Run it as designed or Catch can?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UnclePeco

Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
46
Location
Northeast PA
5.3 Tahoe, 126k, OCs at 8-10k with M1 (standard, EP, HM - whatever is on roll- back), 40k per year almost all highway. .5 quart oil used between OCs. Lifters replaced uner warranty at 88k. Purchased at 60k.

Concern: Intake crud from PCV / EGR that could cause issues later on.

Options:

1) Catch Can: I worry about this as the solution is so simple and can not imagine that GM would not put in a simple solution like this. Please spare me the "chevy is so cheap..., any way to save a dime... only care about warranty time" stuff. GM makes quality products for the most part. I believe GM wants to protect their reputation more than that. Also, I worry that they have built the intake and valves with this recirculated material in mind. Therefore, removing it may have a negative effect on the system. Mine has been running fine with no issues.

2) Use an intake cleaner: CRC, Seafoam.... Concerned about throwing codes or throwing [censored] downstream that will cause another problem.

3) Do nothing - run it like it was built, spend less time on the forums.... Concern: I will need a top end job at 200k.

I trust you guys. What do you think I should do?
 
How was the oil consumption before the lifters were replaced? Maybe something in the PCV system got broke or was left disconnected.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
How was the oil consumption before the lifters were replaced? Maybe something in the PCV system got broke or was left disconnected.


I am not sure what you are getting at. There is no current problem. I am trying to take preventative action.
 
If your worried about oil consumption put a catch can on it but since ya think GM knows what their doing why change anything. Sounds like they've designed it well lifters at 88 everything should have got cleaned then and if The old saying is correct and history repeats itself it'll be coming apart within the next year at the mileage rates that you say you're driving For lifters again
 
I suspect the reason catch cans aren't installed by the OEM is maintenance. Few people would bother draining the catch can at regular intervals so it would be pointless to add them.

My one car is a little notorious for drafting oil in through the PCV system, and it probably would have benefited from a catch can, but I never bothered installing one.

They're probably a good idea as long as you're the type that will keep up after it and clean & drain it when needed.
 
Originally Posted By: UnclePeco
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
How was the oil consumption before the lifters were replaced? Maybe something in the PCV system got broke or was left disconnected.


I am not sure what you are getting at. There is no current problem. I am trying to take preventative action.


I thought you were having an oil consumption problem because when I first read your post, I missed the decimal point, and thought you added 5 quarts of oil during the oil change interval, instead of 0.5. Big difference, eh!

In that case, I say run it as it's designed.
 
Many people put catch cans on the 5.3, myself included. I think GM doesn't include them because people would forget to drain them.
 
Hello, I guess (and I do mean guess) your relatively low oil consumption rate is something any engine can live with. Inspect the parts which would get gunked up.

On the F150forums.com there have been several posts with pictures of homemade catch cans. Maybe joining the forum and PMing the "catchers" would yield more first hand information.

My B5244S engine (Volvo 1980's through 2007) and all the Saabs in the family have a catch-and-return box their PCV systems.
Something makes me doubt any auto maker has engineered irregular oil vapor / droplet flow into their valve lubrication scheme.

Also, is your usage condensable blow-by or just common "vanishing synthetic oil" ? VSO (if I may coin a new TLA) is a fact of automotive life now. Kira
 
You can't believe the OEM's don't include catch cans? Even if they were deemed helpful by the manufacturers they are something that requires frequent checking and maintenance. Even if they were made large enough to only need emptying at OCI's they would still be one more item requiring maintenance. With the progression toward low maintenance and low cost of ownership I can see how the OEM's would find such a device counterproductive.
 
Some people like to second guess the engineers that designed the 5.3. So on the truck forum I frequent they are all the rage. The guys say it's better for the trucks. Of course, this doesn't account for the many, many fleet trucks with the 5.3 that don't have catch cans installed and don't seem to have problems. Somebody on this forum has a fleet of trucks with the 5.3 with no issues.
 
"Some people?" On this forum I think the correct phrase is "most people."

We're all automotive engineers and, aside from the fact that our engines last longer than we care to keep our cars, we know what is needed to keep them from imploding. After all, it is in the OEM's best interests to make sure your engine seizes, explodes, fills with sludge, or fails in another dramatic fashion to make sure you have to buy a new one as soon as possible. Never mind that, if this really happened, you would avoid that brand like the plague.

I love this forum. Any time I start thinking I am OCD I read a few threads and feel like a complete slob.
 
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
You can't believe the OEM's don't include catch cans? Even if they were deemed helpful by the manufacturers they are something that requires frequent checking and maintenance. Even if they were made large enough to only need emptying at OCI's they would still be one more item requiring maintenance. With the progression toward low maintenance and low cost of ownership I can see how the OEM's would find such a device counterproductive.


Yes - a simple drain back to the oil pan would eliminate additional mantainence.
 
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
"Some people?" On this forum I think the correct phrase is "most people."

We're all automotive engineers and, aside from the fact that our engines last longer than we care to keep our cars, we know what is needed to keep them from imploding. After all, it is in the OEM's best interests to make sure your engine seizes, explodes, fills with sludge, or fails in another dramatic fashion to make sure you have to buy a new one as soon as possible. Never mind that, if this really happened, you would avoid that brand like the plague.

I love this forum. Any time I start thinking I am OCD I read a few threads and feel like a complete slob.


Being surgical device sales, I have kept my past work cars to 200-300k. I do usually just opt for something newer when faced with a big repair bill. My Grand Cherokee, with the 4.0 that was supposed to outlast everything else, through a rod at 250k, with meticulous mantainence.

I love this Tahoe more than any other past cars of 18 years in the business including BMW, Mercedes, Lexus (Souless, Japanese, appliances) and really want to see how far I can take it.
 
Originally Posted By: CKN
Some people like to second guess the engineers that designed the 5.3. So on the truck forum I frequent they are all the rage. The guys say it's better for the trucks. Of course, this doesn't account for the many, many fleet trucks with the 5.3 that don't have catch cans installed and don't seem to have problems. Somebody on this forum has a fleet of trucks with the 5.3 with no issues.


We are one of many fleet owners with 5.3's and 6.0's running to very high mileage. Half a million on the last unit I sold and it still ran very well. No catch cans on any of our trucks.

You may want one, but you certainly don't need one. Virtually every wet sump engine on the planet has oil in the intake without any effect. Only higher performance applications suffer and not all of them.
 
Originally Posted By: UnclePeco
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
You can't believe the OEM's don't include catch cans? Even if they were deemed helpful by the manufacturers they are something that requires frequent checking and maintenance. Even if they were made large enough to only need emptying at OCI's they would still be one more item requiring maintenance. With the progression toward low maintenance and low cost of ownership I can see how the OEM's would find such a device counterproductive.


Yes - a simple drain back to the oil pan would eliminate additional mantainence.


Ford has a similar set up on the EcoBosot motors. It is a oil separator before the PCV valve with some SS mesh in them be3tween the valleys. It drains into the crankcase.

It's too hot to do much good IMHO.
 
Lots of angst about nothing, turn the key and change the oil. The truck will fall apart around the motor.
 
Perhaps in CT and perhaps not in NC (assumption via you name). I protect my undercarriage before and after winter, take meticulous care of front/rear axles, transfer case and trans. Others think my car has 30k on it and are amazed when they hear the truth.
 
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Lots of angst about nothing, turn the key and change the oil. The truck will fall apart around the motor.


BITOG is all about angst. Many of us do not have enough anxiety in our lives so we choose to manufacture it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TiGeo
Rigged up a catch can
Replies
17
Views
1K
ls1mike
O
Car Starts, Runs then No Crank, No Comms for 15 Minutes
Replies
17
Views
751
ripcord
R
GM Gen V V8 on Euro xW-30, 24' Tahoe Oil Change
Replies
3
Views
991
GW.
Z
My 4L60E Transmission Service
Replies
3
Views
466
clinebarger
P
Can USCAR-36 affect warranty?
Replies
6
Views
412
UNC054
Back
Top Bottom