Re: (Old Baldy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>
Quote, originally posted by Old Baldy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I don't know the efficiencies reasons for this recommendation, but would think that if you move the cooler up above the motor and have bottom-mount connections, there is a chance that the oil will drain from the cooler back into the sump, and show an oil level that is apparently high when it may really be too low, and, perhaps more importantly, result in a large air pocket in the cooler that the pump will need to fill during each startup of the motor.
I'm not sure these really are a significant factor or not, but I think are worthy of more consideration before you go ahead
</TD></TR></TABLE>
But your oiling system as a whole has a fixed volume and whether or not the oil drains back is/should be immaterial as the oil cooler being mounted upside down doesn't cause more oil to be made; what I mean is, the oil that was put in, is the oil that's there.
If drainback was a paramount concern, then cars would be screwed, wherein the oil used to lubricate the valvetrain (at the top of the engine) would drain back and give an erroneous oil level reading and we know that not to be an issue, and we even encourage people to take oil level readings first thing in the morning so that they can include any oil that's drained back into the sump from peripheral areas of the engine.