Is this true that you will most likely burn more oil when you do a head and cam package?

Only if your bottom end ( rings / bore ) is already on the way out

I donno but the oil i put in i get the same amount back out when i change it cause i use the bottles and my waste bottle and all 5 fill to the top...

Only if your bottom end ( rings / bore ) is already on the way out

Perhaps this has changed in recent years, but it used to be that the higher the performance, the more oil consumption. :coffeetime: With higher compression came more blow by, and we used to have more clearance on pistons because allowence had to be given for "growth" as the piston heated to operating temperature. Some early engines had as much as .015 skirt clearance (cold) and would rattle like crazy when they were cold!

But I suppose that improvements have been made that prevent such events from happening today. :thumbsup3: Just some history for your edification!
Lee

Perhaps this has changed in recent years, but it used to be that the higher the performance, the more oil consumption. :coffeetime: With higher compression came more blow by, and we used to have more clearance on pistons because allowence had to be given for "growth" as the piston heated to operating temperature. Some early engines had as much as .015 skirt clearance (cold) and would rattle like crazy when they were cold!

But I suppose that improvements have been made that prevent such events from happening today. :thumbsup3: Just some history for your edification!
Lee

That is what I had thought, especially with big cammed apps

With higher compression came more blow by, and we used to have more clearance on pistons
Granted but the OP is only talking about a H/C swap on a existing engine; not necessarily upping the CR or building a perf short block with forged pistons ( that requires more bore clearance )

Granted but the OP is only talking about a H/C swap on a existing engine; not necessarily upping the CR or building a perf short block with forged pistons ( that requires more bore clearance )

Good point. :iagree: And as far as "sealing" the top end, great strides have been made to control oil with the development of seals that last longer and are more resilient to harsh conditions of a performance engine. So unless there is a significant increase in combustion ratio, there's really no reason for consumption to increase. :thumbsup: However, if the engine has many miles on it, it has been my experience that "tightening up" the top end may accentuate defiencies (the age) in the bottom end. In other words, if you have 100,000 miles on the engine, you might want to think about going through the bottom end, too. If nothing more than just replacing bearings is needed, everything will then be the same age. :seeya:

Lee

Isn't that predicated on who does the work and how well they do it?

Isn't that predicated on who does the work and how well they do it?

Are you referring to maintaining optimum tolerances? :coffeetime:

Lee

Sounds like an old folks tale.

Sounds like an old folks tale.

It is. :thumbsup3: Back when people just traded cars every three years, because they were a relatively small % of their income, machining tolerances in the automotive industry was much more "open." Since the buying public now needs their cars to last longer so they can (maybe) pay them off, manufacturing tolerances are much "tighter."

This causes the clearances to be more optimum and the end result is that in this day, everyone expects their car to run (with normal care) for at least 100K miles.....maybe 200K! Divisions of .001 (one thousandth) of an inch were the standard up until around the 90's. Now tolerances of .00005 (50 millionths) are pretty much commonplace. Improvements in lubricanting systems and lubricants have also effected engine life. :thumbsup3:

So, yes, it is an old folks tale. And I'm an old (G.M., Ford, and Chrysler) folk engineer, as well as a hobby enthusiast. Perhaps this will help you understand part of the evolution a little better.

Lee :wheelchair: