Engine oil cooler feed line insert.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

When I said "full flow" I was talking about the std. system (95%)

Sorry Lynn, I thought you meant "true" full flow.

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

I guess I just haven't established the reason(s) why Ford made that adapter with clearance around it, rather than having a completely sealed system of one definative flow path...... Or am I not understanding something?

Yes Lynn, it appears you and Malcolm have misunderstood the screw-in adapter. It's not designed to provide bypass flow to the motor. That function is performed by the external bypass valve. As Malcolm says: "The tubing extension on it is 3/8" OD, which is a fairly snug fit in the vertical passage coming up from the pump." In other words, just enough clearance to avoid binding when screwing in and out. Any leakage past the sides would be miniscule, as the pressure differential between the two passages is perhaps 5 psi at most. I believe the bypass valve is set at 10 psi (?) to ensure adequate flow to the motor when cold. Of course, it relies on the cooler being full, as you guys mention.

CTL7142 oil cooler adapater.jpg

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

the hole in the adapter would be a restriction (little over 1/4") and much smaller than the main galleries in the block.
The Aussies plugged the cross drilling in the Aussie carriers (in the parts book) but used std fittings without the same sort of flow restriction.

This is one of those counter-intuitive situations where we need to resort to physics. It can be calculated that an adapter of 2" length and 1/4" ID will restrict flow by the same amount as 10" length of 3/8" oil gallery. In other words, it's insignificant. Which begs the question: Why do hot-rod books propose the grub screw method, when the screw-in adapter is so much simpler?

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

This would be a real trap to someone changing the engine use, and would have caused a few "run" rear mains.

Actually it's the forward bearings which would fail, as the rear main is supplied direct from the pump. Not that it particularly matters! As you say Lynn I'm sure this trap led to catastrophic failures upon engine swap. Again, it begs the question: Why would Aussies booby trap their carrier motors in this way?

[Lynn Eades]

All very interesting, and nice picture Tony. This little trap is an area that has needed covering. I thank you guys for your collective input and I am a lot happier going forward with my carrier, now that I have had the benefit of your input. Thank you again Tony and Alistair.
I must say that Andrew R. said the Aussie cross bore plug has a hole in it. I have not seen the critter in real life ( carrier part no. 656-6) There is no picture (that I am aware of) and no ref. to a hole. Maybe one of the other LP2 guys can chime in to clarify the details of this (1/4 BSP) plug / restrictor.

Tony, the last line, of your last post, is that a pit trap for catching Kiwis?

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Andrew R. said the Aussie cross bore plug has a hole in it.

Hmmm, very interesting....that would make it a partial flow oil cooler. This may be cold climate mod (to ensure oil gets hot) or to compensate for late production motor (original motor ran 40 psi, late production ran 70 psi).