|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 51
|
![]()
I tried the search but didn't find my answer. What are the disadvantages of running the early 1928 valve cover with the higher return? I understand that it kept more oil in the area. There was obviously a reason it was changed pretty early but haven't found the answer. The other question is what was the length of the tube? I have always ran the later style but came across the '28 style at a swap meet. Just curious. Thanks.
Ron |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: So Cal
Posts: 9,360
|
![]()
The oil return pipe and valve cover weren't changed until May 1929.
According to the Service Bulletins, page 342, it was done to keep oil away from the valve springs and reduce oil consumption. Bob |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 51
|
![]()
Thanks Bob
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 27,582
|
![]()
Higher oil would give a little more pressure to the mains. It wouldn't be much though.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Quincy, CA.
Posts: 1,708
|
![]()
The earlier blocks also did not have a oil passage way to the rear cam bearing from the oil chamber; the Service Bulletins also covers how to drill this passageway.
Ron |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Red Deer, Alberta
Posts: 5,716
|
![]() Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
Quote:
Overall length is aprox 1 1/2" longer. My measurements, they may be out a smidge.
__________________
If you don't hear a rumor by 10 AM, start one!. Got my education out behind the barn! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|