Stock has allowed aftermarket ,bigger sump pans for years
This pan #30765 from Milodon is allowed on a small block olds stocker..it’s baffled and has extra capacity over a stock pan that they came with.
Moderator: Team
Stock has allowed aftermarket ,bigger sump pans for years
I’m pretty sure it is legalWalter R. Malik wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:10 pmNot allowable with a Stocker but, That is one of the reasons why the largest volume oil pan you can fit will help.gmrocket wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:01 pmyou're welcome. there are some really interesting findings in that paper...like how on that small V6 the negative work(higher pumping losses) were on just one side of the engine, while there was positive pumping gains on the other,,,very slight. but on average it was negative pumping losses for the whole crankcase,,,one rear cylinder having the worst loss, front the least loss because its next to a larger open area due to the timing chain area etc.
then the three tests with vent holes of 25mm, 30mm and 35mm,,the bigger the better as it kept dropping the pumping losses as rpm increased
That's incorrect.
So you say I’m incorrect, then post proof I’m correct.tenxal wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:52 amThat's incorrect.
In some cases, the legal replacement pans have significant sump depth changes from what was really O.E. from the factory while others aren't allowed this. For example, here's the legal oil pan style for most small block Chevies:
And here's the legal SBC oil pan for the '63-'67 Chevy II's:
And here's the FE Ford legal pan:
You can do any internal stuff you want...scrapers, baffles, trays, troughs, round-abouts, redirects, coatings, screens, etc. Believe me, when you actually test this stuff on the dyno and back it up at the track, all is not as it seems.
These bigger pans have been added to the accepted replacement list due to racers lobbying NHRA Technical for them. I have my own thoughts on the whole subject of Stock Eliminator oil pans but that's neither here nor there. The important thing to know is that we can't just hang any pan we want to under these things.
Rules are funny, that way.....
P.S. Ran in a Stock/Super Stock race yesterday, qualified #2 out of 57 cars. Heading to the track in a few minutes for another one.
I think you misunderstood my post.
Keeping it legal, I can attest that you can create vacuum in a Stocker. I had a low speed / high speed in my D/S car. You must have a completely sealed engine, not even a dip-stick. Much dyno testing of various PCV valves; not all are created equal! I wish that
Ford 302 limited lift grind.
And I didn’t say “all”
there's not much difference in stock and SS short-blocks these days....Jeff Lee wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:03 amAnd what’s really cool about those holes venting....it’s not even a Stocker secret idea! Thank GM engineering! I first saw those on the (then) new LS1. In fact I was asking around about those vents while everybody else was talking about the cathedral cylinder ports. Keep threatening to do that to my AMC block but there’s an internal oil line in the block casting that scares me.What's the purpose of the holes in the bottom of the cyls? Something to do with crankcase venting?
its a 4-Stroke Engine above the Piston tops ,
but it acts as a 2-Stroke engine below the Piston ,
example : 300cid 4-Stroke .. is probably moving around 600cid Air in the Crankcase area for the same RPM ,
so holes allow reducing or balancing crankcase windage between all the Cylinders ... free up some TQ and HP
While all of us hear about those dang cheaters, or the perception of cheating, you never hear about the absolute dummies that have no real reason to be in the class because there’s just some things that some don’t get! I knew a local guy that built a 340 Dart for Stock and he was convinced the rule book said “stock” in all parameters concerning the camshaft! I mean, he bought a TRW type replacement 340 cam and used that! And when he ran low 14’s in a 10 second class, he went around barking at everybody that would listen about everybody else was a cheater and he was the only legit guy! Obviously he gave up but I hear he’s still bitter.
And we’ve all got stories of watching the full crew of four pushing the Stocker in the lanes and all four are grunting pretty heavily. Wonder why the car won’t ET or MPH?
I have a buddy with one of the fastest under index Stockers. Would you believe an auto trans done right ($$$) can knock off 3+ tenths? Another buddy ran a V/SA car and changing the rear wheel / tire comb to a smaller / lighter set, then gearing it down to RPM the same picked up over two-tenths? Under powered cars like the last two examples are more effected with these kinds of improvements.
I race a clutch car. The amount of ET reductions in a proper clutch set-up and tune is mind boggling.
I’m trying to get another buddy to change his Stocker torque convertor. I am definitely not a TC expert but what I do know is that old “stall it to maximum torque RPM” went out the window some twenty (30?) years ago! He has a 5200 stall convertor on an engine that is shifted at around 6200 and traps at around 6700. I’m about to bet him the cost of a new convertor that he needs a 6000 stall unit (no less than 5800). Plus I recommend to him an ATI to his...well, I shouldn’t mention the brand, but let’s say it’s not the “go to” convertor company in Stock or Super Stock!
There’s so much ET to be found without even opening the hood. Suspension (front and rear), transmissions with different ratios, rear ratios, clutches, convertors, etc. Spend the time in those areas and keep the hood shut will be the best advise I can give.
Stopped by the chassis shop today as I’m back-halving the AMX from D/S to SS/G. Man, I am excited to debut this car! And there’s so much more you can do to a Super Stock engine. Absolutely loved Stock but there’s new territory to mark!
that fe pan isn't any deeper or better than a factory pan .... Just a few bafflestenxal wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:52 amThat's incorrect.
In some cases, the legal replacement pans have significant sump depth changes from what was really O.E. from the factory while others aren't allowed this. For example, here's the legal oil pan style for most small block Chevies:
And here's the legal SBC oil pan for the '63-'67 Chevy II's:
And here's the FE Ford legal pan:
You can do any internal stuff you want...scrapers, baffles, trays, troughs, round-abouts, redirects, coatings, screens, etc. Believe me, when you actually test this stuff on the dyno and back it up at the track, all is not as it seems.
These bigger pans have been added to the accepted replacement list due to racers lobbying NHRA Technical for them. I have my own thoughts on the whole subject of Stock Eliminator oil pans but that's neither here nor there. The important thing to know is that we can't just hang any pan we want to under these things.
Rules are funny, that way.....
P.S. Ran in a Stock/Super Stock race yesterday, qualified #2 out of 57 cars. Heading to the track in a few minutes for another one.
You got to love it when people ask for proof in response to a proof filled post.