• Sign Up! To view all forums and unlock additional cool features

    Welcome to the #1 Fiesta ST Forum and Fiesta ST community dedicated to Fiesta ST owners and enthusiasts. Register for an account, it's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the Fiesta ST Forum today!

Skold's FiST Build Thread: Best Bang For Buck Mods for $1100??

Messages
513
Likes
378
Location
San Jose
That is up for debate, Some people swear by them others don’t bother. Really not sure if it keeps the top of ones valves cleaner. I am not running one and my buddies have not asked me if I got one.
I am more in the camp that our cars really do not need them hell you think if it was really needed Ford would have done it factory. They actually put a decent amount of thought into our stock turbo setup.
Also these cars and engines are years and miles ahead of SR20DET’s in Nissans. I mean do not get me wrong SR20DET’s are/where fine engines in their day.
My thing is, there haven’t been a lot of people supplying data either for or against the efficacy of catch cans and I personally feel it differs from engine family to engine family. It doesn’t appear that the 1.6 Ecoboost really suffers too bad from valve coking, so I view it as wasted money since by the time it comes to actually do something about it I figure my engine will likely be on deaths door anyways.

Contrasting my, the 2.0 Ecoboost has considerable valve coking documented. If I owned a FoST I’d definitely take the plunge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Erick_V

Active member
Messages
501
Likes
424
Location
San Antonio
My thing is, there haven’t been a lot of people supplying data either for or against the efficacy of catch cans and I personally feel it differs from engine family to engine family. It doesn’t appear that the 1.6 Ecoboost really suffers too bad from valve coking
Agreed. It certainly doesn't catch as much as my Gen2 Speed3 did but it does catch something and I'm glad that something doesn't have a chance to get on the valves or back into the motor. The Speed3's were terrible about gunk on the valves and I think that permanently left me with trauma lol
 


M-Sport fan

9000 Post Club
Messages
10,642
Likes
3,359
Location
Solebury, Pa.
My thing is, there haven’t been a lot of people supplying data either for or against the efficacy of catch cans and I personally feel it differs from engine family to engine family. It doesn’t appear that the 1.6 Ecoboost really suffers too bad from valve coking, so I view it as wasted money since by the time it comes to actually do something about it I figure my engine will likely be on deaths door anyways.

Contrasting my, the 2.0 Ecoboost has considerable valve coking documented. If I owned a FoST I’d definitely take the plunge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have a Damond installed as that 'piece of mind' thing, even if it is just a placebo effect in the long run. [wink]

I figure that any oil vapors/mist in the combustion chamber mix also cannot help the octane rating of the mixture either, so there's that.

Although most will claim that if there were enough of those said oil vapors getting into the combustion chambers, to cause any octane reduction, we WOULD have some major intake valve coking as well. [dunno]
 


jmrtsus

1000 Post Club
Premium Account
Messages
1,245
Likes
757
Location
Ooltewah
The proof it works is it collects oil in the PCV line and is catching oil that would have passed by the rear of the valve. How much proof about "does it work" is required? LOL!
 


jmrtsus

1000 Post Club
Premium Account
Messages
1,245
Likes
757
Location
Ooltewah
All FiST's came with this built in Air/Oil separator FORD BM5Z-6A785-C so this may explain why a FoST collects more oil/deposits than a FiST. It is also used on the 1.6L Escape, Transit Connect and Fusion. Even so it is not super effective as my Damond OCC still catches additional oil. If it worries Ford it also worries me, I fully expect to put well over 100K on my FiFi so I want nothing to do with a head job. At this point my OCC has cost me $40 a year, should be $20 a year by 100K. And catches oil the factory device still passes. Cheap insurance.
 


Messages
595
Likes
399
Location
Temecula
All FiST's came with this built in Air/Oil separator FORD BM5Z-6A785-C so this may explain why a FoST collects more oil/deposits than a FiST. It is also used on the 1.6L Escape, Transit Connect and Fusion. Even so it is not super effective as my Damond OCC still catches additional oil. If it worries Ford it also worries me, I fully expect to put well over 100K on my FiFi so I want nothing to do with a head job. At this point my OCC has cost me $40 a year, should be $20 a year by 100K. And catches oil the factory device still passes. Cheap insurance.
You know what, this is the most compelling argument I've heard so far for an OCC.
 


OP
S
Messages
102
Likes
53
Location
Huffman, TX, USA
Thread Starter #109
All FiST's came with this built in Air/Oil separator FORD BM5Z-6A785-C so this may explain why a FoST collects more oil/deposits than a FiST. It is also used on the 1.6L Escape, Transit Connect and Fusion. Even so it is not super effective as my Damond OCC still catches additional oil. If it worries Ford it also worries me, I fully expect to put well over 100K on my FiFi so I want nothing to do with a head job. At this point my OCC has cost me $40 a year, should be $20 a year by 100K. And catches oil the factory device still passes. Cheap insurance.
Hmm, I may have to add this to my list.

Accessport and tracbar have now been purchased.
 


jeff

2000 Post Club
Messages
2,060
Likes
2,337
Location
Evans
does installing a catch can actually do anything with this car? I mean it's not a cheap part at $200ish. Never been quite convinced it does a whole lot in other applications. I'm probably more likely to get a WMI kit haha
If anyone wants proof that a catch can is effective, just watch my video review below, or just look at the thumbnail, that's after just ~1000 miles.

View: https://youtu.be/9uCsqrId-fM
 


Similar threads



Top