milehigheric

No the breather allows fresh air into the crankcase so that the crankcase is always at a higher pressure than the intake. The lower pressure in the manifold acts as a vaccum and sucks the gasses out of the crankcase and eventually back into the cylinders where they are re burnt. These gasses are where the majority of emission's come from, so as I said PCV is a two birds with one stone thing. Emission's were always a side note, never considered in engine design until recent. If the gasses are left unchecked in the crankcase the excess pressure will cause oil seals to fail, oil will make its way out the dipstick plug, and the oil will be contaminated through moisture and the gasses themselves (potentially causing engine failure). EGR in reality is also required...The unburned gasses in the exhaust contain vast amounts of c02, an inert gas. When re introduced back into the combustion process the inert gas helps to lower the temperature.

You guys are right, VAC hoses are messy but the systems they plum are really simple.

Mstrkage

That's what I was saying, the PCV valve itself regulates this pressure and blowby gasses leave through this valve.
You are right about oil seals blowing if pressure builds up just ask anyone who has a bad PCV valve.
I don't have a problem with emissions, keeping them or removing them. When I did it on my last 4x4 it was for two reasons; 1. working on the truck was much easier 2. Replacing the parts that were in questionable condition is to expensive to justify it when you live in a state that doesn't really care.
But I did keep the PCV valve!

abecedarian

Have a test printout proving it?

maicomega1

a 22R is less than half of the cubic inches of the smallest diesel, or gas engine for that matter, that you would find in a 3/4 or one ton truck. You don't need a printout to do the math there. In the case of a diesel, it's probably a pretty close guess.

You could go down the "got a printout?" road all day. Let me see one saying that it's cleaner with the emissions stuff on it. Let me see one that shows that the stuff is actually harming the the environment. Let me see one saying that this stuff is actually bad for me. Let me see one saying that the scientist who compiled that data isn't on the take from the EPA, and/or has his own agenda, and/or personally is heavily financially invested in "green" technology. Blah, blah, blah.

Kiroshu

All i gotta say is leave the PCV system.... and wow at the enviormentalists on this site.... get over it....

milehigheric

Engine capacity is does not result in a linear emissions increase. Just because it is double the CC, does not mean it is double the emissions..there are many more variables. The modern day diesel engine is much more efficient in both fuel consumption and emissions output. There is no reason why a 6.0L turbo diesel will not be more efficient and make more power than the trusty 22r

I am honestly sick of people looking at the environment in such a naive manner. There is no financial gain for anyone by going green. It will cost jobs as mining industry's collapse, significant infrastructure costs for tax payers, increase power costs on the monthly bill. So ask yourself the question, why would the world be taking such a large focus on mans impact if there was really no impact.

You are asking for evidence that emission control devices reduce emissions? Go to a smog test unit and to some tests yourself. Down here in good old Aus the majority of motor registrys can conduct free emissions tests. What more evidence do you want?

You are asking for evidence that emission pollutants are bad for you. Well, obviously that the thousands of scientists across the globe in conclusion (i didnt think the EPA payroll was that big?) cannot be taken seriously. I mean they are only degree qualified persons with leading technology but hey, there biased if you say so. To rule this out how about you find someone that will fill you a bottle of NoX or So2, connect it to a gas mask and let us know your results after a few days. These gasses are toxic to humans, the amount of them in the air is increasing I dont see how people can't put 2 and 2 together.

I am not a hippy, I dont hug trees...IHell I dont run emission's myself. I just hate poor attitude...

YotaTron88'

Do I have a printout???? WTF? Yeah hears a test...stand behind the f350 and have the guy floor it. See how your shirt and pants have all over them and you smell like ass? Ok now do the same with a 22r....I really love to see guys at Menard's (lumber store)with there big crew cab dually truck....hummm.....all shiny with a BED COVER and LEATHER SEATS. They go pick up a couple 2x4's. My truck with a carbed 22r towed a trailer to the dump a few months ago that weighed 3800lbs!!! The trailer axels bent! I really had problems up the hills with keeping her at 55 but damb, who really NEEDS more? Those big "family" trucks with small beds are not trucks at all.. Trucks where designed to haul . Those things just hide a guys dick size.... Oh and about emissions stuff again. A good running engine with no emmisions will pollute less than one that has a bad EGR and sticking choke with vacuum leaks. On old trucks all that stuff goes bad. I really don't wanna spend all the bucks to keep it running "clean"...oh well I'm a sinner. Hey I don't smoke cigs though so that keeps the air clean!

maicomega1

Yeah, I compensate by keeping my red meat intake to a minimum. It's just a real bummer to lift the hood of my Nissan family car to do a tune up and stand there scratching my head as I realize that the entire intake mainfold has to come off in order to access the rear three plugs. I mean, WTF??? It's like car manufacturers (and everything else from vaccums to televisions) takes far more work than anything did, say, pre '75 or so did. I wouldn't mind the emissions crap being there if it were more unobtrusive. And to say a few ponies isn't worth it on a 4cyl. is kind of ridiculous. On a motor that made 99hp stock 5hp would be a nice addition.

Pre-rebuild my buddy at the machine shop dynoed my engine at a sad 54hp. Hell, my 250 dirt bike makes a claimed 50 stock, and that's before a pipe, reed valve, porting, and race gas.

I think the crusade to save the earth is just more than a little misdirected. Clean up ALL emissions for the health of everybody, but the earth can save itself.

Case in point: there are more than a few groups of hippie environmentalists in SoCal and elsewhere who are pretty much on a continuous lobby to shut down the desert to recreational vehicles. For what?? Off-roaders are the only people who even go out there! They are trying to save the desert when one or two rainstorms and widstorms clean it right up. These are the very same a-holes who want us driving electric cars and eating tofu for breakfast. Until crap like that stops, which seems highly unlikely, then they are the enemy of you and your ORV. Just look at both sides of the story, is all.

P.S.- I tried the gas mask thing and caught an awesome buzz. Thanks dude!

fork

we have environmentalists out here targeting off-road drivers. the ultimate irony is a lot of them golf on our dozens of golf courses, which not only devastated entire ecosystems, but consume a large portion of our fresh water supply.

they have no shame.

YotaTron88'

If everyone put it into prospective...a jet flying over your head with 5 rich guys in it going golfing dumps raw into the engine at a rate of 100 of gallons an hour! That stuff sprinkles down on your head and into our lakes. NASA rockets....oh geeeezzz! Military vechicles......crap! I'm all for reducing emmisions but it seems stupid to put emission controls on a 4 stroke weed wacker when the carpet inside your house is highly toxic. It all sucks right? If I pull of my EGR on my 86' toyota and keep it running good it's saveing the enviroment more than say, melting all the metal on my truck down at a recycling plant and making a new F350. People need to realise that sometimes recycling is also reusing and keeping what we have...that could really save the earth. Keep those old yotas running strong, make em' easy to work on and do your part....

DupermanDave

That's why NASA is experimenting with other fuel sources that cost less and create less pollutants. NASA is trying. Why should we give up?

I should stop contributing to this can of worms I opened up.

abecedarian

Instead of irrelevant anecdotes, objective opinions and nauseating diatribe, how about that proof that your 22r is cleaner than a new F350? If you're going to make a claim like that, you should at least be able to back it up.
It might even be nice to see a comparison of a stock 22r, emissions and dynomometer tests, versus the same for your 22r... just for fun that is.

YotaTron88'

Test? It's called England....they use ass diesels cause it's a small island and all the smog blows into the ocean. Diesel is a dirty crude non-refined fuel and it explodes upon it's self because it's DIRTY! Study the BASIC studies of an engine dude. That's why hydrogen pollutes so little...IT'S CLEAN TO BEGIN WITH! If you burn dirt, dirt will pump out your exhaust. How do I know my 22r is is cleaner than a Big Diesel? Common sense I guess..... That's why you can't use diesel in a garage heater, but you CAN use kerosene. Same thing...one is refined more, and one gives off less pullution. One will kill you and one won't

milehigheric

Early diesel technology was as you say crude and non refined. However by today's standards all in all diesel is actually 'cleaner' than petrol. EPA mandated a 90% decrease in diesel emission's in 2007. It is true to say that diesel weight for weight emits up to 20% more particulate matter than petrol, but as I said with modern technology this is not so much of an issue. Modern particulate diffusers (capturing Pm and burning it at high temp) alleviates the increased Pm output of burning diesel fuel. You need to understand that diesel is more efficient than petrol so not as much is used (lower emissions). Also that deisel (in energy production as we know it today) is a bi product (less refining = less emmisions).

So I stand by the above, prove that the humble old 22R has a smaller footprint.

I can see what common sense is telling you...I mean deisel by appearance is smelly, sticky and not pleasant. The first word that comes to mind is dirty right? Your argument doesnt make alot of sense however...Your saying if I dig some dirt from my backyard and expose it to compression it will ignite? Deisel actually ignites because of temperature NOT compression. Friction resulting from compression of the metered air in the cylinder creates heat. When the Deisel is injected the heat is hot enough to exceed the flash point of the fuel and cause ignition.

I dont see why you are brining hydrogen and kerosene into the argument either. Hyrdogen is a great fuel, the most abundant substance in the universe. The problem is we do not have the technology to capture and use the energy efficiently and safely. Fuel cell technology is in its infancy and the infrastructure needed to support hydrogen distribution is simply not there. Kerosene on the other hand is almost diesel but the refinement makes it such a thin fuel that it is not suitable for a combustion engine by itself..You cannot make an even comparison between kero and diesel - they are two different fuels, for two different purposes.

YotaTron88'

Kero and diesel are the same thing kero is just cleaner. You can run Kero in a diesel engine. No.1 and No.2 Fuel oil too.... Do you know how a diesel runs? The compression of diesel causes the small dirty particals to rub agaist themself....then creating HEAT! Diesel works cause it's DIRTY! They run better when there hot! If you run poor grade fuel (86 octane) in a high compression gas engine it too will deisel. That's why we have cleaner fuel, they have less contaminates and you can compress them more WITHOUT them deiseling. If you can burn an ultra clean fuel to begin with.....Propane lets say....then you CAN increase combustion pressure tremendously and get GREAT power from a small engine. Big deal desiel can run cleaner today....GAS CAN TOO!!! We have the tech to make gas way higher compression and make engines smaller with more HP. Why don't we? Not too many car companies want to...their pretty clean the way they are. Your right I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove that my 2.4 liter gas engine is cleaner than a 6.6 liter diesel....and honesly your right, the correct thing for us to do is throw the GEO metros in the garbage and start buying F350's that get 12pmg to help save the earth. Heck Deisel is the WAY to go! I'm glad people are getting educated and started using their brains for once. Diesels are the way to save the earth!.....WTF??? We do hav ethe tech for Hydrogen since the early 80's. NASA has been using it for years. There are many differnt ways to separate hydrogen from water, air....some are just more DANGEROUS! If we gave every person the ability to have a hydrogen collecter in their car then they could, if they wanted to ....make a hyrogen bomb in a couple hours. Like I said NASA has been using it since 82' READ UP ON IT!

abecedarian

I've been certified as a diesel mechanic on Detroit, Caterpillar and Cummins. I know a thing or two about a thing or two and don't need to go study BASIC engine principles.

And since you know so much about hydrogen, what is the solution to hydrogen embrittlement so that it can be used reliably in an internal combustion engine?

abecedarian

And you might want to go look into the processes done in order to 'refine' diesel fuel. Some of the processes are more involved than refining gasoline.

YotaTron88'

Anyway....Hope those emiisions got removed! Peace Mon!!!

Kiroshu

Lol someone got shutdown......

YotaTron88'

Google search first thing that comes up when you type in "diesel pollution"

Diesel engine exhaust contains a number of a potent carcinogens–particulate matter (largely elemental and organic carbon soot) coated in gaseous organic substances such as formaldehyde and PAH (a group of super-toxic gases that attach themselves to particles), shown to result in adverse birth outcomes in polish children and respiratory irritants such as acrolein. Other effects of living with diesel exhaust-laden air in our communities are elevated asthma attacks, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, heart attacks, strokes and untimely deaths. In children, particulate matter has also been associated with crib death. A 2004 study showed that particles and nitrogen dioxide have chronic adverse effects on lung development 10-18 year olds leading to deficits in lung function as the children reached adulthood. What's more, diesel engines also release other gases such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides that form ground level ozone. Results of the California Children's Health Study suggest that ozone is associated with birth defects and new diagnoses of asthma.

Soot from diesels also has an impact on the environment. Black carbon absorbs heat in the atmosphere and is a major cause of–and potential solution to-- climate warming. For all these reasons �and more–diesel exhaust is perhaps the most damaging source of air pollution in the U.S. today.

But given today's technology there is no need for diesels on the road today to leave clouds of acrid black smoke in their wake. While the burning sensation from breathing diesel exhaust is familiar, the serious consequences of breathing diesel exhaust are less well-understood by the public. Here, for the first time, we present estimates of health damages from diesels for counties all over America. For the risk in your state or county see Clean Air Task Force's interactive web site.

Medical studies have consistently demonstrated that diesel exhaust poses a serious health threat. For example EPA estimates that the new rules for highway diesels (e.g. trucks, buses) and nonroad diesels (e.g. construction and agriculture equipment) will save over 19,000 lives annually by 2030 by strict emissions requirements for new engines, the benefits of which will begin to phase in 2007 over the period of a quarter of a century. What about the diesels which are on the road today? Statistics tell us that the average lifespan of a heavy duty diesel engine is 29 years. Because emissions control requirements are lacking for diesel engines on the road today, they will leave a legacy of polluting our roadways and communities for decades.

[ Read Publication ]