AJS & Matchless Owners Club

I have a 350 short stroke single with Norton type oil pump. The oil feed and return connections are different to the earlier engine , not set directly top and bottom but rather at an angle with the lowe connection more to the outside of the engine.

Am I still right that the oil feed is the lower/outer connection and the return is the upper/inner connection?

The Matchless manual I have , for 1964, only shows the older engine.

Or is there a simple way to determine which is which?

thanks

Edited.............

With the proviso that I know little about the short stroke models there's a photo in the Archives of a '65 machine which seems to show the Norton type pump which may be of some help.
http://archives.jampot.dk/general/Pictu ... S_18_I.JPG
Hopefully someone better informed will reply...................

Thanks Neville
That's interesting.
Yesterday I fitted a clear pipe to the lower/outer connection, added some oil and turned the engine over to see if the level would drop. It did but only very slowly, probably just passing through the gears of the pump.
I will try the same with the inner connection when I get back from a few days holidays.
I have the Matchless instruction manual for "..up to 1964". it gives correct dimensions for the short stroke engine but only has a picture of the oil connections on the earlier engine.
Whatever the outcome, I will post back with the results of my 'experiment'
thanks again

SPRIDDLER wrote:
Although the pipe routing is a bit fussy due a filter having been fitted it looks to me that it's the (larger dia) Return pipe which is in the the lower/outer position. This would follow the convention for the earlier plunger type pump where the return side of the pump has a greater capacity than the feed side.


Hopefully someone better informed will reply...................

Sorry, I'm not familiar with later short stroke engines but the plunger pump fitted to the earlier ones was the same as the long stroke motor. In which case, the larger pipe in the lower position is the feed to the engine and the smaller diameter pipe in the upper position is the return to the tank. I think the choice of pipe diameter was more to do with the mechanics of the fittings rather than the ability to carry more oil. The flow isn't exactly great... something like 25cc/min at 1000 rpm if my memory serves me correctly.

Pharisee wrote: Sorry, I'm not familiar with later short stroke engines but the plunger pump fitted to the earlier ones was the same as the long stroke motor. In which case, the larger pipe in the lower position is the feed to the engine and the smaller diameter pipe in the upper position is the return to the tank.

Of course, you're right John. I dodge about between Forums and posts, the Archives and photos etc. so really must concentrate more and not leave my brain in one post whilst replying to another.
I'll edit my previous post

My shortstroke is tucked in the corner so I can't really see the oil pipes but I am almost sure the lower outer pipe is the supply.

Colin

Well I carried out my experiment by fitting two clear pipes , adding some oil and watching what happens while turning over engine. As already stated, oil did drop slowly in the outer/lower pipe when I tested previously.
I am getting the same result again, the oil level is dropping in the outer/lower connected pipe and is rising in the inner/upper connected pipe.

So it appears that the lower/outer connection is the oil input and the upper/inner connection is the return.

Thanks for all the help and the photographs. If I can, I will photograph the connections and label them for future reference.

As promised. I have attached a photograph of the labelled oil pipes . Thanks for all the help with this one.

I have another couple of questions that hopefully someone can help me with.
1). The return pipe is 3/8" but connection on the 1964 tank is simply a 1/2" pipe. Do I just fit a plumbing type connection, i.e. 1/2" and 3/8" tails joined together, to joint the 3/8" rubber pipe to the 1/2" pipe, or is there a preferred/proper way of doing this ?
2), The filter, in the supply, seems to b just a push fit into the 1/2" outlet from the tank. Is it just held there but the rubber oil pipe or is there a special way of fitting to ensure it doesn't slip down into the rubber pipe. --?

Sorry for such simple/trivial questions but I just cannot remember what way they were fitted before I took them apart.
Thanks
g

gotoole wrote:As promised. I have attached a photograph of the labelled oil pipes . Thanks for all the help with this one.

I have another couple of questions that hopefully someone can help me with.
1). The return pipe is 3/8" but connection on the 1964 tank is simply a 1/2" pipe. Do I just fit a plumbing type connection, i.e. 1/2" and 3/8" tails joined together, to joint the 3/8" rubber pipe to the 1/2" pipe, or is there a preferred/proper way of doing this ?
2), The filter, in the supply, seems to b just a push fit into the 1/2" outlet from the tank. Is it just held there but the rubber oil pipe or is there a special way of fitting to ensure it doesn't slip down into the rubber pipe. --?

Sorry for such simple/trivial questions but I just cannot remember what way they were fitted before I took them apart.
Thanks
g

I turned up a piece of brass, 1/2" O/D, 3/8" I/D about 1" long and silver soldered it over the pipe. Don't know if it's the 'preferred' method but it worked for me.

As far as I know, the filter is just pushed up the tank feed pipe. Pretty sure it's not going anywhere
This was the return pipe connection to my '54 oil tank
John

Thanks John.
I will try that , just need to practice those brazing skills