Integrated Dry Sump Better?
03-11-2005, 08:14 AM
#16
Originally Posted by Gary R.
Yes, but did you notice that that they say "derived from racing" and that it assures lubrication even in "sporting driving style". Its that line between racing and sporty that they will get ya... 
Fact is, it should be easiest for Porsche to design a reliable integrated dry sump. With the crankshaft being in the middle of their flat-6 engine, there is plenty of room below it to incorporate a oil reservoir. Those with inline or V engine designs, have to work around a crank mounted low in the block.
03-11-2005, 12:50 PM
#17
Race Director
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: KC ex pat marooned in NY
Posts: 13,005
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
17 Posts
I think the Porsche integrated dry sump is more than enough for 95% of the guys on this board who track their cars, and 100% for the guys who don't.
It actually consists of a sophisticated baffling system, I wouldn't worry about it at all.
It actually consists of a sophisticated baffling system, I wouldn't worry about it at all.
03-11-2005, 07:10 PM
#18
Drifting
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MKW
The problem with an integrated dry sump( still a wet sump ) assuming you can control oil pump starvation : the oil is still all stored right below the crank instead of in a separate reservoir , sloshing around and shifting with g forces so that the crank is sunjected to a lot of varying viscous friction.
03-12-2005, 04:54 AM
#19
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I think the fact that they still use a dry sump on the GT2, GT3, TT, and CGT should be enough evidence of which system is better...
