Lightning

Oil in the intake... Have we been wrong all this time??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 07:46 PM
  #31  
Suavy's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,840
Likes: 0
From: Bridgeport, MI
Great thread!

Stan, I just e-mailed you if you have a min would you please e-mail me back?



Peace,

Suavy
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 07:52 PM
  #32  
l-menace's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,097
Likes: 0
From: DETROIT, (formerly Eaton County, Michigan)
Originally posted by Suavy
Great thread!

Stan, I just e-mailed you if you have a min would you please e-mail me back?



Peace,

Suavy
Check your email would ya? Yahoo.
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 07:55 PM
  #33  
l-menace's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,097
Likes: 0
From: DETROIT, (formerly Eaton County, Michigan)
I think everyone will agree the MAIN problem is that it coats the intercooler.

Is there anyway you can create a "shield" so the air circulates around the I/C and enters it from the bottom? Think if a gas grill that has a shield over the burner so dripping grease/oil hits the shield, and not the intercooler.

If you re-route the air, the misting oil should stick to the side of the lower manifold and then pool in the bottom of the lower manifold, being spit out as Sal stated.

This may really take away from teh efficiency of the i/c though.


Oh well, just thowing out ieas
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 07:59 PM
  #34  
lebox97's Avatar
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: sunny So AZ
yup, rather than "re-inventing the wheel" - let's find out directly from the guys/gals who designed the system?
maybe we should focus on minimize rather then elminate the oil misting?

here is pic of the emission/vacume sticker on shroud with the "oil separator"...

https://www.f150online.com/galleries...8079&anum=8152
 

Last edited by lebox97; Mar 31, 2005 at 08:01 PM.
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 08:06 PM
  #35  
Suavy's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,840
Likes: 0
From: Bridgeport, MI
Originally posted by l-menace
Check your email would ya? Yahoo.
Check your why don't you!

Forgive me for hi jacking your thread!


Peace,

Suavy
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 08:13 PM
  #36  
LightningTuner's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,438
Likes: 1
From: Palm Coast, FL
Originally posted by lebox97
yup, rather than "re-inventing the wheel" - let's find out directly from the guys/gals who designed the system?
maybe we should focus on minimize rather then elminate the oil misting?

here is pic of the emission/vacume sticker on shroud with the "oil separator"...

https://www.f150online.com/galleries...8079&anum=8152
The "oil seperator" in that picture, is the fitting in the lower intake I described in the original post. It's interesting that they are calling it that .
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 09:16 PM
  #37  
Skip's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles California USA
You guys can argue what is the BEST way to stop the oil in the intake, but the important thing is keeping it out of the combustion chamber.

Lots of boost and some oil, can and will, cause bad things to happen!

Keep the oil in the crankcase where it belongs!
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 09:30 PM
  #38  
Magnum Powers's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Oil in the intake is a BAD thing period. Oil has a very low octane number and will cause the engine to detonate. The guys making big power with naturally aspirated engines run the crankcase at negative pressure with a vacuum pump. The reason for this is two fold, one to reduce parasitic losses (windage) but the other is to reduce detonation since they are running such high compression ratios even one drop of oil that could seep past the rings and get into the combustion chamber will cause the engine to detonate and loose power or worst. Now we are running blower motors and some at very high manifold pressures so the need to keep oil out of the combustion chambers is critical for long life and good power.

The whole PCV thing is to keep blow-by gasses out of the atmosphere. Engineers came up with the idea of the PVC valve in the 70’s to meet DEQ requirements and we have been living with it ever since. The source of our problem is Ford does a real bad job (sorry Suavy) of separating engine oil from the blow-by gasses so some oil gets carried along with the blow-by gasses and gets burnt in the engine buts it’s a ‘so what’ to Ford; what’s the big deal they may ask. It’s a real bad deal to us who are trying to make big power and should be avoided.

If there were no vent at the bottom of the intake manifold oil would build up in the manifold until oil would overflow into the intake runners and run into cylinders. To make matters even worst that would most likely occur at WOT, just when we don’t need oil lowering the octane rating of our already low octane fuel.

It would be better to return the oil from the vent at the bottom of the manifold to the crankcase via a check valve then to return it to the intake. The check valve would keep un-metered air from entering the engine when idling or under manifold vacuum conditions. When running in boosted situations the small amount of air that would escape the intake system through the metered vent would be so small compared to the amount of air entering the engine that it would not affect the A/F ratio.

Oil going through the supercharger has advantages and disadvantages. Oil provides lubrication, which is a positive side effect and could improve rotor life and it also creates a better seal between the rotors and case. However I have seen Eaton supercharger with 75K miles where the high temperature grease in the rear bearings was completely washed away by engine oil going through the supercharger, which will reduce bearing life so I see this issue of oil going through the supercharger as a wash as far as reliability goes.

After thinking about this for a bit I think Sal has raised an issue where we can improve on Ford’s design by returning collected oil in the lower intake manifold to the crankcase and reduce detonation issues. I also feel any advantages oil in the supercharger may have is a un-intended side benefit of Ford’s failure of keeping engine oil out of the blow-by gasses directed to the intake via the PVC valve, sorry again Suavy.

Charles
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 09:41 PM
  #39  
l-menace's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,097
Likes: 0
From: DETROIT, (formerly Eaton County, Michigan)
Originally posted by Magnum Powers
[B]
After thinking about this for a bit I think Sal has raised an issue where we can improve on Ford’s design by returning collected oil in the lower intake manifold to the crankcase and reduce detonation issues. [B]
HOW?
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 10:13 PM
  #40  
Magnum Powers's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Originally posted by l-menace
HOW?
Well we could disconnect the lower manifold vent return tube from the "tee" where it connects to the PVC tube and route it over to the driver's side valve cover and return the oil to the crankcase there or perhaps there is a plug somewhere else on the block that would function as a return port.

Charles
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 10:25 PM
  #41  
Blown347Hatch's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 0
From: Miami, FL
Originally posted by Magnum Powers
Well we could disconnect the lower manifold vent return tube from the "tee" where it connects to the PVC tube and route it over to the driver's side valve cover....
Charles
Would this require the draining liquid (oil) to attempt to travel uphill?
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 10:28 PM
  #42  
Blown347Hatch's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 0
From: Miami, FL
Re: Oil in the intake... Have we been wrong all this time??

Originally posted by LightningTuner
Everyone has been trying to STOP the oil in the intake for years. But what if we are all wrong?
Sal, I was wondering if, besides the intercooler becoming really ugly, has there been documented before-and-after results of cleaning with regards to either IAT temps or HP/ET/MPH changes?

Greg
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 10:30 PM
  #43  
Magnum Powers's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Blown347Hatch
Would this require the draining liquid (oil) to attempt to travel uphill?
Manifold pressure would force the oil out the vent and up hill every time you boost it.

Charles
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 10:40 PM
  #44  
Suavy's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,840
Likes: 0
From: Bridgeport, MI
Charles, no worries I have learned allot from you these past two years I value and respect you guidance!


Peace,

Suavy
 
Reply
Old Mar 31, 2005 | 11:07 PM
  #45  
Ruslow's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
From: RogersAr
Oil is an insolator so to speak.So I am sure the temps will drop if no oil is on the cooler.BUT also think about this.ford I am sure knew about the oil,and that it is a diltuter of the fuel mix .Did you ever think that is why these trucks are so 'pig' rich from the factory or atleast part of it?
Plus those of you running no positive sytem were your rings designed for that,and also you will get more hp from staying with the PVC system because the cc is in a vacuum under normal driving conditions.To put it in drag racer term[what just about everyone refers too[drag racing]WHAT do the drag racers do to their motors to get rid of the vapor in the cc?...............a VACUUM pump!I have heard of some of them picking up an add 10 hp!Stan
PS I know spelling sucks!
 

Last edited by Ruslow; Mar 31, 2005 at 11:11 PM.
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:51 PM.