X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:55:59 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.97.144.98] (HELO n016.sc0.he.tucows.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2452779 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 17:36:57 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.97.144.98; envelope-from=billhogarty@hughes.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (69.19.84.131) by n016.sc0.he.tucows.com (7.2.078) (authenticated as maryhogarty@hughes.net) id 472B81A200004ADC for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 21:36:20 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <472B9848.4050605@hughes.net> X-Original-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:36:08 -0800 From: billhogarty User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Oil lines References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071102-0, 11/02/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean I installed the Wolf remote oil filter on the left side of the firewall on my IV-P. It was primarily to avoid the mess when removing the stock filter. I would have second thoughts if I had to make the choice again. First, there isnt much space available so that the bend on the oil lines gets pretty tight. Second, once the lines are installed, tightening them becomes a work of art. Third, the extra lines in such a tight space make it difficult to avoid chaffing. Fourth, the remote filter adds at least four additional points for a possible oil leak. Fifth, I still have a mess changing the remote filter. Finally, the remote filter plus the additional oil lines aint cheap and I still wonder what real advantage I gained with all that effort and expense. Just one persons experience. Best Regards, Bill Hogarty