Go Back   American Sedan Forum > Main American Sedan Categories > American Sedan Rules

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-21-2016, 12:28 PM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 851
Default External Oil Pumps?

Several years ago, the ASAC sought the pulse of the community about spec/controlled dry sump systems in a WDYT in Fastrack. The feedback was a bit limited and generally not in favor of the change.

The ASAC has discussed the continued improvement in tires and handling and the G forces our cars experience. 1.2 lateral Gs are easily attainable. Downhill Gs over 1.5 combined with the lateral Gs are testing our oil pans to keep oil pressure at acceptable levels.

One suggestion is a spec external oil pump. The ASAC estimates such a system would cost around $1500 if professionally installed. In general, the issue arises in cars with oil pumps inside oil pans, but, all cars could be eligible for such a modification (FP and RP). The goal, which should be attainable, is to ensure that the system does not provide a performance advantage and is limited to providing increased engine life.

The ASAC is seeking your thoughts on such a proposal, unofficially, here on asedan.net, before the ASAC even considers submitting a WDYT to the CRB.

Please start a non-flaming, positive conversation here . No decisions have been made. The ASAC is truly seeking to understand if this is a concern within the community.

Thanks in advance for your constructive comments. Pam
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-21-2016, 01:28 PM
scottdolsen scottdolsen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 142
Default

I am in favor of this proposal and was in support of the last proposal. I have been struggling with oil pressure drops in the corners ever since I installed the Boss block. This problem seems to be worse in Fox body Mustangs due the oil pan construction. My oil system depends on the accumulator, if it malfunctions I will spin bearings. My engine builder says an external oil pump is the correct solution.

Scott Olsen
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-21-2016, 01:41 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,271
Default

Personal opinion, no relation to the CRB. This issue came up several years ago with the C6 Corvette, which would blow engines due to oil starvation because of the G forces generated during cornering on various tracks. The CRB allowed for a "dry sump" system that did not provide any increase in HP. The problem went away for the Vettes. Extensive research and engine builder interviews were done. It was common knowledge, among those in the business, which systems would solve the problem and which systems would solve the problem with an added increase in performance. The system that was allowed solved the problem but gave no advantage.
If the community wants to go this way, the ASAC needs to be sure that their recommendation only solves the oiling problem and does not give the slightest potential for a performance increase. Our research is available to the ASAC.
wheel
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-21-2016, 01:44 PM
jimwheeler jimwheeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 5,271
Default

P.S. Two additional points. Chevy made the limited "dry sump" standard on the C7. ASedan is currently generating G forces close to what the T1 Vettes were seeing that caused the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-21-2016, 02:28 PM
kbsmith1 kbsmith1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 772
Default

Can you post more information on the difference between the limited dry sump, and classic style dry sump systems?

Or on what the "spec" external oil pump system might be?

I was originally opposed to dry sumps in AS when it was asked about before,
because I felt certain that this would become a required change to be
competitive. I'd be interested in seeing information on how that could be
made so as not to be a competitive advantage.
__________________
Kevin Smith
1993 Firebird AS #03 Oregon Region SCCA & ICSCC
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-21-2016, 03:37 PM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 851
Default Original Dry Sump Proposal, 2014

Kevin --

Below is the wording from the WDYT. If you see something that could be proposed in addition to ensure no performance advantage, please let us know. This is what the ASAC came up with.

Pam

P. S. One idea for the external pump is this: http://www.petersonfluidsys.com/pump_wet.html ----- Note that other ideas can be suggested.

---------------
WORDING FROM FORMER PROPOSAL BELOW FOR DRY SUMPS:

1. Pump shall have a maximum of 3 stages and have a body no longer than 9 inches. The pump shall have a maximum of 2 lines sucking from the pan and a maximum of 1 line providing pressure to the motor. Sections should be no greater than 1.5”. Straight cut gear pumps may be used. All cars installing a dry sump system may remove the stock oil pump.

2. Pan shall not have holes or kickouts. Each chassis should limit the size of the pan that can be installed. (Goal is to not to create additional significant windage (aka performance)). Pans shall be of steel or aluminum construction.

Should there be either dimensional or volume restrictions to ensure not creating additional performance?


3. System must suck out of the pan, not out of the lifter galley.

4. No greater than 12 AN fittings anywhere within the dry sump system.

5. Mounting of tanks/location open, vent to outside from tank (probably through floor) and NOT in the driver’s compartment.

6. Recommend an 11-12 quart tank.

7. Permit cogged pulley/belt for pump. Would need to add a rule for RP cars installing an engine dry sump system that RP cars can mount an additional pulley or configuration of pulleys to accommodate the pump.

8. Breather hole in one or both valve covers minimum size, 7/8”/AN 10 and the breather must be operational. RP cars would be allowed alternate valve covers to accommodate this requirement. RP cars would be permitted to substitute a PCV valve for the breather rule.

9. If the community wants it or it makes sense, some AS cars might have a spec system or some spec parts.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-21-2016, 04:40 PM
smithpr smithpr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 572
Default

Non ASAC view. I really believe this would help our engines last longer and every engine builder I have talked to would support this. Initial investment is the issue. Over the long term I think that cost of the dry sump would be lower then the wet sump systems.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-21-2016, 07:07 PM
AS_74
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Would we be allowed to mount them to our tube chassis?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-21-2016, 07:37 PM
Ken Felice Ken Felice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 97
Thumbs up Dry sump

We build many engines with dry sumps . There will be a HP advantage because you will have no windage from drain back. you can have all oil drain back frt. or rear not over cam. Also the distrib. will not have a pump on it makes for steady timing accuracy is important. The thing that hasn't been said if you blow an engine the debris gets to pump take it apart clean or replace part in most cases. All of lines coolers etc. get contaminated with junk. This is a possible way to do it but if you want to keep expense down stay with wet sump. Build a pan to fit chassis and with a little research you will be able to get what you need. As for the ford boss block has excellent oil system it is oil pan that will make the diff. I would say no to dry sump. If you look at oil system on C6 engines totally different than SBC or SBF.
Hope I didn't ramble to much
Ken Felice
Felice Performance Engines
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-22-2016, 10:33 AM
PamRichardson PamRichardson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 851
Default Thanks!

Ken --

Thanks for your comments. This topic is about a potential for an external oil pump, not a dry sump. Kevin Smith asked for the specs we used for the dry sump idea a few years back that didn't float. So, I pulled them out and posted them. At this point, the ASAC is not talking about re-introducing the idea of dry sump systems. Now, if someone sends in letter requesting it, the ASAC would need to look at it again.

It would be great if you had some thoughts one way or the other on the potential help or not that could come from using an external oil pump. This is the current idea the ASAC is researching and wants feedback on.

Thanks, Pam
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.