Revisiting the importance of proper crankcase evacuation.

Superchargers, Turbochargers, Intercoolers
User avatar
Running 12s
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:29 pm
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:54 pm
Nut, this is partially for you as you have recently changed your system for the better, and also, for the past 3-4 years I have preached this, and along with the eventual bearing failures on the IPF systems (and no KM, the IPF system has NOT shown to be the most reliable as most have had these issues as I argued on these forums in the past would, and they still defeat the crankcase evac system can result in the long term wear and damage to internal engine parts, and Sycraft has had this explained to him in great detail over the past 2 years as well from me is why he finally understands it). Look back at all the threads I have posted here and on the c5 site that have been ignored or deleted while I went over all this in great detail, but now that many are seeing the water issue, and some have experienced engine failure, I am open to guide you to do it ALL correctly to avoid issues/damage in the future.

I saw the first broken pistons fall of 2012, and have seen more and more. The PCV system is CRITICAL to your engine living, and defeating it will only cause problems down the road. Water ingestion in "gulps" will at the very least damage a hot catalytic converter and cause it's failure (look at the pictures of damaged units), cause simple misfires, or break a piston and/or bend rods.

So, the first part here is generic to GM engines:

First off, the LS3 style valley cover was designed (first revision form GM was the LS6 in 2001/2002) to slow the oil ingestion by restricting the CFM of flow. This was fine for non-built passenger applications, but it did two negative things. One, it leaves the entire driverside valvetrain bank stagnant and sulfuric acid etches the metal (visible by looking at the underside of a used valve cover and comparing with the passenger side) attacking the rocker arm needle bearings and race, and valve springs, and two, it is not sufficient when doing a stroker or FI build to allow the added blow-by to be evacuated and results in excess crankcase pressure. So we either cap it and use the barb on the rear of the drivers side valve cover (if a late model version it has a fixed orifice restriction in it as well that needs to be drilled to 1/8" drill size to allow sufficient CFM of flow), or "T" it to the rear of the drivers side valve cover so it will give a complete cross flow evacuation of the entire crankcase. Do a Google search on the new LT1 DI GM engines to see how they have come up with their best-to-date oil control system integrated into the drivers side valve cover.

You want filtered, fresh, MAF metered (unless a SD tune, then the MAF metered is not needed) entering the passenger side bank, traveling around the rocker arms, down the push-rod valley, through the main portion of the crankcase (all the time pulling and flushing out the damaging combustion byproduct compounds with it), up the drivers side valve cover, past the rocker arms, and out the rear of the drivers side valve cover. Keep in mind a good valve cover baffle is needed and some after market valve cover have none!).

So, for your application I would strongly recommend our Monster Can to properly provide for an engine the size of yours and when you go FI it is mandatory. The RX Monster can is the ONLY system that provides for proper crankcase evac during both boost and non-boost operation while stopping the oil ingestion, short of a belt driven vacuum pump.

It is $399 and also would recommend the RX 1LE style cleanside separator to prevent any reversion oil ingestion when at WOT (see attached PDF) for $99. S&H for all is $15 in the US.

So, when in normal operation, the RX Monster can will pull/evacuate the crankcase from the rear of the drivers valve cover to the center fitting of the RX can. It uses the intake manifold vacuum when in non WOT operation to ensure an even, proper evacuation. This is through the primary outlet checkvalve. When you transition to WOT, intake manifold vacuum drops to zero, and the secondary outlet checkvalve then opens and uses the suction from 2-3" upstream of the TB to provide evacuation. No other system does this. If this was a turbo application, the primary valve would sense the transition into boost and close, preventing the boost from pressurizing the crankcase, and the secondary valve would open using the inlet side of the turbo for suction, so it is always providing evac and allowing no pressure from boost into the crankcase (aside from the always present blow-by escaping past the rings/piston/cylinder wall seal).

Then, the cleanside, which stock uses a line from the inner front of the passenger side valve cover to either the TB vent, or direct to the intake air tube between the TB and the MAF, we use the RX 1LE style billet cleanside separator to allow this metered fresh air in, and it's baffle and coalescing media trap any oil carried with crankcase pressure during WOT that would be seeking the path of least resistance into the main intake tube upstream of the TB.

Let me know if you followed all of this (no current catchcan manufacturers and most shops under stand is not taught anywhere anymore, and most misunderstand all the functions of the PCV system) as most info on the internet is incomplete, misleading, or outright damaging to the engines life.

And further, on the how this applies to the LLT & LFX engines and what happens that we see with the way IPF and others do this. Again, this is generic in general, but can be applied to issues many are seeing out there.

The LLT & LFX engines have clean. filtered, MAF measured air entering the rear of the drivers side cam cover. The foul, or dirty vapors are drawn out the rear of the passenger side valve cover using the intake manifold vacuum from the center top of the intake manifold. This pulls that filtered fresh air in the drivers side cam/valve cover, past the valvetrain, down into the crankcase, through the engine, all the whill flushing and removing these damaging compounds while still suspended up the passengerr side, past the valvetrain there, and out the PCV barb in the rear of the passenger side cam cover. 2 issues when modding these engines, even running a stock one hard is the PCV barb's fixed orifice is to small to allow the proper CFM of flow needed to deal with the added blow-by of FI, so it needs to be removed and drilled to 5/64". Then, if FI form either turbo or centri blower added, there will be pressure entering the crankcase when in boost. A simple oneway checkvalve only allowing flow to the IM will prevent this, but when in boost, the crankcase still needs to be evacuated, so using a dual valve/outlet can like the RX or new Elite E2 can, will solve this. The primary outlet of the oil separating can needs a checkvalve and will provide evacuation while in non boost mode where the intake manifold vacuum can provide this, but when in boost, you must use another suction/vacuum source, and this also needs a oneway checkvalve and the inlet side of the turbo or centri head unit will provide this suction as long ass you are tapping into it withing 1-2" or so from the inlet. The further you move toward the air filter, the less suction is available until you reach a point there is zero measurable vacuum. So, I see some starting to address this that have IPF systems, but they are not dealing with the proper amount of vacuum needed under boost, and be aware that your tune will change with allowing the engine to agin use intake monifold vacuum to evacuate (see this in your short term fuel trims).

Part of the blow-by present in all engines, are the compounds that are part of the combustion process. These are Sulfuric acid, abrasive carbon particles, unburnt fuel, and water vapor (as well as other damaging hydrocarbons, etc., but these are the main ones). These must be constantly evacuated, or removed from the crankcase while still in a suspended or gaseous state. If they are not, then when the engine cools upon shut-down, these will condense and drop into the engine oil and coat intern engine parts resulting in greatly reduced engine life.

Start with the Sulfuric acid. This, when it reaches a certain PPM of accumulation will begin to attack all metal parts in the engine as well as valve seals and other engine seals. This can usually be seen by looking at the under side of a valve/cam cover if it is aluminum and see the discoloration of the metal. Digging further, the cam and crank journals and bearings will show pitting, and "etching" (worm tracks some refer to this as) on the bearing surfaces as it attacks the metal alloy of the bearing. Then the carbon particles. The larger ones are trapped by most oil filters, but the smaller ones in micron size pass through most filter media and are constantly accumulating and wearing the internal parts. Anything that rotates or moves metal-to metal will have accelerated wear as carbon is extremely abrasive.

Then on the unburnt fuel. This dilutes and contaminates the engine oil reducing it's ability to protect. Water does this as well as causes corrosion of any internal metal part steel, iron, or alloy.

So, any time that the constant evacuation of these compounds is defeated or interrupted, the result (which most never think of as crankcase pressure is the only obvious function most think of) is a greatly accelerated wear issue.

So we also see many times those that don't understand the function of the OEM PCV system will either vent to the atmosphere, or mix the clean (fresh) and dirty (foul) sides of the system together and either vent to the air, or to the main intake air intake. When routed to the main air intake from a can, water vapor and unburnt fuel will collect rapidly in cold weather as steam condensing that is carried with the crankcase pressure, and if/when this water mixture reaches a point that it can "burp" into the line to the intake, it can be ingested as an amount to great to compress in the combustion chamber resulting in either a broken piston face (lower ring-lands), or bent/pretzelled rods. Hydro-lock as it is more commonly known. We see it far to often when a PCV system is deleted, and the clean & dirty sides are combined and vented to the air intake.

The other issue we see is running open hoses from a valve/cam cover to near the ground as a draft system. This will at times allow dirt, water, and dust, etc. to enter the crankcase during any vacuum present periods of operation also greatly shortening engine life. Think back to the 40's-50's and the old draft tube crankcase vent systems and engines lasting 20-30k miles before needing rebuilds. A good part of the short engine life also came from the inferior oils of that day and production not being nearly as good as today, but the engine life was tripled and more with just the PCV systems of the 60's.

So. re-inventing the wheel is not needed when adapting a PCV system for FI, only understanding how it all works.

Hope this helps and lets have some nice dialog with Q&A and keep this civil. I have posted this countless times on the c5 site and this one as well as others over the past 3-4 years, and now it is time to finally do something about it? This helps me in no way, but anyone with the systems as I have for years, I can further guide you through the rest of doing this right.
User avatar
Running 12s
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:29 pm
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:34 pm
And a few pictures of the PCV orfice and what occurs after a few years with the too restrictive of orifice size.


Critical to keep the dirty side flow moving and not stagnant or obstructed.
User avatar
Running 12s
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:29 pm
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:28 pm
Some more pics and details:

Remove the PCV fixed orifice barb and drill it to 7/64" top and 5/64" ( all GM V6's now come with the revised hole size late 2013 and up) bottom and this will go away. Here is what they look like when they clog, and they dont sell them separate from the valve cover:


This prevents the crankcase from evacuating and all the damaging combustion byproducts are accumulating (along with moisture/water) in the crankcase. Pressure will drive some into the main clean-side air intake tube.

Here is a cam cover with the mod done:

And not done:

And removed to drill:

And of course what your intake valves most likely look like if not using a good catchcan:
Last edited by Bat Car on Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Running 12s
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:29 pm
PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:26 am
Here are pictures of the RX billet Cleanside separator to show how it separates the oil mist VS the GM plastic unit. The top unscrews and the coalescing media can be cleaned if desired (should never need to be, same as the catchcan but some prefer this so we designed it to come apart):

Here are pictures of all the parts in the cleanside separator:

And of course the internal design of the RX can that keeps the droplets falling from the main coalescing chamber from being pulled out the outlet fittings on others. You can see most others are 1-1.5" from the droplets and the RX can has 2 separate chambers and 5" plus to the outlets:

Cans come in most any color or polished aluminum. We make all to order, so there is always a 2-3 day lead time:


Here is a can apart to show before final welding:


And a diagram (hand drawn) of the chambers and flow through each step:

Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:15 pm
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:33 pm
Thanks Tracy, nice to have this all in one area.
User avatar
Running 12s
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:29 pm
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 12:07 pm
Bumping this back up all!!!! EVERY LLT and pre 2014 LFX need the PCV barb drill mod done....this is critical!
User avatar
Running 12s
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:29 pm
PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:08 pm
Bumping again. EVERY V6 prior to 2014 needs the drill mod done!
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 3285
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:46 pm
Location: Allendale, MI
PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:53 am

Hi my name is Travis and I have an addiction, an addiction to anything and everything dealing with v6 camaros. :wave:

****T.O.P. SNIPER****
User avatar
Running 12s
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:29 pm
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:28 am
Thanks Travis....I should post pics of what it all looks like now with all the updates:

Latest design of our Billet cleanside separator:

The bottom cap section installs just as the OEM oil fill cap does, and after installing when you need to add oil, just pull firmly and the top billet section comes out so you can add oil w/out unscrewing. Upper section uses stainless mesh coalescing media to trap the oil.

Catchcans now come with AN fittings and push lok hose for the outer fittings and a chrome plated brass 1/4 turn drain valve so draining is as easy as can be:

And of course, we still have the most effective oil separator on the market period under $1000 as this test with the popular billet catchcans shows. Remember, these cans are branded by app 30 vendors so it is the same can whether UPR or any of the other well known names. ANY of the small billet cans:

Read this CAREFULLY to see just how drastic of a difference there is between the RX system and ANY other. This was conducted by a UPR customer with UPR's support throughout, and UPR doing revisions mid test to try and improve. over 3 months and thousands of miles. WE did NOT do the test, it was all independent with UPR's even sending new designs mid test. I would like to see this posted on the other forums if anyone would:

5.0 UPR vs RX Catch Can Effectiveness Test

I’ve had a UPR catch can on my 5.0 since last summer. It catches a lot, especially in the cold months. But I’ll get right to my test. I added an RX can inline after my UPR can to see if the UPR was missing anything. And if it was allowing some to pass through, was it enough for the RX to catch anything? I don’t drive a lot of miles regularly since my F150 is not a daily driver, so my results will take some time. This thread is to document how I set it up and what I catch over time.
I installed the RX can just as the directions explained, but I routed the hoses differently. I left my UPR can right where it’s been for months, but rerouted one hose. I left the hose from the passenger side of the engine to the inlet of the UPR can. Then a new hose from UPR can outlet, routed to the inlet of the RX can. The RX outlet hose goes back to the engine. The PCV exhaust now flows from the engine, through the UPR, then through the RX, and finally back up to the engine intake.
Before installing everything for the test, I cleaned the UPR can thoroughly. The bottom of the can (inside) was covered with a thin layer of stiff sludge that I could only clean out using gas. I’m glad that was caught, along with the ounces of oil, water, etc, over the months I’ve been emptying it. But I was surprised at the outlet hose from the UPR can. It was wet with oil. Obviously some was getting through the can and back to my intake. I’ve never let the can get close to half full before emptying it. Nearly every time I’ve emptied it, there was 1/4“ or less in the bottom. I’m noting this in case someone thinks I left the UPR get overfilled and it flowed through. Nevertheless, I started this test after cleaning everything for a fresh start.
I plan to leave this setup on for a thousand miles or so, and report my findings from each can.
1st picture: UPR can as it was originally installed.
2nd: CleanUPR can.
3rd: RX can installed. The hose in the top center of the can is the inlet. The outlet hose on the right has a check valve.
4th: Engine outlet to UPR inlet on left of can. UPR outlet on right side of can routed around (smaller hose) to the RX inlet. You can also see the other smaller hose coming back up from the RX can and ending at the intake on the engine.

Report 2:

I thought I'd add a post to keep this thread alive since it is taking me awhile to get enough miles on the truck for valid results. Now that spring weather is finally arriving, I haven't been putting as many miles on it since I'm busy. But I have around 600 miles on the test set up so far. I emptied the cans recently and recorded the volumes to date. I'd like to wait until I get to 1000 miles before posting the results from the test, but I'll give some preliminary feedback.

- Emptying process - 
First the UPR. I'm used to emptying the UPR can regularly, so it's not a big deal to unscrew, guide the can out from between the hoses, pour it out, guide it back in between the hoses, get it lined up carefully (so I don't cross thread the soft aluminum) and screw it back up snug. All that takes less than a few minutes so it's rather easy.
Now the RX can. Raise the hood, hold an empty water bottle under the drain tube, open the valve, close the valve, close the hood. I kid you not, it takes no more time than it took to read those steps. I knew it would be easy to empty, but it is ridiculously easy.

_ The weather so far - 
During the first week of the test we had winter weather, with some snow. Since then we have had mild weather. Temperatures are in the 50's and 60's most days.

- What they caught so far -
I won't share the amounts yet, but I'll give some info. The UPR can has caught a 'mostly oil with a bit of water' mixture so far. The RX can (in line after the UPR) has had just the opposite. It's collected mostly water or fuel, with some oil mixed in.
I emptied the UPR first, and I would estimate it has collected the normal amount compared to what it usually does I empty it. I was pleased that my set up with 2 cans didn't seem to change the normal flow and collection I was used to seeing with just the UPR can. When I was about the turn the valve to empty the RX, I paused to a few seconds wondering if anything would come out. After all it was a new can that would need to get some oil/water coated on the inside before there would be enough to drip to the bottom (The UPR can had been in use for many months and although I cleaned the can I did not rinse off the filter material). Plus I wondered if the valve of the RX can protruded up into the can, and if it required some liquid to collect before there was enough to spill over that valve nipple and exit the can. Then I opened the valve and I had to smile when I had some liquid drain out. I thought all along that if it caught more than 10% of what the UPR was collecting, I would be surprised. It's still early in the test, and I would like to redo the test after reversing the order of the cans later, but I am surprised so far. I'm hoping to get more miles on the truck soon so I can wrap up this phase of the test.

Report 3:

1000 Miles of Testing Results

- The Weather has been warmer lately. So the test began with sub freezing temperatures, and gradually increased through the 70's and topped off in the mid 80's yesterday. I couldn't have asked for a better range of temperatures for this test.

- What they caught was astounding to me. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the UPR might miss.
The UPR stayed on track with what it has been accumulating for many months. Each time I emptied them, it had about the same amount. It's contents were mostly oil which smelled like used oil. It caught 17cc total which is just under 3 1/2 tsp.
The RX had more than the UPR each time I emptied them. It's contents were an oil/fuel/water type mix that had a much stronger odor. Not a fuel smell, but a sharper chemical smell compared to the odor of used oil. It caught a total of 67cc which is just over 13 1/2 tsp.

- Final totals:
UPR - 17cc
RX - 67cc

The RX can caught 4 times the amount the UPR can caught, after the UPR can removed what it could. I said from the beginning I would be surprised if the RX can could pull 10% of what the UPR caught, since it was second in line. If someone told me it would catch an equal amount I would have said BS. For it to catch 4 times what the UPR can caught is unreal.

Report 4:

The routing of cans has been reversed so the second phase of the test is underway. I cleaned the cans and hoses so neither has an advantage. I also checked the inside of the hoses as I disassembled everything. The exit hose from the UPR was dripping with oil and it made a mess as I took it apart. The exit hose from the UPR was clean and dry. It still looked new. That is what prompted me to clean all the hoses before starting this phase. Is the double can routing helping the second can that much, or is one can that much better. Time will tell again.

Report 5:

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming…

Phase 2 is almost complete now, thanks to some extra mileage for work. I'll report on that soon and begin phase 3.

As I said above, UPR shipped parts for me to do phase 3 of the test. I bought my UPR can in June, and they changed the can slightly since then. The new diffuser/extension will only fit cans made after that, so they shipped a full new kit to test. Thank you UPR for helping with this, and for your input in this thread. 
After shipping the kit, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh from the exit side of my existing can for the remainder of phase 2, and to remove the mesh from the exit side of the new can before starting phase 3. I removed it from both (phase 2 was half way done when I removed it from the existing can). When I was removing the mesh from the short side of the new can (in preparation for phase 3), I realized the diffuser was assembled backwards. For our 5.0 F150's the long side of the diffuser must be on the passenger side of the can when installed. I disassembled, removed the mesh packed up in the can top on the exit/passenger side, and reassembled the can with diffuser. For anyone who might have received their cans assembled by UPR, you should check to see if it was assembled correctly before installing. (EDIT: Joe notes below they assemble the cans for shipping, and all cans should be assembled for your own installation needs) I also had a small piece of the stainless steel mesh (1/8") drop out when I was doing that. I wasn't thrilled with that so I unrolled, and lightly tapped the mesh in case there were any other loose pieces, but there weren't. A quick note on the UPR kit... it is much improved since I bought mine. The hoses are pre cut to the proper lengths, the elbow fittings are nickel rather than plastic, and they include Ford OEM snap on valve cover and intake fittings.

More to come soon!

Report 6:

Test Results

- I'll summarize the test to date. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR.

Phase 2 Test Results
- The Weather has been average northern Ohio spring weather. Some rain, fog, cool nights, warm and hot days.

- Driving has been about the same through both phases. I good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 40% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, with a few very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling, and no towing.

- What they caught this time might have been predicted by some (after the results of phase 1). RX was first in line, with the UPR after it to catch anything the RX might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was half of that caught in the first phase. The first phase had some cold weather which accounted for more water in the mix and the higher volume.
The contents from the RX can was mostly oil/fuel, and had a strong chemical/solvent smell again. It caught 35.5cc total which is approximately 7 1/8 tsp.
The UPR can caught about the same mix of oil/fuel, but didn't smell quite as strong. Halfway through this phase, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh on the exit side of the UPR can. I did that, but noticed no difference in what it was catching. But since it was second in line, and there was little to catch, that's understandable. The UPR can caught 1.75cc total which is approximately 1/3 tsp. With so little collecting this time, I monitored the contents of the UPR can but didn't empty it until the end of the test.

- Phase 2 Totals:
RX - 35.5cc
UPR - 1.75cc 

- Other tidbits include the 'first in line' RX can caught 95% of the total volume. The exit hoses were very clean from both cans. The last few tanks of gas have produced slightly higher than my normal MPGs, but it's too early to tell on that (more to follow after phase 3).

-Phase 3, using the UPR can extension and diffuser, is underway. Details will follow.

Final Test Results

- I'll summarize the test phases. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details on phase 1. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR. The second phase results were: RX - 35.50cc, UPR - 1.75cc. The 'first in line' RX caught 95% of the total volume. See post 143 for more details on phase 2.

Phase 3 Test Results

- This time the UPR can was first in line as in phase 1, but it had the new can extension and diffuser added. It also had the mesh material removed from the exit side of the can.

- The Weather has been average northern Ohio early summer weather. Some rain with warm and hot days.

- Driving has been a good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 60% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, some steep hill climbs, and some very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling again, and no towing. I'll add some more thoughts on driving and MPGs below. 

- What they caught was a mixed bag. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the extended UPR might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was down from the last phase, again. I assume it is due to the warmer weather and maybe my engine is using less oil with more miles? Either way, my test looks at the percent each can catches, compared to the total caught for that phase, so the volume isn't critical.
The contents from the extended UPR can was mostly oil, and had a used oil smell. The UPR caught 14.75cc which is approximately 3 tsp.
The RX can caught a fuel/water/oil mix. It smelled much more harsh again. The RX can caught 16.00cc which is approximately 3 1/4 tsp.

- Phase 3 Totals:
UPR - 14.75cc (48%)
RX - 16.00cc (52%)

- Other thoughts on the results. The contents of each phase showed me the RX does a better job of removing more than oil. It always contained more water/fuel type liquids, while the UPR contained mostly oil. I don't know if it is due to the can design, the 'out front' mounting style of the RX, or both.
For anyone buying or thinking of upgrading their UPR can, I strongly recommend figuring out how to mount it out front, and would definitely add the valve that Joe@UPR is offering. I really think the 'out front' cooling effect will help it catch even more, and the valve would be worth the price for ease of emptying it. Having the RX can to compare to when emptying, the front mount and valve are no brainers.
As I said at the end of phase 2, my MPGs have increased slightly. I have done nothing different to my truck over the past year, other than adding the RX can to the UPR for this test. My driving style is very similar from tank to tank, I fill up at the same stations, etc. But since having both cans in series, and essentially removing 95% or more of the PCV byproducts, my MPGs have increased. Up to that point my lifetime MPGs were 17.5. Nearly every tank for the past year gave me the same results, 17.5. I would have some trips that would net 20 MPG, but the other short trips would always pull it back down for the same tank average - close to 17.5. My recent tank averages have all been over 18 MPG, with a few over 19, and as high as 19.5. My last tank included hauling approximately 1000 lbs of payload, through some long hills/mountains of PA, and I got 18.8 MPG. It could be the summer fuel mix combined with an engine that is broken in, but the timing is peculiar. Whatever the reason, I like it!

Thank you Eco Tuner (Tuner Boost) and Joe@UPR for your support, feedback, and willingness to listen to open criticism and suggestions through this test. Looking back though this thread today, I realized how rare it is to get input and support from competing manufacturers, through a comparison test like this. We have all learned quite a bit, and have real data to help make decisions. Hats off to you both!
User avatar
Running 12s
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:29 pm
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2014 3:22 pm
Bumping this back up for all!!

Return to Forced Induction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest