Stingray Corvette Forum banner

21 - 40 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
The rocker arm cannot fling oil into it...take the valve cover off and look, the baffel system is GM's best to date and it would be impossible as there is no direct line to the cleanside...all goes through GM's underside baffle first.
Aw Tracy ole buddy, you are so complimentary and masterful in your responses.

Take a look at the following picture through the oil fill opening on my non-Z51. You will readily recognize that as a rocker arm directly below the opening. Also, note the pool of oil inside the oil cap opening which puddles there whenever the engine is run because it is slung off that rocker arm. Any baffles inside the rocker cover are obviously not directly below the oil fill cap.

Oil Fill.jpg

I must assume you cannot refute the other observations because that is the only one you responded to with a form of rebuttal.

And no, there is no one feeding me information to challenge you with...I came up with all of these thoughts by simply looking under the hood of my Stingray.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
I thought the questions in post #17 were some good questions. I suppose that means I am not knowledgeable about these things. However, isn't that the point of asking?

I understand the benefits of the dual valve catch can on both the dry sump and the wet sump engines. I understand the benefit of the clean side separator on the dry sump. However, like 2ndvette, I do not understand the benefit of the clean side separator on the wet sump.
Questions are fine, in fact that is what we want to see....what I don't think is appropriate is to make false statements as fact concerning the products and their functions. I am always happy to answer questions as you all know, but look at the wording of these posts...they were not questions, they were confrontational false statements. I am more than happy to answer any questions in detail, as I have asked the poster to do....but I will take offense when it is something structured as these posts were at attacking the product and what it does. If anyone has a question, especially the way 2ndvette posed his statements.

I hope I did a sufficient job of explaining in great detail the function of the cleanside separator on the wet sump....please re-read and if it needs more clarification, please ask. More than happy to answer.....but I had tolerated his first jabs and ignored the inference and false statements made...and what happened? He came back with a series of 5 absolute false statements that seem clear were to discredit. That I, nor any other supporting vendor should not have to be subject to. I welcome anyone that has done some research and then poses questions if not clear as that is how we all learn, but I don't see anywhere where any other vendor has to be subject to those type of critical attacks. And I wont change on that. He has a good grasp on the English language by reading other posts, so I am sure he can structure questions as to not be so insulting.

So let me know after you re-read my explanation and I am more than happy to clarify it.

Thanks!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 · (Edited)
Aw Tracy ole buddy, you are so complimentary and masterful in your responses.

Take a look at the following picture through the oil fill opening on my non-Z51. You will readily recognize that as a rocker arm directly below the opening. Also, note the pool of oil inside the oil cap opening which puddles there whenever the engine is run because it is slung off that rocker arm. Any baffles inside the rocker cover are obviously not directly below the oil fill cap.

View attachment 14850

I must assume you cannot refute the other observations because that is the only one you responded to with a form of rebuttal.

And no, there is no one feeding me information to challenge you with...I came up with all of these thoughts by simply looking under the hood of my Stingray.
And when you go back and read my explanation, it is all explained clearly. And your picture shows why the need for the cleanside separator on the wet sump. If that oil is getting there, it is because of the lack of evacuation suction any time you go over 2/3rds throttle when intake manifold vacuum (needed to retain the proper flow direction) drops to zero, and the crankcase builds pressure that seeks the path of least resistance, that being backwards out the cleanside line just to the left of your picture. The entire valve cover does have the best designed baffle system to date by GM, but directly under the oil fill cap there has to be access for the oil when added/filled to enter the engine. The RX cleanside separator traps any of this so it does not get past it into the clean side line...and here are picture so all can see how:

The entire separator adds a distance of app 3" from any oil slung from the rocker arm:


In the event any oil does make it through those 5 holes, the shape will always allow it to drain back with the correct direction of flow, clean always in:


Any oil mist that would reach the separators main body will be caught in the coalescing media, where it turns to droplets and is always pulled into the valve cover, not out as the RX dual valve can provides suction for evacuation at all times unlike the OEM design that only provides suction when below 2/3rds throttle:


So, this has been posted before, but any that do want to understand follow how a PCV system operates:

So look back at your picture here...the oil fill hole is placed where it is so oil cannot sling up from that rocker arm...it is at the pivot point...it can only sling any amount of oil from the ends, and there will be oil in any cars oil fill from filling, period.

The lack of vacuum for suction to evacuate when ever under acceleration is what allows crankcase pressure to build and force the cleanside flow to revers pushing oil laden vapors into the main air bridge and into the combustion chamber....where it contributes to the intake valve coking issue. How about you take 15 minutes and remove your intake manifold and take some close up pictures of your valves and post them....this is why the cleanside as well as the RX Dual valve is needed. ALL oil ingestion needs to be stopped to prevent the severe intake valve coking.

So, look back at your posts. You come of very confrontational. First you state as fact:

Quote Originally Posted by 2ndvette View Post
The top picture is not a Stingray. Is the intake port an LT1?


Why pose this as a statement when it is absolutely false if your not trying to be confrontational?

Same in your 5 points.

If your intent was not to be confrontational, then why structure these as statements instead of questions? As you can see, you state your assumptions as fact, when they are false (except the oil fill cap....but most of that statement was false as well). Ask it as a question.....if you looked under the hood of "your vette" then you would easily recognize the photos as being a C7 Stingray...and you absolutely state it is not.

You know very well from this PM you sent when you were exposed as a troll in the other forum of Nickj's why I take offense to your games:

Make It Rain
Junior Member

Make It Rain's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 19

Big Baby
You went and tattled on me in the Ford forum you little baby girl! You can't stand up for yourself you little girl.



As you follow me around and harass me on every forum I am a supporting vendor of, patience gets short. A different user name on each forum, but appears to be the same person behind the keyboard by the style you use in the attacks. On each, you claim to own the vehicle the forum is based upon...that's alot of vehicles!

I don't want to fight....that is pointless, but I also will not stand back and be insulted constantly. So, if you actually do own a new Stingray, I am more than happy to answer questions....but will not stand for the confrontational attitude with false statements being made. So, please explain why you would have posted the first one stating the picture was not a Stingray, when it clearly is if your intent was not to cause drama?

I mean no disrespect to anyone else that took this wrong, just get tired of these games, as I think any of you would in my shoes. Only a few are responsible, but how far does one have to take enduring this before the go on the defensive?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
Here are some pictures of the entire rocker arm for those wanting to see how they are shaped. Oil will sling up off both the ends, but not the center pivot point that is partially visible under the oil fill opening.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,333 Posts
Questions are fine, in fact that is what we want to see....what I don't think is appropriate is to make false statements as fact concerning the products and their functions. I am always happy to answer questions as you all know, but look at the wording of these posts...they were not questions, they were confrontational false statements. I am more than happy to answer any questions in detail, as I have asked the poster to do....but I will take offense when it is something structured as these posts were at attacking the product and what it does. If anyone has a question, especially the way 2ndvette posed his statements.

I hope I did a sufficient job of explaining in great detail the function of the cleanside separator on the wet sump....please re-read and if it needs more clarification, please ask. More than happy to answer.....but I had tolerated his first jabs and ignored the inference and false statements made...and what happened? He came back with a series of 5 absolute false statements that seem clear were to discredit. That I, nor any other supporting vendor should not have to be subject to. I welcome anyone that has done some research and then poses questions if not clear as that is how we all learn, but I don't see anywhere where any other vendor has to be subject to those type of critical attacks. And I wont change on that. He has a good grasp on the English language by reading other posts, so I am sure he can structure questions as to not be so insulting.

So let me know after you re-read my explanation and I am more than happy to clarify it.

Thanks!
So incredibly well put Tuner Boost. There are a few that show up on forums that might display questionable social skills. Either that, or they're so full of themselves they come across down right disrespectful to those with considerabley more experience in areas they're still attempting to learn in. Better to acquire knowledge and experience and be considered a has been, than to experience nothing and consider oneself an authority on a particular subject.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
Thanks. I always answer anyone's questions, and will go into as much detail as they need to understand. And when it is a subject I do not have the knowledge on, I defer to those that do, and plenty of great contributing members on this forum. It should always go both ways as far as respect for each other no matter a vendor or a member, and I realize I may get riled at times, but I do try hard to not let the few get under my skin...but I am not perfect by any means.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Tracy I have read through this thread and have a question. First some background. I have one of your RX cans on my wife's 2010 CTS 3.6 DI. I put it on at about 9000 miles from new. At that time I took the top off the IM and was surprised at the amount of oil. I understand that the oil would be there regardless of DI or non DI, but I also understand why the DI systems allow the oil much more opportunity to collect on the valves and build deposits. The car now has about 15,000 miles and although I have not looked in the IM again, the hose leading from the catch can to the IM seems to be dry, which I take as a good sign. At about 20,000 miles I plan to check the manifold again and probably perform some type of chemical valve cleaning.

I am about to trade my C6 for a new Stingray and will probably put one of your cans on it at the time of purchase. But here is my question. If the engine has check valves in the clean air side, (I assume to prevent vapors/oil from traveling backward from valve covers to intake), what advantage does a clean air separator in this part of the PCV system have?

Not asking to be adversarial but for education.

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,553 Posts
Davanz, when you wrote above you re about to get a StingRay, from your description I believe you are getting a wet sump non-Z51, correct?

The answer may depend on what sump type you are going to buy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
Tracy I have read through this thread and have a question. First some background. I have one of your RX cans on my wife's 2010 CTS 3.6 DI. I put it on at about 9000 miles from new. At that time I took the top off the IM and was surprised at the amount of oil. I understand that the oil would be there regardless of DI or non DI, but I also understand why the DI systems allow the oil much more opportunity to collect on the valves and build deposits. The car now has about 15,000 miles and although I have not looked in the IM again, the hose leading from the catch can to the IM seems to be dry, which I take as a good sign. At about 20,000 miles I plan to check the manifold again and probably perform some type of chemical valve cleaning.

I am about to trade my C6 for a new Stingray and will probably put one of your cans on it at the time of purchase. But here is my question. If the engine has check valves in the clean air side, (I assume to prevent vapors/oil from traveling backward from valve covers to intake), what advantage does a clean air separator in this part of the PCV system have?

Not asking to be adversarial but for education.

Thanks
Good question David.

The oil present in the 3.6 DI engines intake manifold would be from oil already present unless of course you removed it and cleaned it all out, the existing oil will still remain in the IM, especially just inside the IM inlet flange where the sump is cast in...it collects a good amount there. Also, make sure you do the drill mod for the passenger side rear barb on any 2013 or older (GM adopted our design for 2014 and up so no need on the newer ones). Let me know if you need the step by instructions, let me know.

Now, on to your Stingray question. The new DI V8's have 2 issues. One is the crankcase pressure can build anytime your over 2/3rds throttle (approx) when intake manifold vacuum drops to zero. When this occurs, the pressure seeks the path of least resistance, and that is back out the cleanside (no checkvalve on the cleanside line, only the foul barb in the valley cover does) and that brings oil laden mist into the main intake air tube/bridge and it is ingested through this path and into the intake manifold and then the valves/combustion chamber. So what the RX cleanside separator does, it traps any of this and it returns to the valve cover when the flow returns to the correct direction. Using the RX dual valve can, we also address this flow/pressure issue by using the secondary valve/outlet of the can to utilize the suction available just upstream of the throttle body where there is measurable vacuum at WOT. So, the can takes care of the dirty, or foul side where the majority of the vapors enter, and the cleanside replaces the straight tube with a separating device. Hope this helps....but ask for more clarification if needed.

Good post!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Maybe I was misinformed as I thought the new Stingray engine has two clean air paths, one from each valve cover, each of which normally takes air in from the intake system ahead of the throttle butterfly. Additionally I thought that each of these have a check valve in the fitting to prevent backflow during pressure reversal. If this is not correct then I can see where an added external separator in the system would be of benefit. Am I correct to say that if one of your separators is installed on one side that the other side is blocked off?

I know you spend a lot of time with posts. We appreciate the education.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,553 Posts
Maybe I was misinformed as I thought the new Stingray engine has two clean air paths, one from each valve cover, each of which normally takes air in from the intake system ahead of the throttle butterfly. Additionally I thought that each of these have a check valve in the fitting to prevent backflow during pressure reversal. If this is not correct then I can see where an added external separator in the system would be of benefit. Am I correct to say that if one of your separators is installed on one side that the other side is blocked off?

I know you spend a lot of time with posts. We appreciate the education.
I thought the same that you did. Can someone confirm for sure?

In summary: for a Z51, I understand the benefits of the dual valve can plus the cleanside separator.

For a wet sump non-Z51: I understand the benefits of the dual valve can, but do not understand the benefit of a cleanside separator.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
The valley port has a one-way checkvalve for sure. That is where the early turbo and super charged builds were causing it to stick closed as it is not designed for 10-15# of boost. The wet sump and the dry sump both have fresh entering both valve covers as you describe, and the foul exits out the valley barb (that does have a checkvalve). If the clean/fresh sides did have checkvalves then there would be no oil entering the intake air bridge and filling the sump depressions as they do. With the dry sump, the passenger side takes in its fresh air from the air bridge connection closest to the air filter housing. The drivers side goes right up front of it into the air bridge. The wet sump does the same on drivers side, and also from the passenger side to the same area the sump tank line does in the dry sump. The RX on the wet sump, you replace the oil fill cap on the drivers side valve cover, then the line from the RX billet separator runs to the air bridge, and the passenger side and drivers side then run together so the fresh, filtered, MAF metered air still comes from the air bridge, and into the cleanside separator where it then splits so fresh is going into both the drivers and the passenger valve cover (run the two together at the OEM barbs), travel around the rocker arms, down the push-rod valley's, into the main portion of the crankcase where the foul/dirty vapors are pulled up and out the valley vent. CFM of flow is not affected, still flows the 600-650 CFM a full sized V8 crankcase requires, and traps any reverse flow.

Here are the illustrations from the GM master parts database. This one shows the valve cover and it is not a checkvalve...the barb is part of the valve cover. Not serviceable or replaceable:


Now below is the valley cover illustration where the one way checkvalve is a replaceable/serviceable part. it is #34 in the illustration. So no, neither valve cover nor the dry sump tank have any checkvalves on/in them for the cleanside. Only the dirty side does. Thats why the RX system has two checkvalves to control flow and keep the correct direction of flow:



Hope this helps, if you need more just ask.

We have direct access to all the same diagrams and parts lists the dealer does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,553 Posts
Hi Tracy, so, to summarize, on the wet sump engine as it comes from the factory, there is no checkvalve on either the passenger's side or the driver's side fresh air lines from the air bridge to the valve covers.

Is that statement above correct?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
Hi Tracy, so, to summarize, on the wet sump engine as it comes from the factory, there is no checkvalve on either the passenger's side or the driver's side fresh air lines from the air bridge to the valve covers.

Is that statement above correct?
Correct (at least according to the GM diagrams and description). The foul/dirty side does on all the latest gen V8's though, new for 2014 and it does help as described davanz. The way to see for sure is to get a wet sump car and un-clip the line from the valve cover, slide a 3/8" hose on it and try to both blow and suck on it. That will be the for sure test. Next one in I will do just that to confirm.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
Hey all, no better system is available, and we are the original designers of the correct dual valve system that corrects the issues with the C7. Same with the RX cleanside separator. We are copied, but no one can give the technical support and the over 40 years experience and expertise with crankcase evacuation and PCV systems, and we have been the pioneer in DI related systems since 2008. Wet sump or dry sump, you do NOT want any ingestion, and there is still no more effective solution on the market.

Call direct to order, any color or polished no extra charge. And if your able to visit in person, we will do the installation free!!!

941-721-1826
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,995 Posts
Hey Tuner Boost!

Read the SRF member review on the UPR system today with great interest. In viewing their hose ends and connectors (some appearing to be OEM style), was wondering if you can provide some close-up photos of the RX system hose ends and connectors. Are the UPR or RX system connectors superior in any way? Someone mentioned the UPR system integrates with the OEM hoses more seamlessly than other systems...is that true?

Also, my Z06 has been built! So, I re-read the thread today on the technical review of the LT4 by a magazine. In summary, the thread indicated GM has "likely" solved the dry sump burping issue. And, they have introduced some sort of PCV centrifuge oil separation device. The concerns expressed in the thread with the GM solutions were as follows:

1. Lack of vacuum at full throttle, making the GM separator less effective than the RX dual valve solution (does the GM centrifuge rely on vacuum?)
2. Reintroduction of PCV vapor contaminants into the engine oil (does the GM separator empty into the oil pan?)
3. There was something about 20-25% effectiveness vs. 98% effectiveness discussed, but I didn't follow the logic...does the GM system allow 20-25% of the contaminants to pass through and coat the intake valves, or am I still confused?
3. Possible, but unlikely, oil burping...those playing it safe may still want the optional "burp" set-up until the GM solution is fully proven

If I missed anything OR misunderstood, please feel free to correct me. Any clarifications you can provide would be great!

Thanks!

Tom
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
631 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
Hey Tuner Boost!

Read the SRF member review on the UPR system today with great interest. In viewing their hose ends and connectors (some appearing to be OEM style), was wondering if you can provide some close-up photos of the RX system hose ends and connectors. Are the UPR or RX system connectors superior in any way? Someone mentioned the UPR system integrates with the OEM hoses more seamlessly than other systems...is that true?

The UPR is a copy of the RX, but a few short cuts in the separating portion by looking at the pictures showing the internals, so we will firmly stand behind a flow-through test (take the RX can and install it inline AFTER the UPR and see what the UPR misses, then do the reverse to be fair and track all). No more effective can on the market as far as capturing the greatest amount as a percentage. UPR for years marketed this can and claimed it was the "best" for years until one of their customers took us up on the RX Challenge. After the first portion UPR added an extension to their original can in an effort to not have such a disparity between the RX's function, and well you can read the entire test here. Now bear in mind WE had no part other than to offer tech answers through the RX challenge and did the following test over several months and thousands of miles. After this began, Joe from UPR sent me this threat:

You call our can a pull through, so how can you get caught with your double talk about our cans will fill up and hurt the engine. Pretty interesting since we have an ecoboost that we let the cans overfill and all it did was pull the little bit of oil at the top off the very same as no catch can at all. Oh wait, it must work so good that it magically sucks the oil pan clean. I will have your can manufactured in billet to be a quality item ! Them proceed to sell all your dealers with my endless source of supplies.

Awaiting your response, Joe

SO, here is the test:



*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!




Also, my Z06 has been built! So, I re-read the thread today on the technical review of the LT4 by a magazine. In summary, the thread indicated GM has "likely" solved the dry sump burping issue. And, they have introduced some sort of PCV centrifuge oil separation device. The concerns expressed in the thread with the GM solutions were as follows:

I go over it in great detail in my thread on the new LT4 engine. They have greatly improved the existing system, but cannot make a separator that retains the oil more than app 25% effective or it will also retain and return to the crankcase the damaging combustion by-products that are critical for a PCV system to remove. The LT4 is about the best they will be able to do, and that still leaves app. 70% to still ingest.

1. Lack of vacuum at full throttle, making the GM separator less effective than the RX dual valve solution (does the GM centrifuge rely on vacuum?) Yes. GM only replies on intake vacuum to evacuate and the separator is part of this. Any time your over app. 2/3rds throttle intake manifold vacuum drops to zero, or near zero and then evacuation halts allowing the crankcase pressure to build until it seeks the path of least resistance, and that is backwards out the fresh side inlet bring oil vapors into the air intake where the fresh/clean side draws air from. The foul, or dirty side is still ingesting oil directly into the intake manifold and into the valves/combustion chamber.

2. Reintroduction of PCV vapor contaminants into the engine oil (does the GM separator empty into the oil pan?)
Yes, it does into the oil return so make it any more effective and this is what it would be returning to the oil:


GM engineers are far to talented to sacrifice the engine to make it more effective.


3. There was something about 20-25% effectiveness vs. 98% effectiveness discussed, but I didn't follow the logic...does the GM system allow 20-25% of the contaminants to pass through and coat the intake valves, or am I still confused?

No, GM still allows app. 70-75% of the oil vapor to still enter the intake air charge and thus cause the coking and other issues related. Every auto maker is scrambling for solutions, and GM has really done a great job on the LT compared to the first 3 generations. To date, only a few of the Super Car's are implmenting true solutions, and they need to be drained as well.

3. Possible, but unlikely, oil burping...those playing it safe may still want the optional "burp" set-up until the GM solution is fully proven

Huh?? 14 years and over 14,000 systems in use, with GM dealers our biggest customers/dealers.....more than proven. NO other company has done as much long term testing and documentation than RX period. GM engineers know all to well the results of oil ingestion....or they would not spend the $millions$ they have since 1997 improving and making changes time and again to address this, and now with ALL GM engines being DI (they first released the 3.6L in 2008...if you want thousands of pictures of all to add to the LT1, and soon the LT4 pictures, just ask) this is one of the most focused on issues. Until the article in HotRod on the LT4, no other auto maker even admitted to the issue and if you go back in my posts from 4-5 months ago a PR spokesman from GM was claiming this was all BS and did not exist.....quite the typical arrogant PR talking head that has to have egg on his face now that the article was released.

If I missed anything OR misunderstood, please feel free to correct me. Any clarifications you can provide would be great!

Thanks!

Tom
Let me know if there is anything else you need clarified. The RX system is as easy as any to install, and being the most effective on the market (yes, we now include OEM fittings) and if you want to compare, the RX has over $60 of AN fittings, REAL AN fittings and not some cheap hose clamp covers that look AN. We are the original dual valve oil separating can and Monster can that has been around for years as the industry standard and we take no short cuts on function to just market and sell like most.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,995 Posts
I think you misunderstood #3...with any language, it happens. Let me try to clarify.

The LT4 dry sump improvements have tried to reduce or eliminate oil "burping". But, it's unproven at this point. So, it is recommended that users install the RX oil tank cap, just in case. Right?
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
Top