The Ford Barn

James Rogers · 03-04-2012, 12:15 PM

I posted this reply on another thread but it seems to fit here also. This is a horror story for the owner but my reply might explain why there is sometimes oil on the driver side of the engine. Even on a new engine there can be some oil on the tube and engine with absolutely no problems with the motor other than the rings have not seated.

"Understand, the depth of the oil in the tray is deeper than the trough. The oil will build to the level at the rear of the tray before it returns to the pan bottom. Ford had a problem with this causing a fog inside the crankcase and oil creeping out the filler tube. To combat this he changed the design of the baffles in the filler twice and eventually returned to the original type so, 3 different tries before enlarging the tube to approx 2 1/4" for the 32 model. When he found the change to the tube did not work he installed holes in the tray flat so as to drop the level of oil in the tray. These holes started as 4 7/16" holes in each corner but had a fifth added soon after. When this still didn't do the job he increased the diameter of the holes to 1" which worked better and was the end of the modification. After this the V8 was modified for pressure which eliminated the need for the tray and solved the problem to an extent. Even after this, the problem plagued him and others so, the road tube was invented with an internal baffle that effectively solved the problem."

pat in Santa Cruz · 03-04-2012, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony S,Fl.

The other day I saw an oil filler pipe with a half inch copper tube soldered about 1 inch below the cap. A 90 degree bend down right along side of the filler pipestraight down through the engine pan. I ment to ask this forum if that would be practicle. So I'm asking. Sounds better than the flexable tubing. Tony

The fumaze had a straight pipe that emptied out on the engine pan. I have mixed feelings about them. The fumes are still upwind of the firewall and pedal holes, yet being in the path of the radiator air they should be swept down the pan and out the louvers. With a flex tube, you route the tube through the motor mount square holes, so the fumes exit downwind of any entry to the inside of the car and the draft is increased by the wind under the car sweeping past the tube opening.. Yet, flex tubes get pretty greasy and gross. I suppose its up to the individual. On my sedan I modified a B oil filler to accept the base mount of a flex tube, and ran that out the motor mounts. Works like a charm, but it is greasy. The solution I have seen for the entire mess is a carefully installed PCV valve in the upper back corner of the valve cover, routed neatly into the Weber air filter on the car....the engine is clean, it stopped the rear main dripping and the owner is satisfied that he is polluting the air less as a bonus..

Jerry Parr WI · 03-04-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Rogers

I posted this reply on another thread but it seems to fit here also. This is a horror story for the owner but my reply might explain why there is sometimes oil on the driver side of the engine. Even on a new engine there can be some oil on the tube and engine with absolutely no problems with the motor other than the rings have not seated.

"Understand, the depth of the oil in the tray is deeper than the trough. The oil will build to the level at the rear of the tray before it returns to the pan bottom. Ford had a problem with this causing a fog inside the crankcase and oil creeping out the filler tube. To combat this he changed the design of the baffles in the filler twice and eventually returned to the original type so, 3 different tries before enlarging the tube to approx 2 1/4" for the 32 model. When he found the change to the tube did not work he installed holes in the tray flat so as to drop the level of oil in the tray. These holes started as 4 7/16" holes in each corner but had a fifth added soon after. When this still didn't do the job he increased the diameter of the holes to 1" which worked better and was the end of the modification. After this the V8 was modified for pressure which eliminated the need for the tray and solved the problem to an extent. Even after this, the problem plagued him and others so, the road tube was invented with an internal baffle that effectively solved the problem."

You missed one James. After the Model A tube baffle changes failed to correct the problem, in 32 first he lengthened the tube. When that failed then he enlarged the diameter. The real solution came when he dropped the 4 cyl engine.

James Rogers · 03-04-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Parr WI

You missed one James. After the Model A tube baffle changes failed to correct the problem, in 32 first he lengthened the tube. When that failed then he enlarged the diameter. The real solution came when he dropped the 4 cyl engine.

You know Jerry, you are correct. I have seen tubes that were 2 or 3 inches longer than the A tubes and my chronology is off just a bit but mostly correct. The only thing that will make the issue non-existent is a well broken in efficient engine with little or no wear.

Fred K-OR · 03-04-2012, 05:13 PM

Help, please fill in this "jargon-less" Model A guy and explain "road tube". I assume this is the thing that fits on top of the oil filler tube and has a hose that extends under the car? If that is it, I guess I had a "farmers" road tube in my engine when I started rebuilding my Huckster engine. It had a small tomato juice can stuck upside down in a Model B oil tube where a hole was cut in the can to place flexible metal tube in the hole that ran under the engine. If anyone wants a picture of this thing, I think I still have it around somewhere.

James Rogers · 03-04-2012, 06:25 PM

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Fred, you are pretty close. What you refer to is called a Fumaze and it did the same as a road tube in later cars. On the V8 flathead, the road tube, ran from the front of the intake at the filler tube around the front of the motor and exited just under the pan rail behind the front motor mount with a slash cut in the tube. The tube was 1 1/8" steel and the slash left the front of the tube longer than the rear so air could pull the fumes out through suction.

Earle · 03-04-2012, 08:14 PM

If you use fine or course steel wool, copper wool, etc., there is no way that the wool itself can cause enough resistance to air flow coming up out of the crank case to build up enough back-pressure to "blow" oil out the rear main UNLESS the wool is clogged with dirt, sludge, etc. or packed way too tight (or the rear main is already prone to excessive leakage). Just try putting a fine steel wool pad against your mouth and blowing through it - practically no resistance at all! With two pistons going up while two are coming down there is no on-going net volume change inside the crank case, besides blow-by, to cause air flow out the filler pipe.

But, of course, the higher the air flow rate through the wool (i.e. higher blow-by), the higher the back-pressure will be. So, if an engine has a lot of blow-by, the air flow could possibly get high enough to raise crank-case pressure to the point of causing main seal excessive leakage.

The wool is not there to act as a "filter". It's purpose is to act as a large "condensation" surface area for the oil vapor so the liquid oil can then collect on the fibers and drain back down inside the filler tube.

My steel wool has been in place for several thousand miles with no oil film in the engine compartment and only very low "normal" rear main leakage. I have a recently-rebuilt, well-run-in Schwalm-built engine which helps for very low blow-by. And as the wool is constantly coated with oil, with even occasional driving, it never rusts.

Before I put the steel wool in I got a slight oil film down the outside of the filler tube and over the left side of the engine over a long time.

'Gotta inspect the wool as often as you check oil level to be safe. And you can't use things like "Brillo Pads" or other "treated" steel wool or fiber products 'cause they already have foreign substances in them to start the "clogging" process.

That green Scotch-Brite in the photo looks like it was clogged with some kind of soap or cleansers or had some kind of chemical reaction with the engine oil or other atmospheric contaminents. And it looks like it hadn't been inspected for quite a while. Could that degree of clogging have possibly developed and then blown out all the engine oil in a single trip - between frequent inspections??

Other approaches besides steel wool, mentioned here, may - and apparently do -work just as well for other folks.

James Rogers · 03-04-2012, 08:52 PM

One thing I have not seen mentioned here is where this oil went. If it was pushed out the rear main at the rate of 1 quart every 15 or 20 miles the bottom of the car should be coated even now. Not only that but anyone following this car should have oil on their car unless they were 200 yards behind him and even at that there might be some. I would guess when the car finally died the oil should be dripping from every bolt and nut and frame component under the car. The cause of the oil loss should have been VERY obvious at the site of the stop. What about it?

pat in Santa Cruz · 03-04-2012, 09:46 PM

it was a major part of the baffling mystery why the underside of the car was not more oily than normal. That was a significant point I made note of from the first. I also suggested that the driver behind might have noticed an oily windshield. I have seen cars whose rear main cracked up, and they were drenched underneath even though they leaked less severely than this car did.. This very car with its old engine leaked so bad 2 years ago that no one would follow him, we made him ride at the back due to the smoke and oily windshields anyone behind him would have to suffer. So where is the new engine's oil?? The owner still insists the dipstick showed a full pan. Hes not given to falsehood, and he's not so old his memory is failing. I believe he checked the oil, and I believe he saw a full mark. Rich Falluca's experience when we called for his opinion was that a sealed breather pipe will push all the oil out the rear main in 50 miles. When this car finally broke down, the owner did say oil was pouring out the flywheel housing. The clutch was drenched. So at least some oil exited from the rear main. The theory regarding why the car undersides are not soaked is:

It was a tour through city streets from down the El Camino Real, a 35 MPH street, principally stop and go with lights every block. You might get 3 blocks before hitting a red light. A certain amount of oil can accumulate in the flywheel housing due to the wind from the spinning flywheel at road speed. When coming to a stop, the oil no longer held back as well by an idling flywheel, pours out the drain hole while the car waits for the green light. Then the process begins again at the green light. We have not yet contacted whomever it was who was following this car. I suspect there would be some oil on their windshield and hood. When the owner gets back from his vacation I am going to suggest he go back to the tour destination where the car was parked for 2 hours after the first 50 miles and see if there is a huge oil spot. His trip home was solo, so no one who would have known him was behind, but he made it about 20 miles.

The Scotch Brite pad was saturated with an oily emulsion typical in oil filler tubes from winter condensation. I have seen more and more of this in A filler tubes within the last few years. I suspect the increase in this frothy scum is a result of ethanol laced fuel. Ethanol fuel attracts water, some of which which when burned gets into the crankcase from normal blowby. Short trips aggravate it because the engine does not get hot enough to burn it off. During the rainy season, it is more difficult for an engine to blow off humidity when the ambient air is saturated. I am guessing the pad worked for several months prior to the wet season. The car has around 5000 miles on this engine. When the owner gets back I am eager to hear how long this "filter" has been in there.

I would be cautious using things like Brillo pads today. While they might have worked in the past, todays fuel might contribute to their being a cause of trouble today. Anyone using one should keep an eye on it. OTOH, a road draft tube will help ventilate the water vapor better as well as placing the fumes below and behind the interior of the car.

Its interesting what James brings up about Ford's knowing crankcase ventilation was a problem. Other manufacturers in those days did too. Buick, in 1927, designed a crankcase ventilation system that took air in from the fan through a somewhat filtered intake funnel, and exhausted it out the rear of the engine down a draft tube. They claimed at the time that the frequency of changing oil every 500 miles was now reduced to once every 2000 miles since with the ventilation and their new oil filter, contaminants that were not whisked out the vent would be trapped in the filter. They were so proud of it that they promoted it in their advertising in 1927.

James Rogers · 03-04-2012, 10:11 PM

Shell produced an article once that said if a motor lost one drop of oil every 10 feet it would loose a quart in 25 miles. This much oil would literally coat the bottom of the car. I have had engines that didn't leak anywhere as bad as you claim this one did and the undercarrage was soaked. Mystery to me it is not coated and still dripping. You can let a Model A sit for 2 days and drop the pan and still get drips in your eye when adjusting the bearings.

JBill · 03-04-2012, 10:30 PM

Not to prolong this thread too much, but I have a newly rebuilt engine with about 500 miles on it with serious oil leaking problems. When I installed the engine I also installed one of those oil tubes with a flexible metal pipe coming out the side and extending under the car and an air-tight, machined aluminum cap. I read the Antique Engine Rebuilding admonishments about leaky rear mains and decided that that relatively small pipe (about 3/4 of an inch in diameter) just didn't allow enough crankcase pressure to escape, and that was pushing oil out the rear main. So, I removed the whole thing, after ordering a conventional tube and cap, . . . . And guess what. After I removed it I found that the flexible pipe, where it leaves the fill tube, was absolutely packed full of some kind of paraffin-like crud, something you couldn't see unless the whole thing was removed. I haven't run the car after the fix yet, but I'm hoping this will at least contribute to solving my problem. Needless to say, my engine compartment is squeaky clean, which I like, and I'm trying to figure out a way to construct some sort of tube from pvc pipe and flexible hose to run oil mist out under the car.

pat in Santa Cruz · 03-04-2012, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Rogers

Shell produced an article once that said if a motor lost one drop of oil every 10 feet it would loose a quart in 25 miles. This much oil would literally coat the bottom of the car. I have had engines that didn't leak anywhere as bad as you claim this one did and the undercarrage was soaked. Mystery to me it is not coated and still dripping. You can let a Model A sit for 2 days and drop the pan and still get drips in your eye when adjusting the bearings.

I got one in the eye this morning from one sitting all week.

James, its a mystery to me as well. His car is not squeaky clean under there, the tranny is dripping somewhat, and there is a film of dirt and oil on the rear axle, but its not like some I have seen which were leaking much less. That's why I call it baffling.

James Rogers · 03-04-2012, 10:42 PM

Pat, if you find out for sure let us know. Mysteries like this baffle even the oldest and smartest of us.

BILL WILLIAMSON · 03-04-2012, 11:18 PM

Quick question, if I may, have to "resize" my early '29 filler tube, (loose in the block) what is he correct orientation of the baffles in the tube, fore & aft, or top & bottom?? Bill W.

Milton · 03-04-2012, 11:40 PM

The top baffle "hinge" is next to the engine.

JBill · 03-05-2012, 04:18 PM

Milton, can you explain? I don't see why the orientation of the baffles should make any difference at all.

CarlG · 03-05-2012, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pat in Santa Cruz

... The solution I have seen for the entire mess is a carefully installed PCV valve in the upper back corner of the valve cover, routed neatly into the Weber air filter on the car....the engine is clean, it stopped the rear main dripping and the owner is satisfied that he is polluting the air less as a bonus..

Do you have any pictures of the tube between the PCV valve and the carb, and/or specs on what PCV valve you used?

James Rogers · 03-05-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBill

Milton, can you explain? I don't see why the orientation of the baffles should make any difference at all.

This is according to the Factory Service Bulletins for July 1929. This was the first revision of the oil tube but not the last.

BILL WILLIAMSON · 03-05-2012, 06:31 PM

Oh! well, I'll try them fore & aft, They'll drain better! With them top & bottom, the bottom baffles would be left with oil puddles on them. Probably would'nt amount to a hill of beans whichever way I placed them. Momma used to tell me, put a sock in your mouth. I'll put one on my OIL SNOUT! Bill W.

Benson · 03-05-2012, 07:38 PM

JS page 1-3 has a picture of the first 3 versions ... if you remove the breather pipe, invert it and look at the end. If you see a piece of steel baffle the runs across the inside of the tube, bisecting the pipe and even with the bottom of the pipe, then you have one of the first two versions that did not work too well.

If there is no metal baffle bisecting the pipe and the angled baffle is about 1 or one and 1/2 inches above the bottom then that is the later design pipe.

03-04-2012, 12:15 PM	#21
James Rogers Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Asheville,NC Posts: 3,104	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE I posted this reply on another thread but it seems to fit here also. This is a horror story for the owner but my reply might explain why there is sometimes oil on the driver side of the engine. Even on a new engine there can be some oil on the tube and engine with absolutely no problems with the motor other than the rings have not seated. "Understand, the depth of the oil in the tray is deeper than the trough. The oil will build to the level at the rear of the tray before it returns to the pan bottom. Ford had a problem with this causing a fog inside the crankcase and oil creeping out the filler tube. To combat this he changed the design of the baffles in the filler twice and eventually returned to the original type so, 3 different tries before enlarging the tube to approx 2 1/4" for the 32 model. When he found the change to the tube did not work he installed holes in the tray flat so as to drop the level of oil in the tray. These holes started as 4 7/16" holes in each corner but had a fifth added soon after. When this still didn't do the job he increased the diameter of the holes to 1" which worked better and was the end of the modification. After this the V8 was modified for pressure which eliminated the need for the tray and solved the problem to an extent. Even after this, the problem plagued him and others so, the road tube was invented with an internal baffle that effectively solved the problem."

03-04-2012, 05:13 PM	#25
Fred K-OR Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Stayton, Oregon Posts: 3,806	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE Help, please fill in this "jargon-less" Model A guy and explain "road tube". I assume this is the thing that fits on top of the oil filler tube and has a hose that extends under the car? If that is it, I guess I had a "farmers" road tube in my engine when I started rebuilding my Huckster engine. It had a small tomato juice can stuck upside down in a Model B oil tube where a hole was cut in the can to place flexible metal tube in the hole that ran under the engine. If anyone wants a picture of this thing, I think I still have it around somewhere. __________________ Fred Kroon 1929 Std Coupe 1929 Huckster

03-04-2012, 06:25 PM	#26
James Rogers Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Asheville,NC Posts: 3,104	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) Fred, you are pretty close. What you refer to is called a Fumaze and it did the same as a road tube in later cars. On the V8 flathead, the road tube, ran from the front of the intake at the filler tube around the front of the motor and exited just under the pan rail behind the front motor mount with a slash cut in the tube. The tube was 1 1/8" steel and the slash left the front of the tube longer than the rear so air could pull the fumes out through suction.

03-04-2012, 08:14 PM	#27
Earle Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 240	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE If you use fine or course steel wool, copper wool, etc., there is no way that the wool itself can cause enough resistance to air flow coming up out of the crank case to build up enough back-pressure to "blow" oil out the rear main UNLESS the wool is clogged with dirt, sludge, etc. or packed way too tight (or the rear main is already prone to excessive leakage). Just try putting a fine steel wool pad against your mouth and blowing through it - practically no resistance at all! With two pistons going up while two are coming down there is no on-going net volume change inside the crank case, besides blow-by, to cause air flow out the filler pipe. But, of course, the higher the air flow rate through the wool (i.e. higher blow-by), the higher the back-pressure will be. So, if an engine has a lot of blow-by, the air flow could possibly get high enough to raise crank-case pressure to the point of causing main seal excessive leakage. The wool is not there to act as a "filter". It's purpose is to act as a large "condensation" surface area for the oil vapor so the liquid oil can then collect on the fibers and drain back down inside the filler tube. My steel wool has been in place for several thousand miles with no oil film in the engine compartment and only very low "normal" rear main leakage. I have a recently-rebuilt, well-run-in Schwalm-built engine which helps for very low blow-by. And as the wool is constantly coated with oil, with even occasional driving, it never rusts. Before I put the steel wool in I got a slight oil film down the outside of the filler tube and over the left side of the engine over a long time. 'Gotta inspect the wool as often as you check oil level to be safe. And you can't use things like "Brillo Pads" or other "treated" steel wool or fiber products 'cause they already have foreign substances in them to start the "clogging" process. That green Scotch-Brite in the photo looks like it was clogged with some kind of soap or cleansers or had some kind of chemical reaction with the engine oil or other atmospheric contaminents. And it looks like it hadn't been inspected for quite a while. Could that degree of clogging have possibly developed and then blown out all the engine oil in a single trip - between frequent inspections?? Other approaches besides steel wool, mentioned here, may - and apparently do -work just as well for other folks.

03-04-2012, 08:52 PM	#28
James Rogers Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Asheville,NC Posts: 3,104	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE One thing I have not seen mentioned here is where this oil went. If it was pushed out the rear main at the rate of 1 quart every 15 or 20 miles the bottom of the car should be coated even now. Not only that but anyone following this car should have oil on their car unless they were 200 yards behind him and even at that there might be some. I would guess when the car finally died the oil should be dripping from every bolt and nut and frame component under the car. The cause of the oil loss should have been VERY obvious at the site of the stop. What about it?

03-04-2012, 09:46 PM	#29
pat in Santa Cruz Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: santa cruz, calif Posts: 2,011	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE it was a major part of the baffling mystery why the underside of the car was not more oily than normal. That was a significant point I made note of from the first. I also suggested that the driver behind might have noticed an oily windshield. I have seen cars whose rear main cracked up, and they were drenched underneath even though they leaked less severely than this car did.. This very car with its old engine leaked so bad 2 years ago that no one would follow him, we made him ride at the back due to the smoke and oily windshields anyone behind him would have to suffer. So where is the new engine's oil?? The owner still insists the dipstick showed a full pan. Hes not given to falsehood, and he's not so old his memory is failing. I believe he checked the oil, and I believe he saw a full mark. Rich Falluca's experience when we called for his opinion was that a sealed breather pipe will push all the oil out the rear main in 50 miles. When this car finally broke down, the owner did say oil was pouring out the flywheel housing. The clutch was drenched. So at least some oil exited from the rear main. The theory regarding why the car undersides are not soaked is: It was a tour through city streets from down the El Camino Real, a 35 MPH street, principally stop and go with lights every block. You might get 3 blocks before hitting a red light. A certain amount of oil can accumulate in the flywheel housing due to the wind from the spinning flywheel at road speed. When coming to a stop, the oil no longer held back as well by an idling flywheel, pours out the drain hole while the car waits for the green light. Then the process begins again at the green light. We have not yet contacted whomever it was who was following this car. I suspect there would be some oil on their windshield and hood. When the owner gets back from his vacation I am going to suggest he go back to the tour destination where the car was parked for 2 hours after the first 50 miles and see if there is a huge oil spot. His trip home was solo, so no one who would have known him was behind, but he made it about 20 miles. The Scotch Brite pad was saturated with an oily emulsion typical in oil filler tubes from winter condensation. I have seen more and more of this in A filler tubes within the last few years. I suspect the increase in this frothy scum is a result of ethanol laced fuel. Ethanol fuel attracts water, some of which which when burned gets into the crankcase from normal blowby. Short trips aggravate it because the engine does not get hot enough to burn it off. During the rainy season, it is more difficult for an engine to blow off humidity when the ambient air is saturated. I am guessing the pad worked for several months prior to the wet season. The car has around 5000 miles on this engine. When the owner gets back I am eager to hear how long this "filter" has been in there. I would be cautious using things like Brillo pads today. While they might have worked in the past, todays fuel might contribute to their being a cause of trouble today. Anyone using one should keep an eye on it. OTOH, a road draft tube will help ventilate the water vapor better as well as placing the fumes below and behind the interior of the car. Its interesting what James brings up about Ford's knowing crankcase ventilation was a problem. Other manufacturers in those days did too. Buick, in 1927, designed a crankcase ventilation system that took air in from the fan through a somewhat filtered intake funnel, and exhausted it out the rear of the engine down a draft tube. They claimed at the time that the frequency of changing oil every 500 miles was now reduced to once every 2000 miles since with the ventilation and their new oil filter, contaminants that were not whisked out the vent would be trapped in the filter. They were so proud of it that they promoted it in their advertising in 1927.

03-04-2012, 10:11 PM	#30
James Rogers Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Asheville,NC Posts: 3,104	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE Shell produced an article once that said if a motor lost one drop of oil every 10 feet it would loose a quart in 25 miles. This much oil would literally coat the bottom of the car. I have had engines that didn't leak anywhere as bad as you claim this one did and the undercarrage was soaked. Mystery to me it is not coated and still dripping. You can let a Model A sit for 2 days and drop the pan and still get drips in your eye when adjusting the bearings.

03-04-2012, 10:30 PM	#31
JBill Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 702	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE Not to prolong this thread too much, but I have a newly rebuilt engine with about 500 miles on it with serious oil leaking problems. When I installed the engine I also installed one of those oil tubes with a flexible metal pipe coming out the side and extending under the car and an air-tight, machined aluminum cap. I read the Antique Engine Rebuilding admonishments about leaky rear mains and decided that that relatively small pipe (about 3/4 of an inch in diameter) just didn't allow enough crankcase pressure to escape, and that was pushing oil out the rear main. So, I removed the whole thing, after ordering a conventional tube and cap, . . . . And guess what. After I removed it I found that the flexible pipe, where it leaves the fill tube, was absolutely packed full of some kind of paraffin-like crud, something you couldn't see unless the whole thing was removed. I haven't run the car after the fix yet, but I'm hoping this will at least contribute to solving my problem. Needless to say, my engine compartment is squeaky clean, which I like, and I'm trying to figure out a way to construct some sort of tube from pvc pipe and flexible hose to run oil mist out under the car.

03-04-2012, 10:42 PM	#33
James Rogers Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Asheville,NC Posts: 3,104	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE Pat, if you find out for sure let us know. Mysteries like this baffle even the oldest and smartest of us.

03-04-2012, 11:18 PM	#34
BILL WILLIAMSON Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: FRESNO, CA Posts: 12,560	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE Quick question, if I may, have to "resize" my early '29 filler tube, (loose in the block) what is he correct orientation of the baffles in the tube, fore & aft, or top & bottom?? Bill W. __________________ "THE ASSISTANT GURU OF STUFF"

03-04-2012, 11:40 PM	#35
Milton Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 837	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE The top baffle "hinge" is next to the engine.

03-05-2012, 04:18 PM	#36
JBill Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 702	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE Milton, can you explain? I don't see why the orientation of the baffles should make any difference at all.

03-05-2012, 06:31 PM	#39
BILL WILLIAMSON Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: FRESNO, CA Posts: 12,560	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE Oh! well, I'll try them fore & aft, They'll drain better! With them top & bottom, the bottom baffles would be left with oil puddles on them. Probably would'nt amount to a hill of beans whichever way I placed them. Momma used to tell me, put a sock in your mouth. I'll put one on my OIL SNOUT! Bill W. __________________ "THE ASSISTANT GURU OF STUFF"

03-05-2012, 07:38 PM	#40
Benson Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 2,599	Re: baffling loss of oil UPDATE JS page 1-3 has a picture of the first 3 versions ... if you remove the breather pipe, invert it and look at the end. If you see a piece of steel baffle the runs across the inside of the tube, bisecting the pipe and even with the bottom of the pipe, then you have one of the first two versions that did not work too well. If there is no metal baffle bisecting the pipe and the angled baffle is about 1 or one and 1/2 inches above the bottom then that is the later design pipe.