See on the right side of the board... PCV mist? Let the war about Catch Cans begin...
Last edited:
Why OE's are using PFI/DI in the same engine - EE
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
This is a good idea. It takes care of the deposit issue and doesn't add much complexity.
Originally Posted by KGMtech
This is a good idea. It takes care of the deposit issue and doesn't add much complexity.
Just cost - a lot of cost. Each injector is several hundred dollars. Multiply by 4 or 6, and this will add a significant amount of money to the cost of each new vehicle sold.
This is a good idea. It takes care of the deposit issue and doesn't add much complexity.
Just cost - a lot of cost. Each injector is several hundred dollars. Multiply by 4 or 6, and this will add a significant amount of money to the cost of each new vehicle sold.
You don't hear too much about Toyota's D4-S in the Lexus IS/GS/LS gunking up(and now in the new TNGA Camry/Avalon/ES, Sienna/Highlander/RX and Tacoma) and a while ago Toyota licensed to Ford their hybrid tech in exchange for emissions tech. Ford's new dual injection system in the 2016 Ecoboosts is a carbon copy of D4-S but using Bosch injectors and electronics.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by The Critic
Originally Posted by KGMtech
This is a good idea. It takes care of the deposit issue and doesn't add much complexity.
Just cost - a lot of cost. Each injector is several hundred dollars. Multiply by 4 or 6, and this will add a significant amount of money to the cost of each new vehicle sold.
The port injector will add about $25 at most per unit.
Originally Posted by KGMtech
This is a good idea. It takes care of the deposit issue and doesn't add much complexity.
Just cost - a lot of cost. Each injector is several hundred dollars. Multiply by 4 or 6, and this will add a significant amount of money to the cost of each new vehicle sold.
The port injector will add about $25 at most per unit.
Originally Posted by KGMtech
The port injector will add about $25 at most per unit.
My understanding was also that the direct injectors were the expensive items, not the old fashioned port ones...
The port injector will add about $25 at most per unit.
My understanding was also that the direct injectors were the expensive items, not the old fashioned port ones...
But don't forget the added complexity of two completely different fuel delivery systems in a computer controlled engine. Not just a few injectors tossed in!
Both Toyota and Porsche are on record as saying that DI engines can have part throttle cylinder filling issues, that's the real reason behind it.
Seems a bit crude but it will solve the dirty valve issues, eh?
Both Toyota and Porsche are on record as saying that DI engines can have part throttle cylinder filling issues, that's the real reason behind it.
Seems a bit crude but it will solve the dirty valve issues, eh?
The D4-S in the highlander I had which has this setup was flawless in terms of the engine.
Its really too bad the 8-speed was so terrible as that engine is quite refined and lots of get up and go when you want it for a 3.5L
Its really too bad the 8-speed was so terrible as that engine is quite refined and lots of get up and go when you want it for a 3.5L
its about time !!! a little more cost but not a real lot considering manufacturers pay a fraction of parts cost consumers do. of course the carbon issue that stops me from buying new + mpg's. DI is NOT always the most efficient compared to port injection as many think, so using both controlled by computer programming is the best of both IMO!! several manufacturers have been using + VAG VW-Audi does in europe only for now, but tighter emissions + the quest for better mpg's will slowly bring it to most everywhere.
Last edited:
So would this video speak to the credability of catch cans having a benefit as well as Noack in DI only engines where they aren't well controlled?
IMO it may, but we must first know precisely what fraction of the gaseous mist we need to "catch". A great deal of the mist is quite volatile and will never be an issue.
But this is wildly platform specific, some mfgrs seem to have absolutely zero issues even with "only" DI. And I'm sure the actual crankcase vapors are different from platform to platform, even relative to duty cycle...
But this is wildly platform specific, some mfgrs seem to have absolutely zero issues even with "only" DI. And I'm sure the actual crankcase vapors are different from platform to platform, even relative to duty cycle...
I dont feel a catch can is worth the time, money and effort especially considering it would present freezing problems in the winter. Using a good oil, good gas and ensuring the PCV valve is in good shape will certainly help keep deposits down and also ensure that short tripping is kept to a minimum. Then there is also the VW version of the italian, keeping the RPM at 3K for 20 minutes. I do this each weekend with the A4, put the DSG into manual mode on the highway, select 4th gear, set the cruise and have at it.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6866031?oq=valve+coating+carbon+VW
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6866031?oq=valve+coating+carbon+VW
Originally Posted by StevieC
So would this video speak to the credability of catch cans having a benefit as well as Noack in DI only engines where they aren't well controlled?
oil evaporation is a drop in the deposit bucket compared to the crankcase blow by products . We keep regurgitating that . Push comes to shove it is like the LSPI problem the oil was blamed and there seems to still be the problem. The CAFE regulations and emission regulations are driving the engine tech.
So would this video speak to the credability of catch cans having a benefit as well as Noack in DI only engines where they aren't well controlled?
oil evaporation is a drop in the deposit bucket compared to the crankcase blow by products . We keep regurgitating that . Push comes to shove it is like the LSPI problem the oil was blamed and there seems to still be the problem. The CAFE regulations and emission regulations are driving the engine tech.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Good video! Thanks.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
I think the stuff collected in the CCans varies. Sometimes it's oily and other times it just looks like condensation. I have one on the KIA that rarely collects much. Either way, i'm not sure if it can be considered a cure. It may delay the inevitable if your vehicle is prone to deposits but by how much time/miles is unknown.
I doubt the OEMs wouldn't have come up with something like a catch can style design for their vehicles if this simple cheap fix made a significant difference. I know the argument against that point is that the avg consumer doesn't even change their oil on time so why would they empty a CCan? Well, that's why i mentioned a variation of a CCan that doesn't require continuous maintenance. But they haven't...
I doubt the OEMs wouldn't have come up with something like a catch can style design for their vehicles if this simple cheap fix made a significant difference. I know the argument against that point is that the avg consumer doesn't even change their oil on time so why would they empty a CCan? Well, that's why i mentioned a variation of a CCan that doesn't require continuous maintenance. But they haven't...
so which mfrs are using dual injectors? while many mfrs are proud to advertise GDI on their websites; I have not seen "dual injection" listed. certainly it may be there....
Originally Posted by wemay
...Well, that's why i mentioned a variation of a CCan that doesn't require continuous maintenance. But they haven't...
They do though. Look at Mazda SkyActiv engine, there's substantial catch can built right in. GM has variation of baffled separator in the valve cover, at least in 8 cyl engines. GM actually had to re-design the valve cover for the previous-gen V8s because of excessive blow-by ending in intake.
Many manufacturers do include separators, but to make the whole assembly compact and maintenance-free they have to drain the condensate back into the sump. This makes the catch can a part of the engine. And it is not very effective(hello GM), partially because of the heat. This is why external cans collect at least something, the stuff left behind by OEM separator. Not all of it, indeed, but evidently it helps.
Intake in my Tahoe is relatively dry for the last 50k km after it got the can. When I picked the truck up it was a mess there, at 50k km. The 5.3L engine is known for its oil-in-intake problems.
...Well, that's why i mentioned a variation of a CCan that doesn't require continuous maintenance. But they haven't...
They do though. Look at Mazda SkyActiv engine, there's substantial catch can built right in. GM has variation of baffled separator in the valve cover, at least in 8 cyl engines. GM actually had to re-design the valve cover for the previous-gen V8s because of excessive blow-by ending in intake.
Many manufacturers do include separators, but to make the whole assembly compact and maintenance-free they have to drain the condensate back into the sump. This makes the catch can a part of the engine. And it is not very effective(hello GM), partially because of the heat. This is why external cans collect at least something, the stuff left behind by OEM separator. Not all of it, indeed, but evidently it helps.
Intake in my Tahoe is relatively dry for the last 50k km after it got the can. When I picked the truck up it was a mess there, at 50k km. The 5.3L engine is known for its oil-in-intake problems.
- Status
