Photos taken during an unseasonable cold snap here in August (Georgia). Each were taken after a drive of anywhere from 10 mins to 30 mins. Ambient air temperatures are displayed, ranging from 62° to 81°.
None of the pictures were taken after running a drag strip run or thirty minutes of track...
Looking at the posted graph, it looks like maybe they got on the throttle hard above 4000 rpm, so the numbers lower are not the real output.
I would guess that a Whipple supercharged engine with a 3.5 pulley would have plenty of torque down at 3500 rpm if the throttle were mashed to the floor.
If lack of a catch can really causes a carbon build up on the back of the intake valves, then we could just install breathers on the valve covers like everybody did back in the 60s, 70s, 80s and into the 90s on our older cars to relieve the pressure and let condensation go to the atmosphere...
Do they also clearly show what the back of the valves look like in the same type of engine that used a catch can?
And I am not looking for reasons not to install one.
I am just looking for evidence that they do anything.
I guess that is what I am asking. What is the risk/reward calculation, and what is the evidence for it?
I think I reject the notion that "gunk" in the catch can by itself is evidence that the can is doing anything beneficial.
LOL about the too much time on my hands. Maybe so. The problem...
Zig, thanks. Just to be clear, I do understand what you are saying, and I also understood when I posted the original post that this is the hypothesis. Over time, there is a build up.
Has this hypothesis been tested? By anybody? Has installing one (or two, lol) catch cans lead to some...
I notice that Lethal Performance installed two of them, not just one.
https://www.mustang7g.com/forums/threads/upr-s650-catch-can-development-lets-gooo.158383/
If it is beneficial for tracking then why do they not use two of them? Did you know that your engine has two places from which crankcase gases are recirculated, not just one?
Why is everybody just installing one?
We are "catching" the "gunk" from condensation in one, but not in the other...
As in, run two cars, one with a catch can and one without, and then do this? What is your hypothesis to be tested? What do you expect to find? Does whatever we are wiping end up as carbon deposits on the back of the intake valves?
This is sort of asking me the same question I am asking. Is...
Everything I can find on the internet that even pretends to be looking empirically at the issue basically concludes, "Look! There is 'stuff' in the catch can!"
That is not evidence that it is beneficial to the engine.
The intended benefit is to prevent carbon buildup on the back of the intake valves.
Is this a problem on the S650 Mustang Coyote engine (this subforum) which still has port injection in addition to direct injection?
If it is a problem, does installing an expensive, high quality catch can make...
Another vote for "nasty looking crud" or "gunk," but what is this, and is it harmful to be going into the engine?
Posting that something is in the catch can does not mean that the catch can is doing something beneficial.
Again, I am not arguing with you. I am not even disputing the point you...
114° - LOL. Wow.
Not fit for human habitation.
That air inlet temp on mine is on the next page, because I have another reading on that page that forces it down to the next page. My air inlet temperature is usually very close to whatever ambient temperature is on my dashboard for the...