Anyone running a kick out oil pan?
06-07-2010, 06:15 AM
#31
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.
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.
You posted all that yet a bigger wider deeper pan is only gonna do one basic thing, hold more oil...
The only ways to control oil windage on the bottom end is with crank scraper and a windage tray. On the crank It self you can profile the counter weights leading and trailing edges like a knife and have the entire surface polished to help shed the oil...
Aside from that the next best thing you can do is control the pressures created on the bottom side with a vacum pump.
06-07-2010, 07:31 AM
#32
I think you might be overthinking things a little.
You posted all that yet a bigger wider deeper pan is only gonna do one basic thing, hold more oil...
The only ways to control oil windage on the bottom end is with crank scraper and a windage tray. On the crank It self you can profile the counter weights leading and trailing edges like a knife and have the entire surface polished to help shed the oil...
Aside from that the next best thing you can do is control the pressures created on the bottom side with a vacum pump.
You posted all that yet a bigger wider deeper pan is only gonna do one basic thing, hold more oil...
The only ways to control oil windage on the bottom end is with crank scraper and a windage tray. On the crank It self you can profile the counter weights leading and trailing edges like a knife and have the entire surface polished to help shed the oil...
Aside from that the next best thing you can do is control the pressures created on the bottom side with a vacum pump.
Happy to see that we finally have some discussion going on!
Again, I'm not necessarily gonna do this or want to do this, I started this thread to see if anyone HAS done this and am looking to get feedback from them that's all. I think windage losses and effects aren't ever talked about in detail on here so I thought I'd bring it up and see where it goes.
However, I don't think I'm overthinking this, that last post was quite indepth and detailed because I found it necessary to explain why I think windage losses are exponential when making more power, which isn't easy to do unless I do get into a bit of detail. None of what I wrote above are solutions that I plan to tackle on this current engine build, again I'm just curious to see if anyone has done anything about windage on this forum.
A kick out pan also isn't necessarily deeper, it just has that sloped side chamber that allows less oil to be slung around the rotating assembly and instead into a void spaces that drains back to the pan, it's a slopped chamber and does not hold more oil.
Your right about controlling pressure and that is the only thing that I know that I will be doing, is running a vacume pump on this next build if I can find some room to add it to the serpentine system. All my hot parts for my turbo might make that difficult but I won't know until I get it assembled.
I've never heard of a crank scrapper, what's it do and how does it work?
06-07-2010, 07:13 PM
#33
12 Second Truck Club
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Crosby TX
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-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.)
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.)
Happy to see that we finally have some discussion going on!
Again, I'm not necessarily gonna do this or want to do this, I started this thread to see if anyone HAS done this and am looking to get feedback from them that's all. I think windage losses and effects aren't ever talked about in detail on here so I thought I'd bring it up and see where it goes.
However, I don't think I'm overthinking this, that last post was quite indepth and detailed because I found it necessary to explain why I think windage losses are exponential when making more power, which isn't easy to do unless I do get into a bit of detail. None of what I wrote above are solutions that I plan to tackle on this current engine build, again I'm just curious to see if anyone has done anything about windage on this forum.
A kick out pan also isn't necessarily deeper, it just has that sloped side chamber that allows less oil to be slung around the rotating assembly and instead into a void spaces that drains back to the pan, it's a slopped chamber and does not hold more oil.
Your right about controlling pressure and that is the only thing that I know that I will be doing, is running a vacume pump on this next build if I can find some room to add it to the serpentine system. All my hot parts for my turbo might make that difficult but I won't know until I get it assembled.
I've never heard of a crank scrapper, what's it do and how does it work?
Again, I'm not necessarily gonna do this or want to do this, I started this thread to see if anyone HAS done this and am looking to get feedback from them that's all. I think windage losses and effects aren't ever talked about in detail on here so I thought I'd bring it up and see where it goes.
However, I don't think I'm overthinking this, that last post was quite indepth and detailed because I found it necessary to explain why I think windage losses are exponential when making more power, which isn't easy to do unless I do get into a bit of detail. None of what I wrote above are solutions that I plan to tackle on this current engine build, again I'm just curious to see if anyone has done anything about windage on this forum.
A kick out pan also isn't necessarily deeper, it just has that sloped side chamber that allows less oil to be slung around the rotating assembly and instead into a void spaces that drains back to the pan, it's a slopped chamber and does not hold more oil.
Your right about controlling pressure and that is the only thing that I know that I will be doing, is running a vacume pump on this next build if I can find some room to add it to the serpentine system. All my hot parts for my turbo might make that difficult but I won't know until I get it assembled.
I've never heard of a crank scrapper, what's it do and how does it work?
06-07-2010, 07:26 PM
#34
Here is a good picture of a crank scraper on a ford 5.4. For some reason I cannot find one for an LS engine though.
http://image.musclemustangfastfords....no-subject.jpg
http://image.musclemustangfastfords....no-subject.jpg
06-07-2010, 08:13 PM
#35
Some windage losses are incurred for reasons that are constant (which would support what your saying) & some reasons that are variable. Windage losses that are constant & don't change would be size & shape of oil pan(volume), location of 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 droplets), & surface area/shape of the cranks. 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 & dependent on horsepower (& more importantly how it's produced) is engine RPM's, pressure and friction.
-RPMs...windage losses are best described as frictional losses incurred between a moving part & the air & oil particles around it. The formula for HP is (torque x rpm/5252). So by that definition the faster you spin rotating assembly (in order to make more HP) the higher the frictional loads will be on those parts & more drag will result. As evidenced by the shitty aerodynamic 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 R's are exponentially < a motor that spins at 8,000 R's which would explain why losses are not only linear but exponential the more HP you make.
-Pressure...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 & that pressure wave will move across the lower assembly causing turbulence, agitating oil particles suspended in crankcase & 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 crankcase atmosphere is gonna become increasing 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. Cranks 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. ...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. ...
However losses that are variable & dependent on horsepower (& more importantly how it's produced) is engine RPM's, pressure and friction.
-RPMs...windage losses are best described as frictional losses incurred between a moving part & the air & oil particles around it. The formula for HP is (torque x rpm/5252). So by that definition the faster you spin rotating assembly (in order to make more HP) the higher the frictional loads will be on those parts & more drag will result. As evidenced by the shitty aerodynamic 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 R's are exponentially < a motor that spins at 8,000 R's which would explain why losses are not only linear but exponential the more HP you make.
-Pressure...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 & that pressure wave will move across the lower assembly causing turbulence, agitating oil particles suspended in crankcase & 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 crankcase atmosphere is gonna become increasing 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. Cranks 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. ...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. ...
As far as exponentially harder to make them keep accelerating, that applies to a Top Fuel too. IDK the formula however. But think of it? A 15 sec truck ~300HP. A 5 sec Top Fuel is what? 6000HP.
Stuff far beyond me, but I know aero plays part too. Not just HP.
I think you might be overthinking things a little.
You posted all that yet a bigger wider deeper pan is only gonna do one basic thing, hold more oil...
The only ways to control oil windage on the bottom end is with crank scraper and a windage tray. On the crank itself you can profile the counter weights leading and trailing edges like a knife and have the entire surface polished to help shed the oil...
Aside from that the next best thing you can do is control the pressures created on the bottom side with a vacuum pump.
You posted all that yet a bigger wider deeper pan is only gonna do one basic thing, hold more oil...
The only ways to control oil windage on the bottom end is with crank scraper and a windage tray. On the crank itself you can profile the counter weights leading and trailing edges like a knife and have the entire surface polished to help shed the oil...
Aside from that the next best thing you can do is control the pressures created on the bottom side with a vacuum pump.
1Fast Brick, why wouldn't Jules blowby issue be fixed?
Why wouldn't a kick out prevent you from starving the motor? Just tryin to learn here. Is it for reasons Brian said, cause it's not just 1 part, but the whole combo?
...Again, I'm not necessarily gonna do this or want to do this, I started this thread to see if anyone HAS done this and am looking to get feedback from them that's all. I think windage losses and effects aren't ever talked about in detail on here so I thought I'd bring it up and see where it goes.
However, I don't think I'm overthinking this, that last post was quite indepth and detailed because I found it necessary to explain why I think windage losses are exponential when making more power, which isn't easy to do unless I do get into a bit of detail. None of what I wrote above are solutions that I plan to tackle on this current engine build, again I'm just curious to see if anyone has done anything about windage on this forum.
A kick out pan also isn't necessarily deeper, it just has that sloped side chamber that allows less oil to be slung around the rotating assembly and instead into a void spaces that drains back to the pan, it's a sloped chamber & doesn't hold more oil.
Your right about controlling pressure & that's the only thing that I know that I'll be doing, is running a vacuum pump on this next build if I can find some room to add it to the serpentine system. All my hot parts for my turbo might make that difficult but I won't know until I get it assembled.
I've never heard of a crank scraper, what's it do and how does it work?
However, I don't think I'm overthinking this, that last post was quite indepth and detailed because I found it necessary to explain why I think windage losses are exponential when making more power, which isn't easy to do unless I do get into a bit of detail. None of what I wrote above are solutions that I plan to tackle on this current engine build, again I'm just curious to see if anyone has done anything about windage on this forum.
A kick out pan also isn't necessarily deeper, it just has that sloped side chamber that allows less oil to be slung around the rotating assembly and instead into a void spaces that drains back to the pan, it's a sloped chamber & doesn't hold more oil.
Your right about controlling pressure & that's the only thing that I know that I'll be doing, is running a vacuum pump on this next build if I can find some room to add it to the serpentine system. All my hot parts for my turbo might make that difficult but I won't know until I get it assembled.
I've never heard of a crank scraper, what's it do and how does it work?
...I believe it would be better to fix this issue with crankcase ventilation rather than oil pan design. Although a larger atmosphere would decrease the pressure.
I'm pretty sure that you are referring to what is called knife edging the crank. The thing with this is that you actually gain torque from this because the mass is decreased, the center of rotational inertia is changed, and the area of the crank that contacts the oil is reduced reducing the oil turbulence and oil deflection also. If you add all of these together I think you may gain a decent amount of power. ...
What a crank scraper does is scrape oil off the crank reducing rotating mass and inertia.
I'm pretty sure that you are referring to what is called knife edging the crank. The thing with this is that you actually gain torque from this because the mass is decreased, the center of rotational inertia is changed, and the area of the crank that contacts the oil is reduced reducing the oil turbulence and oil deflection also. If you add all of these together I think you may gain a decent amount of power. ...
What a crank scraper does is scrape oil off the crank reducing rotating mass and inertia.
IDK if Lunati was 1st to knife-edge cranks, they're just the ones I'm familiar w/. But on a 500HP engine, would it be worth it? It's probably only what, a few %? Every lil bit helps.
Crank scraper & knife edging crank could be done. Crank is pricey, but on a "build", who cares. Heck, I wanted to do it on my '92 Camaro project, whenever I can get back to that.
Scraper wouldn't be much, but IDK if anyone has LS specific. I'd love some insight if so.
A custom pan from Canton, Stef's, or whoever, well...just suck it up. Got any pics of your vacuum setup, Jules?
Last edited by fastnblu; 06-07-2010 at 08:32 PM.
06-07-2010, 09:51 PM
#36
Most of this is way beyond our needs as weekend warrior mechanics but there's no such thing as having too much knowledge about how stuff works. This is all great information, but i believe it would be better to fix this issue with crankcase ventilation rather than oil pan design. Although a larger atmosphere would decrease the pressure. You could actually calculate this with a pressure sensor in the crankcase and then taking the volume before and applying the ideal gas law PV=nRT. In fact you really dont even need a pressure sensor to calculate this but its more math than I want to do lol.
Your idea of sticking a pressure gauge on the crankcase is a good one and one I do plan on doing, I wonder why I didn't think of it before! :cnofused: I think that information will be really interesting to find out once I get my truck back down off it's jack stands and running.
Im pretty sure that you are refering to what is called knife edging the crank. The thing with this is that you actually gain torque from this because the mass is decreased, the center of rotational inertia is changed, and the area of the crank that contacts the oil is reduced reducing the oil tubulance and oil deflection also. If you add all of these together I think you may gain a decent amount of power. Ships use slow roll diesel engines correct?
Again, not sure if this relates to cranks but the principle behind the theory is sound.
Good point on the torque gain as well, that's something I did not think of. And ships use either slow speed diesel's or medium speed diesels for propulusion. Most of today's post-panamax size ships use slow speed diesel's. I should rummage through my pictures from work and see if I can't find some pictures of cankcases, but I'm sure since they only spin a max of 100 rpm's that there isn't very many aerodynamic properties that are added to them!
Here is a good picture of a crank scraper on a ford 5.4. For some reason I cannot find one for an LS engine though.
http://image.musclemustangfastfords....no-subject.jpg
http://image.musclemustangfastfords....no-subject.jpg
Last month I learned from Cody what a engine girdle is, something I'm sure most people already were familiar with. All the reading I do is not necessarily on the basics of engine operations but in the differences/similarities in the systems that I do know and those that I don't know.The problem with being the class-clown on here is that I'm never taken seriously when I do decide to get into the nitty gritty of stuff...go figure, brought it upon myself really.
Here's a good example from my industry...a Positive displacement post-panamax ship is roughly 1000 feet long, 120 feet wide and has a slow speed diesel engine which puts out on average 20,000 hp. That equates into a cruising speed of around 20-22 knots
A US aircraft carrier is roughly the same size and length hull wise and in order to get them to a speed of 45 knots they need upwards of 250,000 horsepower. That's rought twice the speed and 12 times the power, and it only gets worse the faster you try to go!
But they are the Navy and cost is not a concern for them really.
I'm just researching stuff at this point, I pulled my motor before I left for china and hopefully it will be taken apart here shortly. I'll be working out here in the far east until the begining of fall so I have a month to figure out what I want and a few months to get it built, hope to have it ready to drop in when I get back in mid-late september.
06-07-2010, 10:08 PM
#37
Staging Lane
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minneapolis Mn
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kick out pan keeps the oil pump intake submerged when high side g's to prevent oil starvation. Accusump accumulator may work for drag racing. Unless you are drifting, a kick out won't help much. The stock windage tray works fairly well on its own.
06-07-2010, 10:12 PM
#38
Oh ya, another advantage to a dry sump. Kinda ties in here. They (most of ones I've seen) carry more oil in pan. They're various stages to dry sumps. Tho their plumbing seems to have **** goin everywhere from them, depending on how complex. But a cool point I like, in addition to more ponies gained, lower CG w/. a dry sump. Kinda cool, esp on a truck that handles. Or a Buell, as they use same idea. Eric Buell figured this out a while ago tho.
06-07-2010, 10:20 PM
#39
I didn't know Buell motorcycles had dry sumps!! Thats' kinda trick!! If you look at a Pro-stock motor it'll be easier to see all the plumbing that's involved and it's not as bad as you think really. When you see them on cars that run all the accesories than it gets pretty confusing to look at I agree.
Oh btw, dry sumps don't have any oil in the pan, it's all kept in an external resevoir.
Oh btw, dry sumps don't have any oil in the pan, it's all kept in an external resevoir.