Posted By : John Davies,
18-Sep-2006, 11:23pm
Neal,
First, and to save you searching for old threads, these head oilers are The Spawn of the The Devil.
They are a relic of Kaz Kastner's work, when seeking 250bhp from a straight six Triumph engine, he fitted independent, external oilers
to all the main bearings, the cam and rocker shafts. The first and second require much skilled research and shop work to make it
function, oiling each to the right extent. It has been done more recently - see Kevin Hadfield's Herald screamer, that has a Kastner
'octopus'.
Because of Triumphs production methods, there is that little blanking bolt in the back of the head, so that an external oiler is 'easy'
to fit. Triumph accessory manufacturers and dealers saw an opportunity, and have marketed it ever since. That unless you have a brand
new, unworn rocker shaft and rockers the flow is many times what Triumph designed for, or is needed is irrelevant to them. Worse,
without the very narrow restrictor that Leon mentioned, so much oil flows that way that the mains can be starved.
For good or bad, I build my own race engines. I used to have an external feed, and the engines always died with run main bearings. Ever
since I binned the feed, they last as many seasons as I want them to.
Now, if after that you STILL want to fit this bit of ill-advised ****, the banjo sits in a counter drilling that was originally to seat
the head of the blanking bolt. Because suppliers don't care, they don't realise that the side arm of the banjo is too shallow for the
counter drilling. When the banjo bolt is done up tight, the side arm is tight against the edge, the banjo is tilted and a seal is
impossible. You need to grind away a little of the edge, so that the side arm can sit horizontally.
See diagram, of a properly seated banjo.
And try Halfords for copper washers - they sell mixed packs with usually one of the right size inside.
You have been warned!
John

External rocker feed kit
-
Posted By : Calvin
Andrew, 19-Sep-2006, 10:22am
John,
am i right in thinking you were the 1973 world ETCH-A-SKETCH champion?
Calvin
-
Posted By : John
Davies, 19-Sep-2006, 11:01pm
Three times in a row and outright trophy winner.
I still have it today and it forms the centrepiece to my breakfast table.
As an egg cup.
Nhoj
-
Posted By : David
Powell, 24-Sep-2006, 00:11am
I have constantly adapted and improved.tuned this feed kit over the last few engines.
I blank off the original oil riser in the head and block with grub screws.
I have then add a restrictor to the feed kit.
The restrictor is an M4 Allen Key bolt cut down to 5mm of thread left...This bolt then has a 0.8mm hole drilled through the
head and down the remaining threaded section...
I then tap a thread in the end of the banjo bolt that is supplied and bolts to the head...
I then loctite my home made restritctor into the end of the banjo's bolt, so restricting the feed...I tested
1.2-1.1-0.9-0.8mm. The 1.2 still used too oil via excessive ammounts in the top of the engine...
This is a 2.2mm restriction over the supplied item, this 0.8mm hole feeds the rockers perfectly.
Thats on a motor used to 7K for long periods and trashed senseless. More abuse that 99% of engines.
The stock item is USELESS!
My item works brilliantly.
It not only stops any risk of starving the mains and bottom end, but it'll VASTLY improve the oiling on the rear cam
journal as its the end of the circuit now- the rocker feed is fed from the pumping action at the rear cam journal. Also
increases pressure at the rear main bearing and no4 big end too.
If you have any wear or excess tolerance in the rear cam journal bearing housing you can loose LOTS of oil to the rockers
etc...
I wouldn't have my engines setup any other way that whats written above...
If you just want to bolt this kit on forget it, its a load of junk.
-
Posted By : Chris Taylor, 24-Sep-2006, 11:50am
Thanks for that. It's the first time I've actually seen a quoted restriction that's been arrived at by something more
than guesstimation. A number of questions come to mind:
1. Why is it necessary to block off the original oil feed? Surely the higher pressure direct feed will prevent
additional oil being supplied by the "cam metering" supply in addition to the external feed.
2. Why is it necessary to block this feed off in head AND block? Surely the lower face of the head is the only place
necessary, preventing oil being fed up into the head, and being forced down into the cam bearing. (You could also do
this in the face of the block, but I'd be nervous about drilling and tapping that as it would be more difficult to
remove the swarf!)
3. I can see how the rear cam bearing MIGHT be better oiled, (not totally convinced as it is to some extent the
"exhaust" oil from the bearing that is metered into the head) and how the external feed is more reliable for rocker
oiling than the original if the rear cam being is in anyway loose in its clearances. BUT how does the external feed
(with restrictor) improve the supply to no 4 big end and rear main? Is this simply less oil "lost" via the rear cam
bearing and therefore pumped to the rear main and hence to no.4 big end?
Sorry if the above sounds critical. It's not meant to at all, I'm just trying to better understand HOW the lubrication
set up works. And to think through whether the same arguments (and dimensions) apply to the six cylinder engine.
-
Posted By : John Davies, 24-Sep-2006, 12:28pm
Congratulations and thanks to Dave (Sideways) Powel, who has done all that skilled shop work I mentioned and found
the Golden Ratio.
You haven't done it for a six, have you, Dave? I suspect that the restrictor might need to be a little bigger, to
compensate for the extra four rockers, but at the risk of less flow to the mains.
John
-
Posted By : David Powell, 24-Sep-2006, 03:26pm
No 6 pot fun. I suspect 1.0 or 1.1 mm would be ok, on roller rockers with tight toleranced bronze bushes you
might find even smaller still on 4 and 6 pots? These figures are provided as working numbers on rockers that
aren't totally worn out, as you'll loose alot of oil from the rear rockers if worn?, starving the fronts?
-
Posted By : David Rumens, 24-Sep-2006, 04:05pm
I guess I have mixed views about these top end oil feeds, as from my experience most of the wear on the
rocker shaft was either do to high mileage or poor maintenance. Some times both. A rocker shaft on an new
engine that had an oil change every 3,000 miles would cover over 100,000 miles before needed changing.
Just my thoughts
-
Posted By : John Davies, 24-Sep-2006, 05:01pm
Thank you again, Dave, but I'm not about to fit an external oiler.
It's my humble opinion that the oiling requirement of the rockers is not great, After all, the bearing
only gets stressed intermittently/ As David says, good practice and frequent oil changes will keep the
wear down on the rocker shaft keeping losses low and the slow feed that Triumph designed adequate.
The external oiler might help a shagged shaft.
External oilers to mains are completely different, and only suitable for high revs and high stress =
racing engines.
Just might be useful for a 2000, but you can't safely rev a 2.5 that high, unless you go the whole
steel crank etc. route.
John
-
Posted By : Philip Brammer, 24-Sep-2006, 05:40pm
Can I join in? I just want to add that the rocker shaft is designed to leak oil! This leakage
lubricates the valves, valve gap adjusters, push rod cups, and the cam followers themselves. If you
check the top of the rockers there should be a small drilling to allow just enough to escape to do
this job. Clearly then a 6 pot will need 1/3 more of this 'leakage' than a 4 pot. Where does this
fit into the external feed theories? (theory's?) I like my external feed but will seriously
consider restricting it in light oft his thread. Thanks...
-
Posted By : David Powell, 24-Sep-2006, 05:32pm
Have to disagree about 100,000miles! Not a chance. Unless you run the shaft till its complete tattered.
I prefer to swap before then!
I have stripped enough engines, low, high, medium mileage to see that without fail every shaft I have
removed has been in a sorry state on the base...up to 1mm wear.
I change my ones every 5000-7500miles I guess on my modified engine. Even with decent oiling... Yes I
run hard valve springs, high lift cams and rev the balls off it..In that time wear is VERY
apparent.
I usually change oil every 1500miles also.
After a 100000miles on an engine driven by me the shaft would be so worn the rockers would exit the top
of the rocker box I'd think!
Also there's some shockingly bad shafts on the market atm, made of butter. They don't last well.
By 50,000-75,000miles regardless of oil changes and such like the rocker arms themselves will be well
past it too, compared to a new item? you might be used to wobbly rockers by now? tight ones hard to
find!
-
Posted By : Leon Guyot, 24-Sep-2006, 08:40pm
1. Do NOT use an external rocker feed.
An uneccessary waste of money and time.
2. DO use a good quality, straight and correctly heat treated rocker shaft sourced from a reputable
supplier.
3. Use good quality oil and filter and change them at either the recommended interval or twice as
often.
I would rather change rocker shafts than engine bearings any day of the week.
Regards
Léon