I would like to upgrade my oil-vapor separation through the older style oil-cap-separator assembly on the back passenger side valve-cover.


U-shaped PCV Hose, with enlarged end for heated spacer.


I see parts from the Bronco, and Thunderbird are available. These were intended for the '65-'71 302-390. RockAut* has them in stock. Prices are low.

P/Ns: U-shaped PCV hose ( C5AZ-6A664-C ) with oil-separator-cap ( C8AZ-6766-A, 10789, Stant 10071 unpainted and bare ).

Not sure which grommet would hold the PCV valve? The plastic or metal elbow is not needed. This U-shaped PCV hose goes straight up for a couple of inches, does a U-turn down, then goes to the back of the water-heated spacer. At the large PCV vacuum connection, the hose is enlarged.

Reasons:
(1) I am running thin oil, 5w-30 with a higher-volume oil pump.
(2) I run up-hill for very long, sustained periods (climbing the Rockies).
(3) Half the year, it is cold here, so external catch-can systems are less effective.
(4) Simplicity
(5) Original bore, pistons, and 130,000+ miles results in some blow-by.
(6) Tend to run lean, and don't want reduced octane from oil mist.

Comments and P/N options are welcome. A best source for snug fitting parts would be appreciated. Parts may be aftermarket or original, if suitable. I care more about fit and function.

What say you, tribe of the Kingdom?

 

What year is this? Your 'about me' profile says 1972 F250. If that's what it is:

These part numbers are wrong. Pic: The PCV routing is wrong.

1968/76 FE engines: Smog valve fits into grommet on right valve cover, PCV hose routes from valve to nipple on carb or carb spacer.

Oil cap located on left valve cover, rubber grommet fits into oil cap, plastic elbow fits into grommet, PCV hose routes from plastic elbow to nipple on side of air cleaner.

 

Bill got to you first. Yeah, the picture is all wrong. the PCV should plug straight into the valve cover back there. The Oil cap is suppose to be on the DS valve cover near the front of the engine.

 

Bill, Gary,

Yes, I'm changing away from the original setup, for the six reasons listed. And, for the same reasons the engineers set up the other system shown. Can someone verify the new P/N plan?

Please notice that I am usually running 5w oil, not 30w, and more of it. I've confirmed too-much oil vapor out the back at times. Blow-by is annoying at this point, but not excessive. I sometimes run in 'Acceleration' mode for 10-15 minutes at a time, unlike the street-performance 15 seconds. This is like towing a heavy trailer. I already use a windage tray, and have 0.040 restrictors to the cam towers.

 

Through Ford I can not. Ford does not reference a picture to a part number. The pictures they give us are strictly to give us the basic number. I can tell you that DC at www.dennis-carpenter.com does sell that tall oil cap under part number C8AZ6766A. They sell the PCV to cap grommet under part number C8SZ6A892A. Which is Ford's original part number on it. Ford still carries this grommet under current part number E7AZ6A892A. Available at your local Ford Dealer.

 

Carpenter, for many of his parts, lists the original part number, not the FoMoCo replaced part number (if applicable).

For example, I seem to recall that E3AZ-6766-A oil cap replaced C8AZ-6766-A

Another is the gas tank sending unit float: Carpenter lists 78-9202. Ford replaced this 1937 part number in 1957 with B7A-9202-A, replaced it again in 1960 with C0AZ-9202-A and...

Then again in the late 1980's when they changed the package quantity of a gazillion parts to C0AZ-9202-B

When the IDIOTS changed the package quantity, they also changed the part numbers suffixes, rendering all the previous part numbers obsolete!

 

72-3/4ton, look up on the inter web 390/galaxie PCV hose. It's out there, I just recently bought one. Your pictures are correct, as that IS the original set up, but your part #'s are wrong I guess.

 

A while ago, someone posted a pic of an ad showing a reproduced PCV hose, claiming it fit 1967/72. Ad said it was perfect for your concours restoration.

Uh huh...

The hose had a 1967 ID engineering number and Motorcraft stenciled on it.

1967 used a different hose than 1968/72 and there was no such thing as Motorcraft until 1973!

 

I didn't realize he was building a concourse resto. I figured he was going for functionality.
I must have missed the purist rebuilt part on his post.

 

The point I was making is, that the hose had an 1967 ID number and Motorcraft stenciled on it and the ad said it was perfect for a concours restoration.

So, in reality the hose is correct for 1968/72 .. but no one doing a concours restoration on 1961/72 vehicles that knows their stuff, would install a PCV hose marked Motorcraft!

 

I savy now. I stenciled FoMoCo on mine....

 

The other part of this mod is the oil-cap-separator. Please engage your engineering brain for this.

A little more background:
I am over-thinking this, but thinking is cheaper than buying parts that don't work out!
Also, I'm thinking that 0w-20 oil spec's are going to be beefed-up, and available for a normal price. But that is a guess, and off in the future.

I once had the flat-cap style, with only 1/2" of volume on the valve-cover. It allowed far too much oil vapor out. (This was right after the rebuild, when blow-by was excessive.) So that is an unlikely solution with the new setup.

The ~3", tall, black-painted type worked much better. I'm going to keep it on the intake side of the PCV loop. Running two might be a good idea with my 5w-30 oil.



Tall caps like the black one up above are $50? Anything with pony-car affiliation is extra. Maybe there is an inexpensive, quality reproduction? It would require the mid-volume baffle or plate in it. Only unpainted, or black is OK in my particular application. Chime in if you know.

Here's a cheap option, R*ckAuto for 5$ on sale:



This isn't perfect. It is not painted. I noticed that this does not have a mid-path separator plate with holes in it. Some designs do have that, and it would make sense that circulating the oil-and-junk-vapor near the outside of the 'bell' would be useful. I can see it does have oil-resistant open-cell foam inside. But, there is nothing to divert the flow through the entire foam volume. The path is through the small vents under the cap through 3/4" of foam, and into the PCV. The path wouldn't go through the rest of the volume until the foam fills with condensed oil, and wicks sideways.

My first thought is that the oil would get sucked up into the PCV valve. The foam leads right to the PCV opening, and may wick the oil in the wrong direction, up. The design may need a separator plate, with holes out around the edge. There isn't a lot of room in there, as it is shorter than the tall black cap.

I bent a big washer into a 'C' shape, and put it under the PCV Valve, just to encourage flow from the outer part of the foam, and break the wicking action. That might help a bit.

Questions: Does it need a more complicated internal pathway to be effective? Or, is the cooling and wicking effect enough? Is this too-cheap of a solution?

(NumberDummy, yes you are right as usual for the Original setup. Remember the modest blow-by, long climbs, thin oil, cold and hot temp climate, and high-volume oil pump factors.)

 

Seems to me that you'd be better off getting a cap that has nothing inside it. Then adding some metal filler like a kitchen pot scrubbing mesh. Like what the old vented oil caps had in them. I think there would be good air flow. The oil vapors would accumulate on the metal mesh and drip back down in to the valve cover.

 

Solution: Mid-height Stant 10071 fits fine, and it comes with the correct grommet, and works with the original hose. The U-shaped hose is not really necessary.
I may get one soon, just to make it work a little bit better.

Poking into the high-cap style, I think I feel a separator plate about 2/3 of the way up.
Can't tell what is in there, exactly. The metal mesh is very coarse in the one I have.

 

Moderator, NumberDummy and GaryKip, please remove your posts #2, #3, or edit to recognize this is a mod from the original.
Thanks!