The LS Chevy has a nearly identical oiling system. People used the wrong lifters causing excessive top end oil. I ran a 400 over 200,000 miles with 10PSI oil pressure idling and 35 on the highway in a 6600 lbs truck. Didnt even have to overbore it, just new pistons and rings. Same cam too with .525 lift. The drainback holes flow more oil than you can pour it in with a gallon jug. I've even ran it 3 qts low without damage. Machine work and assembly prevent all the "problems" with Cleveland oiling systems. Tim Meyer has a very effective "fix" for the block that works well if they scare you. The Boss motors and the old M/T valve covers have stubs on the top of the covers roof to concentrate oil and drip it onto the springs. These heads were run in NASCAR without all the fixes. Port the internal passages of the oul system and the pump and you'll pick up about 15 to 25 PSI of pressure and don't use a HV pump.
My brother had a 400, 4V quench heads, single plane 4V intake, crane commander cam, headers, stock pistons, high volume oil pump. We had so much problems with oil pressure going away with any rpm.... and our fix was 2 extra quarts of oil and a re marked oil stick as shown. Lol
3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
That's one of the common mistakes people make with Clevelands. They don't need a high volume pump unless you're turning 8000 RPM and if you do use one, you absolutely have to use a deep pan with at least a 7-8 quart capacity.. If you don't, then you get just what you experienced: Oil starvation because it sucks the pan dry.
Great video, save me a lot of time. After removing the left valve cover, I noticed a pool of oil at the back of the head. I was about ready to pull the head off. Thinking the oil return was plug up. Yours was the only video that address this issue that I could fine, and it help me out immensely. Thanks
Fantastic video, extremely valuable information. As you say at the end there are other problems with cleveland oiling, but this one of the best practical demonstrations I've seen for this. This is the basis that all the reconciliations to not run a hi volume pump are based around. I don't actually subscribe to that theory myself, but without other mods it holds true. It causes this to happen faster because it overwhelms the drain backs quicker.
Odd the LS oiling system is not much different from the 351C yet the GM lovers think its the best motor on the planet. We had no bearing problems on a 351 C with the hi pressure spring on most and with lifter bushings on a few back in the day. You make a interesting point on the drain back problem. I thing correcting this would probably cure a lot of problems.
Lmao,,and every shit talking guy in the country has 3-4 blown up motors lying in the dirt on the side of the Garage,,fact,,,LS engines have huge oiling issues,,,some of them were purposely done by the factory…the 99-03 LS engines last 300-400k easy,,the 03- and on blow up 100-200… my friend has a 99 with 478k original motor and trans and runs like a brand new truck,,,the 03 Tahoe’s and trucks all sound like ticking time bombs waiting to blow up…lol facts
I ran a 9 Quart oil pan and still had Bearing problems the only way i fixed my Cleveland from losing the number 7 rod bearing was to Bush the lifter bores. i found out the hard way Some Cleveland blocks have loose lifter bores, I was lucky enough to have one of these engines, it passed enough oil that The Bearings starved.
Like every Cleveland I ever saw, mine had the same problem of the lifter pushrod sockets wore out due to normal lifter rotation and starved the rocker arms. Anyway, my lifters weren't sloppy in their bores, they were a bit challenging to remove due to a slight varnish ring had formed around the bottom edge of the lifters. I keep the sump slightly overfilled, minimum of 5qts and run 10w-40 or 10w-30, not 40w-90 like some people claim.
My engine never had a problem with starving the Rocker arms what my engine did was push all the oil to the lifters and left none going to the Rods. i would lose number 7 rod bearing I had all the little tricks like restrictor kit rear oil line, and Restricted Pushrods, along with a 9 imperial Quart trap door oil pan. None of these stopped my problem. ii installed Denny Wendorff's Lifter bore bushings and have run at 7500 RPM with out a problem. I have been running Cleveland's since 1970 and have this engine engines that has a problem and others that don't! The normal fixes helped all my other Cleveland's but not this one. @@thisisyourcaptainspeaking2259
This video has more sensible info than most I've seen. I never knew a Clevo could hold that much oil in the heads. I am genuinely surprised. I am planning on building a couple of Clevelands in the not to distant future and have been collecting bits for it for a while now. The first thing I purchased was two High volume sumps with proper baffling and windage trays to get that 7 lt capacity off the bat. I think the engineers got it wrong in the initial design which would explain the premature wear of these engines back in the day. They usually need reconditioning after 120K. Now we know why.
Restrictors in the right place increase pressure, a good thing. What is the Cleveland's difficultly is the crankshaft, I can't remember which journal maybe mains #3 to rod # 5? Which ever it is when the shaft spins it blocks off oil to the rod bearing which under duress causes problems. After market cranks correct this and grooved bearings help.
I had a friend back in the day who had a Ranchero with a 351C 4 barrel carb and even though it was a kickass great running engine it always had oiling problems even in great shape at 56,000 miles, cams wearing out, high oil temps etc etc. no one ever figured it out in his case.
63 yr old die hard Ford guy and Master ASE that always ran an extra qt of oil in the pan. It's only to much when it's off but as soon as the engine starts bingo bongo.
Love the video and the information about the Cleveland oiling,,but the Cleveland were kicking everybody’s ass on the drag strips across America,,and people still use these heads on 351 W and 351 Cleveland to this day,,I’ll be using some on a 351W I’m building for my 73 Bronco here this summer,,just not sure if a want iron or aluminum heads yet…
They should have just put an oil pump in each head and used the valve covers as the sump and the bottom pump just puts it back into the heads like a dry sump system 😅
All factory engines have "oiling problems" when used in racing application when they are not factory racing engines. When you increase engine RPM you have to uncrease oil capacity to keep your rngine from outrunning your iol supply, ehich is why there are high capacity oil pans available, and some need higher oil pressure, which is why high volume oil pumps are available. And it goes much like that with every modification you make to add power, torque, acceleration or speed, such as stiffer valve springs for high rpm cams, porting or afternarket heads for the increased demand for flow. Etc. This is simply what separates the parts changers from the mechanics, the mechanics from the engineers, those from the racing mechanics and racing engineers.
You would think this stuff is obvious, yet here we are 50 years after the Cleveland was made, and this is the only video that highlights a basic design fault. 50 years is a long time for misconceptions to be made...
I have 550 hp 4v in my 70 Mustang. The hydraulic lifters do start to rattle a lot when i drive continues high rpm on the autobahn here in Germany. It can't fill the lifters enough above 5500 rpm. I can go to 7k but for longer distances it doesn't like it. I will upgrade to mechanical rollers in the future. Its also important you use a lot of zddp in the engine oil
So, when you change the oil, there are roughly three quarts of dirty oil remaining in the heads? Seems if it was initially filled with 7 or 8 quarts, it would always have an adequate amount of oil in the sump, and wouldn’t need a larger one. In other words, the amount that doesn’t drain back would act as a reservoir. Seems that too deep of oil in the heads would cause the Cleveland to smoke, getting under the umbrella seals and through the guides. Maybe I’m missing something or misunderstanding the video.
The drain backs to the head are both too small and on a sharp angle. This design is to slow the flow of oil at elevated rpm. Under normal driving conditions, the drainback is able to keep up. It's not until the engine is held under high rpm that the flow of oil going through the pushrods to the valvetrain overwhelms the drainbacks, causing the oil level in the heads to rise until it escapes from the pushrod holes. It is designed this way to protect the valvesprings from overheating as once spring steel is heated to a couple of hundred degrees, it loses its spring strength. Results of this are valvesprings that can no longer control a valve (valve float) to broken valvesprings. This demonstration shows how much oil is held in the cylinder heads versus how much is recommended to be in the pan. In short, a larger capacity sump cures most Cleveland Oiling problems. No restrictor kits, external lines, or machine work on the lifter bores are ever going to cure oil starvation caused by an engine that puts all its oil under the rocker covers and leaves none in the pan!
The 'Hank the Crank' oil line solution, was for a phantom problem that 'Dyno Don' Nicholson was having experimenting with these engines early on. Turns out the problem that everyone tried to help him solve was a faulty aftermarket oil pump he had been using on all his test motors! This is where this nonsense all started!
@@rondye9398 okay so how to solve the oiling problem then ? I need to do that on my cleveland to which turns high rpm continiously on the german autobahn here. I'm going solid roller soon. The bushing sleeve trick will help a lot, but is it enough, or do I need to go dry sump ?
@@rondye9398 clevelands do have an oiling problem because 1 gallery is missing, and to much oil is going to the lifters. In stock form it might be good enough I agree, but not so much for high performance
@@hoedemakerbartThe oil gallery problem you mentioned isn’t really a problem. Most V-8 engines from that era did typically use 3 gallery’s for oil distribution. The early Cleveland prototype designs had 3. But the bean counters at Ford insisted that using only 2 gallery’s would reduce the overall amount of machining required to prepare the block for service. That was supposed to cut the labor costs per block. I suppose when producing thousands of blocks the cost saved would really add up. But financial geeks that are only concerned about cutting costs don’t have a clue about actual performance requirements. Obviously they got what they wanted and the design engineers didn’t. Now I’m sure the guy on this site talking about excessive oil in the valve covers and over filling the stock oil pan with 2 more quarts as a fix, probably has good intentions. But in my 42 years of Cleveland experience I’ve never heard of such bullshit. I agree with your plan to upgrade with solid roller lifters and installing lifter bore bushings. It works great for me. The bushings do cost more but understanding the benefits they provide will easily justify the cost. Those 2 oil galleries that run the length of the lifter valley, also intersects each lifter bore. The size of the hole where they intersect is huge. If you’ve ever seen what happens when the oil pump is turned and pressurizes the block with a lifter removed from its bore you will understand my point. Oil gushes from the bore like a big internal oil leak. Way more oil than is required for the original hydraulic lifters. Solid lifters need even less. I don’t have a clue why it was designed that way but a bushing with a small orifice to properly meter the oil supply to the lifters takes care of the problem. I certainly don’t qualify as an expert but I have studied the oil supply design enough to understand the potential problems. I doubt that these internet experts have ever seen the oiling diagram. Many blocks have priority oiling to the main bearings before the valve train. Clevelands oil the right side gallery and valve train first before oil is delivered down to the main bearings. Reducing the amount of oil wasted to the lifters will naturally provide more to the mains. It’s not rocket science, just common sense. You understand the problem so you should be good to go 🏁.
@@hoedemakerbart A dry sump system isn’t necessary for most performance builds. If turning 6000 rpm’s or more for long periods of time then the dry sump would make sense, despite the high cost. For most applications any good aftermarket pan is fine. I use the Milodon 30927 low profile front sump pan. It has baffles for good oil control and a 8 quart capacity. It also has enough internal clearance for a 4.100” stroker crank and the gold finish looks pretty good on my black block. The Milodon 32220 windage tray fits well with no interference from the 4-bolt main caps. The guy insisting that adding a few more quarts to the stock pan will solve oil supply problems doesn’t know the problems caused by moving the oil that close to the spinning crankshaft. excess oil on the crank stealing horsepower, crank throws whipping the oil into bubbly foam that the pump can’t move and the increased oil temperatures because it’s too close to the hot rotating assembly. It’s just a bad idea. A deep sump pan will also add more capacity while moving it away from the crank. Just keep in mind these are my opinions. And opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they all stink 🤮🤮🤮🙂
Yes. It was a design based on a Pontiac (a handful of parts are interchangeable), but also uses other GM design cues to make the best engine possible for the time. First sold in 1968, the majority of parts were indigenous to Australia and unique to Holden. Which means very little of anything else fits. It remained Holden staple V8 until they switched to Gen 3 LS V8s in the early 2000s. That's not saying nothing can. All a machinist (or engine bulider) sees is "a challenge."
A stock running engine has no problem. The factory flooded the lifters on purpose to cut down on wear. Look at a crank from a high mileage cleveland. Most are still in good shape. Don't need to be turned. There's a reason for that.
Always errors?? Maybe you should have proven your theory before you published this video. Me? I’ll back Ford knew exactly what they were doing. The oiling “problem” only occurs on engines that sit at 7,000 plus rpm for long periods of time. I doubt that Ford had that as a design requirement when they designed their road car engine.
25 min of dribble could have been condensed to 5 or 6 min. With a workshop like looking like that it doesn't look very professional. Then there is the forgotten fact that oil is draining back through the drain backs all the time. Big sumps are a must, but port matching the oil return holes in the head, gasket and block are equally important.
The drain backs are small, which restricts oil flow from returning to the sump. This protects the valvesprings from overheating and failing. The test shows how much oil can be held in the rocker covers, which inevitably starves the oil pump, causing bearing failure. My apologies for the length of the video. As the internet has taught me, I have to spoon feed knowledge to the masses so it can be consumed and comprehended. Im sorry that bored you and gave you time to find faults in the only environment I have available to me.
@@crd-nz_001 I have done a few videos, I come prepared and also edit them to keep them pertinate. Hot oil has a flow rate of water. Oil oil is just not relevant. I race a 351c in circuit racing at 7000 rpm. HV pump, big sump, drainbacks port matched, bushed lifter bores and oil restrictors. No issues. My mates race car has had only restrictors fitted and runs a HV pump and big sump. 7000 rpm, circuit car as well. Not even had the drainbacks port matched or th work mine has had. Again, no issues. People go on about oil starvation due to HV pumps pumping oil up the top. You have to engineer the whole system. There's a difference between theory and practice.
I'm a simple man. I see Cleveland, i smash the like.
The LS Chevy has a nearly identical oiling system. People used the wrong lifters causing excessive top end oil. I ran a 400 over 200,000 miles with 10PSI oil pressure idling and 35 on the highway in a 6600 lbs truck. Didnt even have to overbore it, just new pistons and rings. Same cam too with .525 lift. The drainback holes flow more oil than you can pour it in with a gallon jug. I've even ran it 3 qts low without damage. Machine work and assembly prevent all the "problems" with Cleveland oiling systems. Tim Meyer has a very effective "fix" for the block that works well if they scare you.
The Boss motors and the old M/T valve covers have stubs on the top of the covers roof to concentrate oil and drip it onto the springs. These heads were run in NASCAR without all the fixes.
Port the internal passages of the oul system and the pump and you'll pick up about 15 to 25 PSI of pressure and don't use a HV pump.
My brother had a 400, 4V quench heads, single plane 4V intake, crane commander cam, headers, stock pistons, high volume oil pump.
We had so much problems with oil pressure going away with any rpm.... and our fix was 2 extra quarts of oil and a re marked oil stick as shown. Lol
That's one of the common mistakes people make with Clevelands. They don't need a high volume pump unless you're turning 8000 RPM and if you do use one, you absolutely have to use a deep pan with at least a 7-8 quart capacity.. If you don't, then you get just what you experienced: Oil starvation because it sucks the pan dry.
The oil pickup is too close to the pan or has a small leak on the pickup tube .
Great video, save me a lot of time. After removing the left valve cover, I noticed a pool of oil at the back of the head. I was about ready to pull the head off. Thinking the oil return was plug up. Yours was the only video that address this issue that I could fine, and it help me out immensely. Thanks
Fantastic video, extremely valuable information. As you say at the end there are other problems with cleveland oiling, but this one of the best practical demonstrations I've seen for this.
This is the basis that all the reconciliations to not run a hi volume pump are based around. I don't actually subscribe to that theory myself, but without other mods it holds true. It causes this to happen faster because it overwhelms the drain backs quicker.
Odd the LS oiling system is not much different from the 351C yet the GM lovers think its the best motor on the planet. We had no bearing problems on a 351 C with the hi pressure spring on most and with lifter bushings on a few back in the day. You make a interesting point on the drain back problem. I thing correcting this would probably cure a lot of problems.
Lmao,,and every shit talking guy in the country has 3-4 blown up motors lying in the dirt on the side of the Garage,,fact,,,LS engines have huge oiling issues,,,some of them were purposely done by the factory…the 99-03 LS engines last 300-400k easy,,the 03- and on blow up 100-200… my friend has a 99 with 478k original motor and trans and runs like a brand new truck,,,the 03 Tahoe’s and trucks all sound like ticking time bombs waiting to blow up…lol facts
Use a stock oil pump with a high volume spring to fix oiling issues, high volume oil pumps empty the pan too quickly, and cause issues...
I never had a oiling problem with a cleveland
I ran a 9 Quart oil pan and still had Bearing problems the only way i fixed my Cleveland from losing the number 7 rod bearing was to Bush the lifter bores. i found out the hard way Some Cleveland blocks have loose lifter bores, I was lucky enough to have one of these engines, it passed enough oil that The Bearings starved.
Like every Cleveland I ever saw, mine had the same problem of the lifter pushrod sockets wore out due to normal lifter rotation and starved the rocker arms. Anyway, my lifters weren't sloppy in their bores, they were a bit challenging to remove due to a slight varnish ring had formed around the bottom edge of the lifters.
I keep the sump slightly overfilled, minimum of 5qts and run 10w-40 or 10w-30, not 40w-90 like some people claim.
My engine never had a problem with starving the Rocker arms what my engine did was push all the oil to the lifters and left none going to the Rods. i would lose number 7 rod bearing I had all the little tricks like restrictor kit rear oil line, and Restricted Pushrods, along with a 9 imperial Quart trap door oil pan. None of these stopped my problem. ii installed Denny Wendorff's Lifter bore bushings and have run at 7500 RPM with out a problem. I have been running Cleveland's since 1970 and have this engine engines that has a problem and others that don't! The normal fixes helped all my other Cleveland's but not this one. @@thisisyourcaptainspeaking2259
This video has more sensible info than most I've seen. I never knew a Clevo could hold that much oil in the heads. I am genuinely surprised.
I am planning on building a couple of Clevelands in the not to distant future and have been collecting bits for it for a while now. The first thing I purchased was two High volume sumps with proper baffling and windage trays to get that 7 lt capacity off the bat. I think the engineers got it wrong in the initial design which would explain the premature wear of these engines back in the day.
They usually need reconditioning after 120K. Now we know why.
Restrictors in the right place increase pressure, a good thing. What is the Cleveland's difficultly is the crankshaft, I can't remember which journal maybe mains #3 to rod # 5? Which ever it is when the shaft spins it blocks off oil to the rod bearing which under duress causes problems. After market cranks correct this and grooved bearings help.
That's a real garage...great video...
I had a friend back in the day who had a Ranchero with a 351C 4 barrel carb and even though it was a kickass great running engine it always had oiling problems even in great shape at 56,000 miles, cams wearing out, high oil temps etc etc. no one ever figured it out in his case.
63 yr old die hard Ford guy and Master ASE that always ran an extra qt of oil in the pan. It's only to much when it's off but as soon as the engine starts bingo bongo.
Love the video and the information about the Cleveland oiling,,but the Cleveland were kicking everybody’s ass on the drag strips across America,,and people still use these heads on 351 W and 351 Cleveland to this day,,I’ll be using some on a 351W I’m building for my 73 Bronco here this summer,,just not sure if a want iron or aluminum heads yet…
Back in the day i would run 7 1/2 qts in the stock pan
They should have just put an oil pump in each head and used the valve covers as the sump and the bottom pump just puts it back into the heads like a dry sump system 😅
That's why phase 4 sumps had wings for added capacity.
I had a 71 Cleveland in a 69 mustang it had a 6 quart oil pan factory. It came out of a Torino.
yep ! they don't drain the heads quick enough and they can pump the whole sump into the heads at constant high rpm
All factory engines have "oiling problems" when used in racing application when they are not factory racing engines. When you increase engine RPM you have to uncrease oil capacity to keep your rngine from outrunning your iol supply, ehich is why there are high capacity oil pans available, and some need higher oil pressure, which is why high volume oil pumps are available. And it goes much like that with every modification you make to add power, torque, acceleration or speed, such as stiffer valve springs for high rpm cams, porting or afternarket heads for the increased demand for flow. Etc.
This is simply what separates the parts changers from the mechanics, the mechanics from the engineers, those from the racing mechanics and racing engineers.
You would think this stuff is obvious, yet here we are 50 years after the Cleveland was made, and this is the only video that highlights a basic design fault.
50 years is a long time for misconceptions to be made...
@@crd-nz_001 I think that Bob Glidden might disagree on the design flaw notion after his long career of winning with Ford Cleveland's.
Ran Clevelands hard for many years with no oiling or bearing failures i think its just a myth that was started years ago.
I have 550 hp 4v in my 70 Mustang. The hydraulic lifters do start to rattle a lot when i drive continues high rpm on the autobahn here in Germany. It can't fill the lifters enough above 5500 rpm. I can go to 7k but for longer distances it doesn't like it. I will upgrade to mechanical rollers in the future. Its also important you use a lot of zddp in the engine oil
For the record...Cleveland engines never failed at Motorsport...far from it...they were dominant for years.
So, when you change the oil, there are roughly three quarts of dirty oil remaining in the heads? Seems if it was initially filled with 7 or 8 quarts, it would always have an adequate amount of oil in the sump, and wouldn’t need a larger one. In other words, the amount that doesn’t drain back would act as a reservoir. Seems that too deep of oil in the heads would cause the Cleveland to smoke, getting under the umbrella seals and through the guides. Maybe I’m missing something or misunderstanding the video.
The drain backs to the head are both too small and on a sharp angle. This design is to slow the flow of oil at elevated rpm. Under normal driving conditions, the drainback is able to keep up. It's not until the engine is held under high rpm that the flow of oil going through the pushrods to the valvetrain overwhelms the drainbacks, causing the oil level in the heads to rise until it escapes from the pushrod holes. It is designed this way to protect the valvesprings from overheating as once spring steel is heated to a couple of hundred degrees, it loses its spring strength. Results of this are valvesprings that can no longer control a valve (valve float) to broken valvesprings.
This demonstration shows how much oil is held in the cylinder heads versus how much is recommended to be in the pan.
In short, a larger capacity sump cures most Cleveland Oiling problems. No restrictor kits, external lines, or machine work on the lifter bores are ever going to cure oil starvation caused by an engine that puts all its oil under the rocker covers and leaves none in the pan!
Thanks for the post. My plan is to de-burr drain holes and oil pump hole.@@crd-nz_001
Bigass deepsump oilpan mate👍🏻😁
They used to put external oil lines to the back of the gallery for better bottom end lubrication
The 'Hank the Crank' oil line solution, was for a phantom problem that 'Dyno Don' Nicholson was having experimenting with these engines early on. Turns out the problem that everyone tried to help him solve was a faulty aftermarket oil pump he had been using on all his test motors! This is where this nonsense all started!
@@rondye9398 okay so how to solve the oiling problem then ? I need to do that on my cleveland to which turns high rpm continiously on the german autobahn here. I'm going solid roller soon. The bushing sleeve trick will help a lot, but is it enough, or do I need to go dry sump ?
@@rondye9398 clevelands do have an oiling problem because 1 gallery is missing, and to much oil is going to the lifters. In stock form it might be good enough I agree, but not so much for high performance
@@hoedemakerbartThe oil gallery problem you mentioned isn’t really a problem. Most V-8 engines from that era did typically use 3 gallery’s for oil distribution. The early Cleveland prototype designs had 3. But the bean counters at Ford insisted that using only 2 gallery’s would reduce the overall amount of machining required to prepare the block for service. That was supposed to cut the labor costs per block. I suppose when producing thousands of blocks the cost saved would really add up.
But financial geeks that are only concerned about cutting costs don’t have a clue about actual performance requirements.
Obviously they got what they wanted and the design engineers didn’t.
Now I’m sure the guy on this site talking about excessive oil in the valve covers and over filling the stock oil pan with 2 more quarts as a fix, probably has good intentions. But in my 42 years of Cleveland experience I’ve never heard of such bullshit. I agree with your plan to upgrade with solid roller lifters and installing lifter bore bushings. It works great for me.
The bushings do cost more but understanding the benefits they provide will easily justify the cost. Those 2 oil galleries that run the length of the lifter valley, also intersects each lifter bore. The size of the hole where they intersect is huge. If you’ve ever seen what happens when the oil pump is turned and pressurizes the block with a lifter removed from its bore you will understand my point. Oil gushes from the bore like a big internal oil leak. Way more oil than is required for the original hydraulic lifters. Solid lifters need even less.
I don’t have a clue why it was designed that way but a bushing with a small orifice to properly meter the oil supply to the lifters takes care of the problem.
I certainly don’t qualify as an expert but I have studied the oil supply design enough to understand the potential problems. I doubt that these internet experts have ever seen the oiling diagram. Many blocks have priority oiling to the main bearings before the valve train. Clevelands oil the right side gallery and valve train first before oil is delivered down to the main bearings. Reducing the amount of oil wasted to the lifters will naturally provide more to the mains. It’s not rocket science, just common sense. You understand the problem so you should be good to go 🏁.
@@hoedemakerbart A dry sump system isn’t necessary for most performance builds. If turning 6000 rpm’s or more for long periods of time then the dry sump would make sense, despite the high cost. For most applications any good aftermarket pan is fine. I use the Milodon 30927 low profile front sump pan. It has baffles for good oil control and a 8 quart capacity. It also has enough internal clearance for a 4.100” stroker crank and the gold finish looks pretty good on my black block. The Milodon 32220 windage tray fits well with no interference from the 4-bolt main caps. The guy insisting that adding a few more quarts to the stock pan will solve oil supply problems doesn’t know the problems caused by moving the oil that close to the spinning crankshaft. excess oil on the crank stealing horsepower, crank throws whipping the oil into bubbly foam that the pump can’t move and the increased oil temperatures because it’s too close to the hot rotating assembly.
It’s just a bad idea. A deep sump pan will also add more capacity while moving it away from the crank.
Just keep in mind these are my opinions. And opinions are like assholes, everybody has one and they all stink 🤮🤮🤮🙂
Wonder if epoxying the lifter galley which I have seen done before helps with drain back to the pan at all.
I've drilled extra holes in the lifter valley. Helps drain back.
Why do you have a Cleveland block with a Windsor head for the first mock up??
Sadly, it's not.
It is an Australian Holden 308. The V8 used against the Cleveland in Australian touring car racing.
I'm in the US. That doesn't look like a sb Chevy. Holden had their own engine?
Yes. It was a design based on a Pontiac (a handful of parts are interchangeable), but also uses other GM design cues to make the best engine possible for the time. First sold in 1968, the majority of parts were indigenous to Australia and unique to Holden. Which means very little of anything else fits. It remained Holden staple V8 until they switched to Gen 3 LS V8s in the early 2000s.
That's not saying nothing can. All a machinist (or engine bulider) sees is "a challenge."
A stock running engine has no problem.
The factory flooded the lifters on purpose to cut down on wear.
Look at a crank from a high mileage cleveland. Most are still in good shape. Don't need to be turned. There's a reason for that.
I thought the main problem was the thin cylinder walls
Mickey Thomas had valve cover droppers built in the cover
Who's Mickey Thomas ?
I think they mean Mickey Thompson, but A.I. auto-correct thinks it knows English better.
Well the original 1970 351C 4V came with drippers built into the valve covers. My M code has them.
The big C didn't fail Bob Glidden.
Hold the camera STILL, I'AM GETTING DIZZY.
There was no mystery about it oil capacity problems, they solved the issue with a larger capacity sump in the XA GT Bathurst vehicles.
Put lifter bore bushes and a restrictor kit in a cleveland and youll never have an issue.
I'm way late to the episode but there are pushrods with restrictors in them that are supposed to solve this problem
Always errors?? Maybe you should have proven your theory before you published this video. Me? I’ll back Ford knew exactly what they were doing. The oiling “problem” only occurs on engines that sit at 7,000 plus rpm for long periods of time. I doubt that Ford had that as a design requirement when they designed their road car engine.
Funny looks like Windsor head there most Cleveland heads have round ports on the intake side. And you could damn near put your fist in the ports.
This doesn't look like my Cleveland.?????
It's not. It's a Holden. The opponent Ford faced at Bathurst during Clevelands racing years.
It's funny. I had one eye shift at 8000 RP m's and never had no trouble.
The only fix I can think of is a Windsor
Has two oil galleries. The Windsor has #3....!!
Red head is not a Ford product. In Australia, they raced against this V8 that was built by Holden.
Find all the info that you find is crap. The same info is in the ford performance book, tend to believe the book, sorry
Oh man, this was a long-winded explanation. You should have had a torch and camera tripod prepared!
25 min of dribble could have been condensed to 5 or 6 min. With a workshop like looking like that it doesn't look very professional. Then there is the forgotten fact that oil is draining back through the drain backs all the time. Big sumps are a must, but port matching the oil return holes in the head, gasket and block are equally important.
The drain backs are small, which restricts oil flow from returning to the sump. This protects the valvesprings from overheating and failing.
The test shows how much oil can be held in the rocker covers, which inevitably starves the oil pump, causing bearing failure.
My apologies for the length of the video. As the internet has taught me, I have to spoon feed knowledge to the masses so it can be consumed and comprehended. Im sorry that bored you and gave you time to find faults in the only environment I have available to me.
@@crd-nz_001 I have done a few videos, I come prepared and also edit them to keep them pertinate. Hot oil has a flow rate of water. Oil oil is just not relevant. I race a 351c in circuit racing at 7000 rpm. HV pump, big sump, drainbacks port matched, bushed lifter bores and oil restrictors. No issues. My mates race car has had only restrictors fitted and runs a HV pump and big sump. 7000 rpm, circuit car as well. Not even had the drainbacks port matched or th work mine has had. Again, no issues. People go on about oil starvation due to HV pumps pumping oil up the top. You have to engineer the whole system. There's a difference between theory and practice.
Run a dry sump problem solved 😂