Any one interested in the oiling mods I did?

[Duane]

All true, but if you have no reason to feed oil to the drivers side lifters...what does it do?

Once you stop all the leaks at the lifters and restrict the oil to the cam bearings you have effectively made the manifold bigger.

That’s why I’m stumped that we are discussing oiling hydraulic lifters and that’s what the crossover is for.

I don’t believe (I would hope) that no one would argue that controlling oil flow and restricting and/or stopping oil from where it doesn’t need to be increases power by reducing windage. A crank scraper does the same...it keeps oil off the crank and gets it back into the pan.

Im also going to pull my main caps and see what they look like. The rod bearings look like they came out of the box so I’m pretty sure they mains will be fine, but Duane says he was killing the 2 and 4 mains and not the rods. So I just want to get a look and make sure I’m not getting into an issue I haven’t seen before.

Yellow rose I said I hurt 2&4 mains because I put in a full grooved cam. That groove removed the restriction to the rocker gear.
There was full time oiling to the rockers. That lack of restriction bled off too much pressure from the mains and they got warm.
This happened in a tubed block with a high volume 70 psi pump.
It is a textbook example that pressure does not always go everywhere. The lack of a restrictor allowed the oil to bleed upwards
To the rockers through the grooved cam journals.
Now if you understand how this happens you should be able to understand that the crossover does the same thing. It redirects some of the oil volume.

 

[Duane]

You have to realize that MOST books are penned by freelance writers not engineers or even engine builders. They simply write what they have read from other sources or what they have been told.

I have a friend who has been making his living writing "how to" and research books without any knowledge of the subject. He simply repeats what he has been told. 50 years as a respected author of automotive books. Former editor of one of America's largest weekly automotive newspapers. And he can barely change his own oil!

So consider the source of all information.

Agreed but Atherton mentions that the crossover tube can be installed by Bob Mullen w2 head inventor whom I am sure can change his oil. Athertons source was reliable.

 

[Duane]

"I have all those books and the new stroker. I do all my own stuff and have no trouble understanding what they are suggesting. Perhaps ask a question on the forum about the parts you don,t understand.
We are all willing to help or clarify. I know I am."


My comment refers to the utter lack of information MP provides for most of their parts. Maybe you can help me understand, or at least clarify, why they offer parts without identifying what they are made of, without giving any dimensions, or any ratings. Details the average aftermarket company like Moroso or Com Cams or Lunati or Crower readily provide. They provide those details because the 'hot rodder' with any brains is going to use them to properly select and apply the parts. MP seems to fall back on the 'We're MP and that's all you need to know."

Help me understand that, please, sir.

Well the Mopar performance division is not what it used to be, that's for sure. What parts are you referring too. The old engine book was full of dimensions on their valve train parts for example.
Can you be more specific.

 

[gregcon]

"And just how would you drill those feed passages in a solid steel block. You would need specialized tooling to do it, and if you got it wrong you will ruin a very expensive block."

I know - that's why I said it's tricky. The block is iron, not steel, which is significant as iron is a little more forgiving in this regard. I 'could' drill this by setting the block up in my mill, and I'm confident I could do it successfully. But like anything....it might just be a lot of trouble for no real gain.

If I were a Larry Atherton in the 70's, I would just ask Chrysler for a new block if messed one up. But I ain't, and I'm working on a block which has become near-unobtainable.

When I made the clutchflite transmission, I had to drill a 15/32" hole very accurately through solid aluminum for about 7". I took my time in setting everything up and used all the right techniques and when I was done the hole ended up less than .005" from perfect.

A bigger issue lies in the shadows, if a person were to attempt do this. The right galley is fed by a 1/2" diameter hole, or at least it is once we drill it out to size. But feeding the left side? Very tough to find a way to feed it with a hole that big. Another good example of Mopar...they give you this nice big front feed port on the right side, but nothing on the left....even when it would have been very easy to add a pound of cast iron in the right place. Or they could have easily added meat in the rear of the lifter valley.

 

[gregcon]

I don't have specific example at my fingertips but I have books going back well into the DC days. They all are lacking. Moreover, they love to give you drawings that are copies of copies of blueprints that are impossible to read in many places. I had a Slant six bellhousing drawing I was gonna use...after half an hour I tossed it and just used the DRO on my mill to lay everything out. It was unreadable, and missing details, too.

 

[gregcon]

Here is the front of the block, and the crankcase also. You can see all the extra iron in the main webs.

There is an ugly secret to these R blocks. But first let me ask you - what would you think if I told you I had a small block that had a 4.35" bore and could hold a 4.25" crank no problem? It can also mate up with some very serious-flowing heads that are readily available.

 

[yellow rose]

You and I have had this discussion before. I have a 1969 340 block that does not have counter bores in the bearing saddles. Chrysler began adding those counterbores right at 12 o'clock. The counterbores overlap the oil feeds from the galley. I believe that corrects the timing and if you slot the bearings as well, it increases the dwell fill time to the rods as well.

If that was the case, the a full groove bearing or even a 3/4 groove bearing would work. And it does. Up to the point the RPM, the oil viscosity and loads need the oil there at full flow and pressure.

I have no doubt that grooving the bearing can help. But, if the theory of just slotting the bearing or using a recess where the main feed and the cam feed comes together was a fix, you would just have the hole in the bearing at 12 o’clock and that would be the fix.

Then you can use 1/2 groove bearings and not have the hassle of a crossover or anything else. Any time you force the oil to make a course with more kinks, and tighter kinks, the less effective it is.

 

[yellow rose]

Yellow rose I said I hurt 2&4 mains because I put in a full grooved cam. That groove removed the restriction to the rocker gear.
There was full time oiling to the rockers. That lack of restriction bled off too much pressure from the mains and they got warm.
This happened in a tubed block with a high volume 70 psi pump.
It is a textbook example that pressure does not always go everywhere. The lack of a restrictor allowed the oil to bleed upwards
To the rockers through the grooved cam journals.
Now if you understand how this happens you should be able to understand that the crossover does the same thing. It redirects some of the oil volume.

Now I get it, and that makes sense. It’s much easier for the oil to go upstairs when it’s unrestricted like that than it is to go to the bearings?

Did the rods show any signs of lack of oil?

 

[Duane]

Now I get it, and that makes sense. It’s much easier for the oil to go upstairs when it’s unrestricted like that than it is to go to the bearings?

Did the rods show any signs of lack of oil?

No the rods looked fine and now that I have read that oiling article, the explanation would be that the feed passages got filled and centrifugal force pressurized them.

 

[yellow rose]

Here is the front of the block, and the crankcase also. You can see all the extra iron in the main webs.

There is an ugly secret to these R blocks. But first let me ask you - what would you think if I told you I had a small block that had a 4.35" bore and could hold a 4.25" crank no problem? It can also mate up with some very serious-flowing heads that are readily available.

View attachment 1715563560

View attachment 1715563561

LOL, that would have to be something with the bore centers moved. IIRC the bore spacing on the SBM is 4.400 so I *THINK* the biggest bore for that spacing is 4.200 or 4.220. The head gasket gets mighty thin between the cylinders when the bores are that big, and the center cylinders on both sides would have a big heat load at the gasket where the exhaust valves are.

That bore and stroke would take some serious cylinder heads. It would be impressive if you can fit it in there.

Thanks for the pictures. I thought I had some paper work on the R3 block around here and I’m thought it said those blocks clearly have priority main oiling. I guess you can call it that if you never need to oil the lifters, but once you do, it’s not really priority oiling at all. If you kick a lifter out of the bore you’ll have a leak before the main bearings instead of after it.

It looks like they did clock the main oil feed closer to 12 o’clock than the OE stuff or even the X block. My R block isn’t here right now, but I’m pretty sure the oil feed holes are a bit further apart than those.

 

[Duane]

If that was the case, the a full groove bearing or even a 3/4 groove bearing would work. And it does. Up to the point the RPM, the oil viscosity and loads need the oil there at full flow and pressure.

I have no doubt that grooving the bearing can help. But, if the theory of just slotting the bearing or using a recess where the main feed and the cam feed comes together was a fix, you would just have the hole in the bearing at 12 o’clock and that would be the fix.

Then you can use 1/2 groove bearings and not have the hassle of a crossover or anything else. Any time you force the oil to make a course with more kinks, and tighter kinks, the less effective it is.

Note that his r3 block does not have the counterbores in the saddle, why is that? Sanborn used to mill his bigger than stock.

 

[yellow rose]

No the rods looked fine and now that I have read that oiling article, the explanation would be that the feed passages got filled and centrifugal force pressurized them.

Yeah, there is enough oil there that gets pulled to the rods to keep them alive, but what they take starves the mains.

That makes sense now. Was it a roller cam or a solid FT deal?

 

[yellow rose]

Note that his r3 block does not have the counterbores in the saddle, why is that? Sanborn used to mill his bigger than stock.

That’s a good question. I think the feed holes are much closer together on that block. Tonight after it cools off I’ll go out and look at an OE 340 I have out there and see how far apart the feed holes are. It’s hotter than a popcorn fart here today and I’m staying inside until it cools down a bit. The dogs even have to wait for their walk.

 

[Duane]

Yeah, there is enough oil there that gets pulled to the rods to keep them alive, but what they take starves the mains.

That makes sense now. Was it a roller cam or a solid FT deal?

Roller. I put it in never realizing those grooves woul be an issue.

 

[gregcon]

lol that's the secret. A 400 Chrysler has a big bore (4.34 standard) and can easily go 500" and use all the usual big block heads. Why am I mentioning that? Because it is the same weight as the R3 block. I thought small blocks were also light blocks....

As for the counterbores, all I can say is these blocks were 'functional' as shipped but clearly the intention was they'd be heavily worked before anyone used them. I'm glad there are no c'bores as it allows me to do what I want in that area.

 

[yellow rose]

Roller. I put it in never realizing those grooves woul be an issue.

Yeah they do that because they assume with the roller the spring loads will be much higher and the extra oil will help cool the springs and lube the shafts better. Which is ok if you account for it.

That is a possible case where you can get so much oil in the rocker boxes that it starts running out of oil unless you have 8 or 10 quarts in the pan.

 

[Duane]

lol that's the secret. A 400 Chrysler has a big bore (4.34 standard) and can easily go 500" and use all the usual big block heads. Why am I mentioning that? Because it is the same weight as the R3 block. I thought small blocks were also light blocks....

As for the counterbores, all I can say is these blocks were 'functional' as shipped but clearly the intention was they'd be heavily worked before anyone used them. I'm glad there are no c'bores as it allows me to do what I want in that area.

Well since you have machining capability and are working the oil system, you should go over to Mopar chat and read Sanborns great oiling mods. He mills a slot in the saddle, makes it bigger than stock.

 

[yellow rose]

lol that's the secret. A 400 Chrysler has a big bore (4.34 standard) and can easily go 500" and use all the usual big block heads. Why am I mentioning that? Because it is the same weight as the R3 block. I thought small blocks were also light blocks....

As for the counterbores, all I can say is these blocks were 'functional' as shipped but clearly the intention was they'd be heavily worked before anyone used them. I'm glad there are no c'bores as it allows me to do what I want in that area.

LOL...ya suckered me. The biggest issue with the 400 blocks is getting an aftermarket block that will take any power.

I’ve done several and no matter what you do the mains move around, the decks move and it makes it hard to seal the head gaskets (did a B1 deal that was a 400 block, 4 inch arm and the customer was positive he wanted 15.5:1 minimum compression and it was hard to keep the gaskets happy...his crap tuning didn’t help but that’s another story) and they just generally don’t look good when they come in for a freshen up.

If you can get a good block, absolutely that’s the road to go.

The guy who held the BB/A Comp Eliminator National Record for a while said his biggest mistake in coming out of retirement was choosing a 300ish inch small block when he could have used a high 300ish inch big block and had a huge selection of heads and a much stronger block.

That’s one of those live and learn deals.

 

[yellow rose]

Well since you have machining capability and are working the oil system, you should go over to Mopar chat and read Sanborns great oiling mods. He mills a slot in the saddle, makes it bigger than stock.

Can you even get those tech pages up anymore? Last time I tried I couldn’t get to most of that stuff there.

 

[Duane]

"And just how would you drill those feed passages in a solid steel block. You would need specialized tooling to do it, and if you got it wrong you will ruin a very expensive block."

I know - that's why I said it's tricky. The block is iron, not steel, which is significant as iron is a little more forgiving in this regard. I 'could' drill this by setting the block up in my mill, and I'm confident I could do it successfully. But like anything....it might just be a lot of trouble for no real gain.

If I were a Larry Atherton in the 70's, I would just ask Chrysler for a new block if messed one up. But I ain't, and I'm working on a block which has become near-unobtainable.

When I made the clutchflite transmission, I had to drill a 15/32" hole very accurately through solid aluminum for about 7". I took my time in setting everything up and used all the right techniques and when I was done the hole ended up less than .005" from perfect.

A bigger issue lies in the shadows, if a person were to attempt do this. The right galley is fed by a 1/2" diameter hole, or at least it is once we drill it out to size. But feeding the left side? Very tough to find a way to feed it with a hole that big. Another good example of Mopar...they give you this nice big front feed port on the right side, but nothing on the left....even when it would have been very easy to add a pound of cast iron in the right place. Or they could have easily added meat in the rear of the lifter valley.

Earlier in the thread you did some math calculations and determined the galley was undersized. Your math used diameter of the galley with 4 feeds and subsequently you said the galley is too small.
If I may suggest, if you were to front oil, your math equation would change to 2 feeds with the galley area still the same. The galley is not too small then.

 

[Duane]

Can you even get those tech pages up anymore? Last time I tried I couldn’t get to most of that stuff there.

I have here a PDFs of some of those pics. Someone on this forum found them and emailed them to me.

 

[gregcon]

I was actually just looking at the galley numbers out in the shop.

Here's the real stomach-turner. If you look at the stock system (all values in sq inches):

Right galley area: .2215
Total passages feeding off right galley: .441

That is not including any of the right galley lifter bore losses, which would be significant.

It also ignores the fact that the galley is fed by an oil passage that is under .196.

If you were to feed oil to the left galley and use it to feed the lifters and #1 main, the numbers get better:

Left galley .2215
Total feed-off: .098

Right galley .2215
Total feed-off .298

Those values are all 'estimates' as I have no way of knowing the lifter bore losses, especially for the right side. Because the left side is fed through a .250 passage, I did flip that back and forth as the left galley lifter losses. That's as close as I can get.


With my planned mods (thus far), I would be at:

Right galley .2215
Total feed-off .234

Left galley .2215
Total feed-off .087

Those numbers DO account for all lifter bore losses accurately so they are more of an improvement than it appears. They are also based on my enlarging the main feed passages to .281" which further inflates the feed-off number.

The benefit of a front/rear feed would be in the ability of the pump to maintain a stable pressure. The double feed would not make the pressure any higher but it would flow more (if there was demand) and would be more stable, i.e. less sensitive to sudden swings in demand.

Whether single or double fed, the system would remain restricted by the single feed passage coming off the pump (let's call it 1/2 dia). But the galleys act as a manifold, a 'storage' vessel for pressure and volume.

If you made a 2" diameter galley, the engine would take longer to build oil pressure when you started it. But once it did, you'd have a very stable system.

 

[gregcon]

"Earlier in the thread you did some math calculations and determined the galley was undersized. Your math used diameter of the galley with 4 feeds and subsequently you said the galley is too small.
If I may suggest, if you were to front oil, your math equation would change to 2 feeds with the galley area still the same. The galley is not too small then."

The front feed alone wouldn't help the galley size problem. The galley size it the same with one or two feeds. But adding a front feed would make the galley more stable and 'even' from front to back.

 

[Duane]

I was actually just looking at the galley numbers out in the shop.

Here's the real stomach-turner. If you look at the stock system (all values in sq inches):

Right galley area: .2215
Total passages feeding off right galley: .441

That is not including any of the right galley lifter bore losses, which would be significant.

It also ignores the fact that the galley is fed by an oil passage that is under .196.

If you were to feed oil to the left galley and use it to feed the lifters and #1 main, the numbers get better:

Left galley .2215
Total feed-off: .098

Right galley .2215
Total feed-off .298

Those values are all 'estimates' as I have no way of knowing the lifter bore losses, especially for the right side. Because the left side is fed through a .250 passage, I did flip that back and forth as the left galley lifter losses. That's as close as I can get.


With my planned mods (thus far), I would be at:

Right galley .2215
Total feed-off .234

Left galley .2215
Total feed-off .087

Those numbers DO account for all lifter bore losses accurately so they are more of an improvement than it appears. They are also based on my enlarging the main feed passages to .281" which further inflates the feed-off number.

The benefit of a front/rear feed would be in the ability of the pump to maintain a stable pressure. The double feed would not make the pressure any higher but it would flow more (if there was demand) and would be more stable, i.e. less sensitive to sudden swings in demand.

Whether single or double fed, the system would remain restricted by the single feed passage coming off the pump (let's call it 1/2 dia). But the galleys act as a manifold, a 'storage' vessel for pressure and volume.

If you made a 2" diameter galley, the engine would take longer to build oil pressure when you started it. But once it did, you'd have a very stable system.

Assuming your math is correct, and I am not saying it isn't, you may have just partially explained the claimed velocity issue.
Most high performance engine will have opened the bearing clearances, increasing the leakage rates. So if the feeds and the leakage have the ability to out flow the galley supply, the galley oil coming in would always be in a refill mode, so it would always be moving rapidly to try to keep up with the leakage rates.
Having said that, and I may be wrong but your math for the galley feeding 4 bearings where you said the area for the galley was its diameter, to my thinking if you feed from the front, that area should double. Visualize it that there was a solid divider between the front two feeds and the rear as if they were isolated. That has to improve the numbers if I am not mistaken.

 

[Duane]

I was actually just looking at the galley numbers out in the shop.

Here's the real stomach-turner. If you look at the stock system (all values in sq inches):

Right galley area: .2215
Total passages feeding off right galley: .441

That is not including any of the right galley lifter bore losses, which would be significant.

It also ignores the fact that the galley is fed by an oil passage that is under .196.

If you were to feed oil to the left galley and use it to feed the lifters and #1 main, the numbers get better:

Left galley .2215
Total feed-off: .098

Right galley .2215
Total feed-off .298

Those values are all 'estimates' as I have no way of knowing the lifter bore losses, especially for the right side. Because the left side is fed through a .250 passage, I did flip that back and forth as the left galley lifter losses. That's as close as I can get.


With my planned mods (thus far), I would be at:

Right galley .2215
Total feed-off .234

Left galley .2215
Total feed-off .087

Those numbers DO account for all lifter bore losses accurately so they are more of an improvement than it appears. They are also based on my enlarging the main feed passages to .281" which further inflates the feed-off number.

The benefit of a front/rear feed would be in the ability of the pump to maintain a stable pressure. The double feed would not make the pressure any higher but it would flow more (if there was demand) and would be more stable, i.e. less sensitive to sudden swings in demand.

Whether single or double fed, the system would remain restricted by the single feed passage coming off the pump (let's call it 1/2 dia). But the galleys act as a manifold, a 'storage' vessel for pressure and volume.

If you made a 2" diameter galley, the engine would take longer to build oil pressure when you started it. But once it did, you'd have a very stable system.

You have to remember that as Yellow rose pointed out earlier, that the oil flow path will only flow based on the smallest diameter in the path, that would probably be the crank oil holes.
Regarding your 2" galley makes an argument for a pre oiler.
But again imho explains a potential galley velocity issue. The galley is undersized. If you wanted to try to understand why Yellow rose drastic modification with external oil lines etc, part of the reason it probably works is the simple fact that he did away with the stock distribution system.