Oil catch can comparison - test results
 

I see the other thread got shut down, so hopefully this one can be dedicated only to actual testing results as myself and Monte start to get some...

First, I am in no way affiliated with either JLT or RX at this point in time. I'm running some independent testing to support the good of the Mustang and track cars.

My setup: JLT and RX in series on the passenger side. The JLT is currently in line first, then the RX, then back to the intake.

Test conditions part 1:
Location: Thompson Speedway Motorsports Park 1.7 mile road course
Date: July 22, 2014
Distance driven on track: 130 miles
Time driving on track: 2.5 hours
Fuel consumed: ~24 gallons

Results (measurements pending my acquisition of a measuring device....)
JLT allowed significant oil to pass through, which was caught in the RX can. The RX can caught approximately double what was captured in the JLT can even being downstream and catching "cleaned" air.

Image:
Attachment 162615



Both catch cans have been emptied and reset for my next outing which will be a 2 day event at Watkins Glen in NY coming up in mid August.

Hmmmmmm......

I am not making any conclusions yet of course, just presenting some data. As an engineer, I rely on multiple data points, so more will be coming for sure. But I'm encouraged by these initial results and surprised at how much oil was going right past the JLT separator...

As a side note, the quantity of oil collected in the JLT separator is extremely close to the quantity I have collected from it for my previous 4 track outings this season for which I had it installed. Unfortunately I don't have those data points to add in, but I so nothing out of the ordinary in terms of the oil collected in the JLT piece for this event. Only was surprised by how much additional oil was caught in the RX can!

So far, I don't see anything of merit. We all know the the JLT captures next to nothing. And we've also seen this same inline test done with JLT and Bobs, and Bobs caught more than double the JLT.

So the RX may be roughly the same as Bob's. I have had no experience with any other catch can besides JLT, so I was happy to have pulled a lot more oil with the RX can.

I'm collecting and providing data as I get it

Thanks for doing this testing and posting your results. :nice:

I can send you a used large body Moroso for a comparison, PM if interested:

http://www.moroso.com/eb/catalog/nav...nuId=main.menu

Sending PM

I'm about 500 miles into my test. I will probably post the first round of results at 1,000 miles. I will be interested to see how the Bob's does since it appears it's a forum favorite.


dmichaels,
Did you happen to check the line coming off of the RX can and going to the intake for signs of oil?


Wayne

Not yet - I will do so this evening.

Ok, thanks. This is what I like to look for to see how a can is working.


Back last year when I first got my UPR can, it would catch a lot of oil but the line at the intake would be soaked with oil so it obviously was also letting a lot of oil through.


Wayne

Interesting!

Here's some other info for you guys. I emptied my bobs for the first time after ~500 normal miles, mostly city. No measurement, but approximately 2 tablespoons.

Will want to see the results of the Bob's. In testing in the past, the RX still caught app twice as much as the Bob's unit, but independent testing here should confirm that.

And anything technical, just ask and I can provide all the data anyone would want.

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 'was' going to ask for a Bob's catch can for next Christmas, to replace my JLT. Going to see how this test goes first :)

$300 for a catch can though?


(referring to the RX piece)

About the same price as a Peterson or Mighty Mouse.

Huh?

WTF are those?

^ LOL... exactly my question.

Stang TV did a review on the Peterson:

http://www.stangtv.com/tech-stories/...oil-separator/

So bobs catches double+ over the jlt. RX catches double the jlt. But the RX also catches double bobs?? Come one man. Quit with the bs....

And PLEASE. Explain how you know what % you're capturing. You have no idea that the RX is getting 10% or 80% of total. I've asked this now 4 times. Your refusal to address proves your lack of credibility.

Stick with bobs bro. Too much bs with the RX can. Plus it's more the double the cost.

Never heard of um. I bet tuner boost has tested them though! And I bet they capture less than half of the RX can too!

HAHAHA... I like that, types... well said.

Checked the outlet line from the JLT and the outlet from RX can tonight. Trace amount of oil off the RX can, significantly more off the JLT, which makes sense based on the significantly higher quantity of oil collected in the RX can during my recent outing. Obviously these photos are not quantitative, just an indication of oil making it past each can.

Next track outing is in just over 2 weeks. If I have time during the event, I'll rig up the RX can to be 1st in line with JLT 2nd for the 2nd day

Tube off the JLT:
Attachment 162733


Tube off the RX:
Attachment 162732

For the size RX can I'm running in my test, it's $199. I believe the $300 one is their largest can.


Wayne

Still outrageous. That's $50 more than even Moroso.

Thanks for the update.


Wayne

It's not the cheapest by any means. Some of the others that claim they are one of the best are pretty close in price. I've read some claims that the Moroso doesn't work that well either so who knows.


For the two cans and accessories that I have actually bought, I have close to $300 invested and still don't have a can that I consider very effective.


Wayne

They probably do because they don't pull vacuum from the intake and so won't pull any oil into the intake. Instead they allow the crank case the vent to the atmosphere.

I seriously don't get why it is needed in the first place. Our Mustangs do not use Direct Injection. So the premise behind "needing" a catch can is rather flawed.

I think the word "needed" is a bit extreme. However, "excellent for the motor" is accurate.

One might not "need" a daily vitamin. But it still has benefits to take them.

Also those that are tuned and rely on stable octane levels do "need" it.

I'm not talking tuned engines, Forced Induction, etc.

What I am talking about is Port Injection which has been the standard in Ford cars and trucks for what, 30+ years? Using a top tier gas with detergent additives is all you need. Using a fuel with detergent additives and no ethanol? even better. To each his own.

Maybe there is no issue with the oil sludging up the combustion chambers or doing any harm there but I doubt it is good to 1. have oil in your intake and 2. have your car slowly ingesting oil, whether or not it gets burned.

I guess seeing cars and trucks do 200-300k before the engine goes over the course of time since Port Fuel Injection became the norm just pushes me to believe that a thousand other things will go wrong before the engine ever fails under normal circumstances. Water pumps, oil pumps, electrical gremlins, radiators, electrical gremlins, etc.

It's not like the old days when you could expect to do an engine rebuild after 80k miles on most cars and trucks. One of my favorite Ford engines of all time is the 351 cleveland, which needed a rebuild on average between 70-90k miles, like clockwork.

You make a good point, maybe there is no real data to back up how this is better, however I would say it is analogous to a fit runner eating greasy cheeseburgers every once in a while. Is it bad for you, maybe not when your in that good a shape, however why risk it.

Couple points to dd:

JLT in the independent tests (not ours personally, to easy to discount results by manufacturer as biased will always be suspected) the RX caught 4 times the JLT. UPR it caught 4 times, and the Moroso came in the same (look at the inside of most and see they are all (except JLT) made by the same machine shop near Miami, and are the exact same design inside...so the brand can't make it perform better).

Bobs the RX caught more than twice the amount.

Tons of others done as well, Mishimoto's latest, and the mickey mouse and the other vented can mentioned vent to the atmosphere and defeat the evacuation that is so critical to removing the damaging combustion by-products.

That's why the independent people like this is the only way to get accurate test results, and the test must be done in reverse to be fair to all as well. As for price, you get what you pay for with some, and others cost $400-500 and still only catch 50% or less. The RX will always catch 95%-99% (no can will catch a true 100%).

Now on benefits for a non FI, non race engine.

As with any gasoline internal combustion engine, to run at the utmost efficiency and engine must be able to run with the most timing advance possible (oil reduces the usable octane and causes detonation. The knock sensors detect this and pull timing, thus less power and fuel economy) and also the burn rate and burn pattern of the A/F mixture is disrupted and becomes uneven, and erratic. So an incomplete and longer burn occurs, further resulting in less efficiency. It is only 1-3 MPG on average, but that adds up. Run a can that only catches 20-30-50% of the oil mist/vapors and you are still subject to the issues caused by oil ingestion.

As for intake valve coking, port injection engines will never experience this in several hundred thousand miles, but there are enough other negatives to make it beneficial to prevent it.

Oil is very poor at burning. If you try and light your choice of oil on fire, it wont happen. Try it with gasoline and it is explosive in volatility. You ONLY want air and fuel present in the combustion chamber.

Maserati began using oil separating cans in the late 50's and 60's to combat detonation for power loss alone and the occasional melted piston. Industrial engines in freighters and locomotives, mining vehicles, etc. use very expensive centrifuge based separators to not only save fuel, but they can reintroduce this oil back to the crankcase for additional savings by purifying it and removing all the damaging combustion by-products.

Something you can never do with an average can w/out greatly increasing wear and engine failure.

So tons of reasons to prevent any oil ingestion no matter what generation of engine you have.

Can you run fine w/out one? Of course..99.9% of vehicle owners will never have a clue to what happens inside their engine and never will. This is ONLY for those that want to care for their engine the best they possibly can. And any can is better than no can.

I can answer any technical questions if asked in a polite respectful manner, but watching these tests performed by users of cans they have trusted were doing a good job is by far better. Watch as it unfolds. See the results, and the fleet owners that install the systems for fuel economy alone calculate the break even rate and the savings going forward.

Unfortunately for RX, the tests here don't back up what you just said. RX DID NOT catch 4 times JLT. It caught double. As does bobs.

This is even per your own testing procedure. SMH...

Still refuse to answer my question I see. It's really pitiful at this point.

What test are you looking at? The test takes several thousand miles to complete, and months generally....this test here just started.

Here is an example of start to finish with every detail, and the JLT was near exactly the same results as the UPR, and the Moroso was exactly the same. Why are you so rude and confrontational in a good informative thread? You dont want to see the results? You have an agenda it is obvious, but I have no desire to see this disolve into another high school girls facebook rant like seems your style.

Let the OP have his thread and complete his testing like this person did: (note test 1 results, 20% caught by first can, 80% caught by RX. Then results done in reverse, then the redesigned and modified UPR for final test (done after the first test results were posted)

5.0 UPR vs RX Catch Can Effectiveness Test

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.



Report 2:



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.

Report 3:

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.

Report 4:

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.

Report 5:

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming…


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.


More to come soon!

Report 6:

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!

Report 3 and report 6 are with the cans as they were offered at the time.

And look at the 2 MPG improvement as well....benefits are many, but this is not for all.

There have been dozens or so of these tests done with most every brand can you can imagine, and the best results still allowed nearly 50% to pass through into the intake air charge. And note, all of these tests are performed by the owner of a can they believed was doing a great job, or the other can vendor was also involved. We just provide the technical support and explanations of any aspect of proper crankcase evacuation.

Calling names and acting like catty school girls helps no one trying to learn.

Tuner, before comparing separator effectiveness in terms of percentage, first we need to know exactly how much oil is passing thru the stock PCV line as shown in the (5.0) photo below. Once that data is established, then we have a 100% starting point to compare separator brand efficiency.

Does any data exist for the stock 3.7 and 5.0 mustang engines? Thanks

Holy crap man. Get a clue! You are not wanted here. Instead of answering questions that you know will prove you're a fraud you continue to post a mile long post that not only you've clogged up our forum with a dozen time already, but also no one cares to read.

Not once did I "name call". And no one is "acting like catty school girl." I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. Is it to make yourself look like the victim? No one is buying it dude. My attitude and posts are in direct response to you not answering questions even though you claim to be here to help us learn. You are a scam sir.

All your posts lead to is closed threads. And you're verging on a permanent ban.

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!

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

We're waiting....

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

Is this how PS4 fans feel???

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!

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.

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.

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. :dunno:;)

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.

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

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.

Look Wayne. You need to see who is really starting the crap here. I have no issue with the test and have normal conversations with members. The only name caller here is tuner boost. The only one derailing the thread is tuner boost. And the only one putting it at risk for closing in tuner boost. And for the record, my argument is and has been simple. Answer the questions. He keeps asking us to ask but he doesn't answer. That and defending myself from being called a friend of the thief ex employee, a little school girl, and a trouble maker. Which I have every right to do. I am not the one breaking any rules here.

Did you catch his round about answer/admitting to lying? He said there is no way to tell 100% since every motor passes a different amount. Aka, admitted that he can't really claim a capture % but does anyway. He then tried to explain that by linking two cans, you can calculate the total....lol. Wow the things he says never cease to amaze me!

Oh wait though. This post is off topic. And I probably called him a name somewhere. And I'm a big ol meanie. I bet Hitler thought the Americans were trouble makers too. Getting in his way. But we all know who the bad guy was...

Somehow this thread started by dmichaels has been hijacked by TunerBoost and turned into a flame war with typesredline. I'm not taking sides here, but I wish they would stop bickering and let the Original Poster continue with HIS thread.

I agree. The hijack was to push more sales. The argument was from his name calling and hypocrisy.

Sorry. I'll take the high road and ignore him.

I'm not saying you are breaking any rules but every time he responds, you respond with something in the negative which just starts him all over again. What I'm saying is that you have not gotten the answer to your questions in the last thread and this one so I'm going to bet that the answer you want is not coming.


From what I gather reading his posts, is that he is getting his percentage of oil caught based on the results of doing tests like the one I'm doing and others have done. As I'm not an expert in this subject, I don't know if there is any real accurate way to really figure out what percentage of oil is really caught by a can vs what gets through because no one knows how much flows through the PCV system. I would think it's all dependent on a lot of factors like how healthy the engine is or if it's fully broke in yet.


I would guess that most of us on here who have bought catch cans have bought them with no technical knowledge if the can we are buying are designed correctly to do its job. We buy because various people on these forums have said that XYZ can catches oil so it must be good. I know I did this on the two cans I have bought because I didn't have any clue of what design makes a catch can effective or not. I do have a better understanding these days based on the ones I bought that didn't seem to work as well as I wanted them to. What makes a good can to me may be totally different for the next guy.


I have read many people have bought the JLT cans because they were plug and play and use factory Ford fittings and tubing and not so much on whether or not they worked very well which as it turned out, they were not working very well.


A lot of people on the SVT forum were singing the praises on the Bob's can based on what the owner of the company who participated on that forum, was saying about the can. I have not seen any technical information he has put out saying why his design is better than the rest.


Since I have seen one of the cans I own leave the output hose very wet with oil, the can that leaves the line the driest is one that I consider a good one. Bob's can on my car left a slight film on the hose so I consider it pretty good, I want to see if the RX can does better.


Wayne

I've noticed the RX catch can is 'big' with the GM crowd, i wonder why? I'm going to buy the one that test the best :)

Sorry but I'm with types on this one. Results from the past are always an indicator of the future. And this guy's history is not that stellar. And his refusal to answer a simple question is key.

Types sells nothing.

Tuner does.

As far as the comments about the Bob's design, feel free to call autosport directly. They've been very helpful. Nothing to hide.

I'm not taking sides. I just want the tests to continue without the threads getting locked down every time.


Wayne

Soooo in 2 weeks I'll have more data... And in sept I'll have data comparing the moroso too... Maybe close this thread until I have multiple data points put together in some charts. Just interested in the data myself.

^ with this guy. Thanks for doing the work for us

Happy to contribute some (hopefully) good data and unbiased thoughts.

I'm over 800 miles into the first phase of my test and will have the 1,000 miles done by Tuesday so hopefully I will have the results by Wednesday. I will probably start a new thread on my results


Wayne

When you do, send me a PM so I can keep an eye on it to make sure it stays informative.

I am not on this forum only once every few days, but I have answered every tech question, if I have missed any ask again specifically.

As for 100%, you can't determine that in any application, even the University of Maine's test cell they created because there is always a small amount that will coat lines internally, etc. What you can do is compare the cans themselves. If you read the UPR test, there is 5% "missing" , which we assume is getting past the RX system giving the benefit of doubt to the UPR can.

Also, I have not hijacked anything, dmichaels asked me to come into the thread so I could answer technical questions.

I had gone into great detail in the closed thread, and all can read it as it is still up on how cans do and dont work well with many pictures explaining it. I go into the principals of condensation, coalescing, the Venturi effect and the Bernoulli effect, all need to be taken into consideration and ignoring any one of those will result in oil pull through.

What we stand by is take ANY can you choose, and do the same test, and there will not be a can that comes close in the effectiveness.....that is what these tests prove, and why they need to be done in reverse as well to be fair and accurate. So, there is no way to measure 100%, what we claim is all, or nearly all the detectable oil....so if it can be shown 2%-5% gets past, vs 70-80% with another can....which one do you install to achieve the goal of stopping as much oil as possible? So when we state there is no equal on the market, that has held for years of these type of tests done independently, and a ton of questions can be answered by reading it several times to see just how that person did the test, every aspect of how it was measured, driven, weather, miles, etc. Bottom line is that was a can many claimed was the "best", and it caught 20% and the RX behind it caught 80% more that had passed right through. That in itself tells story, just as you will see the Bob's, which is far better will still come in allowing far more to pass, or "pull through" than most anyone imagines. It may be it catches 40% and the RX catches 60% (time will tell....just guessing here as the test is not complete). Even if the RX catches as much (50-50) that is alot of oil and gunk passing through and still being ingested.


Also, FromZto5, I'll list past accomplishments and certifications if you want to see them. Will put them against anyone here's.

And types, in nearly every post you call me a fraud, a scammer, etc. and last time I checked, thats name calling. I have asked for civil, polite, and specific technical discussions all through these threads. Ask specific tech questions in a polite non confrontational manner and I am more than happy to answer them. Taking the "Hi Road" is what I ask from all. I have yet to offer a thing for sale, post a link, a phone# or anything close. Only technical info. And as there have been some FI related questions, lets have more of those as well.

Look back at all the posts, no where did I come in and attack or throw the first punch.

No thanks... I'm not interested. Thanks for the offer though!

Just heard from Wayne on the first stage of the test, and (I'll let him post more details) the Bobs caught app 4 teaspoons of oil, and the RX mounted behind it caught only trace amounts, showing the Bob's on his engine is catching most all of the oil and doing an excellent job. The test we did last year was on a GM LS engine witch in 2000 miles the Bob's caught just over 5 oz's of oil (not teaspoons) and the RX behind it caught just under 7 oz's.....but that was on a motor known to ingest a good amount of oil where Wayne's is barely ingesting any, a sign of good break in. He is set the cans up in reverse now and will run the same with the RX can in front, and the Bob's behind it to test both ways.

So, Bob's score extremely well so far, far better than most, and so far looks as good as the RX, but the second half of the test will tell.

Bump