Dry or Wet Sump

[Lynn]

All,

Since I haven't been posting in a while and some of you don't know me and I don't know some of you all that well, let me apologize up front if I sound like I am being condescending or stating the obvious. That is not my intention; indeed, a lot of my posts are directed to the future reader who may not be as experienced or knowlegable as many of you. I am not either! So, I try to answer/ask some of the questions, if I can, I might have (or had) as a result of the discussions.

Jac Mac,

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. To my knowledge all of the very hipo flat tappets users cut a groove in them to oil the cam lobes (as do some solid roller lifter - Isky comes to mind.) Squirters to cool lube pistons/lower cylinders, which, I believe, is more of a concern with the piston speeds these stroker motors run with. Please correct me if I am wrong on this and does anyone think that the slower piston speeds of a shorter stroke rpm motor would lessen or eliminate the need for this?

Doug,

I would assume you're going with a solid roller cam to achieve the higher rpms that hydraulics just won't allow. I would highly suggest you take a look at Crower's HPPO (high pressure pin oiling) roller lifters. IMHO, this system is far superior to the groove technique (while the groove is far better than nothing.) I don't know your overall engine plan, but I might suggest that the design of the valve train might be more important than the bottom end. You can have the strongest bottom end in the world, but if your valve train won't let the engine get to the kind of rpms that will stress it, it will be, somewhat, wasted money.

On the rods, if you can afford them, might I suggest high end I beam type rods over H-Beam. I think you'll find most of NASCAR runs these as they provide far less rotating mass. As to TI products for racing you might want to try CV Products, a NASCAR supplier here in NC. 800-448-1223 or CV Products, Inc - Racing Parts, Titianium valves, belt drives. (In a quick search, I only found Ti rods for Honda B18B and B20 engines from, of all people, Eagle.)

With respect to the original question from Nathan-- lower engine placement with wet vs. dry sumps-- I am using an inverted Porsche transaxle which allows for, virtually, the lowest possible engine position in a GT40 replica. With the Armando (or Aviaid) type pan, the bottom of my oil pan is ¼" inside the chassis' bottom plane. I don't think there is any way to get the engine, safely lower than this within the limits transaxle position dictates.

Pat, spot on - glyptol. Thank you.

Regards,
Lynn

[Russ Noble]

Originally Posted by jac mac

I will have to have a snoop around to check on this one Russ. As Nascar still use Flat Tappets( unless there has been a rule change ) those squirters could be lubricating /cooling the pistons ,cam ,or possibly only the LH bank to counteract cornering forces. Most engine builders seal off the drains from the valley to prevent that oil from draining directly onto the crank for windage reasons. Each lifter bore may have a groove machined to pressure lube each individual lobe.

If you still have a pic of the pan in Question Email it & I will have a look.

Jac Mac

Jac Mac

Had no pics at the time but this chebbie one just came up on ebay
eBay Motors: NASCAR SBC DRY SUMP STAINLESS STEEL OIL PAN WITH OILERS (item 260046996706 end time Nov-05-06 13:38:03 PST)

Cheers

[Doug Sainlar]

Originally Posted by llarsen

All,

Since I haven't been posting in a while and some of you don't know me and I don't know some of you all that well, let me apologize up front if I sound like I am being condescending or stating the obvious. That is not my intention; indeed, a lot of my posts are directed to the future reader who may not be as experienced or knowlegable as many of you. I am not either! So, I try to answer/ask some of the questions, if I can, I might have (or had) as a result of the discussions.

Doug,

I would assume you're going with a solid roller cam to achieve the higher rpms that hydraulics just won't allow. I would highly suggest you take a look at Crower's HPPO (high pressure pin oiling) roller lifters. IMHO, this system is far superior to the groove technique (while the groove is far better than nothing.) I don't know your overall engine plan, but I might suggest that the design of the valve train might be more important than the bottom end. You can have the strongest bottom end in the world, but if your valve train won't let the engine get to the kind of rpms that will stress it, it will be, somewhat, wasted money.

On the rods, if you can afford them, might I suggest high end I beam type rods over H-Beam. I think you'll find most of NASCAR runs these as they provide far less rotating mass. As to TI products for racing you might want to try CV Products, a NASCAR supplier here in NC. 800-448-1223 or CV Products, Inc - Racing Parts, Titianium valves, belt drives. (In a quick search, I only found Ti rods for Honda B18B and B20 engines from, of all people, Eagle.)

Regards,
Lynn

Thanks for that info, Lynn. Good to see you back on the forum again.

I will definitely look into the Crower products. I had definitely planned on using solid lifters, but hadn't investigated much further. I'm glad to see that solid roller lifters are available--I had thought they might be, but most of what I read about is hydraulic rollers. I particularly like the rollers b/c they allow for a more aggressive ramp profile, and since this will be a street driven motor I'm going to use a short duration/high lift cam to retain somewhat of a semblance of low end torque. As you suggested, the valve train will receive the majority of my attention due to the complexity thereof, although both reciprocating assembly and valve train will be chosen with both longevity and high RPM in mind. I'd prefer to put my $$ where it is needed and build the motor right the first time--I like building new things but don't necessarily like repairing broken things. There will probably be Ti in the valve train; not too sure about Ti rods--I'm a bit shy of the price and if those forged I-beam con-rods are light weight that is probably what I'll use.

I considered dry sumping, but for my intended use the majority of the forum members recommended I just use wet sump with an appropriate pan. Sounds good to me--dry sumping is quite a bit more work than I want to tackle for my first build.

Thanks, again, for the reply.

Doug

[Canuk40]

Hi Steve,

Great question as it brought out a lot of good info. There's always the conflict between cost no object or diminishing rate of return on performance dollar vs bragging rights and all you really need to get the job done.

Now that said, if I had a dry sump system working on thr race track, I'd be bragging about for sure

Still, few of us have Nascar budgets (give me a call if you do LOL) so the original race depth wet sump pan is a viable choice for the street car with occasional track lapping use. In this application our sectioned Canton pans have worked very well with no loss in oil pressure on big racetracks like Mosport.

CAV Canadas toll free number doesn't reach SA however please call on the regular line (905 637 8362) if I can assist in any way.

Cheers

[Jac Mac]

Originally Posted by Russ Noble

Jac Mac

Had no pics at the time but this chebbie one just came up on ebay
eBay Motors: NASCAR SBC DRY SUMP STAINLESS STEEL OIL PAN WITH OILERS (item 260046996706 end time Nov-05-06 13:38:03 PST)

Cheers

Russ, those oilers are intended to get oil to the piston underside for cooling and an attempt to supply more oil to the thrust side of the cyl walls. Apparently the scavenging and windage control has reached a point where the oil exiting the rod journal area is no longer sufficient or able to reach these areas particularly in light of the RPM being turned. Obviously one dab of silicon sealer or a stray piece of thread tape in the wrong place will play havoc with these systems. That stream of oil from one squirter is life or death to the piston/cylinder depending on it!

Jac Mac