cast alum. oil pans design input... ?

cast alum. oil pans design input... ?

Postby ca434sbc4 » Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:57 pm

4200 rear sump oil pans.

New tooling is in the works to ease the foundry issues. I'll update as I progress.
Last edited by ca434sbc4 on Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ca434sbc4
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:58 am

Re: cast alum. oil pans

Postby ca434sbc4 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:47 pm

So if you have a choice where to put the oil drain plug - where would you out it?

My initial choice is on the back edge of the sump coming out parallel to the pan rail....
ca434sbc4
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:58 am

Re: cast alum. oil pans

Postby limequat » Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:00 pm

I like the spout to be near the front of the sump facing towards the passenger side. That much less that I need to get underneath it for oil changes.
limequat
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:42 am

Re: cast alum. oil pans

Postby msmith03 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:33 am

OK you two, split the difference and put it dead centre in the bottom of the sump! On second thought, with my lowered 67 brief box the depth of sump MAY be a factor?? Ok I vote with Marc.
msmith03
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: cast alum. oil pans - input pls.

Postby ca434sbc4 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:52 pm

any other comments?
ca434sbc4
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:58 am

Re: cast alum. oil pans design input... ?

Postby limequat » Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:15 am

If you're making design changes, I'd suggest making it a clean 5 qt sump. I read a few gripes about the 4.5 qt capacity.
limequat
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:42 am

Re: cast alum. oil pans design input... ?

Postby ca434sbc4 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:18 pm

limequat wrote:If you're making design changes, I'd suggest making it a clean 5 qt sump. I read a few gripes about the 4.5 qt capacity.


Ok I'll accept the comment. To adress it there are 3 possible ways of increasing volume:

1) make the sump deeper - disadvantage less ground clearance, advantage - no impact with potential crossmember interfreence, no impact to wrench access to the torque converter bolts (on the I4/I5 these are a real bitch to remove install - no wrench access). The sump is currently ~7" deep from the pan rail to the bottom side of the pan.

2) Extend the sump forward - disadvantage possible interference with crossmembers, advatage no change in pan depth, no impact to wrench access.

3) extend the sump rearward - disadvantage issues getting the torque converter bolts in/out, advantage - advatage no change in pan depth &no impact with potential crossmember interfreence.

What cannot be done is make the sump wider or kick out - this is a sand casting and it requires a certain draft angle. To add a kickout really increases the cost of the tooling and core set up and unless someone want to pay for it now I'm not doing it.

So which of the 3 choices would you pick?
ca434sbc4
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:58 am

Re: cast alum. oil pans design input... ?

Postby 3258 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:32 pm

?taper the front side of the sump?
B2T CUSTOM ENGINE MGT SOLUTIONS http://www.burnout2turnout.com
-Official MegaSquirt EFI source of vortec4200.com
-14point7 Spartan 2 Wideband controller
-Discounts available to forum members- send PM

https://www.facebook.com/B2Tengineering
User avatar
3258
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:01 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: cast alum. oil pans design input... ?

Postby limequat » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:50 pm

ca434sbc4 wrote:
limequat wrote:If you're making design changes, I'd suggest making it a clean 5 qt sump. I read a few gripes about the 4.5 qt capacity.


Ok I'll accept the comment. To adress it there are 3 possible ways of increasing volume:

1) make the sump deeper - disadvantage less ground clearance, advantage - no impact with potential crossmember interfreence, no impact to wrench access to the torque converter bolts (on the I4/I5 these are a real bitch to remove install - no wrench access). The sump is currently ~7" deep from the pan rail to the bottom side of the pan.

2) Extend the sump forward - disadvantage possible interference with crossmembers, advatage no change in pan depth, no impact to wrench access.

3) extend the sump rearward - disadvantage issues getting the torque converter bolts in/out, advantage - advatage no change in pan depth &no impact with potential crossmember interfreence.

What cannot be done is make the sump wider or kick out - this is a sand casting and it requires a certain draft angle. To add a kickout really increases the cost of the tooling and core set up and unless someone want to pay for it now I'm not doing it.

So which of the 3 choices would you pick?


I was thinking #3. I'm not sure what the dimensions are on the I5 pan ,but seems like you could pretty much copy that lock, stock, and barrel.
limequat
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:42 am

Re: cast alum. oil pans design input... ?

Postby limequat » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:53 pm

I5 capacity is 6 qts. Not sure how deep the pan is.
limequat
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:42 am

Next

Return to Parts and service sources

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest