Auxiliary oil line --- revisited.

So I ran an the external oil line to my head for several years and after much discussion on the forum, I finally removed it. The whole purpose of this hose was to get more oil to the front of the TR6 valve train. Well, I pulled my valve cover to check my valve clearances (I have GoodParts roller rockers) and noticed that the #1 tappet seemed awfully dry, or at least has a lot less oil pooled around it than the other 11. Am I being too worrisome? Was thinking of replacing the auxiliary oil line. I have an oil cooler and carry over 6 quarts in my sump. What do ya'll think?

I struggled with the same question. The #1 on mine seemed dry too when I tore my engine down. But there wasn't noticeable wear. I was actually a strong supporter of the aux line. Well, I thought about it for a long time and finally decided to remove mine. I did not have any problems with it. What made my decision was that I realized the rockers and shaft are really easy to replace. Parts inside the engine not so easy.

Need one?

I Am So Confused! Dave, at TRF, strongly maintains that there are no negatives to running this auxiliary oil line. What to do? I know there was much discussion about placing a friction pin in the hole to slow the flow down. I ain't stick'n no friction pin in my head! As Vinnie Barbarino would say.... qCMRBFk&feature=related" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

TR6BILL said:

I Am So Confused! Dave, at TRF, strongly maintains that there are no negatives to running this auxiliary oil line. What to do? I know there was much discussion about placing a friction pin in the hole to slow the flow down....

Click to expand...

That just seems silly to me, to add a feed and then add something else to slow down that feed. Most people that I trust to know have said that if you have a problem with sufficient oil getting to the top of the head, you've a problem that you need to address such as clogged passages that, when clear, provide quite sufficient oil to that area! (Much less of a downside, IMO, is the oil supposedly being taken away from the bottom end of the engine with this auxiliary line...unless the line breaks or a fitting starts to leak, or....)

I thought Bill was running a high volume oil pump with 60+ psi pressure and oil seals on the valve stems. I would leave the line on there.

I had one of those lines on my car and removed it after 30 miles. I'm not sure what happened but after about 15 freeway miles on a brand new engine with the line on my oil pressure started to drop to below 10 LBS. I got off the freeway shut the car down for 2 hours at a show and inspected the engine for any problems, none found. I then started the car and had the proper oil pressure so I limped the car back home 15 miles on surface streets with good oil pressure. I removed the line and never had the problem again. The only thing I could think of was that the line was putting so much oil in the top of the engine that there was none left in the pan to pick up. My conclusion may be wrong but all is well now. Five years later.

anyone want to sell their line?

These three pictures are why I will never have one of these on my car again. That stain on the paper is oil draining from the original twin carb manifold. I went from using one quart of oil every 1,100 miles to one quart every 300 miles when I put the line on. BUT ------ That was with an aluminum valve cover that had no baffle.

I don't know what the result would be with a STOCK valve cover and maybe that is what Dave is talking about. He knows the problem that I had with mine, so that is not foreign to him. We discussed it on several occasions and when I visited TRF two years ago.