Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey Guys,

Currently going through my build and I'm going to be making a Oil Tank soon. Plan Is to be about 500mm Tall and about 220mm in Diameter. so it would be a 10L tank and that means that i will be able to run approx 7L in the tank. My main question is Tank Location, Does the tank have to be above the pump pressure side inlet so that it will gravity feed or will it be okay to run it level? My plan is to run in behing the 'B' Pillar of the roll cage. After doing some corner weighting with me in the car i need to add some more weight to the back LHS. But i dont want to be having to run a oil hose upto the tank if it has to be half way up the rollcage.

Cheers for your help guys

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/457300-dry-sump-oiling-systems/
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Yes but from fluid dynamics, the longer the pipe the more the pressure drop.

It isn't pressurised. It's just a header tank for the pump that is in the engine bay.

As stated above. Place in the boot, on the left. Purpose of this is for the best weight balance when corner weighting.

post-76224-0-81545600-1436651160_thumb.jpg

Yeah the fluid between the tank and the pump is under no pressure at all its only a gravity feed to the pump.

Yeah that was the idea just wasnt sure we have corner weighted it an we have moved the battery placement further back and the firebomb back so adding another 15kg to the back pass side will be awesome for corner weight. My main concern was having oil get to the pump but solong as the pump is below the oil level in the tank and no part of the oil line goes above oil level in the tank gravity should feed the pump no problem

No, not my car mate, just an image I've pull off the net.

All the supercars run that style setup.

Fit a electric oil warmer in the tank too, just plug it in 1hr before you want to start, and bingo, warm oil ;)

  • 2 months later...
  • 5 months later...

Bringing this back from the dead abit but you guys had a fairbut of knowledge on the dry sumps. Obviously pump at the front tank at the back. How would i go having an oil filter on the scavenge line in the boot then a cooler then into the tank? or is it best to have the cooler and filter closer to the motor?

No, the filter should be on the pressure side, before your expensive engine.

So you'd plumb in a filter like this:

Pressure out of oil pump--> remote mount oil filter--> oil cooler--> pressure into engine.

I have a filter between engine and dry sump pump and another filter between the pump and the tank and thats all on the scavenge side then a filter on the pressure side of the pump between pump and engine so 3 filters all up

Question is whether the cooler should be 1. on the scavenge side; and 2. in the boot.

Presumably the tank and lines are going to punch out quite a bit of heat. Depending on length of events being run, oil temps may not need to be regulated with a cooler. Any heat exchanger will need to be getting airflow - maybe the oil tank could benefit from a bit of air passing around it to evacuate heat also.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...