scared meself!!!

[tom4bren]

Maybe the engineers at Isuzu were just giving people more benefit of the doubt at the time though since everything was so much more slower paced that far back at the turn of the millennium.

Rekin I proved them wrong, didn't I?

[JoFotoz]

LMAO!!!

I do rather like "Whore Jockey".....


Seems to me that the affable bastardization of an on line nom de plume..

...is somewhat de rigueur .




"WJ"

[tom4bren]

Need that on a T-shirt for Moab 2014.

[JoFotoz]

Now youre talking...

Need that on a T-shirt for Moab 2014.

...that is a definite maybe !!





"WJ"

[Y33TREKker]

by tom4bren - Mucho appreciado ... but I've already wasted more time on this discussion than it'll take me to add a temporary line to try it out ... so it's worth a shot.

Never mind the fact that it was because of you that the time was wasted right?

by tom4bren - My abject apologies. I honestly didn't consider the fact that you'd view an honorific of your online monicker as a denigration. I suppose I need to apologize to wormgod for calling him wormy, crotchrocket for calling him pocketrocket, yellowgizmo for calling him giz, cobrajet for calling him double G, & mostly to referring to Jo as the Whore Jockey.

Gentlemen: My apologies. Sincerely, T4B.

BTW Mr Trek, the first two sentences are sincere, only the last part is dripping with sarcasm.

All I can do is consider the source based on past comments such as these. (And just as I've done, I'll leave it to you to decide how much sarcasm that may or may not have actually been dripping with.)

by tom4bren - Nah. That's not what I was saying at all. Proving you wrong is IRT the comment that I would be too chicken to post that I was wrong.

Who said anything about you not admitting to being wrong because you were chicken? I was simply referring to all the times you've denied being wrong simply because you don't think you're capable of being wrong. So yeah, your IRT was to something I wasn't saying in the first place.

by tom4bren - I'm sorry. I thought for sure you had read this thread: http://www.vehicross.info/forums/sho...ht=interesting.

Well NOW I have. Maybe you thought I'd read it because in it you'd referenced something I'd said in another thread? (about being sure to cap the PCV port on the intake if replacing the PCV with a breather filter)

Now that I have read your other thread though, I have to admit it now makes even less sense that in that one you seemed to have had a decent understanding of how a PCV system works and why it started being put on engines in the first place...only to then apparently brain fart your understanding of what a PCV system does in THIS thread. Surely you can see how things like that (*) might give a guy the impression that some here are disagreeing just because of who they're disagreeing with?

by tom4bren - Nope. I wasn't assuming anything at all. The exhaust is an open system & the crank case is a closed system. There are similarities involved though. Primarily the fact that most people feel that crossover pipes on a dual exhaust system are a waste of time & effort. All I know is that the one time I added them to my rig ... it made a HUGE difference. That's where the analogy ends.

Just remember though, it was you who compared the two types of systems in the first place in an effort to relate it to your crossover tube theory. And I couldn't help but notice you neglected to mention the part about the vacuum being present in one and not the other.

But back to your comparison. Based on your response, it seems your only REAL goal then was to set a trap to see if I'd say that a crossover pipe on a dual exhaust system was a waste of time and effort...even though that still would have done nothing to validate your valve cover crossover tube theory? Another one of those things (*) perhaps?

by tom4bren - & all I'm saying is that your reliance on the drain back ports being adequate to handle both the returning oil and flow of air/oil mix from the right to the left valve cover may or may not be grounded. The older the engine is, the more blow by from the rings there is so there will be more flow of the air/oil mix that needs to be accounted for. Whilst the single PCV was adequate on a new engine, it may not be now.

Look at it this way: Assume that the oil pump is pumping 1 gallon per minute at highway speeds (probably overly conservative). Further assume that there are 12 1/4 in holes in each head for oil return (Guess on my part because I have no idea how many returns there are or how large). That means that the oil returns need to pass 232 cubic inches of oil per minute through a total area of less than 1.5 square inch. That doesn't leave much room for the airflow does it?

But at the time you weren't even acknowledging that there EVEN WERE any such passages in the block/heads that were incorporated into a PCV system...and even after having done so in your other thread.

Aside from that, I don't really see any point in responding to whether I think assumptions based on guesstimations equates to your theory holding water. Suffice to say that any PRESSURE throughout the entire PCV system would be regulated by a PCV valve which was properly selected to open at a predetermined pressure level (which if anything would be lower when an engine is new, meaning that it if would open at the lower pressures expected in a new engine, would just open sooner as an engine aged and those pressures became higher), and that the amount of pressure in question is not likely to require passages of a size to accommodate the kinds of air FLOWS you seem to be imagining.

But again, that's just my opinion...with hardly any sarcasm added here and there whatsoever.

So yeah, truce accepted, and please continue to knock yourself out.

[tom4bren]

Suffice to say that any PRESSURE throughout the entire PCV system would be regulated by a PCV valve which was properly selected to open at a predetermined pressure level (which if anything would be lower when an engine is new, meaning that it if would open at the lower pressures expected in a new engine, would just open sooner as an engine aged and those pressures became higher), and that the amount of pressure in question is not likely to require passages of a size to accommodate the kinds of air FLOWS you seem to be imagining.

True ... but It's the volume, not the pressure that increases as the engine ages. Additionally, as we've been seeing as our engines age, the PCV is getting clogged more frequently which is counter productive to burning off the additional volume.

To me it just seems logical to a) get rid of the valve & associated choke point (which I did with the oil canister) & b) maximize the volumetric capacity for the flow of those gasses to be burned off.

I'll be the first to admit that the chances of this making an appreciable difference is about 50/50. Worse odds didn't stop our forefathers though.

[Y33TREKker]

True ... but It's the volume, not the pressure that increases as the engine ages. Additionally, as we've been seeing as our engines age, the PCV is getting clogged more frequently which is counter productive to burning off the additional volume.

So...no white flag truce then after all?

And do you realize you've done it again? You seemed to have understood in your other thread that it was the pressure that caused various engine gaskets to be blown out in the early days and was one of the main reasons PCV systems were invented in the first place, yet you're apparently changing your tune again to now try to make it about volume? As I said, surely you can understand how a person might see that as you going out of your way to disagree just because of who you're disagreeing with? Notice how I've phrased that as a question since at times you've seemed to have understood things only to turn around and say something to cause a person to question whether that was ever really the case...

To me it just seems logical to a) get rid of the valve & associated choke point (which I did with the oil canister) & b) maximize the volumetric capacity for the flow of those gasses to be burned off.

I'll be the first to admit that the chances of this making an appreciable difference is about 50/50. Worse odds didn't stop our forefathers though.

Did I ever say it wasn't logical to get rid of a valve that seems to have proven itself inadequate in this particular application? I've replaced mine with a breather filter too after all. But you continuing to change your reasoning whenever it seems to suit you doesn't mean what I've already said hasn't already also addressed the new reasons you've come up with, because as far as your volumetric flow capacity theory goes, if you're engine has gotten to the point that the diameters of the orifices in the stock PCV valve/system are no longer sufficient to bleed off the pressures the engine is creating, it would seem you'd then have a hell of a lot more engine problems that needed addressed than simply modifying your PCV system anyway...don't you think?

As far as having figured the odds of what you're attempting as being 50/50, I'd sure be curious to know how you came up with those figures before you automatically assume they're accurate and start applying them to whatever results you end up getting.

And seriously, we know you've joked around on occasion about thinking you're never wrong about anything (who hasn't right?), but did you seriously just try to align your automotive experiment as being along the same lines as the nation-building experiment of our forefathers...?!?

I'm all for self-confidence don't get me wrong, but gee...high opinion of yourself much?