|
|
Posted by David Sherman [24.32.202.83] on Monday, May 17, 2010 at 21:13:43 :
In Reply to: Almost always #6. posted by Chriscase [76.224.243.62] on Monday, May 17, 2010 at 20:27:48 :
I'd hesitate to say there's a design flaw in an engine that was so widely used for so many years. All of them in existence today are well beyond their design life. It's obviously a low-RPM design, for lots of reasons.
I tend to discount the "centrifugal pump" theory because if that was the case there would have been lots of failures long ago, especially in setups like generators, welders, and boats, where they run at high speed constantly. Where I could possibly see the "centrifugal pump" theory having some effect is if all the bearings were sloppy and #6 was last in the line. In that case, perhaps centrifugal force did sling too much oil out of all the bearings along the way, and didn't leave enough for #6, but at that point, you'd have been looking at low oil pressure on the gauge for a long time.
Remember, Jerry's engine #6 rod bearing seized up. It wasn't worn out. That means no oil to it. That also means, assuming all the bearings wear about the same, that the rest of the bearings weren't worn out either. Perhaps an examination of nearby bearings will show discoloration or scoring, but if not, I would have to stick with the gunk-in-the-oil-passage theory. The hesitation in the engine could well have been due to the load of the seizing bearing.
Follow Ups: