G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile

Buell Forum » Knowledge Vault (tech, parts, apparel, & accessories topics) » Engine » Breathers (crankcase breathing system) » Archives » Archive through January 02, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter
Posted on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 01:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aaron,
I have to disagree because of my experience. I had a 'T' piece going into one hose. When I ran it for a sustained period (an hour or so) at about 4000rpm, I blew engine oil past the crankseal into the primary. It happened twice. The second time (after replacing the oil again) I tried two lines to see if that made a difference before I pulled the primary out to replace the seal.
I never had to replace it, as it never did it again.
It never happened on short runs, only after a long ride.
PPiA
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ara
Posted on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 01:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The dyno doesn't measure everything. To extend Kevin's track runner analogy, a dyno is much like a stopwatch - it only measures performance. Wouldn't the dyno measure higher performance if you did a run using Ow-30 winter motor oil? I think it would, but the graph wouldn't show what that thin oil was doing to bearing and friction surfaces. Likewise, the dyno cannot measure progressive damage to gaskets caused by a blocked breather system.

Obviously the volumetric efficiency of the breather system is not the central issue of engine performance or even economy, but I think it will have a bearing on engine longevity. If crankcase pressure isn't really an issue, why then is there a rather involved breather system on these engines? Like many Buell owners I am interested in getting the most out of my motorcycle, so I analyze things and make what I think are appropriate changes - changes the factory cannot incorporate into its design due to noise, emissions, and other regulations. I think it was Aaron who documented that divorcing the breather system from the intake system is a Good Thing, for example. To a greater or lesser extent most of us on BadWeb do things like that, and that may well be one of the more salient reasons for this site. I think that the breather system is a valid topic for discussion, and optimizing its efficiency is a worthy endeavor.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Doncasto
Posted on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 02:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

My personal anecdotal, unsupported and subjective contribution to the Great Breather Debate . . .

Being a natural born sucker for any bolt-on farkeling with nebulous, illusional possibilities of more power!, better mileage!, smoother running!, more torque!, no grimy buildup! I have tried a few things (Turbolator, Crankvent, M6 Tensioner, . . .) that also include some vent modifications. I just can't resist a solution in search of a problem.

At the suggestion of Andy Spiegal (where is Sir Andy, Order of the Red Star, Doorbuster Extraordinaire?) I added an additional breather via the timing plug hole to my engine. On the first assembly I put my amazing Crankvent! in the 3/8 inch line at the top of its route over the heads to the catch can near the battery. In less than 50 miles the engine pumped over 4 ounces of Redline 20/50 into the can. I don't figure the liquid in the line was much of an obstruction.

Redline being the pricey item that it is, I removed the amazing Crankvent!, installed a couple of oil separators, and the hemorrhaging stopped. I then changed from a single T'd vent line to dual lines using the "more is better" theory and because I had some extra tubing just laying around. Each line is attached to one of two catch cans (one for crankcase, one for trans/primary - each connected via a common breather line) located adjacent to the battery via the over the head route.

While doing an oil/filter change this week I opened the drain on the catch cans. The trans/primary was dry and I got about an ounce of very foamy, gray oil/water mixture from the crankcase can.

My subjective, intuitive and completely unsupported conclusions - vent lines good, catch cans good, filter good. Amazing Crankvent! marginal, water vapor in crankcase (as opposed to in catch can) bad, dumping oil/water on components/garage floor/tires/road bad.

Now I that I feel that I have sufficiently muddied the waters, I will return to my usual Saturday morning cranial fog.

Don
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aaron
Posted on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 07:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Hmm, okay, if y'all really think the motor is suffering ill effects from a single 3/8 breather hose, have at it. Myself, I'll have to see some evidence first. I saw evidence that recycling the blowby was detrimental, so I'll buy that. Maybe I'm just hard-headed. But when I watch what's coming out the breather hose, I just don't see squat for flow, even when the motor is screaming. I have a hard time believing 2 hoses would make a dime's worth of difference.

Peter, your story is interesting, but it's also highly anectdotal. I can guarantee you there are plenty of bikes with separate lines and crank seal failures and also plenty of bike with teed lines and no crank seal issues. I'm reluctant to draw a conclusion.

AW
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ara
Posted on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 10:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aaron: I appreciate your reluctance to draw conclusions in the absence of hard data. How might such data be obtained? I love a good experiment! Is there a way to connect a flow meter to a single tee'ed breather line and then compare with the sum of the measurments on a pair of separate lines on the same motor? Is there a way to measure the amount of liquid suspended in the crankcase gasses expelled by the breather system across the rev range? You have tackled this kind of thing before; how can this be nailed down scientifically?

Russ
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 03:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aaron,
True. Entirely anecdotal. It happened withn a few days of me having run it in enough (2000 miles) to start hitting the limiter, so it was still a tightish engine. I mention that because ring gap "should" have still been good giving less blow-by. However, maybe the ring/bore seal wasn't perfect yet, and allowed it past.
Seeing the seals have been replaced (I heard) with a twin lip version, maybe the culprit is there.
It worked for me though
PPiA
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

José_Quiñones
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 08:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Two is better than one? Isn't that a good enough reason, Aaron

Well the factory gets away with that 2 into one thing because the distances from the breather bolts into the airbox and down the snorkle are short.

In the stock setup, this air/oil mix has to go a short distance from the breather bolts to the intake snorkle, and it is being helped by the air intake sucking air. That's why I think the fact that the stock hoses go UP doesn't matter as much, they only go a short distance, and it's being pushed out one end and sucked out the other.

Positive Engine Pressure>>>>>Air/Oil>>>>>>>Negative Intake Pressure

Once we reroute the hoses away from the airbox, we are greatly increasing the distance that this air/oil mix has to travel, and it is going there out into the atmosphere, with no help on the other end. So the air/oil mix has to leave the engine through a longer hose, and without help from the intake sucking in air.

Positive Engine Pressure>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Air/Oil>>Atmospheric pressure
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

José_Quiñones
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 08:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

here's my two line setup, I did this so I could use only one "drain line"


2 lines

2 lines

the two filters are under the seat. The lines are NOT touching the rear exhaust, but they are close...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aaron
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 11:21 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

But what's your evidence that 1 isn't enough?

Like I said, I'm hard-headed. I refuse to make assumptions like that.

Peter: probably a scavenge issue.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 02:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aaron,
Tell me more.
PPiA
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aaron
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 10:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Peter: well, look at it this way ... these motors are known for wet-sumping at high rpm, no? The scavenge sections are marginal, despite a couple of updates aimed at improving them (some say the '98 revision was a step backward, BTW, and there's certainly evidence to that effect).

Say your crankcase starts filling with oil. As the pistons come down and the crankcase volume decreases, what happens? Remember, oil won't compress like air. The oil introduced by wet sumping displaces air, now a higher percentage of what's in your crankcase can't be compressed. Seems to me that for a given breather system capacity, wet sumping will make crankcase pressures rise. And of course, the oil will be pushing right on that seal.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really know what happened that made your motor dump oil into the primary, I'm just pointing out that there are other factors at work. I'd just personally be reluctant to conclude it was a breather capacity problem, or at least breather capacity alone.

Please don't anyone take any of my dissent personally. I look at things a little differently than most. I have a lot of skepticism and aversion to unnecessary mods, or at least mods that I don't clearly see the value of. Same reason my M2 & S1 still have their stock ignition modules & coils, and the same reason the LSR bike truly is still an RR1000. The philiosophy is focus on the constraints. Comes from years of wasting money & time only to get blown away by someone who did less & spent less but did it smarter.

But of course, what keeps all this stuff interesting is that we all compete with our ideas and understandings of how things work, and our bikes are reflections of that. So by all means, do what makes sense to you.

AW
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

H_Man
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 11:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

DAMN I love you guys and this site!!

I learn so much just reading the posts. Some of it I don't understand. But over time, it begins to make sense to me. My '00 M2 is my first bike. I've learned quite a bit about bikes and Buells thanks in large part to you guys (and the occasional gal).

Just thought I'd toss in these unsolicited and slightly off thread statements.

Have a safe & fun New Year's Eve everyone.

Baribari zenkai!!

H-man
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ara
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 11:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aaron: I have some personal experience with wet sumping. My oringinal '97-spec engine wet sumped, covered six lanes of interstate with Hollywood quality blue smoke, and died. Buell Inc. granted me a replacement '98-spec engine, and it's a peach. So I'm very curious about your comment that the '98 mod was a step backward. Please say on...

Theoretically, one could make any machine better by optimizing its sub-systems (so long as one does not optimize one sub-system to the detriment of another). I think Jose's comments are right on the money - very logical. If one can optimize the function of the breather system with another couple of feet of cheap rubber hose, what's the disadvantage in doing so?

Again, how might these suppositions be tested? Like you, I prefer hard data. If no test can be done, then we're restricted to reason, logic, and Einsteinian "thought experiments." You can accomplish a lot that way.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Peter
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2001 - 12:34 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

AAron,
I can follow that logic.
What's the cure for wetsumping? Why is the scavenge side of the pump less efficient than the pressure side?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rocketman
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2001 - 06:20 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I didn't know Buells had a wet sumping issue at high RPM ?

I know there's a lot of oil in there for the crank to run through, hence baffle plating, but that's news to me Aaron.

Having said that, I don't know if any of you read my NEW YEAR post on the GDB the other day, but in it I made reference to Sandys S&S stroked S1, and in particular when she was exceeding 120 MPH and there was a sudden ploom of smoke bringing her to a stop.

I never got to hear what really caused the problem but the smoke was the result of motor oil, and lots of it, beeen deposited on the exhaust because one of the pushrod tubes had come adrift. I always assumed it was a mechanical issue and still do. Surely excess crankcase pressure couldn't have blown it off ?

And what about the issue of oil bag caps blowing off ? I was told that mine use to do it because the check ball behind the oil filter had a damaged spring resulting in a higher pressure to open the ball valve. Am I to understand this could cause the oil bag to swell and blow the cap off, and I'm talking about blowing the cap a good 6 feet or more into orbit, because the input side of the oil system, basically from the feed line to the filter housing, would be subject to a higher pressure ?

Rocket in England
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aaron
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2001 - 10:31 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Russ: I didnt say the '98 change was a step backward, I said some folks think so. Personally I'm reluctant to draw conclusions without more data. Here's the thinking, though ... look what they changed in 98, they added a second inlet to the pump in the cam box. Now try this experiment ... put two straws in your mouth, immerse the end of one of the straws in water and leave the other one open, and suck on the straws. What happens?

The fact that they changed it again in '01 certainly suggests that they're still trying to make the design work.

I follow Jose's logic and I agree that it's sound. But without actual evidence that the breathing is inadequate and the number of hoses is the restriction, is it enough to draw a conclusion? Why such a deep conviction? Maybe if something happened to me and I truly had reason to believe the number of hoses was the problem, or maybe if I could see it on the dyno, I'd agree. But at this point, I just don't see any reason to believe it's broke. And I do see reasons to believe it's fine. It just baffles me that people worry so much about this issue.

Rocket: well, I don't know what to tell you. Wet sumping at sustained high rpm is a well known issue. The factory made 2 attempts to fix it over 4 model years, that should tell you something.

Peter: the *real* cure is a $500 oil pump with multiple scavenge sections. But people do things to try to make the stock pump work. For example, one of the approaches is to bleed off some of the oil going in on the pressure side and send it back to the tank. Zippers's even sells a little kit to do it. That's how I did it on the RR, although I made the kit and used Holley main jets for metering. But putting less oil in *can* be risky.

Why is the stock scavenge section inefficient? Well, take one apart sometime. Besides having two inlets to a single section, there's also a gaping hole between the pressure and scavenge sections. It was pointed out to me that oil *could* be just passing from the pressure side to the scavenge side right there in the pump, potentially overloading the scavenge. The whole design just looks messed up to me. But what do I know.

AW
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rocketman
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2001 - 11:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

...............not a lot :)

Rocket in England
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jmartz
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2001 - 01:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aaron:

I have made that same observation on the '98 two inlet orifice oil pump. The situation would seem to be aggravated if you installed this device in an older case with the drip channel drilled. This would allow some of the cam case oil to reach the "sump" and more chance for the upper inlet hole to be dry.

In spite of this, I have accidentally overfilled the motor and the return pressure has been sufficient to bust the glue seals on the rubber (now defunct) grommets of the oil tank bungs. Ocasionally I will flush all the old oil out of the motor by runing it at idle while holding the return line into a bucket while my wife makes sure the tank stays full. You would not believe the pressure that SOB has.

Jose
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

José_Quiñones
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2001 - 07:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)


Quote:

I follow Jose's logic.....



As Homer Simpson would say: WhoHoo!

Quote:

It just baffles me that people worry so much about this issue.




Well, I think the first time people see oil leaking from the airbox area, they freak out and think it's a blown gasket. So when they find out it's "normal High RPM Sportster/Buell Puke" it becomes a "quest" for the owner to find a way to reroute these hoses away from the airbox and try to control the puking.

We'll see if the Firebolt fixes this once and for all. From the Blasts I have seen, I'm not convinced yet, but the Firebolt has that new "reed valve" which apparently does the trick.

Reed Valve
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevem123
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2001 - 10:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Hey Aaron, Rocketman, Whoever else,
My 01S3T is all stock config except for a K&N air filter in the stock breadbox.
I now have 7500 miles on the clock and havent seen the massive puking that everyone is talking about. I regularly run between 4500 and 5000 Rpm for 10 to 15 miles at a time daily and recently did a 90 to 100 MPH run for 200 miles with a stop in the middle. Still no puke but it did consume a little more oil than usual (about a quarter to half a quart). Maybe I'm just lucky (knockin on wood here) but the stock config seems to work here? Also I weigh about 280 so this thing aint being babied!
So I'm really wondering why all these hundreds of posts about breather mods. How many like me have left it alone long enough to see what really gives with the stock setup?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Djkaplan
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2001 - 11:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Rocket,

My bike will also blow the oil cap off. It shoots off like a..., well..., rocket if I leave my seat off when the engine is running.

Is this normal? Good God, it's not because I ran my breather lines up, is it? (heh, heh).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ara
Posted on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 02:10 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I have a theory about Rocket's rocketing oil cap. If some of the oil in the reservoir runs back down into the engine while the bike is parked overnight, there's sufficient time for air to replace the oil absent from the reservoir. But when you start the engine at fast idle the oil is pumped from the engine into the reservoir faster than the air can escape. The result is presurized air above the oil in the reservoir - enough to blow the cap like a champaign cork.

If true, two solutions present themselves. One is to service the check valve that is supposed to prevent oil from draining from the reservoir to the engine. The other is to start the engine with the oil cap off and run it until the reservoir level stabilizes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ara
Posted on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 09:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

My theory on the rocketing oil cap is that when the oil slowly drains from the reservoir to the engine while the bike is parked, air has time to replace the oil missing from the reservoir. When you start the bike the oil is pumped back into the reservoir faster than the air in the reservoir can escape. The result is pressurized air in the reservoir - sufficient to blow the oil cap off like a chanpaigne cork.

If true, two options suggest themselves. Service the check valve that is SUPPOSED to prevent the oil from draining out of the reservoir, or start the bike with the oil cap off until the oil level stabilizes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ara
Posted on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 09:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Oh, that's weird. I posted that first message early this morning, and it didn't appear this morning. So I reposted my theory and when I checked to see that it was on the BBS, suddenly they were both there. Appologies for the repitition.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Djkaplan
Posted on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 08:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Update on my fuel filter breather set-up.

After 500 miles the "spooge" clogged up the filter element and my fabricated breather (plastic fuel filter) stopped breathing.

Although I read about it first, I was still surprised at the consistency and color of the oil. It was white and foamy, like a malted milk shake.

I had the breather tube feeding to the exit line on the filter. This made the spooge go through the filter element first before collecting in the bottom of the filter housing.

I replaced the filter and rerouted the breather hose so the oil mist enters the filter housing first. I also drilled a hole in the bottom of the housing and added a resealable drain tube.

This is at best a stop-gap measure and may not be a proper replacement for a catch can. The spooge could eventually clog the filter element again.

I'll monitor it more closely and replace it with a catch can when I uh..., can.

Oh well. Do not attempt this at home.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rocketman
Posted on Tuesday, January 01, 2002 - 10:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I don't have a problem with the oil bag cap blowing off anymore. That was some time ago.

You probabaly don't remember, but it was after I got the Buell back from its motor hop-ups in 2000. I was ready for a ride out for the first time since the mod's, and after making level checks I found the cap to be under pressure at ALL times. It was suggested, as a temporary fix to get me riding that evening, to drill a hole in the oil cap and check it with the motor warmed. All seemed ok and a short time later I was just setting off from my house making a 90deg turn when the bike highsided and spat me off. At the time I didn't have the rear hugger on the bike. It seemed the oil had puked out from the cap and found its way to the rear tyre.

The damage was quite bad but the dealer fixed everything, no problem. It was then that I was told about the check vave spring been faulty, but I never really swallowed that story so I guess it's still a bit of a mystery. Suffice to say though, when the bike came back repaired, it didn't blow the cap off anymore. In any case, it couldn't now with the Metmachex alloy tank fitted :)

I do wonder though, how much pressure is created between the pump and the filter. I mean, if the spring was damaged allowing a higher pressure to establish in the feed side, how would this pressure get back to the bag ?

Rocket in England
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jmartz
Posted on Wednesday, January 02, 2002 - 07:31 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Pehaps the problem has something to do with the fact that the pressure equailization line is 1/4 ID while the others are 3/8 ID.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ara
Posted on Wednesday, January 02, 2002 - 11:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Has anybody serviced the check valve spring themselves and would like to share the method and appropriate PNs?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Djkaplan
Posted on Wednesday, January 02, 2002 - 01:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

If you remove the oil filter adapter (the threaded thing the filter screws onto) the check ball and spring are right behind it.

It doesn't look like there's anything to service, purely a remove and inspect deal - no gaskets.

Use loctite to reinstall the adaptor. Torque to 8-12 ft-lbs (page 3-41 of 99/00 Cyclone Service Manual).

I think I'll inspect mine at the next oil change.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ara
Posted on Wednesday, January 02, 2002 - 09:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Thanks, DJ!
Don't suppose you know the PNs for the spring and ball?
« Previous Next »

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration