"Just because you have not heard of it dose not mean it dose not happen"

I fully realize I will not change your mind if you have this mindset, but that is about ridiculous. There are an uncountable number of potential problems that can occur with any engine. To "fix" problems not known to exist is illogical.

 

In my mind, the person who challenges an assertion ought to be the one
who brings proof to the contrary to the table. Not the other way around.

As for whether the intercoolers collect oil over time, I believe that they
do based upon accounts from people who have taken them off during
maintenence. Physical evidence trumps speculation and witchcraft
every single time.

Whether this warrants the installation of a catch can is another question.

Would a properly designed and installed catch can hurt? I don't think so.

The one caveat is running them in cold weather. The collected oil and
sludge can end up blocking the flow and lead to mysterious running
problems until someone remembers the existence of the catch cans.

++

 

That's why you live 'on the edge'.

Good luck trying to prove that something, anything does not exist.

 

I would have hoped you were not that illogical!

So, you must give credit to the assertion that aliens live among!

On the other hand, we will probably be seeing some little green men running around in the next few days due to the celebration of St. Patty's Day!

 

I think Big Will I has a solid point.


I had an issue where my thermostat decided to commit a murder suicide, it killed itself and the $175 housing it resides in, there was 65,000 miles on her at the time. I had to pull the throttle body off for the repair, there was so much oil in the plenum I thought I had a serious issue. Under WOT these engines have to be sucking oil from the plenum. Take a look at the pictures from the repair, notice the amount of oil in the plenum.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resi...t=folder%2cjpg

 

Catch cans are a must on boosted cars. I even had one on my 3.6 DI CTS (non boosted) and I would drain at least a quarter quart-half quart every oil change that would have otherwise ended up in the intake tract. I hadn't thought about putting one on this car because like was said before I have not heard of any issues on these cars....perhaps Jag figured out the magic equation to preventing it, but those pics from wardo give me second thoughts on it

 

Spoke to RxPerformanceProducts today. They are the leader in catch cans and would be willing to design a Jaguar specific system for us. I have to shoot over some hi res photos of the engine so they can see were all the hoses will run and were to install. I have a 4.2 so if anyone is interested that has the 5.0 I would need photos. They were extremely excited about working on this project and very knowledgable. If you have any questions call them, they know there stuff.

 

You will not have this issue but how would the dealer feel about catch cans installed on a car that is under warranty?

 

Not sure. Can't see why it would matter, you should call these guys. Terry is the shop owner and he has worked closely with GM helping aid at getting rid of carbon build up. His system is a dual system, which works on the dirty side and clean side. I'm no mechanic, but spending time with them on the phone was more informative than I could ever explain here on the forum. I recommend anyone to give them a shout to learn the benefits.

 

I hate being ignorant of such an important issue, if all supercharged cars need a catch can. What is it to catch? Is the premise, as I always assumed, 1) that it is catching oil mist being carried from the engine sump? Or is the claim 2) that it catches petroleum vapors and then condenses them?

If the claim is number one, then the design of the engine bypass oil separator must be deficient to need a catch can. And "all boosted engines" are do not have the same valve cover / separator design.

If the claim is number 2, then there must be some signifiocant engineering put into the thermodynamics of the catch can to be sure that it will condense a signifant amount of the vapors.

I agree that is a lot of oil in the plenum in the pictures, but that does not look like a boosted engine, so it does not add credibility to the premise that boosted engines need catch cans. Is the argument that all engines need catch cans? Or does that engine have another problem?

My XFR, with 36,000 miles does not have any noticeable oil residue in the intake plenum, and my MY 99 XJR, with 200,000 miles, nor my MY 98 XJR with 250,000 miles show enough oil in the plenum to worry about. There is clearly some contamination of the intercooler from what I assume is vapor condensation, but I doubt a catch can would help that much, since I doubt it would not significantly cool engine crankcase vapor enogh to condense much.

Where am I wrong?

 

LOL, so I take it you do NO preventive maintenance?

 

Oil catch cans are not new, and there are PLENTY proven ones to choose from. The hardest thing to do now is find some mounting real estate under the hood.

 

Nice! Terry @ RX definitely knows his stuff. I bought a catch can from him for my CTS. Good guy and a leader in that space. Perhaps one of us could invite him to this forum to share his thoughts. He is pretty active on most of the GM related forums.

 

Put an RX catch can on the part load side of my 4.2 XKR when I added the twin screw kit. Works quite well and keeps the intake clean.

You could practically pour the condensed oil vapor out of the intercoolers when I took it apart at 70k miles.

Only complaint I have is the check valve. It is a metal on metal type and made a tink tink tink noise that drove me nuts. RX mailed me a new fitting without the valve and I put the OEM check valve back on. Problem solved.

Didn't bother putting a can on the full load breather, there has never been any noticable oil vapor on that side.

 

I am interested in this.

Although with a right hand drive 4.2L XJR, space does not seem to be an issue, i've got the perfect spot on the next to the brake master cylinder, and it's hidden behind the plastic scuttle, with a nice access door there.





You can see the PCV on the valve cover. I think i'll try to relocate it under the panel as well, so there are just two hoses running along side the existing wiring loom that's wrapped in the split convoluted tubing. Will probably cover the hoses in the same stuff so it all looks OEM-ish.

The only drama will be making a fitting with o-rings to fit in the valve cover, and another fitting to fit in the Norma coupling of the existing PCV hose.

Not sure about a 5.0L XF, especially if it's LHD that space would be where the cabin filter is, it might not fit.

 

I think you have been around JF enough to realise that there are
certain members who are prone to using the old "show me the citations"
routine to derail all reasonable discussion of certain subjects.

When said citations are attempted, they are studiously ignored.
I don't mean discussed, I mean studiously ignored as just written.

At best, the citations are dismissed out of hand as being not credible
without counter citations. It doesn't matter to those types whether
the citation came from a SAE paper, somehow they are above all
that.

It's a worn out tactic.

++


++

 

I don't think it works that way.

The catch can has an inlet and an outlet.

It is spliced into the existing line of interest.

 

Maybe this explains it better.



Green circle is the location of the catch can.

Red line is from the PCV to the inlet of the catch can

Blue line is from the outlet of the catch can, connects to the existing PCV line that goes to the intake.

Or the other option is to relocate the PCV valve to the same location as the catch can, but it's still plumbed the same way, just with a line from the valve cover, to the PCV, to the catch can, and then connecting to the existing line that goes to the intake.

 

It was the talk about o-rings that confused me into believing
you were boring an additional hole in the valve cover.

One way to avoid the fitting problem is to cut the existing
hose beyond the coupling and use two hose joiners. The
fitting can be swiveled towards the fender to lead towards
the catchcan.

 

I'd rather keep it reversible, and cutting the hose means that if I want to go back I will have to remove the throttle body (and strip back the entire scuttle & cabin filter assembly) to connect a new hose at the intake, there is virtually no access to the fitting at the back of the engine.

It would be neater to re-route that hose along the back of the engine to where the brake master cylinder is, rather than how it is now making a big U shape.

The PCV valve has two o-rings on a spigot where it slips into the valve cover



You can also see the barbed spigot, that's where the Norma coupling clips on.

So to relocate the PCV valve to the same spot i'd have to make 3 new fittings, 1x elbow for the valve cover (spigot with two o-rings, and a hose barb), one straight coupling for the PCV valve connection (socket to seal on the o-rings, with a bracket of some kind to hold it tight) and a male barb to hose, for the Norma coupling.

The two straight couplings are easily done on a lathe, the elbow is more complicated, but it would be very neat and OEM looking.

EDITED

The proposed catch can requires a permanent drain to the sump, not good. Need to find a better one.