Crank scrapers or plate...?

[Noxnabaker]

Now that I'm down to it & even had my pals enginestand here I have a question about what to use...
I've been look'n at different options such as:
plates on the sides of the crank, fitted on the block &
the bended "upsidedpwn tunnel" plate that covers the whole underside of the crank & has slots & louvers that is fastened to the crank bolts.

To me it seems that the second option is the best, otherwise the moving parts will splash down in the oil anyway & if the crank parts are moving inside a kind of walled room in high speed then the oil won't flow back in as easy & stay more out of the way caused of the louvers on one side... can it be so?

Any experiences in this case?

 

[W-Edge]

Do a search on engine masters challenge an see what the guys did , a few years ago full lenghth tub style pans were allowed with a good kickout on one side , that is what seemed to work best!The deeper your pan the further away the oil is the better , screen and louvered trays both work adjusting your distance can make a difference , crank scrapers have worked and in some cases have had a negtive impact on output , only dyno r&d will tell for your combo , directing the oil away from the cam valley , channeling it back to the bottom of the pan and away from the crank works good too.Concetrating on having constant reliable oil supply at the sump should be #1 priority , baffles around pick up , and make sure you dont have too much oil , somtimes those dip sticks are highly innacurate or mismatched .

 

[yellow rose]

Google crank scrapers and find the Ishihara-Johnson web site and do some research.

Are you saying you want up and down crank scrapers? IJ makes them cheap enough that it doesn't make sense to make your own.

 

[pishta]

crank doesnt touch the oil in the pan, Look how deep the full line is on the stick when its inserted with no pan. Thats your level when its NOT running. figure about 2 inches of that is going to be upstairs when the car is running. The scraper is overkill, it peels the oil off the crank that naturally clings to it so your sort of adding drag to the motor by constantly scraping this oil off. A windage tray flings the oil off naturally and just routes it away from the crank so it doesnt grab it again in its natural vortex. Ishihara/Johnson sells crank scrapers so they are going to spout its virtues, but do you wind your small block past 7000 RPM for extended amounts of time? If so, go for it. They say a scraper AND a windage tray form a system to keep oil from aerating and flowing to bearings in that semi solid state.

 

[yellow rose]

crank doesnt touch the oil in the pan, Look how deep the full line is on the stick when its inserted with no pan. Thats your level when its NOT running. figure about 2 inches of that is going to be upstairs when the car is running. The scraper is overkill, it peels the oil off the crank that naturally clings to it so your sort of adding drag to the motor by constantly scraping this oil off. A windage tray flings the oil off naturally and just routes it away from the crank so it doesnt grab it again in its natural vortex. Ishihara/Johnson sells crank scrapers so they are going to spout its virtues, but do you wind your small block past 7000 RPM for extended amounts of time? If so, go for it. They say a scraper AND a windage tray form a system to keep oil from aerating and flowing to bearings in that semi solid state.

You need to STOP because you are dead wrong. IJ isn't forcing anyone to buy anything. OEM's are using crank scrapers and dams in the oil pans.

Christ almighty. Makes sure you know what you are saying before you screw someone up. I can't think of a single engine that can't benefit from a scraper. Except maybe a skirted block because the crank is above the pan rail.

No wait, they work on those too.

 

[pishta]

Tell me how you really feel, dont hold back! Whats innacurate in my post. Whats the guys application? IJ isnt forcing anyone to buy anything, where is that from? The oil level in the pan at the full mark is about 2" below the crank throw, even more when its running. Chime in, tell us where I am wrong. If every motor could use a scraper to its benefit, why wouldn't every motor have 'em? Stamped steel isnt that expensive.

 

[Noxnabaker]

I already saw the Ishihara-Jonson & some scrapers, & so I reckon the best is both.
But if I was to use only one?

 

[LeftyJD]

Crank scrappers work. Windage trays also work. Given the choice I'd use both. If I had to pick only one or the other, depends on the oil pan it's in. Something deeper than stock that's already keeping oil down away from the crank I'd pick the scrapper. Stockish pan I'd pick the windage tray to help keep the oil in sump off the crank. Keep in mind, a moving car moves the oil around in the pan a lot without baffles/gates etc. They're both pretty cheap insurance for your oiling system and thereby entire engine. Both are proven to add at least a little power in almost every application ever. I don't see any reason to only do one unless it's a super-duper budget or stock rebuild? There's way worse ways to spend that amount of money in a shortblock.

 

[W-Edge]

Crank scrappers work. Windage trays also work. Given the choice I'd use both. If I had to pick only one or the other, depends on the oil pan it's in. Something deeper than stock that's already keeping oil down away from the crank I'd pick the scrapper. Stockish pan I'd pick the windage tray to help keep the oil in sump off the crank. Keep in mind, a moving car moves the oil around in the pan a lot without baffles/gates etc. They're both pretty cheap insurance for your oiling system and thereby entire engine. Both are proven to add at least a little power in almost every application ever. I don't see any reason to only do one unless it's a super-duper budget or stock rebuild? There's way worse ways to spend that amount of money in a shortblock.

I second that.

 

[W-Edge]

crank doesnt touch the oil in the pan, Look how deep the full line is on the stick when its inserted with no pan. Thats your level when its NOT running. figure about 2 inches of that is going to be upstairs when the car is running. The scraper is overkill, it peels the oil off the crank that naturally clings to it so your sort of adding drag to the motor by constantly scraping this oil off. A windage tray flings the oil off naturally and just routes it away from the crank so it doesnt grab it again in its natural vortex. Ishihara/Johnson sells crank scrapers so they are going to spout its virtues, but do you wind your small block past 7000 RPM for extended amounts of time? If so, go for it. They say a scraper AND a windage tray form a system to keep oil from aerating and flowing to bearings in that semi solid state.

Crank doesnt touch the oil in the pan , you need to stap a pan in the back of a pickup and take it for a little ride , bring some old rags...

 

[yellow rose]

Tell me how you really feel, dont hold back! Whats innacurate in my post. Whats the guys application? IJ isnt forcing anyone to buy anything, where is that from? The oil level in the pan at the full mark is about 2" below the crank throw, even more when its running. Chime in, tell us where I am wrong. If every motor could use a scraper to its benefit, why wouldn't every motor have 'em? Stamped steel isnt that expensive.

For one, to work, they need to be hand fitted. Are you going to pay for that in an OEM deal that don't need it?

Stroke length is a big factor.

Oil wraps around a crank like a blanket. Any time you can lose it you are better off.

Call IJ and talk to Kevin. He will explain to you how wrong you are.

Oh wait, I forgot...he has a vested interest in something he sells.

I can see this is going to go the way of the adjustable PCV valve. I bought one and caught hell for it. Luckily, many guys are using them besides me with much success.

The crank scrapers is no different. If you are bother isn't to spend the time to build an engine, why not spend a few extra dollars for a crank scraper.

Unreal.

 

[yellow rose]

Crank scrappers work. Windage trays also work. Given the choice I'd use both. If I had to pick only one or the other, depends on the oil pan it's in. Something deeper than stock that's already keeping oil down away from the crank I'd pick the scrapper. Stockish pan I'd pick the windage tray to help keep the oil in sump off the crank. Keep in mind, a moving car moves the oil around in the pan a lot without baffles/gates etc. They're both pretty cheap insurance for your oiling system and thereby entire engine. Both are proven to add at least a little power in almost every application ever. I don't see any reason to only do one unless it's a super-duper budget or stock rebuild? There's way worse ways to spend that amount of money in a shortblock.

AMEN.


Now pass me the potatoes.

 

[pishta]

adjustable PVC??? Shiii, I actually believe that those work! A custom hand fitted scraper is going to net you what over a properly fitted windage tray? A windage tray will divert oil back into the pan, isolate it from the vortex created by the crankshaft and keep the oil pickup covered. Scraper will accomplish what by itself?

 

[LeftyJD]

adjustable PVC??? Shiii, I actually believe that those work! .... Scraper will accomplish what by itself?

Adj pvc is def a reasonable idea, especially once we start screwing with motors away from the stock stuff the factory pvc was setup for.

In the 70's Chrysler did some dyno work on Hemis and found above ~8k rpm you could pull the pan off and not make much of a mess. Nearly all the oil was flying around and stuck to the crank/Rods or in the rotating assembly's windage vortex. Windage tray by itself did very little fix the problem, created more of a wind tunnel effect. Crank scrappers fixed the problem. This was done developing the pro stock motors at the time.
Think of a crank scrapper like a lathe (crank) and cutter bit (scrapper); way closer to the crank is obviously gonna remove more of the oil hitching a ride on the crank.
Classic windage tray only catches the stuff already flung off, helpful for sure but not the same by any means. In theory it catches hanging oil before it contacts crankshaft again and slows crank down. But reality is, if the oil drop or "rope" is in a space that it can be hit by the crankshaft, it BETTER not be hitting the windage tray- or your crank and windage tray are about to have an interference fit. In a moving vehicle it's better at controlling splashing back upwards towards crank from the sump.

Don't get me wrong-I run both inside of a milodon road race pan. Both have their functions and compliment each other. I'd probably have to put the car on its roof or run it without the drain plug to starve it of oil. Sounds like windage trays have worked great for you, so keep using them! But that also doesn't discount crank scrappers also working, fair enough?

 

[W-Edge]

Adj pvc is def a reasonable idea, especially once we start screwing with motors away from the stock stuff the factory pvc was setup for.

In the 70's Chrysler did some dyno work on Hemis and found above ~8k rpm you could pull the pan off and not make much of a mess. Nearly all the oil was flying around and stuck to the crank/Rods or in the rotating assembly's windage vortex. Windage tray by itself did very little fix the problem, created more of a wind tunnel effect. Crank scrappers fixed the problem. This was done developing the pro stock motors at the time.
Think of a crank scrapper like a lathe (crank) and cutter bit (scrapper); way closer to the crank is obviously gonna remove more of the oil hitching a ride on the crank.
Classic windage tray only catches the stuff already flung off, helpful for sure but not the same by any means. In theory it catches hanging oil before it contacts crankshaft again and slows crank down. But reality is, if the oil drop or "rope" is in a space that it can be hit by the crankshaft, it BETTER not be hitting the windage tray- or your crank and windage tray are about to have an interference fit. In a moving vehicle it's better at controlling splashing back upwards towards crank from the sump.

Don't get me wrong-I run both inside of a milodon road race pan. Both have their functions and compliment each other. I'd probably have to put the car on its roof or run it without the drain plug to starve it of oil. Sounds like windage trays have worked great for you, so keep using them! But that also doesn't discount crank scrappers also working, fair enough?

Check out moroso 23036 , see that gold coloured piece of steel goes between the pump and #5 main cap , I installed this on a friends chevelle with a 502 and picked up mph(no back to back tests to back it up but we did one mod at a time and marked the progress, for an afternoons worth of work and bout 30 bucks , priced 25 yrs ago , it ''seemed'' to work). Not a specialist in aerodynamics but from what I m reading here bout vortexes , I would suggest that maybe the scraper doesn t just scrape oil off(there s a clearance there so there is obviously going to be oil left)but maybe it breaks or interrupts the vortex!As far as the tunnel effect mentioned above that is where the large tub style pans with kickout on oneside at the pan rail.Those woud give room for the vortex to escape or expand and the oil will stick to the wall and drip back down . In my original post I suggested directing oil around the crank but one should also keep oil pressure at a minimum and also check some cheaper connecting rods are actully chevy blanks or made on the same machinery , just check for excessive rod side clearance.Like everything oil control should work as a system.

 

[IQ52]

For one, to work, they need to be hand fitted. Are you going to pay for that in an OEM deal that don't need it?

Stroke length is a big factor.

Oil wraps around a crank like a blanket. Any time you can lose it you are better off.

Call IJ and talk to Kevin. He will explain to you how wrong you are.

Oh wait, I forgot...he has a vested interest in something he sells.

I can see this is going to go the way of the adjustable PCV valve. I bought one and caught hell for it. Luckily, many guys are using them besides me with much success.

The crank scrapers is no different. If you are bother isn't to spend the time to build an engine, why not spend a few extra dollars for a crank scraper.

Unreal.

Very true........

So we made a crank scraper and windage tray for the 357/340 in 1977. Made a few dyno runs, 595 HP. Dropped the pan and installed the scraper and windage tray, 610 HP. It was enough of a difference that Cale Yarborough was really pissed that he couldn't catch the 'ol #93 Dodge going down the back straight on the road course at Riverside Raceway in California.

2009, I spent 4 days building a crank scraper for the 451 stroker. It was part of the reason we made 136 HP more than the next closest engine the same size in the contest.

 

[nm9stheham]

I getting the idea that this is all due to the weight of the oil added to the crank, essentially making the crank heavier, and taking energy away from the crank output as you try it spin it up. Is this the right way to look at it?

If so, then the energy absorbed by spinning up the same added weight will be 2.5 times greater going from 7000 to 8000 RPM than going from 2500 RPM to 3500 RPM. So, this is going to be more at more critical at the high RPM's uses in particular, like the NASCAR engine referred to above.

It does not seem to be all that beneficial in low RPM gas pickup truck engine, and for a 350 HP street only engine, running 2000-5000 RPM all the time, it seems like the benefit is marginal enough to make it an optional item.

Good ole' Cale... LOL

 

[yellow rose]

Very true........

So we made a crank scraper and windage tray for the 357/340 in 1977. Made a few dyno runs, 595 HP. Dropped the pan and installed the scraper and windage tray, 610 HP. It was enough of a difference that Cale Yarborough was really pissed that he couldn't catch the 'ol #93 Dodge going down the back straight on the road course at Riverside Raceway in California.

2009, I spent 4 days building a crank scraper for the 451 stroker. It was part of the reason we made 136 HP more than the next closest engine the same size in the contest.

There you go pishta. I appreciate that some guys drop their numbers out here for free. I just don't like doing it much, but I will say that my experience mirrors IQ's.

What I will say is most guys don't consider that what the displacement is above the cylinder, is the exact same displacement below the piston. Think about it....if you have 410 CID, you also have 410 cubic inches moving air around in the crank case! And it's not just air, it's air and oil. The small block crankcase was never designed to displace 400 plus cubic inches. I will not build a stroker without a crank scraper. I use and up and down scraper. That's why getting a pressure differential in the crank case is a big deal. Helps oil contro and ring seal.

 

[pishta]

I see the positive effects at higher RPM's. I come from a street motor world that never sees 7000 RPM for extended amounts of time or peak HP competition motors so I would never consider a crank scraper. Not knowing what the OP was doing was probably an oversight on my part. If these guys apps running high RPMs dictate a scraper and a windage tray, by all means use what works. I myself with my motors ad applications would not consider a crank scraper as I feel its benefits would not justify the cost. Overkill in my eyes, necessary...TBD.

 

[stixx]

So we have all the education needed on crank scrapers, interesting insight rounded off with facts.

Still I am with pishta... OP didn't say a word about what engine he's building, and I don't see it being
a race engine...

 

[yellow rose]

So we have all the education needed on crank scrapers, interesting insight rounded off with facts.

Still I am with pishta... OP didn't say a word about what engine he's building, and I don't see it being
a race engine...

Doesn't need to be a "race" engine to benefit from a scraper. Don't repeat things that are wrong. You are training your mind to accept a mistake every time you repeat it.

Obviously, RPM is a function of when you need a scraper, but stroke length and crank case volume are WAY more important than RPM. Entrainment, gas expansion, blah blah blah...Id have to go get my notes from several conversations with Kevin Johnson but there is way more to it than RPM.

The OP was already looking I no scrapers and windage trays (I use both) and instead of helping him, some tried to discourage him. It's especially frustrating to see guys wanting to learn and get shut down because it's not a "race" engine.

The cost of a scraper is relatively little for the gain.


BTW, I have had some very intimate conversations with my engines, and not a single one knew it was a race engine until I told it what it was.


Sometimes it's like it's a jealously thing....because a guy wants a part that someone else has classified a "race" part we start measuring weenie lengths.

FWIW many parts today were considered "race" parts just 10-15 years ago.

 

[nm9stheham]

If you have other reasons to use them, then I am all ears, particularly on the aspects of how stroke and displacement impact the usefulness of scrapers. So hit those notes! I have read the IJ site BTW, so that good has come of this.

Everything is has a cost/benefit aspect, and knowing what the results are is worth the conversation IMO. It is $80 for the cheapest IJ scraper set for the SBM, and they have pricier ones. But, how many HP and other benefits will be gained in the application versus that cost? Is it 1 HP for cruising at 3,000 RPM, or 10 HP? That answer makes a BIG difference; that cost/benefit needs to be balanced by everyone to their own satisfaction; IMHO, it is more helpful to just give people the facts, point out the good and the bad, and let them decide, and avoid judgments on the individual decisions.

 

[yellow rose]

If you have other reasons to use them, then I am all ears, particularly on the aspects of how stroke and displacement impact the usefulness of scrapers. So hit those notes! I have read the IJ site BTW, so that good has come of this.

Everything is has a cost/benefit aspect, and knowing what the results are is worth the conversation IMO. It is $80 for the cheapest IJ scraper set for the SBM, and they have pricier ones. But, how many HP and other benefits will be gained in the application versus that cost? Is it 1 HP for cruising at 3,000 RPM, or 10 HP? That answer makes a BIG difference; that cost/benefit needs to be balanced by everyone to their own satisfaction; IMHO, it is more helpful to just give people the facts, point out the good and the bad, and let them decide, and avoid judgments on the individual decisions.

When I get a minute I'll see if I can find that notebook. May be out in the shop.

Some things don't always show up as power on a dyno. What if you dropped your oil temp 15 degrees with a scraper? What if you picked up 10 pounds of oil pressure with a scraper? What if you observed both?

That's why I detest calling certain parts "race" parts and others just parts. They are inanimate objects. They serve a purpose.

For me, running engines at 8500 and higher when I know, KNOW for a fact (especially when data logging became standard) that very few people actually made power at those RPM's, let alone actually spun them that tight. Oil control becomes a serious issue. What I also learned was that as the stroke length gets longer, the RPM gets significantly lower where entrainment becomes problematic.

I know there are people who calculate crankcase volume, and have an empirical formula they use to determine the volume needed in the pan. While the pan may have enough internal volume to run 10-12 quarts of oil, they may run 5. You can't do that without scrapers and trays and some a out of crankcase vacuum.

Dry sumps are very good at controlling oil. The latest pans are segmented. And they still use a scraper. A Pro Stock engine has a stroke of ~3.6ish depending on the bore. If you figure the surface feet per minute of the crank, even at 11000RPM, it's very close to the same as a 4.5 stroke at 7000 RPM IIRC and I don't want to do all the math but maybe AJ will come along a do some ciphering on SFPM on crank strokes.

 

[murfman]

Tell me how you really feel, dont hold back! Whats innacurate in my post. Whats the guys application? IJ isnt forcing anyone to buy anything, where is that from? The oil level in the pan at the full mark is about 2" below the crank throw, even more when its running. Chime in, tell us where I am wrong. If every motor could use a scraper to its benefit, why wouldn't every motor have 'em? Stamped steel isnt that expensive.

Look at the oil pan gasket for a 2.4 from a SRT-4, it has as close as you can get to a crank scraper in a production type motor. this is combined with the balance shaft housing that acts like a Windage tray.

 

[W-Edge]

When I get a minute I'll see if I can find that notebook. May be out in the shop.

Some things don't always show up as power on a dyno. What if you dropped your oil temp 15 degrees with a scraper? What if you picked up 10 pounds of oil pressure with a scraper? What if you observed both?

That's why I detest calling certain parts "race" parts and others just parts. They are inanimate objects. They serve a purpose.

For me, running engines at 8500 and higher when I know, KNOW for a fact (especially when data logging became standard) that very few people actually made power at those RPM's, let alone actually spun them that tight. Oil control becomes a serious issue. What I also learned was that as the stroke length gets longer, the RPM gets significantly lower where entrainment becomes problematic.

I know there are people who calculate crankcase volume, and have an empirical formula they use to determine the volume needed in the pan. While the pan may have enough internal volume to run 10-12 quarts of oil, they may run 5. You can't do that without scrapers and trays and some a out of crankcase vacuum.

Dry sumps are very good at controlling oil. The latest pans are segmented. And they still use a scraper. A Pro Stock engine has a stroke of ~3.6ish depending on the bore. If you figure the surface feet per minute of the crank, even at 11000RPM, it's very close to the same as a 4.5 stroke at 7000 RPM IIRC and I don't want to do all the math but maybe AJ will come along a do some ciphering on SFPM on crank strokes.

Right on , have to add , Ive raced on the cheap and always noticed my small block chevys ran better when oil was low , was racing a friends 5.7l iroc and dumped a quart at the track to verify my thought and it picked up and that folks is with a 5000rpm redline.Oems are doing it for effieciency!Some people seem to get upset about cost vs benefit here , do the mopar scrapers cost that much?If so isn t it up to the one that started the thread to decide if its worth it or not for him...