:welcome: mikerich1972,
 Does your Pinto happen to be one made in Canada that the odometer rolls on Kilometers instead of miles?
Just a question... Not trying to be a wise guy...
30-32 would be phenomenal mpg for a 2.3.
 Most Pinto owners do not even know there is a difference between the two odometers.
 From Pintony

By the way, if any of you Pinto guys want to know a secret to easily boost HP and MPG that was inspired by some old-school racing guys, just e-amil me. This will work on almost ny engine, although Chevy's are more sensitive. Please write "PCV MODS" in the subject line. I'll e-mail you my instructions for increasing MPG by up to 17% !!! This is not a joke. I have been doing this for a long time, with no adverse affects on the high-mileage engine. I also have a magazine article highlighting this same basic idea that proves up to 14.5 HP increase with a Pontiac 455 CI. My experience can only prove the MPG increase of up to 17% on the 2.3L.

Are you taking about disconnecting the PCV system and just venting it? I know racers do that to lower the intake air temps.


Bill

Good story you have there. In regard to your attempts to contact Ford about the Pinto, I was not surprised that the comments didn't receive the highest regards. The Pinto is probably one of the most if not the most infamous car in Ford history. Even if a Pinto had 1,000,000 miles, I doubt Ford would do anything except congratulate the owner on the achievement. It was/is a great car and us Pinto fans know it, but it cost Ford a lot of money and hurt its reputation. And really, the Pinto wasn't a very popular idea in some of Ford's CEO's eyes back when it was introduced, but Lee Ioccoca got his way despite Henry Ford II trying to shut the project down. But a good story nonetheless, keep her maintained and it should last you many many more miles if you're lucky.

    -beegle55

Actually, the idea is to reduce the pressure in the crankcase, thus reducing the rotational drag caused by having to push air in an enclosed space. In other words, I'm pulling a vacuum on the crankcase...

Mike

Isn't that what the PCV system does?

Bill

The PCV system on any automotive engine only has ONE purpose; to keep the unburned hydrocarbons (and other junk) out of the atmosphere. It does that quite effectively by purging air through the crankcase and into the intake manifold. From there, the junk is burned in the combustion process.

 So, no, the PCV system does not apply ANY vacuum on the crankcase. It merely pulls air (and, by the way, a lot of water vapor) through it.

 You may be misunderstandi ng the word vacuum. In this and many other cases, it is used to refer to the absence of air, or deprivation to some extent. This results in a reduction of pressure to some point below atmospheric pressure.

 E-mail me with "PCV MODS" in the subject line, and I'll forward my idea to you. It is a two-page explanation of this whole concept.

I fully understand the word "vacuum".

The PCV system does put a vacuum to the crankcase, but with the crankcase that is vented, outside air is pulled into the crankcase: 'a vacuum leak'. If it were not putting a vacuum to the crankcase, air would not be pulled in through the vent.

By sealing the vent ('leak') you will limit the amount of hot gas that will be pulled out of the crankcase and into the engine, and in turn your intake air temp will go down. That will go along with any benefit that a negative pressure in the crankcase might give you.

A N/A (regular) car will draw more vacuum at idle or 'decel' than with an open throttle (like highway driving).

Of course ANY modification to the intake air might have other effects too, and those must be considered before-hand (tune, choke, federal laws...).

BTW: What I don't understand is why you don't want to just post all of your information here, or post a link, and make it "public."

Bill

ive know about this one for a wail it woks so good my father in-law who had huge doubts after seeing it work on to of my cars he took his 2007 toyota pu in and he couldn't believe that it even made his new truck get 4 mpg more!

page wasn't working for me but may be my fire wall
http://www.condensator.com/

another
http://www.dogpile.com/dogpile_rss/ws/results/Images/Gas%20Mileage%20Devices/1/408/TopNavigation/Relevance/zoom=off/_iceUrlFlag=7?_IceUrl=true

In the very competitive game of bracket drag racing, the engines are covered by many extremely restrictive rules. Any small horsepower gain that can be found within these rules is a huge advantage. Reduce the internal “drag”, or rotational resistance, and you have a more efficient, more powerful engine. Some “old” drag racers have known this for a long time. They have been connecting vacuum pumps to their engines for an overall gain of nearly 10 horsepower. Small gain, yes; but an advantage of about 5%!!

In this application, we will put the engine’s own Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV) system to work for us. We use the PCV system to reduce the pressure inside the engine’s crankcase, thereby reducing the quantity of air that must be displaced by each piston as it travels downward. With the reduced air resistance within the engine, it naturally rotates easier.

So, how do we do this?     What you need to understand is how the PCV system works. It pulls filtered air into the engine block. This purged air is then pulled into the intake manifold, where it is burned in the engine. Simple, all we have to do is cap, or plug this airflow INTO the engine’s crankcase. This is usually done with a small (1/2”) tube that leads from the airbox (or downstream of the air filter) to the engine. It is generally connected to the engine on one of the valve covers. By capping this tube, be certain that you are preventing air infiltration two ways: into the tube leading to your valve cover; and into the air intake, or airbox. Because we don’t live in a perfect world, make sure that all the tubing connections are tight. Let me go beyond that, they need to be VACUUM TIGHT. This may not be an easy task on older vehicles, as I will explain later, but well worth it.

We are now causing the crankcase air pressure to be changed from near atmospheric to at least -4” mercury (HG). The manifold vacuum usually runs at about -24” HG at idle. This is transferred to the crankcase by blocking the air flow. (The nasty vapors are still drawn off and burned in the engine, so the emissions have not increased, and the EPA will be happy.)

Does this REALLY work?    The first engine I modified is my 1976 Pinto with a 2.3 liter 4 cylinder. (Yes, they still DO exist!) This engine now has 291,000 miles, and runs as well as anything else on the road. I probably have driven about 1,200 miles since I capped the PCV, and I have seen no increased oil consumption, or other adverse effects. This is a true high-mileage engine with plenty of wear and blow-by. In my mind, if any engine is going to bite the dust through this, here is a classic case. (I wasn’t especially worried because I have a rebuilt engine awaiting the day this old one dies). The around-town MPG increased from 21 - 23 up to 25 - 27, depending on the temperature. (Since this is a carbureted engine, the choke does play a role in economy). After the first tank of fuel, the MPG dropped back down to the normal (22 MPG) range. Slightly discouraged, I took a closer look at the whole PCV system. What I found was a bit of a shock. The oil filler cap on the old Ford was set up for a hose to the air filter. I had simply blocked this at the cap. After a while, the oil that had soaked into the seam of the two-piece metal cap had been pulled out by the vacuum, creating a new air leak. I eventually replaced the cap with a non-breathable one from another application. This, along with being extremely aware that vacuum leaks are nasty little annoyances and, careful attention to the gasket on the cap, cured the leak. The crankcase vacuum now runs at -4 to-5” HG at idle. The in-town fuel economy again changed for the better! Back up to, per the latest tank of fuel, 26.49 MPG. Not bad for November…

I did this on my dad’s 2003 Ford Ranger. This is a two-wheel drive, 4 cylinder with a manual transmission.  He was getting similar MPG’s around town, averaging 22 to 23. In the latest report, he is still getting 26 to 27 MPG in town.

I want to point out that the on-board computer in newer vehicles doesn’t care about this modification! (The computer does not control or monitor the PCV in any way.)

In both cases, this is an increase of 17%

I honestly do not have enough data on highway mileage to conclude anything, but I suspect the increases would be slightly lower. More in the range of 5 – 10%, due to the decreased manifold vacuum at highway speeds.

Now for the possible down-sides of doing this, and what I have observed.
 
o   Will the oil retain more contaminants?.    I believe it will. Since the PCV is not as effectively removing the volatile contaminants from the crankcase, the oil will become the reservoir for these contaminants. This means, simply, change your oil at the recommended intervals!
o   The water vapor cannot as easily be purged from the engine.     When we look at how this water vapor enters the engine, it becomes very clear. It comes into the crankcase via the normal PCV system. Since we no longer have an open air inlet for this moisture to enter, I believe the water vapor that is now in your engine will be pulled out, albeit more slowly. However, the influx of water vapor is now nearly eliminated.
o   What about a negative affect on the gaskets and oil seals?    Again, I have not seen any oil leaking from the Pinto engine. And I do mean that there is virtually ZERO leakage from the main seals (or anywhere, for that matter) on this engine. (I truly hate a leaky car.)
o   Will I see increased oil consumption?     This old 291,000 mile Pinto engine has always used some oil, and I’ve driven the car daily since May, 1988. I can count on about 1,600 miles to the quart of oil consumed. This has not changed.
o   Rough idle?   No, I think it actually idles a bit smoother.
o   Why hasn’t Detroit done this years ago?     The auto manufacturers are after one thing, your money. They simply don’t care how much that new car costs to operate.


I am only trying to pass along information that I believe is important enough to share with everybody who will listen. Again, I am not making a dime on this, nor do I expect to, ever. Please give this some thought, as a lot of fuel is potentially at stake. Consider at least trying it for a while.  My satisfaction will come in the knowledge that I may have had a small part in reducing emissions and our country’s dependence on imported oil. Any oil, for that matter!  
                        
UPDATED INFORMATION:

In reference to the previously mentioned negative affect on the engine’s oil seals… I have some new data to share.

Problem:  Rear oil seal leakage: I modified the PCV system on my Chevrolet S-10 class-C motorhome. The engine is a 2.8 liter V-6. In late July, 2006 we were leaving town for a long weekend of camping. I started to smell oil burning; never a good thing to experience! After finding a suitable wide spot on the highway, I noticed that the rear main oil seal was leaking quite well. Actually, it was nearly a steady stream of oil at idle. Now, please understand that we had driven this vehicle on a 7,200 mile tip across the US in September and October of 2004, with not a bit of mechanical trouble. This just had to be caused by the mods I had made to the PCV system. The process of replacing the original PCV system was done very quickly (it took about 10 minutes, tops!) and I proved to myself that it had indeed been the cause.

What had happened is this: the engine’s crankcase had a negative pressure that was actually opening the rear main oil seal. This seal is supposed to be held closed by the pressure of the oil pushing against it from the inside. But a deep enough vacuum pulled in air past the seal, allowing oil to be pushed out.

The oil leak immediately stopped, and hasn’t dripped in the 240 miles since.  

In fact, my 1992 Ford Ranger pickup and my brother’s Ford half-ton PU both have a distinctive “whistle” after we shut them off from an idle. This indicates a deep vacuum within the crankcase, with absolutely no adverse affects! In fact, my brother’s Ford pickup idles at about -20” HG., and this engine has no problem with oil leaks.  So, some engine’s oil seals just seem to be more sensitive to a vacuum.

I never did check the vacuum in the crankcase on the Chevy’s engine; maybe I should have. But I tend to believe it has more to do with the design of the oil seals than anything. I’ve chosen to run this engine without the PCV modifications due to the limited in-town or moderate loading of the engine. However, I have come up with a remedy, should this be a problem to others.

Cure:  I have researched the availability of an adjustable vacuum relief valve. They are a simple device that will prevent the crankcase vacuum from reaching below the valve’s setting. A ¼” NPT model is in stock locally for about $10 (Grainger’s). This will need to be installed in line between the valve cover and (preferably) the air box or air cleaner. If this valve setting is adjusted correctly, probably 6” to 8” HG, then it will open as needed at idle and downhill, etc. With the tubing run into the clean air stream, the engine will not have a new influx of dirt.

How are my other cars doing?  The old Pinto is still running flawlessly at 298,750 miles (as of 11/18/06). It’s still averaging right at 26 MPG in town!! This is not running on the highways; it is 99.99% stop-and-go city driving. The Ranger pickups are still running fine. We are still seeing a similar MPG stated previously.

What about the highway mileage? I really haven’t seen any increase in MPG over the 7,700 miles since I first modified the Pinto. But, there hasn’t been any DECREASE in MPG either. Our Ranger pickup; pretty much the same highway mileage, also.

Please feel free to copy and forward this to as many people as you wish!!!

Mike Richardson

Might I ask why, if this is so cost & fuel efficient; not to mention (your implication, not mine) that it is common sense;  do not all auto manufacturers utilize it?

3 letters (EPA)

you maybe partially corect but i think that if 'big business' could do something so simple & inexpensive & effective why wouldn't they do it?  in my opinion, because it has been researched and set aside as not being feasible.

there have been throught the years, no lack of 'devices' along the same lines as this idea. an xample is the '300' or '100' MPG carburetor. 

the epa & the auto manufacturers are not ignorant of ideas & 'out of the box' thinking when it comes to designing vehicles & the power plants that allow them to move.  yes, they do have a vested interest in selling cars/trucks and the parts to service them.  so does 'big oil' have a vested interest in perpetuating the aut industry as a huge consumer of oil. but in the political climate that is prevalent in this day & age a simple procedure or device such as this would have been implemented already.


100+mpg+carburetor
cut & paste this into google:

there are listed page after page of 'ideas' that will change the future of the automotive world for the better.

all that being said;  i have never tried any of this and i'm not saying that any of these ideas don't or do work. i am saying that with the united states full of the best engineers & researcher as well as a few govt. aencies devoted to the science and application of such ideas, i would think that an idea such as this would be a bit more 'mainstream' than showing up on a forum in an enthusiasts web site

I fully understand the word "vacuum".

The PCV system does put a vacuum to the crankcase, but with the crankcase that is vented, outside air is pulled into the crankcase: 'a vacuum leak'. If it were not putting a vacuum to the crankcase, air would not be pulled in through the vent.

By sealing the vent ('leak') you will limit the amount of hot gas that will be pulled out of the crankcase and into the engine, and in turn your intake air temp will go down. That will go along with any benefit that a negative pressure in the crankcase might give you.

A N/A (regular) car will draw more vacuum at idle or 'decel' than with an open throttle (like highway driving).

Of course ANY modification to the intake air might have other effects too, and those must be considered before-hand (tune, choke, federal laws...).

BTW: What I don't understand is why you don't want to just post all of your information here, or post a link, and make it "public."

Bill

Sorry bill, no direspect intended. I never know what level of knowledge is out there. You obviously DO understand what's going on!!

Mike

Sorry bill, no direspect intended....

None taken.

It's so hard to "read" emotions or intent in forums like this.

Bill

For a lot of you folks who are wondering why I would be willing to share this idea on a small website forum, I'll be happy to answer that.

I presented this idea to many car-guy friends, most of whom looked at me like I was crazy! I also contacted the local city maintenance department about trying this on some of their vehicles. I got the same reaction!! What's the problem here? Unbelief...  Most of us believe that if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

This idea is NOT new! Drag racers have been doing this for years to sneak out a few more HP's.This is also why I can't patent and market the idea. But, what I CAN do is get the word out! All I'm asking is that you try it. If you don't like the outcome, or if it flat doesn't increase your gas mileage, then reverse the mods and we'll all move on. Nothing really lost!

However, if it DOES work for you: pass on the information!!  (It's here on the site for free) All I'm asking is that you let me know how it's working for you. What increases have you seen?

I worked as a Mechanical Engineer at a nuclear fuels production plant for 14 years, responsible for the HVAC, Containment, and Air Sampling systems, among other equipment. I spent about 26 years working with all types of HVAC systems. Because of this experience I too, was very skeptical of the seemingly minuscule gains available with such a simple modification. That's why I had to prove it to myself before I could put this out to the public!

I'm not in it for profit. I just want to beat the imported oil thing as much as I can, any way I can.

Thanks for listening!

Mike

 The thing I'm wondering about is if a piston is moving up and another down, doesn't this offset each other in regards to occupied air space?

  So, when a vacuum is created (as with this modification) and a piston needs to occupy space (moving upward), doesn't that vacuum impede the upward movement of the piston in the same way atmospheric pressure impeded downward piston movement without the modification?

I'm not up on Physics, but maybe things move easier in a vacuum and the same trade-off of piston up/down movement mentioned above becomes more efficient?

 I have seen drag cars apply this negative pressure principle, but they siphon a vacuum off headers. I guess at full throttle the header siphon creates more vacuum than dual four barrels do on the intake side.
Tom

 Well, in an ideal world there would be no ring blow by. So, the crack pressure ideally shouldn't change. But within the crank case you have pistons offsetting the air, I would think in a push/pull fashion. The spinning crank would create "wind like" a fan. But even that possibly is simply replacing like air in occupied space. So, I would guess it is the difference in temperature (crank case to atmosphere) that causes the most air movement related to the venting the crank case.

 In years of old cars simply had a breather tube venting to the air I don't recall major pressure issues with good rings and valves.  The PCV was just a way of burning hydrocarbons given off by heated oil. It created a vacuum and force the vapors into the intake.
Tom

I'm sorry but I am having a hard time with this. The crank case needs to breath or there will be so much crank case pressure built up it will blow out the dip stick. By sealing it off you will not have an effective " air pump" I can see tons of HP loss with this not to mention damage to parts.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand this but...
 Mike is trying to say that the crank case is sealed EXCEPT for the vacuum applied to it by the intake manifold. If an absolute vacuum is applied then there is no pressure.
 If you put a wind-up airplane in a vacuum tube and then let it go the propeller would spin really fast as there is no air to slow it down but no air to pull the plane forward either. So having a partial vacuum applied would produce HP.
 as there are 2 pistons moving down and 2 pistons moving up at the same time in a 2.0 or 2.3 engine. and the Vacuum is NOT "absolute" if the c.c. needed a little air back for some reason it could take it as there is NO checkvalve to stop air going in either direction.
 From Pintony