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



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Bypassing PCV to exhaust DIY (Now updated with vacuum measurements)*

This is a pcv bypass description using an exhaust "slashcut" system. Crankcase gases are routed to the exhaust instead of into the intake to prevent deposit buildup (such as those seen on on this 2.0 FSI engine with 22k miles and stock pcv system):
*EDIT: I Have found the best vacuum pull comes from plugging the front PCV port and running the hose out the back of the valve cover, and not using any check valves. This seems to give the best unimpeded flow. So some of the steps below would no longer be applicable under the setup of plugging the front pcv and running out the back of the valve cover. Also, the amount of vacuum has not been measured on a chipped car so it is possible that a chipped car may pull more vacuum. * 









The gases are evacuated under vacuum created by the exhaust passing by the nipple as shown in this Moroso diagram:








*Materials needed:*
A. Moroso check valve Part No 97800 *Update: I am currently running mine without this check valve and it is working great. Testing shows 0-3" Hg vacuum with 5" max for very brief periods. See videos towards the end of this thread. I have not tested the vacuum while the check valve is in place so nothing to compare the "no-check valve" numbers to yet.*








B. Moroso exhaust nipple Part No 97810 (you could easily make your own but not worth the trouble for the cost IMO)
















C. 7-8 feet of 5/8” high temp heater hose and two hose clamps
D. One ¾” freeze plug for intake pcv
E. One ¾” freeze plug for pcv line on rear of valve cover
F. One 1” freeze plug and one hose clamp to seal off rear pcv line to turbo
*edit: this plug is not needed, see step 6 under "method" below. The hose clamp is still needed though.*
*Cost:*
Moroso check valve $20
Moroso nipple $10
Hose $80
Exhaust shop to install nipple $50
Hose clamps and plugs $15
$175 total
*Method:*
1. Weld in nipple into exhaust pipe post-cat and post-sensor, screw on check valve to nipple. Orient nipple at 45 degrees according to instructions located here http://www.moroso.com/catalog/...t.pdf or Click on "instructions 25900" on the bottom of this page http://www.moroso.com/catalog/...13023 I had an exhaust shop do mine. That is not a garden hose, before you ask ha ha, it's a silicon heater hose.








2. Remove engine cover and remove front “accordion” line from pcv to intake
3. Insert ¾” freeze plug into intake and tighten but don’t tighten too much. Or use some other plug method.








4. Remove hose clamp for rear pcv line where rubber hose connects to back of intake manifold and pull hose away from valve cover. Note metal line bends easily making hose removal easier.
5. Plug valve cover outlet at rear pcv line with another ¾” freeze plug or some other plug method. Don’t over tighten








6. Plug metal rear pcv line by inserting 1” freeze plug into the rubber hose and then hold in place with a hose clamp (probably better methods for this but this works fine and is fast). Or use some other plug method.
*edit: this step is not needed. Simply put rubber hose back onto valve cover outlet and secure with a hose clamp. Install right over the freeze plug, as if the plug wasn't there.*








7. Run a heat resistant heater hose from pcv on front of valve cover to the check valve on the exhaust. I ran mine around the engine and down by the exhaust and then back. Pretty easy to do. Very accessible. Secure with metal ties ideally or zip ties so hose doesn’t flop around. Secure both ends with hose clamps.








8. Replace engine cover.
*Objective:*
Eliminate source of valve deposits while maintaining a maintenance free, simple system with adequate crankcase evacuation. VW themselves, in the patent for this engine, say that eliminating the PCV would solve the deposit problems but they can’t due to emissions:
"Gasoline engines with direct injection of the fuel into the combustion chamber, i.e., not into the intake port, suffer especially from the problem of the formation of carbon deposits on components.
...the successful ignition of the stratified charge depends to a great extent on the correct development of the internal cylinder flow, which ensures reliable transport of the injected fuel to the spark plug to guarantee reliable ignition at the spark plug. However, a coating of carbon deposits in the neck region of the intake valve may interfere so strongly with the tumble flow that ignition failures may occur there as a result.
...Furthermore, the coating of carbon deposits in the neck region of the intake valve causes flow resistance, which can lead to significant performance losses due to insufficient cylinder filling, especially in the upper load and speed range of the internal combustion engine. In addition, the carbon deposits in the neck region of the intake valve may prevent correct valve closing, which leads to compression losses and thus sporadic ignition failures.
...These deposits on the valve stem can result in flow deficits due to undesired swirling and turbulent flow around the globular carbon deposits. This may persistently interfere with the formation of stable tumble flow from cycle to cycle."
*"A possible solution would be to keep these sources of deposits away, for example, from the intake valve, by completely eliminating exhaust gas recirculation and the introduction of blowby gases into the intake port.* However with the combustion behavior of modern reciprocating internal combustion engines, at least external exhaust gas recirculation and the introduction of blowby gases into the intake port are absolutely necessary for reasons of emission control and fuel consumption, so that this approach is not possible. "
- Thanks to Rl_RS4 for finding this patent info. Check out his thread listed at bottom of this post for more info.
* Possible other effects:*
a. May possibly extend oil life but this is not really expected. i will monitor this anyway
* Edit: I have done several UOAs and no noticeable benefit to oil life has been observed*
b. May possibly reduce fuel dilution of oil but this is not expected. i will monitor this
* Edit: I have done several UOAs and no noticeable benefit to oil life has been observed*
c. May possibly improve horsepower due to better ring sealing under crankcase vacuum but this is not expected.
d. May possibly make car run smoother as deposits to valves and related side effects such as those discussed in the patent are reduced (f.e. injector fouling, incomplete combustion due to restricted air flow). I do expect this system to provide a smoother running and cleaner engine in the long term compared to stock.
* Edit: Have definitely noticed this. No stumbling starts and very smooth idle for approx. 14k miles and seafoam treatments are no longer needed.*
e. Increased mpg? Not expected 
* Edit: Have noticed a slight bump, but not a big deal.*
*Method of evaluation:* 
Only good way is to visually inspect valves. I am not going to do that but I am going to monitor the oil condition via TAN and TBN sampling.
*Benefits/features of this method:*
1. Eliminates PCV gases return to intake thereby eliminating largest source of deposits to intake valves, fuel injectors, etc.
2. Routes crankcase gases to exhaust post-cat and post sensor
3. No need to empty a catch can
4. No chance of freezing up, unlike catch can
5. Crankcase gases are removed under vacuum unlike catch can
6. Less chance of pressure drop as could occur with a catch can
*Cheaper version (downtube):*
If a person believes that vacuum is not needed to evacuate crankcase gases (such as anyone who wants to run a "race" catch can that vents to the atmosphere), you could eliminate all the expensive parts and just block off front pcv at intake, rear pcv line, and then simply run a hose underneath the car with no catch can. This would cost roughly $10 for the plugs, $15 for hose and clamp? for a total of around $25. the only thing you wouldn’t get is vacuum pull of crankcase gases. One BITOG member did this on his audi RS4 http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...07413 and really likes it and UOAs look great. He reports no oil spots on driveway etc. from tube. I chose to have vacuum assist. Also, to keep dust, etc. out of the down tube you could add a breather filter on the end of the tube.
*Some more reading FYI:*
http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=1199935
http://www.honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=697498
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...art=1
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...96487
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...14263
Of course all the usual caveats apply. This is for a race-only application, do at your own risk, modifying your car may void your warranty, etc.


_Modified by saaber2 at 8:02 AM 2-1-2010_


----------



## dubsker (Jan 8, 2006)

*FV-QR*

im guessing that the exhaust gases create a venturi effect and there is a vacuum present at that point?


----------



## SpecialFX (Aug 20, 2006)

*FV-QR*

I haven't made up my mind on what I think of the idea yet, but I give you a big







for a very informative post with good technical information!


----------



## rhouse181 (Apr 13, 2008)

glad to see you finally received your parts... did you tap into the exhaust pre or post cat?
keep us updated on how the car idles and performs under boost. i guess we will never really know how well it works though. its hard to measure the benefits of this type of thing...


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (rhouse181)*

Yeah, visual inspection is the only way really. But there is no way that crankcase gasses can get to the intake now and they are being pulled out under vacuum. Same effect as race catch can without some of the drawbacks.
I would like to test acid buildup in oil of this vacuum assist method vs. just running a tube below the car. Maybe I will disconnect exhaust connection on next oil change to test that (see if TAN level changes).
Installation is post-cat.
Dubsker, yes the nipple has bernoulli effect from exhaust gases.


_Modified by saaber2 at 10:43 AM 6-14-2009_


----------



## A3_yuppie (Jun 5, 2006)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*

Which patent are you getting the quoted passages from?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (A3_yuppie)*


_Quote, originally posted by *A3_yuppie* »_Which patent are you getting the quoted passages from?

http://www.google.com/patents?...A1,M1
This was found by RL_RS4


----------



## Rub-ISH (Aug 8, 2006)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_
http://www.google.com/patents?...A1,M1
This was found by RL_RS4

Wow that is a very interesting read if you can get through it


----------



## dubsker (Jan 8, 2006)

*FV-QR*

i would say get a bsh stage 1 plate and send everything through the back, that will clean up the hoses.


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

OP, excellent job.


----------



## b0mb3r (Nov 9, 2006)

*Re: (CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi)*

this is great!http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
what emission implications does this carry? will I no longer be able to pass emissions with this?


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

*FV-QR*

bravo!


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (b0mb3r)*


_Quote, originally posted by *b0mb3r* »_what emission implications does this carry? will I no longer be able to pass emissions with this? 

A safe way to deal with emissions would be to temporarily return it to stock. Remove long heater hose, replace original accordion tube on front pcv, reconnect rear pcv line. This should only take 20-30 min.
You can drive with no hose attached to the nipple/check valve in the exhaust. The check valve in the exhaust keeps any noise or exhaust from leaking out (I drove the car this way after exhaust shop installed nipple/valve).


----------



## b0mb3r (Nov 9, 2006)

*Re: (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_
A safe way to deal with emissions would be to temporarily return it to stock. Remove long heater hose, replace original accordion tube on front pcv, reconnect rear pcv line. This should only take 20-30 min.
You can drive with no hose attached to the nipple/check valve in the exhaust. The check valve in the exhaust keeps any noise or exhaust from leaking out (I drove the car this way after exhaust shop installed nipple/valve).

I understand that, but is the problem with the emissions is because you are venting exhaust gasses without passing through the cat?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 10, 2001)

*Re: (b0mb3r)*

Nvm. Good post 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by [email protected] at 10:20 AM 5-13-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (b0mb3r)*


_Quote, originally posted by *b0mb3r* »_I understand that, but is the problem with the emissions is because you are venting exhaust gasses without passing through the cat?

Not if you put it back to stock for the test. But if you are trying to pass emissions as is, yep that would be the problem and would fail visual inspection.


_Modified by saaber2 at 4:09 PM 5-13-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (dubsker)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dubsker* »_i would say get a bsh stage 1 plate and send everything through the back, that will clean up the hoses.

Good idea. I like the BSH and FFE caps for the intake etc. also because they look much cleaner than the freeze plugs.


_Modified by saaber2 at 8:30 AM 5-13-2009_


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

*Re: FV-QR (saaber2)*

Is there an advantage to using a catch can with this and just using the drain on the catch can to feed into the exhaust?


----------



## rhouse181 (Apr 13, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (loudgli)*


_Quote, originally posted by *loudgli* »_Is there an advantage to using a catch can with this and just using the drain on the catch can to feed into the exhaust?

the venturi effect from the exhaust is not being used as a disposal place for the stuff that would normally be caught in the catch can, even though it does perform that task as an added benefit. running the intake out to the exhaust is what creates that vacuum conditions necessary to remove the blowby vapors under non-boost conditions...
with say a BSH catch can, the vacuum effect is created by running the hose from the outlet on the can back into the crankcase...
if you opened up the drain plug to the exhaust while having the vaccum line attached to the crankcase, i don't know what results you would get. i would assume the vaccum in the crankcase is greater than the venturi effect off the exhaust, so you might end up sucking exhaust gas into your crankcase.


_Modified by rhouse181 at 11:01 AM 5-13-2009_


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

*Re: FV-QR (rhouse181)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rhouse181* »_
the venturi effect from the exhaust is not being used as a disposal place for the stuff that would normally be caught in the catch can, even though it does perform that task as an added benefit. running the intake out to the exhaust is what creates that vacuum conditions necessary to remove the blowby vapors under non-boost conditions...
with say a BSH catch can, the vacuum effect is created by running the hose from the outlet on the can back into the crankcase...

Makes sense now. So is one setup more efficient than the other (exluding emissions)? Say the OP setup vs. a ProVent catch can rerouted to the crankcase?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (dubsker)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dubsker* »_i would say get a bsh stage 1 plate and send everything through the back, that will clean up the hoses.

Yep, I considered doing this as well, using the single port out the back to connect to a tap in my DP. Only concern would be how much vacuum this method will pull through the PCV tract (easily verifiable via a vacuum gauge). 
Dave


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (rhouse181)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rhouse181* »_keep us updated on how the car idles and performs under boost. 

There is no noticeable change at idle. At WOT it seems to pull harder but I don't put much weight in butt dyno. I used my iphone gtech (dynolicious) which is not scientific of course and the best 0-60 time I could do before was 6.9 sec. All stock car, dsg, not using launch control. Today the best I could do was 6.55 and lots of 6.7's. No other variables such as weight, oil, weather changed so it appears it made a small but noticeable difference in HP (but driver variablility makes this not a very good test of course). 
The only way to tell for real is to use a real dyno. I just wanted to see if my butt dyno was lying to me. Also I did this mod to tackle the problem of valve deposits not hp. So if there is any gain in hp (and I'm not saying there is a gain, but my impression is that there is a small gain) that is a bonus. I know drag cars and race cars use this method to improve hp. My understanding is that the vacuum helps the rings seal better but I don't know much about that part of it.


----------



## Macs S3 (Oct 11, 2008)

I would like to thank saaber 2 for sharing his experience.
I have a couple of questions regarding this solution:
A)	By routing the oil gasses in the exhaust, wont you risk the carbon buildup in the exhaust?
B)	I have a BSH catch can but I have not installed it yet, I am thinking of using the BSH plate to route the oil gasses under the car (venting to the atmosphere) since I think that the pressure in the crankcase is enough to blow out the gasses. Will I need to put a one way valve on the hose in order to prevent things to be “sucked back” or there is absolutely no way that a suction can be created in the crankcase? 
C)	What I intend to do is basically to install the BSH catch can system as it is intended by BSH but instead of using the catch can I would route the hose under the car. Obviously I will need to plug one of the two holes in the BSH plate. Will I need to do anything to the back pcv since BSH system does not mention it?

Thanks to everyone who will answer this.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Macs S3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Macs S3A* »_ By routing the oil gasses in the exhaust, wont you risk the carbon buildup in the exhaust?

Exhaust already receives tons of carbon, etc. (f.e. look at black exhaust tips). Crankcase gases go through muffler only as it comes in post cat.

_Quote, originally posted by *Macs S3A* »_B)Will I need to put a one way valve on the hose in order to prevent things to be “sucked back” 

If you use a valve, I would suggest one with a low cracking pressure, not one like the one posted above which needs suction to work. Keep in mind that the key to atmospheric systems, as I understand it, is for the system to "breathe" or vent well. Any impedance to flow such as a check valve or catch can will cause a pressure drop. Some cans or valves would cause higher drops than others and others may be so low as to be almost insignificant I would hazard to guess but i'm no expert. 
Maybe google "pressure drop" along with "catch cans" or "crankcase evacuation" or "pcv" as I remember some discussion on the pressure drop but I don't have the links. Too much of a pressure drop could cause overpressure in crankcase causing oil to come out dipstick tube etc.

_Quote, originally posted by *Macs S3A* »_...or there is absolutely no way that a suction can be created in the crankcase? 

Can't say absolutely no way as it is an open exchange to the air from the crankcase (with no check valve I mean). Check Honda link above for tidbits but no solid discussion on this that I have seen. I know the old road tubes on lazy v8's had air coming and going into crankcase but I don't know with turbo. Has anyone ever measured this?


----------



## Macs S3 (Oct 11, 2008)

*Re: (saaber2)*

Thanks again saber for your answers.
I am checking out the thread on Hondas ( http://www.tamparacing.com/for....html )
Do you have any advice regarding the rear pcv given that with the BSH solution it is not mentioned?


----------



## b6turbopassat (Aug 14, 2008)

what about where the rear pcv bolted to the turbo is it still bolted there or is that taken off?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Macs S3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Macs S3* »_I am checking out the thread on Hondas ( http://www.tamparacing.com/for....html )
Do you have any advice regarding the rear pcv given that with the BSH solution it is not mentioned?


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










_Modified by saaber2 at 3:30 PM 5-17-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (b6turbopassat)*


_Quote, originally posted by *b6turbopassat* »_what about where the rear pcv bolted to the turbo is it still bolted there or is that taken off?

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


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*

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


_Modified by saaber2 at 8:50 PM 5-17-2009_


----------



## B3sat16v (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*

VERY NICE! I might have to look into this!


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (B3sat16v)*

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


----------



## blackvento36 (Mar 17, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (B3sat16v)*

What if you were to make a blockoff plate for the front PCV (like the BSH, but no hose fittings), and just connect the tubing to the rear PCV?


----------



## B3sat16v (Jan 23, 2002)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (blackvento36)*


_Quote, originally posted by *blackvento36* »_What if you were to make a blockoff plate for the front PCV (like the BSH, but no hose fittings), and just connect the tubing to the rear PCV?

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


----------



## blackvento36 (Mar 17, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (B3sat16v)*

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


_Modified by blackvento36 at 7:59 AM 5-19-2009_


----------



## blackvento36 (Mar 17, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (B3sat16v)*

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


----------



## rippie74 (Sep 26, 2007)

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


----------



## gearshifter6 (Mar 18, 2007)

Just sent these questions as a pm to saaber2, but would appreciate it if you guys could chime in as well:

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


----------



## Nickwayne (Oct 15, 2007)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (blackvento36)*

This is something I am really looking into, awesome write up and great info http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (gearshifter6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gearshifter6* »_
1.) I noticed you spent $80 on your heater hose. When I was shopping, I saw them for around $20. Are there a difference in the quality of hoses? Do you have a link to where you got yours? 

It is a high temp silicone heater hose but it is very possible I overpaid for it as it seemed high but I was in a hurry and didn't want to shop around. It wasn't the standard heater hose. I got mine from thrifty auto parts which was just bought out by carquest. I assume it was from old thrifty stock.

_Quote, originally posted by *gearshifter6* »_2. Do you think the Venturi effect is strong enough to the point where it may possibly suck oil from the block and cause damage in the form of oil starvation under high load conditions? 

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

_Quote, originally posted by *gearshifter6* »_3. Will connecting the hose to the rear PCV port be just as effective as connecting to the front where you did yours? 

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

_Quote, originally posted by *gearshifter6* »_4. How is your car running so far? 

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


----------



## INYNN (Apr 14, 2008)

*Re: (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_









_Modified by saaber2 at 3:30 PM 5-17-2009_

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


----------



## INYNN (Apr 14, 2008)

Also, because the rear PCV is in front of the turbo... when in boost would the vaccum of the turbo sucking be enough to pull the PCV valve open and try to draw crankcase gasses out the back PCV?
I'm worried because my car is in boost alot more than its in vaccum if you know what I mean
 






and I want to be sure all the crankcase gases and other crap is leaving my motor and nothing is left to gum up my intercooler and valves with oil residue.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (INYNN)*

I'm not exactly sure I understand the Q but if you mean will it work without plugging the rear pcv line I would definitely not do that as you don't want any unmetered air coming in. The rear pcv line needs to be plugged. I hope I understood the Q.



_Modified by saaber2 at 5:43 PM 5-30-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (INYNN)*


_Quote, originally posted by *INYNN* »_ Thus giving me 100% crankcase ventilation out the front PCV and down my drain tube only using its own positive pressure and no vacuum assistance?

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


_Modified by saaber2 at 5:47 PM 5-30-2009_


----------



## INYNN (Apr 14, 2008)

*Re: (saaber2)*


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

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


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (INYNN)*

Just want to clarify. I would definitely plug the rear pcv line. There is no reason to leave it unplugged and you don't want unmetered air getting in there. 


_Modified by saaber2 at 4:50 PM 6-3-2009_


----------



## gearshifter6 (Mar 18, 2007)

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


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*Re: (saaber2)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif saaber2. There's a good chance I'm going to do this.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (gearshifter6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gearshifter6* »_High Temp Silicon Heater Hose16mm (5/8") $3.32/ft. : http://boostcontroller.com/ind...3D154


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


----------



## NJRoadfan (Sep 16, 2006)

*Re: (b0mb3r)*


_Quote, originally posted by *b0mb3r* »_
I understand that, but is the problem with the emissions is because you are venting exhaust gasses without passing through the cat?

Most states now test vehicles '96 and up by just plugging into the OBD-II port and checking if there is any codes. Very few actually test them at the exhaust anymore besides doing a visual check to see if there is a cat converter installed. If this modification doesn't throw a check engine light, you should "pass" any emissions testing without a problem


----------



## D-TechniK (Aug 25, 2002)

*Re:*

Like we say in Miami OP has big 'Cojones' http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## SuckSquishBangBlow (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: (saaber2)*

I wonder how much of a pain it would be to hook a vacuum gauge to your setup and drive around under varying circumstances, I would love to see what kind of pull you are getting. One problem I might see in the future with this solution is carbon deposits caking up on the venturi, killing the vacuum.


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: (SuckSquishBangBlow)*

I did the easy way: cap off the rear pcv, put the hose back over the plugged rear pcv, then capped the end of the intake mani with the cap from my bsh kit, then put a filter on then of the front pcv.
everything was great at first, didnt see a difference in performance at all. ( I wanted to see if my rear pcv was failing with this test) Went to the gym, then went to get some food and as I was leaving I noticed a bit of smoke from the exhaust, drove off thinking it was because of the cooler temps outside then realized I had very little boost. The car then smoked as I let it idle in my parking spot. I then put everything back to the original setup and still same results, smoking, little to no boost. could be a problem elsewhere.


----------



## acespizee (Dec 19, 2007)

*Re: (Runin2Rich4FSi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Runin2Rich4FSi* »_I did the easy way: cap off the rear pcv, put the hose back over the plugged rear pcv, then capped the end of the intake mani with the cap from my bsh kit, then put a filter on then of the front pcv.
everything was great at first, didnt see a difference in performance at all. ( I wanted to see if my rear pcv was failing with this test) Went to the gym, then went to get some food and as I was leaving I noticed a bit of smoke from the exhaust, drove off thinking it was because of the cooler temps outside then realized I had very little boost. The car then smoked as I let it idle in my parking spot. I then put everything back to the original setup and still same results, smoking, little to no boost. could be a problem elsewhere.









I use this setup and dont seem to have any probs.


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: (rippie74)*

Here is the aftermath of doing this on my car. Not saying it will happen with others but I feel that something is wrong somewhere. I must have went through a quart of oil when I drained all my turbo plumbing, DV, DV housing etc.


----------



## rhouse181 (Apr 13, 2008)

*Re: (Runin2Rich4FSi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Runin2Rich4FSi* »_Here is the aftermath of doing this on my car. Not saying it will happen with others but I feel that something is wrong somewhere. I must have went through a quart of oil when I drained all my turbo plumbing, DV, DV housing etc. 









not too concerned with the local ground/surface water i can see haha
what setup did you try that sucked all that oil into your intake path?


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

*Re: (rhouse181)*

I used the 3/4 plug at back of the VC. Then I put a cap on the intake manifold from BSH kit. I kept the stock front PCV setup with the DH check valve and put a filter on the end of that pipe.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Runin2Rich4FSi)*

Yeah, you definitely did something wrong somewhere. Maybe you had your pcv valve blocked (backwards check valve?/other?)? What is a DH check valve? Does it open without the vacuum from the intake?
I just checked my pipes coming to and from intercooler and there is zero oil there. Also, there is oil on the bypass line to exhaust (as there should be). Oil consumption has been zero in 1200 miles.



_Modified by saaber2 at 4:30 PM 6-17-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (saaber2)*

Just a followup on the Runinrich issue. I speculated on the buildup:flyingmarchmellow thread that his DigitalHippie (DH) check valve was not opening in the way he had it setup vs. before when the vacuum allowed the check valve to open. 
If the valve wasn't opening it would shut off all crankcase evacuation which would not be good and would give problems similar to what runinrich had. [email protected] also noted that the DH check valve may be unreliable on that thread. 
From that thread:
"The only thing I can think of is that the DH valve, which operated fine when there is a source of vacuum, didn't work correctly under no vacuum (for example if it's cracking pressure is too high). That would explain it (if I understand correctly how you had it set up).
Basically if the check valve didn't open it would have the same effect as blocking off both the front pcv and rear pcv line, which would cause something like you described. So you might consider leaving off any check valves when you vent it out the back."



_Modified by saaber2 at 10:09 AM 6-21-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (saaber2)*

Just an update regarding running the line to the exhaust out the back of the valve cover as some people posted about instead of from the PCV as shown in the DIY. BSH pointed out on another thread http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...age=3 that running directly to the exhaust with no vacuum control could cause too much vacuum and could cause oil starvation. 
So it is better to run from the stock pcv as shown in the DIY (don't run it out the back) because the pcv valve controls the amount of vacuum just like it does when stock. Using BSH's numbers, on the stock setup the intake pulls around 20 in hg while the exhaust nipple method pulls around 7 in hg. The stock pcv valve limits this pull to an acceptable amount. Additional non-2.0 FSI specific numbers are also on the Honda-Tech thread linked above but take some reading to find.


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*Re: (saaber2)*

Have you thought about checking to see what kind of vacuum your bypass draws Saaber2?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (VBMike P)*

I was extremely motivated to get the valve deposits stopped ASAP but now that the problem is fixed I am way, way less motivated to find the right vacuum gauge, set it up, and worst of all try to run the damned tube through the firewall to the cabin. I hate running stuff from the engine to the cabin for some reason as it always seems to take me forever (on other cars I mean). Maybe there is some slick way of doing it for the Mark V? 
I do know that it is not pulling too much vacuum because oil consumption has been normal at 4 oz. in 1700 miles which equates to about 12 oz. in 5000 miles if my math is right. Normal for my car is about 1/2 quart per 5000 miles. So PCV is controlling vacuum.
I also know that it is pulling out gases because I looked inside the hose to the exhaust and it has goo droplets in there. Also you can occasionally smell the oil at the exhaust pipe and very rarely see oily residue on the exhaust tips. 
I'm too selfish I guess ha ha. I wanted to have the deposits and related problems gone for good and I definitely want to let others know about it but not motivated enough to put a lot of time and expense into it I guess to try to "prove" anything. I hope a tuning company can do that and make an off the shelf version. If an adequate solution existed that treated the problem I would have bought that and not had to do it myself. who knows maybe I'll get a bug to do something along those lines on a weekend.,


_Modified by saaber2 at 10:08 PM 7-9-2009_


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*Re: (saaber2)*

I totally understand. I'm currently running this bypass out the back of the valve cover with a BSH stage 1 pcv plate. I first was running a BSH catch can to prevent smoke and then switched to stage 1 to test it out and cause I got a good deal on the plate alone.
I've put 1k miles on this setup so far with no noticeable oil consumption and have atleast 500 more miles before I'm back home and do any work on my car (at girlfriend's grandparents house in Ohio). 
I have a vacuum/boost gauge already but can't do anything til around the 20th when I'm back from my trip. Reading what BSH said in another thread got me wondering about how much vacuum this setup is drawing so I was curious if you have checked before I check. 
OT It turns out RLI is 45 minutes from where I am in Ohio so I paid them a visit and took a tour of the place. I bought enough oil to hold me over til when I return for Christmas.










_Modified by VBMike P at 4:28 PM 7-9-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (VBMike P)*

It sounds like u r venting to atmosphere? If so, no worries about too much vacuum because there is no source of vacuum. Only issues to consider are: 1) do you have a filter to prevent any dust/etc. form getting into the tube/valve cover? 2) do you have any blockages that would prevent it from venting well such as a check valve? This could potentially cause overpressure in crankcase if check valve impeded flow. If no check valve, no worries 3) does the lack of vacuum mean your oil is degrading faster due to inadequate evacuation?
My guess is you probably have the first 2 covered and the third one no one really knows. You bought yourself some darned good insurance though with the RLI oil IMO.


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*Re: (saaber2)*

No the pcv is rerouted to the exhaust out of the back valve cover port and the stock pcv is replaced with the bsh stage 1 pcv plate.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (VBMike P)*

Righto, It's probably fine because you aren't using any oil and they were talking about being concerned with 7 in Hg pulled via exhaust at full throttle for the drag cars and having to refill each run (in other words it was pulling lots of oil vs. yours is using none). They said 1 to 3 in Hg is what the catch cans routed to the turbo run. Since your setup doesn't have the vacuum control from the PCV, it might be nice to check the vacuum.
Someone recommended this blood pressure vacuum gauge as a cheap and very sensitive way to measure vacuum. http://www.amazon.com/Labtron-...r=8-2
That gauge measures in mm HG so would have to times by 0.039374 to convert to inches. It maxes out at 300 mm Hg which is about 11 inches Hg (check my math ha ha). Could do a temporary setup by placing tee in the line and running a small hose to this gauge or similar gauge.
I just checked the Honda tech article and for the Honda Turbo he was seeing a max of 2.2 in Hg with the exhaust slashcut. I believe this was with one exhaust nipple. He added a second nipple for more vacuum but he was looking for power gains while we are looking for a depository for pcv goop and enough vacuum for adequate crankcase evacuation.
Who knows, after you hook up the gauge you may discover that you never reach max levels of any concern and it is better to run it that way. It would good info to know what the max is though for a setup that doesn't use the pcv I think.
Edit: Oops, just re-read your post and see that you already have the gauge. Very interested to see what the readings will be. It is more simple to have no pcv and of course less restriction to flow. The gauge readings should tell use how important the pcv vacuum control component is.



_Modified by saaber2 at 10:06 PM 7-9-2009_


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*Re: (saaber2)*

Yep already have an AWE boost gauge, I simply just need to find a T to fit the hose and some time to do it. 
I also read in the honda-tech thread about the vacuum draw the guy was experiencing and how he added another nipple. I'm not overly concerned since, like you mentioned, I haven't seen oil consumption as of right now but I'm curious now as to about how much vacuum is created. Figured I'd check if you've done it before I went and did it. 
On a positive note, I have been satisfied with this setup and the information you've brought forward. It could be a placebo effect but I felt like there may have been an increase in responsiveness from the engine switching from a stage 2 catch can to a stage 1 plate and the PCV bypassed to the exhaust. 
My engine mods are: APR stage 1, BSH intake and DV relocate. My car is about to break 20k and I've been running a catch can from 14k to just shy of 19k. I think I'm gonna pull my intake and check my valves when I get home and hopefully get W/M set up by the end of summer. Then I think I should have no worres about my valves developing buildup.


----------



## aeproberts21 (Apr 10, 2007)

*Re: (VBMike P)*

This is great stuff, and now that my warranty is over I might have to give it a try.


----------



## Britishav8tor (May 8, 2007)

It might be too soon but Sabre can we get an update on your car and how this set up is working. I have been looking into a BSH race but that looks far to messy and why bother when you can feed it down the exhaust and be done with it ? Also, Has any one found that the OEM PCV (the starship enterprise piece) fails ?


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: (Britishav8tor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Britishav8tor* »_It might be too soon but Sabre can we get an update on your car and how this set up is working. I have been looking into a BSH race but that looks far to messy and why bother when you can feed it down the exhaust and be done with it ? Also, Has any one found that the OEM PCV (the starship enterprise piece) fails ? 

thats the understatement of the year..............the factory PCV get a F --


----------



## Britishav8tor (May 8, 2007)

ok but saber's whole system relies on the fact that the front (startship enterprise looking piece) works properly otherwise ... its likely to suck oil out of the head. right ??


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: (Britishav8tor)*

That saaber will have to answer.......im not 100% so i dont wanna steer you wrong. thats other guy made or horrible mess setting his up wrong


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Britishav8tor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Britishav8tor* »_ok but saber's whole system relies on the fact that the front (startship enterprise looking piece) works properly otherwise ... its likely to suck oil out of the head. right ?? 

Yes it does need a properly functioning pcv for it to perform the control function. It is not clear yet what the vacuum would be if the pcv is not functioning. VBMIKE is running his with no pcv (hose is hooked up to the back of valve cover and front has BSH stage one plate). He is going to do some vacuum tests. His oil consumption is zero and he has run it for the last 1000 miles with no pcv. So no, it is not "sucking oil out of the head". But we don't know if it would pull more vacuum than what is desirable without the pcv. We'll know after his tests.


_Modified by saaber2 at 8:31 PM 7-15-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Britishav8tor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Britishav8tor* »_It might be too soon but Sabre can we get an update on your car and how this set up is working. I have been looking into a BSH race but that looks far to messy and why bother when you can feed it down the exhaust and be done with it ? Also, Has any one found that the OEM PCV (the starship enterprise piece) fails ? 

re: pcv failure. yes they fail. Think of the job that it is being asked to do (refer to diagram posted above). It has to route gases to the intake when not in boost, and reverse that and send to turbo while in boost. All the while it has to prevent boost from leaking in from the intake while in boost. That is asking a hell of a lot so to me it is no wonder why they fail. Usually failure means boost is leaking in (you can often find this by blowing on the hose to the pcv, it shouldn't let any air in if working properly). 
It is no longer performing that function in the bypass (there is no boost trying to get in). So it is only sending out gases one way (to send the gases out to the exhaust). It is really performing a very simple function in the bypass setup and I would be surprised if it fails.


_Modified by saaber2 at 8:32 PM 7-15-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Britishav8tor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Britishav8tor* »_It might be too soon but Sabre can we get an update on your car and how this set up is working. 

At 1800 miles:
1) Car is much smoother at all rpms. Biggest change is at startup and idle which are both smooth now. Before bypass I would notice it smooth out after seafoaming and fuel injector cleaner but that would only last a little while. Now it is smooth all the time and no more stumbling startups.
2) I am used to the power now so I can't say if it is an actual increase or not. It is small if it is an increase.
3) Still have about a 1.5-2 mpg increase 
4) Oil consumption is on track to be a bit less than normal but won't know for sure until 5000 miles. Definitely no increase in oil consumption.
5) Oily residue seen inside of hose to exhaust (which should be there). No oil seen in intake lines going to and from the intercooler (there should be no oil there). Tiny oily smell at exhaust tips noticeable sometimes right after you stop and standing immediately behind exhaust tips. Very rarely a little oily residue at exhaust tips. So far no smell in cabin with windows up or down during operation or after stopping.
6) Will test oil at 2700 and 5000 miles to monitor oil condition.
I hope one of the tuning companies will sell an all-in-one exhaust slashcut solution such as this: ATP downpipe with exhaust nipple already welded in, hose, plugs for intake and rear pcv line, front plate with integrated vacuum control. That would eliminate pcv gunk forever, eliminate any chance of failing pcv (note that chance of failure is miniscule under bypass system because pcv no longer has to deal with boost, but can be prone to faillure under stock pcv routing), and give HP gains due to DP. I hope they will produce this and stop re-re-re-engineering catch cans (off soapbox now ha ha).


----------



## SuckSquishBangBlow (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: (saaber2)*

Thank you for bringing this to the community, I really see this as being the best set-it-and-forget-it PCV fix yet. I too am looking forward to a company putting together a clean-looking kit like this.


----------



## Britishav8tor (May 8, 2007)

Billy Mays here with another awesome invention by Saaber2 ... the all in one PCV fix for your GTI







But seriously lets think about this ... all you would have to do (and I'm not sure how hard it would be is make exhaust tube coupler and weld the slash cut pipe into it and then supply the tubes and bungs and that's it you're done. The end user only has to slip this coupling into their cut exhaust after the 2nd O2 sensor run the pipe and they're done - all for 200 bucks plus shipping and handling ... but wait there's more .....







All jokes aside thanks for all your input, I'm thinking of upgrading my exhaust and when doing so I think I will have them perform this to the pipe before installation along with heat wrap. Now 2.75" or 3" ? 
I suppose my last question is .... what is the ultimate risk here, we've seen what happens if you hook it up to the back pipe but if everything is hooked up as you say what is the worst that could happen ? 


_Modified by Britishav8tor at 12:36 PM 7-16-2009_


----------



## rhouse181 (Apr 13, 2008)

*Re: (Britishav8tor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Britishav8tor* »_
I suppose my last question is .... what is the ultimate risk here, we've seen what happens if you hook it up to the back pipe but if everything is hooked up as you say what is the worst that could happen ? 


so far, nothing... it seems from short term testing that saaber's car is holding in there. but we will never know until more people start using the slashcut technique and significant miles start to pile up. 
i think a bsh block off plate with integrated check valve/vacuum regulator would really seal the deal on this setup. i hesitate to retain the stock PCV because of its tendency to fail, so who knows how it operates after failure and what side affects could present. 
saaber, too bad it hasn't completely eliminated your oil consumption. at least it is helping though


----------



## Britishav8tor (May 8, 2007)

From what Ive read the oil consumption comes from blow by from poor OEM rings and valve seats







The hand book says a quart per 1000 miles is acceptable - So much for superior German engineering


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

I'll be home Sunday night from my trip to Ohio. Hopefully Monday I'll have some readings for how much vacuum is being drawn with this setup.


----------



## Britishav8tor (May 8, 2007)

VB Mike - did you get to test to see how much vacuum you're drawing ?
I've ordered the most of the parts, just a quick question about the size hose, should use the link gearshifter6 posted it was 5/8 hose Saaber I know I have to have the nipple welded after the 2nd o2 sensor but how far down the pipe should I have the nipple installed. For some reason my car is idling rougher than normal now. Is there a DIY for taking off the intake manifold, would BG intake cleaner do the job ? 
Thanks 


_Modified by Britishav8tor at 1:23 PM 7-24-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Britishav8tor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Britishav8tor* »_how far down the pipe should I have the nipple installed. For some reason my car is idling rougher than normal now. Is there a DIY for taking off the intake manifold, would BG intake cleaner do the job ? 

When it's on the lift you'll see a bend in the pipe and then a long straight section. Right after the bend is where I put mine because there is lots of room there (see photo on first post). Make sure it is oriented correctly. Instructions are here: Click on "instructions 25900" on the bottom of this page
http://www.moroso.com/catalog/...13023
There are two DIY's that I know of for taking off the intake manifold. I posted them earlier on another thread, copying from someone else who posted them. If you can't find via search let me know and I can dig them up.
The only sure way to clean out valves is remove the manifold and clean out with solvent and mechanical removal. BG is next best thing. Is it enough? Hard to say. I would do as much as you can to clean out before bypassing because then it will be all cleaned up and the bypass will make sure it stays that way but totally depends on how much time or money you want to put towards that. 
I had been doing regular seafoaming through the intake plus ultra - low volatility group V oil so I was comfortable that it was clean enough on mine. I'm sure there are some original deposits there though from the factory fill oil, pre-seafoam. I would also add fuel injector cleaner to the gas tank to get the injectors cleaned up at the same time. I like Lubro-moly fuel injector cleaner personally for that.


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

I'll be doing it today Britishav8tor. I used the link gearshifter6 posted and the hose is fine.


----------



## Britishav8tor (May 8, 2007)

Saaber .... normally Im good at digging up old post but for some reason Im having a hard time - could you take a minute and post the link for me. 
Thanks. 
VBMike thanks - Im going to order 8 feet I think that should be enough.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Britishav8tor)*

These aren't the best but form the stasis one you can piece it together. Someone needs to do a clean and clear DIY for intake manifold removal:
http://www.vagfans.com/forum/v...t=161
http://www.stasisengineering.c...6.pdf
from this thread:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...age=1



_Modified by saaber2 at 4:42 PM 7-24-2009_


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: (saaber2)*

not sure if you will ever find anything more complete then the stasis link! 
http://www.stasisengineering.com/turbo.php far bottom, far left " install intructions"


_Modified by RABIDRABBIT1983 at 1:54 AM 7-25-2009_


----------



## ramrod84 (May 8, 2009)

*Re: (RABIDRABBIT1983)*

this is great i cant wait to try it with my bsh stg 1


----------



## Fitz318is (Feb 16, 2009)

*Re: (saaber2)*

saaber2, i know you have done a lot of info gathering as far as uoa are concerned so in your opinion, what seems to be working the best? GC, RLI or redline?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Fitz318is)*

I think all 3 of those are good choices. GC has shown very low shear levels compared to other 502 oils (but very limited data on Motul, Pentosin, and no data on Lubro Moly). So if you must use a 502, GC is one of the best in terms of shearing down. GC is an excellent oil.
IMO the renewable lubricants and redline are in a higher class in terms of protection. They use largely group V basestocks (more shear stable, polar) which helps both in terms of lubricity, lower volatility, and shear stability. They also have extremely strong anti-wear additive packs. For example Redline uses high ZDDP plus Moly DTC. Renlube uses high ZDDP plus Antimony. The Moly and Antimony additives are considered "nano particles" which is just a fancy way of saying very, very tiny that fill in the asperities of the metal. That is a simplification of course as other additives such as Boron (and even copper in the case of RenLube) are used also. Y axis is ppm iron per 1000 miles and x axis is miles on vehicle. 
I use redline because I think it is the best available based on all the info. we have. I am always looking for something better and if something else shows to be better I will use that. My opinion of redline is also partially based on past experience running it in saab turbos for 15 years (had fantastic luck with amsoil also on those) and experiences of others who have done teardowns, borescope inspections, etc. to look at wear. Also redline appears to have very little viscosity index improvers (the elements that shear first) compared to many oils. They use polyolester basestocks (and even the best kind of the many polyolesters) which is the most expensive kind. Redline's 5W40 has a high temperature high shear viscosity of 4.6 which is very high compared to many 502 oils which are in the 3.5-3.7 range. Some discussion of redline is here: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4433118
It is not like one oil will ruin your engine and another will make it last forever. More like trying to tease out the max protection for your engine. The real world differences are probably not that great as long as it is changed out below 5k. Renlube looks to be excellent on paper and has performed extremely well in RS4 engines, we just need more UOAs for Renlube in the 2.0 FSI
In terms of using UOAs to indicate real world wear, they are pretty limited because they don't measure larger particles and UOAs are often "single pass" vs trending. But in general most agree that lower levels of "wear" metals are better than high. Here is a graph of the iron levels of the UOAs we have with outliers of adeere's 99% highway runs, and 2 very high wear engines removed. Syntec 5W40, a common 502 oil, and some of the lower wear oils are pointed out. For the sake of this graph, the black regression line is a representation of "average". Syntec shows consistently higher wear than average. Redline so far has shown much lower than average but we need more UOAs. The overall data set is also small so is of limited use but it is all we have.










_Modified by saaber2 at 7:42 AM 7-26-2009_


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

Sorry for the delay with the results on how much vacuum I was getting with the exhaust slashcut setup. I tested it on Friday like I said I would I've just been too busy to get on and post.
Here's the results: I was unable to see any vacuum on my gauge and actually saw the gauge slightly move towards the psi range at wot in 3rd.
Even though I was unable to read any vacuum I do believe this setup does draw vacuum its just too small of a value to read with my awe boost/vacuum gauge. The first tick on the gauge should equal around 2.5 inHg so I wouldn't consider it the most accurate for this purpose. 
Another thing to consider is I'm also using the stock downpipe with the slashcut welded in after the cats. Using a catless downpipe with the slashcut welded in closer to the turbo would see different results.


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*Re: (VBMike P)*

I forgot to mention, I've put 1.75k miles on this setup and still no oil consumption http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (VBMike P)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VBMike P* »_Sorry for the delay with the results on how much vacuum I was getting with the exhaust slashcut setup. I tested it on Friday like I said I would I've just been too busy to get on and post.
Here's the results: I was unable to see any vacuum on my gauge and actually saw the gauge slightly move towards the psi range at wot in 3rd.
Even though I was unable to read any vacuum I do believe this setup does draw vacuum its just too small of a value to read with my awe boost/vacuum gauge. The first tick on the gauge should equal around 2.5 inHg so I wouldn't consider it the most accurate for this purpose. 
Another thing to consider is I'm also using the stock downpipe with the slashcut welded in after the cats. Using a catless downpipe with the slashcut welded in closer to the turbo would see different results.

That is consistent with what other guys have told me. They said we need an ultra-sensitive vacuum gauge to get readings. I heard that the blood pressure gauge I posted elshewhere works well for that and will register a change just by blowing on them.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_
*Cheaper version (downtube):*
If a person believes that vacuum is not needed to evacuate crankcase gases (such as anyone who wants to run a "race" catch can that vents to the atmosphere), you could eliminate all the expensive parts and just block off front pcv at intake, rear pcv line, and then simply run a hose underneath the car with no catch can. This would cost roughly $10 for the plugs, $15 for hose and clamp? for a total of around $25. the only thing you wouldn’t get is vacuum pull of crankcase gases. One BITOG member did this on his audi RS4 http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...07413 and really likes it and UOAs look great. He reports no oil spots on driveway etc. from tube. I chose to have vacuum assist. Also, to keep dust, etc. out of the down tube you could add a breather filter on the end of the tube.


This link doesn't work. I am very interested in doing this cheaper version to just dump it down but i don't understand exactly what to do. can anyone assist with a working link on exactly how to do this? I searched all the bobistheoilguy stuff and couldn't find what you are talking about here


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (LEWXCORE)*

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the Bob is the oil guy link was a DIY. It's not. Just an anecdote about one person who is running a downtube on his 2.7t audi. 
Running a downtube would act similar to a race catch can in that it just vents to the atmosphere. The reason a person would want to run the tube underneath the car is to avoid any smell or residue in the engine compartment. I have not tried the downtube, only reporting that others have. The concept is the same except that there is no vacuum pulling out exhaust gasses.
You would set up everything the same as the above except there is no nipple to install into the exhaust. The tube coming from the pcv would just run under the car and be open to the atmosphere instead of connecting to an exhaust nipple. I wouldn't put a check valve on it or if I did it should have a very low cracking pressure. Also it would be wise to have some sort of filter on the end of the tube to prevent dirt from getting into the tube.
You should be aware that running it that way means you are depending on blowby to evacuate gases (same as with a race can) which means that acids.etc. may build up in the oil faster than normal. I say may because we don't know for sure that it does or it does not.


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*

Installed this setup yesterday and so far I've already noticed easier startup and smoother idle. Thank you very much for the write up Saaber I'll keep you guys posted with long term details. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (TGZ)*

After about a week now of pushing the car as much as possible when I had open space on the highway I have noticed slightly better power, but 4th gear is noticeably better. Feels like it took about a day for the computer to adapt.
I don't really plan on logging my fuel to see if it gets better because my driving varies a lot, but I will keep you guys updated on oil burning.


----------



## Britishav8tor (May 8, 2007)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (TGZ)*

Do you have any mods on your car other than this bypass system?


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

well, i was gonna buy a catch can, but this seems like it might be a great idea...
so, with no oil consumption, but also no blown seals, and improvements in power, i think we can honestly assume that there is a slight vacuum being drawn by the exhaust, and it is just enough to evacuate the pressure, but NOT enough to really evacuate much of the oil vapors...
so, my question is, if the vapors are still therefore getting stuck on in head and then going into the crank case, wouldn't this be the same results as running a catch can? in terms of the theoretical oil degradation anyways, not the vacuum or lack there of.
unless im reading this all wrong and people are smelling burning oil but not actually burning any oil... or its so small that nobody is really measuring the drop in oil level.
any oil tests done yet? i really need to do something ASAP, but i don't want to go in one direction or another before we have some more information.
btw, my other idea was to get the EJ vent can, and instead of using the filter, run a line from the evacuation port on the can and into the exhaust. This way, I can measure the oil and vapors being drawn out but still evacuate my head with no more problems.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: (Krieger)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Krieger* »_
btw, my other idea was to get the EJ vent can, and instead of using the filter, run a line from the evacuation port on the can and into the exhaust. This way, I can measure the oil and vapors being drawn out but still evacuate my head with no more problems.

As much as I'd like to sell you the can, it would not be worth it for this application. 
We can machine a check valve off the head and run a line into an O2 bung off the DP. This has been considered with the MK6s and our DP revisions. It would be a simple thing for us to add on to the DP upon request. Just a quick tap and weld.


----------



## Britishav8tor (May 8, 2007)

I think the reason it doesnt draw enough is because its not close enough to the turbo if you look at the orginal diagram used for v8 headers it has them welding it right at the collector where exhaust velocity would be greatest and also shortest distance for the vacuum to travel. Because of the O2 sensors we can't put it any closer. if the oil vapor remains in the head its should be no big deal and the small amount that does blow by gets pushed down the tube and out the exhaust. My only fear is the OEM Check valve will fail and the pressure wont be able to escape and .... well it wont be good







Maybe a BSH stage 1 kit would be a safe way to go. 
As for the Vent to atomosphere with a tube I can see problems with that in as much there might not be enough suction or push to blow all the crap down the pipe to the exhaust








Catch cans to me seem to be like smoking inside a diving bell - you blow the vapor out filter it and suck the gases back into the engine ... to then be blown down through the turbo and IC and into the engine ... how much gunk makes it I don't know but any is not good imo.


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

bump.
i think i might try this this when i get my DP in a little bit.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: (Krieger)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Krieger* »_bump.
i think i might try this this when i get my DP in a little bit.

your going to try your method above with a VTA EJ can and instead of the filter run it back to the exhaust?


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

well, i was, but now im thinking it might be better to just get the stage 1 block off, and run the hose from my rear PCV.
I might install a small can in between to check for anything collecting. id rather catch it and dispose of it legally than burn it and pollute even more.
just a cheap universal can will work, and if it fill up... oh well, it will just get burned off.
but then again, it might just be easier to just vent the stuff anyways... i mean, i prob wont have a cat so... lol


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *Krieger* »_well, i was, but now im thinking it might be better to just get the stage 1 block off, and run the hose from my rear PCV.
I might install a small can in between to check for anything collecting. id rather catch it and dispose of it legally than burn it and pollute even more.
just a cheap universal can will work, and if it fill up... oh well, it will just get burned off.
but then again, it might just be easier to just vent the stuff anyways... i mean, i prob wont have a cat so... lol


Here are pictures of my setup. I had to replace the black rubber hose on the rear valve cover port because I pressed the tube going to the turbo too close to the exhaust manifold and it melted. I picked up a 7/8" hose from home depot for a washer and drier and I have a 5/8" to 5/8" hose barb in the high temp blue hose with the end of the hose in the 7/8" black hose to keep the hose clamp from crushing the 5/8" hose. 

















_Modified by VBMike P at 9:53 AM 8-22-2009_


_Modified by VBMike P at 1:45 PM 8-22-2009_


----------



## Britishav8tor (May 8, 2007)

Saaber said you could just bung the rear PVC at the head and then slide the rubber connector that you replaced back on thus removing the chace of melting it and making it look stock and one less bung to buy


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *Britishav8tor* »_Saaber said you could just bung the rear PVC at the head and then slide the rubber connector that you replaced back on thus removing the chace of melting it and making it look stock and one less bung to buy










That is only true if you are using the stock pcv valve. I have a BSH stage 1 pcv fix which guides everything to the rear port.


----------



## Zer0infrn015 (Mar 18, 2004)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*

So is the exhaust hot enough that it burns up the gunk that gets dumped through the tube? If it isn't bruning all of the gunk won't it be building up deposits in your exhaust? I didn't read all three pages but I like the ideas I just want more information. I need a pcv solution asap becuase mine is failing and I am consuming a lot of oil. I have been looking into catch cans but I am not sold that they are the way I want to go.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (Zer0infrn015)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Zer0infrn015* »_So is the exhaust hot enough that it burns up the gunk that gets dumped through the tube? If it isn't bruning all of the gunk won't it be building up deposits in your exhaust? I didn't read all three pages but I like the ideas I just want more information. I need a pcv solution asap becuase mine is failing and I am consuming a lot of oil. I have been looking into catch cans but I am not sold that they are the way I want to go. 

I don't think this would be any sort of an issue but I can't prove it. The volatile gases, water, and fuel certainly are going to be burnt or go out the back of the exhaust pipe. The oil is simply going through your exhaust pipe and muffler, not much to plug up there. The PCV gunk comes in post cat and post 02 sensor so it is not like it is going through the cat or something where it would definitely plug it up. It may "lubricate" the inside of the muffler ha ha but that is about it. 
Also, think about the many 2.0 FSIs that burn lots of oil (up to 1 quart per 1000 miles even). One would suspect that the cats will die prematurely because of having to deal with that but I doubt that even that much oil will do much of anything to the exhaust pipe and muffler.


_Modified by saaber2 at 7:20 PM 8-23-2009_


----------



## Zer0infrn015 (Mar 18, 2004)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_
I don't think this would be any sort of an issue but I can't prove it. The volatile gases, water, and fuel certainly are going to be burnt or go out the back of the exhaust pipe. The oil is simply going through your exhaust pipe and muffler, not much to plug up there. The PCV gunk comes in post cat and post 02 sensor so it is not like it is going through the cat or something where it would definitely plug it up. It may "lubricate" the inside of the muffler ha ha but that is about it. 
Also, think about the many 2.0 FSIs that burn lots of oil (up to 1 quart per 1000 miles even). One would suspect that the cats will die prematurely because of having to deal with that but I doubt that even that much oil will do much of anything to the exhaust pipe and muffler.

_Modified by saaber2 at 7:20 PM 8-23-2009_

We already see carbon buildup on the exhaust tips. I would think that this would only magnify that issue. I am currently burning about a quart per 1,000. This is only a recent problem. I am also experiencing rough idle at start up. I think my intake valves are clogged with gunk and my pcv is failing. I need to take of the intake manifold and clean the stuff out but I want a solution to help so it won't happen again. I was looking into doing a catch can and water meth set up to help. The only problem is it won't take care of the problem it will only slow the buildup. I guess the only way to tell what this does to the muffler is cut one open after running this for a while.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (Zer0infrn015)*

You are seriously worried about carbon buildup on the exhaust tips? That is not going to go away no matter what you do. My boxster S built up soot on the exhaust tips faster than the GTI. It is normal and it doesn't hurt anything.


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *Zer0infrn015* »_
We already see carbon buildup on the exhaust tips. I would think that this would only magnify that issue. I am currently burning about a quart per 1,000. This is only a recent problem. I am also experiencing rough idle at start up. I think my intake valves are clogged with gunk and my pcv is failing. I need to take of the intake manifold and clean the stuff out but I want a solution to help so it won't happen again. I was looking into doing a catch can and water meth set up to help. The only problem is it won't take care of the problem it will only slow the buildup. I guess the only way to tell what this does to the muffler is cut one open after running this for a while.


Soot on my exhaust tips with this set up is barely worse than stock.


----------



## Zer0infrn015 (Mar 18, 2004)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_You are seriously worried about carbon buildup on the exhaust tips? That is not going to go away no matter what you do. My boxster S built up soot on the exhaust tips faster than the GTI. It is normal and it doesn't hurt anything. 

I am not worried about the exhaust tips. I know it will build up either way. I am saying there is already build up before doing this. I just wanted to know if that **** being dumped into your exhaust is just caking up in their like it does on the intake valves.


----------



## Malaco0219 (Mar 18, 2007)

Hey Saaber,
I don't know if this has been covered, but can we use a BSH Stg 2 catch can and than block up the rear PCV so that nothing gets rerouted into the intake? IF I remember correctly, the Stg 1 pcv reroutes everything into the intercooler, where as stg 2 just simply adds a catch can. I Was thinking, if we can just block the rear PCV, and than force everything into the catch can and than into the intercooler instead of the engine..
Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

*Re: (Malaco0219)*

if it gets into the intercooler, it gets into the engine... plus the intercooler is WAY more sensitive to oil and crap than your exhaust piping.
if your intercooler gets clogged with oil and carbon, how effectively can you expect it to cool your charge air? not very well, plus the charge air will pick up the oil and vapors and slam em into the intake valves anyways. so, your still gonna see build up, but its just gonna take a little while longer to gunk it up, but your also impregnating your whole charged air system with loads of oil, fuel, and carbon deposits.


----------



## Malaco0219 (Mar 18, 2007)

*Re: (Krieger)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Krieger* »_if it gets into the intercooler, it gets into the engine... plus the intercooler is WAY more sensitive to oil and crap than your exhaust piping.
if your intercooler gets clogged with oil and carbon, how effectively can you expect it to cool your charge air? not very well, plus the charge air will pick up the oil and vapors and slam em into the intake valves anyways. so, your still gonna see build up, but its just gonna take a little while longer to gunk it up, but your also impregnating your whole charged air system with loads of oil, fuel, and carbon deposits.


But would it help if I blocked off the Rear PCV so nothing goes back into the intake?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*

Got my oil test back today. The bypass appears to have no positive or negative affect on the oil. What this means to me is that there is probably adequate crankcase evacuation because there is no increase in Total Acid Number (TAN) in the oil. I will re-check at 5k miles.
The red bars below are the post-bypass run. The pink bars are the pre-bypass run. The blue bars are what I predicted a non-bypassed run would be based on % city driving. In other words, any red bars higher than the blue are better than expected. Any red bars higher than the pink are better than a same mileage run that had easier usage (except for TAN, where lower bars are better).











_Modified by saaber2 at 2:49 PM 8-25-2009_


----------



## rhouse181 (Apr 13, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*

Interesting data... i wouldn't expect re-routing the PCV gases to improve oil longevity, so this kind of confirms that assertion. 
but since its keeping the oil vapors off the intake valves, then it is performing masterfully. great work with your record keeping










_Modified by rhouse181 at 3:16 PM 8-25-2009_


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

anyone ever do a test after running a VTA can?
id just like to see if our engine really need any extra vacuum to draw out anything. I mean, our rings and stuff suck, so there should be plenty of pressure to push stuff out.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Krieger)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Krieger* »_anyone ever do a test after running a VTA can?
id just like to see if our engine really need any extra vacuum to draw out anything. I mean, our rings and stuff suck, so there should be plenty of pressure to push stuff out.

I've thought about pulling the hose off the exhaust nipple for the next run to compare (pulling the hose off would make it simply a vent to atmosphere set up) to test that. Some of the comments about losing low end power on the VTA setup is a concern though. I may try it when I reach 5k on this run to test.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (rhouse181)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rhouse181* »_Interesting data... i wouldn't expect re-routing the PCV gases to improve oil longevity, so this kind of confirms that assertion. 
but since its keeping the oil vapors off the intake valves, then it is performing masterfully. great work with your record keeping









_Modified by rhouse181 at 3:16 PM 8-25-2009_

why would you not expect it to? I would think by keeping the fuel dilution down it would definitely make the oil protection properties to last longer


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (RABIDRABBIT1983)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RABIDRABBIT1983* »_why would you not expect it to? I would think by keeping the fuel dilution down it would definitely make the oil protection properties to last longer

It may be an indicator that the fuel dilution of the oil isn't influenced as much by the pcv gunk vs. just the general mode the car runs at, the stratified injection of the DI. I was curious about what affect, if any, the pcv gunk had on fuel dilution also.
2 big caveats though: 
1) The only time my car showed any measurable fuel dilution was when I used redline sl-1 fuel injection cleaner at about 2k miles into redline run #2. That seemed to drop the flashpoint and blackstone labs calculates fuel dilution based on flashpoint, they don't measure it directly. The fuel dilution persisted all the way to the end of that run #2. SO using this one test is a very poor basis to say what I said above, that pcv gunk may not be a major factor in fuel dilution of the oil. Note that slightly lowered flashpoint, presence of Manganese, and loss of viscosity all indicate fuel dilution on all runs even though Blackstone doesn't report it as such.
2) The indirect effects of valve deposits, derived from PCV goop, may well influence fuel dilution over time. Incomplete combustion, ring deposits, misfiring, may all lead to more fuel dilution


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*

SAABER............interesting info as always http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## rhouse181 (Apr 13, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_
It may be an indicator that the fuel dilution of the oil isn't influenced as much by the pcv gunk vs. just the general mode the car runs at


exactly... i don't think the fuel dilution is caused by the PCV... it is just the nature of DI and the absence of the lean stratified charge. it happens when the rings pull fuel off the cylinder walls... 
all that fuel that gets trapped in the catch cans would just end up back into the combustion chamber with the normal PCV and get burned of anyways. it has already been vaporized and it has already worked its way out of the oil. sure your catch can or PCV bypass is preventing it from coming in contact with the intake valves (which is a good thing), but your catch can or PCV bypass isn't preventing fuel dilution...


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (rhouse181)*

Hey Saaber, been running this setup now for about a month, maybe longer. A bit over 1000 miles logged. Anyway I haven't noticed anything negative, I really liked the changes except for mild smell when idling in traffic with windows down.
Anyway today I went to check my oil level and I noticed some oil that has leaked out by the filler neck. I've never had this occur in the past 20k miles I've owned the car. I have read that this is usually a sign of a blown pcv, so in my case, I'm thinking either the check valve has gone already, or I'm not getting enough vacuum.
I'm going to take a look at my check valve this week, any idea what else it can be? I haven't noticed any loss of power.


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (TGZ)*

Forgot to add I'm running Unitronic stage 2, not sure if anyone else in here is chipped, but maybe the added boost is causing problems and I'm not getting enough vacuum?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (TGZ)*

I haven't seen any oil at the neck in 4k miles so far. I think you are on the right track in your thinking that oil at the neck indicates overpressure in the crankcase.
Some thoughts:
a)Are there any obstructions such as check valves between the pcv and exhaust nipple (other than the check valve screwed onto the exhaust nipple)?
b)Was the nipple installed correctly: not backwards in terms of the angle, correct 45% angle, and proper depth. This possibility is my first suspicion.
c)Was the nipple located in an area of "back pressure" in the exhaust, so that there is not a good flow of exhaust gasses pass the nipple?
d) Any obstructions in hose?
If all that looks good then for whatever reason it may not be pulling enough vacuum, meaning the "cracking pressure" for the pcv is not reached, meaning it is not sending gases to the exhaust at some times (probably when idling for example and little flow past nipple). Here are some things to consider as solutions:
1) Removing the check valve at the exhaust nipple may be an option to increase vacuum. That would likely bump up the vacuum significantly. I think it was BSH that reported roughly 11 inches Hg of vacuum pull with no check valve on their race cars (pulling 11 inches hg should be ok because the pcv has the built in regulator). 
According to turboMike (sp?) above he was seeing around 1hg with the nipple plus check valve screwed onto nipple. BTW, this amount is similar to the vacuum pulled at the pre turbo location (1-3 in Hg). The pcv normally operates in 20 in Hg pulled from the intake manifold when in stock form. So the 1 Hg is significantly less than it normally operates in and the 11 Hg is obvoiusly much more vacuum but still less than the normal 20 inches, so it should be ok.
As a side note the guy in the Honda-Tech link above he was shooting for around 15 Hg because he wanted max power increase. 
I'm out of town right now or I would go pull the check valve off mine and try it with no check valve. It very well could be that that is the best configuration if running from the original pcv. It would supply up to 11 Hg which is quite a bit more than the 1 inch Hg. I should be back on Thursday and I'll try it then. 
If not using the original PCV such as TurboMike is doing (running it out the back of the valve cover and front is blocked), then having the check valve may provide that lower level of vacuum needed so that you don't have a large unregulated pull on the cranckase.
Of course another thing to play with is to pull the hose off the nipple completely and just run atmospheric (called down tube int he original writeup). Wish I was home I'd try the no-check valve option right now.



_Modified by saaber2 at 7:27 PM 9-21-2009_


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*

Saaber, 
I had it installed at a performance shop and all the angles and depth look correct to me. The guy who put it in was actually telling me I probably wont get enough vacuum this way and I shouldn't waste my time with it, to just get a pump setup from the start. I am using the original pcv setup.
If you can run it without the check valve then what is the point? I mean I thought you needed the check valve to prevent gasses from rising back into the pcv, but if people are running without a check valve and getting more vacuum I think I will definitely do that.
I gotta say now that I think about it I have been idling in a lot of stop and go traffic recently, where as the few weeks before that was mostly smooth sailing on the highway. Maybe that is the reason, like you said.
Anyway I will try without the check valve and we'll see how it goes. I gotta say though the car definitely does not feel slower at all. I had a long drive today and nailed it a few times in 2nd and 3rd gear and I was actually surprised at how fast it felt.
On a side note. Do you think running a setup like this with a big turbo like a GT30 would be possible. Or do you need to go with a vented catch can due to lack of vacuum?
Thanks for your help as usual Saaber. 










_Modified by TGZ at 8:40 PM 9-21-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (TGZ)*

Shouldn't make a diff. if running stage 2 or big turbo over stock. If anything it should be better due to more exhaust flow past the nipple.
re: idle At idle there is such low flow going past the nipple it may not be enough to crack the pcv open, so extended idling may create overpressure. I have been in the habit of never letting it idle for long just due to the high fuel dilution this engine makes. 
I know the Honda Tech guy used two nipples to the exhaust. One was near the exhaust manifold and the other farther down. This was due to wanting more vacuum (but he was pulling 15 inches Hg for max power). As I recall the placement of the 2 nipples was also partially due to creating a vacuum at all rpm ranges but it's been a long time since I read that. So he may have added that second nipple closer to the engine to grab more vacuum at lower rpms. I need to read those threads of his again.
It would be interesting to get a blood pressure ultra sensitive gauge and measure vacuum with and without the check valve at the nipple. This gauge would also allow someone to "fine tune" the setup to get lots of vacuum for power gains, but not too much so that it is pulling too much oil out of the engine. What I mean is if the front pcv was blocked and the hose was run to the back of the manifold, you could regulate the pressure there to exactly the max Vacuum you want (say 7 inches Hg f.e.) for max power gains. 
I think I'll do that as I'm bored and need a new experiment. Don't want to put the big bucks into perf. mods yet though. and right now I'm fine tuning oil and oil data for this engine and we are possibly over the learning curve for that and now I need a different experiment.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*

I removed the check valve this am and connected hose directly to exhaust nipple. Ran car very hard for about 1.5 hrs. 0-60 runs, high speed cruise, hill climbs with redline shifts and compression braking, and some city.
Removing the check valve made no difference so I am going to leave mine off and would recommend the same to anyone running with hose coming from stock pcv. No change to idle, startup, power, and no oil consumption (very short run of course however).
The pcv is already controlling the vacuum so the check valve at the exhaust nipple is redundant and could impede flow. For those running out the back of the valve cover, the check valve at the nipple or some other method of vacuum regulation would be a good idea IMO.
Eliminating the check valve saves $20 on this mod and if the good price on hose noted above is used, the total cost should be about $100.
TGZ, I would remove the check valve and see if that eliminates the oil present at filler neck issue. I bet it will as that valve is stout and probably reduces vacuum pull quite a lot. I will get a blood pressure gauge in the near future to see what difference the valve makes on vacuum.


_Modified by saaber2 at 3:01 PM 9-24-2009_


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (saaber2)*

Saaber, I'm excited to hear what type of vacuum you get without the check valve. 
Do you think there is any need for worry that the hose will melt being so close to the exhaust pipe?
PS- I sent you a few IM's in response to yours.
_Modified by TGZ at 4:03 PM 9-24-2009_


_Modified by TGZ at 4:17 PM 9-24-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*New vacuum measurements*

Finally got a vacuum gauge hooked up and tested today. I initially went off of the stock pcv to be "safe" that it doesn't pull too much vacuum. As it turns out, even with no check valve and running off the back of the valve cover (in other words as wide open as you can get), the vacuum is still at totally safe levels.
It pulls better vacuum with no check valve on the exhaust nipple, front pcv blocked, and hose hooked up to the back of the intake. I would run it this way instead of off the stock pcv (note that a bsh stage 1 plate would do the same thing as blocking the front pcv).
I saw between 0-3 inches Hg with a max of 5 inches for brief periods. You see most vacuum when coming to a stop, engine braking downhill, accelerating, and spikes when you upshift. When cruising there is not much vacuum pull at all (just a very slight tad bit over zero as much as I could tell from my cheap gauge). 1-3 inches is roughly what the turbo draws as I understand it in catch can systems or pcv elimination systems that route everything to the turbo.
I hope these videos work so you can see the vacuum pull. The end of the white zone is 3 inches Hg. The brief spikes in the middle of the longer video are upshifts.
http://s140.photobucket.com/al...0.flv 

http://s140.photobucket.com/al...flv  
_Modified by saaber2 at 1:39 PM 10-5-2009_


_Modified by saaber2 at 2:01 PM 10-5-2009_


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*Re: New vacuum measurements (saaber2)*

Nice work Saaber. Gauge taped to the window, classy


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*

Ever since i did this to my car with a tube down out the bottom of my car without routing to exhaust, the car has been shutting off randomly while idling. I am running maf-less also...will report back when i get a new maf because mine is shot.


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Updating my new experiences with this setup. 
So I was running with the check valve and after a few weeks I started noticing oil around my cap. I tried removing my check valve the way you mentioned but it did not help oil around the cap at all, but it also did not get any worse. While running without the check valve I installed an APR Hpfp, and after a few hours of driving oil was spit out ALL over my valve cover and intake tube. I immediately put back my stock pcv setup.
Now running my stock pcv setup I get the slightest hint of condensation around my oil cap, but it is way less than when running the bypass. 
I'm going to try capping both front openings and running from the rear to see what I get, I'll report my findings in a few days. I gotta say though when going back to stock pcv the car definitely felt slower.
LEW: I'd think that problem has to do with running Mafless, and nothing to do with this pcv setup.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *TGZ* »_Updating my new experiences with this setup. 
LEW: I'd think that problem has to do with running Mafless, and nothing to do with this pcv setup.


Well, I was running Maf-less before I changed to the dumped out pcv setup. Didn't have the engine shut off on me once till I ran this pcv setup- now it happens quite frequently.


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Idk, I've been running it for like a month and my engine has only ran smoother with a better idle, only problem I have been having is the oil blowback at the cap. Who knows though....


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *TGZ* »_Updating my new experiences with this setup. 
So I was running with the check valve and after a few weeks I started noticing oil around my cap. I tried removing my check valve the way you mentioned but it did not help oil around the cap at all, but it also did not get any worse. While running without the check valve I installed an APR Hpfp, and after a few hours of driving oil was spit out ALL over my valve cover and intake tube. I immediately put back my stock pcv setup.
Now running my stock pcv setup I get the slightest hint of condensation around my oil cap, but it is way less than when running the bypass. 
I'm going to try capping both front openings and running from the rear to see what I get, I'll report my findings in a few days. I gotta say though when going back to stock pcv the car definitely felt slower.
LEW: I'd think that problem has to do with running Mafless, and nothing to do with this pcv setup.


I've had the same issue you're describing prior to running the bypass when I was running a re-circulatory catch can. Changing to the bypass did not seem to change it.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (TGZ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TGZ* »_...only problem I have been having is the oil blowback at the cap. Who knows though....

I'm thinking the oil blowback at the cap could really be due to only 3 reasons:
1) Collapsing hose due to vacuum (assuming the hose is fairly stout and knowing the low amount of vacuum the setup pulls, I think this is unlikely.
2) Improperly installed exhaust nipple. judging form what you said earlier, it seems like it was installed correctly.
3) PCV "interference". Perhaps your pcv is restricting flow out of the crankcase. Blocking the front PCV and running the out the rear of the intake manifold would take out any impediment to flow from the pcv. So if that doesn't do it it would have to be improperly installed exhaust nipple.
Let us know how it turns out if you are able to test that routing.


_Modified by saaber2 at 11:30 AM 10-6-2009_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (VBMike P)*

VBMike, I would take off the check valve at the nipple or any other check valves if you haven't already and see if that makes a difference.
Yea that was Rapidrabbit's idea to tape the gauge on the window. Brilliant! Saved the trouble of trying to route through the firewall. People were staring at me when I was driving around though. I pulled over to take it off thinking I might get a ticket, only to find that a sheriff was sitting in the shade about 1/2 block away looking right at me! Must not have been to bothered by it though (not enough to interrupt his lunch break anyway).


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_
I'm thinking the oil blowback at the cap could really be due to only 3 reasons:
1) Collapsing hose due to vacuum (assuming the hose is fairly stout and knowing the low amount of vacuum the setup pulls, I think this is unlikely.
2) Improperly installed exhaust nipple. judging form what you said earlier, it seems like it was installed correctly.
3) PCV "interference". Perhaps your pcv is restricting flow out of the crankcase. Blocking the front PCV and running the out the rear of the intake manifold would take out any impediment to flow from the pcv. So if that doesn't do it it would have to be improperly installed exhaust nipple.
Let us know how it turns out if you are able to test that routing.

_Modified by saaber2 at 11:30 AM 10-6-2009_

Ok so I changed the setup to route from the rear, and once again it is splattering oil all over my valve cover. 
I am going to take it to an exhaust shop near me to have them look at it and see if it can possibly have been put in wrong, but honestly the guy who did it knows what he is doing. He has done a lot of work for me and my friends with good results, and has done this setup before on his race cars. 
The only difference I see between how he did my nipple and the way it is posted on page 1 is in the picture it looks like the nipple is coming in from the top of the pipe, he put mine in on the side of the pipe. The angle was correct though.
Maybe he put the nipple in a bad spot along the exhaust? Saaber, if you line up your nipple with another part of your car, where would it be on the pipe?
Another possibility, do you think the cap might be bad in any way? I have heard of people removing their cap extender to bring the cap lower to the valve cover and then having issues with blow back when before they didn't. I still have my cap extender in, but I'm thinking maybe it is a possibility that the seal in these cap extenders can go bad? I think this because even with my stock pcv I am having very light moisture around the lowest area of the cap.
If the exhaust shop near me takes a look and thinks it is ok what do you think of me ordering the EJ valve cover and routing to exhaust through that? Do you think that will just make the problem worse if I am having blow back?


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Ok Darrin from EJ answered my question about the cap so I know it definitely is not that. 
"IIRC the neck screws in the same way the cap does and then the cap screws onto the neck. The "blow back" is because the oil cap has a vent valve built into it and when there's too much pressure in the head and it has nowhere else to go it will blow out through the cap. If there's a ton of oil around your cap/neck you've probably got a problem in your PCV system. A little, afaik, is normal."
Now the question is, how can somebody who has done this to cars before mess it up. It can't really be anything else though can it? 
What are my options for fixing it? A hole needs to be burned, the nipple to be pulled out, then the hole needs to be plugged and a new nipple put in elsewhere? What a pain in the balls this is, I can't believe this guy could have put it in wrong. Oh well...


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (TGZ)*

just order a VTA can from EJ instead. mine has helped me WONDERS.


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (Krieger)*

I am most likely going to do a EJ Valve cover + VTA can but have been trying to sort it out while it is on my car. What color did you get? Think picking colors is the hardest part. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (TGZ)*

i got the red camo. its unique and always gets comments.


----------



## ard978 (May 1, 2006)

i've been leaning twd getting an EJ valve cover and vta catch can but i don't understand how that would really save the intake valves when you still have the rear pcv port dumping oil vapor into the turbo...


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

*Re: (ard978)*

it doesnt. afaik, the stuff all gets shot out the front, with nothing going to the turbo.

hell, with as much smoke that comes outta my can, if there is anything going out the back, id be VERY surprised.


----------



## ard978 (May 1, 2006)

*Re: (Krieger)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Krieger* »_it doesnt. afaik, the stuff all gets shot out the front, with nothing going to the turbo.

hell, with as much smoke that comes outta my can, if there is anything going out the back, id be VERY surprised.

maybe Joel can comment on this... but if this is the case, why not either eliminate the rear port altogether on the new valve cover or maybe leave the port machined externally to accept the rear pcv tube but don't bore the port out so that its effectively blocking the rear pcv port anyway. i would just rather know for certain that there is no route that oil could be entering the intake... if pcv function would allow it.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV to exhaust DIY (saaber2)*

One interesting thing I have noticed after switching to routing out the back of the valve cover and removing the check valve on the exhaust nipple is there is a noticeable power improvement. In the old routing I was kind of like "I think there may be an improvement", but with this routing it definitely pulls harder. Very noticeable. Definitely car has more power than it ever has now. Seems like maybe it took a day to adapt or it could be from me not driving it much on the vacuum testing day.
This makes me wonder if using 2 nipples and teeing it into the hose to the back of the valve cover would increase power even more. That should in theory create about 7 inches Hg of vacuum. We know the race guys say that greater vacuum levels make a big difference in power. It helps rings seal better therefore increased compression (Makes you wonder if that might reduce oil burning as well). Hmmm, might have to try that in the future. 
The key would be to find that sweet spot where increased vacuum produces more power but not so much vacuum that it is drawing too much oil into the exhaust. I know BSH reported that their race cars which use the exhaust slashcut method pull about 11 inches Hg and they use oil fairly fast. So maybe around 7-9 inches is the "sweet spot"?
Another way to do this would be to use an external electric vacuum pump and some sort of regulator to set the vacuum. That would let you really "dial in" the right amount of vacuum to find the sweet spot. The vacuum pump would have to be set up so that it doesn't ingest the pcv goo for longevity of the pump.


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: Bypassing PCV to exhaust DIY (saaber2)*

Saaber when I went to get my nipple installed the guy who did it told me I am wasting my time and to go directly to an electric pump for added vacuum. He said he did it on all his race cars, etc.
He told me to go to a junk yard and buy a used pump out of a Mercedes or something, said they could be had really cheap, the only work would be fabricating brackets.
Anyway before I completely give up on this I am going to cut my hose and vent to air like we spoke about in IM. If I am still getting blow back then I guess there is some kind of mysterious issue with my pcv that nobody is having? Honestly I just really want to find out if the guy who put my nipple in did it wrong, I mean how can you install this wrong it is so straight forward.








Also regarding the question about the valve cover and the rear pcv, as far as I know it gets blocked off and not used.


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Anyone know offhand where I can buy a small cone filter that will fit around the blue hose we are using to route to exhaust. I'm going to cut it and vent to air but I was thinking it might be a good idea to stick a filter on the end to prevent stuff from going in. I've never seen autozone to carry something small like this so I'm thinking I will need to order it.


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (TGZ)*

just cut it short, slip a larger hose over it that will fit the filter, and tighten it all up.
or do what some do and install the stock PCV and use a filter on a hose from the front.


----------



## VBMike P (Jun 25, 2008)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_One interesting thing I have noticed after switching to routing out the back of the valve cover and removing the check valve on the exhaust nipple is there is a noticeable power improvement. In the old routing I was kind of like "I think there may be an improvement", but with this routing it definitely pulls harder. Very noticeable. Definitely car has more power than it ever has now. Seems like maybe it took a day to adapt or it could be from me not driving it much on the vacuum testing day.
This makes me wonder if using 2 nipples and teeing it into the hose to the back of the valve cover would increase power even more. That should in theory create about 7 inches Hg of vacuum. We know the race guys say that greater vacuum levels make a big difference in power. It helps rings seal better therefore increased compression (Makes you wonder if that might reduce oil burning as well). Hmmm, might have to try that in the future. 
The key would be to find that sweet spot where increased vacuum produces more power but not so much vacuum that it is drawing too much oil into the exhaust. I know BSH reported that their race cars which use the exhaust slashcut method pull about 11 inches Hg and they use oil fairly fast. So maybe around 7-9 inches is the "sweet spot"?
Another way to do this would be to use an external electric vacuum pump and some sort of regulator to set the vacuum. That would let you really "dial in" the right amount of vacuum to find the sweet spot. The vacuum pump would have to be set up so that it doesn't ingest the pcv goo for longevity of the pump.


I've thought about this as well as taking the chance of running a catless downpipe and putting the nipple further up the downpipe closer to the turbo.


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (Krieger)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Krieger* »_just cut it short, slip a larger hose over it that will fit the filter, and tighten it all up.
or do what some do and install the stock PCV and use a filter on a hose from the front.

Is there a benefit to running a filter off the front over the rear? 
The way I have it routed now the hose is going down near the bottom bend of my downpipe. It is a great spot where everything should just be spit out under the car. I'd like to just pop a filter on there for safety reasons, so nothing goes up the pipe.


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Update after cutting my hose and doing a vent to air setup from the back.
After running it like this for a full day mix of traffic, stop and go, and wot I have absolutely ZERO oil around my cap. The car also feels slightly faster. So I guess the guy who installed my nipple is a retard after all.








Saaber, what is the downside to running a vent to air setup with no vacuum to help it? I really don't want to go through installing a nipple again, it might seem simple but if this guy messed it up I cant imagine what some of these other muffler shops will do. Also, like I asked Krieger one post above, is there any benefit to running VTA from the front, instead of the back?
_Modified by TGZ at 9:56 AM 10-8-2009_


_Modified by TGZ at 10:10 AM 10-8-2009_


----------



## ard978 (May 1, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (TGZ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TGZ* »_
Is there a benefit to running a filter off the front over the rear? 
The way I have it routed now the hose is going down near the bottom bend of my downpipe. It is a great spot where everything should just be spit out under the car. I'd like to just pop a filter on there for safety reasons, so nothing goes up the pipe.

if you put a filter on the end isn't that just going to obstruct the oil component of the oil vapor from exiting the line?


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (ard978)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ard978* »_
if you put a filter on the end isn't that just going to obstruct the oil component of the oil vapor from exiting the line?

I'm not sure, I figured the oil would still get through the filter due to the pressure that is pushing it out, it does not come in huge quantities at a time so I figured it wouldn't be an issue. Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## ard978 (May 1, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (TGZ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TGZ* »_Update after cutting my house and doing a vent to air setup from the back.
After running it like this for a full day mix of traffic, stop and go, and wot I have absolutely ZERO oil around my cap. The car also feels slightly faster. So I guess the guy who installed my nipple is a retard after all.








Saaber, what is the downside to running a vent to air setup with no vacuum to help it? I really don't want to go through installing a nipple again, it might seem simple but if this guy messed it up I cant imagine what some of these other muffler shops will do. Also, like I asked Krieger one post above, is there any benefit to running VTA from the front, instead of the back?
Also, what are you using to cap the rear pcv inlet tube. Not the opening on the motor, but capping the actual pipe. I had a plug in there with a clamp around it and the thing shot out after a few wot runs. I didn't notice a drop in power though so idk what is going on there.

admittedly i'm not yet participating in this little pcv trial you guys have going here. and having read every post i feel like i have a good enough grasp to answer a couple of these questions....
if you VTA the question is whether the lack of vacuum pressure is enough to adequately ventilate the crankcase. if it isn't, then you would potentially be deteriorating your oil [faster than is normal]
the benefit that they've been citing for using the front port is that you can use your stock pcv as a "metering valve" of sorts to ensure that you don't pull with too much vacuum induced from the exhaust flow. if you're venting to atmosphere (i.e. no vacuum) then it shouldn't matter....?


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (ard978)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ard978* »_
if you VTA the question is whether the lack of vacuum pressure is enough to adequately ventilate the crankcase. if it isn't, then you would potentially be deteriorating your oil [faster than is normal]


What do you mean by deteriorating? Using up or wearing faster?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (TGZ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TGZ* »_Is there a benefit to running a filter off the front over the rear? 

No, front pcv is a restriction to flow, routing out the back has no restriction therefore better.

_Quote, originally posted by *TGZ* »_The way I have it routed now the hose is going down near the bottom bend of my downpipe. It is a great spot where everything should just be spit out under the car. I'd like to just pop a filter on there for safety reasons, so nothing goes up the pipe.

I agree filter gives a little peace of mind but my gut feel is that the filter will be another obstruction and you would get better performance without it.

_Quote, originally posted by *TGZ* »_Saaber, what is the downside to running a vent to air setup with no vacuum to help it? 

Potential downsides are inadequate crankcase evacuation leading to faster build up of acids in oil etc. (as ard978 said) and perhaps a bit of lost power (vacuum increases ring sealing and compression). My gut feel is that if ur changing oil at 5k anyways the oil degradation issue may not be a big deal. Doing a UOA will tell you. Also I think if drop in power were a big deal we would have heard more about it on VTA setups. With your current VTA setup you are already getting better flow than the atmospheric catch cans etc. because you have no restrictions to flow.
I am now interested in going for power gains via vacuum. If it could solve the pcv gunk issue and increase power, that would be great. My car feels really different around town with the small vacuum form routiing out back of valve cover and eliminating check valve.



_Modified by saaber2 at 7:25 AM 10-8-2009_


----------



## ard978 (May 1, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (saaber2)*

i wish one of these shops (BSH/EJ/FFE/42DD) would design and sell a blockoff plate for the rear pcv connection to the turbo. then you wouldn't have to keep the accordian in place with a plug when you vent off the back port. i have the BSH stage 1 in place on the front of the valve cover so this would be more appealing to me if i could get that turbo port blocked off. BSH may already have something made up, i'm not sure how they are blocking off the rear port on their current VTA offering, but Phil has said that it is blocked off.


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

*FV-QR*

i can answer the acid question here in another 2,700 miles.
but i can tell u this, the gasses are coming thru my filter, out of my EJ can at a good rate of speed. if my engine is cold and just warming up, its just a slow cloud of white fumes drifting out... but when ur revving around or just parked her after a good drive, that stuff is coming out with a good pit of pressure.
it's really down to the laws of the expansion of gas. hot gas, oil, and and water vapors are building up in the head, they have 2 options: 1 build up till they break something in the head and shoot thru seals, or go thru the path of least resistance and come out in a much lower pressure area and colder environment.
hot gases will always move to displace colder gases whenever there is a path of least resistance. kinda like how when u open ur car door and all the head rushes in... the hot air is displacing the cold air.
i cannot confirm any of this, but i seriously doubt venting to atmosphere will have much if any at all in the way of detrimental affects on our oil or engine,


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (Krieger)*

Saaber, 
I was thinking about it while driving, and like you just said, this setup is really no different from a catch can with a vent to air setup, so I'm going to just keep it the way it is and not worry. Instead of using a filter, what if I put some kind of metallic mesh around the end and clamp it around. I think that would be a good compromise, and wouldn't inhibit flow in any way.
I'm going to follow what you do with your setup for added vacuum. If you have great success I might follow it, but I will probably need a step by step diagram on how to weld the nipples in. I still cant believe this guy welded the nipple wrong.








Thanks everyone for the input. If you guys find anything about a way to cleanly cap the rear pcv connection keep us updated. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## ard978 (May 1, 2006)

related to how the oem pcv regulates the vacuum pressure that is driving the evacuation... i'm running the BSH stage1 pcv setup right now..... it basically routes everything into the intake post MAF. anyway, my oil consumption is waay up...i just burned a little over a quart in 2200 miles or so. i think that the vacuum pressure induced in the intake (prob similar to the exhaust) is more than would normally be seen using the oem pcv. so hopefuly when i go to a vta i will see less oil consumption. i would also think that a recirc setup would consume less oil since even tho its routing to the same final destination, the can is an additional restriction to the flow


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (ard978)*

Interesting, I haven't heard of any other BSH stage 1 guys seeing increased oil consumption but I don't follow it that closely. 
As I understand it, the bsh stage 1 eliminates the pcv and routes everything out the back of the valve cover to the stock pipe to the turbo, which is exactly how the stock setup routes it when boost is present. I therefore wouldn't expect consumption to go up over stock levels. Maybe it would be worth browsing through the BSH stage 1 threads (if you haven't already) to see if anyone else is seeing more oil consumption with that setup.


----------



## ard978 (May 1, 2006)

yea i've always had what i would consider "high" oil consumption tho (pre modification). this is just the first time i've really been able to quantify it


----------



## seattheodore (May 5, 2009)

*Re: (ard978)*

I have bsh stage 1 for 6 months and I haven´t noticed any increase in oil consuption. I have oil consuption but not increased.


----------



## tdotA3mike (Feb 5, 2009)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *TGZ* »_
Anyway today I went to check my oil level and I noticed some oil that has leaked out by the filler neck. I've never had this occur in the past 20k miles I've owned the car. I have read that this is usually a sign of a blown pcv, so in my case, I'm thinking either the check valve has gone already, or I'm not getting enough vacuum.


just started to notice this problem in the last two weeks, i checked my PCV in the summer via the "blow test" and the check valve in the PCV was closing (FYI its the original C revision) was your PCV was shot? 
This thread has been very interesting, i like the idea of this system and have been debating between doing this or a VTA EJ catch can + valve cover at a much much $$$ cost. 
Saaber2 great work on this!


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (tdotA3mike)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tdotA3mike* »_just started to notice this problem in the last two weeks, i checked my PCV in the summer via the "blow test" and the check valve in the PCV was closing (FYI its the original C revision) was your PCV was shot? 

tdota3mike, on TGZ's car the problem was improper installation of the exhaust nipple. He ran it out the back of the valve cover (which eliminates PCV as a culprit) and tested with it attached, and not attached (VTA) to the nipple. 
So about all we can do is take the time to really make sure the welder understands how it is supposed to be installed and then watch them install it. I don't think it's that difficult to install correctly, but as we know mechanic's abilities (and willingness to understand) vary greatly. 
In the case of TGZ's mechanic, my understanding is he started from the attitude of, "This will never work". In my experience you (the mechanic I mean) get what you expect. In the past I have taken a car with exactly the same problem to one mechanic who says, "boy, I don't know we might have this problem and this could be an issue..." etc. and sure enough that is what happens. Take the same car to another mechanic with an attitude like " Yea, we can figure that out, it's probably something simple like..." and sure enough it's fixed in no time. It amazes me how attitude makes such a difference and so often "you get what you ask for" or "expect". Another way to say it is "your perception determines your reality" oops getting OT


----------



## TGZ (Jul 7, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Just an update since my name has come up. I've been running the car for a few weeks now with a VTA setup running off the rear and I have zero problems. The car runs great, I never get any smell in my cabin, and overall I am happy. 
Saaber, the mechanic didn't say it wouldn't work, he said it is a waste of time without a pump to help with vacuum. This guy has welded nipples into exhausts before, this was the first time doing it on a setup with no pump. I have a hard time believing he messed it up, but it looks like he did since I am having no issues with the VTA. Anyway what's done is done.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (TGZ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TGZ* »_.... I've been running the car for a few weeks now with a VTA setup running off the rear and I have zero problems. The car runs great, I never get any smell in my cabin, and overall I am happy. ...

Cool, #1 one thing is that there is no more gunk getting to the valves IMO. That is great! Also I was wondering where your VTA hose is exiting since you get no smell. I know that some of the VTA catch cans have a smell and maybe they would benefit from a routing similar to yours? Just thinking out loud.
Also, I have noticed a bit of a smell a couple times with mine after I stop and sit for a while which I assume is coming from the exhaust. I think it is the same effect as before (where you had to actually be standing behind the tailpipe to smell anything) it is just that now it is more efficient at evacuating crankcase gasses (because I removed the check valve and it is running of the back of the valve cover so no pcv to restrict flow) and therefore there is more "gunk" going out so more chance of a smell. Again just thinking out loud.


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (saaber2)*

yeah, where do u think would be the best place to route the filter to get the fumes out of the engine bay? i dont smell it too often, but usually when im in stop and go traffic, and u get a wiff of it.
im thinking about routing some rubber lines from the can, down to right near my oil pan or my fender... and angle it and have something block off the wind from the front in a way that the air passing over it causes a vacuum effect.
so, something like this:
/----
==========F
\----
F is filter. yeah, my art skillz are leet.
the void around it will allow it to dump fumes at idle, but the air passing around it would draw the fumes out in a vacuum.
thoughts? ideas?


----------



## Keden (Feb 1, 2005)

*Re: Bypassing PCV to exhaust DIY (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_One interesting thing I have noticed after switching to routing out the back of the valve cover and removing the check valve on the exhaust nipple is there is a noticeable power improvement. In the old routing I was kind of like "I think there may be an improvement", but with this routing it definitely pulls harder. Very noticeable. Definitely car has more power than it ever has now. Seems like maybe it took a day to adapt or it could be from me not driving it much on the vacuum testing day.

Thanks for the great work saaber2! So how has the car been so far having everything routed through the back of the valve cover and w/o the check valve?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV to exhaust DIY (Keden)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Keden* »_Thanks for the great work saaber2! So how has the car been so far having everything routed through the back of the valve cover and w/o the check valve?

Hey Keden, seems to breathe more freely coming off the back and no check valve. No change since last report and no change in oil consumption (possibly less but need to run a whole interval to see, certainly no increase). I've run about 2k miles or so on the off the back of the valve cover setup. I'll be doing another UOA soon although that won't tell us much because most of it was on the old setup coming off the front and with a check valve.


----------



## Keden (Feb 1, 2005)

*Re: Bypassing PCV to exhaust DIY (saaber2)*

Great! I'll be doing the same soon and will report back.
So just to summarize, what you have right now is 
1. front PCV valve blocked off
2. intake port blocked off
3. rear PCV metal tube blocked off
4. hose goes directly from the back of the valve cover into the exhaust nipple w/o a check valve 
Correct? Just want to make sure that I get it right


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: Bypassing PCV to exhaust DIY (Keden)*

That's correct.


----------



## shore (May 14, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (TGZ)*

I have been reading all the posts like a long time listener first time caller and Im sure that guy didn't put the nipple in to work like a venturi pump/suction. maybe the 45 deg angled end was turned backwards. 
I hope u guys keep this thred going cause I'm leaning on the side of the exhaust tap. I have no cat so can I install on the down pipe and has anyone had the fumes combust in the exhaust?


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

I am going to do this as well. But I will to hook it up to a catch-can before the exhaust, just to make sure it is pulling **** out.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

So, the 1.8t has a few more breather ports than we do.
We do not have any on the block correct? Just one on the back and two on the front of the valve cover yes?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Draxus)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Draxus* »_I am going to do this as well. But I will to hook it up to a catch-can before the exhaust, just to make sure it is pulling **** out. 

Not sure if I understand the statement correctly but a catch can helps the environment by trapping contaminants in the pcv gasses. It is actually detrimental to the flow, or suction however. Any impedance to flow, such as a check valve, tight turn in a hose, or catch can will reduce flow. So a catch can would be used for helping the environment, not to improve flow. A can that breathes well shouldn't be horribly restrictive but from my vacuum tests it appears the less restrictions the better for this setup.


----------



## broccliman (Jun 21, 2009)

*Re: (saaber2)*

I was just thinking about this thread the other day. How is everything looking? Did you ever try adding that 2nd line into the exhaust for more vacuum?


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

I was just going to run a catch can to make sure that stuff was actually being pulled out. 
But, that is just an extra cost so I will more than likely not do that. Not to mention the suction issue.

Did you ever add a second line like broccliman asked?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (broccliman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *broccliman* »_I was just thinking about this thread the other day. How is everything looking? Did you ever try adding that 2nd line into the exhaust for more vacuum?

Haven't had a chance to add 2nd line yet. Been doing cosmetic mods such as painting side skirts and bumper, boost gauge, etc. (BTW, VW dealer sells touch-up paint and clearcoat in spray can sets. Using this in combo with color sanding and buffing means you can paint everything for around $80-$100 in materials, but it does look smoother than stock paint so really should buff other factory paint to better match the new smooth paint, but no big deal). Probably won't do 2nd line until summer. I'll buy a more sensitive vacuum gauge for testing if I add the 2nd line. Car really seems to like the more unrestricted routing of running out the back of the valve cover with no check valves. I have been running that way for about 8k miles now as I recall.


----------



## brekdown29 (Jun 26, 2007)

sub'd


----------



## Keden (Feb 1, 2005)

*Re: (brekdown29)*

Not sure if this has been mentioned already in the thread and I've missed it, but I just came back from the garage after 3.5 hours of cursing trying to fit a 5/8" hose on the nipple and on the back valve cover port.
It was VERY tight on the nipple, but I got it on half-way somehow. Putting the hose over the rear PCV port was impossible though, and I've tried everything. If you did this with a 5/8" hose, then I hope yours was more stretchable than mine; otherwise, do yourself a favor and get hose with a larger i.d.
I'll go to buy a 3/4" or, more likely a 1" hose, tomorrow and will report back.


----------



## Keden (Feb 1, 2005)

*Re: (Keden)*

UPDATE
If anyone's curious, I got the 1" hose and it fits perfectly over the back PCV port... BUT I didn't run it all the way to the nipple, instead I only put a few inches of the 1" hose on the PCV port and connected it to a 5/8" hose through a reducer that I got at Home Depot. 
Initial impressions: car feels slightly stronger. Can't say there's much difference in performance and my boost gauge doesn't show any difference, but at least I will not see any more oil on top of my turbo, all around the DV, in the intake and everywhere else. I've topped my oil off to see how much it will burn (I normally burn 1L per 1500 miles).


_Modified by Keden at 11:12 AM 1-28-2010_


----------



## saucer (Nov 1, 2007)

Just read through most of this and am seriously considering this reroute. 
I noticed a few bits about combining this exhaust exit with a current catch can setup, but was wondering if anyone had more input on this combo. Is it overkill? Will it provide enough vacuum? Or has it been decided it's best to run out the back of the PCV port?
I'm curious because I like the idea of making absolutely sure I'm venting/collecting all gases before reroute but did not expect my VTA to smell as bad as it does. I'm already tired of having to switch on my recirculation button every time I start my car. And if I forget to and come to a stop for more than a few seconds, my cabin is flooded with fumes! Could I simply remove the top filter on the ammo box to attach a hose that runs to the exhaust? 
I've also noticed the vapors spilling out around my headlight and am concerned in time they might stain my CW. I've recently pulled off a Votex rear because my catless DP yellowed the area around the exhaust....


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Keden)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Keden* »_If anyone's curious, I got the 1" hose and it fits perfectly over the back PCV port... BUT I didn't run it all the way to the nipple, instead I only put a few inches of the 1" hose on the PCV port and connected it to a 5/8" hose through a reducer that I got at Home Depot. 

Another option is to use the larger hose, say 1" off the rear of the valve cover and then use a metal pipe as a connector to the 5/8" hose (see photo below). That allows you to stretch the 5/8" hose less and maintains a good tight fit. I'm referring to the coupling off the valve cover in the photo (ignore the lower coupling on the hose in the photo. I had to use that as my hose wasn't long enough). 








Also FYI I initially used a freeze plug to block the front PCV port but since that is being "pushed" by air from behind, I thought a hose clamp type plug would stay on better. For areas receiving vacuum (i.e. being "pulled"), the freeze plug is great. The best of course are the BSH and other aftermarket type metal plugs. 











_Modified by saaber2 at 7:33 AM 2-1-2010_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (saucer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saucer* »_I noticed a few bits about combining this exhaust exit with a current catch can setup, but was wondering if anyone had more input on this combo. Is it overkill? Will it provide enough vacuum? Or has it been decided it's best to run out the back of the PCV port?
I'm curious because I like the idea of making absolutely sure I'm venting/collecting all gases before reroute...? 

A catch can will reduce the effectiveness of this setup IMO. To what extent would depend on the catch can. You could get a sensitive vacuum gauge and test the before and after vacuum with the catch can to find out. My guess is unless you are running two nipples to increase the vacuum, the catch can will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the vacuum pull. But that's just a guess. Also, I have only tested vacuum in stock mode so chipped cars may possibly pull more vacuum (again need to test).


----------



## saucer (Nov 1, 2007)

So has it been discovered that this setup works best running out the rear of the PCV now...? 
Because the OP still details blocking off everything in the back and dropping the hose from the front...
thanks for any pointers!


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (saucer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saucer* »_So has it been discovered that this setup works best running out the rear of the PCV now...? 
Because the OP still details blocking off everything in the back and dropping the hose from the front...
thanks for any pointers!

Thanks for reminding me, I just edited the first post to reflect that blocking the front PCV and running off the back of the valve cover and using no check valves provides the best vacuum.


----------



## Keden (Feb 1, 2005)

*Re: (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_Another option is to use the larger hose, say 1" off the rear of the valve cover and then use a metal pipe as a connector to the 5/8" hose (see photo below). That allows you to stretch the 5/8" hose less and maintains a good tight fit. I'm referring to the coupling off the valve cover in the photo (ignore the lower coupling on the hose in the photo. I had to use that as my hose wasn't long enough). 
http://i140.photobucket.com/al...1.jpg

Thanks for the pics, saaber. That's actually exactly what I have now and that's what I was trying to explain








A 1" -> 3/4" hose reducer is available at Home Depot for about $1.34 or cheaper.
I don't notice any more fumes in the cabin than before. Only some more in the garage when I get back home - no biggie.
I seem to continue loosing oil like before and sometimes when the car is outside for too long, it sounds like there's no oil at all for a second or two, when I start it. But it could be due to really cold weather and the oil being too viscous. I hope I'm not starving the engine with this setup.
Can the vacuum there be too high to starve the engine? Especially on start up.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (Keden)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Keden* »_I seem to continue loosing oil like before and sometimes when the car is outside for too long, it sounds like there's no oil at all for a second or two, when I start it. But it could be due to really cold weather and the oil being too viscous. I hope I'm not starving the engine with this setup.
Can the vacuum there be too high to starve the engine? Especially on start up.

We are talking extremely low vacuum here, barely registers on a normal gauge. I'm seeing 0.5ish to 3 inHG, with momentary 5 inHG spikes when shifting. That is the same levels as seen for catch cans or pcv-delete systems that run everything into the line at the turbo (1-3in Hg). You wouldn't get oil starvation unless you were running huge vacuum levels. If you look at the video posted above in this thread somewhwere you can see the vacuum on the gauge. I observed no spikes at startup and one of the videos may even show startup. I actually would like to double my current vacuum if possible by adding a second nipple. Will probably do that once weather warms up.
As I recall, BSH said their race cars (drag cars as I remember?) pull large vacuums with their exhaust slashcut system and they have to top off after a few runs. So running huge vacuums would produce more power but could cause starvation issues. I am not interested in going for those high vacuums. My goal is to permanently eliminate the valve deposit problem with a simple, maintenance free solution. If there are some small power gains, that's a bonus.
BTW, too long of a discussion for this thread but oil choice can influence startup noise (and protection also). Try an ester-based oil with strong additive pack and see if you notice a difference. On my old boxster S, the noise difference at startup was night-and-day when switching from M10W40 to redline 5w40 for example, and the redline was much thicker than the M1. Some of the 502 oils in particular can be shot in as little as 1000-1500 miles, according to Terry Dyson the oil guru, so the noise you are hearing is probably due to oil IMO and possibly the fuel pump/follower you are hearing (WAG).



_Modified by saaber2 at 8:39 AM 2-2-2010_


----------



## Keden (Feb 1, 2005)

*Re: (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_We are talking extremely low vacuum here, barely registers on a normal gauge. I'm seeing 0.5ish to 3 inHG, with momentary 5 inHG spikes when shifting. That is the same levels as seen for catch cans or pcv-delete systems that run everything into the line at the turbo (1-3in Hg). You wouldn't get oil starvation unless you were running huge vacuum levels. If you look at the video posted above in this thread somewhwere you can see the vacuum on the gauge. I observed no spikes at startup and one of the videos may even show startup. I actually would like to double my current vacuum if possible by adding a second nipple. Will probably do that once weather warms up.
As I recall, BSH said their race cars (drag cars as I remember?) pull large vacuums with their exhaust slashcut system and they have to top off after a few runs. So running huge vacuums would produce more power but could cause starvation issues. I am not interested in going for those high vacuums. My goal is to permanently eliminate the valve deposit problem with a simple, maintenance free solution. If there are some small power gains, that's a bonus.
BTW, too long of a discussion for this thread but oil choice can influence startup noise (and protection also). Try an ester-based oil with strong additive pack and see if you notice a difference. On my old boxster S, the noise difference at startup was night-and-day when switching from M10W40 to redline 5w40 for example, and the redline was much thicker than the M1. Some of the 502 oils in particular can be shot in as little as 1000-1500 miles, according to Terry Dyson the oil guru, so the noise you are hearing is probably due to oil IMO and possibly the fuel pump/follower you are hearing (WAG).

Thanks again, saaber. Yes, my oil consumption is likely related to something else. The reason why I wasn't hearing this noise before I think was because my car wouldn't start that easy before







With the PCV reroute, my car doesn't crank for nearly as long as before on cold startup - cold starts are pretty easy now *knock on wood* http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
I'll check oil as you've suggested. I'm currently on Royal Purple 5W40, but will be switching to Motul Specific on my next oil change because my mechanic really likes it for its zinc contents.


----------



## dubndubber (Jan 26, 2007)

Has anyone tried the vent to atmosphere setup? ie routing hose to bottom of car and venting? Any benefits/disadvantages to this? I'm thinking of running it like this until I have the chance to weld the nipple on.
Why would anyone do a catch can over this?? This seems so much more efficient.
Also, any CEL?

Awesome job on this by the way.
I'm a noob to the FSI but this looks like its pretty easy and a must do for preventative maintenance.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (dubndubber)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dubndubber* »_Has anyone tried the vent to atmosphere setup? ie routing hose to bottom of car and venting? Any benefits/disadvantages to this? I'm thinking of running it like this until I have the chance to weld the nipple on..

As a test, I disconnected the hose at the back of the valve cover and ran that way for a while (front pcv plugged). It was more noisy and dumping some pcv gunk (residue can be seen on photo above) so I didn't test that long (I should have disconnected the hose at the exhaust nipple which would cause noise and gunk to exit underneath car but I was being lazy). 
Running that way should be similar to running a vent to atmosphere catch can (at a fraction of the cost of course). Can't say I ran it long enough for a true test. FWIW, the audi guy referenced in the first post was running his 2.7 tt this way and his UOAs looked fine and he said no oil spots on driveway from drain tube. I think a couple guys are running this way as I recall, maybe they will chime in. On a VTA setup, I wonder if you run the hose correctly (no where near the exhaust) if just a standard heater hose, rather than the temp resistant silicone hose, would suffice?
Also FYI I did the APR chip this week so I'll try to retest the vacuum to see if the increased boost increases the vacuum. I am assuming the flow of exhaust increases and thus the vacuum being pulled by the exhaust nipple should increase. But I'll test to see. Need to get a more sensitive vacuum gauge.


----------



## dubndubber (Jan 26, 2007)

*Re: (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_
As a test, I disconnected the hose at the back of the valve cover and ran that way for a while (front pcv plugged). It was more noisy and dumping some pcv gunk (residue can be seen on photo above) 

I was wondering what that was. just put a tin can there and you've got a $10 VTA Catch Can setup (Freeze Plugs)


----------



## vliou (Nov 22, 2009)

*Re: (dubndubber)*

Forgive the noobness - but what are you guys trying now? Blocking front intake manifold and running the front PCV line underneath your car??


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: (Keden)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Keden* »_
Thanks again, saaber. Yes, my oil consumption is likely related to something else. The reason why I wasn't hearing this noise before I think was because my car wouldn't start that easy before







With the PCV reroute, my car doesn't crank for nearly as long as before on cold startup - cold starts are pretty easy now *knock on wood* http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
I'll check oil as you've suggested. I'm currently on Royal Purple 5W40, but will be switching to Motul Specific on my next oil change because my mechanic really likes it for its zinc contents.

Can you please do an oil analysis on the royal purple oil? I'm very interested to see how it holds up to the 2.0T FSI direct injection and cam follower setups. Saaber2 can probably show you username Rhouse181 or something showed us his motul 8100Xcess oil analysis IIRC. Motul has a few higher cost oils that have higher ester counts and should hold up better but the motul products in general seem to fare very well in the 2.0T FSI. So far redline seems to really hold its own in this engine(2.0T FSI).......some ppl get fusy because its not on "the list".


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: (vliou)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vliou* »_Forgive the noobness - but what are you guys trying now? Blocking front intake manifold and running the front PCV line underneath your car??

if i'm up to speed i believe most guys are plugging up the front of the valve cover and venting out the rear PCV as pictured above. Then they run to either to a slashcut vent nipple in the exhaust, or some are trying simply dumping to the ground from the rear PCV.
If i was to switch from my catchcan setup i would go with the route to exhaust method. I feel the venting it with the vacuum pull from the exhaust is necessary......there are still 2 sides to this argument and there is not enough oil tests to prove one method over the other.


----------



## vliou (Nov 22, 2009)

*Re: Bypassing PCV and routing to exhaust, description (blackvento36)*

Oh I see...time to grab me a BSH stage 1. There is no unmetered air flow back on the rear PCV right?...yes - Noob.


----------



## dan the welder (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: (saaber2)*

im in the process of building a new exhaust right now so im building one of these setup-ups to go along with it.
Im using all AN fittings/braided stainless (i just like how they look). it was a kinda goofy line to build and required some stacking but the guy at Summit helped me get it done as simple as possible.
heres the parts....should be done sometime this week


----------



## djorkaeff_andrei (Sep 16, 2006)

This is my first post after a one and a half year absence so i feel i should say: hello again everyone








Anyway, back on topic: maybe there should be something else taken into consideration when routing from the back of the valve cover, which is: some of us have the front pcv with two valves: one for the "front pcv" and one for the "back pcv", and some of us have the front pcv with just one valve, the other one being in the metal breather tube in the back of the valve cover. 
In the DIY writen by saaber2 ( http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif very nicely http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif ), it is not clear what type of pcv he has. this matters because if he has a 2 valve front pcv model, by removing the breather tube in the back, he still has the valve for the back pcv installed, but if he has the one valve front pcv, be removing the breather tube at the back, he has removed the one valve that regulates the rear pcv...
Correct me if i'm wrong somewhere, but i think that this should also be taken into consideration. 


_Modified by djorkaeff_andrei at 12:32 PM 2-8-2010_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (djorkaeff_andrei)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djorkaeff_andrei* »_but if he has the one valve front pcv, be removing the breather tube at the back, he has removed the one valve that regulates the rear pcv...

That is on purpose. Having no check valves gives the best flow. If you use a check valve I would suggest using one with a very low cracking pressure because the amount of vacuum is low. You don't want the valve to impede or block the flow.


----------



## djorkaeff_andrei (Sep 16, 2006)

so you have a one valve version front PCV, and you had a valve in the breather tube from stock?


----------



## saucer (Nov 1, 2007)

I really want to make this happen, but my ATP downpipe is mummified in header wrap and silicone....
Could the hose be tied down the exhaust and the nipple welded in further down? Would this extra length affect the vacuum much? I'm thinking of a resonator delete and I could kill two birds with one stone this way...


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (saucer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saucer* »_I really want to make this happen, but my ATP downpipe is mummified in header wrap and silicone....
Could the hose be tied down the exhaust and the nipple welded in further down? Would this extra length affect the vacuum much? I'm thinking of a resonator delete and I could kill two birds with one stone this way...

My nipple is installed pretty far back. Maybe about the midline of the car. On the stock exhaust, the long pipe after the DP has a bend and then a long straight section. Mine is after that bend and in the straight section.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (djorkaeff_andrei)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djorkaeff_andrei* »_so you have a one valve version front PCV, and you had a valve in the breather tube from stock? 

Rear tube from back of valve cover to turbo had a check valve. That tube is plugged. Also front PCV is plugged (see photos above).


----------



## saucer (Nov 1, 2007)

*Re: (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_
My nipple is installed pretty far back. Maybe about the midline of the car. On the stock exhaust, the long pipe after the DP has a bend and then a long straight section. Mine is after that bend and in the straight section. 

Awesome. 
Any tips on securing the hose?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (saucer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saucer* »_Any tips on securing the hose? 

Check on one of the early pages of this thread. Someone posted a source for a great price on the silicone hose. I want to say it was around $25-$30 but can't remember.


----------



## saucer (Nov 1, 2007)

*Re: (saaber2)*

haha sorry, I meant actually _securing_ the silicon hose to the exhaust or underbody so it doesn't flop around under the car. Or is this not an issue? 
I know the exhaust gets pretty damn hot, so my go-to solution of plastic zip ties probably won't work


----------



## Keden (Feb 1, 2005)

*Re: (saucer)*









Failed an emissions test today.. suspecting the reroute as the cause since the rest of the car is stock and in good shape.. stupid me didn't disconnect the hose from the exhaust before the test


----------



## vliou (Nov 22, 2009)

Cool 0 NOx!!


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (saucer)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saucer* »_haha sorry, I meant actually _securing_ the silicon hose to the exhaust or underbody so it doesn't flop around under the car. Or is this not an issue? 
I know the exhaust gets pretty damn hot, so my go-to solution of plastic zip ties probably won't work









Metal ties would be the best or plastic coated metal (plastic could keep metal from cutting into hose over time) but if far enough from exhaust,, zip ties would probably work fine. I secured it onto the holes where the exhaust shield meets the plastic underbody shield. I used zip ties and no problems so far. You definitely don't want the hose flopping around because it would get too close to the exhaust.


----------



## djorkaeff_andrei (Sep 16, 2006)

I am in the proces of doing this mod and i've been having a hard time deciding wether to make it a VTA mod, or vacuum operated.
Some facts about why Vacuum in the crankcase yelds power gains:
http://nutterracingengines.com....html


----------



## djorkaeff_andrei (Sep 16, 2006)

Can anyone with a working exhaust nipple (that creates vacuum) eplain to me how they installed it?
i know it is supposed to be at a 45 degree angle, but what i don't understand is : the moroso nipple has 3 holes, one big 45 degree one that connects to the exhaust, one 90 degree hole that the hose connects to, and another small cut near the 45 degree hole. is that small cut supposed to be in the exhaust so that gases enter through it and exit through the 45 degree hole?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (djorkaeff_andrei)*

Yup, see diagram on bottom (note the direction of the arrow re: rear of car):








Have to make sure it is installed the right direction and right depth. It is easy to get it right becasue it is just 45% angle but I would still double check that the guy is doing it right AS he is doing it. Exhaust guys (and any mechanic's) experience and attention to detail varies greatly from person to person IMO. I would give them the diagram, explain it to them, and then watch them as they do it so they get it right.


----------



## djorkaeff_andrei (Sep 16, 2006)

by right depth, you mean deep enough so the small lateral cut on the nipple is inside the exhaust and not covered by the wall of the exhaust or by the welding material?
in this diagram, which i already saw a few days ago, it looks like the small lateral cut on the nipple is right in line with the outer wall of the exhaust pipe...


_Modified by djorkaeff_andrei at 10:48 PM 2-11-2010_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (djorkaeff_andrei)*

In reality it will be flush (or a little inside) the inner wall of the exhaust pipe. That diagram looks like for maybe a thick-walled header for a race-car v8. Our exhaust pipes are pretty thin. It needs to get exhaust flow into the little hole to work.
On a side note, i've been thinking about where to locate a second nipple if I added one. I located the first nipple in a section of straight pipe, thinking this would give an area of highest velocity and least back pressure. I wonder if locating it closer to the front (but still downstream of the cat and 02 sensor) would give more vacuum. Having said that though, I still need to check my current vacuum now that I have added an APR chip. It may be that with the chip, my current location is optimum. it would be best to have one nipple as far forward as feasible and one farther down and test them independently and then together. That would give a great map of the ideal location and the vacuum range attainable by this system.



_Modified by saaber2 at 1:30 PM 2-11-2010_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (djorkaeff_andrei)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djorkaeff_andrei* »_I am in the proces of doing this mod and i've been having a hard time deciding wether to make it a VTA mod, or vacuum operated.
Some facts about why Vacuum in the crankcase yelds power gains:
http://nutterracingengines.com....html

Cool info. on amounts of vacuum. Their objective is power, thus the higher vacuum amounts. Also the honda-tech guy was shooting for power and he was using 15" Hg of vacuum as his goal. 
I think the negatives of potential oil starvation are of concern with those real high vacuums. BSH reported that their race car(s) that use an exhaust slashcut were pulling about 11" as I recall and they had to top off after a couple drag runs. 
My ideal right now would be in the 3-5" Hg range with no more than about 7" max. I would guess that the 3-5" range would give excellent crankcase gas evacuation, maybe a slight bump in power, and no oil starvation issues. Really anything less than 0 should be fine in terms of exhaust evacuation.


----------



## djorkaeff_andrei (Sep 16, 2006)

if after you read the vacuum amount, now that you're chipped, you find that it's too large, you could diminish it by simply adding a smaller inner diameter piece somewhere in the hose that's connected to the nipple. that smaller diameter would restrict some of the flow, resulting in smaller vacuum (if needed). 
I also have read a post by someone from Revo (i think), saying that the ideal combination of vacuum for the crankcase would be in the 6-7" region, 7 being about max while not starving the engine of oil. 
Tomorrow i will install the exhaust nipple, after manufacturing it







and i will read the vacuum amount on it and on the metal pipe going to the turbo during hard acceleration (to see what kind of vacuum the crankcase would see with normal PCV operation under high engine load)


_Modified by djorkaeff_andrei at 11:50 PM 2-11-2010_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (djorkaeff_andrei)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djorkaeff_andrei* »_you could diminish it by simply adding a smaller inner diameter piece somewhere in the hose that's connected to the nipple. that smaller diameter would restrict some of the flow, resulting in smaller vacuum (if needed). 

Right. I think I would probably put in a check valve that would probably reduce the vacuum a little. I would like to have a check valve on there, but that moroso one was way too restrictive. I have heard on some other forums that people have had problems with that particular valve, even on large displacement engines.
It's cool that U are installing it yourself because then you can add a second nipple, change locations, etc. as needed. That nipple is literally only a piece of metal pipe like from the hardware store with the bottom cut off at a 45% angle and a notch cut into it. Should be easy to make.


----------



## djorkaeff_andrei (Sep 16, 2006)

i installed the nipple, hooked it to my boost gauge.. and it reads absolutely NOTHING... and yes, the gauge is properly connected to the nipple... it shows no pressure and no vacuum, whatever throttle applied...i guess the nipple is installed wrong







or the gauge is not sensitive enough... when i put my finger over the hole of the hose connected to the nipple, i could not feel any vacuum or pressure, i could just feel the gasses thumping up and down slowly (or the engine vibration if you will)















i will try to connect the boost gauge to the metal pipe leading to the turbo to see if it will read vacuum there under acceleration. this way i'll know if the gauge can read small amount of vacuum and if so, how much.



_Modified by djorkaeff_andrei at 7:34 PM 2-12-2010_


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (djorkaeff_andrei)*

Give it a try just venting to atmosphere (but keeping long hose to empty underneath). I hooked up my ultra-crappy gauge and am getting less vacuum than before now that it is chipped. Don't know if that is due to poor gauge or due to chip changing exhaust flow.
I removed hose from exhaust nipple and the magnitude of vacuum seemed only slightly less but importantly the timing of when vacuum occurs was the same as when it was hooked up to the nipple. This tells me that the air "pushing" out of the VC is a probably a bigger factor than the "pull" from the nipple. If that is the case, just emptying the tube to the atmosphere would have almost the same benefit. In that case this would be the easiest mod in the world and would cost about $30. All you have to do is plug front pcv. Plug rear breather hose to turbo and run a hose down under the car (I called this a "downtube" system above). I'm going to run with venting to atmosphere for a while and see what it's like.


----------



## vliou (Nov 22, 2009)

*Re: (saaber2)*

I've honestly thought about that...is there absolutely no chance that unmetered air goes back using your downtube method Saaber2?


----------



## djorkaeff_andrei (Sep 16, 2006)

the only way air could go into the tube and into the valve cover would be if the pressure in the valve cover is less that atmosferic pressure, or if you blow air into the hose. you can put a small air filter on the end of the tube if it helps your conscious








i will try to vent it to atmosphere, but will also measure vacuum on the metalic tube going to the turbo (tomorrow).
it is interesting that you're getting less vacuum now that you're chipped... btw, i have a chip, intake and 3" downpipe and the last muffler removed...


----------



## lancGTI (Nov 5, 2006)

Sub'd.


----------



## djorkaeff_andrei (Sep 16, 2006)

I just connected my boost gauge to the metal pipe going from the back of the valve cover to the turbo, and at most it reads 0.1 bar which is around 3" hg. While running like this, i left the back of the valve cover open completely, and i can't say the car is slower... i didn't notice any changes, except from the fact that it's a little lowder because of the noise coming from the rear port.
I think for now i'll leave the "rear pcv" connected to a hose under the car and maybe i'll connect the front pcv like this too (to get better VTA from 2 ports instead of one). i would have connected it to the exhaust nipple if i got some sort of vacuum from there, but apparently it's installed wrong...
I also discovered a slight problem with the install of my boost gauge which was done 3 years ago by a guy who apparently didn't give a ****, because he connected 2 vacuum hoses to a "T" and duck-taped the 3rd port on the "T",





















and of course after 3 years, the duck tape had a hole in it and i was getting slightly off boost and vacuum readings with the gauge.








I'll try to measure the vacuum on the exhaust nipple again, now that the reading of the gauge is accurate, but after i connect another hose there because this one melted (even though it should have been heat resistant)











_Modified by djorkaeff_andrei at 10:11 AM 2-17-2010_


----------



## dubndubber (Jan 26, 2007)

*Re: (djorkaeff_andrei)*

How's it running so far with this setup? ^
Did you run two hoses from front and back of PCV to the bottom of the car?


----------



## vliou (Nov 22, 2009)

*Re: (dubndubber)*

are we all not worried about unmetered air going back into the crankcase on both ends?


----------



## djorkaeff_andrei (Sep 16, 2006)

It's running fine. At the moment i'm running only one hoe from the rear port...
the air going in valve cover does not have to be metered, because it does not take part in the combustion process... and anyway it should have no way of getting in the crankcase, especially with a hose connected. the only way air could go inside the crankcase would be if the pressure inside it would be lower that atmospheric pressure... which is impossible (to my knowledge)


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (vliou)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vliou* »_are we all not worried about unmetered air going back into the crankcase on both ends?

Why would we be worried about that? It's not like having unmetered air getting into the intake tract. If you had large amounts of positive pressure being pushed into the crankcase that would be something to be concerned about but I think maybe you are confusing with the intake system where of course air must be metered precisely. Atmospheric pressure is not going to be pushing into the crankcase and busting seals etc.
Also FYI I put about 500 miles on the venting to atmosphere (downtube) and the car was definitely noisier and to me it felt less responsive. Even the wife commented that it wasn't as smooth as before and I didn't tell her I did anything. So I'm not a big fan of venting to atmosphere approach for possibly purely aesthetic reasons.


_Modified by saaber2 at 6:54 PM 2-21-2010_


----------



## dubndubber (Jan 26, 2007)

*Re: (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_
Also FYI I put about 500 miles on the venting to atmosphere (downtube) and the car was definitely noisier and to me it felt less responsive. Even the wife commented that it wasn't as smooth as before and I didn't tell her I did anything. So I'm not a big fan of venting to atmosphere approach for possibly purely aesthetic reasons.
_Modified by saaber2 at 6:54 PM 2-21-2010_

So did switching back to routing to the exhaust nipple fix the smoothness, response, and noise issues you were having with the VTA downtube?
Isn't the VTA downtube a similar setup to a VTA catchcan??



_Modified by dubndubber at 9:53 AM 2-26-2010_


----------



## dubndubber (Jan 26, 2007)

So is the best way to do this to route to exhaust nipple?


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (dubndubber)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dubndubber* »_
So did switching back to routing to the exhaust nipple fix the smoothness, response, and noise issues you were having with the VTA downtube?
Isn't the VTA downtube a similar setup to a VTA catchcan??i]

Definitely putting back onto exhaust nipple returned smoothness and power immediately and no noise. Loving this car again. Wanted to test downtube for one month but couldn't wait that long. glad I switched back.
Downtube is the same concept as VTA catchcans but I don't have personal experience with the VTA cans so can't comment on them.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: (saaber2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *saaber2* »_
Definitely putting back onto exhaust nipple returned smoothness and power immediately and no noise. Loving this car again. Wanted to test downtube for one month but couldn't wait that long. glad I switched back.
Downtube is the same concept as VTA catchcans but I don't have personal experience with the VTA cans so can't comment on them.


Interesting findings with the VTA dump tube vs route to exhaust.......


----------



## MKII420 (Jul 18, 2003)

*Re: (RABIDRABBIT1983)*

Not sure if this was mentioned, but is there a way to use a vacuum pump instead of routing to the ehaust?


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: (MKII420)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MKII420* »_Not sure if this was mentioned, but is there a way to use a vacuum pump instead of routing to the ehaust?

yes its been mentioned and yes it would work just gotta find a used pump or buy a new one and they ya go. Hardest part would be to regulate the amount of vacuum pull.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

*Re: (RABIDRABBIT1983)*

Also have to have a pump that can handle the goop (even if a catch can is used inline before the pump). Also a pump designed to work continuously.


----------



## JaxACR (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: (saaber2)*

Please excuse my noobery and lack of technical knowledge of the PCV, but I've got a quick question. Since it has been determined that blocking the front PCV port and running from the rear of the valve cover to the exhaust slash cut is the best method, I think that is the route that I am going to take. My question is this: I've noticed in the pictures that it seems like you are leaving the front PCV assembly in place and blocking the port that normally goes to the intake manifold (IIRC). This still leaves two ports from the valve cover to the front PCV assembly open. Is this really doing anything? Hypothetically, could I remove the front PCV entirely and put a block-off plate over those two ports, and then run a line from the rear PCV to the exhaust slash cut? Would it be better to replace the front PCV with a BSH stage 1 fix (which just allows a passage between those two ports but does not connect to the intake manifold)?
I looked for the diagram that BSH posted a while back which shows the route that the gases take through the valve cover passages and PCV, but I can't find it now.


----------



## dubndubber (Jan 26, 2007)

I have the Eurojet PCV fix which I've plugged in the front (expansion plugs in silicon tubes, check valve removed) and I have the hose running out the back of the valve cover to exhaust nipple. I had the nipple welded in about 3 or 4 inches down from the sensor, before the bend. It works great and idle is very smooth. I don't know for sure but it seems like I have a bit more power and better response??
This is a great mod that in my opinion is a must do. Cheaper than a catch can, no maintenance and small hp boost maybe? KEEPS VALVES CLEANISH. i get no odors ever and oil consumption is unchanged. i use redline 5w40. 
Thank you Saaber.


----------



## motronicmalfunction (Aug 26, 2002)

the nipple used was made for high displacement, high-velocity applications, as far as the engineering of the nipple (length into exhaust pipe, diameter, shape and position of the end cut and the venturi cut). it's a great idea in theory, but it just needs to be re-engineered a little...it's not pulling enough vacuum in our 2L cars.

a leaf blower attached to a 6' long length of 2" or 2.5" pvc tubing, various pieces of smaller plastic tubes (3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4, 7/8, etc) with the ability to be mated to a Hg gauge, and get to work! drill a hole towards the end of the pvc pipe, and try various diameter and length tubes with different kinds of venturi cuts. see what diameter tubes and style of venturi cut pulls what Hg at different (leaf blower) velocities, take some notes, see what's best, and then have someone machine a replica out of metal.

as this thread has discussed, the lesser of two evils is pulling too little Hg. too much, and there goes your oil. we just need to find what will give us a reasonable range while you are in the most commonly used rpm range.

:wave:


----------



## chubbmonkey (Feb 19, 2011)

did anyone notice if this helped with the cold weather milky oil cap issue? help to get moisture out? i have had my car for about a month and its been cold here in CT.i searched and i now know this is common for this engine .i found this thread looking into the coldstart misfire problem i have a misfire in one cyl only #3, only at coldstart. i did swap coils and plugs the problem is still with#3. it sounds like its time for a good intake/valve cleaning posible new injector and this super simple pcv fix. my gti has 120k


----------



## FMX_DBC (Feb 15, 2010)

so whats the optimal distance from the turbo to install the slashcut nipple?


----------



## FMX_DBC (Feb 15, 2010)

so I was going to hook up both the lines from my BSH competition catch can setup to a Y, check valve and slash cut in the exhaust.

I have a 2.0 FSI

Anyone have any convincing reasons why I shouldnt do this?


----------



## FMX_DBC (Feb 15, 2010)

nevermind, got some good input and will be running from the right side port only


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

motronicmalfunction's post above really hits at the heart of the weakness of this pcv bypass system, variability. Having talked to a number of people who have done this mod, there is a lot of variability. The angle of the nipple, depth of the nipple into the exhaust, how far back the nipple is installed are all variables that can affect the amount of vacuum pull. 

Some testing, as motronic mentioned, could really help limit the variability. It's a low tech solution that is cheap but it does have a lot of variability among those who have installed it. So it's not perfect but it is pretty effective. I would imagine that even in cases where there is only a smidgen of vacuum pull, that it would still be effective if for no other reason because it is dumping pcv goop into the exhaust instead of your intake tract. The amount of deposits these cars produce is pretty incredible. Recently I purposely put my pcv system back to stock and have been running m1 0w40 to purposely build up deposits (it kills me to do this) and I have seen a significant oily layer layed down on the valves in only 59 miles (city driving in cold weather)! So anything that causes pcv gases/liquids to no longer reach the intake tract is going to help.

Re the hose routing, for me the most effective (as mentioned in previous posts above) is to block the front ports and run everything out the back of the valve cover with no check valve.


----------



## FMX_DBC (Feb 15, 2010)

saaber2 said:


> motronicmalfunction's post above really hits at the heart of the weakness of this pcv bypass system, variability. Having talked to a number of people who have done this mod, there is a lot of variability. The angle of the nipple, depth of the nipple into the exhaust, how far back the nipple is installed are all variables that can affect the amount of vacuum pull.
> 
> Some testing, as motronic mentioned, could really help limit the variability. It's a low tech solution that is cheap but it does have a lot of variability among those who have installed it. So it's not perfect but it is pretty effective. I would imagine that even in cases where there is only a smidgen of vacuum pull, that it would still be effective if for no other reason because it is dumping pcv goop into the exhaust instead of your intake tract. The amount of deposits these cars produce is pretty incredible. Recently I purposely put my pcv system back to stock and have been running m1 0w40 to purposely build up deposits (it kills me to do this) and I have seen a significant oily layer layed down on the valves in only 59 miles (city driving in cold weather)! So anything that causes pcv gases/liquids to no longer reach the intake tract is going to help.
> 
> Re the hose routing, for me the most effective (as mentioned in previous posts above) is to block the front ports and run everything out the back of the valve cover with no check valve.


So you're blocking the turbo gas outlet and pulling from essentially the same place I would be with the left port of my BSH plate (except the opposite side of the valve cover)? Where are the exhaust turbo gases going? wouldnt it be better to route those gases back to the exhaust via my 2 port into 1 slashcut idea? please discuss :thumbup:opcorn:


----------



## FMX_DBC (Feb 15, 2010)

ok I think I am beginning to realize why it wouldnt work....


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

In stock configuration, when not under boost, the gases go into the intake manifold at "intake manifold gas outlet". When under boost, gases go into the turbo at "exhaust turbocharged gas outlet". I don't know the configuration of your BSh plate but I'm saying send everything out the back of the valve cover "exhaust turbocharged gas outlet" to the nipple. Block the line to the turbo. This should be shown in the pics above but I don't know on what page.


----------



## FMX_DBC (Feb 15, 2010)

thanks! after reading your posts through the pages that definitely sounds like that way to go.

2 quick questions for you regarding the slash cut nipple. (1) how far behind the turbo should the nipple be placed? I'm assuming you dont want it before the 2nd O2 sensor so it doesnt get spit on..right?
(2)as I read it, you want the exhaust gas to pass through the tiny slash cut in the nipple, correct? how far inside or at what depth should the slash cut sit inside the exhaust? thanks :thumbup:


----------



## FMX_DBC (Feb 15, 2010)

lets get this back to the first page :thumbup:


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

*Full Update Needed*

So glad I was directed to this great thread by my son today. :thumbup: I'm very technical and detail oriented. I'm assuming that this mod can be adapted to the current 2.0TSi in similar fashion even though I cannot confirm that assumption anywhere on Vortex. Am I wrong? 

Plus I see that there has been significant changes and discoveries along the way. So could the OP or someone else please condense the latest updates, methods and changes to this mod and post it here or better yet, in a new thread? 

It sure would help clean up the back and forth discussions over the last two years. 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

FMX_DBC said:


> (1) how far behind the turbo should the nipple be placed?


 I put it in the long straight section of exhaust pipt after the bend. This is quite a ways back, perhaps in about the center of the car. Location could impact amount of vacuum and I think there is a need for some experimenting to find the optimum location. 



FMX_DBC said:


> I'm assuming you don't want it before the 2nd O2 sensor so it doesn't get spit on..right?


 That's right 



FMX_DBC said:


> (2)as I read it, you want the exhaust gas to pass through the tiny slash cut in the nipple, correct? how far inside or at what depth should the slash cut sit inside the exhaust? thanks :thumbup:


 Yes that's correct. The Moroso instructions posted above show how deep to put it. Essentially the bottom (I mean bottom in the sense of towards the threaded part of the nipple) of the little cut should be flush with the inside of the exhaust pipe. I can't imagine it hurting much if you put it in a bit too far. Again this is an area where really we need to try some different depths and measure the change of vacuum if any (an experiment similar to what one of the posters described above somewhere in the last couple pages). This knowledge would help remove some of the variability of different depths locations, etc.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

VWRedux said:


> So glad I was directed to this great thread by my son today. :thumbup: I'm very technical and detail oriented. I'm assuming that this mod can be adapted to the current 2.0TSi in similar fashion even though I cannot confirm that assumption anywhere on Vortex. Am I wrong?
> 
> Plus I see that there has been significant changes and discoveries along the way. So could the OP or someone else please condense the latest updates, methods and changes to this mod and post it here or better yet, in a new thread?


 Hello D., you may remember me from the DSG campaign. Should be the same concept for TSI although you would have to compare the routing to make sure the correct ports are blocked etc. This could most easily be done by comparing the 2 pcv routing graphics from the FSI and TSI VW self study guides. The FSI graphic is posted in above posts but the TSI is not. I have the TSi self study guide and I'll see if the whole thing will fit on photobucket and post the link here (if someone already has a link for the TSI study guide that would be great). 

As far as changes to the system, in a nutshell it worked best for me to block the front pcv ports, intake manifold port, and tube to the turbo (correct nomenclature is in above posts) and just run the tube from the back of the valve cover to the exhaust nipple with no check valves. 

An interesting update: about 5000 miles ago or so I switched the pcv routing back to 100% stock mode for the purposes of BUILDING UP valve deposits. I did this for an experiment which I hope to post the results of soon. Just a few days ago the stock PCV valve failed. So it just goes to show the value of systems (there are many out there) which eliminate the stock PCV valve. Worked fantastic for like 35,000 miles in bypass routing and then when switching back to stock the pcv valve failed within about 5000 miles.


----------



## FMX_DBC (Feb 15, 2010)

Thanks for clarifying everythng saaber. I should be getting my block off plate for the front PCV next week and taking care of the rest soon after.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

saaber2 said:


> Hello D., you may remember me from the DSG campaign. Should be the same concept for TSI although you would have to compare the routing to make sure the correct ports are blocked etc. This could most easily be done by comparing the 2 pcv routing graphics from the FSI and TSI VW self study guides. The FSI graphic is posted in above posts but the TSI is not. I have the TSi self study guide and I'll see if the whole thing will fit on photobucket and post the link here (if someone already has a link for the TSI study guide that would be great).
> 
> As far as changes to the system, in a nutshell it worked best for me to block the front pcv ports, intake manifold port, and tube to the turbo (correct nomenclature is in above posts) and *just run the tube from the back of the valve cover to the exhaust nipple with no check valves.*
> 
> An interesting update: about 5000 miles ago or so I switched the pcv routing back to 100% stock mode for the purposes of BUILDING UP valve deposits. I did this for an experiment which I hope to post the results of soon. Just a few days ago the stock PCV valve failed. So it just goes to show the value of systems (there are many out there) which eliminate the stock PCV valve. Worked fantastic for like 35,000 miles in bypass routing and then when switching back to stock the pcv valve failed within about 5000 miles.


 Thanks saaber... no check valve? What then prevents exhaust back-up during the initial engine start up?  I'm guessing the reason is to achieve a better vacuum pull after the engine is started, right? But during the initial engine start, you will have positive pressure for a short time until the exhaust flow is stabilized. The check valve prevents this from happening during start-up. Am I wrong?


----------



## FMX_DBC (Feb 15, 2010)

VWRedux said:


> Thanks saaber... no check valve? What then prevents exhaust back-up during the initial engine start up?  I'm guessing the reason is to achieve a better vacuum pull after the engine is started, right? But during the initial engine start, you will have positive pressure for a short time until the exhaust flow is stabilized. The check valve prevents this from happening during start-up. Am I wrong?


 You are correct. The check valve is in order to prevent positive pressure. Whether that happens on start-up I am completely unaware. The obvious benefit of running without the check valve is increased vacuum (*hopefully*). 
I don't see any big issue with the brief positive pressure or exhaust back-up, however most of my knowledge is learned anyhow so I will be waiting patiently for Saaber's resonse to this also.:thumbup:


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

ever stand behind one of these cars when its cranked up? tons of exhaust almost instantly. 

also, if the exhaust gas follows the path of least resistance to go from a higher concentration to a lower one, why would it try to pressurize your engine, when your engine is already seeing pressure from blow by from our ****ty rings and the engine being hella cold? 

on my vta line, I run from the block off plate to the ground via a heater line. if I have someone crank my engine up, you can immediately feel the pulses from the line as the pressure is escaping. 

so, in my opinion, there is almost zero worries about your engine being pressurized by your exhaust, unless you set the system up wrong. 

would be cool to see if anyone actually measured it all out though.


----------



## saaber2 (Jul 15, 2008)

I agree with Kreiger on this. It would be interesting to try to measure but it probably falls into the "studying miniscule details that have no real-world effect" category. 

I would say that if you run a check valve get one with the lowest possible cracking pressure. The big Moroso check valve (shown on the first post) I think is more designed for big HP drag cars and in this application makes quite a blockage to flow IMO. 

Regarding startup, I recently put my car back to stock to build up valve deposits (crazy I know ha ha but all in the name of research...) and the car does not start as well in the stock setup as it did when it had the PCV bypass. I'm not talking night-and-day differences in startup, more like noticeable differences. Specifically fewer "stumbling starts" in the bypass setup. Interestingly, this holds true despite the stock setup running on recently cleaned valves. Again these are minor differences that many people may not notice but if there were an issue re startup one would think there would be more stumbling starts with the bypass setup, not fewer.


----------



## VWRedux (Jun 3, 2009)

saaber2 said:


> I agree with Kreiger on this. It would be interesting to try to measure but it probably falls into the "studying miniscule details that have no real-world effect" category.
> 
> I would say that if you run a check valve get one with the lowest possible cracking pressure. The big Moroso check valve (shown on the first post) I think is more designed for big HP drag cars and in this application makes quite a blockage to flow IMO.
> 
> Regarding startup, I recently put my car back to stock to build up valve deposits (crazy I know ha ha but all in the name of research...) and the car does not start as well in the stock setup as it did when it had the PCV bypass. I'm not talking night-and-day differences in startup, more like noticeable differences. Specifically fewer "stumbling starts" in the bypass setup. Interestingly, this holds true despite the stock setup running on recently cleaned valves. Again these are minor differences that many people may not notice but if there were an issue re startup one would think there would be more stumbling starts with the bypass setup, not fewer.


 
Okay great... got it.... even though it's miniscule, there is fluctuating +- pressure during crank and initial starts.... okay so that's over with. 

My next question is why did you reconnect everything to start the deposit build-up? I would have cleaned the valves, ran the bypass, then after say 5-8K miles removed the intake manifold to inspect the valves to see their condition because the EXHAUST GAS is recirculated through the intake valves as well! 

What's the purpose of your OEM PCV test? We all know it's going to leave massive carbon deposits... it's a no [email protected]#%&*?


----------



## racer-genx (Jan 9, 2006)

Won't this mod just lead to carbon buildup in your exhaust system? I can only imagine that over time your cat and muffler will be clogged.


----------



## FMX_DBC (Feb 15, 2010)

racer-genx said:


> Won't this mod just lead to carbon buildup in your exhaust system? I can only imagine that over time your cat and muffler will be clogged.


...only if youre afraid to push the pedal down lol :beer:


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

not likely. it would be flying out at all times, and your turbo would be pushing that **** sooooooooo hard and totally unrestricted, unlike your intake side, where it just slams into hot valves and bakes on without ever getting cleaned off.

diesels would have this issue if it were possible to have, since they dump tons of fuel when boosting, and the older ones run insanely rich to keep EGTs down.


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

any more feedback now that more time has passed Saaber?


----------



## PatrickVas (Aug 23, 2007)

Let's bring this thread back from hibernation lol. I also would love to know how this has worked out over the past year or so for you guys.

Another thing, have any of you VTA/downtube guys run into issues? Did you guys just put a filter on a short tube from the rear side of the valve cover or did you guys run a long tube down to under the car? Also would this tube have to be straight and with less bends or does it not matter? Just asking because that is most likely the route I want to take.


----------



## Arieb (Aug 25, 2011)

If I'm looking at the cut trough picture, the rear PCV outlet runs from the front most left port of the original valve assy. When this is blocked off by a plate, the back outlet ends there. In order to get a flow, you should have the plate like BSH is offering in their catch can set ups, where the front outlet goes to a catch can and then returns to the left port where vacuum from the intake is present. 

Their Stage I plate has a canal machined in it, so vapours are guided to the rear port, where you could then insert a catch can or vent to the slash cut or whatever solution. A cheaper soloution is to just block off the side that leads to the intake manifold with a plug though. 

Some things I know for sure: 

*Later versions of the PCV assy do not have a check valve in the left duct, so rear outlet always pulls vacuum, either under boost or not. 

*check valve on the manifold side of the original assy is trash and grants a lot of boost leak. 

With this in mind, I am going to try a catch can setup without any vacuum. Block off the plug on the manifold and the rear outlet and let a hose run from the port on the front to a catch can with a breather/filter on it. No black tailpipes, no carbon deposits on intake valves and no sticky intake pipe and manifold.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

i got a question: how do you clean your exhaust from all the oily build up?


----------



## Anile_eight (Sep 30, 2009)

thygreyt said:


> i got a question: how do you clean your exhaust from all the oily build up?


use a hose.... lol jk no you can't really do anything about it.


----------



## PatrickVas (Aug 23, 2007)

I used the downtube method so I don't have to clean anything. Also, I have not had any problems and the smell is very faint so I have no complaints. I recommend this method to anyone that asks about it...


----------



## xtravbx (May 21, 2005)

PatrickVas said:


> I used the downtube method so I don't have to clean anything. Also, I have not had any problems and the smell is very faint so I have no complaints. I recommend this method to anyone that asks about it...




Pics of your downtube setup?

Sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding the specific terminology and hose placement on the PCV system. New to the FSI platform.


----------



## mattkosem (Apr 29, 2004)

PatrickVas said:


> I used the downtube method so I don't have to clean anything. Also, I have not had any problems and the smell is very faint so I have no complaints. I recommend this method to anyone that asks about it...


Did you run your down tube out of the port in the back of the head? Got any pics?

--Matt


----------



## PatrickVas (Aug 23, 2007)

Yes, I ran the downtube out the back of the valve cover, down towards the front passenger side wheel. It also has a filter at the end and sometimes at night with my HID's on you can see some of the smoke come from behind the lights.

I also plugged off the hose coming from the intake/turbo with a freeze plug and a clamp, have a BSH stage 1 revamp on in the front.

I will post pictures in a little bit when I go down to the car. Feel free to ask any other questions I'm happy to help!


----------



## zbeasty (May 24, 2011)

What if you ran a catch can but instead of routing the pipe back to the PCV you ran it to the exhaust? You would then have most of the oil collected by the can and not going into the exhaust but also have the benefit of the vacuum from the exhaust side helping pull the crankcase gases out.


----------



## xtravbx (May 21, 2005)

Vapors going to exhaust are fine. They are going to burn up. The catch can would be pointless in line.


----------



## TCFGLI08 (Apr 6, 2011)

Please post pics of your setup
Thanks Terry


----------



## TCFGLI08 (Apr 6, 2011)

Originally Posted by PatrickVas 
I used the downtube method so I don't have to clean anything. Also, I have not had any problems and the smell is very faint so I have no complaints. I recommend this method to anyone that asks about it...




TCFGLI08 said:


> Please post pics of your setup
> Thanks Terry


----------



## PatrickVas (Aug 23, 2007)

I took them but never uploaded them, gimme a few I got you.


----------



## xtravbx (May 21, 2005)

Thanks Patrick - waiting on them as well


----------



## wolfsburg__gli (Feb 24, 2009)

im thinking of doing this setup on my TSI. youre currently running this w/o the check valve??


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

just wanted to bump this and say:

this thing works, and works fine!

only thing that i saw no one mentioning: CLEAN/unclog the exhaust inlet every 5k miles.

after 12k miles, my slashcut thing was all clogged from solified oil. nothing serious, a screwdriver was all that was needed


----------



## dubndubber (Jan 26, 2007)

Ok so I've been running the slash cut to the exhaust and I've been getting oil residue around the cap. Similar to what happens if the OEM PCV fails. I have the BSH plate in the front and hose out the exhaust turbocharged gas outlet to the nipple in the exhaust. i think I might try venting to air (route tube out back and down to ground) instead of to the exhaust because I'm not sure if I'm getting vacuum. Any ideas or anybody have any other updates on their setups? Any other ideas as to why I'm leaking oil?


----------



## xtravbx (May 21, 2005)

I also need to do this and just VTA.

I'm still low on miles where I don't think I'll have much build up on my intake valves, and I'd like to keep it that way.

Going to need to read through this thread all the way, still don't understand our PCV system 100%. Thanks for the good info everyone.


----------



## Arieb (Aug 25, 2011)

dubndubber said:


> I have the BSH plate in the front and hose out the exhaust turbocharged gas outlet to the nipple in the exhaust.


I hope you use outlet on the back of the headcover to vent towards the nipple in the exhaust? What turbocharged gas outlet do you mean otherwise? The one on the intake manifold?:what: That should be plugged as well. *Edit: Ah yes...the turbocharged gas outlet, that was what it's called in the VAG picture  You should be good, wonder where the oil and build up pressure comes from too.

I right now run it like this, not venting to air, but to air intake before turbo again to have proper vacuum and comply with PCV regulations:










For people that not really understand the routing of the PCV channels and the way it works, this picture might be enlightening. No clutter, black lines are the path the PCV air goes. The orange box contains all parts that are inside the original PCV. Older versions of the PCV may have a integrated check valve to the rear outlet as well, but there's a check valve on the rear outlet too, at least on my car.

I just cleaned my intake ports while installing a K04 kit from APR

Before:










And after:










Didn't clean them al the way to shiny new, but there is a big difference.


----------



## xtravbx (May 21, 2005)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not seeing any pictures?


----------



## Arieb (Aug 25, 2011)

Just to clarify what TS already has posted with a really good write-up and photo's, kuddo's man :thumbup: 

Left the setup that TS started with, taking PCV air from the front on the PCV valve outlet normally connected to the inlet manifold. Right the evolution of that setup, where he connects the rear outlet to the slashcut and blocks of the front end.










Note that the line on the back has a check valve in it already, either in the PCV valve or on the back of the headcover. No need to install an extra one there!


----------



## 05mk5 (Jul 2, 2011)

Will this work if all I want to do is block the top of my eurojet vta catch can, and take a hose from the top lid and route the smell and junk that come out the top to my exhaust pipe to dump it there instead of my engine bay?


----------



## Arieb (Aug 25, 2011)

You would still have to clean out the catch can off course, but there would be less oil going in to the exhaust. Some people here say that you then as well might get rid of the catch can and dump all PCV gasses in the exhaust, but I'm not fond of having all that oil burn op in my exhaust either. 

Do you only have the smell or also droplets coming from your can? I just installed mine and cleaned out the airtubing, I'm curious how good it filters the oil out.


----------



## 05mk5 (Jul 2, 2011)

not only the scent but a thin coat of oil in it's surroundings and hood inner cover


----------



## docterelliott (Sep 29, 2007)

if you routed your crank case vent hose to the exhaust, wouldnt the vaccum suck the oil out of the engine and into the exhaust? i ask this because we had a similar situation today. we have 3 breather hoses on my 16vt (two from the head and one from the crank case) going to a catch can with an air filter on the top. the catch can has two nipples so what we did is T'd the crank case hose into one of the valve cover breather hoses but what happend was the venturi principal at its best. there was so much blow by pressure at high rpm's that it sucked half the oil out of the engine and up the crank case hose. the hose seperated from the T fitting and oil went everywhere. for a temp fix/experiment, we routed the crank case hose to an empty soda bottle and left the lid off. worked great. no oil in the bottle at all even at high rpm's. now im not saying using a soda bottle is the right way to do it but the experiment proved our hypothesis.
this only leads me to imagine what would happen if the vaccum from the exhaust were to do that. again, question is...would it and if not then why? why would the greater exhaust vaccum not do this yet the valve cover breather would?


----------



## Arieb (Aug 25, 2011)

It at least might. That's why in all solutions on the TFSI, the crankcase breather gets routed to the most right (mechanic POV) inlet on your PCV plate and not joined in some T-construction. Then in the labyrinth in the valve cover, oil has time and structures to setle and (preferably) mostly only air and gasses get blown/drawn out of the engine.

If you would have used one inlet on your catch can for the crankcase vent only and T the two hoses from the valvecover together, you probably would not have the problem either. The venturi effect occurs at the T, where high speed gasses suck oil from the crankcase at the joint.


----------



## Arieb (Aug 25, 2011)

This is my actual setup right now, with the PCV valve removed and replaced by a plate just like the one BSH has.








I installed a catchcan solution from 42draftdesigns, looks neat and is cheaper than the BSH or BFI item.
Installed:








I am not venting to a slashcut though, but back to the intake before the turbo, like Greenpeace likes it :laugh:


----------



## VWChimera (Jul 9, 2004)

For those of you running the scavenger setup off the rear PCV port how are you blocking off the front. 

Are people just capping the PCV ends, using a capped BSH plate, or something else?


----------



## Arieb (Aug 25, 2011)

VWChimera said:


> For those of you running the scavenger setup off the rear PCV port how are you blocking off the front.
> 
> Are people just capping the PCV ends, using a capped BSH plate, or something else?


 Even cheaper, you can just block off the plug on the inlet manifold and on the existing PCV valve, see this thread. 

As mentioned there, I just put a rubber stopper cut to fit into the intake manifold and put the tube back on, so everything just looks stock. 

If you have a BSH plate with just one opening going down to the oil filter housing, the front port is routed through a machined channel in the the plate to the back. If you have a BSH plate with 3 ports, you will need to connect the two ports on the left (looking at it), if you block both these ports, you will have NO PCV! Normally these two ports will have a catch can setup between them.


----------



## TCFGLI08 (Apr 6, 2011)

*Any Updates*

Has anybody been running this long enough to say it
works
Terry


----------



## T0neyDanza (Apr 25, 2007)

I did this mod a few weeks ago. Used the BSH front block off plate, then plugged the rear metal return hose to the turbo. Then ran heater hose (with heat wrap) under the car and connected it to the morose nipple bung I welded in after the car. I checked it after about 500 miles and all kinds of gunk was in the hose at the bung. which means its working. I also scrubbed my valves at the same time, and am also running water meth. I hope to not have any issues. So far so good.


----------



## T0neyDanza (Apr 25, 2007)

T0neyDanza said:


> I did this mod a few weeks ago. Used the BSH front block off plate, then plugged the rear metal return hose to the turbo. Then ran heater hose (with heat wrap) under the car and connected it to the morose nipple bung I welded in after the car (no check valve). I checked it after about 500 miles and all kinds of gunk was in the hose at the bung. which means its working. I also scrubbed my valves at the same time, and am also running water meth. I hope to not have any issues. So far so good.


I have pics too if you guys want to see it.


----------



## T0neyDanza (Apr 25, 2007)

Yesterday I installed a "T" fitting with a small nipple on the end (right before the slash cut) and then ran some rubber hose up and through the passenger window. I then connected it to an extra boost gauge I had laying around and had a buddy hold it as we went for a ride. At WOT it is pushing 1.3 lbs. it stays at around 0 and flutters a little but during normal driving. Either way at least I know that there is a vacuum on the system. Still no complaints. Later this year/Early next year I should be installing APR stage 3 to the car and will be re-inspecting the valves to see how they are.


----------



## xtravbx (May 21, 2005)

T0neyDanza said:


> I have pics too if you guys want to see it.



I'm a visual learner, so definitely would like to see.


----------



## xJOKERx (Apr 8, 2009)

opcorn:


----------



## atrociousa3 (Aug 6, 2007)

has anyone that has done any of these set up, especially routing to the exhaust, pulled the manifold to see if it has helped with carbon build up? also wouldnt it be easier to route from the oil filter to the slash cut in the exhaust?


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

atrociousa3 said:


> has anyone that has done any of these set up, especially routing to the exhaust, pulled the manifold to see if it has helped with carbon build up? also wouldnt it be easier to route from the oil filter to the slash cut in the exhaust?


from the oil filter? What u talking about willis? 

I have been yearning to do this mod. I have a 42 dd catch can but tired of messing with it. It would be easy enough I do.......


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

A couple things guys. Have u ever floored your car and looked in the rear view ? It's a carbon soot smoke show anyways so I doubt anymore to worry about with this mod. 

As far as cat clogging u should be tapping in AFTER the cat not before.........

I already have a 3 port 42 dd plate for my catch can. I wanna lose the can. Should I use the ports on the block off plate ? Or use the rear ports?


----------



## atrociousa3 (Aug 6, 2007)

i mean instead of the hose connecting to the far right connection on the pcv plate just have that go straight to the slash cut. id care less about smoke and emissions, i just dont want anymore oil in my intercooler piping or valves.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

Bump


----------



## Arieb (Aug 25, 2011)

You can use the middle port on the front or use the one on the back. If you use the one on the back, you have to connect the two ports on the front together (one is the actual vent, the other a passage to the rear port) If you use the one on the front, plug the other ones to prevent contamination. In al cases plug the inlet just before the turbo (obviously)


----------



## atrociousa3 (Aug 6, 2007)

Sorry for beings dumbass but is pcv needed? What are negative effects if all pcv ports are blocked and where do non apr bt guys pull vacuum from then?


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

atrociousa3 said:


> Sorry for beings dumbass but is pcv needed? What are negative effects if all pcv ports are blocked and where do non apr bt guys pull vacuum from then?


 Yes pcv is needed. Race cars/big turbo either route to exhaust or run a vent to atmosphere style catch can.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

Arieb said:


> You can use the middle port on the front or use the one on the back. If you use the one on the back, you have to connect the two ports on the front together (one is the actual vent, the other a passage to the rear port) If you use the one on the front, plug the other ones to prevent contamination. In al cases plug the inlet just before the turbo (obviously)


 K thanks! I'll pull my cai heat shield off and have a look at the turbo inlet


----------



## atrociousa3 (Aug 6, 2007)

im going to connect a hose from the primary oil separator to a slash cut in the exhaust and see how that works. i read somewhere that there are gases in the valve cover that need to be vented. is that true with the bpy engine?


----------



## Arieb (Aug 25, 2011)

If you take it of from the oil filter, chances are that you are sucking out a whole lot of oil vapors (maybe more than you want) The labyrinth in the valve cover separates additional oil from the air. Leave this oil separator to valve cover pipe in place and take it from the the valve cover. Front or rear is a cosmetic choice, DIY or block off plates both work, it all gets covered by the engine cover/air filter housing anyway. 



RABIDRABBIT1983 said:


> K thanks! I'll pull my cai heat shield off and have a look at the turbo inlet


 The intake before the turbo is the metal tube between rear of valve cover and the inlet tube just before turbo, described with foto's by TS. :thumbup:


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

Bumping the thread to provide updated link to .pdf instructions from Moroso (URL changed) 
http://www.moroso.com/catalog/images/25900_inst.pdf 

Product page: 
http://www.moroso.com/catalog/categorydisplay.asp?CatCode=13023 

Thanks for writing this up BTW, I've followed this thread for a while now and will be doing something similar with my TSI. 
I purchased the BSH VTA CC when it was first release and switched to a dump tube using some of the PCV fitting attachments from BSH as well as a special adapter for the "front" pcv from BFI. 

I now have the 034 PCV breather plate and route that down the exhaust tunnel to a dump tube. 
(outlet on 034 plate is a -10AN line that I put a cover on for the first 18" or so to prevent it from rubbing on anything) 








(oh yeah, I have a direct port injection w/m kit installed too haha) 

I want to test out routing the line into the exhaust though. 
I have already purchased the needed AN fittings but I will be using a check valve in my system. I dont want to use the scavenging effect, I just want a nice way to route the PCV gases without having to breath them in. 
My exhaust is a ceramic coated (inside and out), wrapped in DEI heat wrap, and catless so I am not worried about the PCV gases inside the exhaust.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

I got motivated this morning and went to plumb in the PCV line to the exhaust and when I went to fire up the car it smoked like mad. As in Seafoam mad. 
I guess the exhaust was too hot for the pcv line and it burned up the oil vapors? 
Now remember I wasn't using the slashcut moros adapter this was a -10 AN line plumbed to a -6AN check valve and then straight into an extra o2 sensor bung in my (catless) exhaust. 
I instead rerouted the pcv line around the motor (instead of over) and back as a dumptube. This setup looks MUCH cleaner.


----------



## atrociousa3 (Aug 6, 2007)

Any changes on how the car runs?


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

video of this smokin? Im thinking about dumping to exhaust soon. I have the stock PCV system in place for the last 6k miles and im dreading to see what damage ive already done...


----------



## sethroid (Apr 19, 2012)

Krieger said:


> video of this smokin? Im thinking about dumping to exhaust soon. I have the stock PCV system in place for the last 6k miles and im dreading to see what damage ive already done...


 +1


----------



## TCFGLI08 (Apr 6, 2011)

x2


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

It should not be smoking out the exhaust if setup correctly. How much vacuum are u pulling at wot? to much flow by not running the slashcut adapter and u can literally be pulling oil right out of the crankcase. BSH was saying be careful to not get to much scavenging effect an in race car apps they have to monitor oil levels often. 

The original poster saber literally got a very sensitive vacuum gauge and taped it to the windshield for testing runs. A boost/vacuum gauge is not sensitive enough. 

There was also a gentlemen early in the thread that did something wrong and was pressurizing the crankcase and made a horrible mess. 

U should only get soot/smoke at WOT Not at idle or cruising.


----------



## WutupYo (Nov 30, 2012)

Well, as a new to this world of VW/Audi, and turbos for that matter, this thread has been eye opening. Such a flawed system from the factory. I'm going to do this setup and run my PCV to a nipple in the exhaust. 

On a somewhat related topic, how/what do you all use to clean everything up? My car has 90k on it, and I'm terrified of what the valves look like. Is seafoaming the engine sufficient to clean everything up? Should I just go ahead and buy need valves? I'm getting ready to search, bu I though I would post in here as well, to bump this thread


----------



## xatnys360 (Apr 4, 2012)

There are tons of threads with every possible method you can imagine. The tl;dr of it is that the only way you're going to get it clean is to take everything apart and manually scrape the valves. Water/meth should help prevent build-up, but even that isn't guaranteed to prevent the need for further cleaning downrange.


----------



## TCFGLI08 (Apr 6, 2011)

^What he said 
Terry


----------



## kylegti07 (Apr 4, 2012)

just wanted to get this going again to check progress.....
has anyone that has done the front pcv block and routed the gasses out the rear pcv to either drain externally or through the slash cut method, have any updates on how their car is running? also i never got a straight answer to "will it hurt the engine to block the front pcv and vent all gasses out of the rear pcv but let it drain to the ground rather than into the exhaust through the slash cut?" i.e. does the rear pcv have to see vacuum or boost? or can it vent to atmosphere?

also i had the idea about blocking the front pcv and placing a catch coming off the rear pcv, like doing it inline so the rear system essentially flows like stock but through a can


any thoughts?? 
im about to do some sort of pcv revamp with my tax return and any advice would be great!!!
Im going for a bullet proof mod btw....


----------



## xatnys360 (Apr 4, 2012)

kylegti07 said:


> also i never got a straight answer to "will it hurt the engine to block the front pcv and vent all gasses out of the rear pcv but let it drain to the ground rather than into the exhaust through the slash cut?" i.e. does the rear pcv have to see vacuum or boost? or can it vent to atmosphere?


It won't hurt anything except performance. Generating a vacuum in the crankcase has been demonstrated to boost efficiency and performance of the moving parts. A vacuum would definitely be preferable, and if I had to pick between no vacuum and a stock setup, I'd take the stock setup. PCV is only a minor contributor to deposits on the intake valves - it isn't worth drastically modifying the system to the extent that you lose crankcase vacuum.




kylegti07 said:


> also i had the idea about blocking the front pcv and placing a catch coming off the rear pcv, like doing it inline so the rear system essentially flows like stock but through a can


That wouldn't be a problem, but why? It would be harder to plumb and probably cost as much as many of the "normal" catch can kits.

My advice would be to get the BSH revamp and forget about this. If you're really torn up about PCV vapors, get a catch can and/or water/meth kit later when funds allow.


----------



## kylegti07 (Apr 4, 2012)

hey thanx for the advice and as for blocking the front pcv and using a catch can style thing off the rear, what i wanted to do was buy an inline oil separator, which nematic tools use, this would be installed in line with the hard metal rear pcv pipe, essentially no plumbing need it would just be placed in between the rear port and the hard metal pipe. 

my idea for doing this is that by blocking the front pcv, all gasses get routed out back and are forced through the oil separater before being pushed into the stock pre-turbo line. I feel this may be better than an average catch can but who actually knows.... 

i really want to try the slash cut the only thing that worries me is trying to get the nipple installed properly it seems the guys that have tried this ran into issues getting the muff shop to do it right. and i want to be able to reverse everything is something goes wrong....


long story short just want to make sure the slash cut is safe


----------



## aznsap (Aug 7, 2010)

this is interesting. 

why haven't any aftermarket companies caught on and pieced together a kit to do this?


----------



## T0neyDanza (Apr 25, 2007)

RABIDRABBIT1983 said:


> It should not be smoking out the exhaust if setup correctly. How much vacuum are u pulling at wot? to much flow by not running the slashcut adapter and u can literally be pulling oil right out of the crankcase. BSH was saying be careful to not get to much scavenging effect an in race car apps they have to monitor oil levels often.
> 
> The original poster saber literally got a very sensitive vacuum gauge and taped it to the windshield for testing runs. A boost/vacuum gauge is not sensitive enough.
> 
> ...


 I ran a "T" fitting and tapped into mine to test it. At WOT was pulling 3 LBS HG. So yes. plenty. By the way I had to pull my manifold off 2 months ago to change an injector seal, and my valves were sparkling clean. This method works well. I am also running Water meth via the BSH TBP single port.


----------



## kylegti07 (Apr 4, 2012)

were you using the slash cut method? i.e "piping the rear pcv into the exhaust"


----------



## T0neyDanza (Apr 25, 2007)

kylegti07 said:


> were you using the slash cut method? i.e "piping the rear pcv into the exhaust"


 Yes


----------



## aznsap (Aug 7, 2010)

can we bring this thread back--what's the verdict on this? 

this may be a crazy thought, but how hard would it be to install an injector to spray fuel over the valves to prevent this carbon buildup? it'd probably make our cars run really rich though huh?


----------



## MFZERO (Mar 13, 2002)

aznsap said:


> this may be a crazy thought, but how hard would it be to install an injector to spray fuel over the valves to prevent this carbon buildup? it'd probably make our cars run really rich though huh?


 Buy this: http://uspmotorsports.com/2.0TFSISTAGE2PerformanceIntakeManifold-HEP.html


----------



## T0neyDanza (Apr 25, 2007)

Soooooo after a few years with the slash cut, I started noticing oil pushing through the oil cap. I knew it wasn't a bad PCV since I don't have one. I tried all sorts of stuff. I ended up disconnecting the hose at the exhaust nipple, and it's fine now. Hmmmm. This all started once I went K04 as well. I'm not sure if it had anything to do with it, but I'm no longer using the slash cut nipple. It's plugged, and the hose that ran from the rear PCV to the nipple, is zip-tied up out of the way. I think under heavy load, it was somehow pushing air back in the valve cover. I was not running the check valve by the way.


----------



## sethroid (Apr 19, 2012)

T0neyDanza said:


> Soooooo after a few years with the slash cut, I started noticing oil pushing through the oil cap. I knew it wasn't a bad PCV since I don't have one. I tried all sorts of stuff. I ended up disconnecting the hose at the exhaust nipple, and it's fine now. Hmmmm. This all started once I went K04 as well. I'm not sure if it had anything to do with it, but I'm no longer using the slash cut nipple. It's plugged, and the hose that ran from the rear PCV to the nipple, is zip-tied up out of the way. I think under heavy load, it was somehow pushing air back in the valve cover. I was not running the check valve by the way.


Can you inspect the slash cut itself? Maybe it has build up on it.


----------



## T0neyDanza (Apr 25, 2007)

sethroid said:


> Can you inspect the slash cut itself? Maybe it has build up on it.


I tried to look inside and see, but it's not clogged. I even flushed it out with a quick blast of water. Maybe the actual slash end has deteriorated and is gone and the nipple is just flush on the inside of the tube. Make sense? Either way, I'm not running it. No issues with the car, and no more oil on the cap/valve cover.


----------



## zrickety (Aug 29, 2012)

I wonder what the inside of your exhaust looks like. So now you are VTA? I have my rear pcv just going to a breather filter, also VTA. I had a small leak at the timing cover that went away when I did it. I don't believe the system needs any vacuum, though it probably doesn't hurt.


----------



## T0neyDanza (Apr 25, 2007)

zrickety said:


> I wonder what the inside of your exhaust looks like. So now you are VTA? I have my rear pcv just going to a breather filter, also VTA. I had a small leak at the timing cover that went away when I did it. I don't believe the system needs any vacuum, though it probably doesn't hurt.


I am now VTA I cut my hose back to right next to the flex pipe, and tucked it behind the aluminum shroud. I also cut off the moroso nipple and welded the hole shut today. No more oil issues and I'm just leaving it. Cars runs great again.


----------



## vwisthebest (Sep 17, 2003)

I've been running this exhaust-routed PCV solution for several years on my own car (150k miles now) without any issue. Before installing, my car was consuming about 2 quarts oil between my 5k mile changes. After installing, oil consumption has been non-existent and car runs flawless. I never add oil. 

I've also installed this PCV setup on about 5 other cars. The only issues have been two of the cars had the hose come disconnected at the exhaust, changing the sound. Simple fix was re-attaching the hose with new hose clamp. 

Of course you'll never stop 100% of carbon buildup, due to valve seals weeping. But this kit made my car run smoother, eliminated my oil consumption, and saved me the headache of a PCV failure or even wondering if my PCV was causing an issue. Exhaust tips are dirty, but engine bay is spotless because no VTA setup; engine bay stays cleaner than the outside of my car! I'll do this on every 2.0T I own.


----------



## thegave (Dec 22, 2008)

T0neyDanza said:


> Soooooo after a few years with the slash cut, I started noticing oil pushing through the oil cap. I knew it wasn't a bad PCV since I don't have one. I tried all sorts of stuff. I ended up disconnecting the hose at the exhaust nipple, and it's fine now. Hmmmm. This all started once I went K04 as well. I'm not sure if it had anything to do with it, but I'm no longer using the slash cut nipple. It's plugged, and the hose that ran from the rear PCV to the nipple, is zip-tied up out of the way. I think under heavy load, it was somehow pushing air back in the valve cover. I was not running the check valve by the way.


Could this be because there was too much vacuum on the slash cut, pulling oil up from the sump?


----------



## Rcbowman369 (Mar 26, 2008)

thegave said:


> Could this be because there was too much vacuum on the slash cut, pulling oil up from the sump?


No. Not using the check valve is what caused it.


----------



## vwisthebest (Sep 17, 2003)

Rcbowman369 said:


> No. Not using the check valve is what caused it.


I know many cars all running this system WITHOUT the check valve. The one car I know that installed the valve at the exhaust had pressure buildup issues, so removed it. The fact that he is k04 means that is likely the cause of his issues. The fact that his problems started immediately after going k04 make it almost certain.

Sent via Tapatalk2


----------



## T0neyDanza (Apr 25, 2007)

vwisthebest said:


> I know many cars all running this system WITHOUT the check valve. The one car I know that installed the valve at the exhaust had pressure buildup issues, so removed it. The fact that he is k04 means that is likely the cause of his issues. The fact that his problems started immediately after going k04 make it almost certain.
> 
> Sent via Tapatalk2


Exactly. The check valve has nothing to do with it. It ran perfectly fine until the day I went K04. Kinda weird but eh, whatever it's fine now. I am just running VTA under the car.


----------



## thegave (Dec 22, 2008)

But with VTA you don't get the vaccum on the crankcase.

So if going big turbo caused your oil to overflow, it can only be because either the crankcase pressure increased was so great the bypass system was unable to vent it all, or the increase in exhaust backpressure/flow increased the vacuum on the evac system so much it started pulling oil up out of the sump?


----------



## Rcbowman369 (Mar 26, 2008)

it has more to do with back pressure in the exhaust and the increased flow rate of the ko4. this type of crankcase evacuation works best with open exhaust. I'm ko4 with a check valve for the last 4 years no problems whatsoever.


----------



## thegave (Dec 22, 2008)

Would running a restrictor in the evac line work to the vacuum being pulled out of the crankcase? Would that help with high flow/pressure applications?


----------



## Rcbowman369 (Mar 26, 2008)

A restrictor between the engine and exhaust would help if you were experiencing high vaccum during WOT that was drawing excess amounts oil out of the engine. As for exhaust pressure it mat slow it down a bit but its not going to stop it from entering and over pressurizing the crankcase blowing oil past seals and out through the oil cap


----------



## T0neyDanza (Apr 25, 2007)

thegave said:


> But with VTA you don't get the vaccum on the crankcase.
> 
> So if going big turbo caused your oil to overflow, it can only be because either the crankcase pressure increased was so great the bypass system was unable to vent it all, or the increase in exhaust backpressure/flow increased the vacuum on the evac system so much it started pulling oil up out of the sump?


Nor do you with a catch can. I still have the one on the front that goes to the oil filter housing as well. I'd rather have VTA then back pressure and oil everywhere.


----------



## thegave (Dec 22, 2008)

Catch can plumbed back into crankcase will create vacuum. I was just hoping dumping into the exhaust would a create similar solution, minus the the dirty gases.


----------



## Arieb (Aug 25, 2011)

Most pressure in the crankcase comes from the vacuumpump anyway, not from blow by. It's one big air pump on the cam housing opposite of the timing belt.

I was hoping for a little less build up with a catch can. Now running (through the catch can) VTA. Smells good


----------



## kylegti07 (Apr 4, 2012)

so for anyone that is blocking the front pcv and venting the rear pcv to atmosphere, does this work without any ill effects?


----------



## JaxACR (Dec 6, 2007)

Any thoughts on how a catless exhaust would affect the performance of a slashcut setup? It's a 3" downpipe going to the stock catback. I've got all the parts for the slashcut setup ready to go, but I'm hoping to only have to get the exhaust welded once, so trying to do it best the first time.

My concerns: 
Is there any advantage/disadvantage to placing the slashcut closer to the engine? No cat to foul and I don't care about the secondary O2 sensor, it just has to be past the primary O2 (which is before the first bend off the turbo anyway.) Will the placement affect the amount of vacuum pulled?

And that leads into my second question- how much additional vacuum will I see with no cat? I'm assuming that the greater exhaust gas velocity passing over the slashcut will result in greater vacuum. How much vacuum is too much?

I'm hoping that someone with a similar setup can comment...


----------



## kylegti07 (Apr 4, 2012)

well heres my .02, first you really cant pull too much vacuum, the slash cut nipple is too small to pull enough vacuum to cause oil starvation. Also if you read this whole thread you will see that the OP had contacted many ppl about this method before he did it and even found one guy (a civic owner i believe) that needed more than 2 slash cut nipple to pull adequate vacuum to evacuate his system. also the turbo acts as an exhaust restrictor (have you ever seen the hot side outlet of the stock ko3? its like the size of a doughnut hole) basically the only issues with running a slash cut method is the risk of pressurizing the head from back pressure in the exhaust. the only way to avoid this is proper positioning of the nipple which should be easy if your muffler guy has half a brain. I would suggest that you take a look at my other thread (PCV : A cure) it basically does the same thing as the slash cut but it evacuates the pcv without vacuum. your choice but the nice thing is you could try my method (which is bulletproof) and then just add the slash cut nipple without any modification to my system. hit me up if you got any questions

kyle


----------



## JaxACR (Dec 6, 2007)

Thanks Kyle, I've been following your thread too. I thought I read somewhere (it may have been in this thread) that BSH had run into an issue with too much vacuum on a track car and that it had pulled oil out along with the vapors. I suppose on a track car though they were probably running a massive turbo, and what you said makes sense about the stock turbo restricting flow quite a bit. I think I'm going to try placing the nipple somewhere in the first straight length of pipe, depending on clearance. I'm not opposed to running it to atmosphere, but I'm interested in the potential benefit of pulling vacuum on the crankcase (particularly improved piston ring sealing.)


----------



## FMX_DBC (Feb 15, 2010)

Bumping this.... 

Where did you guys find the 1" ID hose for the rear PCV? I'm striking out here


----------



## T0neyDanza (Apr 25, 2007)

FMX_DBC said:


> Bumping this....
> 
> Where did you guys find the 1" ID hose for the rear PCV? I'm striking out here


I think I just used a heater core hose from autozone. silicone hose is better for heat resistance since it runs to the exhaust, but mine worked fine... I did end up pulling all this stuff off and welding the hole shut a few months back though. I was having issues with back pressure pushing oil through my oil cap. I ran it without the check valve though. Knowing what I know now, and after having this installed for a few years. I wouldn't mess with it again. I'd just leave it and do a valve cleaning every 50k miles or so. I got pretty good at pulling the intake manifold over the years.


----------



## apigo200x (Apr 21, 2015)

hi
i want delete my 07 Audi A4 b7 2.0tfsi stock pcv system .... what is the best long-term choice ? with or without Check valve?
thx?


----------



## vwisthebest (Sep 17, 2003)

No check valve.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

Bump from the dead fellas! I've tried to reach our friend saber a few times to no avail. 

I already have a bsh plate with 2 ports for the front PVC delete plate and use a 42 DD catch can. I wanna use the 2 port plate I have but route to exhaust and eliminate my catch can. Is this possible?

Do I need to block off the the bsh catch can ports on the front plate or can I route to exhaust with it??

Or am I better off to simply block off the ports on the bsh plate and use the back ports??


----------



## vwisthebest (Sep 17, 2003)

Blocking those two ports will close up the entire system and could lead to catastrophic damage. The port on the right is the output for all PCV gases and the port on the left is the input that leads to the rear port through the valve cover. You have 3 options. First, use a "U" shaped hose to connect the ports, then use a second hose to connect the rear port to the exhaust. Second, you could block off the left input port on the block off plate, then run a house from the right output port on the block off plate all the way to the exhaust. That would completely eliminate the rear port from the system. Last, you could keep the catch can as is and just run a house from the rear PCV port to the exhaust. In that case the catch can would be kind of pointless and you would still have to remember to empty it.

I would do the first option. The regular BSH block off plate has an internal channel that links the output and input together, so it's a cleaner way of doing the same thing as the U shaped hose.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

vwisthebest said:


> Blocking those two ports will close up the entire system and could lead to catastrophic damage. The port on the right is the output for all PCV gases and the port on the left is the input that leads to the rear port through the valve cover. You have 3 options. First, use a "U" shaped hose to connect the ports, then use a second hose to connect the rear port to the exhaust. Second, you could block off the left input port on the block off plate, then run a house from the right output port on the block off plate all the way to the exhaust. That would completely eliminate the rear port from the system. Last, you could keep the catch can as is and just run a house from the rear PCV port to the exhaust. In that case the catch can would be kind of pointless and you would still have to remember to empty it.
> 
> I would do the first option. The regular BSH block off plate has an internal channel that links the output and input together, so it's a cleaner way of doing the same thing as the U shaped hose.


To be clear I have 2 ports a middle port and a end port closest to passenger fender. (3rd port goes to oil filter of course)

If I want to route out the front I would cap the end port closest to fender and use the middle port to route to exhaust? This would eliminate rear pcv and not have the ugly U hose connecting the front plate ports correct?

Just want to be 100% clear I understand u right.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

Bump


----------



## apigo200x (Apr 21, 2015)

vwisthebest said:


> No check valve.




but without check valve Exhaust gaz will not go up in PCV ?


----------



## 2006_A3_2.0T (Jan 11, 2013)

I read somewhere that it wont, but maybe because it was a straight downpipe and it flows faster prevengig backpressure making it safe.. correct me if wrong,


----------



## brax (Mar 19, 2002)

*pcv delete*

bump.... can anyone help code out my egr/pcv system? im getting 3 codes now after the delete, i have my ecu dumped via bdm -- b7 med9 audi 2.0T thanks!


----------



## JaxACR (Dec 6, 2007)

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread - lots of good info here!

I'm getting ready to attempt this, though I've got a bit of a different circumstance. I'm installing an Integrated Engineering billet valve cover which eliminates the PCV entirely. It has a fitting on the top of the valve cover which is typically used with a catch can, and they also sell a fitting to replace the hose that typically runs from the oil separator at the top of the filter housing to the PCV. My thought is to run both of these hoses to a tee fitting, which would then go to the exhaust slash cut fitting. Anyone see any problems with this line of thinking? It should just pull the vapors from both ports at all times. Would it be necessary to have check valves after the tee keeping these two ports isolated from each other?

Thanks in advance for any advice!


----------

