There is no steel wool in the canisters, there are 3 perforated plates (stacked), so there is no obstruction of pressure differential.

There need not be any excessive oil in the tubes to coke the valves, the mere presence of oil "mist" will, over time, collect on the valves. The stacked perforated plates in the canisters are cooler than the oil mist which will cause the mist to condensate and drop to the "well" or collector bowl.

Finally, if one has not actually witnessed the valves in person, one has no way of knowing if the coke is present or not.

Geez, the denial here is unreal...............

 

This is my reason to be skeptical. 1 report of coked valves from a differently designed engine (fwd eb vs. Rwd eb) and no evidence this is an actual problem on the RWD eb configuration. The eb in our trucks is a different animal than the sho motor. Different heads to be specific. I guess I dont want to go rushing off to buy snake oil just yet. I want some photo evidence from a RWD EB first.

 

See thread # 84............You have the coking, you just don't know it..........

 

I don't mean to chime in and sound like a skeptic, but if the solution to the issue is a simple catch can, why would the manufacturers not install this from the factory and avoid the hassles?

 

With reference to how a PCV system operates, you may take veiled potshots at my intelligence all you wish, but, the fact remains it is always going to be in your own self-interests (assuming you care) and simply prudent to perform that direct observation, rather than to rely on yer butt-dyno or wishful thinking, or pundits.

The analogy that comes immediately to mind is the issue of inducing lean conditions on an already lean-running platform with a slot-style MAF configuration (e.g CAI mods). Abundant, definitive Proof exists that often these changes push the a/f ratio to north of 15:1 and beyond - with no tangible clues; not in the butt-dyno nor a CEL. Only direct measurement of said ratios will indicate the condition is indeed present.

I have a borescope - and if you were closer I would be more than happy to let you borrow it.

MGD

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Good reply.......remind me to never argue with you, unless of course I am proof positive I am correct. In this scenario, I am. Thanks.

 

MGD:
I'm not sure what you considered a pot shot but that was not what I was aiming for. Nor do I understand where A/F ratios come into play on this discussion. If you read my earlier post where I checked the tubes I also checked around inside the intake. I'll admit it wasn't a super thorough inspection but I did check out the area where the PCV tube enters the manafold pretty well, there was no oil there. If there isn't oil in the tube or the intake how much will be getting to the valves? I have checked my truck and find no evidence of a problem, it's not denial. I have checked and seen what's there with my own 4 eyes. (<-- that's a joke, I wear glasses) Can we agree that if oil was going through the tubes there would be a residue? I have checked all the obvious places for a residue and did not find much of anything. I'd take you up on the offer for the borescope but since I think you're in Canada I'll pass on the drive up there.

Aussie:
As for there not being a pressure drop you are wrong, period. How much and if it is detrimental is TBD. You added extra hose, there is friction on the sides of the hose. Every bend in these hoses adds more friction. The plates inside the housing add more restriction. The necking area at the inlet and outlet of the canister create eddy currents, you guessed it more friction here. This all adds up and could create a problem. I have designed and worked with systems on aircraft where a less than 1 PSI drop will cause issues or possible system failure. In some systems a 10 PSI drop is no big deal, it all comes down to what's being done and how sensitive the parts involved are. I'm an engineer for an aircraft manufacturer not FoMoCo so I do not have the details on this system. That leaves us to guess what's going on. You guess that it's ok and since you are making the payments that's your prerogative.

Got a unrelated question, are you an Aussie and play keeper or did you play keeper on an Aussie team?

At the end of the day none of us can really say for sure. We have our opinions and feelings but nothing concrete yet.

 

This is a truck, NOT the space shuttle. And in actuality, I would prefer some pressure drop. That way, LESS oil would make its way up to the intake.

I have Aussie Dogs, therefore, I am the Aussiekeeper.

 

I seen the post. "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy...." is hardly evidence. I'll change my tune if and when there are pics to back it up. Sorry if my skepticism bothers you, but I choose to wait and see.

 

A/F reference was simply an analogy - an example of an instance where some condition can exist ostensibly undetected, and direct observation/measurement is required to confirm presence of same.

MGD

 

Nope...I'll just trade it in...and get the next thing that comes along.

 

I know what you were doing but maybe I wasn't clear enough. I did check the hoses and look around inside the intake and found no evidence of oil. In fact this was the cleanest I have ever seen inside of an intake. I have looked inside the intake of an EB where as no one else on this thread has done such. The closest thing is a few pictures from a similar motor but has entirely different components, oh and it just so happens that the pictures came from a company that sells a cure to this ailment. Am I a little bit skeptical of this evidence, you betcha!

You never answered the original question. If the oil level on the dipstick does not appreciably change between changes and there is not a significant amount of oil in the hoses and intake plenum where is it coming from and how is it getting there?

 

That's right - you certainly were not clear enough, being as I'm just a simple, unedumacated country boy who, frankly, is not all that impressed by name & title-droppers...

Did that question really require an answer? How much oil do you think it takes to coke up, over time? If you could discern a few ounces difference, as determined by something as rudimentary as a simply dipstick, that may end up coked on the valves, in a system that normally should consume oil to keep the rings lubricated, on top of the additional (and also normal) oil lost to blow-by under boost, then I think yer in the wrong profession. You could be rich & famous.

Indeed - if you detect no such oil loss between change intervals, I'd be concerned on a whole 'nother level. Especially in a boosted vehicle.

As long as there have been boosted trucks (just browse the Lightning forum) there have been canisters - and the only difference is they do it for a different reason - not having to worry about coking on the intake valvetrain. It ain't new, it ain't special, it ain't BS, and there is no immunity.

Sadly, apparently the only thing I see left standing is the plethora of Personal Reality Distortion Fields.

In closing - To quote the ever-so eloquent Labnerd (and Where are ya, buddy? ) : "Yer truck. Yer money. Choose wisely, Grasshoppah..."

Time to move on ... I gotta go gather the parts & stuff to construct my own " Catches-Catch-Can" in preparation ...

Take care, bud.


MGD

 

https://www.f150online.com/forums/4489310-post16.html


From ==> https://www.f150online.com/forums/20...ml#post4488883

Nope - you are more than entitled to yer skepticism - it is, after all, yer truck. Bothers me not one whit.



MGD