Did you remove the stock FPR and replace it with the BEGI or are you running both?

 

The restricted cam cover elbow is not intended to be a 'venting port'... It is supposed to draw fresh air into the crank case.... It's just that more often than not the venting system becomes overwhelmed at high rpm, and crankcase gases are ejected here...
At idle/partial throttle Crankcase gases are supposed to be drawn into the intake via the restricted outlet on the oil fill, which connects to the base of the manifold (s4 anyway) and at higher rpm via the hose that runs from the base of the oil fil neck to the MAF boot.
Fresh air should be drawn into the camcover elbow at idle to prevent a large vacuum being drawn on the crankcase... The throttling of this elbow is presumably what Porsche figured out gives a 'reasonable' level of vacuum.

Which provent did you use? Is it one with a vacuum limiting valve in it? Did you bypass this valve?

 

I cannot answer that question, he could have other issues causing it or a combination. My comment about not playing guessing games was serious. There are methods to trace down problems like this, starting with any known issues.........

The only known issue (that I'm aware of) here is the engine tune, so start there and if the blow-by is still excessive, time for a compression / leak-down test or other diagnostic measures like smoking the crankcase.

That would make it worse.

Ken's chips have been carefully designed to give maximum safe performance for a non-boosted engine. The changes he makes to the timing map are the totally opposite what you need with your boosted car.

When I first fired up my 81 with LH 2.2 and EZF I took out 20+ degrees of timing across the board in the EZF map for all areas under boost. Was that excessive? Yes, but I don't like blowing engines. No, my chips will not work for you since I have a different MAP sensor in my EZF. This isn't necessary but my goal is over 20psi. I'm maxed out at 17 right now.

 

I have LH/EZF chips that were specially designed by Ken and myself for my boosted 85. Basically I have timing progressively removed above 4500 rpm and additional timing removed depending on intake temps with a maximum of 6 deg removed with intake temps above 145F.

Your ROW 32V I think is lower compression then mine, which is better for boost but I have no idea what the stock EZF/LH mapping is like. They may have put more timing advance in the map to compensate for the lower compression. I am not sure if the chips I have will work for your car.

Anyway back to the original topic. Getting oil out of your intake is definitely a good thing! Why didn't you just vent the Provent to the atmosphere? It is a lot less complicated.

 

Ok, those would work

 

On a low compression 32V? I wonder if the EZF and LH are mapped the same?

Either way, I guess with his lower compression motor it would even be more safe then it is on mine.

Ramcram: I have pretty much the identical system as you and my car runs like a champ, no surging, no hesitating etc. and pulls like a freight train. I have some ideas to help you, you can shoot me a PM or search some of my old threads if you like.

 

Just thinking if he went to Ken for chips, he would know what chips work where, so what you did in theory would be an improvement.

No replacement for a proper tune, but you have to start somewhere.

 

Runing both. Under vacuum, the RRFPR is suposed to be out of the equation, letting the stock one do its job.

 

Oh boy, those chips sound VERY interesting indeed. If they'd work in mine I'd be wrapped!
Yes, the ROW is only 9.3:1 CR. Lower HP higher tourque to achieve the same 0-100kpm as the 4.7s of that era.
I followed a SC 928 on a run once and got oil mist all over my window because he vented straigh to atmosphere, besides it's illegal and well, it just felt like cheating.
I'm not sure where I went wrong but I seem to have given this thread the notion that my 86 ROW had/has excessive blow by or crankcase breathing problems and I'm just playing catch up.
This is not the case. Having removed all the inlet system twice since I've owned the car and finding oil inside it but not as much as I've heard some describe, or as much as I've seem in photos, I thought it prudent to work on improving it. Especially adding a SC which has to agravate the problem.
So my efforts are really an automotive excercise by an old bloke with too much time to waste.
As I said at the outset, I don't want to race the car just want to improve its drivability, stretch my brain waves a bit, address a few known issues with these beauties, have some technical fun. Done the same with oil cooling and intercooler as well but that's definitely another story.

 

Did that SC car infront of you had any kind of oil seperator or, he just wented one of the bubes straight into the atmoshere?

 

I guess so, I didn't look at it.

 

The way these cars can barf oil you want the vent into a can or separator. This lets you judge it and/or control it. I'd expect some truly hard running and there's be oil all over the engine bay.

Nope. OBs (78-79) have a different tube. Starting in '80 they got a filler tube that extended down into the oil pan and below the surface of the oil. This provides a lock against blow-by running up the tube. That is, until the oil level lowers due to use, windage or vehicle acceleration. Then blow-by will go up that and mess up the operation of the separator can.

I wonder at what point they added that big filler/separator. Speaks to me that they spotted oil ejection problems early on and applied a fix to the symptoms.

 

I think Porsche expected it to also vent there whenever blow-by was more than the otherwise small (resticted) intake vacuum ports could handle... You'd have to assume that since there is nowhere much else for it to go.

Now obviously the cam elbow isn't sufficiently sized to vent very well anyway and since there is no separation before it enters the MAF boot its far from ideal. Especially since the high RMP/turn crankcase oil misting and passenger cam cover filling issues are well known - so that is actually a particularly bad place to be venting from.

Converting that cam vent to air in only (check valve) and T'ing to a bigger out only vent (check valve) from the top of the oil filler would have seemed the easiest way to address that issue without adding a specific seperator (provent like) - I wonder if anyone has ever done just that (its pretty easy plumbing). Not clear how much entrained oil would make it up the oil filler - but its pretty easy to suff scrubbies down there for some degree of vertical stack oil separation.

Alan

 

True... Porsche would have known about the venting at the elbow, probably why there is the shroud attached there... But the as I see it, the system isn't designed specifically to vent there, as so many who are redesigning the system seem to do.
By only drawing in air at the cam cover you assist in pulling the oil in the heads back to the crankcase... An issue that GB has well documented and I'm sure Porsche engineers knew about.

I have mine set up pretty much as you describe, but with the provent and an additional elbow on the drivers cover...
I'm working on a solution to increase the diameter of the hose running from the provent back to the MAF at the moment.

Can post a diagram later, when I'm back at my laptop...