Tony Drews wrote:
> Mark, I've run this design for a few years (probably at least 5 if I
> think about it) and don't have starvation issues due to the baffle. I
> do still see oil pressure drop in the left hand corners if the
> engine's oil level is too low. Adding a quart fixes that for a while.
>
> It's possible that a more elaborate design would let me run a bit
> lower oil level.
>
> I don't remember the exact gap, but 1/2" sounds about right. It ended
> up this way because the car already had a portion of the baffle in
> there - we just added the piece that takes it full length of the pan
> (and has the gap to the bottom). That's the 2nd piece you mention.
>
> - Tony
>
>
So I'm out there playing with cardboard and my oil pan and I says to
myself - If I put this baffle at an angle following the line of the hole
in the top of the oil plan like Tony and the TR Comp manual did;
wouldn't it want to funnel the oil "down hill" (assuming hard left turn
side forces) backwards away from the pickup to the 1/2" relief on a hard
left corner? Thats a good ramp and with a 1/2 to 1g force its easy to
picture oil moving very quickly.
So - would it be better to run the baffle parallel to the oil pan
instead of parallel to the pickup? I considered doing it in one or two
steps to keep it close to the pickup.
The second idea would be to construct it the way Tony did but put a
couple of 1/4 to 1/2 inch vertical baffles on the face to inhibit the
"down hill" flow back where the screen necks down a bit and at the
bottom just before the 1/" relief.
At the end of the baffle where the welded on tab floats above the bottom
1/2", do you think oil is moving toward the pickup due to consumption or
away from it due to side forces assuming you are past the apex and on it
hard?
Am I overthinking this???
M
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
http://www.fot-racing.com
Fot mailing list
Fot@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
|