datsun-roadsters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why #3?

To: datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Why #3?
From: Gordon Glasgow <glasgow@serv.net>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 19:58:06 -0700
Somebody at Nissan thought the U20 still had an oiling problem. Check out the 
following scans I just
did of a Datsun Racing News bulletin detailing a change to the oil passages on 
the U20:
http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/Images/U20_Oil_Mod1.gif
http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/Images/U20_Oil_Mod2.gif
http://www.gordon-glasgow.org/Images/U20_Oil_Mod3.gif

Sorry I didn't have time to do a nice clean job on this. I simply scanned the 
pages. The pictures
weren't much help, anyway, since all I was working from was a photocopy.

Another thought on all the piston failures - did you guys make sure you put the 
rods in with the
little oil hole pointing towards the distributor side of the block? That oil 
hole lubricates and
cools the piston on that side. The other side gets plenty of splash 
lubrication. I noticed that the
hole in Victor's piston was on the distributor side.

Jim Tyler wrote:

> Don't lump the number 2 or 3 rod bearing failures from the r-16 (GP) into the
> U20.
> The U20 doesn't have any inherent cylinder faults like the 1600.
> Those of us who have built a lot of modified R16 engines, know about the 2/3
> problem.  It is inherent in the oiling system of both the 3 main, and
> 5 main R16 designs.  With quite a bit of money and specific machine work it 
>can
> be eliminated.    Nissan eliminated it for us in the U20 design.

--
Gordon Glasgow
http://www.gordon-glasgow.org



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>