GMC Terrain, Equinox, and SRX Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
61 - 80 of 87 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Hello Lotusman
You said. "I have a 2013 2.4l SLT AWD........ Plus oil consumption has slowed."


Do you sill think the vented cap can reduce oil consumption?
Which vented cap are you using?
Could you please update the status of your oil consumption and your opinion if the vented cap makes a difference.
Thanks.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Hello Bearsfan,

You said "My Terrain has been burning oil i assume, have to put in a quart about every 1500 miles."

Kindly, could you update the status of your oil consumption?
Did you try a vented oil filler cap?
Thanks
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,755 Posts
Attached are basic instructions and pictures for cleaning the PCV port without removing the intake manifold. Let me know if this is helpful.

The pictures in your post are of a disassembled and removed intake manifold showing the PCV port orifice. Also, the "instructions" still do not provide a reader of a clear and easy way to clean the PCV valve orifice . . without removing the manifold.



Pictures and description of how you cleaned the PCV orifice "without removing the intake manifold" in a post (not pdf doc) are needed. . .
 

· Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Yeah, a clean side catch can is a reasonable option. Since the majority of problems revolve around water and such pooling and then freezing where the clean side enters the air intake plenum, using some sort of air / oil separator on the clean side is not a bad choice.

This is why, even though I now have a AC Delco FC219 check valve oil cap on my Nox, I am still toying around with getting the Elite Engineering solution.

http://www.eliteengineeringusa.com/clean-side-oil-separator/

Replaces the oil fill cap AND the clean side port to air intake. The "catch can" solution is integral to the cap. No need for anything additional. The ultimate killing more than one bird with a single stone solution.
How's the fc219 doing? Any downsides to using this. Trying to get ahead of the blow out problem before it becomes my problem. Any easy alternatives apart from this and the CFM?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
I have the Fc219 and ran it several months...no issues. Also bought the Elite Engineering one and no issue either. How do you know which is better? I have the stock one on now just to see if I notice any difference. I live in northwest ohio and keep my car garaged. The cap swaps seem more suited for severe cold climates.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
I have noticed no problems with using the FC219 on our Nox. I would agree with Storageguy that this problem is primarily one associated with the northern tier of the country. Especially those vehicles that are kept outdoors all the time. Ours also resides in a garage when not in use. Garage is heated in cooler months. Not 100% certain that in my situation I will ever truly have the need for the FC219, but given that it was relatively cheap, figured that it would be some cheap insurance.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
260 Posts
The pictures in your post are of a disassembled and removed intake manifold showing the PCV port orifice. Also, the "instructions" still do not provide a reader of a clear and easy way to clean the PCV valve orifice . . without removing the manifold.



Pictures and description of how you cleaned the PCV orifice "without removing the intake manifold" in a post (not pdf doc) are needed. . .
Pictures provided for reference and to where the orifice is located. If a pdf is not good enough, then copy and paste it into the post if you like. This procedure is much easier than removing the intake manifold and high pressure fuel pump. This instruction has been viewed 28 times. It is clear to me, and it seems you are the only one complaining about my contribution. Suggest you create write up your own version and share.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
jayboyles,

The $80 c-f-m oil cap (google it, or look at Chris's post earlier in this thread ) keeps crankcase at about 0.1 psi pressure
And " good things happen"
A) piston blowby will pressurize the crankcase,
This oil cap will reduce the crankcase pressure and thus crankcase vapor gunk from flowing out of engine through cleanside PCV breather hose,
And thus reduces gunk being deposited in air box, (Between air filter and throttle body)
B). If the engine is under a vacuum, then the cfm oil cap allows the engine to stay in a vacuum and allows crankcase gasses to evacuate thru the dirty side PCV orifice
And thus it also allows fresh air to enter the crankcase via the cleanside PCV breather hose
C) it will prevent crankcase rear main seal failure
D) if it improves ring seal, it might reduce oil consumption
Who knows?


DSportmag dot com, in an article titled
Quick Tech: benefits of lowering crankcase pressure, part 1
Says.....
"When pressure in the crankcase can be reduced, taken to zero, good things happen.
Reduced crankcase pressure improves the sealing of the rings in the cylinder.
Increased differential pressure on the piston rings results in improved ring seal.
" Having zero pressure, improves the ring seal during the intake stroke"
https://dsportmag.com/the-tech/quick-tech-the-benefits-of-lowering-crankcase-pressure-part-1/
That ^^ is what the article says .... ^^
 

· Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Well, since I put a air / oil separator unit or "catch can" as some call it in the clean side PCV tubing, I was floored at the amount of water and gunk that got captured in only a few days. I initially put on an old Jegs air / oil separator. It is a small unit. It was full in a matter of a couple of days. I just replaced it with a Conceptual Polymer separator I also had amongst my collection of various parts and components. Considerably more volume. But I am totally sold on a separator in the PCV tubing.

It was a very simple process. I just cut the tubing and inserted the ends into 3/8" fuel line rated hose. I ran the hose connected to the tubing from the valve cover to the "in" side of the separator. The hose connected to the port in the intake plenum, I connected to the "out" of the separator. had the job done in about 15 minutes. When I put on the CP separator tonight, about 4 minutes time to have it all operational.

So, between this, the vented oil cap, etc, the potential for any problems has been greatly reduced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThreeNox

· Registered
Joined
·
5,755 Posts
On the 2.4L engine. . almost anything may help in the problematic 2.4L PCV path as I've been saying.
But nothing is fool proof and also any additions may also increase the problem if not monitored and maintained leading to clogging and freezing in the other areas. Which is exactly what the average non technical owner would likely do.


When we sold our 2015 Equinox w/3/6L V6 I removed the Elite catch can since it may have represented a disaster for the new owner (private sale). Should it become filled or driven in short trips. . . . even a catch can and tubes to it may freeze.

One reason GM likely went with an internal oil separator mounted in the valley of the newer LGX/LGZ 3.6L V6 engines.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Hello Copperhead,

Would you consider conducting an "oil cap" experiment?

You own all 3 oil caps, the cfm , the Oem(came with equinox) and fc219.
And
You have a clean side catchcan...
And you are fast with a wrench on an engine....

The purpose of the experiment would be to see
IF
oil caps reduce the amount of gunk being pushed out cleanside PCV breather hose assembly.

Could you measure the volume of gunk collected in your catch can using each of the three oil caps?

Set up would be...
Document oil cap type, mileage, and start with an empty catch can on cleanside PCV
Then after a certain number of miles driven, measure volume of gunk in catchcan.
Record mileage and volume of gunk, and a description of weather conditions)
Record date and miles of oil change...
Then
Clean catch can ,
Swap oil caps and repeat.
Then
for example
We would calculate volume of crankcase gunk per mile driven caught in cleanside catchcan.

You could do each oil cap, say 3 times , randomized, at say about 250 each time. (Assuming you collect some gunk in 250 miles, if not then 500 miles or 700 miles.....)


Yes, I know temperatures and driving variations will influence volume of gunk....
.... but with enough data points...
And yes, it would be a lot of work on your part ....

Sure would be interesting though.....
To see if the hypothesis that
- vented cap with the lowest cracking pressure (cfm with one way nylon ball vent ) (with say 0.1 psi cracking pressure )resulted in the least gunk being pushed into cleanside catch can.
- The fc219 cap ( with say 2psi cracking pressure) had more gunk then the cfm oil cap
And
- that the "no vented oil cap", the OEM oil cap , resulted in the most crankcase gunk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: garagerog

· Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Well, after a recent 1000 mile road trip, this the amount I got on the 500 mile return leg. Got a similar amount going to my destination but dumped it there and started again. Ran the motor pretty good. Lots of hills in the Ozarks which really ramped up the RPM's several times. Virtually no oil consumption. 4800 miles on the oil and it is just a hair off of full. 47,000 miles on the engine. There is no residue around the AC Delco vented oil cap, so no vapor, or very little, is escaping thru there.

So, Y'all can determine if it does any good at capturing the snot that goes thru the clean side PCV. Or one can decide that it isn't worth it and they would prefer this stuff go into the intake, coat the valves, etc. Day after day, week after week, etc compounding what already goes thru the manifold PCV port. One can only wonder what level of junk goes thru the manifold PCV port given this amount that came thru the "clean side".

Is it any wonder why there are issues with this crap freezing at the intake plenum and choking things up. The GM engineers really came up with a poor design. They need to be taken out and flogged.

Drink up!
 

Attachments

· Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Oh, forgot to mention... no I will not be taking the time to do all that detailed testing. If anyone is that interested, then go for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThreeNox

· Registered
Joined
·
5,755 Posts
With that much collected in a clean side trap in only 1,000 miles . . . .



that tells me the engine has some significant blow-by or was under high load for quite a bit of the time. How many miles on that engine?


Also, was the oil separator installed when the vehicle was brand new or after how many miles?


Lastly, going up and down hills like in the Ozarks (under heavy throttle opening? Driving style to "prove" a point? Speed? Engine RPM? Humid or dry weather conditions?)
All factors that would maximize the amount of water oil emulsion produced.


Agree that the 2.4L Ecotec DI engine had less than an adequate design for the PCV system as well as piston rings, high pressure fuel pump seals, etc. So how much have those other engine design choices affected blow by?
But no way for readers to determine how one example of a 1,000 mile trip in hilly country shows "how much gunk" really would pass through the intake and other parts of the PCV system.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
With that much collected in a clean side trap in only 1,000 miles . . . .



that tells me the engine has some significant blow-by or was under high load for quite a bit of the time. How many miles on that engine?


Also, was the oil separator installed when the vehicle was brand new or after how many miles?


Lastly, going up and down hills like in the Ozarks (under heavy throttle opening? Driving style to "prove" a point? Speed? Engine RPM? Humid or dry weather conditions?)
All factors that would maximize the amount of water oil emulsion produced.


Agree that the 2.4L Ecotec DI engine had less than an adequate design for the PCV system as well as piston rings, high pressure fuel pump seals, etc. So how much have those other engine design choices affected blow by?
But no way for readers to determine how one example of a 1,000 mile trip in hilly country shows "how much gunk" really would pass through the intake and other parts of the PCV system.
I gave the miles on motor, about 47,000, the miles on the oil change, about 4800, and there was no oil consumption.... just a hair off of full, no oil added since oil change. So there is no oil consumption that would indicate a problem. And the amount collected was not for 1000 miles, but for the second leg of that 1000 miles... 500 miles. the first leg captured the same volume of junk. Average winter temps, no rain, typical midwest humidity for the winter. Above freezing temps for the trip.

Could be that it is a very efficient air / oil separator unit.

Highway 65 between Springfield, MO and Arkansas, when running at 65 mph with the traffic, to keep the pace the tranny would drop a couple of gears on those climbs and rack 4000 RPM to keep the pace. Get on the back roads and it can be worse. The Ozarks will give any motor a good workout, and one does not have to be proving anything. The Rockies do not have an exclusive on grades. Some of the grades in the Ozarks can easily be up to 15%+. I will commonly use manual mode to control the shift points a little better so it doesn't try to redline the motor like it seems to want to on cruise in the hills.

I just put the air / oil separator on a few weeks ago. Even around home it collected a lot of stuff. Not nearly as much as the road trip. Prior to doing this, I would do a complete CRC Intake and Valve cleaner job on the motor at every oil change to mitigate buildup on valves and such. Will continue that regimen.

Now that it is only going to be used around home, I will post a pick of what it collects in the next week or so.

I will concede that there is a possibility that the higher level of water emulsion that the separator caught could be from using higher levels of ethanol fuel. I have been using a E30 blend for a while now. Gives me about 93 octane like premium for the little 2.4L 11.2:1 compression ratio and costs less than regular fuel. The Nox runs real good on the stuff.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
260 Posts
With that much collected in a clean side trap in only 1,000 miles . . . .



that tells me the engine has some significant blow-by or was under high load for quite a bit of the time. How many miles on that engine?


Also, was the oil separator installed when the vehicle was brand new or after how many miles?


Lastly, going up and down hills like in the Ozarks (under heavy throttle opening? Driving style to "prove" a point? Speed? Engine RPM? Humid or dry weather conditions?)
All factors that would maximize the amount of water oil emulsion produced.


Agree that the 2.4L Ecotec DI engine had less than an adequate design for the PCV system as well as piston rings, high pressure fuel pump seals, etc. So how much have those other engine design choices affected blow by?
But no way for readers to determine how one example of a 1,000 mile trip in hilly country shows "how much gunk" really would pass through the intake and other parts of the PCV system.
I collected the same amount of emulsified oil in the same air/oil separator with only 250 miles trip odometer. I was driving in moderate rain/sleet in near freezing conditions. I posted picture of it over a year ago. Other members have experienced the same driving in freezing conditions in similar high humidity environments, especially on the highway.

I have collected the same amount before and after the piston/ring replacement. My compression and leakdown were still factory specs, so blow-by is not the issue. I have found vacuum levels are at low levels in the intake, and also near atmosphere or slight pressure in the crankcase at moderate/high loads on the highway in Over Drive. With the throttle body open, it is naturally drawing more from the crankcase, as it was design to do. The small orifice was designed to provide ventilation when the throttle is closed, contributes a small amount as the throttle is opened slightly more and at highway speeds the orifice contributes very little. Same concept as PCV valve, which transitions from idle to cruise flow rates.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
260 Posts
Hello Copperhead,

Would you consider conducting an "oil cap" experiment?

You own all 3 oil caps, the cfm , the Oem(came with equinox) and fc219.
And
You have a clean side catchcan...
And you are fast with a wrench on an engine....

The purpose of the experiment would be to see
IF
oil caps reduce the amount of gunk being pushed out cleanside PCV breather hose assembly.

Could you measure the volume of gunk collected in your catch can using each of the three oil caps?

Set up would be...
Document oil cap type, mileage, and start with an empty catch can on cleanside PCV
Then after a certain number of miles driven, measure volume of gunk in catchcan.
Record mileage and volume of gunk, and a description of weather conditions)
Record date and miles of oil change...
Then
Clean catch can ,
Swap oil caps and repeat.
Then
for example
We would calculate volume of crankcase gunk per mile driven caught in cleanside catchcan.

You could do each oil cap, say 3 times , randomized, at say about 250 each time. (Assuming you collect some gunk in 250 miles, if not then 500 miles or 700 miles.....)


Yes, I know temperatures and driving variations will influence volume of gunk....
.... but with enough data points...
And yes, it would be a lot of work on your part ....

Sure would be interesting though.....
To see if the hypothesis that
- vented cap with the lowest cracking pressure (cfm with one way nylon ball vent ) (with say 0.1 psi cracking pressure )resulted in the least gunk being pushed into cleanside catch can.
- The fc219 cap ( with say 2psi cracking pressure) had more gunk then the cfm oil cap
And
- that the "no vented oil cap", the OEM oil cap , resulted in the most crankcase gunk.
Hey ThreeNox, you have three Nox's, you have a few of those expensive CatchCans and you have two of the three fill caps. Why can't you layout $15 bucks and buy the FC219 and do your own testing. You seem to be the unofficial spokeman for CFM Performance.

During your testing, get a $35 manometer and measure crankcase pressures using each of the caps, and how often each cap vents to atmosphere.

Why are you asking for experiments to prove your fill cap is worth the $80. CFM has done no testing of this cap in freezing weather or on this engine with fixed orifice PCV design. Suggest you learn how an orifice PCV system works. If the fresh air separator that GM designed is not collecting the "gunk", where do you think it is going. It is staying in the engine, exactly where you don't want it. Combustion by-products, water, fuel dilution which GDI engines are a problem, will combine and create damaging acids if not adequately removed by the PCV system.

I do fault GM for ignoring the build-up of these by-products and failing to advise customer to check and clean as part of routine maintenance.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
260 Posts
jayboyles,

The $80 c-f-m oil cap (google it, or look at Chris's post earlier in this thread ) keeps crankcase at about 0.1 psi pressure
And " good things happen"
A) piston blowby will pressurize the crankcase,
This oil cap will reduce the crankcase pressure and thus crankcase vapor gunk from flowing out of engine through cleanside PCV breather hose,
And thus reduces gunk being deposited in air box, (Between air filter and throttle body)
B). If the engine is under a vacuum, then the cfm oil cap allows the engine to stay in a vacuum and allows crankcase gasses to evacuate thru the dirty side PCV orifice
And thus it also allows fresh air to enter the crankcase via the cleanside PCV breather hose
C) it will prevent crankcase rear main seal failure
D) if it improves ring seal, it might reduce oil consumption
Who knows?


DSportmag dot com, in an article titled
Quick Tech: benefits of lowering crankcase pressure, part 1
Says.....
"When pressure in the crankcase can be reduced, taken to zero, good things happen.
Reduced crankcase pressure improves the sealing of the rings in the cylinder.
Increased differential pressure on the piston rings results in improved ring seal.
" Having zero pressure, improves the ring seal during the intake stroke"
https://dsportmag.com/the-tech/quick-tech-the-benefits-of-lowering-crankcase-pressure-part-1/
That ^^ is what the article says .... ^^
ThreeNox, you are desperate to promote this overpriced vented oil cap you resort to mis-qouting and mis-applying the information from the article. You have claimed it improves combustion cylinder sealing in other posts but provide no evidence.

This article is referring to boosted, high performance engines that often see from 3-6 psi in the crankcase. These stock, 4 cylinder engines in the Nox/Terrain, when functioning normally has 0-.5 psi at the most and most often already has negative pressure (vacuum) in the crankcase under all other conditions. Ironically that is the amount which the article itself says will benefit by maximizing the pressure differential across the rings. If you want to spend $1500 to install crank driven vacuum pump to get a few percent better performance on this stock engine, knock yourself out.

You really should read the entire article and stop misleading members of this forum.

By the way, CFM Performance has already stated in writing that their vented cap will not prevent rear main seal failures and "that is not it was designed for!"
 
61 - 80 of 87 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top