans by default if this were true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,453 Posts
I was never against them, I just did not like the tone a vendor here presented that if we all did not get one immediately, all our engines would be toast in a few short years. I still don't believe that. But with DI you certainly can see it is a situation for the valve. How big a problem, I don't know, and with good oils like the syns, I'm sure it's not a huge one. But we'll mount it and report.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,542 Posts
Which brings up another point - resistance to air flow. By their nature, through the extra "plumbing" and re-routing of PCV gasses (often through media like steel wool) the catch can will reduce PCV air flow. It has to, it's just physics. How much is the PCV flow reduced? 5%, 10%, 20% - who knows, the manufacturers don't say. Reduced PCV flow, and the associated reduced removal of damaging combustion gases, will lead to faster oil degradation and other negative engine consequences.
I love the post above.

There are two things I have been thinking of posting, but have not yet. I might as well do it now.

1) On the Z51, what is the pressure on the hose which plugs into the PCV valve with the standard setup as it comes from the factory? Also, at the same location, what is the volume flow rate of air there?

2) What are the values for the same measurements (pressure and volume flow rate) when brand XYZ catch can is installed?

It is physics... It can't be the same for a passive system, unless the hoses are of different diameter or length. However, maybe it is very, very close?

I would love to hear about the internal constructions of really great catch cans, and the computational fluid dynamics simulations that have gone into their developments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,333 Posts
Something just dawned on me this evening while thinking about all of this. Don't mean to get off subject, but I was always under the impression there had to be fuel that had to run through (past) the rotors in any/all roots style or screw type blowers (Superchargers) because it helps lubricate and cool the rotors..... I'm probably just showing my outdated or lack of understanding on how the new supercharger systems work.... But the new Z06 appears to have a twin rotor supercharger and it's direct injected without any fuel going through the supercharger.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
896 Posts
I use catch cans in all my actually and pre-owned sports cars and it have always proven the need to use them (oil inside!).
On turbo models, the oil goes directly into the intercooler and participate a lot to over heat it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I'm glad to see some of the senior members looking into the effectiveness of the catch cans for the C7.

Since the oil that exits the PCV valve in a normally functioning car is in an aerosol form (particles of oil stripped from the piston rings and cylinder wall by the blow-by gases), catch cans would only be expected to capture a portion of the aerosol oil (without using complex filtration).

Of course, most manufacturers claim that all oil is captured, which is false. There have been investigations where two catch cans were installed in series, and the second can actually "catches" more than the first, presumably due to the resistance of the first can to airflow leading to slower flow through the 2nd can (and thus more effective operation of the 2nd can). Here's an active thread on this topic: UPR vs RX Catch Can Effectiveness Test - Ford F150 Forum - Community of Ford Truck Fans Initial results are in post #37, followed by more data in later posts.
No slow down or restriction of flow in the RX can. The design is clear to show and and the avg PCV system needs to flow at 450-650 CFM to properly evacuate the average v8 crankcase at the proper rate. So this is a non-issue with the RX can, but there are so many cans and different designs. The first couple pages of the long RX thread shows many with dissected and how they do and do not work properly.

Which brings up another point - resistance to air flow. By their nature, through the extra "plumbing" and re-routing of PCV gasses (often through media like steel wool) the catch can will reduce PCV air flow. It has to, it's just physics. How much is the PCV flow reduced? 5%, 10%, 20% - who knows, the manufacturers don't say. Reduced PCV flow, and the associated reduced removal of damaging combustion gases, will lead to faster oil degradation and other negative engine consequences.
Great point, and many cans are using very restrictive media and designs. Take one based upon a air compressor separator. The RX has no way to become restricted. We use a special stainless steel coalescing media and the make up is unlike any other can on the market:
(excuse the quick sketch)


And then there are the claims of increased fuel economy when a catch can is installed. A 2-3MPG increase is routinely claimed by one vendor. Think about that - an item that can be mass produced for less than $25 and can produce a 2-3MPG increase? Certainly every manufacturer around the globe would install catch cans by default if this were true.
I order to realize the fuel economy gains (the light truck and van fleets that have these installed do so for fuel savings alone as they are not concerned with engine longevity since they replace the fleets every 304 years) you must have a system like the RX that actually separates and traps all the oil/contaminates from the PCV vapors so no detonation is present to cause timing to be pulled. Thus the fuel economy increase.

I was never against them, I just did not like the tone a vendor here presented that if we all did not get one immediately, all our engines would be toast in a few short years. I still don't believe that. But with DI you certainly can see it is a situation for the valve. How big a problem, I don't know, and with good oils like the syns, I'm sure it's not a huge one. But we'll mount it and report.....
Glen. I haven't seen any post suggesting the engines will be toast in a few years, can you provide a link to those statements? Would not think as a professional you would post something untruthful....Would like to read that. And with your relationship to BMW and they being one of the most problematic with DI valve coking a simple visit to any dealers service center you could see first hand.

I love the post above.

There are two things I have been thinking of posting, but have not yet. I might as well do it now.

1) On the Z51, what is the pressure on the hose which plugs into the PCV valve with the standard setup as it comes from the factory? Also, at the same location, what is the volume flow rate of air there?

That would be the Fresh, or cleanside portion of the PCV system and flows app 600-650 CFM. It should never have pressure on it if the PCV system was designed properly, and thus there would be no oil forced back out it into the air bridge/air box. But due to the design it does allow pressure to build at times and "burp" oil backwards out of the fresh side line.

2) What are the values for the same measurements (pressure and volume flow rate) when brand XYZ catch can is installed?
The RX system has zero restriction over stock, and the Elite E2 does not either. Many of the empty Ebay cans do not either as there is no design inside to separate oil vapors....but some of the cheap ones do have very restrictive fittings.

It is physics... It can't be the same for a passive system, unless the hoses are of different diameter or length. However, maybe it is very, very close?

I would love to hear about the internal constructions of really great catch cans, and the computational fluid dynamics simulations that have gone into their developments.
Here is the link to the important first page explaining most: http://www.stingrayforums.com/forum...c7-oil-ingestion-issues-direct-injection.html
And here are can designs: http://www.stingrayforums.com/forum...-oil-ingestion-issues-direct-injection-4.html


Something just dawned on me this evening while thinking about all of this. Don't mean to get off subject, but I was always under the impression there had to be fuel that had to run through (past) the rotors in any/all roots style or screw type blowers (Superchargers) because it helps lubricate and cool the rotors..... I'm probably just showing my outdated or lack of understanding on how the new supercharger systems work.... But the new Z06 appears to have a twin rotor supercharger and it's direct injected without any fuel going through the supercharger.....
On old non-intercooled/aftercooled types there was a bit of truth to that on the fuel, but the oil would bake on and the residue throw off the critical balance of the rotors resulting in bearing/seal/shaft premature failure. That would be an old school 6-71 to 8-71 style blower. Very inefficient compared to todays PD blowers with all sealed lubrication where you want NO fuel or oil at all passing the rotors. It s a common misconception on both old and newer style PD blower that there would somehow be lubrication provided by oil ingestion. All have sealed bearings and oil bath, so there is nothing that could be lubricated, and you certainly dont want the oil residue baking on and throwing off the balance, and with todays intercoolers you would have them clogged and obstructed by this residue. Here is what a Maggie unit looks like by 15k milles.


I use catch cans in all my actually and pre-owned sports cars and it have always proven the need to use them (oil inside!).
On turbo models, the oil goes directly into the intercooler and participate a lot to over heat it.
Correct. There is nothing positive from oil ingestion into any blower or intercooler....but plenty of negatives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,453 Posts
Oh please , I have a job that takes me into several bmw dealerships this past month , and I always ask the SM and the answer is the same,"really not a big deal anymore since they made some changes in ’11."

I'm not saying it does not happen, just think you're sensationalizing it a bit. I am getting a can as I said.

I'm done here.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
And the latest independent test results showing the effectiveness of the RX system VS a popular design with app 30 private labels, but same basic design, and size:

Over 3 months, thousands of miles, showing the results. Catching all, or nearly all detectable oil from the PCV vapors:


5.0 UPR vs RX Catch Can Effectiveness Test

I’ve had a UPR catch can on my 5.0 since last summer. It catches a lot, especially in the cold months. But I’ll get right to my test. I added an RX can inline after my UPR can to see if the UPR was missing anything. And if it was allowing some to pass through, was it enough for the RX to catch anything? I don’t drive a lot of miles regularly since my F150 is not a daily driver, so my results will take some time. This thread is to document how I set it up and what I catch over time.
I installed the RX can just as the directions explained, but I routed the hoses differently. I left my UPR can right where it’s been for months, but rerouted one hose. I left the hose from the passenger side of the engine to the inlet of the UPR can. Then a new hose from UPR can outlet, routed to the inlet of the RX can. The RX outlet hose goes back to the engine. The PCV exhaust now flows from the engine, through the UPR, then through the RX, and finally back up to the engine intake.
Before installing everything for the test, I cleaned the UPR can thoroughly. The bottom of the can (inside) was covered with a thin layer of stiff sludge that I could only clean out using gas. I’m glad that was caught, along with the ounces of oil, water, etc, over the months I’ve been emptying it. But I was surprised at the outlet hose from the UPR can. It was wet with oil. Obviously some was getting through the can and back to my intake. I’ve never let the can get close to half full before emptying it. Nearly every time I’ve emptied it, there was 1/4“ or less in the bottom. I’m noting this in case someone thinks I left the UPR get overfilled and it flowed through. Nevertheless, I started this test after cleaning everything for a fresh start.
I plan to leave this setup on for a thousand miles or so, and report my findings from each can.
1st picture: UPR*can as it was originally installed.
2nd:*CleanUPR can.
3rd: RX can installed. The hose in the top center of the can is the inlet. The outlet hose on the right has a check valve.
4th:*Engine outlet to UPR inlet on left of can. UPR outlet on right side of can routed around (smaller hose) to the RX inlet. You can also see the other smaller hose coming back up from the RX can and ending at the intake on the engine.



Report 2:



I thought I'd add a post to keep this thread alive since it is taking me awhile to get enough miles on the truck for valid results. Now that spring weather is finally arriving, I haven't been putting as many miles on it since I'm busy. But I have around 600 miles on the test set up so far. I emptied the cans recently and recorded the volumes to date. I'd like to wait until I get to 1000 miles before posting the results from the test, but I'll give some preliminary feedback.

- Emptying process -*
First the UPR. I'm used to emptying the UPR can regularly, so it's not a big deal to unscrew, guide the can out from between the hoses, pour it out, guide it back in between the hoses, get it lined up carefully (so I don't cross thread the soft aluminum) and screw it back up snug. All that takes less than a few minutes so it's rather easy.
Now the RX can. Raise the hood, hold an empty water bottle under the drain tube, open the valve, close the valve, close the hood. I kid you not, it takes no more time than it took to read those steps. I knew it would be easy to empty, but it is ridiculously easy.

_ The weather so far -*
During the first week of the test we had winter weather, with some snow. Since then we have had mild weather. Temperatures are in the 50's and 60's most days.

- What they caught so far -
I won't share the amounts yet, but I'll give some info. The UPR can has caught a 'mostly oil with a bit of water' mixture so far. The RX can (in line after the UPR) has had just the opposite. It's collected mostly water or fuel, with some oil mixed in.
I emptied the UPR first, and I would estimate it has collected the normal amount compared to what it usually does I empty it. I was pleased that my set up with 2 cans didn't seem to change the normal flow and collection I was used to seeing with just the UPR can. When I was about the turn the valve to empty the RX, I paused to a few seconds wondering if anything would come out. After all it was a new can that would need to get some oil/water coated on the inside before there would be enough to drip to the bottom (The UPR can had been in use for many months and although I cleaned the can I did not rinse off the filter material). Plus I wondered if the valve of the RX can protruded up into the can, and if it required some liquid to collect before there was enough to spill over that valve nipple and exit the can. Then I opened the valve and I had to smile when I had some liquid drain out. I thought all along that if it caught more than 10% of what the UPR was collecting, I would be surprised. It's still early in the test, and I would like to redo the test after reversing the order of the cans later, but I am surprised so far. I'm hoping to get more miles on the truck soon so I can wrap up this phase of the test.

Report 3:

1000 Miles of Testing Results

- The Weather*has been warmer lately. So the test began with sub freezing temperatures, and gradually increased through the 70's and topped off in the mid 80's yesterday. I couldn't have asked for a better range of temperatures for this test.

- What they caught*was astounding to me. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the UPR might miss.
The UPR stayed on track with what it has been accumulating for many months. Each time I emptied them, it had about the same amount. It's contents were mostly oil which smelled like used oil. It caught 17cc total which is just under 3 1/2 tsp.
The RX had more than the UPR each time I emptied them. It's contents were an oil/fuel/water type mix that had a much stronger odor. Not a fuel smell, but a sharper chemical smell compared to the odor of used oil. It caught a total of 67cc which is just over 13 1/2 tsp.

- Final totals:
UPR - 17cc
RX - 67cc

The RX can caught 4 times the amount the UPR can caught,*after*the UPR can removed what it could. I said from the beginning I would be surprised if the RX can could pull 10% of what the UPR caught, since it was second in line. If someone told me it would catch an equal amount I would have said BS. For it to catch 4 times what the UPR can caught is unreal.

Report 4:

The routing of cans has been reversed*so the second phase of the test is underway. I cleaned the cans and hoses so neither has an advantage. I also checked the inside of the hoses as I disassembled everything. The exit hose from the UPR was dripping with oil and it made a mess as I took it apart. The exit hose from the UPR was clean and dry. It still looked new. That is what prompted me to clean all the hoses before starting this phase. Is the double can routing helping the second can*that*much, or is one can that much better. Time will tell again.

Report 5:

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming…


Phase 2 is almost complete now, thanks to some extra mileage for work. I'll report on that soon and begin phase 3.


As I said above, UPR shipped parts for me to do phase 3 of the test. I bought my UPR can in June, and they changed the can slightly since then. The new diffuser/extension will only fit cans made after that, so they shipped a full new kit to test. Thank you UPR for helping with this, and for your input in this thread.*
After shipping the kit, [email protected] asked me to remove the mesh from the exit side of my existing can for the remainder of phase 2, and to remove the mesh from the exit side of the new can before starting phase 3. I removed it from both (phase 2 was half way done when I removed it from the existing can). When I was removing the mesh from the short side of the new can (in preparation for phase 3), I realized the diffuser was assembled backwards. For our 5.0 F150's the long side of the diffuser must be on the passenger side of the can when installed. I disassembled, removed the mesh packed up in the can top on the exit/passenger side, and reassembled the can with diffuser. For anyone who might have received their cans assembled by UPR, you should check to see if it was assembled correctly before installing. (EDIT: Joe notes below they assemble the cans for shipping, and all cans should be assembled for your own installation needs) I also had a small piece of the stainless steel mesh (1/8") drop out when I was doing that. I wasn't thrilled with that so I unrolled, and lightly tapped the mesh in case there were any other loose pieces, but there weren't. A quick note on the UPR kit... it is much improved since I bought mine. The hoses are pre cut to the proper lengths, the elbow fittings are nickel rather than plastic, and they include Ford OEM snap on valve cover and intake fittings.


More to come soon!

Report 6:

Test Results

-*I'll summarize*the test to date. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR.

Phase 2 Test Results
- The Weather*has been average northern Ohio spring weather. Some rain, fog, cool nights, warm and hot days.

-*Driving*has been about the same through both phases. I good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 40% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, with a few very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling, and no towing.

- What they caught*this time might have been predicted by some (after the results of phase 1). RX was first in line, with the UPR after it to catch anything the RX might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was half of that caught in the first phase. The first phase had some cold weather which accounted for more water in the mix and the higher volume.
The contents from the RX can was mostly oil/fuel, and had a strong chemical/solvent smell again. It caught 35.5cc total which is approximately 7 1/8 tsp.
The UPR can caught about the same mix of oil/fuel, but didn't smell quite as strong. Halfway through this phase, [email protected] asked me to remove the mesh on the exit side of the UPR can. I did that, but noticed no difference in what it was catching. But since it was second in line, and there was little to catch, that's understandable. The UPR can caught 1.75cc total which is approximately 1/3 tsp. With so little collecting this time, I monitored the contents of the UPR can but didn't empty it until the end of the test.

- Phase 2 Totals:
RX - 35.5cc
UPR - 1.75cc*

-*Other tidbits*include the 'first in line' RX can caught 95% of the total volume. The exit hoses were very clean from both cans. The last few tanks of gas have produced slightly higher than my normal MPGs, but it's too early to tell on that (more to follow after phase 3).

-Phase 3,*using the UPR can extension and diffuser, is underway. Details will follow.


Final Test Results

-*I'll summarize*the test phases. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details on phase 1. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR. The second phase results were: RX - 35.50cc, UPR - 1.75cc. The 'first in line' RX caught 95% of the total volume. See post 143 for more details on phase 2.

Phase 3 Test Results

- This time the UPR can*was first in line as in phase 1, but it had the new can extension and diffuser added. It also had the mesh material removed from the exit side of the can.

- The Weather*has been average northern Ohio early summer weather. Some rain with warm and hot days.

-*Driving*has been a good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 60% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, some steep hill climbs, and some very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling again, and no towing. I'll add some more thoughts on driving and MPGs below.*

- What they caught*was a mixed bag. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the extended UPR might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was down from the last phase, again. I assume it is due to the warmer weather and maybe my engine is using less oil with more miles? Either way, my test looks at the percent each can catches, compared to the total caught for that phase, so the volume isn't critical.
The contents from the extended UPR can was mostly oil, and had a used oil smell. The UPR caught 14.75cc which is approximately 3 tsp.
The RX can caught a fuel/water/oil mix. It smelled much more harsh again. The RX can caught 16.00cc which is approximately 3 1/4 tsp.

- Phase 3 Totals:
UPR - 14.75cc (48%)
RX - 16.00cc (52%)

-*Other thoughts*on the results. The contents of each phase showed me the RX does a better job of removing more than oil. It always contained more water/fuel type liquids, while the UPR contained mostly oil. I don't know if it is due to the can design, the 'out front' mounting style of the RX, or both.
For anyone buying or thinking of upgrading their UPR can, I strongly recommend figuring out how to mount it out front, and would definitely add the valve that [email protected] is offering. I really think the 'out front' cooling effect will help it catch even more, and the valve would be worth the price for ease of emptying it. Having the RX can to compare to when emptying, the front mount and valve are no brainers.
As I said at the end of phase 2, my MPGs have increased slightly. I have done nothing different to my truck over the past year, other than adding the RX can to the UPR for this test. My driving style is very similar from tank to tank, I fill up at the same stations, etc. But since having both cans in series, and essentially removing 95% or more of the PCV byproducts, my MPGs have increased. Up to that point my lifetime MPGs were 17.5. Nearly every tank for the past year gave me the same results, 17.5. I would have some trips that would net 20 MPG, but the other short trips would always pull it back down for the same tank average - close to 17.5. My recent tank averages have all been over 18 MPG, with a few over 19, and as high as 19.5. My last tank included hauling approximately 1000 lbs of payload, through some long hills/mountains of PA, and I got 18.8 MPG. It could be the summer fuel mix combined with an engine that is broken in, but the timing is peculiar. Whatever the reason, I like it!


Thank you*Eco Tuner (Tuner Boost) and [email protected] for your support, feedback, and willingness to listen to open criticism and suggestions through this test. Looking back though this thread today, I realized how rare it is to get input and support from competing manufacturers, through a comparison test like this. We have all learned quite a bit, and have real data to help make decisions. Hats off to you both!
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top