Slant Six Forum
https://slantsix.org/forum/

Mopar performance Slant distributor
https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33057		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:35 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Hi, understand that (point type has oiler) but electronic stuff fits right in it ;it is a better quality piece, plus that oiler was apparently needed
Actually…no. The oiler is not needed on distributors not originally so equipped. Tens of millions of Chrysler distributors without oil cups have logged tens of billions of vehicle-miles all over the world since the oil cup was deleted for the 1969 model year (when points were still in use). The bottom of the distributor was altered such that there'd be plenty of lubrication for the distributor bushings just from crankcase splash…as long as the distributor drive pinion is properly installed. The pre-1969 distributors are not better than the '69-'87 items, though as you found out the last run of aftermarket ones sold through MP weren't especially well made. The MP distributor I bought in 1999 was equal in quality to an original-equipment item.
Quote:
Later engineers take away good stuff someone really smart figured out probably about 1940. Typical arrogance of some kinds of people that drives me crazy.--- probably got a free dinner off Chrysler for really dumb idea from a big mouth that saved 4 cents for the oiler. ;then bushing wipes out, costs them 200$ in warantee if it does. The old guys knew what they were doing, and BS of the finest and newest most refined type doesn't change that all of a sudden.
None of the above rant squares in the slightest with reality.
Quote:
Ever try to get one of those bushings out?
Yup. It's not hard with the correct bushing extractor.
Quote:
any vertical travel will make the timing dance
Yup, this distributor is driven by a helical pinion.
Author:  john grady [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Uh, i like the oiler. you can run without one all you like, OK?

There is no difference in oiling scheme between them, in fact the late one does not have a spiral groove someone mentioned that might have moved oil up the shaft, and the one that failed had a DRY wiped upper bushing after 4000 miles in mobil 1 surrounding the nylon gear; so .so much for ideas of a great new design that does not need the oiler. Anyone on board ever have a Chrysler distributor bushing fail with an oiler on it? Been building em since 57, I never have, this one did..wiped right out ; comments on that please? Couldn't be lack of oil or anything, right? Nahhh. Never; that would violate a constructed world.

If it has had an oiler, I would have put a few drops in it. but go ahead, believe what you want, and use your bushing tool you apparently have one? why? encountering failed bushings, or you just like tools? .

I have a theory; some people have lots of little things i call problem bags stuck all over them , they look like little MacDonalds bags, with P 1 to Pn , written in magic marker, where "n" can rapidly approach 100..

They try to hand them to you, sticky tape and all. So i just say NO. Notice big smile here, for rejecting problem bag # 31
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Uh, i like the oiler.
You're allowed to like the oiler however much you want. Everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion. But when you start making claims and assertions that aren't realistic, somebody might come along and correct the record. That's part of the give-and-take.
Quote:
There is no difference in oiling scheme between them
…that you've noticed yet…
Quote:
the one that failed had a DRY wiped upper bushing after 4000 miles
Okay, so that's your one data point, from a distributor that was otherwise poorly built, vs. bazillions of trouble-free miles with kermillions of well-built distributors without oilers. The oiler was eliminated when Chrysler's whole-vehicle warranty was 5 years or 50,000 miles and their engineering was widely held to be among the best in the industry, and they never issued so much as a service bulletin about failed distributor bushings, and there was never an aftermarket problem-solver oiler-retrofit kit or oiler-equipped distributor, because in general they don't fail.

So…h'm. Either you're right and Chrysler plus the whole, entire rest of the Mopar-owning world is wrong without realising it, or…

…naw. You must be right and Chrysler plus the whole, entire rest of the Mopar-owning world must be wrong without realising it. :roll:
Quote:
Anyone on board ever have a Chrysler distributor bushing fail with an oiler on it?
Anyone on board aside from Mr. Grady ever have a Chrysler distributor bushing fail without an oiler on it?
Quote:
use your bushing tool you apparently have one?
Go find where I said I have a bushing tool. I'll be over here when you're ready to point it out for us.
Quote:
I have a theory
Yes, so it seems. I hope all of your theories aren't like this one, generated from single data points sprinkled with guesses and assumptions.

Anyone who'll follow the few simple rules is welcome here on the board, but so far your contributions haven't been particularly neighbourly, eh? Coming on here and trying to push factually-incorrect "discoveries", deciding the lot of us are ignorant morons who need your help to understand what a spark advance curve is, acting as if advance curve optimisation for slant-6 engines is a giant mystery you're here to solve for us…well, so far you're not winning friends or influencing people, y'know? Please adjust your tone and approach.
Author:  john grady [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm wagging, but there is barking around here; but, like I said, I'm still smiling .

I do that big smile also when someone flips bird at me in traffic; you should see faces,,get all red; adds to the smile on this end.

Whassa matter? Is what i think...

Dan you said use bushing tool; I have a bushing tool, it won't grab it; also maybe outward pressure from expander type would crack stem? The two .500 bushings are close together in stem. don't know why, but Chrysler service data , I am sure "read by gazillions" says to tap it, and pull it out with tap.... did not have tap...

Because I avoid problem bags, i did not say anything bout all that before. Claims and assertion, you mean like "use bushing tool"--not me. Chrysler said use tap, -- heh, heh

I am trying to share stuff i have learned; I bet someone in this big ole world besides me likes an oil port on distributor, now, if one is kicking around..or should we go find one with out it, ---cuz Chrysler dropped it, and Dan says you don't need it? ?

Not the end of the world if everyone does not do as they are told about it, ..or anything else, right?

Especially after hearing about a wiped and dry bushing on one without it?

let's pass on all this, OK, really, not relevant to slant, what I am here about..and EXTREMELY thankful for the help given by the many. I learned a lot, last few days, from some very smart and helpful people, and respect that. It does not mean what i have to share has no value, you know.

Have a nice day, + keep smiling..

It is how it happened, movin West.. the bushin wiped

Ps,

I thought you might ask about ~ 57!

I had a 392 300D (D burned, bought engine fron J yard) in a 57 Dodge red and black D500 convert ~1959(blew up three built D500 325's, factory stick, they have oiling problems, throw rods, spin too fast too easy for oiling) ;

After converting 392 to stick w Dodge truck stuff (they never made that, except racing, maybe big truck) , 3800 lb B&B pressure plate, oil truck 11" clutch, 3;70 rear, promptly ate 26 Chrysler corp 57-60 junk yard sticks in one summer, street racing, pin synchros break off on 1-2 , drop into mesh on fast shift, pop trans. "Quick change " in 30 minutes. Converted to Packard OD that winter , made all the conversion stuff myself, ate 6 of those too. but learned how to build them from thinking about the failures, and acting, improving stuff.....gears are about 1.25 " wide, not the problem, simple thing involving tomato can lid fixed it. (yes,a SHIM!) 392 was bulletproof, blew up everything else. Garlits knew.

Best take downs: two 406 fords, bunch of 385 (?HP) 1 quad 409's and a brand new 61 421 Pontiac 421 Ventura coupe w trips. . A 425 HP 409 dual quad did get me, but his engine blew a few days later . Just before MAX Wedge, best time ever for dragging what you made yourself. Small block chev's 55-57 ran and hid from this car., except one 380" one and a 450" olds in a 51 coupe w Hydro stick, also killed me. But out in front of GM 85% of time at least.

Point being, I think I have some real street cred... and I hereby claim it.
Author:  steponmebbbboom [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
the only street cred you lay claim to here is breaking a whole bunch of parts and engines over a very long time. not something, you know, I would brag about, but i also don't blame the manufacturer every time something breaks, either. perhaps if i held that notion i would see every parts breakage as a feather in my cap saying "look, i'm smarter than general motors/chrysler corporation/fomoco" but i sure wouldnt last long in the mechanic business. keep smiling, buster.......
Author:  john grady [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
I won a lot , back then it sort of mattered, and then things break. And you move on , having learned something.

Maybe you can shift a pin synchro stock 50's Chrysler trans behind a 392 and not break stuff.

doubt it... smile
Author:  SlantSixDan [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
John, that's excellent advice. Suggest you apply it now: Learn something and move on. You've expressed your perceptions, opinions, guesses, and preferences. Others have expressed their views. There's little for you to gain by carrying on further.

A friendly reminder: there are provisions on this board for your tone and approach to be adjusted for you, but you might not like how it's done. Best do it on your own — now, please. Thanks.
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/