Has anyone seen or installed a DynoValve?

[t vago]

Originally Posted by Dynovalve Frank

The Dynovalve is essentially a computer controlled PCV valve. It utilizes a small microprocessor to control the recovery of the crank-case gasses over the Dynamic Range of the engines operation versus, the mechanical PCV valve which only operates at peak efficiency in a very Narrow Band of operation.

Both devices are still completely reliant on the engine's vacuum signal, Where the DynoValve differs is that it is nearly always recovering the crankcase gasses nearly in full except at idle where it's orifice design allows it to act exactly like a stock PCV Valve. Without this default (at idle) feature the Dynovalve would act as a large vacuum leak and have terrible effects on drivability.

Alrighty, then...

So... The Dynovalve sucks in excess air through the engine itself, picking up combustion blowby gases and entrained oil vapor in the process. This then goes into the intake manifold, introducing an excess of air that goes past the throttle body (and the MAF sensor on MAF-equipped cars). This will lower the intake manifold vacuum (in the same manner as a vacuum leak), causing the engine to want to run lean (greater than 14.7:1 AFR).

Given that the Dynovalve IS a controlled vacuum leak (it closes when the engine is at idle, as you stated), how does it bypass the engine computer's tendency to adjust short (and long) term fuel trims to bring AFR back to 14.7:1, by monitoring the introduced lean condition with the oxygen sensors, thereby negating any possible fuel savings?

And you'll need to post actual A-B-A testing data to show the gains on your Acura. If you've read this thread as you claimed to do, you'll know at least where the link is, that describes this testing.

[Dynovalve Frank]

Dear Mr. Vago,

Upon my introduction I was requested to give "proof" of our claims and to have the product be explained in detail leaving plenty of room for Q&A. I feel that I've provided enough information to spark honest interest and or debate if need be. But I will not get into a match of insults over this.

Thank you for interest.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by Dynovalve Frank

Dear Mr. Vago,

Upon my introduction I was requested to give "proof" of our claims and to have the product be explained in detail leaving plenty of room for Q&A. I feel that I've provided enough information to spark honest interest and or debate if need be. But I will not get into a match of insults over this.

Thank you for interest.

Well, I told you how to post supporting links to this Dynovalve thingy to support your claims on this device, in order to get past the newbie link block, and you responded with a question as to how to post links.

MetroMPG asked you to provide the EPA certification for this Dynovalve thingy, and you have yet to deliver.

I asked you to provide a theory of operation on your device, and you first responded with some college-level synopsis of where PCV came from.

Can't help a guy for assuming the worst of a person who claimed to have read this entire thread.

Now, answer the questions we posed to you.

Where is the EPA certification for this device?

How do you manage to prevent the engine computer from compensating for the lean condition introduced by your controlled vacuum leak?

[Dynovalve Frank]

I dont know of a single application which puts the return line ahead of mass air sensor nor the throttle plate. The concern of oil being ingested was a great concern of ours as well but we've found that by having a cleaner thicker uncontaminated oil base, you wind up with an extraordinary lessoning of the oil being converted into a vapor.

I'm sorry but i should have mentioned that the Dynovalves benefits are seen immediately with a fresh oil change. It will still clearly work, but it takes time to recover what it can from the contaminated oil when it does vaporize.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by Dynovalve Frank

I'm sorry but i should have mentioned that the Dynovalves benefits are seen immediately with a fresh oil change. It will still clearly work, but it takes time to recover what it can from the contaminated oil when it does vaporize.

How does your device prevent the engine computer from compensating for the lean condition caused by your controlled vacuum leak?

[Dynovalve Frank]

Originally Posted by t vago

Well, I told you how to post supporting links to this Dynovalve thingy to support your claims on this device, in order to get past the newbie link block, and you responded with a question as to how to post links.

MetroMPG asked you to provide the EPA certification for this Dynovalve thingy, and you have yet to deliver.

I asked you to provide a theory of operation on your device, and you first responded with some college-level synopsis of where PCV came from.

Can't help a guy for assuming the worst of a person who claimed to have read this entire thread.

Now, answer the questions we posed to you.

Where is the EPA certification for this device?

How do you manage to prevent the engine computer from compensating for the lean condition introduced by your controlled vacuum leak?

EPA Certification is defaulted with the CARB exemption of which we have two

Lean condition compensation is factored by the PCM and calculated against the additional combustibles being ingested into the stream, but again good working O2 sensors are crucial to the operational feedback.

Put plainly the Dynovalve does not flow more than a PCV Valve, it just operates over a broader RPM range. As far as the PCM programming is concerned, PCV valve flow (loss) is incorporated into the base programming of any electronically controlled fuel injection system, hence it's ability to compensate accordingly. This is because the PCV valve is essentially a "dumb" device and responds solely to a highly subjective signal.

As far as my Acura is concerned I can only cite my personal findings. I've never felt the need to pull any dyno tests on the car other than tailpipe with my Enerac 700 analyzer. I will post findings from our lab for the comparison you want though.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Dynovalve Frank

CARB and the EPA "do not endorse" "nor make claim for" any product or service under the guise of additional fuel economy, Period. They simply test a given product (in this case) at the manufacturers expense to confirm the "device/product" does not have detrimental effects upon the factory installed emissions control system

Forgive me for being blunt, but given that neither the EPA or CARB endorses the product or has tested the claimed effects on fuel economy, it was frankly misleading to mention them in the context of offering proof about the efficiency of the product:

"As for proof let me begin with stating we have 2 CARB exemptions and EPA certification"

I've had enough. Thread closed. Good luck with your marketing efforts (elsewhere).

[t vago]

Originally Posted by Dynovalve Frank

EPA Certification is defaulted with the CARB exemption of which we have two

Nope. Try again.

We're looking for something like this: http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/devices/pb84163062.pdf

Not some statement (or even two) from an organization, that you yourself stated only concerned itself whether the modification increased polluting emissions, not whether the modification increases fuel economy.

Originally Posted by Dynovalve Frank

Lean condition compensation is factored by the PCM and calculated against the additional combustibles being ingested into the stream, but again good working O2 sensors are crucial to the operational feedback.

PCM sees an AFR of 14.7:1, it does nothing. PCM sees an AFR of > 14.7:1, it increases fuel delivery to compensate. Introduce a vacuum leak, even a controlled one, and AFR will go above 14.7:1.

Originally Posted by Dynovalve Frank

Put plainly the Dynovalve does not flow more than a PCV Valve, it just operates over a broader RPM range.

So does this Dynovalve flow more than a PCV (because it operates over a broader RPM range), or doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Dynovalve Frank

As far as the PCM programming is concerned, PCV valve flow (loss) is incorporated into the base programming of any electronically controlled fuel injection system, hence it's ability to compensate accordingly. This is because the PCV valve is essentially a "dumb" device and responds solely to a highly subjective signal.

PCM sees an AFR of 14.7:1, it does nothing. PCM sees an AFR of > 14.7:1, it increases fuel delivery to compensate. Introduce a vacuum leak, even a controlled one, and AFR will go above 14.7:1.

Originally Posted by Dynovalve Frank

As far as my Acura is concerned I can only cite my personal findings. I've never felt the need to pull any dyno tests on the car other than tailpipe with my Enerac 700 analyzer. I will post findings from our lab for the comparison you want though.

No lab is needed! All you have to do is post fuel economy readings without this device installed, then post fuel economy readings WITH the device installed! (and you claimed to have read this entire thread...)