The Ford Barn - View Single Post

Joe K · 02-23-2020, 02:50 PM

The elevation of the "return pipe" was changed in May 1930 (p. 342) - the same time that the height was changed on the front hole in the block.

The corresponding difference between heights (1/4"?) remains the same (compensation for engine slant) but later positioning of the returns (plural) is lower - "To reduce oil consumption" ostensibly in oil thrown up and onto the valve stems.

Somewhere, in one of the magazines, the "oil control dam" is discussed, and the author made a plastic valve chamber cover - so the oil height could be seen and the effectiveness of either drain port ascertained. IIRC the conclusion of the article proved out Ford's rationale about reduced oil consumption. He also had some comments about the Model B with no oil pipe - and the internal passage for oil.

Joe K

02-23-2020, 02:50 PM	#23
Joe K Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Cow Hampshire Posts: 4,188	Re: Mysterious hole in valve chamber? The elevation of the "return pipe" was changed in May 1930 (p. 342) - the same time that the height was changed on the front hole in the block. The corresponding difference between heights (1/4"?) remains the same (compensation for engine slant) but later positioning of the returns (plural) is lower - "To reduce oil consumption" ostensibly in oil thrown up and onto the valve stems. Somewhere, in one of the magazines, the "oil control dam" is discussed, and the author made a plastic valve chamber cover - so the oil height could be seen and the effectiveness of either drain port ascertained. IIRC the conclusion of the article proved out Ford's rationale about reduced oil consumption. He also had some comments about the Model B with no oil pipe - and the internal passage for oil. Joe K __________________ Shudda kept the horse.