I did a little google search and couldn't find it. I'll look a little bit
more tomorrow. I don't remember how I came across them, but they were very
interesting. I'd never thought that much about how much air movement there
is in the crankcase, but every time the piston travels down it pushes a
large volume of air at high speed that blows right into the sump. Do that
100 times a second and you've got a lot of movement. When you think about
things like that it's surprising any of this stuff works.
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Kahler [mailto:spitfiresuz@141.com]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 4:48 PM
To: Bill Babcock
Subject: Re: Meant oil pan baffle not windage tray
Hi!
If you happen to run across that Web site with the oil movement in the
engines again, I would love to see it!
Hope you're having a great afternoon!
Thanks!
Susan :)
Bill Babcock wrote:
Naturally there are many schools of thought on baffles. A lot of people
like to keeep the maximum amount of oil around the pickup. this calls for
close-fitting baffles and a one-way door. Others don't like moving parts,
that calls for gaps in the baffle to enable oil to move around in the pan,
but not to be slung about. I don't really think there's much difference.
I've seen the high-speed stroboscopic pictures of oil movement in
spinning engines someplace on the web--don't remeber where or why. But it
leads me to believe that the flow that we picture in these engines has
little to do with reality. There was a lot going on in the pictures--they
looked like storm videos. Helical ropes of oil around the crank, pressure
surges from the cylinders exploding the oil from the sump below them. I
pictured oil flinging off the crank and dripping neatly into the sump. Not
so.
If you were really serious about oil control you'd have scrapers close to
the crank and a dry sump with oil pickups for each cylinder in isolated
sumps. Everything else is a guess.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charly Mitchel
To: 6pack digest; FOT; Chuck Arnold
Sent: 7/21/2003 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Meant oil pan baffle not windage tray
Chuck, check the fitment of the baffle and the windage tray. The oil
pump
and the dipstick didn't line up and I had to modify the holes a little
to
make it fit properly. I think the dipstick hole was shown on the wrong
side
and the hole for the oil pump was for an early style pump. At least
this
was true for the drawings I had.
I also took 2 oil pans and cut the top of one real long and the bottom
of
the other real tall and welded them together to give me a deeper sump.
The
manual also states you then use the one qt. low mark for the full point.
I
wasn't to sure about that and I also extended the oil pump further into
the
pan. I also had the oil pump machined to tighter tolerances. I think I
put
about 7 qts in my motor.
I put some pictures of my car on my website should you be curious:
http://www.mitchelplumbing.com/racing%20page.htm
<http://www.mitchelplumbing.com/racing%20page.htm>
Charly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Arnold" <mailto:chuck.arnold@oracle.com>
<chuck.arnold@oracle.com>
To: "FOT" <mailto:fot@autox.team.net> <fot@autox.team.net>; "6pack
digest"
<mailto:6pack-digest@autox.team.net> <6pack-digest@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:41 PM
Subject: Meant oil pan baffle not windage tray
Earlier today I sent a message regarding size/placement of the
"windage
tray" for a TR6. I really meant the oil pan baffle. Should this
baffle
end end to end and side to side at the 3" mark on the oil pan, or
should
there be some space on the ends [and sides] for oil return to the
well?
Thanks,
Chuck
[demime 0.99d.1 removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a
name of chuck.arnold.vcf]
|