Testing Air Oil seperators
- Thread starter ShoBoat
- Start date
JimiJak said:
I agree with what you say...except I don't believe it's a simple oversight. Maybe you're right, but just how would the engineers design a PCV system to meet EPA without a catch can of some sort?
I stand by what Tracy stated in that the oem's designed the pcv system this way because there is no other way (maybe economical way?) without using some sort of catch can.
I also think the engineers are well aware of the "situation" of the PCV system and either eccept it themselves or are made to except it by the bean counters.
Lets start from a clean sheet so to speak. How would one ventilate the crankcase meeting EPA?
On a side note, I know most over the road trucks have a manual drain on the intercooler...but that's a whole different animal.
Tuner Boost
New member
Hi Gang,
Start with the EB engine and when it is in boost. The turbos on the EB are small and very efficient, and they begin to spool up as soon as you apply any throttle, and that is where the good low and mid range power comes from. Excellent design by the engineers. So there is really when measured at the intake manifold only vacuum (and low vacuum at that, 6-9") at idle and even low throttle (not enough to cruise and maintain speed) there is only 1-3" we can measure. As soon as we even lightly accelerate there is .5-1# of boost, and the check valve in the valve cover has closes as soon as it see's even a fraction of a # of pressure or 0 vac. So 80% of the operating time is conservative. It is probably closer to 90% of the time, but lets say 80%. There should never be more than a few seconds of non evacuation taking place anytime. That is why even with the RX PCV mod, you will have that brief transition from non-boost to boost when some pressure does build in the crankcase thus the cleanside spearator has to allow flow both ways. But were talking seconds VS most of the time as stock.
Now, the engineers know very well the how and why of all of this, but just as most of you that work for a big company, rarely can you go above your immediate supervisors head and argue something be done differently....it is not good for job security. The auto makers are the worst. So what happened is the PCV system is closed, and meets EPS guidelines even though it is designed the same as a naturally aspirated engine such as the 5.0 or 6.2, and the top mount supercharger cobra and GT500's that all work great. So somewhere a mid management decision maker along with the bean counters decided (NOT the very talented and skilled engineers, they know better) "we dont need to reinvent the wheel here. it passes EPA regs and works on the other engines, so this is how were doing it". and of course any engineers that argued, really did not have a good day. Just the politics of how this works from the industry side. So, once the engines and vehicles are in production, just like GM and the inexpensive ignition switch issue, change does not happen easy, and I can bet right now there will be no real change as all the work is now on the 2.7 eb that will replace the 3.5. Just as happened with the 6.0 diesel. All Ford had to do was replace the head bolts with ARP studs and the engine was fine, yet I wasted $52,000 on a new F350 crew cab loaded with every option possible and Ford voided my warranty because I had a K&N filter on it. (Lincoln dealer honored it and replaced engine twice until I finally did the head studs to correct the issue at the source). So what did Ford do? for 100k miles replace entire engines instead of a inexpensive proven solution. And then dropped the engine. And they are not alone, this is STANDARD in the entire industry. It cost millions and millions to make a .02 cent change. They will never admit to an issue (unless sued by the NTSB), and then dance around all sorts of spin.
I can tell you dozens and dozens of examples over the years since the Pinto and the Pontiac sport wheels paint flaking off in the 70's up through today on all makes/models.
So, the EB PCV system is the same as a 5.0 NA engine, and that cannot work period as any turbo system pressurizes the IM and the IM vacuum is what is relied on with this design.
Start with the EB engine and when it is in boost. The turbos on the EB are small and very efficient, and they begin to spool up as soon as you apply any throttle, and that is where the good low and mid range power comes from. Excellent design by the engineers. So there is really when measured at the intake manifold only vacuum (and low vacuum at that, 6-9") at idle and even low throttle (not enough to cruise and maintain speed) there is only 1-3" we can measure. As soon as we even lightly accelerate there is .5-1# of boost, and the check valve in the valve cover has closes as soon as it see's even a fraction of a # of pressure or 0 vac. So 80% of the operating time is conservative. It is probably closer to 90% of the time, but lets say 80%. There should never be more than a few seconds of non evacuation taking place anytime. That is why even with the RX PCV mod, you will have that brief transition from non-boost to boost when some pressure does build in the crankcase thus the cleanside spearator has to allow flow both ways. But were talking seconds VS most of the time as stock.
Now, the engineers know very well the how and why of all of this, but just as most of you that work for a big company, rarely can you go above your immediate supervisors head and argue something be done differently....it is not good for job security. The auto makers are the worst. So what happened is the PCV system is closed, and meets EPS guidelines even though it is designed the same as a naturally aspirated engine such as the 5.0 or 6.2, and the top mount supercharger cobra and GT500's that all work great. So somewhere a mid management decision maker along with the bean counters decided (NOT the very talented and skilled engineers, they know better) "we dont need to reinvent the wheel here. it passes EPA regs and works on the other engines, so this is how were doing it". and of course any engineers that argued, really did not have a good day. Just the politics of how this works from the industry side. So, once the engines and vehicles are in production, just like GM and the inexpensive ignition switch issue, change does not happen easy, and I can bet right now there will be no real change as all the work is now on the 2.7 eb that will replace the 3.5. Just as happened with the 6.0 diesel. All Ford had to do was replace the head bolts with ARP studs and the engine was fine, yet I wasted $52,000 on a new F350 crew cab loaded with every option possible and Ford voided my warranty because I had a K&N filter on it. (Lincoln dealer honored it and replaced engine twice until I finally did the head studs to correct the issue at the source). So what did Ford do? for 100k miles replace entire engines instead of a inexpensive proven solution. And then dropped the engine. And they are not alone, this is STANDARD in the entire industry. It cost millions and millions to make a .02 cent change. They will never admit to an issue (unless sued by the NTSB), and then dance around all sorts of spin.
I can tell you dozens and dozens of examples over the years since the Pinto and the Pontiac sport wheels paint flaking off in the 70's up through today on all makes/models.
So, the EB PCV system is the same as a 5.0 NA engine, and that cannot work period as any turbo system pressurizes the IM and the IM vacuum is what is relied on with this design.
I managed to suck the crap out of my CAC, (not fun) I plan on pulling the tubes off the turbos tonight to see how much if any oil is in these tubes just after the turbos (back vs front) I am determined to figure out exactly where the oil is coming from and how much from where. In my CAC there was a measurable over 1/2 inch (more like 3/4) at the bottom of the CAC. I don't care who you are and what your experience is, that can't be good. And FMC or anybody else if you are trying to tell me that's normal? I don't think so.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
SHOdded said:Sounds like the IC could use a drain plug! Did you disconnect hoses to do this, Shoboat, without having to pull the unit out? N/M, just saw your post in the other PVC thread
This is exactly how I did it, I pulled off the intake tube from the TB and CAC. I then attached a 3/16 washer tube to a compressed air cleaner like this. The compressed air cleaner has a port for chemical or water. Using Venturi it pulls the oil from the bottom of the CAC. I decided to do it this was as there is minimal risk of fire or explosion. Using an electric vacuum the vapors must travel through the head of the vacuum. If there is gasoline vapor there is the risk of FIRE! So better safe than sorry, unless of course you have access to a vacuum that is explosion proof and rated to pick up flammable liquids.
Intaking draining 9 by sho.boat, on FlickrI then inserted the clear tube into a 3/8 fuel line, this was necessary as the thinner tube did not have enough rigidity to stay straight as I dropped it into the CAC.
Intaking draining 2 by sho.boat, on Flickr I then inserted this tube down into the CAC, plugged the cleaning wand into compressed air source and put the discharge into a garbage can with a plastic bag lining it. To avoid getting oil all over the place.
Intaking draining 13 by sho.boat, on Flickr
Intaking draining 11 by sho.boat, on FlickrI tested oil level after with the dipstick from the car, when I started I had about 3/4 of an inch of oil in the bottom of the CAC. When I was done it didn't really register. I also did a bit of wicking like this. Just to ensure I got as much as I could out.
Intaking draining 3 by sho.boat, on FlickrAnd the final operation, I must stress that extreme care be taken not to drop anything into the CAC. If you do the only way to get it out is to remove the CAC from the car. Also if you do the wicking use non shedding lint free material. I used acrylic string just to be safe.
http://youtu.be/8xbeo93n4Lg
Tuner Boost
New member
Excxellent idea!! This will make it SOOOO much easier to do, and this is critical to prevent hydro lock in the future as in say your cruising don the highway and have to pass a car....floor it and that sudden jump to max boost can push that mix in to the IM in a "gulp" causing hydro-lock and broken pistons and bent rods.
Not much as of yet, my last inspection had some oil in the tubes leading to the separators. Nothing visible in or after the cans. Also there is no evidence of new oil in the cac or the throttle body as of yet. I am going to take apart the system this weekend to take a look and I'll let you guys know.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So I tore the system apart last night, and nada, nothing zip in the cans. 2 tanks of gas about 900km. There is evidence of oil in the tubes leading to the separators nothing in and nothing after. I am beginning to think that either it's going straight through or it's too restrictive and not getting into the cans. Weird, I thought the pcv side would get something. I'll have them on for about another week and we will see where I stand. But it doesn't look good for the morso cans.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk