Charlie Lupo

Member
  • Content count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Charlie Lupo last won the day on August 28 2014

Charlie Lupo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Charlie Lupo

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 10/26/1958

Profile Information

  • Time in profession
    30

Contact Methods

  • First Name
    Charlie
  • Last Name
    Lupo

Recent Profile Visitors

220 profile views
  1. Hello Mark, we have s550 here with a very similar issue. Already replaced the ESP module and did no good. I was hoping by chance if you go this one fixed and if so, would be so kind to share what was the fix?
  2. Kinouchi, you mention that perhaps the vacuum hose should have been going to the "solenoid valve for the intake flap". I don't know what that is? Perhaps I overlooked something because I disconnected the hose from the nipple of the CCV and then capped off the hose going to the intake and capped off the nipple to CCV. I am hoping that while fixing one thing, I didn't inadvertently cause another problem. Anyone out there have a master vacuum routing diagram for this car? David Camp Martin, you raised some questions and yes, and now looking back over the entire troubleshooting process, I can answer them: "why no concerns before now" reply: yes, the customer has had an ongoing problem with the Service Engine Light for years, she just ignored the problem and indeed throughout this process it was I that was more troubled about the matter. In fact, the customer told me that it was no big deal when it came on again. But ya know, what drives a lot of us is that insatiable desire to get the matter right! That's why I posted to this group, I have a very high confidence level in this gang! "why would different brand CCV's even make any significant difference?" Well, in fact the first valve I had put on, has a pinched diaphragm lip and thereby was not fitted into one corner of the recessed CCV housing. see this link for a discussion as well as pictures of these valves that were born defective http://blog.bavauto.com/15170/bmw-m54-crankcase-vent-valve-faulty-new-valves-ccv-cvv-pcv/ So this explains why the second valve I put in was different from the first. And to further elucidate on the matter, I think the difference I read between the second valve (FEBI) and the third valve (BMW DEALER) was due to readings yielded by different dynamics such as slight engine RPM variation, engine temperature, drive cycle, etc. Suffice it to say, ALL the readings from the get go were way too high and now we know it was I unwittingly "continued the error" by connecting the vacuum hose from the intake to the CCV nipple. Something so simple caused such consternation....ya know kinda like that elusive fuse deal, where it has a hair line crack that comes and goes. In any case, I am NOT closing the post yet. I will do so only after the customer gets back from her 1500 mile trip in another couple of weeks. By then I will have my hands back on the car and know if the buggy mixture formation faults have returned or are forever banished!
  3. Well that makes me feel a lot better Nenand. I had looked for vacuum diagrams but could not find one that showed the routing to the CCV. So before I officially close this post, I am going to wait till the customer comes back from the one thousand mile trip she was going on. I should know something in a couple of weeks, so the topic will sit and soak till then. Granted I really do hope it's a fix, but I am shell shocked that it could have been this little vacuum hose all along. I had done thorough interviews with the customer throughout this several week process and time and again she said only the dealer has worked on this car. So the only possibility is that a dealer tech went "out of their way" to plumb a vacuum line from the back of the intake to the CCV. That still seems strange in view of the fact the back of the intake is not easy to get to.....but I am left with only that possibility. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, once the impossible is eliminated, then it's only what is possible that remains. I will post again in several weeks.
  4. Well heck, I put the old dipstick back in and checked the pressure reading to see if they reverted back to normal but alas, it was not to be. But in the process of doing as much, I did find that disconnecting a vacuum hose made a difference. Its far easier to show you the comedy of errors via this short five minute clip. https://youtu.be/GYQ_WNd-D6c So tell me guys, have a stumbled upon the truth or is this just another temporary remedy that fails to get at the elusive root cause? Charlie
  5. Hey guys, I get my hands on the car today for about an hour. The Owner is an "out of towner" and can only squeeze in a customer wait and no can leave it with me. Nenand, I use a digital gauge that measures inches of water, will send more details on just what this tool looks like in my soon to come follow up posting. David, yup, I think I am going to put the old dipstick back in today, while the customer waits, to see what change of state occurs and do respective before and after measurements on crankcase vacuum for the sake of further analysis. As always, thanks again to all who have commented.
  6. well darn, customer just called. 300 miles into the test drive, check engine light came back on. They live several hundred miles away and I asked to go by Autozone and read out the fault with a hand-held tester. They read out lean on Bank One and Bank Two. Sounds like this is has shot to hell my straw man theory, I am re-opening the post. I will have my hands back on the car in about two to three weeks and will go back to the drawing board. First thing I am going to do is "smoke the heck" out of the engine and confirm the crankcase is "air tight". If any of you find anything about a "software update" to account for the new style dipstick, I would LOVE to know about it. Thanks.....yours truly...beat down in Tennessee.
  7. Okay folks, I have driven some 200 miles, mixed on highway and city and here are my findings as well as my two cents on the matter as to why this engine still persists with elevated crankcase vacuum and slightly elevated the fuel trims. Here are specs I am now reading: Crankcase ventilation at idle with AC off, engine fully warmed up 1.7 Hg (or converted to 23 inches of water). LTFT on bank one and bank two at idle average %12 and at cruising speeds of 40 to 50 MPH are %5 to %8. Symptoms of smoking have not recurred nor as the fuel trim codes come back since the NEW BMW CCV so I am kicking this on out the door. However, I am classifying this one as a "soft fix" and no doubt some of you old pros are already crying foul at the persistent high crankcase ventilation readings. Specs published from BMW usually should be 7 to 8 inches of water and this engine is running triple that. In any case, after checking and re-checking all the items in the gang's replies as well as replacing the numerous items per my initial posting, I have settled on the following as a "straw man theory" to explain why the engine will not achieve published specs. Hang on, its a convoluted explanation, but alas it the only one I am left with....feel free to shoot it full of holes: First the two FEBI's valves pushed the specs high by virtue of simply sloppy build tolerance, and installing the genuine BMW, rendered some improvement, albeit it was not the magic bullet. Second, the new "revised" cold weather dipstick tube opening rest well below the oil level in the pan, but the original dipstick tube with concentric sleeves, has an orifice drilled into it and this hole sits just atop of the resting oil level, thus allowing for easier venting of the dipstick Y connection into the crankcase. (see attached picture of the two dipstick tubes) My thinking is that it simply takes more vacuum to pull ventilation from the bottom of the oil pan via the new style dipstick since its baptized in oil (full immersion baptism here folks none of the sprinkling that they do in the mainline churches). And to prove out this theory, I cleaned and re-installed the old dipstick, temporarily, and found that both the crankcase ventilation specs dropped down to normal of about 7 inches of water and in fact the LTFT fuel trims lowered a bit by some %2 to %4. Finally the reason for the elevated fuel trims with the NEW style dipstick follow the fact that higher crankcase vacuum means more atmospheric air being pulled past the seal resulting in lean condition. OKAY, if you follow all this muddled logic, then you may wanting to ask me: Why don't you leave the old style dipstick in and get then engine specs happy. Well, simply put, I figure that since the BMW geniuses designed a new cold weather dipstick with new designed cold weather CCV and attaching hoses, I should keep them all in the car. I suppose I would rather risk a fuel trim fault coming back at some time in the future, rather than having the dreaded crankcase freeze up and all its possible consequential damage (my Yankee brethren know what I mean by this... blown valve cover gaskets, rear main seal, etc.). In any case, I am hanging onto the old dipstick in the event at some time in the future I do get that pesky fuel trim fault...I figure re-installing it would be the last gasp measure. But having said all that, I am satisfied that I have done my due diligence and have 200 miles of test driving without a check engine light bleeping back on; I certainly am well past ready to collect my $$$ for a lot of hard work. Sincere thanks to all who chimed in, I hope this is useful info and someone else gets a chance to take specs on a similar vehicle with the new style dipstick and either knock down my straw man or confirm my hunch . http://www.importservicecenter.com/old%20style%20dipstick%20tube.pdf http://www.importservicecenter.com/bottom%20view%20of%20old%20and%20new%20style%20dipstick%20tubes.pdf and http://www.importservicecenter.com/dipstick%20tube%20with%20annotations.pdf
  8. per earlier mentioned....new dipstick...its in correctly...no blockage...I sucked on it and got a MOUTFULL of hot oil. Per mentioned earlier...two FEBI valves and then a new BMW valve...I ain't putting a fourth in.... new air filter...no blockage whatsoever in the air ways...I have not smoke tested the rear seal...but as mentioned, all other gaskets changed EXCEPT the front and rear seals...I would think if they were fatigued, I would have oil leaking from them in view of the fact the rest of the crankcase is sealed tightly. In any case, I ain't gonna pull the transmission and put a rear seal in for the sake of experimentation. But's here's what I am going do next..i am going to drive it 200 miles and find out: does it start smoking again and what are the crankcase vacuum readings after this genuine CCV breaks in. Thanks again for all who have taken time to reply on this puzzler. I will post a report tomorrow night.
  9. Jivi, pulling the air hose off the bottom of the oil pickup tube does bring the vacuum way down, but I fail to see what useful info this gives. Indeed removing the hose from the valve cover also brings the vacuum way down and of course so does removing the hose from the air bleed rail also do as much. I have done this numerous times but it provides no insight as I would expect vacuum to immediately dissipate on any of the three CCV hoses are take loose.
  10. Yes I did remove the air bleed rail and cleaned it early on in the troubleshooting but made no difference.
  11. Yes I failed to mention that I did indeed reset ALL adaptations. The tool I made is very close to the factory tool mentioned in a BMW tsb. I have used it time and again on x3 and always reads some where between .5 and .7 Hg. Yes and the high reading of 2.5 Hg is the most recent AFTER a dealer CCV part.
  12. Been there done that....new valve cover gasket, no sludge, yes..jivi, I think excessive vacuum..it's all in the case history I posted
  13. Model: X3 3.0i (E83) Make: BMW Production Month: 10 Engine: 3.0L (M54) Transmission: Automatic Mileage: 162526 Scan Tool Implemented: None Affected System: Engine Type of Problem: Engine Related Repair History: Vehicle Year: 2005 VIN: WBXPA93445WD17868 This BMW x3 has got too much suck! Here’s the details: Using a makeshift tool that attaches to the oil cap hole, very similar to the factory tool, I am measuring at idle crankcase vacuum upward to 2.5 Hg. Off idle, it evens rises a bit higher. Now my concern is this, I have measured several of the these X3’s in the past and have never had more than .7 of inch of Hg...using this very same tool. It would seem that this is too much vacuum and over time, this excessive vacuum is going to start sucking oil from the oil pan into the intake and large blooms of smoke would develop. Furthermore, my trim numbers seem slightly elevated running somewhere between 8 and 12 percent on the LTFT at idle. Off idle, they drop to about 4 to 6 percent. These elevated trim numbers have not tripped the Check Engine light yet, but I bear in mind, I have only test driven the car about ten miles. I know from experience, these fuel trim codes can take several hundred miles or more before they rear their ugly heads. Now as far as the idle quality, it's fine, no rough idle and car has good power. Here’s the backstory on the car: it came in for oil leaks at various places and as well the Check Engine light was on and there were fuel trim faults and a MAP thermostat fault. Customer okayed up to fix all. Replaced fuel pump and fuel filter Did a BG induction purge with pressure tool Did a flush on transmission and all driveline fluids Replace water pump and thermostat Replaced valve cover gasket Replace oil filter housing Replaced spark plugs and air filter Replaced DISA and the brake booster suction valve Replaced the crankcase valve at attaching hoses (Cold Climate Version) Replaced the oil dipstick tube and installed the “updated” cold climate version After all of that I have very, very high vacuum reading on the crankcase, so bad that it began to suck the oil from the oil pan into the intake and poured out plumes of smoke. So I replaced the crankcase valve again, but no help (used FEBI brand valves), I then read on the net about some Febi valves being born defective due to pinched lips on the internal diaphragms and so finally install a third genuine BMW part. That’s where things now stand, the genuine part is not currently causing plumes of smoke but crankcase vacuum is elevated and I have a sinking suspicion once I put a hundred miles on this engine, its going to eventually start sucking oil into the intake once again. I went the Bimmerforums and found an excellent article on the CCV theory. The ccv valve used in bmw engines works very differently than almost any other design. Most ventilation valves allow a predetermined flow of fresh air hrough the engine crankcase to prevent acidic vapor buildup from blowby. The amount of air is often dependent on intake manifold vacuum. The ccvon the other hand is designed to ONLY open when there is an ABSENCE of vacuum in the crankcase. The diaphragm in the ccv will be fully open uponstartup for a brief second until engine vacuum accumulates in the crankcase, at which point the valve willthen close. If your crankcase is not completely sealed with a perfect airtight seal at all gaskets, the ccv WILL open and create a vacuum leak. BMW engineers designed the valve to only open to permit blowby to be sucked into the manifold, there is no fresh air/breather intake into the crankcase. Soooo..here’s where I need some help from you old pros. Since I am confident the crankcase is sealed with all the repairs we have done (the only seal being the rear main that has not been changed and it shows no leakage), then why in the heck is this beast developing such a high crankcase vacuum? From what I have studied, the only place that vacuum can leak into the crankcase is via seals and gaskets. I have checked for vacuum leaks at the intake manifold with propane checker and all looks good...but hey....even so, theoretically, a vacuum leak anywhere on the intake would not affect crankcase vacuum. Furthermore, I don't see any evidence of excessive blow by gases nor does the engine show any evidence of oil sludge. Thanks in advance for expending the grey matter and reading this very long post
  14. Did you have to remove the transmission to replace the pump?
  15. Well...I am sure glad I checked with the gang on this one! Looks like the labor guide missed it by a multiple of over seven times! Thanks jivi and Angelo.