Remote Oil Line

[Davidless]

Can anyone share with me the size of the oil lines needed going to the remote oil filter from the block oil adaptor?

I read no smaller than 12an because of the lines creating resistance. Since the runs aren't too long and the oil filter adapter ports are all 1/2 pipe the restriction would be more so in the adaptor, so I'm guessing 10an would be sufficient?

Not sure what SF recommends

Thanks
David

[Morris]

AN -12 only

[bobcowan]

Canton and Earls recommends -10. Hamburger's recommends -12.

I use -10 without any problems.

[Unique427]

Canton's remote filter kit #22-829
at Summit Racing includes AN-10
braided lines.

If it's just a remote with a short run
AN-10 is sufficient. If you plan on
plumbing in extras like an oil cooler
and/or Accusump then AN-12.

[eschaider]

You are playing Russian Roulette with AN -10 fittings in the oil supply/delivery system. If you drive the car like a Sunday go-to-meeting car, it doesn't matter. If you drive it aggressively, even if that is infrequently, you are playing an oiling system version of Russian Roulette — when you do not have to.

The price of AN -12 hardware over AN -10 hardware is non-existant compared to a wounded engine ...

And, yes, like Russian Roulette, you may pull the trigger more than once before you find a loaded chamber. Those free trigger pulls are a form of fool's gold, to mix metaphors.

Almost forgot, AN -12 is period correct for the period correct crowd.

[bobcowan]

I raced my FFR for 10 years with -10 lines. Bearings still within specs at teardown.

My current race car also has -10 lines. After 5 seasons on a used engine, bearings still within specs. I replaced them anyway.

Granted, this is anecdotal evidence based on two vehicles. They were run flat out lap after lap. I was not gentle.

[Davidless]

The way I see it the only advantage of 12an hose vs 10an is oil line resistance because all the engine block adapters and remote oil filter adapters are 1/2" NPT. if you are trying to get max flow the constraint is the 1/2" adaptor ports.

[Morris]

For every 90* degree fitting you add 10’ft of hose length....45* degree fittings add 5’ft of hose length....

Add the fittings up and go figure if you want to play “I know more then the pros”

[eschaider]

The following plumbing performance charts and graphs from XRP Fittings reinforce what Morris is attempting to share with us. The first chart is a pressure drop chart showing how much pressure different AN hose diameters cost you. Because of the way the CC website works, I'll post the forged vs streamline graphs in the next post.

In the chart below, you can quickly see that an AN-10 line vs an AN-12 line at 20 gpm (possibly a little low, depending on your oil pump). I measured the ID of one of my AN-12 bulkhead fittings, and it is 0.627 inches, which is a close approximation of the 0.63 inches in the chart. A straight AN-10 coupling had an ID of 0.497 inches which is again a close approximation of the 0.50 inches in the chart.

The XRP research tells us that the pressure drop per 10 feet of hose with a 0.5 inch ID (AN-10 stuff) is 49 psi at 20 gallons per minute. The same pressure drop per 10 feet of hose with a 0.63 inch ID (AN-12 stuff) is 19 psi or less than half of the -10 line pressure drop.

[eschaider]

When we begin to look at the impact on performance that forged vs streamline elbows cost us on fluid system performance, it is equally impressive.

The first pic I have posted below is the visual differences between the forged and streamline fittings. Although I suspect everyone already knows the smooth tubular bend fitting is the streamline fitting, here's the pic anyway.

The second pic is the flow performance graph of the AN-10 fittings and the third is the same flow performance graph for the AN-12 fittings.

The XRP research illustrates both the flow differences between AN line sizes and also the flow loss associated with the forged style fitting vs the streamline style fitting. I think we all know we should use the streamline fitting design so I won't belabor that.

Flow-wise the AN-10 streamline fitting has approximately a 4 PSID 𝚫P. By going to a AN-12 streamline fitting the 𝚫P PSID does not even reach a 2 PSID 𝚫P.

In the end, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. That said, when the difference in cost between AN-10 and AN-12 hardware is vanishingly small, as it is, there is simply no good reason to cut corners on something as important as your engine's oil supply.

[Davidless]

Originally Posted by eschaider

When we begin to look at the impact on performance that forged vs streamline elbows cost us on fluid system performance, it is equally impressive.

The first pic I have posted below is the visual differences between the forged and streamline fittings. Although I suspect everyone already knows the smooth tubular bend fitting is the streamline fitting, here's the pic anyway.

The second pic is the flow performance graph of the AN-10 fittings and the third is the same flow performance graph for the AN-12 fittings.

The XRP research illustrates both the flow differences between AN line sizes and also the flow loss associated with the forged style fitting vs the streamline style fitting. I think we all know we should use the streamline fitting design so I won't belabor that.

Flow-wise the AN-10 streamline fitting has approximately a 4 PSID 𝚫P. By going to a AN-12 streamline fitting the 𝚫P PSID does not even reach a 2 PSID 𝚫P.

In the end, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. That said, when the difference in cost between AN-10 and AN-12 hardware is vanishingly small, as it is, there is simply no good reason to cut corners on something as important as your engine's oil supply.

Great info, now I’m wondering what is the minimum flow rate (gpm) a high performance 427 needs.

My problem is since I’m using fords high performance oil pan (came with the long block) the knuckle heads put the dip stick fitting right under where the fuel pump goes. For me to clear the tube still using the remote oil adapter, I’ll need 1/2” pipe 90 elbow.

So rather than loosing all the flow with a 90, I’m using two street 45’s to give me a greater bend, then I’ll use a 12an male flare x 1/2 male ntp adapter going into the 45 deg end. I don’t want to remove the oil pan and weld on an oil pan fitting nor do I want to spend 1000 bucks on a new pan.

For what these oil pans cost why can’t they put dip stick fittings on both sides.
Very frustrating, luckily Amazon has free returns on fittings, lol

I wonder what others have done when using fords 427 long block, I can’t be the only one with this problem. I should just scrap the remote and use the block mounted oil filter. Wowe is me

David

[Davidless]

Great info, now I’m wondering what is the minimum flow rate (gpm) a high performance 427 needs.

My problem is since I’m using fords high performance oil pan (came with the long block) the knuckle heads put the dip stick fitting right under where the fuel pump goes. For me to clear the tube still using the remote oil adapter, I’ll need 1/2” pipe 90 elbow.
So rather than loosing all the flow with a 90, I’m using two street 45’s to give me a greater bend, then I’ll use a 12an male flare x 1/2 male ntp adapter going into the 45 deg end. I don’t want to remove the oil pan and weld on an oil pan fitting nor do I want to spend 1000 bucks on a new pan.

For what these oil pans cost why can’t they put dip stick fittings on both sides.
Very frustrating, luckily Amazon has free returns on fittings, lol
David

[Davidless]

Sorry can’t seem to delete this second post

[eschaider]

When you build one of these or any other high-performance engine, asking the question what is the minimum XXXXX anything is the exact wrong way to build the engine.

[Davidless]

LOL good point!

[Davidless]

Hey, just an FYI, I looked the LT4 6.2L corvette engine we build, it uses 1/2" diameter pipe elbows (90) on the oil lines, hmm interesting.