Greg R. Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 We just took a close look at the brand new motor that failed at Cal Speedway last weekend. This was the first race on this motor and two pistons failed and even more concerning was the fact that the bearings showed damage from lack of oil. Now, I had decent pressure but clearly there was not enough oil getting the job done. I would suspect that other motors suffered bottom end damage as well. Granted, this was a sustained high RPM track but I think we need to re-evaluate our rules on road race oil pans. Circle track cars have special pans, drag cars have special pans, and road race cars have special pans. Aren't we driving road race cars? The rules already allow for an Accusump. Why not allow a road race oil pan as well. Let's make it optional like the Accusump. This is clearly not a performance enhancement but merely a longevity issue. I would like to keep the costs down as well but if motors are failing prematurely, the cost is much higher to replace a motor. More oil from a larger capacity pan with a better pick-up can only help us run longer. This topic was discussed last season but I think with the number of cars we saw fail at Cal Speedway this discussion needs to be re-opened. What do you think? Greg Robinson #12 Mustang(without a motor) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady in Nomex Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Hi Greg, we have discussed the oil pan issue the last two years I have been in CMC. Each year it got voted down because not enough folks were having oil-related engine failures. Correct me if I remember this wrong guys. If you would like to build a case for this potential rule change you'll need to do what you are doing now, inquire about how folks are doing and what their failures are due to, and present your case at the end of the year. Rules are not changed mid-season. Just out of curiousity - were you using an Accusump? Also, what happened to your pistons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg R. Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Julie, thanks for your input. This is not a performance enhancing rule change and thus I do believe it can be changed mid season. The reason the pans were not allowed at the end of last year was primarily cost. An Accusump helps with pressure drops and a little with adding more volume to the system. Our oil pressure was okay. The Accusump is optional and I propose the road race pan to be as well. Remember also, this track is unlike anything we normally run; sustained high RPM for 25-30 seconds at a time with high G-load from the banking. There were at least 15 cars that lost motors this weekend. The piston issue may be due to fuel delivery. The pistons "cooked" from excessive heat it appears. Greg #12 Mustang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady in Nomex Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 15 motors failed! Sheesh! Well, I think you have a case! I hope you guys are back together for T-Hill! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Pryor1548534703 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Just had a conversation with Matt Adams regarding the blown engines at Fontana. Matt set up several southwest tour cars and knows the problems of oval oiling...he's amazed CMC even ran Fontana...oil is sucked up and out of the pan on ovals at sustained high RPM and you'd better have the proper setup for return and distribution or you'll cook the engine....even those that didn't end up with bearing and piston failure should pull the pan and check out the bearings...damage may be done....even a road racing baffled pan won't help at Fontana as Brad has one on his car (I thought it was passed as a competition adjustment in the middle of the year) and it didn't save his engine....I agree with Greg...a baffled pan will act as a cost cutting measure and not a performance enhancement...if you're planning on running Willow Springs, just check your oil pressure while running the long swooping last corners...it'll be on zero...not good for long engine life....CMC rules encourage economical competition....rebuilding engines is not my idea of economy when a baffled pan will help prevent road course oil pressure drops...rp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Looks like Gregs car and my car did the exact same thing. I melted two pistons with a lean condition. One thing that is for sure, is a high RPM lean condition which is fixed by a hi volume fuel pump.My stock fuel pump could NOT keep up with the fuel demand. Live and learn.. My car will be ready for action at Thunderhill. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 I'm with Greg on this one, I for one will be SERIOUSLY considering returning the roadrace pan to my (new) motor. Not only did I get bottom end damage, but I also had the lean condition So, now we have two issues: 1. If the stock fuel pump is not performing well enough, can it be replaced with a hi-volume in-line? 2. And if the fuel pump is 'alterable', or can be replaced for longevity reasons, wouldn't that also hold true for a baffled oilpan? Again, these are NOT performance enhancing changes, but items that allow a greater measure of 'insurance' against breakdown. I'd like to know if anyone has a dissenting opinion on the pan issue - and if so, what the 'cons' of replacement are... (also motor-less) - Brad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToTheLimit Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Darn..I feel very fortunate now that we were running a carbed engine at the Speedway..We had this problem with a sticking needle valve making car bog at mid range..Hey maybe that overrich condition saved our engine.. And I am running a low oil pressure warning light warning me if pressure goes below 15lbs. Never even blinked on me. ( we use Red Line 20/50 synthetic) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 I am not gonna state my opinion on what you guys should do as I race in AI, but often times rules are made to save money up front. However, in reality, spending more now means less later. Not to mention how much time has to be taken out of your day(s) to repair things that could have been prevented. Like you guys, this was my first time on a track with such extensive use of an oval. However I had zero problems with oiling or fuel. On my AI car I use a canton road race pan with windage tray, remote oil filter, and a 3qt manually operated(don't ever use the electric they have proven to create restriction and there for increase oil temps) accusump along with redline 20-50 oil. All plumbed with -12 lines. -10 can be used on the accusump to cut down costs, but it only is about $50. My motor is very different from what the CMC cars run including large bearing clearances, but there is no reason you cannot do the same oil system I have. The price for it total will be about $1000 when all is said and done assuming you install everything yourself (it is not that difficult). That is definately a lot less that a new motor plus all the time required to r/r it as well as get the new one. For the fuel pump, that should be a no brainer. They are about $100 in just about any size you need. That is some of the cheapest insurance available if the pump is truly your problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadtoad Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I agree with Greg. The rule should read accusump or oil pan. Let the individual decide which direction he/she wants to spend their money. New motor twice a year 5 grand. Oil system fix less than 1/5 the cost. This monday I Dyno the car to see if I can identify the "No Power" problem. See you at T-Hill Dave #74 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Everyone..thanks for all your input. Nick and I are working on resolving this by Monday,so stay tuned for an update on oil pans/accusumps. Obviously we need to do something here,so don't worry we are listening and will get this done! Thanks! Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady in Nomex Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Thanks for the quick attention, fellow CMCers and rules committee. I have to respectfully disagree that road race pans and Accusumps should be mutually exclusive. I fail to see a performance advantage to having both and only see an increased ability to save one's expensive engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Ok, a few comments on motor failures and oiling systems. First off, the reports of my motors demise at this point, appear to be false (sorry Tony!). I'm going to do a bit of poking at the car this comming wee and re-yno it, but so far it looks like the motor is fine. I had some time to think about this whole oil pan discussion on my drive back home tonight. I'd like to start by playing Devil's Advocate for a minute here: The motor in my car is the original motor. The car currently has 71k mi on it, as far as I know, the valve covers have never been off of this motor. Its bone stock original. The last 7000 miles have been race miles I have put on over the last 2 and a bit seasons of running CMC. In those last two years I have never had the oil pressure light come before this last race weekend at Fontana and you guys know I run this car hard nor do I run an accusump. I'll be running the same motor at Thunderhill in April (provided a quick re-dyno fo the car shows its not down on power). This last weekend, I started having the low pressure light come on for 1 - 2 sec each lap when the oil pressure would dip to 10 - 15psi coming onto the front straight. This is the first time in the 2 years that I've been running this car that I've seen the oil pressure light come on. As I understand things, there were three motor failures in CMC cars at Fontanta: Greg Robinson, Tony Guaglione and Brad Simpson. The other mechanical casualties were Greg Reghetti with a busted clutch and Scott Gregory with a brake problem. From talking to Tony, I understand his motor died due to a lean condition in two of the cyls due to inadequate fuel. I'm not 100% sure at this point what the cause of failure for Brad Simpson's motor was, but I understand he had some bearing knock of some kind and that the shrapnel from the bearing failure chewed other things up as well. Greg, from what I understand from your previous post and talking to Tony you also had a lean condition that contibuted to your motor's demise as well as the worn bearings from lack of oil. I would like to point out that Simpson's car had a road race pan on it (Yes, its not legal, but that's not the point right now). So, 33% of the motors that failed at last race weekend had a road race pan. 33% of the other motors that failed ran into a lean condition that chewed up the pistons (Tony's car), The other 33% of the failed motors had a lean condition and some bearing damage. Now, based on the fact that one of the motors that has a failure already had a road race pan, it doesn't really say a lot to how well road race pans help. Continuing with the Devil's Advocate point of view, let me ask this question: The rules already allow for us to install an accusump. What's wrong with an accusump? They can be installed pretty easilly and do not require the engine to be pulled which you would need to do with a road race pan. It seems to me that the accusump's 3qt capacity should be more than enough to feed the motor should the pickup get uncovered and the oil pressure starts to drop. Now, putting the Devil's Advocate point of view down for a minute: I and the rest of the directors appreciate everyone's comments on this and I don't want you guys to feel like the the directors ignored the discussion we had about road race pans at the end of last year. We had quite a lengthy discussion about it that went on for several days and several emails (I Just went through my old email and found 11 messages on the topic from our rules discussion). I had a long talk with Tony earlier tonight. We (The directors) are going to get together over the next day or two and talk this over and get back to everyone. Thanks! - Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg R. Posted March 17, 2003 Author Share Posted March 17, 2003 Nick, thanks for your input. Last year we ran our car with 185HP on a bone stock motor with 135K miles and didn't suffer a motor failure either. But, we didn't run Fontana. The bearings on our old motor looked horrible I assure you. I think the point is we were lucky. Mustangs have a double sump pan but oil is picked up in only one. If that sump is drained through cornering forces and the like, there's not much to pick up. Camaros have a different pan obviously and it is already baffled. Yes, it has a baffle to help keep oil in the sump available for pick up. I think we can all agree that oil is important whether we are talking about pressure, quantity or temperature. Provisions in the rules that allow for oil coolers and accusumps corroborate this fact. A road race pan is just another option. It may not help in all situations but it will certainly help. It is low cost when compared to replacing a motor. I trust the directors will give this issue serious consideration. Greg #12 Mustang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I think we can all agree that oil is important whether we are talking about pressure, quantity or temperature. Provisions in the rules that allow for oil coolers and accusumps corroborate this fact. A road race pan is just another option. It may not help in all situations but it will certainly help. It is low cost when compared to replacing a motor. Agreed. I'd hate to see a Ca Speedway boycott next year, as competitors shy away because of the possibility of motor damage. I for one don't think there should be a restriction on ANY parts that do not increase performance, but are only there for longevity or SAFETY. For example, a fire system is optional. A fire extinguisher is required. I assume that this is because of 'cost constraining' reasons. If I were IN a fire, I'd want the system, but it's not in the budget now because of the motor. Same for accusump and pans. If a competitor would like to purchase either or both, he would be considering them insurance, not performance, as there aren't any gains to be had, since the stock pans are already baffled. Another thing to consider, even if the pickup remains 'wet' under g-force conering, there's no guarantee that the inside portion of the top end couldn't have oiling issues anyway - right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 I agree with most of the people on this topic, except nick (sorry nick) I am having a hard time understanding why you guys are not wanting us to have "road race oil pans" but you let us have an accuesump. From a tech view it is grate that you let us run the accuesump but the problem is the accuesump would not have prevented what happened to our motor, when you run your motor for an extended period of time at 4000-5000rpm on flat ground with an accuesump it would most likly save your motor from damage. But when you run your motor 4000-5000rpm while turning and sloshing hot oil around with an accuesump you will airerate the oil thus mixing oil and air, this does not cause your oil pressure to drop but it does cause lack of oil to the bearings. Meaning that your accuesump would not have prevented this problem. The accuesump is designed to give oil in the case that their is an oil pressure drop, but if no oil pressure drops then the accuesump wuld not help with the air/oil mixture. On the other hand if you have a "road race oil pan" that is designed to keep oil at the pickup in most conditions, it may have helped. I am not saying that it would prevent all the problems, but I feal that it would help with engines lasting longer with less problems. This by no means is a proformace advantage by far, but an extra insurance for a $4000-5000 motor every season of less. I see this as being a cost cutting part as oposed to a added cost part. Just keep in mind that you (drivers) are pushing your cars, and your selfs harder and harder to beat each other every year, just look at the lap times I feal the "Road Race Oil Pan" would be a healthy addition to the rules. Thanks guys. Byron #12 mustang (Greg R. Crew Cheif) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Folks - I just got off of a conference call with the other CMC Directors. We'll have an official annoucement tomorrow, but in a nutshell: Gentlemen (and Lady) - get your pans ready. For now, please don't go out and buy any old pan, we are going to spec the manufacturer and part number. more details tomorrow after I go through and update the rules and make them available. - Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady in Nomex Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Good work rules committee! Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil B. Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 It has been my experience in Motorola Cup/ Grand Am Cup that similar cars with no oiling mods regularly survive 3 to 6 hour enduros at California Speedway, Daytona, Phoenix, and Homestead rovals with no oiling problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToTheLimit Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 I been just watching the postings..We had no problems for a change..Neil has a valid point there. (although how "stock" is really the GA cup engines) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Folks, new rules are up. See the post in the General Discussion section with the updated rules. - Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Not wanting to throw a wrech in this discussion, but I would like to share some information. As I said before I run a canton pan and windage tray. I have owned two of each, this being my second set. I have heard of canton pans leaking, but with my old motor I had that pan on for about 7 years and never had a leak beause of a manufacturer problem. Newer pan is still good too. I had the windage tray on there for several years as well and no problems with that either. However, on my current setup (pan and tray were brand new in august '03) I have just discovered a problem. This past weekend I drained my oil and found something trying to come out the drain hole, but it was much too large to come out. I noticed it looked like a piece of the windage tray so I decided to pull the pan. I have heard of others having a problem with the windage tray coming apart and after pulling the pan and inspecting I noticed my tray had a piece broken off it and two very large cracks in the mesh. I decided to remove the tray and run without it. Now, even with this problem I don't think there would have been any damage done to the motor. The pieces were way too large to be picked up through the oil pump pickup screen. Also, the way the tray is mounted it is highly unlikely that any pieces could be thrown up into the rotating assembly and do damage there, but you never know. I did decide to just get rid of it for now and have it sent back to canton since from what I hear this is not an unusual occurance. I'll have to wait and see what they say as well as see if my oil temp rises on track or anything else happens. With the accusump I do run the normal oil level a quart low so that should help keep the rotating assembly from whipping up any oil. I know there are other windage trays out there, but not aware as to which ones will work with the road race pans and which are actually effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony G Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Vageli, Thanks for this important information! We value your comments as we all know you guys have tried everything. PS. Heard about your car (man that sucks) I guess its safer on the the track than off, I hope you get it back together soon, let us know if you need anything. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Thanks Tony. For those of you that don't know, my trailer was hit by a bus on the way home from fontana and along with the trailer damge my car ('93 mustang) was hit on the left rear quarter. I am working away as fast as I can to repair the car. I have had to replace the rear end and left side brakes, rear wheels, some of the rear suspension, and hopefully soon the quarter panel and window. Some info I would like to share with all of you that have fox mustangs is that a lot, if not all of the bodywork and trim, etc., is no longer produced by ford. I had a very tough time finding a quarter panel for the rear. I thought my only option was to get a used one which is a lot of work. Thanks to a friend I located one in oakland and I am told there is another in reno. These are left side original quarter panels. There is a right in texas. Basically these things are getting very hard to find. Recently I just found out that mustang parts unlimited is starting to reproduce quarter panels and may also make some of the other pieces that are not available. Some of you may want to make a note. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPER(FORD)MAN Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Thanks for the heads up on Mustang body panels. I checked with my local Ford dealer and asked him why the body parts for GM F bodies were so plentiful and cheap and the Mustang parts so rare. Basicly the reason is that Camaro drivers, street and track, are so bad and have so many accidents, that there is a huge supply of parts in boneyards like GM Sports Salvage. In fact Camaro drivers have such a hard time keeping the front fenders of their cars dent free that a huge offshore industry has arisen in the orient making repop fenders which you can buy at the San Jose Flea Market for around $50 each! And since GM has found the body shop replacement market so lucrative for F body parts they have a supply that will last until 2009. On the other hand, Ford Mustang drivers are so courteous on the street and always in the lead on the track and therefore do not damage their cars, unless run into by an out-of-control GM driver, and do not need replacement parts. Since they do not have accidents there are no cars in the boneyard for replacement and since there is such a small demand from the factory for fenders, etc, Ford would lose a ton of $$ is they had all that inventory sitting in the warehouse. Actually, your find of three fenders across the USA is considered to be a five year supply, so there is no worry about a shortage of Ford fenders. Just think of Camaros as tissue paper next time you go honking by them in your Mustang. Glad I could clear this up. FORDS FOREVER! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.