OK , Ive heard enough of this and staying idle. Fact is a dry sump system makes more HP and is safer!!!! Anyone that disagrees with that statement just doesnt get it!!! Are they a pain the ass sometime - YES!! Are they safer - YES!! Are they expensive and require quite a bit of space that is sometimes limited - YES!!! Does every car need one - NO !!! Will any car , plane , boat etc , you name it , benefit from the use of a dry sump system -YES !!! Does your street GN need one - NO!! Does the 10 fastest Buick powered cars or vehicles on the planet run one - YES !! Any exceptions to this Im all ears!!! Mike
I read and reread the posts you posted in this thread. As a outsider with nothing to brag about I saw your posts as a bit harsh and kinda cocky like anyone without a dry sump system is basically as dumb as a Elephant:tongue: . That dog pile you speak of, IMO would not be there if your delivery was a little less of a finger in the eye socket. Just my 2 cents. Either way, I still learned a lot from reading this so I commend everybody that shed light on this subject. Like Joe Courtez would say," I am fair but I am firm, touch em up fellas and have a clean fight".
So Don did you blow your two motors because of oiling issues or tuning? I can see if you made some mistakes tuning and that caused the rods to break, we have all made mistakes but I would think most certainly you would have noticed oiling issues if that was the real cause. The thread topic was external pumps. I agree dry sump is better but you won't blow your motor because you chose a external wet sump pump with good oil control practices in mind. BTW we don't run big boost (yet). :biggrin:
My 3.8 stage 1 250 CI hydraulic roller motor went 9.40s at 146+ weighing 3680#s with a small 76 and 24#s of boost back at BG in 05. Thats a better comparison besides you had 540#s on me!
Both blow ups were caused by preignition of the methanol due to not enough fueling. Tuning issues. Learning the methanol. The bearings in both cases looked like brand new. Even the bearings on the broken rods. Bent piston pins in both engines. With the first engine, wetsump and only doing high tens, the oiling was adequate. I had modified the oil pan to hold more oil. I brought up the comparison of the wetsump on the first engine and the drysump on the second engine to illustrate the safety issue, not the oiling issue. There is no way to guarantee what the oil is going to do in the oil pan. It's a cross your fingers proposition at best. People that choose not to take that chance use drysump. What are you waiting for? Get to it!
Dusty. Running 9.25 static CR at only 24 psi boost is a disadvantage with methanol. The fuel is not going to become an advantage until I really start squeezing it. Probably at least 35.
OK. I'm O.K. with rolling the dice with my current setup, if the oil pressure drops below 50 the oil light will light up, so maybe that will save me. I'd consider a dry sump if that would net me more power maybe next rebuild. I have been working on other issues with the combo that is why I'm waiting to turn it up, you know if you don't have everything right the extra power will do nothing.
I would like to think so. According to my research, an engine must be optimized to reap the benefits out of burning methanol. Mainly, that means compression.
The drysump does net more power. That is well documented and has been well known since before I started racing cars in the 70s. If you're interested in knowing how it does that. I can explain. If you're not, I won't waste the typing. Like I stated, it is all well documented. So true.
