Never use the dipstick as it is directly exposed to the windage spray of oil from the crankshaft spinning.

A proper PCV system ALWAYS uses fresh air to flush out the gasses so an explosive mix can never accumulate. Watch this training video to see proper basic PCV design and function. This is an NA example, but you can clearly see how with a turbo system that pressurizes the intake the secondary suction source the turbo provides for in boost evacuation occurs f configured properly.


And watch this in detail to understand how a turbo application is corrected to provide complete separation of both the fresh/clean, and dirty/foul providing constant proper evacuation and remooval of the contaiminants entering as blow by.


And just what has been pulled from this engines crankcase after installation of a proper system (first empty is always far greater than subsequent as all of this was extracted from the crankcase where it had accumulated over the miles since last oil change, the engine used to raise oil level on the dipstick from this:


I think the main thing here is misunderstanding just what is occurring in these engines, and almost NO manufacturer or seller of a catchcan understand anything more than the oil mist they are attempting to stop.

I urge all to read and watch these videos several times and them ask me for clarification on any part not perfectly clear.

 

I have never had an engine raise in oil level,never had a water film sitting on top of my oil when I drain it. I get installing an OCC to help filter the mist . I feel like you are adding the water looking substance on top of the oil you collect due to temperature drop. Being the oil leaving the engine hot and going into a cooler can, parking with hot oil in the cooler that cools off causing condensation.
Now don't jump on me , I agree a OCC design needs to be designed/engineered/ installed but I don't think the can is catching the milky white nasty stuff in the jar you drained out, I think it is causing the milky white nasty stuff... due to condensation

 

I work on large industrial diesels, they don't have PCV systems. Google crankcase explosions for some pretty good images.

 

I think that without the catch can system the condensation would be burnt up in the engine which is what a PCV system does, but since you have a catch can your collecting the condensation instead of burning it up. What are you going to do with the discussing yellow contamination? Hopefully dispose of it properly or even better burn it when it enters the combustion process.

 

Your correct Dave. Very real issue with large industrial diesels, that is what the Alfa Laval and similar Racor systems are very common as they evacuate all the vapors out of these super large engines and use centrifuge style separators to purify and filter the oil from the other compounds and can return the oil to the crankcase, the un burnt purified fuel to the fuel tank, and the rest is disposed of. Highly recommend a system if the ones your around are not using them. They have a formula for hours of operation to break-even payback and from there it is $ saved as well as greatly extended engine life. These are generally on large generators, locomotives, ocean going freighters and cruise ships, etc. Totally eliminates any chance of crankcase explosions. The larger the engine, the more chance of an explosion if not dealt with as described.

Here are some pictures of the systems...some larger than a pick-up truck!

https://www.google.com/search?q=Alfa...w=1600&bih=775


Yes, ALWAYS dispose of what you drain in a waste oil recycling center.

If this is allowed to be ingested into the intake air charge, this mix is what bakes onto the intake valves and causes all the issues.

 

I can't say that I have ever had issues, just a slight reduction in power. I have my valves walnut blasted every 20-30K to deal with the build-up and I'd rather burn that yellow contamination (blow-by/unburnt gases) in the combustion process where it is suppose to go. As long as you keep up with the valve cleaning you shouldn't have any issues at all. It's those that either don't know or the people that wait to long to have the valves properly cleaned that have issues, like those that just bought a MCS for the first time with high mileage and have no clue about the oil coking on the valves.

 

The problem lies in the wear that occurs between cleaning. Every cycle the valves make they draw up this abrasive coating into the valve guides quickly wearing them out of spec. This results in unstable movement of the valve. The gunk caught used to be able to be burnt w/out much issue with old port injection that kept the valves clean, but you don;t want any of this baking onto the valves now that there is no fuel touching them to wash them clean.

It is a personal choice, those that want to avoid issues and want the longest life out of the engine.

 

I'll probably wait to see from those that run your OCC system to see how effective it is with the Mini Cooper S N14 engines before considering buying it.

Thanks for the info.

 

The turbo side provides the clean air (metered by the MAF) when in non-boost operation as the evacuation provided by the intake manifold keeps the flow the correct direction of clean in the drivers side, foul out the passenger. When you transition into boost, the passenger side valve closes, so there is NO evacuation taking place, and crankcase pressure builds until it forces out the in, or out the fresh//cleanside into the turbo. If configured as I describe, you separate this and provide suction for evacuation at ALL times, not just the brief time your not making any boost, Leaving it stagnant as you describe will always cause the "gunk" to accumulate and these damaging compounds a simple oil analysis will show you to verify. That and you NEVER want pressure i the crankcase to cause ring flutter (damage to cylinder wall and rings over time and allows poor ring to wall seal and even more blow by. Vacuum of even a small amount assists ring seal to avoid this. Remember, I am not just someone selling something they used assumptions to design...I have over 42 years experience as an Automotive Engineer designing PCV and crankcase evacuation systems, starting with GM in 1974 and a pioneer in proper evacuation for forced induction. All I am sharing is science pure and simple.
************************************************** ********
This is what I do not understand; if the turbo inlet is the "fresh air" source for the crank , it can only be so when the throttle is closed BUT with the turbo spinning and sucking away always at that inlet, how does fresh air find its way down the valve cover?????
Seems like there will always be vacuum/draw at the turbo inlet except when the throttle is closed!!! When and how often does this happen on a race track??? Under load/boost there cannot be any fresh air source. Apparently it does not really matter??
My point is contrary to what I am comprehending b/c IMO the turbo side is always drawing a mixture of fresh metered air through the induction and blow by from the crank case. I could just hook up a vacuum gauge and monitor this if I really into it. I am thinking with the throttle snapped shut, the diverter sending air back into the turbo inlet, there must be a period of either 0 vacuum and would be pressure except it can blow right out the air box which is why one hears the diverter operate with an open air box. This would be the only time fresh air would be sucked into the VC and feed the crank case. Then on boost, there's no fresh air entering the crank.

 

There's negative pressure at idle and positive pressure once you're making boost, throttle body PCV port is open at idle and closes when there's positive pressure in boost on the PCV inlet port in turbo charge pipe. It's simple really.

 

My point is contrary to what I am comprehending b/c IMO the turbo side is always drawing a mixture of fresh metered air through the induction and blow by from the crank case. I could just hook up a vacuum gauge and monitor this if I really into it. I am thinking with the throttle snapped shut, the diverter sending air back into the turbo inlet, there must be a period of either 0 vacuum and would be pressure except it can blow right out the air box which is why one hears the diverter operate with an open air box. This would be the only time fresh air would be sucked into the VC and feed the crank case. Then on boost, there's no fresh air entering the crank.[/QUOTE]


Your thinking correctly for the most part, but what happens with the stock set up is fresh air is not entering much at all in boost. So the foul and fresh (dirty and clean) are mixing because of the suction is not coming from the intake manifold, pressure is building and then the flow backs out the cleanside into the turbo And also sucks some clean air). So it is critical to retain the proper flow direction of fresh in, foul out. This period is when the damaging compounds settle and mix with the engine oil (contributing to timing chain wear and stretch, wear of bearings and journals, etc.). When you separate these, and use the turbo inlet as the secondary suction source, and move the clean side inlet to closer to the MAF sensor and air filter box (it MUST be post, or down stream of the MAF) where the suction is minimal due to the dismemberment of the air filter, and this then allows the cleanside air to always flow into the drivers side of the cam cover and the foul vapors out the passenger side rear corner. This fixes the flaw most turbo PCV systems have. Here is what it causes in the Ford Ecoboost twin turbo V6 DI:

This shows just what is accumulating in the crankcases of most turbo DI's when cold, and no, this does not get sucked into the intake manifold in small amounts w/out a system like the real RX does. This is what was extracted after all the driving w/out

 

I'm sorry but the tensioner and timing chain failures have much more to do with a poorly designed tensioner than anything else, it took Mini/BMW five redesigned tensioners to get it right and over 8 years. They changed manufactures quite a few times, I recently had the latest 5th Gen tensioner installed and had a chance to examine a 3rd, 4th and the 5th Gen tensioner, boy what difference!

When I pushed in the plunger with my thumb on the brand new 3rd and 4th Gen tensioner, it felt as if there was binding (scraping) between the plunger and tensioner walls, 5th Gen tensioner was shockingly smoother in the plunger action. You can only imagine how much smoother the plunger action will be after some mileage when compared to the new 4th Gen tensioner that was anything but smooth!

I'm know for sure that the tensioners in other cars haven't had many problems as they have in Mini Coopers direct injection or not, Mini's are notorious for failed tensioners and timing chains. If other cars and trucks had as much of a problem with tensioners and timing chains I would know about it, especially a Ford! Then again Fords have many issues as it is, they somehow miss an entire assembly line!

 

Do a Google search on GM LLT timing chain failures to see how common this is on most all DI engines. The design is poor your correct, but the wear of the tensioner plunger and bore comes from 2 main issues (not wanting to argue, just discuss as you have great input here, but I am an Automotive Engineer and work on the R&D to determine weak and failed parts issues on most GM, Ford, and imports under contract for tier 1 suppliers, and some direct OEM work. Started with GM back in 1974 and have grown with the advancements through the years). One, many dealers are putting in a synthetic blend for oil changes, and due to the tight tolerances of the tensioner bores that reply on oil pressure to maintain proper tension you really need 100% full synthetic. Then the increased contaminates that are entering the crankcase and mixing with the engine oil with all GDI engines, we see the chains stretch, the guides wear, and the tensioners wear to the point that oil bleeds past the bore and proper tension cannot be maintained.

Take that with the "low profile" gear teeth design (Import and domestic, all have had TSB's on this and have done revisions in design to improve and reduce the incidence), it does not take much to reach the point of jumping teeth and in worst case scenarios piston to valve contact takes place causing extensive damage.

On the effectiveness of the Air/Oil separation systems, there are over 16,000 in use and in every independent tests, nothing else equals. Here is one that was done over a year ago over months and thousands of miles, and then done in reverse to be accurate and fair:

Also note, this was started by UPR with their customer anticipating a different outcome. If you search, there are dozens of these challenges performed over years, and most do no better than 15-20% effectiveness. The SM did come in among the best though trapping over 70%, but none came close to equaling this patented design:

UPR vs RX Catch Can Effectiveness Test

I’ve had a UPR catch can on my 5.0 since last summer. It catches a lot, especially in the cold months. But I’ll get right to my test. I added an RX can inline after my UPR can to see if the UPR was missing anything. And if it was allowing some to pass through, was it enough for the RX to catch anything? I don’t drive a lot of miles regularly since my F150 is not a daily driver, so my results will take some time. This thread is to document how I set it up and what I catch over time.
I installed the RX can just as the directions explained, but I routed the hoses differently. I left my UPR can right where it’s been for months, but rerouted one hose. I left the hose from the passenger side of the engine to the inlet of the UPR can. Then a new hose from UPR can outlet, routed to the inlet of the RX can. The RX outlet hose goes back to the engine. The PCV exhaust now flows from the engine, through the UPR, then through the RX, and finally back up to the engine intake.
Before installing everything for the test, I cleaned the UPR can thoroughly. The bottom of the can (inside) was covered with a thin layer of stiff sludge that I could only clean out using gas. I’m glad that was caught, along with the ounces of oil, water, etc, over the months I’ve been emptying it. But I was surprised at the outlet hose from the UPR can. It was wet with oil. Obviously some was getting through the can and back to my intake. I’ve never let the can get close to half full before emptying it. Nearly every time I’ve emptied it, there was 1/4“ or less in the bottom. I’m noting this in case someone thinks I left the UPR get overfilled and it flowed through. Nevertheless, I started this test after cleaning everything for a fresh start.
I plan to leave this setup on for a thousand miles or so, and report my findings from each can.
1st picture: UPR*can as it was originally installed.
2nd:*CleanUPR can.
3rd: RX can installed. The hose in the top center of the can is the inlet. The outlet hose on the right has a check valve.
4th:*Engine outlet to UPR inlet on left of can. UPR outlet on right side of can routed around (smaller hose) to the RX inlet. You can also see the other smaller hose coming back up from the RX can and ending at the intake on the engine.



Report 2:



I thought I'd add a post to keep this thread alive since it is taking me awhile to get enough miles on the truck for valid results. Now that spring weather is finally arriving, I haven't been putting as many miles on it since I'm busy. But I have around 600 miles on the test set up so far. I emptied the cans recently and recorded the volumes to date. I'd like to wait until I get to 1000 miles before posting the results from the test, but I'll give some preliminary feedback.

- Emptying process -*
First the UPR. I'm used to emptying the UPR can regularly, so it's not a big deal to unscrew, guide the can out from between the hoses, pour it out, guide it back in between the hoses, get it lined up carefully (so I don't cross thread the soft aluminum) and screw it back up snug. All that takes less than a few minutes so it's rather easy.
Now the RX can. Raise the hood, hold an empty water bottle under the drain tube, open the valve, close the valve, close the hood. I kid you not, it takes no more time than it took to read those steps. I knew it would be easy to empty, but it is ridiculously easy.

_ The weather so far -*
During the first week of the test we had winter weather, with some snow. Since then we have had mild weather. Temperatures are in the 50's and 60's most days.

- What they caught so far -
I won't share the amounts yet, but I'll give some info. The UPR can has caught a 'mostly oil with a bit of water' mixture so far. The RX can (in line after the UPR) has had just the opposite. It's collected mostly water or fuel, with some oil mixed in.
I emptied the UPR first, and I would estimate it has collected the normal amount compared to what it usually does I empty it. I was pleased that my set up with 2 cans didn't seem to change the normal flow and collection I was used to seeing with just the UPR can. When I was about the turn the valve to empty the RX, I paused to a few seconds wondering if anything would come out. After all it was a new can that would need to get some oil/water coated on the inside before there would be enough to drip to the bottom (The UPR can had been in use for many months and although I cleaned the can I did not rinse off the filter material). Plus I wondered if the valve of the RX can protruded up into the can, and if it required some liquid to collect before there was enough to spill over that valve nipple and exit the can. Then I opened the valve and I had to smile when I had some liquid drain out. I thought all along that if it caught more than 10% of what the UPR was collecting, I would be surprised. It's still early in the test, and I would like to redo the test after reversing the order of the cans later, but I am surprised so far. I'm hoping to get more miles on the truck soon so I can wrap up this phase of the test.

Report 3:

1000 Miles of Testing Results

- The Weather*has been warmer lately. So the test began with sub freezing temperatures, and gradually increased through the 70's and topped off in the mid 80's yesterday. I couldn't have asked for a better range of temperatures for this test.

- What they caught*was astounding to me. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the UPR might miss.
The UPR stayed on track with what it has been accumulating for many months. Each time I emptied them, it had about the same amount. It's contents were mostly oil which smelled like used oil. It caught 17cc total which is just under 3 1/2 tsp.
The RX had more than the UPR each time I emptied them. It's contents were an oil/fuel/water type mix that had a much stronger odor. Not a fuel smell, but a sharper chemical smell compared to the odor of used oil. It caught a total of 67cc which is just over 13 1/2 tsp.

- Final totals:
UPR - 17cc
RX - 67cc

The RX can caught 4 times the amount the UPR can caught,*after*the UPR can removed what it could. I said from the beginning I would be surprised if the RX can could pull 10% of what the UPR caught, since it was second in line. If someone told me it would catch an equal amount I would have said BS. For it to catch 4 times what the UPR can caught is unreal.

Report 4:

The routing of cans has been reversed*so the second phase of the test is underway. I cleaned the cans and hoses so neither has an advantage. I also checked the inside of the hoses as I disassembled everything. The exit hose from the UPR was dripping with oil and it made a mess as I took it apart. The exit hose from the UPR was clean and dry. It still looked new. That is what prompted me to clean all the hoses before starting this phase. Is the double can routing helping the second can*that*much, or is one can that much better. Time will tell again.

Report 5:

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming…


Phase 2 is almost complete now, thanks to some extra mileage for work. I'll report on that soon and begin phase 3.


As I said above, UPR shipped parts for me to do phase 3 of the test. I bought my UPR can in June, and they changed the can slightly since then. The new diffuser/extension will only fit cans made after that, so they shipped a full new kit to test. Thank you UPR for helping with this, and for your input in this thread.*
After shipping the kit, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh from the exit side of my existing can for the remainder of phase 2, and to remove the mesh from the exit side of the new can before starting phase 3. I removed it from both (phase 2 was half way done when I removed it from the existing can). When I was removing the mesh from the short side of the new can (in preparation for phase 3), I realized the diffuser was assembled backwards. For our 5.0 F150's the long side of the diffuser must be on the passenger side of the can when installed. I disassembled, removed the mesh packed up in the can top on the exit/passenger side, and reassembled the can with diffuser. For anyone who might have received their cans assembled by UPR, you should check to see if it was assembled correctly before installing. (EDIT: Joe notes below they assemble the cans for shipping, and all cans should be assembled for your own installation needs) I also had a small piece of the stainless steel mesh (1/8") drop out when I was doing that. I wasn't thrilled with that so I unrolled, and lightly tapped the mesh in case there were any other loose pieces, but there weren't. A quick note on the UPR kit... it is much improved since I bought mine. The hoses are pre cut to the proper lengths, the elbow fittings are nickel rather than plastic, and they include Ford OEM snap on valve cover and intake fittings.


More to come soon!

Report 6:

Test Results

-*I'll summarize*the test to date. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR.

Phase 2 Test Results
- The Weather*has been average northern Ohio spring weather. Some rain, fog, cool nights, warm and hot days.

-*Driving*has been about the same through both phases. I good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 40% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, with a few very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling, and no towing.

- What they caught*this time might have been predicted by some (after the results of phase 1). RX was first in line, with the UPR after it to catch anything the RX might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was half of that caught in the first phase. The first phase had some cold weather which accounted for more water in the mix and the higher volume.
The contents from the RX can was mostly oil/fuel, and had a strong chemical/solvent smell again. It caught 35.5cc total which is approximately 7 1/8 tsp.
The UPR can caught about the same mix of oil/fuel, but didn't smell quite as strong. Halfway through this phase, Joe@UPR asked me to remove the mesh on the exit side of the UPR can. I did that, but noticed no difference in what it was catching. But since it was second in line, and there was little to catch, that's understandable. The UPR can caught 1.75cc total which is approximately 1/3 tsp. With so little collecting this time, I monitored the contents of the UPR can but didn't empty it until the end of the test.

- Phase 2 Totals:
RX - 35.5cc
UPR - 1.75cc*

-*Other tidbits*include the 'first in line' RX can caught 95% of the total volume. The exit hoses were very clean from both cans. The last few tanks of gas have produced slightly higher than my normal MPGs, but it's too early to tell on that (more to follow after phase 3).

-Phase 3,*using the UPR can extension and diffuser, is underway. Details will follow.


Final Test Results

-*I'll summarize*the test phases. The first phase was to test the UPR vs the RX catch cans on a 5.0, both base models, with the UPR first in line and RX installed to catch anything the UPR missed. Those first phase results were: UPR - 17cc, RX - 67cc. The 'first in line' UPR caught 20% of the total volume. See post 37 in this thread for more details on phase 1. The cans were cleaned and reinstalled in reverse order for phase 2, RX first and then UPR. The second phase results were: RX - 35.50cc, UPR - 1.75cc. The 'first in line' RX caught 95% of the total volume. See post 143 for more details on phase 2.

Phase 3 Test Results

- This time the UPR can*was first in line as in phase 1, but it had the new can extension and diffuser added. It also had the mesh material removed from the exit side of the can.

- The Weather*has been average northern Ohio early summer weather. Some rain with warm and hot days.

-*Driving*has been a good mix of rural roads, some small towns, highways, and approximately 60% of the miles on interstates at 65 - 80mph. Mostly average style driving, some steep hill climbs, and some very heavy accelerations mixed in. A little heavy hauling again, and no towing. I'll add some more thoughts on driving and MPGs below.*

- What they caught*was a mixed bag. UPR was first in line, with the RX after it to catch anything the extended UPR might miss.
The combined volume of gunk was down from the last phase, again. I assume it is due to the warmer weather and maybe my engine is using less oil with more miles? Either way, my test looks at the percent each can catches, compared to the total caught for that phase, so the volume isn't critical.
The contents from the extended UPR can was mostly oil, and had a used oil smell. The UPR caught 14.75cc which is approximately 3 tsp.
The RX can caught a fuel/water/oil mix. It smelled much more harsh again. The RX can caught 16.00cc which is approximately 3 1/4 tsp.

- Phase 3 Totals:
UPR - 14.75cc (48%)
RX - 16.00cc (52%)

-*Other thoughts*on the results. The contents of each phase showed me the RX does a better job of removing more than oil. It always contained more water/fuel type liquids, while the UPR contained mostly oil. I don't know if it is due to the can design, the 'out front' mounting style of the RX, or both.
For anyone buying or thinking of upgrading their UPR can, I strongly recommend figuring out how to mount it out front, and would definitely add the valve that Joe@UPR is offering. I really think the 'out front' cooling effect will help it catch even more, and the valve would be worth the price for ease of emptying it. Having the RX can to compare to when emptying, the front mount and valve are no brainers.
As I said at the end of phase 2, my MPGs have increased slightly. I have done nothing different to my truck over the past year, other than adding the RX can to the UPR for this test. My driving style is very similar from tank to tank, I fill up at the same stations, etc. But since having both cans in series, and essentially removing 95% or more of the PCV byproducts, my MPGs have increased. Up to that point my lifetime MPGs were 17.5. Nearly every tank for the past year gave me the same results, 17.5. I would have some trips that would net 20 MPG, but the other short trips would always pull it back down for the same tank average - close to 17.5. My recent tank averages have all been over 18 MPG, with a few over 19, and as high as 19.5. My last tank included hauling approximately 1000 lbs of payload, through some long hills/mountains of PA, and I got 18.8 MPG. It could be the summer fuel mix combined with an engine that is broken in, but the timing is peculiar. Whatever the reason, I like it!


Read it over several times to see the amount of detail this person conducting the test put into this. Also, no other system correctly modify's the PCV system to work this way correcting the PCV design flaw most all turbo systems have to eliminate the related issues.

Thanks!

 

Yeah; there's vacuum on the pass side which shuts down under boost but I feel there is always a draw on the turbo inlet and never any positive pressure on the turbo inlet side. There can never be any pressure here as its open to atmosphere. The question is does it suck air here when NOT on boost and since its metered air it should be directed back into the intake to keep fuel trims proper.

 

Vacuum at idle and deceleration is greater than the suction in the turbo inlet pipe that the cleanside air is drawn from, so at that time evacuation takes place with dirty vapors drawn out passengers side of cam cover, and clean fresh MAF metered air enters from the drivers side. When in boost, dirty side check valve closes preventing boost from bleeding into the crankcase, and then there is no evacuation occurring and as pressure builds in the crankcase it then vents out the cleanside (backwards, no flushing takes place, almost all damaging compounds remain in crankcase mixing with engine oil). So that is why you reconfigure as described so at all times the crankcase is evacuated out the passengerside no matter if in boost or not, and MAF metered fresh air is always entering from the drivers side.

 

So there is no fresh air ingress under boost. That sucks (pun) How can we get fresh air during boost? I also realize now that I need a adjustable PCV valve on the pass side PCV system as to limit the air entering at idle. I ran across this MEWAGNER adjustable PCV valve. I also have come to find that my motor, being worn and perhaps damaged, will actually allow boost pressure into the crank when testing/pressurizing the intake plumbing. I can detect air coming from oil fill and factory PCV outlets. It was freaking me out at first as I could not understand why I was getting air in those spots during testing.

 

What tensioner did you go with?

Great info on this thread very informative. Tuner Boost thks for the emails #cheers

 

The last 5th Gen 82 mm longer tensioner.

 

Thanks Tuner for the info and SL for the tensioner update. Will change that out too.
I did check what happens on the VC inlet/outlet/ drivers side during idle cruise and boost" slight vac, neutral and then pressure approx. 2 psi. So no fresh air to CC under cruise or boost.


I figured a way to run CC gases ran through my dual OCC back into the turbo side under boost and I will introduce fresh air into the crank via the oil fill tube. The air will be metered. (Ok start the berating)
I figure at 1-2 psi and the tube not being in the oil, there will be little windage effect on the oil if at all. The tube does not sit in the oil. In fact its some 6" from the oil.
The fresh air will really help rid the gasses. The key of course is to maintain the vacuum.
I'm taking Tuners advice to install a barb close to the MAF and will measure what happens during load. Depending on he amount (if) vacuum under load, that will go on the outlet of the 2nd OCC therefore always creating vacuum on the OCC even during load in addition to the turbo inlet vacuum. The barb is not needed but wanted to check it out anyway.

 

So Indimanic, when are you gonna post a write up on how to build a system like yours?

Curious as to how much time and money is involved in your setup. I'm quite interested...

 

I just went through another iteration adding 3 1 way valves and splitting the outlet from the drivers side VC so under idle and light cruise it draws air from the outlet of the OCC and during boost it diverts the blowby back into the inlet of the OCC system.
I also added an old school PCV valve so no air in sucked during idle and high vacuum.
I'm trying to solve a fuel trim issue. I feel there must be some type of intake leak.

 

Question, how does the engine oil get onto the MAF sensor located not far from the air filter? I just recently cleaned my MAF and it was dirty, but I saw no signs of oil residue.

Thanks.

 

MAF should only get oil on it if you have an air filter that is oiled like K&N..
The valve cover pulls down stream close to the turbo, air should not flow back up towards the MAF.

I like M7 jumping in here with an ad. Lol

 

Makes sense... I have an oil less AEM filter so I understood the pressure/vacuum but not the oil to MAF.

 

Donniedarko, Is it a cone Dry filter (oil less) or a panel Dry filter (oil less)?