# How to install a catch can. the correct way



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

this is the best way to provide proper vacuum at idle and WOT. some may say "I just run strait off TIP vacuum" but that will only cause lack of vacuum at idle and has in some 1.8t's lead to smoking at idle. and will cause acid to build up in your oil and damage your engine. 

this is the best way to install a Catch-Can SYS on your 1.8t. (revised) 










the vacuum pump you need: I would recomend a new one there are soft rubber check valves and small holes that can be clogged in old ones.

http://www.ecstuning.com/Search/SiteSearch/ES1884320/ES1884320/

this is the check valve i used: (you could use a second PCV valve in this location for more reliability.)

http://www.ecstuning.com/Search/SiteSearch/0004313507/ES2597284/

and this is the PCV valve I used: 

the puck: IMO a PCV valve works better. But if you want OEM crank case vacuum just leave the puck in the original position. It will still be better then current catch can setups.

the PCV valve: "its not a perfect fit, it has to be installed with the fat end in the hose and the skinny part into the TIP. Its working well for me, but i would like to find a larger one.

http://www.ecstuning.com/Search/SiteSearch/035103245G/ES7771/

THE PUMP










I have made a NEW diagram to end all questions :banghead:

Here is a 1.8T Vacuum diagram :sly:










here is that same system only showing the just the PCV and color matched to my diagram on how to properly install a CC system on a 1.8t. 










here is the same diagram modified to my system as you can see it does not affect function but allows you to run a CC and have a factory PCV system.










if you want more vacuum in your PCV system, give the PCV Valve/Check Valve a try in place of the Puck. its up to you. :thumbup:


If you want to argue this go talk to AUG. :laugh: I'm just sharing what figured out. it was not that hard to do  and I'm not looking for any compensation/credit just sharing information. eace:
Seeing is believing...


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

Clcik here for the link that works!

Feel free to elaborate here if you feel you have good information


----------



## Rac_337 (Sep 24, 2004)

whats wrong with venting to air w/ filter on the can?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Rac_337 said:


> whats wrong with venting to air w/ filter on the can?


low to no vacuum at idle. = higher crank case pressure + excessive vapor in crankcase + rapid acid buildup in oil + more sludge build up + increased oil leaks + smoking + less low end power + in some cases oil foam build up in Engine & Catchcan + acid in oil will eat bearings in engine and turbo. 

that should be plenty of reasons to do it rite I hope.


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

taverncustoms said:


> low to no vacuum at idle. = higher crank case pressure + excessive vapor in crankcase + rapid acid buildup in oil + more sludge build up + increased oil leaks + smoking + less low end power + in some cases oil foam build up in Engine & Catchcan + acid in oil will eat bearings in engine and turbo.
> 
> that should be plenty of reasons to do it rite I hope.


Do you have anything to back up these bold statements?


----------



## woteg (Apr 7, 2009)

I've been running filter off vc and hose to ground off crank and straight hose from im to brake booster for at least a year (10k) with no problems

Sent from my SPH-D710VMUB using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

I disagree. I run lower/upper breather in a T then to CC. Vacuum via hockey puck to TIP only and in fact, this is better when you race your car as the vacuum from IM will suck up amounts of oil from lower breather during heavy braking. 

Even at idle this setup provides enough vacuum at idle to evacuate gasses. 

:beer:


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

I still get smoking at idle with tip only for vacuum source. It only happens after I change oil though for some odd reason? Never really ever happens accept then unless the car has sat for a long period of time say 3+days


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

derekb727 said:


> Do you have anything to back up these bold statements?


there is nothing bold about that statement, its fact. look it up. why else do you thing they put the vacuum pump in the SYS... its not for looks. 


ACID NEUTRALIZERS
As the engine operates, combustion gasses acidic by-products from the sulfur in the fuel. The acids combine with moisture (every gallon of gasoline burnt produces ½ gallon of moisture) which dissolve bearing surfaces.

All modern motor oils contain sodium hydroxides (NaOH) to combat the acid build up in the oil. As the oil becomes contaminated and turns acid, the NaOH gets used up. Preventing acid buildup is a very big reason for changing motor oil regularily. Short trip driving is the worst kind of driving for this problem as moisture is not boiled off during driving cycles.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> I disagree. I run lower/upper breather in a T then to CC. Vacuum via hockey puck to TIP only and in fact, this is better when you race your car as the vacuum from IM will suck up amounts of oil from lower breather during heavy braking.
> 
> Even at idle this setup provides enough vacuum at idle to evacuate gasses.
> 
> :beer:


I would like to see your prof that no vacuum is as good as with vacuum. i have VW&Audi&BMW ON MY SIDE


----------



## Rac_337 (Sep 24, 2004)

Been running VTA for years and years and i've never had a issue with anything failing or deteriorating. When I took my engine apart at 300,000km to do my first build the internals looked mint. 

Will try this tho. :beer:


----------



## Rac_337 (Sep 24, 2004)

What direction of flow do the check valves go in? you should put that on your drawing.

Also, since I have nowhere to mount a puck (Mafless BT) I assume I need a check valve in this location. which way is flow for that as well?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Rac_337 said:


> What direction of flow do the check valves go in? you should put that on your drawing.
> 
> Also, since I have nowhere to mount a puck (Mafless BT) I assume I need a check valve in this location. which way is flow for that as well?


very good point i will thanks. and as for no MAf there should be some way of tapping into the TIP. just needs to be between filter and turbo. I found a PCV check valve works well "and cheep" in replace of the puck just make sure it seals fully for best results.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

I remember reading some posts about this in the TT forum & have been meaning to try it but forgot about it... until I saw this - nice job on the illustration :beer:

Just plumbed in the OEM vac pump & went for a drive around the block… hit the brakes and it felt like someone had lodged a brick under it - surprise! Rotated the check-valve between the main & pump - much better 

Unfortunately I didn't see any more vacuum at idle… same old 16-17 fluctuation. I'll go for a better drive tomorrow and see how it goes.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

All_Euro said:


> I remember reading some posts about this in the TT forum & have been meaning to try it but forgot about it... until I saw this - nice job on the illustration :beer:
> 
> Just plumbed in the OEM vac pump & went for a drive around the block… hit the brakes and it felt like someone had lodged a brick under it - surprise! Rotated the check-valve between the main & pump - much better
> 
> Unfortunately I didn't see any more vacuum at idle… same old 16-17 fluctuation. I'll go for a better drive tomorrow and see how it goes.


its good that your not seeing more or less vacuum in the boost gauge "I'm assuming that where your checking your vacuum". 

This setup increases vacuum in the ENGINE BLOCK so to see the benefits of this, you have to remove your oil cap at idle and see/hear the difference. let us know :thumbup:


----------



## Volkkarijermu (Jan 15, 2002)

Check valves are just valves which lets air flow only one direction?

In original AUQ-system theres a valve which goes to middle at the vacuum pump but flow is marked to the vacuum pump, not like in the pic from the vacuum.

In this catch tank system it has to be just reversed?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Volkkarijermu said:


> Check valves are just valves which lets air flow only one direction?
> 
> In original AUQ-system theres a valve which goes to middle at the vacuum pump but flow is marked to the vacuum pump, not like in the pic from the vacuum.
> 
> In this catch tank system it has to be just reversed?


yes check valves only lets flow in the direction indicated. just like the puck / PCV valve.

The diagram is drawn correctly the fat end attaches to the brake booster and the skinny end to the vacuum source. the T is the vacuum for the PCV. its designed to allow proper braking force even at idle with the oil cap off. :thumbup: good question though i had to re-check lol


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Slimjimmn said:


> I still get smoking at idle with tip only for vacuum source. It only happens after I change oil though for some odd reason? Never really ever happens accept then unless the car has sat for a long period of time say 3+days


this setup is recomended over VTA or TIP-Vac regardless of issue. give it a try might just be your issue.


----------



## Volkkarijermu (Jan 15, 2002)

taverncustoms said:


> yes check valves only lets flow in the direction indicated. just like the puck / PCV valve.
> 
> The diagram is drawn correctly the fat end attaches to the brake booster and the skinny end to the vacuum source. the T is the vacuum for the PCV. its designed to allow proper braking force even at idle with the oil cap off. :thumbup: good question though i had to re-check lol


Yes but do I need to remove white valve which is originally there? As you can see arrow points to the vacuum pump.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Volkkarijermu said:


> Yes but do I need to remove white valve which is originally there? As you can see arrow points to the vacuum pump.


Yes remove the white valve, and set it up like the diagram. I would recommend new parts in the future also. 

However if you want to subject the vacuum pump to boost pressures you can actually leave the white valve there and ignore the orange check valves all together. So you would only have the check valve off the pump T and the PCV / Puck


----------



## flat rate lackey (Jan 27, 2011)

Even simpler than this is using a slash/cut setup on the downpipe (pending you don't have a cat and have relocated the primary o2 above said slash/cut). still generates a vacuum while in vacuum and in boost and requires no electronics, did it on a 2.0 I put together and was super cheap.


----------



## Volkkarijermu (Jan 15, 2002)

What is the number of check valve and PCV / puck?
It would be nice if there are needed part numbers in the pic.


----------



## black lavender (Aug 5, 2005)

So my set-up is wrong?


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

taverncustoms said:


> I would like to see your prof that no vacuum is as good as with vacuum. i have VW&Audi&BMW ON MY SIDE


I have vacuum. Even at idle with my setup I get the bouncing oil filler cap when I unscrew it. Plenty vacuum. Benefit is what I mentioned. 

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

black lavender said:


> So my set-up is wrong?


I hope not because this is exactly how I have it. Same CC and all.. 

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> I have vacuum. Even at idle with my setup I get the bouncing oil filler cap when I unscrew it. Plenty vacuum. Benefit is what I mentioned.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2


A bouncing cap means you have no vacuum at idle.:thumbdown: when i unscrew mine it stays vacuumed to the valve cover and when i pull it off it sucks in air.:thumbup:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

black lavender said:


> So my set-up is wrong?


Not if your WOT 100% of the time :laugh: but for us that idle at stop lights and normal driving you need to add the vacuum pump to your system off the brake booster line like in the diagram. :thumbup: your like 1 vacuum pump, 1 hose T, 1-2 check valves, and a hose away from having the system in the diagram


----------



## Pete O. Arguelles (Jul 5, 2000)

I'm going to reconsider my set up (vented 034 catch can) hose to ground, havn't ran it yet working on my set up before running the car. Putting and burning oil and water vapor back into engine can't be good, carbonizes everything, throttle body, intake, valves, piston tops and so on. Idleing at stop lights shouldn't be much to worry about, engine under normal driving should vent well to vented CC. As far as WOT should vent even better. I may need to install 2 catch cans possibly 3. Not saying this way is wrong but will try out a few methods in mind before plumbing the vapors back into engine.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

taverncustoms said:


> its good that your not seeing more or less vacuum in the boost gauge "I'm assuming that where your checking your vacuum".
> 
> This setup increases vacuum in the ENGINE BLOCK so to see the benefits of this, you have to remove your oil cap at idle and see/hear the difference. let us know :thumbup:





taverncustoms said:


> A bouncing cap means you have no vacuum at idle.:thumbdown: when i unscrew mine it stays vacuumed to the valve cover and when i pull it off it sucks in air.:thumbup:


Yes, I was looking at the vacuum reading on my boost gauge. I did remove the oil-cap at idle and instead of causing rough idle it maintained normal idle. My oil-cap was bouncing, however, and not vacuumed to the VC as you mentioned. Just double checked that everything is hooked up as per your diagram so I'm not sure what's going on...


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

All_Euro said:


> Yes, I was looking at the vacuum reading on my boost gauge. I did remove the oil-cap at idle and instead of causing rough idle it maintained normal idle. My oil-cap was bouncing, however, and not vacuumed to the VC as you mentioned. Just double checked that everything is hooked up as per your diagram so I'm not sure what's going on...


My oil cap bounced with every factory piece on it... Still bounced with my 034 kit plumed to the TIP, and still does it now VTA till I get my PPT tip welded up with a bung.:thumbup:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

All_Euro said:


> Yes, I was looking at the vacuum reading on my boost gauge. I did remove the oil-cap at idle and instead of causing rough idle it maintained normal idle. My oil-cap was bouncing, however, and not vacuumed to the VC as you mentioned. Just double checked that everything is hooked up as per your diagram so I'm not sure what's going on...


interesting my bet is the pump or puck has an issue. thats why i went with a PCV valve from my local auto parts store. I've found most pucks are bad.

to see if its the puck try blocking the puck at idle and see if your vacuum increases


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

ill try to get a video for you guys.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> My oil cap bounced with every factory piece on it... Still bounced with my 034 kit plumed to the TIP, and still does it now VTA till I get my PPT tip welded up with a bung.:thumbup:


Haha - good to see I'm not the only one 



taverncustoms said:


> interesting my bet is the pump or puck has an issue. thats why i went with a PCV valve from my local auto parts store. I've found most pucks are bad.
> 
> to see if its the puck try blocking the puck at idle and see if your vacuum increases


Good idea - I have a billet PCV kicking around… I'll swap it with the puck and see what happens :thumbup:


----------



## Volkkarijermu (Jan 15, 2002)

What is the number of check valve and PCV? Maybe I buy new ones when I'm starting to install catch can. Does puck/PCV have to be attached to the TIP? Can it be just hangin to free air so any vapor doesn't go back to engine?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Volkkarijermu said:


> What is the number of check valve and PCV? Maybe I buy new ones when I'm starting to install catch can. Does puck/PCV have to be attached to the TIP? Can it be just hangin to free air so any vapor doesn't go back to engine?


no matter what your gonna end up recirculating "fumes" back into the engine. and a good catch can will keep you running clean. and having it attached to the TIP provides vacuum any time the manifold pressure equals or exceeds the TIP pressure. 

the only way to avoid this would be to hook up a electric vacuum pump to pull vacuum on the block at all times. and VTA

also i added links to Orig post for valves :thumbup:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

All_Euro said:


> Haha - good to see I'm not the only one
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea - I have a billet PCV kicking around… I'll swap it with the puck and see what happens :thumbup:


sounds good, just be sure PCV is flowing in the correct direction :thumbup:


----------



## Leon mk1 (Aug 29, 2011)

going to do this catch can setup as your diagram

can i use the 034 billet pcv instad of the "hockey pack ? and connect it to the TIP ?
http://www.034motorsport.com/engine-components-18t-check-valve-18t-27t-aan-pcv-billet-p-21834.html
i think it will be much reliable and elegant in the engine bay
thanks for the sharing !


----------



## Volkkarijermu (Jan 15, 2002)

Which one is more reliable and or makes system work better? PCV or puck?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Leon mk1 said:


> going to do this catch can setup as your diagram
> 
> can i use the 034 billet pcv instad of the "hockey pack ? and connect it to the TIP ?
> http://www.034motorsport.com/engine-components-18t-check-valve-18t-27t-aan-pcv-billet-p-21834.html
> ...


Yes it should work fine but is smaller then the puck so if you have a functioning puck "I haven't found one yet" the puck would flow more volume but its a sealed system so I don't think your going to see alot of flow any way. Just be sure to install the PVC the correct way as in diagram.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Volkkarijermu said:


> Which one is more reliable and or makes system work better? PCV or puck?


In therory the puck would be ideal but I haven't found one that actually works. To test it remove it from the sys and see if you can create a vacuum on the port the attaches to the catch can. "Aka suck air trough it" if you can its bad. If not and its sealed you may be fine, now on that same port blow and is should alow flow with ease. Do this a few times to be sure. Then rinse out your mouth cause that's nasty lol


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

taverncustoms said:


> A bouncing cap means you have no vacuum at idle.:thumbdown: when i unscrew mine it stays vacuumed to the valve cover and when i pull it off it sucks in air.:thumbup:


Mine was bouncing even in 100% oem setup. Are you sure about that mate?

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

how about a cut away of what is actually inside the oem vacuum pump


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

Is this a vented catch can setup?


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

taverncustoms said:


> sounds good, just be sure PCV is flowing in the correct direction :thumbup:


Swapped the puck with a PCV valve (allowing flow into the TIP) and my oil-cap still bounces...


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

Pat @ Pitt Soundworks said:


> how about a cut away of what is actually inside the oem vacuum pump


I was just about to ask whats so special about these. looks just like a check valve with a T fitting to me...

So you're saying this set up is wrong? Drag car running short runs @ WOT only...?


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

no here issues ever on several cars running catch can straight to the tip


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

I don't have a TIP


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> I was just about to ask whats so special about these. looks just like a check valve with a T fitting to me...
> 
> So you're saying this set up is wrong? Drag car running short runs @ WOT only...?


Its a venturi pump. Air blows through causing an internal vacuum in one spot. The third line is connected to that vacuum spot and in turn 'sucks'. This allows you to create vacuum under boost.

This is why its called a 'vaccum jet pump'

Your intake creates great vac at idle, low load (pcv valve)

Your tip creates ok boost at load (prv valve / hockey puck)

The vacuum jet pump creates pretty good vacuum at boost


----------



## banderillero90 (Jun 27, 2008)

taverncustoms said:


> In therory the puck would be ideal but I haven't found one that actually works. To test it remove it from the sys and see if you can create a vacuum on the port the attaches to the catch can. "Aka suck air trough it" if you can its bad. If not and its sealed you may be fine, now on that same port blow and is should alow flow with ease. Do this a few times to be sure. Then rinse out your mouth cause that's nasty lol


So Tavern, the PRV Puck doesn't even work right when new as well? Have you had any luck finding bigger check valves?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> I was just about to ask whats so special about these. looks just like a check valve with a T fitting to me...
> 
> So you're saying this set up is wrong? Drag car running short runs @ WOT only...?


no your good WOT runing is fine with that setup. its not a Daily or even a street driven car. and i have no idea where the lines go so who knows how its setup.eace:

this setup is for street driven cars that don't see wot all the time. :thumbup:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

banderillero90 said:


> So Tavern, the PRV Puck doesn't even work right when new as well? Have you had any luck finding bigger check valves?


there are some marine valves but i have yet to try because mine seems to be working fine on the PCV valve


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

All_Euro said:


> Swapped the puck with a PCV valve (allowing flow into the TIP) and my oil-cap still bounces...


thats strange. is the vacuum pump clogged? do you have vacuum into the catch can? pull off the hose and check, you should be able to feel it when you put your finger over the hose. the best advise i can give you is pulling off the hoses to find out whats happening to your vacuum.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

derekb727 said:


> I don't have a TIP


if you don't have a TIP you could just put a small filter on the end of the puck/pcv valve and VTA this is not as good at TIP "no vacuum" but the low boost portion will still work at idle etc...


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

Are these Vta catch cans or closed/sealed catch cans


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> Mine was bouncing even in 100% oem setup. Are you sure about that mate?
> 
> Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2


yes your oem setup was prob bad.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

derekb727 said:


> Is this a vented catch can setup?


no this is a vacuum PCV System designed to have vacuum on the block as much as possible just short of a electric vacuum sys.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

OK so i looked into why the puck never works. its because its not supposed to :sly: lol seriously it has a spring that holds it open unless it see's high tip vacuum then it closes basicly its so you dont pull oil into the TIP. but in a catch can sys you dont have that worry so a PCV valve is the best option. ditch your puck go PCV


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

taverncustoms said:


> OK so i looked into why the puck never works. its because its not supposed to :sly: lol seriously it has a spring that holds it open unless it see's high tip vacuum then it closes basicly its so you dont pull oil into the TIP. but in a catch can sys you dont have that worry so a PCV valve is the best option. ditch your puck go PCV


LOL. And anyone who's ever looked in a 1.8t TIP knows that the PRV hockey puck keeps the intake 100% oil free


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

taverncustoms said:


> yes your oem setup was prob bad.


I don't think so 
Let's make a poll for oem guys. At idle does oil filler cap;
A. Bounce once lifted
B. Held in place once lifted


Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Gulfstream said:


> I don't think so
> Let's make a poll for oem guys. At idle does oil filler cap;
> A. Bounce once lifted
> B. Held in place once lifted
> ...


Bounce slightly on my brother's stock 1.8t.


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

groggory said:


> Bounce slightly on my brother's stock 1.8t.


Can you make the poll Groggy? I'm on the road with only my tablet and can't make one.

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> Can you make the poll Groggy? I'm on the road with only my tablet and can't make one.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2


i would like to hear from some one with a 100% oem and !00% new.. most PCV sys are recommend to be replaced every 2 years. i have a feeling that's not done on 1.8t's


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

These cars are All at least seven years old. I don't think you're going to see anything that is new


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

groggory said:


> These cars are All at least seven years old. I don't think you're going to see anything that is new


In most PCV Systems every valve, vacuum pump, broken cracked hoses and bits, should be replaced every 2 years so unless someone with a completely new OEM system chimes in, your argument is not valid. at 7 years your 5 years past due on your maintenance.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

taverncustoms said:


> In most PCV Systems every valve, vacuum pump, broken cracked hoses and bits, should be replaced every 2 years so unless someone with a completely new OEM system chimes is your argument is not valid. at 7 years your 5 years past due on your maintenance.


2 year interval replacement of that stuff is unreasonable.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

groggory said:


> 2 year interval replacement of that stuff is unreasonable.


hey just so you know.....you own a euro :laugh: nothing is unreasonable. 60k timing belt, and even GM suggest 2 year on PCV. its a dirty system and should be properly maintained.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

Agreed. I've seen cars with 150k running perfect on stock everything, except timing belts

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Im willing to bet those of us running catch cans properly, have less issues with hoses deteriorating prematurely. As a good rule of thumb, I always check my hoses when Im under the hood. Swapping everything over to good silicone hose will help prolong things as well. Im currently venting to atmosphere, but only because Im waiting on fittings. There is a noticeably smoother idle when the outlet side of the can is plumbed back into the intake. At least in my case.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

revised the diagram, still the same function less parts. changed puck to PCV


----------



## rogz (May 7, 2012)

I dont nderstand, european AGU block hasnt got a so complicated vacuum system, 
no SAI no vacuum pump, pcv direct to tip and head direct to tip, manifold direct to DV, so the simpliest the better it is lol. 
my block is from 1998, here we have 20vT since 1998, i know a lot of people with 300000kms without problems.. 

mine, no vacuum pump no abs , no problem

but your reasoning is interesting


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

rogz said:


> I dont nderstand, european AGU block hasnt got a so complicated vacuum system,
> no SAI no vacuum pump, pcv direct to tip and head direct to tip, manifold direct to DV, so the simpliest the better it is lol.
> my block is from 1998, here we have 20vT since 1998, i know a lot of people with 300000kms without problems..
> 
> ...


AUG has a PCV valve the connects to the lower manifold port to the lower block PCV port, this can cause issues with vacuum loss, that's why they designed the vacuum Pump it provides better manifold vacuum stability, and keeps the PCV functioning. basically its the same as my diagram less the vacuum pump.


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

So you can improve the "standard" way most set theirs up even without the vacuum pump? I might give this a try. Just need to reduce the outlet of my CC from 3/4in to 1/4hose barb:laugh:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> So you can improve the "standard" way most set theirs up even without the vacuum pump? I might give this a try. Just need to reduce the outlet of my CC from 3/4in to 1/4hose barb:laugh:


don't know what thread your reading but thanks for posting :screwy:


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

taverncustoms said:


> don't know what thread your reading but thanks for posting :screwy:


I think he was referencing the pcv diameter


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

this is how a PCV should be. :thumbup:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

groggory said:


> I think he was referencing the pcv diameter


i Belive that is 3/8 or 1/2 in. the stock puck is actually about the same size internally. 

images i found on the internet, Thank you whomever you are for taking the time and cutting these apart

here is the puck










here is the PCV valve


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

#brodoyouevenlift

3/4" id or go home


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Rod Ratio said:


> #brodoyouevenlift
> 
> 3/4" id or go home


But what he was saying is most people with an otherwise 3/4" setup use the hockey puck, which is like 3/8" internally...


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

groggory said:


> But what he was saying is most people with an otherwise 3/4" setup use the hockey puck, which is like 3/8" internally...


Regardless; the loss of flow with a FULL 3/8" id system is greater; regardless of the 3/8" restriction at the hockey puck.

I'd like to think that VW/Bosch engineers knew what the heck they were doing when they they designed the OEM system


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Rod Ratio said:


> Regardless; the loss of flow with a FULL 3/8" id system is greater; regardless of the 3/8" restriction at the hockey puck.
> 
> I'd like to think that VW/Bosch engineers knew what the heck they were doing when they they designed the OEM system



Lol ok then, leave it completely stock, problem solved. It's clear your just trying to troll, I've show prof that it works and I've addressed every concern I've been running it on my engine like this for a while before I started this thread. And like I've said before, a larger check valve/PVC would be beneficial. And I never recommended smaller dia hose.


----------



## Leon mk1 (Aug 29, 2011)

what diameter hose is reccomend to this setup ?
in yours diagram i see red and blue colored hoses
each color has its size ?
thanks again !


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Leon mk1 said:


> what diameter hose is reccomend to this setup ?
> in yours diagram i see red and blue colored hoses
> each color has its size ?
> thanks again !


I will make another revision to the diagram for hose size. the 2 colors were to show the vacuum circuit pre and post catch can.


----------



## Leon mk1 (Aug 29, 2011)

great thanks

on your last revision, there are no check vavles on the brake booster line at all ?
only the vacuum pump ? 
or there is one check valve between the suction pump to the brake booster ?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Leon mk1 said:


> great thanks
> 
> on your last revision, there are no check vavles on the brake booster line at all ?
> only the vacuum pump ?
> or there is one check valve between the suction pump to the brake booster ?


there is a check valve in the booster it self. no inline needed. new revision posted.


----------



## Leon mk1 (Aug 29, 2011)

can i just keep to original check vavle in its place ? (the closer to the brake booster)

i am asking because it will be easier to connect the new line to the the check vavle instad of doing new line from intake manifold to the brake booster


----------



## rogz (May 7, 2012)

I dont have an AUG but an AGU, but ok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHf5sqMolAg&feature=player_embedded
sorry but never seen something so horrible, i can t do such aN awfull vacuum on my lovely mk4 lol i d rather changing oil every 8/10.000km


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

Lol even on a stock 1.8t with factory pcv it doesn't make a sucking sound when you pull the oil cap.

Also, installing a pcv or one way check valve in the puck valve hose from catch can would help I assume to prevent flow from the catch can off vacuum. Just a matter of what way to install the valve with flow going to the tip or away.


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

taverncustoms said:


> AUG has a PCV valve the connects to the lower manifold port to the lower block PCV port, this can cause issues with vacuum loss, that's why they designed the vacuum Pump it provides better manifold vacuum stability, and keeps the PCV functioning. *basically its the same as my diagram less the vacuum pump.*


I was referring to this statement you made chief :thumbup:^^^




groggory said:


> But what he was saying is most people with an otherwise 3/4" setup use the hockey puck, which is like 3/8" internally...


This, not just the puck but my Catchan has a 3/4in bung on top for the Silicone return (034 CC). I did mean 3/8 not 1/4. So If I were to do this Id have to reduce the size of the return. right?


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> I was referring to this statement you made chief :thumbup:^^^
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The hockey puck is 3/4" OD. If thats what you're asking


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

Has this place really gotten so lame that this is a multiple page topic? :banghead: 

There's technically a few ways that are correct for running a CC dependent on setup.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

DMVDUB said:


> Has this place really gotten so lame that this is a multiple page topic? :banghead:
> 
> There's technically a few ways that are correct for running a CC dependent on setup.


At least its a tech discussion instead of a repeat maintenance issue.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

groggory said:


> At least its a tech discussion instead of a repeat maintenance issue.


I guess you've got a point...

Make a subforum, 1.8T Maintenance


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

groggory said:


> The hockey puck is 3/4" OD. If thats what you're asking


Thats not what Im asking.

I just saw it odd to go from a 3/4in catchcan opening to the 3/8 vacuum jet port and 3/4in hockey puck. Really not trying to argue with Tavern, just trying to find a cleaner way to piece the set up together:thumbup:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Leon mk1 said:


> can i just keep to original check vavle in its place ? (the closer to the brake booster)
> 
> i am asking because it will be easier to connect the new line to the the check vavle instad of doing new line from intake manifold to the brake booster


yes that would be fine


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

rogz said:


> I dont have an AUG but an AGU, but ok
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHf5sqMolAg&feature=player_embedded
> sorry but never seen something so horrible, i can t do such aN awfull vacuum on my lovely mk4 lol i d rather changing oil every 8/10.000km


this was the test setup. I'm sure you can make it look good if that's what your worried about, and no mater the code they all have some sort of manifold vacuum to the PCV. :wave:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Slimjimmn said:


> Lol even on a stock 1.8t with factory pcv it doesn't make a sucking sound when you pull the oil cap.
> 
> Also, installing a pcv or one way check valve in the puck valve hose from catch can would help I assume to prevent flow from the catch can off vacuum. Just a matter of what way to install the valve with flow going to the tip or away.


then this is better then OEM  because more block vacuum makes more HP. and not sure if the second half is a question bit it would flow into the TIP like in the diagram


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> I was referring to this statement you made chief :thumbup:^^^
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no in fact it would need to stay 3/4' all the way to PVC. and add a 3/4 to 1/2 T in line for the check valve that goes to the pump see revised diagram.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> Thats not what Im asking.
> 
> I just saw it odd to go from a 3/4in catchcan opening to the 3/8 vacuum jet port and 3/4in hockey puck. Really not trying to argue with Tavern, just trying to find a cleaner way to piece the set up together:thumbup:


that's cool, I guess I didn't understand what you were asking. At the bottom of the diagram you see the PCV modification for installation into the puck location, the body of the PCV valve is 3/4" outer dia so it clamps into the hose nicely. but the barbed part goes into the TIP you can use a one of the many other holes in the TIP or make an adapter out of a 1/2' hose so it mounts into the 3/4"hole in the TIP. :thumbup:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

DMVDUB said:


> Has this place really gotten so lame that this is a multiple page topic? :banghead:
> 
> There's technically a few ways that are correct for running a CC dependent on setup.


In function this is the same as the OEM system. except here I've replaced the Puck with a PCV and added a catch can.


----------



## Leon mk1 (Aug 29, 2011)

what kind of hose do i need to use for the brake booster line ?
is it stantard or hard line ?

if i use the first check valve from the brake booster
which setup should be better ?
1
[URL=http://www.siz.co.il/][IMG]http://up386.siz.co.il/up3/modnmymmwnyi.png[/IMG][/URL]

2
[URL=http://www.siz.co.il/][IMG]http://up388.siz.co.il/up1/dmmdwzmjlohh.png[/IMG][/URL]

thanks


----------



## Volkkarijermu (Jan 15, 2002)

taverncustoms said:


>


Is this also suitable 300+ bhp? Does it matter is it 180bhp or 340bhp?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Volkkarijermu said:


> Is this also suitable 300+ bhp? Does it matter is it 180bhp or 340bhp?


I'm at 270+ no issues but for 450+ you might be better off with one of these. 

http://www.jegs.com/i/Aerospace+Components/026/AC-VP3S-BBCH/10002/-1


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Leon mk1 said:


> what kind of hose do i need to use for the brake booster line ?
> is it stantard or hard line ?
> if i use the first check valve from the brake booster
> which setup should be better ?
> thanks


I just use what was at the local auto parts store. rubber hoses.
both setups will work the same. fyi the check valve between the vacuum pump and Brake booster is not required the Brake Booster has a built in check valve.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

If any one try's this setup please post a review.


----------



## derekb727 (Dec 22, 2007)

taverncustoms said:


> I'm at 270+ no issues but for 450+ you might be better off with one of these.
> 
> http://www.jegs.com/i/Aerospace+Components/026/AC-VP3S-BBCH/10002/-1


Why would that be needed for 450+ hp?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

derekb727 said:


> Why would that be needed for 450+ hp?


cause at power like that your prob getting 2 to 3 times the blow by in the higher rpms so a good block vacuum will keep you running longer and give you more power.  most just run multiple huge VTA though


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

It would be interesting to hook up someone's pcv to a boost/ vac gauge... See what shows up


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

groggory said:


> It would be interesting to hook up someone's pcv to a boost/ vac gauge... See what shows up


This


----------



## Volkkarijermu (Jan 15, 2002)

taverncustoms said:


> If any one try's this setup please post a review.


You don't have thit setup? What was your system? Not this then?
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x65/jaminmatthew/PCV-4.png


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Volkkarijermu said:


> You don't have thit setup? What was your system? Not this then?
> http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x65/jaminmatthew/PCV-4.png


Yes I'm running this system, and i love it. but i would like to know what others who try it think. :thumbup:


----------



## Leon mk1 (Aug 29, 2011)

if i running in 450 hp range
i still can use this setup as yours diagram wright ?


----------



## Yareka (Mar 5, 2002)

groggory said:


> It would be interesting to hook up someone's pcv to a boost/ vac gauge... See what shows up


The only way to truly prove whether all this hardware is needed.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Leon mk1 said:


> if i running in 450 hp range
> i still can use this setup as yours diagram wright ?


Yes the low rpm will work well, but I would buy a higher flowing valve for PCV like a 3/4" marine valve just to be safe on the top end


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

groggory said:


> It would be interesting to hook up someone's pcv to a boost/ vac gauge... See what shows up


A before and after would be cool, I don't have a vacuum gauge though.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Yareka said:


> The only way to truly prove whether all this hardware is needed.


You do realize you only adding 4 parts to the current standard catch can setup.


----------



## Leon mk1 (Aug 29, 2011)

i already bought the 034 billet pcv.
hope it will be fine
thanks for your help :beer:


----------



## rstolz (Jun 16, 2009)

you know these engines have been pretty well picked apart when the best thing we have to talk about is a possible minute increase in the efficiency of fume evacuation.


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

Since I eliminated my vacuum pump system I am going to try and find a 3/4" to 1/2" t for the pcv valve and then run the pcv valve off the original vacuum port and install that off the top hose that goes to the tip. Wonder if us plastics has one?


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

taverncustoms said:


> Yes I'm running this system, and i love it. but i would like to know what others who try it think. :thumbup:


Reworked my CC set up tonight - bouncing oil cap has now got a nice vacuum on it… I'll report back any differences I notice :beer:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

All_Euro said:


> Reworked my CC set up tonight - bouncing oil cap has now got a nice vacuum on it… I'll report back any differences I notice :beer:


:thumbup:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

So any one else git theirs done?


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

I dunno where to find a 3/4" to 5/8" vacuum t for a pcv valve


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Slimjimmn said:


> I dunno where to find a 3/4" to 5/8" vacuum t for a pcv valve


you can actually use another PCV valve in place of the check valve and just use a 3/4 t
auto parts stores usually has some cut your own also.


----------



## 031.8wolf (Mar 16, 2010)

im going to try this since I have a 034 catch can and running straight to tip and my oil cap bounces at idle. had new pcv laying around and going to use the vacuum pump car came with


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

031.8wolf said:


> im going to try this since I have a 034 catch can and running straight to tip and my oil cap bounces at idle. had new pcv laying around and going to use the vacuum pump car came with


be sure you at least have flow through the vacuum pump the tend to be clogged. and good luck


----------



## Bora070 (Aug 5, 2008)

Leon mk1 said:


> great thanks
> 
> on your last revision, there are no check vavles on the brake booster line at all ?
> only the vacuum pump ?
> or there is one check valve between the suction pump to the brake booster ?





taverncustoms said:


> there is a check valve in the booster it self. no inline needed. new revision posted.


Might be worth mentioning to people who are interested in your setup that the factory fitting in the booster is NOT a check valve. It's just an open plastic elbow. They need to swap it to an actual check valve to match your diagram.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Bora070 said:


> Might be worth mentioning to people who are interested in your setup that the factory fitting in the booster is NOT a check valve. It's just an open plastic elbow. They need to swap it to an actual check valve to match your diagram.


ah good to know mine was already a check valve one


----------



## Russjameson (Dec 18, 2004)

Does this setup get rid of the multi port pcv valve under the intake manifold directly after the 90 degree breather tube?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Russjameson said:


> Does this setup get rid of the multi port pcv valve under the intake manifold directly after the 90 degree breather tube?


Yes and... no, yes you remove it, but just so you can re-install it AFTER the catch can. with the stock setup you would be sucking in oil and water into your manifold.


----------



## zrau17 (Apr 21, 2010)

I kinda like this idea, but I don't think I'm going to be running a TIP...just a filter on the comp inlet. Unless I get a tune for a MAF, which I guess is possible seeing as I don't even have software right now anyway lol


Edit: Would there be anything wrong with only running the suction pump through the brake booster? It wouldn't help as much at WOT obviously because there's no vacuum but it would pull instantly upon decel in gear. 

Yeah, no?


----------



## T-Boy (Jul 16, 2003)

zrau17 said:


> I kinda like this idea, but I don't think I'm going to be running a TIP...just a filter on the comp inlet. Unless I get a tune for a MAF, which I guess is possible seeing as I don't even have software right now anyway lol
> 
> 
> Edit: Would there be anything wrong with only running the suction pump through the brake booster? It wouldn't help as much at WOT obviously because there's no vacuum but it would pull instantly upon decel in gear.
> ...


If you're dead set on not having a TIP, then you can try using your exhaust for vacuum source.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4387972


----------



## White Jetta (Mar 17, 2002)

Following:beer:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

if you have done this Setup please post a pic.  and if you decide to not use a TIP, Use a exhaust vac tube or a VTA but both will need a PCV valve. so basically run it like the diagram, but instead of a TIP you would have an exhaust tube or a VTA.



A full time electric vacuum pump system needs no check valves and does not use manifold vacuum.
so if your thinking about installing an electric pump your in the wrong thread.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Bump for good info


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

Still trying to source a 3/4" to 5/8" plastic t so I can plumb in a pcv valve.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Slimjimmn said:


> Still trying to source a 3/4" to 5/8" plastic t so I can plumb in a pcv valve.


Check Out Lowes for some Pex fittings. Just be careful as the claimed diameter is actually smaller than rates. IE: .75 is really .64.

I bought the wrong fittings myself. Going to go back tomorrow and exchange it for the correct size.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Slimjimmn said:


> Still trying to source a 3/4" to 5/8" plastic t so I can plumb in a pcv valve.


 can you elaborate? what is the Tee for?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Slimjimmn said:


> Still trying to source a 3/4" to 5/8" plastic t so I can plumb in a pcv valve.


assuming you need it for the line the connects the 3/4 line to the vacuum pump with the check valve. 

you can just use a 3/4 tee and a 2nd pcv valve. this time the little side of the pcv would face the vacuum pump and act as a reducer.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Tavern have you checked your fuel trims before and after your install? Mine have gone up significantly. So much so I had to redo my fuel corrections. Mostly at idle and low rpm driving. Checked for leaks but found nothing.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Havent followed the entire thread but there is such a thing as having too much negative crank pressure. Brand new 1.8ts never had that much vac when removing the oil cap. I don't think vw ever released a spec but I have the tool to measure crankcase pressure. From the looks of the video, that is out of spec...


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

spartiati said:


> Tavern have you checked your fuel trims before and after your install? Mine have gone up significantly. So much so I had to redo my fuel corrections. Mostly at idle and low rpm driving. Checked for leaks but found nothing.


so you need more fuel?

Interesting, I know the vacuum helps keep the piston rings seated so your holding more air in the cylinder any time the manifold sees vacuum. I gained power and throttle response in the low end. but i have not check fuel trims. I run wide-band o2 Unitronic so I just let the computer do its thing.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> Havent followed the entire thread but there is such a thing as having too much negative crank pressure. Brand new 1.8ts never had that much vac when removing the oil cap. I don't think vw ever released a spec but I have the tool to measure crankcase pressure. From the looks of the video, that is out of spec...


I am aware of your concern, but this is basically a OEM 1.8t setup. the only difference in the vacuum circuit compared to the 100% OEM, is the Replacement of the Puck with a PCV valve. I did this because the pucks never seem to work properly IMO. But if your concerned you can run the puck in the stock location and you will be just like OEM.

I would like to note all audi/vw 2.0t engines have the same amount of vacuum as my setup. because they work the same.
and saab 2.3t
and I'm sure many, many more.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Exactly, you are removing the *pressure regulating valve* from the system that the engineers at vw felt needed to be there. To each their own, people have removed that prv before but here are a few points. There is no data to back up what you are doing where I'm sure there was plenty of data when the system was designed. I worked at the dealer when the 1.8t came out and there wasn't that much vac on the crankcase of a brand new engine. Every engine is different so you can't compare a 1.8t to a 2.0t or a Saab. Saying they are the same is nonsensical without actually testing the two. Pulling the oil cap on a 2.0t and saying it is the same is far from testing. There are specs for crankcase vac and they are measured with a slacktube manometer in inches of water(wc). The system should not vary any more that 2.0mb (.80wc) or the system should be addressed. Like I said, you can't compare the 1.8t engine to other engines as most are different. Take bmw for example, every engine model has a different spec with exception of some of the earlier engines. IMHO you are somewhat flying blind here and basing everything off the oil cap dancing or not and saying it is better. Also having a ccv system that is out of spec can cause oil leaks and cause noises from seals pulling in air from outside the engine. Anyway here is a pic of how the PRV functions. I'm sure you have seen it as it was posted in the CCV thread I started in the TT forum that got you started down this road but I figured others may want to have a look. Not trying to knock what you are doing, just making some points. Have you taken a look at your fuel trims and see if you suffer from the same thing spartiati noted?


----------



## scirockalot8v (Sep 16, 2006)

I need to come in the technical forums more often.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> Exactly, you are removing the *pressure regulating valve* from the system that the engineers at vw felt needed to be there. To each their own, people have removed that prv before but here are a few points. There is no data to back up what you are doing where I'm sure there was plenty of data when the system was designed. I worked at the dealer when the 1.8t came out and there wasn't that much vac on the crankcase of a brand new engine. Every engine is different so you can't compare a 1.8t to a 2.0t or a Saab. Saying they are the same is nonsensical without actually testing the two. Pulling the oil cap on a 2.0t and saying it is the same is far from testing. There are specs for crankcase vac and they are measured with a slacktube manometer in inches of water(wc). The system should not vary any more that 2.0mb (.80wc) or the system should be addressed. Like I said, you can't compare the 1.8t engine to other engines as most are different. Take bmw for example, every engine model has a different spec with exception of some of the earlier engines. IMHO you are somewhat flying blind here and basing everything off the oil cap dancing or not and saying it is better. Also having a ccv system that is out of spec can cause oil leaks and cause noises from seals pulling in air from outside the engine. Anyway here is a pic of how the PRV functions. I'm sure you have seen it as it was posted in the CCV thread I started in the TT forum that got you started down this road but I figured others may want to have a look. Not trying to knock what you are doing, just making some points. Have you taken a look at your fuel trims and see if you suffer from the same thing spartiati noted?


I am fully aware of this, and like I've said before if your concerned about the vacuum, just run your Puck it should still be an improvement over the no vacuum setup.

but your not taking into account the vacuum pump that also limits the Volume of air\vacuum allowed into the the PCV system. that's why the once you remove the oil cap it takes time to rebuild vacuum on the cap. 

Also the reference to the 2.0t was because they use the (same style oil seals) thus should be able to handle the same crank vacuum. but your absolutely correct i do not have # proving they are the same i will see if i can fine a vacuum gauge and compare


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

I hooked up a vacuum gauge to my catch can. It essentially mimics what the manifold pressure is. so at idle I see vacuum of 19-18 inHg.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

spartiati said:


> I hooked up a vacuum gauge to my catch can. It essentially mimics what the manifold pressure is. so at idle I see vacuum of 19-18 inHg.


the 2.0t has up to 24 inHg but normally sits around 20 inHg. my brothers B8 A4 2.0t with a stock pcv system.

lets check the "seals"

1.8t 
front main seal
http://www.ecstuning.com/Search/SiteSearch/054115147B/ES260046/
Cam seal:
http://www.ecstuning.com/Search/SiteSearch/038103085C/ES261235/


2.0t
front main seal:
http://www.ecstuning.com/Search/SiteSearch/06L103085B/ES2143499/

both are of the same design. IMO the 1.8t one looks like a better seal. 
did i check every seal? no. because i know they use the same type of seal on all rotating Assemblies


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

IMO: the puck is designed the way it is to reduce the amount of oil consumption more then providing the best PCV. its a band aid to a flawed setup. 

IMO: the side engine PCV port allows to much oil into the pcv system and to prevent consumption they increased the tube diameter and limited flow to allow the oil time to settle. the down side is you get a system that never functions as well as it should.

Fact: In the 2.0t setup they only have the valve cover ports so excessive oil in the PCV is drastically reduced. but under heavy engine braking down a long hill it can pull oil into the manifold and would benefit from a small catch can as well.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Comparing the oil seals doesn't tell you anything about the crankcase operating specs lol.
Like I said before you need to use a slack tube to properly read crankcase specs, not a vacuum gauge. Measuring at the catch can is also not a proper way to measure the crankcase. No real data to back up any of what you are saying. Basically you are saying if you remove one part of the system and relocate another that you just made the system better than the engineers at VW. As if they couldn't have done that on their own. Meh...whatever


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Twopnt016v said:


> Comparing the oil seals doesn't tell you anything about the crankcase operating specs lol.
> Like I said before you need to use a slack tube to properly read crankcase specs, not a vacuum gauge. Measuring at the catch can is also not a proper way to measure the crankcase. No real data to back up any of what you are saying. Basically you are saying if you remove one part of the system and relocate another that you just made the system better than the engineers at VW. As if they couldn't have done that on their own. Meh...whatever


I'm just stating what I have observed. What are the specs for crankcase vacuum for the 1.8t?


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

spartiati said:


> I'm just stating what I have observed. What are the specs for crankcase vacuum for the 1.8t?


I understand that man, I was just stating its not 100% the proper way to measure. I wasn't trying to take a jab at you. I'm not sure of the VW spec, I'll try and look it up, it may not exist...


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> Comparing the oil seals doesn't tell you anything about the crankcase operating specs lol.
> Like I said before you need to use a slack tube to properly read crankcase specs, not a vacuum gauge. Measuring at the catch can is also not a proper way to measure the crankcase. No real data to back up any of what you are saying. Basically you are saying if you remove one part of the system and relocate another that you just made the system better than the engineers at VW. As if they couldn't have done that on their own. Meh...whatever


1st:
I don't know why your arguing OEM vacuum specs, FOR THE 3RD TIME: if you want OEM specs run a PUCK in the stock location..:screwy:

2nd:
this thread is about the proper way to install a "CATCHCAN" because the current setups are only VTA or TIP vacuum, causing higher than OEM crankcase pressures at low boost levels, that can cause issues for a daily driven engine.


----------



## cruzanstx (Oct 10, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> Exactly, you are removing the *pressure regulating valve* from the system that the engineers at vw felt needed to be there.


I also removed the k04 that they felt should be there. Does that make me such a bad guy? :trolling


----------



## zrau17 (Apr 21, 2010)

taverncustoms said:


> 1st:
> I don't know why your arguing OEM vacuum specs, FOR THE 3RD TIME: if you want OEM specs run a PUCK in the stock location..:screwy:
> 
> 2nd:
> this thread is about the proper way to install a "CATCHCAN" because the current setups are only VTA or TIP vacuum, causing higher than OEM crankcase pressures at low boost levels, that can cause issues for a daily driven engine.


What you just said almost proves what he is saying, he's simply pointing out the fact that you have altered the system and it COULD be having negative effects...he didn't say it doesn't do what you're claiming it does. We can see that, you posted a video. The simple point he made was that it was designed differently, and from a technical standpoint others may not want to alter that if the good doesn't outweigh the possible bad.

No one is wrong here, one person sees it good one way the other sees it good the other...it's an opinionated topic if you ask me. Without proper testing of two cars next to each other there's no way of telling whats right and whats not. He found a way to do something, some may want to try, some may not.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

zrau17 said:


> What you just said almost proves what he is saying, he's simply pointing out the fact that you have altered the system and it COULD be having negative effects...he didn't say it doesn't do what you're claiming it does. We can see that, you posted a video. The simple point he made was that it was designed differently, and from a technical standpoint others may not want to alter that if the good doesn't outweigh the possible bad.
> 
> No one is wrong here, one person sees it good one way the other sees it good the other...it's an opinionated topic if you ask me. Without proper testing of two cars next to each other there's no way of telling whats right and whats not. He found a way to do something, some may want to try, some may not.



I understand what your saying, but like i have said if your worried about the higher vacuum, just run the puck in this setup and you will have OEM vacuum. I prefer the higher vacuum with a PCV valve in the puck location, but it's completely up to you. 

ether way, this is the correct routing of the PCV system for a catch-can. eace:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

zrau17 said:


> What you just said almost proves what he is saying, he's simply pointing out the fact that you have altered the system and it COULD be having negative effects...he didn't say it doesn't do what you're claiming it does. We can see that, you posted a video. The simple point he made was that it was designed differently, and from a technical standpoint others may not want to alter that if the good doesn't outweigh the possible bad.
> 
> No one is wrong here, one person sees it good one way the other sees it good the other...it's an opinionated topic if you ask me. Without proper testing of two cars next to each other there's no way of telling whats right and whats not. He found a way to do something, some may want to try, some may not.


Thank you.:beer:


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

I found a t-fitting at menards last night. Only found a brass one. They didn't have plastic. So now I am going to try and put it in tonight with pcv valve and see how it goes. I have a feeling its going to be ghetto but functional.


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

I guess a 5/8" t would have worked better but I got the hose to squish down on the 3/8" part just fine. 









I could not for the life of me get the oem pcv valve into the 3/4" nylon hose I used for the catch can so I ended up buying one we had in stock at work. $4.00









Got everything hooked up and went for a drive and the car still has about 20" vacuum as it did before but now has the oil cap sucked down at idle (still bounces around). I don't hear the turbo spool as much and boost isn't as quick but the powerband seems a lot smoother. I don't get the oil type smell out the tailpipe now at idle either.
Only put like 10miles on so I will give it a few days to see what happens.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Anyone want an almost new suction pump check valve and basically everything to install on your car pm me.


----------



## zrau17 (Apr 21, 2010)

spartiati said:


> Anyone want an almost new suction pump check valve and basically everything to install on your car pm me.


He's been convinced lol


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

spartiati said:


> Anyone want an almost new suction pump check valve and basically everything to install on your car pm me.


so are you against doing the install? or just have spares?


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

I didn't even install a suction pump. I simply put a pcv valve inline with the upper catch can hose.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

QUOTE=taverncustoms;82625169]so are you against doing the install? or just have spares?[/QUOTE]

No it worked. I had it on the car for about a week.

The car is slowly making its way to being a track only car. I'm going to do a slash cut exhaust setup instead.

Here's my take on taverns setup. Very simple.

http://db.tt/6Z4GQdeT


http://db.tt/RAKYRkSh


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

spartiati said:


> No it worked. I had it on the car for about a week.
> 
> The car is slowly making its way to being a track only car. I'm going to do a slash cut exhaust setup instead.
> 
> ...


nice work on the setup. I need to redo mine to make it look pretty. did you notice and benefits to the setup? review?


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

spartiati said:


> QUOTE=taverncustoms;82625169]so are you against doing the install? or just have spares?


No it worked. I had it on the car for about a week.

The car is slowly making its way to being a track only car. I'm going to do a slash cut exhaust setup instead.

Here's my take on taverns setup. Very simple.

http://db.tt/6Z4GQdeT


http://db.tt/RAKYRkSh[/QUOTE]

What's that part with the 4 screws?


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

its a marine checkvalve I believe. Able to run as a 90 or a straight set up.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

I didn't notice a difference with the setup. No difference in what was caught in the catch can. 

Driveability seemed the same. I did have to adjust for the "internal leak". This may be because I am running mafless.

since the car will be track only soon I figured I'd rather dump everything into the exhaust rather than the intake.


----------



## GolfPuttPutt (Sep 27, 2013)

I get this thread is about dead but just read this:
http://www.stangtv.com/tech-stories/engine/tech-how-external-vacuum-pumps-free-up-horsepower/

hopefully everyone understands that what OP has been describing is now a NCV system (negative crankcase ventilation) and no longer a PCV system (positive crankcase ventilation). 

at idle, and with a stock OEM setup, our cars should have positive pressure in the crankcase and valvecover. When we develop boost, the crankcase pressure is reduced with assisted vacuum from the manifold. Pressure from blowby may or may not be overcome by vacuum drawn from manifold (I have not measured it under boost). OP has essentially overcome his crankcase positive pressure by drawing more vacuum from several locations. This is a good idea for proper ring seat but as explained in the article, there are repercussions for overly excessive vacuum on the crankcase. 

next quest: measuring vacuum under boost while system is running.


----------



## GolfPuttPutt (Sep 27, 2013)

I get this thread is about dead but just read this:
http://www.stangtv.com/tech-stories/engine/tech-how-external-vacuum-pumps-free-up-horsepower/

hopefully everyone understands that what OP has been describing is now a NCV system (negative crankcase ventilation) and no longer a PCV system (positive crankcase ventilation). 

at idle, and with a stock OEM setup, our cars should have positive pressure in the crankcase and valvecover. When we develop boost, the crankcase pressure is reduced with assisted vacuum from the manifold. Pressure from blowby may or may not be overcome by vacuum drawn from manifold (I have not measured it under boost). OP has essentially overcome his crankcase positive pressure by drawing more vacuum from several locations. This is a good idea for proper ring seat but as explained in the article, there are repercussions for overly excessive vacuum on the crankcase. 

next quest: measuring vacuum under boost while system is running.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

GolfPuttPutt said:


> I get this thread is about dead but just read this:
> http://www.stangtv.com/tech-stories/engine/tech-how-external-vacuum-pumps-free-up-horsepower/
> 
> hopefully everyone understands that what OP has been describing is now a NCV system (negative crankcase ventilation) and no longer a PCV system (positive crankcase ventilation).
> ...


I'm sorry, but you don't quite grasp how this system works. 

1: The crank case is only under vacuum at idle and in no boost conditions.

2: During boost conditions the system switches to a positive crankcase ventilation and uses the turbo intake pipe as a vacuum source to aid in the process. 

you can not use the manifold as a vacuum source during boost because it becomes pressurized with boost and no longer has vacuum. 

being that vacuum is only seen at idle & no load, the concerns listed in that article do not apply.


----------



## GolfPuttPutt (Sep 27, 2013)

Are you referring to the way your system is set up or the way the stock pcv system is set up?


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

taverncustoms said:


> you can not use the manifold as a vacuum source during boost because it becomes pressurized with boost and no longer has vacuum.


The purpose of the vacuum jet pump is to use the intake manifold's positive pressure to create a vacuum.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

groggory said:


> The purpose of the vacuum jet pump is to use the intake manifold's positive pressure to create a vacuum.


wrong, its to allow proper vacuum at idle while braking with out it you could have a stumble or hard brake. this is why the car doesn't die when you remove the oil cap. during boost the TIP provides the vacuum source.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

GolfPuttPutt said:


> Are you referring to the way your system is set up or the way the stock pcv system is set up?


Im talking about my setup and its the same for 2.0 fsi & tfsi engines

IMO the oem setup is a poor design. and my setup in a improvement over OEM.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

taverncustoms said:


> wrong, its to allow proper vacuum at idle while braking with out it you could have a stumble or hard brake. this is why the car doesn't die when you remove the oil cap. during boost the TIP provides the vacuum source.


Thank you for that. I knew it created vacuum, but I never really put a lot of thought into its full function.

Thanks for putting so much thought into this thread.


----------



## GolfPuttPutt (Sep 27, 2013)

hmm, ok. Just understood how the vacuum pump is utilized for the brake booster on my awp engine.

Is there any way to provide vacuum on a vent to atmosphere crankcase ventilation system without letting in unmetered air or using an electric or drive by belt pump?

IE: utilize another venturi pump off of the manifold somehow?


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

Tavern, you have told a lot of people they are wrong but have yet to produce anything other than your opinions and your basic observations to back it up.

Also, your explanations are kind of hard to follow.

Here is the article I use for my main source of information regarding the CCV system: CCV Bible

The "Problem" with a VTA catch can set up is that you are relying on the pressure to ventilate itself. With large enough hoses, you shouldn't be building up extreme amounts of pressure, but you are building positive pressure none the less. 

The "Solution" is a recirculating catch can set up. With a recirc system, there is vacuum on your crankcase, to prevent a pressure build up. This is not to say that you want your crank case pressure to be in the negative, as too much vacuum on your crankcase can cause problem with seals, among other things.

I am personally a fan of using the exhaust venturi, as it eliminates ALL oil from the crankcase from the intake tract, but this involves a bit more serious modification (welding the bung / slit into your exhaust) so it isn't always a realistic solution. 

Your setup seems like it's based on increasing vacuum on the crankcase at idle, when the blow-by is the least, which seems kinda pointless to me. I'm not sure how running just vacuum from the TIP would cause smoking at idle, as it's essentially the stock system with a catch can added in (depending on what pieces are retained)

As for the comparison to the stock crankcase pressures and venting systems, the issue there is that its for the stock application. There is no way to confirm those specs are "correct" for an engine with performance modifications. Especially since the entire PCV system is there for emissions more than anything, which really isnt a concern for people with a focus on performance.


----------



## GolfPuttPutt (Sep 27, 2013)

hmm, ok. Just understood how the vacuum pump is utilized for the brake booster on my awp engine.

Is there any way to provide vacuum on a vent to atmosphere crankcase ventilation system without letting in unmetered air or using an electric or drive by belt pump?

IE: utilize another venturi pump off of the manifold somehow?


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

GolfPuttPutt said:


> hmm, ok. Just understood how the vacuum pump is utilized for the brake booster on my awp engine.
> 
> Is there any way to provide vacuum on a vent to atmosphere crankcase ventilation system without letting in unmetered air or using an electric or drive by belt pump?
> 
> IE: utilize another venturi pump off of the manifold somehow?


There is no vacuum on the system with a Vent to Air set up.

If you want vacuum, you will need to use a closed system and pull vacuum from the intake tract (TIP / Intake Manifold or Exhaust venturi.)


----------



## GolfPuttPutt (Sep 27, 2013)

Ok yea I get that. In that article, they essentially use a pump to pump air out into the catch can and out of the VTA filter. Anyone know someone running this system on a 1.8t? I can definitely see this having a lot of benefit for VR6's but I see potential for 1.8t's and high PSI turbos to keep all that boost in our combustion chambers. It doesn't seem like it'd be too tough a project, other than finding a place to put the damn pump and making a new accessory belt pulley wheel to get a new belt on there to drive the pump...


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

GolfPuttPutt said:


> Ok yea I get that. In that article, they essentially use a pump to pump air out into the catch can and out of the VTA filter. Anyone know someone running this system on a 1.8t? I can definitely see this having a lot of benefit for VR6's but I see potential for 1.8t's and high PSI turbos to keep all that boost in our combustion chambers. It doesn't seem like it'd be too tough a project, other than finding a place to put the damn pump and making a new accessory belt pulley wheel to get a new belt on there to drive the pump...


these systems are good but not really needed. IMO


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> Tavern, you have told a lot of people they are wrong but have yet to produce anything other than your opinions and your basic observations to back it up.
> 
> Also, your explanations are kind of hard to follow.
> 
> ...


I don't know how to simplify this any more. but when you delete the stock sys to add a catch can and only VTA or TIP it increases crankcase pressure and does not excavate the crankcase at idle. (the stock sys uses manifold vacuum as well but its not as high as my sys) I don't know why this causes some 1.8t's to smoke and not others but it does. If any one has any thoughts on this I'm all ears.. however by not properly venting the crankcase you get a buildup of acids and grime and that's bad as well. and the list could keep going.

now as far as performance gains I noticed more low end power but that alone is un-verified I feel it helps the rings seal at idle improving low boost response 

now a exhaust venturi is a great way to provide crankcase ventilation to any engine and that would be what i would run on a race car. but not everyone can weld a venturi onto the exhaust sys them self.

and the reason for a pcv sys if the remove the gasses from the crank case. in the old days they called it a draft tube and it vented onto the ground, so no its main concern is not a emission control. 

and like I have pointed out before the 2.0t uses the same high vacume at idle that my sys uses and the 1.8t and 2.0t share the same style of oil seals so there is no need for concern about damage to the engine. and if your still concerned you can remove the valve going into the TIP from my sys and use the OEM puck to have the original intended vacuum for the 1.8t. the choice is yours.


----------



## GolfPuttPutt (Sep 27, 2013)

> I am personally a fan of using the exhaust venturi, as it eliminates ALL oil from the crankcase from the intake tract, but this involves a bit more serious modification (welding the bung / slit into your exhaust) so it isn't always a realistic solution.


I have heard some folks have had problems with this setup regarding their mufflers clogging up with engine deposits and carbon buildup (if put after cats, obvs in front of cats is no good) I can see this being useful for race, but if one wants a quiet exhaust, this doesn't sound like a good alternative to VTA or TIP vented systems.


----------



## GolfPuttPutt (Sep 27, 2013)

Found myself correcting my own comment, just add a catch can prior to the entrance valve to the exhaust pipe....duh


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

I welded a bung in my exhaust for this reason. But Im not convinced that there is enough vac to open a valve and pull catch through it.


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

taverncustoms said:


> I don't know how to simplify this any more. but when you delete the stock sys to add a catch can and only VTA or TIP it increases crankcase pressure and does not excavate the crankcase at idle. (the stock sys uses manifold vacuum as well but its not as high as my sys) I don't know why this causes some 1.8t's to smoke and not others but it does. If any one has any thoughts on this I'm all ears.. however by not properly venting the crankcase you get a buildup of acids and grime and that's bad as well. and the list could keep going.
> 
> now as far as performance gains I noticed more low end power but that alone is un-verified I feel it helps the rings seal at idle improving low boost response
> 
> ...


So you just confirmed your set up is meant to do exactly what I said, increase vacuum on the crankcase at idle, when blow by is at its minimum.

Measured at my boost gauge, I have more vacuum at idle than you do with the stock system, so I don't believe you are truly seeing any performance gains.

You just repeated exactly what I said about using the exhaust venturi set up.

Yes, they used to vent the crank case pressure directly to the ground, but then the PCV systems were implemented to cut down on the emissions from the engine. Your OEM PCV system is there to burn off the gasses from the crankcase. So explain to me how the main concern addressed here is NOT emissions?

You are also basing your information on the oil seals on a picture, not actual technical specs of the seals.

Your system isn't wrong, but it sure as hell isnt THE correct way, and in my opinion, is pretty pointless.


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

GolfPuttPutt said:


> Ok yea I get that. In that article, they essentially use a pump to pump air out into the catch can and out of the VTA filter. Anyone know someone running this system on a 1.8t? I can definitely see this having a lot of benefit for VR6's but I see potential for 1.8t's and high PSI turbos to keep all that boost in our combustion chambers. It doesn't seem like it'd be too tough a project, other than finding a place to put the damn pump and making a new accessory belt pulley wheel to get a new belt on there to drive the pump...


Ah, that makes more sense.

I think you would pull too much vacuum with an external pump, and with a belt driven pump, you're adding another drain on power coming from the engine.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> So you just confirmed your set up is meant to do exactly what I said, increase vacuum on the crankcase at idle, when blow by is at its minimum.
> 
> Measured at my boost gauge, I have more vacuum at idle than you do with the stock system, so I don't believe you are truly seeing any performance gains.
> 
> ...


by the correct way I was comparing to my sys vs a vent to tip catch can that is the common way of installing a catch can. clearly you don't understand or care what acid buildup in your engine will do. and that is the real reason for venting the crankcase gases. or P,C,V. Positive Crankcase Pressure, and OMG if you can measure your boost via your block pressure your doing it wrong. when I talk about increased vacuum I'm talking about my crankcase vacuum NOT Intake vacuum.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> Ah, that makes more sense.
> 
> I think you would pull too much vacuum with an external pump, and *with a belt driven pump, you're adding another drain on power coming from the engine*.


Exactly what I thought when I saw the pulley in the pics.


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

taverncustoms said:


> by the correct way I was comparing to my sys vs a vent to tip catch can that is the common way of installing a catch can. clearly you don't understand or care what acid buildup in your engine will do. and that is the real reason for venting the crankcase gases. or P,C,V. Positive Crankcase Pressure, and OMG if you can measure your boost via your block pressure your doing it wrong. when I talk about increased vacuum I'm talking about my crankcase vacuum NOT Intake vacuum.


I'm not going to argue with you about how you are using the word correct compared to what I fell it should mean. I apologize I even started that, as its just a matter of opinion.

Clearly you don't understand or care about regular oil changes as a form of maintenance?

And I also apologize if I was mistaken, but I thought earlier in the thread it was you who was talking about your vacuum measurements based off of a boost gauge, and someone else came in and let you know block pressure needed to be measured another way.


----------



## woodywoods86 (Jul 29, 2008)

taverncustoms said:


> by the correct way I was comparing to my sys vs a vent to tip catch can that is the common way of installing a catch can. clearly you don't understand or care what acid buildup in your engine will do. and that is the real reason for venting the crankcase gases. or P,C,V. Positive Crankcase Pressure, and OMG if you can measure your boost via your block pressure your doing it wrong. when I talk about increased vacuum I'm talking about my crankcase vacuum NOT Intake vacuum.


I like where this is going, but PCV is not for acid buildup. It is to prevent what is known as a Crankcase (block) explosion.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

woodywoods86 said:


> I like where this is going, but PCV is not for acid buildup. It is to prevent what is known as a Crankcase (block) explosion.


lol, yes that is another reason to have a PCV, yes there are allot of reasons why its just a good idea to at least have a pcv that work as well as designed by the engine designers, I feel my high vac sys is an improvement but if your weary about the higher vacuum I've given the way to run the stock pressures as well. 

and I hope all of you notice, I'm not trying to sell anything ... just offering information like I do in all of my DIY threads


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

*still have issues my my cc system*

Well I found this thread the day my CC lines froze due to cold temps and having the TIP as my only source of vacuum. I then took my time and made a very clean install of this exact proper CC routing with my 42DD can. Started my car up after the install and everything ran perfect, smoother than ever! Now today I start my car up and all sorts of smoke coming out tailpipe, popped hood, cc lines are FROZE AGAIN! BUT I did look at my 3/4 inch hoses running to catch can yesterday and they seemed to be collapsed. Increased vacuum in the system is too much for old mushy hoses. I'm hoping these hoses collapsing have caused a restricted flow causing moisture and what not to not flow throw the system hence the reason when my system froze up. I am going to replace everything with new hose and hopefully this doesn't happen again! Any insight from anyone on what 3/4 inch hose to use? Anyone else dealing with frozen cc lines and hoses being collapsed due to vacuum?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Humb1e said:


> Well I found this thread the day my CC lines froze due to cold temps and having the TIP as my only source of vacuum. I then took my time and made a very clean install of this exact proper CC routing with my 42DD can. Started my car up after the install and everything ran perfect, smoother than ever! Now today I start my car up and all sorts of smoke coming out tailpipe, popped hood, cc lines are FROZE AGAIN! BUT I did look at my 3/4 inch hoses running to catch can yesterday and they seemed to be collapsed. Increased vacuum in the system is too much for old mushy hoses. I'm hoping these hoses collapsing have caused a restricted flow causing moisture and what not to not flow throw the system hence the reason when my system froze up. I am going to replace everything with new hose and hopefully this doesn't happen again! Any insight from anyone on what 3/4 inch hose to use? Anyone else dealing with frozen cc lines and hoses being collapsed due to vacuum?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Unfortunately even the stock system will freeze, if your PCV system is frozen, remove the oil cap until the lines defrost from engine bay temperatures. parking in a garage also helps. as far as hoses go the stronger the better i used silicone heater hose its cheep and holds its shape.

I am glad to hear you noticed an improvement in the driveability when the lines aren't frozen. I would love to see pictures of this setup on that CC.


----------



## scirockalot8v (Sep 16, 2006)

I want to try this setup but it looks way too busy and messy under the hood. I think most run a catch can because they want to clean up the bay. 
My current setup seems to work fine yet I do have a bouncy oil cap. Also experienced smoking after hard pulls and then sitting in traffic. So I ditched running the hockey puck and dumping to the tip. Now its just all going straight into the catch can. No more smoking. No affect on vacuum either.








Currently. Has been cleaned up since.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

scirockalot8v said:


>


that looks like a Vent to atmosphere setup definitely not the way to do it IMO but hey it looks clean. should be fine for full race tho.


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

Humble. You want to use nylon reinforced clear plastic hose. 
I bought mine at Home Depot in 16" roll in the plumbing section. Same stuff people use for beer bongs haha.


----------



## zrau17 (Apr 21, 2010)

Slimjimmn said:


> Humble.


:laugh:


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

Slimjimmn said:


> Humble. You want to use nylon reinforced clear plastic hose.
> I bought mine at Home Depot in 16" roll in the plumbing section. Same stuff people use for beer bongs haha.


Thanks a ton! Already ordered 6 ft of silicone heater hose off ebay.but.ill try the stuff.from home depot first!

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

Silicone sweats and not a fan myself


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

Slimjimmn said:


> Silicone sweats and not a fan myself


Yeah I went to Home Depot and got some of the stuff you said to get but then went to Menards later that day and stumbled upon the same stuff in black and it works great! The silicone stuff came in and it is not nearly at strong. Thanks again!


----------



## Toasterhoff (Jul 17, 2013)

so the puff of smoke that comes out of my exhaust after hard pulls could be do to running straight off TIP vacuum? and it should help running it this way? i just am unsure about the too much vacuum thing. still may try it when summer come around. also any ideas how to keep it from freezing?


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

The vacuum is not bad. Use the clear hose u can get from the hardware store with the reinforced white nylon webbing in it. Then to be safe put cheap little narrow hose clamps snug on the hose(make sure they are not so tight they are creasing the hose) every 6 inches or so, more clamps wont hurt. This just keeps it from collapsing because of the vacuum since any rubber or plastic type hose does get soft onve its hot. I have mine cc lines set up this way and no collapsing except i have the non reinforced black hose but i recommend the clear reinforced hose since its a bit stiffer and u can actually see whats in ur lines.









Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

Toasterhoff said:


> so the puff of smoke that comes out of my exhaust after hard pulls could be do to running straight off TIP vacuum? and it should help running it this way? i just am unsure about the too much vacuum thing. still may try it when summer come around. also any ideas how to keep it from freezing?


With the vacuum it actually pulls everything through. Running straight off the TIP as ur vac source onces it gets cold enough you lines will freeze. If it happens pull ur car in a heated garage and immediately take the crankcase breather out of the oil cooler housing so u dont have water draining back into your crankcase once it thaws.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

Humb1e said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only downside to mounting like this is people with stock smic setup it won't work or fit (or be very very snug making draining a pita)


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

On my last mk4 i just mounted my catch can next to the battery...i wanted to get one of the 42dd mounts to mount it by the headlight, makes it look very clean.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

here is how I have mine setup. its zip tied to the waterfall with a remote drain tube


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

Nice DV Tavern... I have the same one. Interesting plumbing - kind of like the Forge relocation idea? Notice much of a difference from standard?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

All_Euro said:


> Nice DV Tavern... I have the same one. Interesting plumbing - kind of like the Forge relocation idea? Notice much of a difference from standard?


Both DV and Turbo Compressor run a lot colder. and I love the DV best I've ever had.


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

Updated my catch can install. Relocated can and cleaned it out. The t fitting was also clogged with yellow sludge , probably from the location I hadit under the intake in the stock location. Now everything is located in a spot where there are no low points and hopefully won't clog up. 








Still installed a pcv valve inline with the top return hose to can. 
Hopefully having the can up by the firewall will prevent any freezing of it. 
I also bought 3/4" PVC hose insulation tubes to cover the hoses.


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

Gulfstream said:


> How does this look?


No check valves. 
If you have a proper pcv valve that closes under boost there is no need for multiple check valves. 
You actually want vacuum in the pcv system at idle and slight pull when driving (tip route).


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

A proper pcv valve will close under boost and prevent any pressure to pass. Ball and spring. No boost. 
The check valves just complicate things and trap vacuum/pressure.


----------



## zrau17 (Apr 21, 2010)

I'm gonna add this bit of info based on personal experience, take it as you want.

I have both my VC and CC vented straight to the ground. I used to run a 42DD can with the hockey puck and it caught most oil but I still found plenty at my turbo inlet. I gave up on it and dumped them both. Based on a little bit of common sense and I guess physics, regarding air flow and pressure zones…this seems to work very well for me. The way I set it up, is both tubes dropping straight down and secured with the very bottom of the tube sitting about level with the underside of the car. This way, the air rushing under the car at speed is creating low pressure. With the hoses sitting in the low pressure zone it helps pull he fumes from the tubes as the CC builds up pressure. I can VISIBLY see the CC vapors escaping at idle, and the underside of my transmission is covered in a film of oil after driving…and once I park and air out (bro) I tend to have a bit of acidic oily stuff sitting right under where the hoses end.

In a sense, this uses the same principle as an exhaust scavenger it's just not a closed system. The exhaust gasses rushing by the scavenger port act as the low pressure zone which will want to pull air from wherever it can, which is how it works. This is doing the same thing almost, just by airflow of the car moving.


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

zrau17 said:


> I'm gonna add this bit of info based on personal experience, take it as you want.
> 
> I have both my VC and CC vented straight to the ground. I used to run a 42DD can with the hockey puck and it caught most oil but I still found plenty at my turbo inlet. I gave up on it and dumped them both. Based on a little bit of common sense and I guess physics, regarding air flow and pressure zones…this seems to work very well for me. The way I set it up, is both tubes dropping straight down and secured with the very bottom of the tube sitting about level with the underside of the car. This way, the air rushing under the car at speed is creating low pressure. With the hoses sitting in the low pressure zone it helps pull he fumes from the tubes as the CC builds up pressure. I can VISIBLY see the CC vapors escaping at idle, and the underside of my transmission is covered in a film of oil after driving…and once I park and air out (bro) I tend to have a bit of acidic oily stuff sitting right under where the hoses end.
> 
> In a sense, this uses the same principle as an exhaust scavenger it's just not a closed system. The exhaust gasses rushing by the scavenger port act as the low pressure zone which will want to pull air from wherever it can, which is how it works. This is doing the same thing almost, just by airflow of the car moving.


Hopefully you don't have any foreign particles coming in through those tubes..its very well possible

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## zrau17 (Apr 21, 2010)

Humb1e said:


> Hopefully you don't have any foreign particles coming in through those tubes..its very well possible
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


If something can manage to flip it's way up a couple feet of hose and bend itself perfectly into the CC I'd be shocked, let alone getting even higher to the VC. If you're talking bugs or something of that nature, I doubt they'll want to go very far up an oily fume infested small opening.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

zrau17 said:


> I'm gonna add this bit of info based on personal experience, take it as you want.
> 
> I have both my VC and CC vented straight to the ground. I used to run a 42DD can with the hockey puck and it caught most oil but I still found plenty at my turbo inlet. I gave up on it and dumped them both. Based on a little bit of common sense and I guess physics, regarding air flow and pressure zones…this seems to work very well for me. The way I set it up, is both tubes dropping straight down and secured with the very bottom of the tube sitting about level with the underside of the car. This way, the air rushing under the car at speed is creating low pressure. With the hoses sitting in the low pressure zone it helps pull he fumes from the tubes as the CC builds up pressure. I can VISIBLY see the CC vapors escaping at idle, and the underside of my transmission is covered in a film of oil after driving…and once I park and air out (bro) I tend to have a bit of acidic oily stuff sitting right under where the hoses end.
> 
> In a sense, this uses the same principle as an exhaust scavenger it's just not a closed system. The exhaust gasses rushing by the scavenger port act as the low pressure zone which will want to pull air from wherever it can, which is how it works. This is doing the same thing almost, just by airflow of the car moving.


if this VTA setup is what yo want to run, you should avoid hard stoping and turning because you will loose oil out of the lower CC hose. I don't think any one wants a oily mess all over the bottom of the car best of luck to you. also FYI the oil you found in the TIP with the 42DD CC was most likely due to oil/water foam that occurs in low/no vacuum catch can systems.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> How does this look?


not to far off but the puck would be useless in this diagram and I recommend using the vacuum pump or you may experience vacuum issues when braking. after all that's why VW put it in there.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Slimjimmn said:


> A proper pcv valve will close under boost and prevent any pressure to pass. Ball and spring. No boost.
> The check valves just complicate things and trap vacuum/pressure.


check valves work just fine. the boost actually helps them work better.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

taverncustoms said:


> Both DV and Turbo Compressor run a lot colder. and I love the DV best I've ever had.


Cool - might have to give that a try :thumbup:


I'd been having PCV issues which were causing the turbo to smoke on load and vacuum so I pulled the ball & spring check valve that I had in place of the hockey puck... it was gummed up and sticking shut at times - especially when it's cold/freezing out. Hockey puck is back in - problem solved. Hopefully it stays this way.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> Brake booster has a separate line directly from IM. Hockey puck close at WOT as per design.


check valve on TIP makes puck obsolete. use puck or check valve at TIP not both. no harm just redundant.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> Check valve on tip stay open at wot while puck close at wot. So it most definite has a function.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk


so your using it to prevent the Catchcan from venting into the TIP. that's a very bad idea  its restricting flow in an area you want no restriction due to the low vacuum in the TIP. basically any time your in boost your increasing block pressure. trust me use only a puck or check valve on TIP. you want the Catchcan to vent to the TIP @ WOT. but hey its your car do what you want. please remove your diagram from the thread so people are not confused.


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

Gulfstream said:


> No, it seems like you don't understand the function of the puck... Like VAG engineers designed it with a spring loaded valve it stay open with some boost and closes when it exceeds a preset boost calculated by the people who designed this motor. If I follow your suggestion I'd have full suction from tip when I boost 32psi with my new PT5835R sucking from upper/lower breather and that's not good for this motor. Your suggestion is directly harmful for this motor.
> 
> PCV stand for Positive Crankcase Ventilation and these motors are NOT designed for having the vacuum equivalent of 32psi boost in the head and crankcase.
> 
> ...


Hahahah taverncustoms set up is a great idea. I don't think you don't understand that with his set up there with never be an equivalent vacuum of 32 psi. The only way that would be true is if you stick a big ass plug where it air filter goes so compressor is pulling air only from the cc hose. Then yes you sure as heck would have a ton of vaccuum pull through the pcv system. Listen to what slimjimm said "you want vacuum in the pcv system at idle(source of vacuum from suction pump that is spliced in between IM and brake booster) and a slight pull of vacuum from the at boost from the TIP since the pcv valve thrown at the TIP will open as soon the check valve shuts between the T and suction pump(and this will be I bet you no more than 2 in/hg)

:beer:

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Gulfstream said:


> No, it seems like you don't understand the function of the puck... Like VAG engineers designed it with a spring loaded valve it stay open with some boost and closes when it exceeds a preset boost calculated by the people who designed this motor. If I follow your suggestion I'd have full suction from tip when I boost 32psi with my new PT5835R sucking from upper/lower breather and that's not good for this motor. Your suggestion is directly harmful for this motor.
> 
> PCV stand for Positive Crankcase Ventilation and these motors are NOT designed for having the vacuum equivalent of 32psi boost in the head and crankcase.
> 
> ...


I'm with you, keep the PRV:thumbup:


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> How does this look?


Wouldn't this cause the catch can to hold the same internal pressure as the crank case? Which would be positive. 

This would also cause the puck to remain "closed" most of the time. Out of boost, the IM vacuum will hold it closed. In boost, the TIP vacuum will hold it closed. 

This differs from OEM in that you are creating positive pressure at times OEM is not.

I would move the PRV before the catch can in this set up. 





Gulfstream said:


> Don't mean to rain on your parade but as you so boldly claim "this is the best way" (which it's clearly not) I have to correct you a little.
> 
> Two errors stand out:
> 
> ...


I would be more concerned that his is pulling full vacuum from the intake manifold than pulling full vacuum from the TIP. Wouldn't the vacuum be stronger in the IM than in the TIP? 

In the OEM set up, the vacuum from the IM is split between the Crankcase, and the rest of the PCV system, so also the Valve Cover and the TIP. I always pictured the puck as a one way flow valve, but apparently it isn't.

Also, check valve is on the brake boost in his diagram, not in the line.


----------



## woodywoods86 (Jul 29, 2008)

Ok I think I have an understanding of what is going on now. 

Anyway this is my current setup:









But what I really need is this setup:









How terrible is my current setup for the engine?

Great discussion!


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

You want to run a line from just before your PRV direct to your intake mani?


----------



## woodywoods86 (Jul 29, 2008)

Compared to both tavern and Gulf it is the part I am missing.

And based on the discussion so far. I missing support Vacuum and Pressure (depending operating state) that is provided by the IM.


----------



## woodywoods86 (Jul 29, 2008)

There would need to be a check valve for boost-on situations also.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> No, it seems like you don't understand the function of the puck... Like VAG engineers designed it with a spring loaded valve it stay open with some boost and closes when it exceeds a preset boost calculated by the people who designed this motor. If I follow your suggestion I'd have full suction from tip when I boost 32psi with my new PT5835R sucking from upper/lower breather and that's not good for this motor. Your suggestion is directly harmful for this motor.
> 
> PCV stand for Positive Crankcase Ventilation and these motors are NOT designed for having the vacuum equivalent of 32psi boost in the head and crankcase.
> 
> ...


why is this so hard to understand the puck is not a check valve, it limits air FLOW at high boost because the stock sys does not have a CC its there to limit the amount of oil pulled through the PCV hose during WOT this causes higher crank pressures, if you have a Catchcan it can be eliminated.

the second function of the puck is to reduce the amount of vacuum you see at idle inside the PCV system (in 2.0t eneges this was eleminated for a better SYSTEM "LIKE MINE") 

the puck is a flawed design. however if you want to use the puck it would be on the TIP and you would not use the check valve in that location. having the puck in line with the check valve just restricts the system when no restriction is better. 



Gulfstream said:


> Don't mean to rain on your parade but as you so boldly claim "this is the best way" (which it's clearly not) I have to correct you a little.
> 
> Two errors stand out:
> 
> ...


1st: i did not know VAG even recommends a Catchcan setup please enlighten us. furthermore you have the same or more vacuum in your system then in mine :facepalm: by removing the Vacuum pump from the sys you have given full manifold vacuum at idle on your crank case,

In your design you need to remove the check valve at the tip and use the Puck ONLY. I have stated many many many times in this thread, to have a system that works like the origanal oem one.  

If you want a better system you will remove the puck and use the check vale at the TIP this will give you good crank case vacuum at idle and WOT. your system will give you crankcase vacuum at idle and crankcase pressure at WOT.
"this would not be wise without a Catchcan as it would make a horrid mess of your TIP" 

2nd: catch can never see's boost there is a check valve. learn to read a diagram.

And for the record I have never said the puck and a check valve are the same. 

and i am assuming in your diagram the valve cover port and crank port go to the Catchcan only.

hope this helps with the confusion.


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

Man this thread sucks


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

woodywoods86 said:


> Ok I think I have an understanding of what is going on now.
> 
> Anyway this is my current setup:
> 
> ...


please just use the diagram in the orig post thats the best way. 
but yes you get the idea. your just missing a check valve in the line to the manifold to prevent boost in the block. but you will have oem like pressures. however the puck is obsolete in a catchcan sys IMO.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> I see your point with the IM line closing the puck at idle. Not sure if the vacuum is strong enough, but I can move the IM line to before the puck and after the CC if it does close the puck. A BT running at 30psi creates massive flow and vacuum in TIP. You do NOT want this vacuum sucking into valvecover and crankcase.
> 
> VAG designed this motor with a puck in order not to have a strong vacuum in the crankcase for a reason and I intend to keep it that way. So when TIP vacuum exceeds the level graded by the puck it will close. After all this is a positive crankcase ventilation not a negative crankcase ventilation.
> 
> ...


maybe if i use your own diagram it will help. this is how to set it up for oem pressures.










IMO replacing the puck with a check valve improves the system but ill leave that up to you.


----------



## woodywoods86 (Jul 29, 2008)

taverncustoms said:


> please just use the diagram in the orig post thats the best way.
> but yes you get the idea. your just missing a check valve in the line to the manifold to prevent boost in the block. but you will have oem like pressures. however the puck is obsolete in a catchcan sys IMO.


Cool. Thanks! I am not going to use the OEM vacuum pump. But I will see what the rest of your configuration will do on my setup. I will post results. My oil cap bounces during idle.

To be completely honest though. Your setup looks awful in terms of aesthetics.


----------



## ballergti (Nov 17, 2010)

zrau17 said:


> I'm gonna add this bit of info based on personal experience, take it as you want.
> 
> I have both my VC and CC vented straight to the ground. I used to run a 42DD can with the hockey puck and it caught most oil but I still found plenty at my turbo inlet. I gave up on it and dumped them both. Based on a little bit of common sense and I guess physics, regarding air flow and pressure zones…this seems to work very well for me. The way I set it up, is both tubes dropping straight down and secured with the very bottom of the tube sitting about level with the underside of the car. This way, the air rushing under the car at speed is creating low pressure. With the hoses sitting in the low pressure zone it helps pull he fumes from the tubes as the CC builds up pressure. I can VISIBLY see the CC vapors escaping at idle, and the underside of my transmission is covered in a film of oil after driving…and once I park and air out (bro) I tend to have a bit of acidic oily stuff sitting right under where the hoses end.
> 
> In a sense, this uses the same principle as an exhaust scavenger it's just not a closed system. The exhaust gasses rushing by the scavenger port act as the low pressure zone which will want to pull air from wherever it can, which is how it works. This is doing the same thing almost, just by airflow of the car moving.


I've been running like this for two years and never have had a problem. Honestly hardly even makes a mess under the car of really any. Only down fall is you can smell the fumes when you park and get out of the car. Oh well. Beats this crazy setups and super expensive useless catch cans. The money can go to better things for my car.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

woodywoods86 said:


> Cool. Thanks! I am not going to use the OEM vacuum pump. But I will see what the rest of your configuration will do on my setup. I will post results. My oil cap bounces during idle.
> 
> To be completely honest though. Your setup looks awful in terms of aesthetics.


it was the first prototype and it works so i haven't gotten around to cleaning it up, yet. but if you can do better please post up a pic id love to see. I'm not trying to sell any thing here as you can clearly see. I feel this is just information fellow 1.8t owners should know.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> Puck is springloaded open and will supply some flow through the CC where a check valve will now. Do you know how much vacuum there is in the TIP with a BT running at 30psi? That's why VAG placed the puck there.
> 
> 
> Alright, ppl modding their own car void warranty anyways so :thumbup:


If I had to make an educated guess, with the location of the port I would imagine you could see up to 10inhg at 800cfm "aka 7500rpms 500hp" with a 3" TIP pipe but its relative to the filter and air density as well. at the very inlet of the turbo the velocity/vacuum would obviously be much higher. but you PCV port is not located in that part of the TIP. and of course if your running 30psi you might be running a larger tip and that would also reduce vacuum. 
furthermore your only at that kind of flow at redline and most of the time your going to be in the lower rpm range and that reduces the vacuum that the PCV system sees even more.

Just because you have 30psi does NOT mean you have super high TIP vacuum.

if you don't believe me go find a Venturi calculator and do the math for your self.

Is there any thing else you would like to talk about? I believe I have shut down every false theory you have come up with. 



Gulfstream said:


> No, and heres why: You probably don't know that a gas will travel the road with least resistance. With no check valve between puck and tip vacuum from IM will suck air from airfilter and not from PCV via CC.
> 
> Yes :facepalm:


That's what its supposed to do in an OEM 1.8t PCV system. as designed by AUG :facepalm: running the check valve increases the vacuum on the crank case and if that's what you want then remove the PUCK and install the check valve/pcv valve

but if you truly want oem vacuum then no check valve.

Your basically saying you want high vacuum at idle in your crank case but positive pressure at WOT. :screwy:

the best way is to have good vacuum at all times if possible. and my design will get you as close to that as possible without using an external pump or draft tube in the exhaust.


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

Gulfstream said:


> VAG who designed this car should be proof that you do it wrong but I have a feeling you're not the type who care much about doing things correctly. For the last time, do NOT remove the puck!
> 
> Any further questions you should place with VW or Audi or read my previous answers, as I'm tired of repeating myself.
> 
> ...


Please keep posting because every comment you have made thus far makes me lolz:thumbup:

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> VAG who designed this car should be proof that you do it wrong but I have a feeling you're not the type who care much about doing things correctly. For the last time, do NOT remove the puck!
> 
> Any further questions you should place with VW or Audi or read my previous answers, as I'm tired of repeating myself.
> 
> ...


 LOL
Gulfstream: if you can read, please take the time to go over the information I have provided. now wait for it to sink in, read it again, then maybe if you have finally processed the information you can have an intelligent conversation. until that point please don't post here anymore.


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

taverncustoms said:


> LOL
> Gulfstream: if you can read, please take the time to go over the information I have provided. now wait for it to sink in, read it again, then maybe if you have finally processed the information you can have an intelligent conversation. until that point please don't post here anymore.


:thumbup:

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> Your pathetic attempt on personal attacks just prove what kind of person you are. Again and for the last time, don't think you are better than VAG who designed our motors.
> 
> Last post here :wave:


I was not trying to attack you just get through to you. clearly an impossible task. lol

the comment about reading was because your clearly not.


----------



## woodywoods86 (Jul 29, 2008)

taverncustoms said:


> it was the first prototype and it works so i haven't gotten around to cleaning it up, yet. but if you can do better please post up a pic id love to see. I'm not trying to sell any thing here as you can clearly see. I feel this is just information fellow 1.8t owners should know.


I will most certainly see what I can do 

I know you are not try to sale anything, it is a discussion worth having. :thumbup:

What kind of effects do you think line size has? I mean we are talking about volume, pressures, flow velocity, etc. (fluids blah blah). Can we assume the differences between 1/2"(-8), 5/8"(-10) and 3/4"(-12) are negligible?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

woodywoods86 said:


> I will most certainly see what I can do
> 
> I know you are not try to sale anything, it is a discussion worth having. :thumbup:
> 
> What kind of effects do you think line size has? I mean we are talking about volume, pressures, flow velocity, etc. (fluids blah blah). Can we assume the differences between 1/2"(-8), 5/8"(-10) and 3/4"(-12) are negligible?


block/valve cover vents to the CC should be 3/4" for reduced oil loss. as far as manifold vacuum you can use as small as 1/4" maybe even 1/8". but for TIP i would use 1/2" minimum due to the limited amount of vacuum at that location. but of course the larger the line the more volume it can move so bigger is better :thumbup:


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

Added to FAQ under catch can


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

groggory said:


> Added to FAQ under catch can


awesome


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

The cheap hose clamps throughout 3/4inch hose for support really helped my setup with hoses collapsing under the amped up vacuum...after a couple weeks everything has been running great and no more freezing and its been down to -20°F a few nights. And I park outside!

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Humb1e said:


> The cheap hose clamps throughout 3/4inch hose for support really helped my setup with hoses collapsing under the amped up vacuum...after a couple weeks everything has been running great and no more freezing and its been down to -20°F a few nights. And I park outside!
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


I wonder if zip ties would work as well?


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

I put one on and it just flexes with the hose..the cheap skinny worm clamps are pretty cheap

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

I bet wrapping thin wire around the hoses would work and be cheaper!

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Humb1e said:


> I bet wrapping thin wire around the hoses would work and be cheaper!
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


or inside the hose


----------



## Gulfstream (Jul 28, 2010)

Twopnt016v said:


> Exactly, you are removing the *pressure regulating valve* from the system that the engineers at vw felt needed to be there. To each their own, people have removed that prv before but here are a few points. There is no data to back up what you are doing where I'm sure there was plenty of data when the system was designed. I worked at the dealer when the 1.8t came out and there wasn't that much vac on the crankcase of a brand new engine. Every engine is different so you can't compare a 1.8t to a 2.0t or a Saab. Saying they are the same is nonsensical without actually testing the two. Pulling the oil cap on a 2.0t and saying it is the same is far from testing. There are specs for crankcase vac and they are measured with a slacktube manometer in inches of water(wc). The system should not vary any more that 2.0mb (.80wc) or the system should be addressed. Like I said, you can't compare the 1.8t engine to other engines as most are different. Take bmw for example, every engine model has a different spec with exception of some of the earlier engines. IMHO you are somewhat flying blind here and basing everything off the oil cap dancing or not and saying it is better. Also having a ccv system that is out of spec can cause oil leaks and cause noises from seals pulling in air from outside the engine. Anyway here is a pic of how the PRV functions. I'm sure you have seen it as it was posted in the CCV thread I started in the TT forum that got you started down this road but I figured others may want to have a look. Not trying to knock what you are doing, just making some points. Have you taken a look at your fuel trims and see if you suffer from the same thing spartiati noted?




As this thread is added to faq it's important to point out that taverns diagram is removing PRV valve and this is NOT recommended by VAG and can lead to potential damage to your motor. Reading through this thread I see several others made this point as well.

I rest my case :wave:


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

I added it to the faq as a 'discussion' on the subject. I can only assume people who click on a discussion are willing to read it.


If there are cold hard facts to share, I try to copy paste directly into the faq. My gut tells me there is no absolutely right way to route a catch can. Every way has its own little caveats.


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> As this thread is added to faq it's important to point out that taverns diagram is removing PRV valve and this is NOT recommended by VAG and can lead to potential damage to your motor. Reading through this thread I see several others made this point as well.
> 
> I rest my case :wave:


In the older set ups, like the new beetle (in the diagram) or the AWD engine code, (close to the new beetle) the only thing regulating vacuum is the pcv valve (off boost)
So that tells me the PCV valve alone is sufficient in preventing too much *Vacuum*

The puck forces the crank case to have a positive pressure
removing it puts the crank case under vacuum instead.

So far I haven't seen anything other than speculation as to which will give us better performance. 

Although in other engines, sight vacuum on the crank case will free up power, so I'm curious as to the reasoning behind forcing a positive pressure when blow-by will be at the highest. 

I doubt keeping the crank case under vacuum at boost would really do any damage though, as it is under vacuum any time you are out of boost.

It really comes down to opinion.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> As this thread is added to faq it's important to point out that taverns diagram is removing PRV valve and this is NOT recommended by VAG and can lead to potential damage to your motor. Reading through this thread I see several others made this point as well.
> 
> I rest my case :wave:


maybe this is to complicated for you to comprehend. so please take time to READ

This is the proper way to install a CC. if you want OEM pressures run a PRV at the stock location, If you want higher vacuum at all times run a PCV valve in place of the PRV. your arguing for no reason.

Now the diagram you posted, had a PCV/Checkvalve valve between the PRV/Puck and the TIP/turbo intake pipe, This would be a dumb way to do it because your arguing that you want the PRV to reduce PCV vacuum but all your doing in increasing pressure in the PCV at full boost, and at the same time whenever your not in boost your gonna have manifold vacuum in the crankcase. If you actually READ what I've been telling you. you would understand that running both is pointless.

So for the last time AGIN if you want OEM pressures in this system use the puck in the factory location. 

For higher vacuum in the system use a PCV/checkvalve in the Factory Puck location WITHOUT a Puck.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gulfstream said:


> 1


because you clearly did not READ the very first post in this thread I will re-post it here.



taverncustoms said:


> the puck: IMO a PCV valve works better. But if you want OEM crank case vacuum just leave the puck in the original position. It will still be better then current catch can setups.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Sep 17, 2013)

The positive crankcase pressure might be for emissions purposes? 

Edit: an interesting EPA PDF on emissions systems

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/...ults page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> In the older set ups, like the new beetle (in the diagram) or the AWD engine code, (close to the new beetle) the only thing regulating vacuum is the pcv valve (off boost)
> So that tells me the PCV valve alone is sufficient in preventing too much *Vacuum*
> 
> The puck forces the crank case to have a positive pressure
> ...


Good questions 

Its been proven lower crankcase pressure improves performance in all piston engines. 1.8t is no different.

As far as I can tell the puck is there to reduce air flow at WOT to give the oil more time to separate from the vapor. its second function is to air in to the system to remove the gasses in the crankcase. unfortunately in a CC setup it will not perform this function. and its doubtful it did in the oem sys as well. the air would have taken the easiest path and that would not be through the engine but around it. however it would have had at least a a small amount of vacuum from the PCV valve under the intake manifold preventing positive pressures at low throttle/boost. and that is that this thread is all about. properly installing a CC so it uses manifold vacuum to prevent positive pressures and includes a improved method of doing it with a PCV instead of a PRV.

You would need allot more vacuum at WOT&high RPM for any damage to occur, this is not achievable without a $3000.00+ high performance vacuum pump system.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

[email protected] Performance said:


> The positive crankcase pressure might be for emissions purposes?
> 
> Edit: an interesting EPA PDF on emissions systems
> 
> http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/...ults page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x


not related because it still burns all PCV gasses in the combustion chamber, even my setup would pass IM in fact it would be better,


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Sep 17, 2013)

taverncustoms said:


> not related because it still burns all PCV gasses in the combustion chamber, even my setup would pass IM in fact it would be better,


How is a few dozen page PDF on emissions control equipment not relevant? Obviously you didn't read any of it.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

[email protected] Performance said:


> How is a few dozen page PDF on emissions control equipment not relevant? Obviously you didn't read any of it.


Because if you read it. you will learn its only purpose is to ensure that all PCV gasses pass through the combustion chamber before VTA what it does prior to that pressure, vacuum, etc. is not relevant to IM control. now a VTA draft tube vs a closed sys would be another discussion.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Sep 17, 2013)

taverncustoms said:


> Because if you read it. you will learn its only purpose is to ensure that all PCV gasses pass through the combustion chamber before VTA what it does prior to that pressure, vacuum, etc. is not relevant to IM control. now a VTA draft tube vs a closed sys would be another discussion.


There is talk in there regarding how/why crankcase pressure is kept high at lower rpms, and loads. 

It's 100% relevant to this discussion. Last I checked, YOU aren't the only poster in his thread. This is a discussion forum, where people contribute their own theories/thoughts/opinions. You seem to be even more arrogant than your choice of thread title suggests.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

[email protected] Performance said:


> There is talk in there regarding how/why crankcase pressure is kept high at lower rpms, and loads.
> 
> It's 100% relevant to this discussion. Last I checked, YOU aren't the only poster in his thread


oh by all means, but its not gonna be in that booklet you posted. please continue. What benefit is there to high crank case pressure at any time?


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Sep 17, 2013)

taverncustoms said:


> oh by all means, but its not gonna be in that booklet you posted. please continue. What benefit is there to high crank case pressure at any time?


It's emissions related. There is no performance benefit; hence why I had to dig up an EPA booklet for a reasonable explanation. 

Get it, now?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

[email protected] Performance said:


> where people contribute their own theories/thoughts/opinions. You seem to be even more arrogant than your choice of thread title suggests.


RPLY to Edit

arrogant? you asked a question I gave a valid answer, feel free to discuss.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

VTA - STFU :wave:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

[email protected] Performance said:


> It's emissions related. There is no performance benefit; hence why I had to dig up an EPA booklet for a reasonable explanation.
> 
> Get it, now?


I agree no benefit to have positive pressure in crank case, having reduced pressure on the other hand has several benefits. 

and as far as it being emissions related this is true to the point that it is routed into the manifold instead of venting to atmosphere. but that has nothing to do with crank case pressures other than the method used to vent the vapor.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Sep 17, 2013)

taverncustoms said:


> RPLY to Edit
> 
> arrogant? you asked a question I gave a valid answer, feel free to discuss.


My original response was to the post below. 


Sycoticmynd29 said:


> In the older set ups, like the new beetle (in the diagram) or the AWD engine code, (close to the new beetle) the only thing regulating vacuum is the pcv valve (off boost)
> So that tells me the PCV valve alone is sufficient in preventing too much *Vacuum*
> 
> The puck forces the crank case to have a positive pressure
> ...





taverncustoms said:


> maybe this is to complicated for you to comprehend. so please take time to READ
> 
> This is the proper way to install a CC. if you want OEM pressures run a PRV at the stock location, If you want higher vacuum at all times run a PCV valve in place of the PRV. your arguing for no reason.
> 
> ...





taverncustoms said:


> Good questions
> 
> Its been proven lower crankcase pressure improves performance in all piston engines. 1.8t is no different.
> 
> ...


Your theory does NOT explain why the factory system is designed to increase crankcase pressure at low load/rpm. My posted PDF goes into the real reasoning in quite a bit of detail. 

You seem to be the one with a reading comprehension problem. Nobody is arguing against your assertion that negative crankcase pressure is beneficial to performance, and engine life. It's common knowledge. This discussion has taken place here many, many times since the beginning of this forum, and the conclusion has always been the same.You didn't discover the holy grail here buddy.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Your theory does NOT explain why the factory system is designed to increase crankcase pressure at low load/rpm. My posted PDF goes into the real reasoning in quite a bit of detail.
> 
> You seem to be the one with a reading comprehension problem. Nobody is arguing against your assertion that negative crankcase pressure is beneficial to performance, and engine life. It's common knowledge. This discussion has taken place here many, many times since the beginning of this forum, and the conclusion has always been the same.You didn't discover the holy grail here buddy.


Ah....I see where you are confused, to answer your question: the original 1.8t OEM PCV system does not have positive pressure at low load/rpm, That is a problem with the aftermarket Catch can systems. Because all of them eliminate the vacuum pump and/or the PCV located under the intake manifold.

hope this helps clear it up for you.:thumbup:

:laugh: @ holy grail

I thought you were saying the added pressure helps the system. sorry if I did not understand. it was not clear. because in all aspects its just bad "as you know".:wave:


----------



## schwartzmagic (Apr 29, 2007)

Why is this thread still going 

:screwy:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

schwartzmagic said:


> Why is this thread still going
> 
> :screwy:


X2


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

Tavern, get your ego in check. you just started a needless argument with someone who was agreeing with you.

:facepalm:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> Tavern, get your ego in check. you just started a needless argument with someone who was agreeing with you.
> 
> :facepalm:


WHO? jeff? lol I wouldn't call that an argument. he was thinking the stock System had positive pressure at idle. it would not. he just had some incorrect information.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Sep 17, 2013)

taverncustoms said:


> WHO? jeff? lol I wouldn't call that an argument. he was thinking the stock System had positive pressure at idle. it would not. he just had some incorrect information.


Not positive pressure per se', but rather an intentional restriction in the system. 

I did come off a bit argumentative, but you should really check your attitude on here. There's a lot of guys here with a ton of experience, and sometimes you come off a bit pompous.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

[email protected] Performance said:


> I did come off a bit argumentative, but you should really check your attitude on here. There's a lot of guys here with a ton of experience, and sometimes you come off a bit pompous.


No argument here :laugh: attitude is how your read it, most of the time I'm just repeating information. unless I'm attacked first. then you get no respect.



[email protected] Performance said:


> Not positive pressure per se', but rather an intentional restriction in the system.


Assuming you mean the puck?


----------



## Gooshpoo (May 15, 2013)

All I want to know is should i go with the PDF from urotunning for the kit or should i use this. Im a nub and need these guide to get this done. I want what ever is going to make my daily driver run without causing anykind of damage someone help me out. i tryed following this post but most of its far above me ;-; thanks


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gooshpoo said:


> All I want to know is should i go with the PDF from urotunning for the kit or should i use this. Im a nub and need these guide to get this done. I want what ever is going to make my daily driver run without causing anykind of damage someone help me out. i tryed following this post but most of its far above me ;-; thanks


the safe bet is to install the lines like the #1 post in this thread, but to be on the side of caution use the OEM puck at the turbo intake pipe.

and you will have a stock system with a catch can. that is the closest to OEM you can get with a catch can install. 

does that help at all? would a diagram help?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gooshpoo said:


> All I want to know is should i go with the PDF from urotunning for the kit or should i use this. Im a nub and need these guide to get this done. I want what ever is going to make my daily driver run without causing anykind of damage someone help me out. i tryed following this post but most of its far above me ;-; thanks


like this but the Green (PCV Valve) would not be installed. instead use the stock PUCK/PRV











this is a Puck


----------



## Gooshpoo (May 15, 2013)

ok thank you very much


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gooshpoo said:


> ok thank you very much


if you want to "Improve" the system give the pcv a try its cheep and easy to go back to the puck.


----------



## LEBGTIMK4 (Sep 13, 2010)

Well Tavern, i think it will good also if you put a 19mm T connector between the CC and the puck, than PCV valve and connect than to the 10mm IM.

That way you will also have vaccum source on Idle without messing with the brake booster...

What do you think?


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

LEBGTIMK4 said:


> Well Tavern, i think it will good also if you put a 19mm T connector between the CC and the puck, than PCV valve and connect than to the 10mm IM.
> 
> That way you will also have vaccum source on Idle without messing with the brake booster...
> 
> What do you think?


This is what I did and it works great. But used 3/4" T and 3/8" hose to intake.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

LEBGTIMK4 said:


> Well Tavern, i think it will good also if you put a 19mm T connector between the CC and the puck, than PCV valve and connect than to the 10mm IM.
> 
> That way you will also have vaccum source on Idle without messing with the brake booster...
> 
> What do you think?


post a pic?


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

I wasn't just talking about your responses to Jeff, I was really talking about in general. I have seen very few posts from you that don't come off as extremely arrogant in this thread, or any other. Maybe attitude is how you read it, but your posts tend to consists of you telling someone they are wrong because what they have said doesn't agree with you. Just what I've seen anyway.

So I have a new question for you, you may have answered before, but this has gotten kinda crazy.

What is the purpose of the Vacuum Booster in your set up?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> I wasn't just talking about your responses to Jeff, I was really talking about in general. I have seen very few posts from you that don't come off as extremely arrogant in this thread, or any other. Maybe attitude is how you read it, but your posts tend to consists of you telling someone they are wrong because what they have said doesn't agree with you. Just what I've seen anyway.
> 
> So I have a new question for you, you may have answered before, but this has gotten kinda crazy.
> 
> What is the purpose of the Vacuum Booster in your set up?


Not sure how to have a technical discussion without someone being incorrect and someone being correct and still have a solution at the end. after all a technical thread should seek the truthful and correct information. I would not fault anyone for correcting inaccurate/incorrect information. unfortunately when people are incorrect they get offended when you point it out so an argument is the normal outcome. but such is life. we will all live on.

Its not really a "Booster" as much as a metering/limiting device, the OEM "Vacuum Pump" prevents vacuum loss in the manifold, during breaking. if you notice in the video when I remove the oil cap on my car, it does not affect idle. this is why I've recommended it as part of the system, it improves the braking performance. however the system is fully functional with out it.


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

taverncustoms said:


> Not sure how to have a technical discussion without someone being incorrect and someone being correct and still have a solution at the end. after all a technical thread should seek the truthful and correct information. I would not fault anyone for correcting inaccurate/incorrect information. unfortunately when people are incorrect they get offended when you point it out so an argument is the normal outcome. but such is life. we will all live on.
> 
> Its not really a "Booster" as much as a metering/limiting device, the OEM "Vacuum Pump" prevents vacuum loss in the manifold, during breaking. if you notice in the video when I remove the oil cap on my car, it does not affect idle. this is why I've recommended it as part of the system, it improves the braking performance. however the system is fully functional with out it.


I fully understand how technical discussions work, but apparently, the final call of who is correct, and who is incorrect, seems to always be YOU when you are posting. Any time anyone disagrees, and has technical information to back it up, you still brush it off and tell them they are absolutely wrong, while still NOT supplying any real technical information.

I even posted more technical information regarding the system than you have, and I've considered your set up pointless from the beginning.


Now Let's move to the technical half.

You just told me you are using a device that is used to improve vacuum under boost, to limit the vacuum on the system.
Isn't that what a PCV valve is for?
Isn't that the...only purpose of the PCV valve?

Hmm survey says: YES THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PCV VALVE
(If you don't like the source, Ill find another for you)


> The PCV valve is a spring-loaded valve with a specific orifice size designed to restrict the amount of air that's siphoned from the crankcase into the intake manifold.


Where as the part you are using to limit the vacuum, is there to improve it! And even if the restriction does in fact limit the vacuum, why are you using a vacuum booster instead of a downsized T fitting? Especially since you are telling people all of these parts should be replaced every 2 years (Funny, not in my VW maintenance schedule for ever) You are essentially telling people to waste money on a specific part from the OEM system, to do the job that another part is designed for.

Not only is your system incorrectly designed by this, but it just proves that you really have no data other than your own opinions based on what you have seen and felt.
Have you measured the vacuum anywhere in a stock system?
Have you measured it anywhere in your system? Or maybe at LEAST tested with and without the vacuum booster to prove your theory about it limiting vacuum?
(although I feel like the purpose of your response is going to be to convince me that a hose restriction would reduce vacuum instead of staying on subject )

Also a nice reminder that a PCV valve is what the OEM system uses to control the amount of vacuum on the Crank case off boost, so it's not like they don't work for this environment.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> I fully understand how technical discussions work, but apparently, the final call of who is correct, and who is incorrect, seems to always be YOU when you are posting. Any time anyone disagrees, and has technical information to back it up, you still brush it off and tell them they are absolutely wrong, while still NOT supplying any real technical information.
> 
> I even posted more technical information regarding the system than you have, and I've considered your set up pointless from the beginning.
> 
> ...


This is what I'm talking about. you are confused on how this setup works and apparently if i try to clarify it to you, I'm the self righteous ass hole :screwy: so if you want to have a discussion on how it works, we can go over it like adults, if you want to flame then just go away. this is really getting old.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

taverncustoms said:


> This is what I'm talking about. you are confused on how this setup works and apparently if i try to clarify it to you, I'm the self righteous ass hole :screwy: so if you want to have a discussion on how it works, we can go over it like adults, if you want to flame then just go away. this is really getting old.


Explain a "Scavenging" system (it has other names) 

This is what we ran on my SVT and nothing compares to it.

I'll give you a hint, google won't help you and it uses a "special" type of valve that is more industrial than automotive. 

This type of system is most effective for DD / Weekend Track cars and for those motors like MINI it won't cause anything goofy. 

BUT, VTA/FTW opcorn:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

If your here to troll leave. you will not be responded to. eace: 

any one with real questions?


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

taverncustoms said:


> If your here to troll leave. you will not be responded to. eace:
> 
> any one with real questions?


You're a pretentious idiot. You've talked down to EVERYONE in this thread and people keep letting you slide. You're a jackass! 

There's more than YOUR way to do this, and they are more effective. Just saying you need to get off your high horse, because you've got tunnel vision and don't even realize there's other options.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

DMVDUB said:


> Explain a "Scavenging" system (it has other names)
> 
> This is what we ran on my SVT and nothing compares to it...



*Go on...* no sense stopping there...


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Despite the excessive trolling here on vortex,  To any one who is interested in actually having a PCV CC setup operate as well or better than it did from the factory I hope you will find this thread and diagram useful. If any one has real questions and wish to avoid the trolls feel free to MSG me.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

All_Euro said:


> *Go on...* no sense stopping there...


Here we go, this is what I'm trying to explain. 
http://robrobinette.com/S2000CatchCan.htm

FOR AN S2000 but it can apply to anything... some pics you'd have to use your own intuition to figure what S2K part = 1.8T part

The AP1 S2000 has a habit of spitting big blue oil clouds while on the track in extended right hand corners. An oil catch can will solve the problem and keep you from scaring the crap out of people behind you in fast sweepers. The S2000 valve cover has a baffle (see pic below) that traps oil near the PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) valve. The PCV valve allows the intake to suck blow-by gasses out of the valve cover. It also seems the higher the oil level on the dipstick the more likely you'll burn oil through the PCV valve.

When the throttle butterfly closes during a high RPM shift (or throttle feather) a great amount of vacuum is created in the manifold. This vacuum sucks air from the valve cover's front large vent into the valve cover. This air along with blow-by gasses and oil are sucked across the valve cover baffle, out the PCV valve and into the manifold. The engine burns the oil and produces blue smoke. By placing a catch can in the PCV valve hose you can trap oil and keep it out of the intake.








There are two vacuum lines that can be tapped for a catch can. The most common is the PCV valve line. This line is the cause of most "blue smoke" problems. The other location is the large line that runs from the front of the valve cover to the intake. If you're not concerned about keeping emissions legal the best solution is to cap the PCV valve and put a catch can in the large hose. This is what I did to my S2000 race car. The PCV valve uses 5/16 inch inside diameter hose and the large front vacuum line is 1/2 inch inside diameter. I sourced the vacuum hose and caps at Autozone.

A very simple solution to on-track oil smoke is to simply clamp the PCV valve line shut using a large clamp style paper clip while running on track. Unclip the line before the drive home.

For my emissions legal catch can I sourced most of it from Home Depot. It consists of a small (too small, see Update 3 below) compressed air water separator (air tool section of the store), two 90 degree elbows with 3/8 inch hose barbs on one end and male 1/4inch NPT thread on the other (plumbing section), and some plastic hose.

Update: The plastic hose pictured ended up collapsing under vacuum so I upgraded to two 18 inch long pieces of 5/16 inch fuel injection hose sourced from any auto parts store.

Update2: A collapsing PCV valve line is actually a good thing. Under normal driving conditions the hose does not collapse and the PCV valve works as intended but during high RPM shifts when vacuum through the line is very high the lines collapse and keep oil from being sucked through the line. It's a poor man's "active" PVC valve system.

Update 3: The catch can pictured was too small and oil was simply blowing right through the tank. I have seen the next size up air/water separation tank installed in the same location and it works well. Matt would catch about a 1/4 of a quart every track session or two.
















I used 5/16 inch hose but you can just pop out the PCV valve and take it to the auto parts and hardware store so you can get the right size hose and 90 degree elbows. The elbows are 3/8 inch barbed on one end for the hose, and 1/4 inch NPT thread on the other. The water separator has a valve on the bottom to empty the trapped oil. You can unscrew the glass part of the separator and drain it back into the engine. The length of hose and mounting position are not critical but if you have a shock tower bar mounting it there works well. I have seen catch cans mounted on the stock air box too, but you'll need about 21 inch long lines to make that work. If you remove the cruise control actuator a catch can will fit there too.
*
Racing Catch Can V2.0 (not emissions legal)*










PCV Valve Line Removed, Catch Can in Large Vent Line

This is my current setup. I completely removed the PCV Valve vacuum hose and capped both ends. I connected a Greddy catch can to the valve cover's large (1/2 inch inside diameter) front vent line. I placed a breather filter on the catch can's outlet and capped the input on the intake. I could have run a line from the catch can to the input on the intake (before the throttle butterfly) but a breather filter keeps things simpler.









*
Racing Catch Can V3.0
*
[UPDATE: This setup sucked way too much oil from the valve cover and I removed the vacuum lines one-by-one to find a vacuum setup that worked but I ended up having to remove all the vacuum lines to keep from sucking almost a quart of oil per 20 minute session. I went back to the previous setup (V2 above) with simply a vent line from the valve cover to the catch can with an air filter outlet.]

The RobMod Mongo Catch Can. My engine builder is a big fan of venting the valve cover so I decided to go overboard. I installed an AP2 (2004) valve cover with two -AN8 bungs welded in. This is a common setup for forced induction S2000s. I ran lines from the two -AN8 bungs and one line from the valve cover's large vent line to the catch can. I mounted the Greddy catch can on the cross member. I attached the intake tube's 3/4 inch unused air pump inlet and the standard 1/2 inch valve cover inlet to the catch can to supply 2 vacuum lines to the can. Under full throttle vacuum in the intake tube will vent the catch can and valve cover. The PCV line is still capped off as shown above.

A simpler alternative to having two -AN bungs welded to the valve cover would be to drill two 3/4 inch holes in the front of the valve cover and tap them for 1/2 inch NPT then install two 1/2" NPT to 1/2" hose barb connectors.



















The valve cover vent uses 1/2 inch inside diameter hose. The air pump line uses 3/4 inch inside diameter hose. The catch can came with two 3/8 inch National Pipe Thread (NPT) ports. I drilled them out to 3/4 inch and added 3 other 3/4 inch holes and tapped them using a 1/2 inch NPT tap (yes, 1/2" NPT needs a 3/4 inch hole). The aluminum can was easy to tap.

Four of the can's ports have 1/2 inch NPT to 1/2 inch hose barb connectors for the 1/2 inch hoses. The air pump line used a 1/2" NPT to 3/4" hose barb connector.

The catch can has a clear sight tube so you can see the oil level and a drain plug near the bottom that can be removed to drain the can.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

I have made a diagram to end all questions :banghead:

Here is a 1.8T Vacuum diagram :sly:










here is that same system only showing the just the PCV and color matched to my diagram on how to properly install a CC system on a 1.8t. 










here is the same diagram modified to my system as you can see it does not affect function but allows you to run a CC and have a factory PCV system.










if you want more vacuum in your PCV system, give the PCV Valve/Check Valve a try in place of the Puck. its up to you. :thumbup:


If you want to argue this go talk to AUG. :laugh: I'm just sharing what I figured out. it was not that hard to do  and I'm not looking for any compensation/credit just sharing information. eace:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

DMVDUB said:


> Here we go, this is what I'm trying to explain.
> http://robrobinette.com/S2000CatchCan.htm


FYI this is how most current CC setups are. just on a NON-Turbo honda, this is vent to tip.

it is not as good as the one in this thread


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

taverncustoms said:


> FYI this is how most current CC setups are. just on a NON-Turbo honda, this is vent to tip.
> 
> it is not as good as the one in this thread


Yes I know it's non turbo. Best pictures of setup I could find. 

This is just as good. Quit acting like you've found the fountain of youth or some crap. opcorn:

He also has 2 completely different styles for emissions and off road


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

DMVDUB said:


> Yes I know it's non turbo. Best pictures of setup I could find.
> 
> This is just as good. Quit acting like you've found the fountain of youth or some crap. opcorn:
> 
> He also has 2 completely different styles for emissions and off road


yeah he actually lists 3

1: " dirrect to intake manifold "FAILED" (would not work on 1.8t ether) 
2: Vent to atmos "race" no VAC at all, in fact you would see positive pressure
3: Vent to TIP vacuum only at high RPM (good for WOT racing only)

the one in this thread gives you VAC at all times. so how is that not better?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> Now Let's move to the technical half.


I may have done a poor job of describing the operation of the vacuum booster. 

So I will answer your questions.



Sycoticmynd29 said:


> Where as the part you are using to limit the vacuum, is there to improve it!


the vacuum booster improves vacuum on the brake booster port to help with braking not the PCV system. the PCV port is restricted thus the response I gave you before. I know this to be true because I have tried it with and without the booster and the vacuum on the crank case takes longer to accumulate and has lower vacuum with the booster in the system.



Sycoticmynd29 said:


> And even if the restriction does in fact limit the vacuum, why are you using a vacuum booster instead of a downsized T fitting?


To improve braking performance. however if you are running a check valve instead of the Puck, the booster will not increase vacuum but will still stabilize vacuum. 

So in theory, if you get the hole in the T fitting the correct size you could run just a restricted orifice when running the check valve setup. I don't have the vacuum booster orifice measurement (or that's what I would do) but if you want to figure that out, go for it.



Sycoticmynd29 said:


> (although I feel like the purpose of your response is going to be to convince me that a hose restriction would reduce vacuum instead of staying on subject )


LOL well it will, but its supposed to. 

Hope these answers were on subject enough for you.


----------



## WOB.018t (May 29, 2007)

FWIW, I have been running a full PCV delete since about 2004 with just a small breather on the valve cover, a 3/4" ID hose to ground from the OEM 90 degree piece on top of the oil cooler housing, and a plug on the TIP where the hockey puck use to sit. That all being said I have no vacuum issues and I can take off my oil cap and pull the dipstick out all while the car is running and it will not effect my idle.

So whats the last 9 pages of crap in this thread really about?


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

WOB.018t said:


> FWIW, I have been running a full PCV delete since about 2004 with just a small breather on the valve cover, a 3/4" ID hose to ground from the OEM 90 degree piece on top of the oil cooler housing, and a plug on the TIP where the hockey puck use to sit. That all being said I have no vacuum issues and I can take off my oil cap, pull the dipstick out and disconnect my brake booster line from the intake manifold all while the car is running and it will not effect my idle.
> 
> So whats the last 9 pages of crap in this thread really about?


This thread is about Taverncustoms, and how he knows everything.

If everyone would simply concede to the fact that Taverncustoms is the authority on everything he posts about; the planets will align, dogs, and cats will live in harmony, and Iran will permanently shut down its nuclear weapons development program. :thumbup:


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

Rod Ratio said:


> This thread is about Taverncustoms, and how he knows everything.
> 
> If everyone would simply concede to the fact that Taverncustoms is the authority on everything he posts about; the planets will align, dogs, and cats will live in harmony, and Iran will permanently shut down its nuclear weapons development program. :thumbup:


No because he's a jackass


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

DMVDUB said:


> No because he's a jackass


That too :laugh:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Well at least all the trolls are keeping the thread on the top :laugh:


----------



## Rod Ratio (Jun 6, 2012)

taverncustoms said:


> Well at least all the trolls are keeping the thread on the top :laugh:


This is a forum; not a blog. Get over yourself.


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

So you're saying the vacuum booster is there to:

1. Limit the amount of vacuum on the Crank Case / Catch Can (which is connected to the line the Vacuum pump creates vacuum for)
2. Improve vacuum on the brake booster (Which is connected to the line that the Vacuum pump uses to create the vacuum on the smaller side hose)

Correct?


As for the latest diagram you posted, You have a tranverse 1.8t, and so do I, so let's use a diagram for a transverse 1.8t shall we?
Or at least use a diagram including the full lines, and not just partial. 
As for your colored versions, you just out huge amounts of things inthe stock system with no explanation as to what they are, and just made it look like your diagram. There is really very little connection between the original diagram and your colored versions there.










So now that we are looking at a more useful vacuum diagram (Bentley pg 21-10 AWW / AWP) let's talk about it.

First, I'm gonna have to point out that you have the vacuum pump reversed from the OEM system. 

Then I'm going to point out that in the OEM system, the Vacuum pump isnt actually inline with the Brake Booster, as the shared line is going directly to the manifold, not through the booster than the manifold.




groggory said:


> Its a venturi pump. Air blows through causing an internal vacuum in one spot. The third line is connected to that vacuum spot and in turn 'sucks'. This allows you to create vacuum under boost.
> 
> This is why its called a 'vaccum jet pump'
> 
> ...


So know what the vacuum booster does, and how its connected in the OEM system, I still don't see how it i supposed to be doing what you are saying it is. Instead of having air pushed through the booster to create vacuum (like its intended) you are jut putting a vacuum on the narrow end. 

So again, to me it seems like you are using it to do the job of a T fitting.

Now I started going through the entire thread again last night, just so i could double check your explanation of things along the way, so I wasnt missing anything, and I found something that was posted, but wasn't as discussed as it probably should be.



spartiati said:


> Tavern have you checked your fuel trims before and after your install? Mine have gone up significantly. So much so I had to redo my fuel corrections. Mostly at idle and low rpm driving. Checked for leaks but found nothing.





taverncustoms said:


> so you need more fuel?
> 
> Interesting, I know the vacuum helps keep the piston rings seated so your holding more air in the cylinder any time the manifold sees vacuum. I gained power and throttle response in the low end. but i have not check fuel trims. I run wide-band o2 Unitronic so I just let the computer do its thing.



Now if you read the small description of PCV valves I linked earlier (quoted) you'll see that the purpose of PCV valve is to limit the vacuum on the crank case, one of the reasons being the unmetered air from the crank case can cause lean conditions. Spartiati basically just proved that you are pulling too much vacuum on the crank case.

Can anyone else check their fuel trims before and after as a confirmation?



Sycoticmynd29 said:


> Hmm survey says: YES THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PCV VALVE



I'm not denying that vacuum on the crank case can free up power, in fact I posted more proof of it than you have.
What I'm saying is that you have TOO MUCH vacuum on the crank case, which can compromise other parts of the engine.

Move the PCV valve from the TIP to Pre Catch can
Ditch the vacuum pump and replace it with a simple T type of connection


----------



## WOB.018t (May 29, 2007)

Its been a few months since I lingered over to the 1.8t forum and thought I was about to read 9 pages of insightful PCV talk, but instead I was told to add an OEM piece that I threw in the trash 10 years ago to a line that it has no business being added to. 

Tavern why all the trouble to get your oil cap to suck to the valve cover? Just delete everything and you can be sure "fumes" wont go places you don't want them, and the oil cap will still suck down to the VC.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

WOB.018t said:


> Its been a few months since I lingered over to the 1.8t forum and thought I was about to read 9 pages of insightful PCV talk, but instead I was told to add an OEM piece that I threw in the trash 10 years ago to a line that it has no business being added to.
> 
> Tavern why all the trouble to get your oil cap to suck to the valve cover? Just delete everything and you can be sure "fumes" wont go places you don't want them, and the oil cap will still suck down to the VC.


I and a few others I know, had issues with the vent to TIP CC setups, the 1.8t would smoke at low rpm, I was finding more and more oil foam every day in the CC. thinking that the CC was not at fault I replaced the turbo and valve stem seals, with no change. after weeks of frustration I began to look at the Stock PCV system and found that the current CC setups are less effective for providing crankcase pressure venting then the OEM setup so I decided to figure how to return the system to OEM but with a CC in line. once it was installed there was no more smoke. no more foam, the car ran well

Then I had a fairly good knowledge of how the original PCV system worked in the 1.8t and had the idea of replacing the puck with a check valve to increase vacuum at idle on the PCV. so I did and it worked wonders. is it better? I think so, but that is just my opinion, that's why from the first post I have given the information that the stock puck will give you the OEM Vacuum. and that is fact.

I've noticed a significant improvement in performance and drivabillity with higher vacuum at idle that's the only reason I don't re-install the puck


----------



## LEBGTIMK4 (Sep 13, 2010)

taverncustoms said:


> post a pic?


Tavern Buddy,

This is i m willing to do my PCV system, i think it has the same concept as your and OEM, and in this way you will have vacuum source from IM on Idle...










So?? What do you think?:beer:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> So you're saying the vacuum booster is there to:
> 
> 1. Limit the amount of vacuum on the Crank Case / Catch Can (which is connected to the line the Vacuum pump creates vacuum for)
> 2. Improve vacuum on the brake booster (Which is connected to the line that the Vacuum pump uses to create the vacuum on the smaller side hose)
> ...


here is the vacuum pump








#1 it the vacuum source (manifold)
#2 is the line from the CC/Puck
#3 is a one way valve (so the chamber with the higher vacuum is used and not just balanced out.)
#4 is the line from the brake booster. this is the line that receives the Boost in vacuum from the pump at idle. aka when braking. 
#5 is the venturi port "in a drawing of a venturi vacuum, this would appear to be off the side of the venturi but this works as well. 

#5 would be P2 in this diagram









hopefully you now understand how the vacuum pump works. and that it is properly installed in the diagram.

because the Puck greatly reduces PCV vacuum it would also affect manifold vacuum at idle when braking, a vacuum booster pump is beneficial for braking performance and as a added benefit restricts the volume loss of vacuum at idle.



Sycoticmynd29 said:


> As for the latest diagram you posted, You have a tranverse 1.8t, and so do I, so let's use a diagram for a transverse 1.8t shall we?


I used that diagram because its easyer to follow but sure I will humor you.











Sycoticmynd29 said:


> As for your colored versions, you just out huge amounts of things inthe stock system with no explanation as to what they are, and just made it look like your diagram. There is really very little connection between the original diagram and your colored versions there.


the items I have left off do not affect the PVC system. they connect after the booster. and are just benefiting the added vacuum of the system after the booster. 

that line between the manifold and the Brake booster line, speeds up the vacuum accumulation in the brake booster line until l the vacuum pump can catch up, (that's why there is a check valve there) feel free to add it in on your system if your running a puck.


----------



## LEBGTIMK4 (Sep 13, 2010)

Rod Ratio said:


> ... Iran will permanently shut down its nuclear weapons development program. :thumbup:


:laugh::laugh::laugh: Best quote in the entire Thread!!! :beer::beer::beer:
opcorn:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

LEBGTIMK4 said:


> Tavern Buddy,
> 
> This is i m willing to do my PCV system, i think it has the same concept as your and OEM, and in this way you will have vacuum source from IM on Idle...
> 
> ...


you will need some sort of restriction between the manifold and the PCV valve or you will be pulling large amounts of air through the line. (I don't know the restriction diameter) as the puck is only a light restriction at idle. it would prob run. but not as well as with a vacuum pump. you also loose the added vacuum of the pump on the brake booster line.


----------



## LEBGTIMK4 (Sep 13, 2010)

taverncustoms said:


> you will need some sort of restriction between the manifold and the PCV valve or you will be pulling large amounts of air through the line. (I don't know the restriction diameter) as the puck is only a light restriction at idle. it would prob run. but not as well as with a vacuum pump. you also loose the added vacuum of the pump on the brake booster line.


I cannot get that!!! the Green valve is the puck and the Orange one is the PCV.
Since the PCV is a one way check valve why i need another one between it and the IM?? What kind of restriction you are talking about??? I dont want to mess with the brake booster, so i will leave it alone...


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> w I started going through the entire thread again last night, just so i could double check your explanation of things along the way, so I wasnt missing anything, and I found something that was posted, but wasn't as discussed as it probably should be.
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by spartiati: "Tavern have you checked your fuel trims before and after your install? Mine have gone up significantly. So much so I had to redo my fuel corrections. Mostly at idle and low rpm driving. Checked for leaks but found nothing."
> 
> ...


the computer is fully capable of correcting any lean condition with in spec. if that condition becomes to significant the ECU will see it with the O2 sensor and set a code for lean conditions. until that time I would not be concerned. unless your not running an 02 sensor or a computer with improper tuning,


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

LEBGTIMK4 said:


> I cannot get that!!! the Green valve is the puck and the Orange one is the PCV.
> Since the PCV is a one way check valve why i need another one between it and the IM?? What kind of restriction you are talking about??? I dont want to mess with the brake booster, so i will leave it alone...


Well its supposed to have the vacuum pump between the Orange PCV and the manifold. The PCV valve just keeps boost out of the PCV, the restriction should be the same size as the smallest point in the venturi inside of the vacuum pump. maybe 1/8th of a inch. I don't have the actual measurement. 

like i said it might work/run your way, give it a try. but it will run better with a restriction.


here is the restriction


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

LEBGTIMK4 said:


> Tavern Buddy,
> 
> This is i m willing to do my PCV system, i think it has the same concept as your and OEM, and in this way you will have vacuum source from IM on Idle...
> 
> ...


This is similar to what I am saying is ideal.

I would add a PCV valve to the line to the Intake Manifold :thumbup:


This also keeps more of the stock set up for those of us who have a connection from the Brake booster directly to the manifold OEM.


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

taverncustoms said:


> you will need some sort of restriction between the manifold and the PCV valve or you will be pulling large amounts of air through the line. (I don't know the restriction diameter) as the puck is only a light restriction at idle. it would prob run. but not as well as with a vacuum pump. you also loose the added vacuum of the pump on the brake booster line.


This is him telling you the same thing, but ignoring the purpose of a PCV valve, and insisting on the vacuum pump as a source of restriction to that line.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> This is him telling you the same thing, but ignoring the purpose of a PCV valve, and insisting on the vacuum pump as a source of restriction to that line.


from that link you posted and i quote:
"
It's important to note that PCV valves are sized for specific engine applications. The wrong PCV valve for an application can flow too much or too little air causing driveability problems. Varnish deposits can clog the valve, so replacement for preventative maintenance is recommended (every 50,000 miles usually).

Not all engines have PCV valves. Some (like Ford Escort, GM FWD cars with the Quad Four engine, etc.) ventilate the crankcase with a small breather hose and calibrated orifice. There is no spring-loaded PCV valve. On these applications, no maintenance is usually necessary. "

the PCV valve flows too much volume to be the only source of restriction. the way I have it is OEM, if you don't like it then argue with AUG. 

using the PCV only, may cause high idle along with other issues. but go for it. if it works then awesome. 

In my testing I found it works better the way it was designed.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

This is by far the DUMBEST damned thread this forum has seen in a while!

Shut the hell up and go buy a PRIUS! 

We care about power, not about your BS catch can crap. NOBODY CARES!

We all have our own setups, we know what works for our cars and you're just an idiot. 

PLEASE LEAVE AND DON'T COME BACK!:wave:

Throw some ebay into the mix just to give this thread some more "win" :banghead:


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

DMVDUB said:


> :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
> 
> This is by far the DUMBEST damned thread this forum has seen in a while!
> 
> ...


Smfh.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

Matt - thanks for posting the S200 info :beer:

Cool of that guy to show a few different options and to play around with the amount of vacuum that worked best for his setup. Would be nice to be able to vent everything through the one VC port!


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

All_Euro said:


> Matt - thanks for posting the S200 info :beer:
> 
> Cool of that guy to show a few different options and to play around with the amount of vacuum that worked best for his setup. Would be nice to be able to vent everything through the one VC port!


I thought it was at least good pictures


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Sep 17, 2013)

DMVDUB said:


> :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
> 
> This is by far the DUMBEST damned thread this forum has seen in a while!
> 
> ...


Bro, posts like this are the reason I advocate keyboard breathalyzers..


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Bro, posts like this are the reason I advocate keyboard breathalyzers..


So I can blow pharmaceuticals into it? :laugh:

I don't get drunk...often.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

seriously though lets stay on subject.


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Bro, posts like this are the reason I advocate keyboard breathalyzers..


:thumbup:

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

taverncustoms said:


> seriously though lets stay on subject.


Is that the everyone hates me suit?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

warranty225cpe said:


> Is that the everyone hates me suit?


lol its a fire suit. ya know for all the flaming. just a joke to lighten the mood.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

taverncustoms said:


> lol its a fire suit. ya know for all the flaming. just a joke to lighten the mood.


:facepalm:

THIS is why we hate you :banghead:

He knows what it is. Eric is most definitely much smarter than you and has more experience in probably everything as well.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Sep 17, 2013)

This thread is like herpes. He gift that keeps on giving..


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

taverncustoms said:


> .....
> Then I had a fairly good knowledge of how the original PCV system worked in the 1.8t and had the idea of replacing the puck with a check valve to increase vacuum at idle on the PCV....


I remember that happening a little differently...



taverncustoms said:


> Yes it should work fine but is smaller then the puck so if you have a functioning puck "I haven't found one yet" the puck would flow more volume but its a sealed system so I don't think your going to see alot of flow any way. Just be sure to install the PVC the correct way as in diagram.


Telling someone the Puck would be better than a PCV valve.




taverncustoms said:


> *In therory the puck would be ideal but I haven't found one that actually works.* To test it remove it from the sys and see if you can create a vacuum on the port the attaches to the catch can. "Aka suck air trough it" if you can its bad.l


Telling someone a functioning puck is bad, because it doesn't do what he expects (Only $70 for an OEM replacement :screwy



taverncustoms said:


> OK so i looked into why the puck never works. its because its not supposed to :sly: lol seriously it has a spring that holds it open unless it see's high tip vacuum then it closes basicly its so you dont pull oil into the TIP. but in a catch can sys you dont have that worry so a PCV valve is the best option. ditch your puck go PCV


If a part does what is was designed to do, that means the part works correctly right?:facepalm:



taverncustoms said:


> from that link you posted and i quote:
> "
> It's important to note that PCV valves are sized for specific engine applications. The wrong PCV valve for an application can flow too much or too little air causing driveability problems. Varnish deposits can clog the valve, so replacement for preventative maintenance is recommended (every 50,000 miles usually).
> 
> ...



PCV valve only source of vacuum restriction OEM, no driveability issues.

Vacuum booster was added to supply vacuum to the PCV valve under boost instead of forcing the PCV valve shut. Not as a restriction in vacuum. If a restriction was needed, they would have simply changed the size of the PCV valve. Unless of course you honest think a global manufacturer would alter a design to include additional parts instead of altering an existing part in the system to do the same job.













LEBGTIMK4 said:


> Tavern Buddy,
> 
> This is i m willing to do my PCV system, i think it has the same concept as your and OEM, and in this way you will have vacuum source from IM on Idle...
> 
> ...


This set up, with a VW / Audi OEM or similarly sized (read SAME size) PCV valve before the catch can.
Your PCV will never see boost, so it will never close.
Under boost, your TIP will supply vacuum to the crank case
Under vacuum your IM will supply vacuum to the crank case
The PCV valve, which is used to control the amount of vacuum on the crank case from the factory, will continue to do so.


Tavern is right in that the typical set up removes the vacuum source when not under boost.
His solution to that problem, is where we disagree.


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

I just want to toss in that there are two similar prv valves out there

06a 129 101 f (slightly larger version with a metal insert on engine side)

06a 129 101 d (slightly smaller, what was stock on my AWP)


----------



## groggory (Apr 21, 2003)

What sort of vacuum do you find in the tip aprox where the puck is under various conditions? Anyone know? All you'd need to do to find out is temporarily reroute a gauge hose there'ish


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


>


nice diagram what car/year/engine code is that? I'm thinking the PCV is different. if not cool, just not the systems I've worked with before.

I'm guessing it is one of the first 1.8t's


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> I remember that happening a little differently...


meh that's how i remember it, the puck was not giving me the vac I wanted so I went with a check valve / PCV valve that was after the system was installed, I admit I'm not an all knowing super-being and thought the puck was supposed to close at first. once I learned it was not supposed to I had the idea to use a check valve. 

the design originally only had a Puck but changed to to a check valve for better vacuum at idle.



Sycoticmynd29 said:


> Vacuum booster was added to supply vacuum to the PCV valve under boost instead of forcing the PCV valve shut. Not as a restriction in vacuum. If a restriction was needed, they would have simply changed the size of the PCV valve. Unless of course you honest think a global manufacturer would alter a design to include additional parts instead of altering an existing part in the system to do the same job.


how do you still not understand how the vacuum booster works? seriously what is the confusion?

the increase in vacuum is for the brake booster line NOT the PCV and as such acts as a restriction. it improves braking performance in the stock system.

please demonstrate your theory of operation of the vacuum pump and the PCV system. with a diagram please.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

groggory said:


> I just want to toss in that there are two similar prv valves out there
> 
> 06a 129 101 f (slightly larger version with a metal insert on engine side)
> 
> 06a 129 101 d (slightly smaller, what was stock on my AWP)


this makes sense if there are 2 different PCV systems for 1.8ts. one with and one without a vac booster.


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

taverncustoms said:


> nice diagram what car/year/engine code is that? I'm thinking the PCV is different. if not cool, just not the systems I've worked with before.
> 
> I'm guessing it is one of the first 1.8t's


AWD engine code.

Earlier yes, but still an OEM design using the PCV valve to regulate pressure.



taverncustoms said:


> ...
> 
> how do you still not understand how the vacuum booster works? seriously what is the confusion?
> 
> ...


I don't have the patience to color in an OEM diagram with the touchpad on my laptop.










Note the direction the vacuum booster is facing in the OEM system. With the low pressure side towards the brake booster, and the high pressure side from the manifold.
As far as the brake booster is concerned, there is no vacuum booster in the OEM system.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

sitting here going through the different PCV setups and its like they never got it to work, constantly different setups. routing and function. so maybe that last one was the best???? APX, BAM, BEA?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> Note the direction the vacuum booster is facing in the OEM system. With the low pressure side towards the brake booster, and the high pressure side from the manifold.
> As far as the brake booster is concerned, there is no vacuum booster in the OEM system.


if this were true it would not be a vacuum pump the venturi would not function. not to mention the valves in the pump would allow boost to bypass the venturi it would have no where to go. a venturi requires movement to fuction. do you see what I'm saying?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> AWD engine code.
> 
> Earlier yes, but still an OEM design using the PCV valve to regulate pressure.


why do you think they changed it? AWD was one of the very first to be used and like all new products there are always issues.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

This thread is a pure example of why this Forum has turned to plain SUCK.

I mean really... How to install a fücking catch can gets 15K views.... 

This is about as bad as the MK4 forum. 

Anyone want to buy my Jetta so I can swap a 2JZGTE and Manual trans into my SC430? I'm not sure I want to be associated with this place anymore :banghead:


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

taverncustoms said:


> if this were true it would not be a vacuum pump the venturi would not function. not to mention the valves in the pump would allow boost to bypass the venturi it would have no where to go. a venturi requires movement to fuction. do you see what I'm saying?


Just saying what I see in the diagram.



taverncustoms said:


> why do you think they changed it? AWD was one of the very first to be used and like all new products there are always issues.


Except I don't have any of the issues you keep saying I would have without the pump


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

DMVDUB said:


> This thread is a pure example of why this Forum has turned to plain SUCK.
> 
> I mean really... How to install a fücking catch can gets 15K views....
> 
> ...


Its better than people having high school level drama and blaming it on vendors of the forum.

Or a thread filled with nothing but "Search" and "Use the search n00b"

Still better than the "My car is doing something weird and I have done no troubleshooting myself" threads.

And honestly, more engaging than What turbo kit is some random guy on the internet installing.

Build threads are cool and all, but forced induction cars are boring. You slap a turbo on it, you make it breathe well, and you tune it. Doesnt make for much excitement,


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> Just saying what I see in the diagram.
> 
> 
> 
> Except I don't have any of the issues you keep saying I would have without the pump


Ok I understand it looks like it's backward in that diagram. But follow the vac lines, look at the vac-pump internals and we will be on the same page. Maybe you haven't had to brake multiple times at idle. give this a try with the engine at idle rapidly press and fully depress the brake pedal. Did rpm's dip? Did engine die? Did brake pedal get hard to push? These are all things that could happen. 

The brake booster has vac resivore that must deplete first. and obviously this would be with the OEM configuration with out the vac-booster.


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

DMVDUB said:


> This thread is a pure example of why this Forum has turned to plain SUCK.
> 
> I mean really... How to install a fücking catch can gets 15K views....
> 
> ...


Quit posting then:facepalm:

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Gooshpoo (May 15, 2013)

Is this right ?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Gooshpoo said:


> Is this right ?


as far as i can tell the routing is correct.


----------



## woodywoods86 (Jul 29, 2008)

taverncustoms said:


> Ok I understand it looks like it's backward in that diagram. But follow the vac lines, look at the vac-pump internals and we will be on the same page. Maybe you haven't had to brake multiple times at idle. give this a try with the engine at idle rapidly press and fully depress the brake pedal. Did rpm's dip? Did engine die? Did brake pedal get hard to push? These are all things that could happen.
> 
> The brake booster has vac resivore that must deplete first. and obviously this would be with the OEM configuration with out the vac-booster.


I have a feeling this is why my engine dips everytime I come to a stop. Just had a serious revelation, I imagine this is what Dr. House feels like when he figures out the correct diagnosis.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Sep 17, 2013)

woodywoods86 said:


> I have a feeling this is why my engine dips everytime I come to a stop. Just had a serious revelation, I imagine this is what Dr. House feels like when he figures out the correct diagnosis.


Unitronic tune?


----------



## woodywoods86 (Jul 29, 2008)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Unitronic tune?


It is a 034 tune dyno tune, but I believe they use a unitronic base tune.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Sep 17, 2013)

woodywoods86 said:


> It is a 034 tune dyno tune, but I believe they use a unitronic base tune.


Some of their tunes have been known to do that; which is why I asked.


----------



## scirockalot8v (Sep 16, 2006)

I don't know about anyone else but when I did the whole catch can thing it was to clean up and simplify everything under the hood.


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Unitronic tune?


Did it to my car when i had stage 2 uni

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Humb1e (Jan 19, 2012)

scirockalot8v said:


> I don't know about anyone else but when I did the whole catch can thing it was to clean up and simplify everything under the hood.


The greater purpose is to catch blow by, gas, oil etc. that is dumped right back into the engine with the stock pcv system.Taverncustoms catch can set up is still more simplified and cleaner than the stock pcv system.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## scirockalot8v (Sep 16, 2006)

I understand the purpose but his setup just looks like a mess under the hood.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

scirockalot8v said:


> I understand the purpose but his setup just looks like a mess under the hood.


make it your own and find a way to make it look good, thats like 99% of the fun. buying a kit just looks like every one else.


----------



## sponcar (Feb 5, 2010)

If anyone is interested on this I have one for sale, I'll do 12shipped


----------



## woodywoods86 (Jul 29, 2008)

[email protected] Performance said:


> Some of their tunes have been known to do that; which is why I asked.





Humb1e said:


> Did it to my car when i had stage 2 uni
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2


I figured I would try to eliminate any other possible factors, before going back to them.


----------



## LEBGTIMK4 (Sep 13, 2010)

For the Fun I will bring this to life again :laugh:
I was checking my oil cap yesterday when I loose it starts to shack (even better than Shakira's @$$ - LOL) so my friend got a new GTI MK7 we did the same for his oil cap but it does not move even 1mm, and if you want to remove it while the car is running you have to use a good amount of force to remove it because of the Vacuum there. 
So what did you guys reached there?


----------



## woodywoods86 (Jul 29, 2008)

I did the setup without the vacuum booster. So one line from Intake manifold to brake booster w/ a check valve, one from intake manifold to Catch can exit and PRV with check valve. Can't take the oil cap off during idle. 

Idle vacuum is 22 mmHG. Notice a little white smoke during warm up. MPG seems improved and a little extra pep.

I say try it and see what you get. Your results may vary I am running a k04-02x setup with a custom tune.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

woodywoods86 said:


> I did the setup without the vacuum booster. So one line from Intake manifold to brake booster w/ a check valve, one from intake manifold to Catch can exit and PRV with check valve. Can't take the oil cap off during idle.
> 
> Idle vacuum is 22 mmHG. Notice a little white smoke during warm up. MPG seems improved and a little extra pep.
> 
> I say try it and see what you get. Your results may vary I am running a k04-02x setup with a custom tune.


:thumbup:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

LEBGTIMK4 said:


> For the Fun I will bring this to life again :laugh:
> I was checking my oil cap yesterday when I loose it starts to shack (even better than Shakira's @$$ - LOL) so my friend got a new GTI MK7 we did the same for his oil cap but it does not move even 1mm, and if you want to remove it while the car is running you have to use a good amount of force to remove it because of the Vacuum there.
> So what did you guys reached there?


Yep the modern engines have they type of PVC routing. that's why no oil cap bounce.


----------



## cjones50 (Mar 8, 2013)

just my .02 from an Volkswagen engineer I spoke with at a dealer/tech show (not open to the public). I got a chance to actually bring up this issue and he told me that on a 1.8t if you have suction on your oil filler cap you have problems. can lead to premature seal failure, low oil pressure, premature oil pump failure, incorrect a/f mixture, premature cat failure, and that's about all I cared to hear. aside from the pcv, prv, and all the lingo, he told me the 1.8 was designed to circulate fresh air through the block, and a bunch of other crucial system are designed around that concept. these are not my opinions, I am not running any of your set ups, don't have any bias to any one of you. I am super interested in seeing people dispute DIRECT knowledge that vacuum on the oil cap of a 1.8 is bad and can cause some of the most feared engine problems there are. I won't be posting or replying either, lets just let people take what they think is best. I'm not going to try and explain to everyone what he told me, you guys can do that amongst yourselves. Oh and by they way, he laughed whole heartedly when I asked about vacuum on a 2.0t filler cap. basically said they are so different there isn't enough time in the show to go over how crazy it is to try and compare the two engines. "insert disclaimer that all that all I wrote came from a 3rd party engineer, basically don't shoot the messenger"

please begin..................again. this is oh so entertaining!


----------



## scirockalot8v (Sep 16, 2006)

^this was already covered in this thread.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

scirockalot8v said:


> ^this was already covered in this thread.


and that is all hearsay. its like saying an Audi Enginner told me the 1.8t runs better with olive oil in the gas. there is no supporting facts or even a legitimate source. as far as we know this guy was talking to the janitor.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

taverncustoms said:


> and that is all hearsay. its like saying an Audi Enginner told me the 1.8t runs better with olive oil in the gas. there is no supporting facts or even a legitimate source. as far as we know this guy was talking to the janitor.


POT->KETTLE-> BLACK... Your entire thread is hearsay with ZERO supporting facts and full of misinfo. This thread is a joke.:bs::wave:


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

Twopnt016v said:


> POT->KETTLE-> BLACK... Your entire thread is hearsay with ZERO supporting facts and full of misinfo. This thread is a joke.:bs::wave:


Agreed. But let him continue to think he reinvented the wheel. :facepalm: Sad this is what is considered "tech discussion" here now. Way to much crap being spit out about a very simple system that doesn't need this much attention.

If anyone wants to see how to do a catch can they can look in this http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4893472-DIY-Ultimate-SAI-N249-PCV-EVAP-Delete(much more informative) thread. Which was also made years ago!


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> Agreed. But let him continue to think he reinvented the wheel. :facepalm: Sad this is what is considered "tech discussion" here now. Way to much crap being spit out about a very simple system that doesn't need this much attention.
> 
> If anyone wants to see how to do a catch can they can look in this http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4893472-DIY-Ultimate-SAI-N249-PCV-EVAP-Delete(much more informative) thread. Which was also made years ago!


:thumbup::beer:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> POT->KETTLE-> BLACK... Your entire thread is hearsay with ZERO supporting facts and full of misinfo. This thread is a joke.:bs::wave:


I at least provided supporting information and proved that if setup with the puck its the same as oem but with a CC


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

taverncustoms said:


> I at least provided supporting information and proved that if setup with the puck its the same as oem but with a CC


You haven't proven/discovered anything ! :facepalm: Crankcase ventilation isn't new or something that requires so much attention. This reminds me of the "why you should keep your n249 thread". I understand its a tech forum but this has gotten pretty sad.
Ppl tested these different approaches many many years ago. I know. I had to research all about it. And I ended up doing the exact same routing that's in the thread I posted above, prob five years ago on my mk3 1.8t. 

So should I and the hundreds of others who already figured this out be self high fiving ourselves too.:wave:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> You haven't proven/discovered anything ! :facepalm: Crankcase ventilation isn't new or something that requires so much attention. This reminds me of the "why you should keep your n249 thread". I understand its a tech forum but this has gotten pretty sad.
> Ppl tested these different approaches many many years ago. I know. I had to research all about it. And I ended up doing the exact same routing that's in the thread I posted above, prob five years ago on my mk3 1.8t.
> 
> So should I and the hundreds of others who already figured this out be self high fiving ourselves too.:wave:


this thread is not about patting myself on the back. its a solution to a problem. the aftermarket setups do not work like OEM and this thread is how to route your CC inline with the factory design.

"IMO" A improvement is suggested to decrease crank case pressure at idle, take it or leave it.

but thanks for keeping the thread alive :thumbup: guess haters are good for something.

TTT


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

taverncustoms said:


> this thread is not about patting myself on the back. its a solution to a problem. the aftermarket setups do not work like OEM and this thread is how to route your CC inline with the factory design.
> 
> "IMO" A improvement is suggested to decrease crank case pressure at idle, take it or leave it.
> 
> ...


an 11 page thread that tells me to use oem parts that are known to fail and are usually 50% of the time the reason someone has a vac leak as part of my solution? And your "solution" still leaves you with a mess of check valves, worm clamps and connection points. Which is what most who are revamping their pcv system are looking to eliminate. 

As I said ppl have been running 1.8ts with all different kinds of setups and many with no vacuum applied to the system at all and have never had an issue. 

:wave:


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> an 11 page thread that tells me to use oem parts that are known to fail and are usually 50% of the time the reason someone has a vac leak as part of my solution? And your "solution" still leaves you with a mess of check valves, worm clamps and connection points. Which is what most who are revamping their pcv system are looking to eliminate.
> 
> As I said ppl have been running 1.8ts with all different kinds of setups and many with no vacuum applied to the system at all and have never had an issue.
> 
> :wave:


I cant be held reasonable for the reliability of OEM components.

And I'm telling you some people run 1.8t with out vacuum and have smoking issues, oil foam buildup, poor engine performance. etc.. that is who this thread is for. if your happy with a less functional PCV system because it looks good. cool have a good day.


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

taverncustoms said:


> I cant be held reasonable for the reliability of OEM components.
> 
> And I'm telling you some people run 1.8t with out vacuum and have smoking issues, oil foam buildup, poor engine performance. etc.. that is who this thread is for. if your happy with a less functional PCV system because it looks good. cool have a good day.


What makes my setup a less functional solution? It has no oem plastic eliminating that issue. Unlike yours. It reduces the amount of hoses/connections and clamps to the bare minimum. Unlike yours. And my motor is running healthy without the extra vacuum. As are many others. 

If ppl are having issues venting to atmosphere then their setup is most likely wrong (ie wrong size hose or cheap CC)


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> What makes my setup a less functional solution? It has no oem plastic eliminating that issue. Unlike yours. It reduces the amount of hoses/connections and clamps to the bare minimum. Unlike yours. And my motor is running healthy without the extra vacuum. As are many others.
> 
> If ppl are having issues venting to atmosphere then their setup is most likely wrong (ie wrong size hose or cheap CC)


Its all been gone over and over in this thread, thanks for posting. if you have any questions that have not been already answered here id be glad to help.


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

taverncustoms said:


> Its all been gone over and over in this thread, thanks for posting. if you have any questions that have not been already answered here id be glad to help.


Yea I understand that more vacuum in the crankcase can be good but how can you claim that the way I showed is inferior? Or that it doesn't produce sufficient vacuum. It's worked for everyone who's done it that I know. I don't care to hear the "some have smoking issues blah blah. If someone has issues after installing a CC as I posted it's either improper hardware or other engine issues showing themselves. 

how much HG does your setup actually produce vs oem? You know there is a such thing as too much vacuum right? Do you know what is safe for a stock motor?



I ask because the usual catch can setup has stood the test of time. And I'd hate to see someone have issues down the road with your suggested install.


----------



## RodgertheRabit II (Sep 13, 2012)

I run VTA and I see a consistent 21mmHg at idle and about 24mmHg while in gear (no throttle obviously). 

it was a rough 17-18 when I got the car before I overhauled the system.:thumbup:


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> I run VTA and I see a consistent 21mmHg at idle and about 24mmHg while in gear (no throttle obviously).
> 
> it was a rough 17-18 when I got the car before I overhauled the system.:thumbup:


I noticed the exact same thing when I did my install too. Went from oem 18hg to 21ish. However I'm routed to the TIP not VTA. 

This was on a 90k mile audi tt 225 with no visible flaws in the oem stuff when removed.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

RodgertheRabit II said:


> I run VTA and I see a consistent 21mmHg at idle and about 24mmHg while in gear (no throttle obviously).
> 
> it was a rough 17-18 when I got the car before I overhauled the system.:thumbup:


if your measuring your vacuum at the intake manifold. you have completely missed the point of this thread. the vacuum increase in on the engine block aka the the oil cap. if you oil cap bounces at idle you have a bad or inferior PCV system. 

what does it mean to have a bouncing oil cap: the oil cap will "bounce" every time a cylinder is fired, showing that your PCV is allowing excessive pressure buildup inside the crank case. and I'm not going to go in to massive detail about the negatives as it been covered. so go start you VTA and see if you cap bounces showing positive pressure in the crank case. a properly working OEM PCV system will not bounce. that is why a Vent To Atmos VTA is not as good as even the OEM system.

VTA allow the pressure a place to go but it is not as good as a system with vacuum pulling the gasses out of the crank case. i have picked up a vacuum gauge and when i find a !00% stock and functional pcv system i will take a reading for you and compare it to mine and i will also compare it to the 2.0t.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

Shut the hell up! Nobody likes you!

You're trying to reinvent the wheel, and those of us who've been around all of this longer than you know that running a proper VTA CC is perfectly fine. 

Shut UP! 

This thread is STUPID, Worthless and a complete waste of time! 

This is why I've given up on this community! There's a few people I help, but if this is a TECH article This forum might as well burn itself to the ground. 

Dude you suck, your methodology is worthless, and I've run VTA CC's on Inline 6's V6-V8's 4's etc. never an issue.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

taverncustoms said:


> if your measuring your vacuum at the intake manifold. you have completely missed the point of this thread. the vacuum increase in on the engine block aka the the oil cap. if you oil cap bounces at idle you have a bad or inferior PCV system.
> 
> what does it mean to have a bouncing oil cap: the oil cap will "bounce" every time a cylinder is fired, showing that your PCV is allowing excessive pressure buildup inside the crank case. and I'm not going to go in to massive detail about the negatives as it been covered. so go start you VTA and see if you cap bounces showing positive pressure in the crank case. a properly working OEM PCV system will not bounce. that is why a Vent To Atmos VTA is not as good as even the OEM system.
> 
> VTA allow the pressure a place to go but it is not as good as a system with vacuum pulling the gasses out of the crank case. i have picked up a vacuum gauge and when i find a !00% stock and functional pcv system i will take a reading for you and compare it to mine and i will also compare it to the 2.0t.


I'm still yet to see you measure the crankcase one single time in the thread so *you're the one completely missing the point*. You have no idea how much vac you have and too much vac can be bad and is bad PERIOD. I measure crankcases several times a day which is why this thread is such a ****ing joke. You saying other systems are inferior just shows you're lost and have no idea what you're talking about. Saying this is the "correct" way is pure bull****. YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS OTHER THAN A BOUNCING OIL CAP-->THAT IS NOT SCIENCE:bs:


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

Twopnt016v said:


> I'm still yet to see you measure the crankcase one single time in the thread so *you're the one completely missing the point*. You have no idea how much vac you have and too much vac can be bad and is bad PERIOD. I measure crankcases several times a day which is why this thread is such a ****ing joke. You saying other systems are inferior just shows your lost and have no idea what your talking about. Saying this is the "correct" way is pure bull****. YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS OTHER THAN A BOUNCING OIL CAP-->THAT IS NOT SCIENCE:bs:


Exactly what Im getting at. I don't want some poor noob seeing this and thinking this guy knows what hes talking about. 

Does he even know how much vacuum is required to properly vent a 1.8t crankcase? Or how much is too much? Or that motors that plan on running excessively high crankcase vacuum have to be built accordingly?

Im all for ppl trying new things and being innovative but this kid is clearly just spitting :bs: out as fact
And if you come in here and try to tell us all what we have been doing for years is inferior to your "new solution" with a couple miles on it you are asking for trouble.

Honestly I tried to read the thread after he gave me a tude. but I saw the video of that ugly concoction on the first page and could only make it to like page 3 before I stopped cuz the amount of misinformation was astounding.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> I'm still yet to see you measure the crankcase one single time in the thread so *you're the one completely missing the point*. You have no idea how much vac you have and too much vac can be bad and is bad PERIOD. I measure crankcases several times a day which is why this thread is such a ****ing joke. You saying other systems are inferior just shows you're lost and have no idea what you're talking about. Saying this is the "correct" way is pure bull****. YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS OTHER THAN A BOUNCING OIL CAP-->THAT IS NOT SCIENCE:bs:


lol a bouncing oil cap can be caused by only 1 thing, positive pressure in the crankcase :facepalm: it's pure ignorance to call "basic applied science" not science. 

here is some basic "facts" 
1: the OEM PCV vents the crankcase at idle well enough to prevent the oil cap from bouncing showing at least neutral crankcase pressure
2: the VTA does NOT it has positive pressure in the crank case proven by the bouncing oil cap 

that alone shows that the VTA is inferior design when compared to the OEM one.

I have a Vacuum Gauge any one want to meet up with a VTA, OEM, setup I will measure your crankcase presure.


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

I've seen several VTA setups that did not have a bouncing oil cap. 

Explain that.


----------



## Brake Weight (Jul 27, 2006)

Were they unscrewed?


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> I've seen several VTA setups that did not have a bouncing oil cap.
> 
> Explain that.


was it tight? id like to see that video. I have yet to find a single person that has a VTA with out a bouncing Oil cap when loose. and even if that magical unicorn does exist thats 1 out of all of them.

but if you can get 0 pressure in the crank case I don't see any problem with that setup. it should at least be close to oem.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Brake Weight said:


>


I think you hit the nail on the head


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

Mine doesn't bounce when loose. Your point is VOID


----------



## Brake Weight (Jul 27, 2006)

I've run mine as a VTA using 3/4" hose. But, my car doesn't run currently. I'm finishing it up after some repairs. 3/4" is as large as the outlet on the Urotuning SAI Drletr hose kit. I'm tired of dumping money into it lately and went cheap. Catch can to TIP is on the drawing board.


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

Brake Weight said:


> Were they unscrewed?


Obviously you tool.


----------



## Brake Weight (Jul 27, 2006)

This thread is so far gone it doesn't matter anymore. 1.8t vs vr6? Who cares. It's been beat to death, resurrected, beat some more, and then flamed to a pile of ashes. 

Everyone can run whatever setup they desire. If one burns up their motor 1000 miles sooner, so be it. But that could get pinned on driver skill/style.


----------



## Mr.Tan (Jun 9, 2004)

Im starting to feel like my car is burning oil now because i removed my pcv valve from below intake manifold beginning of last season and thats when it all started.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

taverncustoms said:


> lol a bouncing oil cap can be caused by only 1 thing, positive pressure in the crankcase :facepalm: it's pure ignorance to call "basic applied science" not science.
> 
> here is some basic "facts"
> 1: the OEM PCV vents the crankcase at idle well enough to prevent the oil cap from bouncing showing at least neutral crankcase pressure
> ...


Bless your heart...


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

taverncustoms said:


> and even if that magical unicorn does exist thats 1 out of all of them.


 That's the problem with you. I state the FACT that I've seen several cars without that issue and one or two that we actually checked with a gauge to make sure there was not positive pressure. And all you have is a blanket statement like this.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Brake Weight said:


> This thread is so far gone it doesn't matter anymore. 1.8t vs vr6? Who cares. It's been beat to death, resurrected, beat some more, and then flamed to a pile of ashes.
> 
> Everyone can run whatever setup they desire. If one burns up their motor 1000 miles sooner, so be it. But that could get pinned on driver skill/style.


The part you seem to be missing is that the OP is claiming his way is the "correct" way which is BS. Just like the OP claimed to be Mr. Knowitall when it came to screwy actuators on FT. Even though people where posting about problems before the OP even knew what a FT was. Its hard to take people serious who are self appointed gurus when we all know better. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck but some noobs will read this BS and think its the gospel(as pointed out be Steve:beer. I give up...never go full retard.:wave:


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

Twopnt016v said:


> The part you seem to be missing is that the OP is claiming his way is the "correct" way which is BS. Just like the OP claimed to be Mr. Knowitall when it came to screwy actuators on FT. Even though people where posting about problems before the OP even knew what a FT was. Its hard to take people serious who are self appointed gurus when we all know better. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck but some noobs will read this BS and think its the gospel(as pointed out be Steve:beer. I give up...never go full retard.:wave:


Exactly! If he made the post to simply detail his experiment with increased crankcase pressure that's cool. I'd be into that. There are benefits to increased vacuum. But it can also be bad too. Excessive ring/cylinder wear, insufficient oiling, pulling oil through the intake, ect. I think it would be a interesting topic. 

But he chose to portray it as being the "correct" way without a single shred of real info beyond the oil cap bouncing thing. No real numbers. Like what's a oem setup produce? What does his produce? How much is actually needed to properly evacuate the gasses from the motor? 

If your gona tell hundreds of us our shiz is inferior you better be bringing real facts.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

DMVDUB said:


> Mine doesn't bounce when loose. Your point is VOID


post a vid.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Mr.Tan said:


> Im starting to feel like my car is burning oil now because i removed my pcv valve from below intake manifold beginning of last season and thats when it all started.


its very possible, it might have also created leaks when there were none.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> That's the problem with you. I state the FACT that I've seen several cars without that issue and one or two that we actually checked with a gauge to make sure there was not positive pressure. And all you have is a blanket statement like this.


LOL you must have selective reading. what i really said:


taverncustoms said:


> was it tight? id like to see that video. I have yet to find a single person that has a VTA with out a bouncing Oil cap when loose. and even if that magical unicorn does exist thats 1 out of all of them.
> 
> but if you can get 0 pressure in the crank case I don't see any problem with that setup. it should at least be close to oem.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> The part you seem to be missing is that the OP is claiming his way is the "correct" way which is BS. Just like the OP claimed to be Mr. Knowitall when it came to screwy actuators on FT. Even though people where posting about problems before the OP even knew what a FT was. Its hard to take people serious who are self appointed gurus when we all know better. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck but some noobs will read this BS and think its the gospel(as pointed out be Steve:beer. I give up...never go full retard.:wave:


what you don't seem to understand is by correct I'm referring to same as OEM. as the CORRECT way to do it is the OEM way. handicapping the system just for looks is a poor way to do it. this way you get OEM function with a CC.

and its funny you bring up the FT thread because if you actually followed it you would find I was proven correct. and if people had listened to me in the first place, that thread would have been only a few pages long with a lot less flaming. and what's even funnier is the final conclusion was wrong in the end. but the people on here don't care to listen to me so I'll just let them be wrong. I gave them every thing they need to discover the fault. the actuator is good but that's not the problem.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> Exactly! If he made the post to simply detail his experiment with increased crankcase pressure that's cool. I'd be into that. There are benefits to increased vacuum. But it can also be bad too. Excessive ring/cylinder wear, insufficient oiling, pulling oil through the intake, ect. I think it would be a interesting topic.
> 
> But he chose to portray it as being the "correct" way without a single shred of real info beyond the oil cap bouncing thing. No real numbers. Like what's a oem setup produce? What does his produce? How much is actually needed to properly evacuate the gasses from the motor?
> 
> If your gona tell hundreds of us our shiz is inferior you better be bringing real facts.


if you read the thread you would know the correct way does not increase to crank case pressure over OEM. that would be my "improved design" take it or leave it. but you should at least be setup like OEM.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

This is directly from the very first post. and is mentioned at least 5 times after.


taverncustoms said:


> the puck: IMO a PCV valve works better. But if you want OEM crank case vacuum just leave the puck in the original position. It will still be better then current catch can setups.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

taverncustoms said:


> what you don't seem to understand is by correct I'm referring to same as OEM. as the CORRECT way to do it is the OEM way. handicapping the system just for looks is a poor way to do it. this way you get OEM function with a CC.
> 
> and its funny you bring up the FT thread because if you actually followed it you would find I was proven correct. and if people had listened to me in the first place, that thread would have been only a few pages long with a lot less flaming. and what's even funnier is the final conclusion was wrong in the end. but the people on here don't care to listen to me so I'll just let them be wrong. I gave them every thing they need to discover the fault. the actuator is good but that's not the problem.


You were right about nothing in relation to the weak faulty actuators. Give it up....:thumbdown:


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

taverncustoms said:


> if you read the thread you would know the correct way does not increase to crank case pressure over OEM. That would be my "improved design" take it or leave it. but you should at least be setup like OEM.


What are you babbling about. A catch can will increase crankcase pressure. One way or the other. As you should know vacuum is considered negative pressure anyway. So don't try to twist my bad wording around on me kid. You know what I meant.:facepalm: Or maybe you don't and that goes to show your ignorance here.

You are making all these claims about your setup but still haven't given a single real number to back it up. Every claim you have about your setup is backed up by "my oil cap doesn't bounce" Meanwhile tons of us have actually taken that pressure gauge you have in a box still and used it to make sure we are maintaining good vacuum. Which gives us actual numbers to work with.


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

taverncustoms said:


> LOL you must have selective reading. what i really said:


nope you just posted the whole thing but its still clear that your claim is there is no one with a VTA setup that doesn't have a "bouncing cap" aka positive pressure to you.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> What are you babbling about. A catch can will increase crankcase pressure. One way or the other. As you should know vacuum is considered negative pressure anyway. So don't try to twist my bad wording around on me kid. You know what I meant.:facepalm: Or maybe you don't and that goes to show your ignorance here.
> 
> You are making all these claims about your setup but still haven't given a single real number to back it up. Every claim you have about your setup is backed up by "my oil cap doesn't bounce" Meanwhile tons of us have actually taken that pressure gauge you have in a box still and used it to make sure we are maintaining good vacuum. Which gives us actual numbers to work with.


FYI "vacuum" is actually reduced pressure as you can not go negative in pressure. the term Vacuum is use to describe the pressure difference.

And the inherent added pressure cause by adding a CC is all the more reason to hook it up my way.

clearly you selectively missed the part that said if your cap is not bouncing you should be fine. again that selective reading of your is why you don't seem to comprehend this thread.

And yes to this day I have yet to see a VTA not bounce the cap. false claims don't count post a vid or quit trooling.

and what is the point of posting my vacuum reading on my car? we need a comparison first. so again if any one wants to swing buy ill take a measurement.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> You were right about nothing in relation to the weak faulty actuators. Give it up....:thumbdown:


the actuators were Proven to not be week or faulty, are you so ignorant you don't believe information that is actually proven? if so you should just stay off the tech forum.


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

taverncustoms said:


> FYI "vacuum" is actually reduced pressure as you can not go negative in pressure. the term Vacuum is use to describe the pressure difference.
> 
> And the inherent added pressure cause by adding a CC is all the more reason to hook it up my way.
> 
> ...


All you have are false claims n a vid of your oil cap. Why should I do any work to prove you wrong. I know my setup works cuz I actually did real tests to ensure it. And it's been functioning for years. You claim my setup is inferior. The burden of proof is on you.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> All you have are false claims n a vid of your oil cap. Why should I do any work to prove you wrong. I know my setup works cuz I actually did real tests to ensure it. And it's been functioning for years. You claim my setup is inferior. The burden of proof is on you.


pleese tell me what test you have done on your VTA lol.


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

I don't vent to atmosphere. Never said I did. I'm routed to the TIP. 

What kinda test do you think. An actual vac test of the crankcase. Like we have been asking from you.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> I don't vent to atmosphere. Never said I did. I'm routed to the TIP.
> 
> What kinda test do you think. An actual vac test of the crankcase. Like we have been asking from you.


post your results then. ill post mine


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

taverncustoms said:


> the actuators were Proven to not be week or faulty, are you so ignorant you don't believe information that is actually proven? if so you should just stay off the tech forum.


 You have no idea what you're talking about. You should take your own advise and stay off this forum. No one likes you and your info is bunk:wave:


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

Post my results. Why? Im not wasting my time retesting and documenting it for you. I could care less about convincing you. I'm more concerned for the ppl who will actually believe your bs.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> I don't vent to atmosphere. Never said I did. I'm routed to the TIP.
> 
> What kinda test do you think. An actual vac test of the crankcase. Like we have been asking from you.


He's a clown, don't worry about him and his reindeer games. His response was "post your results then. ill post mine". He should have already had results posted but he isn't concerned with actual facts in this thread but he keeps claiming we can't compute his data.:thumbdown:


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

Twopnt016v said:


> You have no idea what you're talking about. You should take your own advise and stay off this forum. No one likes you and your info is bunk:wave:


Second that. It's like the old days of 50 trim s. Not like this kid was around back then to know.


----------



## schwartzmagic (Apr 29, 2007)

this guy went full retard.....











Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

taverncustoms said:


> FYI "vacuum" is actually reduced pressure as you can not go negative in pressure. the term Vacuum is use to describe the pressure difference.
> 
> And the inherent added pressure cause by adding a CC is all the more reason to hook it up my way.
> 
> ...


And sorry there is such a thing as negative pressure. Hence the rooms in hospitals that have vacuum removing germs/pathogens/air. What do they call em? Oh yea negative pressure rooms.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> And sorry there is such a thing as negative pressure. Hence the rooms in hospitals that have vacuum removing germs/pathogens/air. What do they call em? Oh yea negative pressure rooms.


LOL ok its clear its impossible to have a intelligent conversation with you. and you actually have no idea or are just trying to flame. when you graduate high school come back and we can have a discussion.


----------



## [email protected] Performance (Jul 20, 2011)

opcorn:

This is great


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

[email protected] Performance said:


> opcorn:
> 
> This is great


lol I'm glad it at least entertaining. TTT


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> He's a clown, don't worry about him and his reindeer games. His response was "post your results then. ill post mine". He should have already had results posted but he isn't concerned with actual facts in this thread but he keeps claiming we can't compute his data.:thumbdown:


Your an idiot or a troll, and its hard to believe someone can be that dumb.

and no measurements of my system would be pointless, with out a OEM system to compare


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> Post my results. Why? Im not wasting my time retesting and documenting it for you. I could care less about convincing you. I'm more concerned for the ppl who will actually believe your bs.


lol the only BS here is yours.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

this is getting old.

In this thread. is the information to correctly install the CC. 

I don't have to defend my self, or my design, the prof is there, go loosen you oil cap, make the call your self. idiots and flamers should get no time, I've got better things to do.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

taverncustoms said:


> Your an idiot or a troll, and its hard to believe someone can be that dumb.
> 
> and no measurements of my system would be pointless, with out a OEM system to compare


:facepalm:Wow you really are simple minded and slower than molasses.


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

I just shoved my entire head in my urethra to me eyeballs then stretched my sack over the rest of my head and stapled it to my skull so I'll never have a chance of seeing another stupid Tavencustom post:banghead:


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

So it's clear you don't even know 
A. How much vac a oem system makes. 
B. how much yours makes. 
C. If your setup causes windage issues/oil starvation or excessive oil consumption associated with too much vac in the crankcase. 

But you still wana claim your way is better. Who's the real troll here.


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

taverncustoms said:


> LOL ok its clear its impossible to have a intelligent conversation with you. and you actually have no idea or are just trying to flame. when you graduate high school come back and we can have a discussion.


High school! Says the kid who just joined up here and has already made a great name for himself among the community. I've been workin on vws/audis for over 15 years junior. 

You know what forget it. I tried to show you how you could make this a good tech discussion by actually showing some numbers to ppl which is what real proof is! You choose to be a asshat. Plz refrain from posting stupid threads in the future. I'm out!


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> So it's clear you don't even know
> A. How much vac a oem system makes.
> B. how much yours makes.
> C. If your setup causes windage issues/oil starvation or excessive oil consumption associated with too much vac in the crankcase.
> ...


A. NOPE need a proper OEM setup to test. 
B. same as OEM what ever that is 
C. it will not. its the same pressure as oem. :facepalm:

your whole argument is that this does not have oem pressure when I have given diagrams proving the same routing as OEM with OEM parts. this is why you look like an idiot

the increased vac with the PCV in the puck location is not what I claim to be the correct method. just improved in my opinion. take it or leave it

trolls:facepalm:


----------



## Mr.Tan (Jun 9, 2004)

Dont suppose anyone here has an image of the factory AWD pcv setup? Im trying to reinstall mine to see if it helps with the oil burning at idle and i cant remember how it goes.


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

Mr.Tan said:


> Dont suppose anyone here has an image of the factory AWD pcv setup? Im trying to reinstall mine to see if it helps with the oil burning at idle and i cant remember how it goes.


Check out the DIY sai/n249/evap delete thread. Lots if good info and diagrams of the AWP and AWD engines. Just to let you know though if you have oil burning issues that aren't directly due to a bad PCV setup then you would just be band aiding the real problem. Don't let this kids thread convince you that your setup is incorrect. Post up in that other thread and give us details of your setup.


----------



## Mr.Tan (Jun 9, 2004)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> Check out the DIY sai/n249/evap delete thread. Lots if good info and diagrams of the AWP and AWD engines. Just to let you know though if you have oil burning issues that aren't directly due to a bad PCV setup then you would just be band aiding the real problem. Don't let this kids thread convince you that your setup is incorrect. Post up in that other thread and give us details of your setup.


I eventualy found my way into that thread shortly after posting in here. The oil burning issue only really started AFTER i removed my PCV system, it was fine up until i pulled it all out. Its just setup to VTA with no vacuum at all like it had with the stock pcv valve installed down by the crank case breather, etc...I dont know if the AWD engine is different, but i feel like its my problem.


i


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

Mr.Tan said:


> I eventualy found my way into that thread shortly after posting in here. The oil burning issue only really started AFTER i removed my PCV system, it was fine up until i pulled it all out. Its just setup to VTA with no vacuum at all like it had with the stock pcv valve installed down by the crank case breather, etc...I dont know if the AWD engine is different, but i feel like its my problem.
> 
> 
> i


Its common to have smoking issues after deleting the PCV system that's why this thread was created. best of luck, let us know how it turns out.


----------



## nilreb (Mar 17, 2012)

black lavender said:


> So my set-up is wrong?


isn't this backwards? 

i have the outlet going to the hockey puck and the inlet from the valve cover.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

bump for good info


----------



## oamad (Sep 30, 2016)

taverncustoms I like your setup.

Please explain how you are able to achieve vacuum on the valve cover to provide suction on the oil cap.

In my case the valve cover cannot be pressurized or hold vacuum due to air leaks through crankcase, oil dipstick, etc. My valve cover gasket has good seal with no leaks.

I don't quite understand how you can prevent the oil cap from dancing.

What is special about your valve cover/engine setup?

thanks!


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

oamad said:


> taverncustoms I like your setup.
> 
> Please explain how you are able to achieve vacuum on the valve cover to provide suction on the oil cap.
> 
> ...


It uses manifold vacuum to clear the crankcase all the way until the manifold has more pressure then the turbo intake pipe then by check valves it switches the vacuum source from the manifold to the "TIP" thus always providing an adiquite source of vacuum to keep the crank case below atmospheric pressure, this reduces oil foaming, ring contamination, oil leaks, valve stem blow by, and improves throttle response. If properly setup.


----------



## URIN 2ND (Oct 29, 2001)

The best way is to remove as much of the emissions garbage as (legally) possible. Engines ran reliably with filters straight off the damn valve cover for decades before you were born. The only reason we have crank case sludge routing back into our intakes is because of the EPA.

My 'hockey puck' in the TIP is deleted. My air pump is deleted.

My PCV hose at the front of the block, and my valve cover port, both lead to a vented catch can. The engine couldn't possibly run any better. Vacuum is great. No foul odors in the cabin. THIS is the way it SHOULD be done, if at all possible.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 16, 2020)

*Back from the dead and request...*

So I'm not sure if people have figured out the photobucket fiasco but its been driving me mad. if anyone has these diagrams it would be great to see them. 

I'm currently running a catch can setup and have been planning on doing this for awhile but cannot figure out the diagrams when they are so blurry. I have my block and crank case vent'd into catch can and then into TIP. Also running a line from the catch can to a check valve into a vacuum pump then into brake booster line. still getting bouncy oil cap syndrome. 

hope people are still alive here!


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 6, 2020)

*pcv*

hi taverncustoms, 

can you please check my diagram of catch can please? i have nightmares from pcv in my car. i have audi s3 so there is particularly line to brake booster, oem pcv has one line from intake a other line from tip. thank you very much for your time



edit: i can post image after 5 posts  so i have crankcase and rocker cover going together to catch can then tip - puck - catch can and intake - pcv valve - catch can


----------



## Kunschner (Feb 26, 2021)

taverncustoms said:


> It uses manifold vacuum to clear the crankcase all the way until the manifold has more pressure then the turbo intake pipe then by check valves it switches the vacuum source from the manifold to the "TIP" thus always providing an adiquite source of vacuum to keep the crank case below atmospheric pressure, this reduces oil foaming, ring contamination, oil leaks, valve stem blow by, and improves throttle response. If properly setup.


How is it different from factory?





Vacuum lines and check valves explained


I have noticed that lately there have been numerous threads concerning the mess of vacuum hoses and check valves present on the 1.8T motor. A particularly good thread worth reading is this one (Clicky click ). I am glad to see that many are taking the approach of maintaining the systems rather...



www.audizine.com


----------



## topemu (Mar 6, 2017)

I just did this setup. And it is amazing. I had a full delete with catchcan. It was horrid. Car smoked huge clouds at idle. Oil cao test it almost flew off. 
Now the oil cao test is actually hard to pull the thing off. And no more smoke.

I was about to try replacing valve stem seals but now yay!


----------



## oamad (Sep 30, 2016)

taverncustoms said:


> It uses manifold vacuum to clear the crankcase all the way until the manifold has more pressure then the turbo intake pipe then by check valves it switches the vacuum source from the manifold to the "TIP" thus always providing an adiquite source of vacuum to keep the crank case below atmospheric pressure, this reduces oil foaming, ring contamination, oil leaks, valve stem blow by, and improves throttle response. If properly setup.


How do you get vacuum on oil cap if valve cover doesn't hold any vacuum?

I can't seem to make setup work.


----------



## topemu (Mar 6, 2017)

oamad said:


> How do you get vacuum on oil cap if valve cover doesn't hold any vacuum?
> 
> I can't seem to make setup work.


Maybe the vacuum booster piece is broken in your car?


----------



## Dismal (Jan 13, 2006)

topemu said:


> I just did this setup. And it is amazing. I had a full delete with catchcan. It was horrid. Car smoked huge clouds at idle. Oil cao test it almost flew off.
> Now the oil cao test is actually hard to pull the thing off. And no more smoke.
> 
> I was about to try replacing valve stem seals but now yay!


What can did you have / what parts did you install?


----------

