Welcome to the FirebirdV6.com/CamaroV6.com forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Doesn't seem all that hard to do it the right way, it's crazy to cheap out on the systems that protect your engine after dumping a bunch of money into a built motor. I'd want to do everything possible to protect my investment.
I just read something about how getting oily vapors into your intake manifold is bad. Then someone described how the PCV pulls those same vapors into your manifold so they get to your combustion chambers. Maybe I didn't read enough but it all sounds contradictory to me.
I'm really not trying to be biased because I do run a blocked PCV and just a breather but it just seems as if I'm re-routing those vapors elsewhere (open atmosphere) rather than back into my engine to be burned. However, the vapors are not being pulled out since it's not integrated into the intake manifold via the PCV.
Doesn't seem all that hard to do it the right way, it's crazy to cheap out on the systems that protect your engine after dumping a bunch of money into a built motor. I'd want to do everything possible to protect my investment.
true, but can you find one person on here who has complained about running into problems because of blocking the PCV and running a breather?
The pcv system was added to cars as an emission device. Instead of dumping the vapors into the atmosphere they are sucked back into the motor to be burned. The tubes running under the car were basically exhaust pipes used to keep the fumes out of the car. Remember also when the car is in boost the pcv is shut off blocking any fumes from escaping on the one side. When using two breathers the vapors are released to the atmosphere not stored in the crankcase. I know this from experience and the fumes I breath when the windows are down. On a cold day you can see the vapors escaping from the breathers. I don't know what damage is done to the motor or how you could prove it but I'm sticking with my breathers.
Did anyone bother to read the link I posted? :mad:
The PCV does control emissions, but way more that that. The Positive Crankcase Ventilation system - NOT Pollution Control Valve - removes acid vapors and other "****" that will damage the internals over time - from the crankcase.
Using a breather is 1960s tech - why do you think engines were shot @ 60,000 miles back then? A major reason was the crankcase breather sucked, and got oil all over the engine and bay. I know - drove them.
Modify the PCV system so it still does it's job properly.
.
Did anyone bother to read the link I posted? :mad:
The PCV does control emissions, but way more that that. The Positive Crankcase Ventilation system - NOT Pollution Control Valve - removes acid vapors and other "****" that will damage the internals over time - from the crankcase.
Using a breather is 1960s tech - why do you think engines were shot @ 60,000 miles back then? A major reason was the crankcase breather sucked, and got oil all over the engine and bay. I know - drove them.
Modify the PCV system so it still does it's job properly.
.
Cars in the 60's had pcv systems and I also had a 65 Ford Galaxie with over 150,000 miles on it and it still ran strong. I agree the motors nowadays are far more superior because of engineering and technological advances but the pcv valves were not the cause of engine failures or wear in the 60's.
Cars in the 60's had pcv systems and I also had a 65 Ford Galaxie with over 150,000 miles on it and it still ran strong. I agree the motors nowadays are far more superior because of engineering and technological advances but the pcv valves were not the cause of engine failures or wear in the 60's.
Agreed.
If I had to do it again, I would do it the same way I did the last 2 times...
What you do to your own engine is up to you all - BUT it does not change the FACT that disabling the OEM Positive Crankcase Ventilation system is NOT good for the engine.
What our PCV system needs is a better way to remove the airborne oil from the gases - that is where a separator comes in.
.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment