The Forward Look Network
The Forward Look Network
Search | Statistics | User Listing Forums | Chat | eBay | Calendars | Albums | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

PCV conversion. 60 383 RB
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forward Look Technical Discussions -> Engine, Exhaust, Fuel and IgnitionMessage format
 
Cmangeot
Posted 2012-12-13 4:52 PM (#351093)
Subject: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB


Extreme Veteran

Posts: 531
50025
Location: Park Hills, KY
All,

After a suggestion from several members, I am pondering converting my draft tube to a PVC system. I am no mechanic. How do I do this?

Could anyone describe the modification necessary?
Top of the page Bottom of the page
DeSotohead
Posted 2012-12-13 6:52 PM (#351108 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Board Moderator

Posts: 3186
20001000100252525
Location: The not-so-great, dirty-white North ( Michigan)
Sure...
Its not really that hard. You will need a breather cap that has a hose fitting to suppy the air to the engine. This will fit on the front left (driver's side in US) tube on the valve cover, and the other end will be attached to the air cleaner.

You might have to make a tube for that, although you sometimes can buy them from places like Autozone or NAPA that you drill a hole and snap them in. The other side (rear passenger tube) will need a cap that a PCV valve fits into. If you get one for a later 413 engine, it will be sized correctly.

This PCV valve will then have a hose from its outlet back to the base of the carburetor. Look at the rear of your carb, and there in most cases will be a pipe plug you can remove and install a hose fitting sized for the PCV hose you used on the valve. Install this hose fitting with a little pipe dope to make sure it seals well with minimal tighening, attach the hose, and you now have a working PCV system.

If your carburetor for whatever reason has no pipe plug fitting on it, you can still either make a spacer that you put one into, or you can drill and tap the manifold right behind the carburetor and install a 90 degree pipe to hose fitting for the same results. Use grease on the tap, and use a vacuum cleaner (shop vac) when you drill the hole to suck all the chips away!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Rodger
Posted 2012-12-16 9:21 PM (#351508 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB


Expert

Posts: 1506
1000500
Location: Colo Spgs
Chris


Which engine or division and etc does not apply. The Close Crankshaft Vent System was even being used during The Korean
Conflct with Dodge 1 1/4 Ton Power Wagons.

The 1960's era MoPar PCV Part is the same part number be for The 426 Hemi or The Small Cubed Slant Six and it will fit on
any MoPar with The Down Draft Tube.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/383.html

Using what is said above apply this visual to aide ya.



Rodger & Gabby
COS
Top of the page Bottom of the page
rbmain
Posted 2012-12-16 10:36 PM (#351516 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



100010010010010025
Don't do it. Your car is exempt, and about none are. What on earth would possess you to do this crazy thing to your car?

Edited by rbmain 2012-12-16 10:39 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
MOPAR-TO-YA
Posted 2012-12-17 2:07 AM (#351537 - in reply to #351516)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB


Expert 5K+

Posts: 5139
500010025
Location: cornpatch county, Southwest IOA
rbmain - 2012-12-16 9:36 PM

Don't do it. Your car is exempt, and about none are. What on earth would possess you to do this crazy thing to your car?

I would say -cleaner oil and no oil vapor around your breather cap or draft tube. .............................MO
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Rodger
Posted 2012-12-17 12:15 PM (#351574 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB


Expert

Posts: 1506
1000500
Location: Colo Spgs
CornPatch

To what you have written add ... no oil patch from vaper drippings and a better fuel miliage. This "retro addition" will
fit any MoPar Engine that has The Down Draft tube by using the 1960's to 70's MoPar PCV - the lenght/ inside diameter
of flexing hose and attaching it to the Carburator Base an adapter or etc as first said on the 14th.



Rodger & Gabby
COS
Top of the page Bottom of the page
imopar380
Posted 2012-12-18 1:15 AM (#351632 - in reply to #351574)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 7205
50002000100100
Location: Victoria, BC, on Vancouver Island, Canada
My PCV is a stock Chrysler unit, but the hose from it simply runs to a port that is drilled and tapped into the intake manifold behind the carburetor. Top photo - dirty engine - taken before engine removed for rebuild. Bottom photo taken tonight!

Edited by imopar380 2012-12-18 1:34 AM




(pcv.JPG)



(pcv.JPG)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments pcv.JPG (108KB - 1071 downloads)
Attachments pcv.JPG (134KB - 679 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
MOPAR-TO-YA
Posted 2012-12-18 3:11 AM (#351635 - in reply to #351632)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB


Expert 5K+

Posts: 5139
500010025
Location: cornpatch county, Southwest IOA
I have the metal cap that fits on the tube in the valve cover, but the metal 90 degree bend PCV valve needs replaced. Rodger , you said later modle small cube slant six is the one? Do you have a part number ? I can't get anything but the later style at my local parts store..............MO
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Rodger
Posted 2012-12-18 4:28 PM (#351701 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB


Expert

Posts: 1506
1000500
Location: Colo Spgs
Hola All ( and Ah Happy New Year )

What I wrote was "The 1960's era MoPar PCV Part is the same part number be for The 426 Hemi or The Small Cubed Slant Six
and it will fit on any MoPar with The Down Draft Tube".

Take any photo of any MoPar PCV to NAPA and they should have what you are asking for ( a photo is worth a thousand words ).
The $5.00 PCV part number is: 29209 .




Rodger & Gabby
COS
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2012-12-18 4:37 PM (#351704 - in reply to #351516)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 7385
50002000100100100252525
Location: northern germany
rbmain - 2012-12-16 10:36 PM

Don't do it. Your car is exempt, and about none are. What on earth would possess you to do this crazy thing to your car?


CORRECT
Top of the page Bottom of the page
imopar380
Posted 2012-12-18 5:40 PM (#351710 - in reply to #351704)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 7205
50002000100100
Location: Victoria, BC, on Vancouver Island, Canada
If the PCV valves had been installed on these cars originally, the engines would have lasted much longer without getting sludged up. A Good friend of mine, a Mopar mechanic for nearly 50 years put one on the 1960 Polara I sold him, almost immediately after I sold it. It's such a simple thing and extends engine life and improves long term performance, & does absolutely nothing bad for the car. With only a draft tube, there is no positive vacuum to suck out the un-burnt draft vapors when the car is at idle, whereas with a PCV system there is always vacuum present, sucking the un-burnt vapours back through the intake system and re-burning them, thus removing all the vapours from the engine, re-burning them and having cleaner emissions and a cleaner engine as a result.

To quote from Wickipedia: In 1952, Professor A. J. Haagen-Smit, of the California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, postulated that unburned hydrocarbons were a primary constituent of smog, and that gasoline powered automobiles were a major source of those hydrocarbons. After some investigation by the GM Research Laboratory (led by Dr. Lloyd L. Withrow), it was discovered in 1958 that the road draft tube was a major source, about half, of the hydrocarbons coming from the automobile. GM's Cadillac Division, which had built many tanks during WWII, recognized that installation of PCV on vehicles could bring the first major reduction in automotive hydrocarbon emissions. After confirming the PCV valves' effectiveness at hydrocarbon reduction, GM offered the PCV solution to the entire U.S. automobile industry, royalty free, through its trade association, the Automobile Manufacturers Association (AMA).[citation needed] The PCV system thus became the first real vehicle emissions control device.

Positive crankcase ventilation was first installed on a widespread basis by law on all new 1961-model cars first sold in California. The following year, New York required it. By 1964, most new cars sold in the U.S. were so equipped by voluntary industry action so as not to have to make multiple state-specific versions of vehicles. PCV quickly became standard equipment on all vehicles worldwide because of its benefits not only in emissions reduction but also in engine internal cleanliness and oil lifespan.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crankcase_ventilation_system )

They're pretty inexpensive too. http://www.shopping.com/1961-chrysler-windsor-pcv/o6TYHYUG71VCIb_Aw...





Edited by imopar380 2012-12-18 5:44 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2012-12-19 11:38 AM (#351790 - in reply to #351710)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 7385
50002000100100100252525
Location: northern germany
if its in wikepedia it has to be true and that article is only about environmental benefits. i give a ** about that if it makes my engine less efficient. ask the greenies to fill up your tank if you are running out of fuel.
afaik engineers were forced to put these on. starting in california, i believe 1961. according to an early 60s car magazin article the big 3 engineers objected.

you are basically saying that heating the intake charge and feeding the engine with exhaust gas (thats what most of the blowby is) is a good thing
this has been discussed before but ok, here we go once again. i work on old cars daily for 26 years. removing the pcv system that HEATS the intake charge with exhaust gas makes engines idle instantly smoother. i've experienced this 100 times. this is reason enough for me to trash it. whatever you do you can't make an engine idle as smooth with a pcv system as without. this tells me you are feeding the engine with something it does not want. and thats only the blowby at idle. an engine produces most blowby at wot.
i don't care what a pcv system is supposed to do in theory. i have common sense and i learn from my own experience.

known fact, for maximum performance/efficiency the intake charge should be cool. thats why all new cars have a cold air system. cold air contains more oxygen and therefore makes more power. period. just adding a cold air intake system can give you free 10+ horsepower as dyno tests have proven. a cold air intake system makes your engine run more efficient and idle alot smoother.
so how can heating (thats what a pcv system does) the intake charge be a good thing? and at wot when you need every pony you got you are feeding your engine the most (hot) blowby which is , again, mostly exhaust gas. not a good thing.

ever tried to ignite blowby with a plug or a match? it wont. for those who believe hot exhaust gas in the intake charge is a good thing i suggest trash the exhaust system and route all exhaust gasses back into carburetor and create a perpetuum mobile

and the oily blowby tends to foul up plugs. i once serviced an engine (with moderate blowby) with a pcv system that returned all blowby to just 1 intake runner (cylinder) that cylinders plug was the only dirty fouled plug of 8. after i removed the pcv the plug remained clean. go figure.

as for longevity my 383 has 320k miles on the clock. never rebuild, heads never been off since august 1959. it still runs like new, no noises, perfect oil pressure, no problems ever, WITHOUT that pcv emission crap. it always passes the by annual german emission tests with flying colors (once, at around 200k miles, an engineer knocked on his test device a couple of times in disbelieve saying this really runs clean for an old car) i never had to manually clean its spark plugs in almost 25 years and it uses very little fuel for a 6.3 liter engine. average 13l/100km and once i managed under 10l/100km.

and as for cleaner oil. dirty oil does not necessarily mean bad lubrication otherwise diesel engines should have an oil change every day and i (one should) change the oil once a year anyway.

a pcv system may (?) cuts pollution at the expense of your engine efficiency/fuel consumption which again makes the environment benefits more than questionable. my engines at least will never see a pcv system like the mopar engineers wanted it.

not that it has to be true because its in the www, but here is what i found (quote):

The problem with the PCV system is that basically force feeds an engine its own excrement. Blow-by gases do not burn well and inhibit combustion and reduce engine efficiency.....
Auto manufacturers eagerly embraced the PCV system because they knew that putting blow-by gases into the engine intake would reduce combustion efficiency and thereby increase fuel consumption and maintenance costs. Oil gets dirty faster, carbon builds up quicker, spark-plugs foul quicker, etc. This all means more money for car companies, parts manufacturers, mechanics and oil companies.

Edited by 1960fury 2012-12-19 12:04 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
spinout
Posted 2012-12-20 8:59 AM (#351905 - in reply to #351790)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



5001001001002525
Location: Bjorneborg, Finland
"it always passes the by annual german emission tests with flying colors" You Germans really have to annually emission tested so old workhorses.. here all cars prior 1978 were exempted from emission tests many years ago, when it was launched! Sid, I agree with your opinion about PCV system. And after installing cold air ducting to my '70s 440 caused it run smoother and is more efficient than before..

Edited by spinout 2012-12-20 9:11 AM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
chrycotech
Posted 2012-12-23 11:27 PM (#352304 - in reply to #351790)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB


Member

Posts: 12

Location: Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
Hello group,

iMopar380 is dead on correct. As a Chrysler certified Master Technician since 1958 I readily concur with his statements regarding the PCV system. For clarity to the readership of this forum I would like to tell you that I have disassembled hundreds of Mopar engines in the last 50 years and I can categorically state that engines equipped with properly maintained PCV systems are internally cleaner and last much longer, to say nothing about the fact that the occupants of the car do not have to inhale the vapours that escape the draft tube and breather on the old style passive ventilator system.

The statement that the PCV system introduces heat in to the induction system should be tempered by the fact that the volume ratio of the PCV system compared to the volume of air/fuel charge, is so negligible that it's a moot point .... like picking fly s**t from pepper.

The statement that the crankcase vapours cause undue engine wear to the engine is also misleading. Crankcase vapours are composed of unburned hydrocarbons. If they were as described, excrement, goop or sludge, they would render a catalytic converter useless in short order, but this is not the case. These hydrocarbons are burned harmlessly along with the air/fuel charge. If an engine is equipped with a properly installed, properly maintained PCV system, it will idle smoothly, perform well. If it doesn't .... there is something else wrong.

PCV systems have been around since the early 40's. They were optional equipment on early 40's Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Plymouth as well as many Dodge and Fargo commercial vehicles, long before they were mandated by the EPA. (I have samples of these in my workshop.)

In my experience PCV systems are a win win situation.

Respectfully yours,
chrycotech
Top of the page Bottom of the page
imopar380
Posted 2012-12-24 12:16 AM (#352313 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 7205
50002000100100
Location: Victoria, BC, on Vancouver Island, Canada
Ron, thanks for posting your comments.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
lonesome mopar
Posted 2012-12-24 3:03 PM (#352384 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Extreme Veteran

Posts: 397
100100100252525
Location: Milano, Italy
Hi all,
I throw my 2 cents in this interesting thread:

It's a couple of years now that I am running my engine on a kind of PCV "JAR" .

The system is that both the tappet covers have a hose that are run into a closed container (i.c. a big glass jar with its cap)

Just under the cover of this jar there is a metal container ( such as an empty beans can) which receives the end of the two hoses.

The two hoses blow the crankcase gases into this metal container which has some kind of labirinth (like some mufflers have) then they exit to the bottom of the jar.

From the bottom of the jar they return to the top of air filter with one or two more hoses.
What happens with this procedure is that the crankcase gases pass through the metal "chicanes" where they cool down, condense the water and other stuff attached, and escape, cleaned, to go to the air filter where they can burn again.

The advantage of this system is seen after one week (in cold climates) or after one month (in warmer countries) : the jar fills with a mix of water and sludge that otherwise will be stuck inside the crakcase and else.

I will provide pictures of this system in my car next days, I really can't do it now.

drawbacks:
My mistake in the whole system was to run a single hose out of the jar to the air filter. Not enough breathing at highway speed as I discovered after the front manifold gasket blew away and squirted oil all around (....dangerous....) Of course my next modification will be to run two hoses.

A secondary boring fact is that in colder climate the water keeps accumulating into the jar, clogging the "labirinth" and then the hoses coming from the tappet covers.

(Maybe fitting a tap at the bottom of the jar might help to discharge the water without walking around with an awfully smelling jar in one hand, in search of a proper place to empty it? )

I'll come back with pictures.





Edited by lonesome mopar 2012-12-24 3:06 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
ttotired
Posted 2012-12-24 6:03 PM (#352403 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 8443
50002000100010010010010025
Location: Perth Australia
Sounds interesting

I dont understand why your doing it though.

The fumes ect that get sucked into the manifold are only the remnants of blowby (whats in the cylinder anyway) and smoke ect from the engine oil.

Water vapour is no problem as its a normal part of combustion and (not sure about over there) water injection has been used to increase performance in
an engine by allowing higher compression and higher advance settings by controlling pinging.

Sucking the fumes into the aircleaner is messy though (if you go that way).

I had a sigma thats pcv setup went that way and it used to clog up the aircleaner near the inlet with oil vapour.

I will be putting a pcv system on my dodge when I get to that stage

Top of the page Bottom of the page
lonesome mopar
Posted 2012-12-25 6:39 AM (#352448 - in reply to #352403)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Extreme Veteran

Posts: 397
100100100252525
Location: Milano, Italy
what I have seen is that the spark plugs remain perfectly clean, without any deposit, I guess because all the dirty remain trapped into the jar and the crankcase gases arrive cleaned into the head chambers..... Note that the return hose (from the Jar) is run on the TOP of the air cleaner, not on the side, (as there is no need to clean it through the filter).

I also believe that the crankcase vapour condenses on the inner side of the block when the engine temp goes down (parked, night time) forming plain water; then that water mixes with the oil, bringing unavoidably to the creation of an acid, that attacks the hardened surfaces of the engine.......

Ok, I can't take picture for the next weeks, so here is an attempt of sketches of the system.
Please forgive me my awful drawing capabilities.




Edited by lonesome mopar 2012-12-25 1:06 PM




(draft 2.jpg)



(draft.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments draft 2.jpg (64KB - 299 downloads)
Attachments draft.jpg (48KB - 227 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2012-12-30 2:30 PM (#353159 - in reply to #352304)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 7385
50002000100100100252525
Location: northern germany
chrycotech - 2012-12-23 11:27 PM

Hello group,

iMopar380 is dead on correct. As a Chrysler certified Master Technician since 1958 I readily concur with his statements regarding the PCV system. For clarity to the readership of this forum I would like to tell you that I have disassembled hundreds of Mopar engines in the last 50 years and I can categorically state that engines equipped with properly maintained PCV systems are internally cleaner and last much longer, to say nothing about the fact that the occupants of the car do not have to inhale the vapours that escape the draft tube and breather on the old style passive ventilator system.

The statement that the PCV system introduces heat in to the induction system should be tempered by the fact that the volume ratio of the PCV system compared to the volume of air/fuel charge, is so negligible that it's a moot point .... like picking fly s**t from pepper.

The statement that the crankcase vapours cause undue engine wear to the engine is also misleading. Crankcase vapours are composed of unburned hydrocarbons. If they were as described, excrement, goop or sludge, they would render a catalytic converter useless in short order, but this is not the case. These hydrocarbons are burned harmlessly along with the air/fuel charge. If an engine is equipped with a properly installed, properly maintained PCV system, it will idle smoothly, perform well. If it doesn't .... there is something else wrong.

PCV systems have been around since the early 40's. They were optional equipment on early 40's Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Plymouth as well as many Dodge and Fargo commercial vehicles, long before they were mandated by the EPA. (I have samples of these in my workshop.)

In my experience PCV systems are a win win situation.

Respectfully yours,
chrycotech



you say blowby is so little it does not affect intake charge temperature? then you state occupants yards away behind a sealed firewall will suffer from blowby? we all know the blowby of a well used big v8 and what we are seeing is only the blowby at idle. again, engines produces most blowby at high engine speeds (driving). blowby is HOT and heats the intake charge that is an undeniable fact like that heating the intake charge reduces oxygen levels. again, cold air makes more power.
low oxygen levels are one reason for incomplete combustion (reduced efficiency)

my very high mileage 383 produces some blowby yet i do not smell it in the passenger compartment (hardtop) i do not even smell it with the windows down. with just a breather and a draft tube working perfectly trouble free since 1959.
i suggest fix the rust holes, seal the firewall, and replace the hood to cowl seal before you feed your engine with its own excrements.
sludge? who said sludge? all i said blowby is mostly exhaust gas which of course does not destroy a catalytic converter.

yet the fact remains blowby gases are oily and tend to make spark plugs foul quicker that is actually a well known fact. we all know the nasty stuff that accumulates in air cleaners when blowby gases are routed there instead of the intake manifold. this of course also accumulates in the intake manifold, valves, plugs and combustion chamber with a pcv only you do not see it.
why do you believe more sophisticated pcv systems have an oil separator?

aside from oil and heating the intake charge:
you stated: "Crankcase vapours are composed of unburned hydrocarbons".
so you believe blowby gas is solely unburned hydrocarbon (fuel)? that is plain wrong.

most of it is BURNED hydrocarbons including carbon dioxide, yes the same stuff that is in some FIRE EXTINGUISHERS. that is what you are feeding your engine at wot. blowby of a properly serviced/tuned engine with a working heat riser/choke does not smell like fuel and does NOT ignite.
the intake charge on the other hand is of course highly combustible/explosive and FACT blowby is NOT. if the crankcase was filled with only unburned hydrocarbon vapours that would be a scary thing.

as anyone out there can easily test blowby does not ignite. remove the breather and ground a spark plug in the filler opening of a properly running/serviced engine. NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.
if it was unburned gasoline as you say, like in the intake charge it would go off like a bomb. blowby does not burn easily or not at all because most of it has been burned already and delivered its power (again) most of it are just exhaust gases.

it is that simple, a pcv system replaces some of the highly explosive fuel/ fresh air intake charge with HOT mostly incombustible exhaust waste gas and therefore reducing efficiency/power. that are the simple facts and are really not hard to understand.
how can someone believe this can make the combustion more efficient/powerful? a pcv is not a controled egr that shuts down at wot for max performance and works only at medium load. it does nothing to improve performance at wot and egr systems today are cooled. go figure.

regular oil changes with quality oil, proper tuning, functioning heat riser/choke, and good driving habits (never start without oil pressure, never stress a cold engine, always drive until engine reached operating temperature, etc) are the key for long engine life not a pcv which can damage your engine instantly if it fails.
i service my 383 since i bought it in 1988, my daily driver for most of the time. never had any problem whatsoever. i modified it yes, but it has never been rebuild, heads never been off. it has 320k miles on the clock now. that is more than half a million kilometers. it still runs like new and still pegs the 135 speedo (which reads a couple of miles slow) easily. pedal not floored. never had a pcv and never will. just the thought of feeding it with hot oily exhaust gases at wot makes me cringe.

from the www:

The PCV valve controls the amount of crankcase flow volume depending on the engine’s load. With large throttle openings (increase throttle blade position and higher engine loads), the more blow-by gases are produced, and the more the PCV system flows oil vapor in to the intake manifold.
Negative Effects of your Stock PCV System: I can surely testify to the amount of oil residue that can accumulate inside the intake manifold, throttle body, intake track and even the air filter during aggressive driving conditions. When I ported my intake manifold at 20K miles, I was really taken aback by the oil that had accumulated in the intake air system of my car.
There are severe, negative effects when excess oil vapor contaminates the intake system from the stock PCV system – such as:
• Throttle body and/or MAF (Mass Air Flow Sensor) malfunction or failure.
• Air filter, intercooler (ZR1) and intake ducting contamination if oil pools and runs back out the intake system after engine shutdown.
• Reduced octane of the air/fuel mixture, which can cause detonation and the ECM to retard timing, thereby reducing engine power.
• Excessive carbon build-up on valves, piston crowns, combustion chambers and spark plugs. This also increases the chance of detonation and power loss.
• Increased emissions & possible contamination of catalytic converters and oxygen sensors.






Edited by 1960fury 2012-12-30 4:00 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2012-12-30 3:07 PM (#353162 - in reply to #351905)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 7385
50002000100100100252525
Location: northern germany
spinout - 2012-12-20 8:59 AM

"it always passes the by annual german emission tests with flying colors" You Germans really have to annually emission tested so old workhorses.. here all cars prior 1978 were exempted from emission tests many years ago, when it was launched! Sid, I agree with your opinion about PCV system. And after installing cold air ducting to my '70s 440 caused it run smoother and is more efficient than before..


yes actually they are exempt but some insist on testing it. i guess there is some law that asks for cars in good running order and there is a minimum requirement for emissions. american cars are not very popular over here and some tüv officers are always looking for reason to let you not pass.

yes cold air induction makes a huge difference. one of the best easiest and cheapest modifications you can do to these old cars that will pay off in a short time. i know you own a 61 desoto. the 61 desoto "nostrils" just ask for that conversion. i put one into my 61 desoto coupe before my girl friend got it. smoother idling, more power and less fuel consumption. the air inlets in my fury are between/above the headlights which is a high pressure area at high speeds.

Edited by 1960fury 2012-12-30 3:42 PM




(desotoram17.jpg)



(desotoram16.jpg)



(aramfuryds2.jpg)



(aramfury3.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments desotoram17.jpg (89KB - 323 downloads)
Attachments desotoram16.jpg (69KB - 220 downloads)
Attachments aramfuryds2.jpg (55KB - 232 downloads)
Attachments aramfury3.jpg (55KB - 208 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
MOPAR-TO-YA
Posted 2013-01-01 1:19 AM (#353378 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: RE: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB


Expert 5K+

Posts: 5139
500010025
Location: cornpatch county, Southwest IOA
This thread is very interesting to me as I am decideing which way to vent the crankcase on my 440 engine.

I tell you what, you debate with Sid, ya better pack yer lunch!!!. I never have seen a PCV valve on a competition engine. I used ( like most others) open breathers to intake fresh air and a one way valve to the header
collectors to scavange out the crankcase vapors . I will be using fresh air intake similar to Sids pics, but not sure how I want to vent the crankcase vapor..I decided not to use a PCV. .....................MO
Top of the page Bottom of the page
lonesome mopar
Posted 2013-01-04 6:29 PM (#353944 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Extreme Veteran

Posts: 397
100100100252525
Location: Milano, Italy
with reference to my posts above, please check what the "PCV JAR" could extraxct from several month of engine operation.
The water accumulated into the jar is already discharged from the jar, (no pics unfort.) but but it was approx 6 fl oz per month.
So, the first pic is my first model of Jar ( the one that didn't flow enough)
The second pic shows the acid mud that accumulates into the jar.

Edited by lonesome mopar 2013-01-04 6:37 PM




(100_4941ridotta.jpg)



(100_4997 ridotta.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments 100_4941ridotta.jpg (34KB - 228 downloads)
Attachments 100_4997 ridotta.jpg (45KB - 223 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
lonesome mopar
Posted 2013-01-06 6:13 PM (#354190 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Extreme Veteran

Posts: 397
100100100252525
Location: Milano, Italy
HI all, I just finished my upgrade of the PCV Jar for my engine. This time I used larger hose attachments, 4 of them instead of three, then larger metal pieces into the can, and a larger mesh to keep them in place.

here is some pics if somebody cares to keep the acid and the sludge off of his engine...
Pic 1: The completed Jar ready to be installed into the engine compartment.
Pic 2: The two main parts of the unit, split apart. -(Note the large mesh and the fastener used to keep the metal pieces inside the can)
Pic 3: A close sight of the metal pieces used to fill the can (the labirynth)
Pic 4: The holes position (for the hoses) into the cover: the red mark is the area occupied by the can's base.
Pic 5: The place beside the radiator wher I keep the unit. (The hoses are left aside to shoot the picture)




(1 jar.jpg)



(2- the two parts.jpg)



(3 fillings.jpg)



(4- the holes in the cover.jpg)



(5- beside the radiator.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments 1 jar.jpg (43KB - 213 downloads)
Attachments 2- the two parts.jpg (37KB - 208 downloads)
Attachments 3 fillings.jpg (35KB - 200 downloads)
Attachments 4- the holes in the cover.jpg (39KB - 233 downloads)
Attachments 5- beside the radiator.jpg (43KB - 214 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
lonesome mopar
Posted 2013-01-26 2:18 PM (#356924 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Extreme Veteran

Posts: 397
100100100252525
Location: Milano, Italy
Ok, just to give a good reason to my modification of the pcv valve, please have a look at the pic with the water quantity accumulated in the jar in just a week of everyday use of the car, in winter time.
I did a total of approx 300 km (187 miles) before taking the jar off.




(the water level .jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments the water level .jpg (43KB - 205 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
moparmoondog
Posted 2013-03-23 11:57 PM (#366110 - in reply to #356924)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Regular

Posts: 92
252525
Location: Eastern Iowa, USA
Hi all,

Just converted my 60 fireflites' 361 to PCV today. Runs just the same as before, like a Swiss watch, just no vent tube smell after I pull it in the garage. The PCV system must not be hard on the engine as the 97 Ram 1500 I have has it on it & I know a lot of folks that have 200-300K miles on their Rams and they still run fine.

Keep it simple sweet!

Moparmoondog

Edited by moparmoondog 2013-03-23 11:59 PM




(60 Fireflite 361.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments 60 Fireflite 361.jpg (246KB - 245 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Mopar1
Posted 2013-03-24 10:27 AM (#366128 - in reply to #351632)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert

Posts: 3027
2000100025
Location: N.W. Fla.
imopar380 - 2012-12-18 12:15 AM

My PCV is a stock Chrysler unit, but the hose from it simply runs to a port that is drilled and tapped into the intake manifold behind the carburetor. Top photo - dirty engine - taken before engine removed for rebuild. Bottom photo taken tonight!
Looks like the crapola will feed into one cyl. It should run into the central section of the manifold, like a EGR plate under the carb or use a modern carb that has a PCV port for even distribution.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
moparmoondog
Posted 2013-03-24 10:33 PM (#366190 - in reply to #366110)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Regular

Posts: 92
252525
Location: Eastern Iowa, USA
moparmoondog - 2013-03-23 10:57 PM


P. S. The motor has a modern Edelbrock 600 cfm electric choke carb on it too. Previous owner installed it. I just took the plug off of the front PVC port on the Eddy carb and hooked up the PCV. As I said she still runs sweet @ all speeds!

Moparmoondog

Edited by moparmoondog 2013-03-24 10:37 PM




(60 Fireflite 361.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments 60 Fireflite 361.jpg (246KB - 330 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Powerflite
Posted 2016-02-09 11:31 PM (#503730 - in reply to #366190)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 9604
500020002000500100
Location: So. Cal
I really need to do this conversion to the 361 in my '58 Desoto. The motor seems to have quite a bit of blow-by once it gets fully warmed up so it is stinking me out of the car when sitting at idle. How does this can thing seal over the valve cover tube? Is there a rubber lip at the top that it seals against or what? I don't like vacuum leaks so I want to know that it is gonna be a good seal.

Edited by Powerflite 2016-02-09 11:32 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
60 dart
Posted 2016-02-10 12:03 AM (#503731 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 8947
50002000100050010010010010025
Location: WHEELING,WV.>>>HOME OF WWVA
that setup above you isn't a vacuum seal , doesn't need one . the cap on the v-cover just slides on like a draft tube . the hose runs to the bottom of the air cleaner
inside of the air filter . ---------------------------------------------------------later


ahhhh , i guess one could call it a vacuum seal

Edited by 60 dart 2016-02-10 12:13 AM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Powerflite
Posted 2016-02-10 12:39 AM (#503733 - in reply to #503731)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 9604
500020002000500100
Location: So. Cal
Look at post #7 by imopar380. There is a pcv valve in the cap and these are routed to vacuum. They used a taller cap with a tube on it for just going to the air cleaner.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
60 dart
Posted 2016-02-10 4:42 AM (#503745 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 8947
50002000100050010010010010025
Location: WHEELING,WV.>>>HOME OF WWVA
is it a pcv valve or just a straight through elbow . i've got both here but elected to just go with a draft tube on the 383 . i've never seen different size/height caps
with or without open elbows or pcv elbows ---------------------------------------------later
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Powerflite
Posted 2016-02-13 8:48 PM (#504078 - in reply to #503745)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 9604
500020002000500100
Location: So. Cal
I just received an NOS pcv valve from Epay and tried it out on the 361. It was painted turquoise color so I painted it black. I painted it underneath too (after masking the valve opening) in hopes of helping it to seal on the valve cover better. I used a 1/8" pipe to 3/8" hose brass connector to plug into an unused port on the intake. I blew on the valve with compressed air before I installed it, and it was a good thing I did because there was quite a bit of dirt inside it that was preventing it from sealing properly. After cycling the pressure numerous times, I got it to work well with no more dirt coming out of it. That would have been a disaster to dump all of that into the motor.

I ran the motor and compared how it ran with the hose plugged, the hose open, and the hose connected to the PCV. Obviously, with the hose open, it didn't run very well with a major vacuum leak, but it did still run. There was no noticeable difference about how the motor ran with the hose plugged compared to being connected to the PCV. But there is a MAJOR difference in the amount of nasty fumes coming out of the engine compartment. So much nicer now. I highly recommend it.



(DeSotoPCV.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments DeSotoPCV.jpg (97KB - 331 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
BigBlockMopar
Posted 2016-02-14 5:19 AM (#504101 - in reply to #351093)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert

Posts: 3575
20001000500252525
Location: Netherlands
The way you hooked up the pcv, cylinder no. 8 now gets all of those dirty oily fumes to digest.
Also, because a pcv-system a just a controlled vacuumleak, that cylinder will run leaner. Usually after some time the sparkplug will be caked up with white crud and fail to spark. Sid mentioned this also earlier in this thread I think.

A pcv hose should best be connected to a front or back centered port on the carb designed for this purpose.

You also might think of fabbing something like the 'pcv jar'.
Ideally, you just want the(any) moisture to be ventilated from the engine, not the oil-vapours.


Edited by BigBlockMopar 2016-02-14 5:20 AM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Powerflite
Posted 2016-02-14 8:21 AM (#504110 - in reply to #504101)
Subject: Re: PCV conversion. 60 383 RB



Expert 5K+

Posts: 9604
500020002000500100
Location: So. Cal
It is actually shared pretty well between cylinder 8 and cylinder 5. It can also get to the other cylinders under low rpm, but probably not much at high rpm. Yes, I realize it would be better to run it to the base of the carb, but short of making my own plate for the 2bbl and modifying all the linkage to make it work, this works out well and I am willing to monitor & change the plugs more often. Also, I have electronic ignition with a very high power coil and .047" of gap on the plug so it can tolerate a lot more than the stock system. The picture shows the coil I am using.

Ideally, I don't want any blow-by at all; but because this motor is old and does vent quite a bit of oil vapor, I like the idea of burning it instead of venting it somewhere else. Keeping a partial vacuum instead of a partial pressure inside the motor will also help keep my old gaskets from leaking which would be worth the effort in and of itself. When/if I convert to a 4bbl setup, I will be able to route the gases more evenly to all the cylinders; but until then, I will update if I have any issues with the setup as it is. But so far, it has converted this smelly old engine into a much more pleasant driving experience with no immediate drawback.

Also, as far as running leaner, I don't think so. This isn't clean air that it is pulling in. It has quite a bit of oil vaporized in it which richens up what is being pulled into the intake. So far, my carb settings haven't changed, but maybe the mixture is a little different on those 2 cylinders, but not enough to worry about.

Edited by Powerflite 2016-02-14 9:00 AM




(pnx-60103_xl.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments pnx-60103_xl.jpg (22KB - 160 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

* * * This site contains affiliate links for which we may be compensated * * *


(Delete all cookies set by this site)