Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Cam Motion
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Mechanical Maintenance: Break-in / Oil & Fluids / Servicing

Mechanical Maintenance: Break-in / Oil & Fluids / Servicing Discussions on mechanical maintenance and servicing of your Camaro

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-11-2012, 12:32 PM   #51
Wvlsxjunkie
^ Has LSX addiction
 
Wvlsxjunkie's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 L99 SS
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern West Virginia
Posts: 72
Run one.
I own three lsx powered vehicles and they all have one.
Its debatable, but I choose to run one for peace of mind.

Brad
8yrs as GM technician.
__________________
2010 1SS
Minor mods
Wvlsxjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 12:50 PM   #52
SC2150
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro RS, RX supercharged
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 6,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by RollaMo View Post
You will never have a verdit, either for or against.
All you will ever get are "opinions" of what someone else has "read someone".

People will post up links to threads all day, both for and against.
But once again, those are just forum opinions.

The COPO Camaro has one, because it is a "Race Car" with a race built engine.
Plus it does not have to meet federal emission laws.

The average Camaro running around on the street probably does not need one, and will happily survive to over 150,000 miles with proper maintenance.
Absolutely false. I always quote facts, include automotive engineering data, service bullitens form GM and every other manufacturer domestic and foriegn. and as an engine builder (not someone that just drives a car and puts gas in) I also have posted every piccture one could want to see of the actual effects.....Rolla is correct that most will survive fine, it is only for those that want the longest lasting, the best economy, the most power.....but the rest is pure BS. Al one has to do is search the threads here and read the actual GM bulletins on this issue. And emmissions have nothing to do with a catchcan......a properly installed catchcan has no deletion of anything to do with emmissions, but actually results in a cleaner exhaust emmission than w/out one. The reason the manufacturers do not include them can come down to a fraction of a cent and be nixed.....and a catchcan requires monthly draining.......99.9% of car and light truck buyers today want to run the cheapest gas (87 octaine), change oil the least interval possible, never check oil or fluids, and only visit a service center when the check engine light prompts them to do so.

It all comes down to budget, target market demographics, the legal dept, and the ivory tower execs.....it has nothing to do with building the best car/truck possible, it is meeting the price range of the target market and (I'm nearly 60) anyone that has actualy worked in the industry would tell you (not a junior peon...senoir engineers) they have tons of great solutions and improvements they would like to implement, but management will never approve (yes, even a .20 cent item).

Now on to my qualifications VS those with just opionions arguing against them.....over 38 years building engines, GM tech (Pontiac/olds/GMC truck dealership for years), graduate of Reher Morrison Race Engine Building, have owned, driven, managed some of the most successful drag teams in both NHRA & IHRA for ages, these hold multiple Divisional, National, and World Championships in several classes (not someone that goes to a test & tune now and then) in both NHRA & IHRA. Have disscussions regularly over the years with GM/Ford & Chrysler engineers on these and other issues, and sell these to multiple GM dealers where they are used to document excess oil consumption and as over 11,000 customers can attest to the results first hand. So, ask specific technical questions for any part of any of this anyone is in doubt of and I will provide the documentation to answer with facts, not opinions, not uneducated guesses, and no fight to wreck the thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DRKS1D3 View Post
I'm not arguing in any way, shape or form, but when you're buying a $40k car...GM adding a $125 catch can at the factory would be a drop in the bucket.
Answered above, but if the engineers were allowed to add, redesign, make better the camaro would soon cost what a lambo costs. The engineers are some of the best talent out there....but their hands are tied....and if they get a no-go on a .20 cent additional cost added a $125 item they would not have a chance. And GM already has developed some excellent cans (Maserati started using them in the late 50's to prevent oil caused detonation) that work unreal well......but never have gotten approval to add them. The 1LE has an optional clean side separator, but the clean side is ony 2-5% of the ingestion. Almost all comes from the dirty side.

So, any truely wanting facts and data, please ask in detail and lets not have the opinions involved, just those that care and want an education. Those that have no intentions of doing the "best" for their car and just want to muddy the waters, please let this be facts only.

SC2150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 12:56 PM   #53
SC2150
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro RS, RX supercharged
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 6,080
Forgot to add....GM (and every other auto manufacturer) reccomend you come in every 12-15k miles and spend $150-$450 on TB cleaning and an upper induction cleaning to help remove the deposits caused (restore MPG and power is how they word it) by the oil ingestion....lots cheaper to prevent it in the first place as every time you do an upper induction cleaning some of the hard carbon gets trapped between the piston and cylinder wall causing scouring...that adds up over time.
SC2150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 01:22 PM   #54
SC2150
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro RS, RX supercharged
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 6,080
Anyone with a LS3/L99, remove your TB and look inside your IM and see what is ingesting. This car came the next day after delivery from the dealer:


Picture of SC and housing using a RX catchcan from day one for 16,000 miles VS a intercooler after 14,000 miles w/no can:









Scouring on pistons from carbon breaking loose:


Oil ingestion causes buildup on the piston rings and ring lands preventing them from moving freely to properly seal...resulting in loss of power and excess oil consumption:



Actual pictures from GM TSB:




Intake from LLT on left w/can from new, right w/out:
SC2150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 09:41 PM   #55
tonyko1
Banned
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro 2SS/RS Convertible, IBM
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC2150 View Post
Read these threads.....and yes, those not realizing what oil ingestion does can run their car for years and not be aware of the gradual degradation. And no, GM/Ford?Chrusler, etc. probably never will add the expense and another service procedure but the super cars (Maserati, Ferrari, etc.) as well as the Copo all have catchcans as it is performance and longevity for the goal.

Tons of real data, industry info, and automotive engineer data to read on the issues. If nothing else, the small cost for a GOOD functioning one....(most let as much through as they trap) the fuel savings alone pays for the can many times over (detonation from ANY oil ingestion no matter what type fuel delivery causes detonation and the knock sensors command the PCM to pull timing, thus less power is produced and less fuel economy) much less the long term effects. I have been buiulding and rebuilding race & performance engines as well as passenger cars for over 38 years.....if you saw the insides like I and many others do, you would never question the need to separate the oil before it is ingested.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216311

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68744
Been waiting for you to chime in. How about giving a disclaimer that your major interest in this is that you sell them.

Sorry, but you have been most arrogant and demeaning to my lack of knowledge.

However, I do know this: V8's don't need a catch-can, and the V6's, well, maybe.

Now, back to your modus operandi of sending out your pics of the uber-dirty piston rods and then the treatise.

Face it, your # 1 goal is to sell catch-cans. God bless you, but keep it "real".

Ugh.
tonyko1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 09:43 PM   #56
tonyko1
Banned
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro 2SS/RS Convertible, IBM
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,015
Oh wow, you beat me to the punch. Really, that is what is inside all our brand new L99/LS3's.............................REALLY ?

Guess what, you may be called for a witness to a class-action suit, in which case, hold on to all your pics and information.

Thank you.
tonyko1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 09:50 PM   #57
tonyko1
Banned
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro 2SS/RS Convertible, IBM
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apex Chase View Post
If GM had included a $125 catch can on every 5th Gen Camaros built through the end of the 2011 calender year is would have cost them just over $29 million just for the part alone.
Sir, I respect your opinion a whole bunch, as with others too, but, got to say, GM wouldn't pay for it anymore than they are paying for a catylitic convertor, the cost is born back to the consumer, as are seatbelts, airbags, etc, etc, etc.

I am all okay for a catch-can, I bought one and my friend, an independent mechanic who is broke and "rich" in the same week with work and lack of, wouldn't install an RX can I did buy. And he has owned 6 or 7 Camaros, but not a Gen 5 yet. He did advise a CAI though, so everything is relative.

Hate being a stick in the mud, but I feel it my duty.
tonyko1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 09:55 PM   #58
Angrybird 12
Retired, Cancer Survivor
 
Angrybird 12's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 CAMARO 1LT, 08 Vue, 14 Spark
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: J. C. Tennessee
Posts: 17,814
Believe what you want but I figured $125 for a Catchcan will pay for itself in maintenance cost in the long run. I have emptied mine twice and I would have hated to have had what came out of the can to have gotten sucked into my intake. It is cheap insurance....
__________________
Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE...CAMARO!

Previous Camaros: 1974, 1979 and 2010.
Angrybird 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 10:15 PM   #59
willhe64

 
willhe64's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 45th Vert, 2011 4x4, 9sec Vega
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyko1 View Post
Sir, I respect your opinion a whole bunch, as with others too, but, got to say, GM wouldn't pay for it anymore than they are paying for a catylitic convertor, the cost is born back to the consumer, as are seatbelts, airbags, etc, etc, etc.

I am all okay for a catch-can, I bought one and my friend, an independent mechanic who is broke and "rich" in the same week with work and lack of, wouldn't install an RX can I did buy. And he has owned 6 or 7 Camaros, but not a Gen 5 yet. He did advise a CAI though, so everything is relative.

Hate being a stick in the mud, but I feel it my duty.
And who exactly are you? You're expert source is a backyard mechanic Buddy who can't find steady work?

Why don't you come back with some facts and evidence to refute SC2150's claims instead of your high handed adamant and unbacked statements.
__________________
I feel it only fair to warn you, I have a black belt in CAPS LOCK.
willhe64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 11:44 PM   #60
tonyko1
Banned
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro 2SS/RS Convertible, IBM
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by willhe64 View Post
And who exactly are you? You're expert source is a backyard mechanic Buddy who can't find steady work?

Why don't you come back with some facts and evidence to refute SC2150's claims instead of your high handed adamant and unbacked statements.
No sir, my "backyard mechanic" is no backyard nothing. He owns his own shop and lives in a small town in Eastern Oregon that has no VESTED interest in anything, or else he would have installed the said RX catch can in my car, at my expense. But he refused, and is a BIG Camaro fan, owned plenty.

So ask yourself this...........Who is more credible, one who is selling the catch-cans for profit $$$ or one who could install one for $$ but yet turns it down? What is his or my motive, other than what we think we to be true, as opossd to.....well you tell me?

As for facts, not having facts for something does NOT prove...it aint proof. And the photos of engines without catch cans, if indeed that what that they are, is meaningless. Is that "facts", well you decide.

And by the way, do you sell catch-cans, or know someone who does, or have one yourself, what is your motive and YOUR PROOF, ha.

Keep huffing and puffing, whatever. Aint my money nor time. I have been writing this while watching a movie, so my interest is God's truth...

Whatever, who cares? It is your money do as you want.

Thank you.
tonyko1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 05:55 AM   #61
Blues45th
.........................
 
Drives: 45th anniversary edition v6 3.6L
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Dunedin, Florida
Posts: 920
Agreed!
Blues45th is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:57 AM   #62
Angrybird 12
Retired, Cancer Survivor
 
Angrybird 12's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 CAMARO 1LT, 08 Vue, 14 Spark
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: J. C. Tennessee
Posts: 17,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyko1 View Post

Keep huffing and puffing, whatever. Aint my money nor time. I have been writing this while watching a movie, so my interest is God's truth...

Whatever, who cares? It is your money do as you want.

Thank you.
So your taking the advice from someone that has 0 experience with 5th gens, catch cans, oil injestion, and what the catch can can do. Over pictures and testimonies from people that HAVE used them and installed them and KNOW FOR A FACT what they can do.
You say that the pictures and testimonies are not proof of anything yet we are expected to believe you instead.
We have no proof you ever bought a catch can or even asked a mechanic of any kind to install it, (something that anyone with the smallest bit of mechanical knowledge can do) or even if he exists.
Then you write this BS about not caring and do what you want with your own money. If that is so then quit saying this crap with no proof anything you say is true.
PS don't bring God into this.
__________________
Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE...CAMARO!

Previous Camaros: 1974, 1979 and 2010.

Last edited by Angrybird 12; 12-12-2012 at 09:34 AM.
Angrybird 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 09:30 AM   #63
SC2150
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro RS, RX supercharged
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 6,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyko1 View Post
No sir, my "backyard mechanic" is no backyard nothing. He owns his own shop and lives in a small town in Eastern Oregon that has no VESTED interest in anything, or else he would have installed the said RX catch can in my car, at my expense. But he refused, and is a BIG Camaro fan, owned plenty.

So ask yourself this...........Who is more credible, one who is selling the catch-cans for profit $$$ or one who could install one for $$ but yet turns it down? What is his or my motive, other than what we think we to be true, as opossd to.....well you tell me?

As for facts, not having facts for something does NOT prove...it aint proof. And the photos of engines without catch cans, if indeed that what that they are, is meaningless. Is that "facts", well you decide.

And by the way, do you sell catch-cans, or know someone who does, or have one yourself, what is your motive and YOUR PROOF, ha.

Keep huffing and puffing, whatever. Aint my money nor time. I have been writing this while watching a movie, so my interest is God's truth...

Whatever, who cares? It is your money do as you want.

Thank you.
As I have asked time and again, you interfere with every thread on the subject on a campaign to convince those that care about the best for their car to ignore all of this......you seem to have this as your #1 goal here....mislead and do a diservice for all the members that DO want to learn, etc. Again, every time I ask for you to post any supporting facts, all you do is attack with no data to support your opinion. I provide the technical data, pictures, my qualifications, and the invitation for anyone to ask detailed questions and I will provide any more data anyone cound want.

Yes, I manufacture one of the most effective oil separating crancase evac systems avaialable for street driven vehicles, but if greed was the motivation I woul not be offering such a robustly designed solution, I would be pushing a cheap china/ebay gimmick that looks good but is ineffective. 95% of the others on the market as shown are just empty cans with 2 fittings attached. Much more profitable than all the R&D and revisions involved in developing the product to where it is now.

Also I would like to point out that I dont make a cent endorsing the other cans on the market that we have tested and proven to do a good job.....they are direct competitors and this cost me sales when someone PM's and ask's if they should replace X can with the RX and I tell them its a great can, no need to spend the $.

You ignore my qualifications, and you talk of a "class action suite"'? For what?

So, lets go through each benefit from a properly functioning properly installed oil separating catchcan system.

Does oil ingestion cause detonation resulting in the PCM pulling timing and producing less power and fuel economy?

Yes, ask any tuner that has had to batttle with this or read the GM TSB's on the subject.....several other mebers have posted them on this forum.

Does oil ingestion cause harmful deposit build up and contribute to increased oil consumption?

Yes, ask any engine builder....and look for the posts where some have torn down to do other mods and what the engine looks like inside. The buiuld up on the piston rings and ringlands causes them to stick and not move freely so they do not create as good of a seal with the cylinder wall (GM TSB). The fix is to dissasemble the engine, remove the pistons, manually clean each ring land, install new rings, hone the cylinders, and reassemble.

Does oil burn just as well as gasoline?

No, try for yourself. Take and pour a teaspoon of the motor oil you use onto a saucer and try and light it on fire....it wont burn unless you can get the heat up to the point of vaporizing it...and then it is a dark sooty smoke of incomplete combustion. You ONLY want air & fuel in the combustion chamber, any amount of oil mist reduces the amount of energy released per explosive event producing less power, and causing some of the fuel to pass through unburnt. This reduces the fuel economy as well as the power.

Are the deposits left by the oil ingestion harmfull to the engines life and performance and efficiancy?

Yes, If looking at the carbon alone, it is extremely abrasive and as small particles break loose some get rapped between the cylinder walls and pistons resulting in the vertical scouring in the piston pictures I posted. (Yes, we have motors in every state of dissasembly and reassembly here at all times...ask anyone who has actually visited the shop and seen in person).

The build up on the valves reduces the volumetric efficiency of the port/valve/piston top/combustion chamber as it builds up resulting in the motor not working as efficiently as designed. The piston tops are designed specifically for a certain burn pattern during the combustion proccess for peak efficiancy, the carbon buld up on them alters this and thus less power/MPG. The combustion chamber and the quench areas to transfer heat away evenly are negatively affected. (If not GM would not have you coming in every 12-15k miles for TB cleaning and upper induction cleanings at a price many times a good catchcan can be had for.

So, instead of throwing misinformation and insults around point out in each of these paragraphs where any is not accurate and the supporting data to back up your opinion.

It's fine if YOU do not want to run one...its a free country, but to keep this campaign of misinformation to confuse those that DO want the best for their baby is a diservice to all.

SC2150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 11:39 AM   #64
Dyk-NO

 
Drives: 2010 Camaro LS M6
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Anchorage,Alaska
Posts: 911
please enlighten me with the difference between a single valve and a dual valve catch can.
__________________
"From ZERO to a Tire-Burning HERO!"


Dyk-NO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 12:11 PM   #65
SC2150
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro RS, RX supercharged
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 6,080
Single valve has only one flow controlling checkvalve as only the intake manifold vacuum is used as the OEM system does. The can just installs inline between the crankcase evac barb and the IM vac barb so all emmissions remain intact and it just separates the oil mist/vapor from the rest of the suspended combustion byproducts.

The dual valve is used when you are turbo or centri supercharged as the IM becomes pressurized the primary valve will sense this and close preventing the boost from pressurizing the crankcase and then the secondary valve will open and use the inlet side suction of the head unit to continue the evacuation and then when you fall out of boost the valves return to the NA mode.


The dual valve can be used with a Maggie/ZR1 style top mount as well for an added evac source when driven hard, but is not neccesary for most top mounts. It would connect slightly differently.

For big cube builds or any with boost much over 10-12# the Monster can is the standard dual valve on steroids with over twice the capacity to deal with the added blow-by these motors experiance.

If a turbo or centri build did not have the correct checkvalving every time you would go into boost the crankcase would also get pressurized. Most FI kits come with a checkvalve to put inline to prevent this, but then when in boost the crankcase pressure will follow the path of least resistance, which is back flowing through the cleanside and bring the oil laden vapors through the main air filter/intake tube and that presents another issue.

Ask more questions.....especially any pertaining to a specific application or how oil ingestion affects the motor you have. Fleet owners of light trucks and vans buy these just for the fuel savings which avg's 1-3 MPG with the elimination of the detonation that puts these motors into the low octaine timing tables.

SC2150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 12:50 PM   #66
willhe64

 
willhe64's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 45th Vert, 2011 4x4, 9sec Vega
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyko1 View Post
No sir, my "backyard mechanic" is no backyard nothing. He owns his own shop and lives in a small town in Eastern Oregon that has no VESTED interest in anything, or else he would have installed the said RX catch can in my car, at my expense. But he refused, and is a BIG Camaro fan, owned plenty.

So ask yourself this...........Who is more credible, one who is selling the catch-cans for profit $$$ or one who could install one for $$ but yet turns it down? What is his or my motive, other than what we think we to be true, as opossd to.....well you tell me?

As for facts, not having facts for something does NOT prove...it aint proof. And the photos of engines without catch cans, if indeed that what that they are, is meaningless. Is that "facts", well you decide.

And by the way, do you sell catch-cans, or know someone who does, or have one yourself, what is your motive and YOUR PROOF, ha.

Keep huffing and puffing, whatever. Aint my money nor time. I have been writing this while watching a movie, so my interest is God's truth...

Whatever, who cares? It is your money do as you want.

Thank you.
Your Mechanic has no idea what he is talking about. He probably refused because he did not no how to install it. Can't find the valve cover.

I've also been building and racing cars for 25 years. Dozens of racing engines for myself and others. My shop is next door to an engine rebuilders. I've seen hundreds of examples of the problems caused by oil ingestion.

Fact. You need to evacuate excess gasses from the crankcase. You can blow out seals, have poor ring seating and a host of other issues. In a race motor we do this into the headers. In a street car this is illegal for pollution reasons.

OIL INGESTION IS AN UNWANTED SIDE EFFECT OF CYCLING THESE GASES BACK INTO THE COMBUSTION PROCESS.

And the results of this are not beneficial to your engine, they are harmful. For all the reasons Tracey stated.

There are others on here who would rather run some seafoam through the motor every once in a while. This is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Quintessential example of a pound of cure rather than an ounce of prevention. Loosening all the harmful deposits and having them pass through the motor.

I have a catch can and I've seen the results. What a simple solution to an unwanted problem. I don't even know why this argument keeps popping up.
__________________
I feel it only fair to warn you, I have a black belt in CAPS LOCK.
willhe64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 02:37 PM   #67
Bradrulz

 
Drives: 2011 Camaro 1LT IOM
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Green Valley, AZ
Posts: 778
To bad Camaro5 doesn't have an option to give a user a thumbs up/down. Tonyko1 would definitely be receiving a lot of thumbs down.
__________________
MRT2.0 with Helmholtz Pipes, Cold Air Inductions CAI, 4-Pack Gauges, Flat Black Stripes, Added Spare Tire Kit, Elite Catch Can, Chrome 20" Wheels, HUD, ABL Doors, GM Dovetail, Matte Black Gills, Rear Fascia Blackout
Bradrulz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 03:45 PM   #68
Scott@Bjorn3D


 
Scott@Bjorn3D's Avatar
 
Drives: Kami, 2013 2SS LS3 Luvin
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Eufaula, Alabama
Posts: 6,102
Send a message via MSN to Scott@Bjorn3D
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC2150 View Post
As I have asked time and again, you interfere with every thread on the subject on a campaign to convince those that care about the best for their car to ignore all of this......you seem to have this as your #1 goal here....mislead and do a diservice for all the members that DO want to learn, etc. Again, every time I ask for you to post any supporting facts, all you do is attack with no data to support your opinion. I provide the technical data, pictures, my qualifications, and the invitation for anyone to ask detailed questions and I will provide any more data anyone cound want.

Yes, I manufacture one of the most effective oil separating crancase evac systems avaialable for street driven vehicles, but if greed was the motivation I woul not be offering such a robustly designed solution, I would be pushing a cheap china/ebay gimmick that looks good but is ineffective. 95% of the others on the market as shown are just empty cans with 2 fittings attached. Much more profitable than all the R&D and revisions involved in developing the product to where it is now.

Also I would like to point out that I dont make a cent endorsing the other cans on the market that we have tested and proven to do a good job.....they are direct competitors and this cost me sales when someone PM's and ask's if they should replace X can with the RX and I tell them its a great can, no need to spend the $.

You ignore my qualifications, and you talk of a "class action suite"'? For what?

So, lets go through each benefit from a properly functioning properly installed oil separating catchcan system.

Does oil ingestion cause detonation resulting in the PCM pulling timing and producing less power and fuel economy?

Yes, ask any tuner that has had to batttle with this or read the GM TSB's on the subject.....several other mebers have posted them on this forum.

Does oil ingestion cause harmful deposit build up and contribute to increased oil consumption?

Yes, ask any engine builder....and look for the posts where some have torn down to do other mods and what the engine looks like inside. The buiuld up on the piston rings and ringlands causes them to stick and not move freely so they do not create as good of a seal with the cylinder wall (GM TSB). The fix is to dissasemble the engine, remove the pistons, manually clean each ring land, install new rings, hone the cylinders, and reassemble.

Does oil burn just as well as gasoline?

No, try for yourself. Take and pour a teaspoon of the motor oil you use onto a saucer and try and light it on fire....it wont burn unless you can get the heat up to the point of vaporizing it...and then it is a dark sooty smoke of incomplete combustion. You ONLY want air & fuel in the combustion chamber, any amount of oil mist reduces the amount of energy released per explosive event producing less power, and causing some of the fuel to pass through unburnt. This reduces the fuel economy as well as the power.

Are the deposits left by the oil ingestion harmfull to the engines life and performance and efficiancy?

Yes, If looking at the carbon alone, it is extremely abrasive and as small particles break loose some get rapped between the cylinder walls and pistons resulting in the vertical scouring in the piston pictures I posted. (Yes, we have motors in every state of dissasembly and reassembly here at all times...ask anyone who has actually visited the shop and seen in person).

The build up on the valves reduces the volumetric efficiency of the port/valve/piston top/combustion chamber as it builds up resulting in the motor not working as efficiently as designed. The piston tops are designed specifically for a certain burn pattern during the combustion proccess for peak efficiancy, the carbon buld up on them alters this and thus less power/MPG. The combustion chamber and the quench areas to transfer heat away evenly are negatively affected. (If not GM would not have you coming in every 12-15k miles for TB cleaning and upper induction cleanings at a price many times a good catchcan can be had for.

So, instead of throwing misinformation and insults around point out in each of these paragraphs where any is not accurate and the supporting data to back up your opinion.

It's fine if YOU do not want to run one...its a free country, but to keep this campaign of misinformation to confuse those that DO want the best for their baby is a diservice to all.

Tracy I gave up on the dude. He has no fraking clue what he is talking about and does open his mouth on every catch can thread.
__________________
2013 2SS, GM Strut Tower Brace, CAI Intake Black, VMAX TB, Elite Catch Can, Hotchkis Chassis Brace, Hurst Shifter, 3.91 1LE Complete Rear End, NPP, 1LE Track Pack,Factory Reproductions Style 41 ZL1 Fitment Wheels 10" on all 4 corners
Scott@Bjorn3D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 03:54 PM   #69
SC2150
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro RS, RX supercharged
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 6,080
At least you do! The Mike Norris is also a very good can we endorse.



SC2150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:19 PM   #70
tonyko1
Banned
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro 2SS/RS Convertible, IBM
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,015
Yeah well whatever. I have now gotten 9 "private msgs" telling me how I am right, from people who have bought them and been disappointed, of a vendor on this site, guess which one, who won't allow him to return it and states he is a one-man operation, etc. etc.

As for the criticisms, go ahead, I care not. And for using God in any subject matter, HE is my God as much as anyone's, don't need you to tell me how to interact with Him.

Lastly, my mechanic is one of the most honest, hardest working people I know, mechanic not withstanding. He works on many out of warranty Vettes and cars of all kinds. He told me he would install it for me if I wanted, but he really didn't want to promise it would do anything. He stated the L99 was engineered to burn off the oil and if you think about it......if you go 3000+ miles and have half a ounce of oil in the can, think what that was each time it happened, it vaporized as it burned off. And who needs a catchcan that is a tight fit and then a pain to undo and clean.

To review:

1. It is your money, fine, do as you please.

2. For a V8, not needed for those who don't race or will trade-in < 100k miles.

3. My "vested" interest is I don't like people intimidating others with misguided information. It is akin to intellectual bullying, and I won't let that go.

4. Who has a vested interest in this, a person selling you one or not? This is one of my pet peeves, right up there with OnStar and to a lesser degree, Sirius. But this one I aint letting go of.

5. There is no # 5.

Bye now.
tonyko1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 08:28 PM   #71
tonyko1
Banned
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro 2SS/RS Convertible, IBM
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,015
SC2150.......You ignore my qualifications, and you talk of a "class action suite"'? For what?



Dog gone it, there is a # 5...........I mentioned a class action suit, not suite, details are important..........

What I meant was if the pics you show are TYPICAL, and not Atypical..........see how important spelling is.................if the pics you show are typical, I meant that you would be an expert witness for a class action suit of owners of these engines against GM for a known inherent flaw that GM must be aware of but chose to ignore, if indeed that is the case.

Thank you.
tonyko1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 09:00 PM   #72
Bradrulz

 
Drives: 2011 Camaro 1LT IOM
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Green Valley, AZ
Posts: 778
Now this clown is an attorney too.

:troll:
__________________
MRT2.0 with Helmholtz Pipes, Cold Air Inductions CAI, 4-Pack Gauges, Flat Black Stripes, Added Spare Tire Kit, Elite Catch Can, Chrome 20" Wheels, HUD, ABL Doors, GM Dovetail, Matte Black Gills, Rear Fascia Blackout
Bradrulz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 09:03 PM   #73
Blues45th
.........................
 
Drives: 45th anniversary edition v6 3.6L
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Dunedin, Florida
Posts: 920
Hissing noise? Seems like not getting enough pressure built up in it. And I will say. These are something that if you ever had a gm engine know oil consumption is known and have ruined cars because of it.
Blues45th is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 09:45 PM   #74
Angrybird 12
Retired, Cancer Survivor
 
Angrybird 12's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 CAMARO 1LT, 08 Vue, 14 Spark
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: J. C. Tennessee
Posts: 17,814
When I first heard of catch cans I thought it wasn't necessary and was a gimmick too. I questioned many times back 5 months ago if they were necessary. The more research I did on the problem the more I understood the issue. I decided to give it a chance. After running the RX catch can for the last few months I can see the value in having one. I still feel like its cheap insurance for keeping your system cleaner for a longer time than not having a catch can at all.
GM engines are not alone in this problem. Do some real research on your own instead of relying on hearsay and see for yourself that a catch can, while may not be a 100% effective prevention, it can delay the effects of carbonization.
__________________
Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE...CAMARO!

Previous Camaros: 1974, 1979 and 2010.
Angrybird 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2012, 09:49 PM   #75
Blues45th
.........................
 
Drives: 45th anniversary edition v6 3.6L
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Dunedin, Florida
Posts: 920
Lol gm bought back my cts because of it and oil consumption as they referred to it.
Blues45th is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.