Duane
Well-Known Member
W
hich parts specifically don't you agree with?
My take on the oiling system crossover tube for the small block
- Thread starter Jadaharabi
- Start date
-
Duane
Well-Known Member
Th
The lifter manufacturer recommends not to let the engine idle excessively because there is not enough splash oiling. I figured it's better to have real oil pressure but restricted. A compromise I guess.
I still like your Duster
Maybe #3 post would help.
Heading and first 2 sentences.
"Small Block Oiling System Modifications
What I want to show you is the modifications that were talked about and used by the racers of the 70 and 80s. This one in particular was used when you needed to run a hydraulic lifter cam, it was called by some the “A&W Crossover"."
Duane
Well-Known Member
Sorry I cannot agree their. The crossover mod if done correctly also requires the passenger side galley to be blocked at the end.
The #1 main would be fed from the drivers side only and would only be feeding #1 main and cam journal and the connected rods.
There would not be a feed on both ends.
replicaracer43
Grumpy Old Man
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,051
- Reaction score
- 7,867
As I stated earlier, at the rpm range of most hydraulic cams in a SB, there is no need for that crossover. A simple bluprinting of the oil system, drilling out oil feeds, porting and putting a larger suction side on the pump is all that's been necessary. 8000 rpm and up I seriously doubt anyone would run a hydraulic cam, and once your at that level, bushing lifter bores makes more sense
I think most of us with enough patients to keep building and racing our Mopars become (cement heads) over the years. I’m no engineer and at times I thank God for that but years ago all we had were books. No forums, no youtube, no how to videos, no nothing. We learned from our mistakes and moved on. Personally I’ve read the books and still have them but my procedures have changed big time over the years. Some of the things I now do I wouldn’t even start to tell about on an open forum. It would only open myself up to debate things with people who go by the book and only by the book.
Wyrmrider
Well-Known Member
speaking of lifters
recall that I grind a flat on my hyd lifters similar to the one stock on the 229 chevy v6
which takes some oil, and I run oil through the pushrods on both solid and hyd builds
The JOhnson catalog has a pictue of all th various lifters or just go buy one chevy v6 lifter
we did this on solids before there was EDM- now EDM is the way to go
recall that I grind a flat on my hyd lifters similar to the one stock on the 229 chevy v6
which takes some oil, and I run oil through the pushrods on both solid and hyd builds
The JOhnson catalog has a pictue of all th various lifters or just go buy one chevy v6 lifter
we did this on solids before there was EDM- now EDM is the way to go
I’m happy with my EDM lifters so far. Three years of racing with zero issues running 9.42@138 mph best so far. I was going to update to a roller cam when I freshen it soon but decided not to and I’ll stick with this cam. Now my class runs 1/8 at every track I go to except for one 1000 foot race and test n tune nights.
Duane
Well-Known Member
I see so you are not saying the crossover mod does not work, only that it is not needed at the performance level of a hydraulic cam.
I guess that makes sense especially with the common stroker motor that does not need all that rpm anyways.
Duane
Well-Known Member
I too am embarrassed at some of the screwups I have done over the years, but sometimes that how you learn too.
Patience to keep wrenching yeh I get that too. Lab our of love sometimes, other times, why am I doing this lol
Duane
Well-Known Member
Are you referring to cam journals 2&4 that feed the rocker gear in your comment.
CMcAllister
Well-Known Member
I am. When the drilled passages line up with the passages in the block every revolution of the cam, how does that sudden large, albeit quick, leak effect the oil at the main bore, which also needs to maintain the hydrodynamic wedge at the main and two rods? And what is the timing of these events? I've never studied that - I just changed it - but I've talked to people who have. Do the cam manufacturers clock these passages any certain way?
Additionally, #1 & 4 cam bearings are being fed through large passages from the mains as well - two huge internal leaks. My experience is that much less oil is needed there to keep the cam bearings happy.
At 2500 RPM it's not an issue. At 7500 it may be.
Additionally, #1 & 4 cam bearings are being fed through large passages from the mains as well - two huge internal leaks. My experience is that much less oil is needed there to keep the cam bearings happy.
At 2500 RPM it's not an issue. At 7500 it may be.
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
What a crock of nonsense. I don't care who wrote that and I respect Bob Mullen but that crossover tube doesn't fix jack ****, especially not to 10,000 RPM. You'd be lucky to make it over 8k.
My question is why not make that mod to a Chevy? The oiling systems are SO CLOSE that the Chevy should need it too. But they don't because that crossover doesn't work.
As I posted earlier, if you think hydraulic lifters and RPM go together you've never tried it. Especially with Chrysler cam side rocker geometry. Most of my testing was you can spring them higher than 6500 but the valve train is so out of control you don't make any power.
I've said it before and it is worthy of repeating. If I thought I was going to try and race with hydraulic lifters (repeat that many times and listen to how dumb it sounds) I'd either tube the passenger gallery and and restrict the drivers side with .187ish hole and a .0625 hole in the tube where it breaks through the lifter boss, or I'd bush the bores and use a .0625 hole in the bushing to the gallery as that's all the oil they need.
The crossover does NOTHING to fix high RPM oiling issues and it doesn't matter who says it does.
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
Duane, I'm trying to catch up on this thread. I can tell you that I have TESTED all this stuff and the velocity thing is a lie. Well, maybe not a lie, but at best it's just dead wrong. The crossover tube was supposed to fix the high RPM oiling issue. I have all the junk books that Jad is quoting from. They are wrong. It's that simple. There is only two ways to correct the oil timing. One is to buy a block that has the oil feed hole in the correct location. The other is the method I outlined in your thread. You can build a crossover, you can add oil from both ends and you won't fix a THING. I learned this from a guy who nearly went BROKE trying to run a competitive Modified Eliminator Chrysler. He paid the hydraulics engineer to fix it, and I had my hydraulics engineer friend verify it. It's that simple. You can say we are talking about different issues but we are not. It's about high RPM oiling issues. And FWIW, the last 632 Chevy I was involved in had a shift speed of 8500 RPM. The fast guys don't ignore RPM. Ever.
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
Nope. Never. If the pick up is correctly set for the pan, unless you are running .005 bearing clearance and the lifters leak like a fountain, you can't suck the pan dry.
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
There is nothing wrong with what GJ posted. I do most of it. Again, the issue is with RPM. You can't get the inlet side too big and you need to correct the oil timing to the rods. Have you ever done an autopsy of a Chrysler that had a high RPM Rod oiling issue???? If you had, you'd KNOW that the mains look brand new. There is oil to the mains. Always. And since the mains get oil first, and they aren't out of oil, I want you, in your own words, explain how the crossover tube will fix that. In fact, several times, if I caught it quick enough, I did reuse the main bearings after knocking a bone out. That's because there oil is there, it's just not at the right time.
Duane
Well-Known Member
The only experience that I have with that is I installed a cam that had the oil grooves in the 2&4 cam journals without a restrictor in the deck. Upon inspection of the main bearings #2&4 main had lost the spread and probably would have spun if left in there much longer. I can only surmise that this is why Chrysler had those passages timed. I recently bought a new roller cam from comp and discussed those grooves with them and they informed me that they no longer do this. Apparently some builders had rod bearing failures.
I changed the oiling to head as well to full time from the main galley
and restricted all 5 cam bearings.
Duane
Well-Known Member
Jada forgot to post one other picture. Earlier in this thread replicar made a comment to Jadas about the crossover tube just oiling #1 main from both ends.
It seems to me that it is the crossover tube itself that gets all the attention
and some people are missing the full necessity of the modification.
People who tube or bush the passenger side of the block accept that the other requirement that goes with This is to also block or cut off the supply to the drivers side. The choice of where to block it is up to the builder, just as long as it gets blocked.
No one questions the effectiveness of this.
The crossover tube also requires the supply to the drivers side to be blocked on the passenger side as well. Look at the picture I have posted. #1 main is oiled in reverse. All the crossover tube is doing,
Is taking some of the surplus oil volume on the passenger side, routing it over to the drivers side, and oiling #1 main from the drivers side. With the exception of the leakage at the lifters, the crossover combined with the blocking plug at the end of the galley,
accomplishes the same thing but a different way. As Guitar Jones said. The crossover method gives the option of wet lifter bores while reinforcing the oil to the main and rod bearings. It's just an optional way.
The plug at the end of the galley cuts off the supply to drivers side to stop the oil feed to the drivers side lifters being taken from number one main. Even front oiling requires the same thing. The plug kills the velocity.
Earlier today I was rereading the Sanborn oiling thread and he mentioned that he ran a crossover line to use pushrod oiling. In my case I am using roller lifters with no needle bearings. They are bushed roller lifters with edm oil feed passages directly to the axles. They need some oil.
The Chevy has a separate oil galley for each bank of lifters and a 3rd to feed the cam bearings and main/rods. No one bearing is asked to feed more than one other bearing. It does not need a crossover for that reason.
On the Chrysler number 1 main is asked to feed 9 other leaks.
These 9 leaks combined with a high volume/pressure pump causes the velocity.
Why else would all three of these modifications require blocking the end of the galley with a plug. As usual just mho.
The oil timing is a different issue.
Last edited:
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
No Duane, it's all the SAME issue and it gets clouded by all the other crap about this leak and that oil feed. The main bearings NEVER (well almost never...I've seen guys who can wreck anything) run out of oil. When they do, the issue is somewhere else. Not enough oil. I've seen the oil pump drive shear off and that killed all the bearings. I've seen lots of stuff like that. When you are killing Rod bearings and the mains have oil, you do NOT have an oil feed issue. That's oil timing.
And yes, the Chevrolet system is so close to the Chrysler it's not funny. The lifters (in the OE production stuff) for the Chevy get oil first, just like the Chrysler. Again, it's all about oil timing to the rods. You can argue all you want, but when the main bearings get oil and the rods don't, how does the crossover fix that? How does adding oil at the front fix it? I keep asking that question and all I hear is Chrysler approved the crossover for 10k and dammit that's right. It's not. It's wrong. It does nothing and I've personally broken the parts to prove it.
Again, under 8k there is no reason to do other than control the oil to the lifters by using a tube or bushing the lifter bores. You can do that with hydraulic lifters and drill small holes in the tube or bushing and just restrict the oil to the drivers side right at the feed at the number 1 main. So the discussion is a ridiculous one if we are talking about engines that are turning less than 8k. They will oil if done correctly.
You can't fix what you don't acknowledge. And you can't fix what you won't accept. Rod bearing oiling is a timing issue. The engineers didn't guess where the feed holes should be. Except Chrysler. And Buick. And Olds. And Pontiac. And who has Rod bearing issues? All the above. It's about oil timing and nothing else.
If you can't keep the rods in under 8k you need to look at the basics of oil control. Not a crossover. It's a waste of time and I hope no one ever does another one.
Duane
Well-Known Member
You said earlier that you approve of bushing lifter bores and or tubing the passenger side, all I am saying is if you look at the basic
Elements of front oiling, or tubing the galley or running the crossover line, all three have the cutting of the supply to the drivers side lifters in common. Even if you believe that the crossover line does not help anything, it does not hurt anything either and will allow oil to the lifters if required.
You like how the chev oils, you think it's a better design, you think the oil timing is better and it probably is, but other main parts of the Chev are very different. It has 3 separate galleys instead of the Chryslers 2. The chev does not try to feed its lifters and 16 rockers
Off of a bearing oil supply. IMHO that is drastically different.
In fact if you look at where those 3 galleys on the chev are getting their main supply(right from the main pump supply), adding the
The crossover tube on the Chrysler starts to look like the Chev.
The timing imho is fixed by slotting the bearings oil feed to 1/2 long.
It puts the supply right in the center like the Chev with an extended
Dwell time. Guitar Jones does this and the Sanborn thread he did this. They did not explain what this does, but logic tells me that is what's happening.
It fixes the oil timing to better feed the rods. If the mains always have oil then how do you explain my old motors 2&4 main bearing failure that just by coincidence
Happen to have grooved cam journals on 2&4 as well and that those two journals happen to feed to rockers on both banks. Yet the rod bearings looked fine.
There are other problems as well besides the oil timing.
The crossover tube is a good mod if your particular needs require it.
Last edited:
yellow rose
Overnight Sensation
You can slot the bearings, slot the materiel between the main feed and the cam bearing hole and it does nothing. It doesn't fix the oil timing. I've said it, and you argue the point. And that point is you need FULL PRESSURE and FULL FLOW to the Rod bearings ~70 degrees before TDC. Get on the phone and call some people who have actually made power with Chrysler stuff. You may be able to get David Nickens on the phone. Eaton will talk to you. I can't think of the Patterson kids first name but you can call him and he'll tell you the same thing I am. It's settled science and nothing you do is going to fix that.
You tube the gallery or bush the bores to stop all the oil leaking at the lifters. And if I don't mention that when you bush the bores you correct the lifter bank angles as well. That also doesn't correct oil timing, but it does reduce the volume of oil the engine uses. It's that simple.
Again, the Chevrolet system is close enough to look at. You can say whatever you want but they are close. And they oil. Figure it out. I'm trying to help anyone who is considering this ignorant claptrap that has published for decades that doesn't do anything to fix high RPM oiling. Again, if you are turning under 7500 RPM and can't oil the rods, you have some other issues. But that's about the RPM limit before you need to correct the timing.
Priority oiling didn't change much, except it made sure the mains (and therefore the rods) were oiled before the top end.
I ask again, show me pictures of rods getting knocked out and the mains out of oil and I'll show you that isn't an oil timing issue. It was something else.
If the rods come out, and the mains look normal, THAT is a timing issue. I've seen it so many times it's not funny. If the mains have oil, how do the rods not have oil???
It's been awhile since I've seen what Sanborn did and someone is supposed to email me some pictures. I know I've had him on the phone as far back as 2002 when I was first made aware of mofartchat.com and he didn't get the oil timing issue either.
Duane
Well-Known Member
How many degrees difference between the two blocks is the oil timing. We have gone through all this before. Yes you tube or bush the bores to stop the leaking,
But if you are following Chryslers instruction you are also supposed block the feed of oil to the drivers side as well. The main reason for tubing the block is to safely run a roller lifter, which depending on the brand may uncover the giant feed hole in the block. That is Mr. Sanborns explanation as well as Chryslers. Lots of guys on this board lately complaining of low oil pressure after installing a roller lifter with a high lift cam with no block mods.
I have acknowledged the timing issue repeatedly to you. This thread is about Jadas
Views on the Guitar Jones and the crossover tube oiling mods.
If you think the chev and the Mopar are close enough to compare, then all engine must be close enough to compare.They all have galleys and feed passages.lol
Your not being very technical with your disagreements.
How do you not see that slotting the bearings shifts the position of when the full oil pressure will get to the rod bearings.There is probably a good 5-10 degree improvement there.
Last edited:
CMcAllister
Well-Known Member
Boy, lots of opinions/different ways of trying to keep the rods in these things. If your way works for you, that's great.
IMHO...
Chevrolets are very different from Chryslers - they have a main galley that feeds the crank exclusively and auxiliary galleys to feed the lifters and heads. These auxiliary galleys are easily restricted and controlled at the back of the block as to the amount of oil going to these areas, which in turn makes it easier for the system to keep up with the crank oiling. I tried to duplicate this with what I was doing.
A separate auxiliary line, rear to front and feeding the front of the right galley provides a source for oil to the left side in the event I want to provide oil pressure to the lifters. That is the ONLY reason to put oil in the left galley.
I like bushing the lifters. It corrects the sloppy original machining, seals the galleys, wears better than the iron bores especially in a 59* deal and allows for precise control of oil to the lifters if needed. There are different ways of doing that.
I prefer to oil all 4 mains from the right side and do what it takes to seal those mains at the saddle and keep all the oil on the crank.
None of these fixes require or would benefit from running a crossover. In fact, putting oil in the left galley would be counter-productive to what I was doing. Front oiling eliminates that need. #1 main has the benefit of only having to oil one rod. #1 main and rod were always happy.
I do not agree that the mains are the first thing to show problems due to lack of oil. The rods are at the end of the line and the first to run dry when the flow stops or pressure drops. Typically in my experience the rods would show signs of lose of lube while the mains were happy.
Timing can be an issue. Full groove mains should fix that IF the problem is entirely how the crank is drilled. Changing that had zero benefit for me. Eliminating that big pressure dump at the cam journal every revolution of the cam did make a difference.
My steel crank 340s were mostly happy to 8000 with few modifications to the oil system. The iron crank 360s were awful. That is where I was forced to figure all of this out.
IMHO...
Chevrolets are very different from Chryslers - they have a main galley that feeds the crank exclusively and auxiliary galleys to feed the lifters and heads. These auxiliary galleys are easily restricted and controlled at the back of the block as to the amount of oil going to these areas, which in turn makes it easier for the system to keep up with the crank oiling. I tried to duplicate this with what I was doing.
A separate auxiliary line, rear to front and feeding the front of the right galley provides a source for oil to the left side in the event I want to provide oil pressure to the lifters. That is the ONLY reason to put oil in the left galley.
I like bushing the lifters. It corrects the sloppy original machining, seals the galleys, wears better than the iron bores especially in a 59* deal and allows for precise control of oil to the lifters if needed. There are different ways of doing that.
I prefer to oil all 4 mains from the right side and do what it takes to seal those mains at the saddle and keep all the oil on the crank.
None of these fixes require or would benefit from running a crossover. In fact, putting oil in the left galley would be counter-productive to what I was doing. Front oiling eliminates that need. #1 main has the benefit of only having to oil one rod. #1 main and rod were always happy.
I do not agree that the mains are the first thing to show problems due to lack of oil. The rods are at the end of the line and the first to run dry when the flow stops or pressure drops. Typically in my experience the rods would show signs of lose of lube while the mains were happy.
Timing can be an issue. Full groove mains should fix that IF the problem is entirely how the crank is drilled. Changing that had zero benefit for me. Eliminating that big pressure dump at the cam journal every revolution of the cam did make a difference.
My steel crank 340s were mostly happy to 8000 with few modifications to the oil system. The iron crank 360s were awful. That is where I was forced to figure all of this out.
Duane
Well-Known Member
I agree with about everything you posted Cole.
A couple of interesting observations on your post.
You seem to feel that the advantage of the Chev is its dedicated galley for the separate oiling of the lifters and the cam,crank/rods.
I agree. It's as if you are spreading the duties around to the 3 galleys. If you were to view it that way, sending a large volume of oil over to the drivers side on the Chrysler leaves the passenger galley with less responsibilities. The drivers side is still being used to
Oil a main bearing, cam and rod journal.
With number 5 main having its own separate passage, this leaves the right side to only feed 3 bearings. I wonder if this is why the crossover is claimed to work. Everything you said about keeping the oil at the bearings would still apply to number one main. It would just be supplied from the other side.
I found it interesting that you mention rod bearing trouble with the 360 crank but not so much with the 340. Do you think that is because of the longer stroke?
Your comment reminds me of an article I read by David Reher in which he claimed that stroker motors were much harder to oil the rods. His belief was that the cavity inside the crankshaft on a stroker is larger and more difficult to fill and that because of this, stroker motors required more oiling mods.
In the Sanborn thread Charles claimed that slotting the bearing shells increased the dwell time and gave more time for the rod passage to fill up with oil. He also never ran full groove bearings.
He claimed his motors were reliable to 8000 rpm lap after lap not just a quarter mile pass. I often wonder if the rods partially get pressurized oil just from centrifugal force provided that there is oil in the passage in the crank.
I have never lost a rod bearing shifting at a maximum of 7000 rpm,
But have had main bearing trouble twice. I do not know how to explain that other than possibly lack of pressure at the mains, but the rod bearing cavity had oil in it and still fed the rod bearings.
-
