Paul, Geoff, Ron, etc who responded to question - Much Thanks.
HOWEVER, I would like to clarify a couple of points. As Paul A knows from
my installation of his 5 speed kit, I can be slow on uptake;
>The reading you see on the oil pressure guage is before the restrictive 3/8"
hose,<
Now I can understand where a 1/2" ID hose will carry more oil than a 3/8" ID
hose (even though I only followed part of Ron's math). What I don't
understand here, or in Daniel's book, is why a 3/8" ID hose is considered
"restrictive" when the original copper pipe running from oil filter to engine
block is only 5/16" ID, and it is considered adequate (is it?). The 3/8" ID
hose would be used since the Outside Diameter of the stock pipe is also 3/8".
The replacement of the 5/16" ID pipe with a 3/8" ID hose should be considered
an improvement since this increases area and flow. Is this correct, or am I
missing something else?
>There is no mention of the inside diameter of the fittings used. They might
be as
small as 1/4".<
The fitting used on the engine block is the stock banjo bolt setup, and the
stock fitting at the oil filter connectioon. Therefore, there is no change in
ID of fittings from stock (no improvement either, but also no worse). If the
fitting for the oil cooler connection the only concern, then I can
understand.
I certainly do not want to endanger my rebuilt engine, however, I also like
simple (& inexpensive) solutions when they will work just as well. If not,
then I would certainly go with the proven setup.
Thanks again,
Jim Rogers
San Juan Capistrano, CA
In a message dated 9/2/02 7:31:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Pasgeirsson@worldnet.att.net writes:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Daniels right. There is a substantial drop in oil pressure,--- to the
> engine!
> The reading you see on the oil pressure guage is before the restrictive
> 3/8" hose,
>
> not where it's being fed to the crankshaft and journals!!!!
>
> Put in a 1/2" hose and the reading on the guage would likely remain the
> same, but
> there is a great deal more oil arriving at the crankshaft. Do the math and
> you
> see that the 1/2" hose has almost 2 times the oil carrying capacity of the
> 3/8"
> hose. That small hose puts new meaning to "we tight"!!!!
>
> Doesn't sound like a smart move to me.
>
> r squared X pie = surface area. (If I remember my math right!)
>
> 3/8" hose = .11044 square inch
> 1/2" hose = .19635 square inch
>
> There is no mention of the inside diameter of the fittings used. They
> might be as
>
> small as 1/4".
>
> Does this sound like oil starvation?
>
> "But the oil pressure was so good when it spun the bearings and I wasn't
> even
> going fast!!!!!"
>
> Paul A
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/spridgets
|