On my setup I have a Motion Raceworks catch can with a large -10 lines from the top of each valve cover straight to the can. No valves. Where the filter goes I jammed in a power steering rack bushing with a modular PCV 90* elbow to (I think) 3/4" hose then goes down the fender into the front bumper where I have a filter on the end. I did this so that the fumes that came out while driving around town don't stink up the car so much. However there is a small gathering of oil where the filter is. When I do any extended racing like drag or open track I unplug it from the top of the can and put the breather filter on just incase because I don't want oil getting under my tires. I have thought about running this line to the pre-vortech intake pipe but I really don't want oil going through the impeller and gunking everything up like the Vortech on my dad's 05 Mustang with his PCV system.

I think bottom line no matter how great the catch can you WILL GET oil mist/vapor that builds up in your induction area with a closed PCV and there's no way around it. I don't care how great your Youtube video is blowing a line full of oil through.

That being said. My catch can fills maybe 1-2 oz tops a year now that I put bigger more enclosed baffles in the valve covers.

My oil consumption is similar to yours. About every 500-1k When I do a quick check I'm 3/4-1qt low. I do not have any smoke at all and I do rev the **** out of the car when I run it hard. 5000-7000. When I setup my rockers the last time I was unaware I was supposed to use thread sealant on the rocker studs. I'm not sure if this is my cause but when I removed the studs I don't remember seeing any sealant on them anyway. But the TFS manual does say to do it.

What makes more sense to me though is when I had the heads off 2 years ago I noticed my pistons are pretty damn loose in the bores. I also think the ring gaps for my setup are very boost conservative because the original owner of my engine had told Woody he wanted to do like 20psi with a turbo.

The mighty mouse cans look pretty cool but damn their pricey. I think Motion just released a new version of their can that does something similar. Like usual they came out with it after I blew $220 on mine.

So really, all other things installed correctly it I think it depends on your ring gaps/wear. Newer cars everything is so much tighter for emissions and performance.

 

On my setup I have a Motion Raceworks catch can with a large -10 lines from the top of each valve cover straight to the can. No valves. Where the filter goes I jammed in a power steering rack bushing with a modular PCV 90* elbow to (I think) 3/4" hose then goes down the fender into the front bumper where I have a filter on the end. I did this so that the fumes that came out while driving around town don't stink up the car so much. However there is a small gathering of oil where the filter is. When I do any extended racing like drag or open track I unplug it from the top of the can and put the breather filter on just incase because I don't want oil getting under my tires. I have thought about running this line to the pre-vortech intake pipe but I really don't want oil going through the impeller and gunking everything up like the Vortech on my dad's 05 Mustang with his PCV system.

I think bottom line no matter how great the catch can you WILL GET oil mist/vapor that builds up in your induction area with a closed PCV and there's no way around it. I don't care how great your Youtube video is blowing a line full of oil through.

That being said. My catch can fills maybe 1-2 oz tops a year now that I put bigger more enclosed baffles in the valve covers.

My oil consumption is similar to yours. About every 500-1k When I do a quick check I'm 3/4-1qt low. I do not have any smoke at all and I do rev the **** out of the car when I run it hard. 5000-7000. When I setup my rockers the last time I was unaware I was supposed to use thread sealant on the rocker studs. I'm not sure if this is my cause but when I removed the studs I don't remember seeing any sealant on them anyway. But the TFS manual does say to do it.

What makes more sense to me though is when I had the heads off 2 years ago I noticed my pistons are pretty damn loose in the bores. I also think the ring gaps for my setup are very boost conservative because the original owner of my engine had told Woody he wanted to do like 20psi with a turbo.

The mighty mouse cans look pretty cool but damn their pricey. I think Motion just released a new version of their can that does something similar. Like usual they came out with it after I blew $220 on mine.

So really, all other things installed correctly it I think it depends on your ring gaps/wear. Newer cars everything is so much tighter for emissions and performance.

Yup; it all comes down to blowby and how one deals with it.

The Mighty Mouse setup is pricey but no more so than the other two cans that compete with it. The difference is very apparent once you open up the MM can. The internal baffle is machined out of a chunk of billet aluminum and looks like it was designed by NASA in a wind tunnel.
It's not just a can filled with Chore Boy stainless pad. I know; I sound like an advertisement. Lol.

I like the Motion Racewerks can. If I were running breathers; I wouldn't hesitate to use that can.

Speaking of engine specs and ring gaps....
My current engine isn't an oil guzzler like the previous 2 or 3. This thing is tight. The difference in design and build is very evident. If your engine has loose tolerances; you'll probably have to live with the oil usage.

 

While this is in no way a "fix" to the problem, maybe consider a one way valve on the fresh air supply hose to keep oil out of the intake? Use one big enough and restriction at high vacuum will not be a concern.
The pic is an example only.

 

While this is in no way a "fix" to the problem, maybe consider a one way valve on the fresh air supply hose to keep oil out of the intake? Use one big enough and restriction at high vacuum will not be a concern.
The pic is an example only.
View attachment 1119549

The OP believes the oil is coming out of the PCV. I don't think it's the fresh air line according to him.

 

This plate along with an oil separator helps a lot.

 

Yes, baffling is critical in this regard. There is a smaller baffle than the one you've shown on the underbelly of my Edelbrock Performer RPM 2 lower intake manifold. I've also got the mesh insert in the hole for the PCV.

Last night I installed a -10AN inline check valve on the fresh air inlet to enforce its purpose and eliminate oil mist consumption via the throttle body. I also replaced the PCV with a Radium Engineering PCV valve, but need to drive it for a while to quantify any results.

I also did some research on the piston rings. The rings are Childs 10472HG-5 (ductile moly file fit top ring, Napier 2nd, metric ring pack) and I was reading that one of the common concerns about running a Napier 2nd is increased exhaust blow by.

This, however, tends to be at the expense of increased exhaust gas blow-by.

- The Napier ring

I'll drive it for a bit and report back results when I have 'em. Thanks again for all the inputs.

 

Well, I finally developed enough crankcase pressure to blow out an intake manifold seal at the rear of the block. This was with a -10AN port on one valve cover that necked down to -8 for fresh air inlet and -6 tubing for the PCV (includes a catch can). Started dumping oil out the back over the bellhousing until I noticed the burning oil smell as it hit the exhaust!

I'm going to shorten the tubing for the PCV by eliminating the catch can completely and route it in similar fashion to the OEM, where it tees into 2 inlet ports on the intake plenum (one on each end of the plenum, presumably to slow down the flow). I'm debating whether to use the OEM PCV or the Radium Engineering unit I have, but I'll put the higher flowing one back in. I'll retain the -10AN to -8 fresh air inlet on the one valve cover, but add a dedicated -8 fresh air port to the other valve cover as well. I can't imagine that not providing enough crankcase pressure relief on a naturally aspirated engine. My supercharged 5.0L required similar treatment.

 

If you're pressurizing the crankcase you're got some other issue besides the PCV.

 

Exactly.

 

Seems to be inadequately ventilated crankcase pressure at high RPM, which is where the engine was setup to produce the most power. There's not a lot of other issues to investigate in this naturally aspirated high performance engine at this point. If you've got some ideas you can post them.

 

If you are boosted, there will always be pressure getting past the rings. How much, is the big question?

I installed a vacuum pump and never looked back.

 

Reread his reply just above yours.

 

Did you perform the leakdown test?

 

Opps

 

Hehe no worries, I have a blown 5.0L as well and I did have to add an extra crankcase ventilation circuit (with a check valve) to properly get that under control. That's at 15 psi of boost and it was blowing out dipsticks before I vented it. I've not had much of any issues with all of the previous N/A engines I've built, but admittedly this is the 1st one I've put together that was designed specifically for higher RPM operation.

There's a couple of issues preventing me from performing a leakdown test, namely lacking the equipment to do so as well as the application being severely space constrained, so requires removing wheels and fender liners to access most of the spark plugs. I've not resorted to that yet (by leaning on a friend with a shop) because the power output is healthy and the plugs look good.

At this point, I'm down to tearing down the engine to replace the lower intake gaskets and have added a -8AN port to the driver side valve cover for an additional crankcase vent into the air inlet tube (post-MAF). If the engine still has issues after this, then yeah, it's time to start looking at the machine work, ring seal, etc.

 

As I finally found the time to tear down the engine, I realized that I did not blow out the intake seal (after removing the upper plenum). Instead, what I believe to have occurred is that I blasted the PCV valve out of the hole in the back of the manifold. To test this theory, I pressurized the crankcase. I put a gauge on one valve cover, pressurized the other and plugged the PCV valve hole. If the intake seal was blown, it should blow freely without building any pressure. To my surprise and delight, the gauge climbed up to about 3 psi and I could hear hissing. So I decided to test 3 different PCV valves to see which one had the best flow with the crankcase pressurized. Input pressure was around 100 psi.

1. The Radium Engineering PCV valve, with a -8AN input and -6AN output, developed about 3 psi of pressure making it the most restrictive of the lot.
2. The stock Explorer 5.0L valve (which is somehow different than the '89-93 Fox Mustang valve), developed about 1.5 psi of pressure.
3. The Standard V112, seemed to flow the most and only allowed the crankcase to develop about 0.5 psi of pressure.

I ditched the catch cans and ran the Standard V112 from the OEM location directly into 2 ports on the underside of the plenum, as per factory setup. I have a -8AN fresh air inlet on both valve covers now after drilling and installing an extra fitting on the air inlet. There is no way that two -8AN fresh air inlets, which double as crankcase ventilation ports will allow this crankcase to pressurize anymore!

It seems to run differently now. It certainly runs smoother and seemed to be running a fair bit more efficiently. I'll need to put some miles on it to say that it's for sure the right fix, as the oil consumption needs to be monitored. Here you can see the dual fresh air inlet ports (after the MAF).

Here's a shot of the new line from the driver side valve cover, which involved drilling and tapping the oil fill cap to accomodate a 90 degree swivel -8AN fitting.

 

Hopefully that works. What vehicle is this in?

 

1996-2001 Explorer V8.

 

And I thought Mustang engine bays were packed. That's a whole lot of plumbing and wiring in there.

 

2000 Merc Mountaineer. This engine is actually from my old (wrecked) '93 Mustang GT, however.

The nice thing about these last iterations of the 5.0L Fords is their accessory drive. It's the most compact one ever! I adapted it to my '66 Mustang's 289 because space is at a premium there too.

I have a new all aluminum construction radiator that I adapted a PWM controlled high powered e-fan to, but haven't switched to that setup yet. The main hangup is that I need the condenser mounting brackets from a V6 vehicle and they're pretty hard to find in good shape. That will free up a fair bit of space in front of the engine, along with some horsepower. I was planning to run a dedicated condenser fan for the AC at the same time the radiator goes in to help with the extreme heat of southern Arizona summers.

 

2000 Merc Mountaineer. This engine is actually from my old (wrecked) '93 Mustang GT, however.

The nice thing about these last iterations of the 5.0L Fords is their accessory drive. It's the most compact one ever! I adapted it to my '66 Mustang's 289 because space is at a premium there too.

I have a new all aluminum construction radiator that I adapted a PWM controlled high powered e-fan to, but haven't switched to that setup yet. The main hangup is that I need the condenser mounting brackets from a V6 vehicle and they're pretty hard to find in good shape. That will free up a fair bit of space in front of the engine, along with some horsepower. I was planning to run a dedicated condenser fan for the AC at the same time the radiator goes in to help with the extreme heat of southern Arizona summers.

I know all about the AZ heat up here in Phoenix. It's a real bear to cool down a performance engine. Folks don't realize how their 90° and humid days would be cool weather for our vehicles.

 

My cars always run on the hotter side when the A/C is running. I've done a few mods as well to the cooling system to keep it inline. The factory A/C works very well in the 94-95 cars.

When I built my '66 F100; I kept the factory under dash A/C unit but switched to a Sanden compressor and modern style condenser. I used r134 as well. What a difference. That a/c would freeze me out.
What's crazy is that truck had a 7 blade mechanical fan from a 70's Ford car and a single row radiator and it ran super cool.

 

Yeah, not sure what motor you have in the F100, but the older Ford designs tend to run a bit cooler for some reason. I have a 400 in my '79 Bronco and it has always run fairly cool. For that, I did something similar where I retrofitted a Seltec HD (slightly more industrial grade version of the Sanden design) compressor, made up new lines, upgraded the condenser and installed a dedicated fan. The interior volume is fairly large in the Bronco, but the airflow is good especially after I managed to 3D print a new center HVAC duct (was originally made from wire mesh and paper or something). Still, the soft top doesn't help in the summer heat.

 

It has a 390 based FE. The trucks have a large grill area and use larger condensers/radiators which helps.

 

Good AC stuff here, I've got similar projects to deal with. My Mark VII I plan to use the Explorer front accessories, also in my Ranchero's if I can.

What do you know about the 96-01 Explorer AC compressor, is it a decent pump for the AC in my older Fords? I plan to find a modern AC condenser too, measuring the space and sourcing them is another step.

 

Yes, the factory Explorer V8 compressor is a fine unit and I wouldn't hesitate to retrofit an older Ford with one. If you go with a new condenser, make sure you find at least a multiflow or parallel flow unit. The older serpentine stuff isn't as efficient and R-134a requires improved efficiency. There are new serpentine designs out that have bolstered efficiency, but I'm not sure how they compare to the more modern parallel flow condenser performance.

For radiator cooling I've got the dual Contour fan assembly on my '79 Ford, through some custom aluminum shroud fab I did a while back. The setpoint for each fan is staged so that one comes on at a lower temperature than the other. The AC is tied into one of the fans as well as the dedicated condenser fan as well.

 

Thanks. I'm glad the older Fords have more space for a fan, many electric engine fans can work in those. I have a Mark VIII and a Taurus fan, used, from when that was what Fox guys wanted. Now there are lots of newer cars with nice OEM fans to use.

The Explorer fan space is tough. I put in a used Volvo fan in my 99 V6 version, modifying the stock shroud to epoxy them together. Bolting the fan to the shroud is ideal, that shouldn't come apart.

 

I've got an excuse to drive to Phoenix tomorrow morning, so I'm bound to put at least 200 if not more miles on the revised ventilation scheme. I've been driving it to work a few days a week as well and it's definitely made a noticeable difference. Certainly much smoother running and has more torque.

 

Very good. Now it's time to take that 2.2 KB and slap on it, then really test it.

 

Hehe, the KB is on the Mustang and it's fine like that!

Unfortunately, the engine is still sucking down oil like it's going out of style. It actually went through a full quart in about 200 miles. It's sucking it pretty hard down the PCV, for sure, but I still need to determine if there's so much blowby that it's accumulating on the throttle body and air intake tube.

 

That doesn’t sound like a PCV issue to me, only that is the escape route for excessive blowby/ pressure.

Unless it’s being sucked into the runner at the lower intake gaskets. There’s another thread on that issue from a couple weeks ago.

 

Yeah, that's more oil than mine eats. I get about a week of severe duty use from mine before it needs a quart. But I'm sure mine is all prior ownership, poor oil changes, interval and oil quality.

So what's your engine life been like, the oil change intervals etc? It may be the same as mine, the cylinders are worn and the valve guides much worse. I'll bet the engine is just bleeding the oil out of the valve guides etc. If your engine and trans are not due for a rebuild, then the heads may be a feasible next step.

Mine has 280k+ miles now, so it's on its last legs. My project truck has similar oil losses, but 255k miles and the trans plus transfer case are done. I have to redo all of that one from scratch, so I have a low mileage HO shortblock to begin with when I get to it.

If you don't have any other clear big oil loss causes like the oil pan etc, it may be time for some engine work.

 

A leak down test will tell you all that you need to know.