Im getting ready to do an engine rebuild and one of the things I would like under the motor is this pan setup.Ive seen TA's and besides holding more oil I dont see any other benifit from it.Postons looks like it helps cool the oil with its fins and they even claim it reinforces the block much like an engine girdle.Plus I really like the ease at which you can access the engine bearings in a quick emergancy.Any one use have this setup? comments?
I agree....the Poston modular oil pan is a pretty slick setup!! Excellent way of keeping tabs on the rear bearings!!!:TU: They offer them girdled or not.
I don't see how an aluminum pan, even a thick one, is going to strengthen a cast iron block. It does permit easy access to half the bearings, though.
The pan is actually very strong, it does add strength the the bottom end. Aluminum also helps dampen out harmonics in the bottom end, steel and cast iron cannot do this. One last point, if alum cannot add any strength to a cast iron block, I guess alum can't add any strength to a cast iron rear end either , can it? Jim Burek
poston pan GSXER, i run one these pans. (non girdled pan) They are a little pricey, but they are well built & heavy duty for sure. The pan rail area is is thick , which i believe adds to the rigidity of the block. I have no problems with leaks either. If you run a main stud kit, this pan clears those as well. Not to mention, the pan looks awsome too. Randy
Jim, I thought that those aluminum rear end covers were used to hold the differential caps from flexing, not keeping the entire rearend housing more rigid. Could someone clarify this? Phil
Phil, I have a girdled pan on my backup Stage 1 race engine. I think it will work just fine for some race and street strip combinations. It is very rigid and will help the block from twisting and flexing. The principal behind the girdle pan is to add some rigidity to the block while preloading the main studs in an attempt to minimize the cranks downward forces on the main studs. The 12 bolt rear end girdle is kind of the same principal but the rear end girdle preloads the center of the main cap whereas the girdled oil pan will preload the main studs. Which is better.... I am sure you will get varied opinions. Does it help... sure it does. Hope this helps!!!
I use the Poston girdled oli pan in my drag car and I am pretty satisfied with it! I like the removalable sump because with it off of the pan I can take the motor out of the car without taking the hood off!:Brow: Tony Rossini
I would think that 25lbs oil pan won't hurt, but it's no replacement for a girdle on a stock block. That's pretty much universally accepted. Here is why.. I had an extensive discussion with Dennis Manner on this issue, at Casey's party last winter. Yes, the crank is trying to blow the main caps off to some extent, but it's also applying a much more damaging load to the block. That being it's trying to bend the bulkheads out of the motor, as one piston fires on each throw of the crank. It's not the downward force, but that bending force applied by the crankpin under power, at any one given time, that does the damage. That load is not only downward, but also longintudinally. Dennis explained a senario in which they did rpm studies with some real high tech stress analysis software, to study the effects of the crankpin trying to bend the main caps/webs. This was in the development of the Generation 2 3.8 motor, but the principle applies to the older big blocks. His recommendation to me for anything that is going to see high rpm usage, was that a halo type girlde is almost more important than anything else. To keep the caps/bulkheads from being flexed, toward the front and rear of the block. He saw very little value in anything that was not machined onto the block/caps. And I wouldn't argue with him, that's for sure. The man has "Been There, Done That". He said the reduction in rotating weight in that Gen 2 V-6 made amazing differences in the stress loads, and that is why they shortened up the deck so much on that motor, to shrink the pistons down, which lightens them up. Now, there is no such load in a rear end, so any attempt to use that as an example is a bit pointless, considering the above information.
I'll let you know when mine blows.....675 hp, stock rods, no girdle, 6500 rpm......4 strikes, I'm out. Bruce 10.25 129 3710 lbs
Bruce, From what I here you are not the only one doing this these days. Last year at Norwalk, Gary Laughlin (spelling) was running the GSE class and ran a 10.17 with an engine that had stock rods and no girdle. I am thinking those cars have to weigh around 3600 lbs. Which leads to my question..... Are you guys able to do this now because of a good quality balanced rotating assembly and a quality harmonic dampener which in turn is reducing harmonics? Jim, In your conversation with Dennis did me mention anything about the main caps actually flexing under the load of the crank pushing down on them which in turn causes the caps to pinch inward at the parting line which reduces the bearing clearance and causes rod and main bearing failure? I have heard that is one of the biggest problems when not running any type of support on the mains. Damn.... what are we going to talk about when we have not one.... but two new blocks to choose from!!!!! Take Care
The difference in power output and block strength today from years before is part selection. Internal balancing can help as can a lighter assembly. The force on the block is multiplied by weight and RPM and increased even more by balance. The block can live past the point that was determined many years ago through testing. I would not recomend going with as many strikes as Bruce has for engine durability but do beleive it can work and wonder if that has been internally balanced. I would rather see a lighter aftermarket rod to go that far. A lot of weight can be removed from the rotating assembly and save stress on the block. I also think that externally balancing an engine is a bad idea, the rotating assembly should be balanced and the dampner should be a dampner not a balancer. The purpose of this part is to stop vibration not balance the engine. The flexplate or flywheel is meant to transfer power not balance the engine these two parts alone can make a huge difference. Even with the aftermarket block(s) coming out there is no need to throw the wrong parts at the block to see what it can handle, go with lighter rotating parts and internally balance and you will sleep easier at night.
Hey John What about Joe Chuba's car? He's been deep in the 9's with nothing more than the main caps "pinned" And clarification...... Gary Laughlin's GSE car went 10.11 at 3800 lbs and has a fist full of 131+mph timeslips. And I know he goes through the traps at 7000 rpm. Not anything I would try,I like "overkill " Just offering options to everyone...Keep the rotating assy light and you can get by w/o a girdle until you buy your aftermarket block:TU:
i dont see how a pan can renforce the block. would it not have to be machined onto the block like a girdle woule have to be?
If it were just a sheet metal pan then I would agree, it would not add any strength. But this thing weighs like 25 pounds, it is thick, and does add stability to the pan rails as well as adds strength to help hold the main in place. Is it as strong as the other styl girdle? I really don't know. I do know this, I have run one on a 535 for over 7 years and the engine was shifted at 6800 rpm for most of those years and I never had a bottom end failure out of it, so my concensus is that it definately did not hurt anything and I feel it definately helped keep that behemoth together. I had received a phone call several years ago from someone asking me about how my 535 was doing as far as main bearing life, I told this person that I was not having any problems with bearings on this engine, This person told me that they were having some sort of issues with I believe the number 4 main bearing on their big motors, I almost said, maybe you should try the girdled pan, but I did'nt. The whole reason for the girdled pan was to offer an alternative way to strengthen the bottom end that would not require lots of machine work to the block, this I feel we did. This was one of many projects that I helped develop for Poston many years ago, there was never any R&D paid to me by Poston for any of this stuff, and then he would take over the production of the parts so I would no longer have any income from the product either, so of course no further developmental work would follow suit. This really left a bad taste in my mouth with Jim Poston. Jim Burek P.A.E. ENTERPRISES
