Have you talked to Bill Dailey about his billet pans? Just curious I am running his six stage pump also and haven't talked to anyone who has run his billet pan.

 

No, not about his pans, only the pump, and i bought it used. He was very helpful on the pump and i would like to talk to him on pan design but i felt it would be kind of a shitty move considering i am going to build my own pan.
I know a few people with his pans and they say they are nice, but they have no other experiences with dry sump pans.So all they can say is the are nice.

 

His billet pans are a very different design compared to every other dry sump pan I have seen. They have no kickout and the bottom of the pan follows the crank very closely, very little volume in the pan. I am using a Williams divided pan and I'm very happy with it but would like to talk to someone who has run a dailey billet pan.

 

Having not really seen a Dailey pan, I can only speculate, but it sounds very similar to the design developed by Ilmor for Penski in the late '90s. This design has been refined over the last decade, and is used by all Cup teams. It was first used, as mentioned, for ground clearance allowing suspension travel to maximize aero. When Nascar mandated "The Car" design (especially the maximum static front valance height), this eliminated allot of front end suspension travel, and the need of added clearance. Having more room available, we went back to testing the old tried and true "Volume" design. We found that a properly designed small enclosure trumped the old stuff both in both power and efficiency. (they seem to go hand in hand, imagine that! LOL).

I do know that this reduced volume can cause a few issues that need to be addressed in certain applications but............

That's about as far as I can elaborate.

 

Warp Speed, can you expand on "I do know that this reduced volume can cause a few issues that need to be addressed in certain applications but....." I have an Ilmor style pan from a Penske Busch motor going into a drag race application. Anything I need to be concerned with? Thanks.

 

Warp Speed, can you expand on "I do know that this reduced volume can cause a few issues that need to be addressed in certain applications but....." I have an Ilmor style pan from a Penske Busch motor going into a drag race application. Anything I need to be concerned with? Thanks.

The biggest issue is crankcase pressurization during start up. It comes down to engine displacement vs. pan area. Upon start up, the crankcase area can be pressurized by a slight amount of initial blow-by (prior to gas port/cylinder pressure sealing). Add to this to this the pumping of the pistons (swept volume vs. available area) and it can lead to sealing issues in larger ci engines. Another factor to add is oil drain back from the system into the crankcase while the engine is sitting, further decreasing the available crankcase volume during start up/prior to evacuation.
In this type of application, it is often necessary to have a check valve to bleed off this initial pressurization/pumping to atmosphere until the system can evacuate the area and and start building depression.

 

.

Is this for an odd ball application that nobody makes??

If it was me, I would contact some of the friendlier nhra P/S teams and see if they will let you see what they use.
I would imagine they use the latest and greatest design that will work in most applications??

.

 

I guess what i am looking for is just the key components of a good dry sump pan.Just a general guideline of what is important and what is BS and i can take it from there.
Should it have a screen or rolled sheet metal and should it have a kick out?

 

John, there is no doubt in my mind, with your fab skills (insane really!) that you could build any of the versions mentioned with your eyes closed. It just comes down to what your goals are (max effort NA seeking every last amount of available efficiency or just a good working system), and what your combination is (engine size, rpm, oil flow and target depression levels).
The smaller bay systems being talked about are sensitive to position relative to the rotating assembly, and the evacuation point (louver(s). As oil flow goes down, and depression levels rise (again, combination specific) these optimum positions can change. Once you find the sweet spot for a given combination, the smaller, divided bay design can be VERY efficient. It just not very cut and dry.

A standard box, old school design can be helped by scrapers both screened and solid (although we always ran pretty much nothing in our box style pans due to this stuff coming apart during extended service from harmonics) and kick outs, but again, is Dependant on engine ci, oil flow and depression levels. This holds true to pick-up placement both in position and distance from the floor. Again, combo specific.

I know, none of this has really answered your question, but it's not a real cut and dry topic.

 

.

Wouldn't the dry sump it self and the vacuum pump take care of any pressure before you even flip the ignition??
I know I spin my engine over a second or so before firing.
You would think that would be enough vacuum to clear the crankcase??

Forgot to mention I use a basic Moroso, nothing fancy, the big box kind, probably paid $6-800??
I use a custom 5 stage oil pump and the good Moroso vacuum pump.

.

 

.

Wouldn't the dry sump it self and the vacuum pump take care of any pressure before you even flip the ignition??
I know I spin my engine over a second or so before firing.
You would think that would be enough vacuum to clear the crankcase??.

You got to remember, the air pump the starter is turning over (the engine) is allot bigger than the ones being turned by the crank mandrel.

.Forgot to mention I use a basic Moroso, nothing fancy, the big box kind, probably paid $6-800??
I use a custom 5 stage oil pump and the good Moroso vacuum pump.

Fairly common system used by many, but I am not a big fan of running an auxilary (vacuam?) punp with a dry sump system.

But thats a whole nother topic!

 

Warp Speed, my application is a 360 ci SBF. As just stated, would cranking over of motor prior to firing help alleviate that issue? If not, where would you install the check valve in the system or motor?. Dont want to hijack the thread, just concerned. Thanks.

 

Warp Speed, my application is a 360 ci SBF. As just stated, would cranking over of motor prior to firing help alleviate that issue? If not, where would you install the check valve in the system or motor?. Dont want to hijack the thread, just concerned. Thanks.

If the lower and upper halves of the engine are completely separated (sealed valley from crankcase), then you must vent the crankcase, typically from the original fuel pump boss with a hose running to approx valve cover level to avoid oil being pushed out.
If the crankcase and valley are common, one in the valve cover works well.
Engines with the valley separated are more sensitive, again, due to the reduction in available area.

 

I've heard from some that having dividers in the pan that seal to the main caps are worth between .8%-1% at 9200+ on a 500ci engine

Warp speed- in an application where space is not at a premium wouldn't an electric vacuum pump turned on prior to engine firing help solve the pressure issue. Then once running the engine driven pump will take over?

 

I've heard from some that having dividers in the pan that seal to the main caps are worth between .8%-1% at 9200+ on a 500ci engine

Warp speed- in an application where space is not at a premium wouldn't an electric vacuum pump turned on prior to engine firing help solve the pressure issue. Then once running the engine driven pump will take over?

It could help for sure.

 

.

Warp, I agree completely, but my so called custom dry sump is not working as designed, so I just recently added the vac pump back on.
I had a 3 stage with a vac pump and decided to go with a 5 stage with one stage designed for vacuum.
Sold the vacuum pump & 3 stage and ran the new custom 5 stage.
Well guess what, after several test hits on nuts, and 3 on N2O, it blew out the intake seals.
So obviously it wasn't working as designed. Borrowed a pump, made a hit and it was back up to 14-15 and all's good.
So it was either buy a vac pump as a crutch and keep racing, or send back the dry sump and wait who knows how many weeks??

I will send the dry sump back this winter, but for now, I'm running both.

While we are here, I was always taught to pull the line off the valve cover for warm up and other maintenance.
Is there really any worry about the pins at a standard idle if you're pulling vacuum??

Great thread, excellent information, thanks.

.

 

John,

How many scavenge stages are on your pump and are they all the same size?


Warp,

Do you think it'd be good for John to split the difference & build a large volume pan so he doesn't have to worry about his long stroke/big bore engine causing start-up issues but do partial segmentation for each bulkhead? Partial meaning run the dividers up to about an inch or so below the bottom of the main caps.

Also, do you think he'd be smart to make the L/H pan wall to floor transition a close (to the crank)-fitting radius to help sweep oil towards the pickups & avoid oil rebound back into the R/H reciprocating parts? Seems like a square corner on that side would allow more rebound. I'm thinking about the shape of a furnace blower assembly or one of the deals you see at the short tracks stuffed into the grille of a super late model right before qualifying.

 

I found Dailey's pan for a Pontiac, and it's actually very similar to what I already had in mind.

 

If I had your fab skills, that design is what I would shoot for!

Try to keep the curvature of the pan on the "receiving side" the same relative to the rotating assy., and as close as you would a pan rail scraper, allowing for assembly flex.

Funny, it is about a excact replica of our earlier designs.

 

Rob,
Its a 6 stage pump.There are 5 scavenge, all 1.200 lobe style. Its the really small body pump.Dailey wants me to spin it 1 to 1 and change the pressure section to 1.050 instead of the 1.450 it has now. The motor will only see about 8800 rpm and its a 460 cid Pontiac.
How close should the the curved scraper on the passenger side of the pan be? Or should i make that screen?
And how close should the bottom of the pan be?

 

On the opposite side and bottom, I would remain constant to assembly radius, with about the difference in distance from centerline as your evacuation site/window is deep............if that makes sense!! LOL

In my opinion, I would keep the receiving side solid vs. a screen. Removal and separation is key. Once the oil is in a receiving area, it will find it's way to the pick-up, so position isn't terribly critical, but in a drag race deal, I would just put them toward the rear of each.

 

Thanks for all the help! What is the ideal clearance on the passenger side with the curved scraper?