UPR ZL1 Catch Can Install and Review

[MrLSX]

Installation

Remove the factory bolt at the passenger side upper radiator mount and install the UPR bracket.




The port marked with the silver ring is 'OUT' to the intake manifold. The other side is 'IN' coming from the port at the lifter valley.

This is the hose you will remove, and install the Plug and Play catch can fittings in it's place. This hose lets oil go right into the intake / supercharger!



The lower port is the 'dirty' side from the lifter valley. The upper port is the vacuum port to the intake / supercharger. The UPR Plug and Play fittings will snap right on like the factory fittings did.


Should look something like this.


FINISHED PRODUCT






The internal designs of the cans...

[ZMEnow]

Looks like a knockoff of a Moroso Can, with a pivot arm.

[jvervoren]

This looks pretty nice and a lot cheaper than the Elite catch can..

[Elite Engineering]

Originally Posted by jvervoren

This looks pretty nice and a lot cheaper than the Elite catch can..

This really is a case that you get what you pay for! Yes, that is the same design as Moroso and about 30 other brands made by the same company.

It traps app 30% of what enters it allow the rest to still be ingested doing little to benefit the engine.

You can read an entire thread (or we can provide it) of the UPR user with the same Catch Can you are using where they did a test showing all of this, the main parts if interested in how the test is conducted. Note, we use this patented design in our E2-X Series.



We would be happy to post it again for anyone interested.

[MrLSX]

Originally Posted by ZMEnow

Looks like a knockoff of a Moroso Can, with a pivot arm.

Looks, but isn't.

Originally Posted by jvervoren

This looks pretty nice and a lot cheaper than the Elite catch can..

Its a very high quality product. Not sure where Elite or Mighty Mouse stand but definitely comparable.

Originally Posted by Elite Engineering

This really is a case that you get what you pay for! Yes, that is the same design as Moroso and about 30 other brands made by the same company.

It traps app 30% of what enters it allow the rest to still be ingested doing little to benefit the engine.

You can read an entire thread (or we can provide it) of the UPR user with the same Catch Can you are using where they did a test showing all of this, the main parts if interested in how the test is conducted. Note, we use this patented design in our E2-X Series.

We would be happy to post it again for anyone interested.

Post it. I'm interested to see if it's the same design.

[Elite Engineering]

Originally Posted by MrLSX

Post it. I'm interested to see if it's the same design.

Note, we use this patented design in our E2-X Series Catch Cans:


I’ve had a UPR catch can on my 5.0 since last summer. It catches a lot, especially in the cold months. But I’ll get right to my test. I added an RX can inline after my UPR can to see if the UPR was missing anything. And if it was allowing some to pass through, was it enough for the RX to catch anything? I don’t drive a lot of miles regularly since my F150 is not a daily driver, so my results will take some time. This thread is to document how I set it up and what I catch over time.
I installed the RX can just as the directions explained, but I routed the hoses differently. I left my UPR can right where it’s been for months, but rerouted one hose. I left the hose from the passenger side of the engine to the inlet of the UPR can. Then a new hose from UPR can outlet, routed to the inlet of the RX can. The RX outlet hose goes back to the engine. The PCV exhaust now flows from the engine, through the UPR, then through the RX, and finally back up to the engine intake.
Before installing everything for the test, I cleaned the UPR can thoroughly. The bottom of the can (inside) was covered with a thin layer of stiff sludge that I could only clean out using gas. I’m glad that was caught, along with the ounces of oil, water, etc, over the months I’ve been emptying it. But I was surprised at the outlet hose from the UPR can. It was wet with oil. Obviously some was getting through the can and back to my intake. I’ve never let the can get close to half full before emptying it. Nearly every time I’ve emptied it, there was 1/4“ or less in the bottom. I’m noting this in case someone thinks I left the UPR get overfilled and it flowed through. Nevertheless, I started this test after cleaning everything for a fresh start.
I plan to leave this setup on for a thousand miles or so, and report my findings from each can.
1st picture: UPR can as it was originally installed.
2nd: CleanUPR can.
3rd: RX can installed. The hose in the top center of the can is the inlet. The outlet hose on the right has a check valve.
4th: Engine outlet to UPR inlet on left of can. UPR outlet on right side of can routed around (smaller hose) to the RX inlet. You can also see the other smaller hose coming back up from the RX can and ending at the intake on the engine.


Summary of how the test is conducted:


Thanks for the feedback so far. Like I said, this will take some time for me to accumulate enough miles to have valuable results.
To answer some questions...
- Yes I plan to do the reverse test, with RX first and UPR in line after it. I'll see how this first round goes, and then decide if I still want to do that.
- The hose sizes are what come standard with each can. The UPR comes with 1/2 or 5/8" (not sure), and the RX is 3/8". I like the way I could route the 3/8" hose from RX without it collapsing the way the bigger hoses do. The OEM hose is an odd material. It looks to be assembled and then heat shrunk into a fixed, hard, shape. It's smaller than 1/2" and the bend portion is even narrower.
- My UPR can collection rates varied a LOT over the past months. I think December caught mostly water, and it was collecting at many times the rate as any other month, which seems to be normal.
- I'm happy with the UPR can has done for me. I also thought Tuner Boost was full of it when he claimed most cans allowed flow though. I figured they would somewhat, but I was surprised to see how wet that outlet hose was when I removed it from the UPR can before cleaning. Maybe the RX will do the same after the test though. Time will tell, and I'm as curious as anyone to see how they compare.


First stage of the test:


Thanks for the feedback so far. Like I said, this will take some time for me to accumulate enough miles to have valuable results.
To answer some questions...
- Yes I plan to do the reverse test, with RX first and UPR in line after it. I'll see how this first round goes, and then decide if I still want to do that.
- The hose sizes are what come standard with each can. The UPR comes with 1/2 or 5/8" (not sure), and the RX is 3/8". I like the way I could route the 3/8" hose from RX without it collapsing the way the bigger hoses do. The OEM hose is an odd material. It looks to be assembled and then heat shrunk into a fixed, hard, shape. It's smaller than 1/2" and the bend portion is even narrower.
- My UPR can collection rates varied a LOT over the past months. I think December caught mostly water, and it was collecting at many times the rate as any other month, which seems to be normal.
- I'm happy with the UPR can has done for me. I also thought Tuner Boost was full of it when he claimed most cans allowed flow though. I figured they would somewhat, but I was surprised to see how wet that outlet hose was when I removed it from the UPR can before cleaning. Maybe the RX will do the same after the test though. Time will tell, and I'm as curious as anyone to see how they compare.


Next report:


I thought I'd add a post to keep this thread alive since it is taking me awhile to get enough miles on the truck for valid results. Now that spring weather is finally arriving, I haven't been putting as many miles on it since I'm busy. But I have around 600 miles on the test set up so far. I emptied the cans recently and recorded the volumes to date. I'd like to wait until I get to 1000 miles before posting the results from the test, but I'll give some preliminary feedback.

- Emptying process -
First the UPR. I'm used to emptying the UPR can regularly, so it's not a big deal to unscrew, guide the can out from between the hoses, pour it out, guide it back in between the hoses, get it lined up carefully (so I don't cross thread the soft aluminum) and screw it back up snug. All that takes less than a few minutes so it's rather easy.
Now the RX can. Raise the hood, hold an empty water bottle under the drain tube, open the valve, close the valve, close the hood. I kid you not, it takes no more time than it took to read those steps. I knew it would be easy to empty, but it is ridiculously easy.

_ The weather so far -
During the first week of the test we had winter weather, with some snow. Since then we have had mild weather. Temperatures are in the 50's and 60's most days.

- What they caught so far -
I won't share the amounts yet, but I'll give some info. The UPR can has caught a 'mostly oil with a bit of water' mixture so far. The RX can (in line after the UPR) has had just the opposite. It's collected mostly water or fuel, with some oil mixed in.
I emptied the UPR first, and I would estimate it has collected the normal amount compared to what it usually does I empty it. I was pleased that my set up with 2 cans didn't seem to change the normal flow and collection I was used to seeing with just the UPR can. When I was about the turn the valve to empty the RX, I paused to a few seconds wondering if anything would come out. After all it was a new can that would need to get some oil/water coated on the inside before there would be enough to drip to the bottom (The UPR can had been in use for many months and although I cleaned the can I did not rinse off the filter material). Plus I wondered if the valve of the RX can protruded up into the can, and if it required some liquid to collect before there was enough to spill over that valve nipple and exit the can. Then I opened the valve and I had to smile when I had some liquid drain out. I thought all along that if it caught more than 10% of what the UPR was collecting, I would be surprised. It's still early in the test, and I would like to redo the test after reversing the order of the cans later, but I am surprised so far. I'm hoping to get more miles on the truck soon so I can wrap up this phase of the test.


First stage results with UPR first, and RX second AFTER the UPR did its best:


1000 Miles of Testing Results

- The Weather has been warmer lately. So the test began with sub freezing temperatures, and gradually increased through the 70's and topped off in the mid 80's yesterday. I couldn't have asked for a better range of temperatures for this test.

- What they caught was astounding to me. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the UPR might miss.
The UPR stayed on track with what it has been accumulating for many months. Each time I emptied them, it had about the same amount. It's contents were mostly oil which smelled like used oil. It caught 17cc total which is just under 3 1/2 tsp.
The RX had more than the UPR each time I emptied them. It's contents were an oil/fuel/water type mix that had a much stronger odor. Not a fuel smell, but a sharper chemical smell compared to the odor of used oil. It caught a total of 67cc which is just over 13 1/2 tsp.

- Final totals:
UPR - 17cc
RX - 67cc


The RX can caught 4 times the amount the UPR can caught, after the UPR can removed what it could. I said from the beginning I would be surprised if the RX can could pull 10% of what the UPR caught, since it was second in line. If someone told me it would catch an equal amount I would have said BS. For it to catch 4 times what the UPR can caught is unreal.



Not a small difference, but a huge difference. Now on the the RX first and the UPR second:

The routing of cans has been reversed so the second phase of the test is underway. I cleaned the cans and hoses so neither has an advantage. I also checked the inside of the hoses as I disassembled everything. The exit hose from the UPR was dripping with oil and it made a mess as I took it apart. The exit hose from the UPR was clean and dry. It still looked new. That is what prompted me to clean all the hoses before starting this phase. Is the double can routing helping the second can that much, or is one can that much better. Time will tell again.


Note: For the second stage UPR provided the upgrade to the "new" design while the base RX (E2-X design) remains the same:

Phase 2 is almost complete now, thanks to some extra mileage for work. I'll report on that soon and begin phase 3.


As I said above, UPR shipped parts for me to do phase 3 of the test. I bought my UPR can in June, and they changed the can slightly since then. The new diffuser/extension will only fit cans made after that, so they shipped a full new kit to test. Thank you UPR for helping with this, and for your input in this thread.
After shipping the kit, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh from the exit side of my existing can for the remainder of phase 2, and to remove the mesh from the exit side of the new can before starting phase 3. I removed it from both (phase 2 was half way done when I removed it from the existing can). When I was removing the mesh from the short side of the new can (in preparation for phase 3), I realized the diffuser was assembled backwards. For our 5.0 F150's the long side of the diffuser must be on the passenger side of the can when installed. I disassembled, removed the mesh packed up in the can top on the exit/passenger side, and reassembled the can with diffuser. For anyone who might have received their cans assembled by UPR, you should check to see if it was assembled correctly before installing. (EDIT: Joe notes below they assemble the cans for shipping, and all cans should be assembled for your own installation needs) I also had a small piece of the stainless steel mesh (1/8") drop out when I was doing that. I wasn't thrilled with that so I unrolled, and lightly tapped the mesh in case there were any other loose pieces, but there weren't. A quick note on the UPR kit... it is much improved since I bought mine. The hoses are pre cut to the proper lengths, the elbow fittings are nickel rather than plastic, and they include Ford OEM snap on valve cover and intake fittings.



Test Results

- I'll summarize the test to date. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR.

Phase 2 Test Results
- The Weather has been average northern Ohio spring weather. Some rain, fog, cool nights, warm and hot days.

- Driving has been about the same through both phases. I good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 40% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, with a few very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling, and no towing.

- What they caught this time might have been predicted by some (after the results of phase 1). RX was first in line, with the UPR after it to catch anything the RX might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was half of that caught in the first phase. The first phase had some cold weather which accounted for more water in the mix and the higher volume.
The contents from the RX can was mostly oil/fuel, and had a strong chemical/solvent smell again. It caught 35.5cc total which is approximately 7 1/8 tsp.
The UPR can caught about the same mix of oil/fuel, but didn't smell quite as strong. Halfway through this phase, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh on the exit side of the UPR can. I did that, but noticed no difference in what it was catching. But since it was second in line, and there was little to catch, that's understandable. The UPR can caught 1.75cc total which is approximately 1/3 tsp. With so little collecting this time, I monitored the contents of the UPR can but didn't empty it until the end of the test.

- Phase 2 Totals:
RX - 35.5cc
UPR - 1.75cc

- Other tidbits include the 'first in line' RX can caught 95% of the total volume. The exit hoses were very clean from both cans. The last few tanks of gas have produced slightly higher than my normal MPGs, but it's too early to tell on that (more to follow after phase 3).

-Phase 3, using the UPR can extension and diffuser, is underway. Details will follow.



Final Test Results

- I'll summarize the test phases. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details on phase 1. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR. The second phase results were: RX - 35.50cc, UPR - 1.75cc. The 'first in line' RX caught 95% of the total volume. See post 143 for more details on phase 2.

Phase 3 Test Results

- This time the UPR can was first in line as in phase 1, but it had the new can extension and diffuser added. It also had the mesh material removed from the exit side of the can.

- The Weather has been average northern Ohio early summer weather. Some rain with warm and hot days.

- Driving has been a good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 60% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, some steep hill climbs, and some very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling again, and no towing. I'll add some more thoughts on driving and MPGs below.

- What they caught was a mixed bag. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the extended UPR might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was down from the last phase, again. I assume it is due to the warmer weather and maybe my engine is using less oil with more miles? Either way, my test looks at the percent each can catches, compared to the total caught for that phase, so the volume isn't critical.
The contents from the extended UPR can was mostly oil, and had a used oil smell. The UPR caught 14.75cc which is approximately 3 tsp.
The RX can caught a fuel/water/oil mix. It smelled much more harsh again. The RX can caught 16.00cc which is approximately 3 1/4 tsp.

- Phase 3 Totals:
UPR - 14.75cc (48%)
RX - 16.00cc (52%)

- 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!



So, this is how anyone can test any catchcans to determine how much, or how little they actually remove from the PCV vapors.

Thanks!!

Here are some images of the UPR Catch Can used for this testing:

[BestCatchCan]

Just wanted to share the Patented internal design of the catch can that is on MrLSX's ZL1 Camaro to eliminate any confusion or speculation.

The catch can in the test was from 2014 and was not our design and made by another vendor for us. We worked with a few of the biggest oil filter manufacturers and developed the best coalescing and condensing internal design in hot or cold based on years and years of testing.

Check out the attached pictures of our catch can internals and you will see how advanced they have become. We do not stuff our catch cans with loose steel wool or generic media as everything in our catch can is purpose built and and manufactured for us.

Our patented internal design of our Plug n Play™ Catch Can Systems has more cost in the complex internal design than the entire catch can from many other manufacturers. Take a close look at the complexity of coalescing screens and filters that are used between all the chambers in our catch can system.

This is the only patented catch can on the market that's specifically based on the Function/Utility of how efficiently it controls the oil through a series of screens, filters, and chambers. The science behind this system is closely controlled by the size and amount of orifices in each part and stage.

This post was made for MrLSX and to eliminate any confusion that other have spread all over the web about our internal catch can design. We will be an advertiser on here next week and be sharing all our new Chevrolet offerings as we are in the middle of launching on multiple GM/Chevrolet forums.

Thank you and everyone have a great weekend.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/CbbP1RVGNmRhS3Vv7

https://photos.app.goo.gl/gYLqGshkMTNzKXLi8

https://photos.app.goo.gl/taeLPnNwjcNQRLf19

We look forward to being a big part of the community and helping everyone.

Have a great weekend, Joe

[Bigtime53]

So would someone tell me why this was not on these cars from GM? Don'r you think if it was really needed they would be on the car from the factory? I have talked to several tuners who have told me it is not necessary to have one so I have not bought one.

[ZMEnow]

Originally Posted by Bigtime53

So would someone tell me why this was not on these cars from GM? Don'r you think if it was really needed they would be on the car from the factory? I have talked to several tuners who have told me it is not necessary to have one so I have not bought one.

Because GM would not take the risk that you are going to check it and empty regularly.

[Bigtime53]

Originally Posted by ZMEnow

Because GM would not take the risk that you are going to check it and empty regularly.

Well I can see your point there.

[Elite Engineering]

Originally Posted by ZMEnow

Because GM would not take the risk that you are going to check it and empty regularly.

This is a true statement. We have spoken with many of the GM engineers at the proving grounds in Milford, MI, they all say the same thing. They have a hard enough time just getting car owners to change their oil.

[MrLSX]

Internal catch can pictures uploaded to the first post.

[MrLSX]

Bump for catch can data.