Is there a source for patterns to make or outright purchase the oil nozzle height gauge, oil pan target gauge and oil trough gauge? I have done some searching but still don’t understand how the tubing inside the oil pan is disconnected prior to removing the oil pan on a 1947 second series 3100 panel truck.
I recently unstuck the engine after a five year soak. When I drained out the oil, about a half gallon oil water came out first. I believe that this engine has 56,000 miles according to the odometer and grandsons of the original owner. They said he stopped driving it in 1958 when it started to develop a knock. I did fill the block with water with the oil pan plug out and it’s not flowing out anywhere so I assume it got in through the valve cover vents. I’m hoping the wear isn’t too bad and it’s possible to remove some shims to correct the tolerances. Probably just wishful thinking but I’m hoping that it won’t need a full rebuild….
If you do some google searches you will find the dimensions of the depth gauge. I made mine. Someone who has the profile gauge traced theirs on apiece of cardboard which I used to check the trough profile.
To aim the nozzles I marked the center line of each trough down the side of the pan. I made an adapter so I could feed water at very low pressure through the nozzles. I made sure that the water stream struck the side of the pan in line with those marks.
The tools you need are hard to find if you want to buy them. But there are a few places that rent them. Some of them want ludicrous amounts of money for the rental and HORRENDOUS deposits on the tools. (So people don't just keep them.) I suggest calling this guy: https://www.vintageautotools.com/vintage-auto-tools-for-rent-J969.html
I bought a tool for Carter carburetors from him and was very satisfied. I thought he was in California then, but see he is in South Dakota now (I could be wrong about this). Anyway we discussed renting the oil pan tools then but shipping the tools over the border to Canada and back was prohibitive. I got very lucky and found a set of tools myself. I'm glad I did because I had one nozzle quite low and about a half inch to the side of the target gauge hole.
You SHOULD have a 216 in a 3100 1/2 ton. So be aware that the target gauge is the same for 216's and the old 235's (J-969-1). But the gauge for trough depth and dipper height IS NOT. (J-969-2 for 216's) (J-1646-A for 235's up to 1946, and I think J-1541 for 235's 1947-48?). So just be sure someone hasn't swapped in a 235.
I like using the proper tools because I figure this concerns the "life blood" of the engine. But that's just me. Many many people have had excellent results without the tools as testified to by, for example, Rusty above.
Hope you've got enough shims left to get rid of that knock. Good luck! :-)
While the above adjustments are good to follow first hold a garden hose on the main oil feed pipe on the pan and under low water pressue see if all the pipes for the rods are flowing and not plugged-up. After setting for many years the sludge settels in the pipes and becomes hard. The aiming of the pipes is easy to check and compare with water pressure and the dipper depth in the troughs can be checked by filling the trough level in the center with grease and turning the engine over and checking the grove the dipper makes in the grease.
Thanks for the sage advice guys. I checked the engine numbers years ago and it’s a numbers matching truck. Two acorn nuts on the valve cover and it still has the stove bolt screws on the oil pan. Seems like a fairly unmolested original.
So… I just dropped the pan. My first observation was about a 1/4” deep dent in the pan right beneath the #6 rod. There was of course considerable muck in it from the water it had in it. The nozzles all look in tact except for #6 which looks to be sliced diagonally across the top surface. Wishful thinking has me hoping that the knock was simply the dipper smacking the nozzle but of course it could also be that the eroded nozzle starved the bearing for oil and shelled it out. I have a 1953 chassis with complete driveline for parts. Can I use the pan from it? I also have a 1938 HD chassis and drive line, but I’m pretty sure it’s different.
Also, were they using white primer in 1947? Looks like it was first Blue then repainted green.
If your 1953 parts vehicle is a truck, or a car with standard transmission, then the pan should fit. But this is something Gene will know for sure, so maybe wait for his input.
You will still need to check the nozzle alignment in the 1953 pan. And you will need to check the dippers. For SURE you will need to check and probably replace the dipper on the #6 rod.
My 1946 truck seems to have a light grey primer under the green.
On my ‘37 the front of the oil pan had been pushed up very high. My thinking is that as Uncle Jimmy’s eyesight was failing he tried to lift the front of car with the jack on the oil pan. The bottom of the pan pushed the front troughs so high that the dipper hit the nozzle and broke off that tube for #2 rod. It did a pretty good job on the dipper also
A great VCCA member sent me a set of tubes for the cost of shipping. I was able to hammer the pan and troughs back into shape. The saving factor was that the engine had been run very little if any after the damage. The #2 rod bearing was fine. Using my home built gauges and methods I put everything back together. I’ve put almost 6000 miles on the car since I repaired it.
If the pan from the 1953 and your present engine is a 216 it will (the 235 pan) require raising all of the oil troughs because the 235 oil troughs are lower due to the longer piston stroke of the 235,,,,,,,,,,,,,and that is not an easy job.
I’ll check it out and see if there’s grey primer underneath the white. My 1958 Apache has white primer underneath the Sand Beige but 11 years is a long time! The 1953 is another panel truck frame and it has a 216. I’m not crazy about hot rods but I’m always happy to haul away the carcasses once they’re through stripping the bodies off!
Originally Posted by Stovblt
If your 1953 parts vehicle is a truck, or a car with standard transmission, then the pan should fit. But this is something Gene will know for sure, so maybe wait for his input.
You will still need to check the nozzle alignment in the 1953 pan. And you will need to check the dippers. For SURE you will need to check and probably replace the dipper on the #6 rod.
My 1946 truck seems to have a light grey primer under the green.
If the pan from the 1953 and your present engine is a 216 it will (the 235 pan) require raising all of the oil troughs because the 235 oil troughs are lower due to the longer piston stroke of the 235,,,,,,,,,,,,,and that is not an easy job.
I’m going to go ahead and pull the 1953 pan and check it out. It’s been stored outside for years before I got it so I’m pretty sure it’s full of water too.
The '53 pan should fit then. I'm not keen on using good old vehicles to build hot rods either. A sad waste in my view. But, you are right, it leaves a good source of parts for the rest of us! :-)
Yes, your '47 and my '46 are only 1 year apart so the primer would seem to be more likely to be similar. My truck was built in Kansas City by the way. I don't know if all factories used the same primer?
That’s a good question. I need to decode the build plate at some point. Now that the pan is out and I can see it better I don’t think the dent caused the trouble because there’s a few inches of space under the trough.
Next question. Long story short. Number four nozzle is boogered on the 1953 header. It’s eroded in such a way that it is more of a square end than a diagonally cut end. However in running a stream of water through the inlet, the nozzle in question hits the same relative position as the others. So I’m thinking that the profile isn’t affecting the aim.
Assuming it’s unacceptable, are these assemblies lead soldered or silver soldered? I’m thinking of unsweating a nozzle from one to repair the other.
I wonder if you could use a small file or grinding stone or cutting disc in a Dremel to re-shape that end. That nozzle should work fine even if it is just a little shorter if it is aimed properly.
I have never understood why they beveled the ends of the tubes. My thinking is that they spent extra money to do it so there must have been a reason. That is why I suggest you rework that #4 nozzle.
Thanks for the information. I have PLENTY to keep me busy, so it’s timeliness is not a problem!
I have been fabricating the oil trough gauge. All I had laying around was some 3/4” square tubing and 1/2” steel rod so it’s going to be practically indestructible!
Thanks, I already had a 1953 header handy. Of course now I hope to pick your brains some more on splash oiling.
I am trying to get a sense of the flow rate at these nozzles at the RPMs when they are critical. If it’s a vigorous flow it’s good to go.
Most of the 1947 wire clips were broken, loose and mired in goo. Two came apart as I was removing them so I have 7.
Speaking of Goo, I use wood stoves for heat and wood ash is amazing at absorbing the remaining goo left behind after scraping most all of it out. It saves on paper towels, rags and degreaser.
The flow is just a small concern because I’m not planning to put it on the road anytime soon. I’m only seeing if it’s going to run at this point. If it’s truly a problem I want to be sure to address it later.
I finally got around to soldering in one good 1947 nozzle to the 1953 header. (Both headers had one corroded nozzle) It’s aligned with all the others and it hits the same location on the inside of the pan as the others. However, when I reduce the water flow it has a weak stream so that it is the first nozzle to begin dropping below the other 5.
Testing my solder joint for leaks shows that it doesn’t shoot as far as the 1953 nozzles when removed from the pan and allowed to spray freely.
So I removed a different nozzle from the 1947, cleaned it’s bore thoroughly just to be sure and while better it was still slightly weaker than the others. They look to have the same bore at the opening. Did they possibly increase the size of the nozzles after 1947? Or maybe it just wasn’t made on Wednesday in 1947!
So many questions….. I appreciate your kind help fellers.
I have never seen where they increased the size of the nozzel. The oil supply for the nozzels come from th low presure side of the oiling system and is probally about 2 pounds at idle, just enough to fill the trough.
Oil flow rate at the nozzles will be dependent entirely on the volume of oil the pump pumps at any given RPM, less the amount that flows past the main and camshaft bearings and the amount metered to the rocker arms.
We can only guess what proportion of the total goes to the nozzles, but given that the bearing clearances are very very small, and the six nozzles holes are quite large (between 7/64 and 1/8 inch I think), it is likely that by FAR the biggest part goes to the nozzles.
Total pump capacity was rated as 7.16 gallons per minute at 4000 RPM with hot oil. So at idle total flow is likely around 1 gallon per minute. And on the highway around 5 gallons per minute (assuming 2800 RPM).
So from there, your guess is as good as mine, but I'd guess in the vicinity of a little over 3/4 gallon per minute for all six nozzles together at idle. And about 4 gallons per minute on the highway.
So... Adjust your water flow until you are putting 1/2 QUART per minute in a container from one nozzle and you will see what it looks like when idling... And adjust until you are putting 2/3 of a GALLON in a container from one nozzle and you should see what it looks like on the highway.
"The oil that is metered to the rocker arms" is from the low pressure side of the oil distributor valve and the same low pressure oil supplies the oil pan trough tubes.
I am not sure what your container fill time data will tell you. You have already observed that the replacement nozzle is not flowing as much as the other 5. No matter what your data shows there will not be much flow at idle when the pump is only capable of producing 2 psi with hot oil. Remember that pressure is the result of resistance to flow.
My best guess is that there is some type of blockage in that pipe. It could be excess solder from the repair joint or it could be a piece of very reluctant sludge/goo. It seems like some of that crud will not dissolve with any cleaner and air pressure will not dislodge it. So it needs a more direct mechanical cleaning.
I used this trick on my ‘37 to make sure the tube that goes through the head and feeds oil to the rocker arms was clean. I squirted a small amount of brake cleaner into it multiple times over a couple of days. I could see that fluid would drip through but seemed like it was still partially clogged.
So I pushed a length of “safety wire” through it. I made sure the the wire had many small offsets and bends in it. I would pull and push it back and forth in the tube. That loosened some of the crud stuck to the inside diameter. The brake cleaner flowed better but I still thought it should be more . So I chucked the upper end of the wire in my drill and slowly rotated the wire while working it back and forth. Boy did that really clean things!
It's true that the rocker arm oil came off the low pressure side up to and including 1939.
For 1940 and after, the rocker arm oil came off the HIGH pressure side. But... it ran past a bleed off hole which ran back to the low pressure side of the oil distributor valve... and then through a metered orifice... and then into the line up to the rocker arms.
This change was made when the change to the newer style oil distributor valve with the sheet metal cover was made, and I suspect this was done to make lubrication more reliable and less likely to plug in the line up the rocker arms.
I'm thinking what Kevin wants to know is what the trajectory of the oil stream looks like at actual operating volumes. As he said, with enough flow the streams all hit at the same spot. But as volume is reduced, one stream droops.
I do agree however that I would be looking to attain the same flow from all six nozzles. And if the replaced nozzle looks and measures the same on the outside, I would think that should be attainable.
Just as an interesting aside... I think the diameter of the outlet of the nozzles was changed at one point. But it was actually made SMALLER with the change. To show what I am referring to I'm attaching a picture of an early pan and nozzles (1937 on the right) and a late pan and nozzles (1946 on the left). Possibly this was done to "intensify" the streams?
It was done to get more cold oil to the rocker arms sooner to reduce valve noise during warm up.
On the low pressure 235 engines the rocker arm oiling was from oil taken from the rear cam bearing (which came from the rear main bearing) and piped to the head casting and (restricted) to the rocker arms. Dippper oil still from the low side of the distributor valve. If the oil would have been taken from the high pressure side all the flow would go to the point of least resistance which would be the oil supply pipe for the dippers - which did not require high oil pressure.
Most of my info sources are from the USA. You point out that the low pressure 235's oiled the rocker arms from the rear camshaft bearing. The blocks on Canadian 216's from about 1951 up were more akin to 235's in that they had the short push rod cover etc. So did the late Canadian 216's also oil the rocker arms from the rear camshaft bearing?
Yes, because the parts list does not list the oil line that went through the block and other oiling parts used for that form of rock arm oiliing but does list the short oil line like the 235 used from rear cam bearing to the bottom center of the head like the 235 had.
I completely agree that the trajectory of the oil stream is critical. At higher speeds the dippers need to get oil from the steam from the nozzles. The action of the dippers in the troughs is so great due to speed that it almost leaves a channel or groove in the oil.
As always Gene is correct about the rocker arm oiling for the 235’s. That change to taking oil from the rear cam bearing was often a point of trouble. The oil had to pass around the rear rocker arm stand bolt. That small passage often would plug (sort of like the oil flow to the timing gears on a 216). Even with a bypass oil filter the lack of detergent oil allowed the sludge to form.
You can find a fantastic old film showing actual high speed camera footage of the "pressure stream" system in action here:
Go directly to the 7:57 mark to see the main action.
This film is from 1937. From 1940 up (I think) the oil pump capacity was increased and at some point the nozzle diameters were slightly reduced (as per my post above) so the advancing stream of oil in Kevin's 1947 would actually reach much further out by the time the dipper comes around and hits it. The distance the stream reaches out between scoops should remain about the same regardless of RPM's because the volume changes in direct proportion to the RPM as no oil is being bypassed unless the pressure is above the 60 or more psi setting of the bypass in the pump itself. (which rarely happens, and never with hot oil)
There was probably some sludge debris in the first nozzle I tried because I cleaned it reasonably well but didn’t visually check it. When I removed it I intentionally broke the solder joint to make certain solder wasn’t causing a restriction. Then I unsweated a second 1947 nozzle, thoroughly cleaned it, visually inspecting the bore in direct sunlight and then sweated it in place.
I compared both bores to a drill bit and they’re virtually the same size. My theory is that they were manufactured in different decades possibly in different facilities or after retooling the same facility. It very well be that the 1953 nozzles have a more favorable venturi effect and simply shoot further.
“Riding the film” is exactly what I needed to see! The dipper is intersecting the flow of oil only a short distance from the nozzle so it’s a negligible difference than the 1953 nozzles. I’m at ease with the #4 nozzle as this is just farm equipment for the time being.
At this point I believe that the cylinder and wrist pin are more at risk of lack of lubrication on #4 than the rod with this header. Meanwhile I’ll be on the lookout for another header that matches itself.
Many thanks for all the information, now I’ve discovered collapsed exhaust valve springs so I’m going to see about swiping the ones from the 1953
Spend a little bit of time researching the valve springs before you make that swap. One way that Chevy increased the power in these engines was to use a more aggressive cam. By that I mean it had more lift and duration. This required a stronger valve spring to ensure that the valve closed properly.
I'm not saying they will not interchange or that they are not the same valve spring. It's just that in the later 40's and early 50's there were lots of subtle changes in these engines. Hopefully Gene will jump in and offer the appropriate answer.
The spring will be OK. I am thinking more that the valve is sticking and the spring is OK.
Some were initially, I bent a push rod at first. They are all moving nicely now.
What I discovered was all the exhaust valves were loose especially #1 by about 3/16”. I knew about the revolving plates but wrongly assumed that they were held in place by keeper and the slack was between it and the spring. Hence my confusion. Originally I had compression on only number 2.
Once I crawled under the engine and was able to assure TDC I discovered 5 extremely tight valves. Someone must have assumed that they were hydraulic valves because they were ridiculously too tight. I was going to weld up a spark plug base to an air chuck but someone suggested using the adapter from a compression tester and after removing the schraeder check valve it worked great!
Now when I apply air pressure on a cylinder past TDC the air pushes it to the bottom of its stroke.
The #6 dipper is swiss cheesed so while I am replacing it I will inspect the journal and check the tolerance with plasti-gauge. All of the dippers are squared off at the very bottom and seem to have too much clearance. Today I will complete the measuring gauge and check #6 once it’s replaced.
I’m excited to replace the pan and do another compression test!
Thanks for the update. Sounds like you are making progress. It is hard to imagine how something like those valve adjustments got done. Things like have taught me to never be surprised at what I find on an old vehicle.
I agree that you need to gauge to confirm the dipper height. If I remember correctly the dippers on my car are fairly square. The idea is that you want them to just scoop the surface of the oil in the troughs. If they go too deep the bottom end of the rod displaces all of the oil out of the through. Plus it is adds drag on the rod throws of the crank.
If you look calculate the dimensional differences of the gauge you should find that the dipper only goes about 1/4” below the top edges of the trough.
Thanks for the update. Sounds like you are making progress. It is hard to imagine how something like those valve adjustments got done. Things like have taught me to never be surprised at what I find on an old vehicle.
I agree that you need to gauge to confirm the dipper height. If I remember correctly the dippers on my car are fairly square. The idea is that you want them to just scoop the surface of the oil in the troughs. If they go too deep the bottom end of the rod displaces all of the oil out of the through. Plus it is adds drag on the rod throws of the crank.
If you look calculate the dimensional differences of the gauge you should find that the dipper only goes about 1/4” below the top edges of the trough.
Thanks, I don’t know why I thought they were rounded, maybe that’s Hudson. According to the 3-23/32” tool these are a little high by like 3/32” which is good enough for now. I appreciate the help! I need to apply it to my 1936 town coach before I take it out on the road.
The rod cap wouldn’t budge when I changed out the dipper so I didn’t get a look at the journal. I just prayed and torqued it to 45, it took 65ft # to break it loose. I was able to remove the cap on the 1952 and it looked nice. I need to soak the rings and and keep the water out of it. It seems to have been rebuilt.
The valves weren’t maladjusted after all, four lifters were stuck, especially #1& #4. They were what was creating the current knocking sounds. Hopefully it was the sound that caused the owner to park it in 1958.Then again it could still be a piston rod and the valves didn’t stick until a really wet winter in 1960.
Now all the lifters are spinning nicely and it’s making 75-100# compression. I’m going to pickle the rings with some 9% vinegar while I go deal with other first world problems. In a few days I’ll let it soak in some of my home brew penetrating oil hopefully by the time I apply air/fuel +spark they will loosen up and the compression will level out.
My next concern is I’m still having to lubricate the valve train. I disconnected the feed tube and forced air through both directions which sprayed me with oil from the rockers and I could hear bubbling in the sump in the other direction so at least I know it’s not blocked. I tried to prime it through that tube but it’s just too small.
Maybe it’s rejecting the oil I put in it. It’s out of a 1970 Ford F600! Not to worry, when the rings are finished soaking it’s getting a proper oil change before I try to fire it up.
