To start with, I also agree that often time folks give redundant answers hours afterwards with the same information which I also find aggravating at times but maybe that is one of the reasons why this forum has such a good following as it allows many different folks to contribute where they feel they can. Therefore maybe it isn't that big of a deal.
Glen, to answer your question, Yes. Kurt I think that "console" is in the V-8 rebuilding manual?? With regard to the purpose of this port, I'm pretty sure we have had this discussion before on the old Fordbarn, and I think we even discussed this at one of the Fordbarn Workshops we held here at my shop several years ago. I will also say that I do not have a definitive answer for Steve either but I do want to point out some things that I have observed in researching something similar.
I have quite a bit of Model T information (like 800+ pages) that depicts very detailed operations and procedures for different assemblies of that vehicle. While the Model T was a totally different car, I do feel it does share many similarities with processes, procedures and tooling between the last years of the New Improved Car ('26/'27 T) and the A simply because of the short downtime while the transition was being made. One of the things I have been intrigued by is the assembly steps of how the engine was machined and then assembled, and even the time alloted for each worker to perform that specific task. Another one of the things that I have learned is that the picture(s) many of us have seen with the completely assembled engine & transmission installed on the Dynamo is not where I think the babbit burnishing was done as I have pictures showing it done earlier in the machining process. With several other theories of mine and studying those pictures, I am kinda of the opinion that oil was
not used in the dynamo running operation either.
The other thing I am having trouble embracing is prelubing or filling the valve camber with oil through that port. If you think about it, the same limitation would be the end of the oil pump casting which would hinder flow. A much easier (i.e.: more cost efficient) place for machining and installation would have been on the valve chamber cover plate if that was his purpose for prelubrication. Also, why is it in that location instead of maybe moving it upward by 1.000" which would have eliminated that cause? I personally think the answer may lie in the drawings of the Oil Pan itself and the amount of revisions there are before the early pan with the clean-out/inspection cover. My theory is that initially the port was indeed placed on there as a way of holding the pump during pan installation prior to the pan with an oil pump access installed. Then maybe he decided that loading the pump from the bottom was a better idea after the pan was on. Many "wives tails" (
← 
) come along and I have heard that was a "cleanout" for the oil pan. Anyone that has 'played' long enough will tell you that even when that little plate is removed, it is very difficult (--if not impossible) to get all the sludge & debris out through that little hole. Therefore I am not so certain that was its intended purpose either.
What also makes me "buy into" my theory is because up until this engine design, he had never used a vehicle with an internal oil pump, and if you look at the design changes made during the first year or so, he changed the pump design a couple of times going from a forging to a cast housing, the shaft size was also changed, the valve chamber port & pipe location was changed, all as he was experimenting with oil management issues, --even through mid-1931. Since the Model T had many aftermarket oil pumps that were easily plumbed into the timing cover bolt to provide reliable oiling, he may have preserved this port just as a back-up in a different type was ever needed. Again, just theories based on many conversations of this subject during my past.
.
Bill W.
