What's new

LS Engine Venting / Positive Crankcase Ventilation / Fuel Air Trap System

HYDRODYNAMIC

Rock Stacker
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
545
Messages
1,279
Loc
Lost in the forest
So to start this off: Fuel Air Trap System or FATS is known within our sport and fairly well accepted by all as a way to prevent fluid from leaking from an object during rollover. The simple way I have read is four sides and down. Theory is plumb from the top then around the four sides somewhat parallel to the ground but with slope so the liquid will run back into the container, then lastly down past the container. Any way you roll the container the line will always be higher and prevent fluid from running out. SEE Fuel cell picture swiped from BillaVista. FATS applies to fuel tanks, engine crank cases, transmissions, power steering reservoirs, transfer cases, axles, and more.

I started researching engine venting which is greatly debated both on and off road. On road people do not care about FATS but do debate between venting to atmosphere or running back to the intake with a PCV system. Theories are that positively venting and removing the blow by and acidic gases provides cleaner oil and better ring seal. Theories also say that you do not want to pull oil vapor or actual oil and gum up the pistons and top end of the motor or hydro-lock if you suck up oil from the valve covers or pool it in the intake and pull in a glob. Some have proved that today's oils have no issue absorbing and cleaning the crank case gases. Another theory is vacuum is beneficial, race engines can add power by adding a vacuum pump. Running a vacuum pump on a normal engine is advise against by some engine builders, I believe it has to do with the rings. If you are wide open throttle on a normal engine you are probably not going to be running enough vacuum for the PCV system to function unless you are running a pump. Applications also come into play, as a car in traffic idling or cold short trips could benefit from ventilation vs a engine that is working hard all day long.

I researched regarding a gen IV 2010 6.0. The factory PCV system => The intake pulls dirty air from one valve cover which is connected to the crank case and the other valve cover pulls clean air after the MAF and before the throttle body and dumps that into the crank case.
While GM was road and track testing they found that the oil was getting picked up from the valve covers and burning a lot of oil. The LS2 and LS7 had a new crank valley cover designed with a center pickup for the PCV system. It has what I have only heard to be a baffle system to prevent oil vapor and liquid from being picked up. Most inportantly for FATS routing is that the pickup is top and center as far away from oil as possible. The differences between the LS2 and the LS7 covers is the hose barb on the LS2 and the QD tube on the LS7 cover. Also shown below is the baffled LS6 valley cover with the knock sensor locations.

So my plan so far is to run a 1/2" vent line off the LS7 valley cover and go around the engine and down with a 1/2" hose and filter on the end to keep out dust. I might try 1/2" hard line as well since it will look cleaner and be safer for fire resistance. The intake and the valve covers will all be capped.
I have heard some say that the single line is not enough and that the blow by will pop the dip stick out or causing leaking from the seals. I have also heard that if this is the case then your rings are short and a PCV system is not going to help especially at WOT with no vacuum.

What is everyone else doing?

IMG_5905-2_small.jpg


VC.jpg


12599296_bottom_lrg.jpg


12568002_bottom_lrg.jpg


12568002_lrg.jpg
 
Last edited:
Busted knuckle garage has a great YouTube video on this a little while back. I’m too lazy to find it.
 
Gen3 LS here.
3 sides down on both valve covers with 3/8 hose and done.
Works great.
 
(Untitled)

06 vette ls2, 10 years, T'd both valve covers together, 4 sides and down. then the valley did the same. no issues. no residue on filters in normal operation. vacuum capped the intake port from valley and intake tube.
 
Here is the LS7 valley cover. Now I know why no one shows the baffle system. Its RTV sealed and bolted down. There are two openings on the top and center and some more baffling inside with some drain holes at the bottom. The QD barb would not fit the QD fitting I borrowed off the fuel system, I thought both were 3/8" but they valley cover barb is a little bigger than the fuel.

40AD5BE3-74F7-429F-9F67-024EE0CC6A31.jpeg


952997D9-19DD-4E98-A72C-071812B94B0F.jpeg
 
Last edited:
My LS6 BBC engine is easy just uses a PCV in the valve cover and a hose that goes to the carb.
 
06 vette ls2, 10 years, T'd both valve covers together, 4 sides and down. then the valley did the same. no issues. no residue on filters in normal operation. vacuum capped the intake port from valley and intake tube.


Could you tie the valve covers and valley together so you only needed to run one 4 sides and down line?
 
Could you tie the valve covers and valley together so you only needed to run one 4 sides and down line?

No. I don't recall which is which nor where I got the info; but one is fresh air in, other is dirty out.
 
It's always been my understanding that due to the windage created by the spinning crank, one valve cover wanted to pull air in and the other valve cover wanted to push air out.

This was from the SBC days and they never had a vent in the lifter valley.
 
Could a guy put the LS7 valley cover on a LQ4 6.0?

I'm new to this LS stuff.
 
Could a guy put the LS7 valley cover on a LQ4 6.0?

I'm new to this LS stuff.

I believe the LQ4 is gen3 and has a different valley cover and the nock sensors. Another option is to take the valley cover off and drill a hole and add a bulkhead AN fitting. The benefit to the LS7 and 2 style is the factory vent/baffle otherwise I would have just drilled a hole.
 
For all those running off the valve covers. The reason to avoid the valve covers is they are the spots the oil is accumulating and getting sucked into the intake with a PCV or getting pushed out by blow by pressure.
Even with 4 sides and down connected to the valve covers the oil is being pushed out by crank case pressure and the hose will blow out or leak oil. Four sides and down is not enough if the engine is running, it can still push out oil if the engine is points with a valve cover port on the low side. The oil pump might be still building pressure and bit oil is exiting the valve cover as well.
 
The reason to avoid the valve covers is they are the spots the oil is accumulating and getting sucked into the intake with a PCV or getting pushed out by blow by pressure.

to touch on that subject a little from my experience. an u4 team i was working for was getting a decent amount of oil in the catch can. which would ended up overflowing when we raced short course, making a giant mess. the car owner hated messes and i hated cleaning up swepco oil (stuff is nasty). CBM suggested a min of -8 vent lines, which at the time i just followed their recommendation as they were our engine builder and to make the catch can a little larger and that helped solve the problem. draining the catch can was added to the post race cleanup.

now in the industry i am in (process gas compression and refrigeration), it makes more sense. the large vent slows the air velocity, which allows the oil to fall out and not be carried away. if i were designing a system from scratch a system from scratch, i would vent the valve covers with -10 to a 2 quart container that vents -12 (would consider larger). the -12 line would be stainless and touch all 4 corners of the firewall to prevent roll over spillage. i would also look into adding a port at the back of the head to drain the oil likes to collect back there. if you can get the oil out of the head faster, you have less oil to carry over. if you wanted to get super fancy you could baffle the vent can and have the collected oil drain back in to the oil pan.
 
Last edited:
I've read a few articles lately where they are running drain lines tapped into the valve cover area directly into the oil pan to deal with the oil accumulation issue.
 
I've read a few articles lately where they are running drain lines tapped into the valve cover area directly into the oil pan to deal with the oil accumulation issue.

one of the guys that helped on our team came from the dirt track world and that was going to be something to consider next time the motor was out. once you stop and think about it, make perfect sense for that application, obviously not a huge problem in out world.
 
For all those running off the valve covers. The reason to avoid the valve covers is they are the spots the oil is accumulating and getting sucked into the intake with a PCV or getting pushed out by blow by pressure.
Even with 4 sides and down connected to the valve covers the oil is being pushed out by crank case pressure and the hose will blow out or leak oil. Four sides and down is not enough if the engine is running, it can still push out oil if the engine is points with a valve cover port on the low side. The oil pump might be still building pressure and bit oil is exiting the valve cover as well.

Has not been my experience in multiple LS installs.

Have you had this happen to you ?
 
Has not been my experience in multiple LS installs.

Have you had this happen to you ?

My intake was full of oil when I went to change the valley cover. So I know it was pulling oil with the PCV system.

Oil consumption on track and off road is pretty well documented by GM and others. This has been the reason for the updated valley covers and baffled valve covers. GM even has a factory oil separator that replaces the oil fill cap and collects oil vapor and returns it into the valve cover to drain. The reason for not using it in cold weather is the separator will also pull out moisture and if its cold enough the lines can freeze the returning water droplets and clog the lines.

GM Bulletin Release-
Camaro 1LE PCV Oil Separator Kit
The increased handling performance of the 2013 Camaro with the 1LE performance package can generate some off-road or track conditions where engine oil can be ingested into the air cleaner through the fresh air tube that connects the port within the right valve cover to the air cleaner. The Chevrolet Performance Positive Crankcase Vent (PCV) oil separator kit can improve this condition. It’s a standard part of the 1LE performance package.
The Camaro 1LE PCV Oil Separator Kit (part number 12653073) is included with other packaged components in the vehicle. It should not be installed during PDI at the dealership. The kit and instructions should be kept in the car. Owners are responsible for installing the oil separator in the car for track use.

The Camaro 1LE PCV Oil Separator Kit is designed for off-road or track use only. The production PCV system should be installed back on the vehicle when driving on public roads.

The Camaro 1LE PCV Oil Separator Kit is not designed for winter driving conditions (ambient temperature should be above 32° F, 0°C).

94ba6d8f5ab1f09513cb63f725dd2eb5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not all catch cans work. Many are just for show and don't actually catch anything. The best functioning catch that I found was the Pro Vent 200. Lingenfelter uses them on their cars. It is centrifugal and large with a coalescing media to catch vapor. I got one of the knock offs from Amazon Prime to check it out and return it. If I wanted to catch oil, I would definitely buy the real one, the knock off have horrible castings and the media is just a metal screen that doesnt work the same proven by independent lab tests. There is a reason the knock off was $16 delivered with free return shipping. But I was able to check it out and the design looks good if you want a closed loop system. There are some write ups on use with LS engines, just make sure the LS has the same system as the write ups as many different models will cause confusion of where to hook them up supply and return.

PV626DPK.jpg


p200-2w.jpg
 
Last edited:
Two questions:

What's the merit of returning the caught oil to the crank case? I'm sure modern oil has no problem with all the combustion gasses and if you change your oil regularly it really shouldn't matter but it seems like a no brainier to slap on a solenoid valve and have it drip out somewhere that's not a problem once the power gets shut off.


I know the people who tune every last horsepower out of their engines (and by proximity, most of the pavement crowd) tend to really get their panties in a knot about burning anything that comes out of the crank case because the oil can affect the mixture, cause detonation, etc. In the off road world we tend to run really conservative tunes because we break enough shit without our engines detonating and whatnot. In light of that why don't we just run stock-ish PCV and orifice tube systems? Throw a rollover valve or check valve on the breather inlet and make sure that the line from the block to the intake runs sufficiently low that the oil would have to go uphill to flood your intake if you're on your side/top. If you tee the line at the lowest point and run both legs to appropriately selected parts of the intake siphoning should be a non-issue. That's basically a long winded way of saying "why don't we just rollover-proof OEM style PCV systems?"
 
My intake was full of oil when I went to change the valley cover. So I know it was pulling oil with the PCV system before I had switched to a vented setup.

That is NOT what I meant.

Since you said the 4 side-down routing with output vented to atmosphere didn't work :

For all those running off the valve covers. The reason to avoid the valve covers is they are the spots the oil is accumulating and getting sucked into the intake with a PCV or getting pushed out by blow by pressure.
Even with 4 sides and down connected to the valve covers the oil is being pushed out by crank case pressure and the hose will blow out or leak oil. Four sides and down is not enough if the engine is running, it can still push out oil if the engine is points with a valve cover port on the low side. The oil pump might be still building pressure and bit oil is exiting the valve cover as well.

I'm asking if you had this happen to you ? Seems like your setup was still connected to the intake while I'm talking about vented to atmosphere.

As far as my experience goes, 4 side down vented to atmosphere on both valve covers will work just fine on any regular LS engine for trail riding use.
 
As far as my experience goes, 4 side down vented to atmosphere on both valve covers will work just fine on any regular LS engine for trail riding use.

I did not have the issue, some racers were having the issue of oil leaking out of the hoses due to the vented pressure pushing oil out of the valve covers when off axis and or pushing out oil that was caught in the "P trap" or four sides and down. Besides a mess to clean up it was creating a fire hazard.
FATS works if there is low enough pressure from blow by gases that gravity can keep the lines flowing oil back to the engine and through the 25mm or .1" orifice or the 3/8" port depending on where the hoses are connected. Unless the orifice has been deleted. One valve cover might have the orifice as it was the outlet and the other is unrestricted as it was the fresh air inlet. I would assume that the 3/8" port is the only one returning oil.
I believe the direction of the motor plays a part as to where the oil is and where the vent is located. If a front engine is climbing and the vent are on the rear of the covers the oil will run to the vent. If the engine is rear mounted then the covers will pick up oil going downhill. If the covers have baffle then the directions may flip flop. This is the benefit for the valley cover vent location, it is always centered.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like most of the GM PCV valves 2004 and up have been replaced by fixed orifices of 2.5mm almost .1" from the factory either in one of the valve covers or valley covers depending on model design. That is a very small hole size yet the lines are 3/8" which will flow much more. The orifice does lower the vacuum level on the crank case as the fresh air inlet is 3/8" and the suction outlet is .1" so the vacuum will not build to the same level as the intake manifold. Because the 3/8" line can flow more than the restricted .1" orifice. This lower vacuum level appears to have been optimized to lower oil consumption by reducing flow at high vacuum. Example is going from WOT straight ahead then letting off the pedal and turning and engine braking and building high vacuum and pulling oil that has been temporarily accumulated in the valve cover.
At WOT when the vacuum goes away the flow paths change some. The 2.5mm orifice from the crank case continues to flow out into the intake. The fresh air intake from the valve cover to the filtered air between the MAF and the throttle body switches directions and back flows gases into the throttle body. That is why some applications had sticking throttle bodies and visible build up on the blade.

The cfm of the gaseous flow of the PCV system has been measured to be 800 rpm: 36 LPM = 1.27 CFM 4000 rpm: 37 LPM = 1.31 CFM. It takes 3.25 psi to flow 1.29 CFM through a .1" orifice. It takes .035 psi to flow 1.29 through a .3125" orifice. That is 93 times the pressure drop which makes sense that the clean air inlet is back flowing and doing all the work of evacuating case pressure under WOT.
1/2" vent line drops to .005 PSI and a .625" drops to .002 PSI.

For off road use, venting to atmosphere, the orifice is not needed. It appears the valley cover ports have the orifice in the push in metal barb fitting and it can be removed to free flow. The orifices in the valve covers can also be removed to free flow both covers. I am going to pull the baffle off the cover and see how large of a port I can put on it.
 
Last edited:
to touch on that subject a little from my experience. an u4 team i was working for was getting a decent amount of oil in the catch can. which would ended up overflowing when we raced short course, making a giant mess. the car owner hated messes and i hated cleaning up swepco oil (stuff is nasty). CBM suggested a min of -8 vent lines, which at the time i just followed their recommendation as they were our engine builder and to make the catch can a little larger and that helped solve the problem. draining the catch can was added to the post race cleanup.

now in the industry i am in (process gas compression and refrigeration), it makes more sense. the large vent slows the air velocity, which allows the oil to fall out and not be carried away. if i were designing a system from scratch a system from scratch, i would vent the valve covers with -10 to a 2 quart container that vents -12 (would consider larger). the -12 line would be stainless and touch all 4 corners of the firewall to prevent roll over spillage. i would also look into adding a port at the back of the head to drain the oil likes to collect back there. if you can get the oil out of the head faster, you have less oil to carry over. if you wanted to get super fancy you could baffle the vent can and have the collected oil drain back in to the oil pan.


X2

Vent size is a big problem. So many people stay with stock sizes, which is designed to work for that component in a stock application and planned stock usage.

Even trail rigs will benefit from larger vent sizes on all their powertrain/drivetrain vents.



I know the people who tune every last horsepower out of their engines (and by proximity, most of the pavement crowd) tend to really get their panties in a knot about burning anything that comes out of the crank case because the oil can affect the mixture, cause detonation, etc.....snip

Anyone looking to get every last horsepower out of their engine should be running dry sump. It will help out in so many situations including the coach-can problem you mention.
 
Spy shots of the the LS7/LS2 baffle system. No body has pictures of these things posted anywhere I could find. It will need to RTV to glue it back down after port modifications.

IMG_7972.JPG


IMG_7978.JPG


IMG_7985.JPG


IMG_7977.JPG


IMG_7984.JPG
 
The plan is to enlarge the port enough to flow with only the valley cover and not use the valve covers. The baffle valley ways have more than enough flow. The only limitation is the metal and plastic air way to the port. I believe a 3/8" NPT port can replace the factory tube at a similar angle if moved back and retain enough material to have good thread engagement.

IMG_7980.JPG


IMG_7988.JPG


IMG_7997.JPG


IMG_7991.JPG


IMG_7993.JPG
 
why not weld a -6 fitting to the cover?

Good idea welding it. I disregarded it at first because it was going to be easy to tap it NPT until the angle became involved for clearance. Welded would allow for the largest port size and its clean so it should weld easy enough. I have some -12 male fittings with 5/8" ID hose that would be ideal. It comes down to getting the correct angle and clearing the intake.

The shallowest part of the wedge shaped airway of the baffle and cover combined is .25 sq.in. and -8 hose is .196" and -10 hose is .306, so -10 would be the better choice since most -10 fittings neck down from 5/8" ID to 1/2" to fit inside the hose.
 
Last edited:
Top Back Refresh