After getting the rotating assembly together we test fitted the oil pump and the pickup tube and ran into a slight problem with both.

First, the oil pump. You may remember that I am using a Melling 10552 oil pump. It is a heavy duty unit that has oversize gears and a heavy duty casting. It also flows 10% more than a stock pump which seemed like a reasonable increase. The Summit catalog claimed that it came with the standard pressure spring (55 psi) and the Melling site said it came with both a high pressure (70 psi) and standard pressure spring. Of course when I opened the box the spring was already installed and there was no other spring in the box.

I pulled the spring out of the oil pump and found that the high pressure spring (pink - 70 psi) was installed in the pump. I emailed Summit since it was their catalog that said it came with the other spring; even referenced the catalog page for them. I got back a short email that said that the tech had called Melling who said the pump came with the high pressure spring. Not a word about the catalog being wrong! I thought about sending back a nasty note about their catalog but Joe reminded me that I am now probably more technically savvy than most of the people working at Summit so it would be a waste of my time. Ok, let it go!



Pink High Pressure Spring

So I set about trying to find the standard spring. Guess what? They are on back order for two months and have been backordered for another two months already no one knows when they will show up. Bummer. Alright, let’s tackle another problem.

Went to test fit the nice Canton bolt-on pickup for the oil pump and guess what? It won’t fit. Investigated the problem and found that the pipe that is supposed to go into the pump is oval rather than round. The hole it is supposed to go into is, of course, round. So I fired off an email to Canton asking about that and a couple of install issues. Got back another tersely worded statement to the effect that oval is the way they make them and that each pickup is built on an actual oil pump (yeah, right!).



Canton Pickup Pipe Large Side



Canton Pickup Pipe Small Side

Did this guy actually look at the pictures I sent? There is no way this pickup has ever been on an oil pump. And he completely ignored my other questions. I started to send off another nasty email and Joe reminded me again that I … yeah, yeah, yeah, waste of time. Measuring carefully we figure that we can gently press it to round out the pipe and it should fit. And I was all set to like these Canton guys. Made in the USA and all that.

So now I was facing several holdups with buttoning up the bottom of the engine. 1. Sorting out the pump spring pressure. 2. Oil pickup mounting. 3. Oil pump bolt torque. 4. Oil pump stud.

Issue #1 – Pump spring pressure. I talked with Bill at B&R about whether to go with the 70 psi spring or order the 55 psi standard spring and he several things that put me at ease.

First, Bill says the Melling 10552 is probably the best oil pump for my application (actually in his opinion, the 1055 series is the best oil pump made). Second, since I am running a 7 quart system there is absolutely no problem with running the 70 psi spring. Oil starvation problems occur only with the standard pan and since I am using an oversize pan I have pretty much eliminated the oil starvation potential. Third, the oil pump and engine will wear over time and the psi will decline.

Bill doubts that I will see 70 psi except maybe at high rpm (actual dyno average was 62+/- with a high of 65 at 6000), but there is no reason to run less pressure in a Chevy engine. So I feel very comfortable about running the 10552 with the 70 psi spring as there is no reason to change it.

Joe talked to Ron at B&R as well. Ron is the one who does most of Bill’s competition stuff. Ron added that if you use the 70 psi spring you should use a competition oil filter because if you rev the engine when it is cold you can blow the innards out of a standard filter. Good information. And since Wix makes an affordable racing filter for the SBC we should be good with it (Wix #51069R). That and let the engine warm up before you push it.

Issues #2 & 3 - One of the problems with the Canton pickup is how to install it. Some guys use a gasket, others say RTV is the way to go. Since I had other questions about the setup on the oil pump I decided to email Melling directly. I received a very prompt and precise answer from George Richmond, the guy who does the tech videos on the Melling website. Cool! And they are going to send me the right gasket as the one that came with my pump did not fit! Here is the summary of my questions and George’s answers:

Name: Mark Howard
Email: Department2: Aftermarket Tech Dept.
Subject: Melling 10552 questions
Message: I have gotten a variety of conflicting answers to the following questions so I am coming straight to you.

1. What is the proper bolt torque for a melling 10552 pressure spring retainer bolt ? 200 to 240 in.lb. with thread locker

2. I have been told that the proper torque for the 10552 cover bolts is 100 in/lb. Is this correct? 80to 100 in. lb.

3. My pump seems to have come with the wrong gasket for the bolt on pickup. Is the proper gasket available from Melling? Send your address we will send.

4. What is the proper torque for the pickup bolts? 80 to 90 in. lb. with thread locker.

5. Should the pickup bolts be installed with Loctite? Yes.

6. Is it best to use RTV sealant on the pickup gasket? None- Dry.

I really like those Melling people!

Issue #4 – Performance engines bolt the oil pump to the engine with a stud kit rather than a bolt. With a period block the bolt turns against 35 year old threads when it is torqued, a stud stays stationary. Joe’s recommendation is to use stud wherever you can because he has broken off a bolt in a block. It was not a pleasant experience. I had to go to Knoxville on business this week so I went by Hot Rod Barn to get the proper oil pump stud to mount the oil pump. They showed two in the computer but the shelf was empty. Checked on line and found I could order a genuine ARP stud from Summit for $6. Done!

I think we are finally ready to install!

 

Mark,

While I ain't Gary, I believe I have an answer to the puzzle of the disparities between CamQuest and DynoSim. I've used both extensively, and in analyzing dozens & dozens of cam choices for my '57 Chevy (yep, I'm an interloper and this is my first post here ). I happened to run across this thread while searching on the Howards 111145, which is my #1 choice at the moment.

If you've gone through the DynoSim manual, you might recall this explanation of how the lift curves are calculated:
Now, just looking at the intake lobes for this exercise, Comp's Master Lobe Profile Catalog shows #5068 as L79's intake lobe:


Now, let's look at a close roller lobe. I'd say #3308 is close:


Thus, we see the 5068 and 3308 have 0.200" durations of 140° and 145°, respectively (5° difference). However, DynoSim's formula derives 142° and 144°, respectively (2° difference). Thus, the 5068 is given 2° more credit and the 3308 is short-changed by 1°, with DynoSim estimating the ramp rate as slower for the roller. This will affect the area under the lift curve, thus affecting the results. The respective DynoSim cam cards:



Comparing these two with the Howards above, I get this:


As you said -- not a whole lot of difference. So, why does CamQuest give Comp's rollers much more credit than DynoSim, given similar engine configurations? I surmise it is due to the DynoSim formula short-changing rollers, whereas CamQuest likely has the actual lobe profiles (invisibly) built in. If one manually adjusts the "Estimated Lifter Acceleration" slider in CamManager to better approximate the real lobe profiles, the results show greater differences between the cams.

So, that's my response to the "suspicious" differences.

Regards,
Shawn

FWIW, here's my engine configuration relevant to the simulations: intake is Performer RPM, heads are AFR 180, compression is with the short block as built by me in '93 with Keith Black 18cc dish pistons (keeping short block for now, as it's in very good shape, albeit with the estimated compression being a full point lower than I'd want).

 

Nice article your doing. Keep up the good work.

 

Thanks Shawn for your very thorough research! Contributions like yours make this a much more informative post for everyone and that is certainly the goal.

I considered the ramp angle issue as a possible solution. But, like you, I have trouble seeing as much difference as CamQuest promises.

I recently got an email from a Howard's tech about the difference. His opinion was that on comparable profiles the roller cam would add 5-10%. His comment on the CamQuest numbers? "Not Real" were his exact words.

Another issue - I notice that in your simulation you used the dual-plane max flow setting for the manifold. I was wondering how accurate that turned out for you? I found the high-flow setting more representative for my engine. Your Performer RPM should be roughly equivalent to my Weiand Stealth. And the AFR 180's numbers are almost a dead ringer for my HVH double hump vortecs.

One of my concerns about dyno software is the potential inaccuracy of the manifold selection. Both programs seem to allow you to make infinite adjustment about some things -- like actual head flow numbers -- but then only allow you a high, medium, and low flow setting on manifolds. Makes it hard to anticipate actual numbers with the software. Makes me jealous of the guys who have access to a flow bench and dyno!

 

We are finally ready to install the oil pickup and pump. I had all the right specs from Melling and the gaskets they said to use. Noticed that one of the main studs is going to be hidden by after the oil pump install so took a few minutes to double check the torque on the rods and mains. Everything looked good there.

The hole in the pickup gasket was a little small and would not slide over the pickup. I tried force fitting one but it tore, so I enlarged the next one slightly with a razor knife and the fit was perfect. Good thing Melling sent me extra gaskets!

Also when test fitting the pickup I noticed that the tab that bolts the pickup to the pump interfered with the pump housing. About a minute with the grinder solved that problem.


Pickup tab adjustment

I was afraid that the bolt hole might be off and there was no way to check that until the pickup was driven home. Fortunately the bolt went in without issue. Next all four pump cover bolts were loosened, doused with red Loctite and re-torqued to the proper specs.

You will remember the problems I noted with the Canton pickup. We used a vice to round the oval tube and then did a test fit. Turns out there is a compression ring inside the oil pump so it had to be press fit into the hole (And the Canton tech claimed they built them on a pump! Ha!). This was accomplished by using the pickup bolts to locate the pickup and then driving the pickup home with a hammer and wood block. (Would have been nice if we had a press, have to add that to my Christmas list!). Nice that Canton provides a seat welded to the pickup to do this!


Canton pickup install

The bolts were coated with red Loctite before installation then after the pickup was driven home they were torqued to the appropriate spec. Not much way that pickup is going to come loose!

The final work before the pump install was to torque the pump spring retainer. Like the rest of the oil pump bolts this was in inch lbs. rather than ft. lbs. Good thing I had picked up the proper torque wrench on my last visit to Harbor Freight! The retainer got the red Loctite and then was torqued to 215 in. lbs. Pump is ready to install!

Now that the oil pump was ready it was time to install it in the engine. First I installed the ARP pump stud with red Loctite into the block, then test fitted the pump to the stud.


ARP oil pump stud installed

I measured the pickup depth and it read 7 1/4 . The pan depth was about 7 5/8. Add about 1/8 for the pan gasket and we were almost exactly at 1/2” clear, just what we needed. Then we set the pan gasket and pan on and rotated the engine to make sure everything cleared. So it was off with the pan and the pump and on to the final assembly.

First the special extension that drives the distributor was installed in the right hole. Then the pump was set on the stud and torqued down using blue Loctite. Why blue? Joe told me horror stories of people who had a problem and had the pull the pump back out, so we used blue just in case. It is torqued to 65 ft. lb anyway so I doubt it could ever work loose.


Torquing the oil pump stud

Once the pump was torqued down (no gasket between the pump and block) everything seemed to fit fine. We rolled the block over and turned the pump with a special tool Joe had and it felt good.

We drove in the new front main seal in the timing cover with the wood block. Had to trim a little excess paint out to get it to fit. Then the gasket was installed on the timing cover with a light coating of RTV sealant and then the new stainless bolts were snugged down in the cover. Did not have the exact torque spec on them so the final torque will be done next time. I did not tell Joe but I think my orange cover looks better than his chrome one!

Rolled the engine back over and installed the new pan gasket. Put some RTV sealant in the four corners where the pan meets the mains, Joe says this is where they always leak if you don’t. Joe also declared that he always had to fight with the one piece pan gasket but but this one slipped into place without a problem. Then I realized that I had left the dipstick extension tube that goes in the pan at home! Bummer! Oh well, at least we can get all the bolts in and make sure everything fits. Took a little finagling to get all the bolts to line up but we got her in and cinched down. Starting to look like an engine!


Oil pan bolted on

So here is the short list for the next day’s work when I get to it.
1. Torque the timing cover bolts to the proper spec.
2. Pull the pan and install the dipstick extension tube.
3. Bolt the pan down and double check the rod clearance with the crank scraper.
4. Install the oil filter retainer with the bolts.
5. Prefill the oil filter and install it.

 

.500" pickup depth is to much. You want between 1/4" and 3/8" from the floor of the pan to the pickup.

 

You're welcome, Mark! I'm an Aerospace Engineer by degree and most recently was an Operations Analyst for a large defense contractor (lots of simulations and analysis of scenarios and equipment configurations), so I tend to analyze stuff like this excessively. :P

I agree about the sparse & vague input settings for the intake manifolds causing inaccuracy. The exhaust settings also leave a lot to be desired. For example, my current headers are Doug Thorley 1-5/8" Tri-Ys with 2-1/4" duals/h-pipe, but I'll be going to Dynatech stepped 1-5/8">1-3/4" long-tubes and 2-1/2" duals/h-pipe -- DynoSim treats both the same. As you say, inputs for other factors are much more fine-grained. In doing operations analysis on a configuration, I would have done a "sensitivity analysis" to see if such rough cuts on intake/exhaust inputs made a difference in output, but we know from dozens and dozens of magazine dyno articles that there is a lot of overlap in characteristics between "high-flow" and "max-flow" in the real world, and consequently on performance. In the case of manifolds, flow data is pretty sparse and is almost never mentioned in dyno articles, so rough cuts is pretty much what we have to use. It would be tough to characterize and model the resonant flow in intakes & exhausts anyhow, short of a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model.

As for the question "I notice that in your simulation you used the dual-plane max flow setting for the manifold. I was wondering how accurate that turned out for you?," I can't answer that with any real-world back-to-back testing between manifold types while holding the other parts of the configuration the same. However, the shape of the torque curve does roughly match between DynoSim and real world results from a dyno session I did a few years ago. DynoSim cannot capture two (or maybe three) factors in my configuration that affected the real world results on either end of the RPM range: the behavior of the Rhoads lifters making the cam "smaller" below ~3,000 RPM*, the the welded-in pipes being necked-down at the mufflers (a frustrating story for another time), or an air/fuel ratio issue at the top end (the dyno's sniffer was inoperative, so I could not verify this).

None of this is to say that DynoSim is not a good tool -- I believe it is if used properly. It's definitely been helpful in narrowing down cams to suit my purposes, especially to toss out outliers which would not be good for my parts combination.

Enough of this simulation discussion -- I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of your build!

- Shawn

* I suppose I could guess at the bled-down cam profile and use the VVT option, but that is for an on/off behavior, not continuously-varying.

 

Canton says that 5/16 to 3/8 is ideal with a maximum of 1/2. Since my measurements were taken with a non-compressed pan gasket the final clearance will be less than 1/2. If I was planning to do racing or using a stock pan (or -- heaven forbid -- both) I would be more concerned. But with an extra two quarts of oil in the engine and no plans to abuse it I am not worried about 12/100ths of height difference. Thanks for your concern!

 

After getting the oil pump installed I began to stew about some of the torque figures for the studs I am using. The impetus for this head scratching was that I ran across ARP’s spec for the oil pump stud which was 55 ft. lbs. with ARP lube. Everything else I could find said that the original Chevy bolt should be torqued to 65 ft. lb. Well, when you find a discrepancy like that it makes you rethink everything.

I began reading all the variety of opinions that people had on what to torque oil pump studs to. Unfortunately people were claiming all sorts of figures (35-70). I went to ARP’s website and they said you had to email them to find out the torque spec on their pump stud. That did not make a lot of sense, but I emailed them anyway.

When the email came back from ARP, they recommend 55 ft. lb. on the oil pump stud. The only way to do this would be to loosen the nut on the pump stud, clean it, and re-torque it. I also talked to Bill at B&R who said he uses 50 ft. lb. with the same lube. The primary concern seems to be cracking the housing on the oil pump, but since I am using a heavy duty pump casting that is not a problem.

I kept researching and finally found what I think is the answer. There is a considerable difference in torqueing a bolt or nut using ARP lube and anything else. Seems that ARP lube is so slippery that it mitigates the torque figures between 10-15%. So if you torque the stud to 55 ft. lb. with ARP lube is it roughly the same as torqueing it to 65 with anything else. (If anyone has a better explanation for the discrepancy would be happy to hear it).

Using the ARP figure of 55 and increasing it by 10% to compensate for using Loctite gave me 60 ft. lb. So I disassembled the oil pump stud, cleaned it, and put it back in at 60 ft. lb. using blue Loctite.

While I was looking for the spec on the oil pump stud on the ARP site, I found the specs on the main studs. For normal Chevy bolts the main torque is 65 or 70 ft. lb. ARP says their main studs should be torqued to 80 ft. lbs! And that is with ARP lube! That seems like an awful lot.

Joe’s advice, which seems sound, was to talk to Bill and see what spec he torqued the studs to when he line bored the block. We want to use the same spec to keep from distorting the main caps. I talked to Bill and B&R and he reported that he torqued the main studs to 65 ft. lb. when he line bored the block. That is what I torqued them to earlier so that was good to go.

I had used Eagle’s recommendation on torqueing the rod bolts (40 ft. lbs.) since they use special bolts made by ARP. So there was nothing I felt I needed to change there.

Joe also recommended using studs to install the heads rather than bolts. The only drawback is that ARP head studs cost about $160 for a set. A bit pricey! Joe said he uses generic head studs that are a lot cheaper but he could not remember where he got the last set. So off to search I went. Found a set of ARP clone studs from Skip White in Kingsport, Tennessee for $60. Joe thinks they will work nicely and they look just like the ARP units. He even got a set for himself.

Joe’s logic is that if you are using the studs on a high horsepower engine with nitrous or supercharging you probably want the high dollar ARP units. But for a 450 hp engine generic studs should be quite sufficient since they are much stronger than the bolts the engine came with.

I checked on the torque specs on head studs as well. Again, ARP recommends 80 ft. lbs. and the standard Chevy bolts are 65 ft. lbs. Several engine builders have chimed in on this one. If you are using iron heads 80 ft. lbs. is not a problem. But if you are using aluminum heads (which is what I was planning) using 80 ft. lbs. will overstress the aluminum and score the head. Most recommend 65-70 ft. lbs. with aluminum heads.

So the bottom line is: when you use studs rather than bolts do your research. ARP’s recommendations are a one size fits all which are probably geared to make sure that a stud does not fail from under tightening on a super high performance engine. And the standard Chevy torque should probably be more than sufficient for our application.

Since I had the pan off, the thought crossed my mind about checking the torque on the main and rod bolts one last time. I remember a You-Tube video that shows a 429 Ford self destructing on it’s 7th dyno pull. Seemed like cheap insurance to check since I was there. So I tested all the main bolts at 65 and the rod bolts at 40. Everything checked out fine. I also installed to dipstick extension tube that I forgot the last time (you just tap it in gently). Then it was on to re-installing the pan.

Got the pan put back on, tightened down the bolts and spun the crank. Heard a “tink…tink…tink” sound as I turned the crank. Sounds like some of the rods were contacting the crank scraper. Joe remarked that pretty much all aftermarket pans have this problem with the 383 crank. So I pulled off the pan again and checked the crank scraper. Sure enough there were three marks where rods were touching the crank scraper.


Oil pan clearance issues

Pulled out the ball peen hammer and tapped the offending sections down to clear the rods. Probably overdid it a bit, but I figured better be sure than have to pull the pan off again. Put the pan back on and retightened all the bolts. Spun the crank and …silence! It was a sweet sound … or maybe lack of sound. So now the bottom end of the engine is all buttoned up! Time to move to the top end!

 

What does the head manufacturer recommend? I'd choose that value over what a builder says, as heads vary in architecture (deck thickness, etc.).

FWIW, AFR says this:

 

Using the head mfg recommendation is a reasonable suggestion. The problem is sorting out what they actually recommend. As you quote, AFR says to use the bolt mfg recommendations. Edelbrock says to use 65 if you are using bolts, but doesn't say what to use if you are using studs.

I think this is illustrates the frustration for someone trying to build their own engine. So many people say so many different things you have to make a choice somewhere. On the heads I chose to go with Joe and Joey's (Joe's son) recommendations as they were the guys who helped design the heads I am using. Bill's shop has more than 100 total years of building engines (including race engines) so I also listened to what he had to say as well.

But in the end if you build your own engine the choices are your responsibility. I'm sure that is part of the reason so many guys just pay someone to build and engine for them. Build your own = no warranty.

 

Well i like reading this build thread and im sure u will be successful and have a great running strong 383. From my reading it looks like u started a budget build w/cast rotating assembly and flat tappet cam. But got somewhat OCD w/AFR heads, oil system and bolts. Using a cast crank and eutectic pistons u don't have any room to grow. U can always change cam and heads but not pistons and crank. I think all that sim software misled u as it maybe good for looking at trends but not accuracy.

I guess what I'm saying is u have a very nice oil system and heads that can make anyone jeoulous. But u could have made the same power w/lesser oil system parts and heads.

Also I wouldnt have chosen the cam until I measured compression w/liquid under plexiglass for a very accurate reading.

Don't take this wrong as I'm sure u will have powerful 383 that will take a beating. Just posting my thoughts to help others reading. OK so why don't build my own 383 and post pix. Well I guess i am w/my GEN II block but racing and breaking my camaro keeps getting in the way.

Good luck.

 

I use the melling high volume pumps on my two vette motors. I setup my system for no bypass. You have to use WIX or K&N filters that can handle the pressure. I run as high as 70-75 psi if I'm out on the track

I use the weight of the oil to adjust my oil pressure. So I use a combination of 10W-30 and 20W-50 VR1 high zinc racing oil

 

No reason to use hi volume pumps in these builds. Unneeded really, only if you have to much baering clearance or aluminum rods.

Harry

 

I wish that I could have warned you about SL pistons. They have a FPM limit and then they fall apart. Your longer 3.750 stroke makes the limit at lower rpm than my 3.480 stroke.

I thought that i was doing a good build with a B&B L-82, forged crank, good 5.7 rods, and SL pistons for tighter cylinder wall clearance.

I was so bumbed out when it sounded like rod knock after flooring it on a freeway. I called KB when I opened up the motor and they then told me about the FPM limitation. They are made for budget rebuilds in grandma's car.

I still have that short block sitting in the corner, to remind me of a wasted rebuild. No they didn't give me a dime back

 

Note that he used Keith Black hypereutectic pistons, not Keith Black "Silv-O-Lite" cast pistons. Your admonition to not use the Silv-O-Lite pistons in a performance application is good advice in general, but does not apply in this case.

 

See the SL? I just called them that instead of typing out Hyper pistons. Hyper piston fell apart on me in a 355 ci. More like smeared and broke away.

 

Yes, I did see that. His pistons have both the "SL" and "KB." Keith Black hypereutectic pistons and Keith Black cast pistons are different product lines, the Silv-O-Lite being the latter. I took it you were talking about cast pistons -- now that's cleared up.

 

I've just been following this one off and on....but want to say you're doing a great job detailing your build.

As mentioned...if I was going to all this work...no way I'd have a Hypereutectic anything in something I wanted to beat on from time to time. Certainly pay attention to the ring gap discussion...hyper's hold a lot of heat in the crown area and rings typically need more gap. Also be VERY careful/conservative on timing and over all tune and pay attention to any signs of detonation/preignition. Way too many examples out there of pistons coming apart. Yes..there are many mild builds running them...and the OEM's use them in some pretty nasty stuff these days...but Mahle OEM Hyper's are a long way from most aftermarket hot rod stuff and we don't typically have full engine management monitoring every cylinder and adjusting things before the next spark. Our tuning window is a lot narrower.

Cast cranks can hang in there pretty good...but again as mentioned...sort of limits future growth potential.

On the whole bolt tightening procedures...use ARP's specs for lube and torque on their bolts. You want to cycle the bolts 2-3 times to mate the threads to get an accurate reading. You will also often find it takes MORE than their recommended torque reading to get the preferred stretch if you measure it with a gauge. Definitely don't go less than they recommend. ARP bolts are stronger than most and have better threads....they can take more load and due to the strength of the alloy NEED more torque to achieve the designed stretch. I understand the point of using the same specs that were used during line honing...but if it had the ARP studs in place when it was done...why didn't he use the proper specs? Likely won't change the bore size much..but will have a definite bearing on the clamp load of the fasteners.

On the "knock off" head studs...use whatever they say. You already mentioned the difference in ARP lube and you are correct. It's slippery and it's easy to overtorque things if you use specs normally recommended for oil. For folks who use Neverseize on head bolts and intake bolts...be aware it's got a pretty high friction level and will take more TQ to achieve proper stretch usually.

And when "verifying" torque...the fastener actually has to be turning to measure it. Otherwise you're measuring "breakaway" TQ which will be a lot higher than what it's actually got clamping things. You'd have to back off each nut one at a time and re-torque it to be sure.

Just a quick note on the oil pickup clearance. Once you tighten it all down, you'll probably be OK..but it would be worth double checking with some sort of rod placed through the drain plug to measure. It doesn't matter if there are 10 extra qts in the pan....all that matters is that the pickup never becomes uncovered even for an instant. Air is bad. My Milodon race pan actually "steps in" as opposed to "kicks out" at the bottom part to ensure that whatever actually gets back to the pan is deeper over the pickup. One of the best/simplest designs I've ever seen that just flat works. Many OEM's do the same thing. The big kickout pan brings ground clearance, but also spreads the oil out over a larger area...so it's not as deep over the pickup. Most would probably be better off with a smaller sump and a remote reservoir like a dry sump uses. Just for reference...Chris Straub has a lot of oil system experience with this stuff from his days working with Stef's oil pans.

Anyway...just my .02...and again...I'm sure the build will suit your purposes as described..just wanted to add a little info to the discussion!

JIM

 

When I built my L-82 into a 355 using forged crank, forged rods, etc I asked the builder about hypereutectic pistons in place of the TRW forged OEM's and he said no way...not a fan. We used JE forged racing 9:1 pistons....