My '14 does not have an outside oiler. I have scanned a lot of the forum posts and am not sure that I really want to put holes in my hogs head and oil pan. The car has been around the block a few times in 102 years – and clearly today's oils are superior to oil of the day-likely not leaving the front of the engine dry... So do I really need to add one? Add to this that I live in south east Texas and have few hills to deal with. I am seeking your advice here – To oiler or not to oiler – that is the question… AND – if oiler is the answer – which is best and least "intrusive"? Thanks for your continued support!
Considering what internal line there is, I would say yes, it is good insurance. IMO, the least obtrusive way is to add another accessory internal line on the left side. Mike Bender's video on You Tube shows him installing one. But you need to remove the engine and pull the pan and hugs head to do it. It is totally undetectable on the outside when done.
Next least obtrusive is a mag post oiler. It takes the place of the mag post and uses a hollow bolt up in the timing cover to feed the oil. No permanent modifications required, but it is obviously noticeable.
Past that, your probably going to have to make a hole of some type some where. I used the starter Bendix cover, those are cheap to replace, obviously having a '14, you don't have that option.
The magneto plug oiler and trans inspection plate oiler do not require any holes drilled. Both work well.
(Message edited by rich eagle on March 06, 2017)
Use the mag post type that doesn't require cutting or drilling any holes.
At about 6:30 minutes you can see this internal oil line.
Yes, it's a good thing to have. All the parts dealers sell an outside oiler that takes oil through the mag post and requires no extra holes anywhere.
Oil comes from the mag post...
...flows down to the front of the engine...
...and is fed into an already-existing bolt hole.
Chaffins has announce they will be producing the faithful Ford oiler. If you look at where it takes oil from and where it delivers it, you will see it offers plenty of drop. That would be my vote over the mag post oiler. The scoop on the hogs head would be fine to me on all but the rarest hogs heads. Just my opinion.
I just recently installed the inside oil lines, part number 3081ACC from Langs. Does anyone have any experience with either one of these? (L/R side) Seemed like a simple solution. Easy to install.
I've had a Sure Feed Oiler on my 13 Touring for over 55 years, and it's a good one. It's exactly the same as the Ford Faithful, and is even made by the same company. My other cars have nothing, and I have no problems with them either. The choice is yours, but I'd definitely not mess up my hogs head by putting one of those TTP oilers on it.
I'm with Peter on this one, where is the data that supports the outside oiler is required? How many of the fifteen million engines Ford built had issues due to oil starvation of the front main bearing?
Saying "it wouldn't hurt to have the extra oil" isn't enough justification for me
I'll see your "data" and raise one personal experience:
The catch "funnel" on the front oiler of The Beast plugged up
with band fuzz, starving the front end of oil and causing rod
bearings 1 and 2 to dynamite themselves, which resulted in a
rebuild that cost about 40 fun tickets, all said and done. That
little funnel is not accessible for inspection and cleaning involves
removing the front cover and blowing air back up the tube and
scattering the wad wherever it might go. While this remains a
constant, even with an outside oiler, having a 2nd system working
to bring oil forward doubles a guy's chances to avoid an oil
Someone clue me in here ... how does the mag terminal oil
collection end pick up oil ? I am having a hard time visualizing
a pick up that really moves any oil at this location.
I have the same type as Steve Jelf. _It's a bolt-on accessory that can be installed very easily and without drilling, so it can also be easily un-installed. _The darned thing actually works pretty well and is a nice thing to have when going uphill.
Any reason you used compression instead of flare fittings? I was taught to use flare as they could absorb more engine vibration than a compression.
With the flywheel spinning in oil and the magnets acting as paddles, I have no trouble with the idea that a lot of oil is thrown up at the top of the hogshead, including the mag post hole. One of these days I'm going to disconnect the front end of that tube and run the engine to see how much oil comes out. I've seen all sorts of speculation on whether the mag post oiler really works, but I've never seen anybody post actual evidence one way or the other.
I used compression fittings because that's what came with the oiler.
I agree with Larry about cutting into the hogshead when there are so many other options that work well without the mutilation. After hearing stories about how the front bearings could lack oil in some instances, i decided to add the mag oiler which i modified slightly with a die grinder to get the maximum output, works great and puts plenty of oil to the front. Then when i had my engine out last year for trans work i decided to add the R/S oiler, because why not, the more oil the better right?, well in my case, not really. With both oilers i was getting much more blow-by out of the lifter gallery, and my two front plugs started fouling. After a few weeks of pulling and cleaning fouled plugs i decided to go back to square one and remove the only upgrade i had made before this happened, the R/S line, and it solved the smoking and fouling problem. The Model T is a quirky breed indeed.
For Peter and Philip, no, you don't need to add one. When the original oil line fails to supply adequate oil, and you lose rod bearings in 1 & 2, you'll add yourselves to the statistical balance of those of us who have been there, and probably re-think the proposition.
I have to admit I grieved a bit over the "butchering" of the hogshead in my T, but it came to me that way, and having just checked the condition of my connecting rods, I got over it.
The Ford Faithfull oiler does not require making holes in the hog's head.
Same for the starter bendix cover oiler.
I disconnected a mag post oiler once and ran the engine.
Seems like it took 20 seconds to get oil and best I can remember it took 40 to 60 seconds to get a cupful of oil.
That was cold number 10 oil, hot oil will no doubt flow faster.
There was no mag post though, the mag was dead, the car ran with a distributor.
The mag post will restrict flow.
Some random thoughts regarding oiling from a Model T newb:
- Model T hogsheads are not rare (ok...I'm sure a few types are...but you know what I mean)
- Anything mechanical approaching 100 years old is REALLY reliant on adequate lubrication.
- I don't want to roach out a rod bearing....that would suck....like really suck.
- The Texas T oiler that I'm installing has an awesome, high quality look to it.
- I'm dubious about the ability of the mag post oiler to move enough oil to make a difference. Like Steve Jelf, however, I'm basing that on sheer uneducated opinion. The physics just doesn't look right to me. But heck, I could be wrong. It's happened once before :-)
- The Texas T webpage has a pretty good write-up about their oiler's abilities....seems impressive. Of course, they're trying to sell you an oiler so....yeah.
- I kind of enjoyed "butchering" my hogshead. The instructions and template were very nicely done and my nifty Dremel Tool made it fun.
The Texas T type oiler has all the markings of a "best possible"
way to collect the maximum amount of oil to drain forward to the
same common point as the others. The oil pick up point really is
the only differences between these. The mag post pick up looks
largely obstructed BY the mag post. The trans inspection cover
types also appear to have minimal oil collection capabilities. Adding
a debris screen just looks to add obstruction to any oil getting to
the intake port. Am I wrong ?
What can a person do to add a Texas T front oiler to an assembled
engine without filling the pan with metal shavings ? Would a bunch
of magnets stuffed inside be enough ? Other ideas ?
In addition to lubrication, oil carries heat away from bearings. The compressive strength of Babbitt diminishes quickly above the temp it is designed to operate at. Once it becomes soft it pounds itself out very quickly.
The only hesitation I would have to a TTP oiler would be putting it on a very early hogshead (square hole).
A car fouling plugs due to too much oil has a ring issue.
The mag post oilers that I have had were next to useless. If I rebuild the engine the TTP part is a good one, however Gary's conversion to the bendix can be done with an engine tear down and supplies plenty oil. KGB
Meant to say bendix cover and without an engine tear down. KGB
I didn't read EVERY word of EVERY post, but I don't think anyone mentioned band material. As far as I know Scandinavia (Old and new) as well as Kevlar produce "Fuzz" that can plug the funnel. Wood does NOT. Frankly, they don't wear much at all after getting seated in and driven properly. Whatever amount of material that does come off of them is in tiny particles that easily flow with the oil. I run wood bands in both of mine and I do not run any sort of auxiliary oiler. My TT had some type of mag post oiler on it when I got it. I don't know what brand it was, but the inside of it was drier than a popcorn fart. It wasn't doing ANYTHING. It came off when I decided to rebuild the engine a couple of years later and never went back on. The Touring did not and still does not have an auxiliary oiler.
If I were to decide to run another type of band material, I would probably add one, but you can bet it would be one that did not require drilling any holes in any original T parts. But seeing as how I'm completely satisfied with my wood bands, I don't see that happening. If I ever burn out a bearing, you guys will be the first to know. Just like I'll tell you if I ever break my arm cranking right handed.
Thanks for all the info. Sounds like the mag post option is a cheep easy non-intrusive option - if for nothing else - that warm fuzzy feeling... :-). Hal - I too have wood band liners I just put in from Jim Guinn. The lint concern was part of the decision to go with wood - plus the litany of folks posting cracked drums from Kevlar - tho many also swear by them - Wood just looked like a good option-and boy do they grab!
Again thanks all for the comments...
Happy Motoring - Humble Oil
Philip....one bit of evidence is that, near the end of Model T production, the Ford engineers installed a bigger scoop for the internal oiler.
They must've been trying to fix some kind of shortcoming.
For mag post oiler test results go to:
My Touring oiler works great. See you at the meeting Wednesday evening.
Hal, there's much to recommend wood linings, perhaps the "log jam" of splinters I found in the cover screen and the elbows of the outside oil line have more to do with running the linings too long - (ten years, probably well over 10,000 miles).
On my '10 the bolt hole that is used to get oil to the front does not go through to the sump so that was not an option when I wanted to add an oiler and I certainly did not want to mess with the pan and hogs head so I got a pipe that was a press fit into the oil filler neck ( copper toilet bowl overflow pipe ) and soldered a fitting into it and ran a line from the mag post to it. The oil filler cap fits right into the pipe extension and the best part is that you can take off the oil filler cap and watch the oil pour out into the sump! It works great and causes no permanent damage.
Val, can you tell us about the rate of flow from the mag post ?
(Neat adaptation !)
My dad's 1917 touring has a mag post oiler set up the same as the one show below. The tube goes into an extension on the breather. It was on the car when he bought it from the original owner in 1949. I believe it also has a strap around the tube that is attached to one of the valve cover studs to keep it from rattling around.
Really no different than what you described.
Has anyone checked the flow of an auxiliary oiler when the car is parked facing uphill?
Just a thought….
Erik that is exactly how mine is set up and here I thought I was the first one to come up with the idea.
Rich I can't measure the flow with any degree of accuracy but it is a constant stream about 1/8 to 1/4 " in diameter. I crank start my car and the flow has always started before I can let go of the crank and get around to the side of the car to see it so it seems to start almost instantly. No doubt in my mind that it is an effective way to get oil up to #1.
Thanks Val. That should allay fears the mag post would interfere with an adequate flow.
Just a thought, If where you drive is mainly flat lands I don't really think you need an oilier. Oiliers were meant for cars that were climbing hills where the oil in the pan dips to the back of the engine. Cars that traverse flat roads as long as the oil is kept to the right level the front bearing should always be wet.
I think Will is right but there is always the possibility that the internal oil tube can get clogged. I live in Florida now but still add outside oilers to all my cars so I can double the chance of getting oil up front. As an added advantage, with the system on my '10 I can see if the outside oiler is working just by taking off the breather cap.
NOW THIS CONVERSATION TURNS FROM " WHERES THE OIL
PUMPING FROM , TO WHERES THE PUMPED OIL LANDING ?
LANDING ON LEFT SIDE OF ENGINE BY REMOVING A BOLT
BY BREATHER CAP ?
A simple test for those WITHOUT auxiliary oil lines to see how well their original Ford internal oil line is working......Remove one of the front pan bolts with the engine idling and see what comes out. You'll know right quick whether your funnel is clogged or not.
Years ago I got to contemplating the oiler issue whilst on my back replacing #1 and #2 rods in Rusty. It was a long weekend which I had planned to spend in the Tahoe National Forest photographing landscapes with my 1910's Senica City View 8 X 10 camera.... but I digress.
So the line of reasoning I came up with went something like this:
As soon as Rusty had new rods I used the rest of the long weekend trying to figure out this problem I tested my mag post oiler by removing the line to the front bolt. I got not flow beyond two drops per minute. I saw no debris on the mag post as I changed from the modern post oiler to a 1920's oiler I have on the shelf. The real deal antique oiler did no better. I concluded that for me, mag post oilers are a waste of time (lots of folks claim theirs flow very well... pull your line off the front of your engine and put it into a bottle like I did... run that engine fast to do this test).
At this point I want to interject the point that I run wooden bands so matted fibers in oil lines is not a problem and that I go up crazy steep roads and trails. None of this should be a problem if I just stayed on flat land say in Kansas, Florida, or Detroit. The majority of folks don't need a better oiler than you find inside a stock engine. You can even do steep driveways etc. because it takes a steep tilted engine a wile to run dry. Jack your front axle up 18"-24" and run the engine to time how long it takes to destroy the engine... it wont be right away!
I spent time investigating the flow of oil with clear plastic transmission covers to see what is happening there, transmission cover oilers, various mag oilers and various locations around the flywheel for oil collection. (My 1913 had a porosity in it's hogshead on the passenger side which allowed oil to spray out ... voila, pressure feed, that is why I looked into position for oil feeding.) But the most interesting thing I observed was the dips in the pan. If you have oil there you have splash and healthy babbit.
I didn't take me long to realize that if you tip an engine up the oil will run out of the dips. What oil refills the dips can be below the rod or rod scoop if you have them installed (as I do). If the oil in the slanted dip doesn't reach the level of the rod you get no splash. You also get no flow to the front because at the steep angle the inside oiler runs uphill and that mag post oiler is still doing nothing. The result is a weekend on your back changing rods.
My solution to this problem is the heart of my mountain oiling system: you have to raise the level of oil in the dips to maintain splash in order to maintain babbit on long steep uphills. I designed a pan modification which does this and is undetectable to anyone looking at the engine. (Note: if you have a 3 dip pan you will need to put a dam in the pan behind #4 dip... this means pulling the engine to do this.) I simply fabricated tall walls to place behind each dip. I bent them so they did not interfere with the crankshaft throws. In normal driving these extensions do nothing. In steep uphill excursions they prevent the oil in the dips from running back to the flywheel. The oil level stays high enough that the rod still splashes in the dip and the babbit maintains a firm smile on it's face!
One solution to the problem is to stay out of the hills with your T. I have found that all of the parts of my oiling system are nice and function the one mandatory part is the mountain pan cover. I now run my 1927 daily driver T with only the pan cover, none of the other modifications and I have great service, even in the hills.
I never like modifying my engine as you have to do with my design scoop or the TT oiler version. I don't even like to have the mag post oiler line or the huge Horlick oil line visible either. I can't figure why because my T is definitely NOT a show car! With the Horlick design Mountain Pan cover you whould be safe to ascend mot reasonalbe mountain roads if you have the proper amount of oil in your engine (nothing will help you if you have no oil in there).
So, from my oiler article posted on this forum about 15 years ago here is a photo of my Mountain Pan cover:
Erik, yes as part of my experiments years ago I jacked up the front of the car and ran my mag post oil lines into a bottle. I got almost no flow in those oil lines on level ground, and no flow when tipped up.
Your results may vary so run the test on your car if you have an outside oil line and see what happens. It only takes a few minutes to test.
One additional thought: If you go up 66% grades in reverse the oil will flow to the front and run out of the front of the dips. You will probably foul #1 , and #2 plugs with oil and then burn out #3 and #4 rods as they will run dry when the flywheel finishes sending it's oil up front... so limit your uphill in reverse time also!
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation.
Granada Hills High S'68
Move to Florida where the highest elevation is a land fill and problem solved!
Val are you refering to Mt. Trashmore?
Its a bit more work but what I plan on doing on my 14 engine is a pump on the back of the cam. This will pressurize the mains (going to run a scat) and may get one drilled or go with dips. Regardless coming out of the pump there will be a pressure relief. The pressure relief directs to the front and inserts onto the timing gears.
Any secondary oil line a good idea but I had one guy have me add a ford faithful oiler on top on his mag post oiler what happened to much oil to the front of the motor and white smoke out the tail pipe