F150 Ecoboost Forum banner

161 - 180 of 185 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,837 Posts
This is from a Ford dealership that has done in depth testing. Looking at all the mods you have, this should be a no brainer at the price:

What dealership was this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Up in mb canada. $1000 bucks get you the full meal deal.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2
I'm in Winnipeg. I'm curious which dealer this is too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I just bought a '14 F-150 3.5 ecoboost with 88k easy miles on it, and promptly found this thread. Checked under the hood, and no can, even though the truck runs really good. Looking from a preventative point of view and after having read this entire thread, I definitely want to install the can and it looks like RX is the way to go. However, the RX website shows out of stock on all the can options. Are they even still available?!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,837 Posts
I just bought a '14 F-150 3.5 ecoboost with 88k easy miles on it, and promptly found this thread. Checked under the hood, and no can, even though the truck runs really good. Looking from a preventative point of view and after having read this entire thread, I definitely want to install the can and it looks like RX is the way to go. However, the RX website shows out of stock on all the can options. Are they even still available?!
At this point, it's probably a waste to get a catch can unless you get the valves walnut blasted first.

If I were you, I would have the valves scoped to see what they look like and decide from there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
I just bought a '14 F-150 3.5 ecoboost with 88k easy miles on it, and promptly found this thread. Checked under the hood, and no can, even though the truck runs really good. Looking from a preventative point of view and after having read this entire thread, I definitely want to install the can and it looks like RX is the way to go. However, the RX website shows out of stock on all the can options. Are they even still available?!
Get your intake valves cleaned Ford has an approved process now. It’s a foam detergent. I just paid my local dealer $200, and it was well worth it. I don’t believe that adding a water separator is the answer. It actually probably plays against performance. Water meth kits are all the rage. Seems these trucks have a built in water vapor producer and by installing a catch can you separate the water and you get less vapor in the engine. Also if you forget and your can overflows condensate into your intake, you have defeated the purpose. People clean these things out in between fill-ups, I’m not doing that. Just like I’m not checking my oil every fill up reliable vehicles don’t need that frequent attention.

By the way my truck ran fine and idled smooth, but my performance was lacking, so I opted to get the valves foamed at 190k miles. And it made difference. $200 every 75-100k seems like a smarter solution. By the way I live in the “Deep South” so 90-100% humidity is normal year round.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
First I’ve heard of a FORD approved valve cleaning process. I know that there are several companies that sell sprays and foams. That said, isn’t using a foam cleaning process still gambling with chunks of carbon going through the turbos. Did a quick web search and didn’t see anything that Ford was recommending. No offense intended but are you sure it wasn’t a dealer approved process?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
First I’ve heard of a FORD approved valve cleaning process. I know that there are several companies that sell sprays and foams. That said, isn’t using a foam cleaning process still gambling with chunks of carbon going through the turbos. Did a quick web search and didn’t see anything that Ford was recommending. No offense intended but are you sure it wasn’t a dealer approved process?
Well I’ll back up. The shop forman at my local dealer told me this was the solution. I never heard it directly from ford. He explained the foam dissolves the carbon instead of just breaking it loose.

I know one thing for certain the ford engineers didn’t wake up shocked and amazed the day that the first eco owner had moisture in the intake and carbon on the valves.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
Absolutely, Ford’s initial fix for choked valves was to replace the assembled heads. Honestly don’t know where they stand on this now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Absolutely, Ford’s initial fix for choked valves was to replace the assembled heads. Honestly don’t know where they stand on this now.
Surely you don’t think lowering the knock resistance of the A/F mixture is the fix, do you?

God forbid you drive 500 miles through a rain storm and overfill the catch can until you suck the condensate created by your aftermarket part and trash a cylinder or two.

Or maybe it’s 100*F and you are pulling a trailer and your intercooler is heat soaked and needed fuel but the only fuel was 87 and now you don’t even have the additional knock resistance from the water/oil vapor from your crankcase vent because you are running an over engineered water separator when one wasn’t necessary. Lord knows I hope you haven’t turned up the boost in that case.

These are just ramblings of an old hot-rodder who knows enough to be dangerous.

My point is it was engineered the way it is and was found to be within acceptable tolerances on the carbon build up they tuned around crankcase vapor they designed around it. If you aren’t seeing a significant performance issue due to build up I wouldn’t go messing with the design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,933 Posts
Surely you don’t think lowering the knock resistance of the A/F mixture is the fix, do you?

God forbid you drive 500 miles through a rain storm and overfill the catch can until you suck the condensate created by your aftermarket part and trash a cylinder or two.

Or maybe it’s 100*F and you are pulling a trailer and your intercooler is heat soaked and needed fuel but the only fuel was 87 and now you don’t even have the additional knock resistance from the water/oil vapor from your crankcase vent because you are running an over engineered water separator when one wasn’t necessary. Lord knows I hope you haven’t turned up the boost in that case.

These are just ramblings of an old hot-rodder who knows enough to be dangerous.

My point is it was engineered the way it is and was found to be within acceptable tolerances on the carbon build up they tuned around crankcase vapor they designed around it. If you aren’t seeing a significant performance issue due to build up I wouldn’t go messing with the design.
Counter point: Ford had to design the engine for the 99%, meaning people who are going to barely remember to get their oil changed every 10k miles or rotate the tires. How could they possibly be expected to maintain a catch can? In other words, it may help but its not a good solution for the average driver.

Ford also is only responsible for the engine during the warranty. If you need your valves cleaned at 120k miles then that is coming out of your pocket.


The system you say was engineered a certain way was also the same system that was pulling in plugs of condensate WITHOUT catch cans. The intercooler was causing the condensate to build up in the intake and doing exactly what you described the catch can doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,836 Posts
Counter point: Ford had to design the engine for the 99%, meaning people who are going to barely remember to get their oil changed every 10k miles or rotate the tires. How could they possibly be expected to maintain a catch can? In other words, it may help but its not a good solution for the average driver.

Ford also is only responsible for the engine during the warranty. If you need your valves cleaned at 120k miles then that is coming out of your pocket.


The system you say was engineered a certain way was also the same system that was pulling in plugs of condensate WITHOUT catch cans. The intercooler was causing the condensate to build up in the intake and doing exactly what you described the catch can doing.
BOOM!


I've got the big one and I've had it since I've had the truck. Catch cans aren't new especially for performance. Corvettes and HO mustangs have been using them for decades too.

Is this the same old hot rodder would just throw a breather on their valve cover?


The water isn't created in the engine persay it is a by product of the condensing process when the hot air hits the colder catch can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
BOOM!


I've got the big one and I've had it since I've had the truck. Catch cans aren't new especially for performance. Corvettes and HO mustangs have been using them for decades too.

Is this the same old hot rodder would just throw a breather on their valve cover?


The water isn't created in the engine persay it is a by product of the condensing process when the hot air hits the colder catch can.
The water is in the air before it enters the intake. The can causes it to condensate.

Breathers can work perfectly fine. If the motor is set up without a crankcase vent into the intake then you haven’t defeated anything. Even if it has a crank vent into the intake most motor designs aren’t nearly this complex either. If the purpose of the can is really to prevent oil and carbon particulate, water from entering the intake maybe a breather of some type would be the better option, at least you wouldn’t risk ingesting condensed water into the motor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,836 Posts
There's a bigger risk from the stock CAC of ingesting water than anyone ingesting it from the catch can. (and Ford engineered that failure.)

If you go through the time and expense of putting in a catch can in you care about the maintenance and you're not going to let it over flow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
There's a bigger risk from the stock CAC of ingesting water than anyone ingesting it from the catch can. (and Ford engineered that failure.)

If you go through the time and expense of putting in a catch can in you care about the maintenance and you're not going to let it over flow.
I’m not gonna install a nuisance item like that on a $40,000 truck. Nor am I willing to spend my time babysitting something that may needs draining every time I fill up. In less than 3 years I’ve put 100k on my truck if you want to waste your time adding extra nipples to a bull, it’s your money have at it. But it is by no means necessary. Poll the high mileage guys most of us actually treat our trucks like trucks, and I would wager most don’t have cans, and are happy to report their trucks are still running fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,216 Posts
Just remember, there's only a very very small percentage of these trucks with high miles on the roads running catch cans, very small.
I've seen a few high mileage 1st Gen 3.5's torn down and it's definitely not as bad as people make it out to be. Will they hurt? Nah, only if they freeze up or overfill or a check valve goes bad.
Also as mentioned the ones that mount in the grill are great for creating their own condensation!

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
New owner here, just following the thread out of curiousity... it's -14 here this morning. Not an ideal catch can situation...what do you do?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
New owner here, just following the thread out of curiousity... it's -14 here this morning. Not an ideal catch can situation...what do you do?
Well some would probably tell you to be responsible and make sure your bull nipples are tended to properly, but Ford tests their motors to -40*F, which is probably yet another reason they don’t install catch cans from the factory. That’s not speculation, they have massive freezers that they drive vehicles into and then let them sit for extended periods of time. Then they fire them up and dog the piss out of them.
 
161 - 180 of 185 Posts
Top