Valve cover breathers / PCV advice

You definitely want to keep the PCV function. You don't need to involve the air cleaner at all. Put a breather on one valve cover, and the PCV valve on the other.

As Dave said, you do not need to connect the breather to the air cleaner base. It can be vented to the atmosphere.

Manufacturers just connect them to the air cleaner base to use the air filter as a filter for the crankcase venting also. It is simpler and complies with EPA with no arguments.

So that is the simplest solution for emissions but all you need to have really is a oil fill cap that is vented to the atmosphere and has some type of a foam filter inside it to keep dust and debris from entering the valve cover.

That plumbing would work fine and if your PCV valve does not completely close at idle, most don't, then it is legal because you have a negative flow (suction into the engine) at both idle and when the throttle is open at any amount.

quote:

Originally posted by Andyuk:
I doubt it'll make any difference to your oil smoke though..... More likely you'll need to investigate valve stem seals/guides, or if you're lucky, intake leak path from the valley to the intake runner (though I'm more familiar with windsor - that may, or may not, be possible with a cleveland).

Kind regards

Andy

Funny you should mention that? As a matter of fact all cars with a pcv valve plumbed directly into the intake manifold for vacuum have the tendancy to siphon oil out of the valve cover.

Some manufacturers have relocated the pcv valves to other portions of the engine for that reason.

There is no other place to locate the valve on the Cleveland except into the valve cover.



My parents had a Granada with a 302 in it. That engine emptied the oil pan on a trip that they took. All 5 quarts.



What I would recommend is that you use some kind of an oil separator in line that has a sight glass in it.

Something like you would use on an air compressor.

That way you would be able to see what is going on at just a glance.



Certainly if you are going to "track" the car at high speed events and/or race it, and still leave the pcv valve connected to the intake manifold you MUST use the separator.

The Cleveland valve covers and head in particular retain about 3 inches of oil in the valve cover to cool the valve springs.

It raises the oil level high enough that even just the 6 inches of vacuum that the intake will pull through the crankcase at WOT will start a siphoning effect.

The glass bowl (see pictures v) creates a separator to break the continuous suction that would be created without it.


You can run open breathers (see picture below v) on the track with the required catch cans but the Cleveland is susceptible to high crankcase pressures and really needs to be positively vented.

Also consider that open breathers loose 25hp because the upper piston ring looses some of it sealing ability unless the crankcase has somewhere in the 6 to 10 inch NEGATIVE flow pressure.

quote:

MSD 8350

Another option is using a smaller / shorter distributor like the MSD 351W distributor, 8578 non-vacuum advance or the 8478 with vac advance. Your distributor 8350 is 8 15/16" and 8578/8478 is 7 7/8" tall. You need to change the gear, there are instructions on the MSD website. I use the 8578 with a 351c bronze gear and use a dropped base 14" round air filter with I think, a 4" tall KN filter and the stock engine cover fits nicely. If you have a different intake manifold it might be different.
A link to the MSD doc.. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...vm=bv.85464276,d.eXY

Thanks guys, lots of good advice and experience there. I note the PCV of Dave's in on the right….so I may just swap to eliminate the PCV / oil carry over issue and see if the the small amount of smoke at start up transfers over to the other bank. If not, then it looks like possibly the seals… Mike Drew had a look before it was shipped and thought it may be oil carryover…but it only happened once with him and Gary Choate and does not happen on the open road.

My inlet manifold is taller than standard and the PCV is connected directly to it by cylinder 5/6. I will also look into new breathers as suggested and see how things progress.

Thanks again!

note in the pic above that the PCV vacuum source is from the base of the carb rather than an intake runner, this is important so that the crankcase evac air from the PCV hose gets distributed evenly to all cylinders via the intake plenum...

if the crankcase evac air gets directed to only certain cylinders, there's no way those cylinders can be getting the correct Air/Fuel mixture to run a long healthy life

any 3/8" vacuum tap at the carb base should be satisfactory

lean cylinders will run Hot & damage parts!

Good point,

I was wondering the same myself, it was only when I compared it with my friends later Pantera that a similar thought occurred to me… The Holley does indeed have a spare take off that was not used when the engine/fuel system was rebuilt (see picture), so I think I shall cap off the manifold connection and fit the new breather where the PCV used to be and re plumb the set up using the new breather and air filter.

Thanks again for the advice

My suggestion is to put the pcv valve in the right valve cover. Connect it to the back of the Holley. Put a clear in line "fuel filter" in line so you can see if it is siphoning oil through it.

You could also in leu of that plumb the line through an oil separator, then to the Holley. Here is a picture of the one I am going to use.

The "oil filler baffle" inside of the valve cover should be in place also. That reduces the splashing that the rocker arms throw against that area of the roof of the cover. It is a substantial amount.

Some of those "Detomaso" valve covers have been stripped internally of the baffles.

They were also originally intended for the Boss 302 and had internal drip fingers located directly over the rocker arms.

The original engineering on the car indicated they were necessary to aid in lubricating the rocker arms. I wonder how significant that is when I hear of "roller" rocker arm failures?

I'm using these. They are chromed billet aluminum. They are inexpensive and very compact and fit a Pantera pretty well or more precisely it is pretty easy to find a place to put them.

My pcv valve location works better for me on the left side of the engine with the port at the back.

I modified one valve cover for that and used a baffled grommet.

valve cover

grommet

In line fuel filter. You could put this in line for the simplest solution.

If you see oil in it there will be no more guessing as to where the engine smoke is coming from.

A closed catch can modified as a breather.

This is what the internal oil fill baffle and rocker arm drip tabs look like.

You at least NEED the baffle. I will argue in favor of the original Ford Boss drip tabs.

You can see the new baffled pcv valve grommet projecting into the valve cover. It is located in between the last two rocker arms.

This is what the outside of the cover looks like now with the original opening plugged.

It is up and out of the way near the firewall so it really doesn't need anymore detailing than this.

Here is a comparison of the 69 and 70 Boss 302 valve covers. They both have the internal drip tabs AND the oil fill baffles.

Performance Clevelands like the Boss 351 use the same set up.

The Detomaso valve cover is a Boss 302/351 valve cover with the DT logo dropped into it.

The molds are the same or nearly the same.

This quote by Pantera Doug, makes me question his "sanity"/"level of insanity" even MORE!

"The Cleveland valve covers and head in particular retain about 3 inches of oil in the valve cover to cool the valve springs".

So I wondered...How many quarts of oil would it take to fill a OEM 351 Cleveland valve cover up to a height of "3 inches"??!! & then subsequently HOW MANY quarts would be remaining in the oil pan?!

Once I get to my Top Secret, Highly Fortified, Miles beneath the surface Underground Testing lab, I will report back my undeniable, indisputable, beyond reproach test conclusions...Mark

quote:

Originally posted by 1Rocketship:
This quote by Pantera Doug, makes me question his "sanity"/"level of insanity" even MORE!

"The Cleveland valve covers and head in particular retain about 3 inches of oil in the valve cover to cool the valve springs".

So I wondered...How many quarts of oil would it take to fill a OEM 351 Cleveland valve cover up to a height of "3 inches"??!! & then subsequently HOW MANY quarts would be remaining in the oil pan?!

Once I get to my Top Secret, Highly Fortified, Miles beneath the surface Underground Testing lab, I will report back my undeniable, indisputable, beyond reproach test conclusions...Mark

This is why you check the oil level when the engine is NOT running. The oil level in the pan is designed with those considerations in mind.



Chronologically the Cleveland is after the 428cj, but not by much.

That entire engine series, the FE was introduced as a 352 in 1958. It was raced highly in NASCAR, road racing, and always was seriously drag raced so it IS a bit of a head scratcher that it took this long for Ford to realize there was an "issue"?

Some of my friends say that I am harsh. What do you call Chevy calling Ford the "numb nuts engineering department"?



Soon after the 428cj was introduced as a 1/2 year model in 1968 (model year), chronologically about late April 1968, Ford started to get complaints from dealers that they were replacing engines on warranty, because the engines had been run out of oil.

It seems that if you turn the engine over 6,000 rpm for sustained periods of time, the oil pan gets pumped dry.

That was with 4.5 qts in the pan and .5 in the filter.



There were a series of fixes. The first one was just to add an extra quart of oil in engines already in service.

Ford made a quick change in remarking or recalibrating the dipstick in production. They didn't change the part number, just remarked the stick. Still a C7AE

That was STILL problematic, i.e, owners were STILL ka-booming these things.

Next thing to do was issue a new part number dipstick to D0AE with a TWO QUART recalibration.

Now this created a little bit of a problem. They couldn't redesign the oil pan, it would be too deep, and with two extra quarts, the crankshaft was beginning to spin in the oil in the pan because of the higher level at low rpms.

This is the point at which they added a "windage tray" to the 70 and up 428cj's. It was to aid in this issue.

So if you had a pre-68 428, by this engineering change you were running the engine one quart low even though the dipstick said it was right. At one quart low, you were actually two quarts low. But wait, it gets better.

If you had a 68 or 69 428cj, the 1970 change said that engine was now 1 quart low even though it had a revised (remarked dipstick) saying it was right, and if you had a '67, like my 67 GT500 you were now TWO QUARTS low even though, yada, yada, yada, the dipstick said you were ok.

Got that?



So anyway, on all engines, you wind up with somewhere around two to three quarts of oil up in the valve covers when the engine is turning say 5,000 rpm?

Don't believe me? Put a set of clear plastic valve covers on the car and run it up to 5,000, and see where the oil is?

Now when NASCAR decided to attempt to slow the cars down, after the 429 "Shotgun" (Boss 429 in street terms) they went to the 5.7 liter displacement limits which if you were in the Ford camps meant at the time essentially a Boss 351 Cleveland.

Intitially those engines were dropping valves in competition. Running 500 miles at wide open throttle at over 7,500 rpm was showing issues with the valve train.

The fix turned out to be realively simple. Restrict the drain back holes into the oil pan and retain more oil, or more correctly just enough to submerge part of the valve spring in it, to provide a cooling effect on them. It worked.

Ford Engineering, being what it was saw this as a good idea and essentially incorporated that into production heads.

Actually all US production engines do it. It's really just how the drain backs are calibrated to the oil pan.



There is no secret at all that if you are going to run a Pantera hard, i.e., over 5,000 rpm for extended periods of time, maybe like you might see in Germany on the Autoban, a stock oil pan is suicidal.

Why? Go back and read the part about the 428cj's. If you can't remember it, write it down on your crip sheet, because it's going to be on the test.

I will allow that for you old acid head hippies that still when I say, "hey, how you doin'?", still go "huh, what Man?" Try and focus a little ok? That gets a little embarrassing?

...and Mark, where exactly did you read anywhere that I wrote, that I said I am not crazy?

I am. It's just manageable, until you bring up things like MM? Remember, just don't say, "Niagara Falls", ok?


Calling ME CRAZY is completely acceptable to me. I even agree. Just don't call me "normal", that will get me seriously pissed.

Quoting Mike Cook, ex-Pantera racer and Bonneville specialist, 'At 6000-up rpms, the valve covers of a 351-C are full. This leaves approximately 1 qt in a stock (5-quart) pan'. So I'd say each rocker holds about 2 quarts. Mike made a temporary-use plexiglas rocker cover ala Smokey Yunick for his drag race testing.

All this is because a stock pump delivers so much upstairs oil in the stock configuration, and the drainback ports in stock heads are small with two of the 4 being convoluted and often plugged with debris. Note that only some (or none) of this may apply to aftermarket heads and blocks with modified oiling systems.

intersting!
just thinking about other oil tank/systems I have seen
has any tried/or would there be some reason not to, have the PVC vacuum connection on the uppermost of the oil pan to assist with the return drainage

quote:

Originally posted by Bosswrench:
Quoting Mike Cook, ex-Pantera racer and Bonneville specialist, 'At 6000-up rpms, the valve covers of a 351-C are full. This leaves approximately 1 qt in a stock (5-quart) pan'. So I'd say each rocker holds about 2 quarts. Mike made a temporary-use plexiglas rocker cover ala Smokey Yunick for his drag race testing.

All this is because a stock pump delivers so much upstairs oil in the stock configuration, and the drainback ports in stock heads are small with two of the 4 being convoluted and often plugged with debris. Note that only some (or none) of this may apply to aftermarket heads and blocks with modified oiling systems.

I can't speak for other heads but my A3 heads retain oil differently than the iron heads do?

The hollow part of the iron head casting near the bottom valve cover rail is filled with aluminum on the A3 head some. I suppose this reduces the volume of oil the valve covers trap in the heads?

The amount of oil in the covers is also part of the issue with running these engines hard AND attempting to use a closed pcv valve system. You just don't hook the thing up like a street car and go racing.

The entire pcv needs to be re-engineered and frankly, it ain't easy to do. There are issues that remain.

If I try to explain why, it's sort of like trying to explain the difficulty in working on weightlessness while still in the Earths gravitational field. You can only simulate the situation for a short period of time.

I thought Mike was speaking figuratively when he said "full". I thought it was more like within about an inch of the top of the covers, which explains the siphoning tendency and the need for 4" tall breather tubes?



@ JFB. Here's a scan of the page from the Boss 302 section of the Ford Off Highway Parts manual.

They suggested drain back tubes from the valve covers to the oil pan. Some strongly disagree and say they do not work. I can't agree or disagree.

There were several sources for this information back in the day. You had Ford Engineering, KarKraft which was responsible for a tremendous amount of these modifications then you had people like Bud Moore who contributed engineering as well.

I will say that I have never actually seen a car with this modification done to it but I don't need to extrapolate much at all to envision where the need for it came from?


It may be that to run a pcv valve successfully in MY car the pcv valve may need to be installed through the intake manifold.

The 427 Fords had a similar set up in 63 and 64 but with just an open breather, not a pcv valve.

I hate to start drilling into the manifold but there would not be the issue of siphoning oil out of that location?

MAN!!!....Do I ENJOY this Website!!...Members who can take a joke, have skins thicker than a defective Chinese condom, Great information.

Now here's my dilemma!!!....TOO much oil in the valve covers leaves the possibility for oil starvation, especially during track conditions ie: Hard braking/acceleration/cornering/continuous high rpms.

Yet a certain level ( HIGH) in the valve covers is needed for valve cooling.

I was contemplating return oil lines from the valve covers back into the oil pan as per the illustration that Doug provided.

The photo Doug provided shows the return lines from the valve covers situated very LOW in the valve cover.

Would this LOW oil return line/s prevent the necessary build up/level in the valve cover to effectively cool the valve springs??!!

Seems like a better solution would be valve spring oil sprayers positioned in the top of the valve covers, spraying the cooling oil directly on the springs & then allowing return lines placed at the lowest level of the valve covers allowing the quickest scavenging/returning of the oil BACK into the oil pan.

Or maybe I'm reinventing the wheel with added plumbing in the valve covers ( sprayers) & the BEST solution is to allow the valve covers to fill to cool the valve springs & utilize an oil pan with MASSIVE oil capacity.

I'd like to have oil sprayers that spray oil into the underside of the pistons as some engines do...video attached...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqfijPy2Gn0

Has anyone utilized piston sprayers in there 351 Cleveland?!...Mark

Chinese condoms are useless here unless you can get them over those cheap wooden pencils that don't come with an eraser? You can't even use them for party balloons. You can't fit your lips on them, you have to use the inflation needles and that's a hassle.

Ford "Racing" WAS offering a valve cover for the Yates style heads with the built in oil sprays in the valve covers.

There was additional plumbing required in the head itself to run them. I haven't seen them in quite a while. I think they are just more trouble than they are worth?

There is 10 quarts in my Aviad pan, two more in the dual remote filters and the oil cooler system. You couldn't run this engine out of oil even if you took two 'brown' sugar cubes out of the 'frige' for your morning coffee, so even you would be ok?

If anyone needs piston pin oilers then that vehicle should not be operated on the street. That's NASCAR stuff for constant 8,500 rpm use.

Look for an old AJ Foyte Coyote engine. That COULD work for you?

Here's something for you to watch with your morning coffee Mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4ht5we3qzY

Doug said that there is no other place to locate the valve on the Cleveland except into the valve cover.

It seems like the air movement through the system would tend to help drain oil out of the breather fitted valve cover and tend to help hold oil within the PCV fitted cover, netting one generally empty rocker cover and one usually full cover.

Does the PCV system really pull enough vacuum make this happen?

Would there be any advantage to mounting the PCV valve through an intake manifold down onto the lifter valley? Seems like it might help to pull oil out of both heads more evenly, if the effect is truly that strong.

Winter ramblings, below zero again this morning.

quote:

Originally posted by larryw:
Doug said that there is no other place to locate the valve on the Cleveland except into the valve cover.

It seems like the air movement through the system would tend to help drain oil out of the breather fitted valve cover and tend to help hold oil within the PCV fitted cover, netting one generally empty rocker cover and one usually full cover.

Does the PCV system really pull enough vacuum make this happen?

Would there be any advantage to mounting the PCV valve through an intake manifold down onto the lifter valley? Seems like it might help to pull oil out of both heads more evenly, if the effect is truly that strong.

Winter ramblings, below zero again this morning.

The Weber manifold available for this engine lends itself well to that type of a modification relatively speaking. Drill a 1-1/8" hole through the base plate, put a 1-1/8" to 3/4" grommet in the hole, stick a pcv in it.

There are unknowns with it though but it seems that the issue of siphoning oil into the induction through the pcv valve is because it is located in the valve covers and has this very high natural reservoir of oil.

I don't know how much is in a reservoir in the lifter "chamber" of the block but it can't be 3" deep in oil? I don't think so but I can't think of anyone who has talked about that before?



There COULD also be an issue with the pcv valve fitting through the manifold and bottoming out on the top of the block in the valve lifter chamber? I've never measured there for that.

This really is somewhat of a unique issue simply because what race cars are going to use a pcv valve system? Everyone is kind of on their own as a result. There is no one's car that exists that I can copy solutions off of that I have discovered yet?



As I mention in a previous post, locating the pcv in the manifold is a possibility but one that I don't really want to attempt and I do not cherish the idea.

I've been looking at the Trick Flow "oil filler extenders" and would go that route first. The benefit is those would require no further non-reversible modifications.


I can't say definitely yes or no on this because it IS something I am still working on an ongoing basis.

As previously posted though, my initial design is to use two of the "catch cans". One to use as an oil separator on the pcv valve line BEFORE it enters the intake manifold.

The other as a vented catch can to the oil fill tube.

Any race track is going to REQUIRE some kind of catch can system for this car. I'm just attempting to anticipate that and incorporate it into a smooth designed in system rather than a haphazard way of arriving at a solution.

The plumbing on that one is nice and neat and any "mechanic" would instantly be able to read what it does at a glance.

It IS NOT PLUMBED in yet and is going to require SOME testing to see how much oil it skims out of the engine. If it takes too much then I go to plan B...whatever that is?

You are just seeing me think this out in public here a little.


I should also mention that this is all in anticipation of using the E.F.Weber adjustable pcv valve. It's only available one way, and it fits into a 3/4" id grommet, like a SB Chevy does.

Despite many rebuilds, My yellow pantera's appetite for oil appears unquenchable. Many years ago, I did a reasonable amount of testing. Following the lead of Goran Malmberg, I also hooked up a air/water separator to illuminate consumption through the PCV system as seen in the accompanying photo. I use a Peterson riser with multiple internal baffles to lift the PCV valve further from the oil pool.

With the Peterson riser the oil collection in the separator was minimal. I'm still searching for my oil eater.

Yikes! Aeroquip must pay dividends when you come in the store?


I am definitely going to plumb the "catch cans" into the system. Do I expect them to be 100% effective? Not even a chance. I just hope the system is manageable enough at that point?

The valve guides do need lubrication but what is enough and how much is too much?

When I see the dried crusted remains of the oil stuck to the back of the valves, then it's time to tighten them up again, until the next time?


One of the racers is advising me that the crankcase REQUIRES around 10 " to make the top piston ring seal. The positive effect of creating that is a 25hp bonus that wasn't there before.

He's a drag racer so some of these issues he doesn't have or if he does, only for 10 seconds or so?


I am mentioning that because I think all these factors interact. I appreciate you sharing that information.

If I am understanding JTpantera's picture "correctly?".

Would not the level of oil in the glass oil filter, about 1/2 inch, indicate that the hose from the PVC to the glass oil filter is partially filled with oil to the level of the oil in the glass oil filter.

Just thinking outloud here....what about a "T" fitting at the very bottom of the loop of hose, where the bottom fitting of the "T" routed back into the oil pan?

Then the hose is now venting built up pressures in the oil pan into the base of the carb.

As an aside bar Doug... You should KNOW the "brown acid" is a BAD TRIP!!! I was more of a 4 way hit of Window Pane vs "Brown Sugar" cubes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE6E7Q7DPJw

The Producers is a GREAT movie!...Mark

quote:

Originally posted by 1Rocketship:
If I am understanding JTpantera's picture "correctly?".

Would not the level of oil in the glass oil filter, about 1/2 inch, indicate that the hose from the PVC to the glass oil filter is partially filled with oil to the level of the oil in the glass oil filter.

Have a look at the red circle in the attached picture. There are 4 of these holes which come from the bottom fitting and feed to the outside of this clear container. The top fitting is fed from the inside of the filter element at the top.
This is an air / water separator that are most commonly used on spray guns etc.

Hello Bdud; Would that mean the "only" oil is the oil visible in the glass separator, & none accumulated below it in the hose?

In the separator is there a device similar to a 1 way check valve that prevents any oil from flowing back into the hose?...Mark

An owner can substantially 'dry up' excessive 351-C top end oiling by running restrictor pushrods, or restricting top end oil supply through roller rocker with smaller holes, or by using lifter bushings. All will vastly reduce oil fed to the top end. Once this is done, some racers then add spray-bars above the springs to cool them, using small external lines off the oil pressure boss. This does the job without filling the rocker covers up.

The need for oil cooling of the springs is ONLY if you run high rpms and dual or triple valve springs that achieve their damping by actively rubbing against each other. Stock 351-C springs were single, and beehive springs both single and dual are also non-contacting. Running non-contacting springs- especially when combined with full-roller rocker arms, has the advantage of significantly lower oil temperatures under very high load, from the much lessened friction.

But a GOOD 10-quart oil pan is essential regardless, as Mike Cook's experiment showed. Won't take much cornering force at high rpms in 1st or 2nd gear to cause the pump to suck air. One owner who should have known better proved this in club-level competition; a single day with his stock Pantera pan caused terminal rod bearing failure from oil starvation. I repeat: a GOOD pan. There are cheap 10-qt drag-race 'buckets' available that have no baffling, scrapers or swinging doors, and Panteras with such pans have also lost rods and crankshafts during 'spirited' driving. "Economy" and high rpm running do not work well together.

My combination of A-3 heads, 6500 max rpms, full-roller rockers and restrictor pushrods allows me to NOT run baffles or drippers in the DeTomaso-logo rocker covers, and it all fits. Not by choice; I also use stud girdles to reinforce the rocker arm studs, and the girdles interfere with all known sheet metal baffles & drippers. I do not use spray bars, either. Regardless, I successfully use a stock rubber grommet and stock PCV valve (both OEM) with no smoking. I also installed Perfect Circle teflon stem-seals on all the valves during the last rebuild in '92. So far, so good....

Any liquid, vapor or air that is in the hose from the pcv valve on the right, has to make its way up to the holes in the circle. You could get some liquid collecting in that hose but as the hose is under vacuum from the engine it will just suck it into the separator. The separator is not very large and need to empty it before it gets too close to the filter, going fast around the twisty's does not help.
There is no one-way built into the separator I don't think you need one. The oil level would have go all the way to the holes circled for it to drain back into the supply hose. The engine vacuum would suck the oil into engine before then.
JTpantera does not look to have an issue with engine moisture, but up in the colder places you might see a more browny mixture. We recently put a turbo on my son's Focus and we used the air / water separator to diagnose we were have serious oil loss through the stock pcv system. We then went to a similar catch can that Doug is using. In the freezing cold weather we are having, it completely freeze the vent lines and can. Oil blew past the rings, up through the drain lines for the turbo into turbine and compressor. Not pretty. They do make heated catch cans that have hot water fittings on them to prevent this.
It is best to mount catch can as high up as possible in the engine bay to allow drain back and stop too much oil being sucked out.
If you can use the stock system it is certainly the simplest but it can cause problems in some situations.

Bdud is correct, it is a small air line filter and the quantity of liquid in it is only about 1/4" in depth. The filter is pretty small. I do not recall how long I had the filter plumbed in the system, but the capture was minimal probably over 3 months of driving. It certainly was not the source of my oil consumption.

Doug, re: the fittings. I spoke with Aeroquip direct about a single fitting that would tie my lines together without requiring all the adapters. They were very blunt and said that they doubted I could afford the cost of them manufacturing one. The arrangement has worked w/o issue for over a decade. However, I would prefer a cleaner look.

Great thread everyone. Lots of great information here to ponder.

The catch cans are there because the tracks require them. If they do 1/2 as well as I hope I'll be happy.

I am thinking though that the valve cover drain tubes definitely could help under extreme conditions but I'm not running flat out for 24 hrs at Lemans. If I throw a puff of oil smoke now and then because of the pcv valve, as long as it doesn't foul my plugs, that's ok I guess?

@ Mark. That's what an oil separator does. It breaks the cycle of suction. What you see in the glass is what was "scrapped off" of the vacuum line flow. If that's all there is, that's great!

@ Bosswrench. Great idea on the restricter push rods. I'm going to be under the valve covers soon. I'm going to use those. I don't right now. Thanks for that suggestion. As I said, I'd argue for the drip tabs. I don't know about a stud girdle though? 51/49 for the tabs.

@ JT. I feel your pain. It's tough to get everything to work, then compact it all in one step. That part keeps me busy. I have thousands of dollars here in UNUSED special hose ends and adapters. All from projects like yours.
I'm curious as if you tried the system without the filler extensions? It was what I was thinking with the TFS part pictured.

Most road race cars I have seen of the era run open breathers with the "fillers" extended like that.

Thanks to all who posted and kept this positive. There is an interesting knowledge base here and it is a significant one too.

Jerry Panteleri fabbed a set of restrictors for my 351C pushrods back in 1994. It was an exercise to reduce flow to the top of the heads and keep more pressure on the main bearings. As I recall we reduced the orifice down to about .020. A fond recollection was starting the motor with the valve cover off and seeing the oil stream out of the rocker and hit my garage wall over 10ft away.
I abandoned the restrictors later as I discovered that the easily clogged with random pieces of RTV, etc.
Actually still have them with a very cool mini slide hammer Jerry made to install and remove.
I'd like to try the clear valve cover because I think that I would have to see it to believe that the valve covers could fill up so much quicker than they could drain. The area of the drain holes are so much larger than the area of the pushrod holes.

quote:

Originally posted by JTpantera:
Jerry Panteleri fabbed a set of restrictors for my 351C pushrods back in 1994. It was an exercise to reduce flow to the top of the heads and keep more pressure on the main bearings. As I recall we reduced the orifice down to about .020. A fond recollection was starting the motor with the valve cover off and seeing the oil stream out of the rocker and hit my garage wall over 10ft away.
I abandoned the restrictors later as I discovered that the easily clogged with random pieces of RTV, etc.
Actually still have them with a very cool mini slide hammer Jerry made to install and remove.
I'd like to try the clear valve cover because I think that I would have to see it to believe that the valve covers could fill up so much quicker than they could drain. The area of the drain holes are so much larger than the area of the pushrod holes.

Maybe you are making the case for external drain back tubes and not realizing that?

quote:

Originally posted by JTpantera:
Jerry Panteleri fabbed a set of restrictors for my 351C pushrods back in 1994. It was an exercise to reduce flow to the top of the heads and keep more pressure on the main bearings. As I recall we reduced the orifice down to about .020. A fond recollection was starting the motor with the valve cover off and seeing the oil stream out of the rocker and hit my garage wall over 10ft away.
I abandoned the restrictors later as I discovered that the easily clogged with random pieces of RTV, etc.
Actually still have them with a very cool mini slide hammer Jerry made to install and remove.
I'd like to try the clear valve cover because I think that I would have to see it to believe that the valve covers could fill up so much quicker than they could drain. The area of the drain holes are so much larger than the area of the pushrod holes.

Hello JTpantera; I like your approach as "Seeing is Believing" unless of course you are at a Siegfried & Roy Magic Show!!!

I see sets of 351C stock valves covers for sale ALL DAY Long at $50.00 or less on Craigs List/ eBay...small price to pay in my way of thinking to ACTUALLY SEE what is going on!

I'll donate $25.00 towards your experiment if you make a video to document the results...Mark

quote:

Originally posted by 1Rocketship:

quote:

Originally posted by JTpantera:
Jerry Panteleri fabbed a set of restrictors for my 351C pushrods back in 1994. It was an exercise to reduce flow to the top of the heads and keep more pressure on the main bearings. As I recall we reduced the orifice down to about .020. A fond recollection was starting the motor with the valve cover off and seeing the oil stream out of the rocker and hit my garage wall over 10ft away.
I abandoned the restrictors later as I discovered that the easily clogged with random pieces of RTV, etc.
Actually still have them with a very cool mini slide hammer Jerry made to install and remove.
I'd like to try the clear valve cover because I think that I would have to see it to believe that the valve covers could fill up so much quicker than they could drain. The area of the drain holes are so much larger than the area of the pushrod holes.

Hello JTpantera; I like your approach as "Seeing is Believing" unless of course you are at a Siegfried & Roy Magic Show!!!

I see sets of 351C stock valves covers for sale ALL DAY Long at $50.00 or less on Craigs List/ eBay...small price to pay in my way of thinking to ACTUALLY SEE what is going on!

I'll donate $25.00 towards your experiment if you make a video to document the results...Mark

As Bosswrench mentioned, "seeing" what is going on aids in finding a remedy in this case.

Matches up to the current generations point and click theory of computer graphic solutions.

In the "B.C." era, engineers actually needed to be able to picture the issue in their own heads.



The clear SB Chevy valve covers were pioneered by Smokey Yunick. At least he was the one that got credited to it? Kind of like Columbus "discovering America" I suppose?

I think though that "you" need to realize that "you" would have to be in a very small group for the volume of oil in the valve covers to be of "major importance".

It really is only happening over a period of extended high rpm use. One that would most likely be seen here in the US at high speed events, not legal US highway operation.

The BIGGEST concern is running the stock oil pan out of oil. The simple fix is using an Aviad 10 qt oil pan. Then there is enough oil in the system irregardless of what you do with the car.



Siphoning oil into the intake manifold is secondary and actually has some benefits.It isn't necessarily an issue.

Pressurizing the crankcase negatively is the more important aspect of that system. Then there are secondary issues that go along with that such as finding a pcv valve that actually opens and closes at the timed points where that is needed not the least of which is finding one that actually completely closes at idle.



A single 4v intake manifold, although not without it's engineering issues for that, is easy compared to an eight stack system.

Probably just about anyone with rudimentary knowledge of what is needed can plumb the Pantera to have those benefits? (I'm thinking about me here, not anyone else so don't take offense) In my perspective, I think though that the art is in having it NOT wind up looking like the "Back to the Future" Delorean but to each his own? That COULD be someones objective after all?



Good engineers always bring in an independent individual or group, i.e., a consultant. Whether actually in the process or soon after they think the initial criteria has been solved to review what they have done and to verify they haven't overlooked other criteria that should have been involved to begin with.

I can't help but think that a 427 Cobra looks so innocent just sitting there? It's like a 2500 pound cruise missile. You don't want to be around when it goes off?

Some people are that way too? At least here if there is an explosion, we are all at a safe distance from the epicenter...theoretically that is?