New Old Navy CCV filter coming for CRD

RFCRD · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:58 am

Just keep your ingenuity flowing, eventually this problem will get solved.

It's still troubling that with a small army on engineers all the $$$ DC and the other manufacturers spend on R&D that they can't build a simple workable solution for this. One would think DC would trip over themselves to add another filter to the list to sell me for $38.95. Of course in DC style, it would be a proprietary part and need serviced often, say every 12K miles. Or maybe they are banking on selling us new EGR valves annually for $300 a pop from now until eternity.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:37 am

RFCRD wrote:

Just keep your ingenuity flowing, eventually this problem will get solved.

It's still troubling that with a small army on engineers all the $$$ DC and the other manufacturers spend on R&D that they can't build a simple workable solution for this. One would think DC would trip over themselves to add another filter to the list to sell me for $38.95. Of course in DC style, it would be a proprietary part and need serviced often, say every 12K miles. Or maybe they are banking on selling us new EGR valves annually for $300 a pop from now until eternity.

Sometimes I think most all engineers seem to box themselves in, they seem to get stuck thinking other engineers did it this way for a reason and therefore they should not seek change or ask why it is done that way. An example of this is every engineer I ever talked with about the way the OEM CCV is designed on VW, MB or these VM engines, they will tell me when I suggest getting rid of the OEM CCV with the poppet valve it has inside, that serves an important purpose simply because the OEM engineers designed it that way and put it on the vehicle. They get very indignent when I or someone else suggest it is a worthless POS and not even needed on the engine.

Goglio704 · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:49 am

Well, I went open vent at 2100 miles. I had been watching the situation for a while. At 1200 miles there was oil in the hose from the turbo to the CAC. Nothing after the CAC. At 2100 miles the stuff had made it through the CAC and most of the way through the outlet hose - not solid, but in streaks. Wierd, nasty stuff. Kinda reminds me of what you might have if you took engine oil and slowly cooked the liquid off until all that remained was the suspended solids - yucky! Hard to clean up in the hoses - impractical in the CAC. I also changed to Delvac 1 5W40. By the time I finished it was dark and you could see an oil fog coming from the vent hose if you got the light right. I got the hose routed down to the oil filter area and managed to stay away from the exhaust. I might take the suggestion and look for the hole in the frame below the power steering resevoir. I kind of like where I have it now though because I think it would stay warm and not ice over in winter. As to engineers - many of them are a bad mixture of ignorance and arrogance. Many lack the ability to really analyze a real world problem. The computer says it will work - it must work. To be fair to the engineers though, engineering might have been screaming for CCV filtration and accounting may have killed it.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:59 am

Goglio704 wrote:

Well I went open vent at 2100 miles. I had been watching the situation for a while. At 1200 miles there was oil in the hose from the turbo to the CAC. Nothing after the CAC. At 2100 miles the stuff had made it through the CAC and most of the way through the outlet hose - not solid, but in streaks. Wierd, nasty stuff. Kinda reminds me of what you might have if you took engine oil and slowly cooked the liquid off until all that remained was the suspended solids - yucky! Hard to clean up in the hoses - impractical in the CAC. I also changed to Delvac 1 5W40. By the time I finished it was dark and you could see an oil fog coming from the vent hose if you got the light right. I got the hose routed down to the oil filter area and managed to stay away from the exhaust. I might take the suggestion and look for the hole in the frame below the power steering resevoir. I kind of like where I have it now though because I think it would stay warm and not ice over in winter.

I know IC = InterCooler, EGR = Exhuast Gas Recirc, but what is CAC? This must something I know by another term so clue me in guys.

Goglio704 · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:06 am

Sorry, Charge Air Cooler = CAC = intercooler. I don't think I made that one up, but I do sometimes :oops:

.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:11 am

Goglio704 wrote:

Sorry, Charge Air Cooler = CAC = intercooler. I don't think I made that one up, but I do sometimes :oops:

.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, been retired for several years and I sometimes get way out of touch thought that might have happened here.

marauderer · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:17 am

oldnavy wrote:

RFCRD wrote:

Just keep your ingenuity flowing, eventually this problem will get solved.

It's still troubling that with a small army on engineers all the $$$ DC and the other manufacturers spend on R&D that they can't build a simple workable solution for this. One would think DC would trip over themselves to add another filter to the list to sell me for $38.95. Of course in DC style, it would be a proprietary part and need serviced often, say every 12K miles. Or maybe they are banking on selling us new EGR valves annually for $300 a pop from now until eternity.

Sometimes I think most all engineers seem to box themselves in, they seem to get stuck thinking other engineers did it this way for a reason and therefore they should not seek change or ask why it is done that way. An example of this is every engineer I ever talked with about the way the OEM CCV is designed on VW, MB or these VM engines, they will tell me when I suggest getting rid of the OEM CCV with the poppet valve it has inside, that serves an important purpose simply because the OEM engineers designed it that way and put it on the vehicle. They get very indignent when I or someone else suggest it is a worthless POS and not even needed on the engine.

The trouble with corporations is the "Bean Counters". They end up compromising a great design because of costs. It's all about the bottom line. If the bean counters can not visualize that it will actually cost them more than the savings then a bad design goes to production. SOSDD!!

Also the EPA/government gets their grubby fingers into a project and it again gets compromised.

I don't think the brightest and best engineers are working for the Car companies anymore as there are so many other fields out there vying for their services.

Now the sad part is the dealers and a lot of their techs are brain washed into thinking that the company engineers are the last word and it just can't be any better than how they designed it. Of course anyone that works in an engineering environment knows that's a crock of bull.

Most real improvements have come from the private sector. But, a lot of pattens are bought and rat holed in a closet as it would cause a loss of revenue from lack of sales of parts, repair labor costs, etc.

RFCRD · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:58 pm

Goglio704,

You found the goo! 2100 miles was bad enough. Now think of that stuff coating everything from the turbo outlet to your intake valves and building-up over time. The best stuff I've seen to cut the crud without eating the hoses is ether (starting fluid) and bottle brush or round style toilet brush. Just make sure every trace is gone before reinstalling the hoses. Your CRD gets a snort of that stuff, it with definately light-up.

marauderer · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:57 pm

Amsoil makes a product called "Power Foam". I used it in my Volvo TD for 312K mi to clean up the intake from all the goop.

Check it out at the following web site

https://www.amsoil.com/storefront/apf.aspx

bhysjulien · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:27 pm

Old Navy,

Any word on when the new CCV is going to be available?

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:18 pm

bhysjulien wrote:

Old Navy,

Any word on when the new CCV is going to be available?

Haven't heard anything from them since last Thursday when I was asked to check some measurements. Holiday weekend and this is a side developement for them and all work is is done in their spare time or after business hours at present. I am just as much in a hurry for the test units to hit the door for me to test as yuo guys are I bet.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:20 am

When it comes to rigging or designing a system that will work as intended and work well, I'll pick a mechanic over an engineer any day.

An engineering degree doesn't mean someone's an engineer. It means they have the knowledge and training to BECOME an engineer after they've had some practical experience. If they bother to follow up and see how their systems perform in the real world, and take those lessons to heart, applying some common sense along with the math, they'll be worth their weight in gold. If, on the other hand, all they ever do is sit behind their desk and play with CAD drawings on a computer, never see how their designs actually perform (and in the worst cases don't care as long as they get paid), then IMHO they're not worth a bucket of warm spit. And in all fairness, the same could be said about a good number of mechanics and techs as well.

Even in the military, where cost was a fair ways down the totem pole, I saw engineers come up with some really screwy stuff.

Bottom line is, engineers are human, they make mistakes as well, otherwise the History Channel wouldn't have a show titled "Engineering Disasters". But as the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and we tend to forget about what they've gotten right. I could forgive them the CCV setup and some of the other hiccups with this beast, considering that on the whole they've given us one heck of an engine.

Ranger1 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:40 pm **Posts:** 1137

I don't think engineers had any say on the ccv that went on our CRD's. I think it was strictly a cost control measure. DCX stated they were subsidizing the extra cost of the DD engine, and it cost them approximately $1000.00 more than the V6 engine. Most engineering projects have a budget limit, and you don't get to go over that limit - unless you want a trip to the big house and lunch with the higher level executives. But it won't get that far, as a first line engineering manger won't sign-off on out of cost spec'd components anyway. If you look at where the cheapo factory ccv is installed, you can see even more cost savings - it came already installed right on the engine - no extra expensive labor cost to install a larger one on the firewall or inner fender liner. Same sunk labor cost to install the CRD into the Liberty installed the factory ccv.

Thankfully, they cut back on a part easy to replace or addon, rather than cut back on the VGT turbo, use a small intercooler, or worse, not use one at all.

If you look at DD Cento's website, you can find their marine and industrial engines, with a 2.8 L size, with similar specifications as our CRD. Look at the pics of it on the pdf's - on the right side where our EGR valve is located, sits a large CCV valve that looks a lot like our Provent. That marine 2.8 L CRD cost a heck of a lot more than our CRD's did, I'm sure. DD Cento probably spec'd out exactly what DCX asked for.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:04 pm

Ranger1 wrote:

I don't think engineers had any say on the ccv that went on our CRD's. I think it was strictly a cost control measure. DCX stated they were subsidizing the extra cost of the DD engine, and it cost them approximately $1000.00 more than the V6 engine. Most engineering projects have a budget limit, and you don't get to go over that limit - unless you want a trip to the big house and lunch with the higher level executives. But it won't get that far, as a first line engineering manger won't sign-off on out of cost spec'd components anyway. If you look at where the cheapo factory ccv is installed, you can see even more cost savings - it came already installed right on the engine - no extra expensive labor cost to install a larger one on the firewall or inner fender liner. Same sunk labor cost to install the CRD into the Liberty installed the factory ccv.

Thankfully, they cut back on a part easy to replace or addon, rather than cut back on the VGT turbo, use a small intercooler, or worse, not use one at all.

If you look at DD Cento's website, you can find their marine and industrial engines, with a 2.8 L size, with similar specifications as our CRD. Look at the pics of it on the pdf's - on the right side where our EGR valve is located, sits a large CCV valve that looks a lot like our Provent. That marine 2.8 L CRD cost a heck of a lot more than our CRD's did, I'm sure. DD Cento probably spec'd out exactly what DCX asked for.

The engineers probably saw there wasn't enough room under the hood for big CCV filter and there is no requiement for EGR on Marine diesel.

Hey why do you keep calling this a DD Centro engine? Centro Italy is where they are built. It is not a Detroit Diesel run plant or engine design (thank God), it is VM Motori designed and built engine. THey are partly owned by DD and Penske Group of Penske Racing fame, not 100% owned by any one group. Penske is not owned by MB or D/C by the way. Posted below is from their website:

In 2000 VM Motori, together with Detroit Diesel Corporation, became part of the DaimlerChrysler Group. In 2003 the share packet of the Company was defined as follows: 51% Penske Group and 49% DailmerChrysler Group.
The Cento plant has continued to grow and now covers an area of 85,000 mq of which 50,000 mq are roofed. Annual production capacity is for over 80,000 engines. Our mission, to which over 1000 employees remain devoted, is still the same: to design and produce quality products

Ranger1 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:40 pm **Posts:** 1137

Last I heard, they renamed VM Motori as Detroit Diesel Cento. I used to have a link that stated that Detroit Diesel had some engineering input in to the 2.8L CRD. Probably some minor collaberation. Maybe their contribution was the factory ccv :-)

"Since 1995 VM has been a part of the Detroit Diesel Corporation and recently VM was purchased by Detroit Diesel Co., and is now named DDC-Cento."

http://www.fdda.com/ddc%20Cento.htm

oldnavy · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:03 pm

Ranger1 wrote:

Last I heard, they renamed VM Motori as Detroit Diesel Cento. I used to have a link that stated that Detroit Diesel had some engineering input in to the 2.8L CRD. Probably some minor collaberation.

Nothing to that effect at their website is mention. In the last 3 years I have been watching them, I have never seen it on their site or seen any mention to DD having any real imput in their workings. It was my understanding DD was looking for new diesel technology and source for small diesels of better quality when they went to aquire the company. I guess it is neither here nor there what we call it, but I like the idea of Penske Group/Racing designing & building the engine in our Jeep. The worrysome side was DD before D/C got onboard. Think I will see about some Penske Racing decals. :wink:

interloper · **Joined:** Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:47 pm **Posts:** 6

Hi guys. Just a quick question, are you fabbing these up because you want something SUPER cheap? Otherwise you realize there are cheaper commercial options out there other than the Provent right?

Here's one that's a little about the same price but is very easy to drain:
http://perrinperformance.com/products/u ... ch_can.htm

Or you can also go to Mcmaster.com or mscdirect.com and do a search for Coalescing oil filters. You will find some reasonably priced filters there with two day turn around times.

Goglio704 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:09 am

I have seen and used filters which remove oil from compressed air. They are pretty much a must before a dessicant air dryer. Is that what you are thinking of from McMaster or MSC? I am not dismissing the idea, but these filters are designed to run at much higher pressure (100 to 120 PSI). If they need even a small amount of differential pressure across them to work, they aren't going to work as a crank vent filter. I don't know how much differential they need, I'm just saying if they need much - it ain't there. It would be worth looking into, but we would need some numbers about crankcase pressure on the CRD. I can't speak for Old Navy, but I think the intent of his project is to make something that is purpose built for the application. Something that looks like it belongs there and doesn't eat up underhood space, which is already minimal.

oldnavy · **Posted:** Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:19 am

Goglio704 wrote:

I can't speak for Old Navy, but I think the intent of his project is to make something that is purpose built for the application. Something that looks like it belongs there and doesn't eat up underhood space, which is already minimal.

We have under hood space???

marauderer · **Posted:** Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:27 am

MMMmmmmWhat a novel Idea. :roll:

New Old Navy CCV filter coming for CRD

Who is online