Announcement Announcement Module
No announcement yet.
PCV system Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Conversation Detail Module
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hmmmmm. You got me stumped on that one. I can't even find a diagram that shows that part for any 87' 4.2 liter six, even in my manual that includes the 87' model Wranglers.
    Same here. It seems like half the time I want to find something out about my Jeep, its not in the book, or any place I think it should be, for that matter. That's one of the reasons you guys, and this place, are so helpful.

    I was talking to my dad (the original owner), and he said that he did take it in to get some kind of recall, but he doesn't remember exactly what all was involved. Perhaps all that was involved in what he had done was putting in the plastic piece with the orifice, and not removing the solenoid. Last night, I meant to check a plastic connection that I pulled out when I replaced the hoses, but I didn't get to it. The plastic piece connected the formed hose coming from the PCV valve to the straight hose that went to the solenoid. It may have the orifice in it, but since its clogged up with gunk, I'll have to clean it out to check. However, even if it does, a piece of it cracked off when I was pulling everything apart, so I'll probably need another one. I'll do like you said, check a local dealer to see if I can just pick it up there, otherwise, I'll probably be interested in your old one.

    I noticed from your pictures that your rig has the aluminum valve cover.
    Is this significant for some reason, other than the fact that it tells you I haven't replaced it? I was under the impression that they all had aluminum valve covers.


    • #17
      Originally posted by Tai'daishar View Post
      Is this significant for some reason, other than the fact that it tells you I haven't replaced it? I was under the impression that they all had aluminum valve covers.
      I thought that all early 4.2 liter six Wranglers had aluminum valve covers too, but apparently there was a switch to thermoplastic (cheap!) somewhere in the production run. I don't know when though because my 88' has an aluminum one as well. It seems that the baffles mounted inside in the aluminum cover are not sufficient to keep oil from entering through the PCV valve, so they cobbed a fix by installing the 0.80 orifice in the PCV hose. I guess it was cheaper than replacing the baffle with a new one that would have required removal of the valve cover in a recall (cheap again!).

      Still, I like the aluminum valve cover much better, despite any problems with keeping oil out of the PCV system.


      • #18
        I took a look at the coupling I pulled out while I was replacing the hoses. Turns out it did have the little restrictor in it. However, the plastic was so brittle that it broke while I was messing with it. So, it turns out I did have the restictor in there, but also the solenoid.

        So, I ran by the nearest dealer the other day to see if I could get a new restrictor. First I talked to the parts guy, who was able to pull up the restricter orifice on the diagram for my '87, which was titled: (I'm not sure if these numbers are relevant) 25 - Emissions systems 1800 - PCV system 4.2L engine wrangler, YJ. But, even though he was able to see it in the diagram, he wasn't able to order it for some reason. So, he had me go over to the service department to see if the part was some kind of special part that could only be ordered as some kind of package with the recall.

        Over at the service department, I had him pull up all the recalls already done or to be done. Turns out I have no outstanding recalls, and have had three recalls (supposedly) done. The recalls that were done were as follows:

        271T - Windshield Wiper assembly - launch date: 04/05/1989 - repaired: 01/01/0001
        312T - HC/CO and NOX emissions - launch date: 06/30/1992 - repaired: 06/14/2004
        625 - Fuel Tank sending unit gasket - launch date: 12/22/1994 - repaired: 01/31/1995

        Considering that they think the windshield wiper assembly was repaired around the time Christ was running around in diapers turning his milk into wine, I kinda doubt that was actually done, but that has nothing to do with the PCV system, so I let it go. I had them look up info on the 312T recall for the emissions, and they couldn't pull up any info what-so-ever on it. However, 2004 wasn't that long ago, and even though it was right before I got the Jeep, so I don't know for sure, I don't think there was any emissions work done to it at the time -- especially by a dealer. I can double check the receipts I have when I get home.

        So, I was wondering if you guys could tell me anything about this 312T recall and if its the same as the recall you guys are talking about. The diagram the parts guy gave me has the solenoid in it, as well as the restrictor orifice, both of which were in my Jeep, and were obviously more than 5 years old.


        • #19
          Here's what my ALLDATA source says:


          Date: May 1995

          Subject: Emissions Recall #622 (#623 for California Vehicles)

          Models: 1985 through 1988 Model Year Jeep CJ-7, Wrangler(YJ), J10 and Grand Wagoneer(SJ) equipped with a 4.2L engine.

          Note: 1987 model year vehicles equipped with a 4.2L engine AND California emission control system are NOT included in the recall service since the PCV harness was replaced as a part of Recall #312T.

          Reason for Recall:

          Fuel vapors may cause deterioration of the PCV harness assembly on the on above listed vehicles. PCV harness deterioration may result in objectionable driveability and/or HG, CO and NOx emissions which exceed the limits allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards. To correct this condition, the PCV harness assembly must be replaced and the engine idle speeds must be reset. Vehicles located in California will be serviced under California Emissions Recall #623.

          Each involved dealer, to whom vehicles in the recall were invoiced will receive PCV Harness Packages:

          Recall PN #CLFS6221 for manual transmission equipped vehicles

          Recall PN #CLFS6222 for automatic transmission equipped vehicles

          It looks like recall #312T was ONLY for 87' California Emissions Jeep vehicles and it had something to do with excessive HC, CO and NOx for emission problems as did the #622/623 recalls. You know how California is about emission violations. The PCV system seemed to be a reoccurring problem area for the 4.2L six banger. The oil consumption problem with 87/88 4.2L engines was only a customer complaint notice, NOT a mandatory recall. They only installed this little plastic orifice inline (and replaced the rubber PCV valve grommet and bent up the metal tab inside the valve cover under the grommet so that it was even with the bottom of the grommet) if a customer came to the dealer and complained about abnormal oil consumption, but it looks like they went ahead and combined this little part with the new PCV hose harness as part of the #622/623 recall since it was included with my kit. Now they don't say in the above recall notice, but in the service instructions, the PCV solenoid IS removed as part of the recall.

          Do you know if you're rig is a California-emissions vehicle? Mine is with the automatic tranny. I'll go into the basement and root around in my old parts and see if I have the original kit part number for you, I tend to save everything. It should be the same as listed above, but I'll verify it for you since this was done so long ago.

          Edit: Here's the ALLDATA link with all 87 Wrangler Recalls:

          Some interesting EPA links too:

          Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to get access to the ALLDATA information. All I have is a CD-ROM package for my 1988 Wrangler, not earlier.
          Last edited by Sehlat; 05-12-2009, 08:32 PM.


          • #20
            Yeah, mine is definitely held up to CA emissions standards. It was bought, and has lived its whole life, here.

            It seems to be running fine since I took the solenoid out, in fact, it stalls less now than it did before -- though part of that may just be due to replacing the clogged PCV lines. All I have, instead of the orifice is just a coupling, but I haven't noticed the oil level dropping, nor have I seen smoke coming out the tail-pipe, so, at least for now, all's well. I'll check the lines this weekend and see if they're getting filled with oil.

            Also, I seem to be leaking less oil now, which is nice.


            • #21
              I finally checked on the hoses I put in. There was some oil, but its impossible to tell how much oil went through. Someone told me that you're not supposed to use ordinary rubber hoses for the PCV system, and I was thinking about how you used brake line. I figured I'd add a little color to my engine compartment, and used some copper tubing and an oriface I made out of a brass coupling and some washers. After it cooled off enough outside to be able to work out there, which was, of course, after dark, I pulled the hoses out and replaced them with the copper tubing. Seems to work. I'll keep an eye on the oil level and see if my restrictor really works.

              Here're a couple of pictures:


              Also, I haven't seen a drip of oil coming off my Jeep in about three days. I'm pretty happy about that. After replacing the pan gasket, I was still getting a little bit dripping off from either the front of the pan, or somewhere behind the crankshaft pulley. But ever since I pulled out those clogged PCV lines, the leaking has slowed, and now apparently stopped.

              Oh, and I looked up the patent number on that thing, and apparently its a deceleration valve.


              • #22
                Like your setup. Did you make that coupler in the middle with a 0.80 orifice? Nice fix. I used steel fuel line for mine since I have the bender tool, but copper works too and it's easier to bend by hand. By the way, the recall kits used rubber hoses that were supposedly of better quality, but steel or copper beats rubber sitting next to a hot exhaust manifold any day.

                A decel valve huh? Well, if you don't get any backfiring when you're decelerating, leave the thing out.


                • #23
                  I didn't remember seeing what size the orifice was supposed to be, so I just guessed according to the gunked up/broken one I had. It was supposed to be 0.80 what, mm? I put something like eight or nine washers sandwiched between the two compression fittings in the coupling. I alternated #6 and #10 washers, and on the inside of the middle two or three #10 washers, I put some smaller washers that I had lying around. They have an outside diameter that just fits in the #10 washers -- about 13/64 of an inch -- and inside diameter of about 5/64 of an inch.

                  I suppose I could take that deceleration valve out, but since its plugged into the carb, the charcoal canister, the PCV system, and the pulse air system, I probably need it for smog.


                  • #24
                    Congrats on the nice copper tubing and orifice that you made which seem to work well. Have you taken it to wheeling already? How did it go?



                    • #25
                      I still have a couple more things on the "need to fix" list before I get to the "wants" list and start beefing it up to get it trail ready. And right now its my only vehicle, so its harder to do any kind of major work on it, since I need to be able to drive it 6 days a week. It'll get there, though.


                      • #26
                        I burned 4 quarts of oil on just one long haul trip, all through the PCV valve. Damn near fried the engine when the oil got too low and I didn't check it often enough during the trip. Haven't had any oil loss into the air cleaner since the recall was done.
                        I just took my Jeep on a trip down to LA and back for the weekend, total miles about 900, and I didn't lose more than ½ quart of oil over the whole drive. Though, I did notice a little bit of oil in the air filter. So, either the restrictor works likes its supposed to, keeping the oil from getting burned up through the carb, but I'm getting some blow by, or I made the orifice too small, and the carb's not able to suck as much as its supposed to to keep the air coming out the PCV valve, and in the back breather.

                        But, considering as how I barely lost any oil, and got amazing gas mileage during the trip (better than 20mpg), I'm not too worried. It seems like everything's working just fine.


                        • #27
                          You're probably just getting a little blowby. If the orifice size is at 0.80 if an inch, check with a drill bit that size, it should work OK. As long as quarts of oil aren't being dumped in there, why mess with success. My rig puts just a little bit oil up into that small filter mounted in the air cleaner, but none dripping down into the can itself. I don't have nearly the mileage you have though.


                          • #28
                            0.80 inches is really huge, do you mean 0.08 inches? If so, it's just about right, 'cause it's 5/64 inches, which comes out to 0.078125 inches.


                            • #29
                              Sorry Tai'daishar, my mistake. It is 0.080 or about 5/64 of an inch as you've surmised, especially if you want to use a small drill bit for drilling or measuring the hole. I corrected the mistake in my earlier post as well. Good thing you caught it. The measurement of .80 is amost an 3/4 of a inch! OOPS!