Tech / General Engine Is your car making a strange sound or won't start? Thinking of adding power with a new combination? Need other technical information or engine specific advice? Don't see another board for your problem? Post it here!
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: CARiD

Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Old Apr 2, 2023 | 04:34 PM
  #1  
EDGE's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
25 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 91
From: Mississauga, Ontario Canada
Car: 1987 GTA
Engine: 5.7
Transmission: T5WC
Axle/Gears: 3:27
Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Been meaning to look into this for years. The BBK TB swap reminded me. Why would there be one PCV off the drivers valve cover to the rear of the Plenum, but an unrestricted tube off the passenger valve cover straight to the TB? It makes for a Godawful mess in there. I've since installed a catch Can in between the passenger valve cover outlet and TB. I don't understand the logic of piping oil vapor into a throttle body. Unless I'm missing something, but my factory setup has an aluminum tube connected to that passenger cover and straight to the right side top of the TB
Reply
Old Apr 2, 2023 | 07:17 PM
  #2  
sofakingdom's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
Community Builder
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 27,918
Likes: 2,448
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Not completely sure what you're asking... but the one tube that has the PCV valve in it, carries funky air contaminated with crankcase vapors up to the intake manifold to be sucked into the engine and burned; and the other one brings clean filtered air from somewhere (varies according to the specific intake system) into the crankcase to replace the air that's sucked out.

ALL cars with PCV work this way. It's not specific to TPI.

The line with no valve is the makeup air. It goes to a hole facing the front of the TB where it picks up air that's been through the MAF but hasn't made it to the throttles yet. That air is at atmospheric pressure (or very close to it). The line with the valve connects behind the throttles, therefore it has engine vacuum on it.

Keep in mind, with a MAF system, ANY AND ALL air that is ingested by the engine, NO MATTER how it got there, MUST pass through the MAF first, to be metered. Otherwise the ECM won't know that it's there, and therefore won't know to add fuel for it. The arrangement described above makes sure that the crankcase is merely a minor detour for some portion of the metered air on its way into the intake.

Can't speak to anything about "Godawful mess". It is what it is because that's what it has to be. Not really alot of choice in the matter.
Reply
Old Apr 2, 2023 | 07:41 PM
  #3  
EDGE's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
25 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 91
From: Mississauga, Ontario Canada
Car: 1987 GTA
Engine: 5.7
Transmission: T5WC
Axle/Gears: 3:27
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Originally Posted by sofakingdom
Not completely sure what you're asking... but the one tube that has the PCV valve in it, carries funky air contaminated with crankcase vapors up to the intake manifold to be sucked into the engine and burned; and the other one brings clean filtered air from somewhere (varies according to the specific intake system) into the crankcase to replace the air that's sucked out.

ALL cars with PCV work this way. It's not specific to TPI.

The line with no valve is the makeup air. It goes to a hole facing the front of the TB where it picks up air that's been through the MAF but hasn't made it to the throttles yet. That air is at atmospheric pressure (or very close to it). The line with the valve connects behind the throttles, therefore it has engine vacuum on it.

Keep in mind, with a MAF system, ANY AND ALL air that is ingested by the engine, NO MATTER how it got there, MUST pass through the MAF first, to be metered. Otherwise the ECM won't know that it's there, and therefore won't know to add fuel for it. The arrangement described above makes sure that the crankcase is merely a minor detour for some portion of the metered air on its way into the intake.

Can't speak to anything about "Godawful mess". It is what it is because that's what it has to be. Not really alot of choice in the matter.

The tube I'm referring to is aluminum. Runs along the bottom of the passenger side runners, bolted to the intake manifold. It connects via a grommet to the top of the passenger side VC and is plummed into the throttle body through a port on the passenger side of the TB that brings it in behind that Blades. My PCV is as you mentioned, plummed into the plenum. Just struck me as odd to have an air source that's contaminated by oil plummed into a throttle body. It's still setup like that, just now it's going through a catch can to keep it cleaner.
Reply
Old Apr 2, 2023 | 07:44 PM
  #4  
Komet's Avatar
Supreme Member
5 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 449
From: WA
Car: 1989 IROC-Z
Engine: L98 350 TPI
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: BW 9 Bolt / 2.77 Posi
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

I'm drunk right now but I think the answer is this

https://motoiq.com/crankcase-ventila...n-a-edition/2/
Reply
Old Apr 2, 2023 | 07:50 PM
  #5  
EDGE's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
25 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 91
From: Mississauga, Ontario Canada
Car: 1987 GTA
Engine: 5.7
Transmission: T5WC
Axle/Gears: 3:27
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Originally Posted by Komet
I'm drunk right now but I think the answer is this

https://motoiq.com/crankcase-ventila...n-a-edition/2/
LOL!

Thanks, great article
Reply
Old Apr 2, 2023 | 09:46 PM
  #6  
sofakingdom's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
Community Builder
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 27,918
Likes: 2,448
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

The tube I'm referring to is aluminum. Runs along the bottom of the passenger side runners, bolted to the intake manifold. It connects via a grommet to the top of the passenger side VC and is plummed into the throttle body through a port on the passenger side of the TB that brings it in behind that Blades.
Sounds kinda like the fresh air "makeup" air supply. It goes a port in the front of the TB, in front of the throttle blades, to the pass side VC, to draw in the clean fresh filtered makeup air.

Wrong place to put a catch can. Those belong on the suction side of the system, in the line with the PCV valve. Where dirty air coming out of the crankcase is being sucked out. The purpose of a catch can is to reduce the amount of raw fluids (oil and water, mostly) being drawn into the intake. Not to somehow reduce the fluids in the clean fresh filtered air being drawn into the crankcase to replace the dirty contaminated air.
Reply
Old Apr 2, 2023 | 10:51 PM
  #7  
F-BIRD'88's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,111
Likes: 53
From: Ontario, Canada
Car: 1988 Firebird S/E
Engine: 406Ci Vortec SBC
Transmission: TH-350/3500stall
Axle/Gears: 7.5" Auburn 4.10 Posi-Traction
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

When the engine is @WOT the crankcase blowby air goes into the intake plenum AND into the throttle body too. The PCV is "open". vs its pindle valve p osition when at idle "closed" (its not actually sealed closed at idle.
If the engine has bliw by @WOT (poor ring seal) there will be some oil vapour going into both the PCV and the "make up air" side too. A oil vapour separator catch can helps. keep the engine injesting oil thru the pcv system.
Reply
Old Apr 3, 2023 | 04:08 AM
  #8  
KR81's Avatar
Member
10 Year Member
 
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 408
Likes: 53
From: Sydney, Australia
Car: 1988 Trans Am
Engine: 305 TPI
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

EDGE, is this the god awful mess you refere to ?
I get this in my tb and the only place it seems it could come from is the ccv hose, I was considering a catch can there too. I think it's the reason why my throttle blades stick and give me a jerky acceleration when I touch the pedal.


Reply
Old Apr 3, 2023 | 05:00 AM
  #9  
EDGE's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
25 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 91
From: Mississauga, Ontario Canada
Car: 1987 GTA
Engine: 5.7
Transmission: T5WC
Axle/Gears: 3:27
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Originally Posted by sofakingdom
Sounds kinda like the fresh air "makeup" air supply. It goes a port in the front of the TB, in front of the throttle blades, to the pass side VC, to draw in the clean fresh filtered makeup air.
I think I may be Daft. My Brain processes like an IBM 386 sometimes. That line I'm connected to is not a vacuum, that's a feed out to the VC isn't it? I have the flow backwards don't I. I was confused because there's a bit of oily residue around the blades. I figured it was coming from there. So I need to re-plumb that can to the PCV line itself. @F-BIRD'88 summed up what's happening at WOT "there will be some oil vapor going into both the PCV and the "make up air" side too." This is where I was confused I think. Been doing a lot of ECM tune runs and have been at WOT quite a bit.



Last edited by EDGE; Apr 3, 2023 at 06:05 AM.
Reply
Old Apr 3, 2023 | 05:06 AM
  #10  
EDGE's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
25 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 91
From: Mississauga, Ontario Canada
Car: 1987 GTA
Engine: 5.7
Transmission: T5WC
Axle/Gears: 3:27
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Originally Posted by KR81
EDGE, is this the god awful mess you refere to ?
I get this in my tb and the only place it seems it could come from is the ccv hose, I was considering a catch can there too. I think it's the reason why my throttle blades stick and give me a jerky acceleration when I touch the pedal.

I have a BBK so there's no cover to remove anymore. I don't get that waxy smutz so much as I do a bit of oily residue.

Last edited by EDGE; Apr 3, 2023 at 05:48 AM.
Reply
Old Apr 4, 2023 | 07:15 PM
  #11  
SbFormula's Avatar
Supreme Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 193
From: Canada
Car: '18 Chev Camaro SS 1LE
Engine: LT1 6.2L
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 3.91
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Originally Posted by EDGE
Just struck me as odd to have an air source that's contaminated by oil plummed into a throttle body.
That was necessary to comply with emission regulation. Otherwise, the blowby gas would be vented through the atmosphere. If you get excessive oil, maybe (just a maybe) you have excessive blowby gas.

At low engine operation, there is a vacuum applied on the PCV valve to restrict flow. The CV side will bring fresh air from the throttle body. At WOT, there is no vacuum and the PCV valve is fully opened letting blowby gas go through. At WOT, the CV side can also reverse and bring blowby gas. That's why you also get mess on the CV side.

Apparently, valve cover baffles can reduce the amount of oil that goes through.

If I said something wrong, @sofakingdom will correct me with his usual passion.

Last edited by SbFormula; Apr 4, 2023 at 07:19 PM.
Reply
Old Apr 4, 2023 | 07:32 PM
  #12  
EDGE's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
25 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 91
From: Mississauga, Ontario Canada
Car: 1987 GTA
Engine: 5.7
Transmission: T5WC
Axle/Gears: 3:27
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Originally Posted by SbFormula
That was necessary to comply with emission regulation. Otherwise, the blowby gas would be vented through the atmosphere. If you get excessive oil, maybe (just a maybe) you have excessive blowby gas.

At low engine operation, there is a vacuum applied on the PCV valve to restrict flow. The CV side will bring fresh air from the throttle body. At WOT, there is no vacuum and the PCV valve is fully opened letting blowby gas go through. At WOT, the CV side can also reverse and bring blowby gas. That's why you also get mess on the CV side.

Apparently, valve cover baffles can reduce the amount of oil that goes through.

If I said something wrong, @sofakingdom will correct me with his usual passion.
I believe you are correct. Once spirited driving begins the makeup air will reverse flow I believe. Therefore I'm putting in two catch cans. I don't get any more blowby than what's considered normal. But given that I have a new TB and heads, why not keep it clean? I do know that an oily mix in the air stream can knock down the octane level. Less than $100 for two cans. Cheap enough. May as well keep it as clean as possible.
Reply
Old Apr 4, 2023 | 07:39 PM
  #13  
SbFormula's Avatar
Supreme Member
10 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 193
From: Canada
Car: '18 Chev Camaro SS 1LE
Engine: LT1 6.2L
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 3.91
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Originally Posted by EDGE
Less than $100 for two cans. Cheap enough. May as well keep it as clean as possible.
Yes I have the same "cheapy" catch can in red instead of blue. Evil Energy Universal? They don't catch much IMO.
Reply
Old Apr 4, 2023 | 09:31 PM
  #14  
Komet's Avatar
Supreme Member
5 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 449
From: WA
Car: 1989 IROC-Z
Engine: L98 350 TPI
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: BW 9 Bolt / 2.77 Posi
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

More light reading:

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/cool...ml#post6463524

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tpi/...ml#post6466389

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/alte...ml#post6468169
Reply
Old Apr 5, 2023 | 05:48 AM
  #15  
EDGE's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
25 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 91
From: Mississauga, Ontario Canada
Car: 1987 GTA
Engine: 5.7
Transmission: T5WC
Axle/Gears: 3:27
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

My head hurts...
Reply
Old Apr 5, 2023 | 03:03 PM
  #16  
EDGE's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
25 Year Member
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 91
From: Mississauga, Ontario Canada
Car: 1987 GTA
Engine: 5.7
Transmission: T5WC
Axle/Gears: 3:27
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Originally Posted by SbFormula
Yes I have the same "cheapy" catch can in red instead of blue. Evil Energy Universal? They don't catch much IMO.
@SbFormula mine had about a thimbles worth of very clean oil in mine after about 30 mins of aggressive bursts with the car. Hope I'm not staring at a problem. No oil burning whatsoever. Oil level is perfect. Maybe the baffles aren't the greatest in these aftermarket valve covers. Never really paid attention to it before when the PCV was hooked up the regular way to the backside of the plenum.
Reply
Old Apr 6, 2023 | 11:03 PM
  #17  
QwkTrip's Avatar
COTM Editor
25 Year Member
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,421
Likes: 2,083
Car: '89 Firebird
Engine: 7.0L
Transmission: T56
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

You've got 1 PCV valve because that's enough air flow to sweep the crankcase for a typical street engine. If you have too much air flow then it starts to look like a manifold vacuum leak to the engine and all the problems that come with that. Hotter engines with more blow-by may need modified crankcase ventilation.

When you go full throttle there is enough piston ring blow-by that gases spew out of every orifice of the engine. Dirty side, clean side.... doesn't matter -- it's all "dirty" under WOT. That's why you're getting some oil residue at the throttle body.
Reply
Old Apr 6, 2023 | 11:15 PM
  #18  
QwkTrip's Avatar
COTM Editor
25 Year Member
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,421
Likes: 2,083
Car: '89 Firebird
Engine: 7.0L
Transmission: T56
Re: Why did GM only use one PCV valve?

Originally Posted by SbFormula
If I said something wrong, @sofakingdom will correct me with his usual passion.
sofakingdom is one of my favorite characters of all time on any forum. Super smart, never wrong (literally never seen him be wrong), and hilariously insulting!

One of my favorite quotes of all time....

And throwing things at your food as it ran by so that it slowed down enough for you to take a bite worked for MILLIONS of years. Grocery stores have been around for... what... 150 years or something? Does your "argument" (since what you said is not logical, I'm using the word VERY loosely) mean we shouldn't buy food at grocery stores?
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
72buickgs
Tech / General Engine
6
Jan 9, 2023 10:44 AM
89RESTO
Tech / General Engine
2
Sep 10, 2008 10:40 PM
Gunner823
TPI
7
May 24, 2006 05:47 PM
90CamaroTBI
TBI
3
Nov 20, 2005 06:00 AM
c4boom
TPI
4
Oct 27, 2002 01:50 AM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30 AM.