typesredline

Exactly my point John. I have asked this repeatedly. I get no answer. Just BS data. Bottom line is that he has no clue what the total amount of oil that passes through is. Therefore he has no clue what % the RX can catches. It's all sales mumbo jumbo.

On top of that, his own sponsored test comes back contradicting his stated results. And he acts like those results don't exist. Just keeps posting other results.

And to claim that the test takes months and 1000's of miles to complete is irrelevant. The delta will always be the same...smh! This guy claims to be some sort of engineer yet doesn't understand basic physics. Regardless if it's 500 miles or 10,000 miles. Catching double is double. The delta doesn't change over time!

silverstate777

Mike, perhaps Tuner will come thru with a satisfactory answer for us and the forum members. In the meantime, I’m thinking identical oil separators (RX?) connected in a series of 2, 3 or 4 would catch all of the oil, with the last can being dry as proof. The total amount of oil collected in these cans would=100% for our starting baseline. I think that’s doable or does that sound like a far fetched idea?

typesredline

Potentially the closest you could get. Sounds like a ton of work though. Plus the oil in the lines. And it still would not be definitive, even if the last one appears dry.

See the thing is, that the amount to go through varies based on driving habits and mods. Some may have a lot more pass through than others. It isn't a constant rate of flow. The can, any can, doesn't automatically catch a certain % of what flows. No design guarantees to capture a consistent % regardless of how much or how little passes through it. To say "my can catches 80%" of a variable, unidentifiable amount is insane. Delusional at best.

Blown CS

??? So are you saying its bad to vent to atmosphere?

typesredline

All I see is name calling and unprofessional behavior toward competitors. Calling them Mickey Mouse...yet we are the name callers. I remember him actually knocking other competitors for bad mouthing him, lol. What a hypocrite.

And look at the statement. Venting defeats the evacuation???? NO. Venting may prevent the re circulation of air. But it still accomplishes evacuation just fine....smh.

berzerk_1980

I wonder if a better baseline could be obtained.

Suppose you placed a catch can in some kind of coolant, like dry ice, to make it super effective for a short period of time. Two catch cans could be placed in series, where the second is basically just a check that nothing passed the first.

Create a standardized driving cycle on a closed track that is long enough to meaningful but short enough that the catch can coolant would last the duration of the test. The cycle may be constant speed, variable speed, or both. But the cycle would need to be documented.

Measure the total amount of vapor captured by this method. If there's nothing in the second catch can, this would be a pretty good baseline. Since it seems different catch cans may be catching different compositions of vapor, I would say at a minimum do volumetric and mass measurements. If you had access to a centrifuge, you could actually take fractional measurements which would be the bomb.

Repeat the driving cycle and measurement for each other catch can. There would be no need for the second catch can since you already have a baseline.

If no one does this, I'm just going to buy the prettiest one.

Blown CS

Yep I noticed that and that's why I threw the quote out there.

typesredline

OMG what an amazing point you indirectly made!!!

First to say that this complex testing was never done by tuner boost. If it had been, he would have bragged about it. So again, he doesn't know what % it's catching.

Now to the point you made. Let's say he did indeed somehow know what %, like let's say he did do a test like you said. There would be no need for him to test side by side cans. He would know simply by how much one can catches vs the baseline. FURTHER proof that he's full of it!

Can't wait for the massive post of "test results" and name calling accusations, followed by reiterating his strong desire to teach and spread knowledge. All while not answering any real questions.

berzerk_1980

I'm not trying to call anyone out or anything like that. I'm just saying these test results we're getting are, at best, pretty informal and hard to follow or replicate. Hell, I can't even follow which can we're selling here.

But I thought, come on, there has to be a way to make a believable test. If I were selling a catch can, this is what I'd do. If someone else's was better, I'd figure out why using this test and enhance mine (or make it cheaper).

Plim

It has been asked many times in this thread. Please explain the % you are claiming. It must mean you know how much oil is actually going through the pcv.
Please explain how you know.

laserred38

We're waiting....

typesredline

Oh no dude! You just basically asked him to repost his test results again...my fingers hurt from scrolling through that crap.

typesredline

Is this how PS4 fans feel???

typesredline

My favorite all time tuner boost quote is this one "What test are you looking at?"

Um....the one that this thread is about?!?! Lololol!

Boomer

I'm going to clean this thread up when I have a moment.

Word to all sides.
If you can't play nice, you can't play at all.


It got locked before because people couldn't be civil.
I thought that point was driven home. Apparently not.


Consider it a warning.

typesredline

Pete, I don't see where myself or anyone else has broken forum rules. Everyone was fine until ginormous posts started popping up with no real content. We are just demanding for simple questions to be answered.

If I have said something unacceptable pm me so I know what to stop. Until then, I feel that the points I've made are valid and needed for the community to avoid being scammed.

Tuner Boost

Excellent post, and on topic.

Every engine will be different depending on how well the rings seat during the brief break-in window. Good seated rings seal far better than poorly seated ones, thus less blow-by and less oil vapor and other combustion by-products to deal with, so there is no way to do a baseline per engine. An example most can relate to is take 5 new 5.0 Mustangs, you will find different levels of oil consumption between each. Look back at the GM LS series engines, GM took a stance that 1 qt every 2k miles of consumption was acceptable, but many used zero between changes while many fell in between.

Measuring effectiveness is easily done by the type of testing done in the summary. If you test any can first in line, after the 1000-2000 miles the person doing the testing has been reached, then you do the same test in reverse so your basing it on that specific engine and it's oil ingestion rate.

The University of Main developed a oil vapor flow bench to do standardized testing so they could control the amount of mist per x amount of CFM of flow (a 4 cyl needs app 400-450 CFM to properly evacuate, a average V8 600-650 CFM).

http://umaine.edu/met/capstone-proje...arator-team-2/

So far you call names in nearly every post....I assume you run the forum and can break rules as you see fit? (you call names in this post as well as act just like a immature high-school girl bullying others from behind her keyboard.

hen a trouble maker such as yourself comes into a good technical thread and run off topic and attack and disrupt threads will get closed. It is not closed from those having a good intelligent discussion.

Far from accurate. You are correct that different engines and different driving habits do have an effect on the amount an engine ingests, but has no effect on test results. If you do the test to completion, and then do the same in reverse you can get a very accurate percentage of what any can allows to pass right through and still be ingested. If not, then the results in section 2 and 6 of the complete results shown here would not show what they do. If the reason a person purchases and installs a oil separator is to stop and eliminate all, or nearly all (yes, no can stops 100%, but the results don't lie) I would think they want some assurance that is occurring....and there is no more accurate or fair to all parties involved in such a test. So, if XYZ can installed first in line catches 3 oz's in a thousand miles on the same vehicle and the can second in series catches 12 oz's, we know the first caan is allowing most of the oil to pass right through and NOT doing what the person running it has been lead to believe. Now do the same in reverse, and the can that caught all that was missed by the first can is now the first, and it catches 14 oz's and the second can only catches 2 oz's, then you can give a pretty accurate percentage of inefficiency.

When you vent a crankcase, you are evacuating nothing and all the damaging combustion byproducts stay and accumulate in the crankcase and your engine oil (simple oil analysis from Blackstone will show that w/out any doubt). The acid, soot and carbon, un burnt fuel and water levels will be excessive as well as the increased trace metals such as iron, aluminum, etc. showing increased wear from the contaminated oil no longer protecting as it should. Venting pressure alone instead of evacuating where both is accomplished, is only one of several critical functions of the PCV system.

To simplfy it, think of the engine crankcase as a room with a vent filling it with smoke constantly (blowby occurs at all time and is present to some extent in every internal combustion engine). It has window on both ends...so open one window, and you relieve pressure and a small amount of that smoke will swirl out with the pressure, but 95% of the smoke is still accumulating in the room. Now open a window on the opposite end of the room, with a fan sucking the smoke out and the room quickly clears and all additional smoke is evacuated as soon as it enters. That is evacuation.

Same with the crankcase. There is always a certain amount of water, unburnt fuel, abrasive soot and carbon and inside sulfuric acid , etc. entering and accumulating. If you do not remove, or evacuate all of it as soon as it enters, it quickly condenses and accumulates in the crankcase, and the engine oil. So look at any PCV system. Take the 5.0 or 6.2 V8. Filtered, metered fresh air enters the drivers side valve/cam cover where it is drawn past the valve train, down into the main portion of the crankcase, all the while flushing the damaging compounds with it, where it is all drawn out the passenger side using the intake manifold vacuum as the (see the example above with the smoke filled room) "fan" so these are constantly and steadily always flushed and evacuated before they can settle and accumulate causing issues. Venting alone brings us back to the 30's, 40's, and 50's of venturi "draft" tube PCV systems where that was all that a PCV system did. Today's are far more functional in what they do, and how they do it. A GT500 top mount blower has vacuum circuit in the housing that provides vacuum for evacuation at all times, but put a centri blower or turbo, and now you have to implement a system that accomplishes all of this.

By far the best form of crankcase evacuation is accomplished by a belt driven vacuum pump like we run on all our dragsters. Used with an adjustable vacuum relief valve you can target to pull a 14-15" of vacuum at all times and this not only removes the contaminates as soon as they enter, but also greatly reduces the parasitic loss caused by allowing pressure to build to the point it vents. On our drag engines we run a low tension ring set and the vacuum will improve ring seal as well and give a bit more power as demonstrated by Matt Scranton in this video VS just allowing the pressure to build until it self vents:


The problem is on the street we can't make these last more than a few thousand miles before the vanes, bearings, etc. fail and need rebuilt.

As I have all through, it is not the amount of oil from any individual engine as that will vary, it is as I describe in this reply above in great detail. Does not matter if it is 2 oz's or 20'oz's....the amount as a percentage is shown by what gets past any can/separator. If can B in line catches 12oz's AFTER the vapors have passed through can A that only caught 2 oz's, we know can A allows nearly 80% to pass right through. Do it in reverse, and you can calculate the overall percentages. This wont give you every drop of oil, etc. but it clearly shows how effective, or ineffective a can is.

The test just began.....the OP has just started it so there are no results yet other than fist impressions. I thought you were reading these posts instead of just tying to derail the thread and disrupt what these members are trying to accomplish.


Are you so afraid to have them complete their testing and show the disparity? What is being done by these two members that you are so dead against having the rest of the forum read about? Ask specific technical questions and this stays a drama free informative thread. If there is anything I am adding that is not correct, then it is easy to post the references and the scientific principals and any other actual data you may have to show otherwise. Simple. Makes you look knowledgeable on the subject and me as ignorant. Accomplishes your goal of discrediting what were posting here to share with all, and proves you are not just interfering with the OP's thread with the goal to get it closed.

typesredline

Called it!

But I'm such a trouble maker... . Lol. No one is derailing the thread. Show me one post of mine that wasn't on topic. I HAVE asked you technical questions that you refuse to answer. Each of my posts is on topic, asks questions and consists of no name calling. Meanwhile your posts are full of name calling, refusal to actually talk about technical data, and offensive. I have every right to expose you to the readers of this forum as I have nothing to sell. Nothing you have posted has proved anything to me about your product or your knowledge.

I have zero problem with the testing being done here. I have issues with your lies and sales techniques to unknowing people. I also have yet to see where I called you a name in the post you claim I did. I only see you calling me a little school girl repeatedly.

70monte

Enough of this crap already. Some of us would like to see how the rest of this test turns out and this continuing arguing and name calling is going to get it shut down again.


Wayne

Plim

Mr. Tunerboost, you quote me, and provide some answer. But not an answer in the context that I asked the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuner Boost View Post
There have been close to 40 different cans tested this way (the fairest we can think of) and the best only caught 45% of the oil and the RX caught 95-99%. But time will show.


I would like to know how you can claim an effectiveness of 95-99%. If you claim 95% to 99% effectiveness, that would mean that you know how much oil is actually going through the PCV. And of that known amount, your product is catching 95-99% of the oil.
Just by saying if the RDX is first in the line and catches 9.9 oz, and brand xyz is second and catches 0.1 oz. would not necessarily mean that the total amount of oil blown through the PCV over that amount of time is 10 oz. It could well be that the second in line is a crappy catch can and didn't 20oz that blew by. Meaning that the RDX would only be 50% effective. Or if the second one let 90oz pass the can, the RDX would only be 10% effective.

In order to claim 95%-99% effectiveness, you need to know how much the total amount of oil is that passes through the PCV. My statement has nothing to do with liking or disliking your product. I am merely trying to understand how you can claim the effectiveness, while not being able to tell us how you know what 100% is. We would all like to know what 100% is, and how to assess that! As this will give all owners of oil separators the possibility to determine the effectiveness of their oil catch can.