flying dipsticks?

[GQ_WhiteMS3]

I'm VERY unfamiliar with HOW this pcv system works, with the 2 systems ... do they work together or independant etc. COuld you please explain in some detail how this creates / increases the vaccum? it's my understanding that that pcv outlet is venting FROM the valve cover to the intake via a) crankcase pressure pushing it out or b) intake / turbo vaccum pulling it out, honestly I'm not sure ... tell me)

I just don't see out restricting a hole that something is evacuating out from will NOT increase the pressure.

[Laloosh]

Id consider it lucky if aarons car makes it 2010...

[rodrigo]

well apparently he took the "fix" out and his car is back to normal.

c'mon guys..let's get real for a change. this doesn't take away from the efforts to try and better our cars...but lets also be a little honest here with the obvious.

this needs to be investigated further.

[Laloosh]

he should a full compression check imo. That lil valve should not spit out the dipstick and spill out that much oil

[rodrigo]

def compression check, leakdown test ...the works......but the timing is pretty coincidental.

did the pill reveal a greater issue in his car? who knows....but dismissing this as ...."isolated incident" I dont think is the professional way of handling this if you want to be taken serioulsy.

[aaronc7]

you plug the breather off the valvecover too much....the pressure has to vent somewhere..it's going to go out the path of least resistance (dipstick). i dont see how that's so hard to understand

[rodrigo]

it's not hard to understand at all.... I myself think it is rather obvious..... but to be completely fair....one must ask why this happened to you and not others.... does your car have more blow by? do u have more miles? does your catch can set up cause any conflicts with this "fix"...... does your pill have identical tolerances as others....etc etc.

I think the correct thing is to keep a very very close eye on this and have full disclosure.....because this is how bad reputations are born.

[aaronc7]

if i had to guess, it's probably my 2nd catch can setup that was 'incompatible'. in stock form, you just have a straight hose from the valvecover to the intake....throw in this restrictor, no problem.

for me, i have several feet of tubing and a baffled catch can that the air has to pass through. There was already an increased restriction...and adding another big restriction was just too much. the pressure could not be evacuated quickly enough, and it found another path (dipstick). Perhaps i could experiment by drilling the hole out larger, but at this point its probably pretty obvious i dont wanna mess around with it.

it's been over a day since I took it out, and since then I have driven extra hard, trying to recreate this (to indeed see if it was just a fluke or caused directly by the 'fix'). Car feels great....no flying dipsticks, oil consumption or anything abnormal...just a dirty engine bay still.

I find it very very unlikely this is just all a "coincidence". 52000 miles and been "fully bolted" for over a year and no issues until the day I install this thing??? Then, i take it off, and drive the car really hard and can't recreate the issue....

if my reasoning for why it happened to me is correct, i think its bad for PTP to blow the issue off as "i dont know why it's doing it, you're the only one". it would mean that at some point there too much restriction in that part of the system and stuff like this will happen....just seem like you will be playing with a fire a little bit. who will it affect?? who won't it affect?

[Laloosh]

So if you already have addeded restrictions, according to ptp you shouldnt be smoking to begin with

[aaronc7]

I only smoked at idle with stock idle rpm....and if it was REALLY REALLY hot out and had been sitting for at least 10 mins. Very rare in other words...I raised my idle to 900 rpm and never seen smoke idling. I actually posted up regarding my OCC setup and wondering how it would work:

Originally Posted by ptperformance It should have some benifit, it will at least make the cars PCV system work the way it suppose to, thats a benifit if you ask me.

Lol, i found this too early just searching "dipstick":

Originally Posted by ptperformance We can not push the dipstick tube ouf of our cars because there are to many open holes for the pressure to escape to, thus is why we don't have properly working PCV system on the car.

[Cosmic3MPS]

Originally Posted by Lenny127 d....but dismissing this as ...."isolated incident" I dont think is the professional way of handling this if you want to be taken serioulsy.

But is this not an isolated incident? Has anyone other than Aaron popped a dipstick? Sorry, can't see the logic of this statement

[jmhinkle]

I don't think it isolated, but I'm not taking my spring off my dipstick again to test either. I'm just waiting for my 3071 to arrive and not have these problems to deal with.

[aaronc7]

jmhinkle, can you give me more info regarding this spring?

[rodrigo]

because every failure has a first case........ so the prudent thing would be to further investigate.

seems pretty logical to me. then again I don't buy shit off shelves blindly without others guinea piging the stuff ahead of time to see whats what.

[aaronc7]

whoosh: what exactly did you do that resulted in your dipstick launching the first time?? (or what made you get the spring...or whatever)

[rodrigo]

wow, talk about back yard mechanic fixes......Nator approved 100%

[GQ_WhiteMS3]

So someone with a catch can between the pcv and the IM with the stock pcv before the can and another oem pcv after the can before the IM SHOULDN'T launch their dipstick?

Why a spring btw ... did it allow the stick to move enough to let air out but close shut before oil errupted? or was it just simply an easy way to keep it closed.

[aaronc7]

all that craziness between the crank and IM, i have all of that, plus another catch can between the valvecover and actual intake (right after the MAF)

[802MS3]

so in conclusion, aaron didn't need the fix because he already has enough restriction with the two catch cans?

[aaronc7]

probably. or i could dry drilling out the hole (in the plug), but im scared to try it anymore.

[wakeboarddude]

Wouldn't forcing the dipstick shut create more problems cause if the pressure did build then it can blow something from the inside? Unless thats what the spring is for like GQ stated, it releases pressure but less oil?

[jmhinkle]

Originally Posted by aaronc7 jmhinkle, can you give me more info regarding this spring?

Whoosh beat me to it. After he posted in my thread I bought a spring and did the same. I'm waiting for the OEM PCV fix to be released before I purchase new PCV valves, but I am going to pull the PTP insert out since I started smoking again today and I will run my upper OCC VTA.

Originally Posted by wakeboarddude Wouldn't forcing the dipstick shut create more problems cause if the pressure did build then it can blow something from the inside? Unless thats what the spring is for like GQ stated, it releases pressure but less oil?

The pressure isn't that great. It's just greater than the simple slip fit o-ring on the dipstick can handle. The 1G DSM's blew out the dipstick coming off the showroom floor so people either crimped the tube or strapped the dipstick in. Holding the dipstick down will send it up through the valve cover like it should go.

[06Speed6]

Umm wow, I didnt read the PTP oil burning fix thread because I dont burn any oil, but what I really really dont understand is how any of you guys could possibly think that a restrictor pill in the PCV system is the way to solve a pressurised crank case. Yall need to put the bowl down and think about what you are reading because that is a laughably bad idea.

This restrictor, according to PTP, is not a "airflow fix" it is an "oil control" fix. I dont believe there are any oil control problems with the factory PCV system, there are only air flow problems that can compound into oil control problems and this fix is a bandaid at best and a blown out dipstick at worst if the crankcase evac is too clogged to evac the system properly on its own.

The reason anyone would blow a dipstick out is because there is not enough flow to properly evacuate the crankcase, that is undebatable. The only issue is how to gain the additional flow necessary to allow the oil from the turbo to propery drain out. The fix is 100% certainly not to further restrict the PCV system.

I have really been a fan of Ron's dual vented valve cover which adds an additional point of escape for the blow by, although on my car I will probably just do a single -10an line from the original vent location on the valve cover. I have also recently become a fan of oil seperation devices similar to the Mann Provent 200 instead of a OCC. I think that a dual vented valve cover that is connected to a oil seperation device and then plumbed into the factory PCV system, VTA, or connected to the DP is really the way to go.

You cannot have too many points of escape for blow by.

[boardjnky4]

Originally Posted by 06Speed6 Umm wow, I didnt read the PTP oil burning fix thread because I dont burn any oil, but what I really really dont understand is how any of you guys could possibly think that a restrictor pill in the PCV system is the way to solve a pressurised crank case. Yall need to put the bowl down and think about what you are reading because that is a laughably bad idea. This restrictor, according to PTP, is not a "airflow fix" it is an "oil control" fix. I dont believe there are any oil control problems with the factory PCV system, there are only air flow problems that can compound into oil control problems and this fix is a bandaid at best and a blown out dipstick at worst if the crankcase evac is too clogged to evac the system properly on its own. The reason anyone would blow a dipstick out is because there is not enough flow to properly evacuate the crankcase, that is undebatable. The only issue is how to gain the additional flow necessary to allow the oil from the turbo to propery drain out. The fix is 100% certainly not to further restrict the PCV system. I have really been a fan of Ron's dual vented valve cover which adds an additional point of escape for the blow by, although on my car I will probably just do a single -10an line from the original vent location on the valve cover. I have also recently become a fan of oil seperation devices similar to the Mann Provent 200 instead of a OCC. I think that a dual vented valve cover that is connected to a oil seperation device and then plumbed into the factory PCV system, VTA, or connected to the DP is really the way to go. You cannot have too many points of escape for blow by.

props to you for wanting to solve a problem

tsk tsk to the people applying bandaids

What does the Mann filter do with the oil that is seperated? Drain back to the oilpan?

[Lex]

First of all, how is a restriction in the valvecover to inlet going to reduce crankcase pressures? It will increase them because they will no longer escape during boost.

Here's a synopsis of what is likely going on with Aaron's car.

1. His stock PCV has failed. This was an issue he documented when he pointed out his intake tube was oily. This was because now most of the crankcase evacuation was happening from the valve cover.

2. A restriction is added between valvecover and turbo inlet. This crankcase evacuation path should work under boosted conditions when the PCV valve is closed. In aaron's case, the PCV valve is likely leaking so there was extra pressure in the crankcase. The valvecover vent was now plugged by a restriction. Now, not only was the crankcase pressurized through the failed PCV valve, but there was no other way for the crankcase to vent. So the dipstick blew out.

3. I believe the failure of the stock PCV valve has something to do with engines blowing under "low load (high vacuum)" conditions. The failure/leakage is especially pronounced (and may be caused) by higher boost conditions. The failure won't be noticed by most people. A pressurized crankcase *CAN* push oil through the failed PCV valve into the intake manifold under a throttle (vacuum) change in the engine (getting on/off the throttle). Look at how much oil came out of the dipstick under pressure. Now imagine all that oil being sucked through the PCV system into the engine because the crankcase was under pressure.

There is no coincidence in that Mazda is changing the PCV valve.

In order to protect yourself from this, I would run a second PCV valve between the manifold and stock PCV valve. That way the stock valve won't take the burden of all the extra boost and there are 2 valves now - much less likely both fail. Couple that with a catch can and a burst of oil is less likely to end up in your manifold should shit hit the fan.

[Erich]

John actually did quite a bit of testing on this scenario in order to determine the proper size for the hole in the restrictor. The problem being he assumed a properly functioning PCV valve (which is what he used in his testing) while making this determination.

John's solution is not an oil control solution. It is an air control solution that is supposed to manage the flow in a way that it creates proper crank case conditions with the intake manifold under vacuum while maintaining proper functionality of the breather line when the intake manifold is under pressure. Before he put this on anybody else's car he tested a wide variety of restrictor sizes under both conditions.

Now knowing that the stock PCV valve isn't the most reliable and that there are likely a large number of leaking valves out there maybe the solution needs to be a part that is a restictor/check combination that opens up and allows the stock amount of flow when the PCV valve is closed (though I think this is only a problem when the PCV valve is leaking.)

I don't know that adding a second PCV valve inline with the stock PCV valve is the best solution. The vacuum is now going to have to work harder to open the new valve (lower pressure differential with the stock valve still closed and buffering the crank case pressure) and hold both valves open. I think there is also the possibility for a fluttering effect (valves opening and closing.)

[rodrigo]

oh shit there's a stop ma smoke fix out there?

i thought we all agreed it was through atr and raising idle to 900 rpm

[Erich]

Originally Posted by whoosh "quite a bit of testing" and a dose of common sense would have brought this situation to light prior to releasing yet another solution to the Mazda worlds problems as for 2 pcv valves "not being the best solution" well please take a minute to test a PCV valve vs. a check valve and let us know what the cracking pressure is of each adding a check valve will make the vacuum "work harder" lol maybe suck harder lol

Yeah, work harder was poor wording. What I meant is that the pressure differential across the new valve is likely not going to be the same as the pressure differential across a single valve. The original valve may not open with out the vacuum, so now you have 3 different pressures. The vacuum from the manifold, the pressure between the two valves, and the pressure in the crankcase (which is likely higher then the pressure between the two valves.)

Then with the passage in the valve being smaller diameter then the passage in the tube it feeds you have the potential for all kinds of fluid effects that could cause the dual valve setup to flutter.

And what I meant by check/restrictor combination is the restrictor part it self to open up to flow coming from the valve cover to the intake, not to replace the PCV with a check valve to go along with the restrictor.

[djuosnteisn]

Are you thinking what i'm thinking?



We're gonna need a bigger napkin...

[ms3guy22]

happen to me to 18psi gt3076

[ptperformance]

So this looks like a case of faulty parts on the car to begin with? I mean if you have a leaking PCV valve maybe you should investigate on getting a check valve? I stated this over 2 years ago that our cars needed a check valve to keep the leaks in the PCV system from building pressure inside the crank case, you all told me that it was not needed. Now the funny part being, those that told me its not needed are running springs on the dipstick tubes to hold the dipstick in? Am I correct at what I am reading here, and some of you have the intestinal fortitude to call my fix a band aid? Wow!

Aaron, if you had a leaking part on the car this should have been addressed before installing the pill, Lenny... why your even posting for Aaron I have no idea... get a room next time.

I would have to say that there is either a flaw in the parts on the car or you have faulty parts on the car to begin with. The LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO is put a spring on the dipstick to hold it in, that is a BS fix and a baid aid. If your getting that much pressure into the crank case you have other problems. My mod was designed to stop smoking turbos and from what we have seen so far a good % of knock counts. If you guy are blowing the dipstick out of the car, you have other issues.

Aaron, you are one case that has this issue, the only one. Not one other person has complained about this happening and trust me, we have people pushing this mod to the limits. I would have to say its time to check into a possilbe solution to stop the pressure from building in your crank case. If you would like, I can send you a check valve for free so you can test it on the car. This should confirm that the pill was the problem or if you have other issues with the car still. Let me know if this is something that you would be interested in trying. Keep me posted, thanks.

Originally Posted by whoosh "quite a bit of testing" and a dose of common sense would have brought this situation to light prior to releasing yet another solution to the Mazda worlds problems as for 2 pcv valves "not being the best solution" well please take a minute to test a PCV valve vs. a check valve and let us know what the cracking pressure is of each adding a check valve will make the vacuum "work harder" lol maybe suck harder lol

Our check valves crack at .3 vacuum, I also know what a PCV valve cracks at, do you?

How about you come in here with some verification, maybe a little bit of test data to back up your claims that two PCV valves are beter than a check valve and a single PCV valve.

Last, vacuum pulls, pressure pushes, they both "work" hard to achive the goal or target asked of the system. So, it would be nice to see you prove us wrong vs asking us to do all the testing for you so you can still find fault in it. We did the home work, now I can only ask that you do the same. Opinons can be accepted, even tolerated but the masses will quickly see that is all you have to offer. Post up some test data like we have and we will accept a debate with you on the forums. If not, then you will get treated like everyone else that has an opinion.... and we all have one that poop flows out of.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Lex First of all, how is a restriction in the valvecover to inlet going to reduce crankcase pressures? It will increase them because they will no longer escape during boost. Here's a synopsis of what is likely going on with Aaron's car. 1. His stock PCV has failed. This was an issue he documented when he pointed out his intake tube was oily. This was because now most of the crankcase evacuation was happening from the valve cover. 2. A restriction is added between valvecover and turbo inlet. This crankcase evacuation path should work under boosted conditions when the PCV valve is closed. In aaron's case, the PCV valve is likely leaking so there was extra pressure in the crankcase. The valvecover vent was now plugged by a restriction. Now, not only was the crankcase pressurized through the failed PCV valve, but there was no other way for the crankcase to vent. So the dipstick blew out. 3. I believe the failure of the stock PCV valve has something to do with engines blowing under "low load (high vacuum)" conditions. The failure/leakage is especially pronounced (and may be caused) by higher boost conditions. The failure won't be noticed by most people. A pressurized crankcase *CAN* push oil through the failed PCV valve into the intake manifold under a throttle (vacuum) change in the engine (getting on/off the throttle). Look at how much oil came out of the dipstick under pressure. Now imagine all that oil being sucked through the PCV system into the engine because the crankcase was under pressure. There is no coincidence in that Mazda is changing the PCV valve. In order to protect yourself from this, I would run a second PCV valve between the manifold and stock PCV valve. That way the stock valve won't take the burden of all the extra boost and there are 2 valves now - much less likely both fail. Couple that with a catch can and a burst of oil is less likely to end up in your manifold should shit hit the fan.

We have a check valve sitting here (10 of them). They crack at lower pressures than the PCV valves and flow way more than the PCV valve can flow. They will hold back 125 psi and operate from -25 degrees to 280 degrees. We have used these for the last 5 years on boost applications with only 2 failures and sold 1000's of them. This might be the solution for Aarons car. I am willing to send one out for free if he is willing to test if for me, waiting for a reply from him.

[rodrigo]

and the gloves are off!!!

btw john, don't think that groan went unnoticed either lol

I think we all want to see improvements and discussions always bring out the best in all....

[Erich]

Originally Posted by whoosh I curbed any PCV or smoking issue on my Mazdaspeed long before you stopped by here to hustle money from the members

And yet so many owners still smoke. Thanks for your contribution to the community.

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by whoosh copy my set up and be smoke free

I think the problem is, a lot of guys dont know what your setup was.
Maybe you could link to the thread that shows your set up.

[rodrigo]

per ron's request I trimmed out his posts, he doesn't want to start shit flinging....and I respect his wishes.

[ptperformance]

Originally Posted by Lenny127 and the gloves are off!!! btw john, don't think that groan went unnoticed either lol I think we all want to see improvements and discussions always bring out the best in all....

We need to start with working parts on the car first. If you have a failed part, than your starting off with a system that is not going to be corrected with adding yet another part. Improvements is what this part is all about, this thread is not about that. We have a known failed part on the car, lets replace that or take me up on the offer a free check valve to stop the crank case from building pressure.

Originally Posted by whoosh nice try......nice fail you can shove your thanks bub I have done my homework and put out my testing results and experiences on the 6club far more than anything I have seen from you I curbed any PCV or smoking issue on my Mazdaspeed long before you stopped by here to hustle money from the members

LOL, and your results are.... nice reply to the questions being answered. Maybe a link so others can follow your advise and spend 20 x as much fixing the smoking issue that a $30 part can fix, LOL. I would say nice try and fail like a child, but you have already made yourself look like fool by skirting the questions being asked.

Thanks for the help.

Originally Posted by Erich And yet so many owners still smoke. Thanks for your contribution to the community.

I wouldn't point out the obvious to Whoosh, he will answer it with his car is fixed soo, you should listen to him and put a spring on your dipstick tube... because this works? LOL, and people have the balls to call my fix a band aid, this thread makes baby Jesus cry.

[phantom3]

[rodrigo]

baby Jesus was banned last week

[FreeFlyFreak]

Originally Posted by Lenny127 baby Jesus was banned last week

Naaah, that wasnt baby Jesus............. that was Jesusb

[rodrigo]

off topic , but I fell for this avatar..I thought jake got himself banned again

Mazdaspeed Forums - View Profile: jhershorin