Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Low Oil Pressure (1962 Hawk)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    No Tim, it would be virtually non-existent!

    quote:Originally posted by GTtim

    the plug for the oil galley that is in the distributor silo, since no one else has mentioned it yet. If this were left out during the 'restoration' the oil pressure would be critically low.
    And YES, Dick I have never owned a late '62-'64 full-flow V-8 that ever dropped below 35 PSI with factory fitted cam bearings in normal use and condition, and that would be dozens, one since new!

    The one time, one '63 Wagonaire 289 did drop low, I had lost the #4 Cam bearing ! [:0]

    StudeRich
    Studebakers Northwest
    Ferndale, WA
    StudeRich
    Second Generation Stude Driver,
    Proud '54 Starliner Owner

    Comment


    • #17
      How does one measure the cam bearing clearance? I can't see how Plastigage would work, and what would you do about it anyway? What about rod side clearance?

      Ron

      Ron Dame
      '63 Champ
      Ron Dame
      '63 Champ

      Comment


      • #18
        quote:Originally posted by Ron Dame

        How does one measure the cam bearing clearance? I can't see how Plastigage would work, and what would you do about it anyway? What about rod side clearance?

        Ron

        Ron Dame
        '63 Champ
        Ron,

        To measure the cam bearing clearances, you will need to measure each of the cam bearing IDs with a set of snap gages and a micrometer. I would measure each bearing in at least two positions - with the snap gage roughly in the horizontal position, and then as vertical as you can get it and stay out of the oil hole. Then measure each cam journal OD (in at least two positions), and than calculate the diametrical clearance (ie, bearing ID minus journal OD) for each journal position. The allowable clearances are in the Shop Manual.

        BTW, not that it matters in your case.....and not wanting to start a huge 'discussion'.....but this is how I measure my main and rod bearing clearances also. Rarely use Plastigage.

        The rod side clearance is measured with feeler gages. The Shop Manual describes this very well.

        Paul
        Winston-Salem, NC
        Visit The NEW Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: www.studebakerskytop.com
        Paul
        Winston-Salem, NC
        Visit The Studebaker Skytop Registry website at: www.studebakerskytop.com

        Comment


        • #19
          They had to pull the engine, where it was found that the pistons were installed backwards (at least that's what I think Trevor told me) and the crankshaft was scored.

          $A3000 later she's purring along.

          John Clements
          Avantilover, your South Australian Studebaker lover!!!
          Secretary Studebaker Car Club of SA (as of 3/19/08)
          Lockleys South Australia
          http://www.flickr.com/photos/3188334...58071811/show/
          John Clements
          Christchurch, New Zealand

          Comment


          • #20
            For future reference - when you have a suspect engine, take an oil sample for analysis. It's relatively cheap and gives very good answers. I did on one of my cars - the report said there were traces of anti-freeze in the oil. Got the head gasket replaced before any real damage was done.
            /H

            Comment


            • #21
              Hello John Clements,I think what you have to do is poor in a can of cheap 15 w 40 and see what happens

              Dick Waterreus

              Comment


              • #22
                Greetings, Jeff,

                You are right on with 99.9% of your advice, but I haven't found the below to be the case in my several years of engine rebuilding:
                quote:One other area that is not looked at very often (if ever) is the rod side clearance. If your engine is on it's third freshen up, this clearance can be quite large and a lot of oil can get slung out there.
                Oil gets out between the bearings and the shafts. The rod side clearance is so much proportionately larger than the bearing clearances, it can never form a barrier and make or lose oil pressure. FWIW, many race engines run today with .050"-.100" rod side-to-side clearance. I can't remember ever seeing a Studebaker V8 with worn connecting rod sides.

                One area almost never checked on Studebaker V8 rebuilds is rocker arm clearance. This is usually worn past specification and is a source of high RPM oil loss, which overfills the rocker covers at higher speeds, drops the crankcase level and causes a loss of oil pressure.

                PackardV8
                PackardV8

                Comment


                • #23
                  That's OK...
                  I'll stick with 1/10 of 1% any ol' day
                  Jeff[8D]



                  quote:Originally posted by PackardV8

                  Greetings, Jeff,

                  You are right on with 99.9% of your advice, but I haven't found the below to be the case in my several years of engine rebuilding:
                  quote:One other area that is not looked at very often (if ever) is the rod side clearance. If your engine is on it's third freshen up, this clearance can be quite large and a lot of oil can get slung out there.
                  Oil gets out between the bearings and the shafts. The rod side clearance is so much proportionately larger than the bearing clearances, it can never form a barrier and make or lose oil pressure. FWIW, many race engines run today with .050"-.100" rod side-to-side clearance. I can't remember ever seeing a Studebaker V8 with worn connecting rod sides.

                  One area almost never checked on Studebaker V8 rebuilds is rocker arm clearance. This is usually worn past specification and is a source of high RPM oil loss, which overfills the rocker covers at higher speeds, drops the crankcase level and causes a loss of oil pressure.
                  PackardV8
                  HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                  Jeff


                  Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                  Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    What really annoyed Trevor was that the seller said the car was restored "recently" and then when he mentioned the oil pressure problem the fellow said it was restored back in 1988 or so.
                    $A20,000 car and then another $A3000 for repairs (Heh Heh sounds like my Lark Cost $A3000 spent about $A3500 since).
                    Cars, ya gotta luv em!!!!

                    John Clements
                    Avantilover, your South Australian Studebaker lover!!!
                    Secretary Studebaker Car Club of SA (as of 3/19/08)
                    Lockleys South Australia
                    http://www.flickr.com/photos/3188334...58071811/show/
                    John Clements
                    Christchurch, New Zealand

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      If you're actually holding 3-5 pounds of oil pressure consistently, then you don't have a rod bearing problem. Make sure you have a mechanical gauge and not an electrical one. A mechanical gauge will show fluctuating oil pressure to coincide with the rotation of the crankshaft with relation to the oil feed hole to the crankpin at a low idle. IF this is the case, you can even pinpoint it by shorting plug wires until one in particular (or more) show less of a fluctuation in oil pressure. As far as worn cam bearings; these will cause a more consistent drop in oil pressure. Another way to test rod bearings is to wind the engine out in first gear up to about 20-25 mph then slightly let off the gas. You wil hear a quick short rattle. But, a word of caution--these tests are only accurate up to 99.9% of the time...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Logically, I follow PackardV8's description of ~0.003 inch radial bearing clearance being the primary restriction to oil flow out the rod bearings.


                        But................

                        MOPAR Performance's tech bulletins of the 70s and 80s usually included statements something like this - "The sides (of the rods)should be polished on a flat plate using #600 paper. Proper side clearance should be 0.009-0.017" total, two rods. Do not increase clearance past 0.017 inch as this increases the oil demand of the engine. It will also allow too much oil on the cylinder walls, which will overload the rings and allow excess oil in the combustion chambers."

                        One instance where extra side clearance is needed is engines using aluminum con rods. At operating temp an aluminum rod would be somewhat wider than a steel rod, so initial (cold) clearance must be greater to result in a similar clearance at operating temperature.
                        These guys suggest 0.020 inch for their aluminum rods used on the street
                        http://www.bmeltd.com/rods.htm

                        On V-8 engines or engines that have pairs of rods sharing a journal, the rod bearings are offet to move them away from the radius at the edge of the cranks rod journals.
                        http://craig.backfire.ca/img/sbc-conrod-direction.png

                        Enforcing the offset axial positioning is an important function of the "tang" on each rod bearing. The larger the radius ground in the crank journal the "stronger" (more fatigue resistant) a crankshaft is. Racing cranks have a larger than stock radius, and high performance rod bearings will have a larger chamfer to avoid larger crank radius. It is a dimension that must be checked, and the bearing inserts modified to provide clearance if necessary. If the rods outer side faces or crank wore significantly, or if extra side clearance was created by machining the wrong (outer) rod face, or if the rods were installed backwards, the bearing inserts would move closer (and maybe too close) to the radius.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X