Testing Air Oil seperators
- Thread starter ShoBoat
- Start date
I have four big questions for TunerBoost: Or anyone else able to provide accurate information
1. Is the rear PCV valve just a check valve, or is it mechanical? What causes this valve to "close" while under boost? How does the additional vacuum supplied by the intake pipe lines on the Rx system, re-open the closed PCV valve?
2. Why not install a check valve in the clean side line to prevent ALL backflow into the CAC?
3. Would re-routing the catch can to a location in front of the radiator be beneficial due to increased condensation, or detrimental due to decreased flow caused by too much hose distance?
4. Is there a way to proved true positive pressure through the clean side rather than just minimal vacuum, and would that be beneficial?
1. Is the rear PCV valve just a check valve, or is it mechanical? What causes this valve to "close" while under boost? How does the additional vacuum supplied by the intake pipe lines on the Rx system, re-open the closed PCV valve?
2. Why not install a check valve in the clean side line to prevent ALL backflow into the CAC?
3. Would re-routing the catch can to a location in front of the radiator be beneficial due to increased condensation, or detrimental due to decreased flow caused by too much hose distance?
4. Is there a way to proved true positive pressure through the clean side rather than just minimal vacuum, and would that be beneficial?
FoMoCoSHO said:
Let me rephrase -
while I was installing the rx system; I took off the OEM lines, and both of them had oil in them already.
To answer your second question; the separator is there to catch any oil that comes in contact with the front PCV port. This isn't supposed to act like a filter, but to serve as a last ditch method of protection while flow is momentarily reversed during transitions between boost and non-boost. once the transition is complete, the flow should continue in the correct direction, which is:
air intake --> front intake pipe --> barb fitting --> clean side separator --> front valve cover --> crankcase --> rear valve cover --> PCV valve --> Catch Can --> then the return flow is split between the IM vacuum barb and the front AND rear intake pipes where it re-enters the system.
The oil separator "impactor plate" is active during all no boost conditions, not just transitions. It is just a plate that droplets collect on and drop back into the crankcaseJimiJak said:
Intake>fresh air tube> front valve cover>crankcase>Rear valve cover>separator>"impactor plate>pcv valve>"pcv orifice"
Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to reconcile the different terminology with the animation I am watching about the GTDI PVC system.
It has given me one helluva headache.
I am Liking the gauge in this guys setup. It would be cool to read the vacuum under different conditions. Would be easy to checkout using a gopro or similar.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=znxsJzvpWcE
Another interesting install
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AT2w-ejVE14
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=znxsJzvpWcE
Another interesting install
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AT2w-ejVE14
I am guessing it's a boosted car, that would be reason that the vac dropped to 0. It's hard to tell from the vid, it is normal for a NA engine when you open the TB like that for it to drop for a second before it recovers the vacuum. Unless it was under load it's kind hard to get an accurate read on the vacuum doing what he did in the vid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tuner Boost
New member
Panther, your correct. The water accumulation (well water, oil, unburnt fuel, sulfuric acid, etc. mix) is what causes the shudder....and plug gap as well needs to be .028-.030. When sudden full boost is applied it forces this mix into the intake manifold in a big "gulp" and that can cause hydro-lock as well. The RX system fixes all of that.
We never want pressure in the crankcase. There are brief periods where it is unavoidable, but the goal is vacuum/suction at all times to avoid seal failure issues, oil leaks, and to prevent the parasitic power loss of the pistons moving down in the bore having to fight that pressure.
Here is how GM does it with their turbos. They actually have a circuit cast/machined into the turbo intake side housing to provide this:
What GM's mistake was they relied totally on the turbo inlet suction for evacuation and no intake manifold vacuum so it does not evac at idle and low throttle causing similar, but less issues as the EB. The systems we do for GM just tie into the intake manifold vacuum to correct those.
That is where Ford went wrong. They expected this to work like a NA engines PCV system, or the PD Blower applications that do not have this issue (and Ford does great with). And since they are now focusing on the 2.7 turbo for the future, I dont think they will revise production at this stage just as they did not do the simple fix of the 6.0 diesel (weak head bolts...simple ARP head stud replacement cured the issue, and that was a huge debacle). They will just discontinue this engine (which is crazy IMHO as the engine is amazing).
And last, a NA engine will have (depending on the cam profile) 18-22" of vacuum at idle or deceleration, a turbo will usually not see more than 8-12" at idle or deceleration. But either as soon as you go WOT there is no vacuum. The turbo due to boost, and NA due to reversion pulses from valve overlap move into the IM and defeat any measurable vacuum, but only at WOT.
JimiJak said:
We never want pressure in the crankcase. There are brief periods where it is unavoidable, but the goal is vacuum/suction at all times to avoid seal failure issues, oil leaks, and to prevent the parasitic power loss of the pistons moving down in the bore having to fight that pressure.
Here is how GM does it with their turbos. They actually have a circuit cast/machined into the turbo intake side housing to provide this:
What GM's mistake was they relied totally on the turbo inlet suction for evacuation and no intake manifold vacuum so it does not evac at idle and low throttle causing similar, but less issues as the EB. The systems we do for GM just tie into the intake manifold vacuum to correct those.
That is where Ford went wrong. They expected this to work like a NA engines PCV system, or the PD Blower applications that do not have this issue (and Ford does great with). And since they are now focusing on the 2.7 turbo for the future, I dont think they will revise production at this stage just as they did not do the simple fix of the 6.0 diesel (weak head bolts...simple ARP head stud replacement cured the issue, and that was a huge debacle). They will just discontinue this engine (which is crazy IMHO as the engine is amazing).
And last, a NA engine will have (depending on the cam profile) 18-22" of vacuum at idle or deceleration, a turbo will usually not see more than 8-12" at idle or deceleration. But either as soon as you go WOT there is no vacuum. The turbo due to boost, and NA due to reversion pulses from valve overlap move into the IM and defeat any measurable vacuum, but only at WOT.
This is what I'm having trouble with in the "animation". It appears under boost that everything just reverses which I feel is too simplistic and doesn't really tell the whole story. It also shows air being diverted from the IM to PVC but I don't really understand how the crap is removed from the rest of the charge which apparently is the problem?Tuner Boost said:
Please excuse my ignorance on the subject, this is the first time I've actually bothered to understand how a PVC system works.
Tuner Boost
New member
FoMoCoSHO said:
No problem.
The video is great to understand the function of a PCV system in general. The damaging compounds that are combustion by-products and are introduced to the crankcase as part of the blow-by all engines experience. In the video they do a good job of explaining the pressure, evacuation functions, and clean air that must enter the opposite bank that the foul vapors are evacuated from (or sucked out from).
Pressure is to be avoided at all costs, so as long as the intake manifold vacuum is providing suction to constantly be removing these vapors as soon as they enter, all is good. But with a turbo system, there is only vacuum (suction) present when no boost is being made. And with the ecoboost since the turbos are small and efficient, they spool very quickly and begin to produce boost as soon as any throttle is applied. When this happens, then there is no vacuum in the intake manifold, only pressure. So all evacuation halts. The checkvalve closes (if it didn't, the boost would flow into that cam cover and pressurize the crankcase immediately causing oil leaks and failed seals) so at that time on, until back at idle and no boost, there is not suction/evacuation taking place to continue removing these compouns as the video shows should be. So a turbo or centri SC system is unique in this way. So then since all evacuation has halted. These vapors quickly accumulate (avg PCV system pulls 400-500 CFM of flow out steadily, so it takes only a few seconds to fill the crankcase with concentrations of this gunk) and begin mixing with the ebgine oil, etc. Now, all engine have blow-by. So after a few minutes this blow-by creates pressure in the crankcase and it has to go somewhere, so it seeks the path of least resistance, and that is "out the inlet" pushing some of this mix (not all...and that is why it is damaging mixed with the oil, etc.) into the turbo inlet on the cleanside where it is pushed (after sucked past the turbo) into the CAC and condense into this accumulation.
Also, on the cleanside. We must allow this to be able to flow both ways to make sure any pressure that could build during the brief transition from non-boost to boost (until the turbo inlet suction takes over on the RX mod) so any pressure can escape.
Tuner Boost,
I assume by your response you know the specific animation I'm referring too?
So here's a dumb question....What constitutes "under boost"?
I always thought anything over zero was considered boost and anything under is vacuum.
Cause I feel like I'm really not in boost that often. (well at least when I'm driving like a normal human)
And I feel like that was Ford's strategy....they assumed that most of the time the car would be under vacuum most of the time which would pull the gunk that did get in the tube when we're getting on it.
Maybe they underestimated how their target market would actually drive these cars?
I assume by your response you know the specific animation I'm referring too?
So here's a dumb question....What constitutes "under boost"?
I always thought anything over zero was considered boost and anything under is vacuum.
Cause I feel like I'm really not in boost that often. (well at least when I'm driving like a normal human)
And I feel like that was Ford's strategy....they assumed that most of the time the car would be under vacuum most of the time which would pull the gunk that did get in the tube when we're getting on it.
Maybe they underestimated how their target market would actually drive these cars?
I know this question wasn't directed at me...but I'm offering my $0.02 on this topic.FoMoCoSHO said:Tuner Boost,
I assume by your response you know the specific animation I'm referring too?
So here's a dumb question....What constitutes "under boost"?
I always thought anything over zero was considered boost and anything under is vacuum.
Cause I feel like I'm really not in boost that often. (well at least when I'm driving like a normal human)
And I feel like that was Ford's strategy....they assumed that most of the time the car would be under vacuum most of the time which would pull the gunk that did get in the tube when we're getting on it.
Maybe they underestimated how their target market would actually drive these cars?
Are your eBOVs VTA?
Mine are, and even just in driving around, I notice how often the eBOVs open to relieve pressure. In the past Tracy's mentioned typical driving resulting in being under boost 80% of the time...I'm inclined to think that's probably pretty accurate.
All $.02 gladly accepted...JimiJak said:I know this question wasn't directed at me...but I'm offering my $0.02 on this topic.FoMoCoSHO said:Tuner Boost,
I assume by your response you know the specific animation I'm referring too?
So here's a dumb question....What constitutes "under boost"?
I always thought anything over zero was considered boost and anything under is vacuum.
Cause I feel like I'm really not in boost that often. (well at least when I'm driving like a normal human)
And I feel like that was Ford's strategy....they assumed that most of the time the car would be under vacuum most of the time which would pull the gunk that did get in the tube when we're getting on it.
Maybe they underestimated how their target market would actually drive these cars?
Are your eBOVs VTA?
Mine are, and even just in driving around, I notice how often the eBOVs open to relieve pressure. In the past Tracy's mentioned typical driving resulting in being under boost 80% of the time...I'm inclined to think that's probably pretty accurate.
The more I research, the more I'm swinging toward Tracy's side, Ford may have effed up.
Me spending $500 to correct a design flaw is a bit hard to swallow.
There is a condition that I have where if I'm playing on the highway, romping on the gas and lifting repeatedly then the car will start to hesitate and lose throttle response, as in none. I think crash has also alluded to this behavior. I also know of an Ecoboost cruiser exhibiting this behavior, I have always though it was the ECU getting confused, Now I'm not so sure.
I may very well end up with an RX system on my car, but a trip to the dealership is in order first.
I'm gonna have them pull my fresh air tube and the tube on the turbo inlet.
Assuming oil is found, I'm very curious what their response will be.
FoMoCoSHO said:All $.02 gladly accepted...JimiJak said:I know this question wasn't directed at me...but I'm offering my $0.02 on this topic.FoMoCoSHO said:Tuner Boost,
I assume by your response you know the specific animation I'm referring too?
So here's a dumb question....What constitutes "under boost"?
I always thought anything over zero was considered boost and anything under is vacuum.
Cause I feel like I'm really not in boost that often. (well at least when I'm driving like a normal human)
And I feel like that was Ford's strategy....they assumed that most of the time the car would be under vacuum most of the time which would pull the gunk that did get in the tube when we're getting on it.
Maybe they underestimated how their target market would actually drive these cars?
Are your eBOVs VTA?
Mine are, and even just in driving around, I notice how often the eBOVs open to relieve pressure. In the past Tracy's mentioned typical driving resulting in being under boost 80% of the time...I'm inclined to think that's probably pretty accurate.
The more I research, the more I'm swinging toward Tracy's side, Ford may have effed up.
Me spending $500 to correct a design flaw is a bit hard to swallow.
There is a condition that I have where if I'm playing on the highway, romping on the gas and lifting repeatedly then the car will start to hesitate and lose throttle response, as in none. I think crash has also alluded to this behavior. I also know of an Ecoboost cruiser exhibiting this behavior, I have always though it was the ECU getting confused, Now I'm not so sure.
I may very well end up with an RX system on my car, but a trip to the dealership is in order first.
I'm gonna have them pull my fresh air tube and the tube on the turbo inlet.
Assuming oil is found, I'm very curious what their response will be.
Do you want the official response? The same one that I got? "Some oil being present in the intake tubes is normal, this is due to the intended design of the PCV system. This should not be taken for any abnormal issues with the operation of the system." Ok then tell me what is normal and what is not? How about when it effects the performance of the car? The next time you are out "playing" at higher speeds, when you get home, remove the intake tube from the TB and inspect the tube and TB for "excessive oil". I don't know who to believe anymore, FMC and some of the engine builders say it's normal. Others say it's not, and we get effed trying to figure out what to do and who to believe.
One other thing, most of the people that drive an EB powered car or truck will not "get on it" like most of us will. They will go to pass a guy once in a while and notice a small shudder or hesitation and think nothing of it. I guess if anything that is what they are counting on. Kinda like the 2 engineers at GM with the ignition locks that was linked to 13 deaths and denied it for 10 years on a $0.50 part and not calling a recall. That's what they call a calculated risk.
Alan Mulally - The guy that turned Ford around...made a Global Ford, and denied the bailout money: has done incredible things with the brand, and I believe he's a great leader, and a marketing genius...however...
with all that being said; Mulally has summarized what the Ford customer wants into 5 areas: Quality. Fuel efficiency. Safety. Smart design. Value.
and unfortunately none of those are performance. So I agree, the members of this forum are in the minority, by a long shot.
This gives you an idea where Ford's sights are set...and it's no wonder they've made a performance engine that truly performs, featuring one huge oversight.
Although, you have to wonder; is there just not enough money in a motor that should run without a hitch for 300K-400,000 miles? Maybe it wasn't an oversight after all... Just seems funny to me that a company loaded with brilliant engineers would design such a fantastic piece of functional, high performance, reliable, artwork...and yet "fail" to recognize a simple PCV system failure.
with all that being said; Mulally has summarized what the Ford customer wants into 5 areas: Quality. Fuel efficiency. Safety. Smart design. Value.
and unfortunately none of those are performance. So I agree, the members of this forum are in the minority, by a long shot.
This gives you an idea where Ford's sights are set...and it's no wonder they've made a performance engine that truly performs, featuring one huge oversight.
Although, you have to wonder; is there just not enough money in a motor that should run without a hitch for 300K-400,000 miles? Maybe it wasn't an oversight after all... Just seems funny to me that a company loaded with brilliant engineers would design such a fantastic piece of functional, high performance, reliable, artwork...and yet "fail" to recognize a simple PCV system failure.
