Ive made a template.

I don't have time to make and install it this week.  With this template and a bunch of measurements I'm hoping I'll be able to get most of it together before pulling the pan to install.

Here is my solution to torquing the long studs

A spark plug socket with the center drilled to 25/64":

And another socket on the hex of the sparkplug socket:

It worked like a charm.

Lawrenceville, GA

The 428CJ windage tray has the same clearance to the rods throughout its length so it's just an illusion in the picture in that it looks deeper at the back.  The installed engines typically sit in the chassis at an angle so the drain back would be a result of any engine angle.  The windage tray itself has louvers in the sides to facilitate oil removal which is key to removing the oil as quickly as possible from the crankcase area.

Yes.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

They are made by ARP, for Mopar. The part number is 240-5501. It is a whole kit of 10 studs, including 5 standoffs. I think one holds the oil pickup of a mopar.


Lawrenceville, GA

Charlie - Considering whats on the line here - better get a real deepwell six point in the proper size and then weld another socket over the the drive end as a fixed extension. Let the stud stick up through the drive hole in the bottom socket.

What is the part number and make of the long studs / did I miss that info?

 
 Steve Metzger       Tucson, Arizona

Shoot, I gave wrong info too. The stand off studs are 2 13/16 above the main caps. I had said 2 5/16. I must have read 2 1/2 as 2 for some reason.



Do y'all think a 1/2" drive crowfoot will allow me to torque those nuts? I don't think I'll be able to find a deep enough socket. I can get a crowfoot tube nut adapter as well. The only torque wrench adapters I can find are for 3/8" drive.



I put all 4 studs in last night to check clearances and I am happy to say that the studs will not interfere with the pan or the pickup.



I did discover that I am going to have to provide clearance at the back of the pan for the rear main studs but this is not related to the standoff studs.



Ted,

Is that 428 windage tray deeper at the back or is it an illusion? It looks like it would help the oil drain directly to the sump - if it's a rear sump.



Is it worth the effort to contour the scraper to the shape of the rods?


Lawrenceville, GA

HOLD ON A MINUTE GUYS!  I gave out wrong info again.  The curved piece on the bottom side of my scraper has a radius of about 1", not 2" as I stated before.  Sorry.

John

John - "The Hoosier Hurricane"

To add to John’s comments:  the crankshaft counterweights and rods still swing below the lower pan rails so if building a full sized windage tray, some curvature will still be required to clear these items.  The design of a full width windage tray is two fold.  First is for it to direct the oil back to the pan instead of back into the crankcase area and next is to keep any windage created in the crankcase area away from the sump.  A good design will facilitate oil returning to the sump and/or inhibit oil in the sump being pulled back up into the crankcase.  If using the windage screen material supplied by the pan manufacturers, this material is directional so it’s important to note the direction it’s installed.

 

Ideally, the windage tray needs to be a close as possible to the rotating assembly minimize windage and facilitate additional oil removal.  Placing the windage tray further away from the rotating assembly just gives more oil the potential of being pulled back up into the crankcase area.

 

As John said, if building an oil wiper or scraper into package, then that needs to be on the passenger side of the block.  If installed on the oil filter side, it will inhibit oil from actually returning back to the pan or sump.  Clearance will be dictated by personal preference but definitely needs to be far enough away that actual metal contact will not take place.

 

Here are pics of a stock 428CJ windage tray and a main support girdle for a Y that incorporates built in windage and oil wiper control.  The Y main support that’s pictured is generic in that it doesn’t require any trimming or fitting with up to a 3.44” stroke.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Thanks for the info, John.

Steve,

I plan to model it with CAD.  I try to model all of the parts I make.  As John says, it is not necessarily a universal thing.  In my case it will be for a 3.47" stroke and aftermarket rods.

I put one of the Chrysler studs in today.  They are pretty long.  I didn't have my oil pan with me to make sure that they don't interfere.

Here's what it looks like.

It's about 2 5/16" above the top of the main cap.  That is with 14 threads in the block, which keeps the stud above the oil passage to the main.  JM suggests that the threads go no farther than 1 1/8" in the assembly errors.  14 threads is about 1 1/16".  I don't think the extra length will be a problem - so long as the oil pan fits.

The only thing I can think of is how do I go about torquing the main nut?  It looks like I'll need a real deep socket or a crows foot.

Lawrenceville, GA

Steve:

Cad drawings sound good, however every stroke, and every rod configuration would require different depths of scallops on the leading edge, so development time would be considerable, and several folks would have to make patterns of the different bottom ends and make them available.  Mine is for a 3.44 stroke and C2AE rods with palnuts.  I loaned mine to Rick Coder to copy, but I'm not sure he did, he probably just looked at how it was made.  As an aircraft mechanic, he has access to sheet metal and the machines to form it.  I'll bet his looks a lot more professional than mine.

I think you're right, the biggest help is in the upper RPM range, both in cutting windage and getting oil back to the pan quicker.  Street gains would be small.  Peace of mind would be present, though.

John

John - "The Hoosier Hurricane"

If you guys can come up with a sketch, set of dimensions, tin thickness etc. - I'll try to get a good CAD drawing made so that it can be put out in the available Y tech information. We'll just put note on it that it is copyrighted to the site or something. It may need to be handed back and forth a few times for checking to insure it is exactly what it needs to be.

A 10th is worth working for if you are a racer - the big gains are probably at the upper end of the rpm band however - not especially street horsepower. Dyno guys would know best. On the other hand - the crank scrapers are a pretty simple part and who knows - maybe it'll be just enough to dust a contender.

Here in Tucson, I get sheetmetal shims and plates (often up to .250 thickness) cut by a guy with a Laser - and there are several other businesses around elsewhere that can do the same thing. Lately we have had some heavier harder stuff cut with a 50,000 psi waterjet. They just need a decent drawing to get it set up on XY coordinates. As a lifetime garage dweller - I'd probably try to make my own first....................

 
 Steve Metzger       Tucson, Arizona