All engines produce water vapour while running. It can't be helped as it's a byproduct of combustion. The ratio is close to 1 to 1. So effectively every litre of petrol burned at the stoichiometric ratio produces just over 1 litre of water.
Some engines are better at venting the crank case of excess water than others. The KV6 is quite bad if only used for very short trips. Hence over continuous short trip. Lots of mayo can build up, giving the impression of something more sinister.
If journeys of more than 10 or 15 miles are done regularly, there should be minimal mayo.

Thanks for the reply all. I am trying to put as many observations and data points to help others in case I ever solve this.

Nodge68 said:

All engines produce water vapour while running. It can't be helped as it's a byproduct of combustion. The ratio is close to 1 to 1. So effectively every litre of petrol burned at the stoichiometric ratio produces just over 1 litre of water.
Some engines are better at venting the crank case of excess water than others. The KV6 is quite bad if only used for very short trips. Hence over continuous short trip. Lots of mayo can build up, giving the impression of something more sinister.
If journeys of more than 10 or 15 miles are done regularly, there should be minimal mayo.

Click to expand...

Hi Nodge, I agree there is ample water produced by combustion processes, yet virtually all goes down the tubes (exhaust), - very little down the bores.
Surely the KV6 PCV system cannot be as bad as you describe if working as specification ?
With modern oils (I mean in the last 25 years ) and even a modest PCV the system should not generate mayo in very visible quantities in almost any condition.
If that is the case, then the design is suspect.
Even at low temperatures the emulsion is to all intents and purposes eliminated on a modern engine due to adequate air circulation from filter housing to crank case to inlet.
Condensation in itself is not sufficient to cause emulsion - in the same way that vehicle fuel tank condensation will never cause noticeable water in fuel. (noticable water in fuel comes from external sources)
Again, the KV6 must be very poorly designed in this area. Quite amazing really - but - it is Rover

The KV6 is a strange beastie.

When used mated to a manual box, it is fine. However bolting it to an auto box really affects the way it behaves.

True most water from combustion go down the exhaust, but some finds its way past the rings, into the crankcase.

This is where the problem is:
There are three breathers on the KV6 engine. There is a single larger vent/ admittance pipe. This is connected to the filter side of the TB via a small 8mm drilling.
The cam cover contains a gauss separator where this pipe enters the cam cover.
This gause can get restricted in time with solidified products of combustion.

There are two PCV pipes, one to each cam cover. These are T'd together and fed into a 2mm drilling in the inlet plenum. At times of high manifold depression the crankcase is supposed under partial vacuum. While the engine is used throughout it's entire rev range, all seems well. However if the engine is used with an auto box, things change. The box doesn't allow the engine to run up the revs, in the same way as a manual box can.
Also the Freelander KV6 is worked quite hard, which reduces manifold depression and increases blow-by at the same time.

To this is the slight design error with the right hand bank (front) PCV connection to the cam cover.
Basically the PCV pipe and vent / admittance pipe are next to each other.
This allows lots of stagnation of the crankcase gasses in the RH bank, because the fresh air in through the vent / admittance pipe, simply goes straight into the PCV and so moisture develops. The moisture then begins to emulsify in the vent pipes, reducing crankcase ventilation further.
The oil filler is also in the RH bank, so this is where mayo is first detected.

Nodge68 said:

The KV6 is a strange beastie.

When used mated to a manual box, it is fine. However bolting it to an auto box really affects the way it behaves.

True most water from combustion go down the exhaust, but some finds its way past the rings, into the crankcase.

This is where the problem is:
There are three breathers on the KV6 engine. There is a single larger vent/ admittance pipe. This is connected to the filter side of the TB via a small 8mm drilling.
The cam cover contains a gauss separator where this pipe enters the cam cover.
This gause can get restricted in time with solidified products of combustion.

There are two PCV pipes, one to each cam cover. These are T'd together and fed into a 2mm drilling in the inlet plenum. At times of high manifold depression the crankcase is supposed under partial vacuum. While the engine is used throughout it's entire rev range, all seems well. However if the engine is used with an auto box, things change. The box doesn't allow the engine to run up the revs, in the same way as a manual box can.
Also the Freelander KV6 is worked quite hard, which reduces manifold depression and increases blow-by at the same time.

To this is the slight design error with the right hand bank (front) PCV connection to the cam cover.
Basically the PCV pipe and vent / admittance pipe are next to each other.
This allows lots of stagnation of the crankcase gasses in the RH bank, so moisture develops. The moisture then begins to emulsify in the vent pipes, reducing crankcase ventilation further.
The oil filler is also in the RH bank, so this is where mayo is first detected.

Click to expand...

Excellent explanation Nodge. So the 'fresh air' inlet is from the atmospheric side of the TB in the filter housing (suitably small to alloy a slight pull down, and the vac is applied via the 2mm plenum orifice. ?
So if I read you correctly, they have teed the 2 outlets from the crank case to the single vac induced inlet on the plenum. however, they have allowed the atmospheric side of the fresh air inlet to be virtually alongside the cam cover 'outlet' effectively causing a short path bypass ... ooops
That was a bit of an oversight me thinks..
I used to laugh at some of the early systems where the 'outlets' (the pipes subjected to vacuum removal of gasses) were blocked via crud and the fresh air intake at atmospheric side of the TB effectively became an OUTLET for gasses pressurised by the combustion process. This led to huge quantities of crud and oily yuck to surround the filter - or in some cases - bathe it..
Not mentioning any names - errr - Ford - cough cough ............ Rover V8's on carbs.. cough cough..... Any Fiat (it would seem) prior to the Panda 2 era (circa 2003)

No wonder we used to just run a pipe to the 'world' - or if we were in real tree hugging mode (like the time I dated a Greenham common lass) - use a catch tank....

I like the 'short circuit' built into the design of the KV6 .. that is a corker...

Joe_H said:

Excellent explanation Nodge. So the 'fresh air' inlet is from the atmospheric side of the TB in the filter housing (suitably small to alloy a slight pull down, and the vac is applied via the 2mm plenum orifice. ?
So if I read you correctly, they have teed the 2 outlets from the crank case to the single vac induced inlet on the plenum. however, they have allowed the atmospheric side of the fresh air inlet to be virtually alongside the cam cover 'outlet' effectively causing a short path bypass ... ooops
That was a bit of an oversight me thinks..
I used to laugh at some of the early systems where the 'outlets' (the pipes subjected to vacuum removal of gasses) were blocked via crud and the fresh air intake at atmospheric side of the TB effectively became an OUTLET for gasses pressurised by the combustion process. This led to huge quantities of crud and oily yuck to surround the filter - or in some cases - bathe it..
Not mentioning any names - errr - Ford - cough cough ............ Rover V8's on carbs.. cough cough..... Any Fiat (it would seem) prior to the Panda 2 era (circa 2003)

No wonder we used to just run a pipe to the 'world' - or if we were in real tree hugging mode (like the time I dated a Greenham common lass) - use a catch tank....

I like the 'short circuit' built into the design of the KV6 .. that is a corker...

Click to expand...

My memory is clouded as there are two fresh in and two PCV pipes. A pair to each bank.
The in and out on LH back are at opposite ends of the cam cover.
On the RH cam cover, the in and out are next to each other.
You can just make out the push fittings in the picture.

Nodge68 said:

My memory is clouded as there are two fresh in and two PCV pipes. A pair to each bank.
The in and out on LH back are at opposite ends of the cam cover.
On the RH cam cover, the in and out are next to each other.
You can just make out the push fittings in the picture.

View attachment 108657

Click to expand...

That is still bad - personally, I much prefer the intake to go to the block. It seems to make a lot more sense to my befuddled brain

What you need is a V64V with 400 BHP and pulling all the way to 9K
Or, indeed a Walkinshaw/JV6

Get your own Virtual Cossy DFV minus a couple of pots. That would make for one rather quick hippo.

I would like a complete V64V just to admire as a piece of furniture.
I had the great pleasure and privilege of a short drive in an ex works 6R4, but, alas, not with the V64V .. Mind you - it WAS fitted with a 4.6 John Eales R/V8
Sex on a stick... - nearly came close in brown adrenaline factor to a mates Corrola with a ex works full Pekka engine / box / suspension / drive etc (Eklund)

I am sure you will have the odd V64V hidden away ????

Oh, I forgot Nodge - - you could always use this as well -

If it was good enough for the 6R4 it's good enough for me !
Rover had quite a bit of experience with VCU's before even Volkswagon....

Love the planetary reduction - a thing of beauty..

Joe_H said:

That is still bad - personally, I much prefer the intake to go to the block. It seems to make a lot more sense to my befuddled brain

What you need is a V64V with 400 BHP and pulling all the way to 9K
Or, indeed a Walkinshaw/JV6

Get your own Virtual Cossy DFV minus a couple of pots. That would make for one rather quick hippo.

I would like a complete V64V just to admire as a piece of furniture.
I had the great pleasure and privilege of a short drive in an ex works 6R4, but, alas, not with the V64V .. Mind you - it WAS fitted with a 4.6 John Eales R/V8
Sex on a stick... - nearly came close in brown adrenaline factor to a mates Corrola with a ex works full Pekka engine / box / suspension / drive etc (Eklund)

I am sure you will have the odd V64V hidden away ????

Click to expand...

I wish I had a 6R4 or even had a drive of one.!!
TheV64v was an advanced power unit with an output that is still considered very good, even by today's standards.
The closest I got was to drive a works spec Talbot Sunbeam Lotus. That had a piffeling 265 Bhp by comparison to the 6R4 400 odd. Mind you the TSL still went pretty damb fast. Faster than I fancied driving it, that's for sure.

Here's a picture of my Freelander V6. You can just make out the breathers. The RH (front) bank is the poorly vented side of the V.

Nodge68 said:

I wish I had a 6R4 or even had a drive of one.!!
TheV64v was an advanced power unit with an output that is still considered very good, even by today's standards.
The closest I got was to drive a works spec Talbot Sunbeam Lotus. That had a piffeling 265 Bhp by comparison to the 6R4 400 odd. Mind you the TSL still went pretty damb fast. Faster than I fancied driving it, that's for sure.

Here's a picture of my Freelander V6. You can just make out the breathers. The RH (front) bank is the poorly vented side of the V.View attachment 108661

Click to expand...

Yes, I can see the breathers there (or at least where the rear snakes around the back of the cam cover)
It IS a nice looking lump though - shame about the %$£*** BM- BL00DY-W plastic fantastic though

Here is a nice shot of Russell Brookes in the Sunny. (taken in 2009 I think !) still his original works bus too !...
I have seen them all in action - Russell Brookes, Jimmy McCrae, Henri Toivonan ... (sadly killed in 86 - that and Rally Portugal killed off Group B sadly)



Thought you might also appreciate this -
Lights off, phones on, volume up....

Joe_H said:

Yes, I can see the breathers there (or at least where the rear snakes around the back of the cam cover)
It IS a nice looking lump though - shame about the %$£*** BM- BL00DY-W plastic fantastic though

Here is a nice shot of Russell Brookes in the Sunny. (taken in 2009 I think !) still his original works bus too !...
I have seen them all in action - Russell Brookes, Jimmy McCrae, Henri Toivonan ... (sadly killed in 86 - that and Rally Portugal killed off Group B sadly)

View attachment 108662

Thought you might also appreciate this -
Lights off, phones on, volume up....

Click to expand...

I was still at school when Henri won't the Lombard RAC rally in the Sunbeam Lotus
The unmistakable sound of the Lotus slant 4 lovely. I've not heard that sound in years. The Sunbeam 911 unit was a lovely thing to work on. Except for the exhaust manifold, which required the engine to be removed, to change a gasket.
I've not played with one since the mid 90s. Fond memories though. A friend of mine finished restoring his 81 Sunbeam Lotus last summer. His is only mildly tweaked though. I forget the exact figures now but it's 220ish Bhp. QED built the engine for him 1990, at huge cost iirc. He's got a works LSD fitted which means it actually accelerates, rather then spin the wheels.
Nice engine, except for it being half a V8, making it hard to do some simple jobs.

As long as the subject of KV6 crankcase breathers has come up I am looking for one of the rear cam cover fittings. (The one on the front end of the cam cover that takes the larger diameter hose.) New or used, doesn't matter. The one on my Hippo is broken and venting to the air which can't be a good thing. I have tried to find one but so far have ended up with 3 incorrect fittings. That's the trouble with buying parts online without the part number!
Even if someone can tell me the correct part number that would help.
My local LR dealer is hopeless unless you are driving a late model $$$ Range Rover, and then I am sure everything is on warranty anyway.

Good site for part numbers here:
http://www.allbrit.de/NAV.cfm?SPRACHE=EN&PAGE=591925

Thanks for that!
That site will be a good reference but it's not correct for the part that I need. It shows the fitting as being LZN100390L. I have one that I got from a US supplier, still in the numbered LR bag and it takes a 6mm hose, not the 12mm that I have on my Hippo (Just re-measured it to make sure). I wonder if it is an error in the parts lists, or if maybe the North American V6 used a larger diameter pipe?
I may have to resort to buying a used cam cover locally to get one the right size.

Take a look at the front bank (closets to the radiator). Are you after the large or small fitting? There are the same throughout.

The large one is LYC100510L

A whole thread on these :

https://www.landyzone.co.uk/land-rover/pcv-valve-fix.236334/

Thanks Ze! It is the large one that I am after.
I'll try ordering one using that number.
Reading through that thread his issue was the same as mine, although in my case the plastic tubing is fine but the fitting was broken by a previous owner leaving the pipe just poked into the hole in the valve cover. It will be nice to have it sorted out.

Joe_H said:

Hi Nodge, I agree there is ample water produced by combustion processes, yet virtually all goes down the tubes (exhaust), - very little down the bores.
Surely the KV6 PCV system cannot be as bad as you describe if working as specification ?
With modern oils (I mean in the last 25 years ) and even a modest PCV the system should not generate mayo in very visible quantities in almost any condition.
If that is the case, then the design is suspect.
Even at low temperatures the emulsion is to all intents and purposes eliminated on a modern engine due to adequate air circulation from filter housing to crank case to inlet.
Condensation in itself is not sufficient to cause emulsion - in the same way that vehicle fuel tank condensation will never cause noticeable water in fuel. (noticable water in fuel comes from external sources)
Again, the KV6 must be very poorly designed in this area. Quite amazing really - but - it is Rover

Click to expand...

Don't overlook the contribution from moist air being drawn into the engine via the crankcase ventilation system. If the oil does not get up to close to 100C it will separate out and condense in the slightly lower air pressure in the engine.

In the good old days of low temp engines, no thermostat or radiator pressure cap the engines also used positive crankcase ventilation with blow by going out to atmosphere, so you get less water contamination than today, given low temperatures.

Nodge68 said:

I was still at school when Henri won't the Lombard RAC rally in the Sunbeam Lotus
The unmistakable sound of the Lotus slant 4 lovely. I've not heard that sound in years. The Sunbeam 911 unit was a lovely thing to work on. Except for the exhaust manifold, which required the engine to be removed, to change a gasket.
I've not played with one since the mid 90s. Fond memories though. A friend of mine finished restoring his 81 Sunbeam Lotus last summer. His is only mildly tweaked though. I forget the exact figures now but it's 220ish Bhp. QED built the engine for him 1990, at huge cost iirc. He's got a works LSD fitted which means it actually accelerates, rather then spin the wheels.
Nice engine, except for it being half a V8, making it hard to do some simple jobs.

Click to expand...

Hi Nodge. My chevette and SBL shared a certain heritage in the engine compartment . I love the 'written hsitory' of the 911 lotus engine.
If you believe the pundits - which I don't for one minute - then the story goes that Chapman was browsing at a motor show and say Vauxhall's new slant engine in cutaway form and due to - so they say - the bore centres being the same as 'his new design' - he sources several complete units from VX to develop a new engine.
Well, I think the truth of the matter is that Chapman saw something he liked and THEN came up with an idea. The lower profile of the VX slant engine was excellent for fitting into lower spaces. Also, all the development work had been exhaustively done. Chapman was by all accounts a bit of a 'wide boy' as well as being a genius.
Anyway, so the 9XX series was eventually born from the VX slant. - Chapman knew a good deal when he saw one. He didnt scratch design any bottom ends afaik -his field was really cylinder heads. The lotus cortina etc were based (iirc) on the 681F Ford short engine with added chain driven twin cam. Don;t know if you ever saw one of the 4 pot lotus / ford units but they were rough as hell. (in the casting and finishing department) they looked like an amateur concoction, but went pretty well.
Chapman, of course, kept the whole design philosophy including the amazingly strong bottom end design and forged rods (standard on the VX slant - which was quite funny as companies used to sell 'forged rods' as an update -- ha ha - more fool them) - anyway, I digress...
As you are probably aware the VX slant was designed as a family. Petrol, Diesel and a V8 petrol and V8 diesel. The bottom end thus was amazingly strong.
Chapman tweaked and re-cast the block in aluminium and also produced the 9XX series twin cam cylinder heads in aluminium. The similarities are vast though and basically he ripped off the VX slant design completely. I am sure it was with VX's blessing and appropriate financial matters were sorted. He never come up with the basic idea though.
The HS Chevette was designed as a ford beater in the WRC. A twin cam head (cast ferrous) was designed with vertical cam covers.
It is a fact that when the Chevette HS first competed the twin cam cast head was not completed and they used Lotus 907 heads with tiny mods . which received a volley of objections from some very disgruntled teams (as it was so bl00dy quick) .
Bill Blydenstein - the brains behind DTV eventually tuned the cast twin cam VX head to perform far better than the maxxed 911 head.. Probably with a 'ya boo sucks'
I think I mentioned this before, but road rally cars were getting too quick in the late 70's and designs like my 'shove it' and especially BDA units were outlawed. We were restricted to a single camshaft and only two carburetor chokes / inlets .. - note - NOT on wrc and stage events - just the RAC governed Road Rallies of the time
It shows how good Blydenstein was he went on to develop the single cam head to produce over 220 BHP - on SU's !!!. My single cam with HS bottom end and Blydenstein head, cam and twin SU's gave a solid 180 - at the wheels with his truly wonderful single cam head and GT4(X) cam - which IIRC was something like 310 degrees !. (it could easily rev to 9K but a sensible limit was 7.5K !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) . When it was turned off it often used to run backwards for 4 or 5 seconds (seriously!) lol - without any harm at all - made a hell of a din though. Went like sh!t off a shovel.
When we watched the WRC and forest events with SBL and CHS it was quite a topic at the time on which engine produced the most. I think some of the best looking rally cars ever were the GP4 Chevette HS, SBL and Escort Mk2. They still look awesome today.
Here's some nice piccys of the development. - a v8 would have been awesome.. Eee them were the days.....

Rich in Vancouver said:

Thanks Ze! It is the large one that I am after.
I'll try ordering one using that number.
Reading through that thread his issue was the same as mine, although in my case the plastic tubing is fine but the fitting was broken by a previous owner leaving the pipe just poked into the hole in the valve cover. It will be nice to have it sorted out.

Click to expand...

Hi Rich
As said above, on this one part, Microcat is not clear. It is listed as quick fit dip stick connector..
here's the three parts - maybe best thing is to remove yours and measure it - then contact the supplier ? -
http://www.brit-car.co.uk/product.p...uick_rel_dip_stick_v6_freelander_1___mg_rover

Also, if you want a copy of microcat (the actual LR parts catalogue on disk) - fully searchable with all diagrams and part numbers - and vin specific searches - then you can dl it from my drive -
Note - it is a 32bit windows application. If you are running win64 it MUST be run in a virtual machine - Virtual box is free and really easy to use if you have a 'working' win 7 32 bit ISO.... ? (if not - PM me and I can sort you out )
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzkFpJClXDWld1F2YXJ6ZkphM2s

Joe

Cheers Joe,
The fact that it was listed as a dipstick connector had me a bit confused, but as I have the other two fittings on my workbench and it's not them that has to be the one!
I'm not computer savvy enough to understand the "Virtual Machine" thing but a mate of mine who is a whiz with the magic box is coming for Thanksgiving dinner tonight so I will get him to help out...before he gets into the Tequila!