Miatapower List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Kurt Summers <(email redacted)>


Hypothetically speaking, what should be the adverse effects of taking the
PCV valve out of the vacuum line from the intake plenum to the cam cover
and instead having a direct vacuum feed (complete vacuum tube intead of
inline PCV)? Do you think this would lead to an oil consumption problem?
I know that the purpose of the PCV is to meter the ingestion of blowby
gasses from the crank case dependent upon engine load/vacuum.

Today I deleted the PCV and just completed the vacuum line from the plenum
to the cam cover. As a result, I had HUGE plumes of smoke from the
tailpipe in only about 1/4 mile of driving. I thought that oil should be
blocked from this line by the baffles that are integrated into the cam
cover. What am I missing?

Kurt

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: John Suchak Jr <(email redacted)>



What you're missing is many PSI of boost pressurizing the crankcase and
blowing oil through the other cam cover hose into the intake!! (Probably past
your seals as well!)

My setup:

jacksonville.net/~suchak/newmotor/ohwell1.jpg

K&N in place of the PCV, everything else removed and capped off. (Use a
mini-clamp to hold the cap on the intake manifold to keep it from being blown
off, and be sure to remove and cap both ends of the "drivers side" breather
hose as well.) The crankcase just vents through the K&N as necessary, and the
intake is completely isolated from it.

(You'd be amazed how much oily-spooge accumulates in the intake manifold from
that PCV setup!)

John



Kurt Summers wrote:

> Hypothetically speaking, what should be the adverse effects of taking the
> PCV valve out of the vacuum line from the intake plenum to the cam cover
> and instead having a direct vacuum feed (complete vacuum tube intead of
> inline PCV)? Do you think this would lead to an oil consumption problem?
> I know that the purpose of the PCV is to meter the ingestion of blowby
> gasses from the crank case dependent upon engine load/vacuum.
>
> Today I deleted the PCV and just completed the vacuum line from the plenum
> to the cam cover. As a result, I had HUGE plumes of smoke from the
> tailpipe in only about 1/4 mile of driving. I thought that oil should be
> blocked from this line by the baffles that are integrated into the cam
> cover. What am I missing?
>
> Kurt

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Eric Vaillancourt <(email redacted)>


Good thought John, but this Kurt doesn't have a turbo, IIRC, just 1929
cc of NA torque. Still, adding intake air flow to the cam area could
overwhelm the vavle guide seals, I suppose. That might cause the extra
oil into the combustion chambers. The baffles are not air tight, after
all, just splash gaurds, more or less.

Eric

John Suchak Jr wrote:
>
> What you're missing is many PSI of boost pressurizing the crankcase and
> blowing oil through the other cam cover hose into the intake!! (Probably past
> your seals as well!)
>
> My setup:
>
> jacksonville.net/~suchak/newmotor/ohwell1.jpg
>
> K&N in place of the PCV, everything else removed and capped off. (Use a
> mini-clamp to hold the cap on the intake manifold to keep it from being blown
> off, and be sure to remove and cap both ends of the "drivers side" breather
> hose as well.) The crankcase just vents through the K&N as necessary, and the
> intake is completely isolated from it.
>
> (You'd be amazed how much oily-spooge accumulates in the intake manifold from
> that PCV setup!)
>
> John
>
> Kurt Summers wrote:
>
> > Hypothetically speaking, what should be the adverse effects of taking the
> > PCV valve out of the vacuum line from the intake plenum to the cam cover
> > and instead having a direct vacuum feed (complete vacuum tube intead of
> > inline PCV)? Do you think this would lead to an oil consumption problem?
> > I know that the purpose of the PCV is to meter the ingestion of blowby
> > gasses from the crank case dependent upon engine load/vacuum.
> >
> > Today I deleted the PCV and just completed the vacuum line from the plenum
> > to the cam cover. As a result, I had HUGE plumes of smoke from the
> > tailpipe in only about 1/4 mile of driving. I thought that oil should be
> > blocked from this line by the baffles that are integrated into the cam
> > cover. What am I missing?
> >
> > Kurt

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Todd Paciorek" <(email redacted)>


To add m own input to the PCV valve mysteries...

I had been having problems with a 1-2 shift smoking problem. I replaced
the (spent) OEM PCV with an OEM for the GTX. I saw the smoking persist,
but after 50 miles or so, it seems to have stopped. This is great news
to me and I think it can only be attributed to the PCV... I replaced
everything else first.

(BTW - anyone else top this rape from the dealer? - $1995 for a factory
323 GTX PCV valve.)

Todd

-----Original Message-----
From: (email redacted)
[mailto:(email redacted)] On Behalf Of Eric Vaillancourt
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 10:39 AM
To: John Suchak Jr
Cc: Kurt Summers; (email redacted)
Subject: Re: To PCV or not to PCV...


Good thought John, but this Kurt doesn't have a turbo, IIRC, just 1929
cc of NA torque. Still, adding intake air flow to the cam area could
overwhelm the vavle guide seals, I suppose. That might cause the extra
oil into the combustion chambers. The baffles are not air tight, after
all, just splash gaurds, more or less.

Eric

John Suchak Jr wrote:
>
> What you're missing is many PSI of boost pressurizing the crankcase
and
> blowing oil through the other cam cover hose into the intake!!
(Probably past
> your seals as well!)
>
> My setup:
>
> jacksonville.net/~suchak/newmotor/ohwell1.jpg
>
> K&N in place of the PCV, everything else removed and capped off. (Use
a
> mini-clamp to hold the cap on the intake manifold to keep it from
being blown
> off, and be sure to remove and cap both ends of the "drivers side"
breather
> hose as well.) The crankcase just vents through the K&N as necessary,
and the
> intake is completely isolated from it.
>
> (You'd be amazed how much oily-spooge accumulates in the intake
manifold from
> that PCV setup!)
>
> John
>
> Kurt Summers wrote:
>
> > Hypothetically speaking, what should be the adverse effects of
taking the
> > PCV valve out of the vacuum line from the intake plenum to the cam
cover
> > and instead having a direct vacuum feed (complete vacuum tube intead
of
> > inline PCV)? Do you think this would lead to an oil consumption
problem?
> > I know that the purpose of the PCV is to meter the ingestion of
blowby
> > gasses from the crank case dependent upon engine load/vacuum.
> >
> > Today I deleted the PCV and just completed the vacuum line from the
plenum
> > to the cam cover. As a result, I had HUGE plumes of smoke from the
> > tailpipe in only about 1/4 mile of driving. I thought that oil
should be
> > blocked from this line by the baffles that are integrated into the
cam
> > cover. What am I missing?
> >
> > Kurt

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Scott Wegener <(email redacted)>


$1995 or $19.95? Can top the SECOND at least- I needed new lens covers
for my MR-2 turbo a while back, was thinking maybe $30 or so..nope.
$200 EACH, single sealed light or some crap :( (They staryed cracked!)

Scott

Todd Paciorek wrote:
>
> To add m own input to the PCV valve mysteries...
>
> I had been having problems with a 1-2 shift smoking problem. I replaced
> the (spent) OEM PCV with an OEM for the GTX. I saw the smoking persist,
> but after 50 miles or so, it seems to have stopped. This is great news
> to me and I think it can only be attributed to the PCV... I replaced
> everything else first.
>
> (BTW - anyone else top this rape from the dealer? - $1995 for a factory
> 323 GTX PCV valve.)
>
> Todd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: (email redacted)
> [mailto:(email redacted)] On Behalf Of Eric Vaillancourt
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 10:39 AM
> To: John Suchak Jr
> Cc: Kurt Summers; (email redacted)
> Subject: Re: To PCV or not to PCV...
>
> Good thought John, but this Kurt doesn't have a turbo, IIRC, just 1929
> cc of NA torque. Still, adding intake air flow to the cam area could
> overwhelm the vavle guide seals, I suppose. That might cause the extra
> oil into the combustion chambers. The baffles are not air tight, after
> all, just splash gaurds, more or less.
>
> Eric
>
> John Suchak Jr wrote:
> >
> > What you're missing is many PSI of boost pressurizing the crankcase
> and
> > blowing oil through the other cam cover hose into the intake!!
> (Probably past
> > your seals as well!)
> >
> > My setup:
> >
> > jacksonville.net/~suchak/newmotor/ohwell1.jpg
> >
> > K&N in place of the PCV, everything else removed and capped off. (Use
> a
> > mini-clamp to hold the cap on the intake manifold to keep it from
> being blown
> > off, and be sure to remove and cap both ends of the "drivers side"
> breather
> > hose as well.) The crankcase just vents through the K&N as necessary,
> and the
> > intake is completely isolated from it.
> >
> > (You'd be amazed how much oily-spooge accumulates in the intake
> manifold from
> > that PCV setup!)
> >
> > John
> >
> > Kurt Summers wrote:
> >
> > > Hypothetically speaking, what should be the adverse effects of
> taking the
> > > PCV valve out of the vacuum line from the intake plenum to the cam
> cover
> > > and instead having a direct vacuum feed (complete vacuum tube intead
> of
> > > inline PCV)? Do you think this would lead to an oil consumption
> problem?
> > > I know that the purpose of the PCV is to meter the ingestion of
> blowby
> > > gasses from the crank case dependent upon engine load/vacuum.
> > >
> > > Today I deleted the PCV and just completed the vacuum line from the
> plenum
> > > to the cam cover. As a result, I had HUGE plumes of smoke from the
> > > tailpipe in only about 1/4 mile of driving. I thought that oil
> should be
> > > blocked from this line by the baffles that are integrated into the
> cam
> > > cover. What am I missing?
> > >
> > > Kurt

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Bill Cardell <(email redacted)>


Pressurizing the crankcase is not a good thing...

Bill Cardell
(email redacted)
Flyin' Miata
flyinmiata.com
200mphmiata.net
1-800-FLY-MX5S (orders only)
1-970-242-3800 (tech)


-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Summers [mailto:(email redacted)]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:38 PM
To: (email redacted)
Subject: To PCV or not to PCV...



Hypothetically speaking, what should be the adverse effects of taking the
PCV valve out of the vacuum line from the intake plenum to the cam cover
and instead having a direct vacuum feed (complete vacuum tube intead of
inline PCV)? Do you think this would lead to an oil consumption problem?
I know that the purpose of the PCV is to meter the ingestion of blowby
gasses from the crank case dependent upon engine load/vacuum.

Today I deleted the PCV and just completed the vacuum line from the plenum
to the cam cover. As a result, I had HUGE plumes of smoke from the
tailpipe in only about 1/4 mile of driving. I thought that oil should be
blocked from this line by the baffles that are integrated into the cam
cover. What am I missing?

Kurt

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Bill Cardell <(email redacted)>


Oops, caught me, too. Wrong Kurt.

Bill Cardell
(email redacted)
Flyin' Miata
flyinmiata.com
200mphmiata.net
1-800-FLY-MX5S (orders only)
1-970-242-3800 (tech)


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Cardell [mailto:(email redacted)]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 9:40 AM
To: 'Kurt Summers'; (email redacted)
Subject: RE: To PCV or not to PCV...



Pressurizing the crankcase is not a good thing...

Bill Cardell
(email redacted)
Flyin' Miata
flyinmiata.com
200mphmiata.net
1-800-FLY-MX5S (orders only)
1-970-242-3800 (tech)


-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Summers [mailto:(email redacted)]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:38 PM
To: (email redacted)
Subject: To PCV or not to PCV...



Hypothetically speaking, what should be the adverse effects of taking the
PCV valve out of the vacuum line from the intake plenum to the cam cover
and instead having a direct vacuum feed (complete vacuum tube intead of
inline PCV)? Do you think this would lead to an oil consumption problem?
I know that the purpose of the PCV is to meter the ingestion of blowby
gasses from the crank case dependent upon engine load/vacuum.

Today I deleted the PCV and just completed the vacuum line from the plenum
to the cam cover. As a result, I had HUGE plumes of smoke from the
tailpipe in only about 1/4 mile of driving. I thought that oil should be
blocked from this line by the baffles that are integrated into the cam
cover. What am I missing?

Kurt

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Jyri J. Virkki" <(email redacted)>


Once upon a time Kurt Summers wrote:
>
> Hypothetically speaking, what should be the adverse effects of taking the
> PCV valve out of the vacuum line from the intake plenum to the cam cover
> and instead having a direct vacuum feed (complete vacuum tube intead of
> inline PCV)? Do you think this would lead to an oil consumption problem?

Definitely. About a quart every 500 miles or so!

The '92 I bought last year was going through oil like crazy, it wasn't
really burning it, just spitting it out the tailpipe at prodigious
rates. Turned out to be a hollow PCV, it had broken internally and
dumped its innards. One new Mazda PCV later, no more oil consumption.

(First I got a generic PCV from the autoparts and it didn't do
anything.. I could blow through it both ways!)

--
Jyri J. Virkki - Santa Cruz, CA - Linux: The Choice of a GNU Generation

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: J Bobowski <(email redacted)>


So this explains it!
I bought a '90 that had a locked engine. Picked it up
in Dallas for $1750. Engine had run out of oil and the
rod bolts broke off. One of the nuts was wedged
between the block & crank.
During the autopsy, I found the PCV insides, when I
pulled the valve cover. Had me perplexed for a while,
until I figured it out.
Now I know why it ate all the oil. The valves, rings
and the rest of the engine looked great. Only had 80k.
Threw a $200 engine in it and sold it.
Sounds like replacing the PCV every 50-60k would be a
good idea.

Jim

--- "Jyri J. Virkki" <(email redacted)> wrote:
>
> Once upon a time Kurt Summers wrote:
> >
> > Hypothetically speaking, what should be the
> adverse effects of taking the
> > PCV valve out of the vacuum line from the intake
> plenum to the cam cover
> > and instead having a direct vacuum feed (complete
> vacuum tube intead of
> > inline PCV)? Do you think this would lead to an
> oil consumption problem?
>
> Definitely. About a quart every 500 miles or so!
>
> The '92 I bought last year was going through oil
> like crazy, it wasn't
> really burning it, just spitting it out the tailpipe
> at prodigious
> rates. Turned out to be a hollow PCV, it had broken
> internally and
> dumped its innards. One new Mazda PCV later, no more
> oil consumption.
>
> (First I got a generic PCV from the autoparts and it
> didn't do
> anything.. I could blow through it both ways!)
>
> --
> Jyri J. Virkki - Santa Cruz, CA - Linux: The Choice
> of a GNU Generation


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
personal.mail.yahoo.com/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "cvl" <(email redacted)>


What I recently did was buy a $40 catch can with a breather filter on the
top and two inputs on the sides. I ran the PCV side (with the PCV still in
place) to one input and the cam breather line to the other input. I then
took off the breather filter from the top and threaded in a hose barb that I
have connected to the pre-turbo intake pipe (with a small fuel filter
inline). I haven't seen any oil in either the catch can or the fuel filter
and am keeping the air clean by not having the vapors vent to the
atmosphere.

Christian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Summers" <(email redacted)>
To: <(email redacted)>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 11:38 PM
Subject: To PCV or not to PCV...


>
> Hypothetically speaking, what should be the adverse effects of taking the
> PCV valve out of the vacuum line from the intake plenum to the cam cover
> and instead having a direct vacuum feed (complete vacuum tube intead of
> inline PCV)? Do you think this would lead to an oil consumption problem?
> I know that the purpose of the PCV is to meter the ingestion of blowby
> gasses from the crank case dependent upon engine load/vacuum.
>
> Today I deleted the PCV and just completed the vacuum line from the plenum
> to the cam cover. As a result, I had HUGE plumes of smoke from the
> tailpipe in only about 1/4 mile of driving. I thought that oil should be
> blocked from this line by the baffles that are integrated into the cam
> cover. What am I missing?
>
> Kurt

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Kurt Summers <(email redacted)>


Christian-

Do you have the part # for this catch can and breather combo? Who sells
it? I recently bought a small K&N crankcase breather to replace the PCV
completely, but it seems like a catch can w/PCV that could still be
emissions legal would be the way to go.

I think I'll run the motor with the cam cover venting to atmos for a while
just to see if the oil consumption goes down a bit (completely?!?).
Buttoning down the head with a new gasket just made the consumption worse;
200 miles/qt. compared to 500 miles/qt. with the blown gasket spewing oil
all over the block and tranny! BTW, this is of course with the infamous
Total Seal rings.

Kurt


At 08:56 PM 4/13/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>What I recently did was buy a $40 catch can with a breather filter on the
>top and two inputs on the sides. I ran the PCV side (with the PCV still in
>place) to one input and the cam breather line to the other input. I then
>took off the breather filter from the top and threaded in a hose barb that I
>have connected to the pre-turbo intake pipe (with a small fuel filter
>inline). I haven't seen any oil in either the catch can or the fuel filter
>and am keeping the air clean by not having the vapors vent to the
>atmosphere.
>
>Christian
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "cvl" <(email redacted)>


The PCV is the stock 323 GTX one and it sits where it normally does. I just
run a line to the catch can which is a Jaz catch can. This is the site that
I found it on: cjsupra.kendra.com/PCV-Can.html Road Race
Engineering sells the same catch can, but only in black, I believe. The
inline fuel filter is a NAPA one. I just told them that I needed one with a
3/8" inlet and oulet and they gave me one. It is clear plastic with a
pleated paper filter that has a metal end cap inside .

I am going to have two weeks off when I return home on Sunday and will be
photographing my car and mods with a digital camera and adding them to my
site. You'll be able to see exactly how it is hooked up.

Christian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Summers" <(email redacted)>
To: "cvl" <(email redacted)>
Cc: <(email redacted)>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: To PCV or not to PCV...


> Christian-
>
> Do you have the part # for this catch can and breather combo? Who sells
> it? I recently bought a small K&N crankcase breather to replace the PCV
> completely, but it seems like a catch can w/PCV that could still be
> emissions legal would be the way to go.
>
> I think I'll run the motor with the cam cover venting to atmos for a while
> just to see if the oil consumption goes down a bit (completely?!?).
> Buttoning down the head with a new gasket just made the consumption worse;
> 200 miles/qt. compared to 500 miles/qt. with the blown gasket spewing oil
> all over the block and tranny! BTW, this is of course with the infamous
> Total Seal rings.
>
> Kurt
>
>
> At 08:56 PM 4/13/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >What I recently did was buy a $40 catch can with a breather filter on the
> >top and two inputs on the sides. I ran the PCV side (with the PCV still
in
> >place) to one input and the cam breather line to the other input. I then
> >took off the breather filter from the top and threaded in a hose barb
that I
> >have connected to the pre-turbo intake pipe (with a small fuel filter
> >inline). I haven't seen any oil in either the catch can or the fuel
filter
> >and am keeping the air clean by not having the vapors vent to the
> >atmosphere.
> >
> >Christian
> >