Oil pan suggestions

[killerbmotorsport]

Thanks for the informative post KillerB. I'm a dealer for your parts and can vouch for how nice the parts are.
Your thoughts on putting the 11mm STI pump on the motors? And do you have a dry sump system you like?

No problem and thanks so much for supporting our products!

I am not a proponent of upsizing the oil pump. The factory size exceeds the flow needed in stock form, and even when bearing clearances are increased. Using a ball bearing turbo also further reduces oiling demand due to a smaller oil restrictor. So when you increase clearances and decrease the restrictor you are essentially the same as OEM. Opening up the clearnaces on a built engine with a journal bearing turbo still does not push the OEM size pump beyond its capabilities. If anything, the bypass valve will fully open less; aerating the oil less, and not increasing oil temperatures as much. The less you bypass the beter for the oil and oil condition. The only time we recommend upsizing the pump is when clearances exceed +.020" on the mains and +.022" on the rods with a journal bearing turbo. This is essentially how a drag engine is built, not what you'd want in a street build or road coarse car.

I like the Peterson R4 scavenge setup, but again we rarely recommend dry sump. The only two scenarios where we recommend it is oval/circle running on a continuous bank, and Suby powered aerobatic aircraft. The aircraft setup is pretty cool as it allows ANY orientation of the engine, but WAY overkill for a car. IMO a budget setup would run 3-stages, all scavenge, with the OEM oil pump. A high end setup would use 5-stages (4 scavenge, one pump) and not utilize the OEM pump. This setup would also use a sealed PCV and vacuum regulator to manage crankcase vacuum. I do not like any of the off the shelf dry setups as they are overpriced for what they are, and do not scavenge from the heads.

Let me know if anyone has any questions

[Santiago]

KillerB, the current FFR 818R car has been logged at regularly pulling 1.6-1.7g in 100+mph sweepers. This is a development mule, so I suspect that by the time we start seeing folks sort through the car's full potential we're going to see higher loads (1.8g - 2.0g sustained would be my guess). If we go with this as our expectation, would you be more inclined to recommend a dry sump set up or do you still think your pan will serve well?

Also, I may personally have an interest in a dry sump set up if it can allow me to lower the engine substantially. A drop potential of 2-3" would catch my attention just for the drop alone, but if I'm only going to get 1" out of a dry sump, then I'm more interested in oil control solutions (pref. that don't empty the bank). The budget setup you suggested sounds interesting, but I'm woefully ignorant of all the details it would require to pull it off. Modifying the OEM pan for bungs, etc., is not a problem, but I was hoping you might give a shortlist of the things that such an approach would require.

Best,
-john

[killerbmotorsport]

KillerB, the current FFR 818R car has been logged at regularly pulling 1.6-1.7g in 100+mph sweepers. This is a development mule, so I suspect that by the time we start seeing folks sort through the car's full potential we're going to see higher loads (1.8g - 2.0g sustained would be my guess). If we go with this as our expectation, would you be more inclined to recommend a dry sump set up or do you still think your pan will serve well?

Also, I may personally have an interest in a dry sump set up if it can allow me to lower the engine substantially. A drop potential of 2-3" would catch my attention just for the drop alone, but if I'm only going to get 1" out of a dry sump, then I'm more interested in oil control solutions (pref. that don't empty the bank). The budget setup you suggested sounds interesting, but I'm woefully ignorant of all the details it would require to pull it off. Modifying the OEM pan for bungs, etc., is not a problem, but I was hoping you might give a shortlist of the things that such an approach would require.

Best,
-john

I'd like to see the datalogs on that. A track prepped (caged, slicks, etc.) STi will see 1.7+ and a bit more with decent aero and speeds. I'd be very impressed if these cars come close to ~2g lateral. Hopefully these values are true, and not being measured with a cell phone app. It's been years since I calculated the critical lateral force, but I want to say it is ~1.82Gs, theoretically. Regardless, if anyone has a true 2G capable car I would like to see how our product performs at these levels on track. Like I said, to date no one has been abe to starve our setup. Not to pat ourselves on the back too much, but we have even replaced other aftermarket setups that have shown pressure problems under track condition. of course every track is different and while I have seen LOTS in this industry, I've not seen it all. So I'm open to exploring limits and coming up with solutions.

So to answer your question... for a wet sump solution our setup is the best performing for an EJ engine, that is currently available. Having not seen oiling issues to date, I'd say it's a good option. Although, you are talking about forces that are beyond what our high end hard core track guys are seeing. Further testing should be done to prove or dispove the capabilities to the levels you are discussing.


Sadly, I'm not all that familiar with the 818 engine mounting design, but droping 2-3" in an Impreza chassis means a redesigned engine cradle or replacing engine mounts with an adapter plate. Even at that, it would be very difficult to swap out mounts only and get a drop that significant. Most aftermarket drop mounts, drop ~6-12mm. I would recommend replacing the OEM pan with a dry-sump pan as it saves a lot of work and is already designed to work correctly. Desiging and plumbing a dry sump system is daunting task if you've never done it before. I recommend searching dry-sump diagrams to get an idea of the parts/pieces needed. Here is a simple diagram of a 4-stage...

1381_dry_sump_oil_systemoil_system_schematic_1.jpg

If testing did prove our wet sump was problematic at super high loads... I do have a multi-pickup design I backburnered years ago that would not cost as much as a dry sump, but still pull oil from the heads as well as the sump. I stopped development because... it never became necessary. Hmmmm

[The Race Line]

I am not sure if this would be helpful or not but Cosworth also makes a larger pan that holds an additional two quarts of oil. I ran across it when searching out some other parts.

Not sure about clearance, but I thought I would put this out for discussion.

Happy to help,
cosworth pan.jpg
Erik Johnson
The Race Line
(970) 344-7761 phone

[Wayne Presley]

I'd like to see the datalogs on that. A track prepped (caged, slicks, etc.) STi will see 1.7+ and a bit more with decent aero and speeds. I'd be very impressed if these cars come close to ~2g lateral. Hopefully these values are true, and not being measured with a cell phone app. It's been years since I calculated the critical lateral force, but I want to say it is ~1.82Gs, theoretically. Regardless, if anyone has a true 2G capable car I would like to see how our product performs at these levels on track. Like I said, to date no one has been abe to starve our setup. Not to pat ourselves on the back too much, but we have even replaced other aftermarket setups that have shown pressure problems under track condition. of course every track is different and while I have seen LOTS in this industry, I've not seen it all. So I'm open to exploring limits and coming up with solutions.

So to answer your question... for a wet sump solution our setup is the best performing for an EJ engine, that is currently available. Having not seen oiling issues to date, I'd say it's a good option. Although, you are talking about forces that are beyond what our high end hard core track guys are seeing. Further testing should be done to prove or dispove the capabilities to the levels you are discussing.


Sadly, I'm not all that familiar with the 818 engine mounting design, but droping 2-3" in an Impreza chassis means a redesigned engine cradle or replacing engine mounts with an adapter plate. Even at that, it would be very difficult to swap out mounts only and get a drop that significant. Most aftermarket drop mounts, drop ~6-12mm. I would recommend replacing the OEM pan with a dry-sump pan as it saves a lot of work and is already designed to work correctly. Desiging and plumbing a dry sump system is daunting task if you've never done it before. I recommend searching dry-sump diagrams to get an idea of the parts/pieces needed. Here is a simple diagram of a 4-stage...

1381_dry_sump_oil_systemoil_system_schematic_1.jpg

If testing did prove our wet sump was problematic at super high loads... I do have a multi-pickup design I backburnered years ago that would not cost as much as a dry sump, but still pull oil from the heads as well as the sump. I stopped development because... it never became necessary. Hmmmm

I was at the prototype testing driving both cars and the data was gathered with my TraqMate system. I have all the datalogs and can verify the 1.7 G loads.

[Santiago]

I'd be very impressed if these cars come close to ~2g lateral.

Stick around friend! And prepare to be impressed. This ain't no STi...

Regardless, if anyone has a true 2G capable car I would like to see how our product performs at these levels on track.... So I'm open to exploring limits and coming up with solutions.

Good to know. Also nice to hear there's at least a back-burner concept you might revisit if the 818 community puts up a real need. I think you're going to get a lot of business from the R-guys...it's already on my list as Plan-A.

FWIW, I wasn't thinking someone could get a substantial drop simply swapping out the mounts. That wasn't the plan. You're either open to cutting the chassis mounts that constitute our "cradle" or you're pretty much stuck with the what we've got. I'll look into the rest and make a call from there, but I like what you guys offer.

Thanks!

-j

[Sgt.Gator]

Any thoughts on the Cosworth 20002499 Oil Control Baffle Windage Tray Subaru EJ20 EJ25 ? It looks to be a combnation windage tray and crank scraper. I use a crank scraper on my Acura B-18 and it does make a difference.
Cosworth20002499.jpg

Generally around $300-325 from many suppliers.

[killerbmotorsport]

^ The shape of the OEM block itself is a REALLY good crank scraper. The rubber valves will sag open over time loosing effectiveness; it's recommended they are replaced every so many hours. Performance wise, the track guys we consult with saw no difference over OEM when they used them. If it were me, I'd spend that money on a modification with better value and effectiveness.

[killerbmotorsport]

If anyone has a decent datalog showing sustained side loads over 1.6Gs I'd be very interested in seeing them and possibly working out some product testing.

[Bob_n_Cincy]

If anyone has a decent datalog showing sustained side loads over 1.6Gs I'd be very interested in seeing them and possibly working out some product testing.

Hi Killerb
This would be great if you could help out.
The video below is from last year. It shows some sustained 1.5 G in some of the corners.
Since last year FFR has added a bigger wing and some other aero pieces to increase down force.
Thanks
Bob

[killerbmotorsport]

Thanks for posting. I see a couple spots where you can almost see 1.6 sustained. Plotted out in a spreadsheet it might be more revealing than what can be seen on the video by eye, but this is certainly good info. Oil pressure data to go with this would be even better.

So my question... What are you currently running for an oiling setup (sump, PCV, etc.)?

Thanks for sharing the info!

[Sgt.Gator]

No problem and thanks so much for supporting our products!

IMO a budget setup would run 3-stages, all scavenge, with the OEM oil pump. A high end setup would use 5-stages (4 scavenge, one pump) and not utilize the OEM pump. This setup would also use a sealed PCV and vacuum regulator to manage crankcase vacuum. I do not like any of the off the shelf dry setups as they are overpriced for what they are, and do not scavenge from the heads.

Let me know if anyone has any questions

How does a 3 stage, all scavenge, with OEM oil pump work? I'm trying to visualize the flow diagram and parts that would be needed and it's not clicking for me.

[Wayne Presley]

2 scavenge from oil pan, 1 scavenge for cam cover, all 3 sections feed the top of the oil tank
oil tank feeds OEM Subaru pump through port in dry sump pan
pump feeds oil filter then the rest of motor like normal.

[Sgt.Gator]

2 scavenge from oil pan, 1 scavenge for cam cover, all 3 sections feed the top of the oil tank
oil tank feeds OEM Subaru pump through port in dry sump pan
pump feeds oil filter then the rest of motor like normal.

Is there a hose or pipe inside the dry sump pan that connects from the incoming port directly to the oem pump? Who makes a setup like that?

[Wayne Presley]

The dry sump pan is thin so the pass through to where the pick up is usually bolted. The bottom of the oil tank feeds the pass through port on the dry sump.

[Boog]

If you had three scavenge stages, why would you go with 2 in the sump and 1 head instead of 1 in the sump and 1 in each head? I'm sure there is an obvious reason but its not coming to me.

[Sgt.Gator]

If you had three scavenge stages, why would you go with 2 in the sump and 1 head instead of 1 in the sump and 1 in each head? I'm sure there is an obvious reason but its not coming to me.

Me too.

The dry sump pan is thin so the pass through to where the pick up is usually bolted. The bottom of the oil tank feeds the pass through port on the dry sump.

Ok, now I see it in these ARE pics:
ARE 1312 Subaru Dry Sump II.jpgARE 1312 Subaru Dry Sump.jpg

I found these schematics on the ARE website, now i think I get it!
http://www.drysump.com/LS%20Plumbing%20Schematics.htm

[Scargo]

2 scavenge from oil pan, 1 scavenge for cam cover, all 3 sections feed the top of the oil tank
oil tank feeds OEM Subaru pump through port in dry sump pan
pump feeds oil filter then the rest of motor like normal.

This raises more questions than answers.
Does ARE offer an online installation guide? Pictures? I am assuming you have to do a little machining and create outlets at the bottom of each of the cam covers. Then these are T'd together and plumbed to the one scavenge pump?
Is the case closed off at various places to create a vacuum? Would seem like a waste if it's not.
Have you done a Daley setup (or other setups) and which works better/holds up better if price is not an object? THX

[Hobby Racer]

...Then these are T'd together and plumbed to the one scavenge pump? ...

That would be problematic when one head is filled with oil and the other is not (say a long high G sweeper turn). The pump would pull air from one head and not pull oil from the other. To ensure that both heads are drained in all situations you would need a separate scavenge stage for each head I would think.

[Scargo]

Not if the case has a positive vacuum on it and is not "vent to atmosphere" or VTA. This is normally the case as part of the attraction of a dry-sump setup. There is the performance boost you get from better ring sealing and a reduction in parasitic loss from oil surge and splash hitting moving parts.