I like the progress and thought going into this. I’m interested but want a little more data before I commit...

The challenge here will be to prove that the modified baffle helps. This is going to be hard as in most cases track testing may not tell us whether we’ve actually made something better (as opposed to just not worse.) For track testing to prove your design is better you almost need to find someone who has a known track with a known scenario where they formerly lost oil pressure and can verify the new design solves the issue. That may be hard to come by in our smallish community.

Instead might I suggest bench testing? Optimizing this design has two issues to solve

1) baffle location
2) hole/gap sizing to properly restrict/allow flow

I liked Hyperion’s comment about comparing to race pans to get an idea on baffling. Assuming you can get that close now we’re just down to restriction/gap sizing. I might start by building a Plexiglas cover that you can torque down to the standard pan gasket so you can watch the oil slosh as you shake or tip the pan by hand. This way you can take some video of how oil flows for the stock baffle vs. the new one.

If you’re feeling hardcore a full on test rig might include:

-Gimble to tip the pan (45 degree tip = 1 g etc)
-Heater to keep oil at ~200 degrees (sterno’s direct to the bottom of the pan perhaps)
-Oil pump (sized for the flow of an ls1 at 7,000 rpm and plumbed through the normal pickup)
-Pressure monitoring on the output side of the pump to verify when oil starvation occurs (output will have to be through an orifice to maintain pressure).
-Raised plex cover (to simulate oil flowing up into the block)
-Windows cut and plexed into each baffle (normal and new) so oil flow below the baffle can be seen

None of the above is that hard it just takes a bit of setup and monitoring. If you want help testing / designing fixtures let me know.

-Joel

__________________
LS1 FC: breaking it in, working out the bugs...
Link to my swap (HEY NEWBIE I wrote this for you)

hyperion do your camera test ,record your oil pressure gauge before and after just a suggestion

I am not going to mention any names because I don't know if it is "public" info, but there are definitely a few out there.

__________________
Never enough.

www.indyhpmedia.com

I am pretty sure you are right and I think one of them would be an LS1FC here in Canada.

__________________

Joel, I did think about doing some testing with water or oil by tilting the pan and observing the oil flow, and I may still do that. But as for the hardcore suggestion, getting those kind of conclusive results would be awesome, but I really don't think it's necessary. However, if you are willing, and have the necessary components to set up that kind of testing rig, I will gladly send you free baffles to test out

Back to discussing the baffle's design... Chris mentioned to me offline that the cup shaped piece attached to the stock baffle may be intended to shield the pickup from aerated oil. Here's a picture of what we're talking about:



My original thought was that this baffling was intended to trap oil behind the pickup during braking. The highest G-forces a typical car will see is under braking, and with that open gap it may have been necessary to add something to prevent oil from leaving the pickup area and possibly even running up the front of the pan. The "cupped" piece may be intended to shield the pickup from aerated oil, but I don't think it's really necessary for one simple reason: foam floats. Unless the oil level gets very low, the aerated oil or foam shouldn't make it to the pickup at the bottom of the pan.

This brings up a key point. If you look a the design of the stock baffle, it really looks like GM engineers were trying to design it prevent oil starvation when oil levels fall well below normal. That some idiot would forget to refill his engine with oil all the way is probably a more likely scenario with the average consumer than sustained high-G turns.

There are several hints: notice how the edges of the stock baffle are curved upwards to prevent oil from running off the edges and force it to run into the sump instead. There is also a recess near to center to help oil drain towards the sump. The oil level sensor has a cover over it as well. The whole cover is essentially guiding oil into the hole above the pickup, and this works fine if there are minimal lateral forces applied. Under high lateral G's, this baffle isn't really affective at all, because all of the oil is allowed to slosh over to one side of the pan.

Anyway, that "cupped" piece in the baffle actually directs oil around the pickup, instead of directly to it. The oil flowing from the front of the pan represents about half of the total drainback (since it's about half of the pan), so I think it would be beneficial to route all of it to the hole above the pickup. Aearation shouldn't really be a problem because the foam will float above the oil until it settles into it.

Now let's direct our attention over to the LS2 pan. We all know the LS2 pan works well. Here's a pic for reference:



I tried to copy the basic principles used in the design of this pan. You can see it has an overhang at the front of the pan and guides oil into the sump. As you can see, this is similar to eliminating the gap in the stock LS1 baffle, except that my baffle has the side compartments covered. The slots cut into the walls in my baffle are approximately the same dimensions as the slots in the LS2 pan. I used photos for reference and took measurements.

So really the only big difference between my baffle and the LS2 pan is the cover. I really think the GM engineers would have added a cover to the LS2 pan if cost wasn't an issue. The benefits of a cover probably don't justify the cost for them, but for our pan the cover is an integral part of it, so we might as well keep it.

I've been looking at some other pans and have noticed some things in common, but in general they vary a lot in design. Some have a full cover, some have no cover at all, some have two oil pumps and pickups, etc. A lot of stock baffles do have a full cover though, with a hole over the sump. Ours is one example. Here's what the baffle for a Dodge Viper looks like:



You can clearly see that the hole in the baffle is the hole above the pickup. Some oil probably seeps through the sides, but not any more than my baffle would. There is no significant slot at the end of the cover like the LS1 baffle. There is also not much of anything guiding oil to the hole in the sump and the cover looks relatively flat. This example is a good indication that my original design would probably work ok and that the oil should not have problem making it into the sump.

Just a side note, one cool thing about the viper pan is that the pickup comes into the pan from underneath, through a hole in the bottom of the pan, which is ideal.

Here's an E36 BMW M3's oil pan:



Moroso Integra pan (stock configuration, does not have trap door baffles):



Now, when adding a trap door-style baffle to an oil pan, extra holes are always added to the cover. This is obviously necessary with a trap door design, because oil that enters the box cannot leave. With my baffle, the compartments are all connected by the passageways and oil can flow in both directions to the other compartments to even out the level, like the LS2 pan. So it's not possible to drain out the other compartments. However, the smaller passages do restrict the flow of oil, so maybe adding some smaller holes in the cover over the other compartments would be beneficial.

Here's the Dodge Viper oil pan with a trap door style baffle installed. Note the extra holes to allow oil to enter those compartments.



Here are some aftermarket pans:

Moroso LSX pan:



This pan I found particularly interesting:



Notice it has those "dams" that habu2 suggested earlier. I don't think this pan has a trap door baffle, but I'm not sure. It has the hole for the sump, and some holes in the rear of the pan.

Anyway, after looking at a lot of stock pans, the designs vary quite a bit. Some have covers, some don't. I think we may be overthinking this whole thing a little.

What I've decided to do is to add the dams that Greg (habu2) suggested. This will funnel virtually all of the drainback from the front of the pan straight to the sump and will help refill the sump under acceleration. The other dam will help guide oil into the sump during braking and turning. The hump over the oil level sensor acts as a dam on the opposite side.

With the dams in place, the only real issue is whether that hole in the center is big enough to allow all of the drainback, and whether the slots at the bottom will flow enough to fill the other compartments. To be safe, it's probably a good idea to add some holes over those other compartments to allow for additional drainback.

I'm thinking of doing something like this:



Or maybe like this:



Where the red areas are holes cut in the cover. Another thing I could do is bring in the edges of the cover in about 1/16"-1/8" to increase the clearance between the cover and the walls of the pan. This would allow more oil to flow in over the edges.

The dams and extra holes would add some cost to the baffle, but hopefully I could keep the group buy costs the same. Another possbility, which would lower costs, is to eliminate the hump welded over the oil level sensor, and use that as a drainback hole.

What do you guys think? Opinions please.

__________________
Michael Ihns
94' RX-7, 2002 LS1


Improved Racing Sub-Forum

Trap-Door F-Body LSX Road Race Oil Pan Baffle Now Available!
Adjustable FD Front Sway Bar End Links

After playing around with the pan and baffles in my bathtub (yeah, I know, I'm retarded), I'm pretty convinced that the stock "cup" that's welded into the baffle is there to "catch" oil for the pickup during sudden, hard braking. It seems to accomplish this pretty well. With my baffle fluid seems to flow into the sump hole from the front of the pan pretty effectively and some also flows in through the sides of the baffle.

I'm trying to find a fluid that has a similar kinematic viscosity at room temperature as SAE 30 oil at 210*F. The kv of water is about 10 times less. And I don't think I want to play around with 210-degree motor oil.

I'm also going to talk to an engineer this weekend who knows a little about fluid dynamics and get his opinion.

__________________
Michael Ihns
94' RX-7, 2002 LS1


Improved Racing Sub-Forum

Trap-Door F-Body LSX Road Race Oil Pan Baffle Now Available!
Adjustable FD Front Sway Bar End Links

engineering researches are way more fun than doing researches on stupid business reports

__________________
F-Body on a diet with slanty-eyes and a haircut crew

Marvel mystery oil or similar? Might still be too thin.... PS fluid? Just some thoughts...

The problem is determining what the viscosities of those fluids are. It would need to be published somewhere, for example: Fluids - Kinematic Viscosities It just needs to be close, but I don't really have a good idea of what motor oil is like at those temps.

__________________
Michael Ihns
94' RX-7, 2002 LS1


Improved Racing Sub-Forum

Trap-Door F-Body LSX Road Race Oil Pan Baffle Now Available!
Adjustable FD Front Sway Bar End Links

Does anyone actually use or trust the oil level sensor? Since my LS2 didnt have one I had to plug the hole on the Fbody pan. My Subaru WRX drain plug fit perfectly and I believe they cost ~$5.

I would rather get rid of the hump and put in 4 dams.

__________________

ForumDig Advanced Auto Forum Search