skinny z

My platform is very modest compared to others including IROCZMan's.
I've little more than Spohn's perimeter subframe connectors that are welded in to the front subframe, rear subframe and stitched along the rocker pinch weld. No cage. And I've not targeted ever going any quicker than 11.49 so it's not a necessity.
Fully complimented interior the way GM built it other than a custom analog instrument panel and aftermarket shifter.

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

Hi guys, I didn't want to leave you all hanging on here, but I do have a good update related to the tuneup/afr/nitrous. I had my track rental event just this past weekend and I will be writing up all the info about it in the coming days. You guys basically nailed it, and without me reading some of what skinny said a few days ago, I probably would still be stuck. more on this soon!


I wanted to get back to vortechs question first though, my car has a 6 point roll bar. I actually documented this with some photos and info back around June of 2021. So feel free to check out some of the info a few pages back, but I'll include a link to the photo album also:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/iroczm...h/51268630523/


I opted to stay with a simple street style roll bar that can pass NHRA tech if needed. It does not have the diagonal bars that go from the main hoop to the transmission tunnel because I didn't want to totally block off rear seats/storage area. I had this work done by a very skilled welder and the bars/bends were all fit by him; nothing was from a kit. Everything is welded to the plates which are welded to the floor. There is a S&W racecars subframe connector kit under the car, but it is not welded to the roll bar at any of the connection points. I actually do have a passenger seat in the car since its a street car, but I DO remove it when i go drag racing because I take along a LOT of parts and tools.

As of this point in time, I do not have any type of racing license or endorsements. i'm still a test-and-tune guy just chopping down my timeslip. One day I hope to expand to some of the bracket or class racing, but still just wrenching and racing on this car.

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

Writing this recap of the track rental session from last Friday, October 27th at Island Dragway.


The weather was way warmer than normal, so the DA was mostly in the 1600-2000 range. We got started way way late but I made 3 all motor passes. Nothing exciting, but on the 4th pass I wanted to test out what would happen if I just got the car into 3rd gear at the 8th mile and sprayed the 150 shot jets (0.59 and .030). It showed high afr numbers like usual, but was not making any mph, but was not problematic to shut off the nitrous. Pulled a plug afterward and it was unhappy rich. For continuous checking throughout the day I pulled plug #7 which is the same one we were pulling while on the dyno.





For Pass #5 I changed the jets to a .062 and a .027 and hit the button right off the launch. It finally felt strong, and the 8th mph was back to being above 100 mph finally. It went 11.19 with a bad sixty foot and over-revving both shifts. but.. my mph was finally back above 120 mph and the engine didnt feel like it was eating itself up either. Even last sunday at the TnT when the car went 10.910, it was only at 117 mph and it felt ugly. Now, the mph and power has a proper feel to it.





Pulled a plug again and couldn't get a good read on it. Kept jets the same, because it is what the 150 shot jetting is actually supposed to be in the new chart.
Sidenote - I had a heck of a time getting the car to do a proper burnout most of the day. I mean, normally I do pretty much the same routine and it works most of the time. But on the rental day, the car just didn't want to make wheel-speed and wanted to dart to the right a few times. I corrected this around pass 5 or 6 but I had to lay into the throttle a lot more than I usually have to at the burnout box.
Went a 1.48 in the sixty, but hit the limiter on the shift. Made a full clean pass and it was a 11.05 at 122 mph. Still showing datalog closed loop wanting to remove a lot of fuel. Checked a plug once again but it seemed ok.



This was the launch photo Jerry took during for Pass 6:






Pass 7:
Same jetting as pass 5 and 6. Car went 1.46 in the sixty foot and pulled good up to the top of 2nd gear. And then despite a high afr, the rich cutoff activated again and I finished the pass on motor.


Pass 8: Changed the jetting to be .064 and .027 . I hit the button late, and despite the power pulling strong, I saw the nitrous bottle pressure gauge drop heavily durign teh run so I knew that the bottle was basically done. This bottle only had 8 pounds in starting on pass 4. The car went 11.25 at 119 mph.




Pass 9, I swapped the bottle and now using the .064 and .027 combo the car made a good clean pass. It went 6.95 at 101mph to the 8th and 10.90 at 123 mph. Afr numbers on the gauges during the run were nice and in the 12s and the plug checked out great.








I had to get going home but I wanted one more crack at maybe a 10.70 pass with a bigger nitrous shot, so I quickly dropped in the .070 and .030 jet because I was greedy. It ran , but it wasn't overly happy, so it only went an 11.03 but at 124 mph. It actually was on the top-end rev-limiter again just within reach the finish line, so that slowed me down.




So, despite me not getting any personal bests, I was pumped up to know that I seem to be heading back into the right direction with mph and et. over a year of nonsense, but finally seeing numbers that are relatable. I am hoping for one more track day of the year, but if not, I know I have a good starting point next year.





On a relate note, I took some photos of the rear wheels/tires after the event, and its apparent that I do have a good bit of wheel movement in the tire bead on both sides.

skinny z

Plenty of data there but I'll ask just the same.
What was the conclusion of the rich indications via AFR datalogs and the direction you went with jetting? Was it actually rich or was it lean?
Which result picked up the most MPH?
How much different was it than in your previous post regarding rich/lean and getting nowhere?
How does the higher MPH translate into AFR values and plugs?
I'll admit I've kind of gotten lost with all of the jet changes.

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

I admit, I am plenty confused by this whole scenario, but I am doing my best to troubleshoot it!
From looking at the plugs and now noticing the "rich cutoff" activation safety trigger in the holley, I decided to trust that it was rich. Some black soot on the back bumper by the tailpipe too, but nobody has ever came up to me after a pass and said anything like it was dumping smoke, so who knows. This caused me to make the decision to lower the fuel jet down, and raise the nitrous jet up, over the course of several passes. The general trend of the results was cleaner plugs, no rich-cutoff activation, more mph, happier engine...so I think I made the right decision. The jet combination that worked best as a 150 shot was a .064 nitrous with a .027 fuel jet. However, I am going to try to bump that .064 down to a .063.



For a real good comparison.

I ran the car on the same dragstrip, just 5 days apart. The only thing different between these two passes is the jetting I used to spray the 150 shot, (and some shift points)
Previous jetting: .059 nitrous and .030 fuel 8th mile: 6.85 at 97.5 mph 1/4 mile: 10.91 at 117.9 mph felt like it was killing itself
Recent jetting: . .064 nitrous and .027 fuel 8th mile: 6.95 at 101.7 mph 1/4 mile: 10.90 at 123.8 mph felt strong

skinny z

Alright. I t was rich then. I like that gain in MPH too. 6 is a healthy jump.
Interesting though in how the gains where in the back half. Is that a result of the nitrous timing? As in where on the track you hit it?

On a personal note, 6 miles per hour more in the traps is my current objective for next season. That and 4-5/10ths. That'll take an improvement of 60 CHP to achieve. (And another transmission and another torque converter!)

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

I wanted to get one more day at the dragstrip before the end of 2023, so I went to the Test and Tune on Sunday. Only had about 7 pounds of nitrous in the bottle remaining.


Pass 1:
All motor with 34 deg of timing up to 5800 rpms, and past that its at 33 deg of timing. Rear tires are at 17.0 psi. Foot-braked to 1821 rpms, launched and it flashed to about 5000. Shifted 1-2 at 6401 rpms and 2-3 shift was at 6450 rpms. Across the finish line at 5966 rpms but the back half of the track I was only about 75% throttle as I heard some kind of metal clinking noise under the car. Not sure what it was still.


Timeslip:



Datalog:





Video:






Pass 2:

150 shot of nitrous with jetting at .027 fuel and .063 nitrous and timing set at 28 degrees fixed. Rear tires set at 16.6 psi. Air bags were 6 psi drivers side and 18 psi passenger side. Foot-braked to 2029 and the converter flashed to 5415 rpms. There seemed to be a bit of quick tire spin, but I drove through it. Shifted 1-2 at 6490 rpms, the 2-3 shift at 6364 rpms, and then I decided to activate the torque converter lockup while in 3rd gear, at 6161 rpms and it bought it don to 6004 rpms . The nitrous clicked off just right before the finish line because it was reaching its high-rpm safety limit and I went through the traps at 6317 rpms.


Timeslip:






Video:



Pass 2 launch video:






Pass 3:

Brought up the nitrous to a 165-ish hp shot using a .030 fuel and a .070 nitrous jet. bottle pressure at 950 and ignition timing set to a fixed 27 deg when nitrous is on. Footbraked to 1645 rpms and when I launched, the tires spun bad enough hat I pedaled it. Shifted 1-2 at 6573 rpms (pedaled it here too) and 2-3 at 6487 rpms. I activated lockup again in 3rd gear at 6181 rpms nad it dropped rpms to be 5868. Went through the finish line at 6478 rpms.


Timeslip:




Datalog




Video:





Pass 4:


Brought tire pressure back up to 17.0. Also decided to progressively ramp in the nitrous on the hit, over a 1.2 second ramp. used the same jetting numbers as previous pass, but moved the ignition timing to 29 degrees instead of 27 deg. Brought he rear passenger airbag up to 20 psi. I must not have fully clicked the "start datalog" button on the laptop, and I didn't notice this until on the return road after the pass. I know that I tried to foot-brake higher than usual, and the car began to creep past the beams, so I just decided to let it go. Tires didn't spin but it felt a little sluggish. Right around the 8th mile it ran out of steam , and I think it was simply that the nitrous bottle volume was too depleted.

Timeslip:





Video:



Pass 4 launch video:








I might need to go with more air int he rear passenger airbag. Or maybe finally upgrade the oem rear swaybar to something better, but nothing too intense.
[/url]

skinny z

Your engine tuning efforts notwithstanding (which is impressive to say the least) I'm liking your 60' times and your wheels up launch. Looks like the shocks and air bags are doing a good job for you. Well managed too.
My ET's went away once the traction disappeared due to two factors I can identify. Engine power went up and the mechanical grip went down. Largely due to the tires aging however the lack of a really good suspension hurt the effort.
Well done to you.
I'd love to see you work towards a personal best NA pass. Can you go 115 MPH? (Have you?)

skinny z

Looks like some pretty fine company there. Thanks for representing the 3rd gen.
My 1st car was a version of the one in front. I'd many races against the the cars in the other lane. Not quite Two-Lane Blacktop days but close.

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

thanks !
Yes, the launch is working great all motor and most of the time its great on the nitrous. I would love to see a 1.39 sixty foot next year. I think I might try some of that glue that can help keep the rubber and rim-bead stuck together. I would rather not drill in any rim-screws if I don't have to. I also want to go up in air pressure on the passenger side rear bag too, it looks to be hitting that corner hard still. I might think about a proper rear swaybar setup, one with the ability to do street and strip . My factory 1987 rear bar has had its time.

As for the all-motor pass, I also want to get that e.t. and mph better. My best mph was on pass 3 of May 28, 2023 where the car went 11.75 but at 18. 69 mph. It was 95.4 mph in the 8th mile. However the quickest e.t. pass was just a few weeks prior to the one before, and this was on May 5 2023. Pass 4 that day was all motor with 35 deg timing and it went 1.49 tot he sixty foot, 7.36 at 94 mph to the 8th and 11.62 at 116.8 mph that day., the pass right before that one was 11.67 at 114.08 mph with 34 deg of timing. So essentially the car is relatively capable of 11.65 at 117 mph with this converter and this 28" tall rear tire. My buddy John gave me a set of Hoosier QTP 27" tall bias ply tires that I think would be the right tire hight for me to crack into the 11.5x and possible 120 mph territory. Possibly, but its a good goal for 2024.





https://flic.kr/p/2pivn5d


https://flic.kr/p/2pivn58






Pretty soon i gotta make my winter car project list.
Some of the topics are daunting, but they have to get done.

skinny z

I'll be interested to see how those work for you. They're on my current shopping list for next season.
I think the most consistent tire I've used was also a bias-ply DOT slick. ET Streets. Sadly, no longer available. The Hoosier looks to be the go to replacement.
That said, in full street trim, the best 60' was a 1.7 flat. Interestingly, that was on McCreary Road Star treaded dirt slicks. Rear gear was also a 3.27 as the previous personal best (E.T) was laid done with a 3.70 gear.
There's that power and traction equation again.

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

cool!
I still have some tread life left on my 28" tall MT ET street tires so those will probably be on the car for the spring. If I can find a set of cheap enough 15x8" wheels for these 27" tall Hoosier QTP tires, I will do have two sets of rears. We will see. I know my buddy had great success with them, but then he went with a taller tire and didn't need these anymore.
Oh wow, I didnt know you had done both 3.27 gears and also 3.70.
If I ever wanted to make the car more street mannered, I could always put my 3.55 gears back in, or the 3400 edge converter, but I don't plan on that anytime soon.


I started writing up a quick chart/comparison of my best 1/4 mile nitrous passes. These were all with the 3.91 gears, but I had two different converters during this period, so I listed which one was used. I'm thinking all these passes were with my current 28" tall rear wheels, but I can check my notes to see when I actually switched from 26" to 28" tall.


Anyways, here's what I am going to try to use to determine the best launch rpm, shift points, and whatnot from my real-world track experiences. I might make one of these charts for my all-motor passes too, as I would like to improve on the 11.62 just a touch if possible.

skinny z

Nice chart.
Yeah, a 3.70 was the gear that broke in the 9-bolt on my 1st pass into the 12's. Seems a long time ago (August 2008). A 1.78 60' on the McCreary tires mentioned.
That forced a change to the 3.27 gear set (9 bolt) and a year later (with no significant other changes that I recall), it went 1.71 on the same tires.
My guess is that the slight 1/10 improvement was due to better traction as a result of reduced torque to the tires and little to no wheel spin.
Interestingly that old adage of "A 1/10 in the 60' is worth 2/10's at the stripe) held true. Went from a 12.98 @ 106 to a 12.78 @ 105.

I scored a Dana 44 and went ahead with a 3.73. Although it was a different chassis, most of the powertrain carried over. I increased engine output with better heads and MPH improved slightly to 107 but with an older set of ET Streets (26 x 10), the 60's slowly started fading away. Consistent 1.85's although the car was getting faster eventually going 12.6 @ 108 on a 1.87 60'. (uncorrected).

It's been several years since I've raced (too many circumstances to explain why) but I'm certain that those Hoosiers, the 3.73 gear and a Yank converter along with even better heads and Jones spec'd hydraulic roller should get me into the 11's.
Talking with Dave at Yank he said "The best converter for your setup would be my ss4000 converter. This converter will only flash to around 3600 behind your horsepower as all of our converters are rated at 450 will horsepower which is 550 crank."
Works for me.
Presently (or past I suppose) I've been running an off the shelf TCI 10". I upped the game with another TCI 10" although about 750 RPM greater stall speed but never got to test it as one of those circumstances alluded to earlier scuttled any racing for the next 7 years. Fast forward to today and the car is still pieces but parts are in the supply chain basically waiting for the spring to get going again.

Now if I were racing in New Jersey on a decent DA day, let's say sea level, I'd expect to see those 11's at about 112 MPH.
FTR: (Personal best in the 3600 lb 86 Sport Coupe)
June 2015 (last pass to date)
2210’(elevation), 59F°/15C°, 29.91” Hg/101.29 kPa, 51% rh
DA: 2855
12.92 @ 104.87, 8.21 @ 83.77, 1.85 60’ (actual)
12.479 @ 108.653 MPH (corrected)
12.93 @ 105.46, 8.23 @ 83.15, 1.85 60’ (actual)
12.489 @ 109.264 MPH (corrected)

As for drivability on the street and highway, it seems the 3.73 gear, 4L60 and high stall lockup converter made for a very drivable package despite previously having a 288 cam and 71° overlap. Smooth as velvet in and around town or on the highway.

Thanks for your posts. I've been living vicariously through your racing and have seen a reasonable correlation between your efforts and my own.
Here's to your continued success going forward and my hope is that I can contribute with my own racing development next season.

Komet

Awesome thread, I just caught up on 6 months worth of action. Really appreciate your methodology and technical updates, this is what I want to be doing once I buy a place with a spot for the IROC-Z to live indoors.

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

It has been a while, but I drove the car a bit into December, and it has sat untouched until a week ago. I have a list of projects to tackle on it in the coming weeks, and one of them is to finally do something better/different with my crankcase pressure and annoying oil leaks.

For the past 4 years that this engine has been in the car, it has somehow survived on the terrible setup of having a breather in the passenger side valve cover and an elbow with a 3/8" I.D. hose coming out of the drivers side valve cover and necking down to a tiny 3/16" I.D. vacuum port built into the sniper throttle body. Time to be done with that.

Current:











Best solution would be a mechanical belt driven vacuum pump and all that goes with it, but I don't have the $1300 for that plus then I would want to redo alternator, power steering pump and brackets, which is far beyond budget. Research showed that electric vacuum pumps can be hit-or-miss and a wide range of success-fullness on street/strip cars, but I am going that route. I am going to use a catch can also, and hope to keep the price tag for the entirety of the project around $250. I currently already bought the catch can $105 and an ebay Ford pump $62 and some cheap 1 way check valves, so I think its realistic. This also doesn't have to be the best configuration possible either, thats not my goal; it just has to do better than my existing setup.







Here's the plan that I hop to make work for my car.

- baffles in both valve covers (done)
- both valve covers to get a rubber or rubberized plastic 90* elbow that fits in the 1.22" valve cover hole
- a rubber line off each valve cover (3/8" diameter or 1/2" diameter hose) angled slightly uphill to a Tee-Y
- a 1-way check valve in the 1/2" rubber line after the T and the next 5 feet of line will travel downhill
- Racetronix sealed catch-tank #CT1L8GS. Plug up breather in cap. Use stainless-steel thick wool as media
- the other ports int eh tank will be plugged and sealed tight, except a 1/2" port with a hose to the air pump. tank to be located in
the drivers side front corner of engine bay.
- will need to adapt 1/2" hose to 5/8" I.D. hose for Ford Pump XR32-9A486-AA, CX-1718_
this pump will be powered by a relay and tied to my ignition fuse block. The Ford pumps have been known to
pull a steady 4 or 5 inches of vacuum and some people have had great luck with them. I think I have to solder
some wires inside of it and take out the foam guts too. If these pumps fail, they dont lock-up which means
the wheel can spool and keep venting crankcase pressure until I notice the issue. pump to be mounted either directly
underneath catchcan, by front turn signal of drivers side or passenger side . not sure yet.
- exit hose (5/8" I.D.) will come off of the pump and point to a safe spot under the center of the car in case of
massive oil discharge.









A few quick questions:
- does the height of the components really matter that much. I could see it being more of a factor if it was a vented breather style can or a catchcan only, but should I be worried about any of this uphill/downhill nonsense if I have an electric motor pulling vacuum on it?
- Longer runs of hose is better right, allows hot oil mist to cool to oil droplets in the hose along a long distance? In total it looks like about 5.5 feet of distance from pass valve cover to travel to the location where I want the catch tank.

skinny z

I can't claim to be an expert on vacuum pumps although the thought of one for my own car is intriguing. I'm hoping the new engine will be tight and leak free like it's predecessors but the power gain associated with crankcase vacuum has always interested me.
Anyone, that said, after a quick read, I've a couple of thoughts.
​​​​​​As with a wood burning stove's chimney, or a residential bathroom exhaust fan vent stack, you want to keep the moisture in suspension. Not condensing as you suggest. This is why those elements are insulated. The condensed vapour is likely to coalesce and possibly start to restrict the hoses in use.
By keeping the oil as a mist, it's more likely to make it's way to the catch can where the drop in velocity will cause the vapour droplets to drop out.
I've read one account to the contrary however from an overall science point of view, via a vis, chimneys and vent stacks, keeping the smoke/vacuum warm prevents that condensation and the subsequent problems associated with that.
One other thought and that's regarding the emergency discharge venting. Under the car I'd think isn't necessarily a good idea. I hate to see the results of a component failure spewing the contents of your catch can onto the track surface when in the middle of a top end charge! I've seen it with rad hoses allowing water in front of the rear tires. The results were not pretty.

​​​​​

vorteciroc

Not even considering any Power gains...

It is purely better for the Engine Health (Crank-Case).

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

I think maybe the aim is to have slow moving air with very low pressure losses across the hose. This is accomplished by using large hose diameter. If you look at Lingenfelter, for example, they use something around 1" diameter hose with their PCV systems.

A similarly large port at valve cover also will reduce air speed and pressure drop across that "valve cover to hose interface", thereby pulling less oil into the hose. High velocity air drags oil into the hose, which is not what you want.

Fred SS

iTrader: (3)

IROCZMAN15, you did a great job on your build. Allot of good info on this thread. It is giving me some ideas about my next build. Good luck.

Fred

skinny z

Would this not be the purpose of the baffles at the "interface"? To slow down the air and have the suspended oil fall out?

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Yeah, it's dual purpose as a splash guard and for calming air flow. Maybe heavier on the purpose of splash guard. Though that doesn't mean a person can't design a better baffle that tackles even smaller droplets. Maybe those already exist, I don't know.

Crank scrapers help quite a bit too. Not only does it reduce power losses from crank windage, it also improves oil quality (less aeration), improves oil drain back to pan, and reduces amount of oil suspension in the crankcase vapors.

skinny z

Fair enough.
I've decently designed baffles on my aftermarket valve covers (Proform). What I was experiencing was a large amount of blow-by due to the worn shortblock. What I saw when the PCV valve was pulled was a little chimney of oil smoke and combustion residue although no physical drops. That said, and probably further to your point, was that the contents of the catch can that I had installed between the PCV valve and intake manifold would still produce a small amount of milkshake. I'm assuming that would be oil and combustion blow-by plus whatever condensation that accumulated.

What I did learn though was the operation of the crankcase valve itself and how it's tunable. Something I'll revisit once I'm back on the road.

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

Definitely great info guys, thanks. I see what you mean, about larger diameter hose being scientifically better, makes sense. I'm currently going to be limited to smaller than desired hoses and fittings with this setup. This will likely be the first version of my crankcase breathing endeavor, and I think in the future larger lines, a vac switch to trigger the pump on/off, and probably shorter runs of hoses.

Any thoughts on me using a 1-way valve along the main run of hose between the engine and the catch tank. As you discussed, would this valve badly knock the suspended oil out of the airstream? Hmm

vorteciroc

I would recommend Dual -12 AN Hoses (Roughly 3/4" to 13/16") / Canisters used for Crankcase Evacuation or Capture on Street Driven Vehicles up to 1,200 HP.

This is why one would typically see nothing less than Dual -10 AN Systems in most Street Driven Vehicles...
Unless they did no research at all (I think we have all seen the comical Ali Express 3/8" Catch Can Systems).

On my old Funny Car, the Class had to run Dual 1 3/4" Hoses into a Section of 1 3/4"Chassis Tubing, back to the same Dual Hoses into a very Large 5 Gallon Catch Can.
Very similar to the Dragster Catch Can shown below:


After each Pass (in a Funny Car or Dragster) almost the entire Volume of the Engine's Oil will end up in that Catch Can...
A good 12 Quarts, out of an 18 Quart Oil System will end up being evacuated from the Blow-By generated from the 60 to 70 Pounds of Super-Charger Boost at a Volume larger than 6 Hellcat Engines).

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

If you are running two -12 hoses, I assume that negates the need for a PCV valve?

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Still need some kind of adjustable valve to dial in proper crankcase pressure. I think the hoses are large to slow air flow to a crawl, not to support large air flow.

vorteciroc

I really like to keep some kind of PCV or a Vac. Pump on Normally Aspirated Builds.
The Crankcase/ Oil gets nasty very quickly when the Blow-By Gases are not properly Evacuated.

With forced induction, I do not tend to use any kind of PCV anymore.

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

Do you have a PCV valve suggestion? I assume if you are running the larger hoses you are not going to choke it down through a traditional OEM PCV valve.

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

that's also somethin that I'm thinking too. So, initially I bought two cheap PCV's that fit the 3/4" hole and they came with small plastic elbows on top of them. I was initially going to just open the hole on the bottom to its maximum possible diameter and remove the rattle valve out so essentially it’s all just an elbow. But the top part of the ones I got is only 3/8" diameter, so I'm hesitant to use these after reading the replies and learning that the small diameter is not helpful.
So, now I’m thinking that I can simply get some type of elbow that will slip-fit into the 3/4" typical valve cover gromet hose. The larger elbow would allow me to run a larger diameter hose than the 3/8" I had previously planned, so that will be more beneficial.


I think what I am looking for would be this:

https://www.autozone.com/emission-co...Text=pcv+elbow
or this:

https://www.autozone.com/emission-co...Text=pcv+elbow ?

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

I kept revisiting the aspect of using larger hoses as you guys are suggesting and I think I have a plan to eliminate all use of any 3/8” diameter components from this system. I can use the large elbow in the below photo which has an inside diameter orifice of 5/8”. At some point it will just have to neck down in order to enter the 1/2” fitting that is at the catch can, and I can either use the in/line hose reducer closer to valve covers, or right before it gets to the catch-can. Thoughts ?

also, should I plan on running this 5/8” elbow and hose from both valve covers (like I planned on doing with the 3/8” stuff initially) and then to a Tee? Or would 5/8” hose to a single valve cover be sufficient? Only reason I ask, is I’ll still need to use one of these valve cover orifices for oil fills, where I would prefer to have a tight sealing oil-cap, but if I need the 5/8” elbow and hoses on both sides of the engines, I’ll just have to remove one of the elbows for oil fills.


(the elbow I want to use is the one in the middle of the lineup )

skinny z

I'm failing to understand the need for large diameter hoses.
Is this not going to be routed in the traditional sense or is this arrangement vacuum pump specific?

NoEmissions84TA

iTrader: (1)

He wants to properly vent the crankcase without sucking out all of the oil.
Larger diameter = less velocity.

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

good info here and thanks for steering me in the right direction everybody. I'm still learning the science behind all this, so keep the advice coming!

I decided to find a larger size fitting (Dorman PCV Valve Elbow 47043) to replace the modified pcv valve idea I had planned on going with... and its basically an elbow that i can attach a 5/8" inside diameter rubber hose to and run it over to the catch can. I'll need to bring the 5/8" hose down to a 1/2 hose before it hits the -8an fitting at the can. In the can I will have the stainless steel scouring pad material to help knock the oil down before the flow is drawn out the other -8an at the top of the catch tank. Then it will be a short length of hose from 1/2' ID to 5/8" ID using an adapter because the inlet of the vacuum pump is 5/8. Thats the current plan








- I plugged the breather in the top of the catch-tank cap so that its a sealed system.

- I ran a relay to power the pump with a 20 amp fuse and it is currently triggered off the ignition block fuse panel I built under the passenger side dash.

- got a length of hose from the valve cover mocked-up towards where it will travel and meet the tank. Will mount the tank in the next few days I hope .








- Mounted the electric pump. found a spot almost directly under where the catch tank will be; behind the nose/fender and attached to to the steel bumper at two mounting points, and mounted a 90* home made bracket to the upper area to secure the pump in 3 spots. It has rubber isolators on it too, but I made sure its good and tight. I'll zip off the threads on those long bolts once the whole project is complete.






Turned it on and it fired right up. Sounds loud in the garage. Haven't fired the engine in 2 months so I will wait to hear it that way too. Decided that I am going to soon add in a toggle switch in-line of the pump relay's ignition trigger wire so that I can manually turn the pump on and off. I like doing that with the torque converter, nitrous activation, and so forth, so having a switch for it will be easier for me than building it into any efi based program. I have one un-used spot on my nitrous panel so I ordered a rocker switch with LED light on it from Nitrous outlet to replace the bottle heater switch on this panel.



At the price of about $60, I am probably going to buy a second pump just to have on hand, but I can't help but think of how helpful this will be as opposed to choking down the engine these past 4 years of action.

If I only need the one 5/8" diameter hose from one valve cover, I can finally just put a cap on the passenger side valve cover and get rid of the clunky breather that I've never been a fan of.

skinny z

I can see that but just the same, this isn't a question of evacuating the crankcase then. You want all of those contaniments to get sucked out. The valve cover baffle should handle the heavy oil. The vapours though, from the blowby (if I'm reading IROCZ's intention correctly) you want pulled through a PCV valve, vapours separated by the catch can, and back into the intake all nice and fresh.

The vacuum pump puts a whole nother spin on it so I can see that it's not about evacuation but rather creating an atmosphere and maintaining it. There'd be no breather on an opposite valve cover to the PCV valve. Just the suction of the vac pump. And no valve.

Sound right?


​​​

NoEmissions84TA

iTrader: (1)

I am no expert on this, but I would think that you need a breather somewhere to let "filtered" air in.
Otherwise the vacuum pump could create enough negative pressure to suck in some of the gaskets.

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

I’ll get back on the forum later today or tonight to catch up on this but I just wanted to clarify that with this new configuration I’m going to be eliminating any hoses running back to the intake or the sniper or the engine completely.
for these last four years, I returned, dirty, contaminated, crank case air back to the 3/16” sniper vacuum port And I’ve just decided I’m not gonna return any air to the engine at all.

So either I’ll have to use the system when it’s not running as a can and the blow by will be pushed through the catch tank and hoses and also passed the pump veins, even when the pump is not on because it is able to free spool
Therefore, I think I would need to cap the other valve, cover and not run a breather on that. I see where you’re saying about having fresh air come in to the crank case too though. Hmm

skinny z

I suppose that would depend on the relative strength of the pump.
There's always going to be some blowby so there's the air inlet whether you want it or not. It would be a matter of maintaining the balance between that blowby and what the pump is able to create on the negative pressure side.
And how much volume is introduced into the crankcase via that blowby anyway?
I know several racers you have incorporated pumps into their cars. I'll have to make an inquiry or two to find out who does what and how.

skinny z

Here's one example.

skinny z

And a tech article:

https://www.gzmotorsports.com/why-us...to%20the%20pan.

skinny z

The crankcase is effectively sealed other than the breather on the catch can will allows gases out.
The pumps job is to deal with the blowby and evacuate it while also creating a negative pressure in the crankcase.

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

So what is this Ford vacuum pump from and what is its normal function?

The electric vacuum pump on my EcoBoost F150 is for power brakes and four-wheel drive hubs and things like that. It is not part of the PCV system, and probably not designed to be contaminated by crankcase vapors.

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

Yes, capping off the pass side valve cover with a simple sealed oil-fill cap was my plan initially, but at some point I got twist-turned around and thought I would require a breather on the one side for some reason. That is thankfully not the case, so it will get a cap. Oddly, when searching for caps online, I was sadly surprised at the limited selection of simple caps for sale. Have yet to find one that I like, so I bought a cheapo-kind in the meantime.

So, I got a lot of my info from the Holley efi forums also, and this link was mentioned a few times. I am not following this guys setup, but taking some of my ideas for components from his choices of components. He will be running a PCV, and returning air to the intake; I will not. Nothing will return to the intake. The ford pump is described in detail also on this link

https://grannys.tripod.com/evac.html

Here is some of it: "The electric vac pump is a Delco 215-425, available new from ebay or amazon for around $100. The hoses are -12 lightweight pushloc (3/4" id), and fit the electric pump's ports perfectly. The pump can also be found in wrecking yards, as Ford used it on various models as a smog pump, but they also used it on Mustang Cobra R's as a crankcase evac pump for the supercharged engines. They can be mounted in any position. The only modifications needed are soldering the motor wires to prevent overheating, and removing the foam inlet filter from the housing. I also attached an exhaust hose to route the fumes outside the passenger compartment, under the car. On the end of that exhaust hose, there's a large check-valve that allows the pcv valve to draw a vacuum without the electric pump being turned on."

So I'm kind of wondering how long it actually does last on those Cobra R's since it is exposed to crankcase oil.
If it lasts a year, I will be happy enough!

skinny z

I was talking with an engine builder and he related this experience regarding the Ford vacuum pump.

"Ran the Ford electric pump on the dyno. For the 565 it could only pull 1.5-2". To run one on the street you'd certainly need an oil separator, as I killed one on the dyno in just the short time we ran it."

IROCZman15

iTrader: (25)

Yea, I have a feeling my pump will do decent for a bit; and I'm sure that its more than likely to not last year year.. but on the contrary, I have read a bunch of stuff from people on week long drag-and-drive events and even local racers who have used an electric pump and gotten well beyond a year from it. Some have had fantastic results

Here's a GOOD quick read of a forum post from yellow bullet:

https://www.yellowbullet.com/threads...m-pump.152445/

I know if the pump made more vacuum I would be better, but I am really only looking for an improvement from what I had; not the ultimate solution because that would be well over my $250 budget (more like $1400 all said and done for a GZ pump)

skinny z

If nothing else your thinking has got me to thinking too.
My previous engine had a lot of blowby so I put an oil separator between the PCV valve and the intake. It seemed to help as there was some milkshake to be found when the can was drained. But the problem I had was the engine more than anything. This go around, everything is fresh so I'll experiment further and take some vacuum measurements as I develop the car.
One racer in particular reported that with a well sealed engine, including the combustion seal, that the PCV system would pull as much as 15" on the crankcase during cruise conditions, 10" at idle and after a dragstrip pass, still have 2-3" remaining.
That said, you're still dealing with the engine ingesting crankcase vapours but I'd think that with the proper plumbing, a decent sized oil separator, that would also serve as a reservoir, you could eliminate the pump aspect altogether.
I'm guessing you're firmly in the vacuum pump application camp and I'll be looking forward to how it plays out for you.
One thing that came to the fore is that's what happens when a power adder is thrown n the mix. Small amounts of evacuation just didn't cut it and guys were reporting to be working with 27" of vacuum in their race engines. HP gains were well into the double digits on high output deals.