PDA

View Full Version : What's the issue with the aux oil line?



bunzil
02-23-2008, 07:25 PM
Hi guys. I haven't been on in a while...when there's snow on the ground I think less about Triumphs. I did just check in an was looking at TR-Bills comments on his new cam and the mention that Ted Shumacher (sp?) doesn't like the aux oil line to the head.

Can anyone tell me what the concern is? Any problems that you know of?

Thanks

02-23-2008, 07:54 PM
Some say it takes too much oil from the bottom end, so don't use it.
Others say the top end needs it, so do.

Then again some say Elvis is still alive.
Others don't agree.

You pick what you want to believe, 'cos you won't change anyone else's mind...

foxtrapper
02-23-2008, 08:52 PM
Typically, you're taking oil away from the lower end and sending it to the top. That all by itself is not good.

You're applying a lot more oil to parts that don't need it, and not in a particularly good way.

Now if you get fancy and build a manifold to spray oil onto the rocker faces, and onto the springs to cool them, that can be a gain. But it doesn't seem to be one these engines need.

TR3driver
02-23-2008, 09:43 PM
Another concern is that Triumphs don't use valve stem seals. With all that extra oil up there, you get more oil down the intake valve stems and through the combustion chamber. Which not only gives you ugly blue smoke, but kills the octane of the fuel. Which can lead to detonation under cruise conditions, when it can be hard to hear over the general racket.

Of course you can add seals to the intake stems, but then you run the risk of too little oil to the stem, which can lead to premature wear or even binding. And if one of seals should fail, you have only one cylinder with detonation, which is even harder to hear.

Somewhere on this forum, I already posted a photo of a broken piston from a TR3 motor, caused by an external oil feed & a leaking intake stem seal (Teflon insert came out of the rubber housing).

Just clean the inside of the rocker shaft when it gets clogged with gunk, and you won't need the external feed.

Andrew Mace
02-23-2008, 09:45 PM
:iagree: that it is, at best, unnecessary. Besides, do you really NEED another potential spot for leaks? And if Ted, who knows these cars about as well as anyone outside of Kas Kastner and the folks back in Coventry, says it's unnecessary, that's good enough for me!

Brosky
02-24-2008, 12:35 AM
I agree with the notion of no line, but the jury seems to still be out with all of the top guys about the valve seals. I believe that properly sized valve seals would be a good thing and so do most machinists that I've talked to lately.

foxtrapper
02-24-2008, 09:24 PM
Remember, most machinists are younger than our cars and their engineering. These engines were designed with no seals, and run just fine without them. Now if you start spraying oil all around the top ends, you're going to get it down the valves. So don't do that.

Brosky
02-24-2008, 10:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]Remember, most machinists are younger than our cars and their engineering.[/QUOTE]

Not true of the (automotive) machinists in my area, nor is the man that I chose for my machining work. Once these older guys are gone, the next generation will not have the options that we do today.

I learned the hard way about the oil spraying around inside the valve cover and where it can go with an un-baffled alloy cover.

Rickc
02-25-2008, 09:21 AM
Bunzil
Thanks for asking the question. I also saw a big ? after reading TR6Bill's post.
I have one on my engine and thought it would be a good as I recall hearing horror stories about the LACK of oil up there.
Does it really rob that much oil from the lower end where oil is litterally being splashed everywhere?
Andy, Do I read from your post that Kas kastner, along with Coventry, also feels it is useless?
Can someone tell me why there is that convenient threaded hole at the back end of the head???? Was Coventry "experimenting" with some extra oil line???
Maybe I should remove it for a summer?
I must admit, I have head more do not use than use.
Does anyone know who came up with this idea?
Rickc '71

Andrew Mace
02-25-2008, 09:38 AM
Andy, Do I read from your post that Kas kastner, along with Coventry, also feels it is useless?No, that's not what I said (although it's likely true). I was simply comparing Ted Schumacher's knowledge of these cars with that of folks such as Kas...and those who originally designed and built the engines.

I suspect that, to some degree, the advent of these external lines is the same as the advent of auxiliary cooling fans, inasmuch as they often are "band-aid" attempts that really only skirt around the real problem(s). In a head and rocker gear with clean oil passages, more than enough oil gets to where it needs to. Similarly, a clean and clear cooling system -- including both the radiator AND the engine block cooling passages -- will solve the vast majority of overheating "problems"! (I won't argue that the original cooling systems might not have been perfect for extremely hot climates such as the American Southwest, though, and Triumph did offer a "tropical cooling fan" on the wet-liner cars for such climates.)

70herald
02-25-2008, 10:48 AM
Bunzil

Can someone tell me why there is that convenient threaded hole at the back end of the head???? Was Coventry "experimenting" with some extra oil line???


The hole there is needed to drill out the oil passage. After the passage was drilled, the plugged it with a bolt. That was the "convenient" way of solving a production problem.

bunzil
02-25-2008, 11:29 AM
I'm glad I asked the question as it's produced an interesting academic debate. To me, I seems improbable that the oil line is truly robbing needed oil from the bottom end - the cars hold 5+ quarts of oil. How much can the line be using? The oil press. sender is immediately outboard of the oil line; wouldn't any serious decline in oil and pressure would be indicated on the gauge? In my case, I have noticed no difference. Nor have I witnessed blue smoke, plug fouling, or increased oil consumption.

I think we'd all agree you can't "over oil" a rocker assembly assuming you have enough oil, which seems to be the case. So it appears that the real issues are 1) excess oil passing the valve stems and 2) blow-by in unbaffled valve covers. Paul proved the baffle issue is real. But to point #1, does anyone know just how much extra oil is actually being used up top and has it really been measured to be detrimental? So far, there's much discussion, but little material evidence one way or the other re the valves. I'm inclined to remove the line but remain undecided.

70herald
02-25-2008, 12:01 PM
The 5 quarts of oil are irrelevant, it is the volume of oil per minute pumped which is then split or rather the percentage going to the bottom of the engine gets reduced.

02-25-2008, 12:11 PM
Geez, why is it that I am starting to like questions like "What color should I paint my car?" more and more. I am starting to get a headache.

tomshobby
02-25-2008, 12:12 PM
All of this is assuming that the pump does not have enough volume capacity. I am pretty sure that if the pressure stays the same that the volume to the lower end would also stay the same.

On the other hand, if the pressure drops the volume most likely would be reduced.

02-25-2008, 12:18 PM
Another problem with the aftermarket oil pumps (pretty much all made in India by County) is you should mic them. The do wear out.

Brosky
02-25-2008, 01:09 PM
Bill,

Where are the spec for that measuring process? Is it in the TR6 manual?

piman
02-25-2008, 01:10 PM
Hello all,

I had an oil feed on my car, but eventually removed it as it did cause oil to be drawn into number six intake valve.

I had no concerns whatever that it was starving the crank\cam lubrication.

Interestingly I saw a picture recently of the Ex Paul Newman Le Taxi (Mk 2 , 2.5 Triumph sedan) racing car which had an external oil manifold alongside the main gallery. Wasn't that one of Kas Kastners engines? I don't quite see the logic in it?

Alec

BryanC
02-25-2008, 01:15 PM
All of this is assuming that the pump does not have enough volume capacity. I am pretty sure that if the pressure stays the same that the volume to the lower end would also stay the same.


I don't think so. The oil pump is essentially a positive displacement pump. At a certain speed it pumps a certain volume of oil. It will provide whatever pressure is required to push that volume of oil (within reason - there is some slip in the pump so there is some limit to the pressure it can put up). Any extra oil you take to the head is oil you take away from the bottom end.

Bryan

02-25-2008, 01:25 PM
Bill,

Where are the spec for that measuring process? Is it in the TR6 manual?

Bentley

piman
02-25-2008, 01:51 PM
Hello Bryan,

"Any extra oil you take to the head is oil you take away from the bottom end."

That would be true except for the pressure relief valve, as excess pressure is bled off. Volume drop is also a pressure loss so if the pressure remains constant then the relief valve must be controlling the pressure.

Incidentally, I had another look at the engine from Le Taxi, and that has an oil feed to the head.

Alec

Opa
02-25-2008, 02:07 PM
Piman Keep in mind that when Kas raced the 2.0 and 2.5 litre engine they where not exactly stock. I seem to remember that he was getting upwards of 200+ hp out of them and 8000+ RPM.Also keep in mind that the engine was probably tore down after every race and inspected and refurbished as required.If it burned a little oil during the race,no a big deal.
If top end oiling was a major issue with these Standard engines I think Standard would have improved on it themselves.The six cylinder engine was not exactly new to the industry when Triumph used them.

bunzil
02-25-2008, 02:12 PM
Any extra oil you take to the head is oil you take away from the bottom end. [/quote]


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the line of reasoning I see here is assuming the oil feed line is consuming an undesirable amount of oil. Yet no one has really demonstrated same thus far. Let's remember that oil pressure is being maintained which in this case, should be the result of the small diameter of the oil line. That diameter is providing enough back pressure to keep the flow in check and thus, maintain sufficient oil down below.

I can't be far off the mark here or we would have heard of catastrophic failures by now. The fact that most of us are speculating whether the oil line is worthwhile or not, points to a general lack of real information on the topic. It seems so far, that all we really know is that it can create issues for non-baffled valve covers, and potential consumption issues at the valve stems - especially worn ones.

TR6oldtimer
02-25-2008, 02:14 PM
Geez, why is it that I am starting to like questions like "What color should I paint my car?" more and more. I am starting to get a headache.

Glad you are up to this, and just what color should I paint the bottom of my car? :smirk:

TR3driver
02-25-2008, 02:38 PM
The hole there is needed to drill out the oil passage. After the passage was drilled, the plugged it with a bolt. That was the "convenient" way of solving a production problem. :iagree: Otherwise, it's really tough to drill that hole around two corners inside the head.

swift6
02-25-2008, 04:20 PM
The hole there is needed to drill out the oil passage. After the passage was drilled, the plugged it with a bolt. That was the "convenient" way of solving a production problem. :iagree: Otherwise, it's really tough to drill that hole around two corners inside the head.

Then why go the extra step with tapping the hole for a bolt when they could have simply plugged it like the rear of the oil gallery on the block?

swift6
02-25-2008, 04:42 PM
If top end oiling was a major issue with these Standard engines I think Standard would have improved on it themselves.The six cylinder engine was not exactly new to the industry when Triumph used them.

That would be more like solving a problem that they didn't really see as a problem. In the corporate world that's called a waste of time and resources, both of which equals money.

If the engines could break 100,000 miles with proper servicing and 95% of the consumers never had an issue with upper-end oiling during that time on their stock engines. Why would they have bothered with the expense of improving the engine. Their coffers weren't overflowing with cash. The reason the TR6 was outdated when new was because of cost saving measures. The cars, and the engines, were never meant to be around this long.

A well cared for stock engine shouldn't need any extra oil to the upper-end as long as the oil passages stay open. That being said, my old stock engine had one on it from about the 100,000 mile mark to near 150,000 miles when I pulled it to install my high performance engine. I looked at all the lower-end bearings when I pulled the stock engine. While worn, but still perfectly serviceable, they showed zero signs of oil starvation. Those 50k with the oil line were not pampered either. Many a track day with long durations of revs past 4k rpm.

Start changing things on that upper-end and it may need more oil than the stock passages can deliver. My roller rockers are much happier with the extra oil.

BobSands
02-25-2008, 05:27 PM
Was just over on the Kastner website, and he says that for Spitfire's, he NEVER used the external oil feed, and never had any rocker wear.
Seems like he covered this for the 2 liter, and 2.5, in one of his books, that he was not a fan of the upper oiling procedure. I'll check this evening when I get home.
Take care Bob

Rickc
02-25-2008, 05:32 PM
Well this is becoming interesting.

This baffle issue has nothing to do with weather or not to install the extra oil feed line I have the alloy valve cover and you simply install a very simple baffle and no more oil to the carbs. Besides, I do not think the extra oil line is the main reason for oil down the carbs.
I can appreciate on a tired engine with low oil pressure that this is probable a bad idea. But with an engine that is just rebuilt along with a new oil pump that has oil pressure almost at the scary high end then I can not see that I am staving the lower end. Yes, I am probable dumping a little more oil down the valve stems of 5 and 6.

I wish (well sort of) someone would give a definitive reason why they think (or know) that the extra oil feed line is a bad idea.
So far Shawn is the only one who has looked at an engine after 50K miles and reports no noticeable damage with the extra oil line.
I really am open to someone giving a good reason not to use one. Everyone keeps saying it starves the lower end. I dought my oil pressure would changer at all if I removed it.

Rickc

RobT
02-25-2008, 05:39 PM
I always thought oil supply to the Triumph top-end was only an issue with the 6 cyl engine (which was basically a Herald "4" with two extra cylinders added). Oil supply to the top end was fine for the "4", but could not keep up with the extra valve gear.

Rob.

tomshobby
02-25-2008, 06:49 PM
I have the aux line.
My oil pressure is excellent. My engine does not use oil. My carbs and intake do not have oil from the valve cover vent in them. My valve cover gasket does not leak. Before the aux line the valve train was somewhat dry in the front and now it is well oiled.
It is a good thing for my engine. The point is that is how it is for my engine, it may not be good for others.

poolboy
02-25-2008, 06:50 PM
I guess I could go out tomorrow and have a problem due to not having an auxillary oil feed, but I've got a stock engine with 98k on it and so far so good.

vrod
02-25-2008, 07:05 PM
I had 10,000 miles on a fresh engine rebuild with the aux oil line and dropped a valve down into the cylinder because of a broken valve spring. Parts from the valve were then sucked through the intake manifold and ended up in some of the other cylinders, scarring the cylinder wall in one so bad that it needed to be sleeved . I believe this was caused from detonation from excess oil getting past the valve stem. when the engine was torn down, I noticed some of the exhaust valves looked burned around the edge. When the new head was rebuilt I selected stainless exhaust valves. I will not be putting the aux line back on.

poolboy
02-25-2008, 07:10 PM
I wonder how "theguyfromQuebec" is doing with his experiment, putting a valve in the line?

Opa
02-25-2008, 07:14 PM
well spoken Tom.I don't have the aux line and haven't had.She's gone 80 thou. miles plus and all is well under the valve cover.I slide over a rocker or two every valve adjustment and shaft looks like new. I ain't gonna fix what ain't broke.
As you say.... works for me .Keep on :driving:

Brosky
02-25-2008, 08:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]I wish (well sort of) someone would give a definitive reason why they think (or know) that the extra oil feed line is a bad idea.[/QUOTE]

Rick,

Until you develop that simple little baffle, this is what you can expect when you go from using a quart of oil every 1,100 miles to a quart every 200. Alloy valve cover with no baffle and auxiliary oil line.

Be very careful how you attach that baffle. If you weld it, you will probably damage the outside finish due to the high heat needed for aluminum. I would never attach via a fastener that could fall off inside the engine and drilling holes through the cover isn't much of an option.

And I did look at the clearance between the thick aluminum covers and the valve train where the vent pipe is located. There isn't much room in there at all.

I still have my cover sitting in the garage, so please post a fix for this when you figure it out. It was easier for me to put the chrome cover back on and take off the line than go through that hassle.

That is a small sampling of the Castrol 20W-50W that came out of the intake when I swapped my stock carbs over to tri-carbs.

RonMacPherson
02-25-2008, 09:06 PM
Like they already mentioned. It's the volume of oil, which is a heckuva lot more important than the amount of pressure that is needed by lubricated parts.

The auxiliary line was a patchwork to "bandaid" without rebuilding your rockershaft assembly.

Machining and metallurgy have improved considerably since these engines were designed and produced better than 50 years ago. Remember the basic design goes back to a tractor motor of the late 30's.

I agree with Brosky, a good competent, up to date, machine shop will recommend(and I agree) good guides, and valve stem seals. Remember there are a lot of different "seals" available. Everything from o-rings on the stems to umbrellas, to perfect circle type machined on the guides. I do not know of any modern engine that does not come with out valve stem seals on the intakes.

So upgrading the engine design is, to me, akin to upgrading the suspension and brake design. If you can make it better by improving it, why not? As long as you are using industry standard designs and industry acceptable practices, go for it.

Andrew Mace
02-25-2008, 09:53 PM
...Machining and metallurgy have improved considerably since these engines were designed and produced better than 50 years ago. Remember the basic design goes back to a tractor motor of the late 30's.... Yes...and no. Machining and metallurgy...and engineering (and ignition/fuel management...and a bunch of other stuff) all have improved greatly in the past 50 years. But your other chronology is off a bit. The wet-liner motor is a postwar design introduced around 1947. The six is, in turn, based on the 803cc four-cylinder introduced in the Standard 8 of 1953.

swift6
02-25-2008, 11:48 PM
...and it was the Ferguson tractor that used a Standard engine, not a Standard that used a Ferguson engine.

Opa
02-26-2008, 12:08 AM
yup Fergie and Standard engine. The antique engine club I am president of is in the process of restoring this 1952 Ferguson TEO

70herald
02-26-2008, 01:33 AM
The hole there is needed to drill out the oil passage. After the passage was drilled, the plugged it with a bolt. That was the "convenient" way of solving a production problem. :iagree: Otherwise, it's really tough to drill that hole around two corners inside the head.

Then why go the extra step with tapping the hole for a bolt when they could have simply plugged it like the rear of the oil gallery on the block?

Just a guess, but I would assume that this was the cheapest, easiest and or most reliable method. Or simply they already had the equipment for this available at the time and it wasn't needed for anything else.

02-26-2008, 06:04 AM
The hole there is needed to drill out the oil passage. After the passage was drilled, the plugged it with a bolt. That was the "convenient" way of solving a production problem. :iagree: Otherwise, it's really tough to drill that hole around two corners inside the head.

Then why go the extra step with tapping the hole for a bolt when they could have simply plugged it like the rear of the oil gallery on the block?

Just a guess, but I would assume that this was the cheapest, easiest and or most reliable method. Or simply they already had the equipment for this available at the time and it wasn't needed for anything else.







Kinda like your appendix. Or third molars. Or tonsils.

foxtrapper
02-26-2008, 07:39 AM
Interestingly I saw a picture recently of the Ex Paul Newman Le Taxi (Mk 2 , 2.5 Triumph sedan) racing car which had an external oil manifold alongside the main gallery. Wasn't that one of Kas Kastners engines? I don't quite see the logic in it?

Kas talks about it in his first book. He measured oil pressure or flow at the main bearings and found it to be quite poor. He made the external passages to the mains to get adequate flow or pressure to them to keep from wiping out the bottom end. This is a case of a known problem with an effective cure.

swift6
02-26-2008, 10:34 AM
Interestingly I saw a picture recently of the Ex Paul Newman Le Taxi (Mk 2 , 2.5 Triumph sedan) racing car which had an external oil manifold alongside the main gallery. Wasn't that one of Kas Kastners engines? I don't quite see the logic in it?

Kas talks about it in his first book. He measured oil pressure or flow at the main bearings and found it to be quite poor. He made the external passages to the mains to get adequate flow or pressure to them to keep from wiping out the bottom end. This is a case of a known problem with an effective cure.



But only a problem for racing. Not for the average consumer.

Rickc
02-26-2008, 10:52 AM
Paul (Brosky)
I Quote myself:
"This baffle issue has nothing to do with weather or not to install the extra oil feed line"...
I agree fully that there is absolutely no point putting the alloy valve cover on without a baffle BUT it is still NOT a reason for not using the extra oil feed line. The issue is does it rob oil from the rest of the engine to the point where it is actually detrimental to install it?

Like I said Paul, I do not think that the extra oil feed line is the full cause of oil going out the unbaffled hole. there is oil up there without the oil feed line.
The point is that it is necessary to put a baffle on the alloy valve cover regardless if you have the extra oil feed or not. (I knew it need a baffle before it went on the engine). But this is not the issue...

I Quote Ron:
"The auxiliary line was a patchwork to "bandaid" without rebuilding your rockershaft assembly."
I am not sure why you would say this Ron. I do not think I am alone in saying this is NOT what I was thinking when I installed The extra oil feed line. I think every single supplier of LBC parts might have a different opinion also.

It is like everyone is "skirting" around the question and talking about adding valve seals and a baffle to an alloy valve cover.
Does anyone really know if it ( adding the extra oil feed line)does harm to my engine or not?

OK.... so Ron, just so you do not have to continue to have that new alloy cover collect dust, here is what I did.. (sorry not sure how to put pics right in here).
https://s270.photobucket.com/albums/jj97/ickard/Valve%20cover%20oil%20baffle/
It has been on for 2 summers now and I am not worried about it comming off or loose. It has to be very flat so as not to come in contact with rocker assembly.
It also must be full height of inside wall and only a hole at the bottom.
I am not trying to be controversial...just want to know if I am doing harm to my engine or not.

Rickc

Opa
02-26-2008, 11:49 AM
Rick I can't really comment on the baffle issue,but seeing how a stock valve cover is baffeled ,that would indicate there is plenty of oil up there in stock form requiring same.A tired stock engine will put oil by the baffle as well, unless by that time there is minimul oil flow due to wear and sludge etc.
That is what Ron is referring too imo.If the rockers are anemic on oil in a tired engine,the bypass line will probably keep things oily.It doesn't repair the underlying reason tho.External oilers were a common add on back in the day on domestic motors.
Will the add on line damage your motor? I doubt it,as long as your oil pressure is with in factory spec.You indicate running the line for two summers so i'd say keep on :driving:

bunzil
02-26-2008, 11:57 AM
I wasn't going to jump back into this but Rickc above stated what I was trying to say from the beginnig. That is that there's lots of speculation here about the oil line, but no proof that it's detrimental in any way. Per Paul's earlier dilemma I welded in a baffle to my alloy cover with no ill effects. That out of the way, and with a young an healthy engine, is the oil line beneficial or not?

poolboy
02-26-2008, 11:59 AM
Rickc, please keep trying to post the pic. I'd like to take a look,too. Thanks.

swift6
02-26-2008, 12:02 PM
The last time we went round and round on this issue it seemed that there was no conclusive proof either way, just opinion. It also seems that the last word seemd to be do what you feel is best for your situation.

Rickc
02-26-2008, 01:51 PM
Shawn
yes I suppose it could go on forever. I do not plan on taking it off my engine.

Casey (Opa) I agreed fully that there is an absolute need for a baffle on the alloy valve cover and the OE valve cover and as I said, it does not matter if the extra oil feed line is on or not (you still need a baffle).

Casey, a slight misunderstanding. I have had the alloy valve cover on with the baffle for 2 years. The extra oil feed line has been on since I completed the restoration back in 2001.

Sorry guys, I will have to learn how to put a pic right here. Sounds like I need a personal WEB page to do it. You can do a copy and paste of the HTML link into your browser and it will go to my Photobucket.
I admit even with the baffle I have made, there is still a very small amount of oil getting past. My first attempt had more "holes" in it so I re did it with just a small cut out and at the very bottom. This drastically reduced the amount. It is very important to have the baffle go to the top (full height) of the valve cover.

Rickc

Rickc
02-26-2008, 02:00 PM
Testing 1 2 3

https://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj97/ickard/Valve%20cover%20oil%20baffle/IMG_15055.jpg

Rickc
02-26-2008, 02:03 PM
Wow it worked.
I do suggest you go to my Photobucket page to see the rest of the pics on how it is fastened to the exit pipe.

I guess I need to make the pics a little smaller:)
Rickc

02-26-2008, 02:58 PM
Or, you can do as I have done and just use a GoodParts oil separator where I dump the oil back into the pan.

Brosky
02-26-2008, 10:00 PM
Bill,

It looks like Rick has found a way to beat the $139 oil separator blues. And my oil pan is drilled and fitted with bungs on both sides in case I decide to go that way.

Rick, now that I re-read my reply, I want you to know that I did not mean to come off as a twit about it. I was sincere about you finding a way and it looks like you did.

I can tell you this. I had 53,000 mils on my engine when I installed it, along with a new oil pressure relief spring kit from TRF. (another potential 50 posts coming up on that comment) My oil pressure was good before the install, and it was just as good after the install. Did it hurt the bottom? I don't know, because after 5 quarts of oil in 1,000 miles, I took it off.

Will I put another one on my new engine? I don't know. I am having valve seals installed, so I can with the stock cover, unless I baffle the alloy cover like you did. Tom Spadafore, who I respect as a builder at TRF loves them, but again, they sell them as well.

I'm going to talk to my machinist about these before I make any decision. Erik of Her Majesty's is up in the air with no preference one way or the other. I can always bolt one on in 10 minutes if I decide to make the move.

There is one thing certain. You can see by the amount of oil in my intake, that they do get oil to the top of the engine in copious amounts!!

RonMacPherson
02-26-2008, 11:31 PM
Can't see the picture.

How is the engine operating? That should answer your question.

A tangent but similar reasoning. Why do some TR's use, successfully, oil coolers and others don't. Not necessarily due to ambient temperature and driving style. More on the condition of the engine and what shape the oil clearances internally are.

If you get a chance, do some of Smokey Yunick's and Grumpy Jenkins readings. Especially on lubrication systems. If I remember right Carroll Smith brought it up in several of his books, but he didn't get into as much detail as Smokey Yunick.

I think you will find Smokey's dissertations on lube, pressure, quantity, volume, and proper flow quite revealing.

RonMacPherson
02-26-2008, 11:37 PM
This is for Paul.

Brosky, take a real good long look, study, of the rocker shaft and where it gets its feed for the valve train. If I remember properly it's off of the 3rd main. If the oil feed hole in the rocker gets any blockage at all, then lube oil to the valve train is cut drastically. I always considered the easiest procedure to correct any possiblity of this(besides keeping the oil clean and sludge free) was to enlarge the rocker stand oil supply hole to at least as large as the feed from the head.


I have never gotten down into studying the flow cycle from the main bearing, but I always wondered what grooving the 3rd main insert would do as far as oil supply uptop. But then realized that the main bearing width is probably borderline for continual heavy load and would not be "happy" taking some of the surface area away.

So, the best solution would be roller rockers, they require lots less oil......

Rickc
02-27-2008, 09:08 AM
Can't see the picture.

How is the engine operating? That should answer your question.


Ron if you are talking about not see the pics at my photobucket site.
https://s270.photobucket.com/albums/jj97/ickard/Valve%20cover%20oil%20baffle/
then make sure you are looking at the album labeled "valve cover oil baffle".
My engine sounds and runs fine. But then I am not an expert engine rebuilder who definitely knows that the extra line robs oil from the lower end.
Please cut to the chase Ron...does Smokey say not to use it?

Paul (Brosky) hay man, no big deal. I re-read my posts and think I came on a little strong. Not my intention. Just tryin' to get a good reason to remove it...not that I wanted one. So make yourself up a baffle and put the valve cover back on. I must add that the '71 engine also has that extra "breather assembly" on the "out" side of the valve cover. It traps virtually all the oil that comes out the pipe. I drain it once/year and get less than an ounce of oil.
One other small point. Probably goes without saying but I glued the valve cover gasket to the valve cover. Can be reused every time I check and set the valve clearance.
Rickc

Brosky
02-27-2008, 09:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]So, the best solution would be roller rockers, they require lots less oil......[/QUOTE]

And all of the roller rocker guys say that they want the oil line added to give them more oil??????

Ron,

I'll be taking the head over to the machine shop in the next two weeks. He will be cooking the block in the next day or so and then it will be in line for all of the work. He's going to match the head to the cylinders as would be expected and also machine the guides for seals. At this point the springs will be checked and the heights will be matched. I'll have him see if he can match the oil passages between the head and the rocker stand.

The two holes pictured below (one on the block, right of the stud and one on the head, left bottom of the stud hole) look to be the same, but I don't have a picture of the bottom of the rocker stand. If I remember correctly, it is somewhat smaller.