So I have these two engine and an oiling diagram here...an EJ205 with a spun #4 and an EJ257 with a cooked and cracked piston at the same time that the rod bearings are nicely scored...and I was thinking...lets look at the oiling system of the block while I've got these two apart.

While this is an EJ22 diagram, its clear and large and the flow is the same for the EJ205/257 blocks.

http://wjmrallyesport.com/ej22t_oil_flow.gif
http://wjmrallyesport.com/ej22t_oil_system.gif

Note that the LH block is supplying oil to the center (#3) main bearing which also has the feeds for the #2 AND #3 rod bearings. The LH also supplies #2 main. The RH supplies #1 main which supplies #1 rod, then #4 main which supplies #4 rod.

So the feed for the #3 main also supplies the #2 and #3 rod bearing.

Thinking back...I have seen more #2 and #3 rod bearing spinning action compared to the rest. The next most common I've seen is #4 spun.

I was doing some thinking...

Increase the diameter of the feeds to the mains in order to supply a larger volume of oil to the bearings. The same *could* be done to the crank to increase the supply to the rods.

You'd have to increase the volume accordingly at the pump as the system's demands will be higher...also making sure the pressure is at or higher than stock.

Now I'm not talking about just taking a 3/8ths inch drill bit to something here...I'm talking about doing some careful thinking and math to do it CORRECTLY in order to PROPERLY increase the supply to safeguard the engine under extreme situations.

I also understand that starvation from cornering and other situations like that can be safeguarded with an Accusump type device. And making sure the engine is actually FILLED TO THE CORRECT LEVEL with oil will prevent oil starvation. And that running the oil too hot will result in a failure.

So assuming you've taken the safety procedures with an accusump, proper oil level/amount in the system and the operational temperature of the oil is sound...would increasing the volume of the oil supply to the crank and rod bearings further safeguard against failure?

Also...would this type of modification allow for higher a RPM operating range? Say 8000 or more? For the sake of talking about higher RPM lets assume the rods are beef'd properly, the pistons as well...and everything is balanced whatever RPM you want...also the valve train/cams/turbo/EM/etc is there...just need to address this oiling issue.


Discuss.

This is a lot more information that you were talking about on WRXAtlanta a while back Will. I am thinking that with the right math and pressure measurements that this would be a good idea to do but not for the average person. A great thing to do when someone is in the process of building a motor the right way however. Great Diagrams though.

I didnt post this 'complicated' thread on wrxatlanta because there's only 3~4 ppl that would actually care...and 0 that would actually have engineering data to back up any theories.

Here we have people like hotrod and several others that are VERY informative when they post and have engineering data/background to back it up. Thats the PLUS to NASIOC that keeps me here over abandoning it altogether.

*waits for one of those people to post*

I have my own thoughts as to why #4 fails (related to location on the gallery in comparison to 1 and 5) but as for 2 and 3 it is obviously a flow/volume issue as they have to share the same volume that every other rod bearing gets by itself...the issue with larger volume increases the problem with centrifugal force as the center of the crank cross drilling....the more volume, the more oil mass and therefore more pressure needed to get oil accross the crank.
With my upcoming long/heavy rod, high rpm build oil pressure and system analysis has been a big issue for me...especially as I'm doing with a "factory" oil pump

Well...lets make more pressure along with volume...WHILE increasing the actual volume to the crank.

I didnt post this 'complicated' thread on wrxatlanta because there's only 3~4 ppl that would actually care...and 0 that would actually have engineering data to back up any theories.

Here we have people like hotrod and several others that are VERY informative when they post and have engineering data/background to back it up. Thats the PLUS to NASIOC that keeps me here over abandoning it altogether.

*waits for one of those people to post*

The oil feed problem seems fairly obvious to me. I'll talk to my uncle tommrow and see how he feels about telling people what changes we have made.

I'll say this much Its not something you can do at home.

What Doug is doing to his motors is pretty similar and it seems to be working for him.

Don't gorget that high pressures waste hp past about 10 psi per 1000 rpms and oil filters in cold climates have been known to burst or blow their gaskets on startup. I'm not sure if an oberg style filter is as good as a can style filter but at least they can take the pressure.

Charliew

The turbo EJ engines run 85 PSI at any RPM higher than 3000 when warm. Thats in stock form.

There must be a reason for the engineers NOT running it engine at 50psi at 5000 RPM.

If the oiling system is not up to par, then your main bearings will be damaged as well...

I would also think your cam journals will be dead as they are the last in line to get oil?

Can you supply us with photos of these?

If the oiling system is not up to par, then your main bearings will be damaged as well... That is only if you have insufficient oil pressure for the entire system

I would also think your cam journals will be dead as they are the last in line to get oil? see above comment as that is insufficient pressure for the entire system...the typical subie failure is seen at the rod bearings which are their own end of the oiling system and in my mind really have their own oil pressure demands above the rest of the system due to crank design. The cam journals are another end of the oil system.

^^The cams are spinning at quite a slower speed (never measured the crank and cam gear diameters to get the ratio - i'm guessing somewhere in the 2:1 ratio for obvious reasons), so I don't think the damage to the cam journals will be nearly as bad as the main/rod bearings.

^^The cams are spinning at quite a slower speed (never measured the crank and cam gear diameters to get the ratio - i'm guessing somewhere in the 2:1 ratio for obvious reasons), so I don't think the damage to the cam journals will be nearly as bad as the main/rod bearings.

that's my point...the mains and cams both have oiling direct from a gallery...the rods have to go through a timed event through the crankshaft...and have the most forces exerted on them...the mains do however have the highest bearing speed.

cams are exactly 1/2 of crank speed.

cams are exactly 1/2 of crank speed.

well in degrees of rotation or radians, yeah...but what is the diameter of the journal to find the bearing speed? they are different, unless the cam circumference is half that of the main as well...
anyone have a cam sitting by them?

I do. what measurement do you need?

what you said makes sense...and doesnt at the same time.

well the cam completes a revolution at in twice the time of the crank revolution now what is the distance that the cam surface (circumference) travels in a given time. Its a simple velocity problem...distance/time = velocity

oh that.

didnt you want a measurement? I had 4 cams laying around from an EJ257...2.5 hrs ago.

that's my point...the mains and cams both have oiling direct from a gallery...the rods have to go through a timed event through the crankshaft...and have the most forces exerted on them...the mains do however have the highest bearing speed.

Could you please explain the "timed event" for the rods to get their oil?

Could you please explain the "timed event" for the rods to get their oil?

I believe he is talking about the alignment of the holes in the bearing matching the crank-rod feed holes.

However, that doesnt make sense to me entirely as even if you make the crank static and not aligned with the holes, the oil you are feeding to the main would still send oil to rods thru the feed there...its a rule of pressure differential. It makes sense that it would work like that while in motion as well.

oh that.

didnt you want a measurement? I had 4 cams laying around from an EJ257...2.5 hrs ago.

sure if you have them on hand...I'm still waiting for my new cams and have sold all my others to afford the new ones :sadbanana:

I believe he is talking about the alignment of the holes in the bearing matching the crank-rod feed holes.

However, that doesnt make sense to me entirely as even if you make the crank static and not aligned with the holes, the oil you are feeding to the main would still send oil to rods thru the feed there...its a rule of pressure differential. It makes sense that it would work like that while in motion as well.

yes, the timed event being when the holes align...and yes pressure differential does continue to send SOME oil through in theory (how much volume do think is honestly getting through? I think negligable) and I'm sure real world (never seen a test or tested it myself, so not stating as fact)...regardless they have much poorer oil feed that the mains and cam which are fed via gallery 100% of the time.

perhaps the time event is the fact that the single oriface in the crank [for a given rod]gives off it's best oiling where that opening is ie tdc, bdc or 93* etc. [written the same time as homemade explained his statement]

So if a motor spins a rod bearing and the mains are still in good condition, is it possible it was an oil issue? or does the mains being in good condition rule that out...

I've seen quite a few with perfectly useable mains, 1 trashed rod and the others very UNpretty.

Pics:

***The pics are HUGE.***

http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5927.JPG
http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5928.JPG
http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5929.JPG
http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5930.JPG
http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5931.JPG
http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5932.JPG
http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5933.JPG
http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5934.JPG
http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5935.JPG
http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5936.JPG
http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5937.JPG

So if a motor spins a rod bearing and the mains are still in good condition, is it possible it was an oil issue? or does the mains being in good condition rule that out...

well,if just the rod bearings have failed it will usually be a tolerance or tuning issue...it can also be an oil related issue via crank issue with oil pressure (which is still theory but is based off of simple physics).

well,if just the rod bearings have failed it will usually be a tolerance or tuning issue...it can also be an oil related issue via crank issue with oil pressure (which is still theory but is based off of simple physics).

I'm sure its a pressure/volume issue.

I've torn down several engines with a slight knock and the mains were fine, but the rods looked horrid and the knocking one was either spun like in the pics or had excessive clearance due to lack of oil.

90% of them ended up as customer pay engines due to mods and/or lack of oil change records.

However, some of that 10% did have all the mods in the book to 'void' the powertrain warranty but because they had ALL their oil change records from the dealer from DAY ONE of ownership, SUBARU paid for it.

if the main were a little tighter the rods a little looser with the rod side clearence slightly snuger. if the main look as you say "perfectly usable" they maybe robbing the nessary oil pressure and volume from the rods. can the heads use a little less oil?as soon as the rod bearing starts making heat it grows and less oil to cool is aloud end of story sooner or ... as soon as the cycle starts it's makin' metal. what we like to see is simular wear on all parts instead of a weak link, right?

I'll bet everyfailure was low oil level and maybe too much thinning from to rich and too many rpms with the average owner age about 23. These turboed motors need their oil checked on every fillup and that means also checking for fuel contamination. If you're going to run pig rich you might as well run cheap oil and change it every 3k. Yeah I know it's gone way past that several times and it's still going but for how long? I'm not sure about the 5 speed but it is really easy to down shift to the wrong gear on a 6 speed and the rev limiter is of no use there. Talk about rod stretch at 9500 in 2nd when it should have been 4th.

Charliew

^^Yeah, I agree there.

However, lets get back on topic for motorsports applications...not making the engine bulletproof for kids to drive like stupid.

:banana:you is so right there, diluted oil is good for 2 thing destroying motors and draining out of motor but 2nd instead of 4th is hard to protect a motor against that!

so restrict #2 open #3 main,how much this is what your seeing isn't it, how much is the question and the 3/8 drill questionable!making up a test to test your theory would be a little difficult but it is worth considering water instead of oil would be less of a mess

well, I personally wouldn't start by restricting one oil feed so much as I would enlarge the one that needs more...

So with what I am coming up with is that if the diameter of these feeds that I circled were enlarged then that would increase oil supply to the rod bearings in the grand scheme of things right?

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd223/STiBottom/Oiling.jpg

how much is the problem to solve?

Yes to Stibottom

you missed the feed on number one...I personally would start with the problematic rods/main...think of supply demand at each feed...

yes, the timed event being when the holes align...and yes pressure differential does continue to send SOME oil through in theory (how much volume do think is honestly getting through? I think negligable) and I'm sure real world (never seen a test or tested it myself, so not stating as fact)...regardless they have much poorer oil feed that the mains and cam which are fed via gallery 100% of the time.

I asked my pop about your idea of a timed oiling event for the rod bearings. I think he is still :lol:

In this photo you can see the oil passages in the main bearings that supply oil to the rods during all 360 degrees of the cranks rotation http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5934.JPG

sure if you have them on hand...I'm still waiting for my new cams and have sold all my others to afford the new ones :sadbanana:

OD measurements:

30.6mm where the cam sensor picks up.

29.97mm on the race.

32.0mm where the lobes are pressed on.

EJ257 Intake cam. EJ255 cams are the same.

I asked my pop about your idea of a timed oiling event for the rod bearings. I think he is still :lol:

In this photo you can see the oil passages in the main bearings that supply oil to the rods during all 360 degrees of the cranks rotation http://wjmrallyesport.com/spun_ej205/DSCF5934.JPG

yes, I know that the mains have grooves to supply oil all 360*. Now ask your laughing dad to work out the flow losses in theory or even put in on a liquid flow bench to see the difference in delivered volume and pressure at the rod journal when any of the 6 holes are aligned and when they are between "alignments" (6 opendings in the each grooved main bearing if IIRC)...This won't make a huge difference overall but direct flow increases a lot especially when using sharpened 90* exits and entrances into and out of a port. I had a lab similar to this in fluid mechanics and the differences were pretty substantial.

now please don't take this the wrong way. I don't want to turn this into a crawford bashing thread or anything of the sort. Your "pop" has done a lot for the subaru aftermarket over the years and I do respect that.

also, what's the story behind that block?

The most restrictive spot is the groove under the #3 main shell that feeds #3 main. I think I will enlarge the groove and make elongated oil feed holes in the main shell and use a full circle grooved shell. I've also thought about trying to tie in the other case half to supply oil to #3.

Added thought jan 09, I went and looked at a case half while wittmer25 and I was working on his car last night and it looks really easy to drill another feed to #3 main in the other case half. All you would need is to plug it with a 3/8 npt plug on the outside after the drilling. I think I could do it with a hand drill.

Oh yeah, we added oil to his motor with the homeade pressure oiler ( I got the idea from Jake Raby the type 4 guru) and with the level 1 qt low using a sti dip stick it holds 7qts. I'm pretty happy, it was a lot of work. The pan is about 3/4 of an inch lower than the perrin equal length headers and pretty well fills the triangle inside the crossmember and the headers with aluminium heat shields between the headers and pan. That would be about the full mark on a wrx with the same setup but using a wrx dip stick. Because we put the oil in through the stock pressure sender port it means the filter and everything was full.

Now if I just had a short accusump. The 3qt one shortened to about 1-1/2 I think thats all I can do on oil volume and now need to work on the galleries.

One more thought. If subaru would make a sequential shifter I bet they would save a bunch on trannys and motors.

Charliew

So with what I am coming up with is that if the diameter of these feeds that I circled were enlarged then that would increase oil supply to the rod bearings in the grand scheme of things right?


That’s assuming that those galleries present a restriction at the typical flow rate. It’s quite possible that you would see no measurable difference in pressure/flow. Assuming that all supply galleries are sufficiently sized (this is a big assumption) the flow to the bearing is governed by the bearing clearance and side clearance. And being that the main bearing is an outlet point before the rod, its clearances are very important. Given that the rod bearings seem to be the weak link in the EJ engine at high load/RPM I would think twice about using the “race” main bearings with the extra 0.001” clearance, that mains don’t seem to be an issue and you are just robbing oil from the rods.

Rod oiling a timed event?

Let’s do some math…

Main journal = 60mm, 60mm x 3.14 = 188.4mm circumference
Oil passage size = 4mm (I don’t have a bearing handy but I think that’s generous)

The main bearing has a back groove and 3 holes per half (to equalize the pressure, hint, hint), so the timed event happens 6 times per revolution. Let’s look at this timed event as a percent of circumference.

4mm x 6 = 24mm, 24mm/188.4mm = .127… 13% ignoring transition to full alignment. If you included transition you would get 26% but we are talking about round holes so the first and last part of the transition would have very little flow area. So lets say you average a 6mm exposure… 19% of the rotation is responsible for the majority of the oiling???

If this is the case there will be a pressure/flow spike associated with this timed event, so (more math)…

Nominal RPM = 3500, 3500/60 = 58.3 Rev/sec

From above… 6mm event, 188.4mm circumference, 188.4/360 = 0.523mm/degree, 6mm/0.523mm/deg = 11.5 deg/event.
360 degree/rev x 58.3 rev/sec = 20988 deg/sec. (can you see where this is going?)

11.5deg/event / 20988deg/sec = 0.00055 seconds per event. The pressure/flow spike would have to rise and fall in a 6/10,000 of a second window of time. I’m just not buying it.

Gary

Gary, your math is correct but now keep in mind the increased flow demand to cover two rod journals at say 7000 rpm...you now must flow twice the oil through main 3 that 1 and 5 have to do in the same given time...@ 7k you have .0003 s for 1 and 5...now when trying to make a flow issue through small ports, mass in mass out can always present a flow issue and pressure differential issue (think restrictor)...now what is the volumetric demand of 3 at the same minute timing event...not so much saying the pressure waves in the port (although it does on a minute and negligable scale) but that is becomes more a flow rate issue through the same given minute point that is eleviated when ports align...that just leads me to wonder if enlarged groove and elarged or more holes in the bearing might aid in the flow...

I'm not trying to make a point but mearly poking at a possible solution and gauging others thoughts...?...

By the way, so you guys know...

The feeds that go to the 1, 3 and 5 mains are twice the size of the 2 and 4 feeds.

I'll take another look tomorrow to be sure, but I remember the 3 feed being larger than both 1 and 5 feeds.

Homemade WRX hit it on the #3 crank main...you would need to flow twice the amount INTO and THRU the crank to supply both rods.

the feeds IN the crank from 3M to 2R and 3R are the same as found on 1M-1R and 5M-4R.

yes, I know that the mains have grooves to supply oil all 360*. Now ask your laughing dad to work out the flow losses in theory or even put in on a liquid flow bench to see the difference in delivered volume and pressure at the rod journal when any of the 6 holes are aligned and when they are between "alignments" (6 opendings in the each grooved main bearing if IIRC)...This won't make a huge difference overall but direct flow increases a lot especially when using sharpened 90* exits and entrances into and out of a port. I had a lab similar to this in fluid mechanics and the differences were pretty substantial.

now please don't take this the wrong way. I don't want to turn this into a crawford bashing thread or anything of the sort. Your "pop" has done a lot for the subaru aftermarket over the years and I do respect that.

also, what's the story behind that block?

Its all cool and not taken the wrong way by me...

Whats the story behind that block? Its one of the photos I copied from your post to use as illustration :p

what block?

Its one of the photos I copied from your post to use as illustration :p
It wasn't my post :p

;)


what block?

the one he linked in his post

Ah, my block.

Ah, my block.

And my mistake :o

np. pics are there for ppl to see and use.

I have not dragged the block sets back out yet...but I have the EJ205 crank handy.

So I was measuring the holes in the crank that go from the main to the rod...a HAIR smaller than 7/32".

the 1 3 and 5 are the same size.

Wait...the #3 needs to fee TWO rods bearings...thru the same size hole that the others are only feeding ONE rod.

1 3 and 5 are fed from both sides of the crank.

make #3 main rod fee larger?

Wait...the #3 needs to fee TWO rods bearings...thru the same size hole that the others are only feeding ONE rod.

1 3 and 5 are fed from both sides of the crank.

make #3 main rod fee larger?

and you cought on...now centrifugal force becomes an issue with an increased feed hole as the mass of oil inside the feed hole has then increases as well ;)
double edged sword...easily physics problem to work out a worse case scenario for pressure demand at a given RPM to overcome the issue.

I was noticing that the JDM crank and some others have 4 rod feeds instead of two.

I was noticing that the JDM crank and some others have 4 rod feeds instead of two.

which allows a higher volume flow rate assuming you don't have this centrifugal acceleration hindering pressure delivered (theoretical idea that came from the "cross-drilling crankshaft" thread)...the theory makes sense but is kind of hard to prove/dis-prove in an operating motor (without an nice budget)...

I remember reading that thread.

I'm just super bored. I've worked on 3 cars today...2 oil changes and a front license plate bracket install.

So out of the 9 hours I've been here at the shop I've actually WORKED for 15 minutes.

Lets stand back for a second. That and let me see if I have this correct.

M1 and M5 feed one rod. Ok and M3 feeds two rods right. Now all mains have the size supply holes. So R2 and R3 get half what R1 and R4 get or should theoreticly. So why would giving M3 more flow or enough to equal R1 and R4 be a problem because R1 and R4 would already have this problem and R1 doesnt seem to be a issue. Now R4 is close to the back and that would be understandable for that.

What are of manufactures and engine builder for other cars doing. I mean 85#of oil pressure stock is a good bit hell even 71# on a nonturbo is high. There arent many engines that run that high stock. So is centrifugal forces going to be a issue? Or at what point is it a problem? I mean if we can flow enough oil with pressure being a problem at 70# and we are running 85# pressure wont make it a problem obviously.

Also who is to say the block casting flows well to every main. I ask this because seven bolt 4g63s have a casting alignment issue and they crank wall alot more than six bolt 4g63s. I think we might just be looking at the problem to closely.

yeah, M3 gets the oil to R2 and R3. Theoretically, R2 and R3 should see less volume than R1 and R4.

I've taken all the plugs out of that ej205 block and looked at all the feeds/mains/passages.

It can stand to see a ton of improvement.

I wish STi would have hand finished engines...ya know, with all this small stuff done up very well.

i think enlarging the feed passage is more work than its gonna be worth

i had this same problem on an inline six chevy engine that i built for a street stock class (circle track stuff around here)...basically we just elongated the hole in the direction of the crank rotation and did the same to the bearing so it matched up

now what i mean is basically making the oil feed hole out of the block into a teardrop shape with the tip going in the direction of the rotation, and made sure it was chamfered well with no sharp edges

i think this was mentioned vaguely earlier, so i may just be reiterating a thought that was already stated, but i just thought id throw my two cents in....it seemed to help a ton, and we didnt have any failures there as long as i was working on it

what this, in theory does, is lengthen the time there is direct feed to the crank....which seems to be the whole idea here

if you lengthen the hole 50% the size of the stock feed hole, you will (obviously :P) get 50% more time of direct oiling

another thing that just crossed my mind....have there been problems with cooling in that general area of the block (where the oil feed in question is located)?

majorP those main bearing are grooved so the pressure is pretty constant.

wjm I'm interested in the jdm crank w/4 holes, is this crank more problem free?

I beleive the river of oil needs to be wide so it can carry the goods to 2 n 3rods

as soon as the bypass is working you don't have much better than stock delivery, I mean your still on a 2 lane road.

if the passage are opened up you may show a lower idle pressure anywhere other than there comes better lub and cool, the oil
cycles much faster though


:::{}:::has anyone restricked the releif system in the head some, had any problem???


if you open a passage up from 2mm to 3mm it's increased to 235%[rough#] now you have a 4 lane highway with out to much work:banana: ........ the passage system is in stock form and the mods and clearences are not are they the demand are slightly greater as well! a regular drill wants to catch and gall it's a real pain, what I found from rebushing throttle plates was to start the hole with a regular drill for 1/8" and then take another drill that you have ground the point flat and start it down it cuts real fast and smooth it mills it so to speak. if you need it longer just weld something to the end of it and take it easy.move the traffic along
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________
================================================== ==============================================
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
<::::><::::> Homemade WRX manley has two epoxys- magic seal epoxy intake pn #40187 [it's like silllyputty so it works real easy] and miracle
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........................
seal exhaust pn# 40180 [it's good to 1350* F]:)

Sounds like you want a long shank reamer.

Boy!! I'm glad there's not to many post like that but I do appreciate the part about the epoxy.

Charliew

Boy!! I'm glad there's not to many post like that but I do appreciate the part about the epoxy.

Charliew

ditto...time to call manley

I'm still trying to think of when I had asked for epoxies outside of the ported head thread.

epoxy?

We're talking about the oiling system here damnit.