Windage tray design - opinions?

[ShelGame]

So, yesterday I sketched up this windage tray/scrapper design based on a line drawing and my own measurements. It's designed for the 2.5 and to bolt onto the balancer bolt holes (obviously, 2 bolts would have to be added). it should just fit inside the stock oil pan (I was planning to use the 2.5 CB pan, with an additional baffle). What do you think?

[turbovanman²]

I think it looks awesome. :thumb:

How much, :lol:

I thought Finkel was Einhorn? Did you just watch it again?

[ShelGame]

I think it looks awesome. :thumb:

How much, :lol:

I thought Finkel was Einhorn? Did you just watch it again?

LOL, no the sports report this morning on the radio they mentioned a player somwhere named Finkel. Instantly made me remeber Ace Ventura...

How much? I dunno. I bet I could find someone to cut them out for a decent price. But, then they'd still have to be formed.

[turboshad]

I think it looks awesome. :thumb:

How much, :lol:


LOL, looks exactly like a second post in a certain suspension thread. ;)

I think the design looks good. With some added structure I'm sure you could get away with just the 4 bolts. That is how my 2.4 tray is right now though I don't know how much extra room you have between the tray and the pan. I'm assuming the lower luver are positioned to scrape oil off the weights as well as giving the oil a place to exit the tray? Good idea though you might want one or two aditional holes so oil isn't funneling into the voids you want decent clean to effectively scrape the oil from the crank. Just my thoughts.

DJ

[ShelGame]

I played with it a little more and updated it.

Added tubes for the bolts/nuts; widened the louvers; made 3 rows of louvers...

[Warren Stramer]

Thats a nice design Rob, What do you think it would cost to have a stamping die made to knock out a couple hundred? Oh, and don't forget a hole for the dip stick to pass through. Nice work.

["Top Fuel" Bender]

Thats a nice design Rob, What do you think it would cost to have a stamping die made to knock out a couple hundred? Oh, and don't forget a hole for the dip stick to pass through. Nice work.

yeah the non-common blocks didn't have dipstick tube provisions
and I still had to modify the oil pick hole

[ShelGame]

Thats a nice design Rob, What do you think it would cost to have a stamping die made to knock out a couple hundred? Oh, and don't forget a hole for the dip stick to pass through. Nice work.

Thanks.

Yeah, I haven't measured for the dipstick hole yet.

I doubt you could repay even a soft prototype stamping die. I'd probably have the blanks laser cut and then form the part by hand (roll and brake); then weld in the tubes. Do you think there are a couple hundred takers for this? It would need to be slightly different (at least in the scrapper area) for the 2.2, I drew this for the 2.5.

I also want to see if I can figure out a way to make a guide for the drain back to try and keep that oil from hitting the spinning crank. I need to get a bock on the stand to see if that's even possible.

[Captain Chaos]

I don't know about 200, but I'll take 1.

[4 l-bodies]

Nice work Rob!
Let me offer my 02 cents.

I would think most people would like to see some sort of baffling for the pan to go with this design. Maybe a option. Some of us like to only go in a straight line, while others try to see how fast they can go around that next corner. That huge CB pan has issues without the balance shafts or baffled pan in place when accelerating, decelerating, or going around corners. You might also check the issue of oil from the turbo return hole peeing on rod journal #4. Maybe your design addresses that.

Todd Nelson

[bakes]

WOW i like it Rob !:thumb:
Will it clear the oil pump and pick up or are we all going to have to move to drysump systems?

[ShelGame]

Nice work Rob!
Let me offer my 02 cents.

I would think most people would like to see some sort of baffling for the pan to go with this design. Maybe a option. Some of us like to only go in a straight line, while others try to see how fast they can go around that next corner. That huge CB pan has issues without the balance shafts or baffled pan in place when accelerating, decelerating, or going around corners. You might also check the issue of oil from the turbo return hole peeing on rod journal #4. Maybe your design addresses that.

Todd Nelson

Actually, I forgot about the turbo return. It wouldn't be too tough to add a tab to guide that oil under the tray.

I had planned to do a baffle for the oil pan as well. Which also wouldn't be tough to laser or water jet cut.

[ShelGame]

WOW i like it Rob !:thumb:
Will it clear the oil pump and pick up or are we all going to have to move to drysump systems?

By my measurements, it's not as low as the balancer assy. So, I don't think the pickup would need to change - at least in the CB/TB 2.5.

[BadAssPerformance]

Looks great!

+1 to baffles, oil return, etc. metioned ...

also maybe a bit more drainage ventilation?

[chilort]

The Mopar windage tray for the big blocks didn't have big enough openings to let the oil drain back and it was a problem. Many people just shoved a big screw driver in the opening and pried it open further. Milodon makes a good product for the big block and it drains well. Note: click on the picture to get the larger view to see how wide open their openings are.

http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?part=MIL-32000&autoview=sku

By the way, I think this looks nice and for the right price I'd certainly buy one rather than try to make one.

[ShelGame]

Hmm, the big-block style flat design would be even easier to build...

[chilort]

It bolts between the pan and the block. But the big block pan rail is flat. Big block mopars have a long skirt. I think it would be difficult to do it like that with the way the front and rear seals work unless you went back to the multi-part gasket :(

[ShelGame]

It bolts between the pan and the block. But the big block pan rail is flat. Big block mopars have a long skirt. I think it would be difficult to do it like that with the way the front and rear seals work unless you went back to the multi-part gasket :(

No, I wouldn't bolt it to the pan rail. I'd still bolt it to the balancer bolt holes. But instead of making the whole tray round to match the crank, I could make it flat at 45deg angles like the big block tray. Then I could make in with just a sheet metal brake.

[Shadow]

That's a dead ringer for the small block windage tray we use. We just cut down the size and bolted it to the main cap bolts via the old 2.2 oil pick-up bolt (the one that has the center drilled and tapped for a 10mm bolt). It's a great mod when you have a couple small block trays kicking around, but if you had to buy one new + modify it.....well, yours would deff be a better buy!

[Warren Stramer]

This is my farm boy engineering solution, bought the uni directional screen from Jegs. Maybe I posted this before..........can't remember.

[neongary]

LOL, looks exactly like a second post in a certain suspension thread. ;)

I think the design looks good. With some added structure I'm sure you could get away with just the 4 bolts. That is how my 2.4 tray is right now though I don't know how much extra room you have between the tray and the pan. I'm assuming the lower luver are positioned to scrape oil off the weights as well as giving the oil a place to exit the tray? Good idea though you might want one or two aditional holes so oil isn't funneling into the voids you want decent clean to effectively scrape the oil from the crank. Just my thoughts.

DJ

The 340 tray is only held down by 4 bolts and small ones to boot.

[Dez]

Warren, I was going to do exactly that with the uni screen. I didn't have the spare cash for that at the time.

Looks good, I might need to give it a try again.

[ShelGame]

This is my farm boy engineering solution, bought the uni directional screen from Jegs. Maybe I posted this before..........can't remember.

Yeah, it does look good. Based on that, I don't think mine will work as I have it now. It won't clear the oil pump. I'll have to cut it shorter on the pump side like you did. I think I'm going to re-draw it with flat panels, too. Just easier to fab that way...

[Warren Stramer]

Yeah, it does look good. Based on that, I don't think mine will work as I have it now. It won't clear the oil pump. I'll have to cut it shorter on the pump side like you did. I think I'm going to re-draw it with flat panels, too. Just easier to fab that way...

No Rob, your design WILL clear the oil pump. On mine the front middle band that bolts to the block is about .020 thou. from rubbing the pump housing, so yours should just clear, cause my screen is riveted to the outside of the metal bands.

[bakes]

The 340 tray is only held down by 4 bolts and small ones to boot.

Is that one for a center sump pan?

[BadAssPerformance]

This is my farm boy engineering solution, bought the uni directional screen from Jegs. Maybe I posted this before..........can't remember.

Once again, excellent fab work Warren :clap:

[ShelGame]

The 340 tray is only held down by 4 bolts and small ones to boot.

But, that's bolted to the main caps. If I did that, it would have to go under the bolts (not a good idea IMHO), or you'd have to use the 2.2 main bolt for the oil pump. Which is fine - unless you want to run studs. I think I'll keep it bolted to the balancer holes.

[neongary]

But, that's bolted to the main caps. If I did that, it would have to go under the bolts (not a good idea IMHO), or you'd have to use the 2.2 main bolt for the oil pump. Which is fine - unless you want to run studs. I think I'll keep it bolted to the balancer holes.

Yep, you are right. I just thought the design/picture was similar to yours...a good idea. :thumb:
Put me down for one. I'd like to use something like that for my 2.5 CB (minus balance shafts) and existing oil pan/pickup rather than go and get all new stuff to make it work right.

[ShelGame]

No Rob, your design WILL clear the oil pump. On mine the front middle band that bolts to the block is about .020 thou. from rubbing the pump housing, so yours should just clear, cause my screen is riveted to the outside of the metal bands.

You sure? It looks to me like there's not much room between the oil pump and the crank throws - at least on the 2.5. I think I may need just a notch in the tray to clear the pump. As soon as I get the pan off my 2.5 junker, I'll make a carboard prototype and see how it fits.

Anyway, here's another concept. I think this one would be much easier to fabricate with nothing but the flat panels.

[Warren Stramer]

You sure? It looks to me like there's not much room between the oil pump and the crank throws - at least on the 2.5. I think I may need just a notch in the tray to clear the pump. As soon as I get the pan off my 2.5 junker, I'll make a carboard prototype and see how it fits.

It would clear a 2.2 but I doubt a 2.5.

[chilort]

I think it looks great. With some baffles in the pan....

I don't know if you noticed, but the the BB-Mopar tray I linked to above has a hole for the oil pickup. It is kind of a PITA the way you have to install it if you still have the block in the vehicle. I could see it being okay if the block were on a stand upside down. Either way, you have to remove the pickup, then put the tray in, then reinstall the pickup (trying to line up two pan gaskets, the tray, and the oil pan is loads of fun when on your back). I don't know if there would be a way to do that with your design without having all of it set out in front of me, but that could be an option to keep more rigidity in the tray compared to an all-out-notch.

[ShelGame]

OK, where do the cyl. head drains return to? I admit, I've never looked at the block in that area. I'm at work waiting for a late meeting, and sketching more ideas for oil control. If anyone can reference a picture of it, that'd be great. I'll look at one of my blocks when I get home.

It looks to me like all 3 drains go into a chamber above the oil pump; the oil lubricates the pump gear, and then it's dripped down over the I-Shaft at the fuel pump cam area. Is that right? If so, I think I can guide that oil around the I-Shaft and back into the pan. Since it's above the tray centerline, the I-Shaft will just sling that oil all over the crank. Can't have that, can we?

[ShelGame]

OK, latest iteration. This one has bolt-on baffles for the cyl head drains and turbo return. I added 2 more bolts at the front main (8 total). As soon as I get them measured, I'll add the dowel holes from the balancer as well to keep this thing located in the pan. And, I added stress-reliefs to the louvers to keep them from cracking under vibration.

By my best measurements, this should just clear the oil pump (even on the 2.5's). Except, the middle bolt for the cyl head baffle won't fit - I'll proabbly make them flat heads to fit them in there. Also, I need to figure out how to keep the turbo return baffle from rotating (I'll add a tab or something; maybe 2 bolts?).

I'm not sure if the cyl head baffles will hold up. Need to do a modal analysis. They may have to be pretty thick to live being cantilevered out like that.

[Warren Stramer]

It just keeps getting better. I would buy one of those, but then I thought how would you be able to see where to trim the scraper to fit each individual engine for proper clearence?
When I made mine I must have had the scraper on and off about a million times to properly trim to clear the rods and crank and still be close enough to be of some benefit.
Got to be able to see straight down between the crank/rods and scraper edges to fit. Otherwise very nice!! I don't mean to be so critical but just trying to help........................

[ShelGame]

It just keeps getting better. I would buy one of those, but then I thought how would you be able to see where to trim the scraper to fit each individual engine for proper clearence?
When I made mine I must have had the scraper on and off about a million times to properly trim to clear the rods and crank and still be close enough to be of some benefit.
Got to be able to see straight down between the crank/rods and scraper edges to fit. Otherwise very nice!! I don't mean to be so critical but just trying to help........................

Yeah, I though of that, too. I think I'll make the scrapper/tray bolt-together so you can fit the scrapper to the crank. The dowels for the balancer are on that side anyway. I think I could even completely get rid of the tool access holes in the tray...

I don't take any of this as criticism at all. I did put this up here for feedback afterall...

[ShelGame]

I really hate slow work days. :)

Ok, here's another idea. I think I'm getting really close to what I want to build. This design is 4-pc, but the scrapper part can be different for 2.2 or 2.5 - which is nice. All the other peices could be the same for 2.2 or 2.5.

Oh yeah, before we get carried away - I wasn't really considering building these to sell. Originally, I was really just designing a on-off for my race engine. But, I'd consider posting a drawing or template if anyone else wants to build one.

[Warren Stramer]

Ok that looks perfect, but I don't like that color.............seriously that should work very well. Now make a real one.
Rob, what cad program are you using? Solid Works?

[BadAssPerformance]

Looks like SDRC IDEAS?

And nice design :thumb:

[ShelGame]

Ok that looks perfect, but I don't like that color.............seriously that should work very well. Now make a real one.
Rob, what cad program are you using? Solid Works?


I'll consider stamping them in pink just for you :)

I use IDEAS (it's what we use at work). I do have SolidWorks at home, but I'm having a hard time picking it up. It's a good bit different from IDEAS. Anyone know of some good SW tutorials on-line?

Maybe this weekend I'll get some tinker time in the garage and I can try to mock one up. I think I even have a 0.05" sheet steel laying around from my fuel cell cover.

[BadAssPerformance]

I knew IDEAS before SW too and it is very different, but way easier. I thought there were tutorials built in?

[ShelGame]

I knew IDEAS before SW too and it is very different, but way easier. I thought there were tutorials built in?


Could be. So far, I haven't been able to do much with it. I originally wanted to do the tray in SW, but I had too much trouble figuring out how to sketch what I wanted. So, I just did it in IDEAS. It's a slow week at work anyway.

[Johnny]

If you get a final design that works AND you want to share the idea, AND enough people want one, I could get them made.
Johnny

[chilort]

Go Johnny!!!

[Reeves]

Go Johnny!!!

+1 :thumb:

[zin]

This is my farm boy engineering solution, bought the uni directional screen from Jegs. Maybe I posted this before..........can't remember.

I like it!:thumb: But I can't quite tell how you attached the thing!

Mik

[bakes]

If you get a final design that works AND you want to share the idea, AND enough people want one, I could get them made.
Johnny

:hail:HELL YA:hail:

[ShelGame]

If you get a final design that works AND you want to share the idea, AND enough people want one, I could get them made.
Johnny

Honestly, I hadn't considered making them until Warren suggested it. I have the resources; many contacts at parts suppliers, etc. I just don't really have the time. I'll (hopefully) be busy building flashable SMEC's and SBEC's this summer.

That said, I'd be fine sharing the design/model/drawing if you want to produce these. :thumb:

[Johnny]

So when the design is done, let me know. Then send me a file. I can have a sample made to test fit.
Johnny

[Reeves]

:clap:

[ShelGame]

So when the design is done, let me know. Then send me a file. I can have a sample made to test fit.
Johnny


What kind of file do you need? The design is basically done, just need to check a few dimensions again. I'll build a cardboard model and see how well it fits...

[Johnny]

I'll check in the morning.

[88C/S]

Honestly, I hadn't considered making them until Warren suggested it. I have the resources; many contacts at parts suppliers, etc. I just don't really have the time. I'll (hopefully) be busy building flashable SMEC's and SBEC's this summer.

That said, I'd be fine sharing the design/model/drawing if you want to produce these. :thumb:

Yeah! :clap:

[Johnny]

Can you make a DXS or DWG file?

[ShelGame]

Can you make a DXS or DWG file?


I don't know what DXS is, but I'm sure I can get it into a DWG. Do you need a fully detailled drawing? Or just a flat pattern with bend locations?

[Johnny]

Both! If you have it.
Makes it easier to understand then.

[ShelGame]

Should be able to do both...

[ShelGame]

OK, just did some measuring on my 2.5 tall deck enigne - the windage tray as designed definitley will not clear the oil pump. It needs a notch. Otherwise, I think it's OK. I need to get out a pencil and pad and do some detailled measurements to get the bolt and dowel spacing. Then, I'll build a prototype with some old sheet steel I have laying around.

Also, the 2.5 tall deck oil pan is the same as the CB balance shaft oil pan. With one exception - it doesn't have the extra layer of soundproofing in it!

[ShelGame]

Both! If you have it.
Makes it easier to understand then.

How do you think you would produce them? Water/laser cut or stamped? If it's a stamping die, there's a couple of things I'd like to add that would be difficult if it were hand formed...

[Johnny]

Water/laser cut, then bent

[johnl]

Wow - all because Rob had a slow day . . . . I'm in Johnny, LMK

[ShelGame]

Water/laser cut, then bent

What kind of forming capabilities do you have? If I wanted to put a dart (stiffeneing rib) in the bend of cyl head drain deflectors, could you do it? I'm concerned that they'll break from vibration. I'm going to run some FEA on it, but I'm almost positive they'll need help...

[Johnny]

When I get the design, I'll let you know, as of right now I am not sure.

[SebringLX]

This is the windage tray w/ crank scraper and baffle that I have in my 2.4L
http://www.dcrsrt.com/images/uploads/Windage_Tray_2.jpg
Maybe that will give you some ideas... seemed over priced at $250, but I haven't had any problems. Drag raced and autocrossed all last summer with it, going to do it again this year too.

[ShelGame]

Hmm... doesn't seem like it would cost even $50 to make that. That's some mark up.

[SebringLX]

Hmm... doesn't seem like it would cost even $50 to make that. That's some mark up.

That's what I thought after I opened the box and saw it for the first time, as I had not seen pics of it before buying it. However after handling it, it does seem very well built.

[neongary]

Any updates on this?

[ShelGame]

I'm planning to mock it up on the 2.5 I'm building for my minivan. So, I might have the pattern done by the end of the summer...

[Kevin Johnson]

This is the windage tray w/ crank scraper and baffle that I have in my 2.4L
http://www.dcrsrt.com/images/uploads/Windage_Tray_2.jpg
Maybe that will give you some ideas... seemed over priced at $250, but I haven't had any problems. Drag raced and autocrossed all last summer with it, going to do it again this year too.


Windage control systems on the SRT4 without balance shafts have indicated that they are worth perhaps 40+ hp in drag racing. This is about 6 times what you would see on a static dyno.

[t3rse]

This is because the BS assembly is pretty good at windage control and the housing shouldn't be removed unless it will be replaced with a screen.

[Kevin Johnson]

This is because the BS assembly is pretty good at windage control and the housing shouldn't be removed unless it will be replaced with a screen.

It is pretty good as a surge baffle -- not so great for windage control. In fact it probably costs power.

A point to remember is that the 2.2 and the 2.0 in the Neon both have basically bathtubs in the same vein as the 2.4 without balance shafts. Just compare the 2.0 and 2.4 pans and engine architecture. Very similar.

[t3rse]

It is pretty good as a surge baffle -- not so great for windage control. In fact it probably costs power.

A point to remember is that the 2.2 and the 2.0 in the Neon both have basically bathtubs in the same vein as the 2.4 without balance shafts. Just compare the 2.0 and 2.4 pans and engine architecture. Very similar.

I meant to gut it.

[Kevin Johnson]

I meant to gut it.

Yes, I understand. What I mean is that the presence of the even the gutted assembly gets in the way. Good as a baffle but not as a windage control device. If you check the running level of the oil it is beneath the assembly case.

My guess would be that it costs 3-5% in output statically. That is based on similar losses due to girdle structures in other 4-cylinder motors.

[t3rse]

Does not anything that keeps oil in the pan and helps divert oil in suspension down to the pan not help windage? What about the mini crank scraper built into the oil pan gasket?

[crazymadbastard]

This is the windage tray w/ crank scraper and baffle that I have in my 2.4L
http://www.dcrsrt.com/images/uploads/Windage_Tray_2.jpg



That looks like some HOME DEPOT rigged sh!t. I don't argue that it works, but seriously.

[Kevin Johnson]

Does not anything that keeps oil in the pan and helps divert oil in suspension down to the pan not help windage? What about the mini crank scraper built into the oil pan gasket?


I pulled out a 2.5 cb balance shaft assembly from a core motor and compared it to a 2.4 assembly. The earlier assembly has three sets of legs and the later one two. Chrysler recognized that the additional supports were not doing anything functional but were costing windage losses -- they are an obstruction that does not have a purpose. I suppose you could argue that the interior surface shields oil below it but then again oil bounces off of it and is re-entrained.

Abstractly, this type of stucture is seen in the Honda D-series (oil galley structure) and Nissan KA24e and de and the SR20 (girdles). In the last three, Nismo testing confirmed about a 5% loss in power output directly attributable to its presence (about 7hp). In the case of the SR20 and other Nissan engines, notably the RB26DETT, the hump present in the last bay upsets the pressure and flow patterns for the entire engine. In the RB26DETT it actually causes many of the louvers in the windage tray to be functionless.

The mini crank scraper built into the gasket functions by disrupting the pressure differential in the windage cloud causing release of the oil. It certainly does not scrape the surface because they are at least 2mm out at closest approach, probably three (going from memory). In the Viper engine they are 3mm away.

Given the alternative of an empty CB balance-shaft pan the baffle properties of the gutted assembly are worth retaining since they outweigh the loss due to windage. It would be better, though, to go the turbo III pan (2.2 CB forged crank, no balance shafts) which has a sloped floor and pickup well. Look at the old VW 1.7 engine they used in the Omni and the 1.6 in the old Rabbit -- Chrysler borrowed it from them.

Chrysler only went to including balance shafts in all the CB engines because of monumental screw-ups on the assembly line where balance shafts were somehow installed on blocks not machined for them. Lots of warranty work there.

[glhs0426]

I pulled out a 2.5 cb balance shaft assembly from a core motor and compared it to a 2.4 assembly. The earlier assembly has three sets of legs and the later one two. Chrysler recognized that the additional supports were not doing anything functional but were costing windage losses -- they are an obstruction that does not have a purpose. I suppose you could argue that the interior surface shields oil below it but then again oil bounces off of it and is re-entrained.

Abstractly, this type of stucture is seen in the Honda D-series (oil galley structure) and Nissan KA24e and de and the SR20 (girdles). In the last three, Nismo testing confirmed about a 5% loss in power output directly attributable to its presence (about 7hp). In the case of the SR20 and other Nissan engines, notably the RB26DETT, the hump present in the last bay upsets the pressure and flow patterns for the entire engine. In the RB26DETT it actually causes many of the louvers in the windage tray to be functionless.

The mini crank scraper built into the gasket functions by disrupting the pressure differential in the windage cloud causing release of the oil. It certainly does not scrape the surface because they are at least 2mm out at closest approach, probably three (going from memory). In the Viper engine they are 3mm away.

Given the alternative of an empty CB balance-shaft pan the baffle properties of the gutted assembly are worth retaining since they outweigh the loss due to windage. It would be better, though, to go the turbo III pan (2.2 CB forged crank, no balance shafts) which has a sloped floor and pickup well. Look at the old VW 1.7 engine they used in the Omni and the 1.6 in the old Rabbit -- Chrysler borrowed it from them.

Chrysler only went to including balance shafts in all the CB engines because of monumental screw-ups on the assembly line where balance shafts were somehow installed on blocks not machined for them. Lots of warranty work there.

I understand and agree but I think you mean:

"Chrysler only went to including balance shafts in all the TURBOCHARGED CB engines because of monumental screw-ups on the assembly line where balance shafts were somehow NOT installed on blocks XXX machined for them. Lots of warranty work there."

The way it was explained to me: 2.5L TI engines were not getting the BS assembly because a run of TII or TIV engines had just gone through and the assembly line worker was not paying attention. This one small detail caused an undue amount of warranty work due to low oil pressure.

[Kevin Johnson]

I understand and agree but I think you mean:

"Chrysler only went to including balance shafts in all the TURBOCHARGED CB engines because of monumental screw-ups on the assembly line where balance shafts were somehow NOT installed on blocks XXX machined for them. Lots of warranty work there."

The way it was explained to me: 2.5L TI engines were not getting the BS assembly because a run of TII or TIV engines had just gone through and the assembly line worker was not paying attention. This one small detail caused an undue amount of warranty work due to low oil pressure.

Well, that certainly does make more sense. But it may not be correct.

I had trouble understanding how the assembly could be attached with no pedestal holes being drilled -- but I have only had one 2.2 CB with a forged crank in my possesion that was undrilled (1989 version, if I recall correctly, it has been about 6 years past). It might (?) be that later versions of the CB were all drilled. Or it might be that someone thought they were catching a mistake and had undrilled blocks "corrected" but still missing the all important oil feed hole.

An engine lacking only the oil feed hole would appear fine for quite a while while the lack of lubrication in the assembly created too much detritus and slowly destroyed the rod and main bearings.

An engine lacking the balance shaft assembly would have lower idle oil pressure to begin with (at least) and should have been caught during any sort of QC check once the engine was built and/or installed.

My guess is that Chrysler really did not know exactly what or how it happened and because of that uncertainty it moved to installing the assembly on all the engines.

[glhs0426]

My guess is that Chrysler really did not know exactly what or how it happened and because of that uncertainty it moved to installing the assembly on all the engines.

My point is Chrysler did not put balance shafts on all later CB engines. There were thousands of 2.2 powered Shadow/Sundance America models built through 1994 with different oil pans, pickup tubes, and no balance shafts.

Have you ever noticed how all of Chrysler's hot rod parts have pink paint id? i.e. equal length intermediate shafts, big sway bars, old school .96" torsion bars, etc. All the turbo engines were the same way. Maybe it was the bean counters who decided all Turbo CB engines get the BS assembly; maybe it was because assembly line workers were installing/not installing BS assemblies correctly. I don't know, but not all later CB engines received balance shafts.

[Kevin Johnson]

My point is Chrysler did not put balance shafts on all later CB engines. There were thousands of 2.2 powered Shadow/Sundance America models built through 1994 with different oil pans, pickup tubes, and no balance shafts.

Have you ever noticed how all of Chrysler's hot rod parts have pink paint id? i.e. equal length intermediate shafts, big sway bars, old school .96" torsion bars, etc. All the turbo engines were the same way. Maybe it was the bean counters who decided all Turbo CB engines get the BS assembly; maybe it was because assembly line workers were installing/not installing BS assemblies correctly. I don't know, but not all later CB engines received balance shafts.


Yes, you're correct -- it was the later Turbo engines I was thinking about. This came up several years ago because people had imagined reasons why the later Turbo 2.2 cb engines had balance shaft assemblies.

You can imagine how much trouble the warranty work was if accounting okayed installing balance shaft assemblies. I am sure they cost more per unit than the simple plastic windage tray that was to be installed in the later Neon but was left out due to cost.

The Dakota pickup is an example of the 2.5 cb not receiving assemblies either, btw.

Edit: Chrysler is certainly not alone in manufacturing errors by an OEM. On a Porsche forum there was a discussion as to why a rod bearing failed. I had high-res photos taken during the build that the owner had sent me two years previously.

By happenstance, there was a sharp photo of the very connecting rod cap complete with upper and lower serial numbers whose bearing had failed. I pointed out that there was a noticible misalignment in the morphology of the caps that indicated the beam and cap were not matched despite what the serial numbers indicated. This engine was the first large scale production engine to use sinter forged connecting rods else the morphology misalignment is fairly common in rods.

A big uproar ensued.

This went on for some time until I contacted the manager of the production facility in Germany. He could not say too much, I think, but he did guide me to a picture of F1 sinter forged connecting rods from Porsche's 1980s V6 turbo. These rods were scaled down versions of the same rods but made with Ti powder. The connecting rod cap in the photo was clearly mismatched to the beam. The point being that despite serial numbers (ala pink paint) mistakes did happen. Even at the F1 level.

I apologize for not remembering that the engines in question were turbo versions -- I have several hundred more unique engines swimming in my head now than then -- I don't even trust myself to remember strokes, gotta look them up. Aspects of engines start to meld together in my mind.

[neongary]

I'm planning to mock it up on the 2.5 I'm building for my minivan. So, I might have the pattern done by the end of the summer...

How is it going?

[ShelGame]

Slow. Not enough time in the day...

Though, the minivan engine is on the stand with no oil pan.

I'm just busy with finishing the minivan, taking care of the new baby, and now I'm pretty swamped with cal orders. I'll get it designed, though. Eventually...

[Kevin Johnson]

OK, latest iteration. This one has bolt-on baffles for the cyl head drains and turbo return. I added 2 more bolts at the front main (8 total). As soon as I get them measured, I'll add the dowel holes from the balancer as well to keep this thing located in the pan. And, I added stress-reliefs to the louvers to keep them from cracking under vibration.

By my best measurements, this should just clear the oil pump (even on the 2.5's). Except, the middle bolt for the cyl head baffle won't fit - I'll proabbly make them flat heads to fit them in there. Also, I need to figure out how to keep the turbo return baffle from rotating (I'll add a tab or something; maybe 2 bolts?).

I'm not sure if the cyl head baffles will hold up. Need to do a modal analysis. They may have to be pretty thick to live being cantilevered out like that.

Stagger the attachment points on the main windage tray body (zig zag) so that the deflector subassembly doesn't have the opportunity to oscillate along the single line.

The deflectors that I made for the Porsche 928 engine live in 16g mild steel but they don't have the second order forces of the 2.5 to deal with.

Just add a weld in the center of the deflectors bridging between the joined panels. Very simple.

BTW, look at my design for the BMC engine in the Spridget from a few years back -- many in competition use:

http://www.crank-scrapers.com/ebay%20ads/SPRIDGET-F.jpg

[ShelGame]

Stagger the attachment points on the main windage tray body (zig zag) so that the deflector subassembly doesn't have the opportunity to oscillate along the single line.


Yeah, that's a good idea.

One thing I'm going to also try on my NA tall deck engine (if and when I get around to it - maybe start it next summer) is to port the block between the cylinders. I'm going to open up the little triangle in the webbing right under the bores, above the main bearings. The piston moves just as much gas below it as it does above it. The only place for that gas to go is an adjacent cylinder. The shorter the path, the less resistance. It should reduce windage, too. At Nissan, we do this on some of our production engines now and it's worth ~5-7hp depending on the enigne.

[Kevin Johnson]

...

Anyway, here's another concept. I think this one would be much easier to fabricate with nothing but the flat panels.

Much better idea for short run or making them one at a time. Look at the windage tray for the Studebaker R pan.

I spent a huge amount of time make a complex rolled windage tray setup for Chevy straight sixes. I think I sold one (?) maybe two. Then there was the few thousands of dollars in time that I spent on making a one-off Opel tray. Then the main caps for the owners engine had different morphology than the ones that I used to design the tray so that meant another go around and totally different abutment substructures using cap screws instead of the oem hex bolts.

http://www.crank-scrapers.com/ebay%20ads/OPEL-70MM-STROKE-WINDAGE-TRAY-C.jpg
http://www.crank-scrapers.com/ebay%20ads/OPEL-70MM-STROKE-WINDAGE-TRAY-D.jpg
http://www.crank-scrapers.com/ebay%20ads/OPEL-70MM-STROKE-WINDAGE-TRAY-G.jpg
http://www.crank-scrapers.com/ebay%20ads/OPEL-70MM-STROKE-WINDAGE-TRAY.jpg

[Kevin Johnson]

Yeah, that's a good idea.

One thing I'm going to also try on my NA tall deck engine (if and when I get around to it - maybe start it next summer) is to port the block between the cylinders. I'm going to open up the little triangle in the webbing right under the bores, above the main bearings. The piston moves just as much gas below it as it does above it. The only place for that gas to go is an adjacent cylinder. The shorter the path, the less resistance. It should reduce windage, too. At Nissan, we do this on some of our production engines now and it's worth ~5-7hp depending on the enigne.


If you're with Nissan, look at the Jim Wolf balance shaft deletion kit. He's done very well with that for the QR25DE. Straight forward fabrication.

Per windows: Keep 1-2 isolated from 3-4. For a Nissan engine with pumping issues look at the SR20. That girdle really caused problems along with the tight skirts on both sides of the rotating assembly.

The block was redesigned to open that up and the girdle was dropped in the hi-revving VE editions.

The other thing you can do with Nissan engines to improve flow is get rid of the torque converter bolt access hump in the pan. On every engine.

I pulled apart a RB26DETT and looked at the witness marks on the components. That hump disrupted the flow pattern the length of the engine.

Toyota dealt with the same general issue by changing the axis of rotation of the pumping flow in 3-4 (see 1zz and 2zz).

[johnl]

The 2008 GSXR1000 Suzuki engine actually has ports between cylinders, or at least that's what a magazine said.

[Kevin Johnson]

The 2008 GSXR1000 Suzuki engine actually has ports between cylinders, or at least that's what a magazine said.

As does the Modular V8 (various iterations) and some LSx engines, the GTS Porsche V8. I think if you physically examine engine designs that you will find examples going back many, many decades.

I think it is a situation where it is knowledge about engine design that was not well recorded or disseminated. It exists principally in its instantiation in designs and presumes that the observer understands the what and why of what is seen. As engineers pass away what is background knowledge shifts.

I saw this with crank scrapers -- many people were unaware of them. I recently looked at disassembled Merlin engines from 70 years ago and see the technology.

[shelbyplaya]

it kinda looks like there are crank scrapers bulit into the windage trey, if not is a bulit in crank scraper a possabilty? I'd be verrin intrested in trying one in my 90 2.2 T2 motor and also one in my hybrid 2.5L!


I liked all your desinges on the treys. what are the pros and cons of having a round trey vs. a flat bottum trey? it seems to be that a flat bottum trey would allow oil to draim even insted of possably pooling at the bottum, but i guess this woudl be counteracted durning acceleration.

Also what about adding baffels at the ends of the trey to stop oil from sloshing back into to trey during cornering and hard acceleration?

[Kevin Johnson]

it kinda looks like there are crank scrapers bulit into the windage trey, if not is a bulit in crank scraper a possabilty? I'd be verrin intrested in trying one in my 90 2.2 T2 motor and also one in my hybrid 2.5L!

Look at Mopar's tray for the 3.5; crank scraper and drainage holes and baffles at the end of the tray; also piston bay segregation necking:

http://www.crank-scrapers.com/Dodge_3-5_windage_tray_.jpg




I liked all your desinges on the treys. what are the pros and cons of having a round trey vs. a flat bottum trey? it seems to be that a flat bottum trey would allow oil to draim even insted of possably pooling at the bottum, but i guess this woudl be counteracted durning acceleration.

Also what about adding baffels at the ends of the trey to stop oil from sloshing back into to trey during cornering and hard acceleration?

Study the oem designs first and figure out why they did what they did. For an example of a modern oem tray similar in philosophy to what was presented look at the one in the LSx V8.

[ShelGame]

OK, so I measured up the block to get more accurate dimensions than I had (old measurements) and made another change I've been thinking about. I'm going to make a prototype/mockup on the minivan engine - hopefully I can get to it this fall...

[Reeves]

OK, so I measured up the block to get more accurate dimensions than I had (old measurements) and made another change I've been thinking about. I'm going to make a prototype/mockup on the minivan engine - hopefully I can get to it this fall...

Are you using SolidEdge?

[ShelGame]

Are you using SolidEdge?


I-Deas. I have a copy of Solidworks at home, but I'm way faster in I-Deas...

[moparfwdsleeper]

I'll be your guinea pig lol

[moparloper]

I-Deas. I have a copy of Solidworks at home, but I'm way faster in I-Deas...

What kind of files can you export with that? The I-deas not the SolidWorks

[ShelGame]

What kind of files can you export with that? The I-deas not the SolidWorks

IGES, STEP, STL, UG, etc.

[neongary]

How is this project coming along?

[ShelGame]

It's not. The minivan took quite a bit more of my time than I thought. Hopefully, I can get back to it this spring, now that the engine stand is free again.

[Reeves]

It's not. The minivan took quite a bit more of my time than I thought. Hopefully, I can get back to it this spring, now that the engine stand is free again.

You mean not everyone has 7 engine stands? :confused2:

[trannybuster]

NX5, well now NX7 are sweet modeling programs, never used there Ideas. Is Ideas capable of G-code? NX5-7 are...fyi....

[ShelGame]

OK, finally got a mock-up engine on the stand last night. Made a template for an oil pan baffle, too. I've got 2 2.5 Tall Deck oil pans to work with (basically they're the same as a 2.5 CB pan, but without the added sound deadening pan inside).

I got out my old crank scrapper template, too. I'm going to make at least the crank scrapper side of the windage tray and an oil pan baffle and try to get them in the car for the US Nationals.

Need every pony I can find...

[Captain Chaos]

Good luck! I'd love to go to Indy.

[johnl]

Not saying anything you don't know, just sayin what comes to mind - these kind of projects are fraught with high risk AND high liability.

That is, they're sort of like airplane accidents compared to skateboard accidents; the former is low risk but huge liability (hundreds dead) while the latter has huge risk but low liability (skinned knee).

A tray that holds together and does some of what you want is a better choice than one that takes on more risk/complexity to do all of what you want.

[ShelGame]

The laibility is only for my engine. I wasn't planning on making these to sell. Too much tooling and setup costs involved. Though, I had planned to publish the drawings when I get them done...

[johnl]

Actually, I wasn't thinking about sale, just thinking of fabrication generally and how there are parts that we have to be very careful with - suspension parts, engine/trans internals, and the like.