The reason for choosing to go VTA on the drivers side cover, was not to increase power, but rather to eliminate the possibility of any oil vapors going into the engine during boost, were it would lower my detonation threshold which would create a loss in power or ability to create more power.

The Moroso set up is one step over what I have, and the electric setup is another, although I was referring to a homemade setup, I was going to make some like this guys setup:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1450082 - Post 17

This would be cost effective, and probably fit in the battery compartment.


So what is your opinion on the people claiming the Moroso style systems to only be effective during idle/low rpm? Is this just speculation? I couldn't find any actually testing on the system to see how it efficient it is throughout the entire rpm band.

-George

 

Yes it is the exhaust suction system, basically we are trying to eliminate the possibility of any oil vapors re-entering the engine, which is why people do the Moroso system, to still get the suction the intake would provide without going back into the engine.

You would be surprised how much of a difference having oil vapors/oil go into your engine can affect detonation.

 

funny you dug that up....it's a modified s-10 pump like i previously mentioned.i wasn't critiqueing your vta,i was generalizing.people who dont like moroso style also don't like anything that's not polished billet(if you know what i mean).they work and work well,sometimes it depends on who does the work.if you look at your breather ports on the v/c they can be easily modified to run under the intake and down to the exhaust.personally i would choose the path of least resistance and employ moroso style.if you later found yourself wanting you could plumb a s-10 style inline and have both.(maybe have it power up only during wot)now that would be trick.

 

What about venting both to atmosphere? I know no suction would be on the system like this, but would it be that bad?

Also, concerning the exhaust crankcase evacuation, with a dual 3" exhaust system with straight through muffler would their be much backpressure?

 

I race my car on road courses. Dumping oil on the track would nto be a smart thing to do.

 

Its not going to dump anything you would ever notice. Think about how little the catch can gets.

Here is a good link on hondatech I found about diff evac systems.
http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1199935

Very interesting that he talks about welding the slashcut tube on the wastegate dump pipe (if its atmosphere).

 

Its oil vapors that will be coming out of the tube, not anything that would be noticeable maybe a few drops if that.

go-fast, I was going to have the pump activate based of a boost switch, so it would only activate under boost.

My only draw back to the Moroso system, as I said, is that it seems some people beleive it does not work under higher rpm/load. Although I have seen no evidence either way.

I would much Rather do a Moroso style set up if it does work all the time, it so much cheaper, cleaner, and easier to install. I know they have a check valve in line to avoid pressurizing the covers, but wouldn't that mean that at some point they aren't doing anything? Actually it this scenario they would be worst than a VTA setup.

What do you think?

-George

 

I know that we have been using a Moroso one-way exhaust suction valve on our Porsche 928 race car for 3 years now. We get oil in our catch tank so it is working but I can't say if there is an rpm that is stops being effective.

 

I have enough oil comming out to reach my throttle body in 40 minutes of track time.

 

More then likely the oil would burn up before it ever left. Its not going to be like pouring oil on the track. Many racecars use the method.

 

Then you have bigger problems, probably is going to be the turbo seals. Sorry Jet

 

Exactly, so if he has some much oil coming out that it would be a problem, there is something else going on.

 

Flow through a pipe can create vacuum regardless of pressure if implemented correctly (in regards to the Moroso setup). JET may have lots of oil right now, but it could be from increased crankcase pressure affecting turbo oil return, which a breather (with a catch can if necessary) may fix. It's a quick fix. I'd do that, change the PCV valve, put a one way check valve in between the PCV and plenum and hope for the best. It might just work.

 

[QUOTE=George@GTM;6395183]Its oil vapors that will be coming out of the tube, not anything that would be noticeable maybe a few drops if that.

go-fast, I was going to have the pump activate based of a boost switch, so it would only activate under boost.

My only draw back to the Moroso system, as I said, is that it seems some people beleive it does not work under higher rpm/load. Although I have seen no evidence either way.

I would much Rather do a Moroso style set up if it does work all the time, it so much cheaper, cleaner, and easier to install. I know they have a check valve in line to avoid pressurizing the covers, but wouldn't that mean that at some point they aren't doing anything? Actually it this scenario they would be worst than a VTA setup.

What do you think?[quote]
if you only operate under boost you would need to retain the stock system and have to employ some type of switching valve(similiar to what toyota uses on their egr system)for for it to operate properly. my opinion on moroso is that it functions well into the rpm range on n/a and even better on boosted apps.the one way valve is a reed type setup and responds well to the increased crankcase pressure of boost.in n/a you are almost completely dependent on the pitot tube creating a strong venturi signal,but boosted apps excessive crankcase pressure helps this process and actually pushes itself out,you are just giving it somewhere to go(hence power).by design moroso style can never be worse than vta,with the exception of installer error.