# Without/With Catch Can (Atmo) Comparison Pictures + Discussion



## staulkor (May 21, 2007)

You know of the intake valve issue that plagues our engines. I have some pretty good comparison pictures of what an atmospheric catch can actually does. To my knowledge, there havent been pictures taken of one's car with, and then without, a catch can with a good amount of mileage in between while keeping the same engine mods.

Below is a set of comparison pictures. On the left are my valves from 0 to 50,000 miles *without* a catch can (I got a catch can at maybe 45k, but the damage had already been done, so I am ignoring this). On the right are my valves from 50,000 to 87780 miles *with* a BSH atmospheric catch can.









































































Note: For 50-80k, there was less carbon on the valves than from 0-50k.
Note: Both scenarios had considerable build up on the walls.

*You must remember, the pictures with the catch can only span 38,000 miles instead of 50,000 miles. This means there will be less build up regardless of what modifications are in place to alleviate blow by build-up, so take this into consideration.*

Also, please note that since this is an atmospheric catch can, I am assuming it is a perfect catch can; meaning that *ALL* blow by goes out of the engine and is not consumed. This is in comparison to a recirculating catch can where *most, but not all* blow by gets filtered. Recirculating systems are not a perfect system and there will be a small amount that goes back in the engine and is consumed. With that being said, I consider this comparison a best case scenario in terms of the least amount of blow by possible.

With that said, this is what I conclude from the comparison pictures:

Catch cans work, but I don't think they work as well as we have been lead to believe. They are effective, but only so much. The pictures show there is still a major carbon issue, and this will *NOT* magically fix your issues. It may delay when the issues start occurring by a few thousand or even tens of thousands of miles, but who knows.

The catch can did more than I was expecting. I thought the catch can would have done next to nothing, but that clearly isn't the case. It did prevent some carbon build up, however much that may be, but the buildup that did collect and the amount of carbon is considerable.

I believe catch cans have a place for the FSI. They work as advertised, albeit less than you are lead to believe, but they work nonetheless. Please take the pictures into consideration when buying a catch can. Remember that they are no magic cure for carbon buildup. That carbon is a tenacious bastard and take up camp on your valves no matter what you do to prevent it.

ANYWAY, enough with the serious **** and here are some pictures from the job :beer:
































































Also, that is what you have to deal with having an atmospheric catch can. It is DIIIIRRRTTTYYYY! I degreased everything and the catch can has been removed. I dont consider it worth the mess for the minimal benefits.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (Dec 24, 2009)

I don't post here too often, but VERY informative thread. 

Thanks for going through all the effort. Carbon build up is a scary thing.


----------



## AsymmetricalDichotomy (Aug 13, 2010)

Thank you very much for this! After seeing some real-world use/comparison, I'm NOT dropping $300-$400 on a catch can. From what I've read from people that use these on their cars and the vendors marketing them, I expected MUCH better results than that. I'll take that money and pay someone to clean it (dealership can kiss my ass).


----------



## NoTsipa (Feb 26, 2008)

Great write up , thanks for your time and info


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

in CYL 1, 2, 3, 4 order?

if so, you can tell that 2 & 3 are getting more meth.

check out the signs soot erosion.


----------



## staulkor (May 21, 2007)

CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi said:


> in CYL 1, 2, 3, 4 order?
> 
> if so, you can tell that 2 & 3 are getting more meth.
> 
> check out the signs soot erosion.


Yes sir, 1->4 from left to right. I noticed that too but I forgot to mention, good catch!


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

good info


----------



## drocksgti45 (Mar 23, 2010)

As the OP said, it looks like running a catch can has little if any benefit when it comes to carbon deposits. There are a couple other threads out there that have reached the same conclusion, but I'm too lazy to find them now. 

From my experience trolling around the forums I haven't come across one thread that can unequivocally prove that a catch can does anything except trap some condensation with a couple of drops of oil that wouldn't have contributed to deposits anyway. Everybody knows how many threads have been created showing what "nasty" things their catch can system caught. You know the ones with a poland spring bottle a quarter filled with water and 5 drops of dirty motor oil where the poster uses the logic that bc it looks gross to me it would have destroyed my engine. 

I know I'm kinda being a d!ck, but people pay good money for these catch cans. I would feel absolutely duped if I bought one for my car.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

:thumbup:

Shows the same thing I experienced. Given that you're taking the pictures with half the amount of mileage, wouldn't you say that you have about half the depositing as the non-catch can photos? 

Frankly I believe that none of the "solutions" (w/m or catch can) do anything for valve deposits.

Dave


----------



## $GTI07$ (Feb 29, 2008)

Thank's for all the photos and for creating this discussion. I have the eurojet vent to air catch can and to tell you the thruth, im going to take it off. It has gave my engine comparment a big ass mess. It dirty ass hell lol.


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

crew219 said:


> :thumbup:
> 
> Frankly I believe that none of the "solutions" (w/m or catch can) do anything for valve deposits.
> 
> Dave


I agree with you. I installed a Mann Provent after the last valve cleaning I did ~10k miles ago. When I installed the rods I took the intake off again to check things out. There were roughly as many deposits this time as the first 45k miles without a cc. Im not saying a cc doesn't do anything but I dont feel its a fix all to the issue.


----------



## staulkor (May 21, 2007)

Another thing I forgot to mention is that all the charge piping was squeaky clean with no oil whatsoever. I will try to get pics in the next few days.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

crew219 said:


> Frankly, none of the "solutions" (w/m or catch can) do anything for valve deposits.


----------



## ghita.silviu (Oct 26, 2010)

anyone else notice that there is a small amount of oil vapors going from the vacum pump - back in the intake manifold ??


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

Great write up! I'm sure this took a lot of time. But I do have a few questions?

After you took the pix w/o the Catch can, did you clean your valves prior to the installation of the catch can? 

So the pix of the valves with the catch can are really at 88,000 miles? (of which 50,000 were without the CC, right?)

If you didn't clean the valves prior to the installation of the CC, then I would say your valves look almost the same as they did when they were at 50,000 miles. So the CC worked?

But if you did clean them prior to the installation of the CC, then I would say the CC failed to improve anything, which verifies VWRedux's assertion that these cans are worthless POS! :bs:


----------



## staulkor (May 21, 2007)

The valves were cleaned at 50k. The catch can only slightly helped carbon deposits. They have other benefits but prevent build up is not one of them.


----------



## SCIROCCO SPEED (Dec 6, 2002)

sorry to ask a dumb question, but how was your catch can set up? It looks like you're running the stg1 BSH block off plate.


----------



## staulkor (May 21, 2007)

SCIROCCO SPEED said:


> sorry to ask a dumb question, but how was your catch can set up? It looks like you're running the stg1 BSH block off plate.


I decided I don't want to deal with the mess of an atmospheric catch can anymore so I reinstalled the PCV block off plate :thumbup:


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

staulkor said:


> I decided I don't want to deal with the mess of an atmospheric catch can anymore so I reinstalled the PCV block off plate :thumbup:


the rear PCV "vent" is feeding the oil into the intake.... so a catch can off of that may be of more value in conjunction with the BSH PCV Stage 1.


----------



## AsymmetricalDichotomy (Aug 13, 2010)

staulkor said:


> The valves were cleaned at 50k. The catch can only slightly helped carbon deposits. They have other benefits but prevent build up is not one of them.


After talking with someone regarding catch cans, my "understanding" of the benefit(s) may be incorrect. Supposedly, catch cans are not meant as a solution to carbon build up, it is a different issue. The catch an will keep the stuff it catches out from the oil, making it "cleaner" (compared to what it's catching going back into the engine). He also said that catch cans have more of a noticeable benefit on race cars than daily drivers. I don't know how accurate this is and I still have a ton to learn about engine mechanics, but I won't be buying into it unless I'm able to be convinced otherwise.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

AsymmetricalDichotomy said:


> After talking with someone regarding catch cans, my "understanding" of the benefit(s) may be incorrect. Supposedly, catch cans are not meant as a solution to carbon build up, it is a different issue. *The catch an will keep the stuff it catches out from the oil, making it "cleaner" (compared to what it's catching going back into the engine).* He also said that catch cans have more of a noticeable benefit on race cars than daily drivers. I don't know how accurate this is and I still have a ton to learn about engine mechanics, but I won't be buying into it unless I'm able to be convinced otherwise.


Not really. The stuff it catches (water and fuel vapor) is dumped into the engine and burned off. 

Dave


----------



## brekdown29 (Jun 26, 2007)

:thumbup:


----------



## Kelion (Apr 2, 2011)

great thread OP!! 

So what would everyone here recommend getting to fix the flawed VW/Audi engine?
I've been looking at the EuroJet machined valve cover(which claims to fix it)
http://www.eurojetracing.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=MK5VC
The BSH PCV fix
http://www.bshspeedshop.com/bshstore/products/BSH-2.0T-FSI-PCV-Revamp.html
and a catch can.
Well looking for your pictures the catch can isn't as good as claims have been made. So I'm thinking one of the others would be the way to go? Also my fast is stock at the moment, but as with all my other wheeled vehicles the mod bug catches quickly, so it likely won't stay that way for long.
Also if someone has an idea different from what I was looking at about I'm welcome to ideas, I've never had a turbo car before.
Thanks!


----------



## AsymmetricalDichotomy (Aug 13, 2010)

Kelion said:


> great thread OP!!
> 
> So what would everyone here recommend getting to fix the flawed VW/Audi engine?
> I've been looking at the EuroJet machined valve cover(which claims to fix it)
> ...


Get a different engine. The valve cover isn't going to do anything for carbon build up. The product page doesn't mention anything about carbon build up either.


----------



## Kelion (Apr 2, 2011)

AsymmetricalDichotomy said:


> Get a different engine. The valve cover isn't going to do anything for carbon build up. The product page doesn't mention anything about carbon build up either.


Are you insane? A different engine huh? There is nothing wrong with my engine, it is VW/Audi flawed PCV system on the car and DV that needs to be fixed and I'm asking what everyone has found to be the best solution


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## staulkor (May 21, 2007)

Kelion said:


> Are you insane? A different engine huh? There is nothing wrong with my engine, it is VW/Audi flawed PCV system on the car and DV that needs to be fixed and I'm asking what everyone has found to be the best solution
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The only solution is to manually clean them. An atmospheric catch can is the best case scenario to "fix" the PCV system and obviously it doesn't do much for carbon build up.


----------



## O_o (Nov 12, 2009)

staulkor said:


> Another thing I forgot to mention is that all the charge piping was squeaky clean with no oil whatsoever. I will try to get pics in the next few days.


Interesting. So it's all backwash from the CC then...


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

Kelion said:


> Are you insane? A different engine huh? There is nothing wrong with my engine, it is VW/Audi's flawed PCV *(and EGR)* system on the car and DV that needs to be fixed and I'm asking what everyone has found to be the best solution
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Don't forget the flawed EGR system as well.  :thumbup::beer:


----------



## AsymmetricalDichotomy (Aug 13, 2010)

Kelion said:


> Are you insane? A different engine huh? There is nothing wrong with my engine, it is VW/Audi flawed PCV system on the car and DV that needs to be fixed and I'm asking what everyone has found to be the best solution
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you don't want to deal with carbon build up, either get a different engine or car. If there is nothing wrong with your engine, then why are you asking what 'fixes' there are for carbon build up? 

The fact is, this carbon build up is an effect of direct injection. It will be present in any engine that has this design.


----------



## gmikel (Nov 10, 2010)

*egr*



ManTech said:


> Don't forget the flawed EGR system as well.  :thumbup::beer:


where is the exuast gas recirculater on a bpy? :screwy::screwy: maybe the glove box


----------



## staulkor (May 21, 2007)

I think you guys misunderstand what a catch can is actually for. Catch cans are meant to remove oil vapor from the air stream. Oil vapor is not an ideal substance to have in the combustion chamber. It will negatively affect combustion, and when you are trying to squeeze every last bit of power out of an engine, you will want it to be as close to ideal as possible. A nice side benefit of removing the oil from the air stream is your piping will stay nice and clean as there is no oil vapor, there is nothing to cool, condense, and cover everything.

My intentions for this thread were to bring to light the myth that catch cans reduce/eliminate carbon buildup for the BPY motor. For one reason or another, the hive mind believes that a catch can's sole purpose is to reduce/eliminate carbon build up, but that simply isnt the case. It may have and may still be marketed that way, but my pictures are one more data point towards the case that it doesnt do much for us in regards to reducing/eliminating carbon buildup, though it still has other benefits.

If anything, these results shows the PCV system has little to nothing at all to do with the carbon problem. The atmospheric catch can is a best case scenario. ALL the blow by is removed from the engine. The PCV system has been completely eliminated from the system and vents off all gases to the atmosphere. Despite this fact, valves still get build up. This may mean the PCV system is not responsible for the build up. 

Perhaps the OEM valve seals are just complete crap and leak oil constantly? I would love to see before and after pictures from somebody who has had a valve job with aftermarket seals.

The point is, catch cans work, always have worked, and will continue to work. They were never intended to be a solution to carbon buildup. They simply remove oil vapor from the air stream to have a more controllable combustion.


----------



## Elwood (Aug 10, 2001)

staulkor said:


> Catch cans are meant to remove oil vapor from the air stream... They simply remove oil vapor from the air stream to have a more controllable combustion.


Water vapor, too. Condensation in the can catches ALL the vapor and, unfortunately, the water may be the only thing cleaning the valves at all (ever see how clean the valves are when a head gasket blows?).


----------



## staulkor (May 21, 2007)

Elwood said:


> Water vapor, too. Condensation in the can catches ALL the vapor and, unfortunately, the water may be the only thing cleaning the valves at all (ever see how clean the valves are when a head gasket blows?).


There is only a minimal amount of water vapor in the air. Obviously, where you live will determine how much moisture is in the air, but even at high temps with high humidity, I suspect the amount of water vapor is minimal to have any cleaning effects. It would be more of a problem to combustion. All that water vapor displacing air will mean less power, just ask anybody who has driven in heat with high humidity.


----------



## iGen3 (Mar 21, 2002)

staulkor said:


> I think you guys misunderstand what a catch can is actually for. Catch cans are meant to remove oil vapor from the air stream. Oil vapor is not an ideal substance to have in the combustion chamber. It will negatively affect combustion, and when you are trying to squeeze every last bit of power out of an engine, you will want it to be as close to ideal as possible. A nice side benefit of removing the oil from the air stream is your piping will stay nice and clean as there is no oil vapor, there is nothing to cool, condense, and cover everything.
> 
> My intentions for this thread were to bring to light the myth that catch cans reduce/eliminate carbon buildup for the BPY motor. For one reason or another, the hive mind believes that a catch can's sole purpose is to reduce/eliminate carbon build up, but that simply isnt the case. It may have and may still be marketed that way, but my pictures are one more data point towards the case that it doesnt do much for us in regards to reducing/eliminating carbon buildup, though it still has other benefits.
> 
> ...


didn't the old FSI patent document say that the seals leak on purpose/by design?


----------



## bificus99 (Aug 2, 2008)

iGen3 said:


> didn't the old FSI patent document say that the seals leak on purpose/by design?


Yeah that was my understanding as well. Too bad we can't tap in ports to clean the intake every oil change with BG or Seafoam otherwise ugly valves will persist.


----------



## AsymmetricalDichotomy (Aug 13, 2010)

iGen3 said:


> didn't the old FSI patent document say that the seals leak on purpose/by design?


How easy or difficult would it be to find that document? I've never looked for a patent doc so I have no idea what the procedure is.


----------



## blackvento36 (Mar 17, 2003)

By the tone of the thread I guess the opinion is that an atmospheric can works better than a recirculating can? I don't know if I agree with that. An atmospheric can doesn't have a return path for oil vapor, but it also doesn't have any vacuum to assist in pulling the vapor out. The atmospheric can just relies on pressure to force the vapor out to the can. The OPs can makes a horrible mess because it doesn't seem to be condensing the oil vapor well. An atmos can doesn't have to be baffled at all because like I said, it has no return path so it just makes a bigger mess. 

The BSH recirc cans would probably work better if they weren't made of aluminum and were mounted lower in the engine bay. If you keep the can cooler than the oil vapor it'll condense in the can better. Aluminum cans warm up quicker and being closer to the top of the bay doesn't help. I made a stainless can that sits in the driver side of the bumper, a actually have to take the bumper off to get it out. I like to think it works better that way.

Even if either style of can does no good at keeping the valves clean, I think they probably do some good at keeping oil out of the intercooler/charge pipes. I don't know if that alone is really worth the crazy price of these kits tho.


----------



## wootwoot123 (Aug 25, 2008)

staulkor said:


> The only solution is to manually clean them. An atmospheric catch can is the best case scenario to "fix" the PCV system and obviously it doesn't do much for carbon build up.


How did you go about manually cleaning everything? What chemicals did you use and how much time/effort did it take?


----------



## gmikel (Nov 10, 2010)

*just me*

but i would not use any solvents until you've picked the ports and valve clean. scrape the crap off and blow it out with compressed air or one of those dust removal cans the use on sewing machines etc.. then clean up with whatever you want.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

gmikel said:


> but i would not use any solvents until you've picked the ports and valve clean. scrape the crap off and blow it out with compressed air or one of those dust removal cans the use on sewing machines etc.. then clean up with whatever you want.


The best way is to use a walnut shell blaster. Just make sure the valve bank you're doing are both closed, block off the other cylinder ports until it's their turn, and have someone else hold a strong vacuum cleaner head near the port you are cleaning to suck up the expelled shell chips and carbon. Covering the engine bay would help also. Looks brand new without solvents, scratches, metal scratches, etc. :thumbup:


----------



## Vinnyty (Mar 19, 2008)

http://www.harborfreight.com/portable-abrasive-blaster-kit-37025.html

They also sell the walnut media for the blaster

Im going to do this and then clean it with a valve cleaner.


----------



## Vinnyty (Mar 19, 2008)

Would I need fine or coarse grade walnut shells? also they sell a $15 air compressor attachment to blast with.

http://www.harborfreight.com/abrasive-blast-gun-with-bag-96972.html


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

No kidding, so instead of hours and hours of labor scraping with picks and dousing with solvents I could just buy a HF blaster + HF media for $50ish and be done with it?
My roommate has a smal lcompressor that might get the job done or I can borrow a compressor from a friend.


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

ManTech said:


> The best way is to use a walnut shell blaster. Just make sure the valve bank you're doing are both closed, block off the other cylinder ports until it's their turn, and have someone else hold a strong vacuum cleaner head near the port you are cleaning to suck up the expelled shell chips and carbon. Covering the engine bay would help also. Looks brand new without solvents, scratches, metal scratches, etc. :thumbup:


Staulkor - good stuff as always from your posts. Very informative. I appreciate the writeup and factual evidence. 

I apologize to go off topic with this but I am very curious in this method ManTech posted to clean the valves. Mine are due and honestly the scraping part has kept me from doing it. ManTech - your context reads that this is how you cleaned yours, no? Would you care to elaborate more...if there is more to disclose? Seems pretty simple but my first thought is if this is a good method for an internal engine component with the walnut chip debris and all the mess that comes with it and possibility of that stuff finding itself in places you don't want it to go. Still seems safer than scraping scratching the valves as long as you prep the areas like you described. Anyone else have experience with this?


----------



## gmikel (Nov 10, 2010)

*wish i'd seen this earlier*



ManTech said:


> The best way is to use a walnut shell blaster. Just make sure the valve bank you're doing are both closed, block off the other cylinder ports until it's their turn, and have someone else hold a strong vacuum cleaner head near the port you are cleaning to suck up the expelled shell chips and carbon. Covering the engine bay would help also. Looks brand new without solvents, scratches, metal scratches, etc. :thumbup:


did by hand and found that the prosses, at least in my case, was much quicker starting dry and useing solvent after it was cleaned up. the first one i spayed carb cleaner on and it turned into a gooy mess that stayed put. should i try it again i'll use a blaster and your advice. as i've said before, do not start this project without a long #10 triplesquare, they're availabe from advertisers here. they aren't available at most parts store.


----------



## Hybridowner (Dec 3, 2009)

Does this mean that DI Toyotas and BMWs, to mention two, may also have leaking valve stem seals because their valves also gunk up? Some day there will be a solution if someone can find the actual cause.


----------



## gmikel (Nov 10, 2010)

*and ford and chevies*



Hybridowner said:


> Does this mean that DI Toyotas and BMWs, to mention two, may also have leaking valve stem seals because their valves also gunk up? Some day there will be a solution if someone can find the actual cause.


anything with di can get cruddy intake ports and valves. there's no gas with detergent to clean them.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

gmikel said:


> anything with di can get cruddy intake ports and valves. there's no gas with detergent to clean them.


almost anything with DI, you mean....


----------



## CLestat (Nov 15, 2007)

Look almost the same build up in valves for me.


----------



## wootwoot123 (Aug 25, 2008)

Did any of you use the walnut blaster? I'm trying to figure out my gameplan here.


----------



## zbeasty (May 24, 2011)

OP did you disconnect the pipe that goes from the back of the head into the inlet tract?










I wonder if this would make a difference as the couple of times that I have had my intake off I have looked in the turbo inlet and seen oil in this pipe which the catch can would not be collecting.


----------



## SDM (Aug 9, 2007)

zbeasty said:


> OP did you disconnect the pipe that goes from the back of the head into the inlet tract?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With regards to the picture above, the larger diameter pipe is the PCV return, what is the function of the other one?


----------



## dudeman08 (Feb 23, 2009)

AsymmetricalDichotomy said:


> If you don't want to deal with carbon build up, either get a different engine or car. If there is nothing wrong with your engine, then why are you asking what 'fixes' there are for carbon build up?
> 
> The fact is, this carbon build up is an effect of direct injection. It will be present in any engine that has this design.


This is the truth of the matter. Its just the nature of the beast and there is little or nothing we can do to stop this from happeing to our engines. The design of direct injection is based off diesel engines, which are for the most part, direct injected. The downside is that all the fuel is directly put in the cylinder and not through the intake port of the manifold, as opposed to a conventional common rail system. With the conventional common rail setup, the fuel being sprayed into the intake port on the head, in a way, rinses off the oil residue and other contaminents on the back of the intake valves, thus reducing the chance of carbon build up. The build up will happen reguardless of what you do to any engine, but it mainly comes down to routine maintnence such as oil changes. Ive heard of a couple guys running 2 catch cans back to back and apparently that seemed to help much better than just one, but thats also a lot of time and money and aggravation to design, install and maintain. I guess you could put it this way, if you dont want carbon build up on your intake valves, dont drive or even let your car run. :laugh: This issue will hit me soon enough with my TSI and i expect it, so i already plan on getting my valves cleaned down the line. Unfortunatly, the premium fuel offered at Shell gas stations with the hydrogen stuff in it, which has worked for myself and a few other people i know, will not help clean our valves at all. :facepalm: Its like i said, its just the nature of the beast. :banghead:


----------



## SpecialFX (Aug 20, 2006)

Good post, sir. :thumbup:

This confirms my opinion that a catch can helps, but may not be worth the money until you need to replace the PCV anyway.

Once I get some cash, I am going to have my valves cleaned. I'm curious to see what they look like with 60,000 miles without a catch can and about 6,000 with a recirc can.


----------



## SCIROCCO SPEED (Dec 6, 2002)

Are people with Non-VTA catch cans capping off the rear PCV port? I'm getting tired of oil in my intercooler tubing.


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

dudeman08 said:


> The design of direct injection is based off diesel engines, which are for the most part, direct injected. The downside is that all the fuel is directly put in the cylinder and not through the intake port of the manifold, as opposed to a conventional common rail system. With the conventional common rail setup, the fuel being sprayed into the intake port on the head, in a way, rinses off the oil residue and other contaminents on the back of the intake valves, thus reducing the chance of carbon build up.


Be careful with the use of common rail in that manner. The 2.0T FSI and "tsi" are still both common rail applications. A single pump pressurizes a single aka common rail going to the injectors. The 2.0 TDI engine also found in the mk5 and 6 is a direct injection diesel that features a common rail as well and actually are often referred to simply as "common rail" diesels. Early and most diesels had a line from the pump direct to each nozzle which controlled fuel flow and timing often 100% mechanically. A common rail diesel will have the one pressurized rail and injectors/nozzles controlled electronically just like a gasoline electronic fuel injected car. Port injection is probably the term you were looking for and what is most commonly used to describe the type of efi systems we have grown accustom to.

Excellent points in regards to the lack of valve cleaning, just wanted to make sure no one was confused and though that there was no fuel rail on these cars. :thumbup:


----------



## Micky32 (Sep 11, 2005)

My engine now has 93k on it without a catch can. It still makes the same power on the dyno at 93k as it did at 50k and running as sweet as ever, i have never inspected my valves


----------



## GTI2Slow (Jun 23, 2007)

Would running the engine hard burn off the deposits? What about the BG intake system cleaner?

Also what about a multi nozzle meth system that periodically gets filled with seafoam lol.


----------



## 83854life (Jul 21, 2008)

So Seafoam or a decarb won't work? 
If you ran the Seafoam through the fuel and oil?
How long does it take to clean the problem from your local vw shops?


----------



## kiznarsh (Apr 10, 2007)

SpecialFX said:


> ...but may not be worth the money until you need to replace the PCV anyway.


That's kinda how I felt about it...I was looking into the upgraded OEM PCV and it was around $140, so I spent an extra $110 and got the 42 Draft Design stealth catch can. Back then I was under the impression that the catch can would do a much better job of keeping the valves clean (but realizing they wouldn't eliminate carbon build up). These pics seem to prove otherwise...

Main thing I noticed was that the car starts up easier and I probably will only be emptying it once every oil change, so it's not a huge deal. In reality this is just another item to keep tabs on, just like the cam follower.


----------



## blackvento36 (Mar 17, 2003)

kiznarsh said:


> That's kinda how I felt about it...I was looking into the upgraded OEM PCV and it was around $140, so I spent an extra $110 and got the 42 Draft Design stealth catch can. Back then I was under the impression that the catch can would do a much better job of keeping the valves clean (but realizing they wouldn't eliminate carbon build up). These pics seem to prove otherwise...
> 
> Main thing I noticed was that the car starts up easier and I probably will only be emptying it once every oil change, so it's not a huge deal. In reality this is just another item to keep tabs on, just like the cam follower.


On the other hand, that upgraded PCV can and will eventually fail, even if it is stronger than the original. The catch can has nothing in it that will fail. The catch can doesn't actually even have anything to do with "fixing" the PCV. It's just the fact that you are rerouting crankcase vapors and eliminating the PCV valve and it's direct path to the intake manifold. You don't even need the can.

If you want a cheap fix and don't feel that a catch can does any good, just get the (stg 1 they used to call it) block off plate from BSH. Either way you won't be buying that $140 PCV valve a second time.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

blackvento36 said:


> On the other hand, that upgraded PCV can and will eventually fail, even if it is stronger than the original. The catch can has nothing in it that will fail. The catch can doesn't actually even have anything to do with "fixing" the PCV. It's just the fact that you are rerouting crankcase vapors and eliminating the PCV valve and it's direct path to the intake manifold. You don't even need the can.
> 
> If you want a cheap fix and don't feel that a catch can does any good, just get the (stg 1 they used to call it) block off plate from BSH. Either way you won't be buying that $140 PCV valve a second time.


I've had over 60k on my original PCV with zero leaks, switched to a new PCV and it also doesn't leak. 

On the contrary, catch cans do fail. Fittings leak (like the cheap plastic BSH ones), packing gets sucked into places where it shouldn't, lines get clogged and cause increased crankcase pressure, cans get overfilled and cause the engine to blow oil from all the seals. 

The stage 1 is stupid as it dumps all your pcv gases and whatnot into the intercooler tract. I switched to one after pulling off the bsh stage II and was shocked how much junk was in the IC and all over the hoses and piping and tb.

As for $140 for the OEM PCV . . . I don't think so. The "L" revision I picked up for under $30 and I see that the newest "P" version is $76 on ecs, which means it's probably cheaper elsewhere.

Dave


----------

