Rx Catch Can results
05-20-2014, 08:26 PM
#51
Any technical questions, please ask. Most will be repetitious, but a fresh post can't hurt for those new to the discussions.
Anything from basic PCV e .....
s side turbo impeller is caused when this concentrate of water/unburnt fuel, and other compounds is "burped" when crankcase pressure builds and is expelled into the driver side intake pipe it partially condenses to liquid and the impact when it hits the hot impeller blades causes the damage damage along with the deposits that are loosened during an induction cleaning impacting the hot side turbo blade as well
Anything from basic PCV e .....
s side turbo impeller is caused when this concentrate of water/unburnt fuel, and other compounds is "burped" when crankcase pressure builds and is expelled into the driver side intake pipe it partially condenses to liquid and the impact when it hits the hot impeller blades causes the damage damage along with the deposits that are loosened during an induction cleaning impacting the hot side turbo blade as well
Why do catch cans with the pcv fix catch more moisture in the winter yet the condensation misfire almost never happens in the winter and happens orders of magnitude more often in the rain. If this is all pcv blow-by causing problems, logic says if they catch more in winter, more would condense in the CAC in winter without the can, making the likelihood of the misfire higher in winter without the can. Yet the observations do not match the logic. I've asked this for two months and you have not yet attempted to answer. An explanation must fit all data. So what am I missing?
Come up with a satisfactory explanation for that as has been asked several times and I'll buy a can tomorrow.
The following 2 users liked this post by packplantpath:
MadocHandyman (05-20-2014),
snobdds (05-21-2014)
05-20-2014, 11:29 PM
#52
4 oz. is what the crud cleaned off 12 sticky intake valves weigh. It collected on them one thin layer at a time. One bake at a time. Much like an oven carbons up. All engine men know it an deal with it at repair time. Motors with carbs or port injection have it also when the guides wear an the oil then is sucked down those valves. There is much less vacuum in the charged engine but air passes the valve stem an oil will get on the valve that way along with PCV flo.
Last edited by papa tiger; 05-20-2014 at 11:36 PM.
05-21-2014, 12:03 AM
#53
Senior Member
4 oz. is what the crud cleaned off 12 sticky intake valves weigh. It collected on them one thin layer at a time. One bake at a time. Much like an oven carbons up. All engine men know it an deal with it at repair time. Motors with carbs or port injection have it also when the guides wear an the oil then is sucked down those valves. There is much less vacuum in the charged engine but air passes the valve stem an oil will get on the valve that way along with PCV flo.
Papa, sometimes I just have no idea what the hell you just said. Even after reading three times.....no idea still.
I'll keep trying, I guess.
05-21-2014, 01:39 AM
#55
Martin
I have a perfect vehicle to test how well the RX catch can actually works. Does this system stop near 100 percent of the contaniments could be easily verified.
I also live in Utah and have 95 F150 with the 4.9 inline 6. The engine is very similar to the Jeep 4.0 inline 6. This truck is driven by the teenagers and used to do general grunt work around the house. The problem with this truck is as it has aged blow by has developed. It has a pcv at the rear of the valve cover and a breather at the front. The breather has a tube leading over to the air filter box. Because of the blow by it pushes an oil and water mix out the breather tube to the air box. There is enough that it will drip out below the air box.
It would be a great test to see if the RX could accumulate all the liquid, any not stopped would end up at the bottom of the air box.
Not trying to get something for nothing as I resolved the problem using the pcv system. I took a stock metal pcv, ground off the end and removed the valve. This increases the air flow enough thru the pcv to overcome the blow by. Before the modified pcv smoke blew out the oil fill with the cap removed, after there is healthy vacuum.
I also live in Utah and have 95 F150 with the 4.9 inline 6. The engine is very similar to the Jeep 4.0 inline 6. This truck is driven by the teenagers and used to do general grunt work around the house. The problem with this truck is as it has aged blow by has developed. It has a pcv at the rear of the valve cover and a breather at the front. The breather has a tube leading over to the air filter box. Because of the blow by it pushes an oil and water mix out the breather tube to the air box. There is enough that it will drip out below the air box.
It would be a great test to see if the RX could accumulate all the liquid, any not stopped would end up at the bottom of the air box.
Not trying to get something for nothing as I resolved the problem using the pcv system. I took a stock metal pcv, ground off the end and removed the valve. This increases the air flow enough thru the pcv to overcome the blow by. Before the modified pcv smoke blew out the oil fill with the cap removed, after there is healthy vacuum.
05-21-2014, 11:33 AM
#56
He did a manual intake valve cleaning removing the coking deposits that form on all DI engines as the fuel never touches the valves to keep them washed and deposit free like the old port injection engines.
So when he did his manual cleaning he also saved and weighed these deposits (some I have never done) to analyze this even closer than most. I suspect the reason is the valves as they come new are perfectly shaped and balanced for a reason, and along with the deposits forming on the stems that get pulled into the valve guides causing wear over time, he assumed (correctly) that the added weight, which builds up unevenly, would also contribute to added/accelerated valve guide wear so he decided to see just how much had accumulated. Great thinking (again, I had not thought of that before today reading this) on his part. He also points out that the old fuel delivery systems that kept intake valves clean for the life of most engines would also coke up with deposits if the guides became worn over time and the amount of oil drenching the valves was more that the fuel sprat could remove quickly, they coked with deposits as well. Another accurate statement and of us old engine builder know from the "old days" (I started as a GM tech in 1974 have been involved in PCV system design and issues forever, and a DI R&D specialist since 2008).
Hope this helps!
Pack, since you are stating incorrect info there is no way to answer you as we have gone over this so many times before so please, leave this thread and go back the the ones you already dominate and share the "likes" with the rest of your little group. We are again asking you to please leave and stop disrupting this thread....far to many have been wrecked already and we would like this to stay on track. And we the manufacturer and all the dealers & supporting vendors here do not want you to buy any of our products....if you truly have an interest there are hundreds of other catchcans you can buy.
So please, I'm asking you as nicely as I can, to leave this thread. Your intent has been made more than clear to all.
05-21-2014, 12:16 PM
#57
Pack, since you are stating incorrect info there is no way to answer you as we have gone over this so many times before so please, leave this thread and go back the the ones you already dominate and share the "likes" with the rest of your little group. We are again asking you to please leave and stop disrupting this thread....far to many have been wrecked already and we would like this to stay on track. And we the manufacturer and all the dealers & supporting vendors here do not want you to buy any of our products....if you truly have an interest there are hundreds of other catchcans you can buy.
So please, I'm asking you as nicely as I can, to leave this thread. Your intent has been made more than clear to all.
So please, I'm asking you as nicely as I can, to leave this thread. Your intent has been made more than clear to all.
I have never once been rude, I've simply asked for more information because my observations do not fit your theory. And I'd like to understand why I'm wrong or if you are. If you take offense to honest, legitimate questions that is your problem, not mine.
So, please, once and for all, answer that question . It has been around for months. I'll go away if you can provide a reasoned response to that. But I might have followup questions too and have no qualms about asking them.
I'll post it again for reference:
Why do catch cans with the pcv fix catch more moisture in the winter yet the condensation misfire almost never happens in the winter and happens orders of magnitude more often in the rain. If this is all pcv blow-by causing problems, logic says if they catch more in winter, more would condense in the CAC in winter without the can, making the likelihood of the misfire higher in winter without the can. Yet the observations do not match the logic. I've asked this for two months and you have not yet attempted to answer. An explanation must fit all data. So what am I missing?
Last edited by packplantpath; 05-21-2014 at 12:21 PM.
The following users liked this post:
RaidersScrew (05-21-2014)
05-21-2014, 05:24 PM
#58
I have no intentions except understanding the facts. Since you claim to have answered this question before, please show me where or answer it again. Should be easy to do. It is a simple question. I have no allegiance to any "group", I side with whoever has the best data and theory that fit observations. I'm a turncoat bastard and will happily switch opinions when there is data to support it.
I have never once been rude, I've simply asked for more information because my observations do not fit your theory. And I'd like to understand why I'm wrong or if you are. If you take offense to honest, legitimate questions that is your problem, not mine.
So, please, once and for all, answer that question . It has been around for months. I'll go away if you can provide a reasoned response to that. But I might have followup questions too and have no qualms about asking them.
I'll post it again for reference:
Why do catch cans with the pcv fix catch more moisture in the winter yet the condensation misfire almost never happens in the winter and happens orders of magnitude more often in the rain. If this is all pcv blow-by causing problems, logic says if they catch more in winter, more would condense in the CAC in winter without the can, making the likelihood of the misfire higher in winter without the can. Yet the observations do not match the logic. I've asked this for two months and you have not yet attempted to answer. An explanation must fit all data. So what am I missing?
I have never once been rude, I've simply asked for more information because my observations do not fit your theory. And I'd like to understand why I'm wrong or if you are. If you take offense to honest, legitimate questions that is your problem, not mine.
So, please, once and for all, answer that question . It has been around for months. I'll go away if you can provide a reasoned response to that. But I might have followup questions too and have no qualms about asking them.
I'll post it again for reference:
Why do catch cans with the pcv fix catch more moisture in the winter yet the condensation misfire almost never happens in the winter and happens orders of magnitude more often in the rain. If this is all pcv blow-by causing problems, logic says if they catch more in winter, more would condense in the CAC in winter without the can, making the likelihood of the misfire higher in winter without the can. Yet the observations do not match the logic. I've asked this for two months and you have not yet attempted to answer. An explanation must fit all data. So what am I missing?
05-21-2014, 06:09 PM
#59
Senior Member
05-21-2014, 08:38 PM
#60
Senior Member
I have no intentions except understanding the facts. Since you claim to have answered this question before, please show me where or answer it again. Should be easy to do. It is a simple question. I have no allegiance to any "group", I side with whoever has the best data and theory that fit observations. I'm a turncoat bastard and will happily switch opinions when there is data to support it.
I have never once been rude, I've simply asked for more information because my observations do not fit your theory. And I'd like to understand why I'm wrong or if you are. If you take offense to honest, legitimate questions that is your problem, not mine.
So, please, once and for all, answer that question . It has been around for months. I'll go away if you can provide a reasoned response to that. But I might have followup questions too and have no qualms about asking them.
I'll post it again for reference:
Why do catch cans with the pcv fix catch more moisture in the winter yet the condensation misfire almost never happens in the winter and happens orders of magnitude more often in the rain. If this is all pcv blow-by causing problems, logic says if they catch more in winter, more would condense in the CAC in winter without the can, making the likelihood of the misfire higher in winter without the can. Yet the observations do not match the logic. I've asked this for two months and you have not yet attempted to answer. An explanation must fit all data. So what am I missing?
I have never once been rude, I've simply asked for more information because my observations do not fit your theory. And I'd like to understand why I'm wrong or if you are. If you take offense to honest, legitimate questions that is your problem, not mine.
So, please, once and for all, answer that question . It has been around for months. I'll go away if you can provide a reasoned response to that. But I might have followup questions too and have no qualms about asking them.
I'll post it again for reference:
Why do catch cans with the pcv fix catch more moisture in the winter yet the condensation misfire almost never happens in the winter and happens orders of magnitude more often in the rain. If this is all pcv blow-by causing problems, logic says if they catch more in winter, more would condense in the CAC in winter without the can, making the likelihood of the misfire higher in winter without the can. Yet the observations do not match the logic. I've asked this for two months and you have not yet attempted to answer. An explanation must fit all data. So what am I missing?
That being said, I think you have a legitimate question and I would like to hear what TB has to say? I have my own speculations to your question but it would be my opinion.
Has it been documented that the issue has not happened in the winter? Because what some folks consider winter in some parts of the country are vastly different?