Post 2 - Oil catch can installation, observations and results

[Chaser]

Still no modifications made on my 2020 Aviator, but my UPR oil catch can will be first.

UPR claims to increase MPG and low speed throttle control. Eager to get this done, got a wedding this weekend but I'm hopeful.
I'll document initial reaction, 1 wk MPG, and 2 wk MPG.

Background:

DIY catch can drain line kit (UPR):
* 1pc 48" 1/2" Braided Hose - 300psi Oil Resistant
* 2pc of UPR Billet Hose End Covers
* 1pc 1/4 Turn Drain Valve with 14mm Barbed End
* 2pc 14mm Barbed x 1/4" Catch Can Fitting


Initial report:

First week:

2nd wk

 

[Toadster]

there's NO way an oil catch can will give you 1-2mpg

 

[Chaser]

there's NO way an oil catch can will give you 1-2mpg

I think the claim for MPG is w the ECSS not the oil catch. I definetly notice the blowback once and while, so we'll see if it help. Thnks for clarifying.

 

[TMac]

I think the claim for MPG is w the ECSS not the oil catch. I definetly notice the blowback once and while, so we'll see if it help. Thnks for commenting.

You've definitely read the UPR literature- and swallowed the red pill. Increased gas mileage is just a ridiculous claim. What they didn't bother to post was that Ford's system is already electronically controlled.

There is nothing wrong with a catch can on a GDI engine without port injection. It does help trap some oil that would otherwise end up (in the long term) as coke on the intake valves. But to claim higher MPG and better throttle response? Any catch can might help with that at 100k miles. It's just marketing puffery. And I'm sorry, any claims you make towards gas mileage in the next week are anecdotal and not in any way going to be taken seriously.

Barring that, you do make some interesting graphics to illustrate what you're doing.

 

[GearHead_1]

@Chaser, I can't tell from your pics. Are you mounting this in a different place than where UPR recommends putting it? Seems like their kit is a no-brainer. Perhaps I've missed something here.

 

[Chaser]

You've definitely read the UPR literature- and swallowed the red pill. Increased gas mileage is just a ridiculous claim. What they didn't bother to post was that Ford's system is already electronically controlled.

There is nothing wrong with a catch can on a GDI engine without port injection. It does help trap some oil that would otherwise end up (in the long term) as coke on the intake valves. But to claim higher MPG and better throttle response? Any catch can might help with that at 100k miles. It's just marketing puffery. And I'm sorry, any claims you make towards gas mileage in the next week are anecdotal and not in any way going to be taken seriously.

Barring that, you do make some interesting graphics to illustrate what you're doing.

I prefer the term unbiased. The theory that an ECSS induced pressure relief will provide better low gear efficiency makes sense. Not sure why a catch can is necessary tbh, but ig it helps w durability.
Thanks, mainly uploaded this for those graphics.. as me no good w words. Pretty sure that's the same mount, yet to get my engine cover off, tbh. Looks like I gotta do the whole fender liner to get to a couple retainers.... https://www.liaviator2.com/lincoln_aviator_removal_and_installation_front_bumper_cover-3452.html

 

[Chaser]

@Chaser, I can't tell from your pics. Are you mounting this in a different place than where UPR recommends putting it? Seems like their kit is a no-brainer. Perhaps I've missed something here.

Pretty sure that's the same mount, yet to get my engine cover off, tbh. Looks like I gotta do the whole fender liner to get to a couple retainers.... https://www.liaviator2.com/lincoln_aviator_removal_and_installation_front_bumper_cover-3452.html

Believe me when I say I considered doing it the hard way

 

[Chaser]

Dump, not sure if Ford has anything like this published https://www.liaviator2.com/lincoln_aviator_removal_and_installation_valve_cover_lh-2605.html

 

[TMac]

I prefer the term unbiased. The theory that an ECSS induced pressure relief will provide better low gear efficiency makes sense.

Exactly what about it makes sense? I'm not picking on you for buying a catch-can, but I'm very curious about why you think this provides "better low gear efficiency" as opposed to the existing PCV system?

 

[GearHead_1]

Pretty sure that's the same mount, yet to get my engine cover off, tbh. Looks like I gotta do the whole fender liner to get to a couple retainers.... https://www.liaviator2.com/lincoln_aviator_removal_and_installation_front_bumper_cover-3452.html

Believe me when I say I considered doing it the hard way

I don't have one to look at but I don't think this is the case and the pics don't appear to show that. I think the cover under the hood is removed under the hood not through the wheel well. A call to UPR might be worthwhile.

 

[RedbearST]

The claim of better mpg and throttle response is probably only true after 50k-60k miles compared to not having a catch can. Your intake valves should have significantly less build up with a catch can installed. Therefore, after about 50k miles, the mpg might be a bit better, have more power and less chance of misfires compared to no catch can with heavy coated intake vales restricting flow.

 

[UNBROKEN]

The claim of better mpg and throttle response is probably only true after 50k-60k miles compared to not having a catch can. Your intake valves should have significantly less build up with a catch can installed. Therefore, after about 50k miles, the mpg might be a bit better, have more power and less chance of misfires compared to no catch can with heavy coated intake vales restricting flow.

A UPR can was one of my earliest additions. At 52K miles I can assure you there’s no increase in mpg.

 

[RedbearST]

A UPR can was one of my earliest additions. At 52K miles I can assure you there’s no increase in mpg.

True no increase, but without it you "may" have seen a decrease in mpg.
Knowing your current results, would you install a catch can on your next car?

 

[Chaser]

Exactly what about it makes sense? I'm not picking on you for buying a catch-can, but I'm very curious about why you think this provides "better low gear efficiency" as opposed to the existing PCV system?

Not a problem, I don't mind reiterating for you old heads The theory is the ECSS helps with back pressure... you know how rumors are. Ig they gotta justify the expensive option in the first place. I hear ur warning, but frankly, science prevails.

 

[Chaser]

I don't have one to look at but I don't think this is the case and the pics don't appear to show that. I think the cover under the hood is removed under the hood not through the wheel well. A call to UPR might be worthwhile.

Eh, I'd call but I don't think they'd pay my rate I'll figure out a fixture, I got the space. Step one is fit testing, then design for assembly, prototype and install.

 

[Chaser]

The claim of better mpg and throttle response is probably only true after 50k-60k miles compared to not having a catch can. Your intake valves should have significantly less build up with a catch can installed. Therefore, after about 50k miles, the mpg might be a bit better, have more power and less chance of misfires compared to no catch can with heavy coated intake vales restricting flow.

Smart thinking! I bet that's where they make the claim... very clever. Thanks for the response

 

[GearHead_1]

Just thought I'd throw this out there. Make of it what you will.

https://www.stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-your-pcv-system-upgrades-and-catch-cans/

 

[TMac]

Just thought I'd throw this out there. Make of it what you will.

https://www.stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-your-pcv-system-upgrades-and-catch-cans/

A nicely written article, good research. I would also add the following: since the early GDI engines which didn't have the right baffling,and didn't anticipate this problem, a lot of changes have been made.

One of the things that manufacturers do with cam timing mechanisms is to help with gas mileage by using them to create an "Atkinson-like" engine cycle under low throttle constant operation. This mechanism closes the intake valve much later during the intake cycle. This lowers the pumping losses of the engine and increases the expansion cycle by pushing intake air back into the intake tract since the intake valve is still open as the pressure in the cylinder due to the rising piston is higher than that in the manifold.

I've seen SAE papers which combine this with injector timing. In effect, by timing the injector event before the intake valve is closed, both the air and some amount of gasoline are returned to the manifold which will be included in the next cylinder's intake event. This both cools the intake valves, and add some fuel to the charge to "wash" the intake valves. So, if you're doing the bulk of your driving- steady state like driving on a highway- you're in effect getting better gas mileage and decreasing the amount of carbon build-up on the intake port and valves.

That's the case @Chaser in which "frankly, science prevails". Not in some manufacturer's literature to sell product.