scared meself!!!

[tom4bren]

OK trekkie. Yer right about the source of the pressure not coming from blow by on the valves. I just pulled that one out my arse on the spur of the moment and later regretted it (but not enough to go back & edit the post). It's probably a combination of blow by on the rings and simple heat expansion of the air in the oil system.

Yer also right in how I used the acronym PCV. The V part does in fact ruin the point I was trying to make.

Yes, the fact that I'm admitting that you were right is paramount admitting that I was wrong.

I won't hesitate however to post my results (positive or negative) whenever I get around to putting on a crossover pipe. If for no other reason than to prove you wrong. Negative results are almost as beneficial as positive results as long as you learn from them. My first attempt at reducing oil consumption did not cure the problem but it certainly helped (& shouldn't have by your logic).

Question: If a crossover pipe on the valve covers will be of no benefit in your opinion, how do you feel about crossover pipes on a dual exhaust?

[Y33TREKker]

OK trekkie. Yer right about the source of the pressure not coming from blow by on the valves. I just pulled that one out my arse on the spur of the moment and later regretted it (but not enough to go back & edit the post). It's probably a combination of blow by on the rings and simple heat expansion of the air in the oil system.

Yer also right in how I used the acronym PCV. The V part does in fact ruin the point I was trying to make.

Yes, the fact that I'm admitting that you were right is paramount admitting that I was wrong.

Just remember that it's only been you who has been making it so much a matter of who is "right". I was simply trying to save you some unnecessary effort based on your idea about how the kind of system you're wanting to modify actually works.

And seriously, trekkie? Again? You do realize how you make yourself look when you do stuff like that don't you?

I won't hesitate however to post my results (positive or negative) whenever I get around to putting on a crossover pipe. If for no other reason than to prove you wrong. Negative results are almost as beneficial as positive results as long as you learn from them.

That you're automatically assuming that your results will prove me wrong regardless of what they are says a lot about your probable methodology and interpretation of your own results.

My first attempt at reducing oil consumption did not cure the problem but it certainly helped (& shouldn't have by your logic).

Seeing as how I don't know what your first attempt even was, I can't respond to your comment about what logic you're even referring to or whether you proved it wrong.

Question: If a crossover pipe on the valve covers will be of no benefit in your opinion, how do you feel about crossover pipes on a dual exhaust?

First of all, you're assuming that the two situations are the same and they're not. Crossover pipes in exhausts are meant to equalize pressures from both sides of an engine that are positive all the time with no source of vacuum to relieve that pressure. That kind of crossover pipe is just used to try to further equalize the BACKpressure in a dual exhaust system.

But the fact of the matter is that a PCV system on an engine ALREADY has a crossover pipe of sorts that's achieved with the oil drainback passages in the heads and block that Scott referred to earlier, making a crossover tube from valve cover to valve cover redundant (which is pretty much all I've been saying).

[tom4bren]

Just remember that it's only been you who has been making it so much a matter of who is "right". I was simply trying to save you some unnecessary effort based on your idea about how the kind of system you're wanting to modify actually works.

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.

And seriously, trekkie? Again? You do realize how you make yourself look when you do stuff like that don't you?

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.

That you're automatically assuming that your results will prove me wrong regardless of what they are says a lot about your probable methodology and interpretation of your own results.

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.

Seeing as how I don't know what your first attempt even was, I can't respond to your comment about what logic you're even referring to or whether you proved it wrong.

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

First of all, you're assuming that the two situations are the same and they're not. Crossover pipes in exhausts are meant to equalize pressures from both sides of an engine that are positive all the time with no source of vacuum to relieve that pressure. That kind of crossover pipe is just used to try to further equalize the BACKpressure in a dual exhaust system.

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.

But the fact of the matter is that a PCV system on an engine ALREADY has a crossover pipe of sorts that's achieved with the oil drainback passages in the heads and block that Scott referred to earlier, making a crossover tube from valve cover to valve cover redundant (which is pretty much all I've been saying).

& 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?