CCV crank case vent aka fresh air inlet. at WOT crank case pressure flow out both fresh air inlet and pcv

 

A little touchy are we? If I had a fresh engine build blowing out dipsticks, I guess I would be too.

The side with the PCV side does close. The inlet side of the system can and will flow the opposite way at WOT. I don't know what kind of experience you have, but that is how the system works. I agree cars that use vacuum pumps are to have the benefit of vac at WOT, however there are benefits to having vacuum on the crankcase at all throttle positions. It will help the rings seal, this is a benefit to efficiency even at low to mid throttle positions.

So yeah if you like having the crankcase force the extra blow by out two holes under pressure, good for you. I hope you got a good ring seal when you broke in that motor.

[/quote]

Not touchy at all. Just trying to help others from being misled from false info being spread around by someone with no real world experience on the matter. Where did I say that I had a fresh engine blowing out dipsticks? Stay on point and don't be a dick.

OEM motors blow out dipsticks all the time on track. Search the forums, talk to local members who track their S2000's often. It's a sign of excess crankcase pressure with nowhere to escape. The pressure will find its way out, and its very common for the pressure to blow out the dipstick hole. That's a clear sign that the OEM PCV system is inadequate at venting excess crank case pressure.

Much of what you're saying is wrong and based on assumptions.

1) High manifold vacuum created when a closed throttle is one of the factors that helps seat rings during break-in. The opposite and equally important factor is adequate cylinder pressures, i.e. high load. And once the rings are seated, they are seated. By your logic, any race motor without this emissions control system, the rings will never seat, and will never seal during normal operation. We know this to not be true.
2) The PCV valve is closed under WOT. This effectively seals up one of the two ports used to vent crank case pressure. That vacuum that you talk about is non existent under WOT. The closed PCV causes more pressure to build inside the crank case. This pressure is working against your rings from
3) Under WOT, you've only got the front breather to help bleed off excess crank case pressure back into the intake. 2 ports for crank case pressure to bleed is better.
4) PCV's are emissions devices so we don't have cars with smelly engine bays and dripping oil vapors on the road.
5) PCV's are easier for end users to maintain their cars. Imagine if OEM's installed catch cans from factory that required emptying all the time?
6) Recycling nasty crank case vapors into your combustion chambers is not ideal.
7) The effect of the manifold vacuum on the crank case is negligible. The 3/8" PCV line running from your intake manifold to your valve cover is like you sucking on a straw sealed around massive garbage back. How much volume do you need to suck through that straw to create any significant vacuum?

But don't take my word for it...
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/additio...s-and-answers/
http://oppositelock.kinja.com/ditch-...ate-1634156554
http://www.superstreetonline.com/how...lation-system/

You're making assumptions and speculating without actual experience. Let me know your findings when you try both ways.
[/quote]

Like I said, touchy... You are the only one calling people names.

You can say what you want. I stand by what I said regarding the pcv system. I know you would like to think I have no idea what I am talking about. But I have been where you are. If the way you deal with your excess crank case pressure is to open the motor to atmosphere, then so be it. In your situation that might be the best choice. Ideally vacuum on the crank case would be better. Good luck with that build.

To everyone else I would recommend trying to run a closed system if possible. Fwtw

 

Yeah who would I trust. The guy posting rudimentary questions about shocks for the past month or the guy posting epic motor builds...

 

I call it like I see it brother. Describing the way you're acting isn't name calling. Don't be so touchy.

So wait.. I think I know what you think and know, but you actually do know what I think and know? Cool.

Yes, and yes. Along with any other engine that sees the majority of its life on a race track.

Definitely. That's why vacuum pumps exist. Dry sump setups accomplish the same thing. Oh that's right, a 3/8" PCV valve is going to create the same effect as a multiple belt driven series of scavenging pumps on a dry sump. My bad.

Thanks!

To everyone else, be open minded, try it both ways and let the results speak for itself.

Zero.

Good day to you sir.

 

 

Exactly, make up your own mind. Do your own research. I've setup and built crankcase evacuation systems on much more powerful motors. Does that make me an expert... Nope, just my experience. I was able to work out a closed system and I will continue to advocate for that first.

 

Exactly, like I said I would try a vacuum system first. If a closed system or pump system wont work find out what will. This was your original advice:

The valve is closed at WOT but the system is not closed. The system does provide benefits that will aid longevity. I still disagree with your advice with deleting it and being done. I say delete it if you have no other reasonable option. But since I disagreed with you, you got all sensitive. No big deal its just a PCV system discussion.

So to recap:

You say delete the PCV system.

I say try to run a closed or vacuum system first.

You say my opinion is worthless.

I still disagree with your advice.

Does that about sum it up?

 

Disagree all you want, but the facts I presented are solid. You seem to be missing the most important thing, which is, your vacuum argument doesn't hold water. Along with my real world experience having tried it both ways.

Try to misconstrue my words all you want, but nothing has changed. My advice is still to ditch the PCV. However the proof is in the pudding. Real world experience trumps all, hence I'm suggesting people to try it and decide for themselves.



Your stance is just an opinion. You said it, not me. If you haven't tried it both ways and collected solid facts, then yes your opinion is worthless... we all know opinions are like a-holes; everybody has one.

Please, indulge me and counter any of my 7 points above. You haven't. I rest my case.

 

No, that's not what you said. You're saying the PCV valve is absolutely, positively, and undoubtedly required.

 

Debating is fine. Sling some personal attacks and then valuable information that many of us learn from gets lost in the sea of dribble.