I have 1975 New Yorker with 440 engine. I took the timing chain cover off and found no oil slinger. I changed the timing chain and plan on putting in an oil slinger . My question; did Chrysler stop putting oil slingers in when they started using a cast crank or does anyone have evidence of oil slingers being used with a cast crank? I saw an oil slinger used with a forged crank on Nick's Garage on You Tube. Paul
Question on oil singers
- Thread starter spstan
- Start date
carguy300
Well-Known Member
I know when I pulled cover on my 68 440 there was no slinger on it, put new gears and chain and put on a new oil slinger just because.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Out of three 70's 440's I personally tore down, only one had the slinger. Just remember to put it on facing correctly.
Command; "facing correctly"- that means convex surface facing towards motor, right? I haven't decided yet whether to use the slinger I bought cause I'm worried about having a clanging sound if it doesn't fit right; have to think about it. Paul
I would highly suspect that ALL engines had oil slingers/deflectors at one time or another. Advances in timing cover seal designs and such may have made them a bit obsolete in some cases. Especially the introduction of the "double-lip" seal.
Use of the slinger/deflector has NOTHING to do with crankshaft material.
As mentioned in a prior thread on this subject, allegedly Chrysler discontinued the slinger when they went to a double-lip timing cover seal. In theory, two lips should be as good as a single-lip and a slinger. Which probably made sense to the accounting types in a period when Chrysler was starting to have financial issues. "Financial issues" can mean that where possible, costs were cut, one of which was deleting the slinger/deflector and using a seal that cost (probably) a dime more. Saving not only the cost of the slinger, but also the cost of the time to install it on the crankshaft nose.
If your engine did not have one and you verified the old seal was a double-lip seal, AND the new seal was similar, AND no seeps from that area, that's all of the proof you need.
Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
Use of the slinger/deflector has NOTHING to do with crankshaft material.
As mentioned in a prior thread on this subject, allegedly Chrysler discontinued the slinger when they went to a double-lip timing cover seal. In theory, two lips should be as good as a single-lip and a slinger. Which probably made sense to the accounting types in a period when Chrysler was starting to have financial issues. "Financial issues" can mean that where possible, costs were cut, one of which was deleting the slinger/deflector and using a seal that cost (probably) a dime more. Saving not only the cost of the slinger, but also the cost of the time to install it on the crankshaft nose.
If your engine did not have one and you verified the old seal was a double-lip seal, AND the new seal was similar, AND no seeps from that area, that's all of the proof you need.
Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
ynst
New Member
Oil slingers SLING oil onto the moving timing chain. Leave it out and your timing chain ruins dry
That's why it's called a slinger.
That's why it's called a slinger.
Just Carbs
Well-Known Member
The crankshaft timing gear is soaked full time with oil pressure from the front main. Enough that the slinger is needed to protect the seal. If the seal fails with no slinger on a road trip it's going to be a big problem.
By observations, "failures" of lip seals do not happen suddenly, but gradually over time. Seeps get bigger over time. As the seal wears and the crankshaft nose it wears against also develops an indentation from such sear.
By comparison, the torque converter nose lip seal sees atf pressure and will leak more fluid when it wears. Pressure, rather than not, plus the thinner atf, makes it more prone to quicker escalation of compromised seal area leaks.
CBODY67
By comparison, the torque converter nose lip seal sees atf pressure and will leak more fluid when it wears. Pressure, rather than not, plus the thinner atf, makes it more prone to quicker escalation of compromised seal area leaks.
CBODY67
IMHO, it doesn't matter if the slinger was in there to start with... or got left off etc.
I would add one anyway. They do keep oil away from the seal and therefore keep any seepage to a minimum. They're cheap, easy to install (when its apart) and there's no downside to it being there. So why debate it?
I would add one anyway. They do keep oil away from the seal and therefore keep any seepage to a minimum. They're cheap, easy to install (when its apart) and there's no downside to it being there. So why debate it?
Just Carbs
Well-Known Member
I've had a couple of catastrophic failures of ancient front main seals with no slinger on cars that had a known weeping seal. Decades ago.
The oil came a gushing on out of there. Lots of smoke on the exhaust.
We didn't think the old beaters were worth the time and effort to replace the seals, so we just let them seep. Then it was instantly call a tow truck time.
Apparently, that front main bearing is throwing a lot of oil.
Similar threads
