53bowtie

iTrader: (6)

How much hp loss is there from windage issues on a 1000hp motor?? To me it would have to be pretty substantial before I would put any type of money into it (assuming it would have to be custom and there is not one that bolts right up). I mean, your already making 1000 hp so I dont get why you would need the little bit more that a kickout would get you?? Maybe I am looking at this all wrong but I just dont get it.

1Bear

iTrader: (1)

GM Performance Parts lists a circle track pan (part # 19243065) that is listed as being a 6 quart pan, but requiring a remote oil filter / adapter and as such should bring total capacity in around 8 quarts. It is said to be designed around typical rear steer GM chassis, but due to the length of the sump, I’m sure either the sump or chassis would have to be modified to fit a truck. It comes on their CT525 circle track LS3 crate motor.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

The only hard data I've found from what I've read and researched are not for our LS motors so I can't answer that question specifically, but a properly set-up crankcase system on a big displacement N/A BBC or SBC that is built to spin to 7-8000 rpm's, it's been shown to gain 8% to 10% horsepower at the crank. So a 1000hp motor would gain between 80-100 hp in the set-up mentioned above. That is not just with a kick-out mind you, that is with lots of smaller details taken into measure to control windage, from tear-dropping the counter weights on the crank, to pulling inches of vacuum on the pan, etc...


I might ask this on tech and see if any of their track guys have done any testing on our LS motors. But from what I understand windage losses on motors in general are one of the major over-looked areas in improving engine efficiency which in turn makes more power.


Thanks 1Bear, this is the kinda of information I was hoping to learn. I don't know if I am gonna do this or want to do this, I started this thread to see if anyone HAS done this and looking to get feedback from them that's all.

53bowtie

iTrader: (6)

Well if it would be a 10% gain then I would say look into it. You could be the pioneer in the subject for trucks. Who knows, in 10 years maybe it will be a standard procedure and it will be in the "bolt-ons" thread lol.

marlboroman71818

Thinking about this, the power gained shouldnt be a linear percentage. The amount of power being taken away should be close to identical no matter how much horsepower it is loosing from the windage, because the hp REQUIRED to displace the oil is the same no matter how much power the engine makes. IE, the amount of oil that the crank moves at a certain rpm is the same if it is in a 200hp motor or 1000hp motor. Will it gain hp? Yes. Will it gain 80-100hp? It would not be accurate to the laws of physics to assume that the percentage will be linear. I hope this helps.

fastnblu

iTrader: (2)

I believe the C6 Z06 is a dry sump too. So it'd have to be a std. (as in non Z06 non ZR1) Vette pan, right?
Billy, while u haven't even considered a KO pan for a truck, some have.

Research is always a good thing. After the fact, it's a moot point, cause then ya gotta do it twice. Which = more time, aggravation & $. More often than not, all 3.

fastnblu

iTrader: (2)

Why not? Just tryin to learn here. Is it for reasons Brian said below, cause it's not just 1 part, but the whole combo?

IDK that I'd wanna go thru all that. I thought just a pan change or scraper & a contoured crank. I wondered bout this a lot lately after I went to track 2x & dyno 2x. My low oil light came on. I never checked it cause I'd recently changed it, so I figured it was from beating on it. I quickly changed it, rather than add more. Only to find it had ~5 QTs. or so in bucket. So, I started wondering about a baffled oil pan over last month & if they were out there, had it been done & who'd done it.

When doin tranny swap, I noticed wires for my low oil level sensor has some of sheathing cut into tho. I think as does someone else I asked, could it just be from uncovering sensor?

I saw this thread over last few days, but just now read it, so I'm gonna multiqoute like Billy (his record is 9 BTW).

And I thought I griped about when oil changes went from 5 to 6 QTs. 8QTs!

I applied that thinkin, so I thought my 500hp goal would save 40-50hp. Guess not, see below.

marlboroman71818, u said: power gained shouldn't be a linear percentage. The amt. of power being taken away should be close to identical no matter how much horsepower it's loosing from windage, because the hp REQUIRED to displace oil is the same no matter how much power the engine makes. IE, the amount of oil that the crank moves at a certain rpm is the same if it is in a 200hp or 1000hp motor. Will it gain hp? Yes. Will it gain 80-100hp? It would not be accurate to the laws of physics to assume that the percentage will be linear. I hope this helps.

What do u do for a living?

marlboroman71818

lets see, ive worked at waffle house, a feed store, heavy truck mechanic, parts person, service writer, management, generator mechanic, salesman, SAR technician, college student, and the new job is field specialist for Chevron. Mostly though physics: mechanics and heat, and chemistry are my favorite subjects.

fastnblu

iTrader: (2)

I shoulda said background. Not just your mechanical jobs & you've worked a variety, but I said to earlier myself, this cat knows somethin about physics or maybe even engineering. But there it is, PHYSICS. I knew that had to come up at some point & time.

I knew u just didn't fall off the turnip truck. By what u posted to this thread about linear power & another thread or 2, I saw today.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

I do understand where your coming from, however for the sake of argument, I think the losses are not only linnear but exponential in regards to the amount of horsepower that is made, and I'll explain why...

Some Windage losses are incured for reasons that are constant (which would support what your saying) and some reasons that are variable(which I'll explain later). Windage losses that are constant and do not change with motor operation would be the size and shape of the oil pan(volume), location of the windage tray (if supplied), type of sump(dry or wet), type of oil the motor runs(viscosity), the coating of the rotating assembly(There's a thread that callies just started concerning a new coating which helps shed oil dropplets), and the surface area and shape of the cranks(more on this later). If those were the only variables that effect windage losses I would agree that the losses would not be linear since those are constant in a specific engine regardless of what kind of power your making with it.

However losses that are variable and dependant on horsepower(and more importantly how it's produced) is engine RPM's, pressure and friction.

-As far as RPM's are concerned...windage losses are best described as frictional losses incurred between a moving part and the air and oil particles around it. The forumla for Horsepower as you know is (torque x rpm/5252). So by that definition the faster you spin that crank and rotating assembly (in order to make more horsepower) the higher the frictional loads will be on those parts and the more drag will result. As evidenced by the shity areodynamic properties of our trucks, the faster we make them go the exponentially harder it is for us to make them keep accelerating. The windage losses on a motor that spins at 4,000 rpm's are exponenially less than a motor that spins at 8,000 rpm's which would explain why the losses are not only linear but exponential the more horsepower you make.

-As far as pressure is concerned, the faster you spin an engine the greater amount of pressure waves are created not just by the rotating counter weights but by the pistons reciprocating in the cylinders. Each time one comes down on either the power stroke or the intake stroke that piston moves a volume of air into the crankcase. The piston on the opposite cycle will be create a void of that same volume of air and that pressure wave will move across the lower assembly causing turbulance, aggitating the oil particle's that are suspended in the crancase and the air around it. This effects all of the moving parts. Again, the faster you spin the engine to create more horsepower, the more churned up the crancase atmosphere is gonna become increaseing the windage losses seen by the engine.

-As far as friction is concerned, I mentioned in my last post that you referenced that "alot of smaller details were taken into measure to control windage, from tear-dropping the counter weights on the crank, to pulling inches of vacuum on the pan, etc..."
Once way to reduce friction is to reduce the surface area of the moving parts that are exposed to windage losses, in particular the counterweights. On a stock crank most of the counterweights are squared off and have flat surfaces. Crank's used in race motors have had the leading edges rounded and the trailing edges ground to a dull point, somewhat like a teardrop. Everyone knows that a ball has less surface area than a square of the same size, shaving those corners down reduces the amount of surface area therefore lessening the amount of drag on the crank. And that tear drop shape has also been well researched to cut though a volume in a much cleaner way. (Ships at sea nowadays are designed with a "bulbous bow" to reduce the low pressure area directly associated with a leading edge when run through a volume. I studied fluid dynamics in college as part of my engineering degree.)

That's why I think windage losses are exponential to the amount of horsepower that a motor makes. Not only because of the speed of the rotating assembly but the amount of surface area that is present in the crankcase. So a BBC V8 spinning 9,000 rpm's will have alot more windage losses than an Honda 4banger spinning to 9,000 rpm's because of the amount of surface area that the BBC crank, pistons, rods have in relation to the honda motor.

Again though, the data I came upon in relation to the 8-10% were drawn from BBC drag racing motors, I'm not sure how applicable that data is to our LS motors but the theories and principles still apply.
Hope all that made sense.