CCV delete

[bartelbe]

Ok I'am sure this is going to start a argument but here goes anyway The ccv elimination. After I got so frustrated with the bs ccv and its problems I thought about what its purpose is and this is were the disagreement will start, Emissions. Thats it, So I deleted it and have never been happier Now this is only for the I6 but I'am sure with some thought it could be done on other bmws. This is what I did removed the ccv plugged the hole in the intake manifold that it plugs into also plugged the drain going into the dip stick then simply vented the valve cover hose to atmosphere You can use different methods of plugging the ports for the ccv just make sure that the one for the intake manifold will not get suck into the engine. So there it is no more worrying about ccv related problems which far out weigh the usefulness of this POS component. My car absolutly run great. . One more note the state I live in does not have emission testing so if you live in a state that has emissions testing this may run you into problems if they visually inspect your crankcase ventilation system."ccv"

[Cereal]

How long have you done this?
No smoking on startup or oil in the intake at all?

Sounds almost too good to be true lol

[mrkarma83]

I'm curious about this too... I'm gearing up to replace mine now but I would love to kiss that and it's headaches goodbye

[Jason5driver]

Pictures...?

Thanks!
Jason

[jdjg]

Pictures...?

Thanks!
Jason

+1

[bartelbe]

I have put about 25,000 miles on it with this set up and it is running top. This all started when after a major overhaul I did I was getting smoke upon start up at first I thought it was the valve stem seals but didnt have ALL the bad valve stem seal symptoms. So I pulled the throttle valve off the intake and thats when I saw all the oil puddling in my intake so I thought that the ccv must be bad I bought a new OEM one installed it, tested it, and the dam thing stiil ran like shit and smoked upon starting it, So I started thinking of what and how this was happening. The ccv has basically 2 purposes 1 to recover engine crack case blowby vapors "you can thank California for this" and 2 to regulate engine crankcase vacuum pressure. So if you have a leak say from the oil fill cap or valve cover gasket them what happen is the ccv can no longer control the crankcase vacuum but it tries and in doing so it turns into a big ass intake vacuum leak itself and this added oil laden blowby and the air from the leak where ever its coming from is not being seen by the maf sensor causing your car to run poorly. The smoke is because the ccv is not separating this oil from the recovered engine crankcase air and ends up in the intake which is providing the suck for the ccv to work so with that I thought screw California and there emission bs. This is how I did it, I took the new ccv and the bottom port I capped it or plugged it then the port that goes from the side of the ccv to the valve cover I capped it to I then installed the ccv back into the intake manifold using the factory mounting bracket and bolts then I capped the drain port on the dip stick tube so that dirt and other stuff wouldnt get into my oil pan thats it well almost the hose that went from the valve cover to the ccv I install a long hose to vent this out bellow my engine not totally necessary but I wanted to keep my engine nice and clean and I dont want to smell any oil vapors through my hvac system. It runs great doesnt smoke,Dont have to worry about damaging my o2 sensors,plugs,excessive carbon in my combustion cambers the list is endless.

[pleiades]

Wait, you've plugged the intake ports, the return port from the valve cover, the dipstick return line? Why did you bother reinstalling the CCV? It isn't doing anything at all now, is it?

My real question is this: How are you maintaining crankcase vacuum without this system? If you look, you'll find a number of threads on people installing catch-can setups in these cars, but they still managed to maintain crankcase vacuum. ....which these cars need because they use low-tension piston rings. (Or so I read....)

Don't take this as any kind of critique, I'm just curious and wondering if I understood your post right. If your car is running great without the CCV, more power to ya.

[jdjg]

pics???

[cnn]

Actually lawn mower works this way: the excess crankcase gas is vented to the atmosphere.

In the E39, getting rid of the CCV this way, i.e., venting straight into the atmosphere will:
1. Create pollution, as long as you don't tell the tree huggers, you are OK.
2. In States with emission testing requirement, you will not pass the test.
3. Wastes gasoline vapor, reducing the fuel mileage a bit.

If you live in the middle of the corn field, then this mod is fine.

Better yet, look into the E23 setup, the CCV is very straightforward, simply a hose going "uphill". This is a photo from my 1983 735i.

Now you can see the CCV setup in the E39 is very stupid, it was made complex for nothing.

See item #11, the hose goes from valve cover uphill into the intake (upstream of the throttle):

[steveng1993]

I wonder if you could just use one of those PCV valves like on a japanese car?
A long time ago I used to have a honda accord, I didn't ever think to replace its PCV valve. Until one day its crank seal blew out. LOL.

[02Pilot]

The one thing that maintaining vacuum in the crankcase through the intake will do in any engine is help to evacuate the moisture and fuel vapors that are created once the engine gets to operating temperature. Using a simple downdraft tube (which should be mounted with the exit low enough to get into the airflow below the car, and the exit of which should be cut at an angle to promote outflow (Bernoulli Effect)) will never be as efficient at doing so as positive crankcase ventilation, particularly for engines that are not regularly kept at operating temperature and highway speed. The net effect of this is to reduce the rate of removal of contaminants from your oil, which in turn means you will need to shorten the oil change interval to compensate. Used oil analysis should be used to determine how long you can go.

The better solution, though still an imperfect one, is to mimic the more traditional PCV arrangement by making a direct connection between the valve cover vent and the intake tract post-MAF but pre-throttle plate. This will create a variable but generally low vacuum in the crankcase, and eliminates much of the complexity of the factory CCV.

All that being said, for those who've seen high oil consumption, the solution may not be so simple. See my CCV thread in the General Mechanical Help forum for more details.

[jdjg]

and where are the pics?

[jstern]

The OP is lucky that he does not have a M54 which relies on a good crankcase vacuum to control oil burning. The M52TU does not usually have oil burning issues.

My VF Engineering Supercharger kit essentially does the same thing as 02Pilot's traditional PCV system mimic by removing the CVV vacuum connection to the distribution piece and moving it to the intake between the MAF and the throttle body (just before the SC). However this setup destroys the function of the CVV and dumps large amounts of oil into the intake duct-somewhere between 1 & 2 tablespoons each 1K miles. This oil flows down the intake duct though the MAF and into the air filter. To my way of thinking this could eventually contaminate the MAF by coating it with oil. I've installed a drain (where the oil puddles in the intake) back to the crankcase using a Y connector in the CVV drain tube with PCV valves installed in both drain hoses so oil cannot be sucked out of the crankcase at high RPMs. I have installed a much modified catch can in place of the CVV.

All this has stopped the oil flow into the MAF. Now it's about 1/4 teaspoon every 5K miles and the flow does not even reach the MAF before it dries up and stops. Anyway, I don't worry about it anymore.

I applaud the OP for his mod but am concerned about it't effect on the engine over the long term. Also no matter what system you have, you have to seal up intake vacuum leaks but that is now easier since the crankcase is no longer part of that system.

[jdjg]

The OP is lucky that he does not have a M54 which relies on a good crankcase vacuum to control oil burning. The M52TU does not usually have oil burning issues.

My VF Engineering Supercharger kit essentially does the same thing as 02Pilot's traditional PCV system mimic by removing the CVV vacuum connection to the distribution piece and moving it to the intake between the MAF and the throttle body (just before the SC). However this setup destroys the function of the CVV and dumps large amounts of oil into the intake duct-somewhere between 1 & 2 tablespoons each 1K miles. This oil flows down the intake duct though the MAF and into the air filter. To my way of thinking this could eventually contaminate the MAF by coating it with oil. I've installed a drain (where the oil puddles in the intake) back to the crankcase using a Y connector in the CVV drain tube with PCV valves installed in both drain hoses so oil cannot be sucked out of the crankcase at high RPMs. I have installed a much modified catch can in place of the CVV.

All this has stopped the oil flow into the MAF. Now it's about 1/4 teaspoon every 5K miles and the flow does not even reach the MAF before it dries up and stops. Anyway, I don't worry about it anymore.

I applaud the OP for his mod but am concerned about it't effect on the engine over the long term. Also no matter what system you have, you have to seal up intake vacuum leaks but that is now easier since the crankcase is no longer part of that system.

nice!!

do you have pics???

[Cereal]

Yeah pictures would be helpful

even better if they are on an M62

I am going to put in a new CCV this weekend and sure would be nice if I could block it off all together so I never have to worry about smoking on startup again

[jstern]

nice!!

do you have pics???

I do have some pics but they need much work to make them understandable. Will attempt to annotate soon but have no time right now. Plus I don't know what I'm doing so have to learn.

[Sac540i]

Skeptical, but im in for pics.

[02Pilot]

There's nothing to be skeptical about; the downdraft tube arrangement was standard on many, many engines through the early 1960s. It works, but it's far from ideal. There are better ways to manage oil consumption (once again, see my General Mechanical Help forum post on the CCV and oil consumption).

One thing to note regarding the setup mentioned above with the supercharger: once you bring forced induction into play everything changes. Now, instead of having a low vacuum in the pre-throttle intake most of the time, you have pressure. In order to have a proper positive crankcase ventilation system on a forced induction engine you need at least a one-way valve, and preferably a catch can as well. Rules for forced induction do not generally apply to normally aspirated engines.

[bartelbe]

I'll start by responding to plejades; All the ccv ports are capped except the valve cover hose if that was capped pressure would build up in the engine crankcase and blow out the front and rear main seals "big mess" the ccv ports were all capped except the port that goes into the intake I used the ccv itself to plug the intake port because making a plug to fit there would have takin too long at that time and I wanted to see If my theory was correct as It was. As far as low tension rings yes this engine as well as all modern engine use them but they don't rely on crankcase vacum to seal they are simply thinner rings that exert less pressure upon the cylinder walls =less friction=more power=better mpg. O2pilot: I read your ccv dilema and am inpressed by results it also got me thinking about the use of low tension ring in these engine where higher millage m52 dont have the high oil consumption that the m54 does the only difference mechanically is the materials used cast block versus aluminium, and could the phenomenon ring fluter be that with age of the m54 the cylinders distort becoming out of round at and around the head bolts preventing proper sealing of the low tension rings of course the only way to tell would be to disaasemble the engine install a torque plate and measure the bores but even that could be misleading because as your engine ages the head bolts tend to strench allowing the cylinders to distort. But this disscussion would be for another thread. On with the post, Moisture is always going to be in your engine oil of course someone that make shrot drive compared to long drive is giong to vary considerable but I would suspect that between a ccv engine and a non ccv engine of the same driver making his normal drives every day is giong to be much. The specs for changing your engine oil has not change in the last 15 to 20 yrs even though the engines efficency has. I actually change my engine oil by hours not milage and if i told ya how many miles I actually put on before I changes the oil you would proabley flip but if you really want to know I post it or even make a thread since I actually due use oil analysis "its free through my work". heres some pics that i have right now you can't really see the ccv modded with out removing it and I'am not going to do that at this point in time but will at sometime in the future you can see the valve cover hose that just vents out bellow my engine. see my album for pics I'am still learning how to attch lol

There's nothing to be skeptical about; the downdraft tube arrangement was standard on many, many engines through the early 1960s. It works, but it's far from ideal. There are better ways to manage oil consumption (once again, see my General Mechanical Help forum post on the CCV and oil consumption).

One thing to note regarding the setup mentioned above with the supercharger: once you bring forced induction into play everything changes. Now, instead of having a low vacuum in the pre-throttle intake most of the time, you have pressure. In order to have a proper positive crankcase ventilation system on a forced induction engine you need at least a one-way valve, and preferably a catch can as well. Rules for forced induction do not generally apply to normally aspirated engines.

Acutally offroad diesels have been using the downdraft up to 2000 anybody that rolls in a dodge diesel open up the hood left side of the engine you will see the crankcase vent tube. What not ideal about it? other then emissions

[02Pilot]

The downdraft tube is not ideal because it is dependent solely on road speed while at operating temperature to maintain flow out of the engine. I prefer to maintain vacuum in the crankcase under all conditions, and as you saw in my other thread, I am pulling a lot more vacuum than normal, which has proven quite helpful in evacuating the moisture that so often builds up in the M54 CCV.

Oil condition and OCI is of course highly dependent on vehicle usage, as I'm sure you know. But in common mixed use, the recommended OCI is far too high, even with a fully functional CCV; just look at all the reports of moisture-based emulsion build-up in M5X engines.

[crdiscoverer]

My VF Engineering Supercharger kit essentially does the same thing as 02Pilot's traditional PCV system mimic by removing the CVV vacuum connection to the distribution piece and moving it to the intake between the MAF and the throttle body (just before the SC). However this setup destroys the function of the CVV and dumps large amounts of oil into the intake duct-somewhere between 1 & 2 tablespoons each 1K miles.

This man speaks the truth. Overriding the CCV in a similar way to VF-E's "solution" will force oil into the intake. If you just connect a hose from the crankcase to the underside of the intake manifold, you will still burn all the oil that should be going to the CCV and down the dipstick tube. I have to clean my intake at least every oil change.

[jstern]

My VF Engineering Supercharger kit essentially does the same thing as 02Pilot's traditional PCV system mimic by removing the CVV vacuum connection to the distribution piece and moving it to the intake between the MAF and the throttle body (just before the SC).

Just an important point. The modifications instructed by VF-E and altered by me with the replacement of the CVV with a catch can do not pressurize the crankcase as the outlet hose from the catch can is connected to the intake BEFORE the supercharger. There is no SC or any other kind of pressure there.

[bartelbe]

The downdraft tube is not ideal because it is dependent solely on road speed while at operating temperature to maintain flow out of the engine. I prefer to maintain vacuum in the crankcase under all conditions, and as you saw in my other thread, I am pulling a lot more vacuum than normal, which has proven quite helpful in evacuating the moisture that so often builds up in the M54 CCV.

Oil condition and OCI is of course highly dependent on vehicle usage, as I'm sure you know. But in common mixed use, the recommended OCI is far too high, even with a fully functional CCV; just look at all the reports of moisture-based emulsion build-up in M5X engines.

Ahh yes but the conventional down draft tube design also has a fresh air breather to help clear out crankcase's gases and this breather proabley was the main culprit of excess moisture and sludge in the engine due to cooled air enter a warm engine which would of course produced excessive moisture through condensation. With what I have done is just vent the pressure's that are being created from blowby now that in itself may have some added draw backs but most are minimal and so far the 2 oil changes that have been tested have come back acceptable, now I also run synthetic just different viscosity's per environmental conditions I would be curious to see what the results would be with convectional oil but being that oil sampling is a on going record with comparing previous result with current results to measure overall condition "wear" of the components oil being sampled I dont what to threw a spike in the record. Now I also did this mod with a newly rebuilt engine and in theory with only 25,000 miles on it one could say that my blowby would be at there lowest after the new rings have 'seated' so being that I put about 3000-3500 miles on it a month it will be interesting to see the effects when the motor turns say 150,000 in a couple of years but as it sits now I have no problems with what I did the car runs great,seems to have plenty of power,mpg is great, I have not yet experienced any ill effects to doing this.

[Jason5driver]

Ahh yes but the conventional down draft tube design also has a fresh air breather to help clear out crankcase's gases and this breather proabley was the main culprit of excess moisture and sludge in the engine due to cooled air enter a warm engine which would of course produced excessive moisture through condensation. With what I have done is just vent the pressure's that are being created from blowby now that in itself may have some added draw backs but most are minimal and so far the 2 oil changes that have been tested have come back acceptable, now I also run synthetic just different viscosity's per environmental conditions I would be curious to see what the results would be with convectional oil but being that oil sampling is a on going record with comparing previous result with current results to measure overall condition "wear" of the components oil being sampled I dont what to threw a spike in the record. Now I also did this mod with a newly rebuilt engine and in theory with only 25,000 miles on it one could say that my blowby would be at there lowest after the new rings have 'seated' so being that I put about 3000-3500 miles on it a month it will be interesting to see the effects when the motor turns say 150,000 in a couple of years but as it sits now I have no problems with what I did the car runs great,seems to have plenty of power,mpg is great, I have not yet experienced any ill effects to doing this.

Interesting...
But, instead of just venting the crank-case/ valve-cover hose under the car, couldn't you connect the hose to the exhaust via exhaust/scavenge system with a 1-way check-valve at the hose/exhaust...?

That way, you are burning-up/ getting rid of the bad blow-by gunk and condensation, and creating a vacuum within the crankcase for the low-tension piston rings to seal correctly...

Thoughts...?

Please reference this thread, particularly Lumin's posts...
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho....php?p=7063375





Thanks!
Jason

There's nothing to be skeptical about; the downdraft tube arrangement was standard on many, many engines through the early 1960s.
It works, but it's far from ideal.
There are better ways to manage oil consumption (once again, see my General Mechanical Help forum post on the CCV and oil consumption).

One thing to note regarding the setup mentioned above with the supercharger:
Once you bring forced induction into play everything changes. Now, instead of having a low vacuum in the pre-throttle intake most of the time, you have pressure.
In order to have a proper positive crankcase ventilation system on a forced induction engine you need at least a one-way valve, and preferably a catch can as well. Rules for forced induction do not generally apply to normally aspirated engines.

From reading your thread...
You have installed a small vacuum hose from the capped port on the M54 CCV, to the capped port on the back of the Intake Manifold...
Correct...?
The added hose provides more vacuum within the Crankcase to help provide a better seal within the low tension piston rings, and prevents burning excessive oil, from my understanding...

I still do NOT like the fact that you are still connecting to the Intake Manifold, and running the Blow-by/ condensation gunk back into the engine...

Thanks!
Jason

[02Pilot]

Remember that the port to which I have the new vacuum line connected is post-oil separator, so nothing is going into the intake that wouldn't have gone there with the factory arrangement. I am not concerned, as the whole point of the modified setup is to minimize the amount of oil pulled into the cylinders by promoting better sealing.

The idea of using exhaust scavenging was brought up in my thread, but here's the problem: the ring flutter issue occurs at times of high manifold vacuum, which in turn are points of low exhaust vacuum. In other words, the exhaust vacuum occurs at the wrong time for it to adequately offset the high vacuum in the cylinders.