662HP631TQ Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 So I keep reading and hearing about this oil separator. Why is this necessary, I get the gist of it, but I think for something that everyone says is critical, why didn't for include it? I had a similar question with a "Catch can" on my turbo car. IF this is such a vital piece that protects the car, why didn't Ford include it. That is a semi rhetorical question. No one can answer an actual "Why" but there must be a guess. I just don't understand a necessity like this not being included at the factory. Thoughts? I don't want to modify my car at all, after a lot of thinking the past couple of months. Especially valuable, will be the opinions of those who have had the first 3 model years of GT500, because of the miles they have and longevity. I understand the concept, theory, and practice, but for those who have high mileage and have had their car a while, was this truly and really a needed item for the longevity of the engine? Thanks and excuse my ignorance please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
07SGT2899 Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 not really a longevity item. it won't make the engine last longer, just stay cleaner as long as it lasts. its kind of like changing your oil every 3000 miles even though the manual says do it every 5000 miles. it probably won't make it last longer, just stay cleaner as long as it lasts! hope this helps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IngotSilverSnake Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 So I keep reading and hearing about this oil separator. Why is this necessary, I get the gist of it, but I think for something that everyone says is critical, why didn't for include it? I had a similar question with a "Catch can" on my turbo car. IF this is such a vital piece that protects the car, why didn't Ford include it. That is a semi rhetorical question. No one can answer an actual "Why" but there must be a guess. I just don't understand a necessity like this not being included at the factory. Thoughts? I don't want to modify my car at all, after a lot of thinking the past couple of months. Especially valuable, will be the opinions of those who have had the first 3 model years of GT500, because of the miles they have and longevity. I understand the concept, theory, and practice, but for those who have high mileage and have had their car a while, was this truly and really a needed item for the longevity of the engine? Thanks and excuse my ignorance please. Great question. I wondered about this myself. Look forward to all the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJN Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 not really a longevity item. it won't make the engine last longer, just stay cleaner as long as it lasts. its kind of like changing your oil every 3000 miles even though the manual says do it every 5000 miles. it probably won't make it last longer, just stay cleaner as long as it lasts! hope this helps! That about sums it up I beleive also. I was going to say it is just like some of us that tend to run a different brand oil, there is always something you can do to improve on. Will it make it last longer, not nessecerly (sp) but for those of us that like to mod, add to or add things to improve our cars no matter looks, power, etc this is one of them things that can not hurt and has a cool factor. Not to mention a item that actually does something cause you have to empty out the blow by oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra99 Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 It does help. It stops oil from entering the intake, TB and the SC. You don't want oil in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svt13 Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Ford would have included it if it was needed. You need a little oil though for lube though. So blocking all oil out of the intakes and such is bad. Will having an oil separator REALLY make a difference probably not. But as everyone says its just a little extra percaution. I wouldn't even really count it as a mod. If you get the JLT brand it comes with the exact same hose ford uses only difference this one has a oil separator attached to it. And why don't you want to modify your car?!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra99 Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Ford would have included it if it was needed. You need a little oil though for lube though. So blocking all oil out of the intakes and such is bad. Will having an oil separator REALLY make a difference probably not. But as everyone says its just a little extra percaution. I wouldn't even really count it as a mod. If you get the JLT brand it comes with the exact same hose ford uses only difference this one has a oil separator attached to it. And why don't you want to modify your car?!!!! Really. The blades are teflon coated in the SC. Why would you need oil in the intake? and look at this amount at 1000 miles http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/2013-shelby-gt500-413/875478-why-listen-van.html. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Its not about whether the engine or aftercooler are effected by ingesting the oil blow by and how the manufacturer thinks it should be dealt with. Its about meeting emission standards and not having oil droplets hitting the ground. Don't you remember back in the 60's, 70's and early 80's the oil stripe down the center of each lane in a highway? Doesn't anybody remember being taught to be very careful during the onset of rain, because of the oil slick you're driving on? If you install a catch can on the breather system then it has to be drained at regular intervals, regardless if the outlet to the drain goes to the intake or ground. The EPA wanted it caught and disposed of, the OEM felt this was the only way to do it without adding maintenance that would get neglected and cause other problems later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svt13 Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 Its not about whether the engine or aftercooler are effected by ingesting the oil blow by and how the manufacturer thinks it should be dealt with. Its about meeting emission standards and not having oil droplets hitting the ground. Don't you remember back in the 60's, 70's and early 80's the oil stripe down the center of each lane in a highway? Doesn't anybody remember being taught to be very careful during the onset of rain, because of the oil slick you're driving on? If you install a catch can on the breather system then it has to be drained at regular intervals, regardless if the outlet to the drain goes to the intake or ground. The EPA wanted it caught and disposed of, the OEM felt this was the only way to do it without adding maintenance that would get neglected and cause other problems later. That makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svt13 Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 Really. The blades are teflon coated in the SC. Why would you need oil in the intake? and look at this amount at 1000 miles http://www.svtperfor...listen-van.html. Idk I talked to Hameedi about it at a car show though and thats what he said when I asked. Again it helps to have one but is your engine going to blow up without it? No. They built a solid engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoopy49 Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 Idk I talked to Hameedi about it at a car show though and thats what he said when I asked. Hameedi told you that the super charger needed the oil vapor from the PCV valve? If so, did he say why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
440sprint Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 Has anyone had a Bob's on long enough to determine if the two OS hoses fatigue after a while due to being stretched from the bucking engine to the relatively stationary catch-can mounted on the frame? Can Bob's be mounted like the JLT, between the PCV valve & air intake on top of pass. side coil cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 If you watch the video in this thread you will see that the engine doesn't move enough to stretch the hoses on a BOB's oil separator kit. The motor mounts aren't allowing the engine to move enough for that to be a problem. As far as mounting the Bob oil separators on top of the valve cover in the line, the Bob's can is twice the size of the JTL unit and won't fit between the hood and valve covers. http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php/topic/77091-2013-gt500-stock-engine-dyno-run/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
662HP631TQ Posted September 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 Ford would have included it if it was needed. You need a little oil though for lube though. So blocking all oil out of the intakes and such is bad. Will having an oil separator REALLY make a difference probably not. But as everyone says its just a little extra percaution. I wouldn't even really count it as a mod. If you get the JLT brand it comes with the exact same hose ford uses only difference this one has a oil separator attached to it. And why don't you want to modify your car?!!!! Maybe when the warranty is up. I discussed it with my wife, after my Caliber SRT-4 had all kinds of trouble and the dealer not doing warranty work after it was modified, we decided against any mods in the near term. I tried to quote the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act but they said we are telling you you voided your warranty, do you really want to go to court to fight this out? The chance of you losing is high, and you could have just had us repair it for that money. I actually got mad and was going to pursue it, I just couldn't because of my lack of evidence and the fact that most of the compnents may very well have had direct impacts on the car getting messed up. That is what a lot of people have wrong, while the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act offers a level of protection, it is only if it is determined by law that the car isn't in violation. The act itself won't do anything, just how the court interprets it and what you have done to the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bergenfelter Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 These actually do help keep the residue out of the intake path, and in addition keep the oil mist from settling on the internal (non combustion chamber surface) of the intake valves. When the oil settles there it turns into carbon deposits gradually over time. Is it really necessary? Probably not - for me - good for piece of mind. FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7ONE7 Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 I have had the Bob's separators on my '13 for a month now. The drivers side is almost completely dry, the passenger side however....this is about 500 miles and three weeks worth.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
440sprint Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 If you watch the video in this thread you will see that the engine doesn't move enough to stretch the hoses on a BOB's oil separator kit. The motor mounts aren't allowing the engine to move enough for that to be a problem. As far as mounting the Bob oil separators on top of the valve cover in the line, the Bob's can is twice the size of the JTL unit and won't fit between the hood and valve covers. http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php/topic/77091-2013-gt500-stock-engine-dyno-run/ Thanks, Mr. Haney! Just to leave no stone unturned, the Steeda OS mounts over the valve covers cleanly, is there any experience with it? It even has a clear bottom to monitor collected oil. Congrats on ur Dino run. Why no fans on engine for cooling during the run? Dynoing seems so violent, I may just assume my stock Trinity will dyno comparably & pass on a dyno! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky44 Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 Maybe when the warranty is up. I discussed it with my wife, after my Caliber SRT-4 had all kinds of trouble and the dealer not doing warranty work after it was modified, we decided against any mods in the near term. I tried to quote the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act but they said we are telling you you voided your warranty, do you really want to go to court to fight this out? The chance of you losing is high, and you could have just had us repair it for that money. I actually got mad and was going to pursue it, I just couldn't because of my lack of evidence and the fact that most of the compnents may very well have had direct impacts on the car getting messed up. That is what a lot of people have wrong, while the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act offers a level of protection, it is only if it is determined by law that the car isn't in violation. The act itself won't do anything, just how the court interprets it and what you have done to the car. Interesting approach from the dealer, about their pushback on Magnuson-Moss. I'm going to have to do some reading; does it really put the burden of proof on the owner to prove that the mods didn't contribute to the fault, or is the burden of proof on the dealer to prove that the mods contributed to the fault? My guess would be that they just did what any big company would do, and bluffed hoping that you'd back down, because truth be told, they don't want to go to court either, but it would be interesting to know how the law is actually written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 Interesting approach from the dealer, about their pushback on Magnuson-Moss. I'm going to have to do some reading; does it really put the burden of proof on the owner to prove that the mods didn't contribute to the fault, or is the burden of proof on the dealer to prove that the mods contributed to the fault? My guess would be that they just did what any big company would do, and bluffed hoping that you'd back down, because truth be told, they don't want to go to court either, but it would be interesting to know how the law is actually written. It states that the burden is on them to show that the mods caused the problem. However, in the real world, it doesn't matter. They can simply refuse to do the work, and you have to go up the chain of command, until your only recourse is to go to court over it. And while it's probably true that they don't want it to get that far either, I'm willing to bet that most people don't want to spend the money, or the time to actually go through the process, and they're probably betting on that also. I imagine that after all the fees are added up, unless it is a pretty major repair, it would cost as much or more than just having the thing fixed. And all that time, your car is broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svt13 Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 It states that the burden is on them to show that the mods caused the problem. However, in the real world, it doesn't matter. They can simply refuse to do the work, and you have to go up the chain of command, until your only recourse is to go to court over it. And while it's probably true that they don't want it to get that far either, I'm willing to bet that most people don't want to spend the money, or the time to actually go through the process, and they're probably betting on that also. I imagine that after all the fees are added up, unless it is a pretty major repair, it would cost as much or more than just having the thing fixed. And all that time, your car is broken. What mods did you do before? Why don't you just be smart with the mods. For example springs, LCA or UCA. If your car is a base one do shocks too or coil overs at that point. Or the watts link. All of these things won't ruin anything and there is no way it would void a warranty. Nothing is going to fail for example because you put a Roush UCA on your car. Now as far as engine mods and tunes I'm not even doing that. I'm soley doing suspension and apperance mods. The dealer can't tell me my engine blew up because I put a carbon fiber splitter on my car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svt13 Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 Hameedi told you that the super charger needed the oil vapor from the PCV valve? If so, did he say why? It was for lube and also just not needed. As someone else already stated if they put a catch can or whatever thats just one more service step for the customer to forget to do and would cause problems. Plus do you see ANY car running around with a catch can? I've never seen one on a stock car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husky44 Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 It states that the burden is on them to show that the mods caused the problem. However, in the real world, it doesn't matter. They can simply refuse to do the work, and you have to go up the chain of command, until your only recourse is to go to court over it. And while it's probably true that they don't want it to get that far either, I'm willing to bet that most people don't want to spend the money, or the time to actually go through the process, and they're probably betting on that also. I imagine that after all the fees are added up, unless it is a pretty major repair, it would cost as much or more than just having the thing fixed. And all that time, your car is broken. Guess I'm just not like "most of the people"... Hope it's never an issue, but when it comes to my money, I tend to be willing to challenge people who aren't doing right by customer service (assuming, of course, that there's a legitimate argument that the mods weren't the cause...). I work with corporate attorneys, and know how they think. They don't like to litigate, but they will try to bluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 What mods did you do before? Why don't you just be smart with the mods. I don't recall saying I had done any mods at all. Guess I'm just not like "most of the people"... Hope it's never an issue, but when it comes to my money, I tend to be willing to challenge people who aren't doing right by customer service (assuming, of course, that there's a legitimate argument that the mods weren't the cause...). I work with corporate attorneys, and know how they think. They don't like to litigate, but they will try to bluff. Maybe, but it doesn't matter to them what you would do, they're looking at the big picture. I will say I've never personally heard a dealership deny a warranty repair for a mod that didn't at least appear that it could have contrubuted to the problem. I've seen them strech a bit, like saying a catback caused a rear end to pop (their rationale was, more power=exploding rear end). But I've never heard of saying that an engine mod caused the power window motor to go, or anything like that. So while I get what you're saying, I think it's unlikely that it would get to court without them being fairly sure they had a good case, because the one thing they want to do less than go to court, is go to court and lose. I honestly can't think of a single instance I've heard of someone going to court over warranty denial. Though I'm sure it's happened. Just never heard it on any of the forums I've been part of. Side question, would you be suing Ford directly or would you go after the dealer who denied the work? I wouldn't even know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
440sprint Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 Back to the subject of this thread, check this out that I found from back in 2009: http://www.conceptualpolymer.com/PCV%20Line%20Oil%20Removal%20102.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
662HP631TQ Posted September 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 Back to the subject of this thread, check this out that I found from back in 2009: http://www.conceptua...moval%20102.pdf THAT WAS A LOT OF READING!!! SO after reading that, nothing on the market is truly effective. I am so confused anyhow. I am probably not going to buy that piece, and the most likely scenario is I am not going to regret it. I guess that is my battle to lose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IngotSilverSnake Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 Back to the subject of this thread, check this out that I found from back in 2009: http://www.conceptua...moval%20102.pdf This is one outstanding technical piece. The guy who wrote it must be a rocket scientist. I will not be putting a catch can on my car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svt13 Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 After reading all that. I don't think the JLT piece would have this problem. Maybe the bobs, but since the JLT uses the original PCV hose even if you didn't have the separator all that oil is going to the same place anyways so really it seems the JLT just intervenes to get excess. But enough oil is still going through for lubrication. It seems the biggest concerns are oil splashing out going somewhere its not suppose to go and pieces of the mesh breaking off and going into your intake. Also airflow being restricted. The JLT piece has a steel mesh and it doesn't trap all the oil and it doesn't look like it would block any airflow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svt13 Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 I don't recall saying I had done any mods at all. Maybe, but it doesn't matter to them what you would do, they're looking at the big picture. I will say I've never personally heard a dealership deny a warranty repair for a mod that didn't at least appear that it could have contrubuted to the problem. I've seen them strech a bit, like saying a catback caused a rear end to pop (their rationale was, more power=exploding rear end). But I've never heard of saying that an engine mod caused the power window motor to go, or anything like that. So while I get what you're saying, I think it's unlikely that it would get to court without them being fairly sure they had a good case, because the one thing they want to do less than go to court, is go to court and lose. I honestly can't think of a single instance I've heard of someone going to court over warranty denial. Though I'm sure it's happened. Just never heard it on any of the forums I've been part of. Side question, would you be suing Ford directly or would you go after the dealer who denied the work? I wouldn't even know. My question was directed at 662hp630tq not you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoopy49 Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 But enough oil is still going through for lubrication. What is this oil suppose to be lubricating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IngotSilverSnake Posted September 2, 2012 Report Share Posted September 2, 2012 What is this oil suppose to be lubricating? The article said the oil lubricates the PCV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.