You know I've been messing with flame traps for years, but this one had me a little baffled (whoops, no pun intended!). First, I had an early style angled trap in this one, with the new style hose to the the intake. One thing I noticed is that this leaves the vacuum port from the nipple on the manifold pointing toward the intake tract, not toward the oil separator. However it gives a better angle for the big hose. I removed that trap and went to the late, straight type, which has the vacuum port pointing down toward the separator. Now, vacuum being vacuum, it shouldn't matter, but it seems there is less bouncing at the valve cover cap than before. However, I'm with you. My opinion is that if the system is evacuating the engine, there should be enough vacuum in the valve cover to suck the cap down just slightly. I can blow through the whole thing and feel air at the valve cover. There is a very slight resistance, not much. I would think that is okay, what do you think? When I got the car the flame trap had been removed from the trap holder completely. No doubt it had become completely clogged--damaging the rear seal in the process probably.

Thanks for your input.

DS

Been messing with flame traps and such too, just to be sure, though I think that's okay. A friend also suggested that the seal may be "accomodating itself" to the crank hub. He's from Jamaica, mahn, where engine parts apparently accomodate themselves rather than breaking in. Hope the two of you are right! The thought of taking that gearbox down again....shudder.

Thanks very much,

DS

Yes, greased the crank hub and the seal lip with a thin grease prior to installing. What do you think the chances are that this is related to the housing gasket?