Oil Catch Can. Yes or No?

[THLONE]

It would require a idiot light on the catch can.

Sponsored

 

[Floyd]

There are some here seemingly adamantly in favor of the use of catch cans, saying that if you simply require proof that you are nothing more than a contrarian Luddite.
Catch cans are certainly worthy of consideration. Consideration requires examination of the evidence.
A subject which cannot withstand scrutiny is by definition , no longer worthy of consideration.

To anyone reading this, I say use a catch can if you choose but at least consider all sides before doing so.
Here (for your consideration) is an entertaining and balanced video which presents a broader view of the issue and yet leaves the decision where it belongs... In the hands of the owner...

 

[DavidR]

Hi Floyd,

Good points. Thanks for making a post that isn't just snark about oil levels.

You're right, people should consider both sides. I think people are. Before I installed one, I watched all of the videos posted here, including this one.

For folks who say there should be reams of data, they are correct, but unfortunately that's not going to happen. The only people who have run a significant number of these engines for long periods of times under varying conditionss and then torn them down are Ford, and they are not going to release highly proprietary data. Nobody else is going to spend a million dollars to run and tear down 100's of Ranger engines for this purpose. The stakes just aren't high enough. If your valves coke up at 80K or 100K miles, it's just not a huge deal - a walnut shell blast is $600, not exactly the end of the world. So we go on limited data and things like reports from Ford dealership owners who have seen problems.

There are people who would rather try to delay the time when problems might occur, and because catch cans do collect additional oil, there is at least some reason to believe they help. Is that based on absolutely conclusive data? No, and no one denies that, but it's all that's available. Different people are going to weigh the limited data differently and come up with different decisions. I haven't seen anyone say that *all* engines will be affected by more oil in the crankcase return but some people feel it's a reasonable precaution. Most of the folks who install these are doi-it-yourselfers, the same type of people who spend thousands of dollars on many other mods that Ford doesn't feel are absolutely necessary to include, many of them with probably very marginal performance improvements.

So yes, individual decisions. I would not say that the anti-catch-can crowd are contrarian luddites, but some of them do tend to be little more acerbic than the pro-catch-can crowd. I think that might be what motivated @Rick - Saber to make the comment about people being adamantly opposed.

There are some here seemingly adamantly in favor of the use of catch cans, saying that if you simply require proof that you are nothing more than a contrarian Luddite.
Catch cans are certainly worthy of consideration. Consideration requires examination of the evidence.
A subject which cannot withstand scrutiny is by definition , no longer worthy of consideration.

To anyone reading this, I say use a catch can if you choose but at least consider all sides before doing so.
Here (for your consideration) is an entertaining and balanced video which presents a broader view of the issue and yet leaves the decision where it belongs... In the hands of the owner...

 

[HenryMac]

There are some here seemingly adamantly..........

Some of the YouTube comments are quite good too...

How much oil could a catch can catch
If a catch can could catch oil?
As much oil as a catch can could catch,
If a catch can could catch oil.

 

[I_smell_like_diesel]

The video above makes a good point of mentioning the EGR system, which our engine have, and how it may come into play being mixed with blow-by vapors. Thanks for sharing.

 

[rpeterson53]

There are some here seemingly adamantly in favor of the use of catch cans, saying that if you simply require proof that you are nothing more than a contrarian Luddite.
Catch cans are certainly worthy of consideration. Consideration requires examination of the evidence.
A subject which cannot withstand scrutiny is by definition , no longer worthy of consideration.

To anyone reading this, I say use a catch can if you choose but at least consider all sides before doing so.
Here (for your consideration) is an entertaining and balanced video which presents a broader view of the issue and yet leaves the decision where it belongs... In the hands of the owner...

Earlier this year, I installed a catch can on my 2019 Mazda Miata from a well established and respected after market company. Kt cost me about $200. Six months and 4000 miles later, I removed the catch can from the Miata for several reasons - (1) the original hoses used were apparently not compatible with the oil-fuel crankcase blow-by resulting in a strong smell both in the car and when parked in the garage. NOTE: they did later come out with a replacement nitrile hose to address this issue (2) the catch can has a 50 micron porous bronze filter in the outlet port and I have a concern of a potential to restrict the flow of pressure from the crankcase if not cleaned regularly.

Not sure how much in-service testing some of the after market companies actually do, i.e., length of time. I'm sure Mazda Engineering does extensive testing before committing to a design feature. My engineering background is in aviation. Typically we do a failure "what if analysis" on designs. A catch can impacts the most expensive component on a vehicle. I question if many companies in the after market do this. If the engine is damaged as a result of an after market installation, will or can the company financially support warranty costs.

I currently own a 2019 Ranger with about 1400 miles on the clock. The Miata is a normally aspirated engine which is a simpler configuration to design a catch can installation. Based on my experience with the Miata, I will not risk the install of a catch can nor am I convinced one is even needed. For now, I'll put my faith in Ford Engineering and their testing. I'm sure their engineers are aware of the GDI engine potential for contaminating the intake valves over time and incorporated something in their design to address this potential.

The only way I would change my thinking on a catch can for the 2.3L EcoBoost in my Ranger is if either:

1. Ford releases a TSB to retrofit a catch can to the engine after incorporating same in production

2. or the after market company pays Ford Engineering to review the catch can installation and provide a No Technical Objection /NTO/ which is NOT an approval statement - just a cursory review stating they don't see any obvious negative impact to the engine

My guess is both above 1 and 2 will never happen........

 

[I_smell_like_diesel]

The only way I would change my thinking on a catch can for the 2.3L EcoBoost in my Ranger is if either:

1. Ford releases a TSB to retrofit a catch can to the engine after incorporating same in production

2. or the after market company pays Ford Engineering to review the catch can installation and provide a No Technical Objection /NTO/ which is NOT an approval statement - just a cursory review stating they don't see any obvious negative impact to the engine

My guess is both above 1 and 2 will never happen........

The manufacturer is only concerned about your vehicle making it out of the warranty period, without having to paying out on warranty claims. As long as their still reaching that goal, they're not going to peruse further preventative measures. So, 1 and 2 are guaranteed not to happen

 

[Floyd]

The manufacturer is only concerned about your vehicle making it out of the warranty period, without having to paying out on warranty claims. As long as their still reaching that goal, they're not going to peruse further preventative measures. So, 1 and 2 are guaranteed not to happen

You make a persuasive point but....
Do you remember GM's V8 and V6 diesels from the early eighties? They would easily outlast the warranty , but not much more and not without attention. They were so poor that they practically destroyed GM's light truck/car diesel program for a generation.
Reliability reputation is very important, and Ford has put a LOT of its eggs into the EcoBoost basket!
They may add MPFI in combination with DI if they see problems, but for now I think they like the advanced PCV system they have as a solution. Time will tell.

 

[u wish u could ride]

You make a persuasive point but....
Do you remember GM's V8 and V6 diesels from the early eighties? They would easily outlast the warranty , but not much more and not without attention. They were so poor that they practically destroyed GM's light truck/car diesel program for a generation.
Reliability reputation is very important, and Ford has put a LOT of its eggs into the EcoBoost basket!
They may add MPFI in combination with DI if they see problems, but for now I think they like the advanced PCV system they have as a solution. Time will tell.

ford sells millions ,yes millions of Eco boost in different forms. you are on point with your reply . I worry about FRAME rust here in CT way more than intake valve carbon.step on the gas now and then from day one an you will be fine. Drive like a Oldman for short trips any engine is going to get carbon build up and clogged cats and rotted mufflers!!

 

[DavidR]

You make a persuasive point but....
Do you remember GM's V8 and V6 diesels from the early eighties? They would easily outlast the warranty , but not much more and not without attention. They were so poor that they practically destroyed GM's light truck/car diesel program for a generation.
Reliability reputation is very important, and Ford has put a LOT of its eggs into the EcoBoost basket!
They may add MPFI in combination with DI if they see problems, but for now I think they like the advanced PCV system they have as a solution. Time will tell.

This is also a good point. I believe Ford and others do try to achieve better than just getting past the warranty period, because reputation is important. But they still face cost and other competitive pressures that may limit what preventative measures they can add. My understanding is that they have either reintroduced PFI in the larger EB engines, or maybe they always had it. If that's true, I don't think they incurred the extra cost of that just to eliminate/reduce valve deposits. I read that it helps meet emissions under certain operating conditions. Maybe the 2.3 EB doesn't benefit from that. Toyota has also been reintroducing PFI in some engines as well.

 

[DavidR]

Earlier this year, I installed a catch can on my 2019 Mazda Miata from a well established and respected after market company. Kt cost me about $200. Six months and 4000 miles later, I removed the catch can from the Miata for several reasons - (1) the original hoses used were apparently not compatible with the oil-fuel crankcase blow-by resulting in a strong smell both in the car and when parked in the garage. NOTE: they did later come out with a replacement nitrile hose to address this issue (2) the catch can has a 50 micron porous bronze filter in the outlet port and I have a concern of a potential to restrict the flow of pressure from the crankcase if not cleaned regularly.

Not sure how much in-service testing some of the after market companies actually do, i.e., length of time. I'm sure Mazda Engineering does extensive testing before committing to a design feature. My engineering background is in aviation. Typically we do a failure "what if analysis" on designs. A catch can impacts the most expensive component on a vehicle. I question if many companies in the after market do this. If the engine is damaged as a result of an after market installation, will or can the company financially support warranty costs.

Despite having installed a catch can on our Ranger, this is the first anti-catch-can argument that I agree with.

Most of the previous arguments have been based on the fact that there isn't a large base of conclusive, scientifically obtained data that shows a catch can is guaranteed make a significant difference. My reaction to that is that the data argument cuts both ways - there's also no conclusive data that that shows they *don't* help, but at the same time there are reports of problems with valve deposits, even from owners of Ford dealerships. As a result, it's easy to conclude that having one can only help and not hurt.

Your argument, however, compares the possible worst-case scenarios, which is a valid thing to do. The worst case result of not using a catch can is slow degradation of performance and then the need for a $600 walnut shell blasting if the symptoms become bad enough. On the other hand, a catch can could potentially fail in a way that could cause significantly worse damage. I also agree that while most after-market component manufacturers do test their products, they don't have the resources to test them as extensively as an auto manufacturer. Those are valid points.

So the question is how likely is a catch can to fail in a way that can cause such damage, and how can that risk be reduced to the point that it's essentially a non-issue? There are a few things here. The first is that given the simplicity, catastrophic failure doesn't seem very likely. You do mention the bronze filter, however, which could potentially be subject to clogging. That might be a valid concern. The separator I use doesn't have that, it uses a large-surface-area fibrous coalescing filter instead. Even so, the filter resistance does increase over time, and the manufacturer does specify a filter change interval that should be followed. Yes, it's an extra maintenance step, like emptying the can, but if it's followed, will eliminate risk due to high filter resistance. I imagine the small bronze filter would need similar maintenance. The second thing is that Ford has anticipated imperfections in the PCV system, probably mostly due to the PCV valve, and they have incorporated a crankcase pressure monitor which should detect any situation where the crankcase isn't ventilating properly. Yes, that system could fail too, but then you're talking about the probability of two unlikely events occurring simultaneously, which is extremely small.

So despite having installed a catch can, I agree that it is an added point of possible failure, and that it requires proper maintenance to eliminate that risk or reduce it to an acceptable level. Anyone not willing to perform the required maintenance and checking should definitely not install one. They are not "set and forget" by any means.

 

[beetlespin]

I am waiting for Ford to offer a catch can for the 2019 Ranger.

 

[VAMike]

If catch cans came pre-installed on cars my feeling is that since it is a maintenance type item most people on the road will never ever check them for service. Which would eventually cause problems when they fill up.

I come from small diesels, which have a water separator in the fuel system. The manufacturers figured out a while ago how to turn that into an item to be serviced in the scheduled maintenance interval, and I'm sure they could do the same with a catch can if there was value in doing so.

 

[HarryD]

I have been communicating with Kyle Sargent at Ford Performance, and he has told me that they are indeed working on an Air/Oil Separator System for the Ranger. I am thinking that it will be very similar to the existing system available for the Mustang with the 2.3L Ecoboost engine. The Mustang system consists of both Right Hand Side and Left Hand Side units. They are a bit pricey, but they have the aforementioned Ford R&D incorporated.
I have included a link to the Ford Performance site where the Mustang systems are listed:

https://performanceparts.ford.com/search/2.3L_MUSTANG_ECOBOOST_OIL-AIR_SEPARATOR_LH

EDIT: These two units will need to be emptied occasionally, but according to the installation instructions, there should be spigots on the bottom for this purpose.

 

[RCMUSTANG]

For the people waiting for Ford to put it out it's still not street legal and I'm pretty sure does nothing for warranty either. In the descriptions it say they are for separating oil.

Sponsored