Notices
2010-2014 Mustang News on the Previous Generation Mustang

Oil catch can comparison - test results

Old 7/30/14, 03:07 PM
  #21  
I Have No Life
 
FromZto5's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 24, 2011
Posts: 10,107
Received 168 Likes on 143 Posts
Originally Posted by typesredline View Post
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.
FromZto5 is offline  
Old 7/30/14, 06:17 PM
  #22  
Shelby GT350 Member
Thread Starter
 
dmichaels's Avatar
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: CT
Posts: 2,460
Received 109 Likes on 100 Posts
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:
Oil catch can comparison - test results-photo-2.jpg


Tube off the RX:
Oil catch can comparison - test results-photo-1.jpg

Last edited by dmichaels; 7/30/14 at 06:24 PM.
dmichaels is offline  
Old 7/30/14, 08:20 PM
  #23  
Mach 1 Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2013
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Gabe View Post
$300 for a catch can though?


(referring to the RX piece)

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


Wayne
70monte is offline  
Old 7/30/14, 08:43 PM
  #24  
Cobra Member
 
typesredline's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 11, 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,148
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by 70monte View Post
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.
typesredline is offline  
Old 7/30/14, 09:00 PM
  #25  
Mach 1 Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2013
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by dmichaels View Post
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

Thanks for the update.


Wayne
70monte is offline  
Old 7/30/14, 09:07 PM
  #26  
Mach 1 Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2013
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by typesredline View Post
Still outrageous. That's $50 more than even Moroso.

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
70monte is offline  
Old 7/30/14, 10:01 PM
  #27  
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Join Date: May 6, 2012
Location: Crofton MD
Posts: 2,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by typesredline View Post
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!
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.
Brandon302 is offline  
Old 7/31/14, 11:47 AM
  #28  
Bullitt Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2014
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Critical Mass is offline  
Old 7/31/14, 11:59 AM
  #29  
Cobra Member
 
typesredline's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 11, 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,148
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Critical Mass View Post
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.
typesredline is offline  
Old 7/31/14, 12:27 PM
  #30  
Bullitt Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2014
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by typesredline View Post
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.

Last edited by Critical Mass; 7/31/14 at 12:32 PM.
Critical Mass is offline  
Old 7/31/14, 01:54 PM
  #31  
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Join Date: May 6, 2012
Location: Crofton MD
Posts: 2,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Critical Mass View Post
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.
Brandon302 is offline  
Old 7/31/14, 02:31 PM
  #32  
Bullitt Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2014
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brandon302 View Post
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.

Last edited by Critical Mass; 7/31/14 at 02:34 PM.
Critical Mass is offline  
Old 7/31/14, 06:54 PM
  #33  
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Join Date: May 6, 2012
Location: Crofton MD
Posts: 2,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Critical Mass View Post
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.
Brandon302 is offline  
Old 8/1/14, 11:36 AM
  #34  
Member
 
Tuner Boost's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 4, 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Tuner Boost is offline  
Old 8/1/14, 02:01 PM
  #35  
Cobra Member
 
typesredline's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 11, 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,148
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Tuner Boost View Post
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.
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...
typesredline is offline  
Old 8/1/14, 02:04 PM
  #36  
Cobra Member
 
typesredline's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 11, 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,148
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Tuner Boost View Post
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%).
Still refuse to answer my question I see. It's really pitiful at this point.
typesredline is offline  
Old 8/1/14, 02:37 PM
  #37  
Member
 
Tuner Boost's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 4, 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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, [email protected] 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, [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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!
Tuner Boost is offline  
Old 8/1/14, 02:43 PM
  #38  
Member
 
Tuner Boost's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 4, 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 Boost is offline  
Old 8/1/14, 04:12 PM
  #39  
Bullitt Member
 
silverstate777's Avatar
 
Join Date: March 27, 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
Attached Images  
silverstate777 is offline  
Old 8/1/14, 05:09 PM
  #40  
Cobra Member
 
typesredline's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 11, 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,148
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes on 15 Posts
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.

Last edited by typesredline; 8/1/14 at 05:19 PM.
typesredline is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Oil catch can comparison - test results


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.