'62-64 Studebaker V8 full-flow blocks versus '51-62 by-pass filter blocks - a discussion

[jcluvsu]

My current project car uses a partial flow block converted to full flow.

I would be interested in knowing if this is possible, how and of any value on my 62 GT's 289

[53k]

Interesting topic. But an oil filter was standard on few V-8s, Jack; optional on most. For example, Pub. PD62-22 is General Specifications for all 1962 cars, the last year in which an oil filter would have been optional at extra cost until the mid-year major block changes took place and a filter became standard. It specifies an oil filter as standard equipment only on the 1962 Hawk when the 1962 models were introduced; optional even on Cruisers, all of which were V-8s (domestic production).

Through the 1951-early 1962 years, an oil filter may have been standard on certain V-8 models within a given year, but certainly not all of them. BP

My new '61 Cruiser did not have an oil filter and I never installed one. Back then you changed the oil every 1,000 miles when you also greased the car.
Speaking of oil filters, notice anything strange about the eBay '64 Daytona?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Lark-Daytona-Factory-V8-Automatic-Super-Rare-/270672823708?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3f055b859c

[PeterHawk]

Interesting topic. But an oil filter was standard on few V-8s, Jack; optional on most. For example, Pub. PD62-22 is General Specifications for all 1962 cars, the last year in which an oil filter would have been optional at extra cost until the mid-year major block changes took place and a filter became standard. It specifies an oil filter as standard equipment only on the 1962 Hawk when the 1962 models were introduced; optional even on Cruisers, all of which were V-8s (domestic production). Through the 1951-early 1962 years, an oil filter may have been standard on certain V-8 models within a given year, but certainly not all of them. BP

Bob. I have an early 1962 GT Hawk (final assembly date 2/14/62) that does NOT have an oil filter. The Production Order does NOT list the oil filter as being optioned on my car. If it was standard equipment, wouldn't it have been attached to the oil filler tube? Prehaps the PO removed it - highly unlikely. Where can I get a copy of Pub. PD62-22 to which you referred?

[Jim B PEI]

I do like the look of the painted headlight rims as on the show cars/design models(?) but not the way it was done on this car. Under the front bumper just shows this car lived a real life and wasn't over-restored <g> just like the seats <gg> (my Wagonaire has exactly the same damage up front, from a careless shipper in the past)

As well, that serial # plate on the door looks a little hinky. Whenever I see something like that, I always wonder if the tags were removed for painting and sloppily reinstalled, or if the tag of a titled rusted out car was put on a good body with paperwork issues. With a changed engine too, a production order is about useless. If this car is a survivor as advertised, it might have survived something drastic. I also wonder what the new owner might find if they go underneath with cleaner and a wire brush and look for the secret number.

Still, if it is a Daytona Hardtop, and a 64, and a 289??, I'd pay about the current bid for it.

[Mike Van Veghten]

hey Jack, all -

I don't buy into #2 at all. I think this engineer is incorrect, (gee, who'da thought...!).

My admittedly somewhat limited hydraulics experience tells me otherwise.
In a proverbial nutshell, I'd say, more like 50% of the oil gets filtered...from oil change to oil change.

Funny..as I'm wiping the burreto grease from my hands, I thought of a "perfect" example... I was going write a long discorse as to why I don't think 100% of the oil will ever be filtered between normal oil changes.

My example -

We can all agree that the oil is picked up partially from suction partially from gravity. After the oil heads from the pump to the engine, it traveles thru MANY passageways (some just round holes, some between bearing material and other hard surfaces), most leading back to the oil pan. The "SMALLEST" amount of oil that travels this trec to the cylinder head and THEN.....to most factory assembled remote filters is as I said, the smallest volume of any other location in the entire engine.

Ok...I assume we can agree on the above...you should, just look at the passageways in your 259/289 block...!


Now.....turn on your TV set. Find the channel that shows your local Lottery Show. NOW...watch closely when they turn on the machine that rolls the ping pong balls around so they will (first key) eventually....wind up in the clear plexyglas tube.
And the second key here is...how many times does the same number ball pop into the same tube...? NOT...very often..!

The same basic thing is happening in the external filtration system in the Stude system.

I'd say at "BEST"...."maybe"..."possibly"....1/2 of the oil (by a given volume) actually makes it thru the tiny little .06" to .13" diameter hole in the fitting screwed into the front of the cylinder head between a 3500 mile oil changes.

And because of this thought...I removed the OEM add-on filter from my 259 and try to change the oil at around...2000 miles.

A note -
A cup of oil (any liquid) pumped thru a small hole and drained back into the cup...will continue to "MIX" with the un-pumped liquid. And therefore, some amount of liquid will never be pumped thru the small hole.
Now increase that "cup" to FIVE "quarts" of liquid.

This can't be proven cheaply OR I doubt with math. Possibly a modern computer based modeling program can. But I've seen that be proven wrong too.

I'd want to see a real time, actual test set up to proove me wrong.

Mike

[(S)]

my discoverys

We've had lots of engines apart from 232's to late 259's and 289's. This list of experiences has to do with parts car engines. These are the types of engines that you'd think would be dead inside and or very high miles.

A few things I have seen:

232's and 259's up to about 1957 almost never have a large ridge when I thought for SURE they would due to miles/ condition of the rest of the car. The last 2 232's I took apart I wished I hadn't

as leaky as the mid years engines were, they are usually cleaner inside, but always smoke more.
Did the owners keep pouring in new oil, keeping it cleaner?

Late full flows seem to have more carbon and sludge inside, #5 is always the cylinder with the most ridge, At 60-75K miles it is double that of most 232's with the same miles, and piston rings seem 'cleaner' then late blocks, with less carbon and crud in the groves.

You CAN bore the heck out of early blocks, and not worry as much about hitting a casting 'pocket'

Early blocks 'seem' to be tighter, within specs, bearings wore more evenly than late blocks.

Don't forget to drill the hole in the timing gear seal cage for better oil return on non full flows..

Have fun!

[PackardV8]

I don't buy into #2 at all. I think this engineer is incorrect.

Mike, you and I agree on most things mechanical, but on this I'm gonna go with the degreed expert in the field. This engineer designs lubricating systems for huge industrial applications and knows whereof he speaks. I'm going to ask him to write up his explanation so even you can understand it ;>)

jack vines

[PackardV8]

232's and 259's up to about 1957 almost never have a large ridge

as leaky as the mid years engines were, they are usually cleaner inside, but always smoke more.

Late full flows seem to have more carbon and sludge inside, #5 is always the cylinder with the most ridge, At 60-75K miles it is double that of most 232's with the same miles, and piston rings seem 'cleaner' than late blocks, with less carbon and crud in the groves.

Very interesting real world feedback. Let's think this through. You mention cylinder bore wear got worse around 1957. Was there any known design change which could have caused an increase in wear or just Stude beginning to wind down on quality control as sales dropped? Intake air quality has much to do with oil contamination. When did paper air filters become standard? I'm a believer in the oil bath, but I know most subscribe to the newer is better theory.

"Cleaner inside but smoke more." Older engines seldom have any working valve stem seals left. This is one possibility of why they smoke more.

"Late full flows have more crud inside" PCV valve technology was in its early stages. On many late full flow engines, the PVC is often missing or plugged. R-series engines used a totally different PVC design. The few I've been inside are usually clean. However, R-series engines are not usually owned by 32nd-degree CASOs, so they may have had better maintenance.

What causes the #5 cylinder to wear excessively on later engines?

Again, great stuff, guys.

jack vines

[Mike Van Veghten]

Jack -

Ok...but you know me...he better do a good job and have proof, not just writing on paper....!
I have "some" first hand knowledge on this from school, so he better do a good job. Plus general physics comes into play.

Mike

[(S)]

Certain vaccum and turbulance issues inside the intake manifold cause rich and lean conditions to #5 and #7. I suspect the 'short' manifolds cause this, and the WW carb also went through many changes. I think it could disrupt the air flow?

If there could have been a 57 style intake with a 4 barrel on top, we'd have something that would breathe!

The 'PCV system" and I use the term loosely is too small and should be 1/2 to 3/4 tube size. Spark plugs should be 1 step 'hotter' to burn up this crud ....

It is hard to wrap the brain around a partial flow actually filtering all of the oil. I suspect it would take several 'exchanges' measured in minutes? to actually filter 5 quarts. Thicker, dirty oil ALWAYS settles down, and is less likely to get picked up by a filter that is several feet away if you measure oil passage length. A full flow engine would be more likely to 'pick it up' because it is right there.

How often would a full flow filter clog up, and bypass? You'd be knocking and spitting out parts at this 'stage' of oil contamination. I don't care what filter you have..... Your engine would suffer either way.

The design of an oil bath air cleaner is far superior to paper filters and simply catches more dirt.

[PackardV8]

Thanks for the clarifications - it would seem most of us agree on everything up to the by-pass effectiveness.

It is hard to wrap the brain around a partial flow actually filtering all of the oil. I suspect it would take several 'exchanges' measured in minutes? to actually filter 5 quarts. Thicker, dirty oil ALWAYS settles down, and is less likely to get picked up by a filter that is several feet away if you measure oil passage length. A full flow engine would be more likely to 'pick it up' because it is right there.

The oil pump is what picks up oil, whether it is clean or whether it is the thicker, dirty oil and the pump is always in the same place. Once the oil is warm and the cruddlies are moving through the system, it is only a couple of feet farther to the by-pass filter. If they settled out, we'd see plugged oil passages in the by-pass system and clean passages in the full flow. That has not been my experience.

And yes, it does take several exchanges for all the oil to go through the by-pass filter, but there is a high volume of oil moving through it. Just forget to reinstall the by-pass filter cover gasket and you'll empty the crankcase in a VERY short time. BTDT. So, your engine, your decision. Just sayin' I'm fine with the by-pass filter and I'll take all those old junk '55-62 blocks folks are replacing with full-flows.

Again, thanks for all the continuing discussion. I know I'm learning from it.

jack vines

[Milaca]

A few things I have seen:

232's and 259's up to about 1957 almost never have a large ridge when I thought for SURE they would due to miles/ condition of the rest of the car. The last 2 232's I took apart I wished I hadn't

Did the earlier engines have softer piston rings?

[avantilover]

Brent may be correct that oil quality could be the cause of his filthy engine. I recall someone saying he used high detergent diesel oil in a similarly filthy engine and it was clean in 15,000 Miles, probably numerous oil changes.

[jjones]

Interesting thread, and something I have often thought about. The 259 in my M truck is a 1957 model that came with a bypass filter. It was given to me and I have no idea how many miles were on it, or how it was maintained, but it was badly worn out. (The rebuild took a .060 overbore to clean the cylinders up, and a .010/.010 grind on the crank.) However, it wasn't too sludged up, and in fact I was surprised at how clean it was inside. Today the engine has an aftermarket bypass filter, an inline 1/2-inch PCV valve, and a K&N oil-soaked air cleaner. Also an Edlebrock 500 cfm carb, R3 valves, and one of Harbits R1/2+ cams. I change the oil every 1,000 miles and after a bit over 20,000 miles, it still comes out looking reasonably clean. This tell me that with decent maintenance and a good quality oil (I use Valvoline 20W-50 racing) the partial-flow engines will last as well as the full-flow ones.

[swaim43]

I'm a hydraulics engineer by trade and there are lots and lots of statistics and flow dynamics/finite element involved to calculate the time it would take to run all the crankcase oil thru a partial flow filter for all the reasons stated above.
I have two engines with partial flow filters and the flow limiting orifice is on the center tube on both. It is 0.062 Inch in diameter and lets say for argument that the average Studebaker runs 35 PSI oil pressure down the road - conservatively. Thats a flow rate of .491 Gallons per minute thru the filter or 1.96 Quarts per minute. You run the crankcase volume thru the filter in 2.57 minutes. (5/1.96) IF you had 100% efficiency BUT you don't and that's where the statistics comes in - boiled down to a rule of thumb we use for partial flow filtering on small hydraulic power units - you need 17-18 turns of the oil to get 85% efficiency in cleanliness. (Lots of math and Flow dynamics to develope this Fudge Factor.)
So that means that in about 45 minutes you PROBABLY are at least 85% clean which is about as clean as we've run most of our small partial hydraulic flow power units for lots of years.
Now full flow systems are another beast - you get 100% filtration flow most of the time BUT when you don't like at cold start or quick RPM changes you actually open up the by-pass which dumps lots of the reclaimed filtered dirt right back in your system.
So it is a statistics battle:
Partial flow and long time between full oil cleanings - no chance of big dirt dumps when you by-pass (Cause it doesn't by-pass)
OR
Full Flow most of the time but potential full back to start dirt dump when you bypass. (By-pass always siphons some dirt out of the filter.)

The hydraulics wizards of the world say that statistically we are better off with full flow systems that cold by-pass.

The best of the best is a very large filter with lots of area that very rarely/never by-passes.

My twocents - couldn't resist.

Dave Swaim - Rockford, IL
Hydraulic designer for 37 years - Parker Hannifin, J I Case, and currently Delta Power Company