triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TR] Fwd: External Oiler to Head

To: George Haynes <ghaynestr4@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [TR] Fwd: External Oiler to Head
From: Bob Labuz <yellowtr@adelphia.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:00:37 -0400
Cc: triumphs@autox.team.net
Delivered-to: mharc@autox.team.net
Delivered-to: triumphs@autox.team.net
References: <8D070BC1BE453BF-178C-14B36@webmail-d159.sysops.aol.com> <8D070BC73CA1E8C-178C-14B92@webmail-d159.sysops.aol.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8
George,

I have never been a fan of this setup. If there is not enough oil 
flowing up to the rockers then maybe it is time to rebuild the engine.

I have heard stories that this setup can lead to excessive oil consumption.

All 3 of my Triumph engines have been rebuilt within the last 5 years 
and I have no problem with oil flow to the rockers.

Once you start up your fresh Spit engine, you should get plenty of oil 
for the rockers. If not then something is wrong.

Band aids are good for small cuts and are temporary in application.

Bob

On 08/26/2013 05:43 PM, George Haynes wrote:
> I just rebuilt a 1973 Spitfire 1500 engine that had spun a rod bearing (#3, of
> course).  An external oiler line had been connected to the cylinder head.
> Since the bottom end apparently had too little oil supply (I know about 1500
> cranks), the external line is suspect, in my mind.
>
>
> I don't want to reinstall it on the fresh engine, thinking I'd rather have the
> oil going where it will do the most good: the crankshaft.
> Rockers are easy to replace by comparison.
>
>
> Without getting into a big controversy, would the group agree?
>
>
> George Haynes

** triumphs@autox.team.net **

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>