When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Again, this forum is 18 years old and the RX8 has been out of production for 9 years. There’s very little new under the sun that’s not already in existence here and certainly not worthy of this new thread crap you keep insisting on.
Rob ,
that setup was adopted after the failure of the original design that went straight from the oil filler neck to the intake. What used to happen with old design was an oil drenched intake once engine started to get a little tired.
Also worth mentioning is that the old setup drew oil mist laded air through the intake assembly all the time , leading to everything getting gummed up in short order.
By changing the design to what you posted above Mazda eliminated or greatly reduced both of those issues.
Most of the time the mist laden air bypasses the intake and goes in via those small nipples. But under WOT there is no vacuum and that is when that red line comes into play.
Mazda added an additional ventilation/pcv hose on 2006 models addressing a moisture issue in the crankcase and there was a TSB to modify earlier model years if they had the problem.
The water gunk was obviously an issue and it enabled Mazda to address those other issues at the same time without admitting they f'd up. That's how I see it anyway.
The gunk was just a cosmetic thing anyway (according to Mazda blurb). However, those things I mention are more detrimental over he long run and certainly of more interest to the enthusiasts on here...IMO.
It’s something you made up on your own except it wasn’t presented that way. The original reply doesn’t even address what is factually stated in the TSB.
I have a 2005 6-port built in Dec/2004 and purchased April/2005 with the original arrangement and never had any of those issues. So most of what was attempted to be presented as either Mazda supported or factual reality, actually isn’t. It’s just forum voodoo lore.
Just like the idea of running a catch can on an NA Renesis is another forum voodoo lore deal on here. There’s no reason for that on an NA engine unless it has major issues. Which back in my first year of ownership I ran an extra quart of motor oil following somebody else’s forum voodoo lore that it helped prevent oil pan starvation for competition. It was just made up, crap advise, but more to the point; I ran that extra quart of oil without needing a catch can.
The only reason to have one is with forced induction and the extra blowby that’s likely to occur. Which I’m sure is why the OP brought it up.
07-08-2021, 10:15 AM
vac line id
