Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The only spot available currently is the rear oil drain (the issue being getting the line from the catch can to that drain) or the other potential option is we drill and tap the sump on the drivers side.

The catch can took 2L of oil after 7 laps of long track and 3 laps of short track at Barbagallo. That left my sump with just over low on the dip stick which is just enough to be on the safe side considering I have a Greddy extended sump and pickup. So even if nothing drained back during the run I could do 10 laps and still be ok, other stuff on the car is going to give up before then.

Well I would suggest if it did that at Wanners you will have real trouble at Collie. Anyway it is up to you. You can pull the sump off the thing without taking the engine out. Not a fun day at the office but manageable.

Who built your motor out of interest?

Well I would suggest if it did that at Wanners you will have real trouble at Collie. Anyway it is up to you. You can pull the sump off the thing without taking the engine out. Not a fun day at the office but manageable.

Who built your motor out of interest?

Stock motor, not built. Doing low 64/54's at Barbagallo so it's not exactly a Sunday drive.

Maybe I'll just avoid Collie :P

Edited by SimonR32

Yeah well the fat rings in the stock motors are actually pretty good at reducing blowby which is the root cause of the problem. Forged engines are more of a problem.

The difference with Wroo/Collie is as follows:
You make blowby/push oil into the heat on the straight - ie when you are accelerating. When cornering at Wroo it is mostly turn right which matches the drain holes in the head of the motor (on the passengers side) So you get some drainage. Also if the catch can is where the battery used to be and is plumbed back it can drain to the sump easilly under cornering load.

Unfortunately Collie is almost all left handers which allows neither of those things to happen. Hence it is much, much harder to sort hte problem there.

So anyone who tells you they have a cure ask them if it worked at Collie and dont beleive them until it has.

Also Collie is much more fun to drive around than Wanneroo.

Gav Beer's comment (who runs the same system) was Collie was the worst for oil issues. I think he has been through 3-4 catch can set ups that didn't work well enough. He mentioned that this catch can was the only one that worked for him and he could literally feel the oil draining from the catch can after runs at Collie by putting his hand on the catch can.

I did also do a few laps of long track with boost turned right up to 1.6bar (hit boost cut at 1.74bar about 6 times during 2 laps) so I doubt that would have helped with the blowby. Turned boost down to 1.1bar for the rest of the night but I'm not sure if that helped at all with the problem, for all I know all the oil had already gone to the catch can.

Edited by SimonR32

drian back + one way valve

or just knock your reves back 1k

i know which i would choose

Only rev it to 7500 on the track already so f**k going 1000rpm less.

Just ordered one of these;

http://streetautoparts.com.au/index.php/aeroflow/valves/one-way-flap-valves/aeroflow-one-way-flap-valve-10an-black-af612-10blk.html

Don't know if anyone has used one before but I'll let you know what it's like.

From my experience the Nismo oil air separator don't work that will in practice. I've been chasing oil issues on a 450rwkw rb26 for about 12 months now, we found that oil was pushed from the sump through the Nismo separator back into the catch cans (this was on the dyno), i've put a 1 way valve on it now

Since then i've plumed the dip stick to the cam cover to bleed pressure out of the sump, and even though it's only going through a 1/4" BSP fitting, it made a big difference.

catch cans are a band aid solution, the core of the problem is pressure in the sump.

Only rev it to 7500 on the track already so f**k going 1000rpm less.

Just ordered one of these;

http://streetautoparts.com.au/index.php/aeroflow/valves/one-way-flap-valves/aeroflow-one-way-flap-valve-10an-black-af612-10blk.html

Don't know if anyone has used one before but I'll let you know what it's like.

make sure you remove the spring out of it, otherwise it will never drain back

From my experience the Nismo oil air separator don't work that will in practice. I've been chasing oil issues on a 450rwkw rb26 for about 12 months now, we found that oil was pushed from the sump through the Nismo separator back into the catch cans (this was on the dyno), i've put a 1 way valve on it now

Since then i've plumed the dip stick to the cam cover to bleed pressure out of the sump, and even though it's only going through a 1/4" BSP fitting, it made a big difference.

catch cans are a band aid solution, the core of the problem is pressure in the sump.

Interesting, mine has no issues on the dyno or straight line stuff. Only once it's out on the track does it start filling the catch can.

I do like the idea of plumbing the dipstick to release pressure in the sump, would love some pics on how you went about that. I guess then the only pain in the ass is how to actually measure oil levels?

The RB26 is on my garage floor ATM, so i'll take some pics of that tonight. The catch can return with 1 way valve is in my car, which isn't at my house. I'll be working on my car during the week, so i'll get some pics of the catch can return then.

Spitting oil out on the dyno is pretty rare. The tuner guessed that the Nismo separtor was being used as a vent, and carrying the oil from the turbo drain up to the head.

The RB26 is on my garage floor ATM, so i'll take some pics of that tonight. The catch can return with 1 way valve is in my car, which isn't at my house. I'll be working on my car during the week, so i'll get some pics of the catch can return then.

Spitting oil out on the dyno is pretty rare. The tuner guessed that the Nismo separtor was being used as a vent, and carrying the oil from the turbo drain up to the head.

Oil issues on the dyno are uncommon simply because the engine isnt on song long enough for it to become a problem. It needs to largely fill the cam covers before it starts pumping oil out. They have a reasonable volume which is enough for a pull on a dyno. On the track it is common for them to be on full throttle through the gears and then be subject to lateral and/or longitudinal gees - hence they accumulate oil & sump pressure and start pumping oil everywhere.

Venting the sump is one way of fixing it. It makes up for the lack of cross sectional area in the head of the motor to let the oil return to the sump and the blowby go to atmosphere. How much extra area you need to fix it depends on how much blowby you have.

The problem in all this is it is near on impossible to recreate on the street. Atleast if you are not being a complete spanker. It only happens on the track. Hence many, many RB26's that would otherwise exhibit the problem dont - simply because of the way they are used and not because of the way they are built.

I'd reckon the fix is to use a thicker top ring, fixate on the end gap of that ring and obsess over the run in procedure.

Yes lots less oil. Before I put that line on the car had 2 x 3l catch cans. It still has them, but the 2nd one only catches the E85 vaper. I have recently added this new -10 line as a breather, which should fix all the breathing problems once and for all.

2E3B65CD-F56F-474E-AB58-BB038532E220-447

Going to drain the catch can to start with and see how it goes, plan is to run a -6 line with one way valve around the back of the head to the rear turbo drain.

If that doesn't work well enough I'll think about running from dip stick to catch can or cam covers

Edited by SimonR32

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...