OCC question...

[Skyline]

The lower/dirty side OCC installation allegedly could be pressurized by the increased air pressure by the turbo charge. For this reason a number of OCC installations show adding a check-valve to the "clean side" going to the intake manifold. Some of the kits sold also recommend adding the check-valve.

That's sort of sounds like adding an unnecessary item to the OCC installation. While there's no check-valve in the OEM installed loop from the PCV to intake manifold, the PCV in itself has a check-valve in it. It is doubtful that Ford would add a PCV valve that cannot stop the turbo back pressure and operate reliably for a long time. Now, if the turbo is updated that creates higher pressure, it may cause issues with the PCV valve, but it's unlikely based on how the PCV valve constructed.

What's the general consensus for adding a check-valve to the lower OCC's clean side? The only advantage for the inline check-valve is that the OCC would not be pressurized, but other than that, it is a "snake-oil" it seems.

Thx..

PS: There are lot of things that I did not know about ICE motors, it's a learning process for me...

Sponsored

 

[Maverickman74]

I dont expect Ford planned on alot of full throttle driving. Perhaps the check valve can makes sense for someone doing alot of high boost driving situations. Just a thought.

 

[Montana]

Following along.

This is the first vehicle I've ever installed a catch can on, and most people chose thd clean side. I'm like you, OP, and chose the PCV side.

I've put about 300 miles on so far and still not a drop in the can. Checked the hoses and there is a little residue, but still nothing making it up to the can itself. A bit worrying... I was expecting something by now, but it seems like most people report that less is better in this category lol.

As for the check vakve, I've seen all kinds of conflicting information all over the interwebs on catch cans with or without them. No idea. I'm not an engineer and I'm not the greatest at building an engine having only worked for a fleet of Peterbilts and Kenworths for less than 3 years plus the military and it's PMCS stuff, but I pride myself in maintenance, so I'm a bit out of my comfort zone with this can.

I was an engineer in the Army... But it's a pretty vague term lol. Combat engineer and my focus was not mechanical or construction related, but it was where I first fell in love with turning a wrench. I was always voluntold to help mechanics so I guess that's a good sign... Anyways, just has me worried and constantly watching/checking and you can see by my build log that maintenance is definitely a hobby of mine so I wanted to share my limited background knowledge on the subject before someone takes my word as biblical or even decides to totally dismiss it...

My personal opinion is that I highly doubt a catch can added pressure in any negative way. I'd love to see someone do a compression test before and after with one on the PCV side. I assume that would be the proper way to test it?

 

[Skyline]

I've put about 300 miles on so far and still not a drop in the can. Checked the hoses and there is a little residue, but still nothing making it up to the can itself. A bit worrying... I was expecting something by now, but it seems like most people report that less is better in this category lol.

This is just my theory as to why... could be full of something, something...

Is it possible that putting in the OCC on the lower/dirty side only restricting/reducing the vacuum on the lower side, due to the increased length of the hoses and the filtration in the OCC? Like most filtration systems, the OCC will reduce the flow. The high/clean side not having the OCC added, the crankcase gases may just go where the vacuum is greater and easier to get out. In an other word the PCVs vacuum/gas flow are not balanced and the lower one is sort of secondary. I'd add an OCC for the "clean side", just to see if that would make a difference. It may, or may not...

After looking into further about the additional check valve for the OCC, I don't believe it is necessary for couple of reasons. As the name of the PCV indicates, it is a valve after all. May not be a check valve, but it does control the crankcase gas flow. The turbo can increase the pressure in the intake manifold but the chances are that the pressure in the crank case will increase simultaneously at an even higher level. The intake manifold pressure is one barometer, or 14.7 PSI at sea level, higher up it'll obviously drop. I doubt that EB 2.0 booster pressure could double that, so we are not talking about huge increase. The the blow-by gases at higher RPMs will increase the pressure in the crank case to a higher level than say 21.0 PSI, effectively pushing these gases to the intake, or PCV operation as usual.

I don't worry, there's a backup plan for the PCVs anyway; in the worst case scenario, the crank case pressure may just push up the dipstick to release the pressure...

 

[Montana]

This is just my theory as to why... could be full of something, something...

Is it possible that putting in the OCC on the lower/dirty side only restricting/reducing the vacuum on the lower side, due to the increased length of the hoses and the filtration in the OCC? Like most filtration systems, the OCC will reduce the flow. The high/clean side not having the OCC added, the crankcase gases may just go where the vacuum is greater and easier to get out. In an other word the PCVs vacuum/gas flow are not balanced and the lower one is sort of secondary. I'd add an OCC for the "clean side", just to see if that would make a difference. It may, or may not...

After looking into further about the additional check valve for the OCC, I don't believe it is necessary for couple of reasons. As the name of the PCV indicates, it is a valve after all. May not be a check valve, but it does control the crankcase gas flow. The turbo can increase the pressure in the intake manifold but the chances are that the pressure in the crank case will increase simultaneously at an even higher level. The intake manifold pressure is one barometer, or 14.7 PSI at sea level, higher up it'll obviously drop. I doubt that EB 2.0 booster pressure could double that, so we are not talking about huge increase. The the blow-by gases at higher RPMs will increase the pressure in the crank case to a higher level than say 21.0 PSI, effectively pushing these gases to the intake, or PCV operation as usual.

I don't worry, there's a backup plan for the PCVs anyway; in the worst case scenario, the crank case pressure may just push up the dipstick to release the pressure...

My thought was the hoses as well, having to travel all that extra space when the stock hose is a short one that flows from top to bottom.

The couple times I've checked it the can has a noticeable amount of vapors in it because I can smell it when opening. I'll push it for about 1,000 and check it then. If I don't see anything by then, I'll check the hoses and go from there.

I'd like one up there, but if I don't see results I'm not willing to risk it. If I do end up taking it off, I'll try one on then clean side just for the giggles and see how that goes.

 

[Crance]

Still on the fence about even installing a catch can. Seen a bit of info ISO and against it being necessary. This will be my first turbo and will be a far cry from what I’m driving now. Give me an aircraft and some technical guidance and I can fix it but a lowly passenger vehicle? Not in my comfort zone. Lol

 

[Montana]

Still on the fence about even installing a catch can. Seen a bit of info ISO and against it being necessary. This will be my first turbo and will be a far cry from what I’m driving now. Give me an aircraft and some technical guidance and I can fix it but a lowly passenger vehicle? Not in my comfort zone. Lol

Understandable. I made the jump for the long run prevention but from what I've seen so far, all seems to be fairly clean. If it makes you feel any better, I'm on the fence and I already have one installed lol. I understand NA engines. This is my first turbo and I avoided it for a LONG time. The family has a 2500 6.7L cummins and the amount of money that thing sucks up in maintenance is eye opening. 2 fuel filters at least once a year... 12 quarts of oil at each change... a single bolt on the grid heater than will grenade the entire engine if it loosens over time... It's crazy. They may go for 500k, but getting them there is the hard part. And also, turbo's on those are out of my comfort zone too. I worked for a fleet of Peterbilts and Kenworths for about 3 years and seeing a turbo just go from working fine to all the sudden spewing oil everywhere was beyond my level of comfort for mechanic work.

All I want to do is avoid my turbo going haywire and becoming the problem. Could be worse though... you could have a 2.5L Hybrid...

Bazinga.

@JohnnyApplespeed has started a thread about his plans and he will likely be posting a decent guide for everyone, so if you can wait a bit for more details that's what I'd do. Here is the other thread just for reference:

https://www.mavericktruckclub.com/f...r-clean-side-oil-catch-can.33954/#post-617769

And here is someone posting how much fluid they caught after the first 5k:

https://www.mavericktruckclub.com/forum/threads/first-catch-can-drain.33380/

Looks good. That's a great sign of a clean engine. I ran a search for "catch can" and found other users reporting about the same amount.

 

[Crance]

Understandable. I made the jump for the long run prevention but from what I've seen so far, all seems to be fairly clean. If it makes you feel any better, I'm on the fence and I already have one installed lol. I understand NA engines. This is my first turbo and I avoided it for a LONG time. The family has a 2500 6.7L cummins and the amount of money that thing sucks up in maintenance is eye opening. 2 fuel filters at least once a year... 12 quarts of oil at each change... a single bolt on the grid heater than will grenade the entire engine if it loosens over time... It's crazy. They may go for 500k, but getting them there is the hard part. And also, turbo's on those are out of my comfort zone too. I worked for a fleet of Peterbilts and Kenworths for about 3 years and seeing a turbo just go from working fine to all the sudden spewing oil everywhere was beyond my level of comfort for mechanic work.

All I want to do is avoid my turbo going haywire and becoming the problem. Could be worse though... you could have a 2.5L Hybrid...

Bazinga.

I’m super easy on vehicles and as my wife says “drive like a Grandmaw” but I’m the one without the speeding tickets in the family lol admittedly I probably drive the way I do because my base model Versa that’s a 5 speed doesn’t accelerate very well unless I’m in second or third. Legitimately been browsing the catch can threads to try to convince me to do it. Most everyone at work says I need to do it for the longevity of the engine which I get and I understand why but I think I’ve only seen one post that had a guy say he got a mL in his and it was after a drive of significant distance IIRC.

 

[Skyline]

The more I read about the OCC, the less likely to actually install them for number of reasons...

Collecting all of the right fittings, hoses, mounting brackets, OCCs, be that DIY or packaged, can be confusing and expensive adventure. And that is just ordering; then you'll need to install them as well. If you run into some trouble, you'd better hav the OEM factory hoses on hand, otherwise you probably won't be driving the Maverick for couple of days.

And for what? Maybe you'll end up with pretty much nothing in the OCCs, just like others? Even if there's some mix of oil, water, etc., in the OCCs, it does not filter out everything. The OCCs will delay the carbon buildup in the intake manifold and valves, but does not eliminate it. Is it worth for installing OCCs? Each of its own, but I started lean to not installing OCCs...

Sponsored