mfg Posted October 16 Report Posted October 16 (edited) A ‘dry sump’ oiling system was once used on Studebaker V8 engines….True? Edited October 16 by mfg Spelling!
mfg Posted October 16 Author Report Posted October 16 1 hour ago, Dwight FitzSimons said: Do you mean dry sump? --Dwight Ha ha yes…. SUMP!!!! (Thanks)
mfg Posted October 17 Author Report Posted October 17 13 hours ago, Nelson said: Yes, I believe the R5 was a dry sump. Hmmm!…. Interesting answer… The R5 was not the answer I was looking for… but could the R5 have had dry sump oiling? Anyone else have any thoughts on this question?
Dwight FitzSimons Posted October 18 Report Posted October 18 My answer is R5 too. I will argue that, if there are two valid answers to the question, then "R5" is a CORRECT answer. And, Nelson should be awarded the prize. This is where my critical thinking leads me. Think of Jeopardy. --Dwight
regnalbob Posted October 18 Report Posted October 18 3 hours ago, Dwight FitzSimons said: My answer is R5 too. I will argue that, if there are two valid answers to the question, then "R5" is a CORRECT answer. And, Nelson should be awarded the prize. This is where my critical thinking leads me. Think of Jeopardy. --Dwight The R5 used a dry sump only on the superchargers. Each supercharger had a two quart dry sump and an oil cooler. The Burke Avanti used a dry sump.
mfg Posted October 18 Author Report Posted October 18 8 hours ago, Dwight FitzSimons said: My answer is R5 too. I will argue that, if there are two valid answers to the question, then "R5" is a CORRECT answer. And, Nelson should be awarded the prize. This is where my critical thinking leads me. Think of Jeopardy. --Dwight Well Dwight, if Regnalbob’s answer is correct, then Nelson (and yourself) are incorrect UNLESS someone interprets my use of the word “on” to mean not only the engine’s oiling system, but also components attached to the engine which have oiling systems! Frankly, I was referring to the Studebaker engine’s internal oiling system alone. The mention of the Burke Avanti is questionable… as that car went through many racing incarnations (and different engines) over the years… If it indeed was equipped with a dry sump oiling system when it ran with a Studebaker engine I do not know… but I have my doubts. The answer I was looking for is ‘True’, and I was referring to the double overhead cam Studebaker Indy V8 of 1953 … an absolutely gorgeous piece of machinery!!
Nelson Posted October 19 Report Posted October 19 I’m going from foggy memory but I’m pretty certain the R5 was a dry sump. Though I wouldn’t bet my life. As for dry sump blowers I’ve never heard of it on Paxtons of that era. I do know the Bonneville blowers had an external reservoir of about one gallon. Fluid was pumped,via electron pump, out of the reservoir and into the blower where it overflowed to a 3/4 hose at the full level and gravitated back to the storage tank. It’s been awhile since I had the Bonneville blower apart and I can’t remember if oil was pumped through the blower’s own pickup or just into the case. Either way, they tried to maintain the original oil level judging from the position of the drain.
regnalbob Posted October 19 Report Posted October 19 26 minutes ago, Nelson said: I’m going from foggy memory but I’m pretty certain the R5 was a dry sump. Though I wouldn’t bet my life. As for dry sump blowers I’ve never heard of it on Paxtons of that era. I do know the Bonneville blowers had an external reservoir of about one gallon. Fluid was pumped,via electron pump, out of the reservoir and into the blower where it overflowed to a 3/4 hose at the full level and gravitated back to the storage tank. It’s been awhile since I had the Bonneville blower apart and I can’t remember if oil was pumped through the blower’s own pickup or just into the case. Either way, they tried to maintain the original oil level judging from the position of the drain. Ed. Note: (quote Andy Granatelli - Nov 1970) The engine compression was 8:75 ::1. The superchargers were modified with an outside vent between the labyrinth rings. Then, a 2 quart dry sump oiling system with a cooler was fabricated for each supercharger, The coolers were mounted in the area where the parking lights normally went.
regnalbob Posted October 19 Report Posted October 19 1 hour ago, mfg said: The mention of the Burke Avanti is questionable… as that car went through many racing incarnations (and different engines) over the years… If it indeed was equipped with a dry sump oiling system when it ran with a Studebaker engine I do not know… but I have my doubts. https://www.enginelabs.com/news/video-studebaker-engine-built-for-top-speed-racing/
Nelson Posted October 19 Report Posted October 19 Reginalbob. If the oiling system from the tank via a electric pump supplied oil under pressure directly to the pickup inside the supercharger, would that be considered a dry sump oil system even if the drain back was configured to maintain factory dipstick level?
mfg Posted October 19 Author Report Posted October 19 1 hour ago, regnalbob said: https://www.enginelabs.com/news/video-studebaker-engine-built-for-top-speed-racing/ Yes, as I thought the original engine Burke ran used a conventional Studebaker V8 internal oiling system…. The engine described in this article is quite a ‘Frankenstein’ of modern parts!
mfg Posted October 19 Author Report Posted October 19 1 hour ago, Nelson said: I’m going from foggy memory but I’m pretty certain the R5 was a dry sump. Though I wouldn’t bet my life. As for dry sump blowers I’ve never heard of it on Paxtons of that era. I do know the Bonneville blowers had an external reservoir of about one gallon. Fluid was pumped,via electron pump, out of the reservoir and into the blower where it overflowed to a 3/4 hose at the full level and gravitated back to the storage tank. It’s been awhile since I had the Bonneville blower apart and I can’t remember if oil was pumped through the blower’s own pickup or just into the case. Either way, they tried to maintain the original oil level judging from the position of the drain. I agree… the blower fluid capacity was increased and pumped into a tank for cooling purposes… then pumped back to the supercharger…. far from a true dry sump lubrication system!
regnalbob Posted October 19 Report Posted October 19 On 10/16/2024 at 8:19 PM, Nelson said: Yes, I believe the R5 was a dry sump. In this photo it appears the R5 has no dry sump.
mfg Posted October 19 Author Report Posted October 19 After putting the first coat of paint on my ‘56 Golden, and while sitting watching paint dry, I pondered what those dual overhead cam cylinder heads which were used on the Studebaker Indy V8 would have, if installed on the Due Cento, put that Avanti up over 200 MPH?? Just dreaming here!!
Geoff Posted October 20 Report Posted October 20 10 hours ago, mfg said: After putting the first coat of paint on my ‘56 Golden, and while sitting watching paint dry, I pondered what those dual overhead cam cylinder heads which were used on the Studebaker Indy V8 would have, if installed on the Due Cento, put that Avanti up over 200 MPH?? Just dreaming here!! Due Cento [DC] would've eclipsed 200 with its existing setup. DC only needed to make a return when the salt was not wet. As it was, DC was doing a rolling burnout of 190-or-so MPH. I've read in an article the tachometer registered DC was well over 200 MPH (peak speed); she just couldn't maintain traction for the required two-way average.
Nelson Posted October 20 Report Posted October 20 I remember reading the same thing just don’t remember where. Maybe Andy’s book?
regnalbob Posted October 20 Report Posted October 20 21 minutes ago, Nelson said: I remember reading the same thing just don’t remember where. Maybe Andy’s book? This is from an article by Richard Bennett. Bill Dredge was present at the Granatelli shop when the testing was done on the dyno and said that the engine, in his words, produced a whopping 638 HP. Quite an accomplishment for 1963! Driven by Joe and Andy Granatelli, the Due Cento reached speeds well over 200 mph according to the tach, but was not getting traction due to the wet salt and the best official run was 196.58 mph.
Nelson Posted October 20 Report Posted October 20 18 hours ago, regnalbob said: In this photo it appears the R5 has no dry sump. Remember, I did say I wouldn’t bet my life on it. However, what do you think a dry sump would look like on the R5. It would need a sump of some sort to accumulate oil that leaks past clearances in moving parts? I imagine that bung in the pan is for oil temperature sensor but could be a pan drain, it does look pretty big? Usually a dry sump is used where hood or ground clearance is a problem and the pan is flat or nearly flat with the pan rails. Also oil in the pan can can eat HP and can produce foam just by whipping through the oil. A dry sump on the R5 would make sense for eating HP but not for too deep a pan causing drag. I’m glad I didn’t commit 100% to that answer. Still not 100% standard oiling system but definitely leaning in that direction.
regnalbob Posted October 20 Report Posted October 20 This is from the SDC Forum on 1-2010. Richard Bennett posted this as part of a reply about the R5. The R5 engine on the Due Cento was a basic R3 engine with a Bendix Fuel Injection unit that sprayed the fuel into/through the dual superchargers and then into a custom built sheet metal intake manifold which fed into the intake ports of the heads. It ran a Gilmore pulley and belt system to eliminate belt slippage, a special grind camshaft (several different grinders made camshafts for it but nobody remembers which one was used), and a Shiefer magneto ignition. It did not run a dry sump system. The blowers ran the blower fluid through a reserviour and cooler in order to cool the fluid which was needed as they were producing about 20 lbs. of boost.
mfg Posted October 20 Author Report Posted October 20 7 hours ago, Nelson said: Remember, I did say I wouldn’t bet my life on it. However, what do you think a dry sump would look like on the R5. It would need a sump of some sort to accumulate oil that leaks past clearances in moving parts? I imagine that bung in the pan is for oil temperature sensor but could be a pan drain, it does look pretty big? Usually a dry sump is used where hood or ground clearance is a problem and the pan is flat or nearly flat with the pan rails. Also oil in the pan can can eat HP and can produce foam just by whipping through the oil. A dry sump on the R5 would make sense for eating HP but not for too deep a pan causing drag. I’m glad I didn’t commit 100% to that answer. Still not 100% standard oiling system but definitely leaning in that direction. I was also alerted by the size of that oil pan fitting that it might be installed for more than just a temp sender…. I would think that Greg Cone would have the answer?
regnalbob Posted October 20 Report Posted October 20 1 hour ago, mfg said: I was also alerted by the size of that oil pan fitting that it might be installed for more than just a temp sender…. I would think that Greg Cone would have the answer? No need to contact Greg Cone. The answer is in the following link. https://aoai.org/forums/topic/4876-dry-r5/
mfg Posted October 20 Author Report Posted October 20 1 hour ago, regnalbob said: No need to contact Greg Cone. The answer is in the following link. https://aoai.org/forums/topic/4876-dry-r5/ Thank you for agreeing with mfg’s conclusion!! (I’d still like to hear from Greg Cone on this.. You see regnalbob… Mr.Cone actually OWNS the Due Cento’s R5 engine!!!)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now