• Welcome to N-cars.net - the largest Hyundai N car forum. Check out the model specific sections below and scroll down for country specific forums. Check out the i30 N Bible Here!

Engine Catch can

another patent! damn son! Im on fire!

Abstract



An oil separating apparatus for blow-by gas adapted to form a funnel shaped space in a cylinder head cover to prompt oil contained in the gas to be introduced to an oil line along an inner circumference of the space by way of centrifugal force, thereby inducing the blow-by gas, free of oil, towards a positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030070982
 
You can see, the two oil baffle screens on the 1.6 Gamma Valve Cover 22402/21504, are the same as on the Theta II. There is no hidden oil seperator in the valve cover as suggested. It's sheer speculation and presumption, with a similarity to the Dana valve covers. Dana, doesn't make a cover for any Hyundai never has.;)

Hyundai/Mobis makes most of Hyundai's parts.
Have you looked at the valve cover on your JSN Theta II? It is different from the picture you posted (which seems to have disappeared from your post #110???). Go look at my post #98 and @LateralGrip 's #99, or even go look under your own hood and compare. So far, no one has posted anything showing the underside of our valve cover, including you.

Never said it was DANA's either. I'm well aware that Hyundai would probably not purchase from DANA as an American sub-tier supplier. They'd either develop themselves or subcontract to a Korean/Asian sub-tier. Same story as our e-LSD and ECS. But that's minutiae in this discussion. The real question is does our valve cover have built in air-oil separator technology? It doesn't matter if its DANA or not.

I already said twice in my first message about this potential built-in AOS that I'm speculating. What more do you want?
 
Our valve cover do have them. Hyundai patents listed post#121
All very interesting information . But as a former patent examiner , ford/toyota engineer and a current manufacturing engineer let me politely add my two cents. I would be careful reading into patents in this manner. That patent is almost 20 years old dating back to the early 2000s. We have no way to know if this is the technology that Hyundai incorporated without knowing what is in those black boxes. Companies patent technology all the time . Sometimes they patent items just so other companies cannot and never incorporate them. It's a complicated battle of intellectual property. While I would agree with you and lean more towards our vehicles having air oil seperators I wouldn't necessarily declare this is the technology they have utilized. Those cones could simply be drain points for oil droplets. Those black boxes could simply have alot of baffles and the oil drains out through those ports. On one side of the cover the cone is horizontal as opposed to vertical. Also if you examine the patent and look at the elements cited those cones are very large in relation to the valve cover. Large enough to use centrifugal force to seperate the oil. Without seeing inside the boxes we cannot be certain this is the same design in our valve covers. I would also be interested to know members scope of what an oil/air seperator really is. In it's broadest sense consecutive baffles could be considered an oil/air seperator .. as they would seperate air from oil. What I'm sensing from their thread is the interpretation that an air/oil seperator in our vehicle would be a highly engineered component to remove almost all of oil from our air stream. And while I do agree that our platform probably does have a method to help eliminate blow by from our pcv lines I question it's effectiveness . I question this effectiveness from first hand testing on my own vehicle . 15-20ml of oil attacking your valves every 1000 miles is alot of oil vapor . After 10k miles that's 150-200ml of oil. I think the ultimate point of this convo was to explore carbon buildup and methods of prevention on our platform . I would find it very hard to believe that Hyundai would put zero means to help seperate air from oil in a turbo charged application . I am interested to see exactly what design they chose to ahieve this result however. But again I question it's effectiveness.
 
I shared 2 patents. Here's the first,
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8695339B2/en
The first is dated 2014. Secondly, you would know best, many patents take years to be realized.
My final point, I am certain the incorporated design is effective. To what degree? I dont know the answer. I do know that after market catch cans are not the fix either. I think we agree on many points. I am by no means saying that catch cans are not effective. Ive owned plenty on many platforms to include lawnmowers lol. Simply, with the data available and now with what I have read and seen, I accept the design to be effective and choose not to incorporate after market catch cans.

All very interesting information . But as a former patent examiner , ford/toyota engineer and a current manufacturing engineer let me politely add my two cents. I would be careful reading into patents in this manner. That patent is almost 20 years old dating back to the early 2000s. We have no way to know if this is the technology that Hyundai incorporated without knowing what is in those black boxes. Companies patent technology all the time . Sometimes they patent items just so other companies cannot and never incorporate them. It's a complicated battle of intellectual property. While I would agree with you and lean more towards our vehicles having air oil seperators I wouldn't necessarily declare this is the technology they have utilized. Those cones could simply be drain points for oil droplets. Those black boxes could simply have alot of baffles and the oil drains out through those ports. On one side of the cover the cone is horizontal as opposed to vertical. Also if you examine the patent and look at the elements cited those cones are very large in relation to the valve cover. Large enough to use centrifugal force to seperate the oil. Without seeing inside the boxes we cannot be certain this is the same design in our valve covers. I would also be interested to know members scope of what an oil/air seperator really is. In it's broadest sense consecutive baffles could be considered an oil/air seperator .. as they would seperate air from oil. What I'm sensing from their thread is the interpretation that an air/oil seperator in our vehicle would be a highly engineered component to remove almost all of oil from our air stream. And while I do agree that our platform probably does have a method to help eliminate blow by from our pcv lines I question it's effectiveness . I question this effectiveness from first hand testing on my own vehicle . 15-20ml of oil attacking your valves every 1000 miles is alot of oil vapor . After 10k miles that's 150-200ml of oil. I think the ultimate point of this convo was to explore carbon buildup and methods of prevention on our platform . I would find it very hard to believe that Hyundai would put zero means to help seperate air from oil in a turbo charged application . I am interested to see exactly what design they chose to ahieve this result however. But again I question it's effectiveness.
 

R Veloster N

Well-Known Member
Excellent observation and thanks. I also question the validity and effectiveness, considering the number of recalls and 2.0 & T Theta II engines that have been replaced.

Everything, I've read up to this point and what has been hoped to be a Air/Oil Separator, is listed as an Oil Baffle in every Hyundai parts schematic. There is an air nozzle (flow regulating device) in place but this is all I can find.

Effective, they obviously have not been in the past. Hyundai lied to the NHTSA and hid over 3 million defective engines. Some with engine milling deficiencies that left metal in the engine and others with major carbon problems.

In the 1.6 Gamma engine, it was a very real problem. The problem still exists, as all the engine can do is recycle what is blown-by the rings and then eventually reburnt in the cylinders. The fuel/oil vapor is still present, even after being recycled thru the crank and PCV. It's a continuous process.
You can vent it or utilize a catch can. Even then it's not all of it. Without some form of fuel washing over the intake valves, to remove the carbon, the problem will always exist.

IMG_1277.jpeg
Sorry, it took me a little while to find the original photo I took for the top side of the Valve Cover. I'll have the cover off soon enough with others things going on. I'll table this, until I get a photo of the underside intact. Comparison, 2.0 Theta II as posted as before.

yYDD5T (1).jpg vIDJoK.jpg
 
Last edited:
I shared 2 patents. Here's the first,
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8695339B2/en
The first is dated 2014. Secondly, you would know best, many patents take years to be realized.
My final point, I am certain the incorporated design is effective. To what degree? I dont know the answer. I do know that after market catch cans are not the fix either. I think we agree on many points. I am by no means saying that catch cans are not effective. Ive owned plenty on many platforms to include lawnmowers lol. Simply, with the data available and now with what I have read and seen, I accept the design to be effective and choose not to incorporate after market catch cans.
Lawnmower , ha! Very dope. Well here is the thing about patents. A US patent is simply legal protection under the American government that another entity cannot copy your exact design and use it for profit for a certain number of years (I am being vague because you gotta pay me for detailed info :) ) Patents do take alot of time and money to go through because we have a tremendous backlog. However you can still make and produce technology before your patent goes through you just run the risk of someone copying it , this is why you see alot of products with labels such as "patent pending) . That second patent was granted in 2014 and was more so focused in scope on a flow regulating device not an oil seperator. We do agree on alot of points about this . Catch cans definitely are not a cure all solution. I simply just don't see the harm in addition onto the OEM system to increase effectiveness . From my own testing on my own platform I deem it not effective enough . On the old VW GTI forums similar convos were had. Oil dilution , the technological advancements of VW, etc etc. And the end result was me personally ending up with tons of carbon buildup because I did nothing . As well as on this platform people said I would have to add boost , downpipes , tunes , intakes etc to get this amount of blow by. Now maybe I have more blow-by than most (I have to wait for oil results to come back) but I shouldn't with a new engine that I have taken care of . I guess the cans are more so specific to driving style and location . There are alot of variables here. My statements aren't really directed towards you. But catch cans get a bad rep. People will spend hundreds on blow off valves , intakes , turbo inlets , resonator deletes , cat back exhausts , air filters etc etc and effectively gain ZERO performance AND void there warrenty . But when it comes to a catch can that could assist in preventing the single most expensive component on your vehicle (engine) people are like holy shit 200 dollars for a catch can your doing drugs and wasting money . *Shrug. I would advise every one to do testing on there own vehicle . I'm happy with the performance of my can this far. But again this has alot to do with a multitude of variables like driving style and location . And lastly if Hyundai has had this technology for the past 5 years or so why did it not show up sooner ? Cost to manufacture ? Maybe. Implementation timeline ? Maybe . I just don't trust OEM companies to spend top dollar to eliminate this issue that's all. If they were willing to we would all have port + direct Injection vehicles like the GTIs in Europe.
 
I agree 100% with what u just wrote. Which is why i will be cleaning and inspecting the intake tract at every oil change. I will be using a royal purple product to achieve this. Like the catch can, or an integrated a/o separator, probably not 100% effective.
Lawnmower , ha! Very dope. Well here is the thing about patents. A US patent is simply legal protection under the American government that another entity cannot copy your exact design and use it for profit for a certain number of years (I am being vague because you gotta pay me for detailed info :) ) Patents do take alot of time and money to go through because we have a tremendous backlog. However you can still make and produce technology before your patent goes through you just run the risk of someone copying it , this is why you see alot of products with labels such as "patent pending) . That second patent was granted in 2014 and was more so focused in scope on a flow regulating device not an oil seperator. We do agree on alot of points about this . Catch cans definitely are not a cure all solution. I simply just don't see the harm in addition onto the OEM system to increase effectiveness . From my own testing on my own platform I deem it not effective enough . On the old VW GTI forums similar convos were had. Oil dilution , the technological advancements of VW, etc etc. And the end result was me personally ending up with tons of carbon buildup because I did nothing . As well as on this platform people said I would have to add boost , downpipes , tunes , intakes etc to get this amount of blow by. Now maybe I have more blow-by than most (I have to wait for oil results to come back) but I shouldn't with a new engine that I have taken care of . I guess the cans are more so specific to driving style and location . There are alot of variables here. My statements aren't really directed towards you. But catch cans get a bad rep. People will spend hundreds on blow off valves , intakes , turbo inlets , resonator deletes , cat back exhausts , air filters etc etc and effectively gain ZERO performance AND void there warrenty . But when it comes to a catch can that could assist in preventing the single most expensive component on your vehicle (engine) people are like holy shit 200 dollars for a catch can your doing drugs and wasting money . *Shrug. I would advise every one to do testing on there own vehicle . I'm happy with the performance of my can this far. But again this has alot to do with a multitude of variables like driving style and location . And lastly if Hyundai has had this technology for the past 5 years or so why did it not show up sooner ? Cost to manufacture ? Maybe. Implementation timeline ? Maybe . I just don't trust OEM companies to spend top dollar to eliminate this issue that's all. If they were willing to we would all have port + direct Injection vehicles like the GTIs in Europe.
 
@avayswavay for the lawn more I used a cheap pneumatic air filter with a 5 micron filter. It worked!!

Manufacturing engineering huh! I'm a quality engineer for the Army Flight Test Directorate. We have an in house fab shop and also outsource lots for manufacturing. Small world.
 
I don't think anyone actually trust automotive manufactures, when things go wrong.;):p I think it's more reciprocal, when things are going right. They are engineered to fail eventually.:)
This is very true haha! These companies know (atleast in America) we don't keep our vehicles for more than 3 years. Prime example of why the GTIs here only have direct Injection but in europe they also have port Injection!
 
I agree 100% with what u just wrote. Which is why i will be cleaning and inspecting the intake tract at every oil change. I will be using a royal purple product to achieve this. Like the catch can, or an integrated a/o separator, probably not 100% effective.
I plan to do a chemical cleaning at about 10k after I've inspected the valves (if I can get to them) with a boroscope. If I see alot of gunk I will go ahead with the cleaning . If you do it relatively soon make sure to keep us posted on results / best practices !
 
@avayswavay for the lawn more I used a cheap pneumatic air filter with a 5 micron filter. It worked!!

Manufacturing engineering huh! I'm a quality engineer for the Army Flight Test Directorate. We have an in house fab shop and also outsource lots for manufacturing. Small world.
Very nice ! I kinda want to try on my mower now too haha. I guess technically I used to be a manufacturing engineer with my brief time in the Auto industry (used to work with rapid prototyping Aka 3D printing) Now I am more so a quality engineer too! Ha. Currently employed by the Feds!
 
Last edited:

Stash-N

Well-Known Member
All very interesting information . But as a former patent examiner , ford/toyota engineer and a current manufacturing engineer let me politely add my two cents. I would be careful reading into patents in this manner. That patent is almost 20 years old dating back to the early 2000s. We have no way to know if this is the technology that Hyundai incorporated without knowing what is in those black boxes. Companies patent technology all the time . Sometimes they patent items just so other companies cannot and never incorporate them. It's a complicated battle of intellectual property. While I would agree with you and lean more towards our vehicles having air oil seperators I wouldn't necessarily declare this is the technology they have utilized. Those cones could simply be drain points for oil droplets. Those black boxes could simply have alot of baffles and the oil drains out through those ports. On one side of the cover the cone is horizontal as opposed to vertical. Also if you examine the patent and look at the elements cited those cones are very large in relation to the valve cover. Large enough to use centrifugal force to seperate the oil. Without seeing inside the boxes we cannot be certain this is the same design in our valve covers. I would also be interested to know members scope of what an oil/air seperator really is. In it's broadest sense consecutive baffles could be considered an oil/air seperator .. as they would seperate air from oil. What I'm sensing from their thread is the interpretation that an air/oil seperator in our vehicle would be a highly engineered component to remove almost all of oil from our air stream. And while I do agree that our platform probably does have a method to help eliminate blow by from our pcv lines I question it's effectiveness . I question this effectiveness from first hand testing on my own vehicle . 15-20ml of oil attacking your valves every 1000 miles is alot of oil vapor . After 10k miles that's 150-200ml of oil. I think the ultimate point of this convo was to explore carbon buildup and methods of prevention on our platform . I would find it very hard to believe that Hyundai would put zero means to help seperate air from oil in a turbo charged application . I am interested to see exactly what design they chose to ahieve this result however. But again I question it's effectiveness.
Would you expect the rate of oil collection to be a constant or rather reduce after the initial run-in period? In engines from days gone by I would expect blow-by to be higher until the ring to bore sealing had improved once run-in. Modern engines may not need the run-in periods of older engines but I expect there is still some required and if so would not the blow-by reduce even slightly after this? Just asking not arguing. :):cool:
 
Would you expect the rate of oil collection to be a constant or rather reduce after the initial run-in period? In engines from days gone by I would expect blow-by to be higher until the ring to bore sealing had improved once run-in. Modern engines may not need the run-in periods of older engines but I expect there is still some required and if so would not the blow-by reduce even slightly after this? Just asking not arguing. :):cool:
Good points. With the tighter tolerances in newer manufacturing processes you are correct the break-in periods have been reduced significantly. However, we still do need them. To be fair I am taking an educated guess here but I would expect there (possibly) to be more blow-by during the initial break-in period. At least in terms of the piston rings and cylinder walls, you are are really smoothing out minor imperfections on the walls caused by the manufacturing process. The minor imperfections perhaps create negligibly more blow-by. You break in the engine accordingly so that these minor imperfections do not become large imperfections from excessive improper wear (redlining, flooring from a stop etc.) (As far as I know hard break ins are a myth and your only inducing unnecessary risk by possibly damaging your cylinder walls. As far as I've found through my own research a moderate break in smooths out the cylinder walls appropriately giving you a good seal between piston rings and cylinder walls.) If you ran the same break in oil for another 3000 miles after the first oil change I wouldn't imagine you would get significantly less blow-by (someone please correct me if I am wrong). What I am curious to see however is if blow-by decreases by utilizing a significantly better oil after your first oil change. I went with Amsoil 0w-30 (supposedly the best you can buy) so maybe you wont get as many oil vapors rising out of the crankcase after 3K miles? (We will see). The testing I've done regarding my own personal engine and blow-by came between 2K miles and 3K miles so I had already well past my break in period. I am thinking that the most significant variable between cars is going to be stop and go driving when vehicle is not up to operating temperatures. I do a good bit of "city" driving around town on the weekends. During the weekdays most of my commute is on the highway. However, I do my best to make sure vehicle is up to operating temperatures even when city driving (this means lumping many small trips together). This will be more difficult in the winter time as temperatures drop. If one is city driving and car is not up to operating temperature piston rings do not have the best seal against cylinder walls thus creating more blow by. Furthermore, other engine components are not hot, leading to a more likely chance of oil vapors latching on and condensing on colder surfaces.
 
Would you expect the rate of oil collection to be a constant or rather reduce after the initial run-in period? In engines from days gone by I would expect blow-by to be higher until the ring to bore sealing had improved once run-in. Modern engines may not need the run-in periods of older engines but I expect there is still some required and if so would not the blow-by reduce even slightly after this? Just asking not arguing. :):cool:
Also forgot to add, as engine ages blow-by will only steadily increase as piston rings and cylinder walls wear. Old Engine + Wear = More Blow-By
 

Top