F150 Ecoboost Forum banner

121 - 140 of 142 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
EV281 has the same plunger, orifice, and spring. The only difference is the end piece. Rather than being wide open, it is a crossed section. More so for N/A applications. See picture below.
170592

The cross section does change up the flow a bit. How much, I’m not sure. I’ll have to look in the directory when I return from the desert.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
The dealership gave you the standard pcv valve for the truck. They most likely had no idea there was an updated pcv from a TSB since the TSB came out years ago.

The EV289 valve was never superseded so most dealerships are just provided what shows up via the VIN. I would just get the updated valve from the parts department.

KR3Z-6A666-A
Thank you so much! Ill return this one to the dealership and pick up that one tomorrow when they open. Thank you x100!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
To put it in simple terms, they used EV289 to minimize the chances of blowby affecting the fuel mixture. Which would lower carbon buildup etc.

Rather than have more issues of consumers not the driving the truck as intended, they took the safe route using the EV290/297/298 on all the trucks.
So I am going to replace my PCV just because the truck has 92k.

I don't drive my truck much. Occasionally it gets driven locally, and then gets used to tow my camper.

Also, due to my altitude, I am in boost(IE my MAP is higher than the intake pressure) even just cruising on a 55mph flat road.

Should I go EV289 or EV297?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
I would just stick with ev297. It does a better job at pulling air thru the crankcase to help fight fuel dillution etc.

But you can test and see how the truck reacts with either. My trucks seem to like ev289 more than ev297. They’re only 8 bucks each.

Edit: I run no check valve in front of the pcv so it doesn’t effect its functionality at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
I would just stick with ev297. It does a better job at pulling air thru the crankcase to help fight fuel dillution etc.

But you can test and see how the truck reacts with either. My trucks seem to like ev289 more than ev297. They’re only 8 bucks each.

Edit: I run no check valve in front of the pcv so it doesn’t effect its functionality at all.
My plan is to return the PCV system to stock and pull the RX Catch can. I may replace with a pair of Provents or other cans at some point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
EV281 has the same plunger, orifice, and spring. The only difference is the end piece. Rather than being wide open, it is a crossed section. More so for N/A applications. See picture below. View attachment 170592
The cross section does change up the flow a bit. How much, I’m not sure. I’ll have to look in the directory when I return from the desert.
We’re you able to find anything about the flow for EV281?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,594 Posts
So have we come to the conclusion of the best PCV valve for use with a Dual valve catch can? I put the original 2011 black pcv back in, runs a bit smoother at idle now but get way more in the actual catch can (water condensate mostly).

The brown one was less in the can but a bit rougher idle.
 

·
Premium Member
2013 Ford F150 XLT 3.5 EgoBeast SuperCrew 4X4, 3.55 axles, 9.75" w/elocker
Joined
·
2,985 Posts
I get a rougher high idle with the brown but my low fully warmed idle is smoother.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
So have we come to the conclusion of the best PCV valve for use with a Dual valve catch can? I put the original 2011 black pcv back in, runs a bit smoother at idle now but get way more in the actual catch can (water condensate mostly).

The brown one was less in the can but a bit rougher idle.
The brown would be the more ideal one. Reason you have a rougher high idle is simply because it flows more.

Which brings me back to thinking.... Due to how much more the brown valve flows, it doesn’t allow catch cans to work at their full potential. Meaning the air velocity doesn’t allow the cans to “condense” the vapor. So it just passes right thru. Compared to the slow air velocity with the black valve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
It looks like the first SHO and MKS 3.5 EcoBoost engines used the brown PCV and those were the same engines that BG showcased to have intake valve deposits. Do we know how the 11-14 F150s fare with intake valve deposits and the EV289 PCV?

I wonder if the EV281 would be the best of both worlds, not as much flow as the 290/297 but more than the EV289?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
Mine came with a factory EV290, and I will be scoping mine here shortly since ill be replacing the TB. Unfortunately, I am not a great case study because I have a catch can and have used the Seafoam top end spray a bunch of times to clean the intake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
The seafoam probably didn't do anything. There are a few threads on BITOG talking about this. Basically have to mechanically clean the valves.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
It looks like the first SHO and MKS 3.5 EcoBoost engines used the brown PCV and those were the same engines that BG showcased to have intake valve deposits. Do we know how the 11-14 F150s fare with intake valve deposits and the EV289 PCV?

I wonder if the EV281 would be the best of both worlds, not as much flow as the 290/297 but more than the EV289?
EV281 is designed for an NA application. It was not designed to see boost. Meaning the valve doesn’t close.

EV281 and EV290/298 flow the same. Only difference is the end piece. I apologize as I haven’t had a second to look. Been working on a project with SVC this past week.

Intake deposits on a truck running EV289 would be far less than a truck running EV290/298.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
The seafoam probably didn't do anything. There are a few threads on BITOG talking about this. Basically have to mechanically clean the valves.
I guess well see. I started using it very early on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
EV281 is designed for an NA application. It was not designed to see boost. Meaning the valve doesn’t close.

EV281 and EV290/298 flow the same. Only difference is the end piece. I apologize as I haven’t had a second to look. Been working on a project with SVC this past week.

Intake deposits on a truck running EV289 would be far less than a truck running EV290/298.
So you were right, when I blew into EV-281 a lot of air was coming out.

That said, all 3 of my EV-289's allow air to blow out as well, it doesn't seal fully but it doesn't flow as much as EV-281. On my EV-290 and EV-297, one of them barely had any flow out. 2 of them had some flow that I could only detect if I put my finger under the plunger and released repeating this, so I could hear a change in air pressure. But none of them were 100% fully sealing under my "lung boost".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
So you were right, when I blew into EV-281 a lot of air was coming out.

That said, all 3 of my EV-289's allow air to blow out as well, it doesn't seal fully but it doesn't flow as much as EV-281. On my EV-290 and EV-297, one of them barely had any flow out. 2 of them had some flow that I could only detect if I put my finger under the plunger and released repeating this, so I could hear a change in air pressure. But none of them were 100% fully sealing under my "lung boost".
The black valve (EV289) is suppose to slightly leak. It’s a “calibrated” leak. The engineer who has been helping me, worked with Ford in 2010. The Ford engineers wanted a valve that had little to no flow under vacuum and some backflow under boost. The reason why, I don’t know.

EV290/297/298 are designed to have no back flow at all. They are just like an ordinary PCV valve designed for a boosted application. Which was used on SHOs, Explorers, etc.

The crossed section is what’s know as an “Oil Drain Back”. Think of baffling in a valve cover. Aids in keeping oil from traveling thru the valve.

The hole or donut is known as a “Backfire Suppression ”. So in the case of a boosted application/backfire the plunger seats over the hole completely.

Flows remain the same. Only difference is the function of the end piece.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
Ideally you could mess around with using a check valve in front of a PCV valve that utilizes the “diffuser”.

But you cannot place a PCV valve with the diffuser as-is on a boosted application.
 
121 - 140 of 142 Posts
Top