What do you think the best option would be for my built 4 bolt main 383 stroker chebby? It will see 90 degree climbs, rollovers, 45 degree side hills. And WOT recoveries when rolling. Currently have amsoil preoiler w/ remote dual bypass filtration and oil cooler. With factory pan capacity is right at 10 qts, and I am converting to pane' so oil life should be decent. And I would prefer not to decrease sump capacity, however a shallower pan would allow me to lower my motor in lower my COG. So it is an option!
oil pan for rock crawler
- Thread starter Taylor
- Start date
- Status
What about a dry sump setup? otherwise I'd think a pan with lots of baffles would be beneficial.
The interesting thing with a rockcrawler is typical high performance parts are designed for a somewhat flat track with high "G" in the corners, not side hilling at WOT. The accumulator would be interesting but you'd have to figure out exactly how it is going to benefit you on the trail.
I'd think anything to keep oil in the pan and away from the crank is a good thing.
I'd think anything to keep oil in the pan and away from the crank is a good thing.
A deep pan with an accomodating oil pick up seems best.
A windage tray should help.
Crank oil scrapers are more for the last ounce of power than draining ability.
A windage tray should help.
Crank oil scrapers are more for the last ounce of power than draining ability.
I hope you have a standard volume pump on the engine, no need for the HV version on any engine.
That AMSOIL will void your registration to any rock climbing event.
unless you custom make a pan for your application, picking one of the many examples for SBC is tough, I like the diamond stripper tray for SBC along with a baffled pan.
the shorter the pan the quicker the oil makes it to the bottom.
That AMSOIL will void your registration to any rock climbing event.
unless you custom make a pan for your application, picking one of the many examples for SBC is tough, I like the diamond stripper tray for SBC along with a baffled pan.
the shorter the pan the quicker the oil makes it to the bottom.
Originally Posted By: Taylor
What do you think the best option would be for my built 4 bolt main 383 stroker chebby? It will see 90 degree climbs, rollovers, 45 degree side hills. And WOT recoveries when rolling. Currently have amsoil preoiler w/ remote dual bypass filtration and oil cooler. With factory pan capacity is right at 10 qts, and I am converting to pane' so oil life should be decent. And I would prefer not to decrease sump capacity, however a shallower pan would allow me to lower my motor in lower my COG. So it is an option!
Ahh, right up my alley. Before I start with this, what type of chassis is this in? Custom, Jeep, full size? IMO, a 10 qt oil pan is WAY overkill and much harder to hide from the rocks. You'd also have a much better COG running a 5 or 6 qt pan and dropping the drivetrain. That said, I would recommend fabbing your own skid. The buggy I'm building is based on a 2000 Wrangler and I'll be keeping the 4.0l and NV3550 for now. I might swap a small block Ford in (easier to mate to the 3550) at some point. I plan to fab the control arms, belly pan, skid, cage, etc. I'm going to make a tOOb cross member and run high molecular weight polyethylene for the skid surfaces.
My '92 Wrangler runs a Jeep 2.5L four cylinder. She runs well and I've had good UOA's even with roll'n and idling on it's side. The 4 popper pan is small and sits relatively high compared to a six or eight. Even so, I used high strength epoxy and stuck a piece of 1/4" aluminum to the bottom of the pan. I barely ever tag it (driveshafts are a different story!). It's super cheesy, but it works. The tranny is an SM420 (cast iron) and is mostly, along with the T-case, protected by a plate belly pan made from part of a factory skid, a little tOOb, & sheet,. I plan to upgrade this year though, to a tube skid with more HMWP.
Let us know how you make out, Good luck!
What do you think the best option would be for my built 4 bolt main 383 stroker chebby? It will see 90 degree climbs, rollovers, 45 degree side hills. And WOT recoveries when rolling. Currently have amsoil preoiler w/ remote dual bypass filtration and oil cooler. With factory pan capacity is right at 10 qts, and I am converting to pane' so oil life should be decent. And I would prefer not to decrease sump capacity, however a shallower pan would allow me to lower my motor in lower my COG. So it is an option!
Ahh, right up my alley. Before I start with this, what type of chassis is this in? Custom, Jeep, full size? IMO, a 10 qt oil pan is WAY overkill and much harder to hide from the rocks. You'd also have a much better COG running a 5 or 6 qt pan and dropping the drivetrain. That said, I would recommend fabbing your own skid. The buggy I'm building is based on a 2000 Wrangler and I'll be keeping the 4.0l and NV3550 for now. I might swap a small block Ford in (easier to mate to the 3550) at some point. I plan to fab the control arms, belly pan, skid, cage, etc. I'm going to make a tOOb cross member and run high molecular weight polyethylene for the skid surfaces.
My '92 Wrangler runs a Jeep 2.5L four cylinder. She runs well and I've had good UOA's even with roll'n and idling on it's side. The 4 popper pan is small and sits relatively high compared to a six or eight. Even so, I used high strength epoxy and stuck a piece of 1/4" aluminum to the bottom of the pan. I barely ever tag it (driveshafts are a different story!). It's super cheesy, but it works. The tranny is an SM420 (cast iron) and is mostly, along with the T-case, protected by a plate belly pan made from part of a factory skid, a little tOOb, & sheet,. I plan to upgrade this year though, to a tube skid with more HMWP.
Let us know how you make out, Good luck!
I concurr with Zaedock ( I also like his cutting board material skid idea).
Lowering the center of gravity is more important than oil pan capacity in a rockcrawler. Cooling capacity is also more important than oil capacity. A shallower sump will allow you to lower your GOG wich will help keep the shiney side up.
Lowering the center of gravity is more important than oil pan capacity in a rockcrawler. Cooling capacity is also more important than oil capacity. A shallower sump will allow you to lower your GOG wich will help keep the shiney side up.
Originally Posted By: lazaro
I hope you have a standard volume pump on the engine, no need for the HV version on any engine.
I'll have to go ahead and disagree with this. There are plenty of engines that can benefit from it's use. IMO, a stroker used for off road with dual bypass and cooler is one.
I hope you have a standard volume pump on the engine, no need for the HV version on any engine.
I'll have to go ahead and disagree with this. There are plenty of engines that can benefit from it's use. IMO, a stroker used for off road with dual bypass and cooler is one.
Sorry for the confusion, the current pan is a stock stamped steel one, maybe 5-6 qt's. The extra capacity is from the cooler/lines, and by-pass/pre-oiler setup. The vehicle in question is a full bodied yj, flatbelly skid, ~110" WB, 40's soon to be 43', locked one tons, 406HP 436 lb/ft TQ with 371.1:1 crawl ratio. IMHO all things considered my COG is pretty good, but its one of those thing that can never be good enough. That being said I would love to have a dry sump set up, and drop my motor down a couple inches. That then raise's rear shaft angle issues, With a SBC NV4500 231/300 doubler and a 14FF out back things are tight as is. I have a 45 degree 4 ton rear shaft that can run 35 degrees constant vibe free.
EDIT: and yes I have a HV pump
EDIT: and yes I have a HV pump
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Zaedock
Originally Posted By: lazaro
I hope you have a standard volume pump on the engine, no need for the HV version on any engine.
I'll have to go ahead and disagree with this. There are plenty of engines that can benefit from it's use. IMO, a stroker used for off road with dual bypass and cooler is one.
it will cost you 25HP from idle to rpm limit overheat the oil and cause loss of lubrication in many cases.
this is how I learned not to use them pumps. but that is just what I found over the past 20 years
Originally Posted By: lazaro
I hope you have a standard volume pump on the engine, no need for the HV version on any engine.
I'll have to go ahead and disagree with this. There are plenty of engines that can benefit from it's use. IMO, a stroker used for off road with dual bypass and cooler is one.
it will cost you 25HP from idle to rpm limit overheat the oil and cause loss of lubrication in many cases.
this is how I learned not to use them pumps. but that is just what I found over the past 20 years
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
it will cost you 25HP from idle to rpm limit overheat the oil and cause loss of lubrication in many cases.
Help me out with where these figures came from ..and maybe elaborate a bit.
it will cost you 25HP from idle to rpm limit overheat the oil and cause loss of lubrication in many cases.
Help me out with where these figures came from ..and maybe elaborate a bit.
Originally Posted By: lazaro
it will cost you 25HP from idle to rpm limit overheat the oil and cause loss of lubrication in many cases.
this is how I learned not to use them pumps. but that is just what I found over the past 20 years
25HP? Not even close. I doubt a dyno would even pick up the difference. My butt certainly doesn't.
The oil survives a 2000+/- *F combustion process, but a HV pump is going to overheat the oil? I have three HV pumps in two of my Jeeps and a SBC. Never had a loss of lube. Never overheated the oil.
Please explain how a HV pump would cause such a condition.
it will cost you 25HP from idle to rpm limit overheat the oil and cause loss of lubrication in many cases.
this is how I learned not to use them pumps. but that is just what I found over the past 20 years
25HP? Not even close. I doubt a dyno would even pick up the difference. My butt certainly doesn't.
The oil survives a 2000+/- *F combustion process, but a HV pump is going to overheat the oil? I have three HV pumps in two of my Jeeps and a SBC. Never had a loss of lube. Never overheated the oil.
Please explain how a HV pump would cause such a condition.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
If you radically mismatch the volume and visc you'll be in varied states of relief. That would be a spinning your tires type situation where you would basically send the oil through the grinder with a lower refresh rate ..but this would be such an odd combination of 'IF'S". At that point ..I don't think it would matter whether you were pushing the oil or not (you would be moving whatever could be moved). Once relief is breached (and, for the moment, it's assumed that it can be maintained at some attenuated pressure), the pump should be a static load. It would merely move more or less oil depending on viscosity ...or so I would reason.
Originally Posted By: Taylor
If I do go with a dry sump, I would still be limited by the flywheel and bellhousing. Does anyone make a "high clearance" flywheel? I could cut the bell housing and weld on a chunk of flat stock.
high dollar clutch system you could go for, they make them in 6,7,8 inch models with multiple plates, made specifically for lowering the engine in the chassis.
If I do go with a dry sump, I would still be limited by the flywheel and bellhousing. Does anyone make a "high clearance" flywheel? I could cut the bell housing and weld on a chunk of flat stock.
high dollar clutch system you could go for, they make them in 6,7,8 inch models with multiple plates, made specifically for lowering the engine in the chassis.
Originally Posted By: Taylor
If I do go with a dry sump, I would still be limited by the flywheel and bellhousing. Does anyone make a "high clearance" flywheel? I could cut the bell housing and weld on a chunk of flat stock.
Your NV4500 will still hang lower than your bellhousing. My SM420 hangs at least a couple inches lower.
Here's a couple pics:
There is a fine line between COG and clearance. I would rather raise the drivetrain slightly and run a flat belly with a lower suspension. Then cut the body to fit the tires.
I'd be more worried about that boat anchor 14 bolt. I'm assuming you shaved that pig? I ended up choosing a 9"(future HP center section) over a 14 bolt for weight savings and clearance. Then again, I don't run alot of motor.
If I do go with a dry sump, I would still be limited by the flywheel and bellhousing. Does anyone make a "high clearance" flywheel? I could cut the bell housing and weld on a chunk of flat stock.
Your NV4500 will still hang lower than your bellhousing. My SM420 hangs at least a couple inches lower.
Here's a couple pics:
There is a fine line between COG and clearance. I would rather raise the drivetrain slightly and run a flat belly with a lower suspension. Then cut the body to fit the tires.
I'd be more worried about that boat anchor 14 bolt. I'm assuming you shaved that pig? I ended up choosing a 9"(future HP center section) over a 14 bolt for weight savings and clearance. Then again, I don't run alot of motor.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked