I agree with about everything you posted Cole.
A couple of interesting observations on your post.
You seem to feel that the advantage of the Chev is its dedicated galley for the separate oiling of the lifters and the cam,crank/rods.
I agree. It's as if you are spreading the duties around to the 3 galleys. If you were to view it that way, sending a large volume of oil over to the drivers side on the Chrysler leaves the passenger galley with less responsibilities. The drivers side is still being used to
Oil a main bearing, cam and rod journal.
With number 5 main having its own separate passage, this leaves the right side to only feed 3 bearings. I wonder if this is why the crossover is claimed to work. Everything you said about keeping the oil at the bearings would still apply to number one main. It would just be supplied from the other side.
I found it interesting that you mention rod bearing trouble with the 360 crank but not so much with the 340. Do you think that is because of the longer stroke?
Your comment reminds me of an article I read by David Reher in which he claimed that stroker motors were much harder to oil the rods. His belief was that the cavity inside the crankshaft on a stroker is larger and more difficult to fill and that because of this, stroker motors required more oiling mods.
In the Sanborn thread Charles claimed that slotting the bearing shells increased the dwell time and gave more time for the rod passage to fill up with oil. He also never ran full groove bearings.
He claimed his motors were reliable to 8000 rpm lap after lap not just a quarter mile pass. I often wonder if the rods partially get pressurized oil just from centrifugal force provided that there is oil in the passage in the crank.
I have never lost a rod bearing shifting at a maximum of 7000 rpm,
But have had main bearing trouble twice. I do not know how to explain that other than possibly lack of pressure at the mains, but the rod bearing cavity had oil in it and still fed the rod bearings.
