PDA

View Full Version : Oil Pans for offshore use



mphatc
01-18-2011, 09:54 PM
no one seems to be able to give me a definitive answer to this . . . . .

I am restoring a Magnum 27 with twin 383 SBC engines . . these engines will be close to 500 HP each, and will see 6K rpm use . . .

Both will have oil coolers, remote filters . . and the boat will see offshore and rough water use . .

To that end I'm getting all sorts of suggestions on oil pans . .

Canton makes a bunch of SBC pans, all configurations . . their 8 Qt pan is a full length deep pan . .

There are various pans that have a deep rear sump, and T bottom pans as well.
As the engines will see high rpms and rough water, I will use a scraper and a windage tray.

Do I use a large volume pan with a deep rear sump, or do I use a full length sump with a large volume ?
The latter seems like oil can move forward on landings, regardless of baffling . .

My thinking is a deep rear sump and 6-7 qt capacity as the cooler, lines and remote filter will add 1-2 quarts capacity . . . for a total close to 9 qts . .

and there is plenty of space below the engines for a deep sump . . .

thoughts wanted!!!

Mario L.

The Hedgehog
01-18-2011, 10:20 PM
That ought to do it.

I have a custom T pan with the trap doors and special windage tray on the ZX. My total capacity is around 15 quarts. If you are pushing 9-10 in a small block, that should do it.

BUIZILLA
01-19-2011, 07:43 AM
keep in mind the higher the rpm level the less oil in the pan at that level....

so pan *capacity* is your friend, first and foremost..

anything over and above that with lines, coolers and filters is a bonus

mphatc
01-19-2011, 08:14 AM
so rear sump . . . .vs . . . full length sump . . ?

http://marine-performance-parts.com/18100.aspx

or

http://www.daymotorsports.com/product/2523/8-QT_SBC_COMPETITION_OIL_PAN

I just want to get this right the first time . . fortunately I have lots of space below the sumps and no bilge pump interference.

Mario

Harris Performance
01-19-2011, 09:28 AM
I have used several canton pans, and all their pans have traps in the sump allowing oil in to the pick up area but not out. Also i agree with the post above, the more capacity the better, as long as you have the clearance you need for a big pan!

HallJ
01-19-2011, 01:14 PM
A full length sump will reduce windage losses.
Canton probably makes the best wet sump pan available.

Jeff

CHACHI
01-19-2011, 01:48 PM
Mario, just make sure if you run a larger capacity pan you can bring the oil up to temp in a reasonable amount of time. If you can't, you know the drill, oil thermostats.

Ken

mrfixxall
01-19-2011, 03:35 PM
personally, i would run the kick out pan,reason that is the style i have been using for 10 yrs on my x..never had any op loss and it keeps more oil around the pick up tube..the full length ones are a pain to work around especially if you have offshore mounts..

Rumblefish
01-19-2011, 03:39 PM
Not sure what your dipstick requiremnts are .. some sbc are in the pan.. Canton would be my choice

maddad
01-19-2011, 04:04 PM
Mario, I use a B&B road racing pan that has gates and baffles along with kicked out sides to keep the oil from running back up the walls. It came with a bolt on large tube pickup that has bracing welded on. It also has it's own dipstick and bungs for oil temp/low volume warning. A windage screen and scraper are installed on the pan. With the cooler and remote filter I carry 8/9 qts with none of it in the shallow part of the pan at rest.

HallJ
01-19-2011, 04:12 PM
The kick-outs would be a priority as well.

Jeff

maddad
01-19-2011, 10:10 PM
I forgot to mention any changing of a full size starter with my B&B pan is a nightmare of epic proportions.

mphatc
01-21-2011, 07:12 PM
My engines are built with new DART blocks, and the dipstick location is different.

Interesting point on changing the starter, I need to consider that . . in the Magnum with twin engines, requires one to be a major contortionist . . not for my old body . . and plus Chevy really never did design a good mounting method for an item that is an essential service item . .

I'm leaning towards the full length pan for the reason Hall J mentioned, windage control . .I will be running an oil T-stat . IMO you can't run an oil cooler without it!

Engine efficiency is partially about thermal equalibrium . . I want my oil and coolant at the same temp . .

Looking at some pans this week, I ordered a couple and will return what I don't like.

Mario L.

BobinCovington
01-21-2011, 07:56 PM
Here is my old cast aluminum pan...kind of "old school" though. (sorry I couldn't shrink the size down enough)

http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=61082&d=1295643467

HallJ
01-22-2011, 10:30 PM
My engines are built with new DART blocks, and the dipstick location is different.

Interesting point on changing the starter, I need to consider that . . in the Magnum with twin engines, requires one to be a major contortionist . . not for my old body . . and plus Chevy really never did design a good mounting method for an item that is an essential service item . .

I'm leaning towards the full length pan for the reason Hall J mentioned, windage control . .I will be running an oil T-stat . IMO you can't run an oil cooler without it!

Engine efficiency is partially about thermal equalibrium . . I want my oil and coolant at the same temp . .

Looking at some pans this week, I ordered a couple and will return what I don't like.

Mario L.

Do your bellhousings have provisions to mount the starter?
They will have to spin reverse of course.

If so, you could get a full length kick-out on your pan.

Jeff