Info on pans, vacuum pumps etc....

found some cool info about oil pans, vacuum pumps etc.......
Not sure what they are saying about the Ford?
Is it good or bad?

Nov. 2009 Drag Racer ran back to back dyno test changing pans, trays, e.vac, vacuum pumps, and oil pumps. Here's the results. All Moroso products.


Street-strip pan with flat tray, Std volume pump base line...........935 HP
Exhaust type Pan-E-Vac............................................... ........964 HP +29
Hi volume oil pump.............................................. ..................953 HP -11
Race pan with curved louvered tray and kickout.........................993 HP +40
Vacuum pump 3 vane(over Pan-E-Vac)....................................1018HP +25
vacuum pump 4 vane.............................................. ..............1024HP +6
Deeper sump race pan and shrouded oil pump to close off tray.....1025HP+1
Alumn pan with curved tray, & more louvers..............................1027HP+2

It looks as if there is about a 42HP diff between a street-strip pan a trayand a race type pan. Guess maybe this kind of puts to bed the gains to had with the right parts under your crank. I think a Stef's with the screened tray would have added a little to the last pull. If the gains look huge, remember what I said in another thread, stroke and RPM, and what Steelcomp said, more gains from a Chevy with its tight ass crankcase, than with a Ford. This is on a 582 Chevy with a 4.375 stoke @ 7500.
__________________

I get a kick out of the hi-volume pump taking away 11HP!
For one,Im a fan of stock oiling and pumps to a large degree. ALOT of people dont realize they already have enough oil/volume. If they worked on proper drainback/etc.
OIL PRESSURE is another thing altogether, and gets mixed up with the "more is better theory".

Ill probably get flamed for dogging big pumps for this, but WTH.

Interesting results...


Check this out, I have an oil pressure accumulator that holds 3 quarts of oil, plus 6 in the pan and one in the filter. That's a total of 10 quarts in the system. At the BBF Bash I changed my oil filter from a WIX to a Jomar filter and didn't replace the one quart of lost oil. The car picked up ET through the 1/8 and mph, not much but it did pick up. So then I was cutting up with Jon Best of Jomar, telling him how his Bad Ass oil filter made my car go quicker and faster

So evidently there was a small gain from windage due to less oil in the pan. For the record, I have a Canton Fox pan with a Canton Windage tray snugged up near the crank.

You just hit it on the head Damon. Like I said earlier. All people gotta do is keep the pickup from starving. But a drysump motor would require a setup all together. Im not talking ALL applications though. I know a local Detroit notable who used a STOCK Melling pump in a 900HP build in the EMC engine challange. But he asked me to keep that one to myself.

Im sure Scotty or Paul may chime in if this goes any further.

BTW, Damon did Jon Best have his 64 fairlane at the bash?
Al

cool info Adam ... i guess that's why Lem @ BF Evans Race parts focuses on these new custom pans he designs

Did the article mention how much vacuum they saw in the crankcase with the vac-u-pan collector style setup vs the 3 vane vs the 4 vane or what the vacuum break was set at? Did it mention the ring package, comventional or thin set up for pan evacuation?

I don't know that anyone has tried to measure the effects of smoothed 'ported' oil passages, at the filter mount for example, on pressure or the difference in power an external pump would cost/save vs a coneventional pump. I know I do prefer the external oil pump for adjustability, taking the load off the pump drive, distributor, cam etc. and easier prelube but of course it comes at a premium cost wise.

There might also be a benefit to being able to run full length scrapers and windage screens with a external but again I've never seen reliable data.