Wouldn't it be better to have a valve cover breather rather than having a tube going from the valve cover back to the intake??? - Page 5 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Go Back   Fuelly Forums > Tech, Troubleshooting and Repair > General Maintenance and Repair
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-18-2006, 01:26 PM   #41
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 19
Country: United States
pcv mods

Up until the early 60's the blow-by gases were simply vented out of the engine and into the air. California Governor Jerry Brown obtained a patent on a device called the Positive Crankcase Ventilation Valve or PCV valve. He mandated its usage in California as a way to reduce smog and it started to become part of the standard design of car engines.

On my vehicles I have one line from air cleaner, with a small filter, that is the inlet to the pcv/crankcase system. Another hose on opposite valve cover holds the pcv and runs to manifold vac. While the converted filter separator for compressed air works ok and will catch oil it is limited in capacity. (On supercharged Ford Lightning pickups I've had to run two in a series.) A better solution is a Condensator which can be bought at condensatorsales.com and elsewhere. It claims to crack the heavy stuff as well as just separate it out. Further cracking can be seen by adding hydrogen before the pcv jar.

You can make your own simply, free plans here: http://herning.crosswinds.net/projects/PCV.html

or google for pcv jar.

I took mine a step further and actually have a 6-8" vacuum in the oil pan whenever the engine is running. Much like a racing vacuum pump would do but without the pump and associated parasitic losses. This aids ring sealing, and oil drainage/control in the pan. It also helps boil off any fuel and moisture in the oil pan more quickly.
I did this by sealing off the air inlet hose from the air fliter housing so that additional air is not allowed into the system. Doing so also boosted idle/cruise vacuum by 1-2". I have a custom pcv valve that balances the vacuum so that it doesn't go too high. If you get carried away you can actually pull enough vacuum on deceleration to dent the pan inward and sometimes into the crank! I've also done a setup with an adjustable pcv valve that was sold as the "Clean Air Valve". It worked better than an OEM valve but not as well as my current setup.

http://highstrangeness.tv/articles/empower/empower.php


cheers
__________________

iburnh2o is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2006, 03:21 PM   #42
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Re: I'm going to install it as

Quote:
Originally Posted by Compaq888
I'm going to install it as soon as I can get the car lifted.

rh77 you got any pics of your setup?
Yup...



It's the Campbell Hausfeld setup with the hardware all-included in the package.

RH77
__________________

__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2006, 11:46 PM   #43
Registered Member
 
Compaq888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
nice setup. It looks like I

nice setup. It looks like I might have to wait to put it on at the same time as my PVC. That area is so unaccesable. Mine has the intake manifold right over it.
__________________

Compaq888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2006, 06:02 AM   #44
Moderator
 
GasSavers_DaX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,209
Country: United States
The PCV line goes to what

The PCV line goes to what you're calling the black box, SVO. The black box on the back of the B2 is not a charcoal canister...it's just a vacuum plenum. The charcoal canister is a cylinder mounted on the firewall of the Civics.

On Civics, the line going from the valve cover to the intake is part of the PCV system. Whoever said this replaced the breather to reduce crank case emissions is right...that's what the whole PCV system is for. When the PCV is inhaling through the crank case, the fresh air that is rushed in comes into the valve cover through this line from the intake BEFORE the throttle body [hence, no vacuum on this line]. The problem with a breather is that at high load [low vacuum], the PCV isn't really sucking anything, so emissions can bellow out of this place if you have a breather. With it routed to the intake [like stock], these emissions just go right back into the engine.

Don't believe me? This effect is amplified on a turbo car. When my Civic was turbocharged, I was running a breather [can't be sucking back in any gross emissions into a turbocharged engine ]. When I was dynoing my car and began to get into high RPM's and boost, you could see the emissions billowing out of the breather...it was amazing.
GasSavers_DaX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 07:28 PM   #45
Registered Member
 
Compaq888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
tried to replace the PVC

tried to replace the PVC valve on the back of the engine it wouldn't budge. The line from the intake manifold to the breather/separator turned out to be a metal line that had a rubber hose on top of it. It looks like I have to remove the breather/separator to make things easier. This stupid system is jammed up in there. I barely got the thing to move. Even if I remove the oil filter it won't make anything easier. It would be easier to just remove the breather/separator and take out the PCV valve and put another one on. I can't even install the PVC catch can because of the stupid metal line.

Not only are modern cars more complicated but I haven't seen any big changes in gas mileage from 10 years ago. Then what's the point of having all these damn sensors???? Most of the time it's not even the mechanical part that breaks it's the damn sensors that monitor the mechanical part.
__________________

Compaq888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 07:36 PM   #46
Driving on E
 
Matt Timion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,110
Country: United States
Re: tried to replace the PVC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Compaq888
Not only are modern cars more complicated but I haven't seen any big changes in gas mileage from 10 years ago. Then what's the point of having all these damn sensors???? Most of the time it's not even the mechanical part that breaks it's the damn sensors that monitor the mechanical part.
This is a common misconception that I also used to hold, until I looked at it from a different point of view.

Cars are more complicated, and it seems that the actual MPG figures have not changed in the past 20 years. The truth is, however, that they have. Standard cars have gained a lot of weight, been outfitted with bigger engines, and probably lost some aerodynamic features as well. All of this being said they still get the same gas mileage.

The gas mileage HAS gotten better in these cars. Where they manufacturers went wrong however was in using this technology to build BIGGER cars. I guess they were just following the market (thanks Joe Typical American), but it's still unfortunate.

This is where we benefit as gassavers. We can combine older cars with newer technology... you know, do the things that the auto manufacturers were afraid to do, or just never did.
Matt Timion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 07:46 PM   #47
Registered Member
 
Compaq888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
Re: tried to replace the PVC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Timion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Compaq888
Not only are modern cars more complicated but I haven't seen any big changes in gas mileage from 10 years ago. Then what's the point of having all these damn sensors???? Most of the time it's not even the mechanical part that breaks it's the damn sensors that monitor the mechanical part.


This is where we benefit as gassavers. We can combine older cars with newer technology... you know, do the things that the auto manufacturers were afraid to do, or just never did.
Good point but I have a heavy young car, so I'm just a regular Joe Blow. What you're mainly saying is combining old honda chassis with new honda technology. Old hondas were light. If you put new technology not only will it be faster but gain quite a few of mpg. For the other people that have fairly young cars we got to go the extra step in modifying our cars because we already have the new technology we just got to do what you guys with old cars already have is low weight. So the difference between us is just weight once you guys have the new technology in your cars.
__________________

Compaq888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 08:00 PM   #48
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
Quote:So the difference

Quote:
So the difference between us is just weight once you guys have the new technology in your cars.
And about a liter you can't get rid of as well as 150hp for no reason. Not to mentioned transmissions have gotten shorter for honda,
SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 08:17 PM   #49
Registered Member
 
Compaq888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,460
Country: United States
Re: Quote:So the difference

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVOboy
Quote:
So the difference between us is just weight once you guys have the new technology in your cars.
And about a liter you can't get rid of as well as 150hp for no reason. Not to mentioned transmissions have gotten shorter for honda,
I need the 2.4 liter because the car is extremly heavy. I will still find ways to improve fuel economy. I'm still at 40psi and I still haven't used the auto-rx. Not to mention once I get a new air hose the flow will get better.
__________________

Compaq888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2006, 10:20 PM   #50
Driving on E
 
Matt Timion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,110
Country: United States
Re: Quote:So the difference

Quote:
Originally Posted by Compaq888
I need the 2.4 liter because the car is extremly heavy. I will still find ways to improve fuel economy. I'm still at 40psi and I still haven't used the auto-rx. Not to mention once I get a new air hose the flow will get better.
I think there is a misconception that people "NEED" bigger engines. Many other manufacturers have the same weight (if not heavier) cars on smaller engines. Hondas from the same time period as your car had 1.6L or 1.8L engines in them.

You really only need about 10HP to drive around town, and about 20HP to maintain speeds on the freeway.

This is a lot like when I had my 4.0L Jeep. I didn't NEED that big of an engine, but I still had it. The car wasn't heavy, I wasn't climbing rock faces or towing anything. The car just had it because that's what jeeps have.

If you put a smaller engine in your car (even a 2.0) I bet that the difference would be minimal.
__________________

Matt Timion is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.