Thanks, yeah, I was pretty happy with it. Would you be worried about the apparent excess vacuum? Where did you end up sourcing your hoses from?

^ this is basically how I did mine, but with the pcv attached to the out hose iif that makes sense
http://www.diymybmw.com/e46/wp-conte...df02d20b32.jpg

Yeah, that's how I set up mine, as well. I'm still not entirely comfortable with the level of vacuum that the crankcase has now. I went ahead and oriented the Puralator 1050 valve vertically (threads and flow toward intake), thinking that might help, but I don't think it did much, if anything - the dipstick and oil filler cap are still under vacuum after the engine is off. It's not so much I can't pull them off, but it's certainly noticeably more than stock.

That got me looking at how to spec a vacuum level for a PCV. That then led me to finding an adjustable PCV: Dual Flow Adjustable PCV Valve | M/E Wagner Performance Products

There's an inline adapter that would be used for our applications. I'm tempted to try it, even though it is a bit spendy. I really do like the catch can/remote PCV setup over the stock setup. I left the CCV in place, as well as the hoses. There was serious buildup on the hoses, so I can only imagine the state of the CCV itself. So yeah, I like this setup, I'd just like to be able to control the vacuum level a bit more.

Also: picture time! Note: if I had to do it again, I would have not cut the stock 90° fitting on the valve cover like the video linked in this thread. I ended up epoxying one of the reducers that came with the Moroso kit to make this work. I will eventually either buy the stock connector (read: tube) and use another 90° adapter to straighten it out, or buy a bigger section of hose and a reducer.

Also note the vertical orientation of the Puralator PCV (basically looks like just a solid tube of hose clamps in that picture heh). Brass elbows were a Lowes find and worked great (Apollo PAX elbows).

This might not be the final form of the project, but it's a good start, I think (assuming the extra vacuum in the crankcase doesn't have any negative impact...knocking furiously on wood).

theres some tweaking I want to do with mine this summer, which might include changing the catch can.

210000km on BMW put about 5000km on catch as of today, emptied the catch can today and was half full of 90% water and rest sludge. no sludge on dipstick and oil fill cap. I make a lot of short trips, so I think the catch can is doing its job.

Bumping this thread because I had an idea: Why not combine the best of both worlds and if the OEM CCV is working well, why not add a catch can up top, cap the "valve cover return hose" on the CCV, and leave the stock drain, assuming you have the updated dipstick tube.

Take the elbow from the VC hose, route it to the outlet of the catch can (assuming that the catch can will have "filtered" much of the oil mist and condensation out of the return line), and on the inlet side of the can, it would run into an Elbow which would connect to the stock "S-hose" on the M54 CCV, most likely you could cap the port on the intake distribution piece, and leave the smaller return line connected to the distributor.

My idea is coming off JB's recent addition of a ProVent100, I would recommend adding a ProVent in lieu of a catch can if deleting the CCV entirely. But if its working well and you just want to separate any excess moisture or oil mist and have a cleaner return to the crankcase, would this not be a good solution to do so, and have the "best of both worlds"?

I would try to illustrate my thoughts here but RealOEM doesn't let me save diagram pictures on my work comp

EDIT: I just used BavarianE39's photo and tried a crude illustration. The Red "S" illustrates the factory S hose staying in place and working on the stock CCV, only difference is the port on the distributor is capped off (or still used, depending on how you'd want to plumb it) and you run the S-hose/small return line on IM connection to the inlet of the CC, so that some of the oil mist is separated before hitting the CCV itself, make sense or is this truly dumb?

Really tired but will make short post before sleep.

Ideally, you want a few things to happen in a ccv system.

You want the lines to be SHORT and everything to stay HOT. Condensation is the enemy.

Ideally, the cyclonic separator should be first after the valve cover to do the bulk of the separation. Then, on the cyclonic outlet, add the filtered separator. This allows the filtered separator to last longer between filter changes.
Any separator MUST MUST MUST be able to drain oil to the sump otherwise it is a condensation machine. Catch cans that don't drain are, frankly, useless time bombs that accelerate condensation.

The drain line port on the sump (oil pan) should be below standing oil level and ideally as low as possible in the sump.
After all separation is done, THEN you can route to the PCV (required) which routes to the intake.

Since the 6 cyl cyclonic separator and PCV are built as a single unit, proposed secondary filtered separation (that drains to the sump) would have to be before the inlet to the cyclonic separator. The PCV can not be deleted and must be last before connecting to intake.

Going to sleep but will check back tomorrow

FWIW:

http://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-foru...s-n-stuff.html

Thanks JB for shining insight, ideally yes I know many added catch cans, bypassed the CCV completely with them or even bypassed the whole system and added full vac to crankcase with a PCV inline, etc, but I'm not necessarily a fan of that.

I guess since you have added the ProVent 100 in addition to your stock system and I would be looking to do similar (add secondary filtration), 2 questions come to mind:

1) Is adding a secondary filtration (with a drain back to sump, ProVent100 or similar) redundant in anyway to be used in conjunction with the stock setup? Is it even worth it to be used in line with the OEM Cold Weather CCV on the I6/M54?

2) Would it be more prudent to add a PCV check valve on the inlet line to the ProVent, bypass the OEM CCV completely and utilize a ProVent in its place, with a drain back to the dipstick tube and a return line to the valve cover, similar to OEM plumbing but with a serviceable filtration system, etc?

Yes I am in agreement that catch cans are moisture collectors but at the same token would we not be benefitting from removing the excess moisture collected in the can, assuming that it is better to drain a catch can bi-weekly at most in colder months but not have condensation buildup in the crankcase?



At the end of the day I am way overthinking this, my June 2014 replacement Cold weather CCV and updated dipstick guide tube on my M54 is causing me zero issues. However, if I can get a similar mpg and "peppiness" bump that you got from the ProVent100 I would look into "additions" on the system. I have somewhat reduced consumption since installing, but would like to reduce that further if possible.

Feel free to call me if you want Jason, my # is on FB.