Still Not Sold On A Catch Can? Check Here...

jrob56 · May 19, 2016

I don't know if a catch-can could be the reason, for the engine to starve oil.

And in my opinion, it doesn't matter. It is an "unauthorized" modification, obviously.

Where does it start and where does it end?

I don't wanna fight over this.

I just don't understand why GM should be held responsible, for damages on an engine with modifications. No matter what it is.

Because they give a warranty "as is", so to speak.

so long

j-ten-ner

Nothing to argue about, what you fail to understand is that Magnuson Moss prevents this. The modification has to be the reason for failure. They cant void a repair of a failed part of the vehicle because of an unrelated part. The car owner needs to make sure he holds GM to that standard, but he has chosen not to.

If you dont think that should be law, you are entitled to have that opinion.

Edited May 19, 2016 by jrob56

aerojar01 · May 19, 2016

But those same engineers offer a catch can on the camaro 1LE models

Ok, but that's a very slim portion of the millions of passenger vehicles that do not come with one....as with everything there is a cost benefit ratio. Customers who purchase track capable Camaro 1LE models are buying a much different vehicle than the rest of car buyers.

I worked in automotive for awhile as an engineer and have had the big 3 as customers. There is always a reason to include or not include a feature on a vehicle. These guys are very thorough.

Not saying a catch can won't make a slight difference, but is it worth the investment and what is the return? could be an extra 20000 miles on an engine or it could be 200 extra miles, who knows.

Point is, do your own research and make your own mind up...it's your car and your money. I've gone back and forth about CAI's twice myself, but that is a whole nother can of worms....

Good discussion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Love to read that but sounds like one of those my cousins brothers uncle said posts. We'll never see it.

I posted it and I agree with you!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

glcbn · May 20, 2016

They cant void a repair of a failed part of the vehicle because of an unrelated part.

For them to not only deny repair but to void the powertrain warranty. There is a lot more to this deal that we are aware of.

1300c · May 20, 2016

For them to not only deny repair but to void the powertrain warranty. There is a lot more to this deal that we are aware of.

It makes me wonder what they found when they looked into the computer on the car.

wuznme · May 20, 2016

Don't think more too it, the mods on the engine could have very well done damage to the rest of the drivetrain none of that has given in yet.

glcbn · May 22, 2016

Don't think more too it, the mods on the engine could have very well done damage to the rest of the drivetrain none of that has given in yet.

You're right. Read that entire camaro thread and OP reads as a heck of a stand up guy. Not that any other dealer would have been 100% supportive of his situation, he just happens to be involved with a "strickly by the book" dealer.

Cowpie · July 23, 2016

Nothing to argue about, what you fail to understand is that Magnuson Moss prevents this. The modification has to be the reason for failure. They cant void a repair of a failed part of the vehicle because of an unrelated part. The car owner needs to make sure he holds GM to that standard, but he has chosen not to.

If you dont think that should be law, you are entitled to have that opinion.

Generally you would be correct, but modifications are a grey area. The act primarily is concerned with the consumer is not required to use OEM parts, filters, oils, service departments, etc. If they use an Acme oil filter, the OEM has to prove that any failure was a direct cause of using the Acme filter instead of the OEM recommended one. If they use an oil that isn't an "official" "approved' oil in the engine, then the OEM cannot void the warranty without first proving that the non authorized oil in fact was what caused the failure.

With a catch can, it is not like one is using something in place of something already a part of the engine. Not like using a K&N air filter in place of an AC Delco filter. It is a total addition to the engine not part of the original design or a part of the engine the warranty was covering. It is akin to me doing a Tim Allen thing, and using a V-6 engine to run my wife's vacuum cleaner, and turning it into a riding, rear bagging Eureka. No way the vacuum cleaner OEM is required to cover a modification. They cannot, on the other hand, require me to use only their drive belts and filter bags. Or it is also akin to strapping on a blower on the engine and expecting the OEM to cover the engine after blowing the rods out the pan. Sorry, but you modified the original design, so warranty according to the Federal Trade Commission is null and void.

Modifications to the original equipment design are a basis to void warranty. Check with any lawyer who knows contract law.

Like I stated, it is all a non issue if one uses some of the grey matter between their ears. Like I stated, I can have my catch can off and everything back to OEM stock in a few minutes with only a screwdriver. Then, I can reinstall after I get the vehicle back from the dealer. Simple, uncomplicated, avoidance of any problems. I don't need to stick it in their face and try to cause an issue. It is one thing to avoid a fight, it is quite another to be the instigator of one.

Technically, also according to the MM Warranty Act, a manufacturer is not even required to offer a warranty. Given what many folks do to their automobiles, if I was making cars and pickups, I would just reduce the cost of the vehicles and not offer a warranty. If anyone wants one, then buy a third party warranty and have a good life.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Cowpie

jrob56 · July 25, 2016

Generally you would be correct, but modifications are a grey area. The act primarily is concerned with the consumer is not required to use OEM parts, filters, oils, service departments, etc. If they use an Acme oil filter, the OEM has to prove that any failure was a direct cause of using the Acme filter instead of the OEM recommended one. If they use an oil that isn't an "official" "approved' oil in the engine, then the OEM cannot void the warranty without first proving that the non authorized oil in fact was what caused the failure.

With a catch can, it is not like one is using something in place of something already a part of the engine. Not like using a K&N air filter in place of an AC Delco filter. It is a total addition to the engine not part of the original design or a part of the engine the warranty was covering. It is akin to me doing a Tim Allen thing, and using a V-6 engine to run my wife's vacuum cleaner, and turning it into a riding, rear bagging Eureka. No way the vacuum cleaner OEM is required to cover a modification. They cannot, on the other hand, require me to use only their drive belts and filter bags. Or it is also akin to strapping on a blower on the engine and expecting the OEM to cover the engine after blowing the rods out the pan. Sorry, but you modified the original design, so warranty according to the Federal Trade Commission is null and void.

Modifications to the original equipment design are a basis to void warranty. Check with any lawyer who knows contract law.

Like I stated, it is all a non issue if one uses some of the grey matter between their ears. Like I stated, I can have my catch can off and everything back to OEM stock in a few minutes with only a screwdriver. Then, I can reinstall after I get the vehicle back from the dealer. Simple, uncomplicated, avoidance of any problems. I don't need to stick it in their face and try to cause an issue. It is one thing to avoid a fight, it is quite another to be the instigator of one.

Technically, also according to the MM Warranty Act, a manufacturer is not even required to offer a warranty. Given what many folks do to their automobiles, if I was making cars and pickups, I would just reduce the cost of the vehicles and not offer a warranty. If anyone wants one, then buy a third party warranty and have a good life.

Entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. Not an addition, just replaced a straight OEM hose, with a hose that does a much better job that happens to have a can in line. Similar to replacing a whole intake tract with one of a completely different design(no baffling, plumbing it down below the car for instance or to a grill). The fact its different does not inherently fail the warranty, showing the difference caused the failure then okay. Im sure a competent lawyer could argue a catch can case pretty easily.

I do agree with removal, I have the socket and screwdriver in my truck just for this.

Cowpie · July 25, 2016

I agree with you that we all have our opinions. But there is a reality that has to be faced: it doesn't matter in the final analysis what any of us think. It is what you can convince a judge or arbiter, and whether they see it as any of us do. Until that happens, all of this is just armchair quarterbacking during the game. What happens on the field has nothing to do with what we think about it. So each has to decide what they are willing to do.

I use a 10w30 synthetic in my pickup and worry about dexos1 about as much as I worry about a 2 mile wide asteroid hitting the earth. I use a catch can, but have in such a way that it is easily removed to avoid any friction with a dealer. On the oil, the odds that they would analyze the oil to the level that they could even assertain what it is or whether it does or doesn't meet what they recommend is so remote as to be almost of no consequence.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Cowpie

TxTruckMan · July 26, 2016

Also, don't forget that adding a catch can is a modification to your vehicle's emission control system - also illegal according to the EPA. Not that anyone would ever enforce that law, but it exists. Just another hurdle when trying to argue against GM in court.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Black03Yukon

Daryl Z71 · July 26, 2016

Also, don't forget that adding a catch can is a modification to your vehicle's emission control system - also illegal according to the EPA. Not that anyone would ever enforce that law, but it exists. Just another hurdle when trying to argue against GM in court.

That alone could be enough for the court to favor GM in the eyes of the right Judge.

Cowpie · July 27, 2016

Yeah, once one steps into save the earth "greenie" territory, all bets are off. Just the save the planet argument by the OEM in a dispute that you messed with the emissions and your odds of making a strong case go out the door.

I repeat.. it is simple to avoid... just have your catch can setup in a way that it can be easily removed and things restore to stock before going to dealer, and then hook it all back up when the vehicle leaves the dealer. Saves all the arguments.

WilliamBos · August 6, 2016

Im sold on the catch can Idea. Regardless of vehicle brand, these DI engines are having the same issues with valves coking up.

A new thread to come.

wuznme · August 8, 2016

Sorry for the bad photo, didn't realize until after had the intake back on.

Here is mine 2k with no catch can, installed now at 7700 miles also did the clean side separator @ 2k, the stock intake tube had oil residue inside, just pulled the MIT off not a single sign of residue.

I think they work, at this point my engine is way past removing the catch can if problems arise, not that I would anyways.

estcstsilverado · September 6, 2016

Super interesting thread. I just bought my first GM vehicle, a 2014 4x4 silverado with the 4.3 v6.

Only had the truck a week, changed the oil with mobil 1 5w30 (mobil 1 filter). The truck has ~37,000 miles on it. At this point any benefit in putting on the catch can? Also how are you all removing the system in a few minutes? I am concerned about voiding my warranty?

Thanks!