When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I bought a Parker 4500 filter that I thought I was going to mount to the outside of the frame rail behind the front drivers side wheel well. Seemed like a no-brainer based on comments I read here. Now that I have the filter in-hand and I've had a closer look, there's a lot going on in that location, namely the e-brake cable and HFCM mounting bolts.
So how have you contended with those problems, or have you mounted the filter in an alternate location?
Talk about low hanging fruit. I guess I could mount it below the brake cable. Mine's only a 4500 after all.
I was planning on 1" tubing because that's the size of the stock fittings at the valve cover and intake. Moving it farther away with the 4500, which flows less, would seem to indicate a need for even bigger tubing, no?
The pressure loss calculation shows about 3 inches of water "back pressure" at 15 CFM vent flow through a 1" diameter hose of 15 feet in length.
The max spec for crankcase pressure on our engines is 8 inches of water.
One very important factor is to not have low spots in the hose routing that could retain a level of oil and reduce/restrict flow. Also, with the proper hose choice, I believe that you should have a bit less pressure drop than in a duct pressure loss model.
All the research I did years ago on maximum crankcase "air" flow, it seemed that the max flow would be between 10 and 15 CFM. A lot depends on the engine and how tight it is, as well as the power output.
I definitely would not run the high density filter element, and would drain the oil from it regularly.
I watched Mishimoto struggle with all this (for a long time) when they were designing their ccv filter ...... and they still made it too small. I lost a bunch of respect for them then.
Hi guys- So for my own knowledge, it looks like you route the CCV tube to the filter then back to the intake. Why not just negate the tube that goes back to the intake and let the filter vent to atmosphere? Is there any benefit to routing the oil free air back to the intake, or is it more an emissions thing? If you didn’t have to vent the filter back to the intake, would you?
The pressure loss calculation shows about 3 inches of water "back pressure" at 15 CFM vent flow through a 1" diameter hose of 15 feet in length.
The max spec for crankcase pressure on our engines is 8 inches of water.
One very important factor is to not have low spots in the hose routing that could retain a level of oil and reduce/restrict flow. Also, with the proper hose choice, I believe that you should have a bit less pressure drop than in a duct pressure loss model.
If you put the max flow rate of the 4500 (10 cfm) into the calculator with the the same 1" duct diameter and 15' length, it gives you 1.3 inH2O. Seems counterintuitive for a smaller filter to have less back pressure.
Originally Posted by bismic
All the research I did years ago on maximum crankcase "air" flow, it seemed that the max flow would be between 10 and 15 CFM. A lot depends on the engine and how tight it is, as well as the power output.
I figured I'd be ok with the 4500 since it's rated for a max 400hp, and the only power adder I have is the Atlas 40. Now I'm thinking maybe I should have gone bigger.
Hi guys- So for my own knowledge, it looks like you route the CCV tube to the filter then back to the intake. Why not just negate the tube that goes back to the intake and let the filter vent to atmosphere? Is there any benefit to routing the oil free air back to the intake, or is it more an emissions thing? If you didn’t have to vent the filter back to the intake, would you?
I've been venting to atmosphere for a couple of years with a 1" hose that is 10-12' long. I am really sick of smelling the fumes when the wind blows in the right direction, and lately, the hose has been blowing off the valve cover despite blowing compressed air through it to clear any blockages. So I think having it attached to the intake (with it's associated vacuum) will help reduce crankcase pressure that's blowing off the hose. I am also hoping it will reduce or eliminate the oil leaks I have at the valve covers, glow plugs, and rear main seal.
I also recall a discussion where a possible benefit to a closed system was better sealing around the piston rings. I'm sure Mark can expand on that.
If you put the max flow rate of the 4500 (10 cfm) into the calculator with the the same 1" duct diameter and 15' length, it gives you 1.3 inH2O. Seems counterintuitive for a smaller filter to have less back pressure.
That calculator is essentially just calculating the pressure loss (frictional loss) from flow through the hose. Lower flow rate, lower pressure loss...therefore less back-pressure needed to push that volume of air/gas out.
Although I sort of remember discussions on ring sealing, I really didn't pay much attention to them.
Hi guys- So for my own knowledge, it looks like you route the CCV tube to the filter then back to the intake. Why not just negate the tube that goes back to the intake and let the filter vent to atmosphere? Is there any benefit to routing the oil free air back to the intake, or is it more an emissions thing? If you didn’t have to vent the filter back to the intake, would you?
I took some readings on the vacuum after the air filter. Can't find that data though (and of course the amount of vacuum will depend on how restricted the air filter is). Anyway, there is a slight vacuum in the intake tube (pre-turbo) and IIRC it was more than the "pressure loss" through the hose (from the filter to the intake). So from what I saw, returning it to the intake tube provided a very, very small benefit in lowering crankcase pressure. In actuality, I didn't want the smell either.
I know when mine pops off the valve cover not only because I can smell it, but in the right light I can see the fumes rising out at the front of the hood.
Here's my work around for the transmission support and e-brake cable. A hunk of aluminum (1.5 x 3 x 12), two pre-existing frame holes, and a bunch of passes on the table saw:
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalytic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.
