Will Zehring wrote:
>BTW: for those of you with the early engines sans rear oil seal; I've been
>told that a line bore will help if your leak (we all have one somewhere,
>right doctor?) is on the scale of the Exxon Valdez. Apart from the (perhaps
>extensive) machine shop bills, and the toil of yanking and disassembling the
>lump, you're only in it for the new bearings and a case of Foster's. What
>price a clean garage floor?
Has anyone else out there heard of this fix (no, not cleaning garage floors
with Foster's - line boring to reduce oil leakage)?
Will Z. and I swapped messages on this subject several weeks ago and, as I
own one of the rear-seal-less gushers, I've been mulling it over ever
since. My leak rate has increased over the years (I've owned the car for
30 years) in spite of several engine rebuildings, including having the
crank ground last time. I did not have it line bored - it was not apparent
that it was needed - but the oil flows freely so I couldn't help but wonder
if Will's idea has merit.
My problem with the theory is that the oil still has to get out of the
crankcase. How could clearance behind the main bearings affect this? I
guess a gap at the rear bearing might squirt oil directly at the crude oil
slinger on the crank and increase the leak rate but my crank sure went
together nicely last time with the oversize bearings. Can't believe there
could be much slop there.
How about one of you enterprising people designing an aftermarket rear seal
for these early B's. Al Moss (of Moss Motors fame, but no longer directly
affiliated with the Co.) recently did just that for the T series. I just
installed one of his seals on my TC engine and, although I haven't run it
yet (the body is still in boxes), I am impressed with his clever design. I
sent him a note saying I will be his first customer if he makes a rear seal
for the B.
Russ Wilson
|