Greetings! Would/has anyone installed UPR dual valve oil catch can? I'm new to the F150 clan with a 2017 3.5L ecoboost, and was wondering if it wold help, or is necessary.

 

I came on here looking for the same info. Kinda concerned that there hasn't been a single response in 3 months . . .
From other sources, it seems that late model ecoboosts have port injection in addition to direct injection, whereas the 2015 only has direct, so that the valves accumulate deposits to a much greater extent.

 

There is an F150 specific "Ecoboost" forum out there and most of them have the 'can' on 'em..

I came here back in 2001 when I had a 97 F150. I have since gotten a 13 F150 with the Eco and also belong to that Ecoboost forum since 2014 and for the record, I do not run a can..

The other thing they like to do is drill a very small hole in the CAC to drain it..

Well, I have not done that either..

You will see lots of debates over both of those procedures.. Myself, I'm just going with what Ford said would work and at 60k miles so far, so good..

Sure, I have not run a scope or anything to see what the valves look like, but it still runs fine, gets the same mpg, has the same power, etc..

Eco's have been around since 2011, and there was some initial issues with the CAC and extra stuff in 'em, so that's what generated the fad to drill a hole in the CAC..

There were various 'fixes' from Ford on that, but I've done nothing with my 13 and have never had any issue and I have done full throttle and work my Eco towing my TT, so whatever they did for 13 works for me..

Anyway, do what you feel you need to do.. It's your truck.. It's your money.. Either way, in the end, whatever happens, happens and that's that.. ha, ha!

Since you have a lot newer Eco, I'd think that if there was a problem with the old ones, it's been fixed on the new ones?

Good luck!

Mitch

 

The reason a catch can is used by some is to catch the oil that would normally go thru the PCV system. It's volume is due to heat. The reason for the volume is the internals of the engine running hot and the user using the wrong oil. If you'll go to the PQIA website and review the ASTM D5800 testing data, then you'll have a clue how heat stable your oil is. The test is a 1 hour long test where the oil is subject to 250C or 482F temperatures. The oil is a known weight at the beginning of the test. After the test, the fluid is weighed again. The number you'll see is the weight of oil that evaporated or cooked off due to high heat, expressed in a percentage. Take M1 5w-30 is about 10.1. That means that 10.1% of the oil cooked off by weight. FWIW, NO synthetic even gets close to the Pennzoil 10w-30 conventional. So if you don't have cold startups of minus 25C, you can use the 10w-30. Pennzoil 10w-30 yellow bottle ASTM D5800 results are 4.2.
There are 2 things to worry about with the direct injected 3.5 EB engines. The ASTM D5800 and fuel dilution where there is so much gas in the oil that it has become dangerous to run it. I've seen oil reports at 3500 miles where the oil volume was 5% gasoline. Trust me, at 5% you're flirting with a catastrophic engine explosion where the oil actually explodes inside the engine. I've had 2 engines do this over my years. It's not pretty watching the valve covers come thru the hood and then see the pan laying on the ground. If you have concerns over needing a catch can, I'd strongly suggest getting an oil report to determine just what is going on with your engine. Let the report tell you just how long to run the oil. It may be fine, it may be a wreck waiting to happen but at least you'll know for the 25 bucks a report costs.
If you're driving a NEW multi fuel injection 3.5 EB engines, a catch can should not be needed. The engine basically runs on the sequential side of the injection system which does not build the heat like a direct injection. If you stay in the gas a lot, you might be running in direct injection mode a lot and therefore need help. For the average driver with the newer 3.5, a catch can is not needed.

 

Labnerd, you're living up to your name. LOL You've given me a dissertation of subject matter on the periphery of my concern. Your focus is on the chemical properties of various oils and the heat generated by the motor. Well, I'm not going to pay 25 bucks to have an ASTM D5800 test done on the oil I use. It'll suffice to say that there is hot vapor produced from any crankcase when warmed up to steady state which will need cooled by PCV system (with or w/o catch can) to allow removal of condensate.
You mention the sequential and direct injection . . . that is where I'm unclear. The system runs sequentially all the time (IE in accord with firing order). I believe the only injection types relevant to my concern are direct and port injection, as the latter is downstream of valves, so to speak, and port injection is upstream. The difference here is what I believe speaks to the need for the can. I drive by a dealer twice a day, so I may stop in and ask a tech there, but basically just trying to determine if my 3.5 is the newer (with port and direct injection), or the older (without port).
Thanks!

 

If yours has the 10 speed transmission, it's dual injection.

 

You already have one, it's called the intercooler. Drill a small hole near the outlet an let the junk drain.

 

I'd read about doing that. So the vacuum source of PCV system is upstream of intercooler? I had thought that PCV tied in downstream.

Doesn't drilling a small hole introduce unmetered air? Perhaps MAF is downstream of intercooler, but it would still be unfiltered air, albeit a small amount.

 

The intercooler is always under pressure, engine vacuum isn't formed till downstream of the throttle body. Therefore the weep hole only let's air or liquid out.

The Gen 1 EB doesn't use a MAF, they use a MAP sensor instead. Air loss in the intake tract does absolutely nothing for how the engine runs or manages itself. The air is not measured till it's inside the intake manifold.

The EPA won't let Ford drill the hole from the factory but nothing stops you from doing it.

 

Thanks for the info Joe. You answered the unmetered air question (thanks!), but not the PCV blow-by condensation question.

My main concern is reducing or preventing condensed PCV (crankcase) vapors from reaching the motor - the small hole doesn't do that - it is upstream of the vacuum. Drawing the crankcase vapors out and separating the cooled condensate requires intervention between crankcase baffle and vacuum, which, based on your description, occurs downstream of intercooler.

Am I correct in stating that the fluid purged by drilling the small hole is not blow-by but condensation from ambient air intake under from high pressure?

 

The Gen 1 motors have two crankcase vents. One is on the passenger side and goes from the valve cover to the intake manifold. The other is on the driver side and goes from the valve cover to the inlet pipe upstream of the turbo.

Any vapors pulled from the crankcase under boost go through the driver's side, through the turbo, through the intercooler and then back into the motor. When the engine is at low throttle the vapors are pulled straight from the crankcase into the motor. The drilled hole dumps crankcase vapors and ambient moisture from the intake tract.

The Gen 2 motors have dual injection so there's no reason to care.

​​​​​​If you want to throw money at a catch can to sleep better go for it. Personally I think that money would be better spent on hookers and blow. I have 142k on my truck and for grins and giggles I bore scoped it. The valves and piston tops are clean with very little carbon to be seen. I wouldn't put catch cans on my truck if they were given to me. I have better things to waste time on. Ford did a fine job designing the PCV setup on the motor.