Catch Can vs Breathers on Boosted 5.0L
07-24-2014, 01:48 PM
#11
-*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 Joe@UPR 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 Joe@UPR 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! [/I]
So as long as you retain a proper cleanside separator to trap and back-flow, and a can that does actually trap all the oil most, it is a simple installation and does not require a secondary evacuation suction source.
Just venting pressure leaves all this contaminates to accumulate contaminating the engine oil and rapidly increasing engine wear and failure eventually.
Now with a turbo, or centri SC you are boosting the IM so the intake manifold suction will only be present at idle and low throttle where you are not making any boost. As soon as you do make boost a standard PCV system would reverse its flow and pressure would enter the crankcase directly. So you need a system with dual valves that uses the IM vacuum for non-boost operation, and then when boost is detected the primary valve will close preventing any crankcase pressure from the IM, and the secondary valve will detect and open using the suction./vacuum available from the turbo or centri head unit to continue providing the evacuation suction needed to prevent crankcase pressure from building, and also will constantly and steadily remove the suspended damaging combustion byproducts as soon as they enter before they have a chance to settle and accumulate in the crankcase and engine oil.
The most common misconception is the PCV system is only for emissions, but it serves several critical functions and must be designed properly for the application and have the capacity to deal with the unique issues FI produce.
Of course the best solution is a belt driven vacuum pump as this explains, but they wont last on the street long before needing vanes, bearings, and shaft replacement as they are designed for race applications only:
http://www.dragzine.com/tech-stories...up-horsepower/
http://rehermorrison.com/tech-talk-8...ps-dave-lives/
Hope this helps.....very few understand proper crankcase evacuation for any application, and FI complicates it even more.
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 Joe@UPR 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 Joe@UPR 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! [/I]
So as long as you retain a proper cleanside separator to trap and back-flow, and a can that does actually trap all the oil most, it is a simple installation and does not require a secondary evacuation suction source.
Just venting pressure leaves all this contaminates to accumulate contaminating the engine oil and rapidly increasing engine wear and failure eventually.
Now with a turbo, or centri SC you are boosting the IM so the intake manifold suction will only be present at idle and low throttle where you are not making any boost. As soon as you do make boost a standard PCV system would reverse its flow and pressure would enter the crankcase directly. So you need a system with dual valves that uses the IM vacuum for non-boost operation, and then when boost is detected the primary valve will close preventing any crankcase pressure from the IM, and the secondary valve will detect and open using the suction./vacuum available from the turbo or centri head unit to continue providing the evacuation suction needed to prevent crankcase pressure from building, and also will constantly and steadily remove the suspended damaging combustion byproducts as soon as they enter before they have a chance to settle and accumulate in the crankcase and engine oil.
The most common misconception is the PCV system is only for emissions, but it serves several critical functions and must be designed properly for the application and have the capacity to deal with the unique issues FI produce.
Of course the best solution is a belt driven vacuum pump as this explains, but they wont last on the street long before needing vanes, bearings, and shaft replacement as they are designed for race applications only:
http://www.dragzine.com/tech-stories...up-horsepower/
http://rehermorrison.com/tech-talk-8...ps-dave-lives/
Hope this helps.....very few understand proper crankcase evacuation for any application, and FI complicates it even more.
