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

[Tony Underwood]

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..