Jumbo Oil Catch

That quote is too complex to continue...

First, I was thinking that, if you have to route the vent gasses back into the engine for CARB approval, then they might as well be as clean as possible. The oil catch can would remove most of the oil, and the air filter (in application only... I understand they are essentially the same device) would filter out the carbon and other airborne pollutants. If the Graco was used by itself in such a punishing environment I imagine it would become clogged very quickly.

Secondly, is the oil that is actually ejected from the valve covers any more polluted than what doesn't get pushed out? I imagine the effects of blow-by to have a global impact on oil quality... There is probably a benefit to exchanging as much of the used oil as possible throughout the time period between changes though, and in that respect flushing the can periodically would be preferred. The question is: how much oil ends up in the can? Is it the difference of your engine "consuming" an extra half quart per year, or an extra 5 quarts per year?

Rock on Jumbo!
 
tchuck said:
That quote is too complex to continue...
... the graco would filter out the carbon and other airborne pollutants. If the Graco was used by itself in such a punishing environment I imagine it would become clogged very quickly.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, but it really depends on what the graco filter media is. There might be more info on the site if you dig. I gotta believe some of the industrial applications have more harsh environments than our FX engine bay.

tchuck said:
Secondly, is the oil that is actually ejected from the valve covers any more polluted than what doesn't get pushed out? I imagine the effects of blow-by to have a global impact on oil quality... There is probably a benefit to exchanging as much of the used oil as possible throughout the time period between changes though, and in that respect flushing the can periodically would be preferred. The question is: how much oil ends up in the can? Is it the difference of your engine "consuming" an extra half quart per year, or an extra 5 quarts per year?
Click to expand...

Not really sure if the non-pushed out oil is any less polluted than what is caught in the can. Good question.

On my current (lame-ass) setup, I catch about one ounce every two months (32 ounces = 1 quart). Maybe with a more efficient filter like this Saikou I have coming, that amount will increase. We could start a new thread and ask everybody who has a catch can to report out the amount of oil caught and how long it took to catch?

Point is, I doubt it's enough to really impact the engine oil quality, mostly because of regular oil changes. I think there would be more of a threat of sludge build up internally from polluted oil over the long term. Again - I'm looking to a future application with higher pressures due to Forced Induction. I have read that oil catches at NA provide very little benefit. There isn't so much oil caught at NA that you are badly impacting fuel octane levels. It does keep the insides of the plenum & throttle body more clean though.

I actually thought about adding a blow-off (relief) valve to the catch can. At boost, pressures inside the can might be too large for the vacuum line to handle. End result would be a hose failure or a leak somewhere. A blow off would just allow pressures above a set level to be evacuated, but then the problem would then be adding a breather filter to the blow-off outlet and that just seems like way too much trouble (and money) to dedicate to a problem I don't even have at this point. The only way I could ever know if any of these changes are needed would be to measure the pressures in each line while at high engine RPMs. Maybe one day I'll feel the need to know I have it right. For now, I'm just trying to overkill the catch design by taking educated guesses as to where the pressure restrictions are. My can won't be any worse than OEM, but not all that much better either - since I am using the same size OEM inlet and outlet hoses.

One final point I have not yet talked about.

The vacuum/suction hose used by the ARC catch can design is on the intake tube. My current catch uses the vacuum line on the lower plenum. I tried to determine which line would be better to use. At first I thought it might be the lower plenum because the intake tube is "blocked" by the throttle body plate when it's not fully open. Turns out this isn't really true since the open plate also determines how much air is going into the engine (and therefore the lower plenum line vacuum). The bigger advantage to using the intake line is that it's not a closed system - air can actually flow TOWARDS your intake air filter (away from the throttle body) if the throttle plate is closed and there is still pressure in the rocker covers. Plus the intake line is a bigger diameter hose.

tchuck said:
Rock on Jumbo!
Click to expand...

I shall continue to try to rock beyond all that has rocked before. :tonguey:
 
Last edited:
jumbosrule said:
I really like the Boomba catch for the viewing windows. That takes the sight tube out of the equation. I like the simplicity too. Plus it's really pretty.

I'd prefer that it had some type of baffle or filter media like a screen or mesh though. This Boomba is the gravity type design. The gravity design works fine at NA, but with boost, it won't be as effective. It should still do it's job, but I just have no idea how well. Could remove 50% of the oil or maybe it's better than that. The hose fittings are small also - I worry about it being a pressure resrtiction with boost.

This is one reason some people go to the breather design - because no air from the rocker covers will return to the engine so no blow-by oil even has a chance to make it back. But if you go that route, you need big breathers to elimate pressure restrictions because you are no longer using a suction/vacuum line. You really want to remove all the oil, otherwise the breather filters will clog up really quickly. That's the reason behind the size and design of the T1 racing can I posted earlier in this thread. It uses three large breathers and eliminates pressure restrictions by using multiple hoses from EACH rocker cover.

Since the Boomba has one inlet and one outlet, I would expect to use two of these on your EVO - one off each rocker cover. That will get rid of the pressure build up you would have with two inlets and one outlet (since that's not an option on this can).
Click to expand...
I understand your desire for a baffle to give the oil a much tougher time getting through, but gravity is plenty for me :.smile:

What I stated before about no filter is for the high pressure air filters used in air compressors... that filter is NO GOOD for the catch can design. A mesh material... fine... but the filter material that comes in these air compressor filters? No way.

The hose fittings on Boomba's Evo X catch can (the one where both hose barbs face the same direction) are the same size as stock, so the stock tubes plug right in.

Lastly, about the breather... no catch can should have a breather. The crank case breather IDEALLY has a source of vacuum connected to it, not a source of atmospheric pressure. You want to maintain the vacuum draw, not eliminate it. I highly suggest anybody looking to vent these to atmosphere re-think that idea. It's not a major issue, but at the same time it's not as the crank case breather was designed (ie atmospheric vice source of vacuum).

I wish Boomba made a double can or at least one with 2 inlets and 2 outlets, but the location in my engine bay is not convenient to centralize the two, so I'm happy with putting one off to one side and the other on the way other side of the engine bay (because that's how it's situated in the Evo's motor).

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------
jumbosrule said:
I shall continue to try to rock beyond all that has rocked before. :tonguey:
Click to expand...
Oh and... ^lol!
 
jumbosrule said:
... I gotta believe some of the industrial applications have more harsh environments than our FX engine bay...
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be filtering air from the engine bay, it would be filtering the "exhaust" from the valve covers.

---------- Post added at 10:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------
Frankiago said:
...
What I stated before about no filter is for the high pressure air filters used in air compressors... that filter is NO GOOD for the catch can design. A mesh material... fine... but the filter material that comes in these air compressor filters? No way.
Click to expand...

Why? What if the filter is in line after a good catch can?

Frankiago said:
Lastly, about the breather... no catch can should have a breather. The crank case breather IDEALLY has a source of vacuum connected to it, not a source of atmospheric pressure. You want to maintain the vacuum draw, not eliminate it. I highly suggest anybody looking to vent these to atmosphere re-think that idea. It's not a major issue, but at the same time it's not as the crank case breather was designed (ie atmospheric vice source of vacuum).
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I suggested the filter; Because the vented "air" HAS to be fed into the intake. That said, cleaner air burns better right? This is assuming a filter could be found that wouldn't restrict the vacuum effect.
 
I like the discussion, but it's sort of off topic for this thread. We're taking a detour to the Jumbo Oil Catch, which is specifically for my car's application.
 
jumbosrule said:
I like the discussion, but it's sort of off topic for this thread. We're taking a detour to the Jumbo Oil Catch, which is specifically for my car's application.
Click to expand...
Catch cans are almost purely universal! Also, you will not be boosting enough to cause some of the issues you're worrying about. I plan on getting a tune for 27 or 28psi on my stock turbo and I've never heard of issues with the size tubing used in the Evo's application.

There's only one tube we (Evo X) have notorious for popping off and it just so happens to have no clamp on it from the factory, it's just pushed on over the barb. The baffle idea to give the oil a harder time to make it through is good, adding an inline filter to filter out the resulting air passing through... not so good. Lastly, where are you getting the information on diameter tubing? The ARC stuff uses GIANT tubing without any real justification that I've seen. Is it all theory?
 
A catch can concept is universal, but this particular design is a custom application and is not universal.

I've specified tubing diameters based on the stock hose size (specific to my FX). And I have oriented the fittings based on where it's going in my engine bay. Definitely custom. The concept of oil catches are universal, yes. But this is the Jumbo catch, see???

We could continue the off topic stuff on a new thread or on the ARC thread I started a while back.
 
jumbosrule said:
A catch can concept is universal, but this particular design is a custom application and is not universal.

I've specified tubing diameters based on the stock hose size (specific to my FX). And I have oriented the fittings based on where it's going in my engine bay. Definitely custom. The concept of oil catches are universal, yes. But this is the Jumbo catch, see???

We could continue the off topic stuff on a new thread or on the ARC thread I started a while back.
Click to expand...
What's off topic about asking your basis on tube sizing for the Jumbo Catch? :tongue:

I'm glad you're going with stock sized tubing and not monstrous tubing simply because ARC does it. I agree about fitting orientation and how it pertains to where you plan on mounting it. The Corvette one is the cleanest, most simple design, but the mounting bracket is definitely a no go for most applications other than the Vette.

What worries me about the snorkel is pressure on a half-full catch can... let's say it's full to where only 1 or 2 holes or rows of holes in the inlet snorkel are open. This is a whole new bottleneck aside from inlet/outlet fittings that you're introducing into the design. A way around this is to ensure that this thing never fills up to where it starts blocking any portion of the snorkel, but is that practical as a catch can?

Let me know if you think my logic on that is flawed in some way... but I think my logic is undeniable.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankiago
What's off topic about asking your basis on tube sizing for the Jumbo Catch?
1


Sorry - seemed like you were asking about the ARC lines and not the Jumbo catch.

ARC hose diameters are the same as stock - not larger (or monstrous) as you suggest. I had confirmed this with Z1 when I was trying to find one. A lot of show cars I have seen with the ARC also use a hose sleeve so maybe that might make them look bigger?

I actually increased the smaller hose by a fraction - stock is 3/8 and mine is 1/2".

Since the ARC is the only catch can out there that brings the driver side rocker cover into play, you can see the larger hose(s). That's not true for any other can that only hooks into the passenger side rocker cover.

As far as the snorkel goes, I'm not concerned. Plan would be to empty the catch with every oil change. If the bottom of the snorkel was completely submerged in oil, I could see a possible pressure restriction, but air would still exit the snorkel breather holes and bubble through the oil at the same time. The Saikou drawing doesn't give a snorkel length so I'm not sure how much clearance there really is. If I'm drowning my snorkel between oil changes, I'm guessing I have bigger issues.
 
Ah I guess it's an optical illusion for me because they use the clear tygon-tubing on the ARC catch cans that I've seen at work on the aircraft carrier... the exact same tubing is commonly used for funneling radioactive fluids into containers and it's usually about 1" wide in diameter and up... so when I see that stuff I immediately think huge tubing...
jumbosrule said:
The Saikou drawing doesn't give a snorkel length so I'm not sure how much clearance there really is. If I'm drowning my snorkel between oil changes, I'm guessing I have bigger issues.
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess I was basing all of that on the diagrams that, like you said, doesn't actually show measurements of how deep it goes. It just looks like it would hold just a few mL's of oil before hitting the bottom of the snorkel...
 
ASA-16TBK Silicone Vacuum Hose 16MM Black 3.19/ft
ASA-10TBK Silicone Vacuum Hose 10MM Black 2.69/ft

Bought these from Boostcontroller.com
 
http://www.speedcircuit.net/product_info.php?products_id=239

Opinion on this??? Is this even correct? Crank case pressure from boost leaking by the PCV??? I've never heard of that before... I thought the PCV was a good one-way solenoid valve that will only allow pressure relief from the crank case side...?

Still researching this but I haven't found any significant proof that when boosted, the PCV valve lets boost INTO the crank case, aka going the wrong way down a one way street...
 
Frankiago said:
http://www.speedcircuit.net/product_info.php?products_id=239

Opinion on this??? Is this even correct? Crank case pressure from boost leaking by the PCV??? I've never heard of that before... I thought the PCV was a good one-way solenoid valve that will only allow pressure relief from the crank case side...?

Still researching this but I haven't found any significant proof that when boosted, the PCV valve lets boost INTO the crank case, aka going the wrong way down a one way street...
Click to expand...

It sounds like they are connecting the vacuum line between the turbo and intake manifold... Shouldn't it be between the air filter and turbo?
 
tchuck said:
It sounds like they are connecting the vacuum line between the turbo and intake manifold... Shouldn't it be between the air filter and turbo?
Click to expand...
I believe 1 of the two connect between each spot you mention... I know for a fact one connects the vacuum between turbo and filter, and I believe the other is connected somewhere on the manifold?
 
PCV is not a solenoid - it's a relief valve and it's made of plastic.

I guess the theory is that when you are running boost, you are now pressurizing all of the lines connected to the plenum (in this case the hose connected to the PCV) rather than sucking air through them. For NA, this isn't true. Generally relief valves use a ball and a spring to hold the valve closed. When the pressure behind the ball becomes greater than the spring force, the air can escape past the ball. The OEM PCV just isn't designed to hold pressure from the wrong side. It's a one way valve but under boost I could see it failing or leaking past depending on the particular valve design. After all, a naturally aspirated plenum would only see vacuum or no pressure downstream of the PCV.

I think the product Frank found in the link above is just a more robust one way relief valve that doesn't care how much pressure is on the "wrong side". Not sure I understand how that works, but if it does provide protection then obviously it's beneficial. It sounds like an upgraded PCV to me - that should replace the OEM PCV. HOWEVER - there is a way to avoid this problem completely - by installing the suction line before the turbo. Then, you should not be pressurizing the oil catch line from the wrong side and you wouldn't need to add another one way valve.
 
Last edited:
Why would a vacuum line would be connected to a portion of the intake that is (very) often pressurized? Wouldn't connecting it on the other side of the turbo provide a constant vacuum?
 
tchuck said:
Why would a vacuum line would be connected to a portion of the intake that is (very) often pressurized? Wouldn't connecting it on the other side of the turbo provide a constant vacuum?
Click to expand...

It's the OEM design. Until boost is installed, the intake (from filter to plenum) is never pressurized. Once Forced Induction is installed, it's a new ball game.

So let's assume now we have a turbo installed. If what Frank is saying is true, "I know for a fact one connects the vacuum between turbo and filter..." then yes, a constant suction would be provided. The suction line on the intake tube would be gone since the turbo plumbing would be replacing the intake tube.

This would work for both rocker covers if you are using the ARC design (same as the modified Saikou I ordered). It would avoid pressurizing the PCV hose from the wrong direction and both rocker covers would be using one suction source (before the turbo).

At NA (as I am installing this now) this won't be an issue.
 
Last edited:
Saikou shipped the custom oil catch yesterday!

I'm impressed with the service - every email I sent was answered the next day and we had daily communication for about two weeks during the development of the Jumbo oil catch can. The base price didn't change with ANY of the modifications to the original design, including adding the second inlet and moving the positions of the fittings. I used paypal (he requested it) and fabrication only took a couple days.

I'm pumped to do the install after the holidays.
 
Last edited:
Well I lied. I'm not doing the install after the holidays.

I did it today! I came home a day early from my biz trip, so I played some golf and then did the oil catch install. Great day.

I removed the old catch and emptied it just to see how much oil was in there. Maybe a bit more than an ounce. Pulled off the STB, intake tube and throttle body, then ran the new hoses so I could cut them to the correct length. I mounted the Saikou can in the same place as the old can, using the same threaded hole in the strut tower wall. It was a bit of a pain to turn the bolts just because of access, but I got it done with a few scratches & scrapes on my arm. Here's the custom Saikou Stage 3 dual inlet can:

View attachment 188912
View attachment 188913

And the two larger hoses running to the other side of the engine bay:

View attachment 188914

You can't see the rocker cover vent hose under the throttle body, but here's the suction line from the intake tube:

View attachment 188915

And I capped the lower plenum suction line that used to go to the old can. This new catch can imitates the ARC design, but with a vertical can and less hose length. I like the look and can't hear air rushing through the can like I could with my old modified eBay special. I think my pressure restrictions are gone - which was my goal for this application.

Working with all this stuff made me want to tuck the wire harness. It's just not clean enough for me and the harness was getting in the way. Good times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top