That's exactly what I'm implying. With the exception of the Revolution. (Thanks Porsche!) But obviously, given your choice of career, you're completely invested in Harley, so any discussion on that can't be objective. So, while I'm glad to argue this if you wish, I suggest we drop this particular point.

Obviously you didn't actually take the time to read that article. While I agree that Wikipedia needs to be taken with a discerning brain, that article is not as crap as some.

And then you ask for a very specific scenario to satisfy you, obviously knowing that will be a bear to find. Are you not able to accept any other evidence, or ONLY what you determine to be 'definitive proof'? I can already see that this will get nowhere since you have already made up your mind. However, I'll see if I can find such a comparison test anyway.

 

picked up a new oil catch can. it appears to be a copy cat of the mishimoto oil catch can. BONUS = it looks more pretty than the Rick Approved can, and is much cheaper. will be installing this one the second it arrives at my door step. I look forward to the filter this can has that my other can does not, as this should furthermore reduce anymore fumes/vapors from sneaking out of the can, and into my intake manifold. as always.... I shall report back!

at the time of posting, $21 ish




for comparison, the much more expensive mishimoto

 

sneefy, was it you who had a bmw 135i as a 2nd car? I've been looking into these heavily as of late.... and my goodness, even at 44k, the carbon build up is insane!

https://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=520035



even the newer n55's apparently still suffer from some (not as much) carbon build up

https://www.boostaddict.com/showthre...t-periodically

 

 

I can attest, my intake manifold from my prev car (3rd gen prius engine) was collecting all sorts of wonderful oil .... and other places also accumulating oil as well. My guess is, had I installed a catch can .... I would have prevented THIS:








post 44 + 46
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/ct-...l#post10172761

 

Well, I certainly agree with you on that.

At this point this discussion has become about what you will accept, or perhaps more accurately, will NOT accept as an authoritative or quality source. But because you're displaying willful ignorance on the issue, and have already made up your mind, there's nothing that will satisfy you.

But, anyway, here's one. Watch the video: https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...-car-have-one/

 

Not me. That's some nasty buildup!

 

Engineering Explained.... I LOVE that guys youtube channel! He does a damn good job with his explanations, and always has tons of useful info

His video, is what pushed me into oil catch cans!

 

 

 

They don't use DI exclusively they use D-4S as they call it which is a hybrid PI/DI. One of the reasons for this hybrid system is to battle carbon build up...

The reason I buy Honda is because I trust their engineering so I do think they are aware of the excess oil and have developed a way to take care of. If there way of handling it included adding additional maintenance(cleaning) of the system then that's what they did. If I can prevent this cleaning service by having a catch can then I might put one on.

 

so Golnat, I think 72.5 ml (give or take an ml) should be the correct #s for me, over a 7500 mile span

 

It's completely about what you will accept. You're being wholly black and white and not doing any reasoning at all. For someone that demands 'scientific evidence' you're approaching this in a profoundly UNscientific manner.

So, let's approach this scientifically and logically.

You want a comparison between two vehicles. One with a catch can, one without, driven similarly (I assume) for the same number of miles. I agree that such a test would be nice. I did a search, and have YET to find such a comparison that meets your absurdly stringent specifications. Likely because in order for such a test to be truly accurate, it would be:

1. Possibly expensive (two vehicles).
2. Difficult to perform. (same driving habits over same miles).
3. If in a lab environment to eliminate the difficulty, back to being expensive.

So, because such a test as you desire is difficult to perform and/or expensive, it's proving rare and hard to find. I did find a comparo between two dudes on a Focus forum, but you won't accept that because it's on a forum. :eyeroll: (that makes me wonder why I even bother to type this...)

So, let's leave that particular test for a moment.

So, a scientific mind would not pigheadedly say that there is only one way to prove a hypothesis. So, let's expand the horizons of our thinking and consider what else we have to go on to validate using a catch can. Let's start with some things that we know to be true.

1. The PCV system reintroduces oil vapor, fuel, water, and other miscellaneous byproducts from combustion. (because all combustion is incomplete)
2. Those byproducts are being inhaled through the intake tract, coating the piping, but more importantly, coating the backside of the valves.
3. The combustion chamber is effing hot. The valves get hot. These byproducts burn while coating hot surfaces (like the backs of the valves).
4. In a port injection engine, the fuel is introduced into the intake tract prior to the intake valves.
5. In a direct injection engine, fuel is introduced directly into the cylinder.

Points 4 and 5 are key. In port injection, fuel continually washes the back of the intake valves, preventing buildup of carbon caused by the hot valve burning the coating of oil/etc. on the backside. In direct injection, there is no such washing. This can, and does, lead to buildup of deposits. NOBODY seriously refutes this except you. Yes, the coating on the backside of the valves is also (but in no way exclusively) produced by incomplete combustion byproducts coming directly from the cylinder as the valves descend. It's a multi-part problem.

Its universally agreed that carbon deposits on the valves is bad and that direct injection exacerbates them. Otherwise why don't we see them on port injection systems? Now, it follows that it may be a good idea to combat them if possible.

How can we do this? By reducing the byproducts being introduced into the intake tract. What's a way to do that? Well, a device to capture them before they are reintroduced could be a way. Enter the catch can.

We have plenty of empirical evidence that the can captures oil, fuel, water. So we can easily prove that those byproducts are NOT making their way to the back of the valves.

So, there is less crap being burned onto the back of the valves because we're capturing some of it.

So, it's pretty dang easy to infer that it's helping reduce deposits. (There is a very minor logical leap here, but most people should be able to make it.)

Thus, it's also pretty easy to see a benefit. Does it eliminate the problem completely? Is it a cure? No. Does it help? Pretty safe to say it does.

Does Honda install one? No. Reasons in Engineering Explained vid above. Do some manufacturers install one? Yes. I had a 2004 Mazdaspeed Miata with a factory AOS (catch can) on it that returned captured oil back to the pan. There are few, but some other examples of an AOS system being installed from the factory.

But, as you've already made up your mind, I just wasted a lot of keystrokes. Oh well.

 

psa - how to use the "ignore list":

1. https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/prof...?do=ignorelist
2. enter name of a member
3. click "okay"

/they lived happily ever after

 

Lol. Yeah, I know.

 

you made some good points on the "wasted key strokes" post.

I say, you salvage most/some of that, and that youtube vid by engineering explained.... and add that to the 1st post (for those that want to know the faq's)

 

This is good info for everyone. 9 out of 10 will learn something, I promise. I will probably write half what what I want and finish later, due to a busy day. This post applies to way more than catch cans, but it's ultra relevant in this discussion.

My career, my specialty, my livelihood is going to say this. My credentials on this are from MANY years of professional corporate experience working for a world leader in engine design and production. Again, in my usual list format because it avoids confusion created by perception of context.

Oil catch cans are not installed because:

• This is the hardest thing you will ever digest as a car fanatic. Engineers DO NOT build engines to last as long as possible. They are built to last as long as possible while working inside of a budget. A team, related to marketing*, will determine how long an engine needs to last based on money available for the task (development costs) and what someone is willing to pay for the car (margin above production costs). This means they will study all competitors and determine where they want to fit into the market, with price in mind. Engineering is then tasked with building an engine that meets or exceeds the requirements of the corporate marketing teams. They also have other outside factors I will address in the next main bullet point, following these sub-points.
  • *About the word 'marketing.' For those who have never taken a marketing class, marketing is not simply about billboards and TV advertisements. Marketing is comprised of: teams doing market-consumer research, product comparisons, account management, setting prices, and a hundred other tasks. Example - Marketing would look at an oil catch can and respond with the following ideas.
    • We are not going to add another serviceable part to this engine. Our competitors do not and they will use it against us in their advertising. This will increase the cost of an oil change.
    • We are not going to add a part that makes people question the reliability of our engine or that it may burn oil
    • We are not going to add a part that adds to the base cost of the car.
    • Will the engine last three times longer than our warranty period, without this part? Yes it will.
    • If there will be failures during warranty without this part, how many and will the cost of installing this part outweigh the price of paying warranty costs for X out of 100 cars?
• Emission regulations created by different regions (states and countries) are what create the guardrails that engineers have to work between. Along with the budget set by the marketing side of the business.
  • The very first question by an environmental agency will be, "how is this chemical in this catch can going to be disposed of."
  • There are states like California who have CARB (research this on your own time)
  • There are countries that will not accept products with lead, the perfect material to go into engine bearings
    • Lead can also be in other bushings, like starters and alternators.
    • Federal government of the USA has a CAFE Standard (research on your own time)
  • EPA in the USA says what can and cannot come out of your exhaust and in what quantities.
    • Places like the EPA would rather see the engine run cleaner even if that means it does not last as long, and engineers have to battle this.
• Consider the costs if we only look at the Honda Fit.
  • About 500,000 sold over the last 10 years.
  • If you added $5 worth of parts to the car it would add $2,500,000 to Honda's cost to build and that number has nothing to do with how many millions would be spent to validate through testing. Also $5 will be way more on the sales sticker and remember marketing does not want this price to go up.
  • If one of one hundred (5,000 cars) has an issue under warranty and it costs Honda $250 to pay warranty procedures, that is $1,250,000, or half the price of installing the parts to start with. It is far more profitable to never install a device that is not needed based on the current marketing goals.
  • Bringing marketing back into this... Engineering would then tell marketing, "we have 1 and 100 chance of reliability issues with this issue." Then marketing would weigh that impact on customer satisfaction and would it hurt the brands image.

What if a gear head (Fit-Freak) got his or her way??? Marketing would not make this car because it would not sell.

• The car would never rust.
• The paint would not fade for 50 years.
• The engine would last to 1,000,000 miles.
• The interior would be near silent
• The car would cost over $100,000..... LOL.

I may try to add more later..

 

Yes. That! Moar!

 

I approve of this message