Pat Goss on GDI / low tension p. rings / catch can
- Thread starter wemay
- Start date
- Status
That goes against everything I've read on this subject. Most say that driving hard actually helps burn off the deposits.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
That goes against everything I've read on this subject. Most say that driving hard actually helps burn off the deposits.
I was going to reference the same thing. So much for the "Italian Tune-up" if you listen to Pat.
That goes against everything I've read on this subject. Most say that driving hard actually helps burn off the deposits.
I was going to reference the same thing. So much for the "Italian Tune-up" if you listen to Pat.
That crew would test a little red wagon and tell you it's a "good car".
Well, not sure that it is really "required" per se to solve any issues, but I ran a catch can on my previous pickup and now on my current one. One thing I did find interesting on both of them, is that the amount of oil the engine "used" almost mirrored the amount of oil the catch can captured. My present pickup "uses" about 1/8 quart between oil changes, and that is virtually the same amount my catch can captures. And whether it actually prevents any buildup in the intake manifold, intake valves, carbon deposits in cylinders, I have not confirmed results as I have not found any need to tear apart things and check. I do feel better though in knowing that the oil the motor "uses" is not ending up in the intake and chambers.
The VW / Audi guys, especially when it comes to the turbo diesels, have a unique problem. The PCV line runs right in before the turbo, and as opposed to regular pressure, they are literally sucking a high volume of crankcase gases in a shorter period. On my 2.8 diesel in my Jeep Liberty, I just plugged the line to the turbo and routed the PCV to the ground. My 2006 Cummins ISX 15L did it that way from the factory, so my 2006 2.8 VM got the same setup by me. Made a SIGNIFICANT difference in intake deposits and deposits on the MAP sensor. Had a nice clean intake from then on out. Of course, I turned off the EGR valve also via an ECM tune.
The VW / Audi guys, especially when it comes to the turbo diesels, have a unique problem. The PCV line runs right in before the turbo, and as opposed to regular pressure, they are literally sucking a high volume of crankcase gases in a shorter period. On my 2.8 diesel in my Jeep Liberty, I just plugged the line to the turbo and routed the PCV to the ground. My 2006 Cummins ISX 15L did it that way from the factory, so my 2006 2.8 VM got the same setup by me. Made a SIGNIFICANT difference in intake deposits and deposits on the MAP sensor. Had a nice clean intake from then on out. Of course, I turned off the EGR valve also via an ECM tune.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
With what? The VW/Audi cars with the GDI and carbon buildup issues report no real change with or without a can.
This is accurate.
With what? The VW/Audi cars with the GDI and carbon buildup issues report no real change with or without a can.
This is accurate.
A catch-pot, just like a complex PCV oil separator, will not prevent oil recirulation/burning problems unless some effort is made to cool (or alternatively compress) the volatalised oil out of the vapour phase and into the liquid phase where it can be mechanically separated. Rather than having a catch-pot, you want a 'condensation pot' where the condensate (mainly oil) can be returned to the sump.
It strikes me that these things would function far more effectively if they were designed by chemical engineers rather than mechanical engineers. Oil refiners do this kind of thing all the time but on a far larger scale...
It strikes me that these things would function far more effectively if they were designed by chemical engineers rather than mechanical engineers. Oil refiners do this kind of thing all the time but on a far larger scale...
That sounds like problematic Volvo system.....
Road draft tube venting to exhaust.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Well, not sure that it is really "required" per se to solve any issues, but I ran a catch can on my previous pickup and now on my current one. One thing I did find interesting on both of them, is that the amount of oil the engine "used" almost mirrored the amount of oil the catch can captured. My present pickup "uses" about 1/8 quart between oil changes, and that is virtually the same amount my catch can captures.
Interesting observation TiredTrucker. You are good for that.
I must admit I haven't topped up any oil in years, but yes I do check it regularly. It just sits on the full line all year. I think my biggest source of consumption is wiping the dip stick on a rag.
I wonder is this because I run 40 weight oils and so there is less light/volatile oils to be distilled out of the sump?
Hmmmmm….thinking more, the VW / Audi guys would often run a 40 weight and still have problems, so maybe not. Still my Audi 90 drank 15W-50 very quickly, but hardly touched the 20W-60 I put in it on the second oil change.
Just thinking out loud, and yes these thick oils don't work in a very cold climate.
Well, not sure that it is really "required" per se to solve any issues, but I ran a catch can on my previous pickup and now on my current one. One thing I did find interesting on both of them, is that the amount of oil the engine "used" almost mirrored the amount of oil the catch can captured. My present pickup "uses" about 1/8 quart between oil changes, and that is virtually the same amount my catch can captures.
Interesting observation TiredTrucker. You are good for that.
I must admit I haven't topped up any oil in years, but yes I do check it regularly. It just sits on the full line all year. I think my biggest source of consumption is wiping the dip stick on a rag.
I wonder is this because I run 40 weight oils and so there is less light/volatile oils to be distilled out of the sump?
Hmmmmm….thinking more, the VW / Audi guys would often run a 40 weight and still have problems, so maybe not. Still my Audi 90 drank 15W-50 very quickly, but hardly touched the 20W-60 I put in it on the second oil change.
Just thinking out loud, and yes these thick oils don't work in a very cold climate.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
A catch-pot, just like a complex PCV oil separator, will not prevent oil recirulation/burning problems unless some effort is made to cool (or alternatively compress) the volatalised oil out of the vapour phase and into the liquid phase where it can be mechanically separated. Rather than having a catch-pot, you want a 'condensation pot' where the condensate (mainly oil) can be returned to the sump.
It strikes me that these things would function far more effectively if they were designed by chemical engineers rather than mechanical engineers. Oil refiners do this kind of thing all the time but on a far larger scale...
While I agree about the cooling, They must be doing something, right? I have one on my Mustang and my Jeep, and they both collect oil. I think the one on the Mustang is not in an ideal location (right above the engine) but the one on the jeep is mounted to the ECU, closer to the front of the engine. Both collect a good amount of oil. Enough that I wouldnt want to be burning it.
A catch-pot, just like a complex PCV oil separator, will not prevent oil recirulation/burning problems unless some effort is made to cool (or alternatively compress) the volatalised oil out of the vapour phase and into the liquid phase where it can be mechanically separated. Rather than having a catch-pot, you want a 'condensation pot' where the condensate (mainly oil) can be returned to the sump.
It strikes me that these things would function far more effectively if they were designed by chemical engineers rather than mechanical engineers. Oil refiners do this kind of thing all the time but on a far larger scale...
While I agree about the cooling, They must be doing something, right? I have one on my Mustang and my Jeep, and they both collect oil. I think the one on the Mustang is not in an ideal location (right above the engine) but the one on the jeep is mounted to the ECU, closer to the front of the engine. Both collect a good amount of oil. Enough that I wouldnt want to be burning it.
Originally Posted By: user52165
Owners on the Hyundai/Kia forums have reported very positive results on their GDI cars.
Results with what?
Owners on the Hyundai/Kia forums have reported very positive results on their GDI cars.
Results with what?
First thought, I immediately wondered if Pat was sponsored in some way by Moroso. I've gotten the impression from some of his recommendation vids that he answers to sponsors. Add the high mileage oil use theory vid and his oil filter recommendation video, not very impressed with Pat. Just me.
'Maybe' he's partially right here or not at all. 'For me', I'm more willing to accept the most common 'drive it hard' theory with GDI.
'Maybe' he's partially right here or not at all. 'For me', I'm more willing to accept the most common 'drive it hard' theory with GDI.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
A catch-pot, just like a complex PCV oil separator, will not prevent oil recirulation/burning problems unless some effort is made to cool (or alternatively compress) the volatalised oil out of the vapour phase and into the liquid phase where it can be mechanically separated. Rather than having a catch-pot, you want a 'condensation pot' where the condensate (mainly oil) can be returned to the sump.
It strikes me that these things would function far more effectively if they were designed by chemical engineers rather than mechanical engineers. Oil refiners do this kind of thing all the time but on a far larger scale...
I've been thinking that the catch cans should be stuffed full of stainless steel wool, or some kind of non-corrosive mesh that would catch the pulverized oil, consolidate the drops and let it drain to the bottom of the can. Don't know how to take care of the water vapor that comes in the crankcase gases along with the oil mist. Having the water mixed with the oil would make it a definite no-no to drain the catch can into the sump. Maybe heat the catch can to boil off the water?
I have modified the PCV system on my high-miles Camaro. I was having a lot of trouble with detonation occurring on hard acceleration after long periods of idle or low-power operation. I theorized that the foul air tube running to the intake manifold was carrying oil, and causing the detonation, so I disconnected it and capped the fitting on the manifold. I ran the hose into a catch bottle, and it solved the detonation problem. On the first track day that I did with this setup, I checked the level in the bottle, and found 4-6 ounces of oil in it after every session.
I was satisfied that I was keeping this much oil from going through the combustion chambers, eliminating the possibility of detonation. During subsequent track days, the amount of oil being carried into the catch bottle got less and less to the point that it was only catching the "dirty-whipped cream" water-oil emulsion. The engine runs noticeably better now, probably freeing up stuck rings.
A problem that I found running the PCV into the catch bottle was that over 2-3 months of street driving (low-rpm, low-power, day after day in the winter) was that it would fill up with the dirty whipped cream, and start belching that stuff out into the engine compartment. I think there has to be a way to pull the blowby gases through the system, such as an electric AIR pump. I worry about losing the "Positive" aspect of PCV.
A catch-pot, just like a complex PCV oil separator, will not prevent oil recirulation/burning problems unless some effort is made to cool (or alternatively compress) the volatalised oil out of the vapour phase and into the liquid phase where it can be mechanically separated. Rather than having a catch-pot, you want a 'condensation pot' where the condensate (mainly oil) can be returned to the sump.
It strikes me that these things would function far more effectively if they were designed by chemical engineers rather than mechanical engineers. Oil refiners do this kind of thing all the time but on a far larger scale...
I've been thinking that the catch cans should be stuffed full of stainless steel wool, or some kind of non-corrosive mesh that would catch the pulverized oil, consolidate the drops and let it drain to the bottom of the can. Don't know how to take care of the water vapor that comes in the crankcase gases along with the oil mist. Having the water mixed with the oil would make it a definite no-no to drain the catch can into the sump. Maybe heat the catch can to boil off the water?
I have modified the PCV system on my high-miles Camaro. I was having a lot of trouble with detonation occurring on hard acceleration after long periods of idle or low-power operation. I theorized that the foul air tube running to the intake manifold was carrying oil, and causing the detonation, so I disconnected it and capped the fitting on the manifold. I ran the hose into a catch bottle, and it solved the detonation problem. On the first track day that I did with this setup, I checked the level in the bottle, and found 4-6 ounces of oil in it after every session.
I was satisfied that I was keeping this much oil from going through the combustion chambers, eliminating the possibility of detonation. During subsequent track days, the amount of oil being carried into the catch bottle got less and less to the point that it was only catching the "dirty-whipped cream" water-oil emulsion. The engine runs noticeably better now, probably freeing up stuck rings.
A problem that I found running the PCV into the catch bottle was that over 2-3 months of street driving (low-rpm, low-power, day after day in the winter) was that it would fill up with the dirty whipped cream, and start belching that stuff out into the engine compartment. I think there has to be a way to pull the blowby gases through the system, such as an electric AIR pump. I worry about losing the "Positive" aspect of PCV.
- Status
