6pack
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fwd: RE: RE: PCV on a Good's Triple intake?'s

To: Timothy Holbrook <tjh173@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: RE: PCV on a Good's Triple intake?'s
From: "Robert M. Lang" <lang@isis.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:08:54 -0500 (EST)
Hi Tim,

THere's nothing "all wrong" with your system, but it's not exactly all
right either.

The PCV system and the carbon canister are there for two completely
different reasons. PCV is there to keep unburned hydrocarbons (aka oil
volatiles and blowby gasses) from escaping unburned into the atmosphere.
Carbon canisters are part of the evaporative emmisions controls - the
source of which is basically the fuel system.

To vent the PCV to the carbon canister is not correct because you'll
likely gum up the carbon (and make it innefective) in the canister.
There's also the minor problem that should your fuel tank pressurise,
you've created a path for fuel vapors to enter the sump. This is not
likely a good idea.

The seperate catch can approach is probably a more viable solution.

On the race car, I use the windshield washer plastic "can" as the tank. It
works quite well and looks "authentic".

:-) 

If you want to make the sump PCV system work as it was intended, it is
best to vent the sump into the carbs "downstream" of the damper - the
later Z.S. carbs have a hose connection for this purpose. But if you run
early carbs of SU's, this option is not available and you should vent to a
tank. Note - the tank sould have some sort of filter to keep critters and
other cruft out of the sump if you do not vent to the carbs (e.g. you
vent to the atmosphere.

rml
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Lang              Room N42-140Q            |  This space for rent
Consultant            MIT unix-vms-help        |
Voice:617-253-7438    FAX: 617-258-9535        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>