FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: BigBlueIron on August 11, 2020, 11:58:06 AM
-
Is a windage tray worth the effort/cost on basic street engine that would only see 5000rpm once in a blue moon? 390 2wd truck pan.
Or should one be used on basically everything with maybe the exception of a deeper 4x4 or FT bread pan.
-
No.
-
If I build an engine, it gets a tray.
-
Chris, a skirted block is different from a non-skirted block. I've never seen any dyno advantage of a windage tray on an FE. The only time I've used them in the past is doing the "CJ oil capacity mod" or if I'm using an Aviaid Cobra pan that has one incorporated into it. Otherwise, it's not worth the hassle.
-
I tend to run them too, but I doubt the stock Ford pan lid does a lot as it was designed more to allow them to run an extra quart in the CJ pan.
With those, I drill a series of holes on each side, thinking it will strip a little, no idea if it does. However, the Canton screen piece does look like it might help. I have them in all of my own
However, you also have to shape it to fit the dipstick, and shape the return for the mains, so worth it? depends if you really want it LOL Probably more for max effort and/or cool points.
-
......... a skirted block is different from a non-skirted block.
How? Well. I suppose the pan rail is lower, meaning a sum of the oil flying within the crankcase engages the cast vertical skirting vs. the otherwise often tin pan, this also providing a horizontal ledge closer to the oil supply volume, but the overall depth and distance the oil may be from the crankshaft doesn't automatically differ, but what ever value (?) one might atribite to this certainly leaves an awful lot of area otherwise uneffected. ???
I've never seen any dyno advantage of a windage tray on an FE. ................... Otherwise, it's not worth the hassle.
I believe the first and foremost intention is for oil control and quality for engine survivability, with dyno numbers being a secondary benefit, one result not always indicative of the other. ;)
Scott.
-
......... a skirted block is different from a non-skirted block.
How? Well. I suppose the pan rail is lower, meaning a sum of the oil flying within the crankcase engages the cast vertical skirting vs. the otherwise often tin pan, this also providing a horizontal ledge closer to the oil supply volume, but the overall depth and distance the oil may be from the crankshaft doesn't automatically differ, but what ever value (?) one might atribite to this certainly leaves an awful lot of area otherwise uneffected. ???
I've never seen any dyno advantage of a windage tray on an FE. ................... Otherwise, it's not worth the hassle.
I believe the first and foremost intention is for oil control and quality for engine survivability, with dyno numbers being a secondary benefit, one result not always indicative of the other. ;)
Scott.
I usually try to base things on experience using them or not using them. In this case, I've got lots of experience not using them.
Notice that I didn't say "dyno numbers", I said dyno advantage. That advantage could mean horsepower gains/losses, but it could also mean an indication of oil control gain/loss by watching the numbers as well.
I've never seen a power gain from the addition of a windage tray between similar combos. I've also never seen indication that I've lost oil control without one.
Modern oil pans go a long way.
-
Yet another example where numbers on a engine dyno don`t always mean the same thing in a real world situation , like with an engine actually installed in a vehicle, and subjected to forces that an engine sitting stationary on a dyno cradle can not duplicate. A windage tray can help keep the rotating assembly from whipping the oil into a frothing mess, under hard acceleration, when the oil in a front sump oil pan rushes to the rear, or when the oil rushes forward on heavy braking. So yes, if your engine is not going to be actually in a moving vehicle, a tray will not do much. Neither will oil pan baffles & trap doors, secondary jet extensions in the carb, or a hood scoop. But if the engine may actually see the conditions the engineers determined were worthy of developing such items to address, maybe, just maybe, there may be some benefit .
-
Not sure why emotions always flare with some of this old Ford stuff.....
With as many FE's as I have out there, including drag race, road race, pulling, etc., I still have yet to see the benefit of a tray. Now trap doors, deep sumps, and high quality pans? Definitely.
I feel like a lot of this stuff was really pertinent a long time ago when the parts selection just wasn't there. Not so much now. Very rarely do I put a 5 quart pan on anything.
So if the tray doesn't show power on the dyno and the engines come back with clean bearings on tear down, what am I missing?
-
I believe the first and foremost intention is for oil control and quality for engine survivability, with dyno numbers being a secondary benefit, one result not always indicative of the other. ;)
Scott.
I think if you have enough pan, it does ZERO for engine survivability, and if you don't have enough pan, it's not going to save it at big HP numbers either. Remember, they came out when CJs were emptying the pan and needed another quart. When you overfill a crappy pan, you need a lid
I believe that a real screen or stripper, specifically something like a Canton screen, may peel some windage off for single digit numbers, but even as a user, the old Ford one, not so much. It doesn't give a clean escape for the oil, if anything it just wads the windage up.
-
I'm not a tray expert in the range where they would do the most - ABOVE 5000rpm.
And below 4000-5000, I'd agree with Brent - don't bother.
I also agree w Rory's comments though & they ARE relevant to anything that pulls G's even off the line.
With that older big-ford & truck pan that is totally unbaffled:
I've seen the oil pressure fall away with a good gauge just launching a car at say 0.6 Gs (not very high, just good tires) if its as little as a quart low on oil. Too dangerous for me.
So I started building my own baffle plate for those big empty early/truck pans.
The pans are nice cuz they're almost an inch deeper than the later unibody pan, but no baffles at all is no good.
So if your truck pulls any G's at all off the line, adding a good baffle is a MUST, but don't bother about the tray.
-
I really need to build a clear oil pan and see exactly what a windage tray does on the dyno. I always use them, I like the Moroso tray best because it has a bunch of louvers in it. But I really don't know if it makes any difference...
-
Not sure why emotions always flare with some of this old Ford stuff.....
So if the tray doesn't show power on the dyno and the engines come back with clean bearings on tear down, what am I missing?
A few horsepower on the track, which a dyno or bearing check will never show.
Brent, the only person that shows emotion, is you, whenever somebody suggests that you just might be wrong about something. You can never concede the fact that there's even a possibility, and you'll double down on your 'opinion'. Just because you can't prove something on a dyno, doesn't mean it doesn't have advantages.
Any truck that sees any time off the beaten path, will be splashing oil up into the crank. Anything that can stop that from happening, is good, right? Even if it doesn't have negative effects on the bearings. I used to pull the kids through the fields in the wintertime snow, sitting on a hood that was chained to my Highboy. Good times, but the fields would bounce the hell out of my truck. I had to use my seatbelt to keep from banging my head off the headliner. I have zero doubts that the tray kept oil off the crank, and those rides would last 15-20 minutes. I'm betting it made a difference, but there's no way to prove it. That was just an old field truck, but any situation could benefit from it, short of a cruiser.
-
I believe there is a place for them. A low rpm 2wd street truck not so much. A windsor stroker in a fox body at the track or cobra on a road course, oh ya. I don't think anybody will ever be able to define how much power loss there could be or bearing failures with out it as there's way to many variables involved in this situation. Hard enough to make a dyno pull, come back the next day and hit the exact same number or how strong a fastener is. Not used here, well arp has stretch measured in but Tourqe-to-yeild still defies logic to me. LOL. The hp loss in the drivetrain alone would be more to worry about then a gain of a tray. I can see saving bearings by keeping oil at the pick up screen or even it slowing down the climb rpms more then any hp loss and that's only in a environment that really would require one. Like in racing coming out of a corner and standing on it entering a straightaway or a hard launch with wheels in the air and a front sump. It is food for thought during the build process. I agree with brett on this build, skirts can have any extra oil. Don't bother with it. Mike
-
Not sure why emotions always flare with some of this old Ford stuff.....
So if the tray doesn't show power on the dyno and the engines come back with clean bearings on tear down, what am I missing?
A few horsepower on the track, which a dyno or bearing check will never show.
Brent, the only person that shows emotion, is you, whenever somebody suggests that you just might be wrong about something. You can never concede the fact that there's even a possibility, and you'll double down on your 'opinion'. Just because you can't prove something on a dyno, doesn't mean it doesn't have advantages.
Any truck that sees any time off the beaten path, will be splashing oil up into the crank. Anything that can stop that from happening, is good, right? Even if it doesn't have negative effects on the bearings. I used to pull the kids through the fields in the wintertime snow, sitting on a hood that was chained to my Highboy. Good times, but the fields would bounce the hell out of my truck. I had to use my seatbelt to keep from banging my head off the headliner. I have zero doubts that the tray kept oil off the crank, and those rides would last 15-20 minutes. I'm betting it made a difference, but there's no way to prove it. That was just an old field truck, but any situation could benefit from it, short of a cruiser.
I will apologize if I come across with an emotional agenda. That's not my intent at all. My intent is to prove things with data. To me, data trumps "feelings" or "it's what the internet said to do on FE's".
I will admit that Rory's reply came across like I had no "practical" data, only dyno numbers. I actually have quite a bit of both and usually try to answer a forum post using data and not my gut. Rory's fast and I give him props but I've also got some engines in some pretty quick cars and I'm able to accumulate a lot of data because of that. I don't wanna be the bad guy because I'm the odd man out on a 100% consensus, but I call it how I see it.
I also do a lot of reading and have read some posts where some builders have seen horsepower losses because of windage trays. There's a good bit of data out there saying how some of the trays do nothing to direct the oil, but do a lot to act like a shelf, which whips the oil up even more....kinda like what Ross was talking about up above. So at the very least, just saying any windage tray will help could steer someone in the wrong direction.
What seems to be the general consensus across a lot of engine builders is that a precisely designed crank scraper combined with a precisely designed oil pan is more beneficial. That way you have something that adds horsepower due to the shedding of oil off the crank as well as oil windage control.
-
Brent, is there any solid data out there showing the gains from stand pipes in the valley and re directing the oil draining back to the pan? One would think those numbers would vary less from dyno to in chassis. If its just a matter of tapping 6 holes (leaving the back 2 open) and threading in brass stand pipes, why don't you see more guys doing that in attempts to keep oil off the crank?
Fred
-
Brent, is there any solid data out there showing the gains from stand pipes in the valley and re directing the oil draining back to the pan? One would think those numbers would vary less from dyno to in chassis. If its just a matter of tapping 6 holes (leaving the back 2 open) and threading in brass stand pipes, why don't you see more guys doing that in attempts to keep oil off the crank?
Fred
I have never done a back-to-back on it, so I personally don't have data on it but it's something I wanted to try with my 352 dyno mule, as it's already been drilled/tapped for it.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49666455771_782f499485_z.jpg)
I don't think a lot of guys do it because they don't know about it. It's done by a lot of engine builders on higher end applications.
-
Brent, is there any solid data out there showing the gains from stand pipes in the valley and re directing the oil draining back to the pan? One would think those numbers would vary less from dyno to in chassis. If its just a matter of tapping 6 holes (leaving the back 2 open) and threading in brass stand pipes, why don't you see more guys doing that in attempts to keep oil off the crank?
Fred
I have never done a back-to-back on it, so I personally don't have data on it. I could try that with my 352 dyno mule, as it's already been drilled/tapped for it.
I don't think a lot of guys do it because they don't know about it. It's done by a lot of engine builders on higher end applications.
Off the Top of your head do you happen to know what tap size that is?
-
Brent, is there any solid data out there showing the gains from stand pipes in the valley and re directing the oil draining back to the pan? One would think those numbers would vary less from dyno to in chassis. If its just a matter of tapping 6 holes (leaving the back 2 open) and threading in brass stand pipes, why don't you see more guys doing that in attempts to keep oil off the crank?
Fred
I have never done a back-to-back on it, so I personally don't have data on it. I could try that with my 352 dyno mule, as it's already been drilled/tapped for it.
I don't think a lot of guys do it because they don't know about it. It's done by a lot of engine builders on higher end applications.
Off the Top of your head do you happen to know what tap size that is?
Varies a little bit from block to block, but on this block I used a 1/2" NPT tap.
-
Thanks, Brent. That will be an interesting test to run on the dyno.
-
OP asks a very specific question and gets an answer, which leads to yet another shit storm. Sure gonna get quiet around here if another guru clams up.
-
I don't wanna be the bad guy because I'm the odd man out on a 100% consensus, but I call it how I see it.
I also do a lot of reading and have read some posts where some builders have seen horsepower losses because of windage trays. There's a good bit of data out there saying how some of the trays do nothing to direct the oil, but do a lot to act like a shelf, which whips the oil up even more....kinda like what Ross was talking about up above. So at the very least, just saying any windage tray will help could steer someone in the wrong direction.
You're not the "bad guy". You like FEs; that automatically makes you a good guy ;D
It has been discussed, and mentioned by other builders, that the Canton screen tray is best, for some of the very reasons you mention. It lets oil drop though and keeps oil from freely splashing up.
-
OP asks a very specific question and gets an answer, which leads to yet another shit storm. Sure gonna get quiet around here if another guru clams up.
What "shit storm"? I think there has been some legitimate questions and opinions brought up. Is that not allowed?
-
He may not like getting poked at, but Brent can take a beating :) More importantly, he doesn't BS and has success behind his logic
He and I are great buds off screen and banter about windage trays all the time, (as well as cork end seals, silicone, tins, etc and a wide range of other things LOL) We each have our techniques and reasons and don't always agree, but I love to hear his side and experience because he doesn't make stuff up or use historic rumor or wives tales.
I like what I do with a windage tray, but I also don't have A-B-A testing proof. Not sure anyone does at the level we are asking here (screen vs louver vs stock vs none/launch vs dyno, etc). I will say that pulling a deep pan on a dyno session is the last thing I want to do, second only to maybe pulling one out of a car for back to back timed runs, but either would be cool if someone had the time. That being said, I do not see how a factory windage tray, without modification can do anything beyond acting like a baffle on launch though, in fact, it's not much different than the shallow end of the pan in terms of the throw of oil from the crank. That's why I drill a bunch of holes in the stockers.
Now, for the purpose of blocking oil from hitting the crank...when your pan is too small and overfull.... muy bueno (I think LOL) maybe just bueno....but there is likely more power and longevity in using a better pan. In fact, I won't use a stock pan on anything that makes HP. I was happy to see when Brent came up with a supplier who would baffle stock style pans. Still not great at lower capacity, but certainly better.
I have a spare Canton screen, if we can talk Brent into a run after JJ is dialed in, I will give it to him to try on Junky Junk.
-
OP asks a very specific question and gets an answer, which leads to yet another shit storm. Sure gonna get quiet around here if another guru clams up.
What "shit storm"? I think there has been some legitimate questions and opinions brought up. Is that not allowed?
No legitmate questions allowed! Well, maybe a few....hah!
Two of my old race engine shops (no deep skirted FE's) did recommend a crank scraper if not a windage tray. They claimed minimal but repeatable gains in the higher rpm ranges in SBC's, BBC's and SBF's. IIRC, it was in the neighborhood of 3-4 HP on 450 HP (or so) engines. I never asked on their very high HP SBF's run in Comp Eliminator what the gains were, but then again I doubt they ever ran them on a dyno back-to-back, so to speak.
Interesting to see even on a static dyno the HP gains, if any, with say a scraper, then a solid windage tray then a screen-type windage tray. Easy for me to say as it's not my engine, time or dyno! One does find that with a 'base' solid engine combo, gaining even a few more measly HP with various mods does get expensive and sometimes futile. But even small gains do add up.
-
I have done oil pan swaps and windage tray additions on the dyno back when I was really trying to learn stuff on EMC builds. I came to a few conclusions on dyno which may - or may not - translate to track or street performance. Take from this what you will. A pan with a couple big windows in the side would be fun to watch and learn from.
On stock depth oil pans you will see oil pressure "wiggle or drop at high RPM without a tray and with the normal amount of oil in the pan. Adding a half quart of oil usually calms this down. The addition of a tray seems to push this symptom out by a couple hundred RPM. I used to think it was just running out of oil, but lately I've considered that the oil spray from the crank might actually be pushing the oil away from the bottom of the pan really, really hard.
I never saw any power gain from a windage tray on an FE - ever. I tried a few times. But the screen tray did seem to help stabilize oil pressure, and did not hurt power. I suspect (just guessing with the data I had) that the screen gave the flying oil something of a soft surface to bounce off of and may have helped release some of the entrained air in the system.
I prefer the screen trays because they seem to help a bit on oil control (see above). They physically fit most of my stroker combinations. If there is any interference they are easily bent and modified without a bunch of cutting and welding - saves time.
The deeper sump pans seem to do better than stock depth and are worth a little bit of power - maybe 5?
The larger the pan volume the more power you gain and the higher the RPM before any pressure issues appear - at least to beyond 7000 RPM.
A really big open pan was worth more than any sump type pan - again by memory maybe 10 or 15ish better.
The best oil pan for power is probably a 55 gallon drum. Not sure who originally said that (not me) but they were correct.
The rear sump "T" pans required for rack & pinion conversions are terrible from a performance perspective. They waste a quart of oil trapped in that mini-sump up front around the oil pump. They are really close to the crankshaft through the center of the engine where all the windage seems to get funneled. I always end up needing to run way more oil that they advertise - maybe 9 quarts in a claimed 7 quart pan - in order to retain a stable oil pressure on dyno. And they are always down at least 10 HP from comparable builds with a normal pan.
If Blair wanted to he could probably further elaborate on pan development for Stock and Super Stock stuff that might be useful information.
-
The rear sump "T" pans required for rack & pinion conversions are terrible from a performance perspective. They waste a quart of oil trapped in that mini-sump up front around the oil pump. They are really close to the crankshaft through the center of the engine where all the windage seems to get funneled. I always end up needing to run way more oil that they advertise - maybe 9 quarts in a claimed 7 quart pan - in order to retain a stable oil pressure on dyno. And they are always down at least 10 HP from comparable builds with a normal pan.
Same here. I think they do ok in the vehicle though. I've used a lot of the Canton rear T sump pans and I've had to add an extra quart on the dyno as well.
For the rear sump pickup truck stuff, I use the Milodon rear sump pan. It's really deep. Got one in a pulling truck and the oil pressure gauge doesn't even think about wiggling during the entire pull. (No tray...haha)
-
im no builder so im not going to put my 2 cents worth in. but i remember back in the late 70s-early 80s.the big hipe was put a windage tray in for the cheapest horsepower.some articles claimed as much as 30 free horsepower,so i bought one in 1982 and i have used it ever since.i might have wasted my money on it.i dont know.but im not going to argue that it helps.what about road racing where your slinging oil from side to side.i have done more illegal road racing than drag racing.theres a place near me in the country called beech creek road.its about 10 miles or so long.we would race from one end to the other.a few turns and some nice straightaways.ahh the good old days!
-
Back in the '60s and early '70s Art Chrisman ran the Autolite dyno facility next to Bill Stroppe's place ( Holman Moody Stroppe). His favorite dyno pan was 18''s deep and full length . He had them for all types of Ford engines and insisted on using the regardless of what the vehicle actually used. IF required he would change to the original use pan after pulling with "his" pan. The idea was to get the oil FAR away from the crankshaft as possible. These simplistic pans were usually worth 10 hp over the "actual use" pan. OBVIOUSLY they weren't practical but they equaled the testing.
Ford's deep sump pans ( built for the Thunderbolts initially) sold over the counter were designed to be used without a the windage tray because of the scrapers that were used on the pan. IMHO the "louvers" in the factory tray are too restrictive and should be opened up by bending. The Ford tray is more of an "oil separator" on a stock pan as has already been said.
Randy
-
OP asks a very specific question and gets an answer, which leads to yet another shit storm. Sure gonna get quiet around here if another guru clams up.
I enjoy hearing the differing even conflicting opinions and experiences gives me something to ponder ;D. This relatively "simple" question has opened up some good discussion, sometimes that can lead to some keyboard thrashing but most everyone here is open minded enough to except another opinion even if they don't agree with it. It leads to critical thinking and that's a good thing.
-
I'm not an engine builder. I'm also not an "expert" at anything important. But I have wonderments and opinionments about stuff.
I look at the Ford windage tray like I look at the Ford valley tray. I use both. If I put together an FE motor and I see either are sitting on the bench after I'm done, would I take it back apart to install it? No.
I had a friend call me the other day to ask if I had a small block Ford oil slinger. I said probably yes but I'd have to look for it. I told him if I could not find it put it together without it. He told me that he read a magazine article that said if you do not run a slinger the timing gears would wear out in less than 10K from oil starvation.
I said OK.
I don't use rocker tins simply because I'm too lazy.
I have thought about using the stand pipes in the lifter valley. They apper to be nothing more than 1/2 npt heater hose fittings cut to whatever height you choose according to room you have. I have not actually done it because whatever you might gain might be lost from letting that oil drain down over the cam and lifters, especially in a non hydraulic lifter block.
-
I've read this entire thread with great interest. Here's my two cents worth.
There was a time, some years ago, when I spent several days a week for more than a year, at what, at the time, was called Roush's Prototype Shop. I was doing a series of articles for Mustang Illustrated Magazine, and the work was being done at that facility. The engine I was working on was an FE and a large contingent of the original FE performance engineers had been persuaded to take early retirement and go to work for Jack. With very little notice, I could call any or all of them and use them as a 'brain trust' to get me forward.
Another function there, at the time, was building all the NASCAR engines. Although I saw the insides of those engines virtually every day, including some things that were developed there and manufactured 'in-house', and completely proprietary, I was trusted not to take pictures or otherwise talk about them. There were also nooks and crannies around where things were going on that were hidden from ALL eyes not directly involved.
Every once in a while, Jack would do a walk-through, and on occasion, I'd be invited to walk with him. At one point, while walking past one of the 'nooks', with the door firmly shut, jack remarked that the activity behind the door was focused on, as he said, 'oil pans and lower end oil control.' His statement was, "There's power to be found in properly controlling loose oil."
My own answer to lower-end oil control is to use a dry-sump system. Pull the oil away from the crank and handle it so as to remove otherwise entrained air, and make sure of an optimum amount of oil at optimum pressure at all the bearings, and you've done a good thing.
KS
-
The fact that a deeper pan, by itself, adds power, seems to be saying that the crank could actually be "sucking" oil up from the pan, just on windage alone. I could see that happening. There's a lot of violent action going on down there when the revs come up. I believe Blair has touched on this subject before.
-
I don't want to highjack the thread, but I have to ask. We run the canton road racing pan on our 445 FE in our 79 Foxbody drag car. We have 6 quarts in the pan and one in the filter. Should we be running another quart or 2 ? It does not have a windage tray. Thanks. Clint
-
I don't want to highjack the thread, but I have to ask. We run the canton road racing pan on our 445 FE in our 79 Foxbody drag car. We have 6 quarts in the pan and one in the filter. Should we be running another quart or 2 ? It does not have a windage tray. Thanks. Clint
An extra quart or two when it's not needed can cause problems as well. As the oil level comes up, it can be whipped.
I'd run it just like you have it. Watch your oil pressure gauge through a pass and see what it tells you.
-
+1 The "T" shaped road race pan is fine with 6qts in a drag race situation.
-
These days you can make your own oil pressure data logger by duct taping your phone so that the camera records the oil pressure gauge during a pass...lets you concentrate on other things that are more important at 130 MPH
-
Thanks for all the advice, we have pulled the pan and look at the bearings and everything looks pretty good. We want to put a go pro on the roll bar so we can watch the oil pressure during the run. We just got the new Trick flow intake on so its ready to back to the track. Thanks again for all the advice its truly appreciated. Clint
-
......... a skirted block is different from a non-skirted block.
How? .........................
Scott.
I usually try to base things on experience using them or not using them. In this case, I've got lots of experience not using them.
Just curious, is this your answer? ::)
Scott.
-
......... a skirted block is different from a non-skirted block.
How? .........................
Scott.
I usually try to base things on experience using them or not using them. In this case, I've got lots of experience not using them.
Just curious, is this your answer? ::)
Scott.
So terribly sorry, your majesty. I forgot to answer that part but since you decided to show your hindend and roll your eyes, I’m not gonna bother with it.
-
I don't want to highjack the thread, but I have to ask. We run the canton road racing pan on our 445 FE in our 79 Foxbody drag car. We have 6 quarts in the pan and one in the filter. Should we be running another quart or 2 ? It does not have a windage tray. Thanks. Clint
I am assuming this is a rear sump pan? On my own FE powered 78 FOX Fairmont (factory K member), I use a factory FE PU truck 4x4 rear sump oil pan, with a section of 2 1/2" round tubing notched into the shallow section to allow the oil pan to fit lower by surrounding the factory steering rack .The 4x4 pan has a nice baffle in the rear to help address the issue of the oil climbing up the back wall of the pan during a big wheelstand and the forces of acceleration. I replace the skinny factory 4x4 pickup tube, with a larger diameter tube from a full sump FT pan. Over 30 years of fairly brisk 1/4 mile passes (best 60 foot times 1.29), I have never had an oil delivery related issue. I run 6 quarts of oil, oil pressure has always been steady whenever I glanced over during a pass, although I have noticed an intermittent oil pressure drop if I brake hard in the finish line area, which I tend to avoid doing anyhow. If you have good oil pressure for the full 1/4 mile, as well as during shutdown and braking, I see no reason to add any extra oil to your oil pan. (For what it`s worth I always use a windage tray, AND a front crank slinger, AND a valley baffle tray. ) I have plenty of each, and I don`t know how necessary each piece of that sheet metal really is, but neither do I see how they would hurt anything by being there. Whenever possible, I try to used the rocker arm drain trays, but they don`t fit easily with many aftermarket rocker arm setups. Maybe it`s time for Jay to write another book, "The Great FE Oil Pan, Windage Tray, and Sheetmetal Oil Control Device Comparo" !! :D
-
OP asks a very specific question and gets an answer, which leads to yet another shit storm. Sure gonna get quiet around here if another guru clams up.
What "shit storm"? I think there has been some legitimate questions and opinions brought up. Is that not allowed?
Exactly. There is no "shit storm". Who cares if someone gets upset? It's part of life. They get over it and come back to the table. We can argue vehemently. It's okay. I once had one of my teeth broken in a "conflict". The next day I helped the same guy fix his Chevy work truck. No big deal.
By the way, Rory is right. :)
pl
-
He may not like getting poked at, but Brent can take a beating :)
I have a spare Canton screen, if we can talk Brent into a run after JJ is dialed in, I will give it to him to try on Junky Junk.
Yes! He can take it, which I respect.
But making that back to back run on the dyno won't prove the point, IMO.
pl
-
I'm not an engine builder. I'm also not an "expert" at anything important. But I have wonderments and opinionments about stuff.
I look at the Ford windage tray like I look at the Ford valley tray. I use both. If I put together an FE motor and I see either are sitting on the bench after I'm done, would I take it back apart to install it? No.
I had a friend call me the other day to ask if I had a small block Ford oil slinger. I said probably yes but I'd have to look for it. I told him if I could not find it put it together without it. He told me that he read a magazine article that said if you do not run a slinger the timing gears would wear out in less than 10K from oil starvation.
I said OK.
I don't use rocker tins simply because I'm too lazy.
I have thought about using the stand pipes in the lifter valley. They apper to be nothing more than 1/2 npt heater hose fittings cut to whatever height you choose according to room you have. I have not actually done it because whatever you might gain might be lost from letting that oil drain down over the cam and lifters, especially in a non hydraulic lifter block.
Thanks for keeping it real, Tommy T!
pl
-
Good thread is what I am trying to say. Disagreement is good. :)
pl
-
Is a windage tray worth the effort/cost on basic street engine that would only see 5000rpm once in a blue moon? 390 2wd truck pan.
Or should one be used on basically everything with maybe the exception of a deeper 4x4 or FT bread pan.
In my opinion, the answer is: maybe.
As for the effort/cost, well in the case of the FE, and if one is referring to the O.E.M. tray, one must posses such or purchase as they are readily available, at not to great a cost; and if in the process of assembly, slap-it-on; not so great an effort (generally).
For relativity of the original posters' inquiry, he has a 2 w.d. O.E. pan, not a deep pan, nothing with scrapers, doors, windows, kick-outs, screens, or other trickery; yes, all of these possibilities in engineering may change the response to the original inquiry, but!
I suppose the inquiry into the subject of the O.E.s' "bread-box" pans perhaps sorta opens the door on perhaps - what would work better, even if it doesn't fit the chassis, and if this engine is jacked-up enough of perhaps the cross member (2wd trk), or? Maybe it was a possibility? And yes, with my limited experience, I like big, deep, full length pans, with lots of capacity, but unlike the as delivered by Ford example, it must have "some" baffling as otherwise it may look good on the dyno (and it can!), but may prove disappointing in a moving chassis. :o
To further attempt to answer the question, the intention of most tray designs is to aid in better oil control, including as a slosh baffle; the goal is to aid in a better quality/condition of the lubricant; and in order to provide the best effect of insulation of the oil in the pans' resevoir from incident of contact with components within the crankcase which are in motion, including the effects of the oil in high-speed motion above and windage effects. Many of the recommended engineering endeavors stated are potentially applicable, including the simplest (if space permits) distance, but in the context of the O.P., I think the inquiry was for perhaps a not to difficult not to expensive an option with what he possessed, and perhaps not so unlike the O.E., who with perhaps a few real engineers, handed us their tray decades ago. Is it the best thing ever produced, I'd say not, and this is not a case of nostalgic romance, but nothing is ideal in all circumstances, but I don't really recall any instances of note where it was established to be the cause of failure, and it's relatively cheap, and of little effort in consequence of installation (as long as the pan is already off anyway). ;)
Besides, I'm stuck on the idea that with some stock nothin' fancy, bare-gut pan, it's better than nothin'! ::)
And Mr. Blykins, my purpose was not to ruffle anyone's feathers, as I was, and still am earnestly interested in your observations leading to the conclusion in the inquiry; but perhaps I allowed myself to follow your lead, as mine was a "response", but to that, if truly offended, know it was not my intension. :)
Scott.
-
He may not like getting poked at, but Brent can take a beating :)
I have a spare Canton screen, if we can talk Brent into a run after JJ is dialed in, I will give it to him to try on Junky Junk.
Yes! He can take it, which I respect.
But making that back to back run on the dyno won't prove the point, IMO.
pl
The problem with your statement is that there are more points here than just Rory's dyno vs track. If a lid controls the vertical pounding and aeration, is it the windage tray benefit or too shallow of a pan bandaid? If a screen tray makes power, does a Ford pan lid make power? Of course, we still don't really know if back to back dyno would show power, although Barry seems to think no, but testing my Canton might say, then it should show on the track too.
However, I will say, I am not sure why I or Brent would bother do it if everyone is angry LOL, dynos aren't free and it's just a damned pan lid...I think social distancing has people on the edge!
I'll also add, there wasn't much mention of racing in the creation of this thread
Is a windage tray worth the effort/cost on basic street engine that would only see 5000rpm once in a blue moon? 390 2wd truck pan.
Or should one be used on basically everything with maybe the exception of a deeper 4x4 or FT bread pan.
My answer would be, save the 100 bucks for a Ford one, or the 75 for a Canton, and spend the money on a pan with real baffles and more capacity if you can, and remember, I am windage tray guy!!!
-
Is a windage tray worth the effort/cost on basic street engine that would only see 5000rpm once in a blue moon? 390 2wd truck pan.
Or should one be used on basically everything with maybe the exception of a deeper 4x4 or FT bread pan.
And Mr. Blykins, my purpose was not to ruffle anyone's feathers, as I was, and still am earnestly interested in your observations leading to the conclusion in the inquiry; but perhaps I allowed myself to follow your lead, as mine was a "response", but to that, if truly offended, know it was not my intension. :)
Scott.
Fair enough. Never been a fan of the eye rolling emoji. It's a big pet peeve of mine and when I see it, I automatically envision a teenage girl rolling her eyes and saying "What-ever...." To me, it's very disrespectful.
The differences between skirted blocks and non-skirted blocks in regards to windage can be fairly dramatic and I can't say with 100% certainly which one is better than the other. I think both have their pros and cons which have to be addressed individually.
A non-skirted engine puts the crankshaft closer to the bottom of the sump. This in turn can exacerbate crankcase windage. In my mind, a non-skirted block *really* benefits from a very deep oil pan sump because of this.
A skirted block doesn't put the crankshaft closer to the bottom of the sump, but it makes more of a "box" out of the crankcase. This is why I really don't like the idea of a windage tray on an FE because unless it's extremely free-flowing, a tray can actually trap windage in some cases. You also have to look at the possibility that windage can be "trapped" from front-to-back. If you look at a lot of modern skirted block engines, such as the Modular Ford, LS, etc., you will see that they have "cylinder vents" in the block's main bulkheads. This allows windage to escape and it also allows adjacent cylinders to help scavenge windage. I have actually drilled cylinder vents in the bulkheads on FE blocks. Now I can't say what it's worth because I've never done a back-to-back, but it's just one of those things that I have done to make me feel better about being me.
In the end, everyone can just do whatever they feel comfortable with. It's just like the sheet metal pieces that Rory and Tommy spoke about: am I going to condemn anyone for using them? No. Do I think any of it is necessary? No. Since 2006, every single FE I've ever built has had every single one of those pieces omitted. I've got FE's in towing applications, road race, truck pull, drag race, you name it, and my old junk does quite well. But it's everyone's prerogative about what they feel comfortable with and that's fine.
As for the dyno testing, I will admit that dynos can't tell you everything. They don't move. However, I'm not one who just dynos engines and then stores them. My engines go in actual vehicles and my race stuff comes back for a freshen-up when necessary, which gives me great feedback. Got a 434 inch Clevor in Wichita that pushes a '69 Mustang to a 141 mph trap speed in the 1/4. No windage tray in that one either, but it has a crank scraper and a pretty deep oil pan.
To me, a deep pan is paramount in a performance engine.
-
Never been a fan of the eye rolling emoji. It's a big pet peeve of mine and when I see it, I automatically envision a teenage girl rolling her eyes and saying "What-ever...."
/quote]
Off the topic but just a thought: stay away from the young teenage girls, that way your suffer less frustration, not to mention that will definitely get you into trouble! At least at my age anyway! ::)
Oops! Sorry, I did it again. :)
Scott.
-
You have not lived until you remove a banged up OEM metal pan that looks like you'd use it for mixing paint and install a thousand dollar value billet & sheet aluminum weld up pan with a host of baffles and integral bolt in screen, pouring the still warm oil from one into the other while mounted to the dyno, making a pull within about twenty minutes - - and losing three horsepower.
I have seen some Super Stock Hemi guys that cut rectangular windows into the sides of their blocks and built oil pans that wrapped around the the block to encapsulate those holes and have a "kickout" like is common on non-deep-skirt blocks. I do not know if it really helped or if it was just a fashionable modification.
-
He may not like getting poked at, but Brent can take a beating :)
I have a spare Canton screen, if we can talk Brent into a run after JJ is dialed in, I will give it to him to try on Junky Junk.
Yes! He can take it, which I respect.
But making that back to back run on the dyno won't prove the point, IMO.
pl
The problem with your statement is that there are more points here than just Rory's dyno vs track. If a lid controls the vertical pounding and aeration, is it the windage tray benefit or too shallow of a pan bandaid? If a screen tray makes power, does a Ford pan lid make power? Of course, we still don't really know if back to back dyno would show power, although Barry seems to think no, but testing my Canton might say, then it should show on the track too.
However, I will say, I am not sure why I or Brent would bother do it if everyone is angry LOL, dynos aren't free and it's just a damned pan lid...I think social distancing has people on the edge!
I'll also add, there wasn't much mention of racing in the creation of this thread
Is a windage tray worth the effort/cost on basic street engine that would only see 5000rpm once in a blue moon? 390 2wd truck pan.
Or should one be used on basically everything with maybe the exception of a deeper 4x4 or FT bread pan.
My answer would be, save the 100 bucks for a Ford one, or the 75 for a Canton, and spend the money on a pan with real baffles and more capacity if you can, and remember, I am windage tray guy!!!
I don't think anybody was asking you for free dyno time. You are the one who mentioned it.
But point taken, there are many variables and one test couldn't take them all into account. It is not only dyno vs. track. Still, I think everybody here expects an engine to be taken off the dyno at some point, even if not a race piece.
I like dynos and dyno testing. I think they are incredibly useful. Plus, they are super fascinating. It is the fastest place to get back to back A-B testing with a minimum amount of other variables changed. Even quick back to back runs at the strip could have different air temps, tire temps/pressure, wind speed, coolant and oil temps, etc. I work in a lab and can control most variables so tests are consistent, but our products are eventually going to be used by a customer under different (even if marginally) conditions. Just the acts of packing and shipping our product to a customer can change it, even if everything else is exactly the same. For my work, consistency of product is arguably better than being 100% correct. If my product's true value is off by 5%, but it's ALWAYS off by 5% then the customer knows what to expect and can control THEIR variables and not worry about mine. Racing can be about consistency or about gaining every last bit, or both, depending on the type of racing.
If I were a bajillionaire I would build a facility purely for the purpose of generating dyno and acceleration data and make it free for public use. I need a cool acronym for it. Institute For The Advancement Internal Combustion Technology For Public Use.
IFTAICTFPU? Nope.
pl
-
How about;
Free Use Car Knowledge Institute & Training?
-
How about;
Free Use Car Knowledge Institute & Training?
Ha! ;D
-
How about;
Free Use Car Knowledge Institute & Training?
Basic Research On Killing Engines?
-
Basic Research Organization on the Kinetics of Engines. There! That sounds more professional.
-
Chris, a skirted block is different from a non-skirted block. I've never seen any dyno advantage of a windage tray on an FE. The only time I've used them in the past is doing the "CJ oil capacity mod" or if I'm using an Aviaid Cobra pan that has one incorporated into it. Otherwise, it's not worth the hassle.
Thanks for the clarification - been to school today! That's an interesting finding for sure.
-
These days you can make your own oil pressure data logger by duct taping your phone so that the camera records the oil pressure gauge during a pass...lets you concentrate on other things that are more important at 130 MPH
LOL. I'm going to install an AEM data system on the dragster soon. Up till now, it's been a single channel data acq system - I pick one gauge to watch and start looking at it in high gear. ;D
I only use the "eye roll" emoji when referring to myself about something "intelligent" that I've done.
-
A non-skirted engine puts the crankshaft closer to the bottom of the sump. This in turn can exacerbate crankcase windage. In my mind, a non-skirted block *really* benefits from a very deep oil pan sump because of this.
A skirted block doesn't put the crankshaft closer to the bottom of the sump, but it makes more of a "box" out of the crankcase.
So, I acquired an FE and a S.B.F. oil pan, both "typical" O.E.M. five quart capacity intention units in order to test this statement; as I suspected that there wasn't going to be that much difference, as generally from an engineering standpoint the crankshaft centerline in a singular chassis will in context to the surrounding engineering remain relatively constant (this including the distance to the ground!), otherwise excessive re-engineering would be required with each engine possibility. ;)
Obviously the FE block skirt is deeper (2-5/8" +/-) vs. the S.B.F., but the latters' oil pan is deeper (2" +/-); the as measured difference therefore being maybe 5/8" deeper for the FE, from the crankshaft centerline to the bottom of the sump (note that the sump at the bottom, the S.B.F. exhibits more area than the FE, if that were important).
Perhaps the more important consideration is where is the oil level in relation to the crankshaft &/or other revolving components? Adding five quarts of fluid to each pan and establishing a measurement from the crankshaft centerline to the oils' surface with the pan rails at level, netted the observation that the FE appeared to present 4-1/2" +/- and the S.B.F. presented 4" +/-, the as measured difference therefore being maybe 1/2" +/- greater for the FE; and the variance from the previous measurements I will attribute to the S.B.F. greater, flatter area in the sumps' bottom.
But don't forget the FE generally consists of a greater stroke length sum as compared to the S.B.F.s, the counter weights are generally of greater diameter, and with larger rod big-ends mounted on larger diameter journals are going to intrude on this provided greater distance more than that of the S.B.F.
Now this is a comparison of the "typical" O.E. standard "bread & butter" components, measured in "Stanley" accuracy, as particularly considering that the engines generally do not reside level in most chassis (maybe that means one can add an extra quart to the FE's in the "Square & Bullit-Birds" without consequence?), and the fluid is going to be in motion, coupled with the many possible stroke lengths and component profiles available, all creating variables to many to count, I didn't see the need to be any more specific. But I do feel they may present some relativity to the actual effect present in the discussion, with the conclusion that there just ain't that much difference. :)
Scott.
-
I have watched this with interest, and have to say that I agree that using the deepest pan you can safely use is always the best idea, and is more important than the Ford windage tray. However, I still use it for CJ rebuilds, or an aftermarket screen for oil windage control. A 1" drop in oil level will show a horsepower improvement on the dyno if you still have enough to complete a pull. Many years ago, I witnessed dropping 4 quarts out of a BBC oil pan that held 12 quarts, and picked up 30 hp. The first quart netted 8 hp, and we kept removing oil until the dyno operator stopped us. Lesson learned. Keep the oil level as far away as possible, but have enough available to meet the engines needs under operating conditions. Joe-JDC
-
As an additional point of interest, when we ran NHRA stock eliminator, if you had a "heads up" run against a same class car it was typical to drop at least one quart of oil before the run. I would normally run five quarts in the 427 deep pan. I would make the run with four quarts total in the pan. It was almost always worth nearly a full tenth. A lot of people would do it, particularly if you were a little slower than you opponent. Put the quart back in before the next run, (if you won). No problem......Jim Kramer
-
Yeah, many times in a heads up, a record attempt, or trying to move up the qualifying sheet, not unusual for a Stock Eliminator racer to drop some oil, or put in some super light oil, to pick up some performance. That said that "freed up" HP goes away pretty quickly once the bearings get starved for oil. If you could keep the oil several inches away the the spinning crankshaft, you would certainly greatly reduce windage and free up some power, but other than a jacked up 4x4 truck, a oil pan with a 12" + deep sump dragging on the ground just ain`t very practical. When I tried running low oil level in my 85 Mustang Stockers 302, it certainly ran a bit quicker and faster, but with the rear sump pan, even moderate braking caused the oil pressure gauge to drop an uncomfortable amount. Same with superlight oil, I ran some Royal Purple Racing 11 oil, about 0W15. It poured like water, even cold, but even though it only lost a bit of oil pressure, I just didn`t feel comfortable leaving that oil in more than a few passes.
-
Anyone try this setup from crankscrapers.com?
-
I used one of their standard scrapers and a Canton screen tray. I had to do some minor clearancing to fit with the crank and rods how I wanted and elongate some of the pan rail bolt holes so it would line up. I also removed the "mini scraper" from the Canton tray. Whether it does anything or not, I don't know. I'm telling myself it does to justify the purchase. ::)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7LD3S7qL/20170930_150617.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/hXyQBXzF)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3W54Y5Rw/20170930_163713.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/p5CXJSKN)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MZc967Hk/20170930_164159.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/DmTr5b15)
-
This link may give someone some ideas. It would be cool to try if you wanted to see everything moving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxw3rLFlsTc
-
After I quit chuckling the pan was kinda interesting.
The oil aerated much quicker than I thought it would in this particular set up.
-
Hahaha, leave it to the Russians. I think they were running it a little too low initially.