Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
Hi Norm1
Thanks for posting this. I've been thinking about doing this myself (Catch can).

Everyone/anyone:
Is it hard to do?
Any thoughts/recommendations on which one to get?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
715 Posts
I put on from elite engineering took about an hour. It was the mod I did to my C6. Don’t think I had the car a month before I did mine. Just have to remember to empty it before every oil change. Mine gets about 2oz of oil in it between changes.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,786 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Hi Norm1
Thanks for posting this. I've been thinking about doing this myself (Catch can).

Everyone/anyone:
Is it hard to do?
Any thoughts/recommendations on which one to get?
Don't know the product's name, purchase from an established well known vendor. Took my buddy about 25 minutes to install, he's done many.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
715 Posts
If you own a car with direct injection a catch can is a must. There is no gas going through the intake valves to wash the oil off. This causes carbon to build up and the valves loose proper seal. Some manufacturers installed them on their motors. Others like ford have a duel injection system where they run a small amount of fuel through the intake to clean the valves.
 

·
Registered
1966 Coupe 454/538hp 4spd of course; 1984 Z51, built 11/83, Blue w/Black Leather factory override..
Joined
·
11,730 Posts
The Corvette Oldtimers recall the vent pipe, rear of the block...

GM Manuals: Air enters through the breather cap on top of the valve cover and exits through the vent tube and serves the purpose of "... reducing the possibility of harmful acid or sludge formation in the lubricating oil." The first solution devised by our government to reduce automobile pollution consisted of eliminating the vent tube and running crankcase emmisions through the engine via the positive crankcase ventilation system in order to combust the vapors to a lower level pollutant.

C'ya
 

·
DC PIT CREW BOSS
Joined
·
43,388 Posts
I remember those pipes well
 

·
Registered
1966 Coupe 454/538hp 4spd of course; 1984 Z51, built 11/83, Blue w/Black Leather factory override..
Joined
·
11,730 Posts
"RACING...Because with baseball, football, basketball, tennis, and golf, you only need one ball"

Hahahaha.. The "two balls" bit of nostalgia ...

I asked Dick Guldstrand what was his most memorable Corvette experience... Was it when he set the class lap record at 24hrs. of Le Mans, after the change of drivers with a ('63 Z06) rear ender taking out the radiator and front end? The radiator was swapped out with another Vette's in the parking lot and FLASHLIGHTS were taped to the front fenders to stay legal for the rest of the night. Pit crew asked " how in the h... did you manage to set the record" .. His response, "I had to fall in behind the Ferraris to stay alive.." BUT.. his most memorable was:

"I was racing a Jag on Mulholland Drive and the Jag went over the cliff. " Scared the s... out of him, and he didn't stop to see the outcome.

Talk about BRASS... Dick WAS, as known, "Goldie"..

C'ya
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
I am entering this conversation to suggest to anyone reading this post for information about this part , that the need for this part is only universally excepted by the buyers of this part. However one chooses to have fun with cars is fine with me, and one would assume those with catch cans have reason and research to know what they are doing. I do not challenge that.

however, for stock needs, the guys who designed the engine do it for a living, have a development budget backed with GM cubic money, plus supercomputer time. I would imagine an engineering job at GM attracts some top guys who would be tough to out engineer when they work on a system. They design for stock needs , and I would suggest any change to a modern engine system, which is tightly engineered as to function and design goals, if one has stock needs for the car, is probably a mistake. citing other designs and catch can fitment is not relevant to this design.

Catch cans have been around a long time, they are not some overlooked part the engineers mistakenly omitted . I stress I am only speaking about stock cars, with stock design needs. I know nothing made by man is perfect, but I wouldn't think a catch can for stock needs is a good choice, unless you can out engineer the original design engineers . for other than stock needs, I obviously offer no advice.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
715 Posts
They design to get the most the cheapest way possible. The harmonic balancer is the same one that on a Silverado steering wheel from a corsica anything to keep costs down. You don’t know the engineers may have wanted a catch can and the accountants said no. They also figured a bunch old guys where buying them and though cruisers those guys aren’t to be racing them around.
A catch can will only help a motor. Will do nothing to harm one. Keeping oil out of the intake track is a good thing no? Not really not that expensive. Get a good one for under a C note. So I don’t see the sin here.
 

·
Registered
1966 Coupe 454/538hp 4spd of course; 1984 Z51, built 11/83, Blue w/Black Leather factory override..
Joined
·
11,730 Posts
... They design for stock needs , and I would suggest any change to a modern engine system, which is tightly engineered as to function and design goals, if one has stock needs for the car, is probably a mistake... I wouldn't think a catch can for stock needs is a good choice, unless you can out engineer the original design engineers.
Speaking of Corvettes (and other GM designs), if your engine has a stock dry sump oil system you already have a oil catch can built in.

As for changes to stock.. what comes to mind is GM vs. Ford. engineering. A typical Ford engineer is as silver spooned, Daddy paid for engineering degrees, who never lifted a wrench, doesn't change his own oil, and then goes to work designing your FORD. A GM engineer was wrenching before he could drive, had to learn every part of his hot rod to keep it running, looking nice, and faster then a FORD. So there are times when changes to "stock" is warranted.

JMHO after wrenching near every car built at one time or another in 60 yrs.

C'ya
 

·
Registered
1966 Coupe 454/538hp 4spd of course; 1984 Z51, built 11/83, Blue w/Black Leather factory override..
Joined
·
11,730 Posts
SAE REPORT 2018-10-31
Comparative Performance of 12 Crankcase Oil Mist Separators 03-12-01-0001

Closed crankcase ventilation (CCV) systems are required in most automotive markets in order to meet emissions regulations. Such systems usually require a separator to recover oil and return it to the sump. Many end users fit improved separators in order to reduce intake/aftercooler contamination with soot/oil. This study measured clean and wet pressure drop and filter capture efficiency in 12 different crankcase oil mist separators which are commonly used for either original equipment (OE) or aftermarket fitment to passenger vehicles and four-wheel drives (≤200 kW). The filters tested spanned three different size/rating classes as well as included both branded and unbranded (imitation) models. In addition to filters, separators (often termed “catch cans”) and an OE cyclone separator were also examined. Testing was performed under controlled laboratory conditions using methods equivalent to previous work and current mist filter test standards. All separators were tested at flow rates between 50 and 250 lpm in both dry and “wet” (saturated with oil) states. Filtration/separation efficiency was also measured. Separators were compared based on quality factor (ratio of capture efficiency to pressure drop). A wide range of quality factors were found; however, in general, the filters were found to be superior to the catch cans, while the cyclone had the lowest quality factor. The branded filters were found to be superior in terms of quality factor, mainly due to the fact that they contained a greater quantity and/or finer separation media compared to imitation models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
They design to get the most the cheapest way possible. The harmonic balancer is the same one that on a Silverado steering wheel from a corsica anything to keep costs down. You don’t know the engineers may have wanted a catch can and the accountants said no. They also figured a bunch old guys where buying them and though cruisers those guys aren’t to be racing them around.
A catch can will only help a motor. Will do nothing to harm one. Keeping oil out of the intake track is a good thing no? Not really not that expensive. Get a good one for under a C note. So I don’t see the sin here.
you might remember the part where I took no opposition to whatever one chooses for car happiness, bringing sin into the conversation is a contrasting position I never advanced .

my position is unchanged.

while I agree Gm is very cheap, sometimes to the point of harm, in it's decision making , the cost of inferior product design is very high and recognized in development. Plus, they are selling to guys dropping 100, 000 bucks plus on a high end product, corvettes are well known for cutting edge design implementations. if a corvette , as used by new corvette buyers, needed a catch can to improve the design, it would be engineered into the system.

If one has the ability to beat the GM motor design team with a bolt on aftermarket nice shiny part, more power to you. Just because something can be done, etc.

I am running what I think is an improved clutch and a slightly lighter steel flywheel, so am not adverse to aftermarket parts conceptually. I just think one needs a well informed reason to change any tightly engineered modern system. while happiness as a buying trigger might not be an engineers first choice, it works for me. the only problem is with the next owner, who might be the one paying for poor stewardship of the design.

for example, I wouldn't want to be the guy where the previous owner thought regular 5-30 oil was fine, nothing broke yet, and the synthetic specification was only a rip off, for some reason. I have read stuff like that about the oil requirements , posted often enough to take notice. an admittedly extreme example, yet I think the exaggeration helps illustrate my, in this case, small point.

I am really out of my depth discussing highly engineered parts and technical air flow design elements, but can safely say the systems are designed down to the molecular level when needed, and you change one part of the chain, you have the possibility, and probably the reality, of the entire system design function being changed for the worse, away from the original very optimized design performance specifications..

It's not like they are just making stuff up, or that cost is the primary design goal. As you say, catch cans are a cheap, and more so if you are GM. if the addition had benefits, it would have been designed into the system. corvettes are not designed to be a cheap deal, they can afford optimized designs and parts .

the example of a harmonic balancer is good example of unintentionally screwing things up in the quest to make a car unique and special with after market parts , I happiness goal I don't dispute.

a harmonic balancer is tuned to dampen destructive harmonic vibrations, the stuff that famously tears down bridges. a Silverado uses the LS engine , so the part my look the same, but will be tuned for that particular product line's harmful vibrational frequencies, or might be coincidentally unchanged from an LS corvette install, I don't know. The point is, the part is frequency tuned for that particular need. so while the part my look interchangeable with the same very old original design on a fifties station wagon, it is tuned for a different damping frequency.

From what I read on the internet, frequency vibration range, the thing that actually makes the part effective, is never discussed. The parts discussed are selected by other purchasers experiences about wear, price and looks. A car with a modified drive train, or frequently used outside of the original design envelope , will distort and destroy a stock harmonic damper .probably the reason why stock GM harmonic balancers are slammed across the internet by poorly informed fans of simple modifications. A hot rod part might indeed be a better choice, as the parts builders are not stupid about who most often buys their parts. but correct fitment could only be a coincidence, without specifying the correct frequency range needed. the damping frequency is something that is already understood with a stock part. if you buy outside of the correct damping range, you have just installed the wrong part, and prices will be paid somewhere .
I learned a lot about my used and, to me, newly purchased C5 on the internet. I learned so much that I now understand not all well meaning advice is mechanically sound, and often is just popular opinion, formed from other posted opinions, not necessarily from facts or design considerations.

I have no issue with using the same steering wheel in multiple applications, it keeps cost down , is just as functional , and parts development is very high when you are on the stick for every regulation and outcome. an aftermarket supplier can just walk away if things go bad. I think my C5 shared the steering wheel with some kind of Pontiac or something. I think the new production uses a corvette specific wheel, and has been for some time , from the emphasis on better interiors for the higher price points .

I must say I recognized a lot of worth in the above posted picture. I enjoyed that the picture has a bunch of friends sharing common interests, in person. that is what mankind is all about. If I were a betting man, I would say every single guy pictured , if they run a corvette, also has a catch can, or is planning on getting one in the future. In the past I read one post that said ia catch can on a C5 messed with crankcase pressures , effecting oiling, and got real technical in supporting that position, but my knowledge of the air path is so limited, I couldn't tell if he was correct or not.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top