Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
    Results 26 to 50 of 359

    Thread: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (DIY) (long)

    1. 05-17-2009 12:43 PM #26
      what about where the rear pcv bolted to the turbo is it still bolted there or is that taken off?

    2. 05-17-2009 06:20 PM #27
      Quote, originally posted by Macs S3 »
      I am checking out the thread on Hondas ( http://www.tamparacing.com/for....html )
      Do you have any advice regarding the rear pcv given that with the BSH solution it is not mentioned?

      Answer should be on vortex somewhere maybe in these below? Also I wonder if one of the stock inline check valves could be utilized for your check valve?
      http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4115371
      http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4084097
      http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4338295
      http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3769357



      Modified by saaber2 at 3:30 PM 5-17-2009

    3. 05-17-2009 06:21 PM #28
      Quote, originally posted by b6turbopassat »
      what about where the rear pcv bolted to the turbo is it still bolted there or is that taken off?

      Is your Q regarding the slashcut/exhaust system? If so, I just left the pipe on as no reason to remove it except for looks.

    4. 05-17-2009 11:32 PM #29
      Just thought of something. Step 6, plugging the rear pcv line with a 1" freeze plug, is not needed.
      You could simple reinstall the rubber hose onto the outlet coming from the valve cover (the one where the 3/4" freeze plug is installed).
      In other words, disconnect the rubber hose at the rear pcv line, plug the outlet at the rear of the valve cover with a 3/4" plug, then reinstall the rubber hose with a hose clamp just as if the 3/4" plug wasn't there. That would look original too, for what that is worth.


      Modified by saaber2 at 8:50 PM 5-17-2009

    5. Member B3sat16v's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 23rd, 2002
      Location
      Around the world
      Posts
      7,425
      Vehicles
      MH-60R
      05-18-2009 08:38 AM #30
      VERY NICE! I might have to look into this!
      FLY NAVY

    6. 05-18-2009 02:36 PM #31
      If you want to read up on this, the best source is this thread:
      http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=1199935
      Skim for "dasher"'s posts in about the first 6 pages. He did an amazing amount of testing different crankcase evacuation methods. There is tons of good info in that thread! After testing all the different methods, he went with the exhaust slashcut method (he actually has two nipples instead of one to create more vacuum).

    7. 05-18-2009 02:38 PM #32
      What if you were to make a blockoff plate for the front PCV (like the BSH, but no hose fittings), and just connect the tubing to the rear PCV?

    8. Member B3sat16v's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 23rd, 2002
      Location
      Around the world
      Posts
      7,425
      Vehicles
      MH-60R
      05-18-2009 02:48 PM #33
      Quote, originally posted by blackvento36 »
      What if you were to make a blockoff plate for the front PCV (like the BSH, but no hose fittings), and just connect the tubing to the rear PCV?

      Yes connect it to the rear PCV.... and block-off the Turbo inlet.
      FLY NAVY

    9. 05-19-2009 07:52 AM #34
      Block off both front valve cover ports, or channel them together like the BSH stage1 kit? Cuz I think connecting the 2 front ports would be the way to go.
      Edit: Nevermind, I just took a look at that diagram again and it wouldn't make a difference unless you had a way to connect the block crankcase vent to the driver side port like BSH. If you block off the whole PCV, what to you do with the crankcase hose?


      Modified by blackvento36 at 7:59 AM 5-19-2009

    10. 05-19-2009 08:40 AM #35
      Block off both front valve cover ports, or channel them together like the BSH stage1 kit? Cuz I think connecting the 2 front ports would be the way to go.
      Edit: Nevermind, I just took a look at that diagram again and it wouldn't make a difference unless you had a way to connect the block crankcase vent to the driver side port like BSH. If you block off the whole PCV, what to you do with the crankcase hose?

    11. 05-22-2009 02:02 PM #36
      The inner tubes on my EJ PCV fix is looking brand new, it's really clean. When I was having my clutch JR pulled off the throttle body intake pipe & said there was hardly any oil in there. Which = good. I dn't think my car has gunked up valves... I hardly burn any oil between oil changes which is weird because most FSI motors burn alot of oil.
      Sold the VAG COM

    12. 05-28-2009 10:57 PM #37
      Just sent these questions as a pm to saaber2, but would appreciate it if you guys could chime in as well:

      1.) I noticed you spent $80 on your heater hose. When I was shopping, I saw them for around $20. Are there a difference in the quality of hoses? Do you have a link to where you got yours?
      2. Do you think the Venturi effect is strong enough to the point where it may possibly suck oil from the block and cause damage in the form of oil starvation under high load conditions?
      3. Will connecting the hose to the rear PCV port be just as effective as connecting to the front where you did yours?
      4. How is your car running so far?
      Thanks in advance......

    13. 05-29-2009 12:35 PM #38
      This is something I am really looking into, awesome write up and great info [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]

    14. 05-29-2009 12:57 PM #39
      Quote, originally posted by gearshifter6 »
      1.) I noticed you spent $80 on your heater hose. When I was shopping, I saw them for around $20. Are there a difference in the quality of hoses? Do you have a link to where you got yours?

      It is a high temp silicone heater hose but it is very possible I overpaid for it as it seemed high but I was in a hurry and didn't want to shop around. It wasn't the standard heater hose. I got mine from thrifty auto parts which was just bought out by carquest. I assume it was from old thrifty stock.
      Quote, originally posted by gearshifter6 »
      2. Do you think the Venturi effect is strong enough to the point where it may possibly suck oil from the block and cause damage in the form of oil starvation under high load conditions?

      I have driven 900 miles so far including city, highway, 0-60, 1/4 mile runs and brief 120+mph cruises and oil consumption has been zero on the dipstick. Normally I would have seen a slight drop in 900 miles as I watch it very close. So it appears that oil consumption has decreased. The 5000 mile mark will tell for sure as I normally consume about 1/2 quart in 5000 miles. I will be doing UOAs as well.
      Also the Honda-tech guy (see thread link above) ran two nipples into the exhaust as his preferred method so I don't think it is pulling too much vacuum. If I get time I need to hook up a vacuum gauge but I don't see it happening in the near future.
      Quote, originally posted by gearshifter6 »
      3. Will connecting the hose to the rear PCV port be just as effective as connecting to the front where you did yours?

      In terms of the stock pcv, crankcase gasses under vacuum go out the front port (see diagram above). While under boost, as I understand it the check valve makes the gases go out the back. I wanted to keep it simple and evacuate just like stock that is why I went off the pcv. I suppose if you blocked the pcv that would be just like having the check valve closed and gases would run out the back line but I never messed with that.
      Quote, originally posted by gearshifter6 »
      4. How is your car running so far?

      at 900 miles:
      a) Overall car is running the best it has since new. Smoothness is much better than before and power is noticeably better than before (noticeable improvement, not big improvement), especially running around town.
      b) Mpg went up roughly by 2. I have a highway strip where I have tested mpg using the MFD since the car was new. Highest I have got there before was 34.5. Now it gets 37 at the highest on that strip at that speed. Also city mpg seems to have gone up but I don't track mpg in city. It always seems to get about 21 on MFD and now it is always about 24 or higher. Just an impression on city mpg though and not measured.
      c) Small but noticeable increase in power when "pulling" under boost. I don't have access to a dyno so I don't have any measurables. It is definitely noticeable with butt dyno and 0-60 times went down a little.
      d) Oil consumption appears to have decreased but really too early to tell on that as 5000 miles would be a good point to measure
      e) Only negative is a slight oil smell and residue noticed at tailpipe. Only noticeable if you are into sniffing tailpipes ha ha.
      My impression of the pcv problem is that we are fighting pcv-derived problems from the time when the car is new. Kudos to Rl_RS4 who has done so much work to discover and describe this problem in the audi engines. As the vw language above shows, the pcv gunk on the valves causes numerous other problems, misfiring, incomplete combustion, coil packs going bad, dirty fuel injectors, etc. If I were to speculate, I would say it may also contribute to ring deposits and increased fuel dilution/premature oil breakdown. It is all interrelated. The DI engine is extremely efficient and powerful but it depends on precision and a clean engine and this pcv gunk pugging things up has multiple effects.
      The Honda tech guy tested numerous crankcase evacuation methods on his turbo engine and found the slashcut to the exhaust to be the most effective. It sure looks like the simplest and most effective to me. It may be enhanced possibly by running two nipples (see honda-tech thread) but I will leave that up to someone else to test as my car is loving life and so am I. Now that i have pcv problem taken care of I am looking forward to finally doing performance mods.

    15. Member INYNN's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 14th, 2008
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      818
      Vehicles
      2008/VW/GTI
      05-30-2009 05:10 PM #40
      Quote, originally posted by saaber2 »


      Modified by saaber2 at 3:30 PM 5-17-2009

      So did I read this correct? If there is never any boost coming in the front PCV the valve will never re-direct the crankcase gasses out the back PCV?
      Meaning if I were to do the "cheaper version" of this mod and vent the front PCV simply out a tube and down where it can vent/drip away the pcv would never send anything out the back at all. Thus giving me 100% crankcase ventilation out the front PCV and down my drain tube only using its own positive pressure and no vacuum assistance?
      Thanks in advance if anyone can confirm what im asking here.

    16. Member INYNN's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 14th, 2008
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      818
      Vehicles
      2008/VW/GTI
      05-30-2009 05:16 PM #41
      Also, because the rear PCV is in front of the turbo... when in boost would the vaccum of the turbo sucking be enough to pull the PCV valve open and try to draw crankcase gasses out the back PCV?
      I'm worried because my car is in boost alot more than its in vaccum if you know what I mean and I want to be sure all the crankcase gases and other crap is leaving my motor and nothing is left to gum up my intercooler and valves with oil residue.

    17. 05-30-2009 07:45 PM #42
      I'm not exactly sure I understand the Q but if you mean will it work without plugging the rear pcv line I would definitely not do that as you don't want any unmetered air coming in. The rear pcv line needs to be plugged. I hope I understood the Q.



      Modified by saaber2 at 5:43 PM 5-30-2009

    18. 05-30-2009 08:04 PM #43
      Quote, originally posted by INYNN »
      Thus giving me 100% crankcase ventilation out the front PCV and down my drain tube only using its own positive pressure and no vacuum assistance?

      I don't think anyone can definitively answer this Q. Certainly there are products being sold under this premise (i mean that no vacuum assistance is needed) in the form of "race" catch cans. So anyone buying a race catch can setup is assuming vacuum is not needed for proper crankcase evacuation.
      I researched the heck out of it and I found no proof that atmospheric pressure is good enough and no proof that it is not good enough. The best analysis I found was from the Honda Tech guy who if you dig on that forum and find the links, measured vacuum under numerous scenarios including atmospheric. He concluded that atmospheric gave good performance as long as there is adequate ventilation. The questions is, is there "adequate" ventilation under a race can or down tube setup for the 2.0 FSI? (Note that he concluded exhaust slaschcut gives "great" performance). Also like i posted above, the BITOG guy zoomzoom is using the "cheaper version" type of solution on an RS4 and he likes it (uses two vent ports, one on each cylinder bank).
      One thing I may do in the future is test this by removing the hose from the exhaust nipple. I have been testing the same oil at roughly 2700 and 5100 miles. So if the exhaust nipple used oil analysis (UOA) showed zero difference than the atmospheric version UOA, that would tell us that the oil is not being degraded any faster via inadequate crankcase evacuation. Of course that UOA test would not tell us anything much about any of the possible positive side benefits such as rings possibly sealing better under vacuum but it would tell us about probably the most important factor.
      But this is a pretty indirect way to test it. A better way would be to simply test crankcase pressure under multiple loads/speeds etc. under both vacuum assist and no vacuum assist. I wonder if simply installing a really sensitive vacuum gauge in the line coming from the crankcase (as near as possible to the crankcase) would do that? Is there an easier/better way? Dipstick tube? Oil cap? ???


      Modified by saaber2 at 5:47 PM 5-30-2009

    19. Member INYNN's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 14th, 2008
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      818
      Vehicles
      2008/VW/GTI
      05-31-2009 03:09 AM #44

      Quote, originally posted by saaber2 »
      I'm not exactly sure I understand the Q but if you mean will it work without plugging the rear pcv line I would definitely not do that as you don't want any unmetered air coming in. The rear pcv line needs to be plugged. I hope I understood the Q.
      Modified by saaber2 at 5:43 PM 5-30-2009

      What I was looking to do was just leave the Rear PCV alone (hooked up) and just install the atmospheric vent tube just off the front PCV. Do you know what I mean?

    20. 06-03-2009 07:47 PM #45
      Just want to clarify. I would definitely plug the rear pcv line. There is no reason to leave it unplugged and you don't want unmetered air getting in there.


      Modified by saaber2 at 4:50 PM 6-3-2009

    21. 06-04-2009 02:49 PM #46
      If anyone is wondering where to get these parts, here are some links:
      Moroso check valve $16.25: http://store.summitracing.com/...97800
      Moroso weld-in nipple $8.25: http://store.summitracing.com/...w=sku
      High Temp Silicon Heater Hose16mm (5/8") $3.32/ft. : http://boostcontroller.com/ind...3D154
      As for the plugs, per saaber, you can get it at any major autoparts store like autozone or kragens.

    22. Junior Member VBMike P's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 25th, 2008
      Location
      Virginia Beach, VA
      Posts
      75
      Vehicles
      2008 BMP GTI
      06-09-2009 09:31 AM #47
      [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG] saaber2. There's a good chance I'm going to do this.

    23. 06-14-2009 04:48 AM #48
      Quote, originally posted by gearshifter6 »
      High Temp Silicon Heater Hose16mm (5/8") $3.32/ft. : http://boostcontroller.com/ind...3D154

      Wow, that is a great price on the hose and beats the snot out of what I paid!

    24. Member NJRoadfan's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 16th, 2006
      Location
      Northern NJ
      Posts
      5,286
      Vehicles
      2013 Audi A4 2.0T quattro
      06-14-2009 11:17 PM #49
      Quote, originally posted by b0mb3r »
      I understand that, but is the problem with the emissions is because you are venting exhaust gasses without passing through the cat?

      Most states now test vehicles '96 and up by just plugging into the OBD-II port and checking if there is any codes. Very few actually test them at the exhaust anymore besides doing a visual check to see if there is a cat converter installed. If this modification doesn't throw a check engine light, you should "pass" any emissions testing without a problem
      The Nice Car:
      2013 Ibis White Audi A4 quattro 2.0T - Have HEX+CAN VCDS, PM Me

      The Hoopty Beater: SOLD
      1987 Alpine White Audi 4000cs quattro "special build"

    25. Member D-TechniK's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 25th, 2002
      Location
      Miami Lakes, FL
      Posts
      3,382
      Vehicles
      06' A4 2.0T
      06-15-2009 06:09 PM #50
      Like we say in Miami OP has big 'Cojones' [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]

    Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •