# Get your crankcase vent knowledge game up...



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Here is a good article on crankcase vent systems that was posted in the 1.8t section I think you tech guys might enjoy reading. It thoroughly covers the crankcase ventilation system and how catch cans should be properly used. Worth a look for just about anyone modding their cars. Originally posted by Doug from frankenturbo via Spartiati.:beer: 

http://www.shophemi.com/images/media/p-2273-arrington_ccv_bible.pdf


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Thanks for posting! :beer:


----------



## 96AAAjetta (Jul 7, 2008)

Found my evening reading. Thanks, great post.:beer:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

I thought you guys might appreciate it..:thumbup::beer:


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

Yep saw that. Was going to post up a link on the 1.8T forum...but then thought why bother? The regular morons will just start yapping about how their VTA setups are the way they roll in Florida  

A properly operating PCV system is always beneficial on a DD.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Chickenman35 said:


> Yep saw that. Was going to post up a link on the 1.8T forum...but then thought why bother? The regular morons will just start yapping about how their VTA setups are the way they roll in Florida


 Lol! I totally feel you on that, I totally stop posting altogether in that "technical" forum. This place, that once held semi technical discussions, has literally turned into a "I think he mad yo" circus that's just an extension of the MK4 forum. Nothing can actually get too technical without the resident clowns barging in, to somehow prove that Darwin's theory also works backward. And on top of that the "Mods" encourage it by doing absolutely nothing, look at how Doug's FrankenTurbo thread blackhole situation was handled: The people who vocalized that loosing such a technical thread was unacceptable were actually attacked by VMG (the local mod, who I thought was one of the people and would standup, was misteriously radio silent :facepalm. I am done contributing to that zoo although I will miss a few knowledgable cool dudes (most of them check in here every now and then and know how/where to find me anyway).


----------



## chaldowhiteboy (Jun 14, 2010)

I have been looking for something like this, thank you!


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Chickenman35 said:


> Yep saw that. Was going to post up a link on the 1.8T forum...but then thought why bother? The regular morons will just start yapping about how their VTA setups are the way they roll in Florida
> 
> A properly operating PCV system is always beneficial on a DD.





Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Lol! I totally feel you on that, I totally stop posting altogether in that "technical" forum. This place, that once held semi technical discussions, has literally turned into a "I think he mad yo" circus that's just an extension of the MK4 forum. Nothing can actually get too technical without the resident clowns barging in, to somehow prove that Darwin's theory also works backward. And on top of that the "Mods" encourage it by doing absolutely nothing, look at how Doug's FrankenTurbo thread blackhole situation was handled: The people who vocalized that loosing such a technical thread was unacceptable were actually attacked by VMG (the local mod, who I thought was one of the people and would standup, was misteriously radio silent :facepalm. I am done contributing to that zoo although I will miss a few knowledgable cool dudes (most of them check in here every now and then and know how/where to find me anyway).


 My sentiments exactly....:thumbup:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

I also think I will set-up a few test in the next couple of days and report back. I test a lot of CCV systems at work as a way of diagnosing rough/poor running vehicles, misfires and oil leaks. I also deal with direct injected vehicles that have CCV/oil separator problems that lead to oil being in the intake tract and then getting burned onto the hot intake valves. In that particular case the ccv and cyclone separators are located in the valve cover. If the system has/is failing the valve cover must be replaced($1000 just for the VC) and then I blast the intake valves clean with a walnut shell medium. In order to properly test the crankcase pressures and back up my diagnoses I use a slack tube manometer that measures pressure/vacuum in inches of water(WC). You basically drill a hole in a oil filler cap and install a fitting, then attach a hose to the fitting and the slack tube and take a reading. I will make up one for a 1.8t and test a few cars just for fun and knowledge. I don't think VW offers up any spec to go off of but I have 3 1.8t cars in my driveway I can test. One is completely stock with 200k, the other has some broken pcv parts so its sorta VTA and then there is my daily. It has a 42dd catch can installed in the ventilation line with all other hoses and routings as VW designed it. 
It would just be interesting to see if there are any differences in the three set-ups. Plus it would be nice to know what the numbers look like on a vw compared to a lot of the NA and boosted applications I deal with on a regular basis...:beer:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Thanks for posting! :beer:


 Notice on page 6 where he says VE can be greater than 100%?


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Awesome reading :thumbup:


----------



## hunTTsvegas (Aug 27, 2012)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Lol! I totally feel you on that, I totally stop posting altogether in that "technical" forum. This place, that once held semi technical discussions, has literally turned into a "I think he mad yo" circus that's just an extension of the MK4 forum. Nothing can actually get too technical without the resident clowns barging in, to somehow prove that Darwin's theory also works backward. And on top of that the "Mods" encourage it by doing absolutely nothing, *look at how Doug's FrankenTurbo thread blackhole situation was handled: The people who vocalized that loosing such a technical thread was unacceptable were actually attacked by VMG *(the local mod, who I thought was one of the people and would standup, was misteriously radio silent :facepalm. I am done contributing to that zoo although I will miss a few knowledgable cool dudes (most of them check in here every now and then and know how/where to find me anyway).


 Did they ever get that straightened out? I was in the middle of reading that thread and the next day when I went to resume, it was gone. I sent Doug a message to let him know it was nowhere to be found. There was a lot of good material in that. It's also probably the direction I'm going to eventually take (F23 that is).


----------



## Krissrock (Sep 10, 2005)

where's the "like" button? 

good stuff. I'm running two cans with no PCV, so this article has given me confirmation of a job well done. 

gonna check their site out


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

hunTTsvegas said:


> Did they ever get that straightened out?


 The original thread is linked on the first page of the new one. For some reason, they can't simply plant it back into the 1.8t tech forum, but it's still on vortex. After a fashion, anyway.


----------



## rockersteady (Apr 25, 2011)

Twopnt016v said:


> I use a slack tube manometer that measures pressure/vacuum in inches of water(WC). You basically drill a hole in a oil filler cap and install a fitting, then attach a hose to the fitting and the slack tube and take a reading. I will make up one for a 1.8t and test a few cars *just for fun* and knowledge. I don't think VW offers up any spec to go off of but I have 3 1.8t cars in my driveway I can test.


 I want to see this test done under boost! that's my style of testing, If I was over there I could drive while you hold the tube up. :laugh:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

rockersteady said:


> I want to see this test done under boost!


 You just have to extend the gauge to be visible on the cowl so you can see it while driving. I've done this with fuel pressure to test pumps before. :thumbup:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

So to anyone who has read this, who else has wondered where our makeup line is on a 1.8T?


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

20v master said:


> So to anyone who has read this, who else has wondered where our makeup line is on a 1.8T?


So we're all in agreement there is no fresh air port on a 1.8T 06A block?


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

I am also wondering the same thing. I think there isn't a "make up" air line on a 1.8t. The guy also points out how the vent line can shut down for business under hard acceleration and I think that is false on a 1.8t. The PCV valve is located in the lower pcv hose in the T section. That means that air can always pass the pcv valve and head towards the vac source..ie the TIP so that vent line is never shut down like on other cars. It seems that the only purpose of the pcv valve and the small line that goes from it to the intake manifold is to vent excess pressure directly to the manifold? The other interesting point is where he talks about removing the pcv on high boost applications so a failing pcv valve wont let positive pressure go back into the crank case. I understand that and I'm thinking of removing the pcv valve and small hose and cap off both ends and see if I notice any negative side effects. If that small pcv line plays an important role in the helping evacuate pressure then that will be lost by removing. The line is pretty small so it can't be moving that much air but it may be important for venting pressure back up/overflow for lack of a better term. Any thoughts anyone?


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Twopnt016v said:


> I am also wondering the same thing. I think there isn't a "make up" air line on a 1.8t. The guy also points out how the vent line can shut down for business under hard acceleration and I think that is false on a 1.8t. The PCV valve is located in the lower pcv hose in the T section. That means that air can always pass the pcv valve and head towards the vac source..ie the TIP so that vent line is never shut down like on other cars. It seems that the only purpose of the pcv valve and the small line that goes from it to the intake manifold is to vent excess pressure directly to the manifold? The other interesting point is where he talks about removing the pcv on high boost applications so a failing pcv valve wont let positive pressure go back into the crank case. I understand that and I'm thinking of removing the pcv valve and small hose and cap off both ends and see if I notice any negative side effects. If that small pcv line plays an important role in the helping evacuate pressure then that will be lost by removing. The line is pretty small so it can't be moving that much air but it may be important for venting pressure back up/overflow for lack of a better term. Any thoughts anyone?


You're on the right track. Most of his generalizations are based on NA engines. The point of the valve there is to vent all the flow to the intake mani at vacuum, rather than taking the longer route through the TIP/IC plumbing. We could remove the PCV and delete that line, since the TIP is always under vacuum. To do this without filling your IC plumbing with oil, you need a good functioning catch can. :thumbup: I've never been a fan of venting to atmosphere myself, but have done it on a few occasions just because of simplicity, however it was always for short periods of time until I could fab/purchase a solution.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

20v master said:


> You're on the right track. Most of his generalizations are based on NA engines. The point of the valve there is to vent all the flow to the intake mani at vacuum, rather than taking the longer route through the TIP/IC plumbing. We could remove the PCV and delete that line, since the TIP is always under vacuum. To do this without filling your IC plumbing with oil, you need a good functioning catch can. :thumbup: I've never been a fan of venting to atmosphere myself, but have done it on a few occasions just because of simplicity, however it was always for short periods of time until I could fab/purchase a solution.


Yeah I don't like VTA either. I currently have a 42dd ultimate catch can mounted on the firewall in between the upper Y hose and the TIP. I basically kept all the stock line configuration, I just upgraded all the lines to the eurojet hoses. I think it looks a little more stock and cleaner than a bunch of bulk hose in the engine bay. The only down side to those silicone hoses is that they sweat oil out over time so you have to wipe the hoses clean every now and then but they will outlast the stock hoses. The 42dd catch can has really served me well and I would highly recommend it to anyone in the market for a catch can. :thumbup:


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

I'm just reading through the CCV pdf now - *thanks for posting!*

I have the 42DD stealth can but I removed it and have been VTA because the CC fills up ridiculously fast… so it's either draining to the ground or backing up into the system 

Someone had suggested mounting the CC by the turbo so the fluid doesn't freeze (gets a little chilly this time of year up north) and also evaporates back into the TIP - worth a try.

Anyone else have issues with their CC filling up?


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

If your can fills up excessively fast, the can is working as intended and you have lots of blowby. Have you done a compression or leak down test?


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

20v master said:


> If your can fills up excessively fast, the can is working as intended and you have lots of blowby. Have you done a compression or leak down test?


I haven't bought a compression tester yet but that's in the works as I am concerned about the volume of blow by. I'll post up when I get some numbers :beer:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

All_Euro said:


> I haven't bought a compression tester yet but that's in the works as I am concerned about the volume of blow by. I'll post up when I get some numbers :beer:


Autozone and advance auto parts have a tool loaner program that is free. They loan you tools, you give them $25-$50(depending on the tool) and when you bring the tool back they give you all the money back. If you don't return it they keep your money. You could call them in a pinch and see if they have a compression tester.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> So to anyone who has read this, who else has wondered where our makeup line is on a 1.8T?





20v master said:


> So we're all in agreement there is no fresh air port on a 1.8T 06A block?


Never really bothered to read the whole thing until your specific question (just scammed through right to the schematics ). 

We do not have a conventional 2 way system with a dedicated fresh air port, but fresh air is still provided to the crankcase in a recirculating fashion in the OEM system (split port to the manifold and two vacuum feed from the TIP). 

As far as the text itself, I feel that the crankcase pressure data is a bit generalized and perhaps exaggerated? Is it just me or not every turbo/supercharged cars with the same displacement will generate the same amount of blow-by (a factor of the specific engine dynamics, bore, stroke, and tolerances ); and on the flip side not build the same amount of pressure in the case (factor of the effectiveness of the specific ventilation system)??? In any case, it's a good document with data and solid explanations, but geared towards making aftermarket catch cans the only viable route. 

When you really think about it, the authors big attack against OEM PCV system (besides the true fact that they maybe prone to failure like ours) is that they are restrictive due to their hose sizes (3/8" or less at some points) and secondly that they might not be efficient at removing oil particles that gets recirculated. However, the pressure that he says the case could potentially build (even in extreme cases) is something that a 3/8" hose is more than capable of evacuating with ease (try leaving a 3/8" hole in a charge system that generates way more pressure than a crankcase ever could and see how hard it is to build pressure. To his merit, the oil particle removal capability of most OEM setups (especially ours) are subpar. That's why my modifications for this is a heavy duty metal WRX PCV valve rated at over a 100 psi, and addition of an inline air particle filter (also rated at high psi and fine filtration in microns). IMO, this is all that is needed to have good ventilation and more than triple the OEM filtration (something that some catch can setup struggle to achieve). I'm not knocking catch can setups are they could also be well build and installed and perform flawlessly). However, we've seen horror stories as well (anyone remember Ricks ordeal with a catch system that was ballooning on the dyno and blowing his dipstick left and right) - I also see catch setups that are too open and moves way too much (getting filled in a matter of weeks and needing constant draining). 

So in conclusion, you could definitely be too restricted and not allowing enough ventilation, but too free flowing can be an issue too if you're moving a sizable percentage of your oil volume between oil changes. The solution to me is better filtering and more heavy duty PCV valves (regardless of if the Stock system is used or a catch can setup is in place. Anyone agrees because I could possibly come up with some data on pressure seen in my crankcase? opcorn:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> but fresh air is still provided to the crankcase in a recirculating fashion in the OEM system (split port to the manifold and two vacuum feed from the TIP).


Are you talking about the small line that runs from the TIP to the sucking jet pump under the intake manifold? Can you elaborate on what you mean by the split port to manifold? Thanks... Also that pcv valve sounds nice, I'm going to have to look into that.

edit....is this said pcv valve?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Twopnt016v said:


> Are you talking about the small line that runs from the TIP to the sucking jet pump under the intake manifold? Can you elaborate on what you mean by the split port to manifold? Thanks... Also that pcv valve sounds nice, I'm going to have to look into that.
> 
> edit....is this said pcv valve?


I think you got the right one, I used a female barb fitting of the appropriate VAG nipple size on the threaded end of the metal valve. Works like a charm and leaky and failing OEM PCV valves are now a distant memory!

See here for the WRX metal PCVs with part numbers (info on the air particle filter as well for those interested)
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...tion-catch-can&highlight=Let's+talk+crankcase

(I'll get back to you with the OEM design functionality when I put my hand on proper detailed diagrams/pictures to explain it) :beer:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I think you got the right one, I used a female barb fitting of the appropriate VAG nipple size on the threaded end of the metal valve. Works like a charm and leaky and failing OEM PCV valves are now a distant memory!
> 
> See here for the WRX metal PCVs with part numbers (info on the air particle filter as well for those interested)
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...tion-catch-can&highlight=Let's+talk+crankcase
> ...


I didn't see the part number in the thread you posted but I checked and it seems that all WRXs take the same PCV valve so i went ahead and ordered one so it should be getting delivered first thing in the morning.:thumbup:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Twopnt016v said:


> I didn't see the part number in the thread you posted but I checked and it seems that all WRXs take the same PCV valve so i went ahead and ordered one so it should be getting delivered first thing in the morning.:thumbup:


Yep you're fine! Below is the Fram part number on the box and the other type like the one you ordered.




















As far as placement of the catch can, I personally think it's better with our crankcase ventilation system to have the can post-hockey puck (which is nothing but a pressure regulator valve that regulated bypass or recirculation depending on positive or negative pressure). I don't think it is ideal to place anything inline before the regulator possibly affecting how it does its job (maybe it's the perfectionist in me). I wanted to let the regulator operate, then catch everything else before venting back to the TIP. However, in your configuration (catching before the the regulator) you are allowing cleaner fresh air back to motor and there could be some merit to it. I just think in terms of performance and made the choice to catch post-regulator, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with both approaches. 

The following schematic (not mine) illustrates how our 1.8t system functions and you can see how you may choose to catch post-regulator. It also answers and clarifies your previous question on my "split port" wording (main on the PCV 'T' hose, and secondary on the "suction jet pump" line.) :beer:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Sorry I thought the Fram valve was just some valve you picked up for your brake booster lines. Is the silver valve in the first picture you posted the wrx valve? I see its attached to the breather elbow but it looks small on both ends as opposed to the one side larger and threaded. Thanks for posting the PCV diagram, I had been looking for something like that. Looking at the diagram and pulling my PRV off my car and inspecting it it seems that it wouldn't really matter if you run the can before or after. I am surprised that when the the system is trying to evacuate positive pressure that the PRV closes and air is forced thru a small orifice hole inside the PRV. I did see where it says if it is over come by pressure the diaphragm will be forced off it seat to help evacuate. One thing that bothers me about your set-up(or the guys pictured at the end of your thread) is how it gets bottle necked down in various locations to a pretty small hose size. I have always read that's a no go. In my mind if the PRV is more or less regulated by the vac source coming from the TIP I would want less obstruction in that line vs the inlet line(in regards to mounting the can). That said I agree that both approaches will work but I like you am always after the performance based approach hence why I am asking all the question ..lol:beer:


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Also what is your take on completely removing the pcv valve Max? The pcv valve is allowing air to go from the crankcase directly to the intake mani and bypass the catch can. Obviously the pcv valve is allowing there to be a vac source closer to the crank case would be assisting it evacuating it. That may be more beneficial and worth getting a little oil in the intake?....


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Oil in the intake decreases effective octane. Max will not approve. :laugh: Removing the valve alone will cause you to blow boost into your crankcase/back to TIP. Both are bad things. Removing the line will make the TIP the only source of vacuum, something I think is not a bad thing.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

I have had my can for four years and have never had the hockeypuck in the setup, it is a simple double-feed can which receives blowby from both the crankcase and valve cover, and it has a large single return to the TIP. I drain approx every two oil changes and it will almost fill a water bottle, every time (moisture, sludge, oil, etc). I've never had issues with the system, and got rid of the intake manifold connection as well.

What I have a hard time understanding is how the puck is needed, as far as I can reason the TIP is _always _under vacuum, if the engine is running then it is pulling in air, either a little while idling or a lot while under boost. If the TIP ever saw positive pressure than sure, it needs a regulator to prevent everything in the can from being blown back into the engine, but that's not possible.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

20v master said:


> Oil in the intake decreases effective octane. Max will not approve. :laugh: Removing the valve alone will cause you to blow boost into your crankcase/back to TIP. Both are bad things. Removing the line will make the TIP the only source of vacuum, something I think is not a bad thing.


The plan would be to remove the valve and the line:thumbup:
Thats why I'm curious because with Max's set-up he is seeing oil in the intake coming from the small line off the pcv...


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

l88m22vette said:


> What I have a hard time understanding is how the puck is needed, as far as I can reason the TIP is _always _under vacuum, if the engine is running then it is pulling in air, either a little while idling or a lot while under boost. If the TIP ever saw positive pressure than sure, it needs a regulator to prevent everything in the can from being blown back into the engine, but that's not possible.


It's possible at idle when the crankcase could have more vacuum than the inlet. It's not always positive vs negative, it can be negative vs greater negative and positive vs greater positive. That situation obviously isn't a majority of the time and is a very small percentage of total operation conditions, but it can happen.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

l88m22vette said:


> I have had my can for four years and have never had the hockeypuck in the setup, it is a simple double-feed can which receives blowby from both the crankcase and valve cover, and it has a large single return to the TIP. I drain approx every two oil changes and it will almost fill a water bottle, every time (moisture, sludge, oil, etc). I've never had issues with the system, and got rid of the intake manifold connection as well.
> 
> What I have a hard time understanding is how the puck is needed, as far as I can reason the TIP is _always _under vacuum, if the engine is running then it is pulling in air, either a little while idling or a lot while under boost. If the TIP ever saw positive pressure than sure, it needs a regulator to prevent everything in the can from being blown back into the engine, but that's not possible.


The puck would regulate the amount of crankcase air allowed to enter the TIP under hard acceleration. Also looking at the diagram Max posted it appears at idle that the engine is under more vac than the tip. When that happens the engine is drawing air into the crankcase via the TIP which would mean it would be trying to reverse flow back thru the catch can and into the engine. It seems like that is going to happen no matter if the puck is on place or not...


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Thanks Adam, I didn't know that, I guess I was looking at it too simply. You've got me thinking, a simple inline spring valve would work just as well as the puck and not need the 90* angle. Too bad all the 1" valves I've found are flapper valves...


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

So the WRX valve showed up at the shop and I have to give it a bad review.
At first I blew thru it and it was completely sealed I thought this way better than the factory valve. I made the piece to adapt it to the pcv line and then I decide to check the valve with compressed air and it leaks a *little* about 75% of the time. But it leaks a *significant* amount of air about half the time I pressurize it. It will even leak when I blow thru it with my mouth. I didn't pull the factory unit off and test it to see how it compares. I know the factory valve will never seal 100% off the time and this one will but its few and far between. I'm gonna return this valve and possible get a different one and test it. It just makes me think that all pcv valves are cheap and going to fail at some point. I think this may be a sign to just remove the pcv and the line from my set-up...


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Twopnt016v said:


> One thing that bothers me about your set-up(or the guys pictured at the end of your thread) is how it gets bottle necked down in various locations to a pretty small hose size. I have always read that's a no go. In my mind if the PRV is more or less regulated by the vac source coming from the TIP I would want less obstruction in that line vs the inlet line(in regards to mounting the can). That said I agree that both approaches will work but I like you am always after the performance based approach hence why I am asking all the question ..lol:beer:


counterintuitive but vacuum in the TIP isn't as strong as you'd ideally want (especially the closer you get to the filter, or farther from the compressor inlet). A large hose post regulator, gives better flow but lower pressure. A smaller line isn't necessarily a bad thing after the regulator valve, but we're splitting hair here!


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Twopnt016v said:


> Also what is your take on completely removing the pcv valve Max? The pcv valve is allowing air to go from the crankcase directly to the intake mani and bypass the catch can. Obviously the pcv valve is allowing there to be a vac source closer to the crank case would be assisting it evacuating it. That may be more beneficial and worth getting a little oil in the intake?....


No go! As I think Adam mentioned, you'll be pressurizing the case from the manifold positive pressure!



20v master said:


> Oil in the intake decreases effective octane. Max will not approve. :laugh: Removing the valve alone will cause you to blow boost into your crankcase/back to TIP. Both are bad things. Removing the line will make the TIP the only source of vacuum, something I think is not a bad thing.


I still think some oil in intake track will have a negligible effect on effective octane. If oil makes it past the tubo heat it gets collected in intercooler and might never see the combustion chamber. (I admit though, I'm starting to agree that 100+ VE might be achievable in Extreme force induction) 




l88m22vette said:


> I have had my can for four years and have never had the hockeypuck in the setup, it is a simple double-feed can which receives blowby from both the crankcase and valve cover, and it has a large single return to the TIP. I drain approx every two oil changes and it will almost fill a water bottle, every time (moisture, sludge, oil, etc). I've never had issues with the system, and got rid of the intake manifold connection as well.
> 
> What I have a hard time understanding is how the puck is needed, as far as I can reason the TIP is _always _under vacuum, if the engine is running then it is pulling in air, either a little while idling or a lot while under boost. If the TIP ever saw positive pressure than sure, it needs a regulator to prevent everything in the can from being blown back into the engine, but that's not possible.


Eric, I'm almost pretty sure that your lack of a pressure regulator is the reason you have so much water in your oil. I meant to mention it, but that was when I was getting banned left and right. You possibly have made your pan hygroscopic, maybe Adam can chim in on that! But I'm positive, you shouldn't have that much water content!


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

l88m22vette said:


> Thanks Adam, I didn't know that, I guess I was looking at it too simply. You've got me thinking, a simple inline spring valve would work just as well as the puck and not need the 90* angle. Too bad all the 1" valves I've found are flapper valves...


Thes are not simple systems, I would be careful and think any modification thoroughly! I see people also completely discarding the "suction jet pump" valve sometimes when doing catch cans. They are not even realizing the implications to the cranckase ventilation and more importantly the brake assist. :beer:

*Cut away*


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Twopnt016v said:


> So the WRX valve showed up at the shop and I have to give it a bad review.
> At first I blew thru it and it was completely sealed I thought this way better than the factory valve. I made the piece to adapt it to the pcv line and then I decide to check the valve with compressed air and it leaks a *little* about 75% of the time. But it leaks a *significant* amount of air about half the time I pressurize it. It will even leak when I blow thru it with my mouth. I didn't pull the factory unit off and test it to see how it compares. I know the factory valve will never seal 100% off the time and this one will but its few and far between. I'm gonna return this valve and possible get a different one and test it. It just makes me think that all pcv valves are cheap and going to fail at some point. I think this may be a sign to just remove the pcv and the line from my set-up...


Interesting, what brand was it? I would return it and look for the Fram units! I can't confirm quality on the silver colored ones, the picture of the silver one I posted was borrowed from one of the QW guy that also did the upgrade. I guess they're not all created equal, the Fram one I got was/is bullet proof.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Interesting, what brand was it? I would return it and look for the Fram units! I can't confirm quality on the silver colored ones, the picture of the silver one I posted was borrowed from one of the QW guy that also did the upgrade. I guess they're not all created equal, the Fram one I got was/is bullet proof.


It was genuine OE. It was silver and really nice looking, it just didn't behave properly. When I was speaking about removing the pcv I was talking about the valve and the line so there would be no manifold pressure going into the crankcase.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

I didn't realize the moisture was so bad an indicator...so a puck in the TIP hose is needed, would plugging the TIP for now be a good idea to go vented until I get the setup revised? I've been meaning to give it a good once-over anyway, is the vented can bad aside from the obvious emissions? Still, tons of guys ditch the SJP, and I never noticed a difference in braking...


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

l88m22vette said:


> I didn't realize the moisture was so bad an indicator...so a puck in the TIP hose is needed, would plugging the TIP for now be a good idea to go vented until I get the setup revised? I've been meaning to give it a good once-over anyway, is the vented can bad aside from the obvious emissions? Still, tons of guys ditch the SJP, and I never noticed a difference in braking...


Eric, I would leave it connected to the TIP and not vent to the atmosphere until you revise the system.

The guys ditching the SJP without properly replacing its function are clueless! It is there (in the brake booster line, to provide a backup vacuum source for when your engine is in boost (positive pressure). When you're boosting, there is no assist to your brakes, if you're ever pushing the car and modulating the throttle on/off fast enough and try to brake, you get a wooden pedal and no assist. This can be dangerous if you're not expecting it or it's an emergency braking. The proper safe solution is:

a) retain the SJP (although they're prone to frequent failures)

b) seperate the the two systems (brake assist and crankcase ventilation). 

This is what I did to properly eliminate the SJP - I ran a dedicated line from the TIP and "T" it into to manifold-to-booster line. This replaces the SJP function to the brake assist and provide a much stronger unrestricted vacuum source for when you're in positive pressure. This line requires a dedicated check valve before the "T" for extra peace of mind. This method effectively seperates the two systems, provides good vacuum assist to the brake booster when you're in boost, and eliminates the need for the OEM SJP that fails constantly.:beer:

*If you look at this cutaway, you'll see why simply deleting the SCJ is a risky business for the braking system. Even with it installed, I used to totally loose vacuum assist at the track because of constant throttle modulation and some left foot braking. Be wise, be safe!*


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Well that's easy, get a press-thru nipple, T, and a check valve (between the TIP and vac hose, right?) Which direction is stop? So this T and a PCV valve, and I'm good to go?


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

Another option to the unreliable SJP is to duplicate the 1997 -1999 Audi A4 AEB PCV systems. These do not use a SJP at all, instead using simple 1 way check valves. The Audi AEB PCV system seems to be much simpler in design than the later versions( with SJP ) and also much more effective and reliable.

Sludge problems are less on AEB Longitudinal motors and very little accumulation of oil in Intercooler.

My 1998 A4 AEB has 225,000 km. So far I've only had to replace the PCV valve as a maintained item( Old one was still free and clear ), the broken plastic pipe that goes onto the block breather and the short hose that goes to the Hockey Puck ( split on underside ). Other than that the PCV system is perfect. No sludge buildup in engine and no clogging or carbon buildup evident in any PCV hoses.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

l88m22vette said:


> Well that's easy, get a press-thru nipple, T, and a check valve (between the TIP and vac hose, right?) Which direction is stop? So this T and a PCV valve, and I'm good to go?


Yep! Vaccum line from TIP to brake booster line (use a "T" to connect this line to the normal booster line from manifold to booster). Use a check valve in the original booster line before the "T" fitting to stop flow when the manifold is seeing boost (the easiest thing to do is to place your inline check valve right next to plenum nipple, and the T upstream).


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

20v master said:


> If your can fills up excessively fast, the can is working as intended and you have lots of blowby. Have you done a compression or leak down test?


Just bought a compression tester finally (been meaning to for a while) and gave it a whirl…



Cyl #1 - 145 psi
Cyl #2 - 150 psi
Cyl #3 - 150 psi
Cyl #4 - 150 psi


The evenness is great but pressures seem kind of low. New compression spec is 145 - 203 psi… so within new limitations and a far cry from the 102 psi wear limit, or 44 psi max difference, but still doesn't seem fantastic.

I'm thinking the original cylinder pressures might have been a lot closer to the 200 psi mark and have since worn down to 150… allowing w/m to blow by the rings and fill the CC.

I suppose a leak-down test would tell the full story but I'm not in the position to do that at the moment.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

All_Euro said:


> Just bought a compression tester finally (been meaning to for a while) and gave it a whirl…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your compression is not bad (especially when it's across the board). Do you have a regulator in the system? If not, it's a normal amount of oil that you're just ventilating unrestricted.


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Your compression is not bad (especially when it's across the board). Do you have a regulator in the system? If not, it's a normal amount of oil that you're just ventilating unrestricted.


When I originally did the EVAP/SAI delete I was just using a CC before the "hockey puck" but the CC was literally overflowing with water vapour that had a bit of oil and gas in it. This mixture also started to freeze when winter came so everything is out and I'm VTA through a couple small filters.

I did keep the OEM valves and have since picked up a billet ball & spring valve from 034. Someone had suggested mounting the CC near the turbo so the heat would evaporate the excess moisture… seems like a good idea.

I've been meaning to rework the crankcase venting system for a while so in light of this thread, the compression test & sudden above freezing temps outside here - time to get at it!


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

so after reading all that this is what i came up with.

the check valves only allow "Vacuum" if the manifold becomes "+psi" that valve closes if it is "-psi" it "pulls" the check valve on the TIP Closed. the adjustable valve to so you don't allow to much air into the manifold causing a run issue. this also keeps the brake booster separate.


----------



## taverncustoms (Feb 18, 2011)

what do you guys thin about the adjustable valve? would it be needed? i cant imagine that much blow by that it would cause the car to run lean or throw off the idle... hmmmm.


----------

