Any one interested in the oiling mods I did?

-
Duane said:
I would say that the ultimate test would be an engine that lives to 10,000 rpm and won the 1979 pro stock championship driven by Bob Glidden is enough ample proof for me.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why someone wouldn't just give away all their secrets, LOL.

Velocity can only affect flow when pressure is gone. Bleeding off more pressure wouldn't fix the inability to turn at that point and in fact make it worse - this is why I can't buy the velocity explanation.

I could see the crossover boosting volume (and thus increasing local pressure) at the #1 main, which could help prevent loss of pressure in the passenger galley to some extent by effectively "double feeding" the passenger galley, or at least a portion of it. Would work even better if it's easier to drill the backside of the passenger galley larger to help offset the outflow through the crossover.
 
Phreakish said:
Correct. Not for pressure, for supply. At least that's what I'm seeing. I don't have a motor apart right now to see how things actually line up during operation, LOL.
Click to expand...
Yellow Rose has many times pointed out the oil timing differences
On the forum. It is different. The Chevy is right in the center of the saddle, the sbm is slightly to the side. In my latest build I had my bearings slotted on an edm machine. When you look at the orientation of the bearing to the block feed, you can only slot in one direction. However imho the slot not only increases the dwell time, it shifts the oil timing as well so that the oil passage in the crank can access full flow from the block when the crank oil hole is in the center compared to from stock, only slightly to the side. Just like the Chevy. Guitar Jones slotted bearings and so does Sanborn.
Hemi engine bearings from Mopar performance also came slotted.
 
Duane said:
Yellow Rose has many times pointed out the oil timing differences
On the forum. It is different. The Chevy is right in the center of the saddle, the sbm is slightly to the side. In my latest build I had my bearings slotted on an edm machine. When you look at the orientation of the bearing to the block feed, you can only slot in one direction. However imho the slot not only increases the dwell time, it shifts the oil timing as well so that the oil passage in the crank can access full flow from the block when the crank oil hole is in the center compared to from stock, only slightly to the side. Just like the Chevy. Guitar Jones slotted bearings and so does Sanborn.
Hemi engine bearings from Mopar performance also came slotted.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't doubt slots are good. Hell, the grooves in a main bearing would be even better if they went all the way through the bearing - a 360 degree slot, haha. But then they're tough to hold in place.
 
Phreakish said:
Which is exactly why someone wouldn't just give away all their secrets, LOL.

Velocity can only affect flow when pressure is gone. Bleeding off more pressure wouldn't fix the inability to turn at that point and in fact make it worse - this is why I can't buy the velocity explanation.

I could see the crossover boosting volume (and thus increasing local pressure) at the #1 main, which could help prevent loss of pressure in the passenger galley to some extent by effectively "double feeding" the passenger galley, or at least a portion of it. Would work even better if it's easier to drill the backside of the passenger galley larger to help offset the outflow through the crossover.
Click to expand...
I have you at a disadvantage because I have the Atherton book, but the Atherton crossover method also wants you to plug the end of the passenger galley. Number 1 main is fed from the drivers side.
Having said that, you can start to see that the Chrysler method and the Atherton method have the passenger galley capped because it slows the velocity. Both methods are similar to the sketch that Gregcon posted. The crossover goes further by channeling some of the excess flow over to the drivers side and also Feeds the lifters.
 
Duane said:
I have you at a disadvantage because I have the Atherton book, but the Atherton crossover method also wants you to plug the end of the passenger galley. Number 1 main is fed from the drivers side.
Having said that, you can start to see that the Chrysler method and the Atherton method have the passenger galley capped because it slows the velocity. Both methods are similar to the sketch that Gregcon posted. The crossover goes further by channeling some of the excess flow over to the drivers side and also Feeds the lifters.
Click to expand...

You may have the book, doesn't mean their reasoning is correct. It doesn't make any logical sense and so something else must be at play, or the explanation is just hogwash.

If the crossover at the #1 is plugged, then the only thing the drivers galley is doing is feeding lifters and/or pushrods.
 
Phreakish said:
Which is exactly why someone wouldn't just give away all their secrets, LOL.

Velocity can only affect flow when pressure is gone. Bleeding off more pressure wouldn't fix the inability to turn at that point and in fact make it worse - this is why I can't buy the velocity explanation.

I could see the crossover boosting volume (and thus increasing local pressure) at the #1 main, which could help prevent loss of pressure in the passenger galley to some extent by effectively "double feeding" the passenger galley, or at least a portion of it. Would work even better if it's easier to drill the backside of the passenger galley larger to help offset the outflow through the crossover.
Click to expand...
That is not the Chrysler way. They made the Gildden w2 head available to the public, the oiling and many other aspects of the build are published in many books.
 
Phreakish said:
You may have the book, doesn't mean their reasoning is correct. It doesn't make any logical sense and so something else must be at play, or the explanation is just hogwash.

If the crossover at the #1 is plugged, then the only thing the drivers galley is doing is feeding lifters and/or pushrods.
Click to expand...
Agreed it is feeding the driver side lifters, but it is doing so by using
The excess oil just before the turn to number 4 main, it's a bleeder if you want to call it that. If all you wanted to do was feed the lifters, that feed could come from anywhere. That is not what is claimed.
 
Duane said:
That is not the Chrysler way. They made the Gildden w2 head available to the public, the oiling and many other aspects of the build are published in many books.
Click to expand...

Then how about some pictures of those passages from the book showing the explanation(s)?
 
Duane said:
Agreed it is feeding the driver side lifters, but it is doing so by using
The excess oil just before the turn to number 4 main, it's a bleeder if you want to call it that. If all you wanted to do was feed the lifters, that feed could come from anywhere. That is not what is claimed.
Click to expand...

If it was bleeding sufficient flow to alter the velocity in an appreciable way then everything downstream of the bleed would suffer from a lack of oil.

If oil was somehow moving too fast to turn, why wouldn't it just fly past both ports? Downstream demand isn't changed..
 
Phreakish said:
If it was bleeding sufficient flow to alter the velocity in an appreciable way then everything downstream of the bleed would suffer from a lack of oil.

If oil was somehow moving too fast to turn, why wouldn't it just fly past both ports? Downstream demand isn't changed..
Click to expand...
Because the end of the galley is plugged so the downstream demand is changed.
I am not sure where, but the crossover photos are on this forum somewhere. Might be in this thread. We have all had this debate before. I can snap a couple for you though.
 
Why would I question Chrysler? Well, we've covered all that before but...for one thing, the proof is in the pudding. Their stock design is limited and needs to be improved upon. Second, their decisions were often guided by sound engineering but sound engineering that had an overlay of cost accounting and the demands of mass production. I'm fine with Chrysler's work on stock engines but we're going beyond that. As for their 'race' engineers, I find that every time I open one of their books, it leaves a lot to be desired. Incomplete information. Outdated information. I actually was thinking the other day, 'I should really toss these books out...they're nearly useless and reference a bunch of parts no one has been able to buy for 3 decades, even if you wanted them.'

The biggest crime I find in many instructional texts (not just Chrysler) is the lack of depth they offer. It drives me nuts when they say 'drill this passage to .187' and 'remove this valve' WITHOUT TELLING YOU WHY. When they give no background, it's nearly useless. I'm there to accomplish a goal, not play guessing games.

As to the crossover....again, Larry and everyone else tell you to do it but give very little if any supporting information. So my obligation to believe what they tell me is zero. I find a lot of times someone will recommend a mod and by the time it gets to my ears the reason 'why' has completely changed. I have one book by him and nowhere does he say the crossover is due to velocity needs. Even if it did say so, it's meaningless to me unless he provided some background in how he knows it. Any technical 'fact' needs to come with proof if I'm gonna believe it.

Last...we all know those experts blew up lots of engines, even to the end of their careers. To top if off, they had a large supply of parts, often free. I don't.

That's racing....you hear a bunch of stuff and you have to decide what's good and what's BS. But there's a lot more BS than good.
 
gregcon said:
Why would I question Chrysler? Well, we've covered all that before but...for one thing, the proof is in the pudding. Their stock design is limited and needs to be improved upon. Second, their decisions were often guided by sound engineering but sound engineering that had an overlay of cost accounting and the demands of mass production. I'm fine with Chrysler's work on stock engines but we're going beyond that. As for their 'race' engineers, I find that every time I open one of their books, it leaves a lot to be desired. Incomplete information. Outdated information. I actually was thinking the other day, 'I should really toss these books out...they're nearly useless and reference a bunch of parts no one has been able to buy for 3 decades, even if you wanted them.'

The biggest crime I find in many instructional texts (not just Chrysler) is the lack of depth they offer. It drives me nuts when they say 'drill this passage to .187' and 'remove this valve' WITHOUT TELLING YOU WHY. When they give no background, it's nearly useless. I'm there to accomplish a goal, not play guessing games.

As to the crossover....again, Larry and everyone else tell you to do it but give very little if any supporting information. So my obligation to believe what they tell me is zero. I find a lot of times someone will recommend a mod and by the time it gets to my ears the reason 'why' has completely changed. I have one book by him and nowhere does he say the crossover is due to velocity needs. Even if it did say so, it's meaningless to me unless he provided some background in how he knows it. Any technical 'fact' needs to come with proof if I'm gonna believe it.

Last...we all know those experts blew up lots of engines, even to the end of their careers. To top if off, they had a large supply of parts, often free. I don't.

That's racing....you hear a bunch of stuff and you have to decide what's good and what's BS. But there's a lot more BS than good.
Click to expand...
A more modern good book is the how to build stroker small blocks
By Jim sygilizi or something like that lol. It has some new factory recommended mods that were not around years ago.
You seem to like the front oiling, go for it if your more comfortable.
I never did the crossover tube. I think it too difficult for the diy guy.
I have tubed in the past, bushed and front oiled and rerouted now.
If your looking for an explanation for everything, I doubt you will get it. Go with what you are comfortable with. The articles written by Sanborn on Mopar chat have very good explanation from Charles.
 
My interest in these oil system mods is purely academic. If I wanted to build a high winding engine, I'd go buy a racing block.

That said, I still cannot find anything which supports a bleed to help fluid turn. I'm talking raw physics here.

In manifold design there is definitely a momentum component to the flow which will tend to favor an excess of flow bypassing a branch. However, the bias depends on the fluid flow state. Motor oil is thick enough and moving slow enough as to be considered laminar flow. When flow is laminar, there's almost no momentum contribution and thus almost no bias at the fluid branch and so the division of flow is equal to the difference in the pathway cross sectional area.

Now, it's possible that at high rpm and with a hv pump that the Reynolds number enters the transition zone and flow becomes turbulent. But the thing is, the manifold (lifter galley) is properly designed because all branches T off and no flow "continues" out the front of the block.. And so there should be minimal bias at the branches.

There is some pressure recovery in turbulent flow when it passes a branch, that pressure recovery could be used to help bias more fluid into a second branch after the first. It has nothing to do with "slowing" fluid though "to help it turn". Instead there's a momentary rise in pressure after the first branch (assuming the cross over is to be placed before the #4 feed) which in that local zone would help boost flow into the next branch.

It's hard to describe, but again it's not anything to do with "slowing down to turn", but instead a rearrangement of energy in the flow causing a local pressure rise.

If I was an engineer trying to explain it to a nonengineer I might say "it slows down to turn" though, but that's not what's actually happening... Haha.
 
Last edited:
I have the Szilagyi book also, it's lacking in a lot of detail too. It's one of those things where you have to buy 8 different books and try to piece it all together.

I respect a lot of what Direct Connection/MP and its engineers did ....but I also think they were what they were....a poorly funded, small group of guys who had hit-and-miss success. One thing is for sure....MP and DC always offered the poorest technical detail on its products. Very scarce information.
 
Duane said:
Here is some of the book from a previous thread.
I cannot find my book right now.
My take on the oiling system crossover tube for the small block
Click to expand...

You know what works better at slowing fluid velocity? Increased galley diameter. This would make tubing the lifter galley a bad idea if fluid velocity was definitely a concern, and if it was then bushing the lifters makes more sense..

Since they decided that reducing the diameter was the way to go, I question how serious of a concern oil velocity actually is.

Also, the text mentions increased mains clearances which will definitely have more of an effect on the distribution since the increased volume demand will drop the local pressures upstream and then make it tougher to get oil to the drivers side galley.

But if fluid velocity is reaching the upper end of laminar, then placing the crossover where they did makes sense - so if you're going to put it somewhere, the location is well determined.
 
Duane said:
Some amount of oil flow to the lifters, maybe highly restricted, but some. I agree on the step drilled holes.
If my memory serves, there was a guy named Rapid Robert on the forum who has another book by Atherton showing that he pressurized an unassembled block with a garden hose flowing water through the galley to see how the distribution of each main was flowing. Apparently number 4 had very little water come out with the majority coming out the front.
When you kicked the rods out, was the journal blued or blackish in colour?
Click to expand...


Yep, 3 and 4 rods were blue. I actually broke several rods and all of them were a “beautiful” shade of blue and the mains looked like they came out of the box.
 
Duane said:
If you sealed the unnessesary passages I do not see how the test could not be valid. A hose say right at the rear galley port would simulate the location of the large volume of oil from the pump.
I don't know the details of the test, just the basis of how Atherton
Determine the unequal flow. To me it jives with my dash example.
A long galley opened at the far end, and the large volume of air or oil at the other tends to run right by the nearest passage to the pump until restricted down stream.
Click to expand...

I personally would have put the hose where the oil comes into the block and let the water follow the passages as close to what the oil does and then see what it looks like.
 
Duane said:
I would say that the ultimate test would be an engine that lives to 10,000 rpm and won the 1979 pro stock championship driven by Bob Glidden is enough ample proof for me.
Click to expand...


If you can’t see what was in the pan you have no idea how he corrected the oil timing.

I’m also sure that he wasn’t near the 10k, even if they corrected the lifter bank angles.

You can use the best MPH you can find and a rollout of about 102 inches and you’ll see maybe 9500. Maybe.

Plus, unless you were at the track and they pulled the intake off and you actually saw the crossover you can’t be sure what they were doing. And even then, any of that could be for show.

Big daddy put body panels on to cover his 1 inch fuel line and blew all their doors off. So everybody started putting body panels on their diggers, thinking that was the fix.

Trust 10% of what you see.
 
Duane said:
Yellow Rose has many times pointed out the oil timing differences
On the forum. It is different. The Chevy is right in the center of the saddle, the sbm is slightly to the side. In my latest build I had my bearings slotted on an edm machine. When you look at the orientation of the bearing to the block feed, you can only slot in one direction. However imho the slot not only increases the dwell time, it shifts the oil timing as well so that the oil passage in the crank can access full flow from the block when the crank oil hole is in the center compared to from stock, only slightly to the side. Just like the Chevy. Guitar Jones slotted bearings and so does Sanborn.
Hemi engine bearings from Mopar performance also came slotted.
Click to expand...


I tried the slots. They don’t correct the timing. From the few pictures I can find, Ritter moved his oil feed holes right over to the 12 o’clock position. He didn’t do that because he is stupid or he wanted to spend the money.

IMO he did it because that takes all the gimmicks and trickeration out of the system.
 
Phreakish said:
My interest in these oil system mods is purely academic. If I wanted to build a high winding engine, I'd go buy a racing block.

That said, I still cannot find anything which supports a bleed to help fluid turn. I'm talking raw physics here.

In manifold design there is definitely a momentum component to the flow which will tend to favor an excess of flow bypassing a branch. However, the bias depends on the fluid flow state. Motor oil is thick enough and moving slow enough as to be considered laminar flow. When flow is laminar, there's almost no momentum contribution and thus almost no bias at the fluid branch and so the division of flow is equal to the difference in the pathway cross sectional area.

Now, it's possible that at high rpm and with a hv pump that the Reynolds number enters the transition zone and flow becomes turbulent. But the thing is, the manifold (lifter galley) is properly designed because all branches T off and no flow "continues" out the front of the block.. And so there should be minimal bias at the branches.

There is some pressure recovery in turbulent flow when it passes a branch, that pressure recovery could be used to help bias more fluid into a second branch after the first. It has nothing to do with "slowing" fluid though "to help it turn". Instead there's a momentary rise in pressure after the first branch (assuming the cross over is to be placed before the #4 feed) which in that local zone would help boost flow into the next branch.

It's hard to describe, but again it's not anything to do with "slowing down to turn", but instead a rearrangement of energy in the flow causing a local pressure rise.

If I was an engineer trying to explain it to a nonengineer I might say "it slows down to turn" though, but that's not what's actually happening... Haha.
Click to expand...


The issue all the X blocks and at least the R1 for sure have the wrong oil timing. Gregcon says his R3 is the same. So buying a “race” block may not be the answer.
 
Duane said:
Here is some of the book from a previous thread.
I cannot find my book right now.
My take on the oiling system crossover tube for the small block
Click to expand...


So I went back and looked at this thread. I stand by every word I said.

To that point, if you still want me to make a video I will. I’ll have to scrounge up a SBC and crank and get them side by each to do it.

My problem is I doubt it will change one mind. Not one. And it will be a bunch of work for me.

I’ll say it again, if you don’t correct all the leaks AND the oil timing you can’t make power reliably above 8000 or so. Can’t be done. I couldn’t do it and the dude I bought the engine from couldn’t do it either.

I suspect anyone half competitive on Modified Eliminator knew of this modification or something similar. It doesn’t take an engineering degree to look at the SBC and SBM side by side and see what the only real difference is between the two, and that’s exactly when the rods are getting full flow, full pressure oiling our to the rods.

If someone wants to write the checks I’ll build another one...maybe 370ish inches and see if I can make it make power at 8500 on gas with a tunnel ram.


But I’m not paying for it.
 
Phreakish said:
Well damn. Good thing I'm not serious :D
Click to expand...

I agree because you keep missing the point. Jmho

You do not use the crossover when you tube the block. The crossover is for when you use hydraulic lifters.
The tube is for when you use solids.

I have found that having yr on ignore makes thing better because I don't value anything he sez.
 
Last edited:
Jadaharabi said:
I agree because you keep missing the point. Jmho

You do not use the crossover when you tube the block. The crossover is for when you use hydraulic lifters.
The tube is for when you use solids.

I have found that having yr on ignore makes thing better because I don't value anything he sez.
Click to expand...


LOL. I appreciate that. In all the books I have, not ONE talks about only doing the crossover with hydraulic lifters only.

If that’s the case, tube the block, drill small holes in the tube and restrict the oil to the drivers side with a set screw under the main bearing.

If I decide I want to look it up, I’ll go back through my books and see if they talk about hydraulic lifters and the crossover.

Who can turn enough RPM or get enough oil velocity with hydraulic lifters to cause an issue?


Again, this is what happens when you read all the books but you haven’t done it. At 8500 there is no room for mistakes.

And I seriously doubt that Glidden ever used a crossover tube. He didn’t run hydraulic lifters to the best of my knowledge. If he did, he was god on a cracker because he’d have been the only one doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top