LS oiling issues on a Road Course?

[xxxturbo6]

Okay guy's I'm in the planning stage of doing a LS2/4L65E swap into the GNS Test Buick and got to worrying about wasting my engine in the turns on a road course over this oiling issue! this oiling issue has been mentioned quite a bit on LS1TECH about having to go to a Dry-Sump oiling sytem but I don't see many here doing it to their cars. How come?

They have mentioned that the LS engine's oil stays to one side in a sustained left hand turn at 1.3 G's to 1.5G's. Are your cars just not getting to those G's as some of those track corvettes and That's why it's not needed?

I know people from here have ran their cars pretty hard on several Road Courses and have not had problems so when is this Dry-Sump system needed?

Will I be okay?


Scot W.

[67 ls1 vert]

Hey Scott, first of all, it's really hard to get your car over 1 G. You most likely be around .8's maybe .9 G's. There is guys on here that do over 1.G but that will come later after lots of experience and MONEY.

As for a road pan, look for something that has baffles inside it. I am using an ATS pan. But, I'm not sure if they carry one for your car chassis, but I know it will work on your engine. Give Tyler a call at Anvil and ask him what he knows.
I'm sure other guys in here might have another ideas. Good luck.

[andrewb70]

There are other topic specific forums for a reason. The Open forum is not a dump all for everything.

Andrew

[xxxturbo6]

There are other topic specific forums for a reason. The Open forum is not a dump all for everything.

Andrew Excuse Me! Sorry...

[xxxturbo6]

Hey Scott, first of all, it's really hard to get your car over 1 G. You most likely be around .8's maybe .9 G's. There is guys on here that do over 1.G but that will come later after lots of experience and MONEY.

As for a road pan, look for something that has baffles inside it. I am using an ATS pan. But, I'm not sure if they carry one for your car chassis, but I know it will work on your engine. Give Tyler a call at Anvil and ask him what he knows.
I'm sure other guys in here might have another ideas. Good luck. Thanks for the info! I was wondering why a lot here have not been using the dry-sumps..

I may just run a Accusump just to add that extra oil if needed.


Scot W.

[67 ls1 vert]

yeah, I thought was kind of a rude way of going about that too.

[Payton King]

They are running slicks and it is on the LS2 motors. What pan are you going to run. I am running an F-body pan and Improved Racing makes a trap door baffle that drops inplace of the stock one. You still run the stock windage tray that bolts to the mains. That coupled with an accusump should protect you from any problems...unless you get really fast on the big track

http://www.improvedracing.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_3&products_id=30&osCsid=bdf6acd392cc9cc61685f6058e13568b

[xxxturbo6]

They are running slicks and it is on the LS2 motors. What pan are you going to run. I am running an F-body pan and Improved Racing makes a trap door baffle that drops inplace of the stock one. You still run the stock windage tray that bolts to the mains. That coupled with an accusump should protect you from any problems...unless you get really fast on the big track

http://www.improvedracing.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_3&products_id=30&osCsid=bdf6acd392cc9cc61685f6058e13568b Hi Payton, It was nice shooting the chit with ya at the RTTH event. Not sure of what pan I will go with yet, we are still in the early stages of deciding what will be the right way to go... I strongly believe in "Do it right, Do it once"!!

I doubt that I will ever get fast enough to need a dry-sump system, I just want to go out there and have a good time and keep up...

Thanks for the link!

Scot W.

[Steve68]

I shortened the pan and shortened the stock windage tray, I measured the pan, I didnt whack it off like some retro places do,

When I shortened it, I think I took .5 off the windage tray, I'm hoping that will keep oil in its place, of course its not bolted to anything, I have no real world results!!!

[SIK02SS]

If you're planning to do a lot of road courses, ARE 3 stage dry sump it and be done. The LS2/3/7 blocks (as you said) were not designed for sustained 1.3+ G's. I can only guess what your suspension setup is, but it sounds like it's more than what I have on my '67..if you put a good set of DOT-R tires like a Hoosier A6, you should have no problem hitting 1+ G's after some good seat time, and I'm pretty positive I could do the same in my '67 (assuming i don't slide out of the seat first!). If the funds allow it, better to be safe than sorry..plus it's cheaper to put the 3 stage dry sump in now than it is to buy a new motor down the road.

The Corvette guys with the "Batwing" pan and accusump are still blowing motors. Same with the C6Z guys who have a factory dry-ish sump. They still need to upgrade to a larger tank with bigger/better baffle. My 2002 Camaro SS was fine with it's improved racing baffle, but the baffles don't work for the LS2/3/7's

[neki67]

My 2002 Camaro SS was fine with it's improved racing baffle, but the baffles don't work for the LS2/3/7's

Would you be so kind to disclose why it won't work for those engines?

[parsonsj]

Over in CorvetteForum there is a lot of talk and a nice analysis of why LS7s are failing due to high Gs on a road coarse. The factory dry sump is inadequate once you get some seat time and have decent rubber on the car. Apparently, left hand turns are worse than right handers. The problem is real, if you are going to run serious laps, the ARE setup is your best bet.

On Unfair, we're installing a Stack data logger to allow us to look for low oil pressure situations (along with a Moroso/ARE dry sump setup to try and prevent them).

jp

[RSX302]

My 3600lb RSX pulls a constant 1.1-1.2g's and peaks about 1.3 with Toyo R888's...(w/Mustang II style front suspension) The previous Ford 302 had a dry sump system and it will be transferred over to my new LQ9 set-up.. Just good insurance over 1g!

Not only oil control, but fuel control is an issue as well...

[SIK02SS]

Would you be so kind to disclose why it won't work for those engines?

The block was not designed by GM to withstand sustained 1.3+ G's. In the race class I run (touring 1 with SCCA), an LS2 or LS3 w/the batwing pan and accusump will die on about lap 7..give or take, nearly every time out. Some tracks are easier on the motors than others, but it will happen. Once the 3 stage dry sump was introduced, the motors have otherwise withstanded the track abuse.

The baffle cannot overcome the deficiencies of the blocks engineering.

There's a guy with a later model M3 with LS2 swap and has an accusump and baffle, every hard left hand corner he noticed oil pressure dips and had to get off the gas substantially to keep the motor alive. I believe he's finally began believing me that he needs at least a 3 stage dry sump.

I have nothing against improved racing and their baffles, like I said, I have one in my LS1 Camaro (of course the new motor going in is an LS3..) and had no issues with it or their product, but it just can't overcome the blocks deficiencies..

[ProBell]

What is the difference with a LS1 block compared to the other blocks? How would the block stop the oil from getting to the pan? I would think the problem is in the pans?

[neki67]

That means it would work in any of these engines equipped with the F-body oil pan as long as the car's abilities don't exceed > 1G for a prolonged period of time, right?


The block was not designed by GM to withstand sustained 1.3+ G's. In the race class I run (touring 1 with SCCA), an LS2 or LS3 w/the batwing pan and accusump will die on about lap 7..give or take, nearly every time out. Some tracks are easier on the motors than others, but it will happen. Once the 3 stage dry sump was introduced, the motors have otherwise withstanded the track abuse.

The baffle cannot overcome the deficiencies of the blocks engineering.

There's a guy with a later model M3 with LS2 swap and has an accusump and baffle, every hard left hand corner he noticed oil pressure dips and had to get off the gas substantially to keep the motor alive. I believe he's finally began believing me that he needs at least a 3 stage dry sump.

I have nothing against improved racing and their baffles, like I said, I have one in my LS1 Camaro (of course the new motor going in is an LS3..) and had no issues with it or their product, but it just can't overcome the blocks deficiencies..

[xxxturbo6]

The block was not designed by GM to withstand sustained 1.3+ G's. In the race class I run (touring 1 with SCCA), an LS2 or LS3 w/the batwing pan and accusump will die on about lap 7..give or take, nearly every time out. Some tracks are easier on the motors than others, but it will happen. Once the 3 stage dry sump was introduced, the motors have otherwise withstanded the track abuse.

The baffle cannot overcome the deficiencies of the blocks engineering.

There's a guy with a later model M3 with LS2 swap and has an accusump and baffle, every hard left hand corner he noticed oil pressure dips and had to get off the gas substantially to keep the motor alive. I believe he's finally began believing me that he needs at least a 3 stage dry sump.

I have nothing against improved racing and their baffles, like I said, I have one in my LS1 Camaro (of course the new motor going in is an LS3..) and had no issues with it or their product, but it just can't overcome the blocks deficiencies.. So it's just the LS2 & LS3's that encounter this problem?

How is the aluminum LS1 with oiling and sustained 1.3+ G's?

How come people won't just stick to the LS1's then if they are better in this area? The added cost to go to an LS2 and the dry-sump system could buy some nice parts!!!


Scot W.

[SIK02SS]

What is the difference with a LS1 block compared to the other blocks? How would the block stop the oil from getting to the pan? I would think the problem is in the pans?

LS1 and LS6 blocks' internal oil passages were just better designed. I'm not an engineer so I don't know the specifics of exactly what, but I do know a couple of the engineers and race with a guy who knows a few more.



That means it would work in any of these engines equipped with the F-body oil pan as long as the car's abilities don't exceed > 1G for a prolonged period of time, right?

Essentially, YES. The motors live all the time on track and auto-x when the 1.3+ G threshold isn't broken regardless which pan is fitted to them. I think the guy with the LS2 M3 noted drop in pressure below 1.3, I think between 1.1 and 1.2



So it's just the LS2 & LS3's that encounter this problem?

How is the aluminum LS1 with oiling and sustained 1.3+ G's?

How come people won't just stick to the LS1's then if they are better in this area? The added cost to go to an LS2 and the dry-sump system could buy some nice parts!!!


Scot W.

and LS7. The LS1 and LS6 are fine, give them an accusump and quart over, and they'll go for years (a few people are even arguing they don't even need an accusump, but a couple engineers think we do).

Well, for racing in my class they have to, if they are racing a C6 they can run either the LS2 or LS3, the LS3 makes more power and is a no brainer. This also leads into why people build motors based off these blocks: they are larger C.I from the factory than an LS1 or LS6 block, and have a larger displacement potential from stroking only. My LS3 build for my 02 camaro is a stroked 416 ci which should make over 500 at the wheels. Since I have the Corvette to race now, the Camaro won't see the same track time it used to and I'm not too worried about it. It all depends on a persons goal and budget, and most people don't build cars with the intent to take them to the road course and push them hard, so for 95% of the populous, the motors are fine.