Fellas, has anyone used diesel manor's ccv mod kit? I am looken for an all in one kit for this. I am sold on this mod. However my truck does have 127k miles and not real sure if its worth it. Should I go ahead and doit or wait until I need to pull turbo and or manifold and have things cleaned then? Any input is appreciated and thanks for the help as usual.

 

I would do it now. I used a 10 foot piece of 1 inch hose and vented it to atmosphere.

 

I'd go for it...doing this mod prevents future gunk build-up in your cac tubes and turbo mainly...so if you can or want, pull them and clean or replace them...you should find a nice sticky mess in them. The CCV mod is a definate plus. Heard (but not verified) that the 2011 MY has some form of CCV filtration as stock now.

 

Yep..sits toward the rear of the motor on the driver's side

 

Thanks Steve...see they're listening and finally getting this one sorted...now if they could just add the coolant bypass...

 

I am still not clear as to why the coolant bypass is required when millions of engines (both diesel and gas) do without one fine.

Is there a particular issue with improper cleaning?

Or is it the extreme stresses of the heat-cool cycles we put them to?

Or something else?

 

Well, as you know...all casted engine blocks are inherently going to lift casting sands and coolant fall-out in the form of crystalized silca...which as we know (whether gas or diesel), will cause erosion throughout the cooloing system (water pumps, etc..) especially cavitation erosion in diesels. See this article from Diersel Tech Society.. http://www.forddoctorsdts.com/articl...e-09-02.php...

While this phenomenon is not unique to the diesel..of course gassers have it happen as well. IH went as far as recalling motors to specifically include one...due to the cavitation erosion issues they were having. Sure both diesels and gasoline engines run for hundreds of thousands of miles...but its clearly a beneficial additon and added protection to any engine using a water cooling system.

 

Casting sand has nothing to do with cavitation erosion.

Cavitation erosion (at least in diesels) is caused by the cylinder liners "snapping back" after being expanded by combustion pressures.

In Powerstroke engines, casting sand's major offense is clogging the oil cooler. The oil cooler is located IN SERIES with, and in front of, the EGR cooler. When the oil cooler clogs, the EGR cooler fails because it overheats from coolant starvation. Note that the oil cooler is actually the "faulty part"; the passages in it are SO small that it's almost impossible to NOT clog the cooler. If International had specified a slightly lower cooler efficiency, they may not have had so much of a problem with it.

Nowadays, the common service procedure is to replace the oil cooler when the EGR cooler is serviced or replaced (since the oil cooler is the actual failure point).

-blaine

 

Moly and Franken:

Not going to hijack this thread --- but the issue of casting sand I view as a QC issue.

The issue of cavitation, on the other hand, speaks to fundamental design failure.

A properly designed block / water system under reasonably forseeable power / usage (that include the abuse expected from tuners, etc.) should not have severe cavitation damage.

What it all comes back to is, the design of the system may have been too tightly (or optimistically) speced.

Yes, not putting 2 coolers in series would be brilliant.

The amazing thing is when Ford had a "clean" sheet with the 6.7, the substantially kept the same layout.

 

2 Questions!

1. Do you know that for fact?
2. If so, do you know that the spec. on the oil coolers were not changed to circumvent a repeat of the previous problems.

I find it difficult to believe that the 6.7 will in fact have the same cooling system problems.

 

Hardly the same layout. For one thing, the EGR coolant system is separate from the engine cooling system...it's even got it's own water pump.

Externally mounted oil cooler



EGR coolers mounted over p/s valve cover

 

Thanks for the pics Steve!

And thanks for the comments 69cj

I am aware that the oil cooler went external... should have specified that my comment referred to the EGR cooler.

My understanding is the EGR cooler remained a liquid (engine coolant) cooled device, but with the EGR valve moved to after the cooler to expose it to lower temperatures.


I don't like the concept of coolant used to cool EGR gases one bit --- it is just too much risks.

I would have gone for an air to air cooler for the EGR instead. There is an established technology to do that out of cast iron. It would be heavier and kludgier, but it would be far more reliable.

Now, if they needed EGR to be heated by warm coolant initially, my idea would not work.


Steve --- using a coolant cooled oil cooler is not a bad thing, because oil temps have to be kept in a narrow range (not too cold).

There, I see the justification for the oil cooler externally but cooled by coolant.


The question is, why not integrate it into the rad like the existing transmission coolers?

Mind you, with an external oil cooler, it is much easier to upgrade... resize...

 

I have designed a few heat exchangers in my career. A liquid cooled EGR cooler is perfectly capable of reliability. In fact, I would have to say that the 6.0L OEM EGR coolers are quite reliable when they get propper coolant at the proper flow.

 

I don't have a problem with that now since the oil/egr coolers are no longer in series. The main culprit was not the egr cooler! It was the oil cooler compromising the egr cooler.

 

Completely agree --- when properly designed and operating.








My beef:

Lets look at it from the perspective of failure mode effects analysis.

An air cooled heat exchanger ... fails from innards being plugged with crud, corrosion (piercing cooler), cracks (mechanical / thermal stress), etc.

When it fails --- there is a "so what" to it.

EGR does not flow (if plugged).

If it is cracked / holed, it makes a big noise.


Now, lets look at the FMEA for a engine coolant cooled cooler:

The risk is far greater --- exhaust in coolant, leaking coolant into engine....

I know the liquid cooler is far more compact, etc...


But you see where I am coming from.


I worry about FMEA, not when it works properly.

What we have with the air-liquid cooler is a much harder failure mode than an air-air cooler.

I like soft failure effects.