PCV catch can mod and gas mileage
06-27-2006, 10:24 PM
#42
Contributing Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Tigard, Oregon
Posts: 2,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to completely hi-jack this thread (as if it wasnt already 
), I just went out and did the ISR mod just like in christian's pic above and dang! It actually made the throttle response alot better!
), I just went out and did the ISR mod just like in christian's pic above and dang! It actually made the throttle response alot better!
06-28-2006, 11:41 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would a system on this VW tdi work?
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=121576
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=121576
06-28-2006, 11:45 AM
#45
Contributing Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 123c
Would a system on this VW tdi work?
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=121576
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=121576
I will get around to this eventually. Nice find.
06-28-2006, 12:48 PM
#48
Registered User
Originally Posted by da_bigg_wigg
So I am interested in doing this for my 2nd gen 4Runner with the 3vz-e. Anyone know what size hose the PCV uses?
06-28-2006, 03:05 PM
#51
Contributing Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Morgan Hill, Ca
Posts: 1,066
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by midiwall
The principle is the same...
Is the principle valid? I assume what one gains is avoiding the fairly small amount of oil fed back through the intake manifold which might cut down on throttle response as well as cause some decrease in fuel mileage.
Do we believe the gains people are claiming.. 2,4, and greater mpg? Don't mean to offend anyone making such claims as I don't really "know" very many people here at this point.
For anyone wanting a pretty good history of the pcv valve:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCV_valve
06-28-2006, 03:15 PM
#52
Registered User
Originally Posted by rdharper
Is the principle valid? I assume what one gains is avoiding the fairly small amount of oil fed back through the intake manifold which might cut down on throttle response as well as cause some decrease in fuel mileage.
Do we believe the gains people are claiming.. 2,4, and greater mpg? Don't mean to offend anyone making such claims as I don't really "know" very many people here at this point.
Do we believe the gains people are claiming.. 2,4, and greater mpg? Don't mean to offend anyone making such claims as I don't really "know" very many people here at this point.
I dunno about any claims for better mileage and such. But, given that you're technically removing "generally non-combustible" materials (in this situation) from the intake, then I'd say that it COULD be possible to get better mileage and/or performance.
I'd be interested in doing this just on the simple principle that there's less crap being shot into my intake.
I know that I get a good bit of sediment grime in the intake after 3000-5000 miles. Dunno how much is actually suspended in the air and shot on through.
06-28-2006, 03:23 PM
#53
Contributing Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Morgan Hill, Ca
Posts: 1,066
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by midiwall
I'd be interested in doing this just on the simple principle that there's less crap being shot into my intake. I know that I get a good bit of sediment grime in the intake after 3000-5000 miles. Dunno how much is actually suspended in the air and shot on through.
I know that I get a good bit of sediment grime in the intake after 3000-5000 miles. Dunno how much is actually suspended in the air and shot on through.
06-29-2006, 06:43 AM
#55
Contributing Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by rdharper
Good point. And that grime may be why so many insist on regular TB cleaning being a good thing.
That's one of the reasons why I did it.
07-08-2006, 07:39 AM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another question. on the 3.4 the line that runs from the back of the intake to the back drivers side of the motor- this looks like a pcv valve on the head, but it also seems theres anothe pcv valve on the passenger front of the motor as well. this would make sense that there are two, but am i right in my thinking?
07-09-2006, 11:42 AM
#59
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by dfoxengr
another question. on the 3.4 the line that runs from the back of the intake to the back drivers side of the motor- this looks like a pcv valve on the head, but it also seems theres anothe pcv valve on the passenger front of the motor as well. this would make sense that there are two, but am i right in my thinking?
