Pretty much standard practice to increase oil capacity on any race engine, for extended oil drain-back time and for additional engine cooling ... but people report this as a problem in more normal operation. Had a recent example of this with a 393 that had valvetrain issues and the engine builder had used windsor solid roller lifters. I mentioned to the builder they are not the right lifters and his reply was - "they're all the same" ..... but did a static test and he reported the rockers covers were near full of oil. After changing to "real" cleveland lifters the problem was gone .....

Thanks for your kudos ... To fix a problem you must first understand what causes the problem ... right? Otherwise your just playing follow-the-leader.

Had the same problem and didn't know what to do about it. Your video explanation told me what the problem was and how to fix it. THANK YOU SIR

Full groove bearings are never ideal. Less surface area on the lower bearing to support the crank. Read any book on racing the SBC,, full groove bearings are bad news. Top half yes. Full circle no.

@@ldnwholesale8552 Only choice is then an aftermarket Crank?

Yes, all the stuff you read says full groove mains are bad ... was just looking at one that claims a 15% hp loss and a 70% reduction in oil film thickness over a half groove main. Then you look up how they built Cleveland Nascar engines back in the 70's and they used full groove mains !! I seriously doubt that the engine builders doing those engines would tolerate a 15% hp loss let alone a 70% loss in oil film thickness .... they wouldn't be competitive and they would never survive ??

No problem John. Given that this problem has been out there for 50yrs, it surprises me that no one appears to have looked for the reason why ..... and if they did, they certainly weren't telling anyone.

Few suppliers have full groove shells for C's any more ... If you can't find any you can put upper shells in the caps but that means buying two sets of bearings.

Look up LYKINS MOTORSPORTS, HE ONLY DOES FORDS, A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE IN CLEVOS...

@@drcolster I will. Thanks 👍

Dont rev it, 3" mains are for low rpm engines. 2.65 mains are bad enough on a Clevo. Build a 347 which has better oiling and smaller mains. Not a long life engine however but will perform well for street 30-40 thousand miles

Yes the 385's cranks are drilled the same way .... and they have the same problem, also "starting" at those same rod bearings. And like most Ford engines of the era, the "performance" engines (e.g SCJ's etc) had fully grooved mains installed plus the Boss 429's had cross drilled cranks as well.

Hi Steve, I think you discovered that it does take a bit of time/effort to get your head around where and when the oil clocking is occurring .... relative to different cylinder throws. Whilst the oil feed clocking is not ideal on ANY of the cylinders, I focused my attention on #2 & #7 B/E's as that's where the oiling issue invariably starts showing itself...... and they are feed from #2 & #4 mains respectively. Each of those mains feeds also feeds another B/E's e.g #2 main feeds #2 & #5 B/E's .... which is why I compared those two clockings .... even though they are on different throws (#2 crank throw actually has #2 & #6 rods on it ofcourse). For that reason I tried to show the situation relative to each cylinders TDC .... rather than relative to #1. As you point out there are several locations on the cranks rotation where various rods are feed simultaneously ... but the issue is more related to rods getting feed simultaneously from the same source (main) .... and in conjunction with their relative piston location where the overlap occurs ... which is the key point. Good on you for putting some effort into looking into it yourself, no doubt giving a better understanding it all. 👍👍

Not something that I really looked into Frank as replacing the bearings is a much simpler option and cross drilling isn't very popular these days. I did have a quick look at a crank tonight to see if it could be done... and it could, but I see some potential area's of concern: - The cross hole would run very close to the existing oil hole for the other big end that the main journal feeds. Probably wouldn't effect its strength too much ... but who knows. - Drilling the cross hole 180 degrees relative to its original mains hole results in a very acute angle between that cross hole and big end gallery direction. That change of direction angle between oiling paths is around 30 degrees ( as in " > ") .... so it has to nearly reverse its flow direction. I think this is probably a general problem with trying to cross-drill an OEM crank with angled big-end drillings vs a purpose made cross-drilled crank where the big-end drilling intersects the cross passage in the center of the mains journal itself. But hey, it may work ok .... give it a try.

No 80 psi cold is not dangerous. Oil pressure is relative to bearing/lifter clearances and pump volume/pressure .... so running tighter clearances result in higher pressure.

The last (first oiling wise) lifter on LH bank would be #8 intake so I don't think I'd read too much into them both being exhausts. The first things I would be looking at are the lifters themselves and their clearances, I know atleast one manufacturer had a lot of roller lifter failures after getting them made off-shore, and Paul mentions in his video that some roller lifters are finished to non-OEM sizes, so check everything ... twice. It sounds like there is a difference in the way they failed too but if they are both running the same cam, harmonics may be a factor. Have a real close look at the pushrod ends for any strange wear patterns (swirls). In my mind there are all sorts of 8k ... running to, loaded sustained, unloaded sustained (burnouts) ... better to worst. Internal balance and good damper territory. I use to run the typical oiling mods but after seeing some cam bearing stress I don't use restrictors anymore, better to use re-clocked bearing like Myer sells . Did try using a single 0.080" restrictor in only the LH bank ... which worked even with hyd flats, but don't bother with that anymore either. Never been a fan of the external line, the gallery sizes are plenty big enough as is so seems pointless to me .... unless you make an internal manifold and tap directing into the mains galleries themselves. Bush lifter bores if wear dictates it and don't use oil-lite bushes that come with some kits .. they are not the correct material. You can correct OEM locations which can be all over the place ... but not using the hand drill/piloted cutter method !! Anything meaningful I de-burr all gallery lead-in intersections with a long, ball ended burr and blend with a slither of emery tape.

Lets simplify the reply as I don't know your build, what components were used or how it was put together. Do I think the lifter failures were caused by not using restrictors ..... no. Do I think the failure were caused by using the external line ..... no.

@@chrisfin1921 Thanks Chris, appreciate it. I've tried contacting Tim Meyer in the USA, difficult to get a hold of in these covid times!

Yes parts supply is a real problem atm. The other option .... you can get the cam bearings machined yourself, its just a shallow channel milled into the backing of the bearing that carries oil round from its normal 9 o'clock location to around 2/3 o'clock. It still uses the existing oil hole, the bearing is simply rotated.

Hinder, to some degree ... more oil "leakage" equals less oil control and at no benefit to bearing survival.

Are you referring to their "V" passage (that's not true cross drilling)? You must keep in mind that in the tech paper, they are only referring to a SINGLE main/ big end supply and the "V" passage gives them two benefits ...... nearly eliminating the oil clocking aspect, plus keeping the gallery full of pressurized oil all the time .... which helps with the aeration problem. However if you drilled that passage in a C crank to help (say) #2 big end (and used half groove mains), how would that new passage effect #5's big end oiling .... as it likely introduces a larger "shared supply" area to that big end ?? So do you now drill the passage for #5 as well .... you'll end up with a CAST crank with a #2 main journal that now has four oiling holes and two extra galleries ??? The result might be disastrous.

Hard to say from that info. The 400's and 351W's generally run (OEM) full groove mains ... but 1/2 groove's are available for them too. The 400's run 3" mains diameter .... plus an extra 1/2" stroke over the 351's, so it potentially amplifies the problem.

I think Paul talks about this in his video. Not much benefit to doing them all as all big-ends other than 2 & 7 have their supply shut-off later in their cycle (~ 60 degree's BTDC) and don't have shared oil demand.

Joe Montello restricted the cam bearings oil holes on Oldsmobiles . Grooved cam bearings allow positioning of oil hole to 2 o'clock for better oiling of the cam bearings. Many replacement cam bearings for performance engine have the grooves now. If not available with grooves then have them grooved

then why are you here ?

Yes, availability of full groove sets have virtually disappeared now which is a problem, as the 3/4 groove doesn't cut it. We need to be grizzling at suppliers/manufacturers and if demand dictates it, they may return. Ultimately it depends on how its driven of course .... but the way I look at it is, an extra set of main bearings is way cheaper than potentially spinning a rod bearing.

@@chrisfin1921 …I have to respectfully disagree with many of your comments that were “based on your experience” because my experience has been quite different. However this comment about the cost of buying two sets of half grooved bearings to make one set of the more desirable full grooves as being a small price to pay for benefits they offer is a point well made and I fully agree.

Bushing the lifters works for me, especially after seeing how much oil is being wasted by gushing past the lifters in the right bank. I used the bushings that you described for all 16 lifters. If the cost is too high for builders on a budget, then you can bush the lifters on the right (US passengers side) only because that’s the area where a lot of oil is being lost before the remaining oil is being directed to the mains and left side lifter oil galley. Bushing only 8 lifters will reduce the cost of the process while still providing the benefits of more oil to the main bearings. If you take a good look at a detailed illustration of the Cleveland oiling system, then you should be able to see the advantages.

I guess you didn't watch it all the way to the end .... ?

BS>

@@chrisfin1921 better than a ls or sbc

then why are you here ?

"Calling other people names" ..... really ?? "You only explained what happens not why it happens" .... LOL Seriously though ... yes, increased oil capacity is a given for any high rpm engine due to extended drain-back times and more oil in suspension .... But following the myths, I have run a double capacity, full length rear pickup oil pan in a drag car in the past ..... but the problem was still there. I would suggest you go look at Paul Dilley's channel where he tests lifter oil metering on various different lifters .... huge differences in amount sent to the heads. If your accumulating a lot of oil in the heads your running the wrong lifters ..... period

@@chrisfin1921 WHAT DO YOU CALL,.....PARROT TALK ? YOU ARE WRONG, IT IS THE OIL FOR THE SPRINGS THAT CAUSES THE PROBLEM. WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ?

Well I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink ..... LOL

Possibly a result of tighter side clearance ??

@@chrisfin1921 I again checked to see measurements, on rods. Cleveland measured.839. Windsor .835. So I don't think it's that. Next time. Side by side, look how the bearing fits in the saddle. You can see there is a difference. I think this is the reason why a windsor rod gave more oil pressure.

@@cammontreuil7509 Were you using Cleveland bearings in the 351W rods .... I had a look in the bearing book and the C bearings are 0.050" wider than the W bearings ? Perhaps that moves the bearing edge closer to the cranks fillet and reduces the oil's bleed clearance on that side .... much like swapping upper/lower rod bearings does ?? Don't have a 351W here atm, but next one in, I will have a comparison.

@@chrisfin1921 some windsor rods have an oil jet in them that sends oil onto the cylinders while engine is running. When buying the correct windsor rod bearing, you notice a small hole off center in the bearing. I've seen some bearings without this hole too. On a cleveland, the rod cap is notched to allow the cylinder to be splashed . This notch is found on strictly a bearing made for a cleveland and lines up with the rod cap notch. Some windsor football rods are drilled and some not. The early non football rod had no provision for the jet. So I used a football rod that was not drilled with a windsor specific bearing. No pressure loss. Don't ask me why I overlooked that. Man I feel stupid and know better. I've only rebuilt more than 70 of these engines.

@@cammontreuil7509 Ah well .... that clears up that mystery. I actually forgot about the clevelands oil spray hole myself .... but most bearing manufacturers did away with the rod bearing's notch, that feed that spray hole years ago anyway .... which no-doubt helped the big end oiling to some degree. Thanks for your input ... got me thinking.