When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Is it the Moroso 21150 pan that requires an oil filter relocation kit?
yea that one. i got that used and a new oil filter relocation kit that uses a specific cartridge filter that is supposed to catch stuff smaller than regular filters do. i got an ok deal, just ok because i had to pay 50 to ship it.
i dont have a lift and would feel more comfortable having a shop do it. im sure it can be done in my possession but i wont have the patience to do that job. im also using it as an excuse to install the 2 inch headers now that the ceramic coating is on them and the motor is broken in. no way can i get this thing high enough for that install without a lift. and yes they will retune it.
the only downside is that improved racing says that a hint of clearancing may/would need to be done on the scraper to clear the moroso pan, not sure why i have to, but i trust them. so most likely unless the shop is comfortable doing it, i will have to ditch the scraper.
if this doesnt work then i will most likely just run it. the only other thing i think is that its possible the 10296 is removing too much from the pan and i should have run a 10295, but many people on here are firm believers that a deeper sump pan is required to run the 10296. i always wondered why i see a lot of under 5000 mile builds that are tanking, and maybe its possible that they are running a pump that shouldnt be used with a stock pan. its not that hard to setup a bottom end if you have done it a few times so i would assume that the builders know what they are doing.
That's the one I purchased from Summit and I also have 2 inch headers. It comes with a windage tray, pickup tube and the oil filter relocate kit and the oil filter is HUGE and it alone holds a full quart of oil. The installation wasn't to difficult but I did need to purchase some different AN fittings for it. I'm running a high volume oil pump and it solved my issue and hopefully it solves yours. I've seen no oil pressure dropping off from braking either and the only issue I've seen so far is that I've had to go back underneath and remove the oil pan bolts to apply some high temp gasket maker to them to keep the oil from leaking around the threads.
That's the one I purchased from Summit and I also have 2 inch headers. It comes with a windage tray, pickup tube and the oil filter relocate kit and the oil filter is HUGE and it alone holds a full quart of oil. The installation wasn't to difficult but I did need to purchase some different AN fittings for it. I'm running a high volume oil pump and it solved my issue and hopefully it solves yours. I've seen no oil pressure dropping off from braking either and the only issue I've seen so far is that I've had to go back underneath and remove the oil pan bolts to apply some high temp gasket maker to them to keep the oil from leaking around the threads.
Ummmmm nowhere does it say the oil filter relocation was included. Where Did u get urs. I ask cause I got the pan windage and pickup tube, then paid extra to get the kit he had bought for it. I haven't opened the box yet.
I fitted an Improved racing scraper and tray to mine too. With my custom pan which is quite shallow at the front, I basically had to fully cut and re-weld the tray to lift it up higher.....probably too high really, as then needed to cut holes in it to clearance for the rods passing lol. The main tray base just misses the crank counterweights.
None of that is their fault though, but I do now have a full length scraper and tray
if this doesnt work then i will most likely just run it. the only other thing i think is that its possible the 10296 is removing too much from the pan and i should have run a 10295, but many people on here are firm believers that a deeper sump pan is required to run the 10296. i always wondered why i see a lot of under 5000 mile builds that are tanking, and maybe its possible that they are running a pump that shouldnt be used with a stock pan. its not that hard to setup a bottom end if you have done it a few times so i would assume that the builders know what they are doing.
Despite my problems...I struggle to believe this.
The engine itself can only consume so much oil...so surely 60psi at 6000rpm with one pump...is moving the same oil as 60psi at 6000rpm as another pump ? ( I know it isnt the same for turbos etc though, but as oil is basically non compressible...I'd assume things are different.
So if you had say a 295 that made 60/6000....how could say a 355 doing the same actually be pulling any more oil from the pan ? Just more would be getting recirc'd via the relief ?
I've always thought that the main issue of running too much pump isn't a lack of pressure, but too much pressure, obviously.
Too much pressure will cause excessive blowby - causing other long term issues. Your rings will only allow so much pressure based upon their clearances. a 10295 60/6000 vs a 355 at 60/6000 is because at some point, your rings can only hold back so much pressure before some of it forces its' way through? With the 355 causing much more blowby.
The engine itself can only consume so much oil...so surely 60psi at 6000rpm with one pump...is moving the same oil as 60psi at 6000rpm as another pump ? ( I know it isnt the same for turbos etc though, but as oil is basically non compressible...I'd assume things are different.
So if you had say a 295 that made 60/6000....how could say a 355 doing the same actually be pulling any more oil from the pan ? Just more would be getting recirc'd via the relief ?
Melling claims that their 10296 (HVHP) moves 13% more oil than their 10295 (HP). I run the 10296 (ported by Mamo). I don’t run squirters, and I run a rather shallow Holley swap pan. 6 quarts in the car, and no problems. I like the tad extra volume personally, for my clearances, and my big oil cooler setup, plus it helps my bearings run a little cooler. I’ve overheated bearings in the past.
I've always thought that the main issue of running too much pump isn't a lack of pressure, but too much pressure, obviously.
Too much pressure will cause excessive blowby - causing other long term issues. Your rings will only allow so much pressure based upon their clearances. a 10295 60/6000 vs a 355 at 60/6000 is because at some point, your rings can only hold back so much pressure before some of it forces its' way through? With the 355 causing much more blowby.
Thinking out loud here.
How exactly does to much pressure cause more blowby? Never heard of that before.
How exactly does to much pressure cause more blowby? Never heard of that before.
Me neither. Pistons and rings don't "see" oil pressure, though there might be more splashed around with a higher volume pump. More oil for the rings to control. But pressure should have no bearing on blowby.
I guess I've always had a misunderstanding of this, then. I thought that part of the oil control rings job, was making sure oil doesn't creep up in to the combustion chamber, not just to scrape oil.
For some reason, my brain wants to believe that excessive pressure would have to escape *some where* - aside from just the seals.
So what is the "true" negative side effect of too much oil pressure?
I guess that would be leaks through gaskets/seals?
Melling claims that their 10296 (HVHP) moves 13% more oil than their 10295 (HP). I run the 10296 (ported by Mamo). I don’t run squirters, and I run a rather shallow Holley swap pan. 6 quarts in the car, and no problems. I like the tad extra volume personally, for my clearances, and my big oil cooler setup, plus it helps my bearings run a little cooler. I’ve overheated bearings in the past.
But if the oil volume cannot move through the engine...ie bearing tolerances have not changed, any leaks have not changed....so how can the engine actually use/consume and expel the extra 13% if pressure is the same ?
At some point any extra has to simply pass the relief and get re-circulated at the pump....which would mean it is then drawing less from the pickup ?
Obviously not ideal either...but even if the pump could say move 200% more....if the engine cannot consume it, it isnt actually using 200, or even 100, or maybe even 20% more in reality ?
I guess I've always had a misunderstanding of this, then. I thought that part of the oil control rings job, was making sure oil doesn't creep up in to the combustion chamber, not just to scrape oil.
For some reason, my brain wants to believe that excessive pressure would have to escape *some where* - aside from just the seals.
So what is the "true" negative side effect of too much oil pressure?
I guess that would be leaks through gaskets/seals?
Thanks,
Andy
The only negatives from too much pressure...would be it will heat the oil more, and it takes more energy/power to drive the pump to make that pressure.
There are no seals as such within the engine subject to direct pressure ( yes the front/rear plates on an LS do seal, but that's a little different than what most visualise as an oil seal )
LOL I just wanted to hear the explanation. My brother once told me he was going to replace the crankshaft on a sbc while in the truck and would drop the pistons and clean them up. He swore the pistons would come out the bottom and I told they would eventually with him working on it lol. Sorry OP...back to the regularly scheduled program...…. I wish I had an answer for you, I'll talk to my engine builder and see if he has any ideas, I can't think of anything that hasn't already been discussed.
Last edited by LLLosingit; 06-24-2019 at 06:23 PM.
The engine itself can only consume so much oil...so surely 60psi at 6000rpm with one pump...is moving the same oil as 60psi at 6000rpm as another pump ? ( I know it isnt the same for turbos etc though, but as oil is basically non compressible...I'd assume things are different.
So if you had say a 295 that made 60/6000....how could say a 355 doing the same actually be pulling any more oil from the pan ? Just more would be getting recirc'd via the relief ?
The difference is like using a water hose with a 1/3 horse pump behind it vs a water hose with a 1 horse pump behind it. Put your finger over the end to see which one is worse.
The pump moves more volume per rotation so then the engine would have to return more volume to the pan to keep the cycle going. And when all that extra volume hits the rod bearings and main bearings and cam bearings, where do you think it goes? If its not needed then it makes a bigger issue with oil mist which in turn causes more oil on the cylinder walls and more oil being puked out of the pushrods etc etc. So the oil cant return back to the pan then, and it causes much more oil consumption and pcv issues.
The difference is like using a water hose with a 1/3 horse pump behind it vs a water hose with a 1 horse pump behind it. Put your finger over the end to see which one is worse.
The pump moves more volume per rotation so then the engine would have to return more volume to the pan to keep the cycle going. And when all that extra volume hits the rod bearings and main bearings and cam bearings, where do you think it goes? If its not needed then it makes a bigger issue with oil mist which in turn causes more oil on the cylinder walls and more oil being puked out of the pushrods etc etc. So the oil cant return back to the pan then, and it causes much more oil consumption and pcv issues.
But all of these escape orifices are not changing in size. Only so much oil can escape. If pressure has not increased...which the relief takes care of....again, how can the system suddenly be consuming huge amounts more oil in order to need returned to the pan ?
Your pump analogy is different because there is no pressure regulation/bypass there.
If you had a relief valve at the pump in both cases and a fixed orifice at the end of the hose....they'll surely move the same water out the end of that hose when pressure stays the same ?
I don't want to start a **** fight here. And forgive me if I've got this wrong. But could possibly because the y-block design when using the newer style crank scraper the oil just can't return fast enough? Maybe the crank journals can't throw the oil back down into the pan because if you think of the scraper it's below where most of the oil is draining back wiping the crank so how does that affect the oil return to the pan. I wanted to get a crank scraper myself for my LS2 ls7 small bore heads build but just makes me wonder now. The new ones for our cars look like they block a lot of the crank area. Anyone else here confirm they run one or have ran one in their setup, and have/had no high rpm pressure issues?
Because also I've noticed other designs of crank scrapers (google image search) scrape mainly from the one side, and allow the other side to breathe more. And so does the older sheet metal one from impr racing. Versus their newer aluminum one , it scrapes both sides and blocks off a lot of the crank
Just made me wonder. Every time you change something in an engine you can possibly introduce another issue. It's like how people out there grabbed a sbe junkyard 5.3 add boost go 8's and 7's and it lives even turning to 8k rpm. Start getting tricky, different lifters (mainly solids having issues), oil pumps, built engine, etc etc people have issues.
Just made me wonder on the scraper because the newer version is blocking off the crankcase more than the old. Instead of being open on the opposite side of the scrape side, it's much more closed off and instead has thin slots for drainback. Every change introduced into an engine just makes me wonder and I think so it should.
I don't want to **** on peoples product and that's not my intention. But I don't want engine issues either. If it's causing a problem, everyone better off finding it out, admitting it, changing the product, fbody owners have good results, stay happy, spend more money to go fast. Instead of having engine problems and being turned off by it and giving up entirely.
06-23-2019, 09:06 PM
