*UPDATE*
Final Assembly continues...
Well, it's not staggering process...but I think I did pretty good for Easter weekend. Got some more stuff assembled and painted.
Stay tuned!
*UPDATE*
Rear axle and Suspension is FINISHED!
Well it is official, assembly of the rear axle is COMPLETE! Last night I got the Rocky-Mountain brakes figured out and mounted, hubs on and bolted in place and the shackle assemblies, spring and all hardware bolted up.
During the rear shackle re-design, I moved the R-M mounting "horse shoe" outboard, between the rear radius rods and the brake drum backing plate for additional clearance for the rear shackles. This put the band axle stud too close to the spokes of the wire wheels. To correct this, I cut the stud down a hair, re-drilled the cotter pin hole, ...cut down the band stud guide hoop a hair and flipped the linkage around to clear.
This compromised nothing and all is well....I have plenty of clearance and everything works.
Stay tuned....this weekend should be BIG!
*UPDATE*
Chassis Final Assembly
I took Friday off to make some much needed progress on the T. I used most of Friday to make some important stops including one at Pacific Machinery and Tool Steel for a 6" piece of hot rolled 2 1/4" dia 4140 tool steel to reproduce the damaged input shaft bearing retainer on the Chicago O.D.
My next stop was McGuire Bearing Co. to search out a new output shaft bearing to replace the chipped original:
...amazingly, all of the bearing numbers were still in use and both had a new cross over number....so I walked out with a new bearing and race $31.00 later:
After my stops, I made my way out to the shop that afternoon and all day Saturday, spending the day re-assembling the chassis for the last time...
Stay tuned for more!
Getting close to joy ride time.
Boy, I hope so Dennis.......the wait is KILLING me!
..I just want the fool thing to run and drive like it is supposed to, how I designed it to.
Clayton, keep this going. I look for your updates every day. especially Mondays.
Clayton... All you need in that last picture is handle bars and you have a scooter!
James,
Thank you kindly! I have allot of fun writing these posts for all of you...and I'm so glad you all enjoy them!
Mike,
That just made me chuckle! Most of the guys at the shop kid me for sitting on that bare frame with a steering wheel in anticipation during the first build.
*UPDATE*
A lathing we will go....
Last night I got a chance to work with our friend Troy, a retired U.S. Air Force aircraft machinist, on making a few important parts for the roadster on the the shop's Martin lathe.
As you all know, a few key parts for the Chicago overdrive and the ball bearing "4th Main" were found to be damaged upon disassembly. I am not experienced on the lathe at all Chris has always wanted to expand his self taught moderate machinist skills, so this was the perfect chance to learn from a master.
We started with simpler of the two pieces to build, the "4th Main" bearing adapter sleeve (at left):
First, we set up the the big 4-jaw chuck on the Martin and worked at getting the 2 1/4" piece of 4140 tool steel stock I acquired for the project perfectly centered with the dial indicator within .005"
Then we moved on to step-drilling and boring the piece out with the large bits:
...then it was cutting time..
By that time is was time for Troy and Chris to head home...so I stuck around for a bit longer and got the front spring mount repaired, painted and installed:
I am hoping to FINALLY get some assembly work done on the new motor this weekend and of course some more work on the machined parts...
..so stayed tuned!
*UPDATE*
More machine work....
Troy and I's work on the lathe continued Saturday as we finished up the "4th Main" bearing race adapter. First we finished turning down the OD of the piece:
...Then we used the parting tool to cut the snap ring groove and part the new retainer from the raw stock...
And here is the finished product: The new on the left, old on the right.
Stay tuned!
*UPDATE*
More spinning metal things....and some pedals
Troy and I continued our escapades in the machine shop last night changing gears to work on the Chicago O.D. part that was damaged. We started by (or at least trying to) bore out the old bearing retainer:
Sadly, this was fruitless as the steel was just too hard and even the carbide cutters were struggling a bit. I am sending this piece to our local metallurgy shop to be annealed to make it easier to cut. After we get this all machined out, the new insert cut and pressed in and the threads cut, I will send this and last weeks bearing adapter back to the metallurgy shop to be case hardened again.
Rather than fight the old retainer, we started machining down our stock for the insert:
Troy, hard at work and turning out perfection...
After Troy called it a night, I stayed on a bit and messed around with the "hogshead" (transmission cover) and the pedals. My original Hogshead (the red one seen here for mock-up purposes) was cracked, so I acquired another correct one from a friend and am in the process of cleaning, blasting and painting it. One of the major fixes for the hogshead that I have been meaning to do were the pedals. I had altered the original Model T pedals using Model A pedals for added foot room and a different look.....my fab work just wasn't up to par the first time around.
This time around, I wanted to really clean up the pedals, my welds and the general layout. I had picked up another decent set of pedals to replace my junk, rusted originals. After some cutting, welding and tweaking....I got what I was looking for:
stay tuned!
Editor's note: I do realize what group I'm talking to and I am very well that you all know what a "hogshead" is...I did a quick copy from the H.A.M.B. and forgot to adjust that for this forum.
Clayton,
Did you move the hand brake lever? That wide and offset low/high pedal looks awful far left to have any room for the hand brake. I'm sure you have it worked out but how?
Walt
Walt,
I solved that issue by simply eliminating the hand brake completely.
On the '26-27 Roadster...the hand brake is right inside the driver's door and smack-dab in the middle of the door opening, so getting in and out of my car (which is already a bit of a chore) would have been impossible.
In addition, with my Chicago O.D. installed....I never use it anyway...so I got rid of it. I never really have ever used the hand brake lever...even in a stock T unless I'm crank starting it. I always just hold her in neutral with my foot.
I did add a parking brake with better looking hand lever in the center of the car (next to the Chicago shifter) that I could maximize passenger compartment space and give it the look of most cars of the period with the controls in the center.
Clayton,
I really like the look of that pedal arrangement!
I don't want to detract from your thread but I thought you might enjoy seeing what I dragged home a few weeks ago. This is literally a barn find that's been sitting under a tarp since the Be-bop days. Jimmy
James, I would say that "Quite a find!" No engine?
Looks to have some nice mods done to it. I'd like more pics. Maybe your own thread?
Lots of work went into the body James shows. Too many pieces.
Looks like it had a door and then was riveted shut.
It would look more like a T with a set of T wheels. The way it is now a set of 21" model A wheels would bolt right on in place of the '35 wheels.
Shortened frame James?
Start your own thread and take the body off. There is a lot to explore on that car.
That is just begging for a flatty V-8 with period performance pieces. Just my .02¢.
James,
Nice find! The body looks like a newer addition. Looks like the chassis is mostly Model A...so I wouldn't be surprised if the original motor was an A mill.
*UPDATE*
Slow weekend...but still got stuff done
It turned into a slow weekend, but still got something done. Troy and I made a bit more progress on the lathe but we ran in to a stopping point. The Chicago OD bearing retainer is hardened steel and even the cutting tools we have for stuff like that is having a tough time with it...so I sent it off to be annealed and won't see it back for about a week.
So in the mean time, I gave Troy a hand on one of his projects, then spent a little time finishing up my new pedals and getting them and the new hogshead painted. Everything should be ready to install Wednesday night.
Stay tuned for more!
Clayton,
Ref. to the barn Rod, Yes it had a Model A engine. The car was built in the early 50's and the old timer who owned it made the tub from sheet aluminum about ten years ago. He passed away a few years back never getting a chance to finish it. I has a nicely made opening door on the passenger side. I put the modern pipe foam tubing around the cockpit just because people (myself also) were getting little cuts from the rolled sheet metal. Not sure what I'll do with it.
If anybody else wants to see pics or ask questions please respond to my profile email address to keep Clayton's thread on topic. Jimmy
Clayton, with all of your irons in the fire, will you be able to make on of those bearing retainers from scratch? I could sure use one, but I know you guys are under the gun. Even if you were able to just make the internal and external threads, I think I can drill and tap the clamp screw holes and cut the slots to allow it to squeeze. Keep me posted. Things are looking good so far on your ride. Dave
David,
With my Chicago, it was Troy's expert opinion that the original retainer could be saved by boring out the center a thick sleeve or plug that would be pressed into the original before the threads are cut. The original retainer is hardened steel, so I have to have it annealed first, do the machine work then have it re-hardened as original.
This will save us a ton of time and work since we are "under the gun" as you put it...which couldn't be closer to the truth.
As far as making a entirely new piece would be possible, but it might take us some time to do so. I can talk to Troy and PM you with what it would take to do so....shouldn't be much.
The inner retainer is only threaded on the inside to thread onto the input shaft:
Do you have the outer or do you need both?
Clayton, I just need the inner one that you have pictured. I am in no hurry, so don't worry about that. I will just be tickled pink to get one whenever you can manage it. Many thanks, Dave
*UPDATE*
Sadly...not much of one
Though I did make some okay progress last night, visually I don't have much because the batteries in the camera died just after my first picture.
Troy and I are kind of at a stand still on the machine work until the new carbide boring bar for cutting on the original Chicago retainer. We also can't go any farther on making the plug to fix it until we have the original part bored out.....so we're stuck.
I did get the old motor pulled apart and the parts I needed cannibalized for the new motor. It was nice to look at the old motor and see what kind of shape it was in.......I'm really surprised is lasted this long and as well as it did.
The bearings (my biggest concern) are toast. The mains are mostly still tight, but have so much end play...the entire crank can slide back and forth 1/8 " with a "clunk". The crank looks okay, but is actually an early "AA" series crank...not the later and way stronger '26-'27 "EE" series crank like the new engine. The rods are all miss-matched and all have ancient bearings as well as the mains. The cam looks okay, but the cam gear was just loose....and had no retainer nut. it has been just rattling around behind the timing cover for years like that. I don't know were the nut went as it could not have come off or broken off because It would have cause issues. I also can't believe that I FORGOT to put it on either. It had one on it when I took it apart and I swear I remember putting it on..... that is a bit embarrassing.
Anyway, I also got the hogshead assembled finally. All the pedals are painted, new cams installed, cotter pined and ready to go...so that is good right?
Here is all I got for photos last night. Saturday, I promise to make good progress and have my battery charged...and take lots of pics.
Stay tuned
*UPDATE*
"Houston, the motor has landed...repeat, the motor has landed"
Well, I guess this update doesn't need a whole lot of explanation...because "I got the motor in the car" is all I need to say to get the awesomeness across
I spent the morning getting the little stuff ready and about 1:00 pm I lugged the short block and the transmission over to the new building to start assembly. First was getting the transmission bolted up to the crank:
Originally (and on my old motor) The trans-to-flywheel bolts were just run in until snug (as per the service manual) and ran a single loop of safety wire through all for bolts with a single twist at the end. While this didn't fail, I added some hefty lock washers this time around and safety wired the 4 bolts together in pairs the correct way.
After that, I gooped up the gasket surfaces and Chris and I lowered the assembled long block in to the pan, sitting in frame:
..Then curiosity got the better of me and I mocked it up with the manifolds...
..and if I have it that far...why not the carbs too...
Stay tuned for more!
looks great. Is that exhaust flange hitting the frame in the last picture or just my imagination?
Clayton, Looking good! just one question I noticed you installed the magnets but no field coil? I am assuming your you are going to run a dist. but why the extra weight on the flywheel? just curious.
Tim,
You are not seeing things...it does over hang a bit. I will have to notch and reinforce the frame at that point to clear the manifold.
Mike,
Great question. While it is true that pulling the magnets will lighten the flywheel and add a few extra RPMs. The magnets however act as oil slingers to properly oil the transmission bands, the clutches and the front main bearing. with out this oiling, none of these will last long. Even the accessory slingers don't seem to "sling" enough volume as a full load of magnets.
The extra weight of the magnets also gives the motor more centrifugal weight for more hill climbing power. My new engine will still be able to tack up as high, but it will have the power bulldoze up an over hills in tall gear without downshifting.
I pulled the magnets from my first engine and had issues in both of these areas...so this time I decided to leave the magnets on.
According to Murry Fahnestock, adding a second flywheel by machining out the center of and bolt a second Ford flywheel to the original might be an advantage.
As Mr. Fahnestock writes in his book "Model T Speed Secrets: The Fast Ford Handbook",
"If smoother running is desired at low RPMs in high gear, then greater flywheel weight may be an advantage. Whether or not one really wants a heavier or lighter flywheel depends on the manner in which the speedster is to be driven. If the speedster is to be paraded through traffic and driven on rough roads, with only an occasional burst of speed...a heavier flywheel may be desired. For use on a half mile dirt track or where quick acceleration is needed, the Ford flywheel even without the magnets is sufficient. As a general rule, The Ford flywheel has ample weight for all occasions unless the magnets have been removed."
Clayton you better watch what you say. Remember the special has just a flywheel in it and according to the Schurman's, there is enough oil slinging around in there that ther should be enough lubrication. I've taken the steel inspection covor off and replaced it with a plexiglass piece in place and is constant motion of oil and lot of oil mist. With my Ford-Faithful-Oiler I get strong steady stream of oil to my front main. I am just going from what my engine rebuilder told me. I guess everyone is different. I hope my engine survives with just slingers in there.
Chris & Clayton - I can't say that I'm speaking from experience here, however, I recall reading on a forum post some time ago, that even with the magnets removed and no oil slingers installed, as you say Chris, there is still enough oil being "slung" around. The same post also went on to say that a very good idea on an engine with no starter, to install a ring gear on the flywheel anyway, not only in case someone wants to install a starter at a later date, but because the ring gear helps the flywheel pick up more oil. Seemed to make sense to me,........for what it's worth,.........harold
Clayton, The only problem with magnets, that I can see, is that they somtimes break. That being said, it can be argued that the extra weight adds mass to the rotating parts and helps the car maintain momentum. I think if I were after that effect, I would use a machined ring, with grooves milled in it to sling oil and bolt that to the flywheel. It would be fairly easy to match the weight of the magnets and would be a much safer assembly at higher RPMs
Chris,
I know, but I have heard it both ways. The oil "slingers" in the "Special" certainly do seem to do their job, but as I have had it described to me, "nothing oils like a full load of the original magnets".
The main point that I was really trying to get across was the added weight. The oil slingers do keep the oil flowing, but you loose the extra weight of the magnets which helps with acceleration and speed...but you loose some centrifugal weight for more hill climbing power.
That is all I'm saying.
Harold,
I have heard that as well, but I 'm not sure on that. My old motor had no magnets and no slingers (it does have a ring gear) and I always had issues with clutches needing adjustment way too often. The way I told was that without ample oiling to the clutches without magnets or the slingers, clutch life can be shortened due to them not getting enough oil. They may also require frequent adjustment.
That is why I decided to keep the magnets this time.
John,
I know that is certainly a possibility. My ideal setup would be to make an auxiliary flywheel and bolting it to the existing flywheel as Mr. Fahnestock describes, but we just did not have all the tooling to do it and I did not see a major issue with simply keeping the magnets.
..I am NOT an expert here, just putting up what I have read, learned and heard and my take on this info.
There are many ways to build these motors and I'm not trying to knock anybody's advice or opinions. Your feed back is important to me and is how I learn and expand my T knowledge!
Clayton very cool looking motor. Looks like you will be cutting into your hood. Nice!
I have listened to opinions and done my own testing. This is what I found running 10-40 oil cold.
I have no magnets and have 2 spools on every place you can put one and I took the mag post out and ran my engine for 30 seconds or so. In that time 3 drops of oil came out of the hole. 2 went up and back in and 1 made it out of the hogshead. I went as far as sticking my finger in the hole all the way and ran the engine for about 5 seconds and it was not soaked. Again it was cold oil and I had it at an idle on the finger test.
The oil was cold and would have a huge effect on how it flowed etc. BUT my next engine will have slingers on it for more oil splashing around. I think lots of oil is better than less.That would be an opinion...
Clayton,Chris you both bring up good points but the way I see it theres only one way to settle this A grudge match! Winner take all! (or at least bragging rights) Clayton's 26' against Chris's special. Only then can we decide who has the better oiling system and better car!!
P.S can I race the winner?
Mike, bring it on!!!
Mike,
Now see what your doing, you're are trying to get us both all riled up!
...we just might have to settle this "hash" on the salt at Bonneville.
...and I do have to admit, that the "champ race" you also have in mind might be a bit "one-sided"...
...But both of our cars would give you a run for your money...at the least ;)
Clayton - you really, really should consider a high volume oil kit.. The flywheel even without magnets acts like a centrifugal oil pump when you tap the hogshead in line with the flywheel. Terry Horlick experimented and described how well it works years ago on the forum, now it's available in kit form from the vendors for $79.95 or as castings you plumb yourself for $27.50 http://www.snydersantiqueauto.com/1713
It really works: http://www.texastparts.com/mm5/manuals/T3081Testing.pdf
But if you still keeps the magnets, you should put the coil ring in there too - you may need the alternator output sometime, after you button it up it's hard to reach..
Roger,
I have been thinking about that....and now would be the time to do it since I don't have the Hogshead bolted down yet.
Clayton, "One-sided"? Not sure what your talking about. I rarely drive my car much over 25 mph and I only have one carb. Most likely I won't have time for the salt flats this year unfortnately. But it would be fun to get the cars together for some fun. I have no problem driving down to Portand some weekend this summer and I may even be able to con some other local T's to follow. Give it some thought and pick a day.
Mike,
You mean to tell me you've never opened that RAJO of yours up at least once?
Lol! I was just givin' you a hard time! That really does sound like a heck of allot of fun Mike and I would certainly be up for it!
I will talk it over with Chris and let you know!
Instead of putting the fittings on the hogshead, just braze or weld a fitting on the starter cup. If you have ever bumped the start button with the cup off, you know that there is lots of oil available there!
There is a lot to be said about the weight (inertia) of the magnets too. My touring doesn't have any magnets, and if I don't feather the low pedal a little bit, it is easy to stall the engine. However in my old truck with magnets, you can pretty much just stomp the pedal and go.
From what I read in the Texas T's info they are talking about the pickup for the oil being in line with the flywheel. If I mounted the fitting to the starter cap, would the oil flow be the same or less. there might be a lot of oil present there but would it be strong enough to oil the front main. It would be a lot lees work then having to take my hogshead off. Can I do the high volume oil line attached to the starter cap or is it more recommended to be attached to the hogs head?
Chris and Jeff,
I would be curious to see just how much volume the starter cap oil line would output.
According to Texas T's testing of the high volume (hogshead mount) oil line kit and the older Mag post oil line kit, the results were quite different.
The High Volume kit output approx 1 gallon/ minute while the Mag post kit only put approx 1 gallon every 15 minutes.
...and the Mag post is almost directly over the flywheel! I have the feeling that the starter cap line would not put out anymore then the mag post...if not less, but it would have to be tested to confirm.
I was also giving you a hard time. I open up that car when ever it's safe to do so. Before this car I never had a police car stop me in an old car but second time out in the speedster I was told to slow down a little! Top speed who knows, I hit a pothole at a high rate of speed one time and got airborne that brought me back to the real world quickly. I guess that's what they meant when they say she's scary fast.
Clayton,
I have seen lines on the starter cap before, but I don't have any personal experience other than seeing how much oil comes out with just a quick bump of the button! I can only imagine how much would come out if the engine had started! Of course that was on a car with magnets. Try it with the cap off, but be prepared, or if you have an old cap, put a fitting on and run a hose into a bucket. Different fitting/hose sizes could be experimented with also. The only difference I see is that the starter cap set up would be strictly gravity feed and the hogshead setup may actually force feed somewhat.
Mike your car is fast but we still need to run it up over 80 or so. I am ready when you are...
Mike,
I kinda figured Judging from the picture you posted, your running a 4-valve RAJO? I have heard those have ALLOT of snap with a properly built T motor!
Jeff,
That is very true and my theory on flow rate from the starter cap is purely speculative. it would certainly be worth the testing!
I could certainly see, as you mentioned, that the starter cap line might have some problems getting oil to the front main because it would act as a gravity feed system...and they are almost on the same plane.
The Hogshead High volume kit would seem to act almost as a gravity feed with a force feed "assist"..
Yep, your right. 4-valve with 202 chev valves custom intake and exhaust headers pressurized A crank with a frount plate bosch dist. 12 speed forward thru a 3 speed seattle trans and a rukstall. All built by local T legend the late Stan Bender thus the Bender special in his honor He was a great T guy and friend. June will be one year gone and I miss him. sorry for hijacking your thread. I really enjoy your build.
Mike,
Wow....yeah that would really get up and go for sure! I know there were a few different auxiliary gearbox makers, but I don't think I have ever seen a Seattle 3-speed aux. I have a Chicago in my roadster...and I thought 6 speeds was cool!
The seattle univeral is a very good trans, it mounts back by the rearend and has constent mesh gears like the new warfords which makes shifting easier than a rusktell. Also it has a steep O.D I think somthing like 38% I was told. Makes sence as you really should be moving to engage it I like to run 55-60 before I shift and it. Brings her rpms way back. I was blown away the first time I drove it. If you can find one trust me get it.
OH! The Univeral 6-speed made in Seattle, WA. I know EXACTLY what your talking about. Very similar to the Rocky-Mountain 6-speed. Unique trans, sequential shift...odd ball for sure.
Never seen one mounted up to a Ruxtell though. Now, you just have to add a Warford and you would be set...with 36 speeds! :D
"Hey Mike, put her in Low, Low, Low, Low range and low pedal"
...That thing would climb a tree!
Clayton, I was wondering if we could have more info on your engine? As I recall, you decided to go with a reground cam and advanced timing gear. I am quite interested in this combination and I am wondering if this comes into play with your choice in having the extra weight of the magnets with the flywheel?....Thanks, John M.
John,
The motor is a '26 block that has been bored .080" over and runs aluminum Egge pistons, balanced '26-7 "EE" series crank, balanced rods and a rebuilt and balanced transmission.
The cam is Full Race T cam, valves/seats are 302 SB Ford hardened stainless topped off with a "Z" head, Burns intake and two specially built Stromberg 81s. Ignition is a Mallory Auto-advance unit.
I wanted to build a fairly hot T motor, but really didn't have the the funds to swing a heavy crank 9and the machine work), full pressure oiling and an OHV head.
The magnets were left on primarily to benifit better oiling to the transmission, bands and clutches. They also help with smoother running and more centrifagul weight for better hill climbing power.
My old motor had the magnets removed and no dippers and contantly had issues with insufficent oiling and I could not power into hills without down shifting.
Scroll down about half way for a view of the Bendix cap oiler. I can't find the original posting introducing the idea but I recall a clear tube was used and showed lots of oil flowing.
http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/50893/72043.html
Cool engine, Clayton what kind of cam are you going to run is it a new cam or a regrind? Whats the duration? Also how much bigger are the 302 valves from stock, will you have cut the headgasket? Last question are you doing any porting. and yeah 36 gears would be fun! but not sure I can even count that high keep an eye out for a warford for me so I can break the sound barrier with my T in double over!
Clayton, Can you clarify whether or not you are using an advanced timing gear ? Thanks, John M.
Mike,
The cam in the new motor is a re-ground original.
I don't know the lift and duration off hand...would have to look in my notes. I do remember that it was the same or similar to a 3/4 race Isky Flathead V8 cam. I don't think the 302 valves are bigger by a whole lot, but I can measure them out.
Stock head gasket fits just fine.
John,
I believe the full race cam is ground with a few degrees advance, but I don't know about the timing gear. I believe it is a one-off cast in aluminum from a steel original.
Clayton, Thank you for the reply. My opinion, and please understand that this is just that; an opinion,is that in order to truly realize the potential of that cam and two 81's you are going to have to get that engine turning some higher RPMs. The magnets on the flywheel may be counterproductive in this respect. Advancing the valve timing should help some what, but my gut feeling is you would be better off with one 81 regardless. Again,just my opinion. That being said, I can't wait to see how she runs and goes. I wish you luck and want to thank you for keeping everyone informed about this great project of yours.
John,
No need to apologize, I appreciate input, advice and opinions.
I don't think I will have that much of a problem...at least I hope not. I think I will be able to tach her up as high with or without the magnets....it might take her a little longer to get there. Heck, I can always pull the magnets off if it is too much
The cam is also pretty radical and the twin 81's were custom built specifically for this motor, cam, head and ignition.
We'll just have to see.
2 carbs look better than 1 anyway.
..See? Dennis is in the right mind-set! lol!
Clayton,
About getting oil to the front to the engine, here is another option:
http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/179374/210494.html?1305073751
Greatly increased flow compared to the standard mag post oiler and no holes to cut in the hogshead.
Jim
If two is good four is better. I remember reading the great engine designer builder Harry Miller believed an engine should have one carb per cyl. He once built a race boat engine using two of his V12 on central crankcase using 24 carbs!! and yes he also had people question his design. If you never heard of miller,(I would be surprised) read up. He and his shop forman made history.
Jim, I did the same thing with no magnets and got nothing out of my magpost. I even made the scoop thing and removed the mag pickup.
When you did that test did you engine have magnets or flippers ?
Jim,
I like that idea, very well thought out. I think that is how I will go as far as an outside oil line...should yield plenty of volume as you test shows.
Mike,
I do know of Harry Miller and have always loved his designs. His V-16 engines built for the Garwood "Miss America VIII" are also quite impressive.
Jerry,
Interesting that you got no oil flow. The other T in the shop and my old engine had no magnets. My old motor leaked like crazy. The other speedster had the mag post loose a screw...oil came out like a river down the hogshead...