Tuner Boost said:
Oh, one other thing. Only the RX system corrects the PCV systems evacuation issue, adding another can only dealing with the vapors after they have accumulated in the crankcase already and contaminated the oil.
Some of the other cans can be modified to do the same, but you will need the checkvalves, fittings, lines, etc. to accomplish this.
The RX system is complete with all needed.
To compare, you would want to use the RX single valve can for $199 if you dont want to correct the PCV system flaw.
Hey Turner Boost,
What I am trying to achieve through this simple experiment is determining how much if any oil is being ingested through the intake tube (clean side) vs the PCV side, and 2 are the Moroso really that bad. (These are on loan from a friend) I know that the RX is superior in terms of the catch rate, and correcting flow (for your dual catch can).
Your experiment is a good one, but due to the PCV system only evacuating at idle and low throttle (at cruise there is boost present so no evacuation) so as is, the PCV system app. 80% of the time is building crankcase pressure to the point that it is forcing vapors out backwards through the cleanside, when a proper system always retains flow of "fresh in one bank, foul oil laden out the opposite". So that must be corrected or no catchcan can really do much but trap some after the fact. The cleanside should rarely have flow reversion so the foul side will be the one that should catch 95% of the oil mix. But as the PCV system is OEM, most will be on the fresh side. Yes, the Moroso and the 30 some others are not much better than a $15 air compressor separator. Easy to test and see. What you have done for the F150 is simply amazing from what I have seen and read. That said this thread seems to be predominantly about transverse mounted EBs, which as you know presents a different set of challenges in terms of mounting compared to the F150. I am eagerly awaiting the responses from those members with the RX mounted in their SHOs. I may or may not end up with a catch can in my own car, I can tell you this. If I do it will probably be the RX. I will take your advice and mount a simple compressor separator after the Moroso's and see what we get there. The Moroso is not that much cheaper in terms of cost. You need 2 cans and that is about $300.00. The RX is only $100 more, with the clean side separator. For a mod you will do once, I don't believe that cost is an issue.
The transverse applications the only thing I can see different is the size and efficiency of the CAC, but that in it'self should not make as drastic of a difference in the two....so there is still some mystery that until I have steady access to a few to test different functions, I can't answer exactly why. But I sure will figure out why.
You will have to forgive my ignorance, the defect in the PCV system. Is this not present in all boosted cars? Like the CTS-V or ZR1? I am not familiar in how GM routes the PCV on their boosted cars. But from the CTS-V vid I would assume this would be the case.
One would think so, but there are several types of forced induction. The Caddy CTSv, Vette ZR1, camaro ZL1 Mustand GT500 and cobra, are all a positive displacement top mount blower that replaces the intake manifold. These do not pressurize the intake manifold as they are delivering the boost directly to the intake ports and the intercooler is water to air and mounted under the supercharger between it and the cylinder heads. These provide vacuum at all times as it comes from the inlet side of the supercharger so it always supplies vacuum/suction, but the least at idle and low rpms, and the most at high RPM's SO there is no pressure/boost issues as far as evacuation like a turbo or a centrifugal supercharger that pressurizes the air charge before it travels through the intercooler and then pressurizes the intake manifold. That is why the issues unique to those types of FI.
A few questions, if efficient evacuation and constant is what we are looking for what about connecting a simple vacuum pump to the 2nd port on the RX? This would eliminate the need to drill into the intake tubing and would ensure a constant rate of evacuation, I understand that this would bypass routing the PVC gases back to the intake. However this would only happen under boost and would completely eliminate any chance of crud getting into the CAC. The RX would not be reliant on vacuum that may or may not be present in the intake tube. And with the RX before it there would be minimal chance of fouling the pump. It sounds complicated but with all the different configurations on the EB intake tubing depending on the car or truck, this would ensure that the system is performing at peak efficiency regardless of the application.
Absolutely correct. The issue is, we have not been able to, nor has anyone developed one that can do what needs. That is maintain enough vacuum and CFM of flow, and not be damaged by the mix of oil/gasoline/sulfuric acid, etc. All to date only last a short time before failure (we have been trying different solutions for the past 10 plus years) and a belt driven unit like we use on our race applications that will maintain the correct amount of vacuum and flow will not last on the street. We do use the GM small unit for a big cam build where there is not enough vacuum for a brake booster and add them with great success, but they will fail in no time if used for crankcase evac, and only provide a fraction of the volume needed to work.
In mounting the RX, it seems that the only 2 locations that we are able to mount the unit (on the SHO) are above the exhaust manifold and behind the coolant reservoir. In comparison to the F150 which is mounted in front of the rad which is the coolest spot to put it. There is space to mount the RX there on the SHO, Flex and Explorer. However reaching the drain valve would be a real pain, is it possible to either hard plumb the tubing to a valve lower down. This way you could simply reach under the front bumper and turn the valve there. Or a have a remote release for valve attached to a cable release for example? This would really free up where the can could be mounted, and then mounted somewhere cooler to maximize the condensing effect.
