So if the PCV valve and PCV beather is on the same bank that's a PASS? According to the vacuum diagram, the PCV valve is suppose to be on the other side of the valve cover. It also has a long hose to reach the other side (passenger) of the manifold.
The PCV system was made so "Clean" air came in on side of the engine and got swept to the other side of the engine, so it cleaned all of the engine. It is possible but mot likely to have a build up of gasses in the other side of the engine.
If you send it to the Ref, no ding on your score when the next guy fails it.
The PCV system is "POSITIVE CRANKCASE VENTILATION". It has nothing that I know of to do with "cleaning" the engine. It has to do with taking the crankcase vapors and running them back through the engine so the HC and CO is not vented out to the atmosphere like it was with the road-draft tube. The side with the PCV valve only has a vacuum at idle and low throttle positions and when you are under any load and intake vacuum is low the other side that is connected at or near the air filter has "FLOW" to pull off the crankcase vapors.
People are usually shocked when they find out I'm not a very good electrician.
I'm with FiendFX on this one. Yes it's still a closed system, but it has been modified from it's original configuration, that motor came with. So if you pass it, the next person may fail it, which could affect your FPR.
A typical type 4 pcv system. What is the big deal. Now if it matches the vacuum route schematic it passes, if it is an alteration you know the drill. I would ref it if there where no documentation to back up my call. Otherwise it is a pretty clear pass.
I think you're being too hard on Justa, Mr. Wallauch. I understand what Justa means, and I agree with him that PCV has the additional function of cross-flowing the vapors to help prevent gunking. The best way to do this on a V-6 or V-8 is to let fresh air enter one valve cover and exit the other, to provide more efficient scavenging. The question becomes whether or not this affects PCV's other function, which is to prevent the vapors from escaping without being burned properly. My interpretation is that a smog tech doesn't need to be concerned with the anti-gunking properties of PCV, and should instead concentrate on the anti-emissions properties, but I wouldn't ridicule a tech for rightly claiming that a system modified like in the OP is likely to shorten the useful life of the engine.
However -- and this is where crankcase ventilation comes in -- a certain amount of that mixture of air and gasoline is pulled down by the piston and slips through the piston rings into the crankcase, which is the protective cover that insulates the crankshaft. This escaping gas is called blow-by and it's unavoidable. It's also undesirable because the unburned gasoline in it can gunk up the system and produce problems in the crankcase. Until the early 1960s, these blow-by gases were removed simply by letting air circulate freely through the crankcase, wafting away the gases and venting them as emissions. Then, in the early 1960s, positive crankshaft ventilation (PCV) was invented. This is now considered the beginning of automobile emission control.