bobkyle2

Hahaha, I was just joking around and did stumble upon a new wwest. [MENTION=177403]jrcope[/MENTION] , Whats up homie?

Left Plate

Yea I saw that! Just trying not to get troll jumped? some days I wonder why I even bother to try? lol

Rheller1

I dont have a weep hole, all I have is catch cans. But I have never had the issue, even before the cans were installed. But I do know, that if they dont agree with you, they are "ignorant". I have no doubt you are intelligent and have knowledge of this, but the way you argue it, you come off as an ***. I feel the source for the condensation is 2 different spots, remove one of those, either with catch can or drilling hole and the truck can handle whatever condensation is left.

brucesears

Just do them both and get rid of it altogether, that's my solution.

jwanck11

dear gawd.

natural gasser

"had the RX catch can been available then, that is where I would have started!
Time will tell if this is the complete fix? At the very least, it is one of the keys to the castle!"

We're on the same page. If you read any of my other posts on this, I understand the value of keeping the swill out of the intake/combustion chamber.

Left Plate

The internet is a very good place to gather information, but a very poor place to communicate. If I come off like an *** I apologize, because we as humans have a hard enough time communicating face to face!
I am passionate about this issue because I HAVE experienced it and I HAVE taken steps to eliminate it! The diesel guys (at least the ones that are worth a crap), know this very well. Keep the air clean, keep the air clean, keep the air clean!
And please understand that "ignorance" is not a measure of "intelligence", rather a lack of understanding when one thinks they do?

Tuner Boost

The port injection engines of the past have zero build up as the injectors are constantly bathing the intake valves with fi=uel, and if using a top tier detergent fuel you can go several hundred thousand miles and have zero build up (see the Shell commercials):



And DI the fuel (or additives) never touch the valves so there is absolutely nothing to deal with keeping the deposits from forming:


So in as little as 5-10K miles there can be a substantial reduction in the volumetric efficiency of the port and valve design as these deposits build up...and NO race engine builder would agree these have no effect on the engines ability to operate at optimum efficiency:

Every single auto maker, snowmobile, 4 stroke outboard, and motorcycle manufacturer in the world is battling this (just ask anyone that has owned a Mini, BMW, Audi, Hyundai, Ferrari, etc.). Just click on this link and see photos contributed by techs and engineers from all over the world:
https://www.google.com/search?q=inta...h=816&dpr=0.95

And article after article from the industry, white papers, etc. on the issue. Only the PR and marketing talking heads pretend it is not an issue.

And anyone that visits the facility here see's the multiple engines in tear down or rebuild and we show the progression on each at what miles the accumulation grows.


Below is a 2004 GM 3.6L Non DI engine at 120k miles, and you can clearly see the fuel spray pattern has kept deposits from forming on the valves and in the port where it made contact:


Now the same 3.6L v6 from 2010 with 15 k miles on it DI:


and after dis assembly to do a manual valve job as this also wore the valve guide prematurely from the abrasive deposits:

And a closer look to see how this build-up wears the guides:


This is new for the US makers except for some GM smaller displacement engines in the past that were early to the DI game, so who is willing to gamble their investment on hearsay?

Far to often I find myself arguing with those that are not techs in this field, yet want to force opinions on the readers...I have done this my entire life, over 40 years, and do this day in and day out. GM recently incorporated one of my simple design changes in all late 2013 and up V6 engines, and it was only a change in the PCV orifice size to remedy crankcase pressure build up and clogging of this orifice, and it took them 4 years. The EB needs a pretty drastic redesign to eliminate these issues. I feel like I'm bragging to list my qualifications and accomplishments, but when a network tech, or a insurance salesman argues crazy theories against fact and industry data, what is going on?

One must look at the cause and effect, and that a great number of factory FI systems have little to no issues like the EB, only the Cadillac ATS 2.0L for 2014 comes close, and it is a similar cause. Ambient air entering the air cleaner is NOT going to condense any but a small amount of water.....this is caused after this air charge has gone through the combustion process and been under extreme pressure and heat where all of the water contained has turned to vapor (steam) and along with unburnt fuel and other hydro carbons enters the crankcase as blow-by and then mixes with oil mist and sulfuric acid that accumulates in such a concentration (because, unlike most every other engine that evacuates this as soon as it enters the crankcase, the ecoboost only evacuates at idle and low throttle when NO boost is present, and then does NO evacuation 80% plus of the time) that when the crankcase pressure forces it to back-flow out the fresh air inlet, it is then pushed into the CAC where it condenses into not just water, but this mix of unburnt fuel. oil mist, sulfuric acid to form this yellow semi-solid Gunk. If it was from the air initially entering there would be none of these other compounds present, and EVERY FI engine would have these issues, and as we have been designing, installing, and selling turbo and super charging systems for 40 years, we see this NO PLACE but the 2 listed. The EB and the Caddy 2.0. Every other has varying accumulations that are a fraction of what the EB experiences.

Now look at the engine oil. It does not "grow" or "rise" on its own. It is these concentrations of the combustion byproducts that are accumulating in the oil as well as what is expelled into the charge system, and that is not good for any engine, much less one as lubrication dependent as the EB that has very tight tolerances, uses the oil pressure to maintain proper tension on the timing chains (another EB issue), as well as critical lubrication to 3 times the moving parts a typical push-rod engine has. All of this is directly related and fix the cause, and the effect disappears (proven by the 200 plus that have installed the EB system since Jan this year).

Then we look further into what happens in the combustion chamber when anything but fuel and air is present. Only a small amount of water can be present w/out negative effect on the combustion process. Any oil reduces the usable octane, and this results in detonation (any log theirs on the street and see timing pulled?) Oil will disrupt the burn pattern and result in an incomplete burn releasing less energy and thus poor fuel economy, as well as the deposits formed and detonation. The unburnt fuel is not detrimental, but still effects the mixture as it is not measured and metered as initially so the target A/F ratio will be off. The ECU/PCM monitors all this data and adjusts in milliseconds to attempt to operate at optimum performance, but any of this ingested affects this.

Take a teaspoon of the oil you run. Now pour it in a saucer, and attempt to light it on fire. You can't. Oil burns very poorly and incomplete. So ANY present in the combustion chamber has a negative effect.

Tuner Boost

Far more in cold weather, in fact 2-5 times plus the amount due to the nature of condensation. Start any car/truck cold and look at the exhaust pipe and see how much water (from steam after the combustion process) is spit out. Do the same in warm temps and see very little. Rainy day has zero measurable effect on this. Been doing this for 40 years and what a high humidity air does do is allow less energy released per explosive event. When we race, we win or lose by thousandths of a second far to often, so we measure every grain of water in the air to adjust our tune before every run. We measure altitude, temp, humidity, BP, etc. and all is calculated into what we are going to run. Not a one of those arguing against this has probably EVER done so, and we do this as a career. So no matter the weather or the DA, we have to be able to predict, and adjust, how this effects or run down the 1/4 mile.

And you list a Mini...one of the most problematic on the road. At 50k miles a complete upper end rebuild is common due to the effects of ingesting this mix. You know first hand what we are trying to share, yet a few vocal opponents want to shoot the messenger for letting the masses know the "world is NOT flat".

And any FI any of this ingested due to the increased static CR can destroy an engine in seconds. Detonation is the enemy of FI as is heat.

We build the Mazda speed 3 to 500-600 plus whp and they are also DI. They were early adopters as well. So we have someone speaking from a good line of DI vehicles and has seen that and been there.

As those with the PCV mod done with the RX dual valve system all testify, it cures it all by eliminating the cause in the first place. The drill mod is a help but why not fix the flaw and not have any of the problems I go into detail in my first reply here? Best way to prove to yourself, is to do it and see first hand. And it can be done with 3 other cans on the market as well, all direct competitors to RX. RX just has the only system already designed to address all of this. A catchcan alone is only trapping the mix after the fact. Fix the flaw and you trap it and eliminate it in the crankcase to begin with.

Good observation. A can alone cannot fix the flaw, that has to be addressed in addition to the can, and only use one of the few cans that actually traps all, or nearly all the mix from ingestion as most let as much pass through as they trap.

You must fix the lack of proper evacuation that is the cause to begine with. 99% of all other engines have very little issue because they are constanly evacuating these compounds as soon as they enter the crankcase, so correct the EB system and it all goes away.

The CAC only condenses this super hot vaporized mix that enters from backflowing out the fresh side inlet. Very little can be condensed from the outside air alone. Remove the one that causes this and the engine works as 99% of all others that have none of these issues. Again, easy to prove by those that have done the dualvalve system with PCV fix. Look at the hundreds with other cans alone installed. They catch plenty, but still have the oi levels rising from the accumulation in the crankcase. Other engines with properly functioning PCV systems dont "make oil". The idea that plain air at ambient temps passing through the CAC is a fallacy. To prove this, take a CAC and hook up a high volume air pump/fan (like a bounce house has) and run it for a day straight and see....no water condenses.




Yes, no matter what you want this "swill" to never be ingested, but to date, no other system addresses the flaw in the PCV system, and having seen these in action (over 14,000 systems in 12 years plus) I will guarantee it is the fix.

This is nothing new, just to the ecoboost crowd, and the more that post their results the more this is proven.

packplantpath

That is not an answer to the question.

Again. If more moisture is produced in the crankcase and collected in winter the logical conclusion is that more condensation related limp mode incidents would happen in winter. Yet that isn't what we see. In fact,we see the opposite. The condensation related limp mode almost exclusively occurs in summer. And in much greater likelihood in periods of high humidity or rain. This also does not match your explanation.

I don't see any way to reconcile the observations with theory as described by you . Theory is always trumped by observation.