View Single Post
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 04-23-2012, 01:04 PM
Pete Munroe Pete Munroe is offline
CC Member
Visit my Photo Gallery

 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PVE, CA
Cobra Make, Engine: ERA 289 FIA #2027, 65' 289" PS wheels
Posts: 345
Not Ranked     
Default now ya got me thinking...

Guys,

Well, you got me thinking about the pro/cons of adding any complications to the oil system, point well taken.

Certainly do want to add the ACCU-SUMP, and look into replacing the AVIAD oil dam/scrapper I removed to allow the pan to fit over the lower main support. Not sure how to do that.

Thermostat was added 3 years/~2500 miles ago. (16,000 on engine) Nothing has changed in terms of pressure problems in Willow's turn 2.

Since the first time the car was on the track in 2003? I have had the intermittent oil pressure problem in LONG SWEEPING turns. Have tried to avoid overfilling the pan but it seemed a fine line between too little and what I "imagined would be too much" and create aeration problems.

Mainly, my concerns have been with oil FLOW, not pressure.

Thermostat is the CANTON, not the MOCAL. Very large volume inside, few angles, compared to the MOCAL.

On my install hoses/fittings in/out are #10. Installed it with as many straight in, or 30-60 degree hose ends as I could. (see my gallery)

Many of the installations I see are about as BAD as they could be in terms hydraulic resistance. Acute angles, 90's, 120's, etc or complete reversal type fittings are what I tried to avoid. My hose runs are not much longer than when only the oil cooler was in use.

IMHO, if temps are too low, a GOOD thermostat installation that doesn't impede oil flow and gets oil into a better operating range is more of an asset than liability.

Thanks, Pete
__________________
ERA 289 #2027
Reply With Quote