Anyone running a kick out oil pan?
06-08-2010, 12:16 AM
#41
Wow, There is so many different conversations going on in here.
Basicaly What I was trying to tell you Spoo Monkey, is that a Kick out style pan in general is not going to do any thing as far as controlling windage it self. Also the more dead area in the oil pan means the pump will have to work harder to pull a vacum under load.
The way to control windage is by doing things such as having the counter weights machined on the crank shaft. Its not really that expensive. I think I paid $150 to have the leading edges Knife edged. I could have done the trailing edges too, but I just didn't feel it would be necassary for what I was trying to accomplish.
A crank scraper, when set up properly, will catch the extra oil being slung off of the crank on the up stroke of the motor thus reducing its rotational mass when wet... by reducing the added weight on the up stroke the faster the piston will be able to travel upward...
As far as coatings go on things like crankshafts, every one seems to believe something different. There is apparently a coating that you can have done that applies a thin layer of a teflon bassed coating similar to what they use in frying pans. Aparently It is proprietary so I never was able to get to many details on it. Only that it had been done. There is also a mirscopic polishing proceduere done with chimicals that polishes the metal on a microscopic level so the crank will shed the oil faster.
Basicaly What I was trying to tell you Spoo Monkey, is that a Kick out style pan in general is not going to do any thing as far as controlling windage it self. Also the more dead area in the oil pan means the pump will have to work harder to pull a vacum under load.
The way to control windage is by doing things such as having the counter weights machined on the crank shaft. Its not really that expensive. I think I paid $150 to have the leading edges Knife edged. I could have done the trailing edges too, but I just didn't feel it would be necassary for what I was trying to accomplish.
A crank scraper, when set up properly, will catch the extra oil being slung off of the crank on the up stroke of the motor thus reducing its rotational mass when wet... by reducing the added weight on the up stroke the faster the piston will be able to travel upward...
As far as coatings go on things like crankshafts, every one seems to believe something different. There is apparently a coating that you can have done that applies a thin layer of a teflon bassed coating similar to what they use in frying pans. Aparently It is proprietary so I never was able to get to many details on it. Only that it had been done. There is also a mirscopic polishing proceduere done with chimicals that polishes the metal on a microscopic level so the crank will shed the oil faster.
06-08-2010, 05:13 AM
#42
Niiiicceee!!! I knew if I goaded you enough I'd get some of that valuable information out of you Joseph!!! Your another one of those closet posters who know more than you lead on, and just lurk but don't post anything relevant until someone gives you the promise of a blow-job after your post! 
Oooo, good point, didn't think about the additional internal volume of the pan affecting the vacuume pump.
You know if anyone who makes those for LS motors and how much they run? Just curious. I'm gonna do some research on them, they sound interesting.
Food info, I'm wondering how much additional weight that teflon coating crap added to the crank, that stuff is not light. I think the callies sponsor should get this thread linked to him so he could chime in on what his company has done research wise on this subject...the internet that I'm using is the speed of dial up...come on buttercup... 
give them a prod and show them this link! 
A crank scraper, when set up properly, will catch the extra oil being slung off of the crank on the up stroke of the motor thus reducing its rotational mass when wet... by reducing the added weight on the up stroke the faster the piston will be able to travel upward....
As far as coatings go on things like crankshafts, every one seems to believe something different. There is apparently a coating that you can have done that applies a thin layer of a teflon bassed coating similar to what they use in frying pans. Aparently It is proprietary so I never was able to get to many details on it. Only that it had been done. There is also a mirscopic polishing proceduere done with chimicals that polishes the metal on a microscopic level so the crank will shed the oil faster.
give them a prod and show them this link!
06-08-2010, 09:49 PM
#43
Staging Lane
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, all of this info is awesome and the reason I joined here, but I have one question which may be a bit off topic or moot by now.
How is it that drag effects of an improper crankcase setup increase as HP increases. I understand the whole exponential increase thing as speed increases but I don't see how HP has anything to do with this other than the assumption that HP will increase with RPM. All other things equal, a stock 6.0 spinning at 6000 should have the same power loss from crank drag and whatnot as an 800 HP 6.0 spinning 6000 on a stock bottom end should it not? It should also have the same crankcase pressures as well should it not (assuming its not FI I guess)?
Or am I just missing something?
How is it that drag effects of an improper crankcase setup increase as HP increases. I understand the whole exponential increase thing as speed increases but I don't see how HP has anything to do with this other than the assumption that HP will increase with RPM. All other things equal, a stock 6.0 spinning at 6000 should have the same power loss from crank drag and whatnot as an 800 HP 6.0 spinning 6000 on a stock bottom end should it not? It should also have the same crankcase pressures as well should it not (assuming its not FI I guess)?
Or am I just missing something?
06-08-2010, 10:45 PM
#44
...Basically What I was trying to tell you Spoo Monkey, is that a Kick out style pan in general is not going to do any thing as far as controlling windage it self. Also the more dead area in the oil pan means the pump will have to work harder to pull a vacuum under load.
The way to control windage is by doing things such as having the counter weights machined on the crank shaft. Its not really that expensive. I think I paid $150 to have the leading edges Knife edged. I could have done the trailing edges too, but I just didn't feel it would be necessary for what I was trying to accomplish.
A crank scraper, when set up properly, will catch the extra oil being slung off of the crank on the up stroke of the motor thus reducing its rotational mass when wet... by reducing the added weight on the up stroke the faster the piston will be able to travel upward...
As far as coatings go on things like crankshafts, every one seems to believe something different. There is apparently a coating that you can have done that applies a thin layer of a teflon based coating similar to what they use in frying pans. Apparently it is proprietary so I never was able to get to many details on it. Only that it had been done. There is also a microscopic polishing procedure done with chemicals that polishes the metal on a microscopic level so the crank will shed the oil faster.
The way to control windage is by doing things such as having the counter weights machined on the crank shaft. Its not really that expensive. I think I paid $150 to have the leading edges Knife edged. I could have done the trailing edges too, but I just didn't feel it would be necessary for what I was trying to accomplish.
A crank scraper, when set up properly, will catch the extra oil being slung off of the crank on the up stroke of the motor thus reducing its rotational mass when wet... by reducing the added weight on the up stroke the faster the piston will be able to travel upward...
As far as coatings go on things like crankshafts, every one seems to believe something different. There is apparently a coating that you can have done that applies a thin layer of a teflon based coating similar to what they use in frying pans. Apparently it is proprietary so I never was able to get to many details on it. Only that it had been done. There is also a microscopic polishing procedure done with chemicals that polishes the metal on a microscopic level so the crank will shed the oil faster.
$150 is quite reasonable. Esp. when u consider what most any internal component on an engine build costs.
Coatings, ya, I've seen varying opinions too. Also, on those that do oil shedding / heat retention & rejection, but that's a different topic, so I'll leave it. I'd do it. Somewhere I read it, I thought it was this thread, it's a combo of parts & how they work tog. I may not have done as much as some on here have, but I'm now starting to put into practice, mods & ideas that were just :light:
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 reservoir.
Oh btw, dry sumps don't have any oil in the pan, it's all kept in an external reservoir.
Do u need some sources for reservoirs Jules?Niiiicceee!!! I knew if I goaded you enough I'd get some of that valuable information out of you Joseph!!! Your another one of those closet posters who know more than you lead on, and just lurk but don't post anything relevant until someone gives you the promise of a blow-job after your post!
You know if anyone who makes those for LS motors and how much they run? Just curious. I'm gonna do some research on them, they sound interesting.
I'm wondering how much additional weight that teflon coating crap added to the crank, that stuff is not light. I think the callies sponsor should get this thread linked to him so he could chime in on what his company has done research wise on this subject... give them a prod and show them this link!
You know if anyone who makes those for LS motors and how much they run? Just curious. I'm gonna do some research on them, they sound interesting.
I'm wondering how much additional weight that teflon coating crap added to the crank, that stuff is not light. I think the callies sponsor should get this thread linked to him so he could chime in on what his company has done research wise on this subject...
give them a prod and show them this link! 
06-10-2010, 10:53 AM
#46
First of all, all of this info is awesome and the reason I joined here, but I have one question which may be a bit off topic or moot by now.
How is it that drag effects of an improper crankcase setup increase as HP increases. I understand the whole exponential increase thing as speed increases but I don't see how HP has anything to do with this other than the assumption that HP will increase with RPM. All other things equal, a stock 6.0 spinning at 6000 should have the same power loss from crank drag and whatnot as an 800 HP 6.0 spinning 6000 on a stock bottom end should it not? It should also have the same crankcase pressures as well should it not (assuming its not FI I guess)?
Or am I just missing something?
How is it that drag effects of an improper crankcase setup increase as HP increases. I understand the whole exponential increase thing as speed increases but I don't see how HP has anything to do with this other than the assumption that HP will increase with RPM. All other things equal, a stock 6.0 spinning at 6000 should have the same power loss from crank drag and whatnot as an 800 HP 6.0 spinning 6000 on a stock bottom end should it not? It should also have the same crankcase pressures as well should it not (assuming its not FI I guess)?
Or am I just missing something?
Hey, sorry but the internet sucks where I am and didn't get to see this till today.
First off, HP increasing with RPM's is not an assumption, it's a formula.
HP = (Torque x RPM) / 5252
Laws of physics dictate that if you spin a motor faster you'll make more horsepower given that the motor is set-up properly. (i.e. heads, intake, cam, etc...)
As far as your original question, easy to answer...
I understand that the comparison you made is hypothetical but that example is a bit extreme without the use of nitrous or boost. I don't think that much gain could be acheived in similar motors, spinning the same RPM's just by improving the VE. So I'm gonna assume your using nitrous as the culprit, so...
In the formula I gave above there are two variables that you can manipulate to make more HP, the torque or the RPM.
I should clarify that windage losses are exponential if your trying to make more HP by increasing RPM. If you make more HP by increasing the Torque the windage losses would not be as big a variable, how much less I don't know.
In order to increase Torque in a motor it is necessary to increase cylinder pressures, to do that you either need to...
-increase displacement
-Go Forced Induction
-Run better fuel/nitrous
(I could be missing a few here so if anyone wants to add something please do)
Your example kinda kills options 1 & 2 so the only one left is running nitrous. Only thing I can come up with using your example is the one with nitrous has much higher cylinder pressures which will in turn cause more blow-by therefore increasing the pressures in the crankcase that much more than in the one without nitrous. The rotating assembly will have to work a little harder fighting through the denser atmosphere but other than that I would assume the windage losses wouldn't be as extreme as increasing HP through RPM's.
Hope that helps and makes sense.
06-11-2010, 08:33 PM
#47
Staging Lane
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, sorry but the internet sucks where I am and didn't get to see this till today.
First off, HP increasing with RPM's is not an assumption, it's a formula.
HP = (Torque x RPM) / 5252
Laws of physics dictate that if you spin a motor faster you'll make more horsepower given that the motor is set-up properly. (i.e. heads, intake, cam, etc...)
As far as your original question, easy to answer...
I understand that the comparison you made is hypothetical but that example is a bit extreme without the use of nitrous or boost. I don't think that much gain could be acheived in similar motors, spinning the same RPM's just by improving the VE. So I'm gonna assume your using nitrous as the culprit, so...
In the formula I gave above there are two variables that you can manipulate to make more HP, the torque or the RPM.
I should clarify that windage losses are exponential if your trying to make more HP by increasing RPM. If you make more HP by increasing the Torque the windage losses would not be as big a variable, how much less I don't know.
In order to increase Torque in a motor it is necessary to increase cylinder pressures, to do that you either need to...
-increase displacement
-Go Forced Induction
-Run better fuel/nitrous
(I could be missing a few here so if anyone wants to add something please do)
Your example kinda kills options 1 & 2 so the only one left is running nitrous. Only thing I can come up with using your example is the one with nitrous has much higher cylinder pressures which will in turn cause more blow-by therefore increasing the pressures in the crankcase that much more than in the one without nitrous. The rotating assembly will have to work a little harder fighting through the denser atmosphere but other than that I would assume the windage losses wouldn't be as extreme as increasing HP through RPM's.
Hope that helps and makes sense.
First off, HP increasing with RPM's is not an assumption, it's a formula.
HP = (Torque x RPM) / 5252
Laws of physics dictate that if you spin a motor faster you'll make more horsepower given that the motor is set-up properly. (i.e. heads, intake, cam, etc...)
As far as your original question, easy to answer...
I understand that the comparison you made is hypothetical but that example is a bit extreme without the use of nitrous or boost. I don't think that much gain could be acheived in similar motors, spinning the same RPM's just by improving the VE. So I'm gonna assume your using nitrous as the culprit, so...
In the formula I gave above there are two variables that you can manipulate to make more HP, the torque or the RPM.
I should clarify that windage losses are exponential if your trying to make more HP by increasing RPM. If you make more HP by increasing the Torque the windage losses would not be as big a variable, how much less I don't know.
In order to increase Torque in a motor it is necessary to increase cylinder pressures, to do that you either need to...
-increase displacement
-Go Forced Induction
-Run better fuel/nitrous
(I could be missing a few here so if anyone wants to add something please do)
Your example kinda kills options 1 & 2 so the only one left is running nitrous. Only thing I can come up with using your example is the one with nitrous has much higher cylinder pressures which will in turn cause more blow-by therefore increasing the pressures in the crankcase that much more than in the one without nitrous. The rotating assembly will have to work a little harder fighting through the denser atmosphere but other than that I would assume the windage losses wouldn't be as extreme as increasing HP through RPM's.
Hope that helps and makes sense.
Originally Posted by Spoolin
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.
Anyways, are you going to try it?
06-12-2010, 01:46 AM
#48
I'm not sure you'll find anything at all on a crank scraper for LS engines. Since the design includes a deep-skirted block with cross-bolted mains, I don't really even see where you would mount one. For that matter, I also don't even see the need for one. On the older small blocks(and big blocks), the crankshaft literally splashed thru the oil in the crankcase. On the LS series small blocks, the crank spins inside the block, and very little is in the oil pan. The crankshaft isn't really splashing thru the oil in the oil pan.
I think the dry sump was brought into production by GM to allow the LS engine to survive in extreme G-force corners that the "bad-boy" Corvette is capable of.
06-12-2010, 04:05 AM
#49
Nope, just curious about this stuff, I learn more from discussing this stuff than from reading about it. I now see your and Marlboroman's point about it not necessarily being exponential with HP, just more so with RPM's. 
Sweet!! Thanks man! btw, your not in Dutch are you? I'm headed there in a few weeks.
http://www.summitracing.com/search/P...eyword=scraper
I'm not sure you'll find anything at all on a crank scraper for LS engines. Since the design includes a deep-skirted block with cross-bolted mains, I don't really even see where you would mount one. For that matter, I also don't even see the need for one. On the older small blocks(and big blocks), the crankshaft literally splashed thru the oil in the crankcase. On the LS series small blocks, the crank spins inside the block, and very little is in the oil pan. The crankshaft isn't really splashing thru the oil in the oil pan.
I think the dry sump was brought into production by GM to allow the LS engine to survive in extreme G-force corners that the "bad-boy" Corvette is capable of.
I'm not sure you'll find anything at all on a crank scraper for LS engines. Since the design includes a deep-skirted block with cross-bolted mains, I don't really even see where you would mount one. For that matter, I also don't even see the need for one. On the older small blocks(and big blocks), the crankshaft literally splashed thru the oil in the crankcase. On the LS series small blocks, the crank spins inside the block, and very little is in the oil pan. The crankshaft isn't really splashing thru the oil in the oil pan.
I think the dry sump was brought into production by GM to allow the LS engine to survive in extreme G-force corners that the "bad-boy" Corvette is capable of.
Sweet!! Thanks man! btw, your not in Dutch are you? I'm headed there in a few weeks.
