What's with the oil catch cans?

[HSKR R/T]

Is that the "billet" folks? Looks like a decent can, but I'm not a fan of the single bolt mount, think it's likely to shake loose. Or are they counting on the outlet hose to hold the top position? I think a different bracket might be in order.

And I wonder about the effectiveness of engine mount vs. radiator area (a la Mishimoto). Might the radiator area be cooler and therefore better at condensing vapors? And the longer hoses associated with remote mount, although not pleasing, may also assist in cooling/condensing.

It's never loosened on me. Been in the truck for three years. If you are worried, a little loctite goes a long way. This is the same mount bracket Speedlogix and BilletTech have used since they started selling catch cans. Had a BilletTech can on my 2005 Magnum, I sold to get the truck, and it never loosened up on me either. single bolt allows for a little adjustment in mounting angle and location.

 

[securityguy]

yeap cost of R&D are overlooked by consumers and the time spent on innovating is not rewarded for the manufacturers because the amazon specials work "just as good."

exactly what i was saying.

The American's innovate and spend money on R&D. The Chinese then buy one, replicate it the best they can, and then sell it on eBay or other websites for under $50...that's why this happens and why the US is in the position it's in now...the CRAPPER!!!

 

[HSKR R/T]

yeap cost of R&D are overlooked by consumers and the time spent on innovating is not rewarded for the manufacturers because the amazon specials work "just as good."

exactly what i was saying.

So you're saying the cheaper options have no R&D? You can't just throw some parts together for an application specific item and not doing any testing to make sure it will work for the application you are listing it for

 

[HSKR R/T]

The American's innovate and spend money on R&D. The Chinese then buy one, replicate it the best they can, and then sell it on eBay or other websites for under $50...that's why this happens and why the US is in the position it's in now...the CRAPPER!!!

American companies borrow designs just as much as anyone else

 

[Rick3478]

You dont want the vapor droplets dropping out in the hoses.

Why not, hoses are expendable? Wouldn't hurt anything there, and would eventually get sucked on into the catch can, if it goes anywhere at all.

 

[TheWaterman83]

Mine is easy to empty.

Pass for me. Different strokes for different folks. I like where mine is mounted. As long as it works though!

 

[Rick3478]

I don’t get into pissing matches with people on a forum.

This is how we do science. Questioning assumptions is important.

I believe my pics are pretty self explanatory.

So you showed two "gunked up" photos that looked pretty similar to my eye. Not exactly conclusive evidence. If you had photos of similar mileage parts from engines that had catch cans, that might be more compelling. Or what if they looked the same? Wouldn't that be a hoot?

I don't assume the lack of a catch can caused all that "gunking up" when worn out rings in high mileage engines are sufficient to cause all that's observed. Nor do I assume a catch can will catch all of the "gunk". At best it will catch some of it, and that fraction is yet to be demonstrated. And I suspect that the amount of blow-by in a high mileage engine may just overwhelm the catch can and gunk things up anyway. And I question whether the amount of carbon that might be created by burning a few ounces of oil droplets is significant in the face of the tens of thousands of gallons of fuel that the engine will burn in the same time period.

Probably missed some things, but that's okay. Sorry if you thought it was a pissing match, but in all fairness must admit I am playing devil's advocate up to a point. In total, I get what the catch can is trying to do, but I question whether there is a useful payback in performance or longevity. I might actually get one after the warranty runs out, but don't need to make that decision yet for awhile.

 

[mikeru82]

No, all I see is you stretching to turn it around on me. At no point in time did I ever consider buying a Mishimoto catch can after seeing where they are mounted and how the lines were run.

So then you did see. Damn dude, you really need to relax a little and have some fun.

Mine is easy to empty. View attachment 167217

Which can is that? It's a clean installation but I don't think I want to have it mounted to a vibrating engine, particularly when the can has a decent amount of liquid inside. Glad you're happy with your CC.

 

[HSKR R/T]

So then you did see. Damn dude, you really need to relax a little and have some fun.


Which can is that? It's a clean installation but I don't think I want to have it mounted to a vibrating engine, particularly when the can has a decent amount of liquid inside. Glad you're happy with your CC.

The whole truck vibrates. You won't be able to mount a can anywhere that won't. Unless you isolate it on a gyroscopically stabilized mount. That mount location is the most common for the Hemi engines. And not sure what vibrations have to do with liquid in a catch can. Unless you don't empty it until it gets full

 

[boogielander]

So you're saying the cheaper options have no R&D? You can't just throw some parts together for an application specific item and not doing any testing to make sure it will work for the application you are listing it for

if you see scan and copy an existing product as R&D then sure... they got R&D.

 

[DeanM2]

There is one other consideration that I have not seen mentioned, above. It is the reason I put a CC on my new Ram. Burning the crankcase gases in the combustion chamber is environmentally preferable to venting them to the atmosphere. But you are now also unnecessarily burning an ounce of oil in the combustion chamber every 1000 miles. That is adding to the total environmental discharge from the engine.
I believe that all engines would be required to have a CC if there was not also a requirement that all emissions equipment be maintenance free for 100K miles. A CC is just not going to go 100K miles without your servicing it.

 

[Rick3478]

There is one other consideration that I have not seen mentioned, above. It is the reason I put a CC on my new Ram. Burning the crankcase gases in the combustion chamber is environmentally preferable to venting them to the atmosphere. But you are now also unnecessarily burning an ounce of oil in the combustion chamber every 1000 miles. That is adding to the total environmental discharge from the engine.

That's misleading. That ounce of burned oil produces power and pollutants approximately equal to an ounce of gasoline that wasn't burned. It's not "adding to", it's "instead of", and the difference is small. It might even be argued that burning is the cleanest way to dispose of it.

 

[HSKR R/T]

That's misleading. That ounce of burned oil produces power and pollutants approximately equal to an ounce of gasoline that wasn't burned. It's not "adding to", it's "instead of", and the difference is small. It might even be argued that burning is the cleanest way to dispose of it.

I'd highly doubt it would be the same as buring an equal amount of gasoline. Different combustion peoperties, which his why it will leave deposits, where as gasoline will actually clean deposits.

 

[Rick3478]

I'd highly doubt it would be the same as buring an equal amount of gasoline. Different combustion peoperties, which his why it will leave deposits, where as gasoline will actually clean deposits.

Perhaps not the same but at least in the ballpark, and the comment was about environmental impact. Manufacturing the catch can probably did more damage to the environment than the tiny amount of emissions it might prevent over its lifetime by trapping oil that would have been burned but now needs to be disposed of in some other way.

 

[6of36]

Perhaps not the same but at least in the ballpark, and the comment was about environmental impact. Manufacturing the catch can probably did more damage to the environment than the tiny amount of emissions it might prevent over its lifetime by trapping oil that would have been burned but now needs to be disposed of in some other way.

Used oil is recycled.

 

[DeanM2]

That's misleading. That ounce of burned oil produces power and pollutants approximately equal to an ounce of gasoline that wasn't burned. It's not "adding to", it's "instead of", and the difference is small. It might even be argued that burning is the cleanest way to dispose of it.

You are incorrect on all counts...
An ounce of oil burned does not produce the same amount of power as an ounce of gasoline, and produces more pollutants.
The ounce of oil introduced does not displace an ounce of gasoline. Gasoline is injected in proportion to the amount of air flowing as measured by the Mass Airflow Sensor.
Most automotive oil is now "recycled". That is, they filter out the impurities and use it for other purposes. They sure as heck do not burn it?

 

[DeanM2]

Manufacturing the catch can probably did more damage to the environment than the tiny amount of emissions it might prevent over its lifetime

Aluminum is an abundant and cheap material and is very easy to machine (Vs. other metals).

 

[kdoublep]

I run a dummy can as a placebo and my engine thinks it's clean

 

[Rick3478]

You are incorrect on all counts...
An ounce of oil burned does not produce the same amount of power as an ounce of gasoline, and produces more pollutants.
The ounce of oil introduced does not displace an ounce of gasoline. Gasoline is injected in proportion to the amount of air flowing as measured by the Mass Airflow Sensor.

What you describe is an open loop system, and our trucks don't run that way most of the time. There are also one or more "oxygen sensors" in the exhaust stream, and those signals are used by the system to adjust the amount of gasoline injected. So that whatever amount of power was produced by burning a tiny amount of oil mist in the intake, the amount of gasoline used during that same time frame will be reduced by however much would have been needed to produce that same power.

It's going to be a one-to-one relationship in terms of power produced, not in terms of volume. Oil actually contains more potential energy per volume, but its preferred combustion conditions are different, so I can't tell offhand how close the volume relationship is going to be. I'd expect it to be in the ballpark at least, if there are any chemical engineers around, feel free to chime in.

As far as pollutants go, I reject considering CO2 a pollutant, and expect the exhaust catalyst will break down a majority of the rest.

Most automotive oil is now "recycled". That is, they filter out the impurities and use it for other purposes. They sure as heck do not burn it?

Yeah, sure you can filter out particulates and then you have a bunch of polluted filter material. Or maybe you can centrifuge it, and that takes energy. And the liquid breakdown products have to be re-distilled, or possibly catalyzed and re-combined, using more energy and resources. Point being, no matter what, you have to do more work to "recycle" it, and diminishing returns do apply. It's not entirely clear to me at what point this becomes significantly better than just burning it.

Does a special can that catches a few ounces over its lifetime approach that point? I'm skeptical.

This is all sort of a thought experiment anyway. Put some real, provable numbers to any part of it and see what happens...

 

[HSKR R/T]

What you describe is an open loop system, and our trucks don't run that way most of the time. There are also one or more "oxygen sensors" in the exhaust stream, and those signals are used by the system to adjust the amount of gasoline injected. So that whatever amount of power was produced by burning a tiny amount of oil mist in the intake, the amount of gasoline used during that same time frame will be reduced by however much would have been needed to produce that same power.

It's going to be a one-to-one relationship in terms of power produced, not in terms of volume. Oil actually contains more potential energy per volume, but its preferred combustion conditions are different, so I can't tell offhand how close the volume relationship is going to be. I'd expect it to be in the ballpark at least, if there are any chemical engineers around, feel free to chime in.

As far as pollutants go, I reject considering CO2 a pollutant, and expect the exhaust catalyst will break down a majority of the rest.



Yeah, sure you can filter out particulates and then you have a bunch of polluted filter material. Or maybe you can centrifuge it, and that takes energy. And the liquid breakdown products have to be re-distilled, or possibly catalyzed and re-combined, using more energy and resources. Point being, no matter what, you have to do more work to "recycle" it, and diminishing returns do apply. It's not entirely clear to me at what point this becomes significantly better than just burning it.

Does a special can that catches a few ounces over its lifetime approach that point? I'm skeptical.

This is all sort of a thought experiment anyway. Put some real, provable numbers to any part of it and see what happens...

There are diminishing returns in burning it in cylinder as well, that is if there are even any benefits in the first place. As deposits build up in cylinder from burning it, the efficiency of the engine decreases, decreasing power and performance, and will eventually lead to misfires.