Mazda 6 Forums banner

21 - 34 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
What year/gen is your friend's Mazda 3?
2018. he has a thread posted below but they banned him already because that forum has a moderator who is on a power trip and has a severe "my way or it's deleted" attitude. i think his banning was over k&n filters ruining MAF sensors or some other odd rumor.
check it out. i chimed in sometimes as rob342. i randomly stalked and found him there because i'm weird like that and find it fun to mess with my friends. i knew he had a new car which meant it was probably on a forum somewhere. :)
https://mazda3revolution.com/forums/2014-2018-mazda-3-skyactiv-appearance-interior/218898-nitro-s-mazda3-avocation.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Just a quick question, is this new engine not using dual injection systems? If it does, isn’t that solving the carbon buildup on the intake valves?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Just a quick question, is this new engine not using dual injection systems? If it does, isn’t that solving the carbon buildup on the intake valves?
By dual injection if you mean Port injection along with the Direct injection, then no. It does not have port injection which is how most engines keep the valves clean.

I guess I'll throw my opinion in.... with the 2.5T Skyactive there should be no need for a catch can. The problem that has plagued older direct injection engines has been addressed by Mazda and to my knowledge just isn't an issue.

The catch can mentioned earlier that Ford sells is not a "true" catch can but an oil separator. Actually a pretty big difference in both design, install and how they work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
By dual injection if you mean Port injection along with the Direct injection, then no. It does not have port injection which is how most engines keep the valves clean.

I guess I'll throw my opinion in.... with the 2.5T Skyactive there should be no need for a catch can. The problem that has plagued older direct injection engines has been addressed by Mazda and to my knowledge just isn't an issue.

The catch can mentioned earlier that Ford sells is not a "true" catch can but an oil separator. Actually a pretty big difference in both design, install and how they work.
Hey idrive! There is a lot of confusion and mis-labeling of these pieces today, so one could say both are oil separators and technically be correct. They essentially perform the same task (separating oil from in the crankcase gasses), but go about it differently.

An oil separator as you speak of either returns that oil through a tube back into the sump, or is in a valve cover and directs the separated oil back into the valve cover and cylinder head.

A catch can (also an oil separator, mind you, but traps it in a static container) doesn't return the trapped oil into the crankcase anywhere. Some engines can have both....catch can on the "dirty" side and an oil separator on the "clean" side of a V8, for example, that drains right back into the valve cover.

The Ford parts I'm referring to (for Coyote engines) are called oil separators ....when in fact they are catch cans.

This is the one I'm referring to:
https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6766-A50

See, they indeed call it an oil separator. It's not. It's a catch can. If you scroll down and see "Canister is easy to drain by removing PCV lines off canister, removing canister and draining oil", it's a catch can.

So anyways, If Mazda has conquered this issue on their DI engines today, bravo.

Having said that, I'm not yet convinced they have conquered blow-by and a few other things that simple physics in an internal combustion engine exhibit....esp with DI.. and would love to be mistaken. I wonder if the poster with 160,000 miles and no carbon has a DI engine, or port injection. Since my last Mazda was the 2000 MilleniaS with the 2.3 Miller Cycle (Yamaha) Supercharged V6, I admittedly have much to learn about the current Skyactiv 2.5T.

Now the bolt-on doodads referenced by another...I'm not into that..something all mucked up. Having said that, oftentimes there are shortcuts or things omitted by the factory for the sake of sheer profit... or just a bad design that can be improved upon. And here and there, there can be deftly applied improvements. idrive's Maz 6 IMO is a stellar example of that, IMO.

Now back to my (empty) plate of spaghetti...yes I'm going for seconds. hehe. Cheers, everyone!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Hey idrive! There is a lot of confusion and mis-labeling of these pieces today, so one could say both are oil separators and technically be correct. They essentially perform the same task (separating oil from in the crankcase gasses), but go about it differently.

An oil separator as you speak of either returns that oil through a tube back into the sump, or is in a valve cover and directs the separated oil back into the valve cover and cylinder head.

A catch can (also an oil separator, mind you, but traps it in a static container) doesn't return the trapped oil into the crankcase anywhere. Some engines can have both....catch can on the "dirty" side and an oil separator on the "clean" side of a V8, for example, that drains right back into the valve cover.

The Ford parts I'm referring to (for Coyote engines) are called oil separators ....when in fact they are catch cans.

This is the one I'm referring to:
https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6766-A50

See, they indeed call it an oil separator. It's not. It's a catch can. If you scroll down and see "Canister is easy to drain by removing PCV lines off canister, removing canister and draining oil", it's a catch can.

So anyways, If Mazda has conquered this issue on their DI engines today, bravo.

Having said that, I'm not yet convinced they have conquered blow-by and a few other things that simple physics in an internal combustion engine exhibit....esp with DI.. and would love to be mistaken. I wonder if the poster with 160,000 miles and no carbon has a DI engine, or port injection. Since my last Mazda was the 2000 MilleniaS with the 2.3 Miller Cycle (Yamaha) Supercharged V6, I admittedly have much to learn about the current Skyactiv 2.5T.

Now the bolt-on doodads referenced by another...I'm not into that..something all mucked up. Having said that, oftentimes there are shortcuts or things omitted by the factory for the sake of sheer profit... or just a bad design that can be improved upon. And here and there, there can be deftly applied improvements. idrive's Maz 6 IMO is a stellar example of that, IMO.

Now back to my (empty) plate of spaghetti...yes I'm going for seconds. hehe. Cheers, everyone!

On the F150Forum the debates rage on and on regarding the DI engines - catch cans/oil separators etc. There is an extreme/vast amount of knowledge as well as 100's of thousands of miles behind all of it.

Best way I can say it without typing 20 pages is that DI motors have evolved greatly since their introduction. There are more than a few engines out there that would benefit with a catch can installed but something more along the lines like these and NO, I'm not advocating them. Just showing different types of catch cans.

https://www.rxspeedworks.com/

I truly believe the SkyActive Engines do not need one, of any type. The technology behind how they work is the reason. Time will tell but I've yet to see any evidence of valve coking on them yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter #26 (Edited)
I truly believe the SkyActive Engines do not need one, of any type. The technology behind how they work is the reason. Time will tell but I've yet to see any evidence of valve coking on them yet.
Thank you idrive! (I would not drive a Mustang without one) There are many others that still suffer...with today's Skyactive you're convinced it's a nothingburger (my paraphrase, if you please...hehe) Thx again, brudda!

One easy way to find out if they "work" or are needed on any given engine is to install one, and see just how much if anything is captured after a thousand miles or so. I'm very much into Preventative Maintenance, so if one was installed and it caught a discernible amt of oil it has justified itself, and saved one some bucks later on rectifying it (as well as performance degradation). If not, just remove it and revert back to stock. No harm no foul. hehe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,254 Posts
Hey idrive! There is a lot of confusion and mis-labeling of these pieces today, so one could say both are oil separators and technically be correct. They essentially perform the same task (separating oil from in the crankcase gasses), but go about it differently.

An oil separator as you speak of either returns that oil through a tube back into the sump, or is in a valve cover and directs the separated oil back into the valve cover and cylinder head.

A catch can (also an oil separator, mind you, but traps it in a static container) doesn't return the trapped oil into the crankcase anywhere. Some engines can have both....catch can on the "dirty" side and an oil separator on the "clean" side of a V8, for example, that drains right back into the valve cover.

The Ford parts I'm referring to (for Coyote engines) are called oil separators ....when in fact they are catch cans.

This is the one I'm referring to:
https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-6766-A50

See, they indeed call it an oil separator. It's not. It's a catch can. If you scroll down and see "Canister is easy to drain by removing PCV lines off canister, removing canister and draining oil", it's a catch can.

So anyways, If Mazda has conquered this issue on their DI engines today, bravo.

Having said that, I'm not yet convinced they have conquered blow-by and a few other things that simple physics in an internal combustion engine exhibit....esp with DI.. and would love to be mistaken. I wonder if the poster with 160,000 miles and no carbon has a DI engine, or port injection. Since my last Mazda was the 2000 MilleniaS with the 2.3 Miller Cycle (Yamaha) Supercharged V6, I admittedly have much to learn about the current Skyactiv 2.5T.

Now the bolt-on doodads referenced by another...I'm not into that..something all mucked up. Having said that, oftentimes there are shortcuts or things omitted by the factory for the sake of sheer profit... or just a bad design that can be improved upon. And here and there, there can be deftly applied improvements. idrive's Maz 6 IMO is a stellar example of that, IMO.

Now back to my (empty) plate of spaghetti...yes I'm going for seconds. hehe. Cheers, everyone!
Fyi, Ticker has a Mazda 6 Skyactiv with DI not port.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Thank you idrive! (I would not drive a Mustang without one)
The 3.5TT and the 5.0 were both redesigned. They now both have Port Injection along with DI.

I believe the 3.5TT was 2016 and the 5.0, 2017 model years have the new engines.

Also note that even with the older DI engines the "catch can - oil separators" that Ford sells are only recommended for racing, not street vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
This is a sample of an oil catch can running at about 500 km.



I'm not sure if this is from Mazda 2 or 3. It has been mentioned that in order to eliminate coking, the temperature reaching the valves must be above 400°C (someone please correct me on this as I have forgotten the details).

If you frequently travel along highways for an extended period of time, I don't think this will be an issue. For city driving and frequent short trips, I don't know.

As far as data is concerned, I don't have any statistics saying that an oil catch can is necessary. In other words, all I have is opinion.

You might ask, what is my opinion? I can't say, I'm not an expert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter #31 (Edited)
The 3.5TT and the 5.0 were both redesigned. They now both have Port Injection along with DI.

EXCELLENT news. Sounds like Toyota/Lexus has done the same.

I believe the 3.5TT was 2016 and the 5.0, 2017 model years have the new engines.

Also note that even with the older DI engines the "catch can - oil separators" that Ford sells are only recommended for racing, not street vehicles.
Hmm I've seen quite a few Mustang owners put those on their street cars. And if I'm not mistaken it's/was CARB compliant according to CARB guidelines. Having said that, that may have been before the 2017 revision you've spoken of here. Thanks, idrive. I'll do a little digging there...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
Guys, the world isn't out to get you. These JAPANESE engineers didn't forget that old DI engines had a carbon buildup problem. They also aren't cutting major corners to save a few bucks on each engine. If they needed 4 more fuel injectors inside the ports, they'd add them, but they aren't needed. These aren't BMW engineers we're talking about here.

Part of their solution was making sure that oil doesn't get into the valves in the first place. The other part is that they made it so the valves reach a high enough temperature that carbon deposits don't form.

Ever wonder why there are diamond mines in Africa, but you never dig up diamonds in you backyard? It's because diamonds are made of carbon, and carbon buildup only happens under very specific conditions. Too hot or too cold, and you won't get carbon deposits.

These engines have been out for 5 years now, and there are ZERO complaints about carbon buildup. On BMW DIs, the buildup was unbearable after 30,000 miles. Ticker is pushing 160,000 with no issues. MOST of us have well over 30,000 miles; there are NO issues with carbon buildup. So sleep easy, quit worrying about it.

If you still want to put a catch can on, go ahead and put your catch can on. But be aware that at best it will do nothing, and at worst your engine could start throwing codes 10 years from now because of abnormal operating conditions. If you trust the engineers of a $100 catch can made of the same stuff as your $5 oil filter, but don't trust the engineers that made your $10,000 engine, then get that catch can on ASAP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
These engines have been out for 5 years now, and there are ZERO complaints about carbon buildup. On BMW DIs, the buildup was unbearable after 30,000 miles. Ticker is pushing 160,000 with no issues. MOST of us have well over 30,000 miles; there are NO issues with carbon buildup..

Wanted to get back and say "thanks"...I know BMW has had a terrible problem with this, as has other marques. Why am I not surprised the Japanese have mastered this issue....maybe one reason I'm pretty much gravitating towards their vehicles today. Thanks again.
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Top