VAC Motorsports | VAC 4.4 S65 Stroker Kit Build (CP, Carrillo, Darton, Schrick)

[e92zero]

Originally Posted by aus

What would be the advantages to the dry sump?
Don't we already have a semi-dry sump?

.

I am interested to know this as well. I thought traditionally, one of the big advantage of dry sump system is they allow the engine to be mounted as low as possible for lower center of gravity. But I don't see the dry sump system for our engine doing that. It actually move the 9 Liter of oil to a higher point (raise the center of gravity). Isn't that counter productive? Or the dry sump system comes with new engine and transmission mount/bushings that lower the engine also? Does other know?

[m3an]

Originally Posted by aus

What would be the advantages to the dry sump?
Don't we already have a semi-dry sump?

.

many, for starters:

1. better for road racing as the oil won't experience problems w/ g forces turning, etc.

2. Mount the oil in a central locaiton up top= more oil capacity= cooler oil naturally

3. As prior poster said, no need for a big pan = can mount engine lower if needed

4. No windage problems in pan as no oil sitting in crankcase

[e92zero]

Originally Posted by m3an

many, for starters:

1. better for road racing as the oil won't experience problems w/ g forces turning, etc.

2. Mount the oil in a central locaiton up top= more oil capacity= cooler oil naturally

3. As prior poster said, no need for a big pan = can mount engine lower if needed

4. No windage problems in pan as no oil sitting in crankcase

I agree with everything above for dry sump system in general but would like to understand if the application to the s65 justify the cost.

1. Does the S65 suffer from oil starvation from g force? I thought our oil pan/container already serve this purpose.

2. Got it.

3. I can't seem to find engine mount/bushings that lower our engine (yet) though?

4. Is the S65 affect by this? I don't think the crank hits any oil in our engine when it spins.

Not trying to debate or argue, just want to learn and understand it better. Thanks in advance.

[jordanE92]

If you're stroking a motor for track use, then I think dry sump is a no brainer. The s85 from the old m5 is dry sump, as well as the f10 m5s engine. Love seeing projects like this around here! Everything looks great guys.

[Dave07997S]

Well its next Tuesday..anyword?

Dave

[1MOREMOD]

subscribed. what does something like this cost? is vac a source to do just a plain jane engine rebuild in the event of a failure?

[knolow]

Originally Posted by Dave07997S

Well its next Tuesday..anyword?

Dave

2nd!

[dvpouldar26]

Originally Posted by m3an

many, for starters:

1. better for road racing as the oil won't experience problems w/ g forces turning, etc.

2. Mount the oil in a central locaiton up top= more oil capacity= cooler oil naturally

3. As prior poster said, no need for a big pan = can mount engine lower if needed

4. No windage problems in pan as no oil sitting in crankcase

In addition to lower center of mass due to a lower engine, there are a few other advantages of a dry sump. Dry sump systems give you the ability to adjust oil pressure, and are easier to add more oil coolers. The primary performance advantage is because of a decrease in windage losses. Basically, without as much oil in the oil pan, the rotating assembly is not sitting in a pool of oil and spin more freely. Also, a dry sump system creates extra crankcase vacuum which increases ring seal.

A dry sump system will cost a lot on these motors and unless you're building a dedicated high-dollar track car, i'm not sure if the investment is worth it. Here's the kit from Turner:

http://www.turnermotorsport.com/p-14...FcaDQgodEDAA4w

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by dvpouldar26

In addition to lower center of mass due to a lower engine, there are a few other advantages of a dry sump. Dry sump systems give you the ability to adjust oil pressure, and are easier to add more oil coolers. The primary performance advantage is because of a decrease in windage losses. Basically, without as much oil in the oil pan, the rotating assembly is not sitting in a pool of oil and spin more freely. Also, a dry sump system creates extra crankcase vacuum which increases ring seal.

A dry sump system will cost a lot on these motors and unless you're building a dedicated high-dollar track car, i'm not sure if the investment is worth it. Here's the kit from Turner:

http://www.turnermotorsport.com/p-14...FcaDQgodEDAA4w

without different motor mount set up how would dry sump help lower the engine mass? main advantage is just the windage as mentioned.

[dvpouldar26]

Originally Posted by chriszeh

without different motor mount set up how would dry sump help lower the engine mass? main advantage is just the windage as mentioned.

A dry sump setup allows for a much shallower pan. With a shallower pan, you have much more clearance to lower the motor down (Yes, that means new motor mounts if you do want to lower the motor down). The dry sump system itself would not lower the center of mass, but because of the shallower pan, it gives you more room and allows you to run the motor lower in the car, which in turn lowers your center of mass. A dry sump setup does not cause a lower in CG. The ability to lower your motor because of a shallower pan however does.

[Mike@VAC]

Hey guys, my media guy is at the dyno now - he will be putting updates on Facebook as they happen. Let's hope it all goes well

[leigh]

No news?

[Raucky2000]

update please....

[Mike@VAC]

Preliminary report says: 540hp, 395tq.

12.5:1
mild cams
100 octane

built for 24hour endurance race.

If we were building this for sprint racing (higher compression, aggressive cams, more octane, OMG.) That will be next

Pics/vids/more info in a few days.

[M3PO]

Holy shit! 540 HP sounds good to me! That's about as much as I'd like to have (don't want an SC, especially without an intercooler).

[flipm3]

Originally Posted by Mike@VAC

Preliminary report says: 540hp, 395tq.

12.5:1
mild cams
100 octane

built for 24hour endurance race.

If we were building this for sprint racing (higher compression, aggressive cams, more octane, OMG.) That will be next

Pics/vids/more info in a few days.

I WANT!!!!!

[leigh]

Originally Posted by Mike@VAC

Preliminary report says: 540hp, 395tq.

12.5:1
mild cams
100 octane

built for 24hour endurance race.

If we were building this for sprint racing (higher compression, aggressive cams, more octane, OMG.) That will be next

Pics/vids/more info in a few days.

A little off topic but I need a line lock for brembos

[chuxdelux]

Nice numbers

[swamp2]

Nice results. What is your estimate of the power level on regular super unleaded 91 or 93. How about some pricing information? Please no "PM for price" BS...

[S65NAPWR]

I think some people are wondering what the eventual side-by-side stroker motor comparo will look like, along with price variances.

I'm no engineer, but I wonder if it's more efficient to extract power from a lower displacement 4.4L vs. doing less modifications to 4.6L to get similar gains.

[CPWINCH]

Originally Posted by S65NAPWR

I think some people are wondering what the eventual side-by-side stroker motor comparo will look like, along with price variances.

I'm no engineer, but I wonder if it's more efficient to extract power from a lower displacement 4.4L vs. doing less modifications to 4.6L to get similar gains.

i believe they chose a 4.4 over a 4.6 to keep the high revving characteristic of the s65. The higher the displacement the lower the redline

[S65NAPWR]

Originally Posted by CPWINCH

i believe they chose a 4.4 over a 4.6 to keep the high revving characteristic of the s65. The higher the displacement the lower the redline

Ah, I see. Thanks. I didn't realize the DINAN motor doesn't rev to 8300 rpm any longer.