Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

ptuomov wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:44 pm
...
Like the Tea leaf paradox? You think investigating that led to any other insights about crank scrapers and windage trays beyond identifying you as charlatan?

Do I understand this correctly that you’re trying to mislead readers to believe that there’s some credible, non-fraudulent dyno result buried in the library archives that will show that this factory part adds to power on a stationary level dyno?

You don't understand -- this is from Chrysler -- not me. Download the parts manuals -- I downloaded them all the way back to 1966.

The onus is on you now. I have demonstrated that the very same corporation is presenting dissonant information. Thank the Lord that these records have not been destroyed in some sort of Orwellian purge of knowledge.



http://www.mymopar.com/index.php?pid=107

Kevin Johnson wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:58 pm

ptuomov wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:44 pm
...
Like the Tea leaf paradox? You think investigating that led to any other insights about crank scrapers and windage trays beyond identifying you as charlatan?

Do I understand this correctly that you’re trying to mislead readers to believe that there’s some credible, non-fraudulent dyno result buried in the library archives that will show that this factory part adds to power on a stationary level dyno?

You don't understand -- this is from Chrysler -- not me. Download the parts manuals -- I downloaded them all the way back to 1966.

The onus is on you now. I have demonstrated that the very same corporation is presenting dissonant information. Thank the Lord that these records have not been destroyed in some sort of Orwellian purge of knowledge.

The last one you claimed was from Albert Einstein.

You’ve lost all credibility after I’ve read the SAE papers and tea leaf paradoxes you’ve falsely recommended as relevant.

ptuomov wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:59 pm ...
You’ve lost all credibility after I’ve read the SAE papers and tea leaf paradoxes you’ve falsely recommended as relevant.

With perseverance will come understanding.

But back to Chrysler engineers -- better check this out. It is right there over multiple years in hard copy.

Intrigue: the secret, hidden, ancient knowledge is just around the corner! Like those world war 2 federal reserve discount notes or that inheritance from a Nigerian prince living in exile.

Secret arcane knowledge!!

https://rehermorrison.com/tech-talk-74- ... liability/

Thank you to the forum member that found this link!

This thread went around the barn and around the moon, but I thought I should close the loop.

Remember, the original question in this thread was a 6,000 max RPM 3.25" stroke engine. Back-to-back dyno pulls with the only variable being the high dollar deeper pan, windage tray, baffles and scrapers, showed zip, zero, nada change in horsepower. The money spent may help keep things together on a long duration road course race, but all the oil pan science doesn't make horsepower in this instance.

Of minor interest, switching from 10-40 to 20-50 Valvoline racing high zinc cost 2% in power. Again, maybe in a long race, when the oil temp goes above 230 degrees the difference might be less and the benefits of the higher viscosity might be substantial.

Jack, that's good to know. Maybe Studebaker had dyno results at the time that showed power improvements with the R series mods. I am pulling that product set off my website.

-- Done

Aside: When I found out several years ago that someone was still fabricating the R-windage trays, I gave your contact information on the website and stopped making those trays as a courtesy to that fabricator. I spent a LOT of time tracking down people with those pans/trays (criss-crossing Florida). I really wish I had known these results earlier before wasting a lot of time.


This referral was on our website for over five years; just look at the WayBack Machine:

Windage tray

Note we have learned from Jack Vines that the person that originally constructed the modified pans and windage trays for Studebaker R type engines is still doing this work. We were unaware of this and we do not deliberately copy other people's parts; pictures below for reference

Jack Vines Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited Spokane, WA 509-953-6023

~~~~~~~~~~~

I will not copy someone's designs. We have had dozens of cases of people stealing our designs over the past seventeen years. This was not intellectual property theft by the Chinese but by many shops in the USA. Very, very sad.

PackardV8 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:28 pm This thread went around the barn and around the moon, but I thought I should close the loop.

Remember, the original question in this thread was a 6,000 max RPM 3.25" stroke engine. Back-to-back dyno pulls with the only variable being the high dollar deeper pan, windage tray, baffles and scrapers, showed zip, zero, nada change in horsepower. The money spent may help keep things together on a long duration road course race, but all the oil pan science doesn't make horsepower in this instance.

Of minor interest, switching from 10-40 to 20-50 Valvoline racing high zinc cost 2% in power. Again, maybe in a long race, when the oil temp goes above 230 degrees the difference might be less and the benefits of the higher viscosity might be substantial.

Probably not enough revs at 6000 to see the benefit, also shortish stroke. Yes the oil change is what we see on the dyno. Changed from 30wt break in to 10-40 racing on a 434 sbc and lost 6 hp. The higher the revs the larger the loss, like scrapers and trays I suppose.

Sorry to beat a dead horse -- I was specifically asked by numerous Studebaker owners to develop scrapers for their engines going back probably fifteen years ago. One of them forwarded the Type R windage tray drawings that have been circulating for decades and asked if I could cut out the tray for him. I did a few before learning from Jack about the original fabricator (I have no idea who that is/was).

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

Kevin Johnson wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:13 pm Sorry to beat a dead horse -- I was specifically asked by numerous Studebaker owners to develop scrapers for their engines going back probably fifteen years ago. One of them forwarded the Type R windage tray drawings that have been circulating for decades and asked if I could cut out the tray for him. I did a few before learning from Jack about the original fabricator (I have no idea who that is/was).

No worries, Kevin. I came to you to build the scraper and the windage tray and you didn't promise any horsepower gains; not your fault I tried something which didn't pay off with this build.

As I said and others agreed, that a short stroke low RPM engine didn't show any horsepower gain from a deeper sump, windage tray and scrapers doesn't mean other combinations don't benefit.

Also, as I mentioned, this all may of substantial benefit when the customer gets it on the road course.

We used to build quite a few sbc oval track motors for two different local classes........ before the crate motors were brought in, and the rules were rearranged to make it where the custom motors were no longer competitive.

Anyway......... the two classes had quite different rules for the engines, and the nominal upper rpm for the two was 6200 and 7300.
We ran two different Canton pans on them.
The one with the “power pouch” went on the 7300 rpm motors, the no pouch pan on the other.
On the 7300 rpm motor the power pouch was worth about 8hp up near the top end.

On the 6200 rpm motor the pouch was worth zero thru the 6200 rpm peak........which is why we used the less expensive no pouch pan on those motors.

I worked with ProPan in OK to develop a 8.25” (front to back) deep pan with the kick out or as described here, “power pouch”. Capacity is 10 quarts with that taking up only about 2.5”. There is a tray, baffles, etc. No dedicated scraper which conforms to counter-weights. Required re-configuring the drag-link to clear the front of the pan.
I got one of my buddies with a SS/B ’69 390 AMX to buy the first one. His car picked up 2 MPH with no other changes. Previous pan was a Charlies pan, similar to typical Milidon deep sump. I now have one on my SS/H ’70 390 AMX engine but have yet to run it. Too many other engine changes to make a proper evaluation. But I’ll take that +2 MPH as a positive.

Not sure if it's Been mentioned, but isn't maintaining a higher oil level in the sump a worthy goal weather it makes 5hp or 0 or even looses a couple.

englertracing wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:08 am Not sure if it's Been mentioned, but isn't maintaining a higher oil level in the sump a worthy goal weather it makes 5hp or 0 or even looses a couple.

I'm thinking that, if one is designing a windage tray for say a wet-sump road race V8 engine, if one isn't losing a tiny bit of power on a stationary dyno relative to a very large open pan, then one is doing something wrong.