Pushrods/oiling

[pbf777]

I just browsed through a couple of high rpm FE dyno sheets.  Both went to 7200-7500 rpm and had a steady increase of oil pressure, with exception of a 2-3 psi flicker at the top. 

     Not generally practiced in your typical dyno testing, but now hold that FE at that R.P.M. under load, as though your running the 1/2 or 1 mile drags, or perhaps even as if your on the back stretch at Daytona!  I bet it won't hold a steady pressure for long, and you'll have to decide when to let-up.         

     Scott.

[blykins]

I just browsed through a couple of high rpm FE dyno sheets.  Both went to 7200-7500 rpm and had a steady increase of oil pressure, with exception of a 2-3 psi flicker at the top. 

     Not generally practiced in your typical dyno testing, but now hold that FE at that R.P.M. under load, as though your running the 1/2 or 1 mile drags, or perhaps even as if your on the back stretch at Daytona!  I bet it won't hold a steady pressure for long, and you'll have to decide when to let-up.         

     Scott.

You'd actually be surprised.  I've got some FE and BBF pulling truck engines out there that basically spin almost at WOT for 20-25 seconds straight.   They hold in there pretty well. 

[frnkeore]

My question is: why are people going to push rod oiling? Is it because after market, non adjustable rockers are easier/cheaper to make that way?

Is there a weakness in the original rocker arm system, including oiling, that I don't know about?

It seems to me, that with the FE having a problem with valve train weight, to begin with, adding oil to the push rods, is counter productive and has it's own problems, such as the over oiling, that's talked about.

Even with a dry sump, I wouldn't feel comfortable with so much oil, in the top side of the engine.

[blykins]

Pushrod weight has no bearing on anything.   Oil in the pushrod would again, have no bearing on anything.

Also, there shouldn't be over-oiling, in any situation, regardless of whether it's oiled through the head or through the pushrods.  I will even venture to say that it's *harder* to over-oil when you're oiling through the pushrods only, because the lifters meter the oil going through them.  This is especially the case with hydraulic lifters.  Even so, guys over-oil the top end with factory setups all the time. 

Modern rocker arm systems, including my own rocker arms, T&D street, T&D race, etc., use common 5/16" ball tipped pushrods.  All-in-all, pushrods are cheaper and easier to get, without having to custom order ball/cup pushrods, 3/8" ball pushrods, etc. 

Just so you know, Cup engines run dry sump and they run with the valvetrain almost submerged in oil. 

[frnkeore]

Pushrod weight has no bearing on anything.   Oil in the pushrod would again, have no bearing on anything.

Thats news to me. So, you can run solid HTed, steel push rods w/o worrying about how it will effect the springs? The added enercia won't effect opening or closing?

Also, there shouldn't be over-oiling, in any situation, regardless of whether it's oiled through the head or through the pushrods.  I will even venture to say that it's *harder* to over-oil when you're oiling through the pushrods only, because the lifters meter the oil going through them.  This is especially the case with hydraulic lifters.  Even so, guys over-oil the top end with factory setups all the time. 

SBF push rods, have a .080 hole, .080 x 16 = .0802 sq in. A .320 hole, =.0804 sq in. A pretty big leak.

Modern rocker arm systems, including my own rocker arms, T&D street, T&D race, etc., use common 5/16" ball tipped pushrods.  All-in-all, pushrods are cheaper and easier to get, without having to custom order ball/cup pushrods, 3/8" ball pushrods, etc. 

So, it more about the cost of the push rods?

Just so you know, Cup engines run dry sump and they run with the valvetrain almost submerged in oil.

Cup cars, do it with spring oilers, to cool the valve springs so, that they will last 350 - 500 miles @ 9k+ rpm and I believe they pump it back out with the dry sump pump.

[blykins]

Pushrod weight has no bearing on anything.   Oil in the pushrod would again, have no bearing on anything.

Thats news to me. So, you can run solid HTed, steel push rods w/o worrying about how it will effect the springs? The added enercia won't effect opening or closing?

Also, there shouldn't be over-oiling, in any situation, regardless of whether it's oiled through the head or through the pushrods.  I will even venture to say that it's *harder* to over-oil when you're oiling through the pushrods only, because the lifters meter the oil going through them.  This is especially the case with hydraulic lifters.  Even so, guys over-oil the top end with factory setups all the time. 

SBF push rods, have a .080 hole, .080 x 16 = .0802 sq in. A .320 hole, =.0804 sq in. A pretty big leak.

Modern rocker arm systems, including my own rocker arms, T&D street, T&D race, etc., use common 5/16" ball tipped pushrods.  All-in-all, pushrods are cheaper and easier to get, without having to custom order ball/cup pushrods, 3/8" ball pushrods, etc. 

So, it more about the cost of the push rods?

Just so you know, Cup engines run dry sump and they run with the valvetrain almost submerged in oil.

Cup cars, do it with spring oilers, to cool the valve springs so, that they will last 350 - 500 miles @ 9k+ rpm and I believe they pump it back out with the dry sump pump.

Frank, things aren't like they used to be 50 years ago.  Guys are running more spring pressure with hydraulic rollers than they were with huge solid flat tappets in the 60's.  You can't just buy a factory replacement pushrod from Melling and expect it to last.  New pushrods are chrome moly steel and typically they are 5/16" or 3/8" .080" wall, but we have run up to 7/16" diameter with a .165" wall thickness.  It absolutely has no bearing on the springs, the valves, or anything else. 

A SBF pushrod can have anything up to .100" orifice, but that doesn't mean you have to order them that way.   In addition, in most cases a hydraulic lifter will meter the oil going to the pushrod.  In a solid lifter case, I use restricted pushrods. 

And yes, it's absolutely about the cost of the pushrods and the quality of the pushrods.   If you order a custom set of ball/cup pushrods or 3/8-5/16" ball pushrods, you will pay $200-250.   If you order a set of 5/16" straight tubing pushrods, they are about $125. 

Also, yes again, Cup cars run a dry sump and scavenge from the valve covers in a lot of cases, but the top end is flooded with oil.  Nothing wrong with it.

[My427stang]

Another benefit of pushrod oiling is every rocker gets the same amount of oil, unlike a factory setup that bleeds at every rocker in a series and the end rockers can get fed less volume than the ones closer to the feed

[pbf777]

You'd actually be surprised.  I've got some FE and BBF pulling truck engines out there that basically spin almost at WOT for 20-25 seconds straight.   They hold in there pretty well.

     Surprised?  Not really, One would expect your product to "hold in there pretty well", or hopefully you'd been run out-a-town by now.       

     But, not intending to attack anyone,          I just was attempting to point out that in anything less than a well thought out and executed with the appropriate components intended for the endeavor engine effort, even so, and particularly in the the Ford FE engine, oil control as some may envision it may prove be somewhat of an illusion.         

     Scott.

[pbf777]

Another benefit of pushrod oiling is every rocker gets the same amount of oil, unlike a factory setup that bleeds at every rocker in a series and the end rockers can get fed less volume than the ones closer to the feed

     This is one example of the oil control challenges, and if one understands the O.E.s original intention, then the delivery would be perhaps as reliable as the alternate provided, and perhaps could be regarded as more efficient.  But as is in most any engineering effort there will be deficiencies, my point is this observation is why although popularly practiced, the institution of a "restrictor" for oil control here only exacerbates the problem otherwise.  Simply put, another illusion!         

     Scott.

[My427stang]

Another benefit of pushrod oiling is every rocker gets the same amount of oil, unlike a factory setup that bleeds at every rocker in a series and the end rockers can get fed less volume than the ones closer to the feed

     This is one example of the oil control challenges, and if one understands the O.E.s original intention, then the delivery would be perhaps as reliable as the alternate provided.  But as is in most any engineering effort there will be deficiencies, my point is this observation is why although popularly practiced, the institution of a "restrictor" for oil control here only exacerbates the problem otherwise.  Simply put, another illusion!         



     Scott.

I may be mininterpreting your message, but I don't really buy that any of these are illusions.  We have a 60 year old design, that was, in it's hayday, making 425 horsepower.  Now, mild versions are well above 500 and using completely different components, different journal sizes, more aggressive camshafts, the OE just doesn't cut it.  So good builders correct it.  That being said, I don't think pushrod oiling is required, I really like the idea, but I do think that the 58 Edsel 361 design was inadequate for 550+ hp or thinking that even the CJ "pan lid" windage tray met oil requirements, would be a bigger illusion

Now if your saying that the original FE was adequate for the orginal uses, I'd say absolutely, then I agree completely, and a 200-350 hp motor likely needs absolutely nothing to run all day, but overall building for the intended use, these changes are generally for the better.

[frnkeore]

New pushrods are chrome moly steel and typically they are 5/16" or 3/8" .080" wall, but we have run up to 7/16" diameter with a .165" wall thickness.  It absolutely has no bearing on the springs, the valves, or anything else.

If this is true, then the weight of the lifter, means nothing also and why do you use aluminum rockers?

I was taught that the weight of everything in the valve train means something and that lighter, w/o failure, increases rpm, given the same spring pressure. Am I wrong there, too?

You talk about 50 years ago well, 50 yrs ago, you had no choice on valve stems and had to run 3/8, today you do but, people still build FE's with 3/8 stems when they should be built with 7mm or 5/16 stems. But, I rarely see that, just a few 11/32 stems, at least on this forum and I consider it the best one for the FE.

Personally, I like the original rocker design and oiling. It did the job "back in the day" at 7K rpm for 500 miles at 80 - 100% throttle, with no oil issues. FE's aren't run that hard today.

[blykins]

It seems like we get into the same arguments on a regular basis, which basically boils down to the fact that you disagree with how things are done differently today in comparison to "back in the day." 

Concentrate on lightening the valve end of the parts.   The pushrod is on the lifter side, which is only subject to the lobe acceleration.  The rocker arm multiplies this and then acceleration and inertia become super critical.   I would consider the rocker arm moment of inertia to be looped into this, TO THE POINT where you start losing lift because of extreme spring pressure. 

In addition, I don't know any engine builders who give up pushrod strength for weight loss.  A 5/16" .105" pushrod will support up to 750 lbs of open spring pressure, but it will also deflect a great amount in comparison to a 3/8" .135" pushrod.   The more robust the pushrod, the less deflection and less loss of lift at the valve you encounter.   FE's have very long pushrods and this exacerbates the issue. 

Aluminum rockers are nice because they are less expensive to make.  There are companies that make FE tool steel rocker arms and the issue isn't necessarily the weight, but it's the deflection.   Aluminum rocker arms have engineered ratio built into them.  If you've never measured lift at the valve with an aluminum rocker arm and a checking spring, I would suggest that you try it once.  You'll end up with a lot more lift than you should have. 

I will always opt for pushrod oiling on an individual rocker arm.  Not a fan of cylinder head oiling unless they are factory rockers or solid lifter blocks. 

I haven't sent out an FE head (or any other head for that matter) with 3/8" valves in a very long time and I would venture to say that none of the other builders have either.  11/32" is a standard and some of us dabble in smaller diameter valves. 

[cjshaker]

Good luck, Brent

[gdaddy01]

I love the information , I feel I am gaining from all YOUR hard work , Brent

[pbf777]

I may be mininterpreting your message, but I don't really buy that any of these are illusions.  We have a 60 year old design, that was, in it's hayday, making 425 horsepower.  Now, mild versions are well above 500 and using completely different components, different journal sizes, more aggressive camshafts, the OE just doesn't cut it.  So good builders correct it.  That being said, I don't think pushrod oiling is required, I really like the idea, but I do think that the 58 Edsel 361 design was inadequate for 550+ hp or thinking that even the CJ "pan lid" windage tray met oil requirements, would be a bigger illusion

Now if your saying that the original FE was adequate for the original uses, I'd say absolutely, then I agree completely, and a 200-350 hp motor likely needs absolutely nothing to run all day, but overall building for the intended use, these changes are generally for the better.

     In utilizing the example you presented, I was attempting to demonstrate one such "illusion" of the popularly practiced restrictor installation to limit excessive oil loss to the rockers arm system in the FE, these such practices being often because "that's just the way we always done it", for "oil control", and it worked in some instances, just not all, aka we perhaps just created a new problem, this becoming evident particularly if one looks more closely, as in your observation of inequality of oil delivery among the rocker arms.  And actually if you think about which process is more efficient at delivering oil to the rocker arms, whether thru the passage in the block & head to the shafts or thru each individual pushrod and spilled about the rocker, the 1958 Edsel wins hands down, no matter the horse power!           

     Now, I didn't say that the observation of oil losses in the O.E. system as often encountered isn't perhaps excessive, particularly considering availability in some applications, but perhaps other means might be practiced which would enhance the O.E.'s engineering rather than short-circuiting it, as in perhaps the "illusion" of proper oil control created by the simple restrictor.  This is how I intended my previous post to be interpreted.           

     Also, there are a lot of different reasons why some components appear in even high dollar engine assemblies that may have nothing to do with being a solution to a particular engineering failure by the O.E., but they often do require significant help.

Scott.