ISR Mod-Any problem??
04-30-2007, 05:45 AM
#1
ISR Mod-Any problem??
For those of you who are a bit more tech savy then myself, I have a question related to the ISR mod that is contained in performance section.
I performed said ISR this past weekend after much searching for the components, but I didn't want to go the route of using nuts, washers, o-rings, I think you get where I am going, anyway, I also decided that I was going to try to replace some of the hoses with nice "TRD" red hoses but they are not the easiest to find in my little neck of the woods (forgive the pun) so with this in mind, I opted to use JB weld on the fittings with minimal stretching and straining. The new hose didn't have alot of flex in it so to make it easier to install and to ease the placement of the nipples for using JB Weld, I located the the crankcase vent pipe from the valve cover to the MAF end of the pipe but placed it about maybe 3/4" from the emissions nipple that originally went to the lower nipple for the air box that was below the MAF. I placed the nipples almost inline with each other so the the valve cover hose nipple is closer to the intake manifold and the emssions hose nipple is closer to the MAF.
It didn't occur to me until AFTER I drilled the holes, fitted and inserted the nipples THEN 'welded' them in place with JB Quik that this may not have been the best location for the two nipples. It was perfect for the hoses and for installation, but I noted when I picked up the remnants of the old intake silencer that it had some oily residue in the interior where valve cover hose emptied into it.
So, here is the question(s) ...
1) Will having these two nipples in close proximity to each other pose any issues with the emissions?
2) If so should I replace the pipe and fittings and reloacte it more to the original location?
3) If I leave the ISR pipe in its current configuration, should I insert a 90 degree fitting on the emissions nipple pointing towards the MAF that would allow intake for the hose farther upstream/closer to the MAF?
The location of the two holes/nipples are such that the valve cover hose is farther from the MAF while the emissions hose is closer. It is only about maybe 3/4" but still would like to hear from some that are more experienced in proper operation of the emissions systems. I can also provide a picture of the current configuration for clarification, just email me. Thanks for the help!
I performed said ISR this past weekend after much searching for the components, but I didn't want to go the route of using nuts, washers, o-rings, I think you get where I am going, anyway, I also decided that I was going to try to replace some of the hoses with nice "TRD" red hoses but they are not the easiest to find in my little neck of the woods (forgive the pun) so with this in mind, I opted to use JB weld on the fittings with minimal stretching and straining. The new hose didn't have alot of flex in it so to make it easier to install and to ease the placement of the nipples for using JB Weld, I located the the crankcase vent pipe from the valve cover to the MAF end of the pipe but placed it about maybe 3/4" from the emissions nipple that originally went to the lower nipple for the air box that was below the MAF. I placed the nipples almost inline with each other so the the valve cover hose nipple is closer to the intake manifold and the emssions hose nipple is closer to the MAF.
It didn't occur to me until AFTER I drilled the holes, fitted and inserted the nipples THEN 'welded' them in place with JB Quik that this may not have been the best location for the two nipples. It was perfect for the hoses and for installation, but I noted when I picked up the remnants of the old intake silencer that it had some oily residue in the interior where valve cover hose emptied into it.
So, here is the question(s) ...
1) Will having these two nipples in close proximity to each other pose any issues with the emissions?
2) If so should I replace the pipe and fittings and reloacte it more to the original location?
3) If I leave the ISR pipe in its current configuration, should I insert a 90 degree fitting on the emissions nipple pointing towards the MAF that would allow intake for the hose farther upstream/closer to the MAF?
The location of the two holes/nipples are such that the valve cover hose is farther from the MAF while the emissions hose is closer. It is only about maybe 3/4" but still would like to hear from some that are more experienced in proper operation of the emissions systems. I can also provide a picture of the current configuration for clarification, just email me. Thanks for the help!
05-17-2007, 07:26 PM
#2
Well its been over two weeks, quite a few looks but not a single response?? No one has an opinion, anything to suggest, comment or anything?? I am concerned with this mod and would really like someone with some mechanical knowledge to at least comment and tell me if I can expect any problems or am I worring about nothing? There has got to be someone on this group who knows the answer ....
05-17-2007, 08:01 PM
#3
I've reread that post numerous times, and I have no clue what emmissions nipple your talking about, much less yet why/how it would matter. Call me slow.
Last edited by MudHippy; 05-17-2007 at 08:23 PM.
05-18-2007, 05:08 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The emissions hose is part of the PAIR system whose purpose is to inject oxygen into your exhaust for greater catayltic converter efficiency. If i've read correctly that this hose is first in line, then you have nothing to worry about, as that line only "sucks". Now if your crank vent hose was first inline then it is feasible that emissions would be affected as the availability of pure air to the PAIR system would be reduced, limiting oxidation of spent exhaust gas. Air is constantly being fed into the intake stream, so theoretically the crankcase vapors should be swept away in the incomming air flow. Yet, if you want to be 100% certain your PAIR system receives pure air then the 90 degree fitting will do. It is a better idea to have a 90 degree fitting for the crank vent hose towards the throttle body, instead of trying to ram air through the emissions hose.
Last edited by Crymson; 05-18-2007 at 05:20 AM.
05-18-2007, 08:05 AM
#6
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The emissions hose is part of the PAIR system whose purpose is to inject oxygen into your exhaust for greater catayltic converter efficiency. If i've read correctly that this hose is first in line, then you have nothing to worry about, as that line only "sucks". Now if your crank vent hose was first inline then it is feasible that emissions would be affected as the availability of pure air to the PAIR system would be reduced, limiting oxidation of spent exhaust gas. Air is constantly being fed into the intake stream, so theoretically the crankcase vapors should be swept away in the incomming air flow. Yet, if you want to be 100% certain your PAIR system receives pure air then the 90 degree fitting will do. It is a better idea to have a 90 degree fitting for the crank vent hose towards the throttle body, instead of trying to ram air through the emissions hose.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
theking11863
Vehicle Audio & Home Entertainment
2
03-19-2016 09:36 PM
