SeanR

I've installed 2 of these so far and think it's a great product. Need to get one for mine.

stealth

Mine's installed; I'm about to go put the intake manifold back on (which of course was off for other reasons, not for SharkVent installation)...can't wait to find out how it changes the quart/300 miles mine was sucking in. I believe that the oil tended to collect/queue up most during engine braking then of course get sucked in during the next aggressive PSD-engaging downshift and bwaaaaah.

DR

Hi Mark,

Not a problem, give me a call so we can discuss exactly what you need.


I have upgraded the 85-85 32V version so there is no longer an Xtreme version. I can still supply the fittings if someone wants to drill out their oil filler neck but with the new layout I don't think it is necesary.

What we do now is use both of the filler neck base ports which doubles the crankcase breathing from the oil filler neck area. You can see this in the new Schematic diagram below. If this doesn't answer your question remind me about this when we talk about putting together a system for you.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on our SharkVent System!

Sterling I can't tell you how pleased I am with your results, that is fantastic!! If my SharkVent can tame the Crankcase Vapors on your beast, it should handle anything! BTW, I am so sorry you can't play any more James Bond smoke screen games :-)

Benton

Thanks, David. I sent you a PM in the meantime with a diagram of the parts I'd like to order, just to save us both the headache of trying to figure out what the other is talking about.

Manfred

I know how that feels.

I'd love to hear how it works for you.

I've been ingesting about a quart every 500miles or so and can't figure out where it's been going. I guess I need to put this on my list of things to do. (13quarts in 7000 miles since owning the car). Incidentally, does anyone know whether I ever really have to do an oil change if I'm dumping oil in the car at this rate? I did just complete an oil and filter change but I wonder if I could just get away with filter changes...

Alan

Well - I've been noodling over what to do here for a good while considering what others have done and what I have learned from Louie and Mike Schmidts great write ups.

I think I have my attack plan defined - looking for inputs here.... I just responded to a question from HermanK and realized I can get some collective input on the same things I suggested to him...

The plan:

Seems the provent works well for others - I think Dave's mount is great and he has some very useful harware.

However based on everything I understand of the system and detailed discussion with Louie on it I want to do the plumbing a bit differently as follows:

Get DR's bracket and a provent, get his extreme port to the filler cap (in black). Get a few of the vac caps he offers extra cam cover port and a few of the tubes & fittings & the oil drainback via the dipstick (e.g. most of the '93-'95 extreme kit).

I plan to add a rear vent on the driver side cam cover (shrouded same as pass side). Plumb both vents together on each side and back to the bottom of the airfilter box with a low restriction one way valve (into cam covers only). Louie has similar minus the check valves.

I plan to add the crankcase breather scrubber that John Kuhn has developed to eliminate as much oil as possible before the Provent. I'll cap both the vac ports on the oil filler neck (DR's hardware) and add the new 3/4"? ('xtreme') bottom fitting & line direct as the only connection to the provent intake (need a big 'U' tube). I plan to make an open domed screw threaded cover for the extreme elbow fitting to allow easy oil filling (I think doable without restriction by soldering together a few copper plumbing fittings - details in the works).

I'll plumb the vent port of the provent via a 4 way fitting to both the vacuum lines that went to the oil filler neck (maintaining the same restriction on the currently restricted raw intake vac port) as well as via a check valve (out only) to the large port on throttle body 'Y' fitting - for when the blow-by is too much for the dual small vacuum lines to handle - and for high load cases to provide extra scavenging (or even blow-off if needed).

I think this is optimal. It ensures fresh air scavenging of both cam covers and crankcase with unidirectional flow of oil and any head blow-by vapors down the head->sump drain ports on both sides.

All the evacuation of the crankcase is through the plenty big crank port to the scrubber unit and then to the provent via the filler neck and is vacuum scavenged most of the time. If the blow by is ever too much for this vac system it will vent through the 1 way valved port (this port will have vac some of the time - but not always - is open for outflow).

If the seperators do their job well - there will be no oil going to the intake (just some blow-by gasses).

It seems this should be fairly neat - connections on the intake/trottle body remain the same - need some longer lines, new check valves and connectors but not very much different than DR's original parts list. No venting to atmosphere occurs in this scenario - however there is clean air flow through the cam covers and out of the crank under most normal conditions (likely not WOT). In DR's vent to atmosphere schematic it seems only blow-by gases drive any crank evacuation...?

This is all based on the belief the GTS oil ingestion is primarily due to flow reversal up the drain ports on the passenger cam cover when the small vents on the oil filler neck get overwhelmed (as well as some misting directly up the filler neck).

Because then the only port out is from the passenger head to the throttle body much more oil vapor is sucked up (or blown up) there without seperation. Flow reversal impedes oil drain back and so also contributes to temporarily less oil in the pan and more likelihood of bearing starvation.

Notes:

See: Louie Ott's site
Mike Schmidt's great write up helped me understand what's going on much better...

What am I missing - getting ready to pull the trigger on this.

Alan

Herman K

+1

I'm ready to go with Alan on this one I suspect there may be others?

icsmike

My cam covers adn oil filler neck tube has been blocked off. Is this bad???

Alan

Bump - Where are the experts?

My possible concerns with what I proposed would be:

1) Affecting flow in the lower filter box - depending on the porting for the cam cover intakes

2) Insufficient flow via the 3 existing intake ports for max blow-by (however total is same as stock)

3) Differentl mountiing of the straight intake restricted port (same orifice size) affecting leakage rate

4) Exact details of the best 3>1 way Provent output vent connections (single 4W, multi-T etc)

5) H2O vapor recovery better/worse with Provent - e.g. does the Provent encorage seperation of all vapors to liquid and => more H20 return to crankcase vs H20 vapor ingestion in stock?

6) Use regular low restriction 1 way valves for cam cover porting? (maximise flow at all times vs PCV valve)

7) Are there already check valves bult into any of the cam cover ports, are these ports big enough (x4)

Alan

RKD in OKC

I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express.

Alan

What is blocked off exactly - everything? you should have several tubes evacuating the crank from around the filler as well as from the cam covers - but if all these have been capped its not good - the crank/cams can't be sealed up tight...

Alan

Leon Speed

Just a DIY-er here

Let me ask two questions though:
1. What is te reasoning for unidirectional breathing into the cam covers?
2. Wouldn't oil pool in the right side cam area at higher revs/WOT? (because no air going into the cam areas).

Alan

1 & 2 are related. Unidirectional flow into the cam covers down the drains to the sump and up & out the main crank breather is so the cam & crank evacuation flows in the same direction as the oil drainback.

Flowing crank blow-by up the head drains while the oil is trying to drain down is problematic - esp. with the narrow head drains on a 928.

Fresh air breathing into the cam covers allows ~continual flushing of the system to avoid combusion by product build-up and oil contamination - e.g. Vs if the only flow were blow-by driven.

The oil is designed to gravity drain anyway - At WOT the oil will drain better than cases where blow-by is coming up the drains - head blow-by leakage will help this - even if here is no effective vac.

Blow-by may displace fresh air and accumulate in the cam covers when at WOT low vac - but will get flushed soon enough.

Alan

PorKen

I'm just about to do another S3 intake refresh, and this time I want to replace the oil fill tower with a simple cover plate with rudimentary baffling, and a large output hose or hoses.

I reckon that both cam covers should have fresh air vents, ideally with one way valves. When I do this, I'm going to swap the front 1-4 port to the rear of the 5-8.

In my mind, the super dense, 'scrubby' housings aren't the way to go. At high rpm, oil is thrown up and is held at the housing, then blow-by pushes that oil through the scrubbers. There is no way for the oil to drain back fast enough while at WOT.

I've seen that larger external catch can inhibits oil ejection. Up till now, I have had the cam covers plugged, and two 13mm ID hoses coming from the oil fill tower. I used a 1-quart oil bottle as a catch can, and under repeated WOT runs (chip tuning), it filled quickly with oil, and that oil was blow out (and all over the engine). After switching to a 5-quart (M1) bottle, there is less oil collected, and none blown out. Like muffler sizing to engine displacement, I think the catch can should be near the size of the internal engine volume, but this isn't practical.

In short, I think the oil should be externally separated (and returned to the sump), with little restriction at the engine.

Herman K

1) If your venting/breating to the airbox below the filter your tapping into a negative pressure area (air flow > MAF > intake) which various with the trottle position.

2) Have there been any test that measured the crankcase pressures at different RPM's.

3) In one of the two exits from the oil filter the say one of the 12 mm hoses is further restricted by a valve with a small hole. Can this be modified? They say the 5.0 liter engine requires 3/4" opening or larger so the 5.4 liter should bigger?

4) Will a change in flowrate/viscocity for example from 20W 50 (this was used in their test) to 5W 40 make a difference.

5) It appears to me that most of their method's to provide effective oil controlin the sump has not had all the desired results.

Alan I still need so more time to read-up on some of this stuff but will do ASAP