TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
When we upgraded our PCV system, we touched upon this subject, and the features/benefits of positive oil control, pressure differentials, inductance, reluctance, Bernoulli, Charles and Boyle, and fluid dynamics/kinetics.
All good stuff, a bit much for my 18YO, but he was into it when he realized what a vacuum in a crankcase might potentially do for power adder efficiency...

For years and years, I wondered why PCV never evolved beyond what it is today. Why is it so archaic?

In general terms, the Internet helped me find that back in the days, the big three got caught misleading us by Uncle Sam, and has been forbidden to evolve PCV without full disclosure and approval from the Feds. Instant end to evolution right there.

I am told now the new corvettes come with advanced PCV systems, and even the Tiguan has a separator and reservoir for blow by collection. And the newest Vettes even have dry-sump oiling.

Like every other good idea I thought was new, somebody else already had it, and capitalized on it. PCV catch cans are not new, so we bought the parts and made our own system. we installed a PCV breather system from the CAI nipple back with separator, filter, reservoir, and inline driers. All the components except the lines have site glass or are clear vessels for inspection, the lines are equal length, equal diameter and there are no leaky connections.

This has had a very positive effect on the performance of our little modular V8.

All this leads me to be even more curious about dry-sump oiling. I wonder if this is possibly appropriate for stable temperature and pressure control conditions in a forced-induction engine in a street car that gets pushed hard from time to time on a track and keeping all the parts inside.

It appears to me that the original wet sump approaches were component rich systems that were high maintenance items with unreliable performance and questionable attributes not conducive to streetcar/track car use, or race car only use levels.

I am not going to divert this into an aviation vs marine vs automotive application discussion but It is obvious that the very best automotive performance components are pretty standard aviation or marine equipment.

Does anyone have experience with a streetcar with a dry-sump oil system? Or a modified or aftermarket Wet Sump?

Thank you,
Rocketdog
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,670 Posts
The ford GT's have a 5.4 with dry sumps.

They are quite different than our engines, tho.

You might be able to adapt parts for that, but I think the expense will outweigh any benefit.
But that's just my opinion.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,052 Posts
If you think Uncle Sam had anything to do with keeping dry sump out of street cars I have a certain red hat to sell you. If it were up to the OEMs they’d still be putting breathers on valve covers, as they did right up until 1968 when closed systems were mandated. Dry sump gets ruled out because packaging, per unit cost, warranty issues and general user error issues (like pouring in 5 quarts into a 15 quart system) scared them away from it alone, that and few customers were driving a Chevy Malibu through stunt loops to necessitate a dry sump system. Even on sports cars it was never that common, Porsche introduced it on the 911 in 67 or 68 purely for homologation purposes and later had to revise it so the fender mounted fill door wouldn’t be mistaken for fuel(as gas station attendants and customers apparently did).

Yes, dry sump virtually eliminates windage, creating a vacuum in the crankcase, which reduces piston drag. There’s the main benefit in racetrack or hill climb driving where there’s no issue with starving the sump because there is always oil pressure at any angle for any extended period. But there’s a cost/benefit to it that can’t be overlooked, from both an aftermarket installation and OEM, the benefits are only really there if you’re running endurance at constantly high RPMs. Dry sump does have the third benefit that service intervals basically triple due to the oil capacity, but PCV and EFI alone doubled intervals from the old days as well. Effective and simple > Perfect and complex

For most applications wet sump is simply more foolproof and workable, and as you’ve found catch cans virtually eliminate the worst downside of PCV. Accusump can save the engine from starvation. Some have even crafted systems to use vacuum pumps or repurposed smog pumps to draw vacuum from the valve covers to reduce some of the windage like a dry sump system, with the other ends routed to a catch can

It appears to me that the original wet sump approaches were component rich systems that were high maintenance items with unreliable performance and questionable attributes not conducive to streetcar/track car use, or race car only use levels.
This I assume you mistyped, right? Otherwise...

Wet sump components:

-oil pan
-oil pickup
-oil pump
-oil filter

Dry sump components:

-oil pan
-oil pickup
-external scavenge oil pump
-hoses and fittings
-external oil filter
-external coolers
-large oil reservoir
-~ 10 extra quarts of oil
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,670 Posts
At high operating rpms we effectively have a mostly dry sump system; all the oil is in the passenger head, trying to drain back to the pan. :)

I have lost two quarts of oil thru the intake from extreme driving; it smokes like crazy, lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Thank you for the input, I appreciate that you spent time on it.

I did neglect to note that we are planning a cooler installation in the spring, we may include an accumulator at that time. Our intention is to repurpose the evaporator we removed from the heater box as a cooler if I can devise a bracket and locate it properly (It is an odd form factor, an aftermarket may be better) since we did that with the condenser for the transmission cooler.

Perhaps my memory of the reasons for the lack of PCV evolution is not right, but that's the story I remember. XR7-4.6, I think we agree that the OEMs will always try to achieve the most cost-effective solution for them, not necessarily the best. The fact is, what I found inside the induction system of my modular is worse than what I found in my old 60's engines, and the PCV system is exactly the same as it was 25 years before 1995, which is 25 years before now. 50 years, and there is no excuse for it really.

I should have made a video, I will look for pictures. I know the 95 models had issues, and ours was added to by EGR and vacuum line mis-installation at the factory. The big vacuum line at the firewall, the thermoformed connection, was never connected fully and our EGR tube nut was never threaded onto the manifold. It was an ugly, disgusting and filthy 4 cans of Brake Kleen and 2 cans seafoam, 4 rolls of towels job.

It was so bad, I have had the manifold off twice. Once in the Spring to correct the PCV damage, and clean all parts and then in the fall to correct the EGR problem. In the Fall, after a complete second (yes I split the manifold in two) cleaning, I deleted the EGR temporarily because our valve diaphragm is torn and hand ported the plenum and manifold. This made a huge difference in performance, almost as much the vacuum leak repairs did. The gaskets are about 40 bucks a shot, but it was worth every penny.

Regarding wet/dry sump we know this is all interconnected and PCV is integral, actually part and parcel to oiling. Therefore, a paradox in evolution is it not? A dry-sump deletes the PCV, a wet-sump augments PCV system and keeps it...two different approaches to the same problem, only one cleans up the intake air charge right?

I am looking far forward on this, after we have got things figured on the other car systems, and are thinking about forced induction.

The Dry system I really like is Pro-Weld's package. It seems no more complex or costly than an aftermarket wet system (see Canton and Moroso) and actually does the job of precision oiling with pressure and flow with the uninterruptable operation an accumulator provides only temporarily. Without polluting the Intake charge.

I would consider a dry-sump system part of the car build, having to locate the reservoir, filters, etc. Just like the fuel system.

I feel a wet sump system is more like part of the engine

I have said I think that these heads do not return oil well, especially the passenger side. I make smokey left turns, especially uphill. After 2 minutes at idle, you can get out a blanket for communicating with the tribe, the valve guide seals are gone. We have to drain the reservoir every 2 tanks of gas, it is astonishing what finds its way into the catch can. I can assure you that if you saw, smelled, and felt what comes out of there, you would install one too if you have not already.

The dry sump really is overkill until on the street. For pure racing purposes, it is ideal.
The wet sump system is ideal for the street, susceptible in a race application.

Does anybody have experience running a dry sump on the street? and does anyone have experience with the automotive dry-sumps period?

Thanks again
Rocketdog
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,052 Posts
Perhaps my memory of the reasons for the lack of PCV evolution is not right, but that's the story I remember. XR7-4.6, I think we agree that the OEMs will always try to achieve the most cost-effective solution for them, not necessarily the best. The fact is, what I found inside the induction system of my modular is worse than what I found in my old 60's engines, and the PCV system is exactly the same as it was 25 years before 1995, which is 25 years before now. 50 years, and there is no excuse for it really.
Yes, that is generally the m.o. of automakers, but PCV is a very basic system that performs a very basic job and does it effectively for the vast majority of applications. On the list of components or systems that aren’t the best in cars, PCV is far down it. Oil in the intake tract is the biggest side effect of it, but it doesn’t actually hurt anything, and indeed automakers have gone to efforts to better keep oil vapor from getting past the valve via improved baffling. All PCV needs to do is allow the crankcase to “breathe” but do so without exposing hydrocarbons directly to the atmosphere, and it even evacuates water vapor and blowby gasses before it can settle into the pan and contaminate the oil, extending service intervals. For nothing but a a pair of tubes and a single check valve, can you blame OEMs for sticking with it? What incentive is there to use a system as complex and packaging inefficient as dry sump?


Regarding wet/dry sump we know this is all interconnected and PCV is integral, actually part and parcel to oiling. Therefore, a paradox in evolution is it not? A dry-sump deletes the PCV, a wet-sump augments PCV system and keeps it...two different approaches to the same problem, only one cleans up the intake air charge right?
Evolution is for survival, and just like how our evolved cunning minds and opposable thumbs can craft us weapons and shelters to defend or shield ourselves from big dumb predators with their evolved claws/teeth and powerful jaws, it’s not a clearcut advantage on our part as materials for our cunning is quite resource heavy, and out of our element we’re dinner to whatever predator’s environment we find ourselves in, as we lack their evolutionary advantages.

So goes wet sump+PCV vs. dry sump. Two vastly different systems individually evolved to be best suited to their environments(species if you will). The racetrack is the performance automobile’s sanctuary, where things are tidy and maintained and up to the impeccable standard set by loving owners and enthusiasts alike, where money is no object. The street however is the jungle, car companies win and lose on profit margins, and reputations are made or broken based on reliability and cost of ownership. Wet sump and PCV systems may be simple and dumb, but they work damn well within the pitfalls of this environment.


I would consider a dry-sump system part of the car build, having to locate the reservoir, filters, etc. Just like the fuel system.

I feel a wet sump system is more like part of the engine
Yep, which is exactly why it isn’t something you ever see on a mass produced car. Clean sheet Fuel tank packaging is a challenge enough for automakers at times, now they need to find a place to put a 10 quart container in ever tighter engine compartments, figure out places to run various lines and supporting components(oil filter, thermostats, coolers) and where to mount the scavenge pump on the engine?

I have said I think that these heads do not return oil well, especially the passenger side. I make smokey left turns, especially uphill. After 2 minutes at idle, you can get out a blanket for communicating with the tribe, the valve guide seals are gone. We have to drain the reservoir every 2 tanks of gas, it is astonishing what finds its way into the catch can. I can assure you that if you saw, smelled, and felt what comes out of there, you would install one too if you have not already.
The problem with the passenger side head is windage, as the rotating crank is drafting air and oil vapor directly against the block drainback exits. There are actually aftermarket kits that extend the block exits further down into the oil pan sump that effectively prevent this, and Mark VIII H.O. pickup tubes and late model pan gaskets even have integral baffling to block crank windage from the drainbacks as well, so while PCV hasn’t changed much on the surface, there have been running internal improvements

The dry sump really is overkill until on the street. For pure racing purposes, it is ideal.
The wet sump system is ideal for the street, susceptible in a race application.

Does anybody have experience running a dry sump on the street? and does anyone have experience with the automotive dry-sumps period?

Thanks again
Rocketdog
I’m going to go out on a limb and say nobody at TCCoA has a dry sump Thunderbird, Cougar or Mark VIII, and even on other forums with Mustangs you’re going to be left wanting with the few people who can chime in with experience with it. Dry sump is a novelty in the aftermarket world, not a necessity. There are so many more ways for so much less expense and hassle to mitigate the problems of wet sump, from windage control, to remote catch cans, from baffled/trap door oil pans to accumulators.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,670 Posts
Livernois makes this drainback kit that eliminates the passenger head oil problem.




The biggest problem would be one of those falling out, imho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I thank you for the kit information, I will look at that and how to install it.

I am not arguing for or against dry sumps, I am seeking guidance so I will take the information as that, XR7-4.6.
The general thrust of auto manufacturing targets a broad base and needs to be as crappy as all the others in the race to the bottom. That is why we have 98% Macpherson strut, FWD homogenous cars, to please the masses. It is not an excuse to ignore advancement in any system.

I certainly agree the cost of a dry sump is very prohibitive and if I did it I would have to source used parts myself. I would hardly expect to see them in any regular car.

As for Mfg not being able to improve PCV, this does not square with me since the first catch can I purchased was an aftermarket piece for about $12.00, and I have made all the rest I installed out of PVC pieces for 6 bucks, or I use a compressor Air/Oil separator -filter with a clear canister for 23 bucks.

I am contemplating some R+D, adding an air tool lubricator, filling it with seafoam and having it like an IV drip to clean the top end long term for really bad applications.

I would hardly call those prices I mentioned unreachable and preventative for manufacturers. The return on investment is huge, and the results empirically measurable. The performance of the device obvious through the clear bowl. I know I would rather dispose of this stuff, but if burning it as fuel is okay it is okay to collect it and return it to the sump, which is still a cheap improvement.

And since nobody is running a dry sump, I won't ask again about it, and thanks for the input. We may find an accumulator is all we need, but my curiosity nags at me constantly when I think I may be on to something like I do here, so I will look further elsewhere for the information.

It suffices for me to share that the catch can systems I have installed improve fuel mileage and performance for very little investment, and the ones for sale commercially are as good or better than mine. My 06 Corolla mileage jumped 4 mpg upon installation and the car has snappier performance with it. The bowl gets about an ounce of ick in it per tankful of gas, and it is far from only collected oil mist. It is disgusting stuff that comes out of there.

Thanks again for the input, I am interested to see how the oil passage mod kit is installed.

Regards,
Rocketdog
 

·
The Parts Guy
Joined
·
7,330 Posts
It's as simple as tapping the drainback holes and threading the tubes in. Easy peasy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Where are the drain back ports that accept these extensions and how are they accessed?

RD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Sorry for the typo.
Where are these installed in the engine? I hope it's not where I think it is.

RD
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,670 Posts
Right beside the crankshaft; three on each side.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,670 Posts
Mmmmm. Aluminum goodness. :)

Is that the 04 block?

I don't see windows...
 

·
The Parts Guy
Joined
·
7,330 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Holy smokes, I think I can live with my smoky lefts for now, but if we ever get so far as pulling the pan, or maybe during a re-engine, we will be on it. Thank you.

Rocketdog
 

·
The Parts Guy
Joined
·
7,330 Posts
If installing drain back tubes warrants that kind of response, I think you have a starry-eyed view of a dry sump installation.

With the amount of oil ingestion you're seeing, I'd say your valve seals are likely shot. This isn't a fix for that.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,670 Posts
Yeah, as you said racecougar, the 95 heads have a well known tendency to eat the valveguides, then eat the seals.

Replacing said seals is only effective for a short period of time, because the valveguides don't support them after they're worn.

There's no way I would port a 95 head; valveguide problems, and they don't support larger cams well without lots of machining.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Without repeating myself from my introduction post too much, I can tell you this:

Our car leaks at the valve guide seals and smokes after idle and smokes uphill and left. It is only embarrassing every time, but it is not hugely consumptive and it does not leak. Hard driving pushes oil into the separator more, and it smokes a bit. No biggie, the compression is very consistent and higher than I expected, the engine does not even tick loud as a clock, is spotless and runs beautifully and we have not yet tuned it.

We are building a car to have fun with, it is not planned to be a mega-dollar engine build, and I precluded the Dry Sump content by stating that this is far down the road and "looking ahead" I wanted opinions on the subject to make a rational decision in this, the "planning phase" of our build. You guys are my choice for experienced and knowledgeable people that can communicate advice, experiences and hypotheses and opinions on my plans and actions.

Now here is the brass tacks outline of the build in a general descriptive outline, subject to change with experience, information from esteemed colleagues with experience, and the application of good physical science basics and as our budget allows.

We want to get the car set up first, it makes no sense to me to do any performance work until we have a safe, solid, reliable chassis and drive train suitable to the intended usage. This summer, we will probably run the stock heads, stock intake, and plenum. I will not be removing the heads without a plan for replacing them or to re-engine the car. We hope to not break anything serious soon.

When the chassis and drive train are debugged, we want to make use of the abundant inexpensive JY 4.6L engines available, and purchase PI (probably) long blocks for under 750.00 to do so. I have zero intention of building a modular motor. We do not have the resources, financial and other to do it.

The overall thrust of this build is to help my son and a growing number of his associates learn by doing that they can play on the big boy playground too. But, good old hard work, including research, a good physical science foundation, and using plentiful, available resources are required.

We want to be able to take delivery of a long block, prep it, assemble our cooling, oiling, induction, fuel, electrical and associated systems to that long block, and go racing for fun and have a fun streetcar.

Yup, we are going to boost the motor as is, knowing full well that we might hurt it if we push too hard. My preface to the dry-sump post included stating I am looking at ways to keep the oil temp and pressure in a small controlled window, in an effort to prolong engine life under less than favorable conditions.

If we are wrong, there are like 5 million or more long blocks to try again with, and at under $750 a pop, I think we can pop one or two every summer in our exuberance and still get groceries. I know Sean Hyland has done some experiments on the stock bottom ends over the years, and I doubt that we as amateur drivers are likely to even handle properly power numbers that high. One atmosphere is as far as we need to go for our purposes. Geez, when I learned to drive no car had 500HP, and my boy is just 18 so it would be less than responsible of me to even think of going that far. Our car with over 400HP would be quite the thing, so I really can not agree that my vision is that "starry-eyed"

I am here to learn and have fun, but if you think I am a stupid and ignorant kid you have every right to tell me so. I have every right to ignore it or try to learn and have fun and engage with you guys further. I keep seeing emotive language, judgemental statements in replys and I wonder why.

Have a great Friday Night,
Rocketdog
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top