Blown Beast

Ok I am building a new low compression S/C motor and have a GTS baffle to install in the oil pan.
However I have seen in the manuels (17-2) that in the early cars there was a oil pan insert that looks like four stop signs with a hole in the middle for the pick-up. There is a oil filter screen that is also used with this oil pan insert.
My question is ...has any one tried both set-ups and is one better than the other?My question is
Looking at the picture I would say that the early setup is more efficient due to the screen removing the aerated oil before it can be picked up. I would guess that the metal oil pan insert that looks like four stop signs would keep the oil from climbing the sides of the oil pan under hard cornering and causing the pick up to suck air.

Jim_H

Search for "oil starvation problem". There is a long thread on your question. I don't know if people are even bothering with the GTS baffle anymore. I know Professor Ott is working on some type of insert, I think.

Lizard928

Blown, if you have enough money to through into another engine, why not just spend some extra money and convert to drysump?

Tony

Off on a tangent a bit, but Mike Schmidt has crank scrapers in his car, may be a nice adition as well while its all apart.

cant help you with the baffle question, i dont know.

Blown Beast

Jim, I looked at all the previous posts and could not find any mention of the early style oil pan insert or the oil pan screen.

Lizard, It is not a money issue ...but rather a where to pit it in a street car issue.

Tony, I am looking into putting them in as well.

Anyone have any info on the PROS/CONS of these early oil screens and oil pan inserts versus the GTS baffel?

Lizard928

Blown well as per where to put it, you could put it in the fenderand run a few pipes throught the wall, probably best in the drivers fender, the only other spot would be to mount it infront of the rad

GlenL

I've thought and examined and asked folks who have done likewise. There are no idependent studies of what to do. You'd think the baffle would be some sort of improvement, but I don't think it's for keeping liquid near the pick-up. I think it's to shield the sump from the windage.

When mine goes together, the old set-up goes back wihtout the baffle.

I'm looking at some sort of scraper, screen or catch for controlling the windage.

Blown Beast

Glen, Do you think that the screen would help separate the aerated oil back to un-aerated oil as it has to pass through the screen to drip down into the pick-up zone?

Blown Beast

bump

GlenL

It could help to strain out droplets from the air and give finer mist a place to condense, so it should be a plus.

I think the GTS baffle was an attempt to alleviate the core problem: the crank is too close to the pan and sump. There's just not enough volume in the crank case to allow the oil to fall out. Also, the windage could start to pull oil out of the sump directly.

They could have designed a new oil pan and changed the from engine support and the steering rack, but that'd be a lot of changes. I can picture the options and the managerial decision being to add a $2 piece of sheet metal.

Blown Beast

Glen, You say you are not going to put back the oil pan insert when you put your motor back together, but are you going to install the GTS baffel or the screen.

GlenL

Beast,

I'm going to put back the existing 1980 sump baffle and screen. No GTS baffle. Might add scraper or screen or some oil pan mods but that's as time and $ allows.

Sorry for any misdirection.