garychoffmann Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 On my starquest I had to go back to the old way. I couldn't find a stock seperator so I got a greddy filtered/baffled catch can. It looks nice enough to go in your engine bay. It's the same principle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayton Posted January 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 On my starquest I had to go back to the old way. I couldn't find a stock seperator so I got a greddy filtered/baffled catch can. It looks nice enough to go in your engine bay. It's the same principle Yeah I'm definitely not gonna put the stock seperator on. I was looking at catch cans online last night. I was surprised that most of them do not have baffles. I didn't see a Greddy that was baffled. I was considering one from this company who makes legitimate ones: http://www.saikoumichi.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garychoffmann Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Those look pretty nice. My greddy one was NOS. So I don't know if they even make them anymore. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitboss Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) Yeah I'm definitely not gonna put the stock seperator on. I was looking at catch cans online last night. I was surprised that most of them do not have baffles. I didn't see a Greddy that was baffled. I was considering one from this company who makes legitimate ones: http://www.saikoumichi.com/ The stainless steel mesh inside the catch cans from your link ARE the baffles. What's wrong with the stock seperator set up BTW, besides it has no bling whatsoever to it? Atleast it has a way for the oil to drain back into the oil pan, but those from the link have to be PITA manually drained and make a slippery mess. Just sayin. Edited January 2, 2009 by pitboss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_C. Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 The KV system with an open PCV valve (put an 1/8" barb fitting on it) will easily remove crankcase pressure with a large turbo. However, your return system similar to stock sounds like a good system too. I just don't see the KV being the problem as long as you don't have the PCV valve in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitboss Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) I've talked to ET (the designer of these KV) before and posted this before here, but it bears repeating. You do NOT need to decrease the pcv line by inserting anything. The stock PCV is restrictive enough to be used in conjuction with the small KV to help lower CC pressures some. But it's not enough, that's why their are two of them. That's what he said. I think Jinx is on to something here. I'm thinking these KV work fine for NA cars and lightly boosted cars, but heavily boosted cars and cars with very rich running loads with very broken in rings make too much CC pressure and pressurize the turbo, causing the oil being pumped into the top of the turbo to blow out the back. Not scientifically proven, just sayin. This doesn't explain turbos that blow out the front past the thrust bearing though due to gauged bearing... Edited January 3, 2009 by pitboss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayton Posted January 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 The stainless steel mesh inside the catch cans from your link ARE the baffles. What's wrong with the stock seperator set up BTW, besides it has no bling whatsoever to it? Atleast it has a way for the oil to drain back into the oil pan, but those from the link have to be PITA manually drained and make a slippery mess. Just sayin. Yes I realize that the catch cans in the link I posted DO have baffles. They were one of the only ones I could find that actually do. That's why I am considering them. I hear ya about having to drian it and that it does not drain back to the oil pan. These are definitely draw backs. I did find this one though that has all the features of the stock setup including a drain back to the oil pan PLUS a replaceable filter element with an indicator when it's time to change it: http://www.maesco.com/products/racor/r_ccv..._ccv_intro.html The drawback to the stock setup is you can't tell when it's clogged or not performing properly. Besides I'm a sucker for 'high performance' items over stock whenever they make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayton Posted January 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) The KV system with an open PCV valve (put an 1/8" barb fitting on it) will easily remove crankcase pressure with a large turbo. However, your return system similar to stock sounds like a good system too. I just don't see the KV being the problem as long as you don't have the PCV valve in it. I never removed the PCV when using the KV setup. I was using the PCV plus the KV check valve between the valve cover and intake manifold. Whenever I remove the dipstick during idle I always experienced a vacuum release sound. I am pretty confident that whether or not it's the cause of my turbo lubrication issue that I need to return to a closed crankcase ventilation setup. I wish that I was more educated regarding crankcase pressure and how it works before going the route of a KV or breather setup. When I bought the car as a young pup my main goal was to remove all the clutter under the hood and one way to do this was to remove the stock oil seperator and related pipes and hoses and to stick a breather on the back of the valve cover as I saw many others doing. I didn't realize how stupid this was. Do we have a FAQ Posting regarding this? I think all members should be properly informed as to how the stock setup works and what the possible consequenses are in changing to a KV or breather type Edited January 4, 2009 by Jayton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indiana Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 When crank case pressure exceeds oil pressure we will no longer need oil pumps. Crankcase pressure is not related to your dead turbos it can't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_C. Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Yes, the stock system is preferred for what it does. The problem is that it is not adequate for large turbos running big boost. It is probably fine for boost on a mid sized turbo, and a few PSI above stock. I would say it works fine with up to a 16G at 15PSI. I wouldn't trust it much above that. It wasn't working well enough for my 8:1 static compression with a 17C @ 16PSI. Static ratio is a factor too. I put a KV on it and problem solved. Yours would work better if you removed the PCV. It isn't supposed to be there with the KV. You may end up needing a restrictor, but the PCV prevents the KV system from working properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayton Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Yes, the stock system is preferred for what it does. The problem is that it is not adequate for large turbos running big boost. It is probably fine for boost on a mid sized turbo, and a few PSI above stock. I would say it works fine with up to a 16G at 15PSI. I wouldn't trust it much above that. It wasn't working well enough for my 8:1 static compression with a 17C @ 16PSI. Static ratio is a factor too. I put a KV on it and problem solved. Yours would work better if you removed the PCV. It isn't supposed to be there with the KV. You may end up needing a restrictor, but the PCV prevents the KV system from working properly. I don't understand the purpose of a restrictor when using the KV setup? Why not just install a hose barb fitting in place of the PCV? Can you please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 your oem turbo pcv valve and the krank vent valve are exactly the same thing ONE WAY valves ,your looking at the wrong end for CC pressure build up , under boost the pcv or the k-vent valve are not working , both are close'd and doing nothing . excessive pressure is SUPOSE'd to be remove'd thru the rear valve cover port and suck'd back into the system to be burnt in the intake ,,your problem starts when you block the valve cover vent once you block both inlet and out let , what do you think is gona happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayton Posted January 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 your oem turbo pcv valve and the krank vent valve are exactly the same thing ONE WAY valves ,your looking at the wrong end for CC pressure build up , under boost the pcv or the k-vent valve are not working , both are close'd and doing nothing . excessive pressure is SUPOSE'd to be remove'd thru the rear valve cover port and suck'd back into the system to be burnt in the intake ,,your problem starts when you block the valve cover vent once you block both inlet and out let , what do you think is gona happen I understand the direction of the CC pressure and that the KV and or PCV at the front of the valve cover are one way check valves that will only let pressure flow towards the intake manifold. I also understand that under boost the rear port on the VC lets CC pressure out and that if it's blocked or restricted that the pressure will build past desirable levels. What I don't understand is that when using the KV setup (which is nothing more than 2 large check valves) why it's recommended to use a restrictor in addition to the KV that is between the VC and the intake manifold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitboss Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I understand the direction of the CC pressure and that the KV and or PCV at the front of the valve cover are one way check valves that will only let pressure flow towards the intake manifold. I also understand that under boost the rear port on the VC lets CC pressure out and that if it's blocked or restricted that the pressure will build past desirable levels. What I don't understand is that when using the KV setup (which is nothing more than 2 large check valves) why it's recommended to use a restrictor in addition to the KV that is between the VC and the intake manifold. It's not recommended. Not by the designer anyways. He said to use the stock PCV valve in addition to the small KV. Besides, putting something in the line to decrease the inner dia. (i.e. reducer) so that less CC pressure is sucked into the tb off boost is counterintuitive to getting as much CC pressure out of the engine as possible off idle and on boost, like what the seperator is designed to do. What's the point in limiting how much CC pressure your getting out of there? If anything, you would want to increase the flow, not restrict it. If by "restrictor" you mean totally blocking the suction of CC pressure into the TB (which I don't think anyone is recommending so the term should change) that's definately not something you want to do, as Shelby was saying. The pcv is a back up to the KV. Possibly, and it's risky, you could try what Tim C. said and swap out the pcv for the largest vacuum nipple that will thread into that pcv spot. I've heard of some folks here stripping out an old pcv but it could be tough. I tried drilling out an old one and still couldn't get the innards to come out, without drilling it out to no wall thickness left, or almost. This might however keep from limiting you to the 16g @ 15 psi that Tim C. is talking about. On the other hand, if your small kv goes out though, you got no back up anymore with this option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDX87Starion Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 What I don't understand is that when using the KV setup (which is nothing more than 2 large check valves) why it's recommended to use a restrictor in addition to the KV that is between the VC and the intake manifold. Its because at max vacuum in the intake you could suck the CC seals in, creating leaks. KV's create vacuum at idle, cruise, and decel, and people "set" the amount of CC vacuum at idle by using a PCV or other restrictor. But who really cares about CC vacuum at idle anyway. Its whats happening at WOT thats really important, and with a check valve at the back vent, it just creates another obsticle or restriction to get in the way of the pressure trying to escape. Now enter some oil vapor that has collected and pooled in the valve that the little flapper has to work against. All this adds up to is more restrictions in the flow and more CC pressure at BOOST. BTW what do you suppose is the max CFM that can flow through the "big" KV valve like that? More than a regular drinking straw? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indiana Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 What I don't understand is that when using the KV setup (which is nothing more than 2 large check valves) why it's recommended to use a restrictor in addition to the KV that is between the VC and the intake manifold.Now you wouldn't want what was positive pressure escaping from the rear of the valve cover that is all whipped up with oil mist ( that used to get at stock levels trapped in the oil separator but still clogs check valves up ) and all sorts of other blowby unburnt combustion gases from high rpms and high boost to suddenly change directions and be instantly all sucked into the combustion chamber now would you? The symptoms are the pressure and the popping out dipstick, the danger is that oil suspended in the escaping pressure but its easy to cure a symptom with a check valve as long as nobody asks questions. They don't like it when you ask questions. It makes them do things like CHANGE the front valve and add in things like keep the pcv valve Still if you have a container that generates its own pressure by means of its operation you have to deal with that and if you could have a way to prevent the pressure from ever building up wouldn't you want to do that? or would you just want to eliminate the symptom? Which is the better solution? Both "work" to eliminate the symptom but only one deals with the real issue. You need an oil separator/filter system whether you chose to use check valves or not but they are not necessary a $5 OEM PCV valve will work. Its really simple if you think about it and illogical to not have a separator. All you need do is put a meter to your crankcase but not on the dipstick and it must be a sensitive meter not a $5 vacuum gauge they can't read these small pressures increments. Digital gauges can and some have a peak-hold feature, they are so sensitive that you just breathe over the end of the hose and that will show up on the meter do you think that a $5 vacuum gauge can do this? no way I'm talking about reading negative pressures and even with the peak hold feature you still see up down low pressure pulses and from what ever point of view you believe they came from they are still there and you can measure them and unless you have a separator back to the turbo inlet you will have positive pressure in your crankcase and wasn't the whole point of selling the check valves about having vacuum in your crankcase ALL THE TIME? That was a false reading at the end of a dipstick from a $5 gauge that was still reading that negative pressure from when the motor was at idle but was, as claimed and I believe too, slightly less when rev'd up because as the oil was drawn up the dipstick that sealed in that low pressure and it will stay there even with the motor off. If you stick a straw in a glass of water and put your finger over the top and pull it out the water stays in there right? Well if you put a digital meter on there it will too show a negative pressure but sorry our atmosphere and your crankcase have positive pressures. That's the faulty test that sold the check valves that nobody questioned because the check valves "cured" the symptoms and it happened simply because the test point was our dipstick and our dipstick is not like other motors dipsticks, ours goes down under the oil level so that dipstick acts just like a straw and the gauge is just like your finger. Get it? You ask them, and I have after I did that test, to do this again but use another place like the non turbo dipstick hole you can put a port there right? Oh no there has not been even a peep from anyone. You can bet its been done but did you hear about it? Nope can't sell check valves if they told. What they could sell is an oil separator/filtering system and get much more $$ from it that's the strange part but no one is. Weird huh? and I'm hack and "rig" my car don't forget that I get very aggrivated when some folks I've run across and read posts from on this site assume the worst about anyone that doesnt find the cheapest way possible to "Rig" their car together BC_99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitboss Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) Its because at max vacuum in the intake you could suck the CC seals in, creating leaks. KV's create vacuum at idle, cruise, and decel, and people "set" the amount of CC vacuum at idle by using a PCV or other restrictor. But who really cares about CC vacuum at idle anyway. Its whats happening at WOT thats really important, and with a check valve at the back vent, it just creates another obsticle or restriction to get in the way of the pressure trying to escape. Now enter some oil vapor that has collected and pooled in the valve that the little flapper has to work against. All this adds up to is more restrictions in the flow and more CC pressure at BOOST. BTW what do you suppose is the max CFM that can flow through the "big" KV valve like that? More than a regular drinking straw? I doubt it. I guess the 1/8" NPT vac. nipple in place of the PCV is out then, as is stripping out an old PCV, as it might cause too much sucking force for crankcase seals everywhere while off boost. So we're left with keeping the PVC in place since it lets the right amount of CC evacuation, whether or not you put the small KV in line or not. That might be why ET said to leave it in there. The back KV is for letting blow by from boost out as the crankcase is charged with blowby, in theory. But there is the KV itself + alot of small inner dia. hose (usually about 1.5 feet) for all that to get through, which can back up the flow and cause CC pressures to rise. These 2 KV Aren't meant to work together. The front one is for off boost CC pressure evacuation, and the bigger, back one is for on boost CC pressure evacuation. Your not getting enough oil to the bearings, thus causing them to burn up right Jayton? If your blowing your oil into the exhaust past the turbo's rear oil seal and making smoke shows for folks on the road, instead of getting it to the bearings it's prob. from CC pressures being too high from a faulty rear KV being blown and/or a clogged up hose. The front kv could probably stay, as it's only a higher strength checkvalve, along with the PCV and works as it should. The oil seperator system, whether in stock form or aftermarket, should probably be used to replace the rear KV system that was being used. The only prob. with the oil seperator system, according to Tim C. is that it won't support a big turbo or big boost, like your running. So what are we left with? Going back to the rear KV system, that probably started all this high CC pressure, turbo blowing nonsense in the first place? Edited January 8, 2009 by pitboss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_C. Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 I don't understand the purpose of a restrictor when using the KV setup? Why not just install a hose barb fitting in place of the PCV? Can you please explain. Yes, I have an 1/8" hose barb on mine, but it has a bit too much cc vacuum and gives the tea kettle sound when I shut it down. I put a restrictor in the hose to stop that. I wonder if just making a larger volume system similar to stock would work? I know it does with old 6.0L inline 6 cylinder Jeeps. The PCV system in them is made from plasticrap and very expensive to replace. They all crack and break, so we simply increase the size of the tube from the VC to air cleaner to get more volume and then they don't leak near as bad. We get rid of the plasticrap PCV manifold too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitboss Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 ^ Now this sounds promising. This way everyone could use the system, not just low boost cars. Would a 14G at 18-20 psi still be able to run the stock set up BTW, or is that too much boost for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayton Posted January 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Your not getting enough oil to the bearings, thus causing them to burn up right Jayton? Yes this is my problem. Although the car does not make a lot of smoke out the tailpipe. It just always has a slight odor of burning oil and I do have oil residue in the intercooler pipes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayton Posted January 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 I purchased and received this Crank Case Ventilation Filter http://www.maesco.com/products/racor/r_ccv...r_ccv_prod.html And it's a very high quality part and good to 400hp but its a bit larger than i would have hoped. I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to find a good spot to mount it. I'll keep you guys posted if I do hook it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitboss Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Jayton, here's how I did mine. Yours might fit also. http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s242/pitboss123/PICT0014-8.jpg http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s242/pitboss123/PICT0013-8.jpg http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s242/pitboss123/PICT0012-9.jpg http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s242/pitboss123/PICT0004-22.jpg http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s242/pitboss123/PICT0007-16.jpg I've since done away with that long red hose and got 1 foot of 1/2" inner dia. hose and a preformed 90* 1/2" inner dia. hose for the back bend on the VC to the stock hard line. Sucks pretty good and there is room to spare, if I had a bigger catch can, like you :eek1bluegreen: Edited January 12, 2009 by pitboss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayton Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Thanks for the pics of your setup! It will help with ideas for mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_C. Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 There should be plenty of room where the ABS module used to be, correct? Has anyone ever cut open one of our catch cans to see what it looks like inside? I'm thinking th size of the can isn't so much of an issue as the size of the tube from VC and tube to air inlet. If we can simply come up with a can and bigger diameter in and out, that would help a lot IMHO. Drain can be the same. I guess the main thing as always is having a way to accurately measure the cc pressure under boost, etc... I think Indiana was really on the right track by researching a gauge with the proper wheelhouse so to speak for reading the cc. That seems to always be the correct place to start. Know what we are dealing with first, so we can accurately measure what our changes are doing. The dipstick popping out thing isn't getting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayton Posted January 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 There seems to be enough room. I may even modify the ABS brcket to help in mounting this thing. Someone has pics of the stock catch can cut open. I think it was from a post by Professor Quest. The inlet and outlet on the one I bought are like 7/8" diameter. They are huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts