Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

IMG_1947.jpg

 

This is the current setup for my catch can which I did not do, have been freshening up everything I am now up to redoing the catch can setup and this doesn’t seem right (pipe from turbo intake???)

Don’t have any of the standard pipes on the hot side any more just what you see

Pic is of my actual engine bay

 

I no it’s been talked about before

But can’t seem to find any real help to my application if it’s right or not

Just want to no how to setup properly with what I have

Any help greatly appreciated

Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/476058-help-needed-with-catch-can-setup/
Share on other sites

No just straight through into can
Why would it have pipe from turbo inlet ? Suck it straight through into turbo I would have thought
The ally catch can I have has no steel wool or anything just a can with drain plug
Have a new can on the way with steel wool filter thing
Want to setup the pipes right

The way it is set up is broadly the same as the NIsmo can if that makes you feel any better.

You put a restrictor in it so the turbo doesnt hoover the guts out of your can and taking the oil with it.

Dont use steel wool, use a sintered brass item as per mishimoto.

https://www.mishimoto.com.au/automotive/oil-catch-cans.html

Edited by djr81

Routing as stated looks fine.

Catch can/oil separator system is more than some steel wool.

You really need some baffles in it, or a cyclonic effect to strip the oil out of the air, maybe fuel foam, but, whatever the design, make sure you can service/replace the "steel wool" or fuel foam, ALSO, steel wool can break down and end up on your intake, and fuel foam gets clogged with gunk.

Baffles/fuel foam in the cam covers help, ?Mines???

Ok great thnx guys good to hear setup was sort of ok to start with
Except no baffle
This is the kit I have on the way
This should do the job then yeah? Twin filter/baffle
Any other recommendations??
IMG_2327.jpg

Yeah ok then, it is a street car
I can just put 2 bungs in so it’s not vta
So non vta should be legal ?
Even though it’s running a screamer pipe [emoji108]
(They haven’t found that yet) would rather it be legal, easy to see the catch can and never had an issue with current setup with them

18 hours ago, Scotty_ecr-33 said:

Ok great thnx guys good to hear setup was sort of ok to start with
Except no baffle
This is the kit I have on the way
This should do the job then yeah? Twin filter/baffle
Any other recommendations??
IMG_2327.jpg

Too small. Don't need breathers. As above read the oil control thread if you have a problem (maybe start half way through):

https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/110680-oil-control-in-rbs-for-circuit-drag-or-drift/?tab=comments#comment-2039323

On 2/20/2019 at 11:58 AM, r33cruiser said:

What about the JustJap style cans?

Retain window washer and it fits perfectly:

http://justjap.com/sri-alloy-oil-catch-tank-nissan-skyline-r33-r34-gtr.html?___store=default

 

What baffling is inside though?

1 hour ago, mlr said:

What baffling is inside though?

I'm not personally sure mate. But the JJ boys have always been very helpful to me, I bet if you call them they'll help you out.

 

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...