Oil catch can comparison - test results
8/2/14, 07:05 PM
#61
Cobra Member
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.
8/2/14, 07:14 PM
#62
Cobra Member
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.
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...
Last edited by typesredline; 8/2/14 at 07:15 PM.
8/2/14, 07:20 PM
#63
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.
8/2/14, 07:32 PM
#64
Cobra Member
Sorry. I'll take the high road and ignore him.
8/2/14, 10:35 PM
#65
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.
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
8/3/14, 06:04 AM
#67
I Have No Life
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.
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.
8/3/14, 11:18 AM
#69
Shelby GT350 Member
Thread Starter
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.
8/3/14, 11:39 AM
#70
GT Member
Join Date: June 5, 2013
Location: Georgia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8/3/14, 06:29 PM
#71
Shelby GT350 Member
Thread Starter
8/3/14, 08:59 PM
#72
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
Wayne
8/4/14, 03:27 PM
#74
Member
Join Date: July 4, 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
8/4/14, 03:34 PM
#75
I Have No Life
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.
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.
8/6/14, 02:29 PM
#76
Member
Join Date: July 4, 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tj@steeda
2015 - 2023 MUSTANG
0
9/24/15 08:15 PM
