Crankcase Vent Valve - D-Jet Vacuum Leak

VW based Porsche. In a league of its own.
pbanders
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 12:01 am

Re: Crankcase Vent Valve - D-Jet Vacuum Leak

Post by pbanders »

vwduud wrote:The last "bug" I am chasing, is an inconsistent idle. It can be as high as 1200 RPM's, and drop to where I have it set, at approximately 750 - 800 RPM's. I initially suspected the Aux Air Valve. After pulling it off, inspecting, and testing it, it is doing it's job just fine. Heats up quickly, and completely blocks air flow within a few minutes. I then suspected the crankcase vent valve, and it's 90 degree elbows and hose, as it makes it's way to the airbox. Sure enough, if I pull the hose from the elbow, at the vent valve, on the breather, and put my finger over the hose, the idle drops to normal (from 1100 - 1200 RPM). This indicated either a leaky 90 degree elbow, (loose fit, and old), or the valve within the breather. Can someone give me some insight toward how this valve is suppose to behave? When rebuilding the engine, I completely cleaned the breather, and this spring loaded valve. Should this valve be completely closed at idle? Does the type 4 need this much suction to overcome crankcase pressure? Again, this may simply be a hose/fitting issue, but I would like to understand more about this, as it could present a sizeable vacuum leak to the air box. Oh, and the oil filler cap does have it's original rubber seal. It is complete, and seems to completely seal the oil filler.
OK, there's a lot of information you give here, so here goes...

First, let's talk about how one sets the idle speed in the first place. The first thing you have to make certain of is that you do not have any hidden problems that will cause idle issues. Your motor must have good, consistent compression and the valves must be properly adjusted. The ignition system must be in perfect condition and set to proper specs. Your fuel system needs to be in good order, with sufficient fuel delivery (no clogged filter) and at exactly the spec pressure of 29.4 psig. Lastly, the FI system must be all of the correct p/n for your car (see my table at my web page for the p/n's by year) and must be properly installed and adjusted. All hoses must be in good condition, plumbed correctly (see Dave Darling's diagram at the Pelican Parts site) and your injector seals must be in good condition and not leak. Injectors must be clean and in good condition with good spray patterns and matched delivery.

Once you've assured all is in good order, the next step is to set the idle mixture to the proper CO level. For 73-74' 914 2.0L's, this means to set it to 3.0%. Other years have different CO specifications, but 3.0% is a good starting point for all cars. To set the CO correctly, you must either own or have access to a shop-quality HC/CO meter - nothing else will do. Set the CO using the idle mixture adjustment knob on the ECU. This must be done after the car is fully warmed up after 30 minutes or more of driving on the street.

Once the CO is set, the idle is then set to 950 rpm using the air bleed screw on the throttle body. That's it. When it's all working right, you get a stable idle.

In your case, from what I can read, you get a high idle at some point when driving, apparently after a "long" period of driving. Pulling the rubber elbow from the PCV and blocking the port on the elbow drops your idle - that's normal. The PCV valve permits some bypass at idle, therefore when you block it, you reduce the air bleed and you get a lower idle. The PCV valve is designed for very specific flow characteristics so that the flow is low (but not zero) at idle and high at high engine speeds when blowby is greatest.

Just for kicks, I tested mine earlier today. If I set the idle to 1300 rpm, pulling the rubber elbow off of the PCV valve and capping it with my thumb drops the idle to 1000 rpm - normal operation. My idle is normally 1000 rpm, I had to open the air bleed screw first to get it up to 1300 rpm (which I'm guessing is about where yours is when it's "high").

Here are a couple of good web articles on what a PCV valve does and how it's supposed to work:

http://www.hastingsfilter.com/engineeri ... 94-2r.html
http://www.napaechlin.com/cpc7c.htm
http://pergatory.mit.edu/2.75/projects/ ... ummary.pdf
(the last one has some great diagrams of PCV valve design and operation)

You will note that they say that an improperly operating PCV valve will cause idle problems - absolutely true. But when operating properly, you will have good idle stability and characteristics. Checking the PCV is very simple - remove it, clean it, and verify that it opens under positive crankcase pressure (blow through it), and that it closes (blow on the other side). That's it. If it doesn't seal correctly, make certain that there are no deposits or debris on the valve seat that prevent it from closing.

One thing that's not very obvious when playing with the PCV valve is that it actually works in BOTH directions - that is, when there is a high vacuum on it, it's sucked up against the limit stop. You can't generate this much vacuum by sucking, only a constant vacuum source (like your motor) can generate enough vacuum for this condition. When near the limit stop, only a small amount of bypass is permitted. That's why it doesn't look like a big vacuum leak to the motor when at idle conditions. Maximum bypass occurs when there is low manifold vacuum and high crankcase pressure - at high engine speeds under significant load. Note also that during starting, it doesn't act like an air leak, either. That's because during cranking, the engine does not generate sufficient vacuum to open the valve. See the pictures in the third reference above for examples of the behaviors I describe here.

The D-Jet PCV valve is crude in comparison to modern valves with regard to the precision of metering. Perhaps it would make sense to replace it with a modern PCV valve, but it really does work as it should when it's clean and in good condition.

I think the issue here is that your idle is too high to start with - or that you have some other underlying problem - follow the procedure above for setting the idle speed properly to begin with.

Brad Anders
http://members.rennlist.com/pbanders/djetparts.htm
User avatar
raygreenwood
Posts: 11907
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:01 am

Post by raygreenwood »

Brad, The 2.0 plenum is a much better set up for the PCV. As I noted, most of the issue is the juxtaposition of the tube from the PCV to the tube for the MPS. It also matter just how sensitively your MPS is set up. If everything is bone stock and at factory adjustment (which is usually a little rich) it may not matter. It definately messes with the MPS though. It took me years to track that one down. The higher the state of tune of a 1.7 or 1.8 ..the more the PCV affects the MPS. Also if you raise the compression from stock, generally you get just a hair more bypass/blowby into the crankcase. this causes a lot more frequent opening of the PCV valve and a more noticable disturbance to the MpS.

Your findings on the TPS I concurr with 100%. But that is not the problem I was referring to. The proper adjusting point for the TPS will leave the lead wiper contact about .001-.003" from contact on the leading "leg" of the printed circuit contact on the wiper strip. When you adjust the TPS with the throttle closed, the "floating" bi-pole "whisker contacts are loaded towards the rear. This makes contact with the shut-off terminal for the FI..depending on the model of TPS. It could be terminal 17, 12/47 or both. You will notice....that when the valve is closed...and the shut-off terminal is contacted by the whisker contact....that the effective gap on the forward whisker contact (which controls the enrichment pulses) ...ranges between .045-.060". Thats a lot. In a new TPS...there is approx. 2-3 degrees of built in radial play at the throttle shaft bushing to allow these whisker switches to operate (hence the reason the plate is graduated in 2 degree encrements). These whisker switches are about 20mm from the shaft center. This equates to more than the 2-3 degree of movement and space allowed. It means slop. That means that when you are "cruising" at constant rpm, wether low or high....with the throttle just cracked open...the whisker switches float. In a TPS with a gap on the low side (.045" range)...this will not be a problem until high wear and miles cause more slop in the throttle shaft bushing of the TPS switch. In a gap toward the higher side on the whisker switches...say .050-.060...its ugly the day it comes out of the box. About 50% of all new switches are this way. It causes...during the cracked throttle position I described above...the lead enrichment contact to intermittantly contact the enrichment and the shut-off pin. This causes ugly bucking. No volume of adjustment can fix this. But....making the contact pin larger diameter...by slipping a thin conductive sleeve over it...effectively closes the gap. It makes the TPS more sensitive to minor throttle movements in the forward or enrichment direction of travel.
At this point, disconnecting the lead to the shut-off pin allows you to close the gap on the enrichment pin to about .015". This gets rid of all of the bucking from the TPS. It also gives very good throttle response.
Many times, just disconnecting the lead to the shut-off terminal can cure a lot of problems. If you are at moderate rpms...trying to maintain cruising speed and slack in th TPS allows contact with the shut-off pin...but it doesn't shut off....you get no bucking from the interuption of fuel. Thats a good thing! If your decel valve is working, it results in very little overy rich exhaust mixture on overrun.

Yes, I agree, one of the problems with the TPS enrichment signal is that it too is untimed...and many times not totally necessary to the fuel mixture at any given second. But it is happening while the throttle is opening...so there is a least some demand. The PCV valve pops open many times when there is no demand for any enrichment. I can tune almost any basic type 4 to the point where it will become a problem. It does not take much to cause this malfunction.

Your point about ignition is really 100% dead on.There is so much slop in the distributors. Even more when they are worn. If you see your timing mark jumping and floating while you are at idle. Fix that problem first.

The L-jet style constant flow oil breather vent fixes the PCV problem, but has to cleaned on a very regular basis. It gets grungy.
The point I was making is that there are several causes of the "bucking" sydrome. (1) the wear that Brad is speaking of. (2) the built in slop in the contacts of the late model TPS (3) the PCV valve on 1.7 aqnd 1.8 (4) slop in the ignition. By the way...I have never found the PCV to mess with L-jet, no matter where PCV eneters the manifold. It is just a different metering system and not quite as senistive as D-jet.Ray
pbanders
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 12:01 am

Regarding Ray's post on the idle contact "slop"

Post by pbanders »

The slop you refer cannot cause bucking. Even if the idle switch were repeatedly actuated during constant part-load crusing (something I do not believe occurs for a properly adjusted TPS of any age), the total variation in the injection duration would be only on the order of 0.5 ms at the worst, which is very minor in comparison with the bucking caused by worn TPS accelerator tracks.

When the idle switch is actuated, the ECU switches on a circuit that biases the speed control waveform generator output. If the ECU knob is adjusted to where the "notch" is on the outer plastic surround (note: the notch may not be present on rebuilt and older ECU's), the net effect of the bias circuit is zero - you get what the ECU would have set otherwise. Even if you have the knob fully clockwise or counterclockwise, you only vary the mixture by about 0.5 ms at the most, even in some extreme case where the idle switch was actuated while cruising. In contrast, the 1.0 ms pulses you get from worn TPS tracks represent at least a 100% greater amount of fuel supplied, much more likely the cause of bucking.

On some models of ECU, there may be a overrun shut-off circuit - this cuts fuel completely when the idle switch is actuated when the engine speed is in a certain range. Very early ECU's had this circuit, as well as the 75-76 914 2.0L ECU (0 280 000 052). But if the TPS is adjusted correctly, you would never have this switch turn on unless you're in a closed throttle condtion - or are within 3 degrees of closed, which is too closed for level cruising.

I have not ever seen the need to modify a TPS in the manner described.

Brad Anders
User avatar
raygreenwood
Posts: 11907
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:01 am

Post by raygreenwood »

Brad, your last paragraph is emphasizing exactly what I have been finding. TPS that have enough float in them they CAN contact the fuel shut down pin at very light throttle. It may be when they were built as I have found two distinct whisker contact styles. I cannot pin them down to something as simple as early or late...more like one manufacturing style or another. One is the "round" wire type of contact (the worst of the two) the other is the flat blade type contact. The slop I am referring to is actually in the plastic keeper that guides the whisker contacts and allows the float movement when the throttle shaft is moved in small encrements.
Another problem caused by this "slop" ,and not really related to bucking is a small flat spot off the line when accelerating. Closing the gap a bit gets rid of that flat spot. Again, you may never notice the spot in stock factory tune.
Most of what I work on has mods. Web cam, larger valves, better ignition etc. It changes a lot of things.

The wear you describe is the scourge of the TPS. It happens, eventually to all of these TPS. I have never really found a way to actively prevent it. adding a thin smear of lubricant causes skipping and potential connectivity problems. The only thing that really works is a very thin coat of low viscosity oil...but...that quickly draws dust and grit and acclerates the wear. Its just simpler to leave them dry and clean and take your lumps as they wear. Replace em. Ray
User avatar
Bleyseng
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 12:01 am

Post by Bleyseng »

I agree that a worn distributor is a major problem for Djet engines. The jumping timing marks when using a timing light are the indication that it is out of spec. The wear usually is in the distributor shaft which can be bushed with a new bushing. Just the installation of a rebuilt distributor has amazed a few friends when fixing their cars.
A worn distributor affects the motor across a broader rpm range than the worn TPS syndrome which is at 2800-3000 rpms.

I think we all agree that with Djet you must pay attention to having the distributor, TPS, timing,valve adj, vacuum hoses in excellent shape to have a good running motor.
Geoff
pbanders
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 12:01 am

Post by pbanders »

FYI, the PCV valve is available from your local Porsche dealer. I just ordered two of them, part number 022 115 542, they're $10.11 each. Considering that most sources say the PCV valve should be replaced every 15K miles, and it's likely that mine's never been replaced in god knows how many miles, it might be worth it to order a couple.
User avatar
raygreenwood
Posts: 11907
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:01 am

Post by raygreenwood »

Wow! thats cheap! If you are going to remain with a PCV valve (and these cars NEED PCV) go with the stock one. My purpose in not reccommending going to an after market PCV...is that I have never found anything else that is remotely similar...and would fit without mods. The Porsche dealer and all the VW dealers in Dallas list these as a not available. The VW dealer did not even list one (their microfiche..which is now digitized was missing several pages) I had to provide the part #. Last listed price was $46. Ray
User avatar
vwduud
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 1:01 am

Post by vwduud »

I temporarily plugged the intake port, in the airbox, for the PCV valve, and vented the PCV to the air cleaner. This did solve the problem with the inconsistent idle. I haven't had any outwardly noticeable problems, due to inadequate case ventilation. But, I didn't want to leave it this way. Before even getting to read these posts, I had already placed an order at our newly opened Porsche dealership. Not only was I able to get one, it was cheaper than quoted above: $7.56. I also opted for a $2.30 gasket for the breather, as well as a couple of $6.60 90 degree vac hose elbows. Unbelieveable prices, considering the $87,000 to $100,000+ 911's that were sitting in the lot outside. By year's end, there will be a V10 powered GT, at this dealership (610 bhp). Yours, for only $444,000.00. Of course there's the stripped track version for only $100,000. This is with a flat 6, and a bolt in role cage. Nice!!!!!
User avatar
Bleyseng
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 12:01 am

Post by Bleyseng »

Venting the pvc to the airbox results in a oily mess inside of it. Also I blew out my valve cover seals trying this out, too much air pressure as the 2.1 needs vacuum on the pvc hose.
Good to hear the parts are still available from Porsche, I'll have to order some.
Geoff
pbanders
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 12:01 am

Post by pbanders »

Bleyseng wrote:Venting the pvc to the airbox results in a oily mess inside of it. Also I blew out my valve cover seals trying this out, too much air pressure as the 2.1 needs vacuum on the pvc hose.
Good to hear the parts are still available from Porsche, I'll have to order some.
Geoff
One of the things I've been wondering about is the crankcase airflow when you are at WOT. Under these conditons, manifold vacuum is no more than about 50 mTorr, so there's very little draw. Yet blow- by is quite high, pressurizing the crankcase. This pressurization will open the PCV valve, but I am wondering if the fresh air intake to the heads actually becomes pressurized, pushing oil vapor and blow-by into the air cleaner box. If I can figure out a simple way to do it, I'm going to put my sensitive Fluke pressure/vacuum meter on the air intake while driving, and datalog the results.
User avatar
Bleyseng
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 12:01 am

Post by Bleyseng »

I don't know but the mess was quite real. I assume it was from the blow by pressurizing the heads since the pushrod tube lead right into the block. I have seen the pics of the oil filling the heads but assume that there is also alot of air pressure from the blow by.
Interesting to see a actual test.
Geoff
User avatar
vwduud
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 1:01 am

Post by vwduud »

Just an update. While temporarily running with the original PCV valve venting into the air cleaner top, I noticed no excessive oil mess in the air cleaner. I was able to get the new PCV valve in last night, and connected all lines back to factory specs. Idle is better than ever. For comparison, I placed some fresh rubber hose on each PCV valve (old and new), and sucked through. At light vacuum, the old one fluttered open and closed (it would 'click'), while the new one provided a constant light opening. Nice to get new parts. - Jim
User avatar
raygreenwood
Posts: 11907
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:01 am

Post by raygreenwood »

uSorry, been out of town. Did I miss a beat here? So you guys are venting to the air cleaner? This is reverse of stock flow on the FI 1.7 and 1.8. In the stock set up, it draws throgh from the air cleaner, the flame trap, into the valve covers, through the the PR tubes into the case and out the oil breather. I tried reversing it once...and I got an oily mess as well. Ray
User avatar
vwduud
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 1:01 am

Post by vwduud »

Well Ray, no, I didn't get an oily mess. It was temporary, and am now using a new PVC valve and all is well. Sorry everyone else got oily messes. Perhaps it's time to rering those tired motors.
pbanders
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 12:01 am

Post by pbanders »

http://members.rennlist.com/pbanders/PCV.htm

New web page on the D-Jetronic PCV valve. Shows internal components, description of operation, comparison to modern PCV valves, and maintenance suggestions.
Post Reply