Blown rear main seal

[Bash74]

Well from what I read online is that the can just holds the moister leading to the lines freezing and not allowing pcv airflow. And once that happens it over pressurized the crank case and blew out the rear main. There's a couple different forums where guys report this happening. Not only on our vehicles but a wide range of engines with catch cans. I'm not slandering elite because up until now I liked the system it just seems than any catch can could potentially do this it doesn't matter who it is

Yes, it can freeze and does happen. That's why where I live catch cans are just to risky to be running but people still do sometimes. I'm not saying it will happen to everyone that has one but it has happened.

[14SierraZ71]

I have another question because blackbear has yet to respond to me...will I need a retune after removing the catch can and putting the stock pcv back on? My gut tells me no because the pcv system never went away completely it was just filtered with the can. But what do you guys think?

[midwestdenaliguy]

6 hours ago, Bash74 said:

On 1/28/2019 at 12:51 PM, 14SierraZ71 said:

Well from what I read online is that the can just holds the moister leading to the lines freezing and not allowing pcv airflow. And once that happens it over pressurized the crank case and blew out the rear main. There's a couple different forums where guys report this happening. Not only on our vehicles but a wide range of engines with catch cans. I'm not slandering elite because up until now I liked the system it just seems than any catch can could potentially do this it doesn't matter who it is

Yes, it can freeze and does happen. That's why where I live catch cans are just to risky to be running but people still do sometimes. I'm not saying it will happen to everyone that has one but it has happened.

Where do you live? I've been going back and forth on installing a catch can. I live in Missouri where temps can get cold, but it's rare to hit sub zero and even below freezing doesn't last for long.

[TRKLGND]

12 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

See your catching some heat. Sorry to see that. 

 

Well it isn't tantamount to fraud; it IS fraud. So I admire your moral code and say "Hats off"! 

 

One of your detractors says: 

 

I find it interesting that ALL people hate being lied to but many of those same people don't mind lying.

 

This fella ridicules good behavior? Don't even know what to say to that. Especially since he seems truly proud of it.

He also indicates that it is his belief that 'rest of us' is in the majority. 

Don't look now but he is correct. 

Sad isn't it? 

 

Even if no one else noticed. If they did notice and didn't speak up then they, in principle agree with him. 

 

Again, Hats off! 

Thanks Grump.

[TRKLGND]

11 hours ago, lapoolboy said:

Hahaha!

 

If you truly believe taking aftermarket parts off a truck PRIOR to taking it in to the dealer to avoid the hassle and circumvent their quickness to blame in an effort to avoid paying out any warranty repair is FRAUD, then you sir have probably been a victim of fraud yourself.  Keep fighting the good fight.  

 

I, for one (apparently, since you say I'm not in the majority), will continue to hedge my odds by not giving the dealer any leg to stand on to deny my warranty.  By your logic, I guess all the handheld tuner manufacturers are bad guys too by printing in their instructions "Return vehicle to stock prior to any dealer service".  Shame on them!  

Yes, they are.  It is simply dishonest.  
You have changed the factory programmed operating parameters of your vehicle then you expect the manufacturer to pay for the repairs when something breaks.  I just don't understand how people cannot see how that is wrong.  Grumpy Bear told me ... do not put more money into your ride than your income can handle...  That means, be prepared to pay for repairs if you make mods that cause problems.  Tune your trans and it fails, the repair/replacement responsibility is YOURS.  Install a catch can that causes the rear main to go out - YOUR responsibility.  If you do not believe the mod you made caused the issue, by all means, fight it.  But if it did, put on your big boy pants and own it!

[KARNUT]

There’s a difference between being honest and arming yourself for battle against a known dishonest advisory. Some people believe CC prolong their engines life. Car companies worry about the warranty period. I used programmers, they made my vehicles run better. Anyone ever here we cant duplicate from the dealer? Then later after you sold the vehicle a recall comes along? I can sit here for hours listing dishonest examples the auto manufacturers have burdened the public with over the years. Anyone over ten can bare witness. I’ve won the war and still lost millions in a patten lawsuit when my lawyer used a small t instead of a capital T. He still got his 30 percent. Honestly, Morality, I think you better know the game, and level the playing field. Perception is the rule. You want another example. Watch CNN then FoX news. If there’re aliens out there, their just looking down waiting for us to take each other out.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SS502]

2 hours ago, paracutin said:

Yes, they are.  It is simply dishonest.  
You have changed the factory programmed operating parameters of your vehicle then you expect the manufacturer to pay for the repairs when something breaks.  I just don't understand how people cannot see how that is wrong.  Grumpy Bear told me ... do not put more money into your ride than your income can handle...  That means, be prepared to pay for repairs if you make mods that cause problems.  Tune your trans and it fails, the repair/replacement responsibility is YOURS.  Install a catch can that causes the rear main to go out - YOUR responsibility.  If you do not believe the mod you made caused the issue, by all means, fight it.  But if it did, put on your big boy pants and own it!

I understand and I also get that two wrongs don’t make a right. I support honesty when possible (remember being told about Santa?) but I’m in the “remove before dealer visit camp”...I just read a post this weekend about a dealer telling a new owner that unless it’s a GM/stock exhaust tip his warranty would be void. Going to the OP issues, I can only believe his can was FULL and if it then froze solid the RMS could have a problem but if it wasn’t full the airflow would IN THEORY just scoot over the frozen pond and out the outlet to clean side port. 

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by SS502

[TRKLGND]

1 hour ago, KARNUT said:

There’s a difference between being honest and arming yourself for battle against a known dishonest advisory. 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Tell yourself whatever you need to to justify your actions.  Because you believe someone to be acting dishonestly justifies you doing the same?

Removing a mod before seeking warranty work for damages possibly cause by said mod is NOT "arming yourself for battle against a known dishonest adversary."   I'm pretty sure everyone knows we have differing opinions on the matter.  Let's leave it at that.

[mookdoc6]

GM just patented a two stage Oil separator!

[KARNUT]

Tell yourself whatever you need to to justify your actions.  Because you believe someone to be acting dishonestly justifies you doing the same?
Removing a mod before seeking warranty work for damages possibly cause by said mod is NOT "arming yourself for battle against a known dishonest adversary."   I'm pretty sure everyone knows we have differing opinions on the matter.  Let's leave it at that.

There a difference between dishonest,like I said I can list all day long. One example. A friend in the eighties put headers on his truck. A totally unrelated problem came up. Denied headers. Being a person who fights, he did two years later he won. There was already laws on the books for that, didn't matter he had to fight anyway. It just took two years to be heard. They knew if it got in front of the judge the plaintiff would win, they delayed. No skin for them, they have house lawyers. They figured he run out of money. His truck got fixed, warranty extended, payments lawyer fees paid. Most people in the know, know what mods cause harm and what doesn't. Stupid dealers don't. My dealer would remind me to pull my tune before service. They knew it was harmless. I wonder, did Firestone, Sears ever own up to their faulty tires in the 70s? How about Ford with their faulty steering column - cruise control electrical fires? Homes burned. GM gas tanks, 5.7 diesels. Dishonest, it's called mitigation. I'm just tired of giving them money through their dishonesty. I had those tires, the 5.7 diesel,knew people whose fords burnt, replaced parts that were recalled later after I paid and sold the vehicle. Can't duplicate. I'm just trying to get even.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TRKLGND]

45 minutes ago, mookdoc6 said:

GM just patented a two stage Oil separator!

That's great news.  If they offer it thru GM Parts for our application there will be no more warranty questions.

[Genuine RX]

Depends on the can design. IMHO all should be cleaned periodically simply by removing it and spraying brake clean carefully into the inlet (many can designs have no designated inlet or outlet as they allow the incoming oil laden vapors to freely mix with the outgoing vapors, so not much to clean there as ineffective as that makes them) and shake well, drain and repeat. Then drain so no solvent is left in and reinstall. No need to disassemble, but many cans are able to come apart. This is where you can take a bit and examine how the can is designed. Here are a few common designs on the market. We will start with the lower priced.Below I will share pictures fo the insides when cut apart:

 

This one is very popular and you will find it with 15-20 different brands on it and prices from $35 to $199:

 

As you can see, other than the screen, there is really nothing internally that can effectively coalesce or condense vapors. As most cans, this will trap some oil, but allows 85%-90% to still pass through and be ingested. Also, as the 3 main parts are bonded with a resin, this resin insulates the internal area so condensing is very limited.

 

Next is another common design that again has many brands on them. This is a bit more effective than the first design just as the outer wall will allow more condensation of the suspended liquid/water, etc. Prices again are from $25-$100 plus:

 

 

Problem here is there is NO internal baffling or coalescing material, and the inlet and outlet allow most vapors to simply do a quick U turn out and the majority of the vapors pass through so quickly very little condensing can take place. A Mayonnaise jar will trap as much or more if you add 2 fittings.

 

And here is another very popular can that again has many different brand son and prices range from $25-$199 range. Note, most of these look attractive in appearance, but that has nothing to do with function:

 

 

 

The down tube for dispersion does NOT come with these, they are again empty cans with inlet and outlet next to each other so nearly all vapors simply do a quick U turn right back out. We modified this one to see how effective we could make it without much effort or cost. Adding the dispersion tube to incoming vapors exit it near the bottom portion and added some stainless steel coalescing media took it form less tan 15% effective to over 40% effective, which s more than 90% of all can designs tested. Still not a robust solution but a cheap alternative to just installing as they come.

 

Now we advance to the most common design out there, app 40 plus brands on this. Quality machined from solid billet, threaded to be able to take apart, and very nice looking:

 

 

 

This has a bottom and a top and has no designated inlet or outlet. The top has 2 chambers, both with coalescing media in them. The first issue is the internal area, or size. A crankcase PCV system will have an ideal rate of flow that effectively flushes and removes much of the damage causing "gunk" from the crankcase, and to little flow rate and most of these contaminants will remain in the crankcase mixing with the oil and accelerating wear. To much flow and excessive oil is pulled out with the flow. So depending on the size of the crankcase (less for a L4 configuration and more for a V8) a catchcan itself must be nearly 1 quart in internal volume to prevent the Bernoulli Effect of lift carrying out much of the liquid separated. A 3-4 oz can can never exceed much more than 15-20% effectiveness for this simple fact. It is attractive to have a small compact can that is easy to find a mount location, but your not accomplishing much as far as the reason one chooses to install a catchcan. 

 

Then, we look at the flow of the vapors through this design. The coalescing media in the upper portion will do a good job on the side you use as an inlet, but as the rate of flow or velocity of the vapors traveling through the can is so great due to the small size, they do a quick U turn again and enter the chamber and media side that is used as the outlet. This media as well does a good job of separating the oil and other "gunk" (I use gunk for what is a mixture on average of 70% water and acids, 23% raw fuel, and 7% oil and abrasive particulate matter for ease to the reader and to reduce my typing), but as this media is tight against the outlet, what happens here?  To test at home, take a clean washcloth. Soak it in water and put to your mouth and suck in on it. What happens? You suck water right out of the wash cloth. Now move it 3" form your mouth...you cant suck water off as your suction disperses. The same thing happens with these type of designs, which is what the first UPR can in the test on the F150 forums showed resulting in Joe halting it and revising the design to add an extension giving greater internal volume. This design cannot be made more than 15-20% effective no matter what as it ignores 2 important principles. The Bernoulli effect of lift from low pressure areas and the Venturi effect of vacuum/suction created from flow over an opening. 

 

Now lets move on to a design that is over 50% effective. This is the Saikou Michi can:

 

 

Note how the inlet is a designated inlet. The vapors are directed to the bottom of the can. The can meets the size needed to prevent pull through for the most part, and they have a good layer of coalescing media. The flaws in the design are the location of the media is too close to the outlet and the Bernoulli effect will pull a good deal of oil off of the media and out the outlet. But, this is the only other design (other than those that have copied) that will trap and retain 50% plus of the suspended contaminants you do not want ingested.  We have watched this design steadily improve over the years from his first releases.

 

Now we move to a design that we look at and just shake our heads not understanding why anyone would want to defeat evacuation and leave lost of the damage and wear causing contaminants in the crankcase to accumulate in the oil. And that is a vented or breathered can.  Back decades ago prior to fully understanding just what occurs inside an engine in relation to evacuation and pulling suction/vacuum on the crankcase, the industry simply vented pressure and vapors out through a draft tube. This tube was an open tube that lead from the crankcase down underneath the vehicle. As the vehicle was moving, the air flow past the opening of the tube created suction (the Venturi Effect) and oil vapors exited the crankcase in this fashion. A breather would be located on one or both valve covers, and had mesh inside to help filter out dust and dirt. These engines rarely lasted more than 40-50k miles before being completely worn out and needing rebuilds. And old timers will remember the oil slicks down the middle of each lane. It was also not realized that through reversion pulses, unfiltered dirt, water, dust, etc. was pulled back up these tubes unfiltered air directly into the crankcase causing most of this wear. After the PCV system we know today was mandated in the mid 1960's, these same engines running the same oils were now lasting 2-3 times those prior to the PCV.  So if one looks, you will see old racing engines had breathers alone to release built up pressure from the crankcase. This then transitioned to header evacuation valves that also utilized the suction created by the Venturi effect. From there the belt driven vacuum pump that has been standard for decades that provided the best possible solution to date. In fact NO form of Professional Racing uses breathers any longer unless the class rules prohibit this such as claimer classes in stock car racing and the stock and super stock classes in NHRA and IHRA as this is an advantage they are not allowed. But every other form does this. And why?  Well for starters, pulling constant suction on the crankcase VS allowing pressure to build and then release helps the piston rings maintain stability for better seal and more power. Here is a video demonstrating this. Small V8 with the first dyno pull venting, and the second pulling suction:

 

 

 

 

Today's engines all are built with low tension piston rings, and they require pressure above, and suction below to seal properly and prevent excessive blow-by and power loss. This also aids in preventing parasitic power loss as the pistons fight crankcase pressure on the down stroke, and of course you want to aid in making power and extending engine life, not the opposite.  So we bring up the last type. The "vented" can design:

 

 

These break the closed system making it illegal for street use in all 50 States, but also by venting instead of pulling full time evacuation suction, this allows some pressure to always be present. It also allows much of the damage and wear causing contaminants to remain in the crankcase and accumulating. Now, what about separation effectiveness?  Well lets look at the internal design:

 

As you can see, these have no separation of the incoming and outgoing vapors allowing them to co mingle and this makes it impossible to separate more than 20-40% of the oil and other contaminates you do not want in the combustion mixture. You want only air and fuel. So this design is extremely poor when you go back and look at what has been discussed earlier:

 

 

Coalescing media is put into the can, but nothing separates and prevents the liquids form being pulled through and still ingested.

 

This is an extremely popular design due to lack of understanding how negative this is to your engine and the power and efficiency. As there is so little accurate information available for the general public to even learn any of this, so it is very common to make assumptions, and most common is pressure is present and needs to be relieved. And everything else is not even considered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by txab

[Genuine RX]

I wanted to also show that a 2 quart can of proper design really cannot freeze. This and the Saiku Michi hot vapors (within 60 seconds of start up vapors are close to 100*F) will heat the can. As they are 16-30 oz's in capacity VS the small cans prone to freezing, one would have to neglect to empty for an extended time to have this occur, and due to the design and the flow path it cannot be blocked. There will always be a pathway for the vapors and pressure to escape. And that is through the cleanside.

 

 

And warranty is still the fact if anyone needs I can provide all you need to not cost you a dime as far as the FTC taking your case should anyone be denied, BUT most of the can designs I have shared COULD cause this, and any vented or breather can IS cause to void a warranty.  But just let me know. If the couple designs I have shared that meet all emissions and PCV system requirements cannot. Some manufacturers have 20,000 plus of their systems in use you would see the forums overloaded with examples instead of "I have a friend, or I heard, or My dealer says" examples. There would be actual documented cases, and Ford and GM dealers would not be selling and installing these few designs on new vehicles. Rhineland Ford in Canada has done extensive testing as they serve the oil field fleets, etc.

 

 

Just ask.

Edited January 31, 2019 by txab

[TRKLGND]

2 hours ago, paracutin said:

That's great news.  If they offer it thru GM Parts for our application there will be no more warranty questions.

Actually, it doesn't look as though it is an external unit.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2019/01/gm-patents-innovative-new-integrated-oil-separator-assembly/

 

[SS502]

8 minutes ago, paracutin said:

Actually, it doesn't look as though it is an external unit.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2019/01/gm-patents-innovative-new-integrated-oil-separator-assembly/

 

You are correct, it is not an external "can" system it is contained in the crank case assembly. However, the fact that they are addressing the whole oil separation issue makes me feel like I am doing something right by using my RXP system. I also find it ironic that they've been at it for a while now..."Considering the patent was originally filed over two years ago (in October of 2016), we believe that GM is looking to implement the proposed oil separation technology on a production engine at some point in the near future."