Go Back   986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Boxster General Discussions

Post Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-21-2016, 11:20 AM   #1
Registered User
 
steved0x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewArt View Post
Oops, did I miss something. I ordered one of your systems for my car, which is a 3.2. Is this going to work?
Same for me (2000 S with 3.2). Maybe "it" above is referring to the other aftermarket system?

I "think" that up through 2002 our cars use the same AOS (99610702304), then in 2003 the inlet to the block got bigger to let the oil drain faster, so that AOS has a new part number (99610702601) and that maybe some of the hoses are a little different too across the years and sizes.
steved0x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 11:37 AM   #2
Registered User
 
stelan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Austin
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by steved0x View Post
Same for me (2000 S with 3.2). Maybe "it" above is referring to the other aftermarket system?

I "think" that up through 2002 our cars use the same AOS (99610702304), then in 2003 the inlet to the block got bigger to let the oil drain faster, so that AOS has a new part number (99610702601) and that maybe some of the hoses are a little different too across the years and sizes.
yes to fit both hoses configuration will be a little different I will include both variations hose sizes, the volume on both OEM AOS does not seem to be that different and easy to compensate with hose lenght so we can use the same vessel that fits well in the engine compartment in the mean time I will test it in my friends 3.2.
this AOS drains into the block via the large block opening so I don't see a problem.

Last edited by stelan; 11-21-2016 at 01:23 PM.
stelan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 12:07 PM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: S.California
Posts: 2,029
If there is a LTFT problem for the 3.2L engines+Stelan's AOS, it will set a MIL code of 017x
Depending on which specific code is set(rich/lean) would help decide what mods to make for the 3.2L The specifics of short/long term fuel trim would obviously be relevant
Good luck finding the tweak necessary to make this work for the 3.2L M96
* For the 3.2L M96, just use the Audi part # 06E103245E -which is the PCV used on the Audi 3.2L engine?It blows the budget but the diaphragm is replaceable!
https://www.ecstuning.com/b-genuine-volkswagen-audi-parts/pressure-control-valve-pcv/06e103245e/

Last edited by Gelbster; 11-21-2016 at 01:21 PM.
Gelbster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 12:19 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 114
I've got a 3.2 too. Will this be an issue?
I'm not quite clear.
emore93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 12:33 PM   #5
Registered User
 
stelan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Austin
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by emore93 View Post
I've got a 3.2 too. Will this be an issue?
I'm not quite clear.
I'm hoping it will not with the adaptations needed but I will know for sure based on some tests in the next few days, If for some reason I can not make sure it works then we will consider it a 2.5 2.7 part only and I will refund the 3.2 guys, no worries. thanksgivving holiday will give me and a few days to play with it.
stelan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 01:35 PM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 18
Any updates.

I have a 3.2. Any updates? Has anyone replaced the AOS hard plastic accordion hoses with rubber or silicone? I broke the lower and can’t get a new one on without taking the entire top off. If the hose was flexible I could do it in minutes.
Josephjochoa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2019, 09:36 AM   #7
Registered User
 
BYprodriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: O.C. CA
Posts: 3,709
Garage
[QUOTE=Josephjochoa;562725]I have a 3.2. Any updates? Has anyone replaced the AOS hard plastic accordion hoses with rubber or silicone? I broke the lower and can’t get a new one on without taking the entire top off. If the hose was flexible I could do it in minutes.[/QUOTE


What year engine ?
__________________
OE engine rebuilt,3.6 litre LN Engineering billet sleeves,triple row IMSB,LN rods. Deep sump oil pan with DT40 oil.
BYprodriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2019, 10:02 AM   #8
Who's askin'?
 
maytag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josephjochoa View Post
I have a 3.2. Any updates? Has anyone replaced the AOS hard plastic accordion hoses with rubber or silicone? I broke the lower and can’t get a new one on without taking the entire top off. If the hose was flexible I could do it in minutes.
Here's mine (below). I used clear, and put the large loop in it to hopefully catch any liquid oil that would otherwise cause the dreaded "smoke bomb" at the track. If I pop the hood and see oil int he loop, it's a very easy task to remove it, drain it / wipe it out and reinstall it.
The first effort was simply a nylon-braided-reinforced hose.... but once it was warm, it collapsed under the vacuum. This is a wire-reinforced hose and seems to be holding quite well.
maytag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2019, 07:58 PM   #9
Registered User
 
SC-986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Upstate, SC
Posts: 109
Garage
I like that set up. What is the diameter and length of hose? Where did you source the hose?
__________________
2002 Boxster base - Seal Grey, 5spd trans.,ROW M030 upgrade, FVD Brombacher software tune
2004 550 Spyder Anniversary Edition, #1541,Tip, TechnoFix DOF IMSB upgrade
SC-986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 01:03 PM   #10
Registered User
 
steved0x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelan View Post
this AOS drains into the block via the large block opening so I don't see a problem.
Can you share more details, the screw and the rubber plug blocks the original small return opening, can you share more about the new bigger location for the oil to drain to?
steved0x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 01:21 PM   #11
Registered User
 
stelan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Austin
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by steved0x View Post
Can you share more details, the screw and the rubber plug blocks the original small return opening, can you share more about the new bigger location for the oil to drain to?
Original 2.5 and 2.7 AOS drains thru small opening in the block that proved to be a design issue as it does not drain fast enough under certain conditions, this small opening is not used in the stelan AOS as it drains thru the larger intake at the bottom of the manifold. that is why the small opening gets blocked by the plug.

On the 3.2. 99610702601 (later larger drain AOS) I will have the manifold drain thru both larger intake and original larger drain locations for even better oil return as the larger displacement is more demanding. the R&D I have is to do is to make sure system volume is appropriate for fuel trims, etc.
stelan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 01:28 PM   #12
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: S.California
Posts: 2,029
Stelan,
Sounds promising.
Just a thought - the PCV intended for a 1.8L VW may have inadequate vacuum flow for the 3.2L ? Use one intended for a larger engine? See Post 47 for the Audi Part #.
But a generic would be cheaper.
Gelbster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 01:50 PM   #13
Registered User
 
stelan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Austin
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelbster View Post
Stelan,
Sounds promising.
Just a thought - the PCV intended for a 1.8L VW may have inadequate vacuum flow for the 3.2L ? Use one intended for a larger engine? See Post 47 for the Audi Part #.
But a generic would be cheaper.
good call however the 1.8t is well capable of flowing more than enough, that is not an issue. diaphragm in both oem 2.5/2.7 and 3.2 are similar, the amount of flow is dictated by the rapid opening and closing vibrations of the diaphragm based on TB pressure/vacuum signal.
stelan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 01:53 PM   #14
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: S.California
Posts: 2,029
This link with graphs and references and FAQ may help others understand what we are talking about:
High Performance PCV Valve Shootout – Flow Test Results | M/E Wagner Performance Products
Gelbster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 01:32 PM   #15
Registered User
 
steved0x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelan View Post
On the 3.2. 99610702601 (later larger drain AOS) I will have the manifold drain thru both larger intake and original larger drain locations for even better oil return as the larger displacement is more demanding. the R&D I have is to do is to make sure system volume is appropriate for fuel trims, etc.
2003/2004 only right? Up through 2002 uses the smaller hole, even on the 3.2? That is what blocks us from using the larger Porsche "Motorsports" dual canister AOS, although I have seen one installation that did it somehow using a hose and a clamp, maybe they drained it to the larger place that you are using?
steved0x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 01:46 PM   #16
Registered User
 
stelan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Austin
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by steved0x View Post
2003/2004 only right? Up through 2002 uses the smaller hole, even on the 3.2? That is what blocks us from using the larger Porsche "Motorsports" dual canister AOS, although I have seen one installation that did it somehow using a hose and a clamp, maybe they drained it to the larger place that you are using?
that's correct, that's why I think I will include the plug so accommodates all situations
the motorsport one besides the need to adapt it's physically huge (in price too lol).
stelan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2016, 09:52 PM   #17
Engine Surgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland GA USA
Posts: 2,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelan View Post
Original 2.5 and 2.7 AOS drains thru small opening in the block that proved to be a design issue as it does not drain fast enough under certain conditions, this small opening is not used in the stelan AOS as it drains thru the larger intake at the bottom of the manifold. that is why the small opening gets blocked by the plug.

On the 3.2. 99610702601 (later larger drain AOS) I will have the manifold drain thru both larger intake and original larger drain locations for even better oil return as the larger displacement is more demanding. the R&D I have is to do is to make sure system volume is appropriate for fuel trims, etc.
Fuel trim is the hardest part, and the most important.

This is the thing that has blocked 100% of my attempts to do this for the past decade. Things like deceleration recovery, and extended WOT operation are where the things get hairy the fastest, and this is when the volume of the unit and engine displacement, and output will come into play.

Issues driving down the road normally can be experienced too, and remember, long term fuel trim values can take hundreds of miles to show an issue. This is what takes so much time, since every change to the unit/ design/ etc takes days of driving to actually compare.... A stand alone data logger with a 2 channel manometer is the best tool for this job, so you can plot the vacuum changes in inches of water values. Overlaying that data with fuel trim plots gathered at the same time, and MAF signal can help see the real story of the changes that you made.

The other road block that we've had is far from that of a developmental hiccup, as the AOS is an emissions component, and it's pretty easy to get in trouble when bringing something to market that's considered an emissions related item. I have two products developed for ''tis very issue at the present, but we can't sell them without a large amount of liability and risk.

Maybe these things help stimulate thought on your end.
__________________
Jake Raby/www.flat6innovations.com
IMS Solution/ Faultless Tool Inventor
US Patent 8,992,089 &
US Patent 9,416,697
Developer of The IMS Retrofit Procedure- M96/ M97 Specialist
Jake Raby is offline   Reply With Quote
Post Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page