worn bearing cause low oil pressure?
in [Technical]
|
From: jonz on 8 Jun 2010 20:41 On 6/9/2010 1:06 AM, jim wrote: > > > Don Stauffer wrote: >> >> On 6/7/2010 5:23 PM, Noddy wrote: >>> "Don Stauffer"<stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote in message >>> news:4c0cf11c$0$87071$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net... >>> >>>> Yes, a modern engine does use a closed loop oil system. If it didn't you >>>> would have to replace lots of oil every time you drove the car. >>> >>> There's nothing "modern" about such a system. They've been in place for over >>> 100 years. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Noddy. >>> >>> >> True. But some engines in 1910 may have used older designs. Some had >> individual oil cups at each bearing surface, and these were open- oil >> was wasted and not returned with a pump. Some had no pump, merely a >> reservior high up and gravity feed. No return/re-use of oil- open system. >> >> Didn't Chevy go to pressurized rods only around 1940 or so? > > I believe it was 1953 maybe '52. The 216 six had rods with a cup like > thing on the rods that dipped into the oil in the pan and that > lubricated the rods, pistons and piston pins. I think it was the mid > 30's when they started using an oil pump but the pump only lubricated > the valve train and the main bearings. The rest was splash lubrication. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ `28 Chev. had felt pad on top of rocker gear.....said rockers only got lubed when (if) you remembered to oil the pad........ > > -jim -- jonz "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind - boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." - Gene Spafford,1992
From: Nate Nagel on 8 Jun 2010 21:00 On 06/08/2010 08:41 PM, jonz wrote: > On 6/9/2010 1:06 AM, jim wrote: >> >> >> Don Stauffer wrote: >>> >>> On 6/7/2010 5:23 PM, Noddy wrote: >>>> "Don Stauffer"<stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote in message >>>> news:4c0cf11c$0$87071$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net... >>>> >>>>> Yes, a modern engine does use a closed loop oil system. If it >>>>> didn't you >>>>> would have to replace lots of oil every time you drove the car. >>>> >>>> There's nothing "modern" about such a system. They've been in place >>>> for over >>>> 100 years. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Noddy. >>>> >>>> >>> True. But some engines in 1910 may have used older designs. Some had >>> individual oil cups at each bearing surface, and these were open- oil >>> was wasted and not returned with a pump. Some had no pump, merely a >>> reservior high up and gravity feed. No return/re-use of oil- open >>> system. >>> >>> Didn't Chevy go to pressurized rods only around 1940 or so? >> >> I believe it was 1953 maybe '52. The 216 six had rods with a cup like >> thing on the rods that dipped into the oil in the pan and that >> lubricated the rods, pistons and piston pins. I think it was the mid >> 30's when they started using an oil pump but the pump only lubricated >> the valve train and the main bearings. The rest was splash lubrication. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > `28 Chev. had felt pad on top of rocker gear.....said rockers only got > lubed when (if) you remembered to oil the pad........ >> >> -jim > > some really old engines had exposed valvetrain, so the oil that eventually made it up there *was* lost... that said, Chevy was practically stone age in the early '50s... Studebaker had full pressure oiling in the modern sense back in the 30's if not before... (I know for a fact that the Commander nee Dictator nee Rockne six had full pressure lubrication, and was actually in production until the early 60's - it was replaced in cars by the V-8 in '51, but kept on in trucks until '61 I want to say. I *think* the earlier "Big Six" had full pressure lubrication, but don't want to swear to it.) higher end mfgrs. probably earlier. It's amazing that Chevy became a powerhouse and Studebaker became a footnote given the dramatic differences in the engineering (literally) of their products. Of course, people still use Windows, so there's no accounting for taste. Of course Chevy didn't really have anything of an image of having decent engines until 1955 when they introduced the seminal SBC which would eventually outlast the Rockne six to take the crown for American engine design in longest continuous production... but really, I can't imagine buying a Chevy before 1955, unless you just liked the styling and were planning an engine swap. Who's the current champ? Do we count the VW 4-cylinder (1973-present) now that it has a crossflow head? (I know, it's not American, but the industry has become pretty globalized now) or maybe the Buick 60-degree V-6? Or the Buick/Rover V-8? I guess it depends on how much an engine can be revised and yet still be considered the "same" engine. I personally don't think the current GM V-8 is the "same" engine as the '55 283, but it certainly does share some DNA. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
From: Noddy on 8 Jun 2010 21:24 "Don Stauffer" <stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote in message news:4c0e4ae9$0$16050$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net... > True. But some engines in 1910 may have used older designs. Some had > individual oil cups at each bearing surface, and these were open- oil was > wasted and not returned with a pump. It doesn't have to be a pressurised system for it to be a "closed" system. Most car engine lubrication systems have been "closed" since the year dot, and it'd actually be difficult to find one that wasn't. For example, the Model T Ford, which first appeared in 1908 and was the most popular car in the world in it's day, used cups on the bottom of the connecting rods to "scoop" oil to lubricate the rod bearings as the rods revolved around and dipped into the oil in the pan. This oil would then eventually be flung out from between the bearing and crank journal and fall back into the pan for the whole process to be repeated. On the other hand, some types of machinery use "open" lubrication systems, or "total loss oiling systems" as they're known, whereby lubricating oil is held in a reservoir and runs through the system by gravity, and falls out the bottom as waste. Such systems work fine on stationary equipment where it can be collected in a drip tray, but is largely impractical on moving cars. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Scott Dorsey on 8 Jun 2010 22:04 Noddy <me(a)home.com> wrote: > >On the other hand, some types of machinery use "open" lubrication systems, >or "total loss oiling systems" as they're known, whereby lubricating oil is >held in a reservoir and runs through the system by gravity, and falls out >the bottom as waste. > >Such systems work fine on stationary equipment where it can be collected in >a drip tray, but is largely impractical on moving cars. I think I had an MGB like this once. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: jim on 8 Jun 2010 22:19
Noddy wrote: > > "Don Stauffer" <stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote in message > news:4c0e4ae9$0$16050$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net... > > > True. But some engines in 1910 may have used older designs. Some had > > individual oil cups at each bearing surface, and these were open- oil was > > wasted and not returned with a pump. > > It doesn't have to be a pressurised system for it to be a "closed" system. > > Most car engine lubrication systems have been "closed" since the year dot, > and it'd actually be difficult to find one that wasn't. For example, the > Model T Ford, which first appeared in 1908 and was the most popular car in > the world in it's day, used cups on the bottom of the connecting rods to > "scoop" oil to lubricate the rod bearings as the rods revolved around and > dipped into the oil in the pan. This oil would then eventually be flung out > from between the bearing and crank journal and fall back into the pan for > the whole process to be repeated. > > On the other hand, some types of machinery use "open" lubrication systems, > or "total loss oiling systems" as they're known, whereby lubricating oil is > held in a reservoir and runs through the system by gravity, and falls out > the bottom as waste. > > Such systems work fine on stationary equipment where it can be collected in > a drip tray, but is largely impractical on moving cars. Well it wasn't entirely impractical. The oil was dirt cheap and dripping it out onto the roadway helped keep the dust down. -jim > > -- > Regards, > Noddy. |