Worst case IF this is really a concern that should be addressed or avoided from the beginning, I can see excessive gasket oil leaks-minor seepage, excessive oil consumption, loss of power on a very low level at higher rpms.
|
Worst case IF this is really a concern that should be addressed or avoided from the beginning, I can see excessive gasket oil leaks-minor seepage, excessive oil consumption, loss of power on a very low level at higher rpms.
You work on a lot of cars. Have you seen this yet. I only have my car and TooMch's to go by. He has a lot more mileage and has beat on his quite a bit. So that and the forums is all I have to go by. I realized the "new" IC's have only been out since 06 but there should be something showing up by now.
Sorry Lee, everyone I have done an intercooler for has wanted to use a breather outside of one I just finished up a few weeks ago which isnt going to display any signs yet. Most of the intercoolers that I have installed were the earlier ones without the hole and had to run a breather anyways.
Dang it! How can I go stir up trouble elsewhere without something solid to back up my questioning.
I think I will persue this with Zooomer. I'm interested in finding out what kind of testing ZZP did to determine that groove was sufficient to do the job. Not even sure why they didn't make the relocation path wider with less of a bend.
Dave, thanks for the PCV explanation for the s/c 3800 (best I've seen) and indulging my need to know.
I'm sure this will help others to make a choice when confronted with the IC decision.
Zooomer was very quick to reply.
"We actually had a bit of debate about this in the shop. The small passage was approved by me, overruled by others here. We ended up building one and testing vacuum. We decided from the vac #'s that it would be ok and have been using them for over a year.You ahve to be very careful not to get RTV in the passage though."
I made a new post to carry on this discussion because we are way off the OPs question.
http://www.grandprixforums.net/f18/p...ling-6133.html
Glad to hear that he replied to you with some info and Im sure thought did go into this and he is certainly 100% correct about NOT getting any sealant in this area. The other problem with this though is that there is only a very thin area to seal between this passage and the open into hole under the intercooler, if you have seen the intake you know what I mean-Lee you probably noticed this. Not getting any sealant in the passage means next to none in this area at all, and garlocks need all the help they can get to seal. Take into account oil soaking into the gasket and breaking it down over time, oil "coking" if you will and blocking the small passage off. Not everyone tears their car apart multiple times a year to inspect and clean things and a 5 year run without teardown would really prove its worthiness. As mentioned earlier a bigger passage would be great but they did what they did because there just isnt much room to work with.
Well, since this is appropriate to the OP, I guess I'll respond here.
When zzp looked at my stage 2 setup they took it apart and said rtv had gotten into the track. Said they fixed it. I have one of the early ones that had the pcv fix. My squeal happens less often but it still happens. And when I just pulled my intercooler off the garlock showed signs of the oil soaking into it. I'm using a trimmed OEM to reassemble.
OEM gaskets FTW! Garlocks suck so bad it ain't funny. I can't believe people still buy those POS'....
When I pulled my Stage 3 off. The Garlocks looked excellent. I had Gen5 OEM, Gen 3 OEM, and Teadit gaskets sitting on the shelf ready to go, when I did my Stage 2 recently. I used Teadit (ZZP's Garlock replacement) on this install. As Dave mentioned, if installed like he described, they are ok.
I've had to redo Garlock installs 4 times now, they were all an oily mess. And yes, all installed used RTV... Ultra Copper on 2 and Right Stuff on the other 2. I have yet to have a stock S/C gasket have an oily mess problem with RTV used.
Stock or Felpro L67 Gaskets FTW win w/ Ultra Copper IMO.
Actully, I'm really liking the OEM L32 gaskets. On ridding my car of Garlocks I used and modified an L32 for the lower, and the upper I modifed an L67. The install went smooth and clean, i'm real happy how it turned out. I used Ultra Copper on all sides too. I wish I could of used an L32 for the top but unfortuneitly it wouldn't quite fit with a GEN 3.
Only compliment I'll give for the Garlocks is that there easy to remove, so at least uninstalling them and going back to stock isn't as painless.
If you go with the L32 gaskets and use a demel to do the trimming. Please use safety glasses and a snug mask.
Trimming the OEM L67's is fairly easy with a razor blade but would likely give a more smooth edge with an exacto knife. Try to keep the important edges smooth.
I marked my L32s but didn't trim or use them. I trimmed the L67 ones but since the edges were no longer tightly molded like designed, I felt they would soak oil. This along with the good condition of my Garlocks in the past was the reason I used them again. It may bite me this time around, and if it does I'll give my trimmed L67 a shot.
If using the GM pump, make sure it is the lowest point on your system, because it has to be primed. Bottom line, if you are mounting the pump and it's a little higher that the lower FMHE radiator hose, temporarily let the pump hang low until you've ran it and the system is flowing well, then mount it.
Good advice. A cut off wheel would make cutting the L32s simple for sure. I ended up using some utility scissors which are super sharpe and cut metal well. I used these for the L32 and L67 gaskets, although the workout was done on the L32 for sure. :-) LOL. I wish GM would release an L32 style in the L67 form, That would kick ass and beat anything currently availible, I', impressed with the L32 gasket.
If using the GM pump, make sure it is the lowest point on your system, because it has to be primed. Bottom line, if you are mounting the pump and it's a little higher that the lower FMHE radiator hose, temporarily let the pump hang low until you've ran it and the system is flowing well, then mount it.
Damn right! I made this mistake when doing my IC the first time around. I mounted mine low but it wasn't at the absolute lowest. Basically I had it mounted on the bottom of that shelf where the PCM/Airbox mounts on in the fenderwell. I couldn't get it to prime to save my life, so all I did was relocated it down in the fenderwell and mounted it on the splash shield which was inline with the lower most fitting on the IC radiator. After that change the pump primed quickly and has worked well ever since. So yeah, the absolute lowest, the better no doubt.
If using the GM pump, make sure it is the lowest point on your system, because it has to be primed. Bottom line, if you are mounting the pump and it's a little higher that the lower FMHE radiator hose, temporarily let the pump hang low until you've ran it and the system is flowing well, then mount it.[/QUOTE]
New to intercooler lingo soo i dont really understand what this means, i probably should know if im going to be getting one.
New to intercooler lingo soo i dont really understand what this means, i probably should know if im going to be getting one.[/QUOTE]
Because of the type of pump the GM one is, it really needs to the at the lowest point of the total IC system. Mine was mounted a couple of inches higher than the lowest point. The pump was running but not pumping. As soon as I took it off of it's mount and it dropped to the absolute lowest point, the fluid all disappeared from the reservior, fluid made it to the pump thus priming and started it pumping. I filled the reservior back up, and mounted the pump in the fenderwell again and all is fine now the thatsystem is full.
ohh ok thanks!
« Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
Tags for this Thread |