MJM

I failed to account for this thread devolving into a discussion on oiling issues on LS3s.


This thread has now been separated so you guys can go back and forth about LS3s, oil pans and who drives like a grandma.

RAFTRACER

I dont know what is going to happen with either sanctioning bodies as far as rules making is concerned.

I would like to see NASA start factoring in torque into their pwr/wt ratios in ST1 and ST2 before some really wierd combinations start occuring ie; duramax diesel in Corvette (300 hp/700 ft/lbs). This is already done in NASA's other pwr/wt governed classes. If not I may build a 500+in LS motor ,leave the torque alone and limit top end power. Monitoring horsepower and not torque is ludicrous. There are reasons why they implemented this in AI...............

I believe that NASA is concerned with rules stability , which is a good plan. I wouldn't look for anything drastic to change.......SCCA on the other hand just changed all sorts of stuff () . Dry-sump systems in T1........reduced wieghts which people in C5's couldn't get to anyways.... The dry-sump thing is the wierdest, fundementally the oiling systems are the same from 97-current barring the LS7. Dont know why a handful of LS3's are blowing up majoritily all prepared by the same people. I have two customers with LS3's that wail on their cars on roadcourses for long periods and no oil starvations yet......They both have certainly lived longer than a couple of initial laps before starting to have issues. They both however have no accusumps and LS7 oil coolers as the only oiling system mods. The pans are the same between LS2's and 3's I believe. I wander if the SCCA considered the extra horsepower that is going to be created by the dry-sump....engines love crankcase pressures to be negative vs. pressurized.

Get your body work done, that certainly will not be changing....Thanks for protecting our country , race-world will still be here when you return

96solo

New 2009 NASA Rules out.

varkwso

NASA intends to keep the rule set stable so racers do not have to rebuild basic setup every year. ST2 is still 8.7 to 1 limited and everything else is pretty much open and I do not see that changing. I agree with Danny on the torque issue since it is not regulated it will be exploited. I think AI type TQ tables have a chance of coming into play by the time you get back since they have put HP limits on all the lower PT/TT classes this year.

AU N EGL

they are now. Very minimal changes. 2009 ST rules: http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=25326

varkwso

I tended to order waay too much stuff (some of it I actually used, eventually) on deployment once we had internet available.....you are right to get a plan together first

wtknght1

Just to correct a few small errors... I think I was the first one to run an LS3 in race trim. It was the bone stock LS3 with 1000 easy street miles...just tuned to 93 octane. We did nothing else to the engine. It lasted 2 laps at Sebring.

The next crate LS3 lasted a few more laps than that at Roebling before it went. GM went to work immediately and modified the oil pan to look like an LS6 (bat-wing) pan. It seemed to work...but we still saw pressure drop outs.

Mike McGinley put the pan on his car and ran it and had no issues. Neither of us were using accusumps...I don't think he had one.

At the runoffs, Mike Tracy Jr. and Sr. both had LS3 engines in new 2008 vettes. Both were using the new oil pans. The Tracy's build their own cars...not from any shop but their own and their engines were bone stock. Tracy Jr blew up his LS3 testing at Heartland park, so the dad let him drive his in the race. The dad went and got his C5 to race. This time, they put the accusump on as well and it lasted about 14 laps at HPT. Mine managed to last the whole race, but on lap 14, the data showed pressure drops below the GM recommended level. I'm not sure it would have completed the race had the full course caution not come out.

According to the engineers, these stock engines (with stock pans) were apparently designed to handle about 1.1 or 1.2 Gs before suffering bearing starvation. But, we routinely see 1.5 to 1.6 in T1 trim. The drop-outs occur during long left hand turns at high G forces. Unless they are running HPT or Daytona, Charlotte, Homestead, etc, your guys probably aren't seeing sustained left turns. And depending on how good they are, may not be going fast enough to sustain the G forces either.

Trust me on this one though, after what I've seen, a dry sump (of some type) is necessary...'cause I ain't buying another engine! I hope that clears up some of the questions.

gkmccready

Does the LS2 have the same oiling issues as the LS3? Thunderhill's T2 is a long, long left hander with plenty of Gs...

RAFTRACER

Yeah Chris , I know your particular situation, you called last year while all of this was intially starting (after your 2nd engine) and we talked at length about what you and I were doing as far as oiling system go..........I told you that my car was wet sump and that I ran the LS2 pan breifly and had issues and I had gone back to the "batwing" pan....I have since gone to a dry-sump for multiple reasons, but not because I was lunching engines or spinning bearings. My engine was surviving w2w last year wet-sump before I dry-sumped it, and my car routinely sees lateral g-forces in excess of 1.6 sustained at turns another 1k rpm than T1 motors.......Those motors should be able to live wet sump (not neccessarily with the LS2-3 oil pans). I'd be interested in seeing pictures of this new "engineering pan".

The part I dont get is that your intitial motor only lasted 2 laps @ Sebring and the 2nd one day???? @ Roebling. Putnam Park has 1 long and 1 relativley long left turn and my two guys have run for 1 1/2 years with no issues yet, and they are not nice to them either.

wtknght1

The GM guys just used a stock pan and "welded" two wings on the side of it. It's very simple, but works well enough for mine to have lasted a few races. We also have to run a quart over full.

Your customers may not be cornering hard enough. What does their data show? Suspension? Tires? And we found out that rpms had little to do with the pressure drops - it's all about G forces. We had no problems in the rain. We still ran high rpms, but the Gs were obviously lower.

wtknght1

Not quite as bad, but yes, it's got issues too. My very first race against an LS2 car...his blew up on the first lap. John Buttermore dropped a brand new LS2 in his C6 for the Runoffs and it lasted less than 4 sessions at HPT.

Personally, I would not run an LS1, 2 or 3 engine without a dry sump...unless you are just using stock tires, suspension, etc. If you plan on running racing tires, T1 suspension, etc., you better get a good oiling system. Otherwise, it's just a grenade with the pin pulled.

And if anyone is wondering, until this year, I've never once hurt an engine...ever...in over 65K track miles - with an L98, LS1, LS6. I'm very good to my equipment.

gkmccready

Sounds like there's a good market for a road race oil pan for the LS2/3 motors...

wtknght1

GM already has one out there. I had the prototype and then they went into production. It's (gulp) $1500 each!!!!!

gkmccready

Sounds like there's a good market for a cost effective oil pan for the LS2/3. :-)

vette6aut0x

My '08 C6/LS3 with headers/tune did a complete season of track days and TT. With LG coilovers, Pfadt fat sways, Stoptechs, and 315 R6 all around, this car did 5 weekends at Barber (1:37.xx) 2 weekends at Road Atlanta (1:34.3xx) and one weekend at Daytona (2.05.xx). A total of over 5000 track miles with no issues.

No oiling system mods, but I do like that 5 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty.

You mileage may obviously vary.

RAFTRACER

You think that $1500 is bad, wait until you are done with your ARE dry-sump....I had help with mine ($$) and I still ended up with 4k in it.

I seem to remember a gentleman running an 01 LS6 in T1 for years with no accusump or dry-sump and he never "ventilated" an engine......I believe it ran for years before he decided to upgrade to an 04 LS6.

Hell the LS7 has had more documented oiling system issues than the LS2's or 3's.

There are alot of other things that create low oil pressure and spun bearings than the oil pan.......lifter bores would be a real good place to start.....any clearance that opens up as the engine gets hot and bleeds needs to be fixed. Gen 3 and 4 engines have multiple oiling issues that need to be resolved if you are going to run these things long and hard. Another good place to start is shimming the oil pump bypass to boost pressure, especially if there are one or more oil coolers and an accusump involved .....adding capacity to any oil system will create more pressure drop.

If you LS3 guys are going to go dry-sump, you'd better use something bigger than a 7-8 quart resevoir. Fitting such monsters is another issue and I had Peterson make me a custom tank that is 7"dia and 22" tall. Relocated my PCM into the car and it fits on the outside of the right frame rail like the LS7 but holds 13 quarts....

As I said , my engine was living wet-sump before I went dry, I majoritily did the dry-sump to reduce oil temperatures. I guess I wasn't having any problems because my car wasn't pulling any lateral g's

It sure would be nice if GM would start making these oil systems 10 foot tall and bullet proof like they lead you to believe....hint,hint,wink,wink.......

Hell they dont even want to stand behind their loved LS7's that have known documented oil starvation issues.....

vette6aut0x

Yea, multiple issues. And the guys who know what they all are keep that info to themselves. Lifter bores, oil pumps turning at crank speed, crap pans, poor return, windage, overfill, lack of priority for mains, and the list goes on. But somehow, when you talk to the engine builders, none of them are having failures.

vette6aut0x

And if your super duper tall tank ARE system uses the internal pump for the pressure stage, you're no better off.

RAFTRACER

LS7's have scavenge and return issues.....I have 3 separate scavenge pumps . 2 gerators and 1 roots. My oil is making it back to the tank. As far as crank speed causing cavitation and oil pump housings "ballooning" .....Havent noticed any issues from that yet.

I'm not having issues.........I maintain BIG pressure for long periods hot as can be , spinning 76-7700 rpm ........

I am using the internal pump for pressure, but it is not a stock pump....that 4th stage would have caused me to reinvent the whole front of my car, 4th stage does not fit because of the steering rack...When I was wet sump, I was using stock pumps (with work done). I have been around the block a few times with these oiling systems, and am still learning. My engine has been out and disassembled far too many times not to have learned something

Dont know exactly what your ARE beef is , besides your FORD oil pan, but I have not been having issues and there are many of his systems in use without issues......

What are you doing for your motor ???

RAFTRACER

Sorry to distract the OP's thread........back to your regularly scheduled program....