# The Hoedown On Catch-Cans



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

I'm tired of all the BS surrounding the use of catch cans. Most manufacturers claim that their unit is the best. Well who cares? The question is, are they really beneficial? The truth is, anyone can run two hoses into what amounts to a stainless steel Thermos bottle topped with a nylon mesh filter to yield positive results. But where's the beef? Where's the proof that these cans actually do help? There are many forum sites filled with evidence that they do not. *Audizine has pictures of a new 2.0TSi that had a Forge CC installed when it was new. Now after 24K well maintained miles, the valves still look like crap!*










One reason is that catch-cans cannot eliminate all the blow-by crank gases,_ *and NONE even address the EGR issue, nor the main culprit, valve stem leakage.*_ To show significant results, these cans must eliminate 75% or more of the oil and water. They must also be able to operate in all climate zones, from subfreezing to blistering heat. In other words, they need to *adapt* themselves with adjustable internal baffling, along with heating and cooling mechanisms, which NONE currently have. Until then, they're just partial fixes.

*MY CHALLENGE TO CATCH-CAN MANUFACTURERS*
We need a Side-By-Side comparison study. I would like to see DSM, BSH, 4Draft, Forge, Conceptual Polymer, etc., etc. conduct a meaningful test. Something we can see for sure. (Something that can be verified, not falsified.) I'm sick of looking at pictures of Deer-Park water bottles filled with mostly water and a little oily, gooey, gunk as proof. *Show me two new test cars where one was fitted with a catch-can and the other left completely stock. After 25-35K miles, lets see a comparison of their intake systems. *

Until then, their con game is all full of :bs:


----------



## apunch2dakack (Feb 24, 2010)

Subscribed. I might have a brand new bsh catch can for sale depending on the result.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

Just because the valves still look like crap doesnt mean that the CC isnt doing anything.
Untill somebody buys 2 cars that are the exact same, installs a CC on one and then runs them on a dyno next to each other for 100k miles will we ever know how effective a CC really is.

All of this bull$hit sayingthat CCs dont do anything is garbage.
You cannot honestly say that the crap that I have removed from the CC is good for the motor.

Another benefit of a CC is that the inside of your turbo, T.O.P, IC, and TB pipe will not be caked in pcv gases.
When I first installed my CC when I removed the PCV line from the intake manifold it was dripping with brown gunk, now that stuff is NOT going into my motor.

Plus having PCV gases present in the combustion chambers will lower the octane rating of the gasoline that is put into the motor as the oil has a higher flash point than the gasoline.

Call me an idiot, call me stubborn, but catch cans are functional.
Granted they are not 100% effective but its better than nothing.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> Just because the valves still look like crap doesnt mean that the CC isnt doing anything. :facepalm: Call me an idiot, call me stubborn, but catch cans are functional. Granted they are not 100% effective but its better than nothing.[/IMG]


Deal with it? :facepalm: No dice kid. If they still clog-up, where's the benefit? Until I see actual proof, a full bypass is the answer. http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...nd-routing-to-exhaust-description-(DIY)-(long :thumbup:


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

VWRedux said:


> :facepalm: If they still clog-up, *where's the benefit*? A full bypass is the answer. http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...nd-routing-to-exhaust-description-(DIY)-(long :thumbup:





ViRtUaLheretic said:


> Another benefit of a CC is that the inside of your turbo, T.O.P, IC, and TB pipe will not be caked in pcv gases.
> When I first installed my CC when I removed the PCV line from the intake manifold it was dripping with brown gunk, now that stuff is NOT going into my motor.
> 
> Plus having PCV gases present in the combustion chambers will lower the octane rating of the gasoline that is put into the motor as the oil has a higher flash point than the gasoline.


As I was trying to say, since the gunk is filtered out I would suspect that the buildup would be substantially slower than without it. But thats speculation and cant be proven till somebody performs a test as I stated.

I dont see how you can deny the benefits of a CC. You have seen countless pictures of gunk removed that would have otherwise been pumped into the motor.....


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> As I was trying to say, since the gunk is filtered out I would suspect that the buildup would be substantially slower than without it. But thats speculation and cant be proven till somebody performs a test as I stated.
> 
> I dont see how you can deny the benefits of a CC. You have seen countless pictures of gunk removed that would have otherwise been pumped into the motor.....


You do realize that at highway speeds and temperatures most PCV gases (and water) are burnt-up and exhausted from inside the combustion chamber, with most chamber deposits being cleaned by the detergents found in modern fuels. The issue concerns intake system deposits while in stop & go driving. Most catch-cans collect mostly water generated during the first 30 min. after the initial start up. Water does not cause carbon deposits.

Show me the beef, or keep quiet.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

VWRedux said:


> You do realize that at highway speeds and temperatures *most* PCV gases (and water) are burnt-up and exhausted from inside the combustion chamber, with most chamber deposits being cleaned by the detergents found in modern fuels. The issue concerns intake system deposits while in stop & go driving. Most catch-cans collect mostly water generated during the first 30 min. after the initial start up. Water does not cause carbon deposits.
> 
> Show me the beef, or keep quiet.


BINGO!
you just admitted that they are in some sort effective :sly:

Now you call for me to give proof and you are fully aware that nobody can give undeniable proof that they are effective
However at the same time can you provide undeniable proof that they do NOTHING? NO 

You posted a picture of a set of valves with 24k miles on them, what makes you think that the valves wouldnt have had 2x the gunk on them if it had not the CC installed, have you thought of that?

I have seen that CCs collect mostly water, I would even go as far to say that most of the water that I find in my VTA CC is only there BECAUSE I have installed the VTA CC. However I still trap enough gunk in it to where I think it is worthwhile.

Oh and you just completely ignored my other listed key benefits of a CC :facepalm:









"there's the beef"


----------



## aigoo (Feb 3, 2011)

VWRedux said:


> Deal with it? :facepalm: No dice kid. If they still clog-up, where's the benefit? Until I see actual proof, a full bypass is the answer. http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...nd-routing-to-exhaust-description-(DIY)-(long :thumbup:


has anybody run the full bypass on the TSI motors? 

the "cheaper version" sounds good at an estimated price of $25 bucks haha. A couple plugs, clamps, and a hose leading to the bottom of your car. 


> Cheaper version (downtube):
> 
> If a person believes that vacuum is not needed to evacuate crankcase gases (such as anyone who wants to run a "race" catch can that vents to the atmosphere), you could eliminate all the expensive parts and just block off front pcv at intake, rear pcv line, and then simply run a hose underneath the car with no catch can. This would cost roughly $10 for the plugs, $15 for hose and clamp? for a total of around $25. the only thing you wouldn’t get is vacuum pull of crankcase gases. One BITOG member did this on his audi RS4 http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...07413 and really likes it and UOAs look great. He reports no oil spots on driveway etc. from tube. I chose to have vacuum assist. Also, to keep dust, etc. out of the down tube you could add a breather filter on the end of the tube.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

VWRedux said:


> *I'm sick of looking at pictures of Deer-Park water bottles filled with an oily, gooey, gunk as proof.* *Show me two new test cars where one was fitted with a catch-can and the other left completely stock. After 25-35K miles, lets see a comparison of their intake systems. *
> 
> 
> Until then, it's all :bs:





ViRtUaLheretic said:


> BINGO!
> you just admitted that they are in some sort effective :sly: *(THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING, BUT DOES IT PREVENT A CARBON & VALVE JOB @ 30K MILES?) *
> 
> Now you call for me to give proof and you are fully aware that *nobody can* give undeniable proof that they are effective *(WRONG.... EPIC FAIL)*
> ...


Please don't EVER show me a water bottle again. :thumbdown::facepalm:


----------



## shawng (Jul 28, 2007)

I put a Forge CC on late fall. I was saving the effluent in a jug to see how it separated out over time. all was good until my son used the jug for an oil change. None the less, I can say there was a significant amount of oil in the jug. Much, much more than what I have ever seen here in pictures. I also have not had time to scope the intake and look at the valves. I am not making any claim either way to its effectiveness. I am just telling you what I have seen.


----------



## CC'ed (Dec 1, 2009)

I have collected, in an open cup, what has collected in my Conceptual Polymer catch can, over the last 6000 miles. After the water has evaporated, as the cup has stood there for about 6 months, there is about half a cup of engine oil.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

shawng said:


> I put a Forge CC on late fall. I was saving the effluent in a jug to see how it separated out over time. all was good until my son used the jug for an oil change. None the less, I can say there was a significant amount of oil in the jug. Much, much more than what I have ever seen here in pictures. I also have not had time to scope the intake and look at the valves. I am not making any claim either way to its effectiveness. I am just telling you what I have seen.





CC'ed said:


> I have collected, in an open cup, what has collected in my Conceptual Polymer catch can, over the last 6000 miles. After the water has evaporated, as the cup has stood there for about 6 months, there is about half a cup of engine oil.


That's exactly what many of my buddies are saying too. This issue is not whether these cans help *reduce* carbon build-up, they do, but by how much? If you still need to perform a Carbon & Valve job at a given interval, say at 15K-30K miles, what good are they then? Who cares that it helps *a little* or even by 50%! If catch-cans don't remove enough OIL vapor, it's almost not worth it in the end, isn't it? You're still left with valves that need cleaning!  

That's why we need a side-by-side comparison test. It will prove for once and for all if these contraptions are worth our time and money. 


PS Does anyone here know what deglazing is? That's when a chef uses fresh water and wine to remove the crust (carbon) from the bottom of a fry pan to make a rich sauce to pour over a fabulous meal. Have you ever cleaned the grill of a heavily carbonized BBQ? Pros use a fine water spray on the hot grill or even a wet terri cloth. It removes the carbon like magic! Now by removing all that H2O from the intake vapor but very little oil proportionately, you all may be promoting the carbon build-up rather than reducing it. Ever think of that?

We need a test.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

VWRedux said:


> That's exactly what many of my buddies are saying too. This issue is not whether these cans help *reduce* carbon build-up, they do, but by how much? If you still need to perform a Carbon & Valve job at a given interval, say at 15K-30K miles, what good are they then? Who cares that it helps *a little* or even by 50%! If catch-cans don't remove enough OIL vapor, it's almost not worth it in the end, isn't it? You're still left with valves that need cleaning!
> 
> That's why we need a side-by-side comparison test. It will prove for once and for all if these contraptions are worth our time and money.


Im fully expecting to see valve deposits when I pull my intake manifold next month.
Personally I think that every little bit helps, regardless of having to have to still possibly clean the valves if there is any chance that I can help prevent the issue I will go for it.

As I have said before there are other added benefits to a CC, everybody keeps focuing specifically on valve deposits.

If a company were to run a side by side test of 2 cars one with a CC and one without that would be awesome!
Then again I dont expect a company to go out and spend $50k to test this out. It would be nice though...
Dang, I dont think we have any other local guys in my club that has a MKV TSI, otherwise we coudl run a comparrison.
I'll have to check and see if there are any local MKVIs that have 40k+ miles so I could maybe run a check.


p.s. Im glad that we can still have a civilized conversation now rather than just bickering and arguing :beer:

Sorry, I get a bit heated sometimes as I get tired of arguing about Catch Cans (on here and with local VW guys)


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

VWRedux said:


> PS Does anyone here know what deglazing is? That's when a chef uses fresh water and wine to remove the crust (carbon) from the bottom of a fry pan to make a rich sauce to pour over a fabulous meal. Have you ever cleaned the grill of a heavily carbonized BBQ? Pros use a fine water spray on the hot grill or even a wet terri cloth. It removes the carbon like magic! Now by removing all that H2O from the intake vapor but very little oil proportionately, you all may be promoting the carbon build-up rather than reducing it. Ever think of that?













Well, it's almost the same but I see your point! :thumbup:


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> p.s. Im glad that we can still have a civilized conversation now rather than just bickering and arguing :beer:
> 
> Sorry, I get a bit heated sometimes as I get tired of arguing about Catch Cans (on here and with local VW guys)


You did tell the OP to "Deal with it!" So I guess you started it!


----------



## CC'ed (Dec 1, 2009)

If an effective (filters-out a high percentage of the oil mist) catch-can reduces how often the valves need to be cleaned, that is a big plus. I am willing to pull my intake manifold, to clean the valves, every 60 to 80K miles...not every 20K miles !


----------



## 90crvtec (Nov 17, 2010)

I've run a full bypass system on my car since I purchased it new. I had both PCV hoses disconnected at about 120 miles while I was figuring out a way to do a cleaner bypass.

Initially I just plugged intake inlet holes and left the factory PCV hoses disconnected from the intake and hanging in the engine bay with a cloth over the ends. As I understand it, the rear PCV on the TSI is vacuum actuated by our turbo. So it only activates under boost when the turbo spools and pulls a vacuum on the intake piping after our air filter. When car is not in boost or when there is no intake vacuum, the crank case pressure can push open the front PCV valve automatically. Basically, the front and rear valves do the same thing, they just activate under different circumstances.

I have plugged the rear PCV outlet and I only have a hose running from my front PCV outlet down to the bottom of my car. Even with this configuration (no vacuum assist), when I start the car in the morning immediately gas vapor begins to come out of the front PCV hose. It looks and smells like car exhaust while the engine is warming up. In the winter months, I get the same opaque looking liquid dripping from the PCV hose that everyone always posts pictures of in their catch cans.

The key differences here are that instead of running a VTA catch can in my engine bay, I'm just running a hose to the ground. I don't have a catch can to clean and if I really needed to, I could quickly disconnect my extra PCV hose that runs to the bottom of the car and plug the front PCV factory connector back into my intake manifold, say, if I needed to make a trip to the dealer for warranty work. I only paid $8 for the hose.

I don't have any significant amount of mileage on my GTI yet, so I can't comment on the effectiveness of this setup. If I keep the car for a while, I'd be interested in scoping the valves @ 20k to see what the results are. I agree with VWRedux that the PCV bypass doesn't touch on the EGR function of these engines, which could be a larger contributor than we realize when it comes to valve deposits.

I also agree that it's nearly impossible to remove all the oil vapor in a recirculating catch can setup. So while the catch can definitely catches some things, ultimately some of that oil vapor still travels back through the PCV lines and gets baked onto the white hot intake valves and causes the carbon deposits, water would be burnt off almost immediately. So I tend to agree that perhaps the benefits of a recirculating catch can have been over estimated. More tests here would be great to figure out what works and what doesn't.

In my opinion, a VTA setup is the only way to be sure that you're absolutely eliminating any of the gases, oil, water or otherwise, that might end up in your intake.


----------



## 90crvtec (Nov 17, 2010)

CC'ed said:


> If an effective (filters-out a high percentage of the oil mist) catch-can reduces how often the valves need to be cleaned, that is a big plus. I am willing to pull my intake manifold, to clean the valves, every 60 to 80K miles...not every 20K miles !


Hey CC'ed, I've followed your ProVent threads since you first started asking questions about that product. For a recirc. setup, I think the ProVent shows the greatest promise due to the extra fine filtering.


----------



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

I just use a little bit of table salt and a papertowel to clean off my well seasoned cast iron pans, maybe I should ditch my catch can and build a salt injection kit...


----------



## Freudian (Apr 6, 2003)

I had my 15,000 KM service which was basically the first 5W40 Castrol Syntec oil change, last fall. At 14,000 KM, the dip stick showed no loss of oil. It wasn't until 14-15k that I noticed any drop in oil level. I attribute that to the oil had worn out and started to burn off. 

I plan on changing my oil more often than 15,000 KM now.

My point is, if by 14,000 KM, I haven't lost any oil, then there should be no oil depositing on my valves. Especially not 1/2 a cup like these guys tell about catching in their catch-cans. 

My thoughts are that the catch-cans are causing you to take a loss in oil level needlessly. That oil must normally recirculate back into the oil pan.

VW made these engines and didn't say anything about cleaning the valves, so shouldn't we not worry for some time?


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> I just use a little bit of table salt and a papertowel to clean off my well seasoned cast iron pans, maybe I should ditch my catch can and build a salt injection kit...


:laugh:

How about a Charlie Sheen Injection system that knockcs back 7 gram crack rocks straight into your CC? 



Freudian said:


> My thoughts are that the catch-cans are causing you to take a loss in oil level needlessly. That oil must normally recirculate back into the oil pan.


False, the "rear pcv" pushes the gases into your intake tube which goes into the turbo, through the T.O.P, into your IC, into the TB pipe, through the TB, into the intake manifold, and then into your motor
The "front pcv" pushes the gases directly into the intake manfiold then into the motor.
The PCV gases that the CCs filter are normally burned up in the motor, they will not accelerate oil consumption




Freudian said:


> VW made these engines and didn't say anything about cleaning the valves, so shouldn't we not worry for some time?


Yeah that'd be a great advertisement campaign:
"COME BUY A NEW VW, AFTER 100K MILES YOUR INTAKE VALVES WILL LOOK WORSE THAN A FAT MANS ARTERIES WITH ATHEROSCLEROSIS"

Technically you shouldnt HAVE to worry about it untill it becomes a problem, such is the way of ALL car dealerships.
However there are numerous things you can do to help PREVENT you from later running into problems, as you WILL have problems down the road. There is no avoiding it with these motors.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

CC'ed said:


> If an effective (filters-out a high percentage of the oil mist) catch-can reduces how often the valves need to be cleaned, that is a big plus. I am willing to pull my intake manifold, to clean the valves, every 60 to 80K miles...not every 20K miles !



Agreed. But has this been substantiated with testing? A simple Google search proves that there's only a slight improvement, but not enough to warrant putting off the inevitable.


----------



## CC'ed (Dec 1, 2009)

As pointed out earlier, NOBODY has hard proof that any catch-can will reduce or eliminate the valve deposits, but in my opinion, it can only help, and there is no downside to the can, other than having to empty it once in a while. So, if you intend on keeping your car for at least 5 years, a catch can, or VTA set-up, is not a big outlay of cash and effort versus its probable benefits. Compared to what most of us waste on 19inch wheels, coil-overs, and tint....a catch-can is cheap !!


----------



## CC'ed (Dec 1, 2009)

90crvtec said:


> Hey CC'ed, I've followed your ProVent threads since you first started asking questions about that product. For a recirc. setup, I think the ProVent shows the greatest promise due to the extra fine filtering.


Yes, but the Provent can't be plumbed into the front PCV line, as the Provent can't hold any positive (turbo boost) pressure. That's why I changed to the Conceptual Polymer can. A Provent in the back PCV line would be OK.


----------



## CC'ed (Dec 1, 2009)

Freudian said:


> I had my 15,000 KM service which was basically the first 5W40 Castrol Syntec oil change, last fall. At 14,000 KM, the dip stick showed no loss of oil. It wasn't until 14-15k that I noticed any drop in oil level. I attribute that to the oil had worn out and started to burn off.
> 
> I plan on changing my oil more often than 15,000 KM now.
> 
> ...


A half cup of oil every 6000 miles would put a pretty thick coating of oil on your intake valves......


----------



## 90crvtec (Nov 17, 2010)

CC'ed said:


> Yes, but the Provent can't be plumbed into the front PCV line, as the Provent can't hold any positive (turbo boost) pressure. That's why I changed to the Conceptual Polymer can. A Provent in the back PCV line would be OK.


Exactly. I think if someone designed a recirc. can that could plumb on to both sides and had the level of filtering that the ProVent has, it would probably yield the best results and still be 100% emissions compliant for the folks that need to worry about stuff like that.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

CC'ed said:


> As pointed out earlier, NOBODY has hard proof that any catch-can will reduce or eliminate the valve deposits,


I've been rebuilding and tuning all kinds of engines since 1975. (Mostly Nismo & VW) It's not the low cost investment nor the hassle of emptying what amounts to be mostly water from a steel can, it's the lack of "hard proof" that these devices indeed provide the benefits they advertise. I'm too old and wise to be fooled by all the nonsense. Sure there's some phycological benefit these devices must provide to the end user as they look at all that water mixed with a little oil in a bottle. :laugh: 

I'm not that impressed especially when there's new evidence that catch-cans are a hoax and do not extend the need for valve system cleaning!

I'm sorry to repeat, show me the beef or forever hold your peace. eace:

PS: I find it very interesting that none of the advertisers or manufacturers have chimed in here. :laugh: They know the truth... they have NOTHING to prove the claims they make.... not yet anyways. I'm dying for someone to come forward to prove me wrong, or show an authentic comparison test, or maybe take the challenge and start one. :thumbup::beer:


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

^ It is very interesting none chimed in! :sly: I would have thought you would have been burned at the stake! :laugh:


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 28, 2009)

VWRedux said:


> I find it very interesting that none of the advertisers or manufacturers have chimed in here. :laugh: They know the truth... they have NOTHING to prove the claims they make.... not yet anyways. I'm dying for someone to come forward to prove me wrong, or show an authentic comparison test, or maybe take the challenge and start one. :thumbup::beer:



... exactly we have said this from day one when it came to the TSI Engine. :what::wave:


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

more evidence as to how catch cans don't work:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...tch-Can-(Atmo)-Comparison-Pictures-Discussion


----------



## soze (Apr 16, 2008)

crew219 said:


> more evidence as to how catch cans don't work:
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...tch-Can-(Atmo)-Comparison-Pictures-Discussion


^ good info.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

crew219 said:


> more evidence as to how catch cans don't work:
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...tch-Can-(Atmo)-Comparison-Pictures-Discussion




Now just wait one second. After he took the pix w/o the Catch can, did he clean his valves prior to the installation of the catch can? 

If he didn't clean the valves prior to the installation of the CC, then I would say the valves look almost the same as they did when they were at 50,000 miles. No real additional carbon build-up. So the CC worked.

But if he 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!


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

ManTech said:


> Now just wait one second. After he took the pix w/o the Catch can, did he clean his valves prior to the installation of the catch can?
> 
> If he didn't clean the valves prior to the installation of the CC, then I would say the valves look almost the same as they did when they were at 50,000 miles. No real additional carbon build-up. So the CC worked.
> 
> But if he 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!


I'm quite sure the OP did clean his valves. Why else would he pull off the intake manifold to take pictures of the valves? 

Anyways here is my own personal experience with a catch can:



crew219 said:


> I was bitten by the catch can bug myself, not only that but I also installed water meth too. Believe me I was quite surprised when I went to clean my valves again and saw that they were just as dirty with both of the mods which were supposed to prevent intake valve deposits.
> 
> First *40k* of the car, had a BSH catch can on for the last few thousand miles.
> 
> ...


The same doubters still continue to doubt the validity of my pics. It's nice finally seeing more and more posting up similar results to the ones I posted awhile back.

Dave


----------



## MK6GTI (Aug 1, 2009)

If this thread had a 'like' button, I would click it in a heartbeat


----------



## O_o (Nov 12, 2009)

In for the hoedown...


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

crew219 said:


> more evidence as to how catch cans don't work:
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...tch-Can-(Atmo)-Comparison-Pictures-Discussion



This is the truth, "the beef" redux was looking for. It's proof that these cans are pure :bs:.

I'd bet the EGR system is at play here as well! Remember CC's do not address the exhaust gas recirculation system. Those exhaust gases must also be full of oil.


----------



## CC'ed (Dec 1, 2009)

Why would the exhaust gases be full of oil ??? (Maybe only if the engine is burning oil because the PCV system isn't filtering the oil mist out before it gets into the intake stream.)


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

CC'ed said:


> Why would the exhaust gases be full of oil ??? (Maybe only if the engine is burning oil because the PCV system isn't filtering the oil mist out before it gets into the intake stream.)


During the initial start up of any car, especially if cold, the combustion is never complete nor efficient. The exhaust gas is always filled with disproportionate amounts of unburned fuel, condensed water vapor, oil from ring blow by, valve guides etc. until things start to warm up and tighten up. This doesn't last very long, approx. 15-25 min. depending on the ambient temperature. This condition, known as the *initial warm up phase*, is what caused the EPA to mandate that exhaust gases be recycled in the first place, thus the need for an EGR Valve and Regulator was born.

Today these EGR systems are controlled by the on board fuel management system. It allows these initial gases that are filled with all kinds of unburned fuels, oils, etc. to be recycled and burned again and again, and again in an effort to reduce emissions. These gases are directly injected into the port side of the induction manifold where they normally combine with the PCV gases before flowing past the intake valves. These heavy vapor particles will adhere to these intake valves where they will convert to carbon deposits later on as the engine reaches it's operating temperature. (Let's not forget the exhaust valves. They too will probably need cleaning because of the drawbacks of the DI design.) This accumulative action will mandate a full carbon and valve cleaning be performed since there is no other mechanism to clean the valves such as in the case of cars with port FI instead of DI.

Therefore, it now appears that catch-cans remove far more water vapor that's generated in the crank case during warm up than they do oil vapor later on in their work day! (See links provided in this thread). It makes sense that if these cans are filled with mostly water and very little oil, and this water is only generated during the warm up phase, then they must really do a piss-ass job of removing the oil vapor during the rest of their day. If these cans were doing a better job, then there would be much more oil than water. The evidence appears to show otherwise. (It's disproportionate)

That means that the oil vapor is still getting to the intake valves even with a CC installed. Add to that the daily recycling of oil latent EGR gases that have no way of being removed from the equation during the initial warm up phase and what are you left with? UGLY ASS INTAKE VALVES that will need a full C&V job no matter what you do.










_"HEY DUDE, OWN A 2.0FSi or TSi VW? I HAVE JUST WHAT YOU NEED BRO, A CATCH-CAN!"_ 








. Is this Mike?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

CC'ed said:


> Why would the exhaust gases be full of oil ??? (Maybe only if the engine is burning oil because the PCV system isn't filtering the oil mist out before it gets into the intake stream.)


You're forgetting that "carbon deposits" can also be left by gasoline.

Dave


----------



## CC'ed (Dec 1, 2009)

The purpose of EGR is not to burn (or reburn) any residual "unburned" stuff (fuel or oil), it is used to introduce an "inert" gas (the exhaust contains very little oxygen), to dilute the mixture, which reduces combustion temperatures, which reduce NOX (nitrogen oxides) in the exhaust. The EGR typically is only enabled AFTER the warm-up cycle, and operates typically only under part-throttle operating conditions.

I believe the valve deposits on DI engines is mostly due to the EGR, which does introduce carbon crap onto the intake valve, but I think the oil mist that gets thru the PCV system adds additional crap that deposits on the valves and ports. I think the TSI engine has less deposits than the FSI engine because VW reduced the amount of EGR, or changed how and when its used.

On the observation about water versus oil ratio of what is found in the a catch can: There is far-more volume of water vapor generated when gasoline is burned, compared to the volume of oil mist that is not completly filtered-out by the stock PCV baffles, oil seperator, and added catch-can. From what I can see, only two of the availible catch-cans have a somewhat effective oil-mist filter, that's the Conceptual Polymer and the ProVent. The typical metal baffles and/or stainless-steel wool, found in most catch-cans, are not an effective filter for oil mist particles. You need a "coalescing filter" which filters particles down to a few microns....


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

CC'ed said:


> The purpose of EGR is not to burn (or reburrn) any residual "unburned" stuff (fuel or oil), it is used to introduce an "inert" gas (the exhaust contains very little oxygen), to dilute the mixture, which reduces combustion temperatures, which reduce NOX (nitrogen oxides) in the exhaust. The EGR typically is only enabled AFTER the warm-up cycle, and operates typically only under part-throttle operating conditions.


Correct, but it does as a consequence of its design. My efforts above were not to describe how EGR works, but to show that because of what it does, it contributes to the issue at hand. There are some systems that do initiate EGR during warm-up. I believe VW is one of them. In ether case, it appears that the EGR system is a contributor to the carbon build-up on the intake side. Off topic, you are correct that EGR is a nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions reduction technique. As stated, it works by recirculating a portion of an engine's exhaust gas back to the engine cylinders. In a gasoline engine, this inert exhaust displaces the amount of combustible matter in the cylinder. But in a diesel engine, the exhaust gas replaces some of the excess oxygen in the pre-combustion mixture. Because NOx forms primarily when a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen is subjected to high temperature, the lower combustion chamber temperatures caused by EGR reduces the amount of NOx the combustion generates. As control systems grew more sophisticated, the impact on engine performance improved but other problems were introduced. In a typical automotive spark-ignited (SI) engine, up to 15 percent of the exhaust gas is routed back to the intake as EGR. The maximum quantity is limited by the requirement of the mixture to sustain a contiguous flame front during the combustion event. But in poorly set up applications, an excessive EGR can cause misfires and partial burns. Although EGR does measurably slow combustion, this can largely be compensated for by advancing spark timing. The impact of EGR on engine efficiency largely depends on the specific engine design, and sometimes leads to a compromise between efficiency and NOx emissions. EGR is typically not employed at high loads because it would reduce peak power output. This is because it reduces the intake charge density. EGR is also omitted at idle (low-speed, zero load) because it would cause unstable combustion, resulting in rough idle. Since the EGR system recirculates a portion of exhaust gases, over time the EGR valve can become clogged with carbon deposits that prevent it from operating properly. So it stands to reason that these same gases will do the same to the intake valves as well in a direct injected engine. Today's modern systems utilizing electronic engine control computers, multiple control inputs, and servo-driven EGR valves typically improve performance/efficiency with virtually no impact on drivability, that is, until the intake system on direct injected cars are choked by carbon deposits.

One fact remains, direct injected cars like ours lack the necessary intake cleaning mechanisms of other designs. In an effort to improve overall mileage, and keep costs down, engineers decided on a design compromise which sacrifices the intake systems of these cars. There is no doubt that EGR systems, by design, only contributes to the problem.


----------



## Made in America (Apr 11, 2011)

So what is the solution? Or is there a solution? Is it inevitable that the intake valves will need to be cleaned by 40k miles? Sounds like a giant pain in the arse.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

valves this
valves that

CCs do more than just help with valve cleaning, everybody just suspected CCs to be some kin dof miracle drug that would fix all the problems with our motors.
As I have stated MANY MANY MANY times now, CCs have other benefits like removing the PCV gases from your intake, trbo, T.O.P., IC, TB pipe, TB, Intake Manifold, and combustion chambers.
I am 100% sure that there are still added benefits from having a CC than from NOT having one.

If you dont believe me, then dont FREAKING BUY ONE.
/thread


----------



## CC'ed (Dec 1, 2009)

The best solution to the intake valve deposits would be to disable EGR, but that would cause pre-ignition issue. Also, it can't be easily done, as the EGR is accomplished by increasing the overlap of the intake camshaft, opening the intake valves earlier, overlapping when the exhaust valve is open. Changing that would require changing the ECU maps for the variable intake cam timing.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

CC'ed said:


> The best solution to the intake valve deposits would be to disable EGR, but that would cause pre-ignition issue. Also, it can't be easily done, as the EGR is accomplished by increasing the overlap of the intake camshaft, opening the intake valves earlier, overlapping when the exhaust valve is open. Changing that would require changing the ECU maps for the variable intake cam timing.


I suspected this was the type of EGR used on our TSi's especially since I cannot locate any EGR device or valve. But doesn't the TSi share the same Bosch Motronic MED engine management system as the FSi? Check out this Bosch video, and take notice of the EGR system used.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

Made in America said:


> So what is the solution? Or is there a solution? Is it inevitable that the intake valves will need to be cleaned by 40k miles? Sounds like a giant pain in the arse.


there is none, no there isn't, yes, and you bet it is!


----------



## CC'ed (Dec 1, 2009)

ManTech said:


> I suspected this was the type of EGR used on our TSi's especially since I cannot locate any EGR device or valve. But doesn't the TSi share the same Bosch Motronic MED engine management system as the FSi? Check out this Bosch video, and take notice of the EGR system used.


The Bosch video shows an EGR implemented with a separate EGR valve and passage into the intake manifold. The FSI may be like that, I don't know that engine. The MED engine management can be used in various configurations, MED only indicates the family, or generation of engine controller, not its specific detailed features (such as separate of variable valve-timing implemented EGR). For example, the Audi A4 TSFI has an different configuration of the MED controller, as it also controls the exhaust camshaft timing, which the TSI does not.


----------



## Made in America (Apr 11, 2011)

ManTech said:


> there is none, no there isn't, yes, and you bet it is!


What about this service from BG? 

http://www.bgfindashop.com/bgservices/fuelair.htm


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

Made in America said:


> What about this service from BG?
> 
> http://www.bgfindashop.com/bgservices/fuelair.htm


I dislike their products. :thumbdown: Had this service performed on a Mazda I once had that failed inspection. It ruined two O2 sensors, along with a few temperature sensors. BG refused to fix them. Never trusted treatments as a fix for everything. 

In any case this stuff is outdated. it may have helped during the 80's and 90's but not with these new engines.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

EGR valves..... there is no EGR valve on the engine.

There is EGR function though via the overlap of the exhaust valve timing and intake valve timing.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

Made in America said:


> What about this service from BG?
> 
> http://www.bgfindashop.com/bgservices/fuelair.htm


 BG has a different service for gas direct injection

http://www.bgprod.com/news/GDI.html --- no experience with it though


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

BsickPassat said:


> EGR valves..... there is no EGR valve on the engine.
> 
> There is EGR function though via the overlap of the exhaust valve timing and intake valve timing.


Todays EGR is either done through timing overlap or through a servo controlled valve. The Bosch MED control FI system utilizes a servo valve. Do you have written proof that our 2.0TSI's have timing overlap? If so, please post or shut up. Thanks. :beer:


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

ManTech said:


> Todays EGR is either done through timing overlap or through a servo controlled valve. The Bosch MED control FI system utilizes a servo valve. Do you have written proof that our 2.0TSI's have timing overlap? If so, please post or shut up. Thanks. :beer:


Do you?

Go read the self study manual for the engine, Self-Study Program 824803 --- there is no EGR servo valve shown as an actuator in the MED 17.5 system for the engine

and the bentley manual doesn't show a EGR valve either.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

BsickPassat said:


> Do you?
> 
> Go read the self study manual for the engine, Self-Study Program 824803 --- there is no EGR servo valve shown as an actuator in the MED 17.5 system for the engine
> 
> and the bentley manual doesn't show a EGR valve either.


Well the Bosch video is all I have. But I did look at my copy of VAG SSP and you're right, it doesn't show a valve, (mechanical nor electronic) but it also doesn't say if it utilizes a valve timing overlap either.


----------



## CC'ed (Dec 1, 2009)

The BOSCH video is a generic technical sales pitch on the MED system, it is not meant to be a specific design description of the VW FSI or TSI applications. 

What's the argument ? The TSI, and probably the FSI use valve overlap to acheive EGR.

Another note : Don't take the VW Self-Study Course as the "Bible" either, the TSI one has some mistakes/ommisions, as it was probably written before the final design was settled. The TSI course document shows a breather pipe and check-valve for fresh air into the PCV system, from the pre-turbo intake duct to the valve-cover, which does not actually exist on the TSI.


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

VWrEdux - thank you thank you! It's about time somebody called this ****ing scam out. And I'm not surprised the most brainwashed people are responding and being defensive against you. You all are a bunch of suckers. Go scope your valves and realize how you got played.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

ManTech said:


> Well the Bosch video is all I have. But I did look at my copy of VAG SSP and you're right, it doesn't show a valve, (mechanical nor electronic) but it also doesn't say if it utilizes a valve timing overlap either.


It implies it in the cam phasing system.



> INA Camshaft Adjustment System
> 
> The 2.0L TSI engine uses a hydraulic vane cell adjuster on the intake camshaft to affect valve
> timing. Only the intake camshaft has variably adjusted timing on this engine. Oil pressure for this
> ...


----------



## dsm1983 (Aug 8, 2009)

steelcurtain said:


> VWrEdux - thank you thank you! It's about time somebody called this ****ing scam out. And I'm not surprised the most brainwashed people are responding and being defensive against you. You all are a bunch of suckers. Go scope your valves and realize how you got played.


you're like 
and i'm like :facepalm:


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

steelcurtain said:


> VWrEdux - thank you thank you! It's about time somebody called this ****ing scam out. And I'm not surprised the most brainwashed people are responding and being defensive against you. You all are a bunch of suckers. Go scope your valves and realize how you got played.


Thanks! You're welcome! I was just stating the obvious. I had a can in one of my tuned cars a few years back. Ended up throwing it away in the garbage after I discovered it did nothing. :laugh: When I was a kid, (17) I rebuilt a 1964 Chevy Corvair Turbo Spyder, (200 hp, water/meth injection, the works). I installed a catch-can from JC Whitney even back then. What a hunk of crap the whole concept is. Sure it helps a little, but the rest is just pure fantasy island :bs:.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

ManTech said:


> This is the truth, "the beef" redux was looking for. It's proof that these cans are pure :bs:.
> 
> I'd bet the EGR system is at play here as well! Remember CC's do not address the exhaust gas recirculation system. Those exhaust gases must also be full of oil.


Yes it is mantech... it's the "beef" I was looking for alright.  (His post below couldn't be clearer!) I'm not sure about the EGR playing a roll, but maybe  All I know is that the guys who push this trash based on false advertising should offer refunds to all those who ask for it. :thumbup:

______________________________

THE "BEEF" THAT PROVES THAT CATCH-CANS ARE :bs:




staulkor said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


*UPDATE: The pics in the post above have been mysteriously lost :sly: but they did show the before and after PROOF that catch-cans do very little, if anything, to help the intake port/valves. As Mike later agrees, catch-cans were not designed for this... even though he lists it as a reason to buy his product.... scam.*


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

EGR plays a big role in it.

I know this from back when I had my MKIV TDI, where we have that issue, which VW won't acknowledge. Dialing back on the duty cycle or eliminating it completely basically makes the intake clogging a non-issue.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

VWRedux said:


> Yes it is mantech... it's the "beef" I was looking for alright.  I'm not sure about the EGR playing a roll, but maybe  All I know is that the guys who push this trash based on false advertising should offer refunds to all those who ask for it. :thumbup:


I noticed that BSH pulled the pics of dirty valves off their website. Lol! :laugh:


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

crew219 said:


> I noticed that BSH pulled the pics of dirty valves off their website. Lol! :laugh:


I wonder if that means what I think it does? :laugh:


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

dsm1983 said:


> you're like
> and i'm like :facepalm:


Not mad at all. I was laughing thru the whole read! Good info on EGR too and still not a single response from the top 3 sellers of catch cans. :laugh:


----------



## shawng (Jul 28, 2007)

None of them are going to respond to this thread and I don't blame them one bit. No matter what they say, it will end in argument.


----------



## xnox202 (May 18, 2009)

So anyone with the exhaust cut-out on the TSI? If it's possible, I'm going to do it.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

shawng said:


> None of them are going to respond to this thread and I don't blame them one bit. No matter what they say, it will end in argument.


Why would it end-up in an argument? If they have conflicting facts, facts that prove that catch cans actually do postpone or eliminate carbon and valve jobs on 2.0 FSi and TSi engines, I think we would all like to see it! And if this evidence is credible, and contradictory to that which has already been field tested/confirmed and plainly presented (the so-called "beef") by our friends above who posted links to their side by side photo comparison, we would not argue the point with the catch-can manufacturers, we would be joyous and seek further confirmation by duplication.

However I fear they are declining to get involved either because they have nothing to prove their case, or they wish not to do some real work for a change. They rather just sit on their fat butts while milking our wallets. So it's better they not respond because we will press them for evidence to prove that their product is indeed beneficial by SUBSTANTIALLY reducing the carbon build-up inside the intake ports of DI VW's, which will require that they get up off the couch for once. :laugh:


----------



## HalvieCuw (Mar 20, 2003)

shawng said:


> None of them are going to respond to this thread and I don't blame them one bit. No matter what they say, it will end in argument.


BSH responded to the thread where those pictures originated from on golfmkv. Said the CC was more for keeping oil out of intake/charge/fmic pipes than reducing buildup. The amount of oil I had in my pipes is enough for me to finally pickup a CC. If that is all it does I guess that is good enough for me.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

shawng said:


> None of them are going to respond to this thread and I don't blame them one bit. No matter what they say, it will end in argument.


 I'll chime in. 

Absolutely nowhere have we ever stated that a catch tank kit, ours specifically, is guaranteed to prevented carbon buildup on your intake valves. If you purchased one of our kits under the assumption that the potential for carbon buildup was going to be completely eliminated immediately upon installation, either someone else led you to believe that, or you came to that conclusion on your own, because no one here would ever had stated as much to anyone. 

While we do advertise them as eliminating the return of oil, fuel, and water vapors to the intake tract, as well as LIMITING the potential for intake valve deposits, we do NOT claim that our product eliminates the deposits completely. 

It is a known fact that leaking valve guides are another contributing factor that can lead to valve deposits as well, and that potential issue has not yet been addressed by the OEM or aftermarket to our knowledge, so it cannot be overlooked. 

We have never guaranteed specific results that anyone can expect from the installation of a catch tank, so to demand that we substantiate claims that have never been made is simply not going to fly. We developed a product that we would use on our own vehicles, and do for that matter, and that we saw a need and a demand for within the market, so we have fulfilled that niche, as others have as well, and the products appear to be performing as intended.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> I'll chime in.
> 
> While we do advertise them as eliminating the return of oil, fuel, and water vapors to the intake tract, as well as LIMITING the potential for intake valve deposits, we do NOT claim that our product eliminates the deposits completely.
> 
> It is a known fact that leaking valve guides are another contributing factor that can lead to valve deposits as well, and that potential issue has not yet been addressed by the OEM or aftermarket to our knowledge, so it cannot be overlooked.


 Well thanks for setting the record straight but that's not exactly how I remember it. Every catch-can thread on vortex to mkv and vi etc was filled with references to the carbon issue as the number one concern by potential customers. And every vendor responded that catch cans do "eliminate all" pcv vented oil. A misleading response in my opinion.* 

And so here again you make the same claim that your catch-can "eliminates the return oil", do you not? 

So do you have any evidence to back up that claim? How do you know this? Can you accurately measure the amount of oil, fuel and water etc venting from the system at all times and the proportions captured by the catch-can vs that which gets by? If you do, please provide it because all factual evidence says they do not. In fact the above evidence proves that much more is bypassing the can than you realize. *Simply implying that your product eliminates the return oil, and let there be no mistake, the word *eliminates* means all oil, may lead your potential customers into believing that your product will significantly help reduce carbon build-up, when in fact it does not. Plus your theory that carbon build up within the intake port is caused by leaking valve guides is also unsubstantiated because valve guide leakage is at worst almost negligible in a brand new engine. 

All fingers point to vendors like you who have taken advantage of those who may not understand your job here.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

ManTech said:


> And so here again you make the same claim that your catch-can "eliminates the return oil", do you not?
> 
> So do you have any evidence to back up that claim? How do you know this? Can you accurately measure the amount of oil, fuel and water etc venting from the system at all times and the proportions captured by the catch-can vs that which gets by? If you do, please provide it because all factual evidence says they do not. In fact the above evidence proves that much more is bypassing the can than you realize. Simply implying that your product eliminates the return oil, and let there be no mistake, the word *eliminates* means all oil, may lead your potential customers into believing that your product will significantly help reduce carbon build-up, when in fact it does not. Plus your theory that carbon build up within the intake port is caused by leaking valve guides is also unsubstantiated because valve guide leakage is at worst almost negligible in a brand new engine.
> 
> All fingers point to vendors like you who have taken advantage of those who may not understand your job here.


 After installing and running my VTA CC for 30k+ miles I can confirm 100% that my CC has "eliminated return oil" from my intake, T.O.P., IC, TB pipe, TB, and Intake Manifold.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> After installing and running my VTA CC for 30k+ miles I can confirm 100% that my CC has "eliminated return oil" from my intake, T.O.P., IC, TB pipe, TB, and Intake Manifold.


 How was that confirmed? Pix? Search the web, you will be in the minority.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

ManTech said:


> How was that confirmed? Pix? Search the web, you will be in the minority.


 Since installing the CC I have disconnected and/or removed each of the listed components and have found ZERO traces of oil.

prior to installation of those parts when I had removed/disconnected them I would get droplets of oil that would come out.

Do you really want me to post pictures of clean empty pipes to verify this?


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

ManTech said:


> All fingers point to vendors like you who have taken advantage of those who may not understand your job here.


 Seriously? You're going to play the victim card? We're just predators out to screw people out of their money? 

Maybe I'm just naive and know nothing about engines, but I'm still confident enough in our product to still be running our original prototype on my daily driver, and have had no problems. 

Catch tanks have existed since before you and I were born. They have performed their intended function of removing aerated oil, fuel, and water vapor from the intake tract since before you and I were born. 

With that said, intake valves deposits have still occured on vehicles with catch tanks installed since before you and I were born as well. 

Catch tanks are not new science, and no one is trying to reinvent the wheel here. The engines in these cars are not so specialized and differentiated from other internal combustion engines that tried and tested technology, whether you are familiar with it or not, is not relevant to some degree. 

I have never claimed that the catch tanks will eliminate valve deposits. I have only ever stated that they have the potential to decrease the occurance of the deposits by removing the aerated vapors they are supposed to remove. If you choose to ignore the other causes of intake valve deposits, that is not my responsibility.


----------



## untangle (Nov 25, 2010)

*Oil in the intake tract?*

Here are the pix from my recent FMIC install (done at 5K miles): 



















No CC. Minimal oil, 98% of which is pooled at the bottom. This seems to me to be an unlikely cause of problems, incl. power loss. But that's just me. 

Bob


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 10, 2001)

Catch cans do not stop valve buildup. 

The oil residue on the valves do not originate from the PCV system. 

The oil residue on the valves come directly from the valve stem seals themselves. 

This is a Direct Injection issue, possibly only related to VAG engines though I don't have enough data to support that. 

I still prefer VAG cars regardless of this. 

Direct Injection engines still operate and are mechanically identical to other combustion engines. 

The only thing different or special is the way that fuel is injected. 

There is no magic here. 

Catch cans on direct injection engines do exactly the same job as they would on a port injection motor. 

This job is keeping oil our of your intercooler which reduces its efficiency over time, and out of your combustion chamber immediately which will help prevent knock and increase your engines output due to the ability to be more aggressive with timing. It will also one day keep oil from splashing on your face which I promise you will appreciate after having it happen once or twice. 

If you think an engine running a turbo making 20+ psi that makes full boost at 2000 rpm and revs to 7000 rpm does not need every ounce of knock protection possible to maintain optimum performance, you are not qualified to make statements, only to ask questions. 

I would gladly take an (X amount of oil * Y days) reduction in the cleanliness and and performance of my engine. I take pride in my projects. 

My name is Phill, I own BSH, and these are my statements on behalf of my company. If you want to question me, email me, I don't come on this forum often anymore but last I checked I still had a reputation for caring about my customers. You can also find me at Wuste this weekend if you want to chat face to face. [email protected] 

*I edited it my post to tone it down a bit.


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> Since installing the CC I have disconnected and/or removed each of the listed components and have found ZERO traces of oil.
> 
> prior to installation of those parts when I had removed/disconnected them I would get droplets of oil that would come out.
> 
> Do you really want me to post pictures of clean empty pipes to verify this?


 Virtual - IIRC didn't you post pics in one of your meth threads where your MAP sensor was coated with oil?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 10, 2001)

ManTech said:


> How was that confirmed? Pix? Search the web, you will be in the minority.


 Here is about 5k miles with our VTA kit on a 500 bhp 2.0T. Track days, customer rides, the whole bit


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

I stand by my comments. Indeed you're right, catch cans are a very old gimmick.


----------



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

Catch cans do exactly what they are supposed to do, just because what they do is not what you want it to do doesn't make it a gimmick. Does a catch can keep your valves clean? No not necessarily because what they are catching for oil vapor isn't necessarily the cause of the problem, but they are still removing oil from the charge air.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Catch cans do exactly what they are supposed to do, just because what they do is not what you want it to do doesn't make it a gimmick. Does a catch can keep your valves clean? No not necessarily because what they are catching for oil vapor isn't necessarily the cause of the problem, but they are still removing oil from the charge air.


 Yes, you state the obvious, but how much does it remove and in what proportion? Don't answer unless you have real evidence to back it up.  

PS: I'm willing to bet that if all your TFSI, FSI and TSI catch-can customers were properly polled as to the main reason behind their purchase of a catch-can, they would answer _"because we thought that since the *can* eliminates all the return oil, it would in turn significantly reduce or eliminate the carbon build-up in our engine's intake port."_ 










Boy were they misled.


----------



## shawng (Jul 28, 2007)

shawng said:


> None of them are going to respond to this thread and I don't blame them one bit. No matter what they say, it will end in argument.


 I will gladly admit I was wrong int he first sentence, but spot on with the second, 

I do want to thank both Phil and Mike for responding, even though what ever they say will be argued and deemed a lie and misleading (not by me). Religion, politics, which oil is better, and now we can add catch cans to the list of topics to never discuss at the dinner table. 

I am happy with my purchase and pleased at what the catch can does. I did my research, went into the purchase well informed and do not believe in miracle cures or the tooth fairy. 

I have been rebuilding engines for close to 30 years and have been in and out of the industry for the past 20. i have seen my fair share of scams, false claims and crap products, and I don't see that here. I will admit I am still learning and will continue to do so until I can't any more.


----------



## untangle (Nov 25, 2010)

*Cup half full?*

Well, on the positive side, this thread represents *major* progress on illuminating what this product type can and cannot do. 

We now have the manufacturers offering that the product does not keep intake valves clean. So that aspect can be bedded down permanently. 

So owners and potential purchasers can now focus on the reduction of oil film in the intake tract, and what the benefits of that reduction may be. 

To my mind, these benefits are slight - esp. at Stage II and below. But reasonable men may differ. And it is their money and their car. 

Bob


----------



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

ManTech said:


> Yes, you state the obvious,


 Good so this thread is done.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

ManTech said:


> PS: I'm willing to bet that if all your TFSI, FSI and TSI catch-can customers were properly polled as to the main reason behind their purchase of a catch-can, they would answer _"*because we thought* that since the *can* eliminates all the return oil, it would in turn significantly reduce or eliminate the carbon build-up in our engine's intake port."_
> 
> Boy were they misled.


 How was anyone misled if they ASSUME that the product will do something it was NOT advertised to do? If they misread or misinterpreted the information given to them, I am sure they had every opportunity to ask questions before deciding to make the purchase. 

In summary, we have determined you think catch tanks are useless. 

Others find them useful at performing their intended function. 

You will never agree with that. 

What more needs to be discussed?


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> How was anyone misled if they ASSUME that the product will do something it was NOT advertised to do? If they misread or misinterpreted the information given to them, I am sure they had every opportunity to ask questions before deciding to make the purchase.
> 
> In summary, we have determined you think catch tanks are useless.
> 
> ...


 Wow.... much has happened here since my absence.  Yup I happen to agree with Mike but not fully. So I think the real questions still remain, what is their "intended function" Mike, (explain in detail please) and to what benefit do they actually serve if catchcans have no effect on carbon build-up in the intake port? I'll admit, at first, I was as mantech explained, I thought these suckers would eliminate or at least reduce the carbon build up on the intake side. So I resisted buying one until I fully understood their function. 

*So Mike... here's your shot to conclude the thread. Now that we know that these cans have very little affect on our intake port carbon issue, please try to sell me on it! (I still have hope) * 



Why should I or anyone else buy a catch can knowing what we now know? 

And, two, why should I BUY YOUR MODEL instead of one from another make?


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

VWRedux said:


> Wow.... much has happened here since my absence.  Yup I happen to agree with Mike but not fully. So I think the real questions still remain, what is their "intended function" Mike, (explain in detail please) and to what benefit do they actually serve if catchcans have no effect on carbon build-up in the intake port? I'll admit, at first, I was as mantech explained, I thought these suckers would eliminate or at least reduce the carbon build up on the intake side. So I resisted buying one until I fully understood their function.
> 
> So Mike... here's your shot to conclude the thread. Now that we know that these cans have very little affect on our intake port carbon issue, please try to sell me on it! (I still have hope)
> 
> ...


 Sorry, but I'm not about to be scapegoated here as someone who needs to prove something to the community as if to save face for having previously commited some sort of wrongdoing. 

I don't know what you know now that you shouldn't have known before. There has been no dramatic realization from anything posted in this thread. The function of catch tanks has always been to remove aerated vapors from the intake air and plumbing. Doing so has always had the potential to minimize buildup on intake valves, and that has never been guaranteed. Individuals results will always vary, so nothing that has been posted recently changes that in any way whatsoever. 

Myself and others would rather remove those aerated vapors from the system than leave them to potentially worsen the problem. Others are sceptics and believe that any degree of valve buildup from any other contributing factors means catch tanks are useless entirely. 

The specs on our kit are freely available. You are all intelligent enough to make your own decisions.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Sorry, but I'm not about to be scapegoated here as someone who needs to prove something to the community as if to save face for having previously commited some sort of wrongdoing.
> 
> (Why, you think you have been set up or something? Come on Mike don't chicken out on us now, our questions are honest good ones.)
> 
> ...


 Wow, Mike, the point is you're intelligent enough to know that we did finally figure it out. :wave:


----------



## xnox202 (May 18, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> *The function of catch tanks has always been to remove aerated vapors from the intake air and plumbing*. Doing so has always *had the potential* to minimize buildup on intake valves, and that has never been guaranteed. Individuals results will always vary, so nothing that has been posted recently changes that in any way whatsoever.





[email protected] said:


> *Catch cans do exactly what they are supposed to do, just because what they do is not what you want it to do* doesn't make it a gimmick. Does a catch can keep your valves clean? No not necessarily because what they are catching for oil vapor isn't necessarily the cause of the problem, but they are still removing oil from the charge air.





[email protected] said:


> *Catch cans do not stop valve buildup. *
> 
> The oil residue on the valves do not originate from the PCV system.
> 
> ...





[email protected] said:


> Catch tanks have existed since before you and I were born. They have performed their intended function of removing aerated oil, fuel, and water vapor from the intake tract since before you and I were born.
> 
> With that said, intake valves deposits have still occured on vehicles with catch tanks installed since before you and I were born as well.
> 
> ...


 *This.* 

And this thread: 

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/336352-Audi-FSI-Engine-Carbon-Build-up-Megathread 

VW patent acknowledging the intake valve deposit issue: 

Directly from the technical staff of VAG is complete acknowledgment of the FSI intake valve deposit issue, and it's impacts, including: decreased performance, misfires, catalytic converter damage ... etc. 

"Gasoline engines with direct injection of the fuel into the combustion chamber, i.e., not into the intake port, suffer especially from the problem of the formation of carbon deposits on components. Carbon deposits form especially in the neck region of intake valves. A more exact analysis of how these carbon deposits form leads to the following result: Oil and fuel constituents first form a sticky coating on the components. These constituents are chiefly long-chain and branched-chain hydrocarbons, i.e., the low-volatility components of oil and fuel. A*romatic compounds adhere especially well. This sticky base coating serves as a base for the deposition of soot particles. This results in a porous surface, in which oil and fuel particles in turn become embedded. This process is a circular process, by which the coating thickness of the carbon deposits continuously increases. Especially in the area of the intake valves, the deposits originate from blowby gases and from internal and external exhaust gas recirculation, and in this process, the blowby gasses and the recirculated exhaust gas come into direct contact with the intake valve.*" 

"Especially in the area of the neck of the intake valves, excessive carbon deposits have extremely negative effects for the following reasons: In the case of Otto direct injectors, the successful ignition of the stratified charge depends to a great extent on the correct development of the internal cylinder flow, which ensures reliable transport of the injected fuel to the spark plug to guarantee reliable ignition at the spark plug. However, a coating of carbon deposits in the neck region of the intake valve may interfere so strongly with the tumble flow that ignition failures may occur there as a result. Under certain circumstances, however, ignition failures can lead to irreversible damage of a catalytic converter installed in the exhaust gas tract for purifying the exhaust gas. Furthermore, the coating of carbon deposits in the neck region of the intake valve causes flow resistance, which can lead to significant performance losses due to insufficient cylinder filling, especially in the upper load and speed range of the internal combustion engine. In addition, the carbon deposits in the neck region of the intake valve may prevent correct valve closing, which leads to compression losses and thus sporadic ignition failures. This in turn could irreversibly damage the catalytic converter. There is the potential for small particles to break away from the coating of carbon deposits in the neck region of the intake valve and get into the catalytic converter. These hot particles may then cause secondary reaction and corresponding local damage of the catalytic converter. For example, a hole may be burned in the structure of the catalytic converter." 

"*Globular deposits are found especially on the valve stem downstream from a partition plate in the intake port. Due to the dripping of high-boiling hydrocarbons from the partition plate towards the valve neck or valve stem, globular carbon deposits eventually form there by the sequence of events explained above.* These deposits on the valve stem can result in flow deficits due to undesired swirling and turbulent flow around the globular carbon deposits. This may persistently interfere with the formation of stable tumble flow from cycle to cycle." 

"A *possible solution would be to keep these sources of deposits away, for example, from the intake valve, by completely eliminating exhaust gas recirculation and the introduction of blowby gases into the intake port.* However with the combustion behavior of modern reciprocating internal combustion engines, at least external exhaust gas recirculation and the introduction of blowby gases into the intake port are absolutely necessary for reasons of emission control and fuel consumption, so that this approach is not possible. " 

--- 

So to whoever doesn't believe CC does it's own job and you're led to believe that they reduce/eliminate carbon build-up, then who cares about what your perspectives are. Sell your VW/Audi and stop coming by this thread and bashing/pointlessly pointing fingers who does these things 24/7 behind their workshop, engineered these stuffs countless of hours and have nothing else but passion for these type of cars. 

I've been watching this thread which I have to admit, I'm almost led to believe that these catch cans remove intake carbon deposits but they're not. They're doing their job to remove oil vapors and not returning it to the intake tract. So, what's the big deal about this? NOTHING. It helps the efficiency for the IC so that they don't get clogged along with the intake pipes. 

While you're mislead to believe these CC's actually so-called remove/eliminate intake deposits, then you probably would believe the same thing as turbo engines need back pressure or you're led to believe nitrogen-filled tires has whatsoever effect on daily driven cars, or whatever stupid "crowd-believing-myths" you're on. You will still keep bashing on and on, and who cares. Who are you? What do you have anything to prove? 

Maybe it's sad most of us doesn't have any automotive experience like these companies but if they're telling us what they've done and designed a product to work like *they intended* with backups of pics and most people who uses with results on these type of forums then shut the hell up already cause that's evidence. 

Of course there's hell evidence of people who has alot of pics with thick carbon deposits on their intake valve even with CC installed and whatnot. It's just how because stratified injection engine works. Some works better, some don't. Turbo engine has low-end torque more than NA cars which needs higher rev-band for their power. DSG owns in shift times than most conventional slushboxes. VTEC has virtually no torque. Deal with it. Why? You think most of us has chosen the wrong path to buy these cars just because of carbon buildup? Well you know what? Deal with it. 

This may have been a wall of text to you, but if you do read it.. Then I thank you for your time. Still whatever your believe are whether these CC thing are like Justin Bieber thing to you, then still.... deal with it.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

Clearly your entire arguement is based on assumptions that you made about what you expected a catch tank to do for you. No one ever guaranteed any results that anyone could expect, but when the results didn't meet your impossibly high and misplaced expectations, you decided to blame those whose words you misconstrued as if you were deliberately and maliciously mislead. Sorry, but if you expected a miracle cure, you have no one to blame but yourselves.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Clearly your entire arguement is based on assumptions that you made about what you expected a catch tank to do for you. No one ever guaranteed any results that anyone could expect, but when the results didn't meet your impossibly high and misplaced expectations, you decided to blame those whose words you misconstrued as if you were deliberately and maliciously mislead.
> 
> (We were IMO Mike.)
> 
> ...


 With all due respect to xnox202, there is one major difference here, those here who were smart enough to figure out the scam haven't yet contributed to Mikes bank account. They most likely decided to "live with it" a long time ago.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

ManTech said:


> With all due respect to xnox202, there is one major difference here, *those here who were smart enough to figure out the scam haven't yet contributed to Mikes bank account*. They most likely decided to "live with it" a long time ago.


 I'm like the predictive text program in your cell phone. I said you were looking for a scapegoat and there we have it! 

Good luck with your witch hunt. I'm making like a fetus a heading out.


----------



## xnox202 (May 18, 2009)

:facepalm: 

Smart enough to know that these CC aren't designed to completely or eliminate carbon buildup on intakes. If you did expected these CC whoever from BSH, 42DD, Forge or whatsoever, you're clearly picking the wrong idea. Like I said, I supposed you should understand the fundamentals on how these car works. Yes we all admit directed injected engine is a pain in the butt for carbon buildup, so if you're really crying about it why do you buy such car anyway? 

If beforehand you did use the forum to check these thread before you got yours, of course everyone expects some companies to make a gadget to kill these intake buildup problem but as a matter a fact, it's like you're picking the wheels of why they don't go faster even how big the wheels are. Sounds wrong? Of course, you're blaming the CC for your drama. 

Yeah, me and the rest of the world excludes from your minority to buy things and put in more money into Mike's account, but hey guess what I supposed we have cleaner intake tract and performs wonderfully. Carbon buildup? Well, I can pop down to my local shop really if I wanna be so anal about it to get it clean. What's the matter with that?


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

*Epic Fail !*

Copied from Mike's Catch-Can Group Buy Post: 


[email protected] said:


> The kit is recirculating in design so as to maintain emissions compliance, however, *it will capture all of the blow-by gasses and vapors that would otherwise lead to deposits on the intake valves, thereby keeping the system clean* and the engine performing optimally long-term.


 Then he says he never said it nor promoted it to sell product: 


[email protected] said:


> I'll chime in. Absolutely nowhere have we ever stated that a catch tank kit, ours specifically, is guaranteed to prevented carbon buildup on your intake valves.


 Then he says that his customers are to blame if they thought his Catch-Can would help: 


[email protected] said:


> Clearly your entire arguement is based on assumptions that you made about what you expected a catch tank to do for you. No one ever guaranteed any results that anyone could expect, but when the results didn't meet your impossibly high and misplaced expectations, you decided to blame those whose words you misconstrued as if you were deliberately and maliciously mislead. Sorry, but if you expected a miracle cure, you have no one to blame but yourselves.


 Then Mike decides to run away, like a thief, and I do know a thing or two about them: 


[email protected] said:


> I'm like the predictive text program in your cell phone. I said you were looking for a scapegoat and there we have it!
> 
> Good luck with your witch hunt. I'm making like a fetus a heading out.


 Go ahead, run away. We're all willing to dance except you. You're not a "scapegoat", you're an aftermarket web salesman using a convenient cop-out because you have nothing else to show. You failed to show us the beef (no proof what-so-ever other than your word) that catch cans are indeed beneficial, that they do something other than fill up empty water bottles with gooey H2O as well as your pockets with our money. We show you credible proof that they are indeed doing very little, if anything, and you still insist that we should just take your word that they do something, something that you still refuse to define. Wow, you must think we were all born yesterday. 

Why not conduct a real test and shut the whole doubt thing down? No, instead you wish for us to take only your word. Are you kidding me? :facepalm: 

I'll tell you what Mike, why don't you place a large *NOTICE* on your Catch-Can packaging that says what you have now exclaimed right here on this thread? Tell everyone what you just said, that your *Catch-Cans do very little to address the intake port carbon issue on any direct injected car,* and _"if you customers are looking for a miracle cure, you have only yourselves to blame if it fails to meet your expectations!" _ Then stand back and watch as your catch-can sales fall right off a cliff. :laugh: 








Cue the decending whistle and crash sounds! 

You must know, as we now do, that this misleading representation is the ONLY reason why direct injection customers were buying them in the first place. Don't believe me? Then I dare you to place your statement NOTICE on your catch-can box to see if I'm mistaken. . As a matter of fact, I double dare you!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2005)

Mantech sure is spoiling for a fight  Sorry Mike let you down


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

*OWNED!  Mantech Toasts Mike*



ManTech said:


> Go ahead, run away. We're all willing to dance except you. You're not a "scapegoat", you're an aftermarket web salesman using a convenient cop-out because you have nothing else to show. You failed to show us the beef (no proof what-so-ever other than your word) that catch cans are indeed beneficial, that they do something other than fill up empty water bottles with gooey H2O as well as your pockets with our money. We show you credible proof that they are indeed doing very little, if anything, and you still insist that we should just take your word that they do something, something that you still refuse to define. Wow, you must think we were all born yesterday.
> 
> Why not conduct a real test and shut the whole doubt thing down? No, instead you wish for us to take only your word. Are you kidding me? :facepalm:
> 
> ...


 This is what happens when vendors try and sell us car-nuts things we really don't need. They eventually meet their doom because they indirectly dance around the truth and imply that their wonder product "may" do this, or that, that it's better than ever, or some other :bs: claim, but never do they have the hard facts nor the evidence to back up their sales pitch. The temporary water vapor found in virtually every internal comb. engine on earth has never been proven to be detrimental. If anything these catch tanks give the owner a false sense of security, another words, they want to believe that the money they just spent is beneficial and hasn't been wasted. 

Mike you really need to conduct some tests. I'm still open minded enough to think that there must be a way to make these tanks work better than they do... to have them catch more oil than water through elaborate internal adaptive technology. Until then, maybe your company should seriously consider field testing before bringing it to the market so that you can provide a clear explaination as to what something does without beating around the bush.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

VWRedux said:


> Until then, maybe your company should seriously consider field testing before bringing it to the market so that you can provide a clear explaination as to what something does without beating around the bush.


 You must be joking? A "clear explanation"? This loser is a compulsive liar and I will prove it. 



[email protected] said:


> The kit is recirculating in design so as to maintain emissions compliance, however, *it will capture all of the blow-by gasses and vapors that would otherwise lead to deposits on the intake valves, thereby keeping the system clean* and the engine performing optimally long-term.





[email protected] said:


> I'll chime in. Absolutely nowhere have we ever stated that a catch tank kit, ours specifically, is guaranteed to prevented carbon buildup on your intake valves.





[email protected] said:


> Clearly your entire arguement is based on assumptions that you made about what you expected a catch tank to do for you. No one ever guaranteed any results that anyone could expect, but when the results didn't meet your impossibly high and misplaced expectations, you decided to blame those whose words you misconstrued as if you were deliberately and maliciously mislead. Sorry, but if you expected a miracle cure, you have no one to blame but yourselves.





[email protected] said:


> I'm like the predictive text program in your cell phone. I said you were looking for a scapegoat and there we have it!
> 
> Good luck with your witch hunt. I'm making like a fetus a heading out.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2005)

We KNOW why and how they work and their intended use. It's you and Mantech that need to be educated, as has been mentioned, this is OLD tech and is proven beyond a doubt. You can keep blowing hot air and making much ado about nothing but don't expect the rest of the forum with functioning brains to follow suite. But by all means, carry on:wave: 



VWRedux said:


> This is what happens when vendors try and sell us car-nuts things we really don't need. They eventually meet their doom because they indirectly dance around the truth and imply that their wonder product "may" do this, or that, that it's better than ever, or some other :bs: claim, but never do they have the hard facts nor the evidence to back up their sales pitch. The temporary water vapor found in virtually every internal comb. engine on earth has never been proven to be detrimental. If anything these catch tanks give the owner a false sense of security, another words, they want to believe that the money they just spent is beneficial and hasn't been wasted.
> 
> Mike you really need to conduct some tests. I'm still open minded enough to think that there must be a way to make these tanks work better than they do... to have them catch more oil than water through elaborate internal adaptive technology. Until then, maybe your company should seriously consider field testing before bringing it to the market so that you can provide a clear explaination as to what something does without beating around the bush.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> We KNOW why and how they work and their intended use. It's you and Mantech that need to be educated, as has been mentioned, this is OLD tech and is proven beyond a doubt. (I've been building cars before you breathed air... please show us your "proven beyond a doubt" proof or shut up!) You can keep blowing hot air (Hot Air, sorry you fail too.. it's you and Mike who have been promoting HOT AIR on Vortex. We just called you out and mantech blew you away!) hand making much ado about nothing (Oh ya, see below!) but don't expect the rest of the forum with functioning brains to follow suite. But by all means, carry on. (Don't blame me if you both find yourselves inside of a court room very soon!) :wave:


 Angel, you better back down because Mike just made a complete fool of himself on Vortex! I see FRAUD here.... false advertising..... 



ManTech said:


> You must be joking? A "clear explanation"? This loser is a compulsive liar and I will prove it.


 I see now....  If Mike did sell products on misleading statements, I see the potential for a class action lawsuit in the making....


----------



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

VWRedux said:


> see the potential for a class action lawsuit in the making....


 a class action lawsuit over a catchcan? are you goddamn serious? 

not saying I am shocked based on your profile, it is pathetic but I am still not shocked.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

*What Do You Call This Angel?*



[email protected] said:


> I'll chime in.
> 
> Absolutely nowhere have we ever stated that a catch tank kit, ours specifically, is guaranteed to prevented carbon buildup on your intake valves. If you purchased one of our kits under the assumption that the potential for carbon buildup was going to be completely eliminated immediately upon installation, either someone else led you to believe that, or you came to that conclusion on your own, because no one here would ever had stated as much to anyone.


 Well you did Mike... you're not toasted, you're fried! 



[email protected] said:


> After many months of prolonged development and testing, we are incredibly pleased to finally announce the release of our complete oil catch tank solution for the transverse VAG 2.0 TSI applications. The kits are effectively ready to be released to the market, and we have decided to do so via a initial group buy launch format.
> 
> The normal retail pricing on the kit will be $450 plus taxes/shipping.
> 
> ...


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> a class action lawsuit over a catchcan? are you goddamn serious?
> 
> not saying I am shocked based on your profile, it is pathetic but I am still not shocked.


 Google "internet sales fraud" and see how many have been brought to court for less! :laugh:


----------



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

VWRedux said:


> Google "internet sales fraud"! :laugh:


 
Seriously put the emoticon away, there was nothing funny about what I said or you said it is just downright sad that you are proud about supposedly starting a DSG campain and now suggesting a lawsuit. There is nothing but sadness in the fact that you think the resolution to a damn catchcan that didn't do what you dreamed it would do is a class action lawsuit. This isn't acne that killed your grandma, birth control that gave you a blood clot, and this isn't a cell phone company sneaking in fees, this is a goddamn catch can. It is absolutely pathetic that the word lawsuit even came up in this thread. Have some respect for yourself.

Good luck with your lawsuit, nothing like having public record that you broke federal emissions regulations modifying emissions control devices on your car.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

*You're Pathetic*



[email protected] said:


> a class action lawsuit over a catchcan? are you goddamn serious?
> 
> not saying I am shocked based on your profile, it is pathetic but I am still not shocked.


 
What do you think about my profile? I'm dead serious.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

Do you guys really think that after all of this, that I feel in any way obligated to oblige your demands to prove anything to you? As if I want you as customer now after this b.s.? 

Get real. 

You assumed a given result was *guaranteed*, which was never stated anywhere. 

And now, because I spoke up, and didn't immediately concede to your demands, both myself and Forge are the chosen scapegoat for your witch hunt, as if we were the first and only people to ever offer a catch tank, and you were the first and only people ever to be let down by what you expected it to do for you.


----------



## HalvieCuw (Mar 20, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Do you guys really think that after all of this, that I feel in any way obligated to oblige your demands to prove anything to you? As if I want you as customer now after this b.s.?
> 
> Get real.
> 
> ...


 I am let down that I am unable to find any in stock.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Seriously put the emoticon away, there was nothing funny about what I said or you said it is just downright sad that you are proud about supposedly starting a DSG campain and now suggesting a lawsuit. There is nothing but sadness in the fact that you think the resolution to a damn catchcan that didn't do what you dreamed it would do is a class action lawsuit. This isn't acne that killed your grandma, birth control that gave you a blood clot, and this isn't a cell phone company sneaking in fees, this is a goddamn catch can. It is absolutely pathetic that the word lawsuit even came up in this thread. Have some respect for yourself.
> 
> Good luck with your lawsuit, nothing like having public record that you broke federal emissions regulations modifying emissions control devices on your car.


 Keep going, dig a bigger hole for your pal. There's no defense here if Mike doesn't post a retraction. Redux was instrumental in obtaining factory extended warranties for THOUSANDS of US and Canadian DSG owners. What have you done lately smart guy? I like to know how much Forge made on those false statements of Mike's? 

I see trouble here.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

ManTech said:


> I see trouble here.


 You looking in a mirror? 

Cuz you're the only problem around these parts.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Do you guys really think that after all of this, that I feel in any way obligated to oblige your demands to prove anything to you? As if I want you as customer now after this b.s.?
> 
> Get real.
> 
> ...


 If I were your boss, I would recommend you take a vacation for a while and not make any more comments on Vortex. I've already shot this over to some attorneys I know here in downtown Manhattan.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

ManTech said:


> If I were your boss, I would recommend you take a vacation for a while and not make any more comments on Vortex. I've already shot this over to some attorneys I know here in downtown Manhattan.


 I'll be curious to read the e-mail response that includes a photo attachment of them laughing histerically on the floor at the frivolity of this nonsense! :thumbup:


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Seriously put the emoticon away, there was nothing funny about what I said or you said it is just downright sad that you are proud about supposedly starting a DSG campain and now suggesting a lawsuit. There is nothing but sadness in the fact that you think the resolution to a damn catchcan that didn't do what you dreamed it would do is a class action lawsuit. This isn't acne that killed your grandma, birth control that gave you a blood clot, and this isn't a cell phone company sneaking in fees, this is a goddamn catch can. It is absolutely pathetic that the word lawsuit even came up in this thread. Have some respect for yourself.
> 
> Good luck with your lawsuit, nothing like having public record that you broke federal emissions regulations modifying emissions control devices on your car.


 Ohhhh you hurt my feelings  :laugh: Look, I never said I was going to personally bring a lawsuit, I simply said that I see the potenial for one. If those who shelled out their money for a Forge Catch Tank based on Mike's original misleading comments to only find out now that they have been taken to the cleaners wish to file a claim or request a complete refund, that's their choice. And if Mike and Forge wish to fight them, that's their choice... but the potential is there. 



[email protected] said:


> Do you guys really think that after all of this, that I feel in any way obligated to oblige your demands to prove anything to you? As if I want you as customer now after this b.s.?
> 
> Get real.
> 
> ...


 Don't flatter yourself Mike, I wouldn't be caught dead with that thing in my car unless you could provide credible evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

VWRedux said:


> Don't fl;atter yourself Mike, I wouldn't be caught dead with that thing in my car unless you could provide credible evidence to the contrary.


 Then don't demand that I substantiate a claim that was never made. 

You guys have made your point, and now you're just wasting everyone's time. You think it's snake oil, we get it. Leave others to use their brains and make their own decision.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

ManTech said:


> If I were your boss, I would recommend you take a vacation for a while and not make any more comments on Vortex. I've already shot this over to some attorneys I know here in downtown Manhattan.


 Are you fscking serious? :facepalm:
This has officially hit rock bottom


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Then don't demand that I substantiate a claim that was never made.
> 
> You guys have made your point, and now you're just wasting everyone's time. You think it's snake oil, we get it. Leave others to use their brains and make their own decision.


 You bet they will!


----------



## Bullitt_TDI (Dec 12, 2006)

ManTech said:


> If I were your boss, I would recommend you take a vacation for a while and not make any more comments on Vortex. I've already shot this over to some attorneys I know here in downtown Manhattan.


 you have the money to put a retainer and spend at least 250/hour in attorney fees? 


opcorn:


----------



## O_o (Nov 12, 2009)

Don't you bickering little grannies have anything better to do? 

NOW WHERE'S MY GODDAMN HOEDOWN?!?!


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

Bullitt_TDI said:


> you have the money to put a retainer and spend at least 250/hour in attorney fees?
> 
> 
> opcorn:


 You obviously failed to read my profile.


----------



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

ManTech said:


> Keep going, dig a bigger hole for your pal. There's no defense here if Mike doesn't post a retraction. Redux was instrumental in obtaining factory extended warranties for THOUSANDS of US and Canadian DSG owners. What have you done lately smart guy? I like to know how much Forge made on those false statements of Mike's?
> 
> I see trouble here.


 How is mike my pal? Trust me I have given forge more grief then any of you could possibly imagine. If he was making the comments about APR I would say the same thing because it is just absurd that class action lawsuit was even brought up and APR is clearly not one of my pals. This entire thread is a joke, I have no respect for anyone who screams class action lawsuit over a catch can.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> How is mike my pal? Trust me I have given forge more grief then any of you could possibly imagine. If he was making the comments about APR I would say the same thing because it is just absurd that class action lawsuit was even brought up and APR is clearly not one of my pals. This entire thread is a joke, I have no respect for anyone who screams class action lawsuit over a catch can.


Most people who judge others based on reactive comments are entitled to their opinion. Only next time think before you post something based entirely on someones profile. Secondly, in most cases such as these, where manufacturers are caught pushing products based on false or misleading advertising, the only way to effectively punish such behavior is by filing a class action where their customers are free to join in or not. It doesn't surprise me that other vendors such as yourself would take a negative view of this. But when you consider how many people bought into the notion that Forge's so called superior catch-can would eliminate or significantly reduce carbon build-up on their direct injected intake valves ( Mikes group buy ad was plastered all over the Internet) to now hear the man responsible for this to contradict his comments, may piss-off many of their customers who now may feel slighted, ripped off, hoodwinked, jaded, etc etc etc. and may wish for a refund or more.

This is no joke Chris especially when you consider that they made tens of thousands of dollars based on false advertising. 

We'll soon see and it will become a model case for other would-be deceptive advertisers who prey on their customer base without guilt, who take advantage of those who may be vulnerable because think they can get away with it on the Internet simply because they feel no one would bother. That's a big mistake.


----------



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

ManTech said:


> This is no joke Chris especially when you consider that they made tens of thousands of dollars based on false advertising.



No this is a joke, the guy who started the thread and screaming lawsuit doesn't even OWN one from what I have understood in his many posts. He has done no testing on his own and no research. From what I can tell most people here don't even understand the basic function of a catch can or the PCV system. 

The comments regarding taken credit for supposedly starting a NHTSA campaign was just me making a joke of the situation and if you are going to attack mike well I'm going to make some pokes at the people who are going after him. As I said if the same idiots were doing it to Arin and APR I would still say the whole situation is ridiculous. 

This entire situation and the thread of a lawsuit are completely a joke, you are demanding mike be held accountable for this, how about some personal accountability.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

VWRedux said:


> *Audizine has pictures of a new 2.0TSi that had a Forge CC installed when it was new. Now after 24K well maintained miles, the valves still look like crap!*


Audizine claims it came from the 'tex AND Water Methanol injection was used also. Mind quoting the thread on the 'tex?


----------



## Jack Skelington (Jul 5, 2004)

ManTech said:


> You obviously failed to read my profile.


Ahhh now it makes sense. 

0 Friends
ManTech has not made any friends yet

:laugh:


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

ManTech said:


> ...many of their customers who now may feel slighted, ripped off, hoodwinked, jaded, etc etc etc. and may wish for a refund *or more*.


Our actual customers, you know, the ones who did actually buy the product, are fully entitled to a complete refund under the lifetime warranty we offer on all of our products.

They will, however, never receive any more than that, because the use of the product in question never contributed in any way towards worsening the problem of intake valve deposits, so no one is entitled to any further compensation.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> No this is a joke, (I'M NOT LAUGHING) the guy who started the thread and screaming lawsuit doesn't even OWN one from what I have understood in his many posts. He has done no testing on his own and no research. (COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT) From what I can tell most people here don't even understand the basic function of a catch can or the PCV system. (SO YOU ADMIT THEN THAT THEY ARE VULNERABLE, VERY GOOD!)
> 
> The comments regarding taken credit for supposedly starting a NHTSA campaign (HE DID, CALL VWOA IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE) was just me making a joke of the situation and if you are going to attack mike well I'm going to make some pokes at the people who are going after him. (I AM NOT ATTACKING POOR MIKE, I'M ATTACKING FORGES FALSE ADVERTISING FOR MONETARY GAIN. MIKE JUST HAPPENS TO BE THEIR SPOKESMAN.) As I said if the same idiots were doing it to Arin and APR I would still say the whole situation is ridiculous. (HOW CONVENIENT FOR YOU TO SAY.)
> 
> This entire situation and the thread (YOU MEAN *THREAT*?) of a lawsuit are completely a joke, (SORRY YOU FEEL THIS IS A JOKE THAT PEOPLE WERE MISLED IN THEIR ONLINE PURCHASE. I'M STILL NOT LAUGHING!) you are demanding mike be held accountable for this, (HE WILL BE) how about some personal accountability.


For what? I sure didn't make any money based on false advertising.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

BsickPassat said:


> Audizine claims it came from the 'tex AND Water Methanol injection was used also. Mind quoting the thread on the 'tex?


Check post 60.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> I'll be curious to read the e-mail response that includes a photo attachment of them laughing histerically on the floor at the frivolity of this nonsense! :thumbup:


Actually I was contacted by them a few minutes ago. They're not laughing either. They specialize in online fraud.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Our actual customers, you know, the ones who did actually buy the product, are fully entitled to a complete refund under the lifetime warranty we offer on all of our products.
> 
> They will, however, never receive any more than that, because the use of the product in question never contributed in any way towards worsening the problem of intake valve deposits, so no one is entitled to any further compensation.


This is a good start and it will help your case if it ever happens. :thumbup:  Now go post it on your Catch Can Group-Buy thread.

Back to work.


----------



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

ManTech said:


> Actually I was contacted by them a few minutes ago. They're not laughing either. They specialize in online fraud.



They should be because this is hysterical. 

I thought the video I watched earlier was funny when the guy was intentionally hitting objects blocking the bike lane in nyc.. the humor here tops that by far.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

ManTech said:


> Check post 60.


Not post 60. That was a BPY engine, not the pics of a TSI in the op


----------



## xnox202 (May 18, 2009)

/endthread


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

So, you want to sue a company for something they make, even though the technology and claims surrounding the use of the technology have been around longer than the company themselves? Also, its a modification of a Federal Emissions part, thus you do so at your own risk, with no specific guarantee or protection from anyone, unless its from the manufacturer themselves, which Forge does have a warranty should the part be defective.

I have a VTA can from another company entirely, Eurojet. I used it for over 30,000 miles... I now run a line from my block off plate to the ground and it works just as well, but I don't have to clean a can any more... I have also pulled the manifold and scoped the valves many times and have seen carbon build up regardless... BUT, I have noticed something. My intake piping is dry as a bone. My intercooler is cleaner than ever. My throttle body looks freakin' fantastic. My Intake manifold is literally almost spotless inside with no oil residue or dirt... but my valves are dirty, from the valve seal down the neck to the head. Not anywhere near as bad as before I had a catch can, but still dirty. I understand why this is, but you don't obviously.

The catch cans DO minimize oil and fuel in the intake air/ charge air/ return air.... as much as they possibly can. its not a MINIMAL amount, its just as much as they can.

The block off plate should stop all PCV gases from going into the turbo, IC, and charge piping, thus keeping them cleaner... the catch can itself will catch as much oil, gas, and water as possible. the VALVE SEALS will do what they do: LEAK oil.

VTA systems are inherently much better at cleaning the system, but they operate by letting pressure in the crank build up enough to push the fumes out. recirculation cans allow the system to still be kept under vacuum, this theoretically should help performance, but I have not seen date to prove or disprove it.

Granted, my cleaner manifold and valves might be due to my water/meth, but still your getting butt hurt over **** that you should not get butt hurt over.

While your on your witch hunt, let's sue VAG for their oil/air separator stacks in the head that they touted when making the FSI. Or, lets sue the oil companies for making oil that can boil. ****, let's sue those greedy ass dinosaurs and plants and chemists that started this whole conspiracy!!! That'll teach em for making dirt, inefficient sources of fuel! the bastards!

Id love to see you waste money on a class action lawsuit that has no merit, is for a part that is technically illegal/ frowned upon in some states, and for something you have NEVER bought/ owned/ received as a gift, so therefore never affected your in any way.

You, my friend, need a break from the interwebz.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

BsickPassat said:


> Not post 60. That was a BPY engine, not the pics of a TSI in the op


Post 60 is the BEEF. It proves that catch cans have little effect on direct injected intake valve carbon build up.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 10, 2001)

ManTech said:


> Post 60 is the BEEF. It proves that catch cans have little effect on direct injected intake valve carbon build up.


Now that this is covered, can catch cans go back to being what catch cans are for?


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

First I'm not personally doing anything of the sort. I simply alerted a team of attorneys that specialize in this kind of thing. You see Redux asked a question, and it was a good one. He asked if there was any proof, (The Beef) that proves that catch cans do what Forge and all the other makers were claiming, whatever that may be? Now that could be just about anything from catching water vapor to oil mist and blow-by gases etc, it didn't matter. He asked a general question but he required definitive proof that whatever it caught could be proved as being harmful to the engine first, and if the catch-can were to remove it, it could be proved by dismantling the engine. I never heard that morning water vapor was harmful to my engine. That's one reason why we have oil changes, so I was bitten by the same curiosity as he. 

Then the thread evolved as others posted proof that these cans did very little in regards to carbon build up on direct injected intake ports and valves. Then Mike decided to chime in, posted no evidence whatsoever to substantiate early and current claims and then proceeded in repeatedly contradicting himself to the point of nausea. He was called out, got caught now let the parties work it out if they wish.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

This is not really what I thought would happen when I started this thread... I was sure someone would have had proof by now that these tanks really do work better than they did when I was a kid.  We all know that they do catch water vapor and some oil as well, but big deal, has that even been proven to be that harmful?  And if so, how harmful and was that ever proved? 

I am blown away that nothing has really changed with these contraptions since I installed my first tank back in the early seventies. Motor Trend in those days along with Popular Mechanics did a write up test on early catch tanks. Neither test was good. They proved back then that for all the hype, these tanks really didn't benifit the engine that much, if at all. I just wanted to see if things had improved any, along with the hope that someone had done a side by side study and would post it. Well one person did and it didn't look good. So after Mike joined in the hoedown, I asked him if he had any counter proof? He didn't. He only had his contradictory statements. I do know that if I had purchased one of these tanks, it would have been based directly on Mike's opening description on his infamous "Group-Buy" thread. He made it sound as if his product really helped our direct injected GTI's with the intake valve carbon issue... the number one reason I believe most of us became interested in these tanks in the first place.  

Now that the truth has been revealed by him and others they they do not, I hope this will give pause to those who are still contemplating a tank purchase, as well as the incentive for those who already did plop down their hard earned cash to ask for a refund.

Bottom line, if you enjoy emptying oily water every 10-20 days for very little, if any benifit , more power to you... but if you were looking to significantly reduce the carbon build-up on your intake valves like I and my buddies were, then you've been let down and misled because as Mike said above, _"if you were looking for a miracle, you have only yourself to blame." that it doesn't help at all.* _ :thumbdown:


*That's beacuse he refuses to admit that he lied and misled you to think otherwise. I would be really pissed off if one of his tanks sat in my engine bay right now and did virtually nothing to help my engine, and if it did, no one has come forward with the proof. Sure bet I would be demanding a refund. :facepalm:


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 10, 2001)

Water vapor is not harmful and catch cans do not stop valve buildup. 

A catch cans true purpose has never had anything to do with valve buildup ever. 

Blowby removal is an essential part of maintaining a tuned motor and optimizing pump gas performance. 

A catch can is a very low trade off means of blowby removal.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Water vapor is not harmful and catch cans do not stop valve buildup.
> 
> A catch cans true purpose has never had anything to do with valve buildup ever.


Then why did you post up pictures of dirty valves on your website?



[email protected] said:


> Blowby removal is an essential part of maintaining a tuned motor and optimizing pump gas performance.
> 
> A catch can is a very low trade off means of blowby removal.


Catch cans do not remove blow-by persay nor do they prevent it from occurring. All they do is collect any fuel or water vapors that would normally be burnt up during combustion when it is recirculated into the engine. 

The only thing I can agree on that catch cans do, is help keep the IC tract clean. That being said there are more ways than just one for oil to enter the IC tract.

Dave


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 10, 2001)

crew219 said:


> Then why did you post up pictures of dirty valves on your website?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For the same reason I let someone who works for one of my companies post pictures of dirty valves. (The Orange Car) It was the best information available at the time. BSH did *production * FSI/TSI catch cans first, all the rest followed. We updated our information and changed our approach as new info surfaced, the rest did not. 

If all catch cans do is collect water and fuel than how they keep intercooler piping clean is clearly an act of god. What ended up all over that oranges cars engine bay is quite possibly the most disgusting water and nastiest fuel I have ever seen in my life. And for that matter Ive got a catch cans worth of goop that Id gladly send you to burn in your engine. Catch cans collect blowby gasses, thus removing them from the intake and intercooler tract as you mention, end of story.


----------



## panzer 2.3 (May 24, 2008)

opcorn:


----------



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

VWRedux said:


> I am blown away that nothing has really changed with these contraptions since I installed my first tank back in the early seventies.



So this all comes back to yours and man techs idiotic expectations of something that is decades old suddenly doing something it was never intended to do.

Basically you are saying you are going to sue over something you don't have because it doesn't do what you dreamed it should do.. that makes sense.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> So this all comes back to yours and man techs idiotic expectations of something that is decades old suddenly doing something it was never intended to do.
> 
> Basically you are saying you are going to sue over something you don't have because it doesn't do what you dreamed it should do.. that makes sense.


Hey Chris, are you brain dead or just stupid? :banghead: In every post, neither of us said we were personally going to sue, just that there was potential for one based on Mike's misrepresentations. Say it one more time and I'm coming by your shop in my G car. :laugh:


----------



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

ManTech said:


> Hey Chris, are you brain dead or just stupid? :banghead: In every post, neither of us said we were personally going to sue, just that there was potential for one based on Mike's misrepresentations. Say it one more time and I'm coming by your shop in my G car. :laugh:


You were the only two discussing a lawsuit, sorry if you misrepresented your intentions by posting that you were contacting a law firm about starting a class action lawsuit.

Guess we all have a case now too


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Water vapor is not harmful and catch cans do not stop valve buildup.
> 
> A catch cans true purpose has never had anything to do with valve buildup ever.


Amen to that brother! :thumbup::beer: Now would someone please remove Mike's comments to the contrary from his Forge Catch-Can ad? :facepalm: Thank you.


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

Krieger said:


> So, you want to sue a company for something they make, even though the technology and claims surrounding the use of the technology have been around longer than the company themselves? Also, its a modification of a Federal Emissions part, thus you do so at your own risk, with no specific guarantee or protection from anyone, unless its from the manufacturer themselves, which Forge does have a warranty should the part be defective.
> 
> I have a VTA can from another company entirely, Eurojet. I used it for over 30,000 miles... I now run a line from my block off plate to the ground and it works just as well, but I don't have to clean a can any more... I have also pulled the manifold and scoped the valves many times and have seen carbon build up regardless... BUT, I have noticed something. My intake piping is dry as a bone. My intercooler is cleaner than ever. My throttle body looks freakin' fantastic. My Intake manifold is literally almost spotless inside with no oil residue or dirt... but my valves are dirty, from the valve seal down the neck to the head. Not anywhere near as bad as before I had a catch can, but still dirty. I understand why this is, but you don't obviously.
> 
> ...


This is the most intelligent post from a forum member I've read so far on this thread. Now I'm just subscribed for the humor of ManHunt making an ass of himself. Carry on.


----------



## siren001 (Nov 6, 2009)

Ok the Skinny, on this thing, 

Yes or No to get one. Im at 25k already. 



If so what brand and how much are they.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

steelcurtain said:


> This is the most intelligent post from a forum member I've read so far on this thread. Now I'm just subscribed for the humor of ManHunt making an ass of himself. Carry on.


I agree, very well written but unfortunately it's total :bs: in my opinion. Obviously you and he haven't followed the thread very well. But that's okay.


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

And I understand where you are coming from but seriously man there are more important things in life than wasting your time, effort and blood pressure on this ****. It's getting out of control. 

You obviously have a right to speak your mind and I'm not trying to disrespect that, but I think you should take a couple steps back and some deep breaths and reevaluate if this needs to continue. 

You've made your point here and on other threads. You've gotten the word out. Mission complete.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 10, 2001)

steelcurtain said:


> And I understand where you are coming from but seriously man there are more important things in life than wasting your time, effort and blood pressure on this ****. It's getting out of control.
> 
> You obviously have a right to speak your mind and I'm not trying to disrespect that, but I think you should take a couple steps back and some deep breaths and reevaluate if this needs to continue.
> 
> You've made your point here and on other threads. You've gotten the word out. Mission complete.


He even got me out of my cave. That's a feat in itself these days :laugh:


----------



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

steelcurtain said:


> Mission complete.


No it's not he didn't make some lawyers 10s of thousands of dollars and get each of you 11 cents for their efforts yet!

Class action lawsuits, helping the victims since... oh right never.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

steelcurtain said:


> And I understand where you are coming from but seriously man there are more important things in life than wasting your time, effort and blood pressure on this ****. It's getting out of control.
> 
> You obviously have a right to speak your mind and I'm not trying to disrespect that, but I think you should take a couple steps back and some deep breaths and reevaluate if this needs to continue.
> 
> You've made your point here and on other threads. You've gotten the word out. Mission complete.


:thumbup::beer:


----------



## siren001 (Nov 6, 2009)

siren001 said:


> Ok the Skinny, on this thing,
> 
> Yes or No to get one. Im at 25k already.
> 
> ...


Bump.....


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

siren001 said:


> Bump.....


As I and others have said, (and that includes big Mike himself) if your aim is to eliminate or even reduce carbon build-up on your intake valves, don't even think about it. On the other hand, no one has actually proven that it really does anything else to help other than require you to drain it of condensed water every other week or so, at best a little finger excersise. 

PS. See post 143


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

ManTech said:


> I agree, very well written but unfortunately it's total :bs: in my opinion. Obviously you and he haven't followed the thread very well. But that's okay.


i have read the thread. prove my points wrong. look up what catch cans have always done since the day they were first invented. then look up info on FSI and TSI valve seals. educate yourself.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

Krieger said:


> i have read the thread. prove my points wrong. look up what catch cans have always done since the day they were first invented. then look up info on FSI and TSI valve seals. educate yourself.


Not sure exactly what you're trying to imply here, but I have ripped apart, restored, modified, etc., enough engines in my time to know exactly what these cans do and cannot do, from my perspective. 

Now let's hear from your perspective, what are they supposed to do? Can you actually prove that they do what you believe they do? Plus, if these impurities were left alone and not captured like they are in every production car currently made, where's the proof that it does harm? Why then, if they're so damn good, don't we see them installed in OEM production?

Plus, I am fully aware of the valve guide seal issue on VW's, especially on turbo VW's. The positive cc pressures do take it's toll on these little babies but from the hundreds that I have personally replaced, they do hold up better than many may think. Nonetheless, when new, (0-50k miles) I have never observed a seal that leaks to the point that it would produce the carbon shown in the "beef" comparison post, keep an open mind!


----------



## HalvieCuw (Mar 20, 2003)

I wish threads on efr or gtx turbos went on for this long. Go gives a **** about catch cans. Anyone who reads these forums knows what they are getting when they buy one. Isn't there anything more interesting to talk about...


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

not implying anything, just saying. people have stated what the technology does, over and over and over. On this forum and MANY others. If you read it yourself, from many sources across a broad spectrum, and come to your own conclusion, thats the better alternative than staying on here and continuing this thread.

as to why they dont get used in production vehicles... you should be able to answer that yourself. It's an emissions part. if you started collecting all that crap and needed to dump it... you think the environment would be even remotely healthy if we all did it? Also, do you really think your average soccer mom gives a **** about engine performance, when they dont even change oil regularly?

this is why the PCV gasses are burnt off in the motor. easy to set up, most people dont care about long term performance or anything, and its (except in our case) generally pretty reliable, with most pcv systems almost never needing to be replaced except out of PM or something.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

Krieger said:


> not implying anything, just saying. people have stated what the technology does, over and over and over. (PEOPLE HAVE STATED THAT THE WORLD IS FLAT TOO, THAT GOD IS DEAD, AND THAT ELVIS STILL LIVES, SO I GUESS WE SHOULD JUST BELIEVE IN THINGS IF PEOPLE JUST SAY IT WITHOUT ANY PROOF? ARE YOU STUPID OR SOMETHING?) :laugh:
> 
> as to why they dont get used in production vehicles... you should be able to answer that yourself. It's an emissions part. if you started collecting all that crap and needed to dump it... you think the environment would be even remotely healthy if we all did it? (YOU APPEAR TO BE A SMART GUY BUT THIS COMMENT ONLY CONFIRMS MY SUSPICION THAT YOU AREN'T THAT SMART, JUST SOME GUY GRASPING AT STRAWS TO ANSWER THIS ONE. IF THESE CANS WERE INDEED BENEFICIAL IN ANY WAY, OEM ENGINEERS WOULD HAVE FOUND A WAY TO INSTALL THEM A LONG TIME AGO WHERE THEY COULD BE SERVICED AT THE SAME INTERVAL AS THE REST OF THE CAR. THE FACT IS, THEY'RE NOT BENEFICIAL, THEY'RE A HOAX AND ALWAYS WILL BE.)
> 
> this is why the PCV gasses are burnt off in the motor. easy to set up, (EXACTLY, WHERE THEY ARE BURNT OFF A LITTLE AT A TIME, AND IF THEY DO CONTAMINATE THE OIL, IT'S ALL REMOVED WHEN THE OIL IS CHANGED.)


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

ManTech said:


>


honestly, your bright blue, smart ass remarks not only hold no value to myself or any other member on this forum, but also affirm my suspicious that you, sir, are an ignorant fool who wishes nothing more than to fling **** and rant about everything, just so you can be an E-thug. Your lack of logic in that whole last post really just hammered that last nail in there...

You made some good points earlier in the thread, but now your the one clutching at straws and just looking like a troll.

shoo troll, shoo.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

Krieger said:


> honestly, your bright blue, smart ass remarks not only hold no value to myself or any other member on this forum, but also affirm my suspicious that you, sir, are an ignorant fool who wishes nothing more than to fling **** and rant about everything, just so you can be an E-thug. Your lack of logic in that whole last post really just hammered that last nail in there...
> 
> You made some good points earlier in the thread, but now your the one clutching at straws and just looking like a troll.
> 
> shoo troll, shoo.


not so based on the many positive pm's I received since this all began. I would say it's you pal that needs fixin! :wave:


----------



## Old Dogg (Dec 8, 2010)

VWRedux said:


> One reason is that catch-cans cannot eliminate all the blow-by crank gases,_ *and NONE even address the EGR issue.*_ To show significant results, these cans must eliminate 75% or more of the oil and water. They must also be able to operate in all climate zones, from subfreezing to blistering heat. In other words, they need to *adapt* themselves with adjustable internal baffling, along with heating and cooling mechanisms, which NONE currently have. Until then, they're just partial fixes.


Sounds like a good garage project for you *VWRedux* . This is where Bill Gates started out. Come up with a viable CC that meets your criteria and ca$h in.

Text added after initial post: Ummmm , what happened to your post *VWRedux*?


----------



## xnox202 (May 18, 2009)

Krieger said:


> i have read the thread. prove my points wrong. look up what catch cans have always done since the day they were first invented. then look up info on FSI and TSI valve seals. educate yourself.


.


----------



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

ManTech said:


> Why then, if they're so damn good, don't we see them installed in OEM production?





ManTech said:


> are you brain dead or just stupid? :banghead:


Hey look we can use your own quotes to answer your own questions


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Hey look we can use your own quotes to answer your own questions


:laugh:


----------



## panzer 2.3 (May 24, 2008)

I've had my fair share of catch cans:
-bsh original mkv recirc can with steel wool
-bsh upgraded recirc catch can kit with mesh
-bsh vta can
-eurojet vta can 1st version
-eurojet vta can new design
-now the bsh comp recirc catch can for the tsi:









I never bought a catch can kit thinking it would help keep my intake valves clean. I simply bought it for what I thought was it's intended job helping to keep oil vapor out of the intake/intercooler tract. If you don't like them, I wouldn't buy them/


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

nice install! :thumbup: looks cool! But that's about it. eace:


----------



## aigoo (Feb 3, 2011)

panzer 2.3 said:


> I've had my fair share of catch cans:
> -bsh original mkv recirc can with steel wool
> -bsh upgraded recirc catch can kit with mesh
> -bsh vta can
> ...


i'm on the fence on whether or not a catch can is worth it, but I must admit that is a nice install. Those steel braided lines really look proper.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

^ I would read this thread very carefully, especially the double speak by Mike and others. He claims on one hand that these tanks do very little, if anything, to address the intake valve carbon issue plaguing our direct injected cars, (which is a complete contradiction to what he claims in his own vortex promotion for catch-tanks) and that everyone else here knows what they are supposed to do without specifically proving that water vapor mixed with a little oil does harm a car in the first place. So where's the beef Mike to prove that? He doesn't have any. No one has proven that these devices are truly beneficial. Buy at your own risk. eace:


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

Why do I keep reading this thread?
Somebody slap me plz


----------



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




----------



## panzer 2.3 (May 24, 2008)

[email protected] said:


>


" What did the five fingers say to the face?":laugh:


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 10, 2001)

Blowby control is an important part in maximizing the combustion efficiency of a forced induction engine. Since this has been tried and true for decades, perhaps those who say otherwise should be the ones doing the proving?


----------



## tmiw (Apr 27, 2011)

Catch cans do reduce the amount of oil that comes out of your intercooler when you go to clean it. Unfortunately, I am a bit disappointed with the lack of professionalism among the catch can manufacturers in this thread, even if bringing lawyers into it wasn't warranted. :thumbdown:

(the right solution would be to stop commenting and let your lawyers do the talking.)


----------



## Roadspike (Jun 17, 2011)

ok first off this just my two cents and I am on nobodies side. 

I noticed there is some confusion about the problem. The problem is not about the function of the catch can, the problem is that some companies advertised their catch can to do more then it really does.

Now the question really is were these statements made to be misleading and malicious in nature? The answer I find is no. I believe some of these companies may have gotten a little over excited about their product. Yes, they were most likely a little over enthusiastic about their product and what it could do. Also some (notice some) of our depoists are do to oil on the valves. So the statements are not completely out of context but maybe a little overflated. The majority of what these companies say about their catch cans, ignoring the valve deposit coments, is true though and the can removes gunk as shown. Can you really blame them? No, I can't. Did these companies maybe go a little to far and make a mistake? Yeah, but these companies make a phenomenal quality product and care about us very much. The very fact that they are posting on here shows this, most companies wouldn't even care (I.E. my bank). So I think we can forgive them and move on.
Now the second issue seems to be whether a catch can is useful. To that I have to say without a doubt. They have been used for years on many cars and do a fantastic job of removing oil from the intake system. This is very helpful in so many ways beyond the scope of my post. Don't think just water and air gets caught, trust me I pulled the intake hose to do my IC and found a lot of oil in the intake. I also found oil in the inlet to the turbo when I did my intake pipe. So no, water and fuel are diffently not the only things going through your PCV. So we find that yes, catch cans are a vital upgrade to a turbo car especially with more boost in the equation.

If your heart is set on blaming someone, blame VW. They knew about this problem for a long time.. This is a problem which has persisted through engine generations (FSI, TSI). Yet, nothing has been done by VW to address or fix the issue. I would have at least expected the TSI to have addressed the issue more firmly. In my opnion, it is poor business for a company to allow a known defect like this to persist as long as it has.


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

Roadspike said:


> ok first off this just my two cents and I am on nobodies side.
> 
> I noticed there is some confusion about the problem. The problem is not about the function of the catch can, the problem is that some companies advertised their catch can to do more then it really does.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## xnox202 (May 18, 2009)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> Why do I keep reading this thread?
> Somebody slap me plz





[email protected] said:


>


Slap me too please.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

Roadspike said:


> ok first off this just my two cents and I am on nobodies side.
> 
> I noticed there is some confusion about the problem. The problem is not about the function of the catch can, the problem is that some companies advertised their catch can to do more then it really does.
> 
> ...



This is a whole bunch of nice talkin :bs: VW is to blame? Defect you say? Okay then. :wave:


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

Wow, people are really stupid. Whoever believes that this works is a fool!


----------



## NoRegrets78 (Jul 6, 2006)

Can you show evidence that it doesn't?


----------



## dbduke (May 5, 2008)

VWRedux said:


> Wow, people are really stupid. Whoever believes that this works is a fool!


You guys should sue seafoam, too!


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

dbduke said:


> You guys should sue seafoam, too!


"You guys"? What guys? In any case I fell for the Seafoam thing back around 1977. Many years later I discovered that the whole thing's a hoax.... when I pulled my head off my scirocco and discovered that it didn't do crap. Then I rebuilt an old turbo spyder... used seafoam every 6 months for a few years... made lots of smoke... felt good that I was cleaning my intake ports and valves... then when I finally got around to pulling that head off, I discovered that it didn't do sh*t! :thumbdown: 

Now if this guy had used a probe camera (you can buy one for under $100 bucks) to view his intake valves and port chamber before and after his test, he would have discovered the same. 










Next time stick this up your manifold and take some pix... then use your beloved SeaFoam bullsh*t... then watch your time and money blow away along with the white smoke as you remove years of service off your O2 sensors and Cat, then after you're done take more pix... you'll see that you've been conned yet AGAIN... fools!


----------



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

Sound like you needed a catch can


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Sound like you needed a catch can


:laugh: Unlike most of the kids here, I'm not easily fooled by advertisers BS!

CATCH-CAN ADVERTISERS







_"Hey kid... come here man... I got what you need to take care of the carbon man... a Catch Can.... yah babe... HEY.. where you going man?....GET OVER HERE!!!!"_


----------



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

VWRedux said:


> :laugh: Unlike most of the kids here, I'm not easily fooled by advertisers BS!



Really you bought a DSG didn't you?


----------



## dbduke (May 5, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Sound like you needed a catch can


I don't think a catch can is the answer for all that pent up frustration. But there are solutions for that, as well.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

dbduke said:


> I don't think a catch can is the answer for all that pent up frustration. But there are solutions for that, as well.


yeah, its called Red Tube


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Really you bought a DSG didn't you?


Yes I did... the car was for my 16 year old son. That said, I'll buy 100 more DSG's before a Krap-Can anyday! :laugh:


----------



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

VWRedux said:


> Yes I did... the car was for my 16 year old son.


This excuse makes no sense.


----------



## maotsetung (Mar 30, 2009)

So what you guys are saying..catch cans have little or no effect to minimize carbon buildup? Hmm..been wanting avoid cleaning the intake valves personally but I guess going to have to eventually. Maybe when I hit 50K. I'll try seafoaming first at 25K. Either way though I'm still happy with my Forge catch can. It does definitely cleans the ic tract. Never had any issue of oil gunk after installing my cc. I mean I wouldnt want that nasty **** in my ic. 


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.379975,-80.748235
- thanks,
mao


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

maotsetung said:


> So what you guys are saying..catch cans have little or no effect to minimize carbon buildup? Hmm..been wanting avoid cleaning the intake valves personally but I guess going to have to eventually. Maybe when I hit 50K. I'll try seafoaming first at 25K. Either way though I'm still happy with my Forge catch can. It does definitely cleans the ic tract. Never had any issue of oil gunk after installing my cc. I mean I wouldnt want that nasty **** in my ic.
> 
> 
> ---
> ...


Seafoam doesnt do a whole helluva lot either


----------



## Ricky Bobby (Sep 29, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> This excuse makes no sense.



I think he's trying to justify the DSG as not being able to teach his son to driver a proper manual transmission. :sly:


----------



## maotsetung (Mar 30, 2009)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> Seafoam doesnt do a whole helluva lot either


That I know. I actually was reading up on it on one the threads when I first heard about it and that many who used it pointed out had little effect. I think someone also suggested using another brand (forgot the name) that it works a little better than seafoam. I just want to try it out first hand on my car before doing the valve cleaning. Though I wouldnt mind having a borescope to check it before using seafoam. 

thanks,
mao


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> This excuse makes no sense.





Ricky Bobby said:


> I think he's trying to justify the DSG as not being able to teach his son to driver a proper manual transmission. :sly:


Well I hate to say you're stupid, but you're stupid. :laugh:

For all those that must know, we bought the DSG wolfie for our son's 1st car... it almost killed us, started a DSG campaign with NHTSA, it landed on national news, caused a huge ruckus over at VAG, they started a huge MU replacement campaign... they took back the car... and we were able to negotiate an extended 10 year, 100,000 mile factory warranty for all our fellow USA and Canadian 07-09 DSG owners. (Can you match that as*hole? I didn't think so!) We bought him a MkVI GTI with 6 speed manual and will NEVER be going back to that wannabe DCT by the cheaply designed and made BorgWarner tranny known as the DSG. 

He loves and drives the piss out of his manual GTI!


----------



## Ricky Bobby (Sep 29, 2005)

VWRedux said:


> Well I hate to say you're stupid, but you're stupid. :laugh:
> 
> For all those that must know, we bought the DSG wolfie for our son's 1st car... it almost killed us, started a DSG campaign with NHTSA, it landed on national news, caused a huge ruckus over at VAG, they started a huge MU replacement campaign... they took back the car... and we were able to negotiate an extended 10 year, 100,000 mile factory warranty for all our fellow USA and Canadian 07-09 DSG owners. (Can you match that as*hole? I didn't think so!) We bought him a MkVI GTI with 6 speed manual and will NEVER be going back to that wannabe DCT by the cheaply designed and made BorgWarner tranny known as the DSG.
> 
> He loves and drives the piss out of his manual GTI!




well then that is good! and I stand corrected, thank you for what you have done for the DSG owners out there and i'm glad you will never go back, as i am in the same boat and would NEVER drive DSG.

Don't get so offended that I didnt know you were the guy who got VWOA to extended warranty the DSG trannies, but glad to hear everyone's ok and your son is driving a car the proper way!


----------



## BAD SNaCKY (Jun 15, 2004)

Solution: Go to court vs. the goverment since they're the ones handing down the strict engine restrictions and mandates, which cause all this crap to happen in the first place.

:thumbup:


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

BAD SNaCKY said:


> Solution: Go to court vs. the goverment since they're the ones handing down the strict engine restrictions and mandates, which cause all this crap to happen in the first place.
> 
> :thumbup:


What? :facepalm: You cannot sue the Federal Gov. It has been tried but you would be a complete moron to bring a lawsuit on this. Besides they're not the problem. There are ways to have a clean intake system on DI engines.


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

black forest ind said:


> Black Forest Industries is proud to announce the release of our newest product line:
> 
> The Clean Catch Crankcase Oil Separator, the most advanced, *most functional *and best looking option to remove excess oil vapor from your PCV/Intake tract.
> 
> ...


_______________________________________________________________________

This is total :bs: At least they use the term "limit" in their description, so they're learning. Black Forest shows you a picture of a DI intake port full of carbon but FAILS to show you a picture of the same intake port after one of their Catch-Cans has been installed for 20K miles or more.

So here we go again, another manufacturer claiming that their Can will significantly reduce the carbon issues in your intake ports on your DI Volkswagen engine. So where's the proof? There is NONE! These guys are all pulling your legs and draining your wallets because none of you are man enough to ask for some kind of authenticated proof! $500.00 is a lot of money for something that does very little (if anything) to help your car in this regard. You know, I think that once I’m done serving my country I’m going to start an aftermarket company selling all kinds of crap to you morons.

I’ll call it G.U.Y.M.F. Inc. for *G*ive *U*s *Y*our *M*oney *F*ools Inc. :laugh:


----------



## HalvieCuw (Mar 20, 2003)

ManTech said:


> There is NONE! These guys are all pulling your legs and draining your wallets because none of you are man enough to ask for some kind of authenticated proof!


Really...our manhood is in question...


----------



## ManTech (Oct 13, 2010)

HalvieCuw said:


> Really...our manhood is in question...


Then shut up and ask for one! Or are you gulible and stupid? eace:


----------



## HalvieCuw (Mar 20, 2003)

ManTech said:


> Then shut up and ask for one! Or are you gulible and stupid? eace:


Like I said before I don't care if they don't do anything about the build up. Don't mind paying to have them hand cleaned. As long as they keep the piping clean that is enough to get $500 out of me. 

And $500 is lol worthy once you start actually modding the car. I wish that actually was a sizable amount still.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

HalvieCuw said:


> Like I said before I don't care if they don't do anything about the build up. Don't mind paying to have them hand cleaned. As long as they keep the piping clean that is enough to get $500 out of me.
> 
> And $500 is lol worthy once you start actually modding the car. I wish that actually was a sizable amount still.


Well if he is in the service, $500 bucks is a lot of money. But as far as you not caring if these CC's do or do not help keep the intake vales clean, that's cool by me , but it pisses me off that these advertisers get away with such :bs: They need to stop making such claims if they aren't true or they cannot provide any proof whatsoever to back up their claim that it does help, even if its a little. I think that's what this whole things about!


----------



## BAD SNaCKY (Jun 15, 2004)

ManTech said:


> What? :facepalm: You cannot sue the Federal Gov. It has been tried but you would be a complete moron to bring a lawsuit on this. Besides they're not the problem. There are ways to have a clean intake system on DI engines.


Such a bold and ludicrous statement was surely meant to be seen as asinine and sarcastic, if not sadistic. I'm sorry you took it so seriously.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

BAD SNaCKY said:


> Such a bold and ludicrous statement was surely meant to be seen as asinine and sarcastic, if not sadistic. I'm sorry you took it so seriously.


Forget that.... I'd like to know what he meant by... _"There are ways to have a clean intake system on DI engines..."_ :what: How mantech?


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

A claim like this one by BFI. I agree it is bull**** and admit I was duped when I was new to th scene. 
http://blackforestindustries.com/blog/2011/08/04/clean-catch-crankcase-oil-separator/


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

steelcurtain said:


> A claim like this one by BFI. I agree it is bull**** and admit I was duped when I was new to th scene.
> http://blackforestindustries.com/blog/2011/08/04/clean-catch-crankcase-oil-separator/


You know, they must think we're all a bunch of jerk offs... Unless they step to the plate and provide some kind of evidence that their tanks do something other than fill up with oily yellow piss water, proof that they at least increase the life of the intercooler, or reduce carbon build-up in the ports by even 15% (even that percentage is too much) they can make these tanks out of solid titanium, it won't matter. 

BlackForest at least makes a good solid looking product... well made... lots of thought to aesthetics and all but I'm sorry to say that unless we see some proof that these Cans do indeed increase the life of the intercooler and significantly reduce the carbon within the ports, they'll have NOTHING but a very expensive black painted POS.


----------



## tmiw (Apr 27, 2011)

VWRedux said:


> at least increase the life of the intercooler


I thought people chimed in earlier in the thread with at least anecdotal evidence of this.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

tmiw said:


> I thought people chimed in earlier in the thread with at least anecdotal evidence of this.


Correct, they did, but as you well know, anecdotal evidence by definition really doesn't prove a thing.


----------



## tmiw (Apr 27, 2011)

BsickPassat said:


> EGR plays a big role in it.
> 
> I know this from back when I had my MKIV TDI, where we have that issue, which VW won't acknowledge. Dialing back on the duty cycle or eliminating it completely basically makes the intake clogging a non-issue.


Isn't this a setting in VCDS/VagCom somewhere? Maybe there's something similar for the TSI.


----------



## saved_one (Nov 24, 2011)

*No catch can for me.....*

I was looking into getting one of these so called "Catch Cans", so I did some reading here in this thread, and now I agree with VW Redux that there is not enough hard evidence to justify buying one. I also want to thank you sir for your efforts with the NHTSA and us now having the extended warranty to 100,000 miles, and the replacement of our Mechatronic units.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

VWRedux I have read most of your posts in this thread and I commend you :thumbup:
Catch cans like light weight pulley's and other marketing gimics are used by vendors to create a 100+% profit product in the market. They are cheap to manufacture , the basic logic extends from 1960 domestics and it gets the job done (i.e. customers buying products).

*Unfortunately no catch can on the market will EVER eliminate carbon build up on the intake valves ....EVER and that is a fact. *
Here is one other FACT : Unless FUEL is washing down the valves then you will never have total elimination of carbon build up hence why the MKVII / B9 Audi A4 1.8 TSI will come with both direct injection and normal fuel injection. I have found that running a catch can w/ water methanol injection helps with the carbon build up but the reality is unless you plan on removing your intake manifold once a year or however long it takes to cover 30,000 km's then consider yourself unlucky in the carbon build up department.


----------



## HalvieCuw (Mar 20, 2003)

Issam Abed said:


> *Unfortunately no catch can on the market will EVER eliminate carbon build up on the intake valves ....EVER and that is a fact. *
> Here is one other FACT : Unless FUEL is washing down the valves then you will never have total elimination of carbon build up hence why the MKVII / B9 Audi A4 1.8 TSI will come with both direct injection and normal fuel injection. I have found that running a catch can w/ water methanol injection helps with the carbon build up but the reality is unless you plan on removing your intake manifold once a year or however long it takes to cover 30,000 km's then consider yourself unlucky in the carbon build up department.


Important to realize that even if catch cans aren't doing anything for the valves they ARE going to keep your piping oil free. 

Without a catch can my piping/fmic always had a lot of oil build up. Didn't matter if it was k03,k04, gt28,gt30, apr fmic, ej fmic, with or without top \ tb pipe. Always a lot of oil. Would it be nice if they would keep the valves spotless...obviously...but I can easily justify a couple hundred bucks to just keep my fmic oil free.


----------



## ryan mills (May 3, 2002)

*FV-QR*

Valve seal leakage is the main reason for the buildup on the valves. There is nothing you can do about it. As Synthetic oils get better, the buildup problem will get better. Catch cans help, but PCV fumes are not the main cause of the valve deposits.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

ryan mills said:


> Valve seal leakage is the main reason for the buildup on the valves. There is nothing you can do about it. As Synthetic oils get better, the buildup problem will get better. Catch cans help, but PCV fumes are not the main cause of the valve deposits.


This is a myth that was busted years. We replaced OEM VW valve seals with units from a 3rd party performance valve seal manufacturer and still noted oil deposits. Not having a fuel "washing" down the valves is the main cause of carbon build up. Think about it for a minute. 


HalvieCuw said:


> Important to realize that even if catch cans aren't doing anything for the valves they ARE going to keep your piping oil free.


Yes that is how they should be promoted. Catch cans have ALWAYS kept the air tract somewhat clean of oil but it is not a 100% system which people need to undertsand.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

Issam Abed said:


> VWRedux I have read most of your posts in this thread and I commend you :thumbup:
> Catch cans like light weight pulley's and other marketing gimics are used by vendors to create a 100+% profit product in the market. They are cheap to manufacture , the basic logic extends from 1960 domestics and it gets the job done (i.e. customers buying products).
> 
> *Unfortunately no catch can on the market will EVER eliminate carbon build up on the intake valves ....EVER and that is a fact. *
> Here is one other FACT : Unless FUEL is washing down the valves then you will never have total elimination of carbon build up hence why the MKVII / B9 Audi A4 1.8 TSI will come with both direct injection and normal fuel injection. I have found that running a catch can w/ water methanol injection helps with the carbon build up but the reality is unless you plan on removing your intake manifold once a year or however long it takes to cover 30,000 km's then consider yourself unlucky in the carbon build up department.



Thanks :thumbup::beer: You have renewed my faith in the human race! eace:


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

They may not eliminate carbon buildup, but they are still beneficial *for our motors*.
Just gotta remember that


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> They may not eliminate carbon buildup, but they are still beneficial.
> Just gotta remember that


Who is actually benefiting from catch-cans depends on what side of the coin you're looking at!


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

**previous post FIXED

le sigh


----------



## GTIBOT2.0 (May 3, 2011)

OP you have valid points in all degree of the subject.

I purchased a CC because of the advertised...keep the gunk out of your intake valve bit. and i fell for the oldest trick in the book.

i've done my fair share of filling a stupid water bottle. but if my intake still looks like the OP's after 20-30k then why advertise a CC will keep less of your intake or any at all.

sigh...wasted my money on this crap
http://store.blackforestindustries.com/bficcacroils1.html


----------



## lour32 (Nov 15, 2004)

Catch cans do help very little. A real oil separator (catch can) is what everybody needs "hence" *Provent 200*. This is what a true oil separator is! Watch out in the coming weeks a nice kit on the market using the Provent 200 setup for both FSI and TSI based cars.


----------



## ryan mills (May 3, 2002)

Issam Abed said:


> This is a myth that was busted years. We replaced OEM VW valve seals with units from a 3rd party performance valve seal manufacturer and still noted oil deposits. Not having a fuel "washing" down the valves is the main cause of carbon build up. Think about it for a minute.
> 
> Yes that is how they should be promoted. Catch cans have ALWAYS kept the air tract somewhat clean of oil but it is not a 100% system which people need to undertsand.


Alright, so I thought about it, and I can't see how you can get a perfect seal from the valve seals. They leak, always will, that it their design. Sure, the fuel isn't washing the valves off, but what is getting washed from the valves? What about people with catch cans since day one that still have carbon buildup? how does that happen? Now, I would love to see a seal that can handle thousands of strokes per minute for millions of cycles without any leakage, but I don't see how that is possible.


----------



## tmiw (Apr 27, 2011)

ryan mills said:


> Alright, so I thought about it, and I can't see how you can get a perfect seal from the valve seals. They leak, always will, that it their design. Sure, the fuel isn't washing the valves off, but what is getting washed from the valves? What about people with catch cans since day one that still have carbon buildup? how does that happen? Now, I would love to see a seal that can handle thousands of strokes per minute for millions of cycles without any leakage, but I don't see how that is possible.


No, but the car has less carbon buildup if you drive mostly highway (IIRC). I bet a lot of people with serious carbon problems drove mostly short trips at low speeds.


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

probably has something to do with seals expanding when hot, and valves getting heated when moving at highway speeds.

I really want to come up with a way to have a tiny spray of WM come on above a certain RPM or air flow rate or something. Just something to keep stuff clean and super chilly.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

ryan mills said:


> Alright, so I thought about it, and I can't see how you can get a perfect seal from the valve seals. They leak, always will, that it their design. Sure, the fuel isn't washing the valves off, but what is getting washed from the valves? What about people with catch cans since day one that still have carbon buildup? *how does that happen?* Now, I would love to see a seal that can handle thousands of strokes per minute for millions of cycles without any leakage, but I don't see how that is possible.


Because fuel is not washing down the valves. As simplistic as this sounds that is how Direct Injection engines work....common problem with EVERY direct injected motor around the globe. The only manufacture that has solved the issue is Toyota with both direct injection and rail injection which you will see in the MKVII GTI 1.8 TSI motor.
Using your analogy then your crankshaft seal and camshaft seals should also be leaking oil into the timing belt and flywheel. 
:thumbup:


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

Issam Abed said:


> Because fuel is not washing down the valves. As simplistic as this sounds that is how Direct Injection engines work....common problem with EVERY direct injected motor around the globe. The only manufacture that has solved the issue is Toyota with both direct injection and rail injection which you will see in the MKVII GTI 1.8 TSI motor.
> Using your analogy then your crankshaft seal and camshaft seals should also be leaking oil into the timing belt and flywheel.
> :thumbup:


:thumbup:


----------



## ryan mills (May 3, 2002)

two different types of seals doing two different things. The crankshaft is spinning, not thrusting in and out thousands of times a minute, unless you have a Mitsubishi 4g63


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

ryan mills said:


> two different types of seals doing two different things. The crankshaft is spinning, not thrusting in and out thousands of times a minute, unless you have a Mitsubishi 4g63


Both performing the same function....to seal.
I do not mean to be rude but you are arguing a mute point here.:thumbup:


----------



## ryan mills (May 3, 2002)

Issam Abed said:


> Both performing the same function....to seal.
> I do not mean to be rude but you are arguing a mute point here.:thumbup:


Yeah, what ever. You win. *moot point. :beer:

Here, read this. I guess Volkswagen doesn't have a clue either. 

http://www.google.com/patents?id=fL...q=valve+coating+carbon+VW#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

ryan mills said:


> Valve seal leakage is the main reason for the buildup on the valves. There is nothing you can do about it. As Synthetic oils get better, the buildup problem will get better. Catch cans help, but PCV fumes are not the main cause of the valve deposits.





ryan mills said:


> Alright, so I thought about it, and I can't see how you can get a perfect seal from the valve seals. They leak, always will, that it their design. Sure, the fuel isn't washing the valves off, but what is getting washed from the valves? What about people with catch cans since day one that still have carbon buildup? how does that happen? Now, I would love to see a seal that can handle thousands of strokes per minute for millions of cycles without any leakage, but I don't see how that is possible.


Actually this is almost fully correct. Valve stem seals, no matter the application, will allow some oil to pass through sooner or later. It helps to lube the stem and any build-up on the valve would be washed off in a conventional port injected system, but never in a DI engine. VAG's redesign of the intake valve has proven to be a failure, and that's why they have decided to abandon the idea and have now resorted to a dual injector system seen in the EA888 engine design. 

Furthermore Syn oils do cake-up and burn just like organic based oils do but flake easier at extreme temperatures and in the right conditions. So any oil that finds it way onto an exhaust valve let's say, should burn off theoretically. Unfortunately Syn oils will not improve enough in our lifetime to to point that our concerns over carbon build-up would be minimized, and certainly not in time to help the DI cars we drive now.



tmiw said:


> No, but the car has less carbon buildup if you drive mostly highway (IIRC). I bet a lot of people with serious carbon problems drove mostly short trips at low speeds.


This may be true for conventional multipoint or port injected engines, (where the intake valves are continuously cleaned with detergent fuel) but not in a direct injected engines that utilize only one injector inside the combustion chamber. In fact, you could drive a DI engine car all around the world at highway speeds and the result would be disappointing. Massive carbon build-up on the intake valves would be the result... not less.



Krieger said:


> probably has something to do with seals expanding when hot, and valves getting heated when moving at highway speeds.
> 
> I really want to come up with a way to have a tiny spray of WM come on above a certain RPM or air flow rate or something. Just something to keep stuff clean and super chilly.


Yes, engine environments are hell. Sodium (and other) filled valves can help reduce heat and wear, but these are mostly reserved for the exhaust valves that usually run at four times the temperature.



ryan mills said:


> Yeah, what ever. You win. *moot point. :beer:
> 
> Here, read this. I guess Volkswagen doesn't have a clue either.
> 
> http://www.google.com/patents?id=fL...q=valve+coating+carbon+VW#v=onepage&q&f=false


Yup, like I said, this design has proven to be a failure.... and they know it.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

ryan mills said:


> Yeah, what ever. You win. *moot point. :beer:
> 
> Here, read this. I guess Volkswagen doesn't have a clue either.
> 
> http://www.google.com/patents?id=fL...q=valve+coating+carbon+VW#v=onepage&q&f=false



I am not sure you understand anything in the Patent you just posted? There is not a single blurb about carbon deposits due to oil seeping past the intake valves. Says it right there @ in the middle of page 14:



US6866031 said:


> Carbon deposits form especially in the neck region of the intake valves. A more exact analysis of how these carbon deposits form leads to the following results :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The partitation plate they describe in the patent is the intake flapper motor , not the valve stem seal.You can continue to believe what you wish or you can educate yourself on the BASIC function of direct injection motors. Again read this.


Issam Abed said:


> Not having a fuel "washing" down the valves is the main cause of carbon build up.


There is a MAJOR reason why the 1.8 TSI motor coming in the MKVII GTI will have both direct injection and some form of rail injection to BATTLE the carbon build up.


----------



## ryan mills (May 3, 2002)

*FV-QR*

Yes, the two forms of fuel injection. The argument that I was making was that catch cans don't do much when there are many other factors to consider. If you read the patent info, valve seal leakage is noted to be an issue, and can be combated with lower ash oils, coatings on the back sides of the valves as well as running the the valves at either an extremely high temp, or low temp. Combustion and injector timing are another way to control carbon buildup along with a bunch of other band-aids. Direct injection just has it cards stacked against it right now, and I'm happy there are going to be new injection methods to keep deposits down, but it just sucks for millions of people that have to deal with carbon buildup.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

ryan mills said:


> The argument that I was making was that catch cans don't do much when there are many other factors to consider.


No one argued that to begin with. Read my first post in this thread which addresses this.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

ryan mills said:


> I'm happy there are going to be new injection methods to keep deposits down, but it just sucks for millions of people that have to deal with carbon buildup.


Yes indeed.... looks like it will be introduced in next years Audi TT! Once this technologically advanced engine make it throughout the VAG lineup, there will be no need for the Catch-Can scam to continue... unless they make you think that morning warm-up condensation ruins engines too, that is... :laugh:

The dual injected VAG EA888 1.8T... :thumbup::beer::thumbup:


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

VWRedux said:


> Yes indeed.... looks like it will be introduced in next years Audi TT! Once this technologically advanced engine make it throughout the VAG lineup, there will be no need for the Catch-Can scam to continue... unless they make you think that morning warm-up condensation ruins engines too, that is... :laugh:


We will just have to see what the pcv gases look like.
I bet that the PCV gases will still be dirty enough to warrant running a CC to keep the intake tract from being coated with an oil film.

This is just my speculation though.
Feel free to question/bash my futuristic prediction.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

I think this thread is interesting for those still hoping that their $500+ investment wasn't a waste. The owner of a Direct Injected VW/Audi took pictures of the carbon all over his intake valves at 50,000 miles. He then cleaned them off and installed a Catch-Can. After 38,000 additional miles, he took some more pictures... NO BIG DIFFERENCE! http://forums.fourtitude.com/showth...tch-Can-(Atmo)-Comparison-Pictures-Discussion


Bottom line--- Catch-Cans are for suckers and Direct Injected Engines are no sweet angels! :thumbdown:

To answer the post above, the new EA888 will not suffer from these issues regardless of the EGR gases because the valves will be continually cleaned off by the detergent gasoline spray of the port located injectors!


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

sweet deal, you reposted more information.

pop off your coupler to your IC and checkout the PCV goo you have built up in there.
$10 says mine is cleaner than somebody that doesnt use a CC :snowcool:


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> sweet deal, you reposted more information.
> 
> pop off your coupler to your IC and checkout the PCV goo you have built up in there.
> $10 says mine is cleaner than somebody that doesnt use a CC :snowcool:


Sure... if you say so! :facepalm:


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

VWRedux said:


> Sure... if you say so! :facepalm:


then do it. Mine has been SPOTLESS since i installed my can many tens of thousands of miles ago. :sly:

If your so sure of yourself, pull your stuff apart (takes a few minutes unless you have no idea wtf ur doing) and prove it that your IC hosing and DV are as clean as someone with a catch can.

I have taken apart FSI motors with all kinds of mods, and the plain old truth is that they ALL have carbon on the intake valves, but the ones without cans or dump tubes for the PCV system are ALWAYS much dirtier, have oil pooled in their DV, in their IC piping, their intercooler, and a thick goo that clings to the silicone hoses themselves... First time I ever pulled my IC hoses and DV to do maintenance, I filled a plastic cup almost a third of the way full with oil drained from the DV and hosing... now, when i do the same thing... nothing. Can even wipe the walls of the piping with a rag and it is still spotless.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

VWRedux said:


> Sure... if you say so! :facepalm:


 LoL FAIL

Just think, all this yummy goo is being pumped in to your turbo, piping, and IC.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> LoL FAIL
> 
> Just think, all this yummy goo is being pumped in to your turbo, piping, and IC.


Yea, like that's real proof :facepalm:.... however the last time I looked, mine was clean and dandy! 

That said, keep your Trash-Can, who cares :laugh:... it's your loss because it does NOTHING to help eliminate or even reduce the bigger carbon issue... N....O...T....H....I....N....G !


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

what more proof would you like than nasty pcv fluid running through the lines to my catch can?

If it wasn't being VTA it would be directed through your turbo, discharge pipe, IC, TB pipe, TB, Intake Manifold, then your engine....

You are so set against catch cans you arent listening to any friggin logic.
You dont make a damn bit of sense anymore.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> what more proof would you like than nasty pcv fluid running through the lines to my catch can?
> 
> If it wasn't being VTA it would be directed through your turbo, discharge pipe, IC, TB pipe, TB, Intake Manifold, then your engine....
> 
> ...


I hope you know the sludge that you see is only there because the water vapor can't separate from the oil in your catch can. In the OEM PCV system, the water vapor separates from the oil and the vapors get burned up in the combustion chamber. 

I've NEVER ever seen any pcv sludge that you claim exists in the intercooler or turbo tract. Just a light film of oil sometimes, that's it.

Dave


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

ill have to look for my pics. filled a cup 1/3 of the way full between my dv and IC piping.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

crew219 said:


> I hope you know the sludge that you see is only there because the water vapor can't separate from the oil in your catch can. In the OEM PCV system, the water vapor separates from the oil and the vapors get burned up in the combustion chamber.
> 
> I've NEVER ever seen any pcv sludge that you claim exists in the intercooler or turbo tract. Just a light film of oil sometimes, that's it.
> 
> Dave


 The pic I posted above is from the coupler that joins from the "rear" pcv line to the added line that goes to the VTA CC. This is the gunk FROM THE LINES, there is about 2 feet of hose between the coupler I pictured above and the VTA CC .
The whole point is to keep the pcv gases from having to be burned in the combustion chamber.


----------



## Max-e-Mouse (Oct 26, 2008)

I read the first 2 pages and got bored and skipped to the end. 

I am on OP's side as far as "catch can does....nothing for carbon deposit reduction" 

Could it be that the baileys solution that the catchcan does catch helps to lubricate parts of the turbo that are not connected to oil lines. And when the water evaporates I know it is similar to water injection and effectively increases octane? No need to bash, im just trying to helping with constructive criticism.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

Max-e-Mouse said:


> I read the first 2 pages and got bored and skipped to the end.
> 
> I am on OP's side as far as "catch can does....nothing for carbon deposit reduction"
> 
> Could it be that the baileys solution that the catchcan does catch helps to lubricate parts of the turbo that are not connected to oil lines. And when the water evaporates I know it is similar to water injection and effectively increases octane? No need to bash, im just trying to helping with constructive criticism.


 Been absent awhile... Despite the arguments, there has NEVER been any indisputable evidence provided by the CC advertisers here on Vortex that Catch-Cans eliminate or even reduce carbon build-up on your DI intake valves.... NONE WHAT-SO EVER! We on the other hand have posted evidence that contradicts their advertised claims. (See post #60) In fact, the so-called benefits that catch cans provide can also be refuted. Condensation during initial start-up is ALL these cans really catch, mixed with traces of oil. After operating temperatures are reached, water vapour levels are too minimal. Yes VW has a new dual injection system that will help reduce if not eliminate the intake carbon issues and should improve the venting/PCV systems of their engines, (actually they have in the next EA888 generations... this is posted above) which will render these useless cans obsolete.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

oh hai
71k miles
VTA CC
w/m

Cylinder 1








Cylinder 2








Cylinder 3








Cylinder 4










Friend with a FSI motor helped me this weekend, he just about **** himself when he saw how clean my valves were.


----------



## steelcurtain (Mar 26, 2008)

Ea888 powa. Looks good. Nice and white like mine. Your stems look better too.


----------



## NoRegrets78 (Jul 6, 2006)

The water meth setup has a lot more to do with your valves being that clean than your can me thinks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

thats pretty much what mine looked like when we pulled my mani a while back to fix my oil cooler. a light dusting of carbon all over, except mine had a tiny bit of oil on my valve stems. even with just VTA, your probably cutting down on a ton of build up... meth is just icing on the cake.


----------

