Subaru Crosstrek and XV Forums banner
61 - 80 of 85 Posts

· Registered
2022 Crosstrek Premium 6 Speed MT
Joined
·
123 Posts
Dream on. There is zero evidence that catch cans do anything.
Two things known to work are walnut blasting and intake jvalve solvents like CRC. I do that every 7/8 K miles to both my foresters and at 50K miles I am having the walnut shell blasting done.
I'm not gonna get in a pissing contest with you about the effectiveness of catch cans. Or maybe I already have?🤷‍♂️ You are entitled to your own opinion. I'm still going to use my catch can, fuel additive and do walnut blasting.😎 Do your research. Catch cans help, but they are Defintely not a cure all for DI engines.
 

· Registered
XV Crosstrek 2014 Premium 2.0i 6MT
Joined
·
220 Posts
I'm not gonna get in a pissing contest with you about the effectiveness of catch cans. Or maybe I already have?🤷‍♂️ You are entitled to your own opinion. I'm still going to use my catch can, fuel additive and do walnut blasting.😎 Do your research. Catch cans help, but they are Defintely not a cure all for DI engines.
Not disagreeing with that but I already told you you can't use these videos as an argument because it's based on turbocharged engines and ours aren't. Please stop misleading people.
 

· Registered
2022 Crosstrek Premium 6 Speed MT
Joined
·
123 Posts
Not disagreeing with that but I already told you you can't use these videos as an argument because it's based on turbocharged engines and ours aren't. Please stop misleading people.
😂😂If you actually watched the Engineering Explained video, it was put on a Honda S2000. Last I heard, the S2000 was never turbocharged. Also, I'm not misleading anyone! 🤦‍♂️ I am of the opinion that catch cans can benefit both normally aspirated and turbocharged engines. You can disagree all you want. That's fine, but to call it misleading is laughable.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I did a carbon cleaning on my 2.0 TSI VW once. Soaked the valves for hours in solvent, then scraped them off with dental picks and scotchbrite pads.

Tried all kinds of solvents, including the CRC, and none of them did much. And this was with the valves fully submerged in a bath of the stuff for hours.

A quick wash of solvent over the valves every 5 or 10 thousand miles isn’t going to do much, IMO. Once the carbon is on there, it’s going to take some serious abrasion to get it off. Now, if you could rig up a system to give the valves a constant wash of solvent as you drive…
 

· Registered
XV Crosstrek 2014 Premium 2.0i 6MT
Joined
·
220 Posts
😂😂If you actually watched the Engineering Explained video, it was put on a Honda S2000. Last I heard, the S2000 was never turbocharged. Also, I'm not misleading anyone! 🤦‍♂️ I am of the opinion that catch cans can benefit both normally aspirated and turbocharged engines. You can disagree all you want. That's fine, but to call it misleading is laughable.
Man don't take it personnal, it's not about your opinion, I am not saying that you are intentionnally misleading people, but you are sharing wrong/misleading information. You have to use your 5 senses... 🤦‍♂️ While you may SEE a yellow S2000 in the video for demonstration purposes, at 3:00 if you use your ears he cites the study he found and clearly SAYS: performed on a 2008 pontiac solstice with 800 000km.

Go revisit post #25. I never said I disagreed with you, I only said that my personnal experience didn't match your claims and that you can't use this video as proof that you are right because it's not relevant to our platform. You are free to express any opinion you want but as long as you misuse science to support you claims I'll call you out. :)
 

· Registered
2022 Crosstrek Premium 6 Speed MT
Joined
·
123 Posts
I did a carbon cleaning on my 2.0 TSI VW once. Soaked the valves for hours in solvent, then scraped them off with dental picks and scotchbrite pads.

Tried all kinds of solvents, including the CRC, and none of them did much. And this was with the valves fully submerged in a bath of the stuff for hours.

A quick wash of solvent over the valves every 5 or 10 thousand miles isn’t going to do much, IMO. Once the carbon is on there, it’s going to take some serious abrasion to get it off. Now, if you could rig up a system to give the valves a constant wash of solvent as you drive…
Man don't take it personnal, it's not about your opinion, I am not saying that you are intentionnally misleading people, but you are sharing wrong/misleading information. You have to use your 5 senses... 🤦‍♂️ While you may SEE a yellow S2000 in the video for demonstration purposes, at 3:00 if you use your ears he cites the study he found and clearly SAYS: performed on a 2008 pontiac solstice with 800 000km.

Go revisit post #25. I never said I disagreed with you, I only said that my personnal experience didn't match your claims and that you can't use this video as proof that you are right because it's not relevant to our platform. You are free to express any opinion you want but as long as you misuse science to support you claims I'll call you out. :)
I'm not taking anything personal bud. I have no proof that my catch can works. I have only 5000 miles on my 2022 Crosstrek! It should not matter whether an engine is turbo charged or not. Doesn't a turbo charged engine vent combustion gasses thru the PCV like a normally aspirated engine does, albeit maybe a little more? If a catch can helps a turbo charged engine, there should at least be some benefit in a NA engine. Bottom line is for $200, I'm ok with things if it doesn't work. I'm happy that I'm getting about 2 oz of fuel/oil liquid out of it every 1000-1500 miles.👍
 

· Registered
XV Crosstrek 2014 Premium 2.0i 6MT
Joined
·
220 Posts
What works for turbo engines doesn't necessarily work for NA engines. Take intercoolers for example. The air goes through the intake and throttle body on both turbocharged and NA engines right? Intercoolers have been proven to lower IATs in a way that allows turbocharged engines to make significantly more power, right? Does that mean that adding an intercooler to an NA engine will allow it to make more power too, just less of an increase compared to turbo? No because NA engines don't struggle with the higher IATs caused by the compression of air.

Forced induction vs naturally aspirated makes all the difference in this issue, too because the dynamic compression ratio is higher in turbocharged engines compared to NA, hence more power. That extra compression means a lot more blowby(depending on engine design) and that is why a study that proves a catch can significantly lowers carbon deposits on turbocharged direct injection engines doesn't mean it will have any measurable positive impact on NA engines.

Anyone who sleeps better at night knowing that they removed these 2oz of volatile mixture per 1000 miles is free to spend their money on a catch can without negative impacts on their engine. The benefits(if any) have just not been scientifically proven yet, regardless of our personnal experience or opinion on the matter.
 

· Registered
2022 Crosstrek Premium 6 Speed MT
Joined
·
123 Posts
I'm
What works for turbo engines doesn't necessarily work for NA engines. Take intercoolers for example. The air goes through the intake and throttle body on both turbocharged and NA engines right? Intercoolers have been proven to lower IATs in a way that allows turbocharged engines to make significantly more power, right? Does that mean that adding an intercooler to an NA engine will allow it to make more power too, just less of an increase compared to turbo? No because NA engines don't struggle with the higher IATs caused by the compression of air.

Forced induction vs naturally aspirated makes all the difference in this issue, too because the dynamic compression ratio is higher in turbocharged engines compared to NA, hence more power. That extra compression means a lot more blowby(depending on engine design) and that is why a study that proves a catch can significantly lowers carbon deposits on turbocharged direct injection engines doesn't mean it will have any measurable positive impact on NA engines.

Anyone who sleeps better at night knowing that they removed these 2oz of volatile mixture per 1000 miles is free to spend their money on a catch can without negative impacts on their engine. The benefits(if any) have just not been scientifically proven yet, regardless of our personnal experience or opinion on the matter.
You have way to much time on your hands bro! In your mind, every thing you say is indisputable. 😂 I have more important things going on in my life besides beating my head against the wall about catch cans. It's no different than someone trying to convince the likes of you that changing oil at 20,000miles vs 6,000 miles is ok because the oil analysis says the oil is good. Will there be, and I'm quoting your's truly, "scientific" evidence proving that one is better than the other? Absolutely not, unless in your mind, an oil analysis is "scientific" evidence. Again, you are all knowing when it comes to catch cans, so I bow down to your knowledge. I'll keep running my catch can and thinking I'm doing my engine some good. You keep doing whatever you think you need to do for your engine. Take a chill pill and relax man, and let's just share our common love/hate relationship with our Subaru vehicles. 👍
 

· Registered
XV Crosstrek 2014 Premium 2.0i 6MT
Joined
·
220 Posts
Well, The principles of chemistry and physics and how they apply to the real world are pretty indisputable to those who understand them, so I'm sorry for being so inflexible on that. 😅 My understanding was that the purpose of forums was for people to share and improve their knowledge, and that the shjtposting was left for the facebook groups. I may be wrong. :unsure:

Me 3 hours into trying to explain the basics of the scientific approach to some random dude on a forum:
Forehead Chin Hairstyle Eyebrow Facial expression
 

· Registered
2022 Crosstrek Premium 6 Speed MT
Joined
·
123 Posts
Well, The principles of chemistry and physics and how they apply to the real world are pretty indisputable to those who understand them, so I'm sorry for being so inflexible on that. 😅 My understanding was that the purpose of forums was for people to share and improve their knowledge, and that the shjtposting was left for the facebook groups. I may be wrong. :unsure:

Me 3 hours into trying to explain the basics of the scientific approach to some random dude on a forum:
View attachment 312198
You are far from a scientist and failed to prove to me that catch cans in a NA engine, or even a turbocharged engine for that matter, provide no benefit. 😎 The burden of proof is on you bud. Let's see the "scientific evidence that you have gathered. Bring on the scientific evidence that proves your point. I'm a very patient guy so I'll wait.
 

· Registered
XV Crosstrek 2014 Premium 2.0i 6MT
Joined
·
220 Posts
Nah, I think I'm good buddy. I could try to explain to you(again) how saying that your argument is invalid is different from saying your hypothesis is wrong but...
Nose Hair Lip Chin Mouth
 

· Registered
2022 Crosstrek Premium 6 Speed MT
Joined
·
123 Posts
Nah, I think I'm good buddy. I could try to explain to you(again) how saying that your argument is invalid is different from saying your hypothesis is wrong but...
View attachment 312208
😂😂Ok, whatever.. 😂 Thanks for the entertainment! I have way better things to do with my time than go around and around in circles with you on this. This has turned into a "What brand oil or oil change interval is better for my car" thread. Like I said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have shown you evidence from reputable sources that catch cans provide at least some benefit to an engine. Unless I've missed it, you have not shown me anything scientific to prove otherwise.🤷‍♂️ As long as my catch can is providing some benefit, I'm happy with it. Have a good day. I'm out!
Forehead Chin Smile Eyebrow Facial expression
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,260 Posts
I think one assumption that the stuff collected in a catch can will magically turn to carbon on the intake valves. Considering that volume over a couple thousand miles and the amount of air going through 8 valves....Common sense tells me (and hopefully you) ..that is pis***g into the winds.

As an example: a 2.5L engine would on the average pass 6,000 CFM per hour and pass 150,000 cubic feet in 1000 miles. And then realizing probably only maybe 10% of that actually touches the EIGHT intake and realizing only a percentage of that will "stick" to the intake valves....hopefully you get the picture. of a few ounces of "stuff" would affect intake valves If not, enjoy your catch can.

One other thing..it might be that a percentage of that "stuff" actually is a solvent for carbon. I would not bet against it.
 

· Registered
2021 Crosstrek Limited
Joined
·
797 Posts
Two things known to work are walnut blasting and intake valve solvents like CRC. I do that every 7/8 K miles to both my foresters and at 50K miles I am having the walnut shell blasting done.
Curious, have you ever had a chance to look at the backside of your valves after some miles and when you have done the ritual 7/8K CRC cleanings? I'm just wondering what they looked like and if the walnut blasting would even be necessary? Also, today's oils seem to be getting better and better at limiting carbon deposits. I'm hopeful with 3K mile OCI's with a good oil (keeping current with the API certifications as time passes) and with yearly CRC-type cleanings I won't have to worry about carbon deposits down the road. Don't know if that's a pipe dream or not though.
 

· Registered
'23 Limited
Joined
·
136 Posts
No that's not an AOS. It doesn't have a drain, so if it was, it would just fill up and eventually run into the throttle anyways.
AOS is a sealed internal design, the excess oil goes back into the oil pan. There are no drains or cans to remove and empty like a catch can. . However, I do believe you are correct, what the video is referencing is not an AOS.... maybe it's some type of baffle system, idk.
 

· Registered
'23 Limited
Joined
·
136 Posts
😂😂If you actually watched the Engineering Explained video, it was put on a Honda S2000. Last I heard, the S2000 was never turbocharged. Also, I'm not misleading anyone! 🤦‍♂️ I am of the opinion that catch cans can benefit both normally aspirated and turbocharged engines. You can disagree all you want. That's fine, but to call it misleading is laughable.
The S2000 is PORT injection, also not a good comparison. I think doing testing on a N/A DI engine would be the only way for true verification.
However, I do think your catch can is a good idea to minimize the problem. Something is better than nothing. And you do have to empty yours, which means it's doing something.

The only issue it seems is warranty (which can be unistalled prior to a dealer visit...how easy is that do, btw. 5 min, or an hour?), and climate. Freezing lines would be bad for seals, etc.
 

· Registered
'23 Limited
Joined
·
136 Posts
I did a carbon cleaning on my 2.0 TSI VW once. Soaked the valves for hours in solvent, then scraped them off with dental picks and scotchbrite pads.

Tried all kinds of solvents, including the CRC, and none of them did much. And this was with the valves fully submerged in a bath of the stuff for hours.

A quick wash of solvent over the valves every 5 or 10 thousand miles isn’t going to do much, IMO. Once the carbon is on there, it’s going to take some serious abrasion to get it off. Now, if you could rig up a system to give the valves a constant wash of solvent as you drive…
I watched a vid of a guy soaking his valves in a CRC and non-chlorinated brake cleaner mix. Worked very well compared to straight CRC (he did a test of that as well).

And here's a shop using zip ties with a drill:
 
61 - 80 of 85 Posts
Top