[91sonomast]

Seafoam straight through the intake and into the engine: Let the engine get to running temperature, find a vacuum port that has plenty of suction, suck 3/4 of the can into the engine then shut off(engine will run rough and such), let the engine soak for 15-30, restart the engine and suck the remainder of the can into the engine to re-wet and loosen up the soaked gunk, then rev engine to 2500-3000rpm's until the smoke lightens up or disappears. Go drive the car rather spiritedly ensuring you have blown out all the gunk. Enjoy a cleaner engine.

 

[pilotattitude]

I would be weary of this since there is nothing from Ford as yet. Due to this being a turbo boosted engine, there is a chance of the "buildup" and other additives doing damage to the turbo. If this would to happen, it will be an out of warranty replacement.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

[BobP]

Another thread on the same subject: http://www.fordescape.org/forum/engine-technical-discussion/26545-ecoboost-engine-warning-induction-cleaning-warning.html Anyway to combine both threads?

From everything I have read so far, correct me if I'm wrong, Ford does not have an official cleaning procedure.

Good info Tuner Boost. I have read some of your posts on other Ford forums.

@Tuner Boost
Is the RX catch can just snake oil or does it work to prevent carbon buildup?
How hard is it to install an RX catch can on an Escape 2.0 l engine?

 

[leadmic]

Here's another thread about carbon buildup: http://www.fordescape.org/forum/eng...orum/engine-technical-discussion/21242-what-about-water-methanol-injection.html
The PCV catch can might work, but you are altering an emission control device and its illegal especially if you have to get a smog inspection like we do here in California. The only way to clean the valves currently without damaging the turbo is to walnut shell blasts them with the valve closed and then blowout it out with compressed air.
Water/methanol injection might be a good preventive, because it keeps the intake valve cooler and has a little bit of a cleaning effect, but jury is still out.
Mark

 

[bjeans]

Another thread on the same subject: http://www.fordescape.org/forum/engine-technical-discussion/26545-ecoboost-engine-warning-induction-cleaning-warning.html Anyway to combine both threads?

I can do that if y'all want, but it will insert posts from 8/7 to 8/11/14 in date order within this thread.

Having multiple threads on the same topic is pretty much par for the course in forums. But no problem doing it - let us know and Pilot or I can combine them.

 

[BobP]

I can do that if y'all want, but it will insert posts from 8/7 to 8/11/14 in date order within this thread.

Having multiple threads on the same topic is pretty much par for the course in forums. But no problem doing it - let us know and Pilot or I can combine them.

Three threads on the same topic is not too bad, not like the MPG section. It's yours and Pilot's call whether the threads should be combined.

It is common practice on other forums to post multiple threads on the same subject, and dependent on the forum, especially the tech forums, members will remind you by posting REPOST. This forum though is by far the most friendliest forum I have been on.

Just a reminder. Before you start a new thread use the SEARCH function (top right). The answer to your question/inquiry may have already been posted.

 

[bjeans]

Three threads on the same topic is not too bad, not like the MPG section. It's yours and Pilot's call whether the threads should be combined.

It is common practice on other forums to post multiple threads on the same subject, and dependent on the forum, especially the tech forums, members will remind you by posting REPOST. This forum though is by far the most friendliest forum I have been on.

Just a reminder. Before you start a new thread use the SEARCH function (top right). The answer to your question/inquiry may have already been posted.

OFF TOPIC

Okay, we're not combining the threads. But just think, if we combined all the MPG threads, we'd have one thread 27,983 posts long. ; )

I've never seen REPOST on any forums I've been on, interesting.

As for friendliest, maybe new model Escape owners here just are that way. ; ) We do aim for and continue to work toward that goal. We are not your put-down RTMS* type forum, though debate is fine or even calling someone's attention to iffy behavior if done civilly.

If you haven't already, please read the guidelines, since they are the main reference point when there are concerns or complaints about posts. A link to them is below (Two Reminders). Luckily very few members get their backs up if reminded about them. And updated guidelines are coming soon in a forum near you.

*Read The Manual Stupid

We now return you to your regularly scheduled post.

 

[Tuner Boost]

I would be weary of this since there is nothing from Ford as yet. Due to this being a turbo boosted engine, there is a chance of the "buildup" and other additives doing damage to the turbo. If this would to happen, it will be an out of warranty replacement.


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

Absolutely correct. With any turbocharged engine, any debris no matter how small and insignificant can and will cause damage to the turbine blades when they make contact, and seafoam and other solvent based cleaners are absorbed into the coked deposits causing them to expand and break loose, and they are then expelled out the exhaust. When these hit the turbine blades spinning at 10-20k RPM damage occurs, and even slight damage throws off the balance and the ability to work properly. Ford does have a TSB on this. The other issue with any engine as we see this first hand when tearing them down, some of the smallet parrticles as well as some of the solvent always is pushed between the piston and cylinder wall and this causes scouring (scratches) in both the cylinder wall and the piston skirts. Not severe, but damage just the same. Then the final issue is most do not change oil and filter immediately following a upper induction cleaning service and some of the solvent and the debris washed with it that enters the crankcase contaminates the oil and can cause damage to rod and main bearings. As a rule on a NA engine one or two treatments usually wont cause enough damage to be noticeable, but some do this every 10k miles and it most definitely does. If anyone needs to see pictures I can post them showing. Lots of parts saved to show. Excellent post.

Another thread on the same subject: http://www.fordescape.org/forum/engine-technical-discussion/26545-ecoboost-engine-warning-induction-cleaning-warning.html Anyway to combine both threads?

From everything I have read so far, correct me if I'm wrong, Ford does not have an official cleaning procedure.

Good info Tuner Boost. I have read some of your posts on other Ford forums.

@Tuner Boost
Is the RX catch can just snake oil or does it work to prevent carbon buildup?
How hard is it to install an RX catch can on an Escape 2.0 l engine?

On any DI engine, these deposits are caused entirely by the oil mist and other compounds "baking" on to the back sides of the intake valves and the stems. Remove the oil and other compounds from the PCV vapors and the issue does not exist. The longest we have for a controlled test is 68,000 miles (installed right from the dealer) and at that mileage there is only a light chalky coating on the valves. Now with 99% of the "catchcans" on the market, since they only trap from 10-30% of the oil and other compounds there will be little prevention. To date, the only cans tested that catch most of this are the Saiku Micchi (SMC), the Elite E2, the Apex (copy of the E2) all at 80-90% effective and the RX at 95-98% effectiveness depending on how severe the oil consumption issue the engine has. You can take any of the big name little billet cans that are popular and install any of the brands listed in line behind them and they will catch as much or more as the first can in line. That tells mountains, but most never test to see and just go by advertised claims. So yes, guaranteed the few cans that actually do trap nearly all will greaty slow and reduce the rate of coking...or eliminate it all together. The other advantage of getting all the oil removed is detonation drops to near zero so those that log their car can see timing staying at optimum advance so 1-3 MPG improvement is standard with fleets buying and installing them for the fuel savings only. They could care less about the longevity as they trade every 3 years on average.

Here's another thread about carbon buildup: http://www.fordescape.org/forum/eng...orum/engine-technical-discussion/21242-what-about-water-methanol-injection.html
The PCV catch can might work, but you are altering an emission control device and its illegal especially if you have to get a smog inspection like we do here in California. The only way to clean the valves currently without damaging the turbo is to walnut shell blasts them with the valve closed and then blowout it out with compressed air.
Water/methanol injection might be a good preventive, because it keeps the intake valve cooler and has a little bit of a cleaning effect, but jury is still out.
Mark

If the system is one that retains the closed system, these actually reduce tailpipe emissions. A system like the RX is installed by dealers throughout the US and Canada.....in fact here is Rhineland Ford in Canada that did testing on problem ecoboosts:

.

Only in CA where CARB cert is required would it not be emissions compliant. Every other state the RX system is emissions compliant....but GM and Ford dealers in CA are installing these so not sure how it applies, but it is NOT CARB cert, so good concern.

On to water/meth injection. Water/meth injection does reduce the buildup...but only if used constantly, and most do not spray all the time or they would be filling the tank daily. The occasional spray has little effect on long term coking. Audi has tried similar with the turbo charged V8 DI engine by adding small port injectors to try and get the detergent fuel benefits on the valves, but in actual use it has only slight reduction in coking. The valves really can only remain clean if constantly showered in a detergent fuel or water/meth or similar.

And finally, here is a long term study showing the power degradation over time as the valves coking builds, and then is restored to as new with a walnut shell media blast service (you can also perform this with a assorted brush set and a die grinder with the same results):

Anyone doubting any of this...take a few minutes and remove your intake manifold and look in directly at your valves and see the severity. Another great post....this issue has just started to rear it's ugly head here in the states.


Here are links to videos on the 2 cleaning processes:

RX intake valve cleaning - YouTube

BMW N54 Engine Intake Valve Cleaning with Walnut Shell Blasting Equipment - YouTube

Most will first notice the issue as idle becomes slightly rough (the uneven air distribution) and a ever increasing "dead spot" when accelerating off idle. Most don't notice the power degradation as it is gradual, as is the fuel economy....but after a manual valve cleaning the difference is night and day.

 

[leadmic]

Good read ^^^ makes since.
Mark

 

[centex]

....Only in CA where CARB cert is required would it not be emissions compliant. Every other state the RX system is emissions compliant....but GM and Ford dealers in CA are installing these so not sure how it applies, but it is NOT CARB cert, so good concern....

Respectfully, that's not correct. While CA has a unique administrative process for approval of aftermarket parts meeting emissions requirements (CARB Certification) it is in fact a violation of Federal law in the other 49 states to alter any emissions component/system on an on-road vehicle (this is acknowledged on the terms and conditions page of Rx Performance's website). In fact, CARB Certification is the only state process for approval of aftermarket equipment altering emissions systems, allowed under a special settlement with EPA many years ago. Many states have no mechanism for policing emission system alterations, but that doesn't make it legal, regardless of the actual performance demonstrated in a particular test other than EPA certification (allowed in law but so cost prohibitive virtually no aftermarket mfr pursues it). In Texas these things are supposed to be part of the annual required vehicle 'safety' inspection though many inspectors don't know what they are looking at when they lift the hood ;-).

Setting that minor nuisance aside (and accepting the potential problems of 'dirty intake air' on DI engines) I've flogged Google and can't find a single example of an actual installation of the Rx Catch Can w/Dual Check Valves on the 2.0l Ecoboost. Instructions downloaded from the Rx Performance website and all the examples I find online are for V-6 and V-8 Ecoboost engines which have significantly different layout, PCV locations, fittings and intake/turbo air pipe routings than our 2.0 engines. (I think our 2.0 PCV valve is low on the front of the block on the Crankcase Vent Oil Separator and I've no idea where the connection to the intake manifold is located?)

@Tuner Boost - can you help? Any links to diagrams/pics of installs on the 2.0 Ecoboost in any vehicle to give some idea of the layout, points to tap into the OEM components, etc? Any specific guidance on where one should make the "A-B-C" hose connections from the Rx Catch Can to our vehicles?

TIA

 

[centex]

One other interesting tidbit relating to this topic .... a statement buried in the '13-'14 Ford Escape Workshop Manual, excerpted below:

2013 - 2014 Escape - Procedure revision date: 07/11/2013
303-04E Fuel Charging and Controls - Turbocharger - 2.0L EcoBoost (177kW/240PS) - MI4
Diagnosis and Testing
.......
Turbocharger Internal Oil Leak Test
NOTE: It is normal for a small amount of combustion gas to pass into the crankcase. This gas is scavenged into the air intake system through the PCV system, which incorporates an crankcase vent oil separator. Some engine oil, in the form of a vapor is carried into the air intake system with the blow-by gases (this engine oil also contributes to valve seat durability).....

That last phrase in parentheses (bold added by me), whether we 'buy' the logic or not, gives a pretty good hint of how Ford might react to warranty claims relating to valve problems if one were to scrub some of that nasty oil mist/vapor out of the intake air. Darned if you do and darned if you don't :-0

 

[Tuner Boost]

Respectfully, that's not correct. While CA has a unique administrative process for approval of aftermarket parts meeting emissions requirements (CARB Certification) it is in fact a violation of Federal law in the other 49 states to alter any emissions component/system on an on-road vehicle (this is acknowledged on the terms and conditions page of Rx Performance's website). In fact, CARB Certification is the only state process for approval of aftermarket equipment altering emissions systems, allowed under a special settlement with EPA many years ago. Many states have no mechanism for policing emission system alterations, but that doesn't make it legal, regardless of the actual performance demonstrated in a particular test other than EPA certification (allowed in law but so cost prohibitive virtually no aftermarket mfr pursues it). In Texas these things are supposed to be part of the annual required vehicle 'safety' inspection though many inspectors don't know what they are looking at when they lift the hood ;-).

Setting that minor nuisance aside (and accepting the potential problems of 'dirty intake air' on DI engines) I've flogged Google and can't find a single example of an actual installation of the Rx Catch Can w/Dual Check Valves on the 2.0l Ecoboost. Instructions downloaded from the Rx Performance website and all the examples I find online are for V-6 and V-8 Ecoboost engines which have significantly different layout, PCV locations, fittings and intake/turbo air pipe routings than our 2.0 engines. (I think our 2.0 PCV valve is low on the front of the block on the Crankcase Vent Oil Separator and I've no idea where the connection to the intake manifold is located?)

@Tuner Boost - can you help? Any links to diagrams/pics of installs on the 2.0 Ecoboost in any vehicle to give some idea of the layout, points to tap into the OEM components, etc? Any specific guidance on where one should make the "A-B-C" hose connections from the Rx Catch Can to our vehicles?

TIA

I need to get a example in here to document with pics and post in detail. Good question. On the emissions, with over 14,000 in use over nearly 14 years, and Ford and Gm dealers some of the biggest dealers installing the RX systems, not a single one has ever voided warranty or failed emissions....but CA would if scrutinized closely due to CARB cert. Not sure on Canada, but we do pass in all other 49 States. That does not mean someone at a test station will not fail a vehicle....that is always possible. We are going for CARB cert for 2015 though, so just as exhaust headers and high-flow cats, or a simple CAI could as well. Now many cans out there DO delete or defeat, or vent to the atmosphere and will void and fail.

Let me get a new car in with a 2.0 or 1.6 and will post back on that.

One other interesting tidbit relating to this topic .... a statement buried in the '13-'14 Ford Escape Workshop Manual, excerpted below:

2013 - 2014 Escape - Procedure revision date: 07/11/2013
303-04E Fuel Charging and Controls - Turbocharger - 2.0L EcoBoost (177kW/240PS) - MI4
Diagnosis and Testing
.......
Turbocharger Internal Oil Leak Test
NOTE: It is normal for a small amount of combustion gas to pass into the crankcase. This gas is scavenged into the air intake system through the PCV system, which incorporates an crankcase vent oil separator. Some engine oil, in the form of a vapor is carried into the air intake system with the blow-by gases (this engine oil also contributes to valve seat durability).....

That last phrase in parentheses (bold added by me), whether we 'buy' the logic or not, gives a pretty good hint of how Ford might react to warranty claims relating to valve problems if one were to scrub some of that nasty oil mist/vapor out of the intake air. Darned if you do and darned if you don't :-0

Valve seat longevity has not been an issue in any 4 stroke engines since the late 70's when all went to hardened alloy seats. The valve guide wear though has now made a comeback with the coking deposits wearing them out in short order. Take a look at a few of these pictures to see. NO oil is ever beneficial in the intake air charge....oil causes detonation, slows and disrupts the burn pattern and flame front as well as the deposits affect quench. The gumming up of the ringlands is also an issue:

Snake a boroscope down an intake runner and see up close:

Or remove the throttle body and look into the IM snout. Here is a pic showing a MAF equipped engine and the oil fouling the MAF sensor:

Here is 140,000 miles on a port injection 3.6L V6 where there are zero deposits where the fuel spray hits:

And the following year as direct injection....this is with app 30k miles on. Sam 3.6L V6 but direct injection:

So, with a non DI engine a small amount of oil would be washed before any chance of coking by the injector spray....now no fuel touches the backside of the valves. You only want air/fuel only in the combustion chamber.

This is turning into a great thread with excellent Q&A on the subject. Keep the questions coming.

 

[centex]

I need to get a example in here to document with pics and post in detail. Good question. On the emissions, with over 14,000 in use over nearly 14 years, and Ford and Gm dealers some of the biggest dealers installing the RX systems, not a single one has ever voided warranty or failed emissions....but CA would if scrutinized closely due to CARB cert. Not sure on Canada, but we do pass in all other 49 States. That does not mean someone at a test station will not fail a vehicle....that is always possible. We are going for CARB cert for 2015 though, so just as exhaust headers and high-flow cats, or a simple CAI could as well. Now many cans out there DO delete or defeat, or vent to the atmosphere and will void and fail.

Let me get a new car in with a 2.0 or 1.6 and will post back on that.....

Sir, the wording of you reply begs the question: "Are you affiliated with Rx Performance or any company that manufactures or vends any of the products you are discussing?"

I don't suggest an actual conflict of interest in any of the helpful information you are sharing but IMHO in the spirit of this forum it would seem appropriate to disclose any such affiliation so readers can draw their own conclusions in full light of day.

Not to belabor the point too much but as you probably know, passing any test station emission test has no bearing on the technical legality of a modification to an emission system regulated by CARB or by the Federal Clean Air Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations, Subchapter C). Nor does the practices of particular dealerships, automotive shops or inspectors. CAA compliance happens to be an area of my pre-retirement professional expertise. I'm not suggesting that myself or any other 'hobbyist gearhead' practices strict compliance with these laws, but I do think it important that folks understand the factual context of decisions they make about vehicle mods.

I don't disagree with your assessment regarding valves/valve seats, etc. but I'm only a hobbyist in this field. I simply pointed out that Ford has a documented position, credible or not, that could hint at what a consumer might face in dealing with Ford on this (apparently as yet untested) potential problem. I'm a long loyal Ford customer, but as demonstrated by FMC's handling of the 2005 5.4 V-8 'spark plug removal/breakage' matter they're capable of taking some hard-line positions to the detriment of customer pocketbooks even on matters clearly related to inherent design 'elements'.

 

[slipstream808]

I need to see if Road Race Engineering out of California still makes their atmospherically vented catch cans. They smell a bit but it would work for running silicone hoses from the crankcase and the head to the can. Just need to mount it somewhere low and cap off the intake nipples with rubber screw caps and zip ties.

 

[leadmic]

I need to see if Road Race Engineering out of California still makes their atmospherically vented catch cans. They smell a bit but it would work for running silicone hoses from the crankcase and the head to the can. Just need to mount it somewhere low and cap off the intake nipples with rubber screw caps and zip ties.

That would fail a California smog inspection in short order. Thats just like having a road draft tube and they have be outlawed on new application since 1962.
Mark

 

[Tuner Boost]

I need to see if Road Race Engineering out of California still makes their atmospherically vented catch cans. They smell a bit but it would work for running silicone hoses from the crankcase and the head to the can. Just need to mount it somewhere low and cap off the intake nipples with rubber screw caps and zip ties.

And that not only will not pass any emissions, it will greatly reduce engine life as your leaving in all the combustion by-products that must be evacuated as soon as they enter the crankcase and are still in a suspended or gaseous state. If not, they quickly fall into the oil and then your breaking down the oils ability to protect. These are water, un-burnt fuel, abrasive carbon and soot particles, sulfuric acid and other hydrocarbon based compounds.

Here is a good video to understand how critical the removal of these are:

PCV VALVE OPERATION - YouTube

That would fail a California smog inspection in short order. Thats just like having a road draft tube and they have be outlawed on new application since 1962.
Mark

And engines with road draft tubes also sucked in dirt/dust/water/etc. due to the reversion spikes. Defats all evacuation and brings us back into the stone age. The PCV system has several functions, and all can be accomplished while still maintaining emissions.

 

[Tuner Boost]

Sir, the wording of you reply begs the question: "Are you affiliated with Rx Performance or any company that manufactures or vends any of the products you are discussing?"

I don't suggest an actual conflict of interest in any of the helpful information you are sharing but IMHO in the spirit of this forum it would seem appropriate to disclose any such affiliation so readers can draw their own conclusions in full light of day.

Not to belabor the point too much but as you probably know, passing any test station emission test has no bearing on the technical legality of a modification to an emission system regulated by CARB or by the Federal Clean Air Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations, Subchapter C). Nor does the practices of particular dealerships, automotive shops or inspectors. CAA compliance happens to be an area of my pre-retirement professional expertise. I'm not suggesting that myself or any other 'hobbyist gearhead' practices strict compliance with these laws, but I do think it important that folks understand the factual context of decisions they make about vehicle mods.

I don't disagree with your assessment regarding valves/valve seats, etc. but I'm only a hobbyist in this field. I simply pointed out that Ford has a documented position, credible or not, that could hint at what a consumer might face in dealing with Ford on this (apparently as yet untested) potential problem. I'm a long loyal Ford customer, but as demonstrated by FMC's handling of the 2005 5.4 V-8 'spark plug removal/breakage' matter they're capable of taking some hard-line positions to the detriment of customer pocketbooks even on matters clearly related to inherent design 'elements'.

You are correct if it comes to splitting hairs. Just as any mod will if you drill down as your suggesting. No CAI, K&N filter, headers, or exhaust mods. I am just sharing real life experience.

A little of my background. Automotive Engineer for over 40 years. Started with GM in 1974. Have been designing systems and products for both aftermarket and OEM Tier one implementation. The most recent was implemented in all GM 3.0 and 3.6L DI V6 engines late 2013 (all use my design in the PCV orifice 2014 and up). Over 40 years of engine building, both street and race. Years of owning, managing, running professional race teams with championships in both IHRA & NHRA in multiple classes. Divisonal. National, And World.

Products aside, I have 27 different proprietary products, but am only discussing the intake valve coking and oil ingestion related issues here. Anyone wanting to buy any would have to do so through a supporting vendor...no one can buy anything directly from me here. This is pure technical, the reason I am going into such depth and providing data and photos to back it all up. All of these issues are real, and thats why I urge any with doubt to simply look at there own valves, and give instruction how to do so. No one is forcing anyone to believe what they don't care to, most will believe the car they bought came from the factory perfect and unlimited R&D went into it and nothing can be improved on.....even though they cost a fraction of a super car that DOES give the engineers free-reign to develop the best. These are production vehicles, and every 4 stroke gasoline DI engine has the same issues, that is why the links are provided to see photos contributed by techs from virtually every auto maker in the world...and this also include 4 stroke snow mobile, out boards, and motorcycles. All DI engines have this issue. I am only taking the time to share a lifetime of knowledge working in the industry and seeing every development since the road draft tubes of old, from carb's to TB injection, to port injection which made intake valve coking and worn valve guides a thing of the past....until direct injection.

So as with any other technical subject I post about.....you have an opportunity to plug into a lifetime of knowledge and experience. If you don't wish other to read this and learn, then I would question why not share this info. It is all there for those that care to learn. So ask technical questions, and I will answer them in great detail.

 

[leadmic]

Tuner Boost, first off if your product can get CARB certified for our Escapes I would be interested. Second what brings you to this board? Do you have an Escape? If you don't theirs nothing wrong with that, I've enjoyed your posts, but if your here just to pimp your wares I think full disclosure is in order. If you have an Escape that's great as you have incentive to help in our quest for an all around better driving experience.
Thanks
Mark

 

[bjeans]

Moderator comment: While advertising is not allowed except in the Vendor/Sponsor section, it appears as though Tuner Boost has not given the name of the company he works for, and has mentioned competitor products as well (he named several in a PM). But please correct me if I'm wrong, either in a PM or here. The conversation is too technical for me and I haven't watched the videos, just skimmed the posts.
@pilotattitude

 

[centex]

@Tuner Boost
IMHO you and other sources have made a case for the potential problems associated with 'dirty air' intake on DI engines. We can each decide if that's of concern to us and how we might address it.

I'd like to further my technical understanding of improving the quality of PCV via the use of 'catch cans' or other improved systems for separating undesirable oil/oil vapor/water from the intake air stream. If not obvious, my only interest is application to the 2.0l Ecoboost in the FE.

To that end I've studied info on the Rx Performance website (which presumably is valid for any brand of similar product). I've taken the liberty of downloading and 'altering' a schematic from that website to help with my questions (un-altered and my altered versions of the schematic are attached for reference).

Technical Q's, some which are specific to the Rx Performance product if you are able to answer:
1) Do any or all the "A-B-C" hoses between the engine connections and a catch can need to be sloped toward the catch can to prevent pooling of liquids in the hoses or 'backflow' to the engine? Hose "B" in particular since the PCV valve on the FE may be mounted a lot lower than most that are on the valve cover.
2) Does the "A" hose connection on the engine-end need to be located close to the turbo inlet, or can it be located near the airbox on the airbox outlet pipe (perhaps an easier-to-access location)?
3) What is the role of adding a vented breather (e.g. Rx Performance "Cleanside Separator") to an engine like the 2.0 Ecoboost which has a 'sealed' filler cap with no valve cover breather? Maybe I'm looking at it wrong but lacking a check valve that breather seems to be a vent-to-atmosphere connected to the non-filtered side of the airbox?
4) What's inside the Rx Catch Can (open space? baffles? mesh?) and can it be opened for inspection/cleaning?
5) Are the check valves used in the Rx Catch Can System integral with the catch can fittings, internal to the can or separate external pieces installed inline in the hoses between the can and the engine connection points? As the only 'active' component in the system are they generic replaceable items which can be inspected for correct operation and cleaned?
6) Is it correct that for optimal performance a catch can needs to be installed in a 'cool as possible' location such as in front of the radiator to help facilitate condensation of vapors to liquid in the can?
7) Is there any reason that the drain valve could not/should not be located on the bottom of an extension line remote and below the catch can to facilitate easier access for draining? There's very limited access to the area between the bodywork and the front of the radiator on the FE, making operation of a can-mounted drain valve located there difficult.

TIA, more Q's to follow I'm sure as this nimrod struggles to understand these systems and how they might be implemented on the FE. I really hope you're able to find and document a 2.0 Ecoboost installation for our enlightenment.