Case for: Bob's Oil Separator 2013 Intercooler Pictures and Lower Intake manifold pics

[Revan Racing]

This is after 1,500 Miles of driving. Just the break in period.

 

These pictures are postive proof that these cars need a high quality oil separator like we offer at Revan Racing from Bob's Autosports.

 

 

 

Bob's Auto Sports "Ultimate" GT500 Oil Separator - Revan Racing, Inc.

 

 

Bob's Auto Sports GT500 Oil Separator - Revan Racing, Inc.

 

One day at Sebring with a Bob's Oil Separator

 

 

Let me know if you have any questions. Easy installation.

 

Van

[ingram4868]

You recommend the Bob's Oil Separator. There seem to be a lot of separators on the market. Are there units we should not consider? Thanks

[cobra2564]

Call me stupid, but what does an oil separator do? Also, what is in the "jar" in the "one day at Sebring" photo. Thanks.

[Revan Racing]

You recommend the Bob's Oil Separator. There seem to be a lot of separators on the market. Are there units we should not consider? Thanks

 

 

I'm not discussing other brands I'm providing proof as to what works. The Bob's Separator has performed better than any other separator I have used.

 

Call me stupid, but what does an oil separator do? Also, what is in the "jar" in the "one day at Sebring" photo. Thanks.

 

 

It removes oil from the PCV system which returns air/gas to the supercharger intercooler that contains oil.

 

The picture of "one day at Sebring" is oil captured in my passenger side oil separator during 5 time trial sessions in my 2013 GT500 at the Sebring Road Course in one day. That oil did not pass through my intercooler. 3 Days at Daytona was twice as much if not more.

[bergenfelter]

Van - already have two JLTs in series on the pass side (that's another story). I noticed when I upgraded to the CJ 65mm TB there was quite a bit of oil behind there as well - is there another PCV source behind the TB - I thought I noticed a line entering right the TB but could not trace it (maybe the power brake vac source?)

 

John.

[devious_stang]

Van - already have two JLTs in series on the pass side (that's another story). I noticed when I upgraded to the CJ 65mm TB there was quite a bit of oil behind there as well - is there another PCV source behind the TB - I thought I noticed a line entering right the TB but could not trace it (maybe the power brake vac source?)

 

John.

 

 

there is also one on the drivers side. People are finding some oil there, not as much as the passenger side. Van also sells the catch can for the drivers side. I might be getting one in the future. Already have the passenger side one and it catches plenty of oil, especially if you run the car hard.

[bergenfelter]

there is also one on the drivers side. People are finding some oil there, not as much as the passenger side. Van also sells the catch can for the drivers side. I might be getting one in the future. Already have the passenger side one and it catches plenty of oil, especially if you run the car hard.

 

 

The line was not the one that runs over the top of the engine on the drivers side over the cam/valve cover - I found it behind where the TB mounts to the S/C inlet - very near the power brake booster - on the back side of the S/C TB mounting location but could not tell where the line ran to.

[Twitch]

I put mine on at 150 miles & checked it at 450 & there was about a tablespoon of oil. Glad I installed it.

[Norton]

Ordered mine tonight. Thanks, Van!

[RickW]

The 5.8 liter motor in our cars cost about $28,750 on fordparts.com (as if they were readily available). Ford SVT spent a lot of money on developing and testing these motors. In the SVT Owner's supplement, there are recommendations for maintenance at the 150,000-mile interval, which suggests durability and longevity of the motor.

 

Given these considerations, if a $200 oil separator is so critical to the car's performance in the long-term, then why didn't SVT add it?

[89Saleen215]

If you want an interesting read on the subject you can check out this white paper by Conceptual Polymer:

http://www.conceptualpolymer.com/PCV%20Line%20Oil%20Removal%20102.pdf

[ilmor]

I'm waiting for the Shelby oil separator, personally. I think, however, these things are more like a "finishing touch" necessity that a real need...based on the fact that I've never had one on any car since 1978 and never experienced a problem.

[Squirrel 007]

I'm not discussing other brands I'm providing proof as to what works. The Bob's Separator has performed better than any other separator I have used.

 

 

 

It removes oil from the PCV system which returns air/gas to the supercharger intercooler that contains oil.

 

The picture of "one day at Sebring" is oil captured in my passenger side oil separator during 5 time trial sessions in my 2013 GT500 at the Sebring Road Course in one day. That oil did not pass through my intercooler. 3 Days at Daytona was twice as much if not more.

 

 

Well I ordered mine a few days ago from you. I am overseas so won't be able to put it on until some time in 2014. The instructions I assume are clear and concise and it should be a easy install for passenger side only. I ordered the silver catcher and hope after I wax it that it is going to keep a nice finish.

[BS Racing]

The 5.8 liter motor in our cars cost about $28,750 on fordparts.com (as if they were readily available). Ford SVT spent a lot of money on developing and testing these motors. In the SVT Owner's supplement, there are recommendations for maintenance at the 150,000-mile interval, which suggests durability and longevity of the motor.

 

Given these considerations, if a $200 oil separator is so critical to the car's performance in the long-term, then why didn't SVT add it?

 

As for the Oil seperator Ford's opinion is That gives the aftermarket manufactures an opertunity to stay in business and sell a product.

[Snoopy49]

I am sure that Ford determined that the extra oil would not be a problem during the warranty period, so why waste the money when you can sell high dollar parts to the customer when the parts fail outside of the warranty period.

[Snake Handler]

I have one on the passenger side of my GT500 and I just bought the Boss 302S catch can system to install on my Boss.

 

GT500

 

Boss 302S Catch Can System

 

[Revan Racing]

The 5.8 liter motor in our cars cost about $28,750 on fordparts.com (as if they were readily available). Ford SVT spent a lot of money on developing and testing these motors. In the SVT Owner's supplement, there are recommendations for maintenance at the 150,000-mile interval, which suggests durability and longevity of the motor.

 

Given these considerations, if a $200 oil separator is so critical to the car's performance in the long-term, then why didn't SVT add it?

 

 

Apparently Ford wasn't concerned with the long term either during testing. Thus the reason why they used these on the test mule at the Nurburgring.

 

 

[RickW]

Apparently Ford wasn't concerned with the long term either during testing. Thus the reason why they used these on the test mule at the Nurburgring.

 

 

 

 

Forgive me for playing devil's advocate. As you've pointed out, Ford did use catch cans during testing -- and yet they still chose not to add one or two of them to the finished product. If the catch cans are so critical, why would they not include them, considering it would add only $200 or so in parts cost to the base price of the car?

 

For all the investments that Ford made in the engineering, development, and technology of these very expensive motors -- investments that are baked into the cost to the consumer -- it seems to me that Ford determined that the benefit of adding the catch cans did not outweigh the relatively low cost of equipping GT500s with them.

 

As for Ford building its cars without care for what happens after the warranty period expires, let's hope that's not the case -- and I don't believe it to be true; otherwise, I would not have purchased my GT500. We've already been down that road with GM and Chrysler.

[RickW]

I am sure that Ford determined that the extra oil would not be a problem during the warranty period, so why waste the money when you can sell high dollar parts to the customer when the parts fail outside of the warranty period.

 

 

If I were sure about this, as you seem to be, I would have never bought the car in the first place.

[Revan Racing]

 

 

Forgive me for playing devil's advocate. As you've pointed out, Ford did use catch cans during testing -- and yet they still chose not to add one or two of them to the finished product. If the catch cans are so critical, why would they not include them, considering it would add only $200 or so in parts cost to the base price of the car?

 

For all the investments that Ford made in the engineering, development, and technology of these very expensive motors -- investments that are baked into the cost to the consumer -- it seems to me that Ford determined that the benefit of adding the catch cans did not outweigh the relatively low cost of equipping GT500s with them.

 

As for Ford building its cars without care for what happens after the warranty period expires, let's hope that's not the case -- and I don't believe it to be true; otherwise, I would not have purchased my GT500. We've already been down that road with GM and Chrysler.

 

Rick

 

I'm not here to argue with you or anybody as much as to show evidence and proof of oil in the PCV system passing through the intercooler which can eventually get into the combustion chamber and reduce octane over time. One poster even opined as to say he is waiting for Shelby to introduce their own separator. If Ford had added separators it would be another maintenance item for the engine.

 

Just here to share findings and evidence. Nothing is going to catch 100% of the oil return in the PCV system unless it is attached to a breather system and capped off to the return on both sides. This is simply a characteristic of these engines.

 

Van

[Obiefox]

RickW,

I'm with you 1000% on this one brother. I tried to represent a similar school of thought over on the SVT Perf board and I took my requisite beating from the converted. This strikes me of more of a religious issue than a logic or science based discussion.

 

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/2013-shelby-gt500-413/916664-get-bobs-catch-can-if-you-havent-already.html

 

 

But hey, that's cool. To each his own. Van is a great guy supporting our aftermarket and offering a fair product to market for all of us to evaluate. Thank you Van for giving us the option.

 

Kevin

[Cobra99]

I think no oil should be introduced into the intake. Yes you will not get all of the oil but if you can cut down the amout this will pay dividends in the future. There is no documents stating a failure but the pics prove that is can hinder performance. You buy these cars for the performance and don't want anything to effect them. Whats that saying 'An ounce of prevention'

[Revan Racing]

RickW,

I'm with you 1000% on this one brother. I tried to represent a similar school of thought over on the SVT Perf board and I took my requisite beating from the converted. This strikes me of more of a religious issue than a logic or science based discussion.

 

http://www.svtperfor...nt-already.html

 

 

But hey, that's cool. To each his own. Van is a great guy supporting our aftermarket and offering a fair product to market for all of us to evaluate. Thank you Van for giving us the option.

 

Kevin

 

 

Kevin

 

Let's take the approach of: I am Ford Motor Company

 

Does oil pass through the PCV system? Yes.

 

Ford Motor Company went to great lengths to design the PCV return system and components.

 

Why should Ford not install an "oil separator"

 

It requires maintenance. It requires draining by the owner and operator of the vehicle or by a Ford Qualified Technician.

 

It's not the $200 part that we're discussing. What happens if the separator isn't drained? That could be really bad if it were too fill up because nobody drained it.

 

Ford would then have to engineer a catch can system that is then wired into the PCM for multiple functions. Driver Notification of the Oil Separator reaching 50% life/full. 100% life/full and then a Fail Safe Strategy that the engine would have to go into fail safe mode until drained, serviced or replaced if the system reaches 100% capacity.

 

The $200 catch can just turned into thousands upon thousands of dollars in R&D and programming for Ford Motor Company. The PCM tells us when we have low tires, need an oil change or have another problem. Frankly, I think it is something that Ford could do. It is conceivable. It's simply a matter of total cost and what it would mean to the entire product line from Ford that uses PCV and now implementation of a PCV level monitoring system and canister.

 

Then comes the concept of life of service. What is the intended service life of the engine? 100,000 miles? Ford is also in the business of building and selling new cars to consumers. Ford doesn't build it to fail but they don't build them to run forever either, they'd like for you to return and purchase another vehicle. The same holds true for any manufacturer.

 

Enjoying the dialogue. What are your thoughts?

 

Van

[Farmer-Ted]

Why is this even a issue? If you don't want one or don't agree with it, don't use one.

 

Manufactures don't always do what "best". Example - Look at the tires on these cars. Rock hard if the temps is below 60F. Don't drive below 40F, and take them inside if below 20F. Why did they not put better tires? Who knows? Example #2 - Rearward vision is terrible. Why did not Ford put on a back up camera? Who know?

 

Point being, manufactures don't always use what is best for the car or the owners. Just cause it ain't there, doesn't mean it can't help.

[Obiefox]

Why is this even a issue? If you don't want one or don't agree with it, don't use one.

 

 

Ted,

I couldn't agree more. I personally wouldn't install one on my car if you gave me two, but I have watched the threads on these catch cans come and go for months without making a peep. The only reason I weighed in this time is that comments were made on SVT Perf stating that this was a warranty safe modification. At that point, I felt I needed to speak up. I think that is bad information and I didn't want any of our less technical brethren taking that as fact without thinking it through for themselves.

 

Take care,

Kevin

[Obiefox]

Kevin

 

Let's take the approach of: I am Ford Motor Company

 

Does oil pass through the PCV system? Yes.

 

Ford Motor Company went to great lengths to design the PCV return system and components.

 

Why should Ford not install an "oil separator"

 

It requires maintenance. It requires draining by the owner and operator of the vehicle or by a Ford Qualified Technician.

 

It's not the $200 part that we're discussing. What happens if the separator isn't drained? That could be really bad if it were too fill up because nobody drained it.

 

Ford would then have to engineer a catch can system that is then wired into the PCM for multiple functions. Driver Notification of the Oil Separator reaching 50% life/full. 100% life/full and then a Fail Safe Strategy that the engine would have to go into fail safe mode until drained, serviced or replaced if the system reaches 100% capacity.

 

The $200 catch can just turned into thousands upon thousands of dollars in R&D and programming for Ford Motor Company. The PCM tells us when we have low tires, need an oil change or have another problem. Frankly, I think it is something that Ford could do. It is conceivable. It's simply a matter of total cost and what it would mean to the entire product line from Ford that uses PCV and now implementation of a PCV level monitoring system and canister.

 

Then comes the concept of life of service. What is the intended service life of the engine? 100,000 miles? Ford is also in the business of building and selling new cars to consumers. Ford doesn't build it to fail but they don't build them to run forever either, they'd like for you to return and purchase another vehicle. The same holds true for any manufacturer.

 

Enjoying the dialogue. What are your thoughts?

 

Van

 

 

 

Van,

I hear what you are saying and I see where you are coming from. I look at it a little differently though. I personally don't think a nominal amount of oil vapor in the intake is a problem to begin with. We have been running closed loop PCV systems in cars without any problems for as long as I can remember.

 

I do agree that our cars are unique due to the intercooler system being installed within the intake tract, but I'm still not convinced that it represents a problem. Does oil vapor condense and cover our intercooler vanes with residue, yes it does. Does the residue build up over time...I personally don't think so. The air moving through is completely clean and filtered and with the temp in there, that oil isn't going to hand around and build up. Until I see a more scientific longer term study, I think with or without a catch can, all of our cars will have a similar level of intercooler residue.

 

I also think that if this were a big problem, Ford would have addressed on the $28k engine system that they placed into their halo performance vehicle.

 

This is just my educated opinion and it could certainly be absolutely wrong. You know what they say about opinions.....

 

 

 

As I said earlier, I only weighed into this discussion due to the opinion being shared on SVT Perf that this was a warranty safe mod. I disagree and I think this modification would cause you warranty issues if you went in to Ford with about any internal engine related issue. I'm not saying that the mod caused it. I'm just saying that Ford will be looking closely for any reason not to R&R a $28k motor.

 

The overview you give above is actually a great example for the discussion. What happens if the catch can fills up? It is doing exactly what it was designed to do, but now raw liquid oil is being ingested into the intake tract. That would be bad indeed. I would argue that if this were a warranty friendly mod, something like this should not be able to happen. This is just one way that this mod could cause a serious engine related failure.

 

Lets say all of the enthusiasts that buy this product diligently drain the can. One of them trades their car in next year for the 2015 twin turbo GT500 (we can dream right?). I buy the car with the balance of the warranty, but I don't realize that the car has an aftermarket oil separator installed. Consequently I don't drain the can which causes an engine problem. I take the car in to Ford. Does anyone actually think they are going to fix this under warranty? No way....

 

I apologize for the long winded example, but the point is that an oil separator mod is not like an aftermarket exhaust system. It can cause real engine problems and in my opinion, Ford will use it against us in a warranty situation.

[dh777]

Apparently Ford wasn't concerned with the long term either during testing. Thus the reason why they used these on the test mule at the Nurburgring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That looks very much like the Wilkerson Oil Coalescing filter product that I use

 

 

http://www.grainger....ng-Filter-6B261

[Cobra99]

Nope this is the one from the Home Depot performance section . I have the exact same piece on my fox

[Farmer-Ted]

NM.

[RickW]

Kevin

 

Let's take the approach of: I am Ford Motor Company

 

Does oil pass through the PCV system? Yes.

 

Ford Motor Company went to great lengths to design the PCV return system and components.

 

Why should Ford not install an "oil separator"

 

It requires maintenance. It requires draining by the owner and operator of the vehicle or by a Ford Qualified Technician.

 

It's not the $200 part that we're discussing. What happens if the separator isn't drained? That could be really bad if it were too fill up because nobody drained it.

 

Ford would then have to engineer a catch can system that is then wired into the PCM for multiple functions. Driver Notification of the Oil Separator reaching 50% life/full. 100% life/full and then a Fail Safe Strategy that the engine would have to go into fail safe mode until drained, serviced or replaced if the system reaches 100% capacity.

 

The $200 catch can just turned into thousands upon thousands of dollars in R&D and programming for Ford Motor Company. The PCM tells us when we have low tires, need an oil change or have another problem. Frankly, I think it is something that Ford could do. It is conceivable. It's simply a matter of total cost and what it would mean to the entire product line from Ford that uses PCV and now implementation of a PCV level monitoring system and canister.

 

Then comes the concept of life of service. What is the intended service life of the engine? 100,000 miles? Ford is also in the business of building and selling new cars to consumers. Ford doesn't build it to fail but they don't build them to run forever either, they'd like for you to return and purchase another vehicle. The same holds true for any manufacturer.

 

Enjoying the dialogue. What are your thoughts?

 

Van

 

 

Van,

 

Thank you for this explanation. I did not take into account the extra cost and maintenance requirements associated with the factory installing oil separators on the finished product. This explains perfectly why Ford/SVT chooses not to do it . And it answers my original question to my satisfaction.

 

Ya learn something every day. I appreciate your filling me in!

 

Rick