I'm considering an oil separator for my stock 289 (freshly rebuilt top/bottom end). High compression engine, I figure that there are benefits. Do you agree? Anybody done this and do you have a specific recommendation for make?
If you have too much blow-by, somebody goofed on the rebuild, if the cylinder walls are good, and it has fresh rings, once they are seated, the blow-by should be minimal, if rings were not installed during the rebuild, they should have been. You could also switch to a 70 or maybe a 69 where the air breather for the valve cover runs back to the air breather so it is burned in the engine. My 2 cts. Good luck.
Nope, no excessive blow-by. I just figured that for the sake of preserving the longevity of my fresh engine, an oil catch would be a good idea. It seems to be a pretty common component on modern cars... especially with turbo. Since our engines are higher compression, wouldn't it be advantageous?
Your blow-by oil will have nothing to do with the longevity of the engine, unless you would run it so long, it got low on oil. Its really just an emission issue. You can either leave it as it is, and occasionally wipe the valve cover, or go the other route I suggested before with the 69-70 setup. The older engines used to use a draft tube before the PCV, and the tube just stuck below the engine so that when driving the moving air would create a little draft in the crankcase and pull air through it, it that case the oil was blown on the road. Good Luck.
Yup, I plan to install a PCV valve but I've read so many posts about the gunk that builds up in the intake, even with PCV. Of course, I'm running the stock valve covers... I'll have to pull the passenger side to check out the baffle setup (if it's equipped). I still think a decent oil catch is a good idea with a PCV valve.
As Rex said, with a proper rebuild there is essentially no blowby; there will be nothing to catch. The PCV valve on a rebuilt engine should stay clean for a long time since there is essentially nothing going through it except a few fumes. Oil consumption will be pretty close to zero even after burning those fumes. You are trying to solve a problem that does not exist unless something screwed up the rebuild.
A standard PCV valve will work just fine for your engine. Its not something that depends greatly upon compression ratio. If it does then you have leaking rings.
Again, please understand, I am NOT trying to solve a problem related to my rebuild. I am trying to PREVENT a future problem to extend the life of my engine. I fully understand that after a solid rebuild, I should not experience significant blow-by. The issue arises as the engine ticks off more and more miles. Just because Ford did it a certain way back in 1966 (and 1970), it doesn't mean that there aren't better ways to do it today. I am asking the forum if the logic behind a well-designed oil catch is sound and l'm inviting people smarter than me to debunk it. Again, I don't see the harm in using an oil catch alongside a PCV valve (please, correct me if I'm wrong) and for the minimal cost and the 30 minutes that I suspect it would take to install, why not?
I am not altogether inexperienced with classic Mustangs (in fact, the opposite is true) and I am more mechanically inclined than the average Joe. However, I'm here to learn and to share.
I own German, Italian, English and American cars much newer as well as much older than 1966. None of them ever used a catch can. There is nothing to catch that will extend the life of our engine. If there is anything significant that needs catching you have worn parts that you can never correct with an add-on widget. You would be better served to rebuild the engine and make it right again.
If I understand correctly, he doesn't have a blow-by issue, his catch can is for if it develops. My advice is not to worry about the catch can, it is unnecessary (and will absolutely make no difference on the longevity of the engine) , should you get enough miles on the engine where you need to do something, then do some changes. Your 66 should already have a PCV. If you haven't done a complete restoration on your car, you will have plenty of Gremlins to take care of, guaranteed, especially electrical and or rust, on a 50 year old car. My 2 cts. Good Luck.
I will say this.. a catch can doesnt do anything except catch all the money flying out of your wallet.. if in fact it did extend the life of a vehicles engine, why wouldnt the smart engineers at ford start building pcv systems with a catch can in-line? Food for thought; on my 02 little v6 mustang, it has a little over 200,000 on the original motor, not even a rebuild yet. At 186000ish i did some stuff to it(cam, springs, "performance" mods to it) i replaced the valve covers with a 98 and back cover, due to cosmetics only to find out about a tsb on those valve covers, a baffle design error, which would lead to increased oil consumption causing carbon build up. For the past 10,000 miles i have not noticed any oil going into my intake. With that said, if you think blow by will cause massive engine failure over time then by all means put one on there.. but the engine will only last however long the engine wants. No matter how much preventative maintenance is done to it, the inevitable will alway come. Good luck with your build.
You'd have to ask Ford about that. There's a lot of speculation that flies around Online about the subject. After all, by your own statement, Ford makes engineering mistakes too.
I have done a complete restoration on my car. Every single component is brand new except the original sheet metal and glass. Trust me, I am intimately familiar with this baby. In fact, she's not my first Mustang.
Thanks for the well wishes. I've learned that folks feel very strongly about using an oil separator for some reason. It's a polarizing issue and some people get downright nasty about it. Mind boggling to me because it's super inexpensive, doesn't require drilling holes anywhere to install, and seems like cheap insurance (like a good oil filter... air filter... fuel filter). It's a matter of preventive maintenance. Preventing ANY oil from hitting the intake is a GOOD thing (even if it's just a teaspoonful at regular intervals).
Is there a possibility of causing some unforeseen damage? That would kill the idea for me altogether. I'm just trying to gather info about others' real world experiences with oil separators. I'm looking for facts to make an informed decision. If somebody came back to say that they have tried an oil catch can alongside their PCV and they captured not a single drop of oil between oil changes, that would help me to make my decision too.
Not that I'm doubting you but how do you know that your intake isn't building up sludge and gunk over the past 10K miles? Have you laid eyes on it? Is it "as clean as a whistle?"
From what I understand about catch cans, they are used mostly on Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) engines. With a GDI engine, the fuel is injected directly into the combustion chamber, where with other types of fuel injection the fuel is injected into the intake manifold.
The problem with GDI is that there is no fuel passing over the intake valves, and "washing " the valves clean of the oily deposits (PVC vapors). The result is that over time, the intake valves get carbon built up and over time can effect the valve sealing. or drop carbon into the combustion chamber.
The catch cans do collect oily residue, but I don't think they completely stop the oil from being deposited on the intake valve.
How long does it take to build up the deposits? Who knows?
The older cars that still have carburetors probably don't have any problem with any build up on the intake valves.
Those valve deposits are usually from valve stem leakage. A 289 from the factory not only didn't have good valve stem seals they didn't even use valve guides but just bored a round hole in the cast iron head. Those wear out quickly and oil consumption zooms. Installing true valve guide inserts and using decent valve stem seals will keep oil out of the cylinder; a catch can will not.
I don't see where there is any advantage, benefit or savings, in a catch can but, by the same token it won't hurt anything so if it makes you feel good go for it!
Clearly, Ford recognized the value of incorporating an oil separator IN CONJUNCTION WITH a properly functioning PCV system.
Straight from the horse's mouth (Ford, in this case), it makes sense to use an OIL SEPARATOR in your PCV system. I would suggest that this article is NOT just directed at performance/track applications either.
No offense to 6stang02, rex1965, or Ivy66GT but I am going to try one to gather some real-world practical information for myself. It can't hurt and potentially, it could be a VERY good thing. Ford convinced me.
For $12, I picked up a brand new assembly with baffles, a steel catch bowl, a brass drain petcock, washable components, and 3/8" inlet and outlet (even came with barb fittings!). It's similar to the $140 Moroso 85481 Oil Separator but my kit has a larger capacity bowl. It's also neat in that the bowl is 2.25" in diameter so I can mount it easily with an attractive chrome Ford style coil bracket.
It'll take some time but I'll report back with my results (good or bad... I've never been afraid to admit when I'm wrong).
Looking forward to hearing about your results. I previously owned a 2012 Challenger R/T and one of the first mods I added to that car was an oil catch can. As my daily driver and occasional 1/4 miler, it caught a fair amount of oil that would've ultimately landed back in my intake manifold. I found myself emptying a nearly full can at every oil change.
Oh, and my components are all Made in the USA! One other thing, I understand that using a polycarbonate bowl is not the best option in a harsh automotive application. Glass or metal bowls are generally a better solution.
Semperfido,
Note that the "breather hose" from the valve cover to the air cleaner housing on the original Ford closed system ( in the article you noted) was/is 5/8ths ID . Your add on seperator is 3/8ths . Since your system doesn't employ vacuum to pull crankcase pressure out of the engine( unless I misunderstood you and you are putting it in the pcv side) the 3/8ths hose would restrict the pressure flow out of the engine by it's reduced diameter. If you really want to make your system work , source an electric vacuum pump ( diesel pickups , Cadillac) so you pull the crankcase pressure out of the engine. Splice it in front of the seperator can and cap the "out" side with a tiny clamp on K&N filter. This won't prevent natural ring wear ( the major cause of crankcase pressure / blowby) but it will enhance what you are trying to do. Racers , from Nascar to drag racing, have added vacuum sources to the crankcase for over fifteen years with positive results.
That's an EXCELLENT suggestion! However, I should point out that the nipple on my Ford carb spacer (original, for a 4100) is 3/8" ID. I think it takes a 1/2" ID hose (the OD of the carb nipple is, of course, larger than the ID). I realize that you're talking about the breather on the driver's side valve cover but it would appear that Ford already "necked down" or restricted the flow from the passenger side valve cover.
I chose my oil separator fittings based upon the carb spacer plate fitting/nipple.
My mistake, I believe it takes a 3/8" hose (not a 1/2")... it's got to fit tightly. Incidentally, the Moroso 85481 Oil Separator also takes 3/8" fittings. That also gave me confidence that I selected the correct oil separator components.
Hi Gt350HR, just to be clear, I AM installing the oil separator/catch can on the PCV/passenger side with 3/8" oil-resistant vacuum hose. I guess I didn't fully understand you before. I gather that you made your suggestion with the thought that I might install the oil separator on the driver's side valve cover?
That is a very interesting Shop Tips which I had not seen. It lists the PCV valves used for various engines which is not intuitive. For a '65-'67 Mustang the 170 and 200 engines used an EV-5, a 260 used an EV-2 while a 289 used an EV-8. However, if it were a full-sized Ford for 1963 both the 260 and 289s used an EV-4. Say what? That chart needs a bit more study to understand. And I doubt there even that many different PCV valves being sold today.
You are determined to use a catch can which is fine with me. As many others have said, provided it doesn't somehow plug up, it won't do any harm but its unlikely to provide any benefit. We all await the results of your experiment although I think that may take about 30 years and few of us may still be here by then.
For those who may read this at a later date I think it is important to further discuss that Shop Tips article. It does not have anything to do with catch cans. In fact, the words of that article do not imply anything bad about feeding crankcase fumes back into an engine but instead say that it is a good thing since the unburned bypass gases "could contribute more miles per gallon if recycled to the carburetor."
The oil separators that they talk about are not catch cans but were instead a roll of very coarse metal mesh often described as a 'Brillo Pad' which was a holdover from the 1950s when Ford used road draft tubes. The Ford part number 6A631 is what lets us examine what they were doing. I compared the Shop Tips list of 'oil separators' used to my 1975 Ford Master Parts Catalog list of parts for various engines in cars from 1965 (includes 64.5 Mustangs) through 1972. Except for the 1963 223 engine all oil separator engines were V8s. The 430 and 462 engines were used in Lincolns and are not in the Ford list. The 221 (not 220), 223 and 406 engines were not still used in 1965 so that leaves 260/289/302/390/427 and 428s. There is no mention whatsoever for a part 6A631 for any 390 or 428 engine by 1975. The 427s used an oil separator FA-60 while the 260s used FA-58. For 289s, only the HiPo had any listing for an oil separator and it simply shows a 5-pointed star: The part is no longer supplied since due to its function there would be little or no demand. Obviously these parts weren't very important in Ford's opinion and for the 289s they supplied no replacements for them.
For those who may read this at a later date I think it is important to further discuss that Shop Tips article. It does not have anything to do with catch cans... The oil separators that they talk about are not catch cans but were instead a roll of very coarse metal mesh often described as a 'Brillo Pad' which was a holdover from the 1950s when Ford used road draft tubes.
Yup, I agree with you completely and I respect your technical knowledge. I didn't suggest that today's aftermarket oil separators/catch cans are just like the old Ford design. I simply pointed out that Ford recognized benefits of separating out the oil rather than sending it back into the intake.
Thank you for your very detailed examination of the subject. We're all here to learn and I believe that most of us have open minds.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ford Mustang Forum
3.7M posts
229.4K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to Ford Mustang owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, modifications, reviews, engine swaps, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!