My catch can setup...
01-03-2007, 02:54 PM
#41
Originally Posted by Bill Reid
I just doctored a pic for ya...
Bill
I also PM'd ya another company that makes catch cans and they plumb their's the same way...
(edit) had the flow arrow in wrong direction - corrected now)
Bill
I also PM'd ya another company that makes catch cans and they plumb their's the same way...
(edit) had the flow arrow in wrong direction - corrected now)
On our trucks there are two locations where the crankcase vents, rear drivers valve cover and front passenger valve cover?
is there a need to plumb the system back into the intake track?
can you run both valve cover vents to a catch can that has a breather installed vs routed back to the intake track?
01-03-2007, 04:01 PM
#42
Originally Posted by moregrip
couple of questions:
On our trucks there are two locations where the crankcase vents, rear drivers valve cover and front passenger valve cover?
is there a need to plumb the system back into the intake track?
can you run both valve cover vents to a catch can that has a breather installed vs routed back to the intake track?
On our trucks there are two locations where the crankcase vents, rear drivers valve cover and front passenger valve cover?
is there a need to plumb the system back into the intake track?
can you run both valve cover vents to a catch can that has a breather installed vs routed back to the intake track?
I really think this depends on what engine you are asking about.
I know they are all GenIII engines but they seem to have different breathing characteristics. I have seen a few articles in magazines and on the net that talk about the early GenIII engines having issues with their bay-to-bay breathing.
The latest issue of GM High Tech performance has an article on the new LSX block and clearly shows what is meant by bay to bay breathing.
On my "02" 5.3l, I seem to get much more oil barfing from the drivers side valve cover than the passenger's.
Is this unique to my engine or just one of the characteristics of this year’s engine?? Don't know.
The vent on the passenger side vents to the TB (very low vac) where as the other vents to the manifold (high vac). Why is this?
You would think that they would both be creating fumes at the same rate on a NA engine but GM chose to vent the this way for a reason I think, not exactly sure why.
Now with a FI engine, both will bleed excess pressure when under boost. At least mine do, and I think the amount varies for some reason.
Maybe someone who really knows the architecture of the engines internal passageways will chime in and school me...I hope.
And for the LS2 and LS6, I have no clue how the block or heads vary from the 4.8, 5.3, and 6.0l truck engines.
I think since the valve covers emit different amount of vac and boost in an FI set up you really need two catch cans to avoid back flow through the system. If you fit either with a one-way pressure valve you run the risk of one side not being able to vent properly and start to puke oil from the weakest seal in that side's system.
Sorry for the book but this is something I need to find out to fix my own issues.
01-03-2007, 04:11 PM
#43
Moderator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 2,327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by moregrip
couple of questions:
On our trucks there are two locations where the crankcase vents, rear drivers valve cover and front passenger valve cover?
is there a need to plumb the system back into the intake track?
can you run both valve cover vents to a catch can that has a breather installed vs routed back to the intake track?
On our trucks there are two locations where the crankcase vents, rear drivers valve cover and front passenger valve cover?
is there a need to plumb the system back into the intake track?
can you run both valve cover vents to a catch can that has a breather installed vs routed back to the intake track?
Running a breather on a catch can with both valve covers going to it would provide ventilation... but no means for whipped up oil mist to reach the catch can unless the motor had positive crank case pressure... i.e. under boost. So, under that scenario the catch can would only work (catch oil mist) under boost... or perhaps a motor with real bad blow-by
My goal is to never get to positive crank case pressure... unless for a VERY short period of time under a LONG sustained WOT romp... AND once I lift I want there to be a path, with both effective vacuum and volume capability, to remove oil mist before it gets recirculated into (our case) the j-tube.Is there a need to plumb it back to the intake track? Yes... catch can needs to be attached somewhere where there is manifold vacuum... not just venturi vacuum (in front of throttle body while under load). Whats nice about the Magnuson is that you can plumb to a manifold vacuum source that never see's boost (back of j-tube). With the Krank Vent installed on the driver valve cover in the catch can loop I can draw a vacuum on my passenger valve cover port. If I plug it with my thumb long enough I can pull air through my rear main crank seal. Would it do that without the Krank Vent? I don't know... that might be a good test.
Then there is a belt driven vacuum pump with a catch can setup... totally eliminating any need to have a return to the engine. Thats big bucks for big motors that need super large amounts of crank case air volume removed... well at least thats the way I understand it. I can provide source via PM if you like.
I see guys running catch cans AND valve cover breathers. Some oil gets caught (under load) but a vacuum leak (un-metered air) is created through the catch can... via the open air breather. Maybe its no big deal to tuners... as long as they know its there. I think it also gets back to how well a motor runs, even under load, with a desgined amount of crank case vacuum. Maybe give Rex and Richard a call and ask him his opinion on this. I certainly welcome input from guys that know what the best conditions are for the crank case environment under load or even under "city" driving conditions...
And for the record... my front main seal is officially blown. This, of course, happened prior to catch can install... and I was hoping the leak was just oil blowing by the seal under positive crank case pressure... but obvious damage has been done to it... as it won't stop leaking
Bill
Last edited by Bill Reid; 01-03-2007 at 04:24 PM.
01-03-2007, 04:26 PM
#44
On The Tree
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Metro/Atlanta
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TG02Z71
I really think this depends on what engine you are asking about.
I know they are all GenIII engines but they seem to have different breathing characteristics. I have seen a few articles in magazines and on the net that talk about the early GenIII engines having issues with their bay-to-bay breathing.
The latest issue of GM High Tech performance has an article on the new LSX block and clearly shows what is meant by bay to bay breathing.
On my "02" 5.3l, I seem to get much more oil barfing from the drivers side valve cover than the passenger's.
Is this unique to my engine or just one of the characteristics of this year’s engine?? Don't know.
The vent on the passenger side vents to the TB (very low vac) where as the other vents to the manifold (high vac). Why is this?
You would think that they would both be creating fumes at the same rate on a NA engine but GM chose to vent the this way for a reason I think, not exactly sure why.
Now with a FI engine, both will bleed excess pressure when under boost. At least mine do, and I think the amount varies for some reason.
Maybe someone who really knows the architecture of the engines internal passageways will chime in and school me...I hope.
And for the LS2 and LS6, I have no clue how the block or heads vary from the 4.8, 5.3, and 6.0l truck engines.
I think since the valve covers emit different amount of vac and boost in an FI set up you really need two catch cans to avoid back flow through the system. If you fit either with a one-way pressure valve you run the risk of one side not being able to vent properly and start to puke oil from the weakest seal in that side's system.
Sorry for the book but this is something I need to find out to fix my own issues.
I know they are all GenIII engines but they seem to have different breathing characteristics. I have seen a few articles in magazines and on the net that talk about the early GenIII engines having issues with their bay-to-bay breathing.
The latest issue of GM High Tech performance has an article on the new LSX block and clearly shows what is meant by bay to bay breathing.
On my "02" 5.3l, I seem to get much more oil barfing from the drivers side valve cover than the passenger's.
Is this unique to my engine or just one of the characteristics of this year’s engine?? Don't know.
The vent on the passenger side vents to the TB (very low vac) where as the other vents to the manifold (high vac). Why is this?
You would think that they would both be creating fumes at the same rate on a NA engine but GM chose to vent the this way for a reason I think, not exactly sure why.
Now with a FI engine, both will bleed excess pressure when under boost. At least mine do, and I think the amount varies for some reason.
Maybe someone who really knows the architecture of the engines internal passageways will chime in and school me...I hope.
And for the LS2 and LS6, I have no clue how the block or heads vary from the 4.8, 5.3, and 6.0l truck engines.
I think since the valve covers emit different amount of vac and boost in an FI set up you really need two catch cans to avoid back flow through the system. If you fit either with a one-way pressure valve you run the risk of one side not being able to vent properly and start to puke oil from the weakest seal in that side's system.
Sorry for the book but this is something I need to find out to fix my own issues.
We ran allot of tests on the FOMOCO 5.4's and found almost zero air born oil vapors coming from the drivers side.
However as stated, there all a little different.
Easiest way to tell is get a old style glass fuel filter put it in the middle of a piece of 3/8 I.D. hose or which ever size your vent tubing is and put a loose piece of gauze/cheese cloth in it.
Leave the screen filter in or secure the gauze in some fashion and make sure it (gauze) is real loose.
Go for a drive, See if or how nasty it becomes via vapors.
If there is saturation step up too the next notch add a small catch can a Compressor style will do.
If one gathers oil well,,,,,, put in a real separator of choice in-line.
01-03-2007, 04:31 PM
#45
On The Tree
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Metro/Atlanta
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bill Reid
The catch can works via vacuum... pulling crank case oil mist whipped up under load through it. The drivers side valve cover is attached to manifold vacuum and the catch can is in that loop. The passenger side cover is attached to metered fresh air going into the crankcase.
Running a breather on a catch can with both valve covers going to it would provide ventilation... but no means for whipped up oil mist to reach the catch can unless the motor had positive crank case pressure... i.e. under boost. So, under that scenario the catch can would only work (catch oil mist) under boost... or perhaps a motor with real bad blow-by My goal is to never get to positive crank case pressure... unless for a VERY short period of time under a LONG sustained WOT romp... AND once I lift I want there to be a path, with both effective vacuum and volume capability, to remove oil mist before it gets recirculated into (our case) the j-tube.
Is there a need to plumb it back to the intake track? Yes... catch can needs to be attached somewhere where there is manifold vacuum... not just venturi vacuum (in front of throttle body while under load). Whats nice about the Magnuson is that you can plumb to a manifold vacuum source that never see's boost (back of j-tube). With the Krank Vent installed on the driver valve cover in the catch can loop I can draw a vacuum on my passenger valve cover port. If I plug it with my thumb long enough I can pull air through my rear main crank seal. Would it do that without the Krank Vent? I don't know... that might be a good test.
Then there is a belt driven vacuum pump with a catch can setup... totally eliminating any need to have a return to the engine. Thats big bucks for big motors that need super large amounts of crank case air volume removed... well at least thats the way I understand it. I can provide source via PM if you like.
I see guys running catch cans AND valve cover breathers. Some oil gets caught (under load) but a vacuum leak (un-metered air) is created through the catch can... via the open air breather. Maybe its no big deal to tuners... as long as they know its there. I think it also gets back to how well a motor runs, even under load, with a desgined amount of crank case vacuum. Maybe give Rex and Richard a call and ask him his opinion on this. I certainly welcome input from guys that know what the best conditions are for the crank case environment under load or even under "city" driving conditions...
And for the record... my front main seal is officially blown. This, of course, happened prior to catch can install... and I was hoping the leak was just oil blowing by the seal under positive crank case pressure... but obvious damage has been done to it... as it won't stop leaking
Bill
Running a breather on a catch can with both valve covers going to it would provide ventilation... but no means for whipped up oil mist to reach the catch can unless the motor had positive crank case pressure... i.e. under boost. So, under that scenario the catch can would only work (catch oil mist) under boost... or perhaps a motor with real bad blow-by
My goal is to never get to positive crank case pressure... unless for a VERY short period of time under a LONG sustained WOT romp... AND once I lift I want there to be a path, with both effective vacuum and volume capability, to remove oil mist before it gets recirculated into (our case) the j-tube.Is there a need to plumb it back to the intake track? Yes... catch can needs to be attached somewhere where there is manifold vacuum... not just venturi vacuum (in front of throttle body while under load). Whats nice about the Magnuson is that you can plumb to a manifold vacuum source that never see's boost (back of j-tube). With the Krank Vent installed on the driver valve cover in the catch can loop I can draw a vacuum on my passenger valve cover port. If I plug it with my thumb long enough I can pull air through my rear main crank seal. Would it do that without the Krank Vent? I don't know... that might be a good test.
Then there is a belt driven vacuum pump with a catch can setup... totally eliminating any need to have a return to the engine. Thats big bucks for big motors that need super large amounts of crank case air volume removed... well at least thats the way I understand it. I can provide source via PM if you like.
I see guys running catch cans AND valve cover breathers. Some oil gets caught (under load) but a vacuum leak (un-metered air) is created through the catch can... via the open air breather. Maybe its no big deal to tuners... as long as they know its there. I think it also gets back to how well a motor runs, even under load, with a desgined amount of crank case vacuum. Maybe give Rex and Richard a call and ask him his opinion on this. I certainly welcome input from guys that know what the best conditions are for the crank case environment under load or even under "city" driving conditions...
And for the record... my front main seal is officially blown. This, of course, happened prior to catch can install... and I was hoping the leak was just oil blowing by the seal under positive crank case pressure... but obvious damage has been done to it... as it won't stop leaking
Bill
01-03-2007, 04:37 PM
#46
Originally Posted by Bill Reid
The catch can works via vacuum... pulling crank case oil mist whipped up under load through it. The drivers side valve cover is attached to manifold vacuum and the catch can is in that loop. The passenger side cover is attached to metered fresh air going into the crankcase.
Running a breather on a catch can with both valve covers going to it would provide ventilation... but no means for whipped up oil mist to reach the catch can unless the motor had positive crank case pressure... i.e. under boost. So, under that scenario the catch can would only work (catch oil mist) under boost... or perhaps a motor with real bad blow-by My goal is to never get to positive crank case pressure... unless for a VERY short period of time under a LONG sustained WOT romp... AND once I lift I want there to be a path, with both effective vacuum and volume capability, to remove oil mist before it gets recirculated into (our case) the j-tube.
Is there a need to plumb it back to the intake track? Yes... catch can needs to be attached somewhere where there is manifold vacuum... not just venturi vacuum (in front of throttle body while under load). Whats nice about the Magnuson is that you can plumb to a manifold vacuum source that never see's boost (back of j-tube). With the Krank Vent installed on the driver valve cover in the catch can loop I can draw a vacuum on my passenger valve cover port. If I plug it with my thumb long enough I can pull air through my rear main crank seal. Would it do that without the Krank Vent? I don't know... that might be a good test.
Then there is a belt driven vacuum pump with a catch can setup... totally eliminating any need to have a return to the engine. Thats big bucks for big motors that need super large amounts of crank case air volume removed... well at least thats the way I understand it. I can provide source via PM if you like.
I see guys running catch cans AND valve cover breathers. Some oil gets caught (under load) but a vacuum leak (un-metered air) is created through the catch can... via the open air breather. Maybe its no big deal to tuners... as long as they know its there. I think it also gets back to how well a motor runs, even under load, with a desgined amount of crank case vacuum. Maybe give Rex and Richard a call and ask him his opinion on this. I certainly welcome input from guys that know what the best conditions are for the crank case environment under load or even under "city" driving conditions...
And for the record... my front main seal is officially blown. This, of course, happened prior to catch can install... and I was hoping the leak was just oil blowing by the seal under positive crank case pressure... but obvious damage has been done to it... as it won't stop leaking
Bill
Running a breather on a catch can with both valve covers going to it would provide ventilation... but no means for whipped up oil mist to reach the catch can unless the motor had positive crank case pressure... i.e. under boost. So, under that scenario the catch can would only work (catch oil mist) under boost... or perhaps a motor with real bad blow-by
My goal is to never get to positive crank case pressure... unless for a VERY short period of time under a LONG sustained WOT romp... AND once I lift I want there to be a path, with both effective vacuum and volume capability, to remove oil mist before it gets recirculated into (our case) the j-tube.Is there a need to plumb it back to the intake track? Yes... catch can needs to be attached somewhere where there is manifold vacuum... not just venturi vacuum (in front of throttle body while under load). Whats nice about the Magnuson is that you can plumb to a manifold vacuum source that never see's boost (back of j-tube). With the Krank Vent installed on the driver valve cover in the catch can loop I can draw a vacuum on my passenger valve cover port. If I plug it with my thumb long enough I can pull air through my rear main crank seal. Would it do that without the Krank Vent? I don't know... that might be a good test.
Then there is a belt driven vacuum pump with a catch can setup... totally eliminating any need to have a return to the engine. Thats big bucks for big motors that need super large amounts of crank case air volume removed... well at least thats the way I understand it. I can provide source via PM if you like.
I see guys running catch cans AND valve cover breathers. Some oil gets caught (under load) but a vacuum leak (un-metered air) is created through the catch can... via the open air breather. Maybe its no big deal to tuners... as long as they know its there. I think it also gets back to how well a motor runs, even under load, with a desgined amount of crank case vacuum. Maybe give Rex and Richard a call and ask him his opinion on this. I certainly welcome input from guys that know what the best conditions are for the crank case environment under load or even under "city" driving conditions...
And for the record... my front main seal is officially blown. This, of course, happened prior to catch can install... and I was hoping the leak was just oil blowing by the seal under positive crank case pressure... but obvious damage has been done to it... as it won't stop leaking
Bill
starting at the passenger side valve cover a line is run to a catch can/oil seperator, then from the catch can/oil seperator to the plastic magnachrger intake tube. (on your system you include a one way valve)?
starting at the driver side valve cover a line is run to a second catch can/oil seperator (in your case another one way valve), then routed to the J-tube provision?
01-03-2007, 04:41 PM
#48
On The Tree
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Metro/Atlanta
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you guy's getting discharge from both sides????
Unless your at this level…
Most won’t need these….
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...00648&D=300648
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...00964&D=300964
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...10683&D=310683
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...30&D=%2D145530
One shouoldn't need both side's unless there is blow-by coming from somewhere.
Unless your at this level…
Most won’t need these….
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...00648&D=300648
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...00964&D=300964
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...10683&D=310683
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...30&D=%2D145530
One shouoldn't need both side's unless there is blow-by coming from somewhere.
01-03-2007, 04:47 PM
#50
Originally Posted by Dbl G
Are you guy's getting discharge from both sides????
Unless your at this level…
Most won’t need these….
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...00648&D=300648
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...00964&D=300964
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...10683&D=310683
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...30&D=%2D145530
One shouoldn't need both side's unless there is blow-by coming from somewhere.
Unless your at this level…
Most won’t need these….
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...00648&D=300648
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...00964&D=300964
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...10683&D=310683
http://store.summitracing.com/egnsea...30&D=%2D145530
One shouoldn't need both side's unless there is blow-by coming from somewhere.
Last edited by moregrip; 01-03-2007 at 05:02 PM.