Hydraulic tensioner question

[goose2]

Someone told me that when using the hydraulic tensioner upgrade on an early motor (2.4 in my case), a "restrictor" should be installed to avoid oil starvation elsewhere in the motor. Can someone please enlighten me on this issue? Do I invite dire consequences if this is not done?
Thanks, Randy

[silverc4s]

Do a search on the 911 Tech board. i think there is thread there, with input from Wayne hisself...;-))

[2.7RACER]

The pressure fed tensioner update uses oil pressure, not oil flow. Therefore the oil is not flowing to someplace new.
It looks to me like you are thinking of of the restictor for the oil flow to the cams that was introduced to lower the flow to the cams and thus increase flow and pressure elsewhere.

[goose2]

I did a search as silverc4s suggested and learned more than I'll ever need to know about chain tensioners. This is a great resource! Thanks all.

[hcoles]

re. the cam tower updated oil restrictors with smaller holes. I'm going to fire up my engine with the older bigger hole versions and then change. Wayne's book recommends the change and after talking to a number of people about this...the engines will work either way. One issue that 3.2 engines have is oil foaming at high rpm's in some case the oil gets really stirred up by the crank because the scavenger pump can't keep up in all cases....the oil restrictors help this as the oil coming back from the cams is less. This was how it was explained to me....and makes sense. I suspect that Porsche didn't put this change in place without a very good reason and some testing to go along with it to be sure the cams and rockers get the oil they need. That's my 2 cents on that. I'm sure there are other threads on this subject.
-h
about 3 days from lifting my 3.2 top end rebuild in, now getting excited

[Jeff Alton]

I put the restrictors in all the motors that I build, for whatever that is worth! I am still more of a student then a teacher at this but they work great for me!

Jeff