On my Turbo Ecotec, I took the one crankcase vent on the cam cover and routed it to the intake tube between the MAF and the turbo. I ran it a whole year this way without any trouble, or at least no trouble that I could detect. I saw another build where the vent was routed to a catch can because the builder stated that oil particles going through the turbo was bad for the turbo and for octane ratings. This made sense to me so over the winter I ran the vent to a catch can. I also changed oil in the engine and overfilled it (because the Ecotec dipstick is impossible to see oil level with clean oil). During this weekends test n tune, a litre of oil was drained out of the catch can. Is this because I overfilled the engine or is there something else going on? Is there a better way to do crankcase ventilation in a turbo application?
Its likely because it was overfilled, but why argue with success? It worked before...
I think maybe I should get one of these https://www.amazon.com/Moroso-85474-Universal-Air-Separator/dp/B004K9BIY4/ref=sr_1_6?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1494127737&sr=1-6&keywords=air+oil+separator
and route hose to the intake tube again or maybe even to the vacuum pump that the engine has attached to it
The vacuum pump is for the brakes. You'll see that little pump on almost all turbo cars and cars with direct injection, nowadays. Even some nonturbo port injected Chryslers have 'em.
A lot of the high power MS3 guys run dual catch cans on their cars off the PCV and in-between the valve cover and the intake. It helps to keep the intake, intercooler and valves clean on DI cars.
If you're getting a ton of misting in the valve cover there should be some in the intake tract. At that point you can assess if you'd like to add another one.
In your case you probably just over filled it. The only time I've had that much oil in my catch can was when I broke the journal shaft in the turbo.
In the Ford Ecoboost forums the install of a catch can seems almost SOP. Some claim to have to drain theirs monthly. What they get out is a mixture of oil & water and "gunk" with some chocolate milkshake thrown in. As a new owner of a high mileage F150 3.5L Ecoboost I do plan on installing one soon.
What gets caught in the can is what used to go into/thru the engine. On DI engines there is no cleaning action on the intake valves from the fuel since it's bypassing the intake ports so the valves can build up a layer of crap that can restrict the flow at the very least.
Makes you wonder why Ford went to dual injectors on the 2017 3.5L V6. It used both a port and DI. Not sure on the details but the only reason I can see if to keep the intake valves/ports clean.
jimbbski wrote:
Makes you wonder why Ford went to dual injectors on the 2017 3.5L V6. It used both a port and DI. Not sure on the details but the only reason I can see if to keep the intake valves/ports clean.
FWIW, that is completely not the reason.
I came in expecting this kind of crankcare ventilation:
That much oil getting into the catch can that quickly must have been caused by an overfill. For daily-driven cars with catch cans with a <500ml capacity, the rule of thumb is to dump the catch can with every oil change. On an engine with as little run time as your Emod's, there should be less than a tablespoon of fluid in there.
alfadriver wrote:
jimbbski wrote:
Makes you wonder why Ford went to dual injectors on the 2017 3.5L V6. It used both a port and DI. Not sure on the details but the only reason I can see if to keep the intake valves/ports clean.
FWIW, that is completely not the reason.
Really? I'm surprised. Don't DI-only engines have trouble with carbon buildup on the back of intake valves which port injection solves?
I know that port injection is also more efficient under many conditions so there's a performance/efficiency advantage to it as well.
GameboyRMH wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
jimbbski wrote:
Makes you wonder why Ford went to dual injectors on the 2017 3.5L V6. It used both a port and DI. Not sure on the details but the only reason I can see if to keep the intake valves/ports clean.
FWIW, that is completely not the reason.
Really? I'm surprised. Don't DI-only engines have trouble with carbon buildup on the back of intake valves which port injection solves?
I know that port injection is also more efficient under many conditions so there's a performance/efficiency advantage to it as well.
Not all of them.
There are a lot of other reasons to add PFI to a DI engine. Its just that cleaning the port isn't one of them, PFI also has intake deposits.
I always look at the vapors drawn into the intake as upper cylinder lube and maybe a little water injection.
I don't understand why after years of the PCV doing it's thing with no problems, in recent years those vapors have become nasty and must be removed.
In reply to loosecannon:
Moroso-85474 OCC is listed as 3/8" hose barbs in/out, ok if crankcase vent and intake tube is same size hose, OCC rule of thumb is same size ports and hose or larger. Definitely route back to intake for more efficiency, otherwise it's just a breather.
alfadriver wrote:
jimbbski wrote:
Makes you wonder why Ford went to dual injectors on the 2017 3.5L V6. It used both a port and DI. Not sure on the details but the only reason I can see if to keep the intake valves/ports clean.
FWIW, that is completely not the reason.
I felt compelled to correct a trainer on this subject - they said that port injection on DI was strictly for intake cleaning.
Knurled wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
jimbbski wrote:
Makes you wonder why Ford went to dual injectors on the 2017 3.5L V6. It used both a port and DI. Not sure on the details but the only reason I can see if to keep the intake valves/ports clean.
FWIW, that is completely not the reason.
I felt compelled to correct a trainer on this subject - they said that port injection on DI was strictly for intake cleaning.
Please do, it's not nearly as important as people make it out to be.
Again, there are a lot better reasons to add PFI, and one is because of a glaring shortcoming of DI- the pump is flow limited.
Funny, when I brought up the issue of fuel flow limits (at the time it was about 75hp/cylinder, maybe still is?) I was told that bigger injectors are being made all the time, it's no problem.
I can't see a PUMP being able to crank out enough flow with current geometries, given that lobe/roller wear is showing to be a problem on engines that see a lot of high loading.
I ordered a Moroso 85474 air/oil separator and will run the hose from cam cover to one side of the separator and the other side to the intake tube just before the turbo. The separator should keep any oil out of the turbo.
Knurled wrote:
Funny, when I brought up the issue of fuel flow limits (at the time it was about 75hp/cylinder, maybe still is?) I was told that bigger injectors are being made all the time, it's no problem.
I can't see a PUMP being able to crank out enough flow with current geometries, given that lobe/roller wear is showing to be a problem on engines that see a lot of high loading.
For some reason, people don't know that the Di high pressure pump is a positive displacement one. Which means it has a displacement limit. And an efficiency, as well- so pumping it faster may end up pumping less (that's pretty extreme, but possible).
One funny thing- the pump is independent of the number of cylinders- so for many years, it was roughly 420hp of reasonable volume of fuel. I think that's closer to 450-470hp now. That's a rough number based on how much it can flow and typical BSFC's at WOT, when not in temperature protection. So more than enough fuel for most boosted I4's, barely enough for boosted 6's, and not enough for boosted v8's.
The0retical wrote "The only time I've had that much oil in my catch can was when I broke the journal shaft in the turbo." Loose you wrote on your SCCA Emod thread the you heard a ticking noise while at Lincoln before loading the P up. Am I thinking way too hard about this?
In reply to alfadriver:
Wouldn't it be possible to put a second one of those pumps on an engine? So for a V6 or V8, feed 1 bank from one pump, the other bank from the second pump?
rslifkin wrote:
In reply to alfadriver:
Wouldn't it be possible to put a second one of those pumps on an engine? So for a V6 or V8, feed 1 bank from one pump, the other bank from the second pump?
yes, very possible, and done more than once. Jag does that, and the race cars do that. Takes some trick controllers to coordinate the two pumps.
But it's much more expensive than adding PFI. (it helps that many modules still have PFI drivers on them, as DI and PFI drivers are VERY different. So adding PFI is basically the cost of the NumCyl injectors, the rail, and the wiring. Which is pretty cheap)
759NRNG wrote:
The0retical wrote "The only time I've had that much oil in my catch can was when I broke the journal shaft in the turbo." Loose you wrote on your SCCA Emod thread the you heard a ticking noise while at Lincoln before loading the P up. Am I thinking way too hard about this?
What other things can get damaged if the oil is "dead headed" in it? That's what I see overfilling doing.
Whether through overfilling of oil or oil starvation (or some other thing), the engine is damaged and has come out of the car. I have a long and expensive road ahead of me ;(
Now I put a completely different motor in and ran the hose from cam cover to an oil seperator and another hose from the other side of the oil seperator to the intake manifold of the car, to create a little vacuum in the can. I use a one way valve so the catch can never sees boost, just vacuum. Again, the catch can needs constant draining of excess oil. What is going on here? Why is there so much oil going to the catch can?
If there's no baffling under the valve cover port where the catch can is drawing from, it can end up sucking up a lot of oil splash from the valvetrain at high rpm.
