home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > Mechanical > performance & modifications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-06-2017, 12:47 AM   #51
FreeEMSFred
Board Member
 
FreeEMSFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kiwiland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuff240 View Post
Not all oil pans are created equal. Some years the "top plate" is just spot welded in a few places. Under high G's like a track car sees the oil runs out the sides between the top plate and the pan. We weld all of those up with a continuous bead or find the better year pans.
True in a sweeper! In a sweeper you have other issues, too, though. The top end of these engines only drains in right hand turns. In left hand turns it'll well up up there and you'll lose volume/surface level in the sump - this hurts. My head will be modified to assist in this area. The other issue to consider is that the top plate only provides oil control, as the pump is emptying the sump quite quickly and relying on refill through the hole to continue working. That's where lots of sub-plate capacity comes in - it gives you more time to empty and requires more latent oil in the head to cause an issue.

Which year sumps? The 94ish squirter I have has a close fit that fluid can leak through, but not quickly. The shape is more of an issue, though, with the cut out for the pump and pickup quite large. Building a good wet sump (approximating an hour glass) for one of these would not be easy due to exterior space constraints, but I intend to give it a shot :-)
FreeEMSFred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2017, 03:07 AM   #52
Tuff240
240 Ninja
 
Tuff240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Central California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeEMSFred View Post
True in a sweeper! In a sweeper you have other issues, too, though. The top end of these engines only drains in right hand turns. In left hand turns it'll well up up there and you'll lose volume/surface level in the sump - this hurts. My head will be modified to assist in this area. The other issue to consider is that the top plate only provides oil control, as the pump is emptying the sump quite quickly and relying on refill through the hole to continue working. That's where lots of sub-plate capacity comes in - it gives you more time to empty and requires more latent oil in the head to cause an issue.

Which year sumps? The 94ish squirter I have has a close fit that fluid can leak through, but not quickly. The shape is more of an issue, though, with the cut out for the pump and pickup quite large. Building a good wet sump (approximating an hour glass) for one of these would not be easy due to exterior space constraints, but I intend to give it a shot :-)
This is a cheap/quick/easy fix that we do to our street cars that will see occasional track time. I take a small chunk of 3" exhaust pipe, cut it in half, open it up a little to match/fit the oil pan, mark oil pan, cut hole in oil pan, weld in modified piece of pipe and cap both ends. Works great and keeps average mildly modified street cars with DOT rubber from starving for oil while in long left hand sweepers on a track.

__________________

-Patrick
Tuff240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2017, 07:34 AM   #53
xmlhack
Board Member
 
xmlhack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Bay, FL
Default

Do you have a picture of the inside of the pan? What year engine did this pan come from. It looks like an old b20 pan.
__________________
71 Volvo 144S - The original
75 Volvo 242DL - College beater
92 Volvo 940GL - Workhorse
95 Volvo 855 - My first HPT
06 Volvo XC90 - Daughter’s Truck
98 BMW 540i - Commuter
72 Volvo 142E - Current project
xmlhack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2017, 08:41 AM   #54
Tuff240
240 Ninja
 
Tuff240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Central California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xmlhack View Post
Do you have a picture of the inside of the pan? What year engine did this pan come from. It looks like an old b20 pan.
Sorry, nope.
It's just a standard old 92 b230 pan.
Tuff240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2017, 09:28 AM   #55
VB242
OG flat plane crank
 
VB242's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Virginia Beach
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuff240 View Post
This is a cheap/quick/easy fix that we do to our street cars that will see occasional track time. I take a small chunk of 3" exhaust pipe, cut it in half, open it up a little to match/fit the oil pan, mark oil pan, cut hole in oil pan, weld in modified piece of pipe and cap both ends. Works great and keeps average mildly modified street cars with DOT rubber from starving for oil while in long left hand sweepers on a track.

Hmm, I inadvertently made an extra hole on the right side of the oil control plate when I welded in my oil return for the turbo, I didn't look too close inside when I hole sawed the hole in the side of the pan and ended up being half way in the plate and had to cut out a notch on it. I'm sure it's not as effective as your mod but I feel better now about hammering it around the 270° sweeper at nccar
__________________
Me for President

First candidacy driven entirely by smart phone.

Campaign slogan
"Trump, I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire!"
VB242 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2017, 03:31 PM   #56
FreeEMSFred
Board Member
 
FreeEMSFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kiwiland
Default

That can't be more than about an extra half quart/litre? Better than stock, but the issue with left hand sweepers cannot be solved by modifying the sump.

Here's my old first attempt at this, it has a full-length top plate with volume under it from front to back. The four wings take the volume up a full 2 litres, and the whole lot is spaced down 12mm for another litre, 7 litres all up. The top plate is fully welded and the only cut outs are dip stick and pick up tube of a minimal nature. Top plate height is important, and needs to be below high tide mark, approximately where low tide is at max RPM with a couple of litres of oil up around the rest of the engine. Any lower and you have less volume under control. Any higher and you have air under the plate and more slosh. This thing has worked well, though I've not really stress tested it to my own standards. Doing something like this on the Volvo is going to require more engineering and possibly a two-piece design for ease of removal.

FreeEMSFred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2017, 05:06 PM   #57
Tuff240
240 Ninja
 
Tuff240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Central California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeEMSFred View Post
That can't be more than about an extra half quart/litre? Better than stock, but the issue with left hand sweepers cannot be solved by modifying the sump.

Here's my old first attempt at this, it has a full-length top plate with volume under it from front to back. The four wings take the volume up a full 2 litres, and the whole lot is spaced down 12mm for another litre, 7 litres all up. The top plate is fully welded and the only cut outs are dip stick and pick up tube of a minimal nature. Top plate height is important, and needs to be below high tide mark, approximately where low tide is at max RPM with a couple of litres of oil up around the rest of the engine. Any lower and you have less volume under control. Any higher and you have air under the plate and more slosh. This thing has worked well, though I've not really stress tested it to my own standards. Doing something like this on the Volvo is going to require more engineering and possibly a two-piece design for ease of removal.

My solution is not about volume. I was trying to cure a problem with the oil light coming on (low oil pressure due to starvation) through sustained left hand high G turns. Once we figured out that it was oil creeping up the side of the block, this solved it. That was backed up with actual track testing at PIR.

Are there better ways to do it with more volume? Sure, but fitting even a Gp A style oil pan in a 240 is a pain in the ass. This drops right in with no problems or clearance issues and it does the job for most mild applications. If you are really serious about tracking (racing) a redblock, you should just dry sump. It's expensive, but so are cranks, rods and pistons after you burn them up.

That oil pan you posted isn't even a reblock oil pan.

And just in case anyone is intending on copying what I did, the bottom and sides are flush with the hole made and the top overhangs about 1/4" to create a natural oil shield of sorts. It's also all just below the original top plate.

Last edited by Tuff240; 03-06-2017 at 05:14 PM..
Tuff240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2017, 01:51 AM   #58
FreeEMSFred
Board Member
 
FreeEMSFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kiwiland
Default

Yes, I know it's not Volvo. It's the sump that I mentioned in an earlier post and said I'd upload a picture of and it's close to optimal as far as wet sumps go. As you say, and I'd already said, no wet sump is suitable for serious track use, but a sump like the above with lots of volume below a full top plate is as good as it gets. And good enough for most, if other things are taken care of. The engine it's from has the opposite problem to a redblock engine, right hand sweepers. I'm yet to modify that head, but when I do I'll post a thread specifically on oil control and cover it with a few example engines.

As for high-G left handers, the cure is to add drainage to the head on the right hand side so the ~2 litres of oil that get trapped up there can return to the sump and contribute to lubrication instead of flooding everything in site and potentially exiting through breathers (if any). I'm glad the tube oil control method helped, but you/they still had a LOT of oil in the top end that wasn't available for the pump to draw on.
FreeEMSFred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2017, 06:01 AM   #59
FreeEMSFred
Board Member
 
FreeEMSFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kiwiland
Default

I spent some time measuring my block this evening and although it can't hurt, I have my doubts about the benefit of opening up the feed tube to 13mm ID (matching pump and block) from 11mm ID. Why? Because the gallery from the pump entry to the block and the filter is a mere 10.0mm, and to improve this you'd need to bore it out from the bell housing end. Not a minor job, for sure. Is this in the plans? Or just a case of "may as well make it better while fixing the clearance issue"?
FreeEMSFred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2017, 09:04 PM   #60
CaseyHooligan
Board Member
 
CaseyHooligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeEMSFred View Post
I spent some time measuring my block this evening and although it can't hurt, I have my doubts about the benefit of opening up the feed tube to 13mm ID (matching pump and block) from 11mm ID. Why? Because the gallery from the pump entry to the block and the filter is a mere 10.0mm, and to improve this you'd need to bore it out from the bell housing end. Not a minor job, for sure. Is this in the plans? Or just a case of "may as well make it better while fixing the clearance issue"?
Well, I guess I'll find out if it makes a difference....
And yes, a lot of this is "eh, might as well while I'm in there".
I'm no Fluid Dynamics Phd, but in my experience it does help to improve some areas of a system, even if they aren't the biggest restriction.
__________________
Blue 79' 242 GL
Engine Rebuild in process!
CaseyHooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2017, 09:23 PM   #61
BillyMaysHere
Board Member
 
BillyMaysHere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San franpsycho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeEMSFred View Post
I spent some time measuring my block this evening and although it can't hurt, I have my doubts about the benefit of opening up the feed tube to 13mm ID (matching pump and block) from 11mm ID. Why? Because the gallery from the pump entry to the block and the filter is a mere 10.0mm, and to improve this you'd need to bore it out from the bell housing end. Not a minor job, for sure. Is this in the plans? Or just a case of "may as well make it better while fixing the clearance issue"?
mini surge tank/swirlpot of sorts>?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by John V, outside agitator View Post
I am actually the gentlest and kindest of souls, you know that...I wish peace and happiness to everybody
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forg View Post
Was a sandals-and-socks elbow-patch-cardigan-wearing bearded college-professor 10mph-under-the-limit-in-the-fast-lane typical Volvo buyer from 1993 really caring about some sort of limited edition numbering?
BillyMaysHere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2017, 02:35 AM   #62
FreeEMSFred
Board Member
 
FreeEMSFred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kiwiland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyHooligan View Post
I'm no Fluid Dynamics Phd, but in my experience it does help to improve some areas of a system, even if they aren't the biggest restriction.
The real improvement only arrives by pushing the point of lamina flow further up the RPM/flow range and delaying the onset of turbulent flow. For a given perfect tube you will reach turbulent flow at some flow level and throughput will fall drastically despite raising pump end pressure, lowering bearing end pressure, and causing more bypass (where the spring comes in). Until that things are fine.

Smoothing things up definitely helps push that point higher, too. But the existing tube is fairly smooth, and 1mm larger ID than the bored out gallery. The worst parts aren't the 13 to 11 to 13 steps, they're the sharp right angle corners in a few places.

And you stated you were interested in low RPM flow. Although it's true that any improvement will help push pressure drop down, final pressure up, and flow up with it, measuring the improvement at the lower RPM non-turbulent end of the flow spectrum might be a challenge

If you did bore out the lower gallery to 13mm and retap the end for a bigger bung then yeah, there'd be a benefit in overall flow (only significant if the stock system was breaking into turbulent flow at some point, though), provided you followed the improvements through the filter input and output (easy enough to do). The upper rail is bi-directional so wouldn't need much touching and can almost certainly out-flow even a 13mm pump-to-upper-rail connection:

PI * 5.5 * 5.5 * 2 = 190.1 sq mm
PI * 6.5 * 6.5 = 132.7 sq mm

Not taking the non-uniform flow rate, nor the non-even split in flow to the two halves, into account, that's a clear win to the upper rail over any lower feed improvements.

Max effort: Bore that lower gallery out to 13mm and retap the end! Then radius all 90 bends. Then rest assured you've got zero pressure drop issues at higher RPM :-)
FreeEMSFred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2017, 02:40 AM   #63
peterwgpa
Board Member
 
peterwgpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Australia
Default

Like your mod Tuff and fact you have tested it.
peterwgpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2017, 02:43 AM   #64
Tuff240
240 Ninja
 
Tuff240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Central California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peterwgpa View Post
Like your mod Tuff and fact you have tested it.
Track was literally 5 minutes away from our shop. I drove race cars to the track on the public streets several times.

Not as elegant and sophisticated as Casey or Fred would do, but it's simple and works. KISS
Tuff240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2017, 08:45 PM   #65
CaseyHooligan
Board Member
 
CaseyHooligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeEMSFred View Post
The real improvement only arrives by pushing the point of lamina flow further up the RPM/flow range and delaying the onset of turbulent flow. For a given perfect tube you will reach turbulent flow at some flow level and throughput will fall drastically despite raising pump end pressure, lowering bearing end pressure, and causing more bypass (where the spring comes in). Until that things are fine.

Smoothing things up definitely helps push that point higher, too. But the existing tube is fairly smooth, and 1mm larger ID than the bored out gallery. The worst parts aren't the 13 to 11 to 13 steps, they're the sharp right angle corners in a few places.

And you stated you were interested in low RPM flow. Although it's true that any improvement will help push pressure drop down, final pressure up, and flow up with it, measuring the improvement at the lower RPM non-turbulent end of the flow spectrum might be a challenge

If you did bore out the lower gallery to 13mm and retap the end for a bigger bung then yeah, there'd be a benefit in overall flow (only significant if the stock system was breaking into turbulent flow at some point, though), provided you followed the improvements through the filter input and output (easy enough to do). The upper rail is bi-directional so wouldn't need much touching and can almost certainly out-flow even a 13mm pump-to-upper-rail connection:

PI * 5.5 * 5.5 * 2 = 190.1 sq mm
PI * 6.5 * 6.5 = 132.7 sq mm

Not taking the non-uniform flow rate, nor the non-even split in flow to the two halves, into account, that's a clear win to the upper rail over any lower feed improvements.

Max effort: Bore that lower gallery out to 13mm and retap the end! Then radius all 90 bends. Then rest assured you've got zero pressure drop issues at higher RPM :-)
Blind now from all the science...
I totally agree with your determination in regards to the lower galley cross-sectional area.
But what about the stock oil pump transfer tube's interface to the pump? The oil leaving the gear pump cavity runs right into the end of the transfer tube!!! that point right there has got to cause significant turbulence(at any velocity). So increasing the transfer tube's cross sectional area, plus reducing the tube interface area change will likely slow velocity and reduce turbulence, at least before the oil gets the the block.

I'm all for theoretical simulation, but I already know oil system efficiency is not a critical issue for most so I'm just optimizing flow and addressing a few other issues here(main stud clearance, oil seal failure).

I'm a proponent of real-world experimentation, I'll just have to wait and see if all this makes a difference when I get this engine running.
CaseyHooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2017, 08:47 PM   #66
CaseyHooligan
Board Member
 
CaseyHooligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuff240 View Post
Track was literally 5 minutes away from our shop. I drove race cars to the track on the public streets several times.

Not as elegant and sophisticated as Casey or Fred would do, but it's simple and works. KISS
Tuff, I'm totally taking a page from your book and adding a kick-out on the passenger's side.
CaseyHooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2017, 12:48 AM   #67
Tuff240
240 Ninja
 
Tuff240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Central California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyHooligan View Post
Tuff, I'm totally taking a page from your book and adding a kick-out on the passenger's side.
Cool, I look forward to what you come up with. I'm really enjoying watching your engine build thread. One of the best redblock builds here ever I think. At least as far as thought and care go. Some of us may agree or not agree with some things, but no doubt the level of detail is impressive to say the least.
Tuff240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2018, 06:07 PM   #68
CaseyHooligan
Board Member
 
CaseyHooligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle
Default

Just sticking my head back in here after being buried by life and other projects.
I'm starting to wind this engine build back up so I can get it on the road.
I'll post more soon, promise!
CaseyHooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2018, 06:14 PM   #69
t8fanning
8v are still cool, right?
 
t8fanning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cedar Hills, UT
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyHooligan View Post
I'm starting to wind this engine build back up so I can get it on the road.
I'll post more soon, promise!
Awesome. Can't wait to see it. I always wondered what happened to that awesome pump setup.
__________________
1982 242 Turbo.
t8fanning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 01:40 PM   #70
CaseyHooligan
Board Member
 
CaseyHooligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by t8fanning View Post
Awesome. Can't wait to see it. I always wondered what happened to that awesome pump setup.
It's still quietly sitting in the corner of the garage, patiently waiting to become a useful part of my life!
CaseyHooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2019, 06:48 PM   #71
CaseyHooligan
Board Member
 
CaseyHooligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle
Default

I finally started the process of building more of these oil tubes. Just received the machined fittings, enough for a dozen assemblies. In 4130 ChroMo.



Waiting on the tube bending, Then I need to TIG them together.
Hope to have something to show in about two to three weeks at this rate.
CaseyHooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2019, 06:55 PM   #72
t8fanning
8v are still cool, right?
 
t8fanning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cedar Hills, UT
Default

Put me on the list.
t8fanning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2019, 07:16 PM   #73
CaseyHooligan
Board Member
 
CaseyHooligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by t8fanning View Post
Put me on the list.
You already are!
CaseyHooligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2019, 06:20 AM   #74
Swedbrick
Board Member
 
Swedbrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Netherlands
Default

Also interested if any are remaining! I was planning to make a similar set myself, but with the lack of a lathe, I'd rather get them made by a fellow tb'er
__________________
Volvo 745 - IPD springs, Sways, K-cam, LH2.4, M90 swap, 3.94 diff, track/daily
Swedbrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2019, 08:30 AM   #75
Stiggy Pop
Board Member
 
Stiggy Pop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Granville, MA
Default

hat in the ring
__________________
'79 242
943 pickup
Stiggy Pop is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.