skpyle

Hello All,

A recent question about a Greg Brown windage tray set up on an FB group has piqued my curiosity.

I very much understand the concept, and the benefits for a track 928 engine.

So...I have a silly, ne stupid question: is there any benefit to a GB windage tray set on a street driven 928 engine? More specifically on a 32V S3?

Thanks for your time, attention, insults, and brickbats.

worf928

My $0.02: The need for, usefulness of, a windage tray is proportional to average rpms.

soontobered84

I agree. Not needed or useful on most driven cars.

worf928

Not what I implied; You misunderstand.

On an ‘87/‘88 auto with the 2.20 rear end average rpm is probably 2k or less. On an GT or GTS 5-speed average rpm is 3k or more and add-in engine braking. So the windage tray is more useful on 2.73 rear end 5-speeds than it is on 2.20 autos. In general.

jcorenman

If I recall correctly, the FB post was about using windage trays without a pan spacer. Whatever other considerations (and I agree with Dave and John), windage trays without a spacer makes zero sense. You need room under the screens for them to be effective.

Billu

Advantage, but slight, unless you do a ton of high-g cornering. Minor gas mileage, minor oil consumption due to less oil foaming, but you do get bragging rights.

ptuomov

You sure about that? My understanding is the the windage trays become more beneficial as the oil pan depth is reduced. No real evidence on this for the 928, of course, and pan spacer is of course beneficial.

worf928

Mine as well. It's not like the windage trays are immersed in sump oil even without a spacer.

jcorenman

No, not sure at all. A deeper sump is certainly better, trays or no trays. Is a shallow sump with trays better than a shallow sump with no trays? Perhaps, but a deeper sump with trays is better than either. Why fit trays and not a spacer? That's what makes no sense to me.

ptuomov

I agree on the spacer, but my logic (not facts or experience) tells me that closer the pan bottom is to the crankshaft the greater the benefit from a windage tray in between.

Of course, there are the crankcase gas flows to consider as well.

jcorenman

So if you didn't have budget for both, which is better? Spacer and no windage tray? Or windage tray and no spacer?

ptuomov

In my opinion, without any evidence but also without any doubt (a bad combination!), is that the spacer is more beneficial to a street-driven 928 S4 engine than a windage tray.

worf928

Some folks don't want the 'weird' starter. Some folks are concerned about the motor mounts (eventually) collapsing and the oil pan riding on the engine carrier due to the spacer.

The first is subjective. The latter is not subjective. Motor mounts will collapse. But, I can't tell 'some folks' that the pan will or will not rub on the engine carrier when the mounts collapse. So, while the customer isn't always right, this is a case where I'm not going to try to convince them they're wrong. If they want trays with no spacer then that's what they get.

But, do note that you can't use the 4/8 tray without a spacer and the 3/7 tray requires the inside of the pan to be 'clearanced.'

SwayBar

If you are having your engine rebuilt, sure go ahead and do it, it's the perfect time to do it. Might as well throw a scraper on it too while you're at it.

Otherwise, for a streeter, it is not needed at all - the money is better-spent elsewhere.

GregBBRD

Porsche installed a "windage tray or screen" on the early 4.5 liter engines and then again, on the GTS engines, without a pan spacer....they were trying to keep the oil from being "whipped up" in the oil pick-up area.

There's a reason that I sell my windage trays "separate" from my pan spacer and not as a "kit". They work great, keeping oil from "bouncing" off the oil pan (in the rear of the pan) and keep oil sitting in the pick-up area from being "whipped" up by the crankshaft (in the front of the pan).

I'd agree that moving the oil away from the crankshaft works better (pan spacer), but it's not a requirement.