347 Dyno Results

A few months back I purchased a used 347 shortblock out of the States via E Bay for US$500. Had been recently built using a std roller block, Eagle crank, Eagle rods and JE forged pistons. I pulled this down and found all machining and parts to be OK, block and crank were crack tested etc.

I built this back up and replaced the balancer, rebalanced the engine and replaced the bearings. Spent a lot of time detailing the webs in the block to help prevent stress cracking in this area.
http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp355/NZGTRA/IMG_0723_2.jpg

The short block was combined with the same Brodix CNC heads, 224/232 Comp Cams custom grind, Edelbrock Air Gap dual plane manifold, 650 Mighty Demon carb etc that I used on the 5.0. This combo on the 5.0 made approx 335/335 rear wheel hp and tq. In the 347 the cam was retarded 4 degrees to help bump power over 5500rpm. 347 compression is 10.5 : 1.

To help the engine rev quicker I used a lightweight steel flywheel and Quarter Master 3 plate clutch. Saved lots of rotating pounds with this.

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp355/NZGTRA/IMG_0727_1.jpg

Dynoed the car today using the same Dynojet dyno as we did all the development on the 5.0. 347 peak hp was 388 and tq 392 at the rear wheels. Peak hp was at 5800 rpm and peak tq at 4500. Very flat torque curve and the 347 is making the 5.0's peak torque before 3000rpm. Graph below is a comparison of the 5.0 Vs the 347.

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp355/NZGTRA/IMG_0834.jpg

Overall I am very happy with the results as they are slightly up on what I had expected. Have attached a link to a video of 1 of the dyno runs;

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp355/NZGTRA/th_MVI_0832.jpg (http://s427.photobucket.com/albums/pp355/NZGTRA/?action=view&current=MVI_0832.flv])

Kel.

Kel,

As allways thanks for sharing your results. Making more power than you expected is a good thing.

David

Kel, that's great stuff. Did you have the block machined with the stud girdle on?

VERY Impressive!

Kel, that's great stuff. Did you have the block machined with the stud girdle on?

Jim, the block had already been completely machined and run in the States. I did not do any additional machining except for hand detailing of all parts prior to balancing (incl block webs).

When I received the engine it already had a girdle on it however I swapped mine from the 5.0 onto the 347 as my was 3/8 thick Vs the skinny one that came with the 347 (1/4" perhaps).

The style of girdle that I run has spacers that go between the maincaps and the underside of the girdle. I usually pull up 1 and 5 main studs to 40 - 50 ftlbs and check for any significant gap between the girdle and main caps at 2,3 & 4 to check alignment. The thicker the girdle the more important this would be so that you didnt preload the block. This could cause premature web cracking otherwise.

Kel.

VERY Impressive!

Cheers Eric. From the playing I have done with these engines now, I am confident that 450+ rwhp will be reasonably easy to achieve but will require an aftermarket block for longevity.

I do not forsee this engine having a happy ending at the power level it is at now, even with keeping revs to 5800 (block will fail at some stage). This years 6 hour is coming up in May so we will find out then!

Kel.

Kel, the reason I asked is a pair of father and son racers who have built engines for their Factory Five roadster and coupe had some issues with the engines coming apart even though they were being very careful about how they put things together. They were using a main girdle as well. What they discovered was that the engine needs to be machined with the girdle in place. Since they did that they've had zero engine problems. I think they were able to verify this through measurement of some sort. Since they told me that I have run across other professional engine builders stressing the same thing. Just thought I'd share...

By the way, check this out, you may find it interesting...

http://www.hardcore50.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=52378

Kel, the reason I asked is a pair of father and son racers who have built engines for their Factory Five roadster and coupe had some issues with the engines coming apart even though they were being very careful about how they put things together. They were using a main girdle as well. What they discovered was that the engine needs to be machined with the girdle in place. Since they did that they've had zero engine problems. I think they were able to verify this through measurement of some sort. Since they told me that I have run across other professional engine builders stressing the same thing. Just thought I'd share...

Probably the same idea behind bolting a torque plate to the block when boring/honing the cylinders. to add the tension that torque heads will apply and make sure the cylinders are still round under pressure

Kel , very nice, very nice indeed.

Devin

Yep. It never ocurred to me that it was important but they stressed it a lot. Several of us got into a conversation about what they were doing for engines since we've all been thinking about which way to go. That also tells me those girdles must really be doing something if they can cause things to flex like that. Hopefully they are doing a good thing.

Kel, the reason I asked is a pair of father and son racers who have built engines for their Factory Five roadster and coupe had some issues with the engines coming apart even though they were being very careful about how they put things together. They were using a main girdle as well. What they discovered was that the engine needs to be machined with the girdle in place. Since they did that they've had zero engine problems. I think they were able to verify this through measurement of some sort. Since they told me that I have run across other professional engine builders stressing the same thing. Just thought I'd share...

Thanks Jim, interesting info. Are you able to find out a little more about what sort of failures they experienced and what machining had to be done with the girdle fitted?

Kel.

Thanks Jim, interesting info. Are you able to find out a little more about what sort of failures they experienced and what machining had to be done with the girdle fitted?

Kel.

The main bearing clearance was the issue. The stud girdle would oval the mains slightly. Just check your main clearances with the girdle on. If they are fine, you shouldn't have a problem.

The main bearing clearance was the issue. The stud girdle would oval the mains slightly. Just check your main clearances with the girdle on. If they are fine, you shouldn't have a problem.

Thanks Jim, that makes sense. Main bearing clearance checked at 6000rpm on the dyno............!! Yup, was plastiguaged in the shed prior to assembly.

Kel.

Kel,
I believe you are right, it got the 6000 rpm test and passed with an A:iceslolan With the 5.0 block, align honing with the girdle in place seems highly advisable given the load flexing possible. Might be good insurance for cylinder boring and honing as well? Can a block even be set up on a boring machine with main caps and girdle in place?

I am wondering if the rotating assembly was internally or externally balanced? By the looks of the dampner, I'm guessing externally. Given the vulnerable main webbing, I am wondering if internal balancing would reduce the crank harmonic flexing by reducing the weight on the end of the crank and moving it closer to the center? I think reducing the flywheel and clutch weight is a good move from that standpoint as well. I've been wondering how to maximize the capability of the 5.0 block to make power reliably. The only thing else I could think of is using block filler to fill a couple of inches to add some structure around the main webbing area and using screw in freeze plugs.

What are your thoughts about internal balancing effects and some partial block filling? What about using stronger main caps in conjunction with the girdle?

Looking forward to hearing that you get a great result in the 6 hours!

Mike

Kel,
I believe you are right, it got the 6000 rpm test and passed with an A:iceslolan With the 5.0 block, align honing with the girdle in place seems highly advisable given the load flexing possible. Might be good insurance for cylinder boring and honing as well? Can a block even be set up on a boring machine with main caps and girdle in place?

I am wondering if the rotating assembly was internally or externally balanced? By the looks of the dampner, I'm guessing externally. Given the vulnerable main webbing, I am wondering if internal balancing would reduce the crank harmonic flexing by reducing the weight on the end of the crank and moving it closer to the center? I think reducing the flywheel and clutch weight is a good move from that standpoint as well. I've been wondering how to maximize the capability of the 5.0 block to make power reliably. The only thing else I could think of is using block filler to fill a couple of inches to add some structure around the main webbing area and using screw in freeze plugs.

What are your thoughts about internal balancing effects and some partial block filling? What about using stronger main caps in conjunction with the girdle?

Looking forward to hearing that you get a great result in the 6 hours!

Mike

Mike, yes the engine is balanced to 28 oz" (external). This was an interesting decision, I had planned to go as close to neutral balance as possible. Reality is that cranks are either manufactured with counterweights to suit internal (Eagle forged only for 347 that I am aware of), 28 oz (most 347) or 50 oz (a couple of 347 options).

The rotating assembly in the engine had been previously balanced to 28oz. To get this to neutral balance would have cost around $800 extra for heavy metal slugs to get the counter weights to a nuetral state weight.

As the block is the weak link (IMO no matter what balance state the engine is in) and I will be limiting rpm to 5800 I decided not to spend the extra on this combination. I would absolutely agree though that for a higher rpm application (particularly endurance) that neutral is the way to go.

Actually I think that the ends of the crank probably get the hardest time with externally balanced combos. This is due to the (bending) fatigue load induced by the out of balance rotating mass at either end of the engine. A 50oz engine pulling high rpm with say a cast crank and a serpentine drive system would be a sitter to snap the snout off the crank. I am led beleive that Ford did release a technical bulletin about this back in the 80's / 90's warning that maintaining rpm above 6500 could cause this failure mode. Hence my selection of 5800 rpm - not to mention easing the load on the cast crank and lightweight block.

I have gone down the route before of fitting 4 bolt mains to a factory 2 bolt block. I would not do this again unless there are no aftermarket 4 bolt block options available. The cost of machining and issues related to additional fastener holes being drilled/tapped into an already understrength web do not justify the benefits IMO. For the 5.0 at least we have the option of the Dart SRP block which I beleive starts as low as $1600. That is what I would use for a next step engine.

I havent played with block filling Mike so cant comment on actual benefits. I think this would help more if you had problems with splitting bores rather than web failures, although I am sure it generally stabilises the whole block as well. The webs in these engines just have to little material in them and I am not sure that stiffening them up at the extremities with block filling would help. Is the whole block flexing or just the webs? I am unsure and if it is just the webs then block filler would have little impact.

These ideas are all worth trying though Mike. I did consider screw in freeze plugs but have not done this as yet. The Boss block has them but it also has more material to thread up to take them, and is a lot stiffer I am sure. I wonder if putting the radial load into the side of the thinner std 5.0 block is wise as this may also induce cracking under flexure load. Has anyone played with this and had success over a reasonable length of running at load?

Kel.

Kel, any pics of your dry sump setup? Most interested in where you mounted your tank, and what size it is? I have a lead on a single stage ASA dry sump kit. and wanted to see what shape size tank would work best... Thanks!

Kel, any pics of your dry sump setup? Most interested in where you mounted your tank, and what size it is? I have a lead on a single stage ASA dry sump kit. and wanted to see what shape size tank would work best... Thanks!

Eric, I am running the Panoz supplied Canton pan on the 347, otherwise it would certainly have topped 400hp at the rear wheels! My dry sump experiences are from my last car. So no Panoz system pics to share.

Thoughts though around the areas you raised;

- dont go to big on tank as otherwise you need to preheat the oil or warm the car up for a long time prior to hitting the track,
- go skinny and tall on tank if you can as this keeps the oil over the supply outlet better,
- keep the tank as close to the pump as possible to cut down on oil line lengths - will save $$ as well as be more efficient,
- dont go smaller than -12 on oil scavenge side,
- put screen filters on all scavenge lines before the pump,
- go multi stage pump if you can fund it as this is how you will get power benefit from dry sump - scavenging the engine top and bottom,
- put dry sump compatable crank main seals in the engine so you can pull a vacuum on the bottom end,
- make sure that you test vacuum level at race rpm (have seen a brand new engine trashed through sump being sucked up into the crank and putting debris through the engine).

Kel.

Eric, I am running the Panoz supplied Canton pan on the 347, otherwise it would certainly have topped 400hp at the rear wheels! My dry sump experiences are from my last car. So no Panoz system pics to share.

Thoughts though around the areas you raised;

- dont go to big on tank as otherwise you need to preheat the oil or warm the car up for a long time prior to hitting the track,
- go skinny and tall on tank if you can as this keeps the oil over the supply outlet better,
- keep the tank as close to the pump as possible to cut down on oil line lengths - will save $$ as well as be more efficient,
- dont go smaller than -12 on oil scavenge side,
- put screen filters on all scavenge lines before the pump,
- go multi stage pump if you can fund it as this is how you will get power benefit from dry sump - scavenging the engine top and bottom,
- put dry sump compatable crank main seals in the engine so you can pull a vacuum on the bottom end,
- make sure that you test vacuum level at race rpm (have seen a brand new engine trashed through sump being sucked up into the crank and putting debris through the engine).

Kel.

I found a pretty good deal on a single stage ASA take off system. uses the stock oil pump to feed the engine and a single stage scavange. What size tank do you think is big enough?6qts? 12qts?

Just don't knw where I'd put the tank.

So where would I pull the vacuum level? crankcase or intake? not sure I understand how/where debris could get sucked into the engine? Thanks for the advice, sorry to hijack your thread.

I found a pretty good deal on a single stage ASA take off system. uses the stock oil pump to feed the engine and a single stage scavange. What size tank do you think is big enough?6qts? 12qts?

Just don't knw where I'd put the tank.

So where would I pull the vacuum level? crankcase or intake? not sure I understand how/where debris could get sucked into the engine? Thanks for the advice, sorry to hijack your thread.

I think around 2.5 - 3 gallon is sufficient. The 2nd hand system I purchased out of the States had a 5 or 5.5 gallon tank which was really to big for my application but did the job OK. I had to spend a lot of time warming up and even then for the first lap or so of sprint races oil temp wasnt high enough and I would see over 100psi oil pressure at the end of the straight - wasted power!

You wont have to worry so much about the vacuum side with a single stage scavenge pump as it is unlikely to have the volume to pull any meaningful vacuum. With a multi stage scavenge arrangement (mine was 3 scavenge stages) you are evacuating so much air from the engine that you can use a breather inlet retrictor to set a max vacuum level. If you are not careful you can pull to much vacuum and pull the sump up to the crank. The crank will then take big bites out of the sump (will probably knock a hole in it) and toss shrapnel around inside your shiny new engine. This is how you can create the debris that can trash the engine. I have witnessed this happen in 1 lap through incorrect vacuum restrictor size causing excessive vacuum to be pulled.

The dry sump compatable crank main seals are required as normal seals keep oil in. Dry sump compatable seals are required if you want to pull vacuum as they need to seal 2 ways - keep oil in and keep air out. When I set my system up I was limited on the vacuum I could pull as I could not get these seals. I could pull vacuum up to a certain level (8 - 10 inches of water as I recall) and then the vacuum would drop off suddenly as the crank seals "pulled in" and let air into the engine dropping away the vacuum. Couls also end up with dirt and debris in the engine from this so I backed off the vacuum to just below this level.

I dont now if you have tried priming an engine by spinning the oil pump with an electric drill Eric? This is something that is easy to do with the 5.0 pre first start and I always do this. Anyway it takes a heap of torque to drive oil pumps. Priming my engine for say 20 secs leaves the drill literally smoking! A dry sump pump is estimated to take up to 25 or 30hp to drive. When I fitted the system to my car it had been making 430hp at the wheels. Post dry sump fitment (pulling some but not lots of vacuum) it was making 460hp at the wheels. I had made a couple of other minor changes to exhaust secondary lengths etc but I did get an increase from the system over and above the additional drive load. This will be highly dependent on how you set up your pan. I fabricated mine at home. Key is to have a "power pocket" for the oil to be thrown into with a good stripper screen and a good well clearanced (small clearance) crank scraper.

So inshort Eric, a single stage setup will likely solve any oil starvation issues for most race situations (by dent of having a tank with a column of oil over the outlet). It wont necessarily give you a power boost due insufficient scavenging capability and you may still have breathing issues as you wouldnt be scavenging the top of the engine. If you look at a NASCAR type engine I expect they probably use 4 - 5 stages of scavenge to get the job done.

Kel.

There's a really slick LSx dry sump set up with the pump mounted on the pan. All of the scavange lines are machined into the pan. Makes for a very clean and easier to install set up. Less oil lines and no mount to worry about. That would be my my choice for an LSx motor.

There's a really slick LSx dry sump set up with the pump mounted on the pan. All of the scavange lines are machined into the pan. Makes for a very clean and easier to install set up. Less oil lines and no mount to worry about. That would be my my choice for an LSx motor.

It is made by Harrop Engineering in Australia. Quality product but not cheap at $4,950 Aussie dollars.


Harrop LS1 Commodore Dry Sump Assembly Kit


Product Code:
99-ASMP6449-00-KIThttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_top_left/text_box_top_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_top_right/text_box_top_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifHarrop Engineering has designed and manufactured our LS1 dry sump assembly as a direct replacement to suit the standard Holden Commodore/Monaro crossmember which comes complete with a BDG 4 stage dry sump pump.
http://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_bottom_left/text_box_bottom_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_bottom_right/text_box_bottom_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_top_left/text_box_top_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_top_right/text_box_top_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifPrice

AUD$4,950.00 inc GST
http://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_bottom_left/text_box_bottom_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_bottom_right/text_box_bottom_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/14/616/background_line_shadow/background_line_shadow.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_left/image_top_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_right/image_top_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/565/616/image/10-2/99-ASMP6449-00-KIT-2.jpghttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_bottom_left/image_bottom_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_bottom_right/image_bottom_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_left/image_top_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_right/image_top_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/564/616/image/10-2/99-ASMP6449-00-KIT-1.jpghttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_bottom_left/image_bottom_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_bottom_right/image_bottom_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_left/image_top_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_right/image_top_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/569/616/image/10-2/99-ASMP6449-00-KIT-3.jpg

It is made by Harrop Engineering in Australia. Quality product but not cheap at $4,950 Aussie dollars.


Harrop LS1 Commodore Dry Sump Assembly Kit


Product Code:
99-ASMP6449-00-KIThttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_top_left/text_box_top_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_top_right/text_box_top_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifHarrop Engineering has designed and manufactured our LS1 dry sump assembly as a direct replacement to suit the standard Holden Commodore/Monaro crossmember which comes complete with a BDG 4 stage dry sump pump.
http://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_bottom_left/text_box_bottom_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_bottom_right/text_box_bottom_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_top_left/text_box_top_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_top_right/text_box_top_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifPrice

AUD$4,950.00 inc GST
http://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_bottom_left/text_box_bottom_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/text_box_bottom_right/text_box_bottom_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/14/616/background_line_shadow/background_line_shadow.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_left/image_top_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_right/image_top_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/565/616/image/10-2/99-ASMP6449-00-KIT-2.jpghttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_bottom_left/image_bottom_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_bottom_right/image_bottom_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_left/image_top_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_right/image_top_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/564/616/image/10-2/99-ASMP6449-00-KIT-1.jpghttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_bottom_left/image_bottom_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_bottom_right/image_bottom_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_left/image_top_left.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/1/616/image_box_top_right/image_top_right.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/spacer.gifhttp://www.harrop.com.au/site_resources/569/616/image/10-2/99-ASMP6449-00-KIT-3.jpg

Holy crap, unless there are 4 Aussie dollars for every one US dollar thats STEEP!

Holy crap, unless there are 4 Aussie dollars for every one US dollar thats STEEP!


Agreed Eric, not the cost concious racers choice. Harrop are a top engineering company though. They have been supporting the best racers in Aussie for many decades. They are a key supplier of many critical components into the Australian V8 Supercar championship. Have a look at their web site.

I purchased some bits off them for the classic racer I was running. High rise single plane manifold, stroker crank and trick steering arms. All very very good products.

And now for the bad news...........Aussie dollar is about 1 for 1 with the USD at the moment I suspect.

Kel, fyi - you're officially in charge of dry sumps.

We use a 3 stage drysump system. We bought a canton windsor drysump oil pan and a peterson 4 gal tank. I will have to check the facts but I dont think the entire system cost more than 2k (dont hold me too it since its years ago and I try and FORGET the damage once its paid for).

I will get the build sheet out of the truck and get some brand names but this is what I have in memory....I will also try and remember to get some pics of the install. I dont love where my tank is but its in the engine bay and its protected and works. I have been thinking about moving it to the rear of the car to get better weight distribution and get the oil out of the HOT engine bay....its low on my priorities so we will see if that ever happens.

http://www.cantonracingproducts.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=12-464

http://www.petersonfluidsys.com/tank_stand.html

Daily also makes one similar to the one Kel has found:

http://www.daileyengineering.com/oil_pumps.htm

BINGO - thats the one. I have a 3 stage Dailey std. pump!

I also saw this on the NASA forum today...u probably have the same clearance issue too but couldnt hurt to look.

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=33448&sid=98efe5d93e57b05b5081f12ad526908c&p=244842#p244842

We use a 3 stage drysump system. We bought a canton windsor drysump oil pan and a peterson 4 gal tank. I will have to check the facts but I dont think the entire system cost more than 2k (dont hold me too it since its years ago and I try and FORGET the damage once its paid for).

I will get the build sheet out of the truck and get some brand names but this is what I have in memory....I will also try and remember to get some pics of the install. I dont love where my tank is but its in the engine bay and its protected and works. I have been thinking about moving it to the rear of the car to get better weight distribution and get the oil out of the HOT engine bay....its low on my priorities so we will see if that ever happens.

Brian, would LOVE to see where yours is mounted, it would be cool to try and rig up 2 seperate smaller tanks and T them together, but i dont think I can do that with a single stage pump.

yeah, I bought the same ARE pan, excpet mine had been modified make routing lines easier. I don't think it will fit the sway bar tube though so I may wind up selling and looking for something else. That ARE would work unmodified though I think.
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/parts-classifieds/220107d1268087210-ls1-asa-dry-sump-engine-dry-sump-005.jpg

yeah, I bought the same ARE pan, excpet mine had been modified make routing lines easier. I don't think it will fit the sway bar tube though so I may wind up selling and looking for something else. That ARE would work unmodified though I think.


Depending on how much clearance you needed, you could notch the top of the sway bar tube. The actual sway bar is not that big around. I bet you could gain 1/2-3/4" of an inch.

Depending on how much clearance you needed, you could notch the top of the sway bar tube. The actual sway bar is not that big around. I bet you could gain 1/2-3/4" of an inch.

That's very good to know!

You could raise the motor alittle as well.

Eric,
To see the oil tank location, look at the photos in Dan's thread trying to sell his 43 Viper killer car.

Mike

A few months back I purchased a used 347 shortblock out of the States via E Bay for US$500. Had been recently built using a std roller block, Eagle crank, Eagle rods and JE forged pistons. I pulled this down and found all machining and parts to be OK, block and crank were crack tested etc.

I built this back up and replaced the balancer, rebalanced the engine and replaced the bearings. Spent a lot of time detailing the webs in the block to help prevent stress cracking in this area.
http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp355/NZGTRA/IMG_0723_2.jpg

The short block was combined with the same Brodix CNC heads, 224/232 Comp Cams custom grind, Edelbrock Air Gap dual plane manifold, 650 Mighty Demon carb etc that I used on the 5.0. This combo on the 5.0 made approx 335/335 rear wheel hp and tq. In the 347 the cam was retarded 4 degrees to help bump power over 5500rpm. 347 compression is 10.5 : 1.

To help the engine rev quicker I used a lightweight steel flywheel and Quarter Master 3 plate clutch. Saved lots of rotating pounds with this.

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp355/NZGTRA/IMG_0727_1.jpg

Dynoed the car today using the same Dynojet dyno as we did all the development on the 5.0. 347 peak hp was 388 and tq 392 at the rear wheels. Peak hp was at 5800 rpm and peak tq at 4500. Very flat torque curve and the 347 is making the 5.0's peak torque before 3000rpm. Graph below is a comparison of the 5.0 Vs the 347.

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp355/NZGTRA/IMG_0834.jpg

Overall I am very happy with the results as they are slightly up on what I had expected. Have attached a link to a video of 1 of the dyno runs;

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp355/NZGTRA/th_MVI_0832.jpg (http://s427.photobucket.com/albums/pp355/NZGTRA/?action=view&current=MVI_0832.flv])

Kel.

Had a pre 6 hour test session with the car yesterday, completing around 30 laps. Other than 347 shortblock, other changes were 275 rear tyres, gurney flap on one side of wing and lowered splitter with improved angle of attack.

Lap times were 2 seconds a lap faster without the need to rev the engine as hard. Fuel consumption is not significantly different. A lot easier to maintain lap times due to ability to get back to speed quickly with the additional torque. Slower corners were able to be taken 1 gear up from with 5.0 and still have sufficient power on tap to drift the car if desired
(-:

Longevity remains to be seen but overall highly recommend 347 over 5.0.