Whats the best oil to use for 1931 Knight engine?

Great news! I finally got the Willys Knight engine freed up, so I want to change oil and get the old gas out of her before I try to to run the motor up.
Anyone know whats the best weight oil to use? I ***uming straight 30 weight will be OK, but I do live in Alaska and this mornings temp was 38 degrees although it warmed up to 60 today. I don't plan on running it in the severe cold.

 

Is this a sleeve valve engine? If so, or maybe regardless, a synthetic as you want the best lubricating film possible.

 

Yes, it's a sleeve valve engine.

 

In this case a straight 30 non detergent would be the best. Sleeve valve engines had oil control issues on their best day and I'm betting synthic would run through it like **** through a tin horn as my Dad always said.Non-det. was what was available when these engines were designed and thats what they were intended to use. Even at that do not be surprised/upset to see a bit of blue haze following you down the road,oil use in those engines was the norm.

 

Yea, I thought so. The neat thing about a sleeve valve engine was that it ran better as it carboned up the cylinders, tolerences became tighter.

 

Gee, I don't think I agree with he recommendation to use a non-detergent oil. The argument that 'that is what these engines were designed for' makes it sound like they CHOSE to use non-detergent oils. The fact is that detergent oils DIDN'T EXIST.

We all know how gunked up early engines got; why would you want to do this to your motor?

If the oil runs through too much, resulting in a smoky ride, you could always go to a slightly higher viscosity.

I would think that on a sleeve-valve engine you would want to go with something that will provide a good film in between the sliding parts. Synthetics do well in this regard.

 

If it was new rebuilt diesel oil would be good. There is a risk of dtergent breaking loose the gunk & causing problems.

 

29nash & plym49. Knight sleeve valve engines were setup with fairly loose fits on the cylinder sleeve and synthics and multi vis oils would not be a good idea as oil consumtion would be high. Straight weights and even with a detergent oil will work best.

 

He is right. Once you study what a sleeve valve engine is and how it works, you will understand the need for oil to carbon up a little to enhance the seals between cylinder and sleeve.

Congrats on getting a very interesting engine back from the near-dead.

Cosmo

 

Isn't it so that the detergent in the new oils DOES NOT remove existing deposits at all but rather holds contaminants in suspension that they might be captured in the filter or burned rather than making new depsoits or adding to existing ones?
That is what I remember always reading about oils and have always used detergent oil for this reason. Have never had problems in the gunchiest of engines with crud breaking free and stopping us anything. Indeed, if the oil pump screen has issues teh new and better oils will not make new deposists to further restrict the collection of oil to the pump.

 

Understood. That's why I would want a good film in there.

 

Apparently, it ain't gonna be in the engine long, so I'd be running the stuff from Dollar General, It still better than what was avaialble in its day.

from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Engine

The engine's design allowed a more central location for the spark plugs, large ports for better gas flow, and hemispherical combustion chambers that in turn gave increased power. In addition, the sleeve valves required much less maintenance than poppet valves, which needed adjustment, grinding, and even replacement after a few thousand miles.
Knight and Kilbourne had hoped to interest US automobile manufacturers in the engine so that they could grant licences for its manufacture, but initially there were no takers. Pierce-Arrow of Buffalo, New York, tested the engine against one of their own and found that it was more powerful at speeds above 30 miles per hour (48 km/h) and would also go faster, but dismissed it as unsuitable for their range of cars because they believed that anything over 55 miles per hour (89 km/h) was unsafe. They also considered the oil consumption (about 2 quarts per 70 miles) excessive

 

If anyone wants to see how a sleeve valve engine works there is a cutaway engine in the AACA museum. It actually turns over so you can how many extra parts there from a normal engine.

 

NON detergent oil would be my advice. Is there an oil rectifier on the left side of the engine? If so take it apart and clean it. This was an early oil filter setup on the Knight engine. I'll bet there is a Knight website with advice from guys that have been in the same spot as you are.

 

You guys sure picked the bone clean. But, there doesn't seem to be a CONSENSUS, just camps.

Is it that there asre PROs & CONs t each type of oil? Is the "safe" route to used non-det., as they would have in '31?

 

You'd probably be "safe" following the OEMs recomendations on oil & oil changes.

 

George, sure seems thta way to me (2-cents). Something just doesn't feel good to me about using modern stuff, UNLESS the engine were to be rebuilt from the ground UP.

 

BTW, guys, did I dream it, OR did osmebody SAY the Knight sleeve-valve engines HAD Hemispherical combustion chambers & a good plug location?

 

To the contrary; The sleeves were very close tolerance, therein the genesis of the problems some people had with them. The causes of those problems can be debated, but detergent/non-detergent wasn't even a consideration since additive oils hadn't been developed yet.

If your ****ysis were true, it isn't, it would mean that motors using multigrade oil would have more friction and would wear out sooner than if they used non detergent, which they don't.

 

29: Not to start a big arguement here as I'm a firm believer in detergent oils and in most cases multi-vis also. But have you ever been around/studied up on Knight style sleeve valve engines? Been around one a bit years ago and read rather extenslivy ]sp] on them and the old non-det is still the best deal in THAT particular engine design.

 

Hey, guys, I think you have REFINED this oil matter on the Knights (no pun intended! lol).

Here's a dumb*** question: ***uming you're starting up a 1931 Knight engine that's sat for years & you've already done the proper things in the cylinder bores, okay.
WOULD IT MAKE SOME SENSE TO USE DETERGENT OILD FOR A FEW HUNDRED MILES, THEN DRAIN THTA OUT & GO BACK TO ORIIGNAL NON-DETEGRENT OIL (***uming that the enigne was operating smoothly and NOT screaming for rebuilding?

I hope you see what I am saying. I am NOT talking experimentation -- WITH an 80-year-old engine as the lab mouse. I'm asking if this scenario MIGHT be a prudent & safe course.

 

No argument, just seperating the grain from the chaff.

You need to "study up" a bit more. Your previous statement that the sleeves were 'loose fit' is off the mark. Actually, binding/galling of the sleeves was one of the reported problems. It's a no-brainer to me that keeping the oil CLEAN was paramount. There is no instruction from the manufacturer to 'not use detergent oil', since it hadn't been developed yet in 1920. The secret to smooth operation of the sleeve valve, due to it's close tolerances, was to keep it CLEAN. My Uncle Elmer had a Knight. I'm not sure what year, but judging from my recall of the look, fenders, etc. it was mid to late 20s. Had it the first I ever remember seeing him 1943 or so, (I was a little **** and don't remember much of anything before that). He had the car until he died in the '50s and of course one of his sons couldn't sell it quick enough for beer money. My Uncles, Elmer and Dee, were both mechanics. It goes without saying that a lot of my primer education with mechanical things was because of those two gentlemen. One of the first thing I learned was that they changed their oil a lot. Uncle Elmer never had any problems with his sleeve motor, if he did I would sure have heard about it, because he complained when something wasn't going right. There is no doubt that it was a sleeve motor because I recall a lot of discussion about that, how it worked different than conventional poppet valves. I also know for a fact that if there had been an issue with the motor not performing he would have not screwed around very long before he lost the car and got something else, so I'm confident he never had a problem with it.

I'm guessing more of the problems we hear about (after the fact) are more fable than reality, or were induced by improper operator technique at the least anyhow; ......you know; Edsels were ****, Ford flat-head motors all overheat, mechanical brakes are unsafe, you couldn't spin the tires with a dynaflow etc. etc. I'm sure Ford, Packard, Nash, Oldsmobile, Hudson, salesmen of the time would have nothing but bad things to say about a Willys.

I can't think of any reason except it costs less to use straight grade non detergent oil in any motor, except if one has used non det for years resulting in the buildup of **** and sludge, where the use of detergent oil would loosen up a lot of **** and clog up the oil screen.

As it always will be, oil in 1930 didn't stand up to the higher temperatures that modern oils do. Today's detergent and non-detergent have basically the same breakdown temperatures, which is what must be exceeded to fowl sleeve valves. Oxidized oil gums up the works. Given that, a solution to the sleeve valve fouling issue, it seems, notwighstanding the higher cost, that synthetic would be an improvement. If I had a sleeve valve motor I'd go the economy route first, and if/when fable manifested in fact, I'd be going to the store to buy some synthetic.

I'll ask you a question. Do you actually know anybody that has a sleeve valve motor and what oil he uses? Has he used multi-grade and it gummed up the valves?

Whilst we are at it, please fill me in on one particular situation where non-detergent performs better, has better anti-friction characteristics, than detergent has. I think it is the opposite. We used to use non-det for 'break-in' oil and it was always presumed that motors wore out faster with it than when, after, detergent oil became available. I remember the old argument, then, 50/60 years ago, that if the manufacturer said use non-detertent don't use detergent, which turned out to be a fable. I use straight grade non detergent for cutting oil to cool my drill press because the modern stuff seems to reduce the cutting efficiency of the drill bits.

Just because additive oils hadn’t been developed yet when a particular motor was built has no bearing on the application thereof. It’s a conscious decision to restrict one’s thinking in the past, ignoring advances in motor oil technology. I am at a loss concerning any decision to do that. All older motors have sludge collection locations. When dis***embled the ac***ulation of sludge is obvious. Sludge is a detriment to operation.

I (along with dozens of acquaintances of mine, over the years), have used additive oils in a wide variety of those motors of early design (circa 1930) without any apparent change in wear characteristics. It is my opinion, joined by many of my peers with actual experience with the discipline that motors operated solely on non detergent oil wear out faster than those ran with additive oils. Subsequent dis***embly of those early design motors, after being converted to additive oil, reveal that the sludge collectors are toot-sweet-clean. Otherwise, the motors have performed just fine, without the sludge!

Keep on keepin' on...............

 

With any unique old motor, there ain't a lot of them, I would consider it a necessity to do a complete overhaul, not take the chance of trashing it without a complete dis***embly.

 

Read somewhere the 1st hemi was made in 1907(?) in Spain(?).

 

And that right there is a very interesting comment - indicates the relevance in a modern, detergent oil.

It's not too hard to drop the pan to clean out any old sludge.

 

My .02. I would not put detergent oil in an old engine that never had it before. I would if the engine was a fresh rebuild. I don't think either is really that differant as far as lubrication is concerned. Reason is I owned a truck that always had NON-detergent oil in it, and didn't use oil. I THOUGHT I was doing it good by putting detergent in it. A few weeks later the oil light would not go off. It turns out the oil filter was that plugged up no oil would p*** through. It cleaned everything including the ring grooves so good I got about 100 miles to a quart of oil after that. I WON'T make that mistake again.

 

Sludge collects everywhere in a motor where non-additive oil is used, not just in the oil pan. The 29nash preferred way is dis***emble, clean , and convert to additive oil. Where temperatures vary much, summer to winter, day to night, a multigrade is in order.

Just some insight for you kids born recently that don’t realize there wasn’t any oil in 1930 called “Non Detergent”. The absence of additives only became apparent when additives were introduced! In the 1920s through the 1930s all major automobile manufacturers subscribed to and diligently instructed their customers to follow S.A.E. standards and guidelines. I have read many different manuals written for specific makes and models of cars, including Military Technical Orders for Jeeps and the like, and they all specify the same basic instructions. The wording is sometimes juggled around, but the premise of all is the same.
The key word is S.A.E. All manufacturers expressed disdain for people that used oil that was not defined as S.A.E. (Society of Automotive Engineers). Other oils that didn't conform to S.A.E. were readily available for farm/industrial, etc. equipment and because they were less expensive many consumers chose to use them. One that I recall was a paraffin based oil used on horse drawn farm equipment to oil mowing equipment and pump jack gear boxes.

I do not have an Operator’s Manual for a 1914-1933 Knight, but I‘m confident it will parrot the other manufacturer‘s instructions as far as oil goes. I’ll also bet your sweet *** against mine that if that sleeve motor had any really inherent design problems it wouldn’t have been produced all of those years.
A Rose is a Rose is a Rose. I submit, because I have immediate access to, the following “INSTRUCTINS FOR THE OPERATION AND CARE OF” from the 1929 Chevrolet Owner’s Manual.
“Fill the oil reservoir to the proper level with the best oil obtainable. Good oil is cheaper than repair bills; therefore, observe this operation regularly and refill when examination proves the necessity. None but the best grades of medium or light oil should be used, as complete lubrication depends upon the oil being thoroughly atomized, so that the oil mist or vapor will reach all working parts of the motor.
A complete change of motor oil is required more frequently in winter than in summer, on account of the necessity of using the choke during the winter months. The excessive use of the choke causes crankcase dilution.
The frequency with which the oil should be changed is also governed by the mechanical condition of the car and on how carefully, you, the driver, handle and care for it.
……………………Five quarts of good motor oil of proper S.A.E. viscosity are required to refill the pan to the full mark on the oil gauge rod.
For proper Motor Lubrication, a high grade, well refined oil is essential.
For the First 500 miles. Under no cir***stances should an oil having a body heavier that that of S.A.E. viscosity No. 20 and with a zero pour test be used in motors of new cars.
For Summer use…After the first 500 miles an oil having a body of S.A.E. viscosity of No. 20 may be used. After the first 2,000 Miles an oil having a body of S.A.E. viscosity No. 30 may be used in motors which are subject to prolonged high speed driving.”

Of course it would be interesting to me to know what Mr. Charles Knight recommended to J.N. Willys to tell to his customer in his own words in the owner’s manual of a 1914-1933 Knight, but absent that I’d bet dollars to donuts that it’s quite similar to the Chivvy instructions, since S.A.E. was the governing body concerning automotive motor oil at that time and he, Willys, would have had to jump through their hoops to get his car accepted by the public. You see, the primary difference, if you look at a drawing of the sleeve configuration, there were three separate sliding surfaces the full length of each cylinder, which would require very close tolerances and freedom of movement of a well oiled system. It’s obvious to me, and so reported by consumers of the day, that the motor used more oil than a conventional one. I can see where some could have called this obvious happenstance, inherent with the design, as a perceived “PROBLEM.” Further, there is no doubt in my mind that other problems, as it is with “problems” reported by consumers, that most are a result of the consumer ignoring basic common sense procedures, using too heavy a grade of oil, or letting it get too dirty between changes.

 

The motor has been sitting for about 15-18 years, before that it was running and from the looks of the car and the motor, it could have been rebuilt at the same time the car was restored. When I pulled the bell housing cover the clutch looked like new.
I changed out the gas and got a battery, I have to pick up a new pos cable today and then I'll see if she'll fire up.

 

Contact The Cats. It takes a long time to get into their website.

Aseltine & ***ociates
[SIZE=+2]Precision Antique Restoration
Stearns Motor Cars [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]and Knight type motors[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Dedicated to the restoration and maintenance of motor cars of a bygone era.[/SIZE]

About Us · History · Gallery · Ads · Parts/Specs ·
Slide Shows · Meets · Parts Wanted · Cars/Parts for Sale · Other Sites

[SIZE=+0]Arthur W. Aseltine, P.E.
18215 Challenge Cut-off Road
Forbestown, CA 95941-9602
(530) 675-2773 (work) (530) 675-9134 (fax)
AWA@lostsierra.net[/SIZE]

 

A Knight sleeve valve engine has a self-changing feature. They use about 2qts per 70 miles.