Girly Catch Can Mounted
 

Both the cc vent and the pcv vent are going to the can now until I get a good pcv valve. Stupid simple build - one pvc union, two pvc plugs, three brass right angles and some plastic tube that expoxied on for the filter. The bracket is some aluminum anchored under the AC line bracket with some hose clamp tank mounts riveted to it.

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t...x5t/img070.jpg
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t...x5t/img071.jpg

Hooray for more people in the "screw pcvs" club. Open breathing for the win :p

it only looks that way when I'm on track (off-road) in the state of GA :D

Haha, I ditched mine this weekend also. I just did what Scott did and gutted the pcv and put a filter on it.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

I've been pushing Open for what feels like forever :p. It's nice to see people realize that even using a turbo pcv setup... open is just simpler and works :p

Works is right - but you lose the ability to scavenge those gases/vapors under vacuum. For a turbo car that doesn't see a lot of boost, mostly traffic driven, I think it's important to keep that part of the system for that reason.

simpler, yes, works, half the time, yes, the other half, no.

Edit : I was slow to post, what rob said exactly!

both my turbo miatas have no PCV valve. too risky. as soon as my dipstick blew out of the tube at 17psi i did away with that problem.

Yeah, I really want to do the catch can thing. I would like to be able to suck it all dry with the manifold, on the other hand, my stock-location feed right now has so much oil pouring into the turbo that I thought I'd blown a bearing. :-)

I was planning on digging up that other thread from a couple months ago to come up with a good layout.

How do you know 100% that you solved it by not letting boost in as opposed to letting twice as much blowby out? Unless you measured flow through that tube I say you can't know for sure.

One day when rob finishes his setup it will be the most kick areseseest one around. 1x pcv, 2x oversized out = ftw.

Fred.

too bad you don't have a 1.6L, then you could attach a drain to the stock location next to the oil filter.

Hmm, you think I should T in the catch can to my oil return from the turbo?

He fixed the problem with his dipstick blowing out. :D Odds are it is a leaking pcv valve if you've got blow-by. If it's not, then what? rings? and most here will probably just run their stock bottom ends until the MUST rebuild them.

I actually did that when the can was over on the other side. Made a Y junction pipe to share the oil drain. I've got to build another oil pan so I'm just build in another bung for that purpose.

I've yet to see it, but word is under very harsh conditions (track events) the captured oil gets heavily contaminated with water, creating an oily froth. So that might be a reason not to dump it back in.

I'm going to do this with mine.

I've seen it.... happened on my WRX. It looks kind of like oil, but kind of milky and definitely not something I would want going back into my motor.

Your too funny...

ALL engines have blow by :-) when you feed an engine 15psi you approximately double how much there is. Even if the rings are in perfect condition. Doubling how much there is and not giving it an extra way out = pressure. Doubling the way out under load is likely enough to alleviate that pressure.

Fred.

I was just doing some washing up and thinking about why I bother even trying to post sensible things into these threads and remembered something which I just know you will find very interesting.

Remember this :

Attachment 212904

Dip stick was 4 inches too high after a lap. The hose from the end of rocker went straight down and out the bottom with no bottle/restriction at all. NO turbo. ie its marginal in stock form when thrashed hard. Of course that must have been caused by magic boost dust leaking past the pcv valve right...

;-)

no, the problem was there were rockers in an mx6 ;)

I think the real problem was that the vent hole is about 1/8" - hard to blow through, so I'm sure it's equally difficult to vent blow-by thru

Anyone ever think to use a 19mm straight through bypass valve from a Supra, or similar, in lieu of a PCV valve? Other than me that is...

show me- I was using what I thought was a first gen supra turbo pcv valve (non OE). Had a metal valve core, but after 1k miles was already leaking.

I'm refering to a turbo bypass valve. We make a replacement, the OEM piece should look like this but in plastic:
http://www.forgemotorsport.com/conte...duct=FMDVMSP02

Manifold pressure will open or close the valve when its needed. Under boost it will be shut, open under vacuum. You can get them online or at junkyards for a song. That and a few reducers should do the trick...

I plan on trying one of our fancy alloy jobbers once I get the turbo in my car...

LOL

Agreed, for extreme use (of whichever type) it is far too small in there. Hence open it out, add another on the other bank, and do what you wish with them, BUT, leave the pcv system in place and in good condition.

Fred.

You don't think the idle might be a wee bit high with a 19mm hole to breath through and bypass the throttle do you? How else would you use it?

wouldn't the simplest solution be a one way check valve inline with the pcv. that way the pcv can still work as intended, and the check valve would be extra insurance that the crankcase will never get boost.

But but but, that's exactly what a pcv IS :-) I good nice softly sprung good sealing check valve would be excellent, you could always bring the flow down if you wanted to by using some sort of restrictor inline with it.

I couldn't find a good check valve, but I did put two in there, hoping the pressure drop across the first would be enough to leave one left. Probably crap, but it's what I did.

That makes total sense. People who take short trips like me get water in their oil, when you drive for a long time, the water should boil out. Ok, it would be awesome to seperate it, but you can probably change your oil less often if you don't dump it back in.

I think you can dump it back in by hand if it's clean. After the water comes out.


Isn't boost-dust something you can pour in the tank? I'm kinda wondering about the lack of suction....

What does something like that cost? If the megasquirt had more channels, you could make it electronic. :-)

Anyway, having a suction would help - with a decent catch can, you could plumb it back into the intake, ahead of the turbo, and that can't hurt. But perhaps a bigger bung would help.

There's not as much use to sucking off when not on boost..... And on boost, all these check-valves are closed. If it switched to atmospheric would work....

Probably not a bad idea at all!

You have to lift to get suction :-) nurburgring = extended periods at WOT and 120+ mph

Not true :-p (least, that's not what that red head of yours told me the other night ;-) )

Fred.

I used to get them free from Supra owners after they installed an upgraded valve. Maybe 5-10 from a junkyard.

The valve should pretty much exactly mimic the operation of a check-valve but without the leaking and blowing open.

I'm proposing installing it off of the valve cover, flow should be restricted by the size of that orifice.

Sorry I didn't quote, I'm feeling lazy...

If it were a steady state flow it would mimic it exactly, but being a pulsed flow it will not. It will puff out and then back in again. With the check valve it works like a small pump removing gas with each pulse.

Think about a piece of elastic with a ratchet on it.

So... Why not hook it in backwards.

You have a check valve to the intake manifold, so when in vacuum, you get suction into the motor. When on boost, there's no flow (unless your crankcase pressure is higher than boost pressure). No catch can here

Also, have a boost actuated valve, when the engine boosts, it would open, the rest of the time it's closed. This would have a catch can, and vent to atmosphere (or maybe between air filter and turbo). The giant opening wouldn't matter since it would only be open on boost, and doesn't go to the manifold so it won't effect idle.

So there's no vacuum leak to worry about, you're covered under boost and vacuum, you're not leaking all over the place, and your crankcase is well vented.

The big thing with the FE3 at least is just totally insufficient area to exit when the pcv is shut at WOT or on boost. The hole is just too small. Enlarging it and adding a second is a good way to go IMO.

I have a similar setup, but I used an electronics jiffy box w/rubber seal, stuffed it full of stainless steel wool, and put a screen in so no strands would get sucked into the motor. It seems to be trapping a very small amount of oil post PCV...

I just got a box, a nice one, and I'm stoked!

I want to get a much bigger outlet. Then I guess I'll go from that, to the can, to a T which goes to a vent or the intake manifold, with appropriate check valves.

And I should stuff the box with steel wool and screens.

m2cupcar, where abouts GA are you?

alright, so I have the stock pcv valve in, and a little filter on the driver side of the valve cover. am I using barrowed time with this setup, much like my 6" diff? I know the filter is supposed to give a sketchy idle once in a while, but I only idle when there's a spec miata infront of me on the track ;)

mostly I road race my car, although it still sees a couple thousand (2 or 3k) street miles a year. whats the best option for this pcv issue? 323 valve? catch can? from how much everyone seems to know about the situation, I think I missed a previous thread...

more testing
 

Near Emory U.
Went out and made a couple of ~15psi runs (sans pcv valve) from low rpm to rev limit using the OE vent and the pcv vent to the catch can. Still got oil seepage from the cam cover gasket. The passage at both ports in the Mazda cam cover is not quite 3/16" (~9mm). So I swapped in my modded Kia valve cover (post documenting cam cover mods here - and here - original thread).

Went back out and made the same runs and had zero visible oil seepage and there was no noticeable increase in the can oil level. Yes, the cam cover gaskets weren't the same- but the Kia gasket is about 3 years old and the other a year. Both feel similar. At ~9psi (waste gate actuator base) there's no problems - but the higher boost changes all that.

Great test rob, and exactly as I thought it would be. Now, leave the kia top on, put the ordinary pcv back in and call it a day :-p

Fred.

I need to buy a proper mazda turbo pcv. I had a third party supra unit on and it couldn't take over the base WG boost. Same with all the other OE units I have laying around... Though I haven't tried them with the new cam cover... maybe that was your point.

No, I was just giving you shit :-)

Fresh OEM FTW :-)

I look forward to you having it all working properly.

HMMMMMMMMMMMM, I wonder if my leaking rear main seal is because of this?? Perhaps I didn't stuff up the install, perhaps my 17psi pushed it out!??

Fred.

Have I missed something? The PCV vents back into the intake to make emissions. In Honda-Land, the Endyn (thus, the proper) solution is to epoxy in a few more 19mm necks on the valve cover and vent all of them to a catch can (or two in some cases). The can has provisions for a PCV valve on it to run back into the intake to meet emmissions regs, and a filter for normal (off road only :)) running.

Can:
http://theoldone.com/components/breather/

In use (56k remember: its up the road, not across the street):
http://theoldone.com/articles/Larrys...rrys_Civic.htm

No. Though a proper solution would depend on the emissions laws. I could run my filter port back to the intake with pcv valve inline and have the same solution as you've described, but I'm currently running a filter (for off road only :)).

That can is setup just like mine- two input ports from the cam cover, one drain and a filter port (or intake return with inline pvc valve).

Right. So whats all this talk about 'scavenging those gasses' and what not? I piss directly upon anything that escapes my engine and doesn't need to pass through my turbine housing. Catching it all in a can and dumping it in my recyleable oil barrel once a week sounds just peachy to me. If Alabama ever catches up to the rest of the world on emissions testing, I'll see about a different solution then :D. I can't see any reason at all to use a pcv valve for anything other than the trip to the test anyway... Unless I'm missing something, like I said before.

Scavenging was referring to management of cc emissions (gases) outside of boost. The point being that the majority of time "these" boosted cars are driven, they are not in boost. And if you are not running a pcv setup as stock or similar, you have removed the emissions system that evacuates those cc emissions and sends them back into the intake for combustion under vacuum.

Copied FTW

Except I used some leftover intercooler pipes and JBweld a top and bottom to it.

I added two plastic fittings with clear vinyl hose so i can see oil level.

sweet :bigtu: ^

Post that on HMT, they will love you for it.

As much as endyn has some good articles, I'm 110% with Rob on that. Endyns solution does NOT meet my or OEM requirements at keeping oil clean out of boost. this requires drawing clean air IN to the crank case from the world and dirty air OUT of the crank case into the engine during low load/vacuum conditions where it does NOT negatively affect the engines performance in any discernible way.

Fred.

So the proper solution is? Drawing through the crank case with engine vacuum?

Keep the OE pcv valve running between to the manifold and cam cover for emission gas evacuation under vacuum and run the catch can vent back to the intake pre turbo, post filter so those gases vented under boost are returned to the combustion process.

I'd skip the last part of that for a high power application as when you are in boost you don't really want your fuel diluted with oil vapour as it does lower the octane. I personally intend to feed mine into the exhaust stream (post cat if you have one) through a venturi arrangement and check valve. This can create a vacuum under all conditions. As a bonus it might help burn the vapours in the exhaust stream too. That wouldn't be emissions legal, but I'm not concerned with that where I am.

Having said that, the volume of gas being ingested by the engine should make the blowby effectively negligible, but if I don't have to feed it in and line the intercooler with oil, I won't.

Fred.

With a decent catch can, you should be ok.

I didn't find any of the exhaust-venturi things to work well.... At least not on our deisel

Yep - that last part is about the only thing to do that would even remotely be considered emissions legal since it's just following the OE layout. But I agree- sending that nasty mix through a turbo intake path isn't appealing.

3" ex on a little motor is probably worst case for them anyway with the low gas velocity. Still can't hurt even if it's just dumping in there :-)

http://www.maperformance.com/store/p...at=1771&page=1

A lot of locals are running these with good results.

Still think that's pricey (nothing like the krankvents) for a couple of heavy duty pcv valves (or check valves). My guess is there is an industrial check valve that will work. Pressure/vacuum specs probably isn't an issue- but heat will be. Anybody venture to guess a temp on the crankcase vapor?

100C +/- 20C :-) probably around the temperature of the oil though I would say, wouldn't you?

All I can say is on the two cars I've seen it on, it seemed air was blowing out as often as blowing in, when in the garage. Maybe under power it would be a different story.

240-260 degrees if you're on the track w/o an oil cooler. I need an oil cooler

That should never be the case given that check valves are used. Something must have been wrong. I've read too many good positive reports of strong vacuum in the crank case with them. They can't all be wrong can they? My mate is doing a holset+m20 bmw setup and has a kit so we'll see what he has to say, he's going to measure the kpa in the crank case with it and report back :-)

Fred.