<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

Return to Index

FJ20 Dry Sump May 29 2007 at 3:49 PM No score for this post		(no login) from IP address 203.208.80.38

I'm looking to Dry Sump my FJ20. Anyone know where I can get a pan to suit?

No score for this post

July 10 2008, 11:28 PM

"so revingto above 6500 will just kill our motorswith out these nismo items?"

I seriously doubt that the block itself lacks sufficient rigidity. It is a fairly common basic design across many marques. I can believe that if there is a factory torsional damper for the crank and it has been left off or is worn out after 20 years or so that you would have problems. The crank is fully counterweighted -- the FJ24 with a 6mm longer stroke has no problems revving to 7200.

You will need to examine the main bearing caps for signs of fretting -- that means the caps have been moving/rocking back and forth along the central axis of the crankshaft. If you want to deter that then consider linking the main bearing caps with a girdle of some type. This is fairly easy to do. You have a choice of linking 1-2 and 4-5 (oem exemplars from Mitsubishi and Mazda) or 2-3-4 (oem exemplar from Honda and many others) or linking them all (many oem examples).

I suspect the major problem is an oil control problem. That a dry sump will cure it appears to confirm this. There are at least a couple things you can do: 1) add some manner of crank scraper to strip oil out of the windage cloud; 2) depress the atmosphere in the sump by 10-12". The lowered atmosphere will help reduce air entrainment in the oil. It can benefit in other ways -- principally by allowing lighter tension rings for the pistons.

I was contacted again this morning by a gentleman in Australia for a scraper for the FJ20. I have a design that mounts along the main bearing caps. I am basing the general geometry on the KA24 block but with bore centers of 103mm (center to center distance from the main bearing cap bolts). I do not have access to a block so that is a best guess.

I am willing to send out three free patterns with the understanding that I receive detailed fitment feedback in return. I willingly make parts for hundreds and hundreds of obsolete engines -- ask the gentleman in Australia for whom I made a one-off Mitsubishi 4g32 DOHC scraper at no extra charge. One of the free scrapers is going to the person that wrote this morning. Please write if you have an engine apart and can do the fitment within a month or two. I will send corrected versions if needed.

I did previously send another free scraper out to a FJ24 enthusiast but did not hear back. He was upset that his order for another engine took two months to make. It has been two years now waiting on my part so this goes both ways.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

(Login Kevin_Johnson)
72.187.96.254

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

July 12 2008, 9:34 PM

No score for this post

August 21 2008, 3:33 AM

I will rearrange your message:

[quote=Savvas]
[The comments below] are a bit academic as the forum is dedicated to FJ engines and in all fairness we should not deviate from the subject at hand which is the advantages or disadvantages of the drysump system in these engines.[/quote]

I think it is absolutely critical to closely examine other engine families and look at the reasons and (often attempted) solutions for failures. I focus on the oil systems and more particularly on the problems of windage control. If you don't do this there is a tendency to view the engine at hand as existing in a sort of technological vacuum or time capsule with no prior or subsequent development.

An easy example of this is the Dodge Neon 2.0. When I first started making scrapers for it there were many people who argued against them. The general line was "if it is such a good idea the factory would have put it in there." There was a scraper in the first year of production -- there was also a windage tray developed that was not included. Why were these parts missing and/or subsequently discontinued? To save a few dollars on every engine. It is the same reason Toyota left out a developed windage tray costing them at most a few dollars on the 4AFE and many 4AGE engines.

More technically, this study is called longitudinal meta-analysis between and within groups.

[quote=Savvas]
regarding the 928 sumps , Porsche confirmed it that it was one of the
conclusive reasons they have identified for the 8v racing prepared engines which was occurring under specific circumstances and on particular tracks.
it was not a general reason given for the failures.
The wet sumps of the 928s4 and GTS are almost identical with same part numbers, so i gues are improved.[/quote]

The sump itself in the 928 itself is a beautiful piece. The original sump baffle design is far more advanced than what came in the GTS or S4. That later piece just shows they were confused as ever as to what was happening in the system and how to control it.

The principal problem is that oil becomes trapped in the rear corners of the pan under acceleration and is churned into a froth over and over. This aerated oil then makes its way to the sump well where the high cyclic rate of the pump draws it in. The 2/6 bearing is the first pair to receive oil and so they fail first. The 944 has an almost identical failure mode. The 944 also has a severe secondary failure mode of the pickup tube cracking -- if you have not welded a brace on yours that clock is ticking.

The head oil returns on the 928 dump directly onto the rotating assembly and they are too small because they are also the portals for the blowby gases to reach the PCV system.

The very first outward sign that Porsche knew they had big, big trouble is that they increased the thickness of the pan gasket from 2mm to 4mm. On the 944 it went to a crazy 8mm.

On the later 32 valve engines they attempted to add piston oil squirters. Because the engine was so close to the edge with windage problems these had to be withdrawn. They also tried the motorcycle engine trick of windows between piston bay pairs to reduce the amount of pumping across the bays.

It goes on and on.

There are at least three different dipsticks with different oil levels marked on each.

And so on...

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Ok, back to FJ20 dry sump design...

No score for this post

August 21 2008, 3:56 AM

Advanced dry sumps typically employ a scraper located above the scavange section.

If you're someone that realizes the importance of meta-analysis you will find patents relating to this from Daimler-Benz in the 1970s. Moroso, for example, does do this as they utilize the DB tech in some of their dry sump designs.

[img]

[/img]

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

(no login)
193.188.105.200

FJ20/24 DRYSUMP.

No score for this post

August 22 2008, 1:45 AM

nice analysis for the 928,and possiple you are more informed on this
than myself.

However on 944, permit me to disagree on the no 2 bearing failure as it is the one which feeds the balancer shafts which the 928 does not have and in the case of turbo ,the turbo itself.
it is the one which gets always less oil and continous oil film depletion.

with regards to the oil pick up , you are correct ,it does break due to excessive vibrations at high revs , when the crankshaft is left to the std
factory balance or at normal to spirited highway speeds , with the balancer shafts , out of timing.the casket thickness has absolutly no role in the above.the thickness is made up by the requirement to have the same thickness
around the half moons of the back and front sections of the bottom girdle.

this is more on the 1986 turbo engines with the narrow sump,rather than the 1987 onwards sumps with longer reinforced pickups and deeper sumps.Again the proplem is that the 6 mm bolt that holds the tube to the brace goes loose with age and allows the pickup tube to vibrate with the resulting cracking.

In DEC 2006 have completed the 24 hrs RACE in Bahrain
with the pic up tube cracked around 300 degrees and virtually no 2 nd rod bearings, i did not found even the shellsin one piece when i opened the engine afterwards.no 1,3 and 4 were virtually unmarked.

now that the crank has been properly balanced to zero grams.cm we have cancelled the balancer sghafts all together, installed the deeper 1987 sump and pick up tube,(tig welded all around and plated as a precausion and engine is smoother ,revs happily and no oil issues at all, with the pressure
allways above the factory specs for the cup cars.Please note that there is no windage in the equation, and in my opinion to use a windage tray or a scrupper ,without doing the subsequent factory mods ,is like taking a headache bill as a cure for cancer.

To point out porsche campaigned in 1994 LE mans 4 968 turbo rs cars and the same cars competed in all ADAC 1995 series in Germany , and in the states
with the above specs with no scruppers or related oil failures.
Chassis no 3 is still in original
condition with 6,000 KM engine ,in Germany .

now back to the FJ20/24 DRY SUMP , you are correct that there is a form of scrupper/baffle above the scavenge holes ,but it is a flat curved aluminium thin plate across the oil pan holded down by 10 4 mm screws, and the holes a
on the bottom of the pan as any modern dry sump pan should be.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

August 23 2008, 4:01 AM

[quote=Savvas]
nice analysis for the 928,and possiple you are more informed on this
than myself.

However on 944, permit me to disagree on the no 2 bearing failure as it is the one which feeds the balancer shafts which the 928 does not have and in the case of turbo ,the turbo itself. it is the one which gets always less oil and continous oil film depletion.[/quote]

This is one of the blind alley arguments that were (are) used in the 928 failure analysis as well. It needs to be remembered that after initial startup there is an idealized hydraulic system in play. Given that the pump is capable of supplying sufficient volume and pressure through the rpm range the departure from the ideal is due to air entrainment. The danger in analysis lies in observing effects of air entrainment and labling them as causes.

[quote=Savvas]
with regards to the oil pick up , you are correct ,it does break due to excessive vibrations at high revs , when the crankshaft is left to the std
factory balance or at normal to spirited highway speeds , with the balancer shafts , out of timing.[/quote]

No. The pickup tubes fail even in correctly balanced engines with the balance shafts in proper phase. They take a long time to fail in road cars, a shorter time in race cars and an even shorter time in race cars that have the balance shafts deleted.

[quote=Savvas]
the casket thickness has absolutly no role in the above.the thickness is made up by the requirement to have the same thickness around the half moons of the back and front sections of the bottom girdle.[/quote]

I am sorry, but you are wrong. If you closely examine the 944 pan design you will see that it was engineered at the time of the 4mm gasket. It was then increased to 8mm. The increase in gasket thickness is one of the absolutely correct things that Porsche did to try to correct the problem. You can see the lack of funds because they did not simply alter the castings.

Furthermore, if you look at the sump design for the 2.0 Audi engine in the 924 -- which served as the guide for the 944 sump -- you will see 2mm gaskets -- as with the original 928 engine. Yet further, if you look at the Porsche engineering for the subsequent Volvo modular engines, which share many design cues with the 928 and 944, you see 2mm thick pan gaskets.

Again, this is why it is absolutely critical that one studies families of engines within the same manufacturer and also engines from other marques in order to be able to perform informed analyses.

Increasing the distance from the floor of the sump to the rotating assembly helped to mitigate windage effects.

[quote=Savvas]
this is more on the 1986 turbo engines with the narrow sump,rather than the 1987 onwards sumps with longer reinforced pickups and deeper sumps.Again the proplem is that the 6 mm bolt that holds the tube to the brace goes loose with age and allows the pickup tube to vibrate with the resulting cracking.[/quote]

The brace connecting the oil return tube to the pickup tube allows a plane of movement or vector subcomponents thereof. Even with a properly tightened 6mm bolt there is movement possible as the head on the pickup is quite heavy -- they borrowed the later head from the 928. Porsche underestimated the magnitude of this problem with their minor gusseting reinforcement. It simply shifts the location of the cracks.

[img]

[/img]

[img]

[/img]

[quote=Savvas]
In DEC 2006 have completed the 24 hrs RACE in Bahrain
with the pic up tube cracked around 300 degrees and virtually no 2 nd rod bearings, i did not found even the shellsin one piece when i opened the engine afterwards.no 1,3 and 4 were virtually unmarked.[/quote]

We will never know if installing the windage tray from that Summer would have saved you -- probably not.

[quote=Savvas]
now that the crank has been properly balanced to zero grams.cm we have cancelled the balancer sghafts all together, installed the deeper 1987 sump and pick up tube,(tig welded all around and plated as a precausion and engine is smoother ,revs happily and no oil issues at all, with the pressure
allways above the factory specs for the cup cars.Please note that there is no windage in the equation, and in my opinion to use a windage tray or a scrupper ,without doing the subsequent factory mods ,is like taking a headache bill as a cure for cancer.[/quote]

Ok, look, I am glad you had success with this combination. That's wonderful. However, you do not really understand what the issues are. If you did then you would realize that the 944 had multiple OEM crank scrapers in its pan and these scrapers were subsequently greatly increased in size. So adding scrapers is doing something that the factory recognized as important. Now, remember when I mentioned the DB patent from the 1970s? Porsche used this tech in the 928, 944 and 968. That is again why it is important to study many different types of engines. By the way, Ford also used this technology in the FE engine pan and predated DB by about 10 years.

[quote=Savvas}
To point out porsche campaigned in 1994 LE mans 4 968 turbo rs cars and the same cars competed in all ADAC 1995 series in Germany , and in the states
with the above specs with no scruppers or related oil failures.
Chassis no 3 is still in original condition with 6,000 KM engine ,in Germany .[/quote]

Yes, were these the engines with the special cranks that fed the oil from the center? This goes back to Ricardo's recognition of the fundamental problem in the 1930s -- with a center-fed crank. There is no substitute for research of the subject matter. Some of the Porsche engineers obviously felt the same.

[quote=Savvas]
now back to the FJ20/24 DRY SUMP , you are correct that there is a form of scrupper/baffle above the scavenge holes ,but it is a flat curved aluminium thin plate across the oil pan holded down by 10 4 mm screws, and the holes a
on the bottom of the pan as any modern dry sump pan should be.[/quote]

You assume all modern dry sumps have even this. The efficiency of this scraper for the scavenge port would be vastly improved if it approached the rotating assembly within 1mm. Is this the case? Nissan agrees with this standard as the stock scrapers in the wetsump SR20 meet it.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

(no login)
193.188.105.200

FJ20/24 DRYSUMP.

No score for this post

August 25 2008, 2:08 AM

thanks for the responce, but i feel we are going around in circles,here
as the objective is dry sump versus crank scruppers which in anyones mind clearly there is no comparison ,as it is not an apple to apple issue.

thats what is all about.All the points raised about caskets,Ricardo,944,928 e.t.c ,do not solve the fundamental proplems of wet sump design oil realted limitations to any car when used in competition.The dry sump system does away that, as it is light years ahead , and has all the benefits ,including able to lower the complete engine ,when regulations
permitting, which is a tremendous advantage in any form of racing, except drag racing.Just scruppers do not .Period

Will attempt to list these again for the benefit.

1. lower centre of gravity of car,

2. lower oil temperature fed to the engine and increased capacity available
for engine use depanding on the container size. Most important iN
endurance racing.

3. better weight distribution as the oil container can be relocated to the
boot.Admitedly there is a weight penalty but if the car is running on ballast
this is solved.

4. constant and increased presurised oil flow to the engine at all speeds,
without any air trapped and no oil cavitation proplems at any form of racing.
To anyones mind with an expensive built up engine and

5. more rigitity of the engine block from the solid pan directly bolted to the bottom.
6. extra horsepower released to the wheels due to ,engine negative pressure
ranging from 20 bhp on engine of 250 bhp to 40 bhp on an engine of 400bhp.

I SERIOUSLY doubt if, the above benefits can be obtained by the use of a crank scrupper. If the above are incorrect , then someone should inform Ferrari, Porsche,Buggatti, and all top manufacturers that they should use
crank scruppers in their engines instead of dry sump systems.

By the way the pictures you have posted ,of the oil pick up tube of the 944 are quite correct, and i had this experience as well.
i have thoroughly explained previously the exact reason for this.
Also all the 944 sumps DO NOT have scruppers, there seems to confuse the oil
drain guides who also act as internal reinforcement ribs from the front
of the pan to the sump collection pit.

Wet sump Nissans never had this proplem however hard were driven
and there are baffles in the sumps to prevent sloshing around, not scruppers.Anyone who has opened an FJ20 Engine clearly can see them, and the FJ 24 std engine has an additional one little higher extended to the back of the sump.

All the more reasons why the hard driven 944 TURBO or 968 Could benefit from a dry sump system.By the way the 968 Racing cars had no special cranks
,but the std 3L 944S2 Cranks with the same crank oil configuration of the 944.

i think we have excausted the issue enough.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

August 25 2008, 9:02 PM

I will prepare another response. I think it is important as I take this very seriously.

Kevin

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

August 26 2008, 2:22 AM

[quote=Savvas]
thanks for the responce, but i feel we are going around in circles,here
as the objective is dry sump versus crank scruppers which in anyones mind clearly there is no comparison ,as it is not an apple to apple issue.

thats what is all about.All the points raised about caskets,Ricardo,944,928 e.t.c ,do not solve the fundamental proplems of wet sump design oil realted limitations to any car when used in competition.The dry sump system does away that, as it is light years ahead , and has all the benefits ,including able to lower the complete engine ,when regulations
permitting, which is a tremendous advantage in any form of racing, except drag racing.Just scruppers do not .Period[/quote]

Mr. Savvas, I disagree. The apple to apple issue is that a wetsump equipped engine -- with scrapers -- is certainly capable of competing with a dry sump equipped engine up to the g-limits of the wetsump design -- or the heightened g-limits of the wetsump SYSTEM in total.

The mere fact that there are certain limitations (as they exist today) to wetsump systems does not provide the conclusion that the vehicle in question will reasonably encounter those limitations. The same reasoning is used in speed ratings for tires. Think about it.

One famous engine builder who strongly advocated dry sump systems was Smokey Yunick. However, even Smokey acknowledged that a dry sump system consumes 8-10 hp (or more) over a wet sump by virtue of the extra stages.

I will intersperse my **remarks** in the quotation below:

[quote=Savvas]
Will attempt to list these again for the benefit.

1. lower centre of gravity of car,

**Remark: Absolutely, this is an advantage of dry sump systems as they allow the lowering of the engine -- if allowed.**

2. lower oil temperature fed to the engine and increased capacity available
for engine use depanding on the container size. Most important iN
endurance racing.

**Remark: These can be achieved in a wet sump system. Here are some actual results of one of my systems installed in the stock oil pan and carefully dynoed by a retired engineer for Chrysler:

"At peak rpms, use of the windage tray setup accompanied a 24 degree Fahrenheit drop in oil temperature, an 11 degree drop in coolant temperature and a 7 hp and 13 ftlb boost in power.

"Ed Peters remarked that "this setup is the most significant bolt-on change for oil and windage control that he has witnessed since 1986."

If you check the feedback on our Porsche 928 and 944 systems they yield similar results.

Note the above engine was already running an oil cooler and the improvements were with the oil cooler still in place.**

3. better weight distribution as the oil container can be relocated to the
boot.Admitedly there is a weight penalty but if the car is running on ballast
this is solved.

**Remark: Yes, there certainly is a weight penalty. If ballast is allowed it can be much more carefully placed to optimize the balance of the car. Since we were speaking of the 944 I suppose we are to forget that the stock, wetsumped equipped vehicle had almost perfect front to rear balance. I also suppose that one of the huge issues that confronts Porsche 928 owners is where to locate the storage tank. And, yes, the Porsche 928 wetsumped vehicle already has perfect front to rear balance. It was designed that way.**

4. constant and increased presurised oil flow to the engine at all speeds,
without any air trapped and no oil cavitation proplems at any form of racing.
To anyones mind with an expensive built up engine and

**Remark: Well, now I know you are shooting from the hip. There are many engine failures attributed to poor dry sump design. Do some actual research.**

5. more rigitity of the engine block from the solid pan directly bolted to the bottom.

**Remark: I suggest you examine, say, some of the block and sump designs from Mazda which reinforce both the perimeter and link it to the mains. This is now technology perhaps 20 years old.**

6. extra horsepower released to the wheels due to ,engine negative pressure
ranging from 20 bhp on engine of 250 bhp to 40 bhp on an engine of 400bhp.

**On a big block Mopar running 9 second ETs our scraper is acknowledged to knock off .1 second -- that's about 30 hp if you do the math. Plus it is a simple matter to run an electric pump consuming very little power to draw down the sump in a well built engine. At least that is what the shops building LS 'Vette engines tell me. You might also look into why scrapers are considered illegal by some tracks -- they are an unfair advantage.**

I SERIOUSLY doubt if, the above benefits can be obtained by the use of a crank scrupper. If the above are incorrect , then someone should inform Ferrari, Porsche,Buggatti, and all top manufacturers that they should use
crank scruppers in their engines instead of dry sump systems.[/quote]

I SERIOUSLY think you need to spend some more time researching your opinions relevant to the last paragraph.

Ford -- they have built a few race engines in their day. Recall the spankings the GT40 gave out.
[img]

[/quote]

Mercedes 103 and 603 engines:
[img]

[/img]

Porsche 928: [The ribs in the middle are also scrapers -- not just oil guides...]
[img]

[/img]

Porsche 924:
[img]

[/img]

Porsche 944:
[img]

[/img]

Porsche 968:
[img]

[/img]

Ferrari F1 engine -- the shaped entry to the scavange pump seen at the bottom is scraper technology: [Please note the Copyright on this image and do not use it for commercial purposes or without citation.]

http://www.crank-scrapers.com/f1%20engine.bmp

Note: I have many more examples but I think this is sufficient. Note that the Porsche 928 windage control system I designed and made corrected the problem in the wet sump engine sufficient for a Porsche 928S4 to compete successfully against dry sumped Porsche 911 derivatives. That says it all, no?

[qoute=Savvas]
By the way the pictures you have posted ,of the oil pick up tube of the 944 are quite correct, and i had this experience as well.
i have thoroughly explained previously the exact reason for this.[/quote]

Yes, I know they are correct -- that's why I posted them. No, you did not previously explain the exact reason. If you did then there would be no reason to weld and plate the tube to mounting bracket junction as you did. Do you follow the logic there?

[quote=Savvas]
Also all the 944 sumps DO NOT have scruppers, there seems to confuse the oil
drain guides who also act as internal reinforcement ribs from the front
of the pan to the sump collection pit.[/quote]

I think the problem is that you do not recognize the technology. This is why I included the many other instantiations of it in other engines. Again, this is why it is so crucial to study other engines.

[quote=Savvas]
Wet sump Nissans never had this proplem however hard were driven
and there are baffles in the sumps to prevent sloshing around, not scruppers.[/quote]

You are simply incorrect. The VG30DETT had severe windage problems. Here is a picture of the inside of the pan -- please note that there are at least nine scraper devices visible:

[img]

[/img]

[quote=Savvas]
...Anyone who has opened an FJ20 Engine clearly can see them, and the FJ 24 std engine has an additional one little higher extended to the back of the sump.[/quote]

I cannot comment on the inside of an FJ20 or FJ24 sump because I have not seen one. When I do not have an engine in front of me I ask for help from people that do. This seems to work.

I talk to many people and spend most of my waking hours thinking about windage control. I listen to and value the opinions of many people. Conversely, I get annoyed when I see people dispensing misinformation.

[quote=Savvas]
All the more reasons why the hard driven 944 TURBO or 968 Could benefit from a dry sump system.By the way the 968 Racing cars had no special cranks
,but the std 3L 944S2 Cranks with the same crank oil configuration of the 944.

i think we have excausted the issue enough.[/quote]

I could not find the exact reference to center drilled cranks but did find a Porsche repair technician writing about the 944 GTR Turbo:

"... the dry sumped 944 GTRs shed rods like crazy until Porsche Motorsports changed the oiling design of the crankshaft."

"944 GTRs used cranks that were surfaced drilled so that the oil didn't have to go to the center of the crank to get out to the rod (like a Chevy crank). They tried a bunch of different crank designs before they solved the rod bearing issue.....go figure. They supplied rod bearings with more bearing clearance, also. They also spun these engines to 7600."

Maybe now the topic is exhausted?

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

(no login)
193.188.105.200

FJ20/24 DRYSUMP.

No score for this post

August 31 2008, 8:58 PM

thanks for the responce, and it is ammazing the lengths that someone is willing to go go just to justify the use of an aftermarket product simply because he produces them and markets them. I respect that and at the same time i feel compelled to respond to that .

All the furnished pictures show a baffle ,oil drain chanels, oil guides back to the sump. You may call them scruppers , other people call them channels,guides or any other name under the sun, but scruppers are the ones really very close to the crank.All do the same job ,to ease the flow to the pit for collection by the oil pick up tube and presurised in the engine.

However ,while these are always used in one form or another by all
the known engine manufactures, i have yet to see one manufacturer
who has adopted a close crank scrupper such as the ones you make.
in order to really have a scrupping effect has to be very close to the crank
say within a couple of mm, yes ?

instead all high performance, racing engine manufacturers, supercars
e.t.c all have adopted the dry sump OR semi dry sump systems for increased reliability and all other advantages i have listed previously. One has to check all the best cars available in the market, such as Ferrari,Lamborghini, Buggatti, Porsche, Ruf ,
Saleens,Paganis e.t.c all with dry sump systems.
their specs are on the net, and i have been checking them for the past 2 years as part of a purchase programm of 16 of those cars for a private collector.

Again no crank scruppers like the ones you make.

if you know any manufacturer who has adopted any of those in his manufacturing or his special operations programm, please enlighten us.

regarding the GTRS , with 2.5 LITRE OR 3.0 LITRE engines, i am not sure where
your info comes, but the turbo 8v motors ,never passed the 7000 rpm mark in racing even with special OTEBA steel 930rsr valve springs and titanium retainers due to the characteristics of the turbos used.They didnt had to
as the max power was produced at that rpm , at 1.2 bar.

In any case there are several engine builders going the dry sump route
for their marketed engines over the last 20 years and since you are familiar with the Porsches ,please check the latest news at horsepower NEWSLETTER AUGUST 2008

www.lindseyracing.com

you will find a very usefull article of the adoption of undercuts under
the main bearings to create air passages from cylinder to cylinder for the 944 blocks , which were used in all the 968 and 944s2 LATER blocks after development by porsche in order to elliminate the crank oil starvation at
high engine speeds ,of the 16 VALVE MOTORS which have a higher rev limit cut out over the 8 valve motors.Although this has not yet been confirmed by Porsche, apparently it does work as the documented 944 rod no 2 FAILURES,
are virtually unheard on any of these motors.I have 2 944S2 engines and a 968
which i use for daily hard use , and when opened up for checking all bearings showed up in very good condition with the oil preasure at 4.5 bar.
in comparison with several other 944 turbo engines i opened up.

thats the level Porsche went to develop their engines.

Again no crank mounted oil scruppers.

As i said earlier , i still have the 2 944 items i purchased ,which by the way one of them was for a std crank, which did not fit anyway , all unused and in the same box, as i was seduced by the dark side of claimed advantages at the time.
i just did not bother to send them back.

Lastly for the record,i do not produce ,market or sell aftermarket vehicle components. I needed 2 dry sump pans for my FJ20/24 motors as the works ones were cracked/porous/leaking, as i could not commission less than 6 replicas,, i had 4 surplus pieces at the time left,(now only 2) and i offered them to my fellow
FJ enthusiasts at my cost. Thats all.

the fact that someone saw it as a threat to his own products ,however good they may be(the jury is still out there)
for sale , which from my point of view is like comparing chalk and cheese,
is flattering and at the same time a bit annoying as i dont think the intention of this forum is that.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

September 4 2008, 7:28 AM

No score for this post

September 8 2008, 9:08 PM

[quote=Savvas]
thanks Kevin for your responce

and again from your responce it appears that you are avoiding a straight answer to a simple question, with perplexing and sometimes meaningles evading diversions to the real topic
in hand on this forum.

Are the dry sump systems mechanically better suited for high performance /racing automobile applications from the so call crank scruppers or not?

just a straight YES or NO will do.

thanks[/quote]

I think that some of your professional continuing education credits should include a course in logic and critical thinking. The above is an example of the fallacy of a false dichotomy.

As I said, I have already answered this question more than once in some detail.

[quote=Savvas]
product responce. my mistake.Not othered, in view of hasle to fix the abandoned
2 944 scruppers and windage tray on the 2 951 engines mentioned earlier.Not related to the topic of Dry sump Vs crank mounted scruppers.

will be posted back to you same unused condition as it arrived.
the feed back has been stated already in the forum previous messages.

Fair enough?[/quote]

There is certainly no need to return the scraper after two years. The three people I have mentioned have already provided enough detailed fitment information in two months for two generations of design beyond it. I am working on a third.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

(Login HR31GTS-X)
202.43.236.232

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

September 9 2008, 12:19 PM

Hello Kevin,

For those of us that don't have the benifit of several degrees and such, could you maybe answer a simple YES or NO?

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

September 9 2008, 1:35 PM

Hi Anthony,

[Quote=Anthony]
For those of us that don't have the benifit of several degrees and such, could you maybe answer a simple YES or NO?[/quote]

The short answer is that it is not so simple and that is why the proposition is a fallacy. People want sound bites, take-home messages; yes or no answers. Life is not so simple. If you want a short example of a justification it is this: An If-Then proposition.

If you can achieve the same reliability as a dry sump with an inexpensive statically mounted part that weighs perhaps a kilo (some more -- some less) and does not consume horsepower at all besides its mass but rather reduces the parasitic losses of the engine and returns net hp then it is a no-brainer to save several thousand dollars and simply use the scraper.

Now here is one section where I explained this previously:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. Savvas, I disagree. The apple to apple issue is that a wetsump equipped engine -- with scrapers -- is certainly capable of competing with a dry sump equipped engine up to the g-limits of the wetsump design -- or the heightened g-limits of the wetsump SYSTEM in total.

The mere fact that there are certain limitations (as they exist today) to wetsump systems does not provide the conclusion that the vehicle in question will reasonably encounter those limitations. The same reasoning is used in speed ratings for tires. Think about it.

One famous engine builder who strongly advocated dry sump systems was Smokey Yunick. However, even Smokey acknowledged that a dry sump system consumes 8-10 hp (or more) over a wet sump by virtue of the extra stages.

[quote=Savvas]
Will attempt to list these again for the benefit.

1. lower centre of gravity of car,

**Remark: Absolutely, this is an advantage of dry sump systems as they allow the lowering of the engine -- if allowed.**

2. lower oil temperature fed to the engine and increased capacity available
for engine use depanding on the container size. Most important iN
endurance racing.

**Remark: These can be achieved in a wet sump system. Here are some actual results of one of my systems installed in the stock oil pan and carefully dynoed by a retired engineer for Chrysler:

"At peak rpms, use of the windage tray setup accompanied a 24 degree Fahrenheit drop in oil temperature, an 11 degree drop in coolant temperature and a 7 hp and 13 ftlb boost in power.

"Ed Peters remarked that "this setup is the most significant bolt-on change for oil and windage control that he has witnessed since 1986."

If you check the feedback on our Porsche 928 and 944 systems they yield similar results.

Note the above engine was already running an oil cooler and the improvements were with the oil cooler still in place.**

3. better weight distribution as the oil container can be relocated to the
boot.Admitedly there is a weight penalty but if the car is running on ballast
this is solved.

**Remark: Yes, there certainly is a weight penalty. If ballast is allowed it can be much more carefully placed to optimize the balance of the car. Since we were speaking of the 944 I suppose we are to forget that the stock, wetsumped equipped vehicle had almost perfect front to rear balance. I also suppose that one of the huge issues that confronts Porsche 928 owners is where to locate the storage tank. And, yes, the Porsche 928 wetsumped vehicle already has perfect front to rear balance. It was designed that way.**

4. constant and increased presurised oil flow to the engine at all speeds,
without any air trapped and no oil cavitation proplems at any form of racing.
To anyones mind with an expensive built up engine and

**Remark: Well, now I know you are shooting from the hip. There are many engine failures attributed to poor dry sump design. Do some actual research.**

5. more rigitity of the engine block from the solid pan directly bolted to the bottom.

**Remark: I suggest you examine, say, some of the block and sump designs from Mazda which reinforce both the perimeter and link it to the mains. This is now technology perhaps 20 years old.**

6. extra horsepower released to the wheels due to ,engine negative pressure
ranging from 20 bhp on engine of 250 bhp to 40 bhp on an engine of 400bhp.

**On a big block Mopar running 9 second ETs our scraper is acknowledged to knock off .1 second -- that's about 30 hp if you do the math. Plus it is a simple matter to run an electric pump consuming very little power to draw down the sump in a well built engine. At least that is what the shops building LS 'Vette engines tell me. You might also look into why scrapers are considered illegal by some tracks -- they are an unfair advantage.**

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

(no login)
193.188.105.200

FJ20/24 DRYSUMP.

No score for this post

September 10 2008, 9:55 PM

thanks Kevin,

as usual there is not a clear answer to the topic , only evasive ones.
and i believe that is an answer in itself.

the statement that a wet sump design for any engine , releases more horse power than a equivalent dry sump design
is a ludicrous one to say the least and i dont think deserves the merit of commenting upon.

I will not attempt to comment any more as i see no point for it , but it became very clear that,
there is a colossal market for your products out there.

The only proplem that obviously ,you will be facing, is to convince the thousands of automobile design engineers employed by Ferrari, Lamborgini, Porsche , and so many other
performance and competition engine designers in the world,
that the dry sump systems engines they have been designing and installing so far
into their engines are inferior, to the wet sump/Crank mounted scruppers,
they should scrap them(no pan intented), and come to you for a solution
to their search for a few more H.P and better oil control.

i wish you the very best of luck.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

September 11 2008, 3:40 AM

I am sorry, Mr. Savvas. You would certainly not be receiving honours marks in any course that I would teach about windage.

[quote=Savvas]
thanks Kevin,

as usual there is not a clear answer to the topic , only evasive ones.
and i believe that is an answer in itself.

the statement that a wet sump design for any engine , releases more horse power than a equivalent dry sump design
is a ludicrous one to say the least and i dont think deserves the merit of commenting upon.[/quote]

You should learn the difference between what hp a pump consumes and what net hp a system containing that pump or pumps can release. They are very different things, I assure you. Go back and review your thermodynamics course work and examine how a shift in the equilibria of the system can achieve this without violations of the laws of thermodynamics.

I think it is clear that you don't feel any more comment is deserved because you don't really understand the topic in depth -- as I said earlier. A thesis in forced induction does not make you an expert in windage control.

[quote=Savvas]
I will not attempt to comment any more as i see no point for it , but it became very clear that,
there is a colossal market for your products out there.

The only proplem that obviously ,you will be facing, is to convince the thousands of automobile design engineers employed by Ferrari, Lamborgini, Porsche , and so many other
performance and competition engine designers in the world,
that the dry sump systems engines they have been designing and installing so far
into their engines are inferior, to the wet sump/Crank mounted scruppers,
they should scrap them(no pan intented), and come to you for a solution
to their search for a few more H.P and better oil control.

i wish you the very best of luck. [/quote]

I am not sure how you extracted that message from what I wrote but I find it a fascinating bit of analysis coming from the director of a Formula 1 facility. God help us all.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Eine Frage

No score for this post

September 12 2008, 2:50 AM

I will give a free scraper to the first person who correctly answers why this Porsche multi-axis dyno, used to model oil in the 2009 911 sump at the Nordschliefe, impressive as it is, is not an exact model of this situation in the vehicle. Hint: there is physics involved but the answer is very straight forward.

You always must seek out the limits and assumptions of the model.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv53RbvgfGc

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

September 12 2008, 4:21 AM

Here is a picture of the drysump pan in the modern GT40 supercar from Ford:

[img]

[/img]

Here is a picture of the windage tray that fits inside that GT40 drysump with multiple crank scraper devices.

[img]

[/img]

Here is an article from F1Technical.net that is possibly the source of Mr. Savvas' thoughts.

http://www.f1technical.net/articles/8766

It is very important not to be bowed or frightened by people spouting F1 this or F1 that. Just do your research steadily and surely. The article gets a few things wrong. For example:

"Lubrication systems for a four-stroke, reciprocating piston engine can be categorised in just two groups: the wet sump design and the dry sump system."

Wrong. This is another example of the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Porsche calls their system an integrated dry sump (sounds better). It is along the lines and headed to the active wetsump I mentioned. So it is in between a drysump and wetsump. Here are the patents if people want to see that I am not full of BS...

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=146&p=3&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=porsche.ASNM.&OS=an/porsche&RS=AN/porsche

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6823968

In any event, here are some examples of dry sump pans used in tens of thousands (at least) of race cars around the world with scraper technology in them. I don't make this stuff up as I go along.

Below: Stefs has been making dry sump pans for about 17 years now; the directional screening is actually thousands of iterated scraper louvers. Many people do not recognize scraper technology.

http://www.stefs.com/products/oilpans/nascarbuschtruckasadry.htm

Below: The topmost pan seen in the picture has two full length scrapers and, again, directional screening.

http://www.milodon.com/oil-pans/circle-track-dry-sump-pans.asp

Below: The Moroso dry sump pans seen each have three full length scrapers.

http://www.moroso.com/catalog/categorydisplay.asp?CatCode=11226

Below: Look how many of Canton�s oil pans specifically mention having crank scrapers.

http://www.cantonracingproducts.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?search=action&category=1301

Below: Here is a dry sump pan for a Zetec from ARE with a scraper at the scavange port.

http://www.drysump.com/pan11.htm

Below: a picture of a dry sump pan with multiple scrapers.

http://www.vacmotorsports.com/catalog/vac---m60--m62--s62-dry-sump-pan.htm

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

(no login)
124.170.40.38

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

September 12 2008, 9:23 PM

<quote> I will give a free scraper to the first person who correctly answers why this Porsche multi-axis dyno, used to model oil in the 2009 911 sump at the Nordschliefe, impressive as it is, is not an exact model of this situation in the vehicle.
</quote>

OK. I'll bite.

No matter what that jig does, it cannot simulate forces above 1G for lateral or longitudinal acceleration. It looks like it can simulate far more rapid transitions in G, but nothing ever over 1G sustained force.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Anonymous
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Ausgezeichnet

No score for this post

September 13 2008, 3:06 AM

"OK. I'll bite.

No matter what that jig does, it cannot simulate forces above 1G for lateral or longitudinal acceleration. It looks like it can simulate far more rapid transitions in G, but nothing ever over 1G sustained force."

Yes. What scraper would you like and where should I send it?

Please send me an email: Kevin_Johnson@crank-scrapers.com

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

update

No score for this post

September 21 2008, 8:32 PM

I am sending this FJ20 system out for trial fitting to one of your members. It has dual scrapers, a full directional windage screen and segregation baffles to help regulate pumping between cylinders and cylinder pairs. It is designed to fit within a stock pan and the tray should have enough height to accomodate the increased stroke of the FJ24.

Scott has taken an extraordinary amount of time with numerous measurements. I hope it will fit without too many adjustments being needed.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

(no login)
82.194.62.220

FJ20/24 DRYSUMP.

No score for this post

September 25 2008, 10:36 PM

BY THE WAY KEVIN,
I APOLOGISE FOR THE LATE RESPONCE AS I HAD MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO.

IS THERE A CHIP IN YOUR ARMOUR ,BY MAKING PERSONAL REMARKS, WHICH WERE
UNCALLED FOR .

YOU CLAIM THAT YOU CAN TEACH ALL ABOUT WINDAGES WHICH PROPABLY CAN BE TRUE
AS IT IS NOT FOR ME TO DECIDE ,NO HONOURS POINTS GIVEN E.T.C. , BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT APPEARS THAT THIS IS ALL YOU CAN DO AND NOT QUALIFIED AT ALL TO AWARD OR DEDUCT HONOURS POINTS FOR THAT MATTER
UNLESS YOU ARE FROM M.I.T.

YOU MISSED THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FORUM WHICH WAS TO DEFINE WHAT IS BEST FOR A HIGHLY STRESSED FJ RACING ENGINE AND I DO REPEAT AN FJ ENGINE , A DRY SUMP PAN OR A WET SUMP PAN SYSTEM FOR A FJ 20/24/TURBO ENGINE IRRESPECTIVE IF IT CONTAINED MESH WINDAGE TRAYS , CRANK MOUNTED SCRUPPERS
OR EVEN 20,000 MINUTE HEAT TOLERANT WORKERS IN THE SUMP TO SCRUP THE OIL FROM THE CRANKSHAFT AND MOP IT BACK TO THE PIT.

WE WERE ALWAYS FOCUSED ON FJ ENGINES, BUT SOMEHOW YOU GOT DERAILED SOMEWHERE
AND FROM THE PREVIOUS RESPONCES AND PICTURES FURNISHED THIS IS EASY NOW TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONS BEHIND IT.

FOR ANYONES INFORMATION
NISSAN INTRODUCED FOR THEIR WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP GROUP B CARS USING FJ ENGINES, WITH AN ADDED 22.4 KG WEIGHT PENALTY,ON A CAR WITH 970 KG WEIGHT!!!
A DRY SUMP PAN SYSTEM , WITH AN EXTERNAL OIL DRIVEN PUMP, INSTEAD OF STAYING WITH AN ENGINE MOUNTED WET SUMP, EVEN WITH MULTITUTES OF SCRUPPERS,WINDAGE TRAYS AND INTEGRAL OIL PUMP DRIVEN BY THE CRANK.

THE SAME FOR THE OPEL MANTAS AS WELL AS TOYOTA CELICAS.

AGAIN WAS NISSAN WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM WRONG TO DO THAT FOR THEIR FJ24
ENGINES?AS WELL AS OPEL AND TOYOTA, WHOSE ENGINES WERE ALL 4 CYLINDER
HIGHLY STRESSED NORMALLY ASPIRATED ENGINES AS THE FJ ENGINES.

BY THE WAY , IN THE CASE OF THE HOT FOAM SLUDGY OIL COMING FROM A RACING FJ TURBO DIRECTLY, INTO THE ENGINE OIL PAN ,WITHOUT EVEN PASING THE CRANK OR THE WINDAGE TRAY, DIRECTLY INTO THE INTAKE OF THE OIL PUMP PICK UP TUBE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OIL COLLECTION POINT,
WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OF ALL THE CRANK SCRUPPERS OR WINDAGE MESH TRAYS?
THE ADVANTAGE FOR USING A DRY SUMP SYSTEM IS PRETTY CLEAR.

THE GP A TURBO RACING 330BHP FJ ENGINES RACED IN AUSTRALIA IN EUROPE IN SKYLINES AND IN AUSTRALIA HOMOLOGATED FIA MODELS, BEING ON A MIN PRODUCTION OF 5,000
CARS TO GAIN GP A FIA HOMOLAGTION ,HAD TO HAVE WET SUMPS, AND WERE UPGRADED
TO THE SAME WET SUMP SUMP AS THE FJ24 WHICH HAD A HORIZONTAL BAFFLE ,LONGER AND HIGHER UP FROM THE PIT ,FROM THE FJ20 PANS, BUT NO WINDAGE TRAYS OR CRANK MOUNTED SCRUPPERS.
NISMO TRIED VERY HARD TO HAVE A DRY SUMP PAN SYSTEM HOMOLOGATED FOR THE EXTRA 20 BHP AND ADDED RELIABILITY BUT THE COST TO EQUIP
5,000 CARS OVER 12 MONTHS WAS TOO MUCH FOR THEIR BUDGET.THEY HAD JUST TO LIVE WITH IT AND WITH SUCH A SUCCESS THAT THE FJ20T ENGINE SKYLINES IN UK
WERE OUTLAWED THE NEXT YEAR AS THEY WERE DEEMED TO HAVE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
AFTER RUNNING AWAY WITH MOST OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP RACES TOP AWARDS.

SHOULDNT THE ABOVE TELL SOMETHING TO ALL OF US, THAT WE USE FJ ENGINES AND PAY A LOT OF MONEY , TRYING TO PREVENT THEM FROM DESTROYING THEMSELVES
RATHER THAN BEEN SOLD OR GIVEN SNAKE OIL AS A CURE FOR IT?

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

September 25 2008, 11:45 PM

[quote=Defdes]"Paul sent me some pics of a very nice dry sump pan made for him by Phil Ryal in Sydney."
Kevin, would forward me those pics? I have an extra pan, and as my motor/pan sits so low, I have been contemplating a dry sump system for it. csedan510 at yahoo dot com
Thanks[/quote]

I cropped and resized them for you here:

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

September 25 2008, 11:57 PM

Hi Defdes,

Here are some scaled down jpegs of the FJ20 block and a baffle. Using these as a start these you should be able to construct some partitions for the piston bays within your pan. A lot depends on exactly how you are making a dry sump and what depression you plan on running it at. The higher the depression the greater in size you can make the dividers between 1:2 and 3:4. Between 2:3, in any event, you should try to get very good separation.

Just cut the patterns out in cardboard -- or better yet, thin styrene sheet (go to a good plastics supply store). It is time consuming but worth the effort. It is easier to do this for just one engine than to try to generalize for many.

There are actual 1:1 jpges on the website -- just remove the "-small" from either address.

Hope this is useful for you.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Kevin Johnson
(no login)
72.187.96.254

Re: FJ20 Dry Sump

No score for this post

September 26 2008, 12:20 AM

No score for this post

October 17 2009, 8:36 AM

Top engine builder (multi championship) has informed us that one of our scraper sets installed on a well known NA series engine with a dry sump improved the output of the engine by 5% at 6500 rpms on the dyno. This dry sump is the standard one run in the series. Sorry, cannot be more specific than that as there are still upcoming races this season.

Scrapers do improve dry sump output.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Current Topic - FJ20 Dry Sump

Respond to this message

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

Return to Index