Questions to the 4 cylinder owners 28 to 32

[30 Ply 30U]

Chet,
Here are pics of the 1928 engine first, followed by a pic of the block style used from 1929 to 1931. It's very easy to see the difference with the 28's having the round corners.

[chetbrz]

Hi Chet, the 28 engine is all by itself. No other gaskets work off a 29 or 30. The head is different shape and the oil pan is different shape. All smaller. When you buy parts for a 28 or 29 you better make sure what you are buying because every one thinks they are the same.Bill in Ohio

Tks Bill, I will be careful.

Chet...

[28 Ply.cpe]

Hi Chet, the 28 engine is all by itself. No other gaskets work off a 29 or 30. The head is different shape and the oil pan is different shape. All smaller. When you buy parts for a 28 or 29 you better make sure what you are buying because every one thinks they are the same.Bill in Ohio

[chetbrz]

I have a 28 with the Maxwell engine. Which all 28's used. The oil pan does hold about 5 1/2 qts. of oil.?

Interesting.  Would you know if the oil pan from the Maxwell engine would bolt up to the U block?  My car came titled as a 28.  With the U block and the 29 hubcaps, master cylinder, and bumpers.   I assumed that it was miss-titled.  Also from what I can distinguish from what?s left of the serial number.., that the dash is a 29.  Maybe it was restored from a combination of parts from a 28 & 29.  This might explain why the engine holds more oil then the 29 Driver?s Instruction Book states (5th. Edition May 1929).    That is if the Maxwell oil pan bolts up.???  The specs for the 29 say Oil capacity 1 gallon.

Chet...

[28 Ply.cpe]

I have a 28 with the Maxwell engine. Which all 28's used. The oil pan does hold about 5 1/2 qts. of oil.  I did drive the car on the Ohio to Indiana Lincoln Highway tour 312 miles of 41 mph average speed and did use 2 quarts of oil. I figured it was due to age and most of these old cars do smoke. Maybe mine needs new oil rings. But I do use a 30 non detergent oil. The car is not run in the winter. Only the summer months. Now in town all summer it only uses about  a quart about 1000 miles. Something about 41 and straight through that burns that oil.

[12905]

Chet:

You may get excellent compression readings and still be burning oil. Oil control rings can  malfunction even if the compression rings are good. Malfunctioning oil control rings can be:
a) "unitised" and not free in their grooves;
b) most are segmented rings with weep holes around the centre of the ring so that oil scraped off the walls drains back through the holes, and these can be carboned up;
c) broken.
If they are unitised, then the oil has free passage past them into the combustion chamber.
If they are carboned up the oil on the cylinder walls has nowhere to go as the ring travels down the cylinder, so the film pushes the ring from the wall and too much gets in the combustion chamber.
If the oil control rings are faulty then no matter how well the compression rings seal, excess oil will enter the combustion chamber and burn. Actually, the better the valves and the compression rings seal, the more likely the engine will burn oil if the oil rings are weak. Just ask any person with an engine with poor valves, but seemingly good rings. Engine gets a valve grind, but no attention is paid to the rings, and the engine starts to burn oil - happens quite often.

[chetbrz]

My old car seems to burn a lot of oil.  Runs good, pulls strong, but burns oil.  It?s also funny in that when I changed the oil and put in 4 Qts the oil level on the dip stick read only half way.  Added another Qt and still wasn?t at the full mark.  Am I missing something here or possibly over filling the oil pan because of an incorrect dipstick?

Any way when I gat a chance I will do a compression test and see how she does.

Tks for the info.  I was trying to get a feel for what the oil consumption was with these old 4?s.  A qt per thousand miles is much better then I am doing and sounds like a good engine to me.

Chet?

[12905]

Unless the engine has roller lifters I cannot see what difference it makes whether or not the cam is actuating a solid lifter or an hydraulic one. In both cases, the cam lobe wipes across the surface of the lifter and is facing relatively equal  resistance from the spring tension. Of course, that's the toughest point in the whole engine to lubricate, but I have used multi-grade oils in engines ever since they appeared on the market and I had 63 and 65 Valiant (slant sixes) new with solid lifters and never a problem.

Also, I cannot understand why a babbit bearing should be vulnerable to damage by the additives in a multi-grade oil. This sounds like a male version of the proverbial old wives' tales. Can someone reading this forum reliably confirm or discredit the assertion?

[POC-Admin]

I have to do some checking but I have been told that older solid tappet engines is a problem when you use modern "energy saving" oil.  I am probably going to switch to a Diesel Rated or non-energy saving oil.  I have solid lifters in my Valiant and from what I have read, the new oils can kill our engines.

There is a great article (long) here

http://www.ttalk.info/Zddp.htm

There are a lot of other articles out there too GM has done a lot of research in this area and if you don't have a catalytic converter you should be sure you have ZDDP - Zinc and other older additives in your oil.

Anyone else hear the same thing?

Mark

[Wm Steed]

I have found that the multi-viscosity oils, Castrol 20-50 or 10-40, do an excellent job on older engines. I use it in my '36 Ford flat head, Ford Y blocks (55/64) and everything else that..... DOES NOT HAVE BABBIT BEARINGS.... I was told many years ago by a machinist that rebuilt engines for us, that detergent oils will ruin an engine with babbit bearings.

I just read an article about oils for older engines.  Castrol has come out with two new oils, one for high mileage engines and another for older engines with "flat tappets"..... in other words, engines that have lifters and/or push rods in lieu of overhead cams.

As for oil additives, STP, Motor Honey, etc., they are a waste of money. Good modern oils have everything in them that your engine needs for proper lubrication.

I looked through the owners manual for my 31 PA, Second Edition, December 1931... The bearings are babbit, inserts on the crank and pored on the rods. My engine appears to have never been taken apart so I would assume that the bearings are still as they were shipped from the factory. The manual calls for 30 or 40 w in the summer, 10 or 20w in the winter.

I have not tried to start the engine yet, it turns freely and has fairly clean oil in it so maybe it is as the former owner claimed..... cutting fire wood until just a few years ago....Bill

[12905]

Chet:

My U is still very much a basket case, but I did run a 28 Star 4 cyl and I used Castrol 15 - 50 in temperatures ranging from about 45 - 80 F. I never added oil, as I changed it at < 1000 miles, but I would guess consumption was well within the 1 quart per 1000. The engine was not in perfect condition, either.

I am an absolute believer in multi-grade oils. A 15 - 50 (or  an oil with a similar viscosity range) provides very much better protection than any old-fashioned single viscosity oil can do. At start up the 15 - 50 is much thinner than a cold 30 and travels through the bearings and all parts of the engine much more readily. Then, when the engine reaches operating temperature the 15 - 50 has much more body than a hot 30 - which is thin like water - and provides a much better cushion for the working surfaces. Also, modern multi-grade oils have additives that make them cling to the surfaces much better than single grade oils.  I cannot think of a situation in which it would be better to use a single viscosity oil in any engine.

[chetbrz]

What is your oil consumption while driving. ?? Example a Qt per 100 miles or 500 miles or 1,000 miles or more.

Also what oil are you using in summer.?

Do you use any additives like STP.?

Thanks in advance,? Chet?