froggy47

Being that this is one of the oft mentioned advantages in an automotive dry sump, did they do it?

How much?

davidfarmer

I don’t think so

c5racr1

Nope, motor mounts and trans mounts are the same. Btw the oil system is more of a simi dry sump, it has single stage pressure and scavenger like the wet sump, and the scavange does not create any vacume in the crankcase. No baffles, no scraper. I guess it’s more like a wetsump with the oil stored in a tank...

froggy47

Yes, I have read similar descriptions of what it really is/should be called.

Is it better on long high bank sections (like Fontana)? Or did they miss the boat?

3X2

C6 ZR1 elephant ears are thinner at the engine mount pad.

davidfarmer

yes the dry sump is better...............we can argue all day long how much better, but it is better

c5racr1

I agree it is better than the factory wetsump. It does have its shortcomings, especially once suspension mods and slicks or good r comps come into play.

froggy47

Thanks David, basically what I needed to know, not to nit pick woulda/coulda/shoulda.

I think I can speak for many if not most of us on the forum, we appreciate your contributions.

fatbillybob

Primary Drysump advantages:
1- engine lower in chassis = lower chassis CG
2- engine increase in power from dry sump created vacuum
3- engine better reduction in oil starvation

This thread makes it sound like GM took none of these advantages? Then why put an expensive dry sump in the cars and reap only better oiling advantage?

History: LS6 in C5Z06 did not blow up at high G tracks like Fontana. LS6 motors did see stress once horsepower increased or wings and splitter were added by the faster raceers. That made sense G loads increased. LS2 C6 base/Z51 worked well too like the LS6's. GM missed the boat on the LS3 C6 as motors blew up all over the country due to poor oiling and with a slower driver. A couple of well funded fast racers blew many stock LS3's until aftermarket drysumps were developed. Now noone builds a serious LS3 based racecar without a drysump and drivers of LS6 car trying to keep up with LS3 cars are mostly doing the same aftermarket drysump. GM finally puts in a factory drysump in the LS3 in the C6GS version.

It has not been proven whether the LT1 C7 wetsump motor blows up without drysump. It could be as good as the LS6 and we just don't know it because there is no data. Most people who track have just blindly gone for the Z51 which has drysump just because we don't know, while we do know the history of the failed LS3 prior generation.

I'm not contradicting what's been posted in this thread but if those things are true GM left a lot of performance on the table marketing performance instead of providing performance. Say it ain't so!

Bill Dearborn

Number 1 may have more to do with how the car is produced. Using one production method simplifies production and reduces the chance of error on the assembly line. Quality is all about reducing the chance of error.

Number 2. How much extra horsepower is gained by a vacuum dry sump? Is it worth the bother and the extra maintenance that might be required on a production vehicle where less than 5% will ever see a race track. Again, it is about reducing the chance of error. Anything beyond normal car maintenance increases the chance of somebody screwing up. Just look at the problems they have with the two drain plugs and oil changers not realizing they have to remove both plugs.

They want to make it track capable but they also need to have it service capable for the normal GM dealer service shop. One of the reasons you can take a Corvette to almost any dealer shop is most of the time it really doesn't require any different service than the other vehicles in the shop. As soon as they vary from that formula problems start to occur like the rear caster measuring and adjustment issues on the C7.

Bill