[Steve C.]

About 17 years ago I had a similar situation with a factory tray as in Jim's post #15 above. I found out after the engine was removed for another build. Prior to tear-down we had no idea there were broken pieces inside the engine with the exception that I did note that the dip stick would no longer go into the engine, but I did not suspect the tray was broken.


.

[mback12000]

These results are on a stationary dyno. Now imagine adding G forces which, to some extent, will mimic the effects of overfilling. In my opinion a broken windage tray causing damage is a tiny risk (in a maintained performance engine) but oil aeration and it's subsequent impact on oil pumping quality from not using one is far more likely. Pontiac engineers didn't put it there because they were bored. If you're fearful of it breaking, treat it like any other engine part before installing... test/check for cracks or just install a new one that doesn't have 50 years of work hardening vibration.

Originally Posted by Steve C.

"I can tell you draining out a quart of oil also gave near similar results during testing, including more stable oil pressure at high rpm. Think about that"

Related......

The easiest and least expensive way to minimize windage is to avoid over-filling a wet sump engine with oil. This may sound simple, but we’ve seen this happen many times. In a situation that recently occurred at Westech Performance, dyno operator Steve Brule’ witnessed a significant dip in oil pressure above 5,000 rpm on a 600 hp 468ci big-block Chevy. The owner had inadvertently over-filled the engine by two quarts of oil in the deep-sump pan –adding 9 quarts in an advertised 8-quart pan.

Steve first tested this oil pressure problem by adding a half quart (to be safe) and recorded an even greater pressure drop. He eventually drained 2 ½ quarts of oil from the engine and not only did the oil pressure stabilize, but the power improved by a solid 20 hp as well. This reveals just how much horsepower can be lost to oil whipping around the crankshaft at high engine speeds.

Source:
http://blog.wiseco.com/common-causes...il-consumption



.

[Steve C.]

I'm a big fan of oil control, that said I no longer use a factory tray for personal reasons. My current oil pan is a custom Canton with a built-in crank scraper and windage screen.


.

[PontiacJim1959]

I apologize for the long post, and this is not aimed at anyone specific nor intended to offend, BUT, there are too many variables to this discussion. In deciding what I wanted to do on my oiling system, I asked myself a few questions and then began to study the factory windage tray & baffled oil pan set-ups. I am no expert or engineer, but a few things came to mind. First, one needs to define the engine build, its purpose, and the RPM the engine will be taken to.

Grandma's 400 doesn't need a windage tray, nor a pan baffle, agreed?

The GTO and high-performance engines used a tray, but, what does it really help? If I nail the gas on my RA engine, 4-speed, 4.33 gears, how does the tray keep my oil from sloshing to the back of the oil pan and uncovering the oil pump's pick-up screen? OR, does the solid tray actually accumulate and direct oil to the back of the pan?

OK, so a windage tray helps keep the crank from whipping up the oil. Hmmm. I see a post about oil pressure dropping at higher RPM's which is "assumed" due to the crank whipping up the oil and creating a foamy mess of it all. What if the drop in oil pressure, or unstable oil pressure was instead due to a high volume pump pushing a bunch of oil to the top end and the return of that oil was not as fast as desired at the higher RPM's because the pump was pulling more oil than being returned? So this may make windage tray design as a key element in all this as there are a number of designs being offered said to work.

What effect does larger clearances used for higher RPM's/race engines have on the oil that is thrown out the sides of the bearings? There's a lot of oil being pushed out and just how much of that oil do you think is being thrown about at 7,500 RPM's at 80PSI and being churned into foam? Does a windage tray slow this dumping of oil throughout the engine's rotation as it is ejected 360 degrees about?

The factory windage tray is about 9 1/2" wide. The pan is about 9 3/4" wide. If you look at a factory tray, you will see it has 3-pockets for the full length tray and 2-pockets on the short tray. The full length tray has 3 tiny 1/4" holes for the oil to drain. The short tray has 2 tiny 1/4" holes for the oil to drain. Hmmmm. So all that return oil pumping & whipping around finds most of its way into the pockets and has to drain through the tiny holes?

I know the next point will be that the tray has its own "scraper" built in - those slots in the tray. OK, maybe it helps to capture the whipping oil and direct it through the slots and back down into the pan? I can see that.

Does the weight of the oil selected have an effect on how quickly the return oil can escape through 3-tiny 1/4" holes, or 2-tiny 1/4" holes and back into the pan? Does 10W30 drain a bunch faster than let's say racing 20W-50? If heavier oil drains slower, might it make sense that at higher RPM's the oil pumped by the oil pump is not matched by the return oil fighting to get back into the pan through those tiny 1/4" holes? Could the end result be the oil pressure as seen on the gauge begins to waiver a bit because the oil pump is sucking air off the bottom of the pan where not enough oil has been returned and then the conclusion is that the crank created the oil aeration and not the lack of needed oil because the tiny 1/4" holes in the windage tray actually became a restriction to oil return?

So are you all with me still? So exactly how much oil does a factory windage tray hold. Are you ready for this? 1 Quart. Yep, 1 quart of oil can be held in the pockets of the factory long/short windage tray which has to drain out the tiny 1/4" holes. Guess what? The crank throws and connecting rods are just about dipping into this windage tray oil accumulation and guess what? Yep, throwing right back up into the engine and making that aerated froth that everyone thought the purpose of the windage tray was to prevent.

Now I am talking factory tray, not aftermarket stuff here. So, what good/use is a factory windage tray? Does oil aeration at high RPM's come from the oil churned up by the crank, or is it really a depletion of oil in the pan because the windage tray with its tiny 1/4" return holes can't keep up with the demand of the pump and the pump sucks air when it needs to suck oil? The Royal Pontiac answer was to add an additional drain hole to the long tray and open the holes up from 1/4" to 1". Then extend the oil pan 2" and modify the oil pump/pick-up to place it lower and deeper into the pan. Enclosed is a photo of this. Note the additional sheet baffle ( although mounted incorrectly in the photo) and what looks like a bell-mouthed tapered oil pick up tube.

My point? Too many assumptions and not enough facts. The more important thing here is the pan, in my opinion - controlling oil slosh and keeping the oil pick up covered. Then getting the crank throws away from the oil level in the pan by lowering the oil level with a deeper pan. If this can't be done, then a well engineered and designed windage tray could be used in this application, but it has to enhance oil return while keeping oil splash/whipping down to a minimum - all of which is dependent on the specific engine build, application, and maximum RPM the engine will see.

In my build, no windage tray - I want oil to return to the pan as quickly as possible and not be hindered by any tray. I also want some oil shipping about to lubricate seeing I am using a flat tappet cam. 1973 oil pan with baffle. The stock 1973 and up pan is probably OK for the average street car. But, if you like to nail the gas hard, or race, then step up to a much better aftermarket pan with additional baffling and/or trap doors. If you can, and you have the clearance, drop the pan and oil pick-up (I have a Canton extended oil pick-up). The stock pan is just over 7" deep. You want to either cut/extend you factory pan to 9" or get an aftermarket pan having a depth of 9". You still want baffles, BUT, you only fill the pan with your factory 5 quarts of oil. DO NOT fill the oil pan until it reads full on the dipstick - you are defeating the purpose of what this accomplishes. Fill it with 5 quarts and mark your dipstick for that level. Your oil level will now be approximately 6" below the crankshaft throws - which will minimize any oil being lifted up and into the engine and eliminating the need for a windage tray.

In lieu of a windage tray, I am fitting a crank scraper so as to pull any heavy accumulated oil off the crank.

The above is how I am setting up my 455, no windage tray, 1973 factory oil pan which I will add a rear baffle to keep oil from climbing up the back of the pan, extend the oil sump & oil pick-up tube to a depth of around 9" - using the assembled oil pump/pick-up to get my exact depth with a 1/4" gap between the pan floor and pick-up screen. Crank scraper.

My build won't see any big RPM numbers, but it might hit 5,600 if the cam/head cfm's let it. If it is less, then so be it.

The point of all this is that FACTS are needed, not what you read, what your buddy is doing, or even what you are using if only to say that it works. The generic claims just don't cut it. If you had oil pressure fluctuations at 7,500 RPMs, how many guys on here run their engine that high? So claims need to be in a context that relates to an engine build, not some willy-nilly claim that teeth cannot be sunken into - this helps no one in their build or future build.

So exactly how close are the crank throws to the windage tray? That'll be in my next and upcoming issue of Pontiac's-R-Us.

[mback12000]

Originally Posted by PontiacJim1959

My point? Too many assumptions and not enough facts. .

With all due respect sir, that is exactly your post. While thoughtful and appreciated, there is no reference to any testing.

My facts were, as stated, test results from a computerized dyno. Back to back pulls, windage tray out and then installed, no other changes. Oil pressure instrumented on a data logger and recorded to a file. I'm not saying it was perfect, and admitted all engines are different so other results may vary. I'm not even claiming I understand why. But the fact is, that tested engine produced more horsepower, and had more consistent stable oil pressure with a windage tray than without. That's not an assumption, it's a fact.

Your build sounds nice and I wish you luck. But if you don't test your assumptions in some way, how will you know your choices are the best?

BTW, you mentioned a target on your engine of 5600rpm. FWIW, my test showed the beginning of oil pressure instability at 5000rpm. I'm not talking dropping to zero. I'm talking the datalog showing a few psi of dither emerging (and growing worse with rpm). The installation of the tray made it rock steady to 6400 which was the peak of my testing.

[Steve C.]

From Dave Bisschop....

"Our back to back dyno tests on a 462cid 500+hp 5500 rpm street engine showed an honest 10+hp gain when the Canton Windage tray combined with the crank scraper were installed when compared to running just a baffled pan."

The gain at peak power rpm, the obvious it would be less at lower rpm on the street. This not meant by me as an endorsement, nor critical in any way, only a tid bit offered for general interest.

.

[Old Man Taylor]

This was how I did it last time on my streetcar. Part of the reason was to retain the dip stick. On the racecar I only run a scraper.

[PontiacJim1959]

Originally Posted by mback12000

With all due respect sir, that is exactly your post. While thoughtful and appreciated, there is no reference to any testing.

My facts were, as stated, test results from a computerized dyno. Back to back pulls, windage tray out and then installed, no other changes. Oil pressure instrumented on a data logger and recorded to a file. I'm not saying it was perfect, and admitted all engines are different so other results may vary. I'm not even claiming I understand why. But the fact is, that tested engine produced more horsepower, and had more consistent stable oil pressure with a windage tray than without. That's not an assumption, it's a fact.

Your build sounds nice and I wish you luck. But if you don't test your assumptions in some way, how will you know your choices are the best?

BTW, you mentioned a target on your engine of 5600rpm. FWIW, my test showed the beginning of oil pressure instability at 5000rpm. I'm not talking dropping to zero. I'm talking the datalog showing a few psi of dither emerging (and growing worse with rpm). The installation of the tray made it rock steady to 6400 which was the peak of my testing.

No offense taken here, but you kinda just proved my point. You were spinning an engine (size ?) to 6,400 RPM's. How many street engines, 389, 400, etc. are winding their engines that tight?

Was your dyno testing done with a stock full length factory windage tray and 5 quart oil pan?

What do you consider more HP? For a street build, 10-15 HP isn't really going to be felt at the rear wheels once it goes through the drivetrain.

The test would have been more complete if a crank scraper had replaced the windage tray, and/or a deeper pan as I outlined was installed.

Your info as you tested is relative, but incomplete only because other means of oil control were not explored and tested.

My assumptions may or may not be assumptions. I rest some of my case on the fact that the well known and documented Chrylser Engineering who did much development & research on their engines, had an engineering building where they schooled racers in engine/trans/chassis builds. One of their statements, regarding the Hemi, was that the crank throws when positioned 6" from the oil level (via a deeper pan) did not pull up the oil and a windage tray was not needed, and oil return to the pan was faster. The Mopar guys were good at what they did and had an engineering department to prove & back it. So not really an assumption on my part, but using supplied information as applied to what I see, and my build.

With regards to oil return and an oil pump out pumping the oil that is being returned to the pan, I cited what I see as a possibility based on my actual observations and my measurements of the liquid held by the windage trays and the measurements taken as applied to my actual 455 - not assumptions at all. I also take into considerations that more oil can be pumped up through the top end of an engine than actually need be at high RPM's and can lead to oil starvation at the oil pump pick-up, case in point a friends big block 505 chevy that he had installed a solid roller cam/lifters and was losing oil pressure at higher RPM's until he added oil restrictors in the block to limit the amount of oil to the roller lifters, and thus the heads, where the oil was accumulating. Restrictors installed and oil pressure was stable at the higher RPM's they had previously not been. An example of what could have looked like oil aeration because the oil pump was sucking air due to excessive oil hanging up in the heads and not draining fast enough - my point is not an assumption, but a fact, oil aeration because of a spinning crank at high RPM's may be an assumption when in fact it may be another cause like oil return not matching pump requirements - as I recall the early E-heads had an issue with oil drain back and puddling in the heads which may or may not fall into the category of excessive oil hanging up in the heads and not returning fast enough and creating an oil pressure drop/fluctuation at higher RPM's. The West Tech guys have shown too much oil can present a problem.

My build as outlined probably won't prove much as I am not putting it on a dyno, nor shuffling around assorted options. If my oil pressure is good, and shows to be stable under all conditions - mainly hard launches - then my set-up and thinking is just another alternative that has been thought out, reasoned, and works. It no longer falls into the heading of "assumptions." Perhaps as it stands, and until I get the car on the street, I am assuming, but using fact and logic from known sources to craft my set-up. And as stated, this is more of a street build. If it were a race engine turning high RPM's or some 600HP engine, then I might take a different approach which would be a custom aftermarket pan with all the baffles and traps and a windage tray something like Spotts offers.

[PontiacJim1959]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

From Dave Bisschop....

"Our back to back dyno tests on a 462cid 500+hp 5500 rpm street engine showed an honest 10+hp gain when the Canton Windage tray combined with the crank scraper were installed when compared to running just a baffled pan."

The gain at peak power rpm, the obvious it would be less at lower rpm on the street. This not meant by me as an endorsement, nor critical in any way, only a tid bit offered for general interest.

.

More facts. Nothing critical here, and feel free to be critical because that's what can develop a useable set-up that may be of help to another member. I don't think there is any one perfect way to do this as each engine build is different, but options never hurt.

[mback12000]

Originally Posted by PontiacJim1959

No offense taken here, but you kinda just proved my point. You were spinning an engine (size ?) to 6,400 RPM's.

Yes, tested to 6400 peak. That doesn't mean the data below was ignored or is irrelevant. The intended operating peak rpm on this engine is 5800-6000. And as I mentioned, the datalogs show emergence of oil pressure dither at 5000. The pull to 6400 was simply to learn more, not only about oil pressure stability but safety margin in other areas like valve spring pressure. Engine size is 462.

Originally Posted by PontiacJim1959

How many street engines, 389, 400, etc. are winding their engines that tight?

I don't know, but this is the race section.

Originally Posted by PontiacJim1959

Was your dyno testing done with a stock full length factory windage tray and 5 quart oil pan?

Yes, I had pointed that out twice. Stock pan which is 6qt total system fill as Pontiac specs. Stock full length tray with additional 1/2" holes drilled. Scraper was used both with and without the windage tray.

Originally Posted by PontiacJim1959

What do you consider more HP?

My post said 10hp. The 10hp was at 5500.

[Scott Stoneburg]

PontiacJim:
Interesting thoughts. And you seem to have thought a lot into it. I remember checking the clearance between the crank and stock windage tray and i dont think it would hold enough oil for the crank to get emersed in it and cause aeration. I also did add more holes for the oil to drain back through.
This build is going into what I consider my strert car ( many would not see this as a street build) it will see 7000 rpm and oil control and any additional HP added is important. Even if its only 10HP. I see it as if I can add 10 HP with this, another 5 to 10 HP with other detail tricks then it all adds up. I'm using an aftermarket tray and crank scraper. I trimmed and fit the scraper to fit with about .080 clearance to the rods. Not the factory tray due to my experience with them cracking and or breaking.

[Mike Davis]

I have used this one with good results.

http://www.spottsperformance.com/newwindage

[janderson]

Originally Posted by Mike Davis

I have used this one with good results.

http://www.spottsperformance.com/newwindage

That’s what I currently run also, along with the scraper w/o hole for dipstick.

[PontiacJim1959]

mback12000 - "I don't know, but this is the race section."

PJ- I think this topic fits both street & race and bet if I placed it in the street section there would be a lot of "race" guys adding to the post. If you feel the "street" section is where this should be, just sing out and I will transfer over there and keep on going with this dialogue.

mback12000 - "Yes, I had pointed that out twice. Stock pan which is 6qt total system fill as Pontiac specs."

PJ - OK, I read right through it and it did not stick as I went to answering your reply and moved on from there. But I see you said that.

mback12000 - " I can tell you draining out a quart of oil also gave near similar results during testing, including more stable oil pressure at high rpm."

PJ - My thoughts on your observations is that it was not about the draining of the 1 quart, but the oil level in the pan. Take a look at the photos I posted showing the stock 1973 baffled oil pan with a fill of 3 Quarts, 4 Quarts, and 5 Quarts of oil. The measurements I took are both the depth of the oil in the sump and the distance from the pan rail - pan was leveled for these pics and numbers.

3 Qts Oil - From top of pan rail to oil level - 4 7/8"
Depth of oil at oil level to bottom of pan - 2 3/8"

4 Qts Oil - From top of pan rail to oil level - 4 1/8"
Depth of oil at oil level to bottom of pan - 2 7/8"

5 Qts Oil - From top of pan rail to oil level - 3 3/4"
Depth of oil at oil level to bottom of pan - 3 1/4"
Oil level depth above baffle and across front of pan extension - 5/8"

These measurements are off my Eagle 455 crank. The rear crank, throw, #7, measured .65" above the oil baffle if using only a factory pan with oil baffle - no pan gasket was used. If the baffled oil pan is filled with 5 quarts of oil, and the level of that oil is 5/8" (.62") over the top of the oil baffle, the crank throw is almost in the oil level at start up. The question then becomes - after start up, what is the nominal oil level at "X" RPM from idle to max engine RPM's? Something the West Tech guys did not show and would have really provided some good solid facts - perhaps using a tubular sight glass that would have corresponded with the oil level in the pan as each quart was removed.

With no windage tray used above with the '73 pan, was the engine more prone to oil aeration at higher RPM's or perhaps there was no concern at all as the engines by that point were not pushing the higher RPM's that the previous high-performance engines could and the performance days were at a close - at least for the GTO. As mback12000 pointed out, minor oil pressure fluctuations seemed to come in around 5,000 RPM's, so the lack of a windage tray was most likely not an issue for most Pontiac engines, so Pontiac went back to a non-baffled oil pan and 40 PSI pump on their engines until they began to see engine failures on the 1977 6.6 Trans-Ams and retrofitted the early engine builds with a baffled pan and the 60PSI oil pump under warranty and then all subsequent TA 6.6 engines were assembled from the factory with baffled oil pans and the 60PSI oil pumps.

So how close are the 455 crank throw cheeks to the factory long tray? I drilled a hole above each cheek and measured with a micrometer. Here are the result:

There are 8 throws starting at the front with #1 going to the rear #8.

#1 - .36"
#2 - .37"
#3 - .26"
#4 & #5 have the square cheeks and are much shorter and not even a concern
#6 - .23"
#7 - .40"
#8 on my crank appeared to be ground down for balancing purposes. But, the clearance between the high point of the crank cheek and edge of the tray that it rotates past was .22".

I have not assembled this engine, so no numbers for the rod clearances. I should be able to come up with a number as well as how far from the tray pockets the rods are - if not right in the oil.

Pic 4 shows the long tray with its measured fill of 1 cup, 1/2 cup, and 1 cup for a total of 4 cups or 1 Quart which could potentially be held in the windage tray pockets. Adding a 4th drain hole and opening up all the holes to 1" diameter as Milt Schornack did on his Royal Bobcat builds can be seen to make sense. Others simply drill a number of additional smaller holes in the tray.

Let me know if you guys feel this thread is not fitting in the "race" section and I will take it elsewhere to the "street" section.

[Scott Stoneburg]

Let me know if you guys feel this thread is not fitting in the "race" section and I will take it elsewhere to the "street" section

I posted this in the Race Section on purpose. As my 535 build is a little more than many people would feel comfortable driving on the street. But i will. This will be a 7-8 qt. Capacity oil system. Please do not take the liberty of moving MY post. If you feel the need to have a post in the Street Section then start a new one there. I for one have read through each response and thought about the view points of all members. There are differing opinions and thats just fine.

[PontiacJim1959]

Originally Posted by Scott Stoneburg

Let me know if you guys feel this thread is not fitting in the "race" section and I will take it elsewhere to the "street" section

I posted this in the Race Section on purpose. As my 535 build is a little more than many people would feel comfortable driving on the street. But i will. This will be a 7-8 qt. Capacity oil system. Please do not take the liberty of moving MY post. If you feel the need to have a post in the Street Section then start a new one there. I for one have read through each response and thought about the view points of all members. There are differing opinions and thats just fine.

Scott - moving to the street section were my words. I would not move your post, or delete anything already posted/said, just continue my information over in the street section. LOL Race also falls into street and street can fall into race. I've had many races on the street and a lot of street guys take their cars to the race track. A better section might simply be Pontiac High-Performance which covers all of it, race, street/race, street because most of us can learn something and all of us should be open to helping one another.

Pontiac - Street
No question too basic here!

Pontiac - Race
The next Level - No stupid basic questions here!

Jim

[Scott Stoneburg]

So i got the Milodon tray installed, thank you Skip for the hook up on the tray. I had to massage it for clearance and it has about .030 clearance between the side louver and the rods as they swing around. Is that enough? Its hard to see in the picture but there is clearance. How much is recommended? I'm thinking with sone amount of vibration it still may be too close

[Probird]

Originally Posted by BADDTA

We run a crank scraper with a Canton pan. Never ran a windage tray. Building a new 475 aluminum IAII for my son and we are not installing a windage tray in that. More harm than good can come from them. JMO

Brian

Same here!

[Dragncar]

As long as the windage tray is not attached to the caps I am cool with them. Have not heard of one broken yet that is built into the pan.