<VV> Pre-Lube and it's not watcha thinkin'

[Mark Durham]

Tony, your story is similar to mine. Well, my original car had 44K on it
when I got it, but the dufous adjusted the valves wrong and burnt some, so I
refaced the valves and replaced rings and bearings. 88K later the nylon cam
gear came apart and the car stopped. Since I was in there, I honed the
barrels (no ridge at the top) a second time, put new std rings on the old
cleaned pistons and std bearings, and this time new lifters on the old cam
with 132K miles on it, then drove it to 220K miles and sold it (I was a
fool). My current car also a 1962 102 hp coupe is a 67K miles 1 owner before
me, and there is piston slap in 2 cyls, #1 and #4. A cyl/piston/rod (not
same #) have been changed #1. Mine was owned by a lady, who gave it to her
high school daughter who sold it to me some 40 years later, but I think your
story about occasional (if any) oil changes applies.
I think I am going to overhaul it so I know what is there and then I can run
it without worry.

The morale of the story is,
GM designed a great motor that is easy to work on, and if you take care of
the engine, it will take care of you.  Mark Durham

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Tony Underwood <tony.underwood at cox.net>wrote:

> At 07:45 PM 12/19/2009, Mark Durham wrote:
> >Bruce, history has shown that the corvair engine bottom end is extremely
> >resilient, if a few precautions are taken. One guy I know has a 110 in a
> 65,
> >I think, automatic, with 137K on it and never been apart, still runs
> great,
> >he says.
>
>
>
> The engine in my '60 sedan went 196k (that I know of, still never was
> sure if it had 78,000 miles or 178,000 miles on it when I got it in
> 1984.   I gave it the benefit of the doubt and assumed it only had
> 78k... which is highly unlikely but the only reference I had was on
> the car's title as handed to me, which showed around 48k or so when
> the previous owner titled it, which was a couple of years before
> then.   No reference to any "mileage indicated exceeds mechanical
> limits"... so I went with the notion that I bought a 24 year old
> Corvair with 78,000 original miles on it, which had 48,000 "original"
> miles on it in 1982 when the student acquired it.
>
> Hey, it could happen...
>
> Anyway, I went with 78k.   The rest of the miles I stuck on it over
> the next 20-odd years and it never required anything else the whole
> time I drove the car outside of replacing the brushes in the starter
> and converting it to an alternator.   Then, a couple years ago the
> original engine swallowed a valve, did bad things to the #2
> piston.   Up until that time it never got any special treatment other
> than regular (sorta) oil changes.
>
> It's previous owners...?
>
>
> No clue, although the last owner ran the car with flaky carbs leaned
> out bad until it burned three valves and would barely run at all
> after which it got for all intents and purposes discarded to one of
> the club members who ran a shop who decided, due to the car's worn
> condition, that it was "good for parts".   I rescued it when I saw it
> in his lot, felt the car had not had anybody love it in a very long
> time.   I took it on, paid too much money for it, coaxed it onto a
> trailer and got it home, swapped out the heads with a pair of 102 hp
> versions ('62 vintage) then rebuilt the carbs and it ran
> fine.   That's how it ran until it ate the valve over 20 years later.
>
> I have no clue what sort of rotgut oil this car may have been treated
> to along the way or how long its absolutely unsympathetic previous
> owner (a younger female college student) ran it between oil changes
> or if she ever changed it at all, rather than just add a quart of
> whatever from the 7-11 when the light came on, which must have been
> semi-weekly considering the condition of the tube seals.
>
> ...and it's highly unlikely that engine ever got prelubed before
> starting.  ;)  When it ate the valve it was still running pretty
> well, used very little oil although it leaked a tad bit from the
> front main seal, was quiet and smooth.
>
>
> So... it either had 196k or 296k when the engine snacked the valve,
> currently has (according to my presumption) either 212k or 312k on
> the car as we speak.   I'm gonna keep going with 212k.
>
>
> When one of those lackluster days comes along when the weather's
> nice, I'm gonna yank the original engine out of the barn where it's
> stored and fix it, and either return it to its rightful place or
> stick it back in storage again for a rainy day etc.   No new rings or
> bearings or whatever, rather see how long it will go as-is.
>
> ...it's 50 years old now, and a testament to the durability of the
> Corvair powerplant.
>
> This prompts me to post another even more annoying commentary on the
> car and its current GEM of an engine that I picked up a while back
> because it was available and affordable and damned near mint
> original.  And, I was gonna find a use for it one way or another.
>
>
>
>
> tony..
>  _______________________________________________
> This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are
> the property
> of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, mailto:
> vv-help at corvair.org
> This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America,
> http://www.corvair.org/
> Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
> Change your options:
> http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
>  _______________________________________________
>