Cadillac CTS-V Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I wanted to share my steam vent upgrade with you all, as I am pleased with the outcome and it turned out to be slightly cheaper than the kits available elsewhere. Both of my OEM steam vent gaskets were basically corroded beyond use, and additionally I was able to cut out the now-brittle plastic connectors on the steam ports and the factory plastic T connectors on the return line. So I figure by the time I dicked around with replacing the OEM gaskets plus adding in the rear ports, I was already well into a whole new kit - which came up to around $160. There are cheaper ways, but this was pretty easy and I didn't have to chance any interference trying to reuse old OEM stuff off ebay.

The kit:
Two Earl's steam vent adapters, LS9806ERL ($40 per set of two)
Three straight AN-to-barb fittings ($5 ea)
Three 45-degree AN-to-barb fittings ($8 ea)
Two stainless 3/8 x 1/4 tee barb fittings, McMaster #5670K34 ($8 ea)
And ~8 feet of 1/4 fuel hose ($16)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you need to ADD rear ports to your cylinder heads, you'll probably need to remove the cover plate and/or plugs first:
Steam Vent Screw-up, Post #74

In my case, with aftermarket heads they were ready to go.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Earl's vent fittings are very nice, with the only annoying part being the o-rings have to be pressed into grooves to be captured with a small screwdriver or similar. In each box, you get a single port vent and a dual port vent to daisy-chain them as I have. They are 04AN thread, are swivel-adjustable and very nicely made. The swivel ports are NOT interchangeable between the single and dual designs, so if you find one doesn't want to work right you've got them mixed up.





I also picked up some fancy stainless hose clamps (15.3mm), and used gasket maker / hose sealant on each connection. I don't want these fuckers to leak! However, when applied liberally to the barb fittings, the gasket maker will be more than sufficient so you can skip the worm clamps or whatever unless you really want those bitches to stay put. The bolts and clamps are all stainless and should provide excellent corrosion resistance; I also used blue loctite on all fasteners.





Although we don't have rear vents from the factory, I daisy-chained both rear ports together via two standard 04AN barb fittings and fuel line. I used a 45-degree AN barb fitting for the vent line to clear the valve covers, and tied it into the existing coolant vent line for the radiator, at the "surge tank" near the wiper motor. There is plenty of room here so leave a little extra line, as the fuel lines effectively shorten as they're pushed up onto the barb fittings. I prefer a 45-degree barb, but if you're pinching pennies, using the cheaper single straight AN barb fittings here would be just fine.





I followed the factory arrangement in the front: both front Earl's vent adapters are again daisy-chained via 04 AN barb fittings - but note that I used a 45-degree elbow on the passenger side for clearance near the PCV valley tube and to get under the blower snout. Again. a standard straight 04 AN barb adapter would work, but it would be really close; I think it just looks cooler this way. As with the rears, I used another 45-degree fitting to clear the valve cover and I ran the vent line to the same coolant hose on the driver's side fender and up into the surge tank. There is plenty of room here for the fittings, but leave enough slack in your 1/4" hose to route under the blower snout, as there is minimal clearance between the snout and water pump. I'd test fit with the blower in place, then remove the blower (or raise it in the front) so you can get everything snugged down and/or clamped together properly.





 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,301 Posts
Nice install. Mine is not at pretty, but i do believe it makes a difference (with tuning also) getting that trapped heat/steam out of the rear cylinders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Looks nice and all...but these are a waste of money. Need to be doing a parallel cooling setup.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Looks nice and all...but these are a waste of money. Need to be doing a parallel cooling setup.
What do you mean?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
You would tie those 2 ports together and drill/tap/install fitting into hot side of water pump. You will need different head gaskets from stock for this to work properly. Simply opening the rear steam ports and tieing them into the fronts wont do squat because its not nearly enough volume for cooling the combustion chambers. If you are modding a CTS-V then you really should be doing the parallel cooling mod if you every remove your cylinder heads. On a N/A car, a 10hp gain has been noticed that was consistent....not just a first pull on a dyno. The hottest part of the engine is the back side of the head by the spark plug. On the 7 & 8 cylinders on some applications it can get so hot that it leads to a thermal run away, therefor leading to failure.
He meant this...

I'm just reposting his post from another thread.

I finally read up on the steam vent. I do not agree on this connection location or the logic that it follows. Hooking into the water pump is a horrible idea when dealing with steam as you would just entrain steam in the coolant system.

Nice setup Jesse, thanks for the writeup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Adding the ports to the back of the heads, it wont be steam. It will still be water. And there is nothing wrong with hooking it up to the water pump, as i mentioned in my original post you will be tieing into the hot side of the pump.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Okay, sounds like much to do about nothing.

I'm just keeping the OEM style "steam" vents, or coolant crossovers, in place. Occasionally, due to either the first fill, overheating / large temperature swings or even leaks you will get air pockets trapped in the rear of the head coolant passages. The coolant crossover tubes are not there for "cooling" - that is what the large passages in the heads are for - the crossover tubes are specifically to bleed off any trapped air or steam. Period. There does not need to be a ton of flow; it doesn't even have to be "up hill" as the heat from cylinder heads effectively pressurizes the coolant and cycles through the crossovers. As we know, trapped pockets of gas can create hot spots, and thus predetonation in the rear cylinders (due to the lack of crossovers) - so we just need an out for any gases, there does not need to be high volume flow.

Due to the pressurization of the coolant system by the pump, the OEM design as I've shown above will suffice - and yes, people have historically creating a return into the high pressure side of the coolant pump for these same reasons (to bleed off any trapped gasses). However, there is no specific need to tap into the water pump for these cars; it just creates unnecessary expense and complication.

After all, the pump feeds the radiator, which conveniently also has a "vent" hose to purge excess coolant and gas bubbles into the surge tank up by the windshield. The OEM design and my modification both send those extra gas bubbles to the same place - just without being passed through the pump and radiator first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Sure if you say so. Good Luck
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,978 Posts
I think a few of you are speaking about two different things. . . .

For simple steam vents, plumb to the highest point regarding the
engines coolant level, which is most likely going to be the surge tank.

In the above scenario, it would be pointless to do it any other way (JMHO)!

If your going to run a lot of coolant through the lines (most don't)
in an effort to additionally cool the two rear cylinders, then plumb
to the suction side of the water pump.

But I believe that TurboCoupe stated that the above scenario
would also require a change in head gaskets.

The statement by TurboCoupe above, is why I am responding to
this thread, as we have been through much of this before.

So for those that desire to run coolant through the lines,
it appears you will also be required to pull the heads and
change the head gaskets.

Did anyone specify which head gaskets?

If you don't, you would (I believe) not be routing the steam
to the highest point regarding the engines coolant level.

Again (JMHO); it is senseless as I stated before, to run the
steam vent lines to any place other than the highest place
as related to the engines coolant system, which in most cases
is going to be the surge tank and not the water pump.

But the water pump would be the way to go if your going
to pull the heads and proceed as TurboCoupe has suggested.

Just don't confuse the two architectures. . . .

Cheers
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,978 Posts
Water enters and leaves the water pump at pretty much the same temperature, so what exactly is the 'hot side'?
Give the guy a break dBomm.
He brought with him another viewpoint regarding an issue with this engine platform.

I knew what he meant!

For you, I offer the following. . . .

What do you mean by idiomatic?
An idiom is a common word or phrase which means something different from its literal meaning but can be understood because of their popular use.

Also. . .
tol·er·ance
/ˈtäl(ə)rəns/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
Adding the ports to the back of the heads, it wont be steam. It will still be water. And there is nothing wrong with hooking it up to the water pump, as i mentioned in my original post you will be tieing into the hot side of the pump.
True. I am not familiar with this particular setup and was halfway assuming that the rear of the cylinder head may carry a high enough temp to boil the coolant (~270).

But please help me understand why we would hook to the high pressure side (hot side) of the pump instead of the OEM surge tank?

LS cooling system.jpg

And to follow the water pump route - I understand that we would want to remove any non-condensables (air) that may be entrained in the system. However, assuming that we have only pure fluid flowing through this steam vent and given that the hose diameter is extremely small (low flow), would it not be beneficial to hook into the low side (cold or low pressure side) of the pump? The low side of the pump would effectively suck the fluid through this line, maximizing it's effectiveness. This would cause a re-circulation current as well, but quite small given the piping size. Just food for thought. And yes, I know that this would be a horrible idea :eek:

IMHO, the surge tank is a better location to tap into and I, personally, would take that route.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,147 Posts
Give the guy a break dBomm.
He brought with him another viewpoint regarding an issue with this engine platform.

I knew what he meant!

For you, I offer the following. . . .

What do you mean by idiomatic?
An idiom is a common word or phrase which means something different from its literal meaning but can be understood because of their popular use.

Also. . .
tol·er·ance
/ˈtäl(ə)rəns/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
Oh wow, look at you, trying to use 3-syllable words like the big boys. Even with cut & paste, though, you couldn't quite pull it off - feels a little stiff and unnatural. Perhaps you should stick with 3-syllable words with which you're more intimately involved, like arrogance, hubristic, or pompousness. And since you always have to have the last word, save your huff & puff, petty response, I won't be around to see it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,086 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Oh wow, look at you, trying to use 3-syllable words like the big boys. Even with cut & paste, though, you couldn't quite pull it off - feels a little stiff and unnatural. Perhaps you should stick with 3-syllable words with which you're more intimately involved, like arrogance, hubristic, or pompousness. And since you always have to have the last word, save your huff & puff, petty response, I won't be around to see it.
Will you come back to look at dick pics?

I could post some...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,978 Posts
Will you come back to look at dick pics?
I could post some...
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Hold on Jesse, I am still attempting to learn how to count sybables
and your posting of Dick Pic’s to quickly, would give me that
‘Little Stiff and Unnatural' feeling that dBomm speaks about in
his post below, taking my mind off my counting.

Oh wow, look at you, trying to use 3-syllable words like the big boys. Even with cut & paste, though, you couldn't quite pull it off - feels a little stiff and unnatural. Perhaps you should stick with 3-syllable words with which you're more intimately involved, like arrogance, hubristic, or pompousness. And since you always have to have the last word, save your huff & puff, petty response, I won't be around to see it.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top