Oil consumption after CCV replacement

[stanley]

I see that you did not replace the dipstick tube, that is most likely the problem, as the new kit says to replace tube. Check with you parts dept.

[02Pilot]

Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong or basing my analysis on flawed assumptions, Chris, but it seems to me that if the old CCV was allowing inadequate vacuum to be pulled from the crankcase, that would allow additional pressure on the valve stem seals. The only way I can figure that a bad CCV would have reduced oil consumption through the valve seals is if it was allowing too much vacuum to be pulled. In other words, a pressurized crankcase due to inadequate vacuum would potentially exacerbate oil leakage into the high vacuum created in the cylinders during engine braking, whereas a higher than normal vacuum would create a lower differential pressure between the crankcase and the cylinders under that condition, reducing the flow of crankcase gases past the valve stem seals.

I do recall reading someone else's experience with this issue where they removed the CCV and replaced it with a catch can drawing full intake manifold vacuum, many times higher than what the CCV pulls, and seeing reduced oil consumption. Hard to know if that was the result of reduced pressure on compromised valve seals or some other factor, however; too many variables.

Stanley, as I understand it the dipstick tube redesign simply made it less likely to clog by eliminating the sleeve between the dipstick portion and the CCV drain. The photos I've seen of the new part confirm this. Mine is absolutely 100% clear, manually cleaned, flushed with solvent, and blown out with shop air. There is no oil backing up in the drain whatsoever, which seems to be the primary issue that develops regarding the dipstick tube as relates to the CCV.

[stanley]

Has nothing to do with clogging, it is the bottom of tube is in the oil and vacumn can suck it in to intake, the new tube has a vent up higher. when you look at it you will see what I mean. Please read.
HelpDOUG S FOREIGN CAR SVC
DOUG S FOREIGN 00002

Select Vehicle | New TSBs | Technician's ReferenceComponent Search: Conversion Calculator 2001 BMW X5 3.0i (E53) L6-3.0L (M54)

Vehicle Level Engine, Cooling and Exhaust Engine Technical Service Bulletins All Technical Service Bulletins Engine - Engine Oil Separator Freezing Concerns Engine - Engine Oil Separator Freezing Concerns SI B 11 08 03
Engine
July 2010
Technical Service
This Service Information bulletin supersedes SI B11 08 03 dated March 2009.
[NEW] designates changes to this revision
SUBJECT
Oil Separator - Cold Climate Conditions
MODEL
E39 (5 Series) all with M54 engine
E46 (3 Series) all with M54 engine
E53 (X5) all with M54 engine
E60 (5 Series) all with M54 engine
E83 (X3) all with M54 engine
E85 (Z4) all with M54 engine
SITUATION
Certain areas of the US experience extremely cold climate conditions during the winter months. A small number of vehicles in the above-listed Series have experienced problems ranging from leaking or broken valve covers to complete engine failure.
CAUSE
Moisture accumulating in the engine oil separator; hose to oil dipstick guide tube; or the orifice in the dipstick guide tube can freeze. When this occurs, depending on the position of the internal valve, it may either cause high crankcase pressures (stuck closed) resulting in valve cover leakage and/or breakage, or cause an oil hydro-lock condition (stuck open), which could result in engine damage.
CORRECTION
Replace the crankcase vent valve, crankcase vent hoses, and dipstick guide tube.

1. Replace the oil separator and hoses (1) with the new insulated style (2).
2. If the vehicle is already equipped with the new insulated crankcase ventilation valve and hose, only replace the dipstick guide tube with the part number from the list by model below.
3. If the vehicle is not equipped with the new insulated crankcase ventilation valve and hose, replace those parts with the updated style and replace the dipstick guide tube with the part number from the list by model below.

[02Pilot]

Thanks for posting the TSB, Stanley. I have read it (I believe I'd seen it previously, but I reread it carefully just now) and, aside from the freezing condition where the diaphragm in the CCV valve blocks off the airflow from the valve cover vent as described in the TSB, I'm not sure how either dipstick design could pull oil from the pan when under correctly-regulated vacuum. Both designs have the bottom of the tube immersed in oil, and the drains appear to be in the same location. Here's a couple of side-by-side photos: http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showpos...92&postcount=9 ; am I missing something, or is the difference simply the lack of an inner sleeve? If that's the case, I can simply cut out the sleeve and weld the tube back up pretty easily.

Even if there's a one-way valve built in (and I really hope there is, given the price of the bloody thing), that would seem to come into play only in the catastrophic case of a frozen diaphragm.

[bmwdirtracer]

Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong or basing my analysis on flawed assumptions, Chris, but it seems to me that if the old CCV was allowing inadequate vacuum to be pulled from the crankcase, that would allow additional pressure on the valve stem seals. The only way I can figure that a bad CCV would have reduced oil consumption through the valve seals is if it was allowing too much vacuum to be pulled. In other words, a pressurized crankcase due to inadequate vacuum would potentially exacerbate oil leakage into the high vacuum created in the cylinders during engine braking, whereas a higher than normal vacuum would create a lower differential pressure between the crankcase and the cylinders under that condition, reducing the flow of crankcase gases past the valve stem seals.

I do recall reading someone else's experience with this issue where they removed the CCV and replaced it with a catch can drawing full intake manifold vacuum, many times higher than what the CCV pulls, and seeing reduced oil consumption. Hard to know if that was the result of reduced pressure on compromised valve seals or some other factor, however; too many variables.

Stanley, as I understand it the dipstick tube redesign simply made it less likely to clog by eliminating the sleeve between the dipstick portion and the CCV drain. The photos I've seen of the new part confirm this. Mine is absolutely 100% clear, manually cleaned, flushed with solvent, and blown out with shop air. There is no oil backing up in the drain whatsoever, which seems to be the primary issue that develops regarding the dipstick tube as relates to the CCV.

Yeah, you're probably right, 02pilot: unless of course, a hose was leaking, allowing air, but no oil, into the system, before. Which would reduce oil consumption and vacuum, I'd guess.

Either way, I sometimes think the same way: that the old way was easy, and never really failed. Jim Levie's a great proponent of the catch can, you might get his input on the swap, if you do it.

[dworthy]

I do remember hearing about the CCV locking open, and it sucking all the oil out of the pan into the intake. I think that with the new tube design, it is shorter at the bottom so it cannot pull the fluid from the pan if the CCV gets locked open. What can be happening is with the longer dipstick it is pulling some oil back up thru the CCV and into your intake when it is open. I think that is what stanley was referring to with the new style tube.

[02Pilot]

Far as I can tell, both the old and new dipstick housings are the same length. Being the stubborn sort, I cut apart my old dipstick housing and removed the inner sleeve, effectively replicating the new design (what a pain - everything's brazed together in multiple places). In spite of recent cleaning, there was more gunk in there than I would have liked, so perhaps it was playing a part. I've pulled out my experimental restrictor (I'll save that for later if the dipstick solution doesn't pan out), so the only variable that's changed in this phase of the experiment is the dipstick housing. We'll see what happens.

If none of this works, the catch can may be the way to go. I suppose a simple downdraft tube is considered bad form these days....

[02Pilot]

Placey, PM sent. Thanks.

[bmwdirtracer]

Decades ago, in my Chevy days, I seem to recall a system that put vacuum on the crankcase by plumbing a fitting from the valve covers to a header collector. Talk about "bad form these days".... think it just might have required open headers, at that?

[02Pilot]

Decades ago, in my Chevy days, I seem to recall a system that put vacuum on the crankcase by plumbing a fitting from the valve covers to a header collector. Talk about "bad form these days".... think it just might have required open headers, at that?

Oh, that sounds fun. I wonder how much of the oil cooked off in those headers...probably just had to get them hot enough...

I still sort of miss the oil smell in my 2002 since I replaced the downdraft tube with an actual connection to a ti airfilter housing. Now I have to content myself with the smell of fuel oozing from the dual Webers....

Interesting tidbit: after my dipstick surgery (wait, that sounds bad...) I threw the manometer back on the engine to see if there was any change. No difference at idle; still in spec. However, when I revved the engine a bit, the reading held perfectly steady. It did not do this before; instead, it previously dropped a bit before going up as the revs climbed.

This appears to suggest, based on Mann's description of how the valve is supposed to function (here: https://www.mann-hummel.com/company/...=35&rec_no=270 - specifically, see the graph on the lower right of the full system chart), that previously things were not working as designed. Now they are, for whatever reason (I can't come up with a good theory on what part the dipstick plays in this). In any case, the next step if this doesn't quell the oil consumption is a leakdown test.

[dworthy]

Though you may have cleaned out a small section of the dipstick tube, there still was alot of "gunk" around the other side that you couldn't reach with-out removing it completely. That cause a suction effect since it was pulling thru a small cross area, so it makes sense that removing that inner lining reduces the previous vacuum.

[02Pilot]

Could be. Having dissected the tube, I have to say that even when it was brand new and 100% clean, there is a tiny amount of space dedicated to the CCV drain in the old guide tube design. Not the best engineering on this one.

[mahmoudh]

Thanks to all for your posts which helped me tackle this project.

I just bought the new Guide Tube 1P/N 1437531258 from ECS Tuning and the bottom has concentric tubes below the Y. It also has the small vent hole below the Y as seen in pictures of the original tube design.
The tube is new with the correct part number.

Air blown from the CCV drain hose inlet does exit both at the inner and outer concentric tubes as well as small vent hole.

The tube that was in there looks and operates the same as the new one.

I did not have any blockages, mayo etc but am burning oil excessive even though I changed the CCV and hoses last winter.

All leaky gaskets were fixed and none in exhaust tailpipe

I did notice the old tube was loose and the O ring came out with it.
I replaced the O ring in the oil pan before inserting the tube and got a nice tight fit. Also replaced the two dipstick O rings

Not sure what to make of this - I am the 2nd owner from 72K in 2005 so this must be the original tube.
- Is BMW selling the original design with new P/N?
- Can worn O rings at tube and dipstick cause that much oil burn?

[02Pilot]

If you look at the photos I linked to of the new design guide tube, it does not have an inner sleeve. I'm not sure what you have there, but it sure sounds like the old tube design.

O-rings that allow air into the crankcase could contribute to oil burning.

[bmwdirtracer]

Yeah, but how's yours, 02pilot? Any improvement, or still waiting for a verdict?

[02Pilot]

Still waiting. Need to put some more miles on to see where we are.

[mahmoudh]

O2Pilot - Thanks. I hope the new O-rings helps reduce my oil consumption.
Attached pdf has pictures of the new dipstick tube with the current P/N, showing the concentric tubes and vent hole.

Can anyone who bought the latest tube - P/N 1437531258 - confirm it looks as in my pictures?

[mahmoudh]

I went to the dealer to verify the look of the new tube but they do not stock it - special order - they did confirm part #11437531258 is the latest.

Again, I did not have blockages on the tube that I replaced but it was in there loosely and there was oil in the intake manifold and CCV hoses.
No trace of oil in exhaust and no external oil leaks but needed a quart of oil at less than 1000 miles with 134K on car (01 530i)

I reseated the CCV hoses bought last winter and replaced the parts below:
CCV (2nd new one)
Dipstick tube (P/N above)
O-ring in the crankcase for dipstick tube
O-rings on the dipstick
Rubber Cap on Intake Manifold Item # 17 on real oem
Piece of Vaccum Hose going to intake next to #17

I did the VCGs last fall with the Vanos but should replace Oil Filler Cap.

The comments from Jim and O2pilot about vaccum and flow makes sense to me - amount of oil from blow by gases returned to crankcase depends on CCV valve operation which relies on vaccum. Leaky O-rings upset the delicate balance of pressure, vaccum and flow. Having a weak CCV in the mix can compound the situation. Not to mention cracked CCV hoses.

Oil consumption (dipstick inspection) seems better or at least no worse than before but need to put more miles before I can say it is fixed.

[dworthy]

Mahmoudh, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your dealership is wrong, the correct p/n for that tube is:
11 43 7 565 437

Here is the SB that you can take to the dealership to order the correct parts.

Oh yeah, don't always trust realoem.com

[mahmoudh]

Dworthy, thanks for the "bad news" - I saw that SIB and P/N but read on one forum that BMW has since changed to the realoem P/N and lowered the price.

I will go to the dealer to hear what they have to say about the SIB and P/N.

RealOEM does not list P/N 11437565437 anywhere yet both P/Ns are on ECS Tuning.

[treat44]

I may try to seek out zero ethanol gas for the M54 in my wife's X5.

I've owned it since 33k and it now has 156k and it's on the 3rd CCV system. Original unit caused valve cover blow up while in CPO one cold winter night in '07. Ever since then it's used more oil than it previously did.
I replaced it preventatively in '09 due to excessive goo found throughout. During this, I found updated oil tube from previous CPO repair(thank goodne$$).
New install produced goo immediately during cold weather. All hoses and o-rings were replaced. Still consuming ~1 qt/ 1k mi. One cold morning last winter, I had it towed home because it started rough. I opened hood and removed oil cap to find positive pressure. Towed it home and parked in heated garage overnight and cleared as much goo as I could without tearing into it too much. Even used shop vac at vc hose to suck out goo (hopefully this is not harmful to CCV diaphram). Ran fine (albeit much goo) for the remainder of last winter.
I'd like to preventatively replace soon before sub zero temps arrive, or at least inspect CCV oil drain circuit.
Interestingly enough, it has started rough twice now in the last couple weeks. Once for my wife and once for me, both fully cold starts (outside temps ~40 - 50 F - not crazy cold yet) parked in garage. When I started it and it idled rough, I gave it a bit of gas to "clear out the webs" I noticed oil cloud out tailpipe, which cleared up after it warmed up for ~10 seconds. This is a bit sudden and puzzling?....I've also noticed a bit of oil drops on garage floor under engine, which doesn't appear to be coming from the oil pan drain bolt crush washer...Stay tuned.

I read a tech article on M54 once that suggested coolant system flow passages in engine/head are optimized for hotter running lower end (reducing friction) and cooler running head (reducing chance for prel-ignition and lowering combustion temps). This may have ill effects on burning off condensation in crankcase vapors, eventually leading to excess moisture accumulation in CCV oil drain circuit. 10% (or more likely ~13-15%) ethanol gas does not help this situation. Notice the Service Bulletin suggests "cars in US cold weather regions". The only other developed countries with ethanal gas are in South America, yes?
I can just hear the BMW engineers griping about the "stupid american fuel"....

Oh, and the M52TU in my touring doesn't use a drop of oil, literally, with 162k mi. I use same fuel for both cars. I recently changed CCV system on this, as I was getting very sporadic stalling with AC on during braking/turns and the familiar "honking" at throttle blip. It also "honked" when oil cap was removed. Upon this replacement, I found date codes that suggested all CCV parts were original from 1999...12 years old. I found plastic bits that had broken from somewhere and collected inside CCV oil drain tube. Oil could still drain around them. It was probably part of the diaphram/spring inner parts of the CCV that failed in this case.

[mahmoudh]

At the dealer today, I requested the P/N for the tube for my car (4/2001 530i) and was given the same P/N that is on RealOEM - 11437531258.
He printed a diagram with P/N showing 11437531258 and a previous P/N 11431433496 with an E as in Ended.
I showed him the SIB and he checked its P/N 11437565437 - it is also valid but they do not stock either tube. (Implies low demand for it in my area?)

For now, I am thinking to leave the tube that's on (11437531258) because:

• Winters are not extreme where I live (LI NY)
• Tube had no mayo, goo or blockage etc, yet car burns oil so my problem is most likely elsewhere
• CCV drain inlet at the Y on my tube definitely connects to inner and outer concentric tubes.
• Cost of SIB tube - 11437565437 - at least $140
• Money better spent on oil or related items.

On my 1999 528i with 118K miles, original CCV, hoses, O-rings and tubes, oil level is always at the high mark until the next change (5K miles), even with leaky VCG before replacement last fall with the Vanos seals. And it does use the same dipstick tube as the 2001.
Some on the forums report increased oil burn after replacing the CCV as a PM. I am going to let the 1999 be unless I have a compelling reason to mess with it.

My wife just told me the yellow oil level warning came back on again.
I am running out of things to try except oil filler cap and this tube.
Have anyone posted anywhere that using the tube in the SIB actually decreased oil burn?
Where does all the oil go? (Castrol 0W30 EuroFormula)

[bmwdirtracer]

Please note that a crankcase vacuum test and smoke test of the intake should be done before throwing parts.

[kenndoggy]

Decades ago, in my Chevy days, I seem to recall a system that put vacuum on the crankcase by plumbing a fitting from the valve covers to a header collector. Talk about "bad form these days".... think it just might have required open headers, at that?

http://www.racersmarket.net/index.ph...mart&Itemid=93


That guy there?? I just picked up an M52 from a '96 328is to transplant into a 318ti, supposedly with 70k on it. I like the idea of the CCV mostly for trying to keep oil and oil vapors from getting to the engine's intake manifold, but if they really have this much trouble - is it worth bypassing it while it's on a stand and just doing a catchcan and being done with it?

[mahmoudh]

Please note that a crankcase vacuum test and smoke test of the intake should be done before throwing parts.

Thanks for your response.

I lack the tools to do either a vaccum or smoke test, and distrust auto shops.
I was hoping that by fixing the areas that are leak prone (VCG, Oil Filler cap, CCV and hoses, vaccum hoses ) that would correct any abnormalities.

Am I missing something? What other areas or things should I be looking at that may be causing the system to suck oil into the intake resulting in high oil consumption?

P.S. New Oil filler cap is cheap and arrived today and will try that next.