ARP Main Studs

So tonight I just realized I have a windage tray on the shelf. I see ARP has a stud kit with the 4 longer studs for the tray. As my block is fresh from the machine shop and had an align bore, can I just swap in the studs instead or does the bore have to be done with the new studs?

Studs are fine

I wasn't really sure cause everywhere I read said that with new studs you have to get an align hone. As it was just done I was unsure.

was it align honed with studs or bolts before? I know mine changed when I did the same but started with bolts. If it was honed with studs, you are probably fine, but should still check.

Why ...?
Canton has a bolt kit which have windage tray attachment; like a main bolt for a rear sump, oil pump pick-up attachment.

Here's the kit Randy is referring to. https://www.cantonracingproducts.com/product/20-946/20-946----429-460-BBF-MOUNTING-KIT-WINDAGE-TRAY/

That's a great idea.  Thanks guys.

Most windage trays that bolt to the main studs usually do more harm than good. 1) they reflect oil back onto the crankshaft which increases drag on the crank and can cause aeration, and 2) they prevent oil from getting back in the pan where it belongs.

Scott Foxwell wrote:Most windage trays that bolt to the main studs usually do more harm than good. 1) they reflect oil back onto the crankshaft which increases drag on the crank and can cause aeration, and 2) they prevent oil from getting back in the pan where it belongs.

The one which Ford Racing used to sell and is still manufactured by MPG HEADS works very, VERY well.

rmcomprandy wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:Most windage trays that bolt to the main studs usually do more harm than good. 1) they reflect oil back onto the crankshaft which increases drag on the crank and can cause aeration, and 2) they prevent oil from getting back in the pan where it belongs.

The one which Ford Racing used to sell and is still manufactured by MPG HEADS works very, VERY well.

Work very well at what? Windage control? Oil control? Making more power? Have there been back to back tests with and without?
Honestly not being argumentative. Just looking for good info because very few trays that bolt to the main studs do work.

Scott Foxwell wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:Most windage trays that bolt to the main studs usually do more harm than good. 1) they reflect oil back onto the crankshaft which increases drag on the crank and can cause aeration, and 2) they prevent oil from getting back in the pan where it belongs.

The one which Ford Racing used to sell and is still manufactured by MPG HEADS works very, VERY well.

Work very well at what? Windage control? Oil control? Making more power? Have there been back to back tests with and without?
Honestly not being argumentative. Just looking for good info because very few trays that bolt to the main studs do work.

Keeping the excess oil in the pan, out of the upper rotating assembly and allowing more flywheel horsepower in the process.

Back to back testing within a deepened sump production truck oil pan along with testing others to boot.

If you have seen that tray, (and it sounds as if you have not), it is open on the "down" side and solid on the "UP" side with louvers near the top.

Randy, is this the windage tray you were talking about? http://www.mpgheads.com/black_max.php

rmcomprandy wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:Most windage trays that bolt to the main studs usually do more harm than good. 1) they reflect oil back onto the crankshaft which increases drag on the crank and can cause aeration, and 2) they prevent oil from getting back in the pan where it belongs.

The one which Ford Racing used to sell and is still manufactured by MPG HEADS works very, VERY well.

Work very well at what? Windage control? Oil control? Making more power? Have there been back to back tests with and without?
Honestly not being argumentative. Just looking for good info because very few trays that bolt to the main studs do work.

Keeping the excess oil in the pan, out of the upper rotating assembly and allowing more flywheel horsepower in the process.

Back to back testing within a deepened sump production truck oil pan along with testing others to boot.

If you have seen that tray, (and it sounds as if you have not), it is open on the "down" side and solid on the "UP" side with louvers near the top.

I never had an opertunity to run the FRPP tray but, I've seen it and it damn sure anit a typical deal that would trap oil.

rmcomprandy wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:Most windage trays that bolt to the main studs usually do more harm than good. 1) they reflect oil back onto the crankshaft which increases drag on the crank and can cause aeration, and 2) they prevent oil from getting back in the pan where it belongs.

The one which Ford Racing used to sell and is still manufactured by MPG HEADS works very, VERY well.

Work very well at what? Windage control? Oil control? Making more power? Have there been back to back tests with and without?
Honestly not being argumentative. Just looking for good info because very few trays that bolt to the main studs do work.

Keeping the excess oil in the pan, out of the upper rotating assembly and allowing more flywheel horsepower in the process.

Back to back testing within a deepened sump production truck oil pan along with testing others to boot.

If you have seen that tray, (and it sounds as if you have not), it is open on the "down" side and solid on the "UP" side with louvers near the top.

That's nothing like the traditional windage "tray" I was referring to. In fact, I would hardly call that a tray, but more of a scraper or stripper. I sure don't see it keeping excess oil in the pan from hitting the crank but it does look effective for what it's designed to do.
I'd rather spend the money on a good pan with an integral directional windage screen or baffled tray down in the pan where it belongs along with some sort of scraper and some anti acceleration baffling.

A well designed pan is hard to beat.

Scott Foxwell wrote:


That's nothing like the traditional windage "tray" I was referring to. In fact, I would hardly call that a tray, but more of a scraper or stripper. I sure don't see it keeping excess oil in the pan from hitting the crank but it does look effective for what it's designed to do.
I'd rather spend the money on a good pan with an integral directional windage screen or baffled tray down in the pan where it belongs along with some sort of scraper and some anti acceleration baffling.

I am all in ... IF you can find me a source to buy an oil pan like that for $80.00.
A mere scraper is just inserted into the side of the spinning rotating assembly to scrape away excess oil, not extending a quarter of of the way around the crankshaft directing "upside" windage.

This was designed and sold to be an improvement for oil quality and power inside a production vehicle oil pan and it does accomplishes that very well.

Which you brazenly told everyone earlier in this thread, is not the case with main cap bolt on trays.

AND, if what you call the direction you are going here "NOT ARGUMENTATIVE" then you have no idea about the definition of that word.

rmcomprandy wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:


That's nothing like the traditional windage "tray" I was referring to. In fact, I would hardly call that a tray, but more of a scraper or stripper. I sure don't see it keeping excess oil in the pan from hitting the crank but it does look effective for what it's designed to do.
I'd rather spend the money on a good pan with an integral directional windage screen or baffled tray down in the pan where it belongs along with some sort of scraper and some anti acceleration baffling.

I am all in ... IF you can find me a source to buy an oil pan like that for $80.00.
A mere scraper is just inserted into the side of the spinning rotating assembly to scrape away excess oil, not extending a quarter of of the way around the crankshaft directing "upside" windage.

This was designed and sold to be an improvement for oil quality and power inside a production vehicle oil pan and it does accomplishes that very well.

Which you brazenly told everyone earlier in this thread, is not the case with main cap bolt on trays.

AND, if what you call the direction you are going here "NOT ARGUMENTATIVE" then you have no idea about the definition of that word.

No, that's not what I said at all. Why do you always have to exaggerate stuff to be right?
Here's what I said:
"Most windage trays that bolt to the main studs usually do more harm than good."
Key word being MOST, and a comment which ANY reputable engine builder will support as being an accurate statement.
I was very careful not to make a blanket statement about that.
As far as arguing...lol...kind of ironic coming from the King GURU of arguing himself. I guess you would know.
Give the attitude a rest.
Oh, and a scraper can be anywhere in the system...it doesn't HAVE to be "inserted into the side", cave man style. There are many forms and styles of scrapers that are very effective. Here, even you might learn something:
http://www.crank-scrapers.com/What%20is%20a%20crank-scraper.html

Scott Foxwell wrote:

No, that's not what I said at all. Why do you always have to exaggerate stuff to be right?
Here's what I said:
"Most windage trays that bolt to the main studs usually do more harm than good."
Key word being MOST, and a comment which ANY reputable engine builder will support as being an accurate statement.
I was very careful not to make a blanket statement about that.

Your statement said a lot more than that. Sorry my recollection left that word out but, you went on to try and further explain why they are just no good. Saying "MOST" is a stretch; "SOME" or "A LOT", I will agree with.
And, the very next post I directly presented one which does work correctly and very well at what it was meant to do.

After that ... you went into your normal ego induced questioning about "was it tested and how" to most likely try and discredit what I presented, probably because you never used one or even heard of it and, even though you said you wanted to be, it seems you just can't stand to be educated about something where you are uninformed ...  from me or just about anybody else on here.

And then the money statement which is totally "apples and oranges" concerning the amounts of expenditure.

Here you go again, "ANY reputable engine builder", is as blanket as it gets; like those absolutes you use such as "always" and "never" and a few others.

My statements ARE correct almost all of the time because if I don't actually know, I just keep my mouth shut; unless it is an opinion which I then say so ... and when I do make a factual mistake, I have no issues about clearly expressing that ... quite a few times on here or in person.

rmcomprandy wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

No, that's not what I said at all. Why do you always have to exaggerate stuff to be right?
Here's what I said:
"Most windage trays that bolt to the main studs usually do more harm than good."
Key word being MOST, and a comment which ANY reputable engine builder will support as being an accurate statement.
I was very careful not to make a blanket statement about that.

Your statement said a lot more than that. Sorry my recollection left that word out but, you went on to try and further explain why they are just no good. Saying "MOST" is a stretch; "SOME" or "A LOT", I will agree with.
And, the very next post I directly presented one which does work correctly and very well at what it was meant to do.

After that ... you went into your normal ego induced questioning about "was it tested and how" to most likely try and discredit what I presented, probably because you never used one or even heard of it and, even though you said you wanted to be, it seems you just can't stand to be educated about something where you are uninformed ...  from me or just about anybody else on here.

And then the money statement which is totally "apples and oranges" concerning the amounts of expenditure.

Here you go again, "ANY reputable engine builder", is as blanket as it gets; like those absolutes you use such as "always" and "never" and a few others.

My statements ARE correct almost all of the time because if I don't actually know, I just keep my mouth shut; unless it is an opinion which I then say so ... and when I do make a factual mistake, I have no issues about clearly expressing that ... quite a few times on here or in person.

Randy, If you want to talk about windage trays, scrapers, how they work and what they do that's great. Attacking me personally doesn't accomplish anything.
It's NOT a conventional "windage tray" by any stretch of the imagination.
No, I had never seen one and that's why I asked for some info on it. LOL...I know, how dare I...
I even gave it credit for doing what it's designed to do.
I stand by my statement of any reputable, and I'll add educated engine builder will tell you the same thing about typical windage trays that bolt to the main studs. This was pointed out to me by a Cup engine builder a long time ago but it's like so many other things in this industry...marketing has taken over and without even knowing what one really does, everyone thinks they have to have one mainly because they're cheap but MOST do more harm than good. This I HAVE seen. It doesn't need to be an argument with an attitude.

Scott Foxwell wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:

No, that's not what I said at all. Why do you always have to exaggerate stuff to be right?
Here's what I said:
"Most windage trays that bolt to the main studs usually do more harm than good."
Key word being MOST, and a comment which ANY reputable engine builder will support as being an accurate statement.
I was very careful not to make a blanket statement about that.

Your statement said a lot more than that. Sorry my recollection left that word out but, you went on to try and further explain why they are just no good. Saying "MOST" is a stretch; "SOME" or "A LOT", I will agree with.
And, the very next post I directly presented one which does work correctly and very well at what it was meant to do.

After that ... you went into your normal ego induced questioning about "was it tested and how" to most likely try and discredit what I presented, probably because you never used one or even heard of it and, even though you said you wanted to be, it seems you just can't stand to be educated about something where you are uninformed ...  from me or just about anybody else on here.

And then the money statement which is totally "apples and oranges" concerning the amounts of expenditure.

Here you go again, "ANY reputable engine builder", is as blanket as it gets; like those absolutes you use such as "always" and "never" and a few others.

My statements ARE correct almost all of the time because if I don't actually know, I just keep my mouth shut; unless it is an opinion which I then say so ... and when I do make a factual mistake, I have no issues about clearly expressing that ... quite a few times on here or in person.

Randy, If you want to talk about windage trays, scrapers, how they work and what they do that's great. Attacking me personally doesn't accomplish anything.
It's NOT a conventional "windage tray" by any stretch of the imagination.
No, I had never seen one and that's why I asked for some info on it. LOL...I know, how dare I...
I even gave it credit for doing what it's designed to do.
I stand by my statement of any reputable, and I'll add educated engine builder will tell you the same thing about typical windage trays that bolt to the main studs. This was pointed out to me by a Cup engine builder a long time ago but it's like so many other things in this industry...marketing has taken over and without even knowing what one really does, everyone thinks they have to have one mainly because they're cheap but MOST do more harm than good. This I HAVE seen. It doesn't need to be an argument with an attitude.

This was no personal attack, (the shield is completely different than the sword). You on the other hand have seen fit to attack me and any opinion I may have, numerous times.
Whether it is a "windage tray" or not is merely a colloquialism. That is how it is advertised and accepted.

An opinion is just an opinion neither right or wrong. Facts are a different story.
Cup engine builders are no more reputable, better or worse than any other winning engine builder throughout the country; or world for that matter; just like Formula 1 engine builders claim they're the best.
Just for your information ... I have built several winning Cup engines, Busch engines and ARCA engines throughout some past years along with some winning SCCA Trans-Am engines, NHRA Pro Stock engines and record setting Super Stock engines. That fact and  $1.50 will buy me a cup of coffee just about anywhere.

Builders and designers are usually vastly different however, not always.