Excess Oil in Primary Chain Case - 72 Combat case in 73 750

[swolh]

Further UPDATE: I spoke with Matt at Colorado Norton Works. I believe he knows what he's talking about.

Here's my understanding of what he explained: All Nortons will wet sump more or less, some from sitting (engine off) and some (particularly 72 Combat and early 73 750 with Combat case) while running (because the return orifice routing is not sufficient to get enough oil to the return side of the pump).

For wet sumping when the engine is not running, Matt thought the AMR modification is "hit or miss" (in my case I believe it has been very successful). Matt does not recommend a mechanical off valve in the supply line to the pump (for obvious operator error reasons), including the mechanical shut off valves that include an electrical cut off to the coil (to prevent starting when you've forgotten to open the valve).

For wet sumping when the engine is running - or put another way, when the insufficient stock system for returning oil to the tank can't get the oil back to the tank quickly enough - Matt said they all wet sump at speed. (Apparently this is a particular problem for the 72 Combat case that was also used in early 73 750s). This link that L.A.B provided above to a page on OldBrits website clearly explains the inadequacy of the stock system for returning oil to the tank at revs on 72 combat and early 73 750 https://www.nwno.org/resources/OldBrittsWebsite/n_c_case.html I understand that OldBrits has been closed for a few years, so you can't get the machining fix they used to offer. But that fix to increase the flow of oil back to the return side of the oil pump required complete disassembly of the motor. Per my understanding of what Matt at CONortonWorks told me, that's not necessary if you install a good reed valve breather.

Per Matt, the remedy for wet-sumping, whether from the engine off or the engine running, is to replace the stock crankcase breather with a reed breather. Matt explained the reed breather will 1) relieve the pressure in the crankcase and 2) return volumes of oil (2 quarts or more) to the tank within 15-20 seconds.

CoNworks has a high quality reed breather for the combat crankcases that have the stock breather on the drive side rear of the crnakcase https://coloradonortonworks.net/1972-breather-modification.html jsmotorsports also has one that fits Combat and other crankcases https://jsmotorsport.com/reed-valve-crank-case-breather/ NYCNorton has a nice looking reed breather kit for bikes that have the stock breather on the bottom of the crankcase (but not for 72 Combat and early 723 750 crankcases with the breather on the rear of the drive side of the crankcase https://nycnorton.com/product/reed-valve-breather-kit/

Again, that's my understanding of what Matt explained to me. Apologies to Matt if I've misunderstood or misreported what he told me.

Just to be careful, and since I have the timing cover off, I'm going to remove the oil pump and make sure the gasket is installed properlyand not blocking the return orifice in the crankcase.

 

[kommando]

one option is to drill, tap (with a very a big thread tap!) and add an earlier style sump filter to the bottom of the case.

No that does not work due to the meaty casting section also being deleted, hence why I followed my method and added a block with the filter inside the block.

When the oil pump is off dismantle it and check the gears on the return side are not beaten up by debris and then do a pump refurb to tighten up the clearances. Also did AMR add the O rings to the pump to stop oil moving from feed to return side internally.

This is my version with X rings.

 

[Fast Eddie]

Further UPDATE: I spoke with Matt at Colorado Norton Works. I believe he knows what he's talking about.

Here's my understanding of what he explained: All Nortons will wet sump more or less, some from sitting (engine off) and some (particularly 72 Combat and early 73 750 with Combat case) while running (because the return orifice routing is not sufficient to get enough oil to the return side of the pump).

For wet sumping when the engine is not running, Matt thought the AMR modification is "hit or miss" (in my case I believe it has been very successful). Matt does not recommend a mechanical off valve in the supply line to the pump (for obvious operator error reasons), including the mechanical shut off valves that include an electrical cut off to the coil (to prevent starting when you've forgotten to open the valve).

For wet sumping when the engine is running - or put another way, when the insufficient stock system for returning oil to the tank can't get the oil back to the tank quickly enough - Matt said they all wet sump at speed. (Apparently this is a particular problem for the 72 Combat case that was also used in early 73 750s).

Per Matt, the remedy for wet-sumping, whether from the engine off or the engine running, is to replace the stock crankcase breather with a reed breather. Matt explained the reed breather will 1) relieve the pressure in the crankcase and 2) return volumes of oil (2 quarts or more) to the tank within 15-20 seconds.

CoNworks has a high quality reed breather for the combat crankcases that have the stock breather on the drive side rear of the crnakcase https://coloradonortonworks.net/1972-breather-modification.html jsmotorsports also has one that fits Combat and other crankcases https://jsmotorsport.com/reed-valve-crank-case-breather/ NYCNorton has a nice looking reed breather kit for bikes that have the stock breather on the bottom of the crankcase (but not for 72 Combat and early 723 750 crankcases with the breather on the rear of the drive side of the crankcase https://nycnorton.com/product/reed-valve-breather-kit/

Again, that's my understanding of what Matt explained to me. Apologies to Matt if I've misunderstood or misreported what he told me.

Just to be careful, and since I have the timing cover off, I'm going to remove the oil pump and make sure the gasket is installed properlyand not blocking the return orifice in the crankcase.

Just remember that ‘wet sumping at speed’ means just that ie sustained high revs at WOT. From your description, that is NOT what we’re talking about here at all.

While you’ve got the timing cover off, please show us the AMR mods as Cliffa asks for….

 

[swolh]

When my main crank seal blew in half from a wetsump start up, I had oil spewing out coating rear tire before I noticed. Didnt crash but was a real danger. I solved the wetsumping, which would drain tank in about two weeks, with a stainless/brass ball valve water tap on feed hose with an ignition defeat switch..
Ran me about $15 in parts and about an hour to make up. I see taps with ign defeat switches selling for $80+ from a few places. No more wet sump drama.

Tornado -

That's one way to stop wet sumping when the engine is not running, and I see the appeal of a mechanical valve in the supply line with an ignition defeat switch, but if I've understood Matt at Co Norton Works, that relies on the electronic defeat switch not malfunctioning. I don't know enough about the internal reliability of electrical switches or how the mechanical lever of the shut off valve physically operates the electircal switch mounted on the valve (and how reliable that might be). I have seen UK and German places that sell mechanical valves with electronic defeat switches that look pretty strong.

For mechanical valves in the supply lines that do not include an electrical defeat switch, in my view, unless you trust yourself to be as reliable as an f-15 pilot, (I don't) it only takes one time to forget to open the valve to ruin your motor.

But I think Matt's view (again apologies to him if I'm misunderstanding or misreporting what he told me) seems to be that wet sumping can also happen when the engine is running, particularly at high revs and particularly with the 72 Combat crankcases that were also used in the early 73 750s, and - whether the excess oil in the sump is from it leaking there while the engine is off or from the system failing to return enough oil to the tank when the engine is running, the remedy is a reed valve breather system that - per Matt - will return the oil very quickly to the tank and relieve the pressure that blows the mail seal and causes other leaks.

I’m interested in the AMR mod to the MkIII timing cover. Any chance you could post some pics of it please?

Cliffa - here's a thread about the AMR modification. It seemed to work really well for me to stop wet-sumping when the engine is not running https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/amr-wet-sump-conversion.38526/ And here's a link to the AMR site that explains their modification https://www.amr-of-tucson.com/

 

[swolh]

Just remember that ‘wet sumping at speed’ means just that ie sustained high revs at WOT. From your description, that is NOT what we’re talking about here at all.

While you’ve got the timing cover off, please show us the AMR mods as Cliffa asks for….

here's a thread about the AMR modification that Cliffa asked about. It seemed to work really well for me to stop wet-sumping when the engine is not running https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/amr-wet-sump-conversion.38526/ And here's a link to the AMR site that explains their modification https://www.amr-of-tucson.com/

And I apologize if my descriptions early in this thread were misleading or uniformed. Please see my last few posts that report what I've understood from further research and from Matt at CONortonWOrks which, I hope, clarify the information that I think is not in any previous thread about wet sumping or excess oil in the primary.

 

[L.A.B.]

• 
  

But I think Matt's view (again apologies to him if I'm misunderstanding or misreporting what he told me) seems to be that wet sumping can also happen when the engine is running,

That is/was the correct definition of wet sumping and the reason for the Old Britts webpage I posted.

72 Combat crankcases that were also used in the early 73 750s,

Those cases/breather were used before Combat, during Combat (the non-Combat engines also used the same cases/breather) and after Combat so they are not really Combat cases.

 

[swolh]

That is/was the correct definition of wet sumping and the reason for the Old Britts webpage I posted.


Those cases/breather were used before Combat, during Combat (the non-Combat engines also used the same cases/breather) and after Combat so they are not really Combat cases.

L.A.B. What I've seen is that Reed breathers have been available for many versions of the crankcases, but the Combat and early 73 750 cases have the stock breather mounted in a unique place a the rear of the drive side of the case, so the reed breathers that replace the stock breathers that are on the bottom of the case won't fit on the 72 Combat and early 73 750 cases. It's just about getting the right reed breather for the case you have.

 

[L.A.B.]

Yes, for your particular case you need this cNw breather.

1972 Engine Breather Modification

Experience an increase in engine performance Eliminate persistent leaks at gaskets, seals, tach drives, head, crank case joints and more Lower the operating temperature of the engine oil The valve can operate consistently during a far higher rpm range than the Commando engine can ever reach The...

coloradonortonworks.net

 

[Tornado]

Tornado -

That's one way to stop wet sumping when the engine is not running, and I see the appeal of a mechanical valve in the supply line with an ignition defeat switch, but if I've understood Matt at Co Norton Works, that relies on the electronic defeat switch not malfunctioning. I don't know enough about the internal reliability of electrical switches or how the mechanical lever of the shut off valve physically operates the electircal switch mounted on the valve (and how reliable that might be). I have seen UK and German places that sell mechanical valves with electronic defeat switches that look pretty strong.

For mechanical valves in the supply lines that do not include an electrical defeat switch, in my view, unless you trust yourself to be as reliable as an f-15 pilot, (I don't) it only takes one time to forget to open the valve to ruin your motor.

But I think Matt's view (again apologies to him if I'm misunderstanding or misreporting what he told me) seems to be that wet sumping can also happen when the engine is running, particularly at high revs and particularly with the 72 Combat crankcases that were also used in the early 73 750s, and - whether the excess oil in the sump is from it leaking there while the engine is off or from the system failing to return enough oil to the tank when the engine is running, the remedy is a reed valve breather system that - per Matt - will return the oil very quickly to the tank and relieve the pressure that blows the mail seal and causes other leaks.

Cliffa - here's a thread about the AMR modification. It seemed to work really well for me to stop wet-sumping when the engine is not running https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/amr-wet-sump-conversion.38526/ And here's a link to the AMR site that explains their modification https://www.amr-of-tucson.com/

Well of course there is always some limits to any electrical or mechanical contraption...most modern electric switches have Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) of 10's to 100's of thousands cycles. Plus, it will take a double-failure...(the switch and then a forgetful human) before a problem would happen. Double-failure points were considered more than safe enough for the Apollo program, so should be enough for us on our old bikes!

The reed valve sump drains are good but do cost well over $300 USD. But they too have some issues...you've got a new oil line beneath the engine...vulnerable to impact with objects (I've scraped the sump on speed-bumps in parking lots). And if there is any debris in the oil for whatever reason, that gets returned into the tank by passing the filter.

My point is nothing is perfect, these are old machine and cannot be bullet proof.

 

[Fast Eddie]

here's a thread about the AMR modification that Cliffa asked about. It seemed to work really well for me to stop wet-sumping when the engine is not running https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/amr-wet-sump-conversion.38526/ And here's a link to the AMR site that explains their modification https://www.amr-of-tucson.com/

And I apologize if my descriptions early in this thread were misleading or uniformed. Please see my last few posts that report what I've understood from further research and from Matt at CONortonWOrks which, I hope, clarify the information that I think is not in any previous thread about wet sumping or excess oil in the primary.

You had a mk3 timing cover modified… there are no pics of that in any of those links, we’d like to see and understand what their mods look like on a mk3 cover…

As stated already, unless you were doing 6k rpm for several miles on end, the 72 scavenge issue was not causing your engine to wet sump whilst running.

If you believe your engine is wet sumping whilst running, you need to inspect your oil pump as already stated.

 

[swolh]

Well of course there is always some limits to any electrical or mechanical contraption...most modern electric switches have Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) of 10's to 100's of thousands cycles. Plus, it will take a double-failure...(the switch and then a forgetful human) before a problem would happen. Double-failure points were considered more than safe enough for the Apollo program, so should be enough for us on our old bikes!

The reed valve sump drains are good but do cost well over $300 USD. But they too have some issues...you've got a new oil line beneath the engine...vulnerable to impact with objects (I've scraped the sump on speed-bumps in parking lots). And if there is any debris in the oil for whatever reason, that gets returned into the tank by passing the filter.

My point is nothing is perfect, these are old machine and cannot be bullet proof.

Tornado - that all makes sense about the mechanical shut off valve with electrical cut off.

And for Reed breather valves that replace a filter on the bottom of the sump, that also makes sense about the risk of scraping the new oil return line that the reed breather will have coming off the bottom of the engine. For my 73 750 that's got a 72 Combat, the stock breather is at the drive side rear of the crankcase - and it has no bottom of the engine filter - the CONortonWorks reed valve for that crankcase bolts on at the same spot as the stock breather (rear of the drive side crankcase) - so that's not an issue for me.

I guess choosing one of the reed valve breathers that can be mounted in different locations (other than the bottom of the engine) might be smart. That might require drilling and tapping or other slight modifications to mount the reed valve breath at, for example, the inside of the top part of the part of the right half of the crankcase that extends up and back above the oil pump. I don't know how that might work with an electric start. But the companies that sell the reed valve breathers can inform about where they can be mounted that does not replace the filter on the bottom of the engine.

Not sure what to think about oil returning to the tank via a reed valve breather that doesn't get filtered. If you have the bottom of the engine filter and you add a reed valve breather that mounts elsewhere, your filter remains the same. I've got a spin on filter in the line that returns oil from the oil pump to the tank. But you're right, oil returning through the reed valve breather isn't getting filtered before it gets tot he tank.

You're right. Nothing's perfect. I guess each owner has to decide for themself what works for them and their particular flavor of Norton. For example, for me, it's been very eye opening to learn that my 73 750 crankcase is really a left over 72 Combat crankcase. WHEn I get it back together, if the AMR timing cover modification isn't stopping engine off wet-suming, I'll probably revist a mechanical shut off with an electrical cut out safety.

 

[swolh]

You had a mk3 timing cover modified… there are no pics of that in any of those links, we’d like to see and understand what their mods look like on a mk3 cover…

As stated already, unless you were doing 6k rpm for several miles on end, the 72 scavenge issue was not causing your engine to wet sump whilst running.

If you believe your engine is wet sumping whilst running, you need to inspect your oil pump as already stated.

Fast Eddie. I've just posted links to a previous thread and to the AMR site for info about the AMR modification.

My oil pump is brand new with under 750 miles on it. I will look to see if I installed the oil pump to case gasket wrong so it's blocking the return oriface that feeds oil back to the return side of the pump. If that's the case, I'll be appropriately ashamed of myself. But at least will have learned a lot from that mistake, if I made that mistake. UNless I installed the gasket wrong, I can't agree that the 72 combat crankcase I have was not causing wet sumping while running. In part, I defer on this to Matt at CONortonWorks.

Also, I posted links to the OldBrits page that describes in detail how, at least in the case of the Combat crankcases, the stock oil pump way of returning oil to the tank is insufficient. That OldBrits page clearly said that, with an oil pressure guage on his bike, when running his engine at high revs for a bit, the oil pressure dropped to zero (becasue the tank was empty and all the oil was in the sump). Yes, he was racing, but for street use not at constant high revs it seems likely that the stock sytem for returning oil to the tank via the oil pump on the Combat crankcases probably not good enough. It might not leave all the oil in the sump, or drop the oil pressure at the rod bearings significantly - but it would still leave excess oil in the sump causing the excess pressure that blows main seals (flooding the primary) and creates other leaks (tach drive is often mentioned). That may be most prevalent in the Combat crankcases, but from what I've read, can also happen in other styles of crankcases.

Because a lot of what I've discovered is particularly relevant to my 73 750 that's got a leftover 72 Combat crankcase (althogh it should be of interest to others), I added "72 Combat case in 73 750" to the name of the thread.