[Geoff]

On the PCV, I found that every time I removed the stock valley pan for a cam change, it was ALWAYS wet with oil. Covered in it. Nothing wrong with the oil pump!! It seemed obvious that the oil being slung up against the pan would find it's way into the stock PCV. I had unacceptable oil consumption & I thought this was the cause, so I modifed a valve cover & fitted the PCV into the end of the cover, away from oil spurting rockers & pushrods. This markedly reduced oil consumption.

[DiamondJim]

Thanks Tom and others for very interesting info. Like I said before, normal driving, no problem. But with a PCV in 1 valvecover, run to manifold vacume and a breather in the other valvecover, WOT at the strip overloads this set-up. I am hoping with more miles on this motor helps. BTW, can anyone tell me how the crank evac set-up that Summit sells works? Is it with draft tubes or does it get plumbed to exhaust? Thanks-Jim

[David Jones]

Originally Posted by lastchancegoat

Thanks for all the info everyone. To David Jones - your Year One pan is, I believe, a Butler pan. Do I understand that you just totally plugged the PCV hole in the pan and put a PCV breather in the Valve cover? Do you have stock valve covers?

I got the pan on the cheap, from Ebay. It carries only a small slot on the underside of the pan for the PCV to breathe through. I put a big rubber cap over the Year One PCV and have a factory listed PCV in the driver valve cover running to the intake. No smoke anytime. I have the Edelbrock "Signature" series covers.

[lastchancegoat]

Thanks for the info everyone. I am waiting to see how the PCV breather in the valve cover situation works on an engine similar to mine that has been sucking oil. Seems to me that is the best way to vent the crankcase without exposing the PCV to available oil that is waiting to get sucked into the engine.

Thanks again.

[Jack Gifford]

All good reading above! Pesky little problem, those crankcase vapors!
As of a couple weeks ago, I had decided (like many here, plus my own experiences) that the valley cover is just the WRONG place to try to pull vapors from, without liquid oil along with them. I'm putting together a '58 engine, which has a valley pan almost identical to the 389's and is fairly well baffled. In a prior use of it, I had brazed a reducer and a 3/8" tube into the old road-draft hole to connect to PCV. Considering all the above posts, I had decided to just cap this valley tube and do all of the PCV stuff at the rocker covers. But just before I mounted the cover, I got to pondering and measuring- and wound up brazing yet another baffle to the bottom of the pan- about a 4" x 6" rectangle with legs holding it about 1/4" below the 2" x 3" vent opening in the bottom of the pan. I believe this eliminates any line-of-sight path for oil droplets to be thrown into the pan's cavity. We'll see!

[harry k]

JSA auto ,this is what your saying exactly huh .

[form406]

what is different on a stock valley pan than a butler valley pan that makes it leak...? lack of baffeling and /or an inefficient pcv valve...?

[Skip Fix]

Ahaa!! measuring the Butler provided baffled grommet the PCV bottoms out in it negating the baffles. The KRE provided slit grommet is over 0.25 taller so the end of the valve is further away! Might be a big factor besides the additional holes in the Butler tray.

[Tom Vaught]

Pontiac Jack, you done gooooood!

As I mentioned once before, Marty Palbykin showed me one time how he removed the lower part of a factory valley pan to get more Roller Lifter clearance. I figured, after seeing that deal, that I could do the same thing and clean the inside of a factory valley pan. Before I put the thing back together, I will add some extra baffles inside the thing and maybe the new external baffle you created too.

Tom V.

[Jack Gifford]

Don't know yet Tom- time will tell. Once it's running, I still could wind up capping the valley cover nipple and doing something else.
Eventually (after getting a scanner that works, and developing a roll of film), I'll post a picture of the horizontal baffle I added.

[Jack Gifford]

Originally Posted by pontiac jack

All good reading above! Pesky little problem, those crankcase vapors!
As of a couple weeks ago, I had decided (like many here, plus my own experiences) that the valley cover is just the WRONG place to try to pull vapors from, without liquid oil along with them. I'm putting together a '58 engine, which has a valley pan almost identical to the 389's and is fairly well baffled. In a prior use of it, I had brazed a reducer and a 3/8" tube into the old road-draft hole to connect to PCV. Considering all the above posts, I had decided to just cap this valley tube and do all of the PCV stuff at the rocker covers. But just before I mounted the cover, I got to pondering and measuring- and wound up brazing yet another baffle to the bottom of the pan- about a 4" x 6" rectangle with legs holding it about 1/4" below the 2" x 3" vent opening in the bottom of the pan. I believe this eliminates any line-of-sight path for oil droplets to be thrown into the pan's cavity. We'll see!

The picture doesn't show very clearly, but the brazed-on baffle sits about 1/4" away from the valley pan opening. It's yet to be seen how effective it will be.

[David Jones]

Hey, you don't know until you try. Good luck!