My take on the oiling system crossover tube for the small block

-
Duane said:
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.
Click to expand...

I will share this. My 340s were good to 7800. By good I mean inspect it, and put bearings in it every winter (125-150 runs). Didn't have much trouble until we went to the iron 360 crank (multiple times, not a one time deal). Turned into a POS that was constantly eating itself up. One particular rod bearing every 7 or 8 runs. The 3.58 iron crank was the common denominator.
 
CMcAllister said:
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.
Click to expand...
Regarding your comments about the timing.
In another thread on this board we had a lengthy discussion where yr brought up the issue of oil timing. Someone posted pictures of cranks and blocks. The cranks were all drilled the same. But the design of the sbm with its oiling to the mains being over to one side on the block,
Has the feed hole not on center like a Chev. If you look close at the main bearings the oil hole in the bearing is not in the center.
This slight difference in oil hole location is what yr claims shifts the oil timing slightly. After this was pointed out I inspected my block and looked at the direction of rotation versus the position
Of the crank and rod assembly and that is when I realized that when slotting the oil hole in the mains to 1/2 long, combined with the counterbore in the bearing saddle would allow the crank oil hole to get full flow and pressure at a slightly different position. It shifts the timing plus increases the amount of time that the rod bearing passage in the crank has to fill up.
Cole are you saying that you experimented with changing the location of the drilled holes in the cranckshaft?
 
Duane said:
Regarding your comments about the timing.
In another thread on this board we had a lengthy discussion where yr brought up the issue of oil timing. Someone posted pictures of cranks and blocks. The cranks were all drilled the same. But the design of the sbm with its oiling to the mains being over to one side on the block,
Has the feed hole not on center like a Chev. If you look close at the main bearings the oil hole in the bearing is not in the center.
This slight difference in oil hole location is what yr claims shifts the oil timing slightly. After this was pointed out I inspected my block and looked at the direction of rotation versus the position
Of the crank and rod assembly and that is when I realized that when slotting the oil hole in the mains to 1/2 long, combined with the counterbore in the bearing saddle would allow the crank oil hole to get full flow and pressure at a slightly different position. It shifts the timing plus increases the amount of time that the rod bearing passage in the crank has to fill up.
Cole are you saying that you experimented with changing the location of the drilled holes in the cranckshaft?
Click to expand...

No. I sent a stock crank to be crossdrilled, which didn't help the rod bearing life at all. After doing all of these fixes - a tube in an early block, bushing lifters, massaging and enlarging passages, different pans, big pumps with ported suction sides and large pick ups, multiple styles of mains, etc., etc. - I decided that if addressing the supply side of the main bearing was not helping, I would concentrate on the areas where the oil was going after it got to the main bearing bore. I'm a big believer in "If the results don't match the theory, change the theory." The supply stuff is useful and time well spent, but it wasn't addressing other issues.

I never bought an aftermarket 360 crank to try, or had an opportunity to compare one to a stocker, just to compare how they were drilled up..
 
CMcAllister said:
No. I sent a stock crank to be crossdrilled, which didn't help the rod bearing life at all. After doing all of these fixes - a tube in an early block, bushing lifters, massaging and enlarging passages, different pans, big pumps with ported suction sides and large pick ups, multiple styles of mains, etc., etc. - I decided that if addressing the supply side of the main bearing was not helping, I would concentrate on the areas where the oil was going after it got to the main bearing bore. I'm a big believer in "If the results don't match the theory, change the theory." The supply stuff is useful and time well spent, but it wasn't addressing other issues.

I never bought an aftermarket 360 crank to try, or had an opportunity to compare one to a stocker, just to compare how they were drilled up..
Click to expand...
I bought a Scat stroker crank on this build. Never thought to compare it to the stocker before I assembled it.
 
Jadaharabi said:
.
Without being able to see your block it's a coulda shoulda woulda deal.

Are you missing the point of the crossover is used on a motor using hydraulic lifters?

Solid lifters you either tube the passenger side or bush the lifter bores.
Click to expand...
The real reason to tube or bush a block with rollers.
 
CMcAllister said:
That's one of the reasons. A solid body lifter will help that, but it's still 16 large oil leaks.
Click to expand...
Agreed but if you go back and read the old Chrysler engine book,
at the time it was written there was plenty of roller lifters on the market at the time with an oil band cut out just like in the video, and Chrysler recommended to tube or bush the block to prevent low oil pressure with this type of lifter as well.
 
Duane said:
Agreed but if you go back and read the old Chrysler engine book,
at the time it was written there was plenty of roller lifters on the market at the time with an oil band cut out just like in the video, and Chrysler recommended to tube or bush the block to prevent low oil pressure with this type of lifter as well.
Click to expand...

Yep. Dogbone style lifters with enough lobe lift to get it out of the hole and expose the undercut. I bush the bores and use solid body lifters. Fixed.
 
CMcAllister said:
Yep. Dogbone style lifters with enough lobe lift to get it out of the hole and expose the undercut. I bush the bores and use solid body lifters. Fixed.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was .... oh never mind.....
 
"Yep. Dogbone style lifters with enough lobe lift to get it out of the hole and expose the undercut. I bush the bores and use solid body lifters. Fixed."

Fixed THAT issue. There are other issues that the tubing/lifter bushing don't address.
 
Duane said:
Regarding your comments about the timing.
In another thread on this board we had a lengthy discussion where yr brought up the issue of oil timing. Someone posted pictures of cranks and blocks. The cranks were all drilled the same. But the design of the sbm with its oiling to the mains being over to one side on the block,
Has the feed hole not on center like a Chev. If you look close at the main bearings the oil hole in the bearing is not in the center.
This slight difference in oil hole location is what yr claims shifts the oil timing slightly. After this was pointed out I inspected my block and looked at the direction of rotation versus the position
Of the crank and rod assembly and that is when I realized that when slotting the oil hole in the mains to 1/2 long, combined with the counterbore in the bearing saddle would allow the crank oil hole to get full flow and pressure at a slightly different position. It shifts the timing plus increases the amount of time that the rod bearing passage in the crank has to fill up.
Cole are you saying that you experimented with changing the location of the drilled holes in the cranckshaft?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how you think the Chevy oiling is different from the Chrysler. It isn't 3 gallery's feeding the mains. It's one. And just like the Chrysler, it's feeding the upstairs first. And, worse than the Chrysler, it's pushrod oiling. At least Chrysler limited oil to the top end. When everyone went to priority oiling the ONLY thing that changed (of consequence) was that the main bearings get oil BEFORE the top end.

Again, slotting, slitting and any other method to elongate the feed hole may, and I mean a very thin might help SOME with Rod bearing oiling, just like a full groove main does. Why do you think the Chevy doesn't need oil going to the rods all 360 degrees? Because the timing is correct. You get about 85-88 degrees of oil flow through the groove until the hole in the block lines up with the hole in the crank, where full flow, full pressure oil goes out to the Rod. Then you have another 80ish degrees of oil flowing through the groove AFTER the lining up of said holes. Which is about 70 degrees ATDC. This is settled. Why this is argued today is baffling. Unless your undying brand loyalty allows you to overlook engineering short comings. I say Chevy had the most garbage, cheap assed rocker system one could design. Nary a Chevy guy I know today would build anything worth a damn with stud mounted rockers. Yet, Chrysler dropped their shaft system for that phony stud deal and guys love it. It's just silly. And so is claiming adding, or moving oil input will fix an engineering issue. It won't.

In the end, we need to STOP telling people to waste their money doing things that do absolutely nothing. For 7500 and under, full groove bearings, a HV, high pressure pump and the biggest inlet to the pump you can get, and controlling oil leaks at the lifters is all you need. And a good pan. Over 7500 you can have issues. Over 8000 and it's a whole new game. At 8500, you're not even in the same universe. 9000 is a distant galaxy. And yes, I toyed with 9k for a bit. Every little issue is magnafied by a factor of 100. The single shaft rocker system is past its limits. Even with a 3.313 stroke, you can't get enough air without 288/296 @ .050 and you lose enough in the gear change that it isn't worth the money to do it. Valve spring life from 8000 to 8500 is halved. From 8500 to 9000 valve spring life is reduced by 95% and wire fracture is 99% of those failures, which allows the valves and the Pistons to try a conjugal visit.

So yes, I've done it. And I didn't even mention at 8500 (if you are actually making power and have enough cam to do it) Cranes Pro Series lifter is nearing its useful limit. Any lifter with a .904 body, .810-.815 wheel with link bars is at its very limits. One mistake and **** starts smashing together.

Just a little info on the pitfalls of making power at high RPM.

Back to oil timing. Never, ever cross drill a crank UNLESS you are doing it to correct oil timing. And you can't correct the oil timing with cross drilling and putting the oil in where Chrysler did. You have to move the oil feed hole to the main cap, feed it externally and block the 1,2,3 and 4 oil feeds to the mains from the main bearing. You don't want oil coming from the oil gallery and your need feed lines.

That's the ONLY way I've ever seen to correct the oil timing on a Chrysler and make it work. If you are careful, and by careful I mean big pan, with a full length kick out, a correctly designed windage tray, a quality crank scraper and the pan has to have baffles in the correct location (thank you Stefs for the **** bag pan with your phony baffles that you stuff up the butts of unknowing racers) you can run a standard volume pump with a high pressure spring and use about 6 quarts of oil and pick up some power.

There is only one way to correct oil timing. I just gave a rough outline.
 
CMcAllister said:
"Yep. Dogbone style lifters with enough lobe lift to get it out of the hole and expose the undercut. I bush the bores and use solid body lifters. Fixed."

Fixed THAT issue. There are other issues that the tubing/lifter bushing don't address.
Click to expand...


Yup. Tubing and bushing is needed, but thats not all.
 
I must not be able to make myself clear. Chevys run one dedicated main galley to oil the mains through passages around the the cam bores and then to the mains. 2 other galleys oil the lifters and heads. Aftermarket blocks delete the bypass around the cam and feed the main directly.

I built an iron 3.58 crank based engine that had bearing issues and ended up breaking a rod when I tried to stretch it an extra couple of runs. A second similar engine had the same problem, but I continued to feed it parts and try various "fixes" to get oil to the rods - one in particular was a real problem. I tried everything every "expert", every Mopar book, every engine guy said was needed with zero improvement. After fighting this for 1 1/2 seasons, I pulled the engine and took it apart. We studied the oil system, looked at other engines, talked to a few guys who had done a few tricks they were willing to share and jumped into the oil system. We did some things that were common and recommended by some places, others things they said not to do, and somethings we came up with on our own. I went from pulling the pan and replace a bearing or two every 6 -7 runs to a full season of 150 1/4 mile runs runs at 72-7300RPM with a filter that stayed clean and rod bearings that could have been put back in the motor. I figured this out before there were these internet forums full of advice. That was 25 years ago and it was an expensive aggravating pain in the ***. So, I'm not making **** up, repeating what I read or heard or saw on a YouTube video, or guessing. I'm not going to debate whether what I've done is useful or makes sense. Or whether I actually have a clue, or not. I don't need to try to help. Just put a crossover tube in it and carry on.
 
Last edited:
CMcAllister said:
I must not be able to make myself clear. Chevys run one dedicated main galley to oil the mains through passages around the the cam bores and then to the mains. 2 other galleys oil the lifters and heads. Aftermarket blocks delete the bypass around the cam and feed the main directly.

I built an iron 3.58 crank based engine that had bearing issues and ended up breaking a rod when I tried to stretch it an extra couple of runs. A second similar engine had the same problem, but I continued to feed it parts and try various "fixes" to get oil to the rods - one in particular was a real problem. I tried everything every "expert", every Mopar book, every engine guy said was needed with zero improvement. After fighting this for 1 1/2 seasons, I pulled the engine and took it apart. We studied the oil system, looked at other engines, talked to a few guys who had done a few tricks they were willing to share and jumped into the oil system. We did some things that were common and recommended by some places, others things they said not to do, and somethings we came up with on our own. I went from pulling the pan and replace a bearing or two every 6 -7 runs to a full season of 150 1/4 mile runs runs at 72-7300RPM with a filter that stayed clean and rod bearings that could have been put back in the motor. I figured this out before there were these internet forums full of advice. That was 25 years ago and it was an expensive aggravating pain in the ***. So, I'm not making **** up, repeating what I read or heard or saw on a YouTube video, or guessing. I'm not going to debate whether what I've done is useful or makes sense. Or whether I actually have a clue, or not. I don't need to try to help. Just put a crossover tube in it and carry on.
Click to expand...
Please don't paint us all with the same brush.
Your previous post was perfectly clear to me and I have done almost identical mods that you did on my new build.
I agree the Chev oiling system is completely different.
I appreciate your comments on this board.
I also understand that we all need to recognize that sometimes we just may not agree and that is ok too.
 
yellow rose said:
I'm not sure how you think the Chevy oiling is different from the Chrysler. It isn't 3 gallery's feeding the mains. It's one. And just like the Chrysler, it's feeding the upstairs first. And, worse than the Chrysler, it's pushrod oiling. At least Chrysler limited oil to the top end. When everyone went to priority oiling the ONLY thing that changed (of consequence) was that the main bearings get oil BEFORE the top end.

Again, slotting, slitting and any other method to elongate the feed hole may, and I mean a very thin might help SOME with Rod bearing oiling, just like a full groove main does. Why do you think the Chevy doesn't need oil going to the rods all 360 degrees? Because the timing is correct. You get about 85-88 degrees of oil flow through the groove until the hole in the block lines up with the hole in the crank, where full flow, full pressure oil goes out to the Rod. Then you have another 80ish degrees of oil flowing through the groove AFTER the lining up of said holes. Which is about 70 degrees ATDC. This is settled. Why this is argued today is baffling. Unless your undying brand loyalty allows you to overlook engineering short comings. I say Chevy had the most garbage, cheap assed rocker system one could design. Nary a Chevy guy I know today would build anything worth a damn with stud mounted rockers. Yet, Chrysler dropped their shaft system for that phony stud deal and guys love it. It's just silly. And so is claiming adding, or moving oil input will fix an engineering issue. It won't.

In the end, we need to STOP telling people to waste their money doing things that do absolutely nothing. For 7500 and under, full groove bearings, a HV, high pressure pump and the biggest inlet to the pump you can get, and controlling oil leaks at the lifters is all you need. And a good pan. Over 7500 you can have issues. Over 8000 and it's a whole new game. At 8500, you're not even in the same universe. 9000 is a distant galaxy. And yes, I toyed with 9k for a bit. Every little issue is magnafied by a factor of 100. The single shaft rocker system is past its limits. Even with a 3.313 stroke, you can't get enough air without 288/296 @ .050 and you lose enough in the gear change that it isn't worth the money to do it. Valve spring life from 8000 to 8500 is halved. From 8500 to 9000 valve spring life is reduced by 95% and wire fracture is 99% of those failures, which allows the valves and the Pistons to try a conjugal visit.

So yes, I've done it. And I didn't even mention at 8500 (if you are actually making power and have enough cam to do it) Cranes Pro Series lifter is nearing its useful limit. Any lifter with a .904 body, .810-.815 wheel with link bars is at its very limits. One mistake and **** starts smashing together.

Just a little info on the pitfalls of making power at high RPM.

Back to oil timing. Never, ever cross drill a crank UNLESS you are doing it to correct oil timing. And you can't correct the oil timing with cross drilling and putting the oil in where Chrysler did. You have to move the oil feed hole to the main cap, feed it externally and block the 1,2,3 and 4 oil feeds to the mains from the main bearing. You don't want oil coming from the oil gallery and your need feed lines.

That's the ONLY way I've ever seen to correct the oil timing on a Chrysler and make it work. If you are careful, and by careful I mean big pan, with a full length kick out, a correctly designed windage tray, a quality crank scraper and the pan has to have baffles in the correct location (thank you Stefs for the **** bag pan with your phony baffles that you stuff up the butts of unknowing racers) you can run a standard volume pump with a high pressure spring and use about 6 quarts of oil and pick up some power.

There is only one way to correct oil timing. I just gave a rough outline.
Click to expand...
Boy I thought some of my posts were long lol.
1st if we are comparing the Chev and the Chrysler, then let's compare stock to stock.
You claim only 1 galley feeds the mains on the Chev. That's not totally correct, that galley feeds the cam bearings and then the mains, nothing else.
The Chrysler passenger side galley feeds 8 lifters,4 main bearings,
4 cam bearings,16 rockers,7rod bearings, tries to fill the entire drivers side galley to oil 8 more lifters, so it could be said that the passenger galley feeds those too because indirectly it does.
There is no comparison.
You claim that at least Chrysler restricted the oil to the top end.
They had too because the main bearings will not oil properly with the #2&4 cam bearings trying to oil the rockers. I know this because I tried using a cam with grooved cam journals with no restrictors at the deck and #2&4 main bearings were toast after 40 runs. The intermittent timing holes in the cam journals acts as a restrictor to get barely adequate oil volume to the mains and the rockers. This type of failure has nothing to do with oil timing, it is a distribution issue.
The Chev uses separate galleys filled directly from the pump volume
To oil the lifters and the rockers so they do not bleed oil pressure from the mains.
You claim that the Chev in stock form with a 1/2 groove main works because it has correct oil timing. It does not have a cross drilled crank or external feed lines going to the bearing caps.
Assuming that the gun drilled oil feed holes in the cranks of both makes are in the same location, then the only significant difference is the location of the oil feed hole in the block is not in the same location on the two engines. Slotting the upper main bearings
Changes the location of the crank feed hole and the crank position in degrees of rotation where the feed hole can get full pressure and volume plus has added dwell time to boot.
Effectively it should oil the exact same as the Chev, not it may help a little, it should be exactly the same imho
The Chrysler galley is being asked to feed too many parts of the engine from only one galley. The Chev spreads these same duties to 3 separate galleys that are always filled directly from the main pump volume. The claimed velocity issue in the Chrysler is claimed to only exist with the installation of a high volume pump and increased
Pump pressure. Not in stock form.
 
Both mods can and will work, and it solely depends on the engine and parts involved. Oil timing is the main problem but a work-around would be to increase local pressure at the rods by increasing pressure as much as possible everywhere else - by slowing down the leaks of the lifters, cam, heads. And by tying both galleys and blocking off ports.
 
Duane said:
Boy I thought some of my posts were long lol.
1st if we are comparing the Chev and the Chrysler, then let's compare stock to stock.
You claim only 1 galley feeds the mains on the Chev. That's not totally correct, that galley feeds the cam bearings and then the mains, nothing else.
The Chrysler passenger side galley feeds 8 lifters,4 main bearings,
4 cam bearings,16 rockers,7rod bearings, tries to fill the entire drivers side galley to oil 8 more lifters, so it could be said that the passenger galley feeds those too because indirectly it does.
There is no comparison.
You claim that at least Chrysler restricted the oil to the top end.
They had too because the main bearings will not oil properly with the #2&4 cam bearings trying to oil the rockers. I know this because I tried using a cam with grooved cam journals with no restrictors at the deck and #2&4 main bearings were toast after 40 runs. The intermittent timing holes in the cam journals acts as a restrictor to get barely adequate oil volume to the mains and the rockers. This type of failure has nothing to do with oil timing, it is a distribution issue.
The Chev uses separate galleys filled directly from the pump volume
To oil the lifters and the rockers so they do not bleed oil pressure from the mains.
You claim that the Chev in stock form with a 1/2 groove main works because it has correct oil timing. It does not have a cross drilled crank or external feed lines going to the bearing caps.
Assuming that the gun drilled oil feed holes in the cranks of both makes are in the same location, then the only significant difference is the location of the oil feed hole in the block is not in the same location on the two engines. Slotting the upper main bearings
Changes the location of the crank feed hole and the crank position in degrees of rotation where the feed hole can get full pressure and volume plus has added dwell time to boot.
Effectively it should oil the exact same as the Chev, not it may help a little, it should be exactly the same imho
The Chrysler galley is being asked to feed too many parts of the engine from only one galley. The Chev spreads these same duties to 3 separate galleys that are always filled directly from the main pump volume. The claimed velocity issue in the Chrysler is claimed to only exist with the installation of a high volume pump and increased
Pump pressure. Not in stock form.
Click to expand...


I don't have a block here at the shop, but I do have a SBC schematic. Look it up. The main feed goes up the back and that main feeds all the other feeds. Just like the Chrysler.

You can talk oil velocity all you want, but just like McCallister above I've LIVED it. I've done it. And all that crap you promote is just crap. It's a time waster.

I know of very few people who can make power at 8500 and make it live. The owner of the best dyno I've used was a skeptic. I had already got the thing to live and make power to 8000ish. And I decided I liked his dyno better (wasn't a water brake dyno) and called and rented some time. When we showed up we spent the first two hours discussing what the end game was. His dyno sat in the middle of the shop. He spent the next hour moving **** out of the way, so when the rods came out, it wouldn't oil down crap he had sitting around. We ran the dyno until 10 PM, I actually made power to 8500 and never lost a part. And the best power came with the oil pressure at 120 pounds at 8800. That also amazed him. He had never seen a small block Chrysler not ventilate itself at that speed and power. So I showed him how it was done and he GOT it. Why no one else does, I can't say. You just don't want to. You just don't want to say the books are wrong. But they are.

Again, I did NOT design the fix. I made a few changes, one being when I bought the engine the way the original system was the engine only got filtered oil half the time. And, all the plumbing was in the pan, so no one ever saw what was done or how it was done. As I didn't care who saw what, or what the average fence leaning toady thinks, I moved the plumbing out of the pan, and made ALL the oil to the engine go through that system. All of it. It was a priority oil system. I also made the pressure externally adjustable, just so I could test my theory that lower oil pressure ON A CHRYSLER wasn't always a good thing. And, I was correct, despite all the engineers, dolts and fools who repeat what they read and hear and yet do not do anything.

I write a lot because of all the misinformation and downright lies about how these engines oil and why they don't oil at high RPM's.

When I started this whole deal (1984) 8500 was a big number. Today, 632 Chevys turn that and do it all season long.

There is no reason to do anything other than control the internal oil leaks, full groove mains so the rods are getting full time oil (another simple evidence that oil timing is the issue and not some bullshit velocity claim, because if it was a velocity issue, full groove bearings wouldn't do anything), a high volume, high pressure pump and a decent pan and 7500 is not a big deal.

After that, all bets are off and the books are worthless.

Again, the Chevrolet and the Chrysler are so close as to be the same except in one respect. That's oil timing.
 
yellow rose said:
I don't have a block here at the shop, but I do have a SBC schematic. Look it up. The main feed goes up the back and that main feeds all the other feeds. Just like the Chrysler.

You can talk oil velocity all you want, but just like McCallister above I've LIVED it. I've done it. And all that crap you promote is just crap. It's a time waster.

I know of very few people who can make power at 8500 and make it live. The owner of the best dyno I've used was a skeptic. I had already got the thing to live and make power to 8000ish. And I decided I liked his dyno better (wasn't a water brake dyno) and called and rented some time. When we showed up we spent the first two hours discussing what the end game was. His dyno sat in the middle of the shop. He spent the next hour moving **** out of the way, so when the rods came out, it wouldn't oil down crap he had sitting around. We ran the dyno until 10 PM, I actually made power to 8500 and never lost a part. And the best power came with the oil pressure at 120 pounds at 8800. That also amazed him. He had never seen a small block Chrysler not ventilate itself at that speed and power. So I showed him how it was done and he GOT it. Why no one else does, I can't say. You just don't want to. You just don't want to say the books are wrong. But they are.

Again, I did NOT design the fix. I made a few changes, one being when I bought the engine the way the original system was the engine only got filtered oil half the time. And, all the plumbing was in the pan, so no one ever saw what was done or how it was done. As I didn't care who saw what, or what the average fence leaning toady thinks, I moved the plumbing out of the pan, and made ALL the oil to the engine go through that system. All of it. It was a priority oil system. I also made the pressure externally adjustable, just so I could test my theory that lower oil pressure ON A CHRYSLER wasn't always a good thing. And, I was correct, despite all the engineers, dolts and fools who repeat what they read and hear and yet do not do anything.

I write a lot because of all the misinformation and downright lies about how these engines oil and why they don't oil at high RPM's.

When I started this whole deal (1984) 8500 was a big number. Today, 632 Chevys turn that and do it all season long.

There is no reason to do anything other than control the internal oil leaks, full groove mains so the rods are getting full time oil (another simple evidence that oil timing is the issue and not some bullshit velocity claim, because if it was a velocity issue, full groove bearings wouldn't do anything), a high volume, high pressure pump and a decent pan and 7500 is not a big deal.

After that, all bets are off and the books are worthless.

Again, the Chevrolet and the Chrysler are so close as to be the same except in one respect. That's oil timing.
Click to expand...
Yr you have a way of replying without being able to stay on topic.
My last post never said one thing about velocity. It was strictly a comparison between the two makes of engines and how they oil from stock. I have no doubt that the way you solved the oiling issues worked for you back in the day.
Many years ago when I started my apprenticeship, a wise tradesman taught me that there is always more than 1 right way to skin a cat.
Mr. Mcallister does not agree with some of your points either.
I notice you have not directly replied to any of his posts and only mine. This is an oiling discussion not an rpm competition.
If a guy has a motor eating a rod bearing every 7-8 runs and he goes through a trial and error process which results in the motor living for 150 runs, who are any of us to dispute how he got it to live. That's how you learn. Keep an open mind.
I have always agreed with you that the oil timing is a valid problem.
But as my own experience has taught me and the experiences of many others, it is not the only problem. Feeding oil off of the main bearings to too many other places has also proven to be a problem.
You do not seem to grasp that the Chev design does not do this.
It uses more oil galleys to feed those other parts and those galleys are not filled up off of another bearing feed like the Chrysler. They are filled from the main galley or triage as some call it. It leaves one galley dedicated to the mains/rods and the cam. That is a key difference.
Please don,t respond with your buddies dynamometer or talk of valve springs.
Some of the oiling mods in my new motor came from a book,some came from Mr Charles Sanborn. Some came from Guitar jones. I have never seen a recommendation in any book to slot the main bearing holes, but logic tells me it makes perfect sense. I have never seen in a book the recommendation to drill all the block passages to 1/2 inch, but it makes sense. Not feeding any rockers from a main bearing to keep the oil at the crank I first learned in the stroker small block book, and many other racers including Cole Mcallister also do this.
 
Last edited:
pittsburghracer said:
You guys got me worn out. I need a VACATION.
Click to expand...
Lol this will perk you up. Got it in the car yesterday.

image.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top