cast alum. oil pans design input... ?

[ca434sbc4]

4200 rear sump oil pans.

New tooling is in the works to ease the foundry issues. I'll update as I progress.

[ca434sbc4]

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....

[limequat]

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.

[msmith03]

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.

[ca434sbc4]

any other comments?

[limequat]

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.

[ca434sbc4]

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?

[3258]

?taper the front side of the sump?

[limequat]

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]

I5 capacity is 6 qts. Not sure how deep the pan is.