RCR's new car..962

Randy V

Lifetime Supporter
Well, if that engine is an LS3, which is what it looks like to me, then the very well known issue of not being dry sumped and then going BOOM when put on the track may be an issue.
We've been running a wet sumped (stock) LS3 in this car all last year and it still runs like a swiss watch;

2010 Camaro SS Racecar Build

The car is competing in the NASA American Iron series..

First video on this link shows more of the car;
Pfadt Race Engineering
Well the vette guys seem to have ALL KINDS of issues with this. Go look on LS1tech.com and just search for "LS3 oil starvation" or "LS3 dry sump". Many MANY threads about this. I must say that the crate engine pan that came with the engine I have looks pretty impressive on the inside, as far as keeping oil on the pickup, but since I haven't run an LS3 before and since I have DS pumps available to me, after all the horor stories I have read, I am using one. All the T1 guys that I have talked to that run vettes also say it is pretty much a requirement. Really depends on how long the car sees a sustained load of over 1G is what I understand. I know we do better than that in the PDG GTM for sustained periods...even on DOT tires, so I am simply not taking any chances and hence all the above is the reason for my comment. :)
Well, if that engine is an LS3, which is what it looks like to me, then the very well known issue of not being dry sumped and then going BOOM when put on the track may be an issue.

Beside that, not being DS, that thing is WAY high in the chassis. Although it doesn't look like the engine/trans can go much lower anyway because of the way the trans ends up.

And the other stuff, well...:lipsrsealed:
What 'other stuff'?

Also, why would it being wet sumped be a big deal. My engine builder had no problems with my requesting my engine be wet sump.

edit: just did some quick reading on ls1tech. Nothing really conclusive - some are saying high G ( > 1.3) extended left hand turns will cause it to fail in LS3s. Others are pointing out LS7s that fail. And others are pointing out the failed engines are, for the most part, coming out of the same place. *shrug*
Last edited:

There are a lot of great wet sump racing engines with no problems. It depends on the pan design, whether the pickup is always "engaged" with the oil in the pan. Many pans have baffles, one-way flaps, etc., to keep the oil at the pickup. Hard cornering has a centrifugal effect on the oil in the pan (like swinging a bucket of water fast enough to keep the water in the bucket), ergo the baffles, etc. The oil in the pan has already made the lubrication cycle, so dry sump pans scavenge this oil out by way of internal and external pumps to ready it for the next circulation.
Here's what a racer posted over on corvetteforums.com


Originally Posted by RAFTRACER
Dry-sump systems in T1. The dry-sump thing is the wierdest, fundementally the oiling systems are the same from 97-current barring the LS7. Dont know why a handful of LS3's are blowing up majoritily all prepared by the same people. I have two customers with LS3's that wail on their cars on roadcourses for long periods and no oil starvations yet......They both have certainly lived longer than a couple of initial laps before starting to have issues. They both however have no accusumps and LS7 oil coolers as the only oiling system mods. The pans are the same between LS2's and 3's I believe.

Just to correct a few small errors... I think I was the first one to run an LS3 in race trim. It was the bone stock LS3 with 1000 easy street miles...just tuned to 93 octane. We did nothing else to the engine. It lasted 2 laps at Sebring.

The next crate LS3 lasted a few more laps than that at Roebling before it went. GM went to work immediately and modified the oil pan to look like an LS6 (bat-wing) pan. It seemed to work...but we still saw pressure drop outs.

Mike McGinley put the pan on his car and ran it and had no issues. Neither of us were using accusumps...I don't think he had one.

At the runoffs, Mike Tracy Jr. and Sr. both had LS3 engines in new 2008 vettes. Both were using the new oil pans. The Tracy's build their own cars...not from any shop but their own and their engines were bone stock. Tracy Jr blew up his LS3 testing at Heartland park, so the dad let him drive his in the race. The dad went and got his C5 to race. This time, they put the accusump on as well and it lasted about 14 laps at HPT. Mine managed to last the whole race, but on lap 14, the data showed pressure drops below the GM recommended level. I'm not sure it would have completed the race had the full course caution not come out.

According to the engineers, these stock engines (with stock pans) were apparently designed to handle about 1.1 or 1.2 Gs before suffering bearing starvation. But, we routinely see 1.5 to 1.6 in T1 trim. The drop-outs occur during long left hand turns at high G forces. Unless they are running HPT or Daytona, Charlotte, Homestead, etc, your guys probably aren't seeing sustained left turns. And depending on how good they are, may not be going fast enough to sustain the G forces either.

Trust me on this one though, after what I've seen, a dry sump (of some type) is necessary...'cause I ain't buying another engine! I hope that clears up some of the questions. "


Like I said, if this car is being built for the street then it looks great! :)
Does anyone... Dusty or otherwise... have any updates on their 956/962 kits?

Any photos of the newly designed rollers?
Last edited:

Fran Hall RCR

GT40s Sponsor
We dont have a 956...they are quite different to the 962

We have made quite a few changes to our original design to pay more homage to the original car.

The kit is a track only car as we only have a track spec windshield...the ground clearance and ramp angle determine that the car has limited to zero streetability
Just a note of caution about the sound (and weight and size) of a twin-turbo MB motor. If you are using the MB motor for the sound, consider that the turbos absorb all the cool sounds and leave the dull sounds for the tailpipe. I think that is where the new McLaren missed the mark. Notice that the cool sounding cars are either normally aspirated or supercharged - Lamborghini, Ferrari, Zondas - even some Mustangs. One of the best sounding engines is a SB Ford with 180-degree headers found in many GT-40s. You wouldn't get nearly the HP, but in an RCR-developed chassis at such a low weight, you will find that 2- or 3- or 400 HP will not be nearly as useful as you might think, unless you are a Hans Stuck or Geoff Brabham.

All 12-cylinder engines are heavy and long. The only advantage I can see of the V12s is that they look cool. And for some people, that trumps all the disadvantages.
Last edited:
A little birdie told me a couple of months ago that there may be photos of the 962 product. I'm still waiting, as I'm sure the folks who are in the beta stages of a final product. I sure hope that those early investors have something to drive soon...which will be something for us to lust after..and ultimately buy!

Fran Hall RCR

GT40s Sponsor
They certainly are cool cars but I dont expect us to building anymore after these for the forseeable future.................
Last edited:
If you do not mind, Fran-- I have wondered what happened to "Perry"'s 962 build. From reading his full thread, I had the impression that your company was building one for him and he had a lot of interesting plans for the vehicle. (TIA)

Fran Hall RCR

GT40s Sponsor
He never purchased one....we never saw a penny...lots of crazy HP ideas but nothing more than pipe dreams so far...too bad really
Last edited:
He never purchased one....we never saw a penny...lots of crazy HP ideas but nothing more than pipe dreams so far...too bad really
Which is why you should focus on making alternator kits and sacrilegious 917s ... those types of people pay your bills with their sacrilege :D