Rules clarification question - oiling system reliability

[JazzMZ3]

Hi, the engine in my car is known for oil starvation issues during spirited/track style driving such as an AutoX venue.

For safety, reliability and logetivity of the power train components is it therefore legal to install oil pan baffles?

Can I also add an accusump-style setup and still remain legal?

We're talking about non-performance gaining modification. Other reliability modifications are clearly defined (e.g. oil coolers, etc...) and permitted.


8.10.5 Installation of vents, catch tanks, and oil coolers on the engine, transmission, or differential is permitted. If no vents or catch tanks are added, OEM systems must be in place.

By legality I mean in Stock Class.

Thanks,

T.

[Doug Phillips]

Hi, the engine in my car is known for oil starvation issues during spirited/track style driving such as an AutoX venue.

For safety, reliability and logetivity of the power train components is it therefore legal to install oil pan baffles?

Can I also add an accusump-style setup and still remain legal?

We're talking about non-performance gaining modification. Other reliability modifications are clearly defined (e.g. oil coolers, etc...) and permitted.



By legality I mean in Stock Class.

Thanks,

T.

I actually had a motor fail on my 97 Camaro a few years ago. I asked this same question when I was rebuilding and was told I would move straight to SP.

I would now interprete the rules that this would be allowed in SS class, but not stock.

[JazzMZ3]

I actually had a motor fail on my 97 Camaro a few years ago. I asked this same question when I was rebuilding and was told I would move straight to SP.

I would now interprete the rules that this would be allowed in SS class, but not stock.

I don't see it anywhere in the rules regarding this being permitted in SS class or higher. Can you clarify this please?

T.

[Marsh]

I think the exclusion of a accusump is an oversight in this rule. Baffles are more of a gray area. Submit a request to Gary Wood for this (by email). It will be discussed and if Gary and Pete agree a bulletin can be issued. Several years ago I discussed putting and accusump on my Prelude and nobody had a problem with it. That was before I won the title though and wasn't worried about BS protests like that. Performance wise an accusump just means you have an extra couple of litres of oil you have to carry around.

[Taylor]

Yeah sounds like an oversight to me especially if it's a reliability/durability issue. I'm sure when classing vehicles the thought "well this car will break doing autoX and therefore never win, so lets class it here" couldn't have possibly been made... well at least not 'officially' :p

[Tashko]

Marsh, didn't you lose a motor in your Prelude because of this? I think for some reason baffled pans weren't allowed but my memory is pretty bad, e.g. don't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday. :eek:

[Gwoody27]

I will get back to you real soon.

Gary Wood

Hi, the engine in my car is known for oil starvation issues during spirited/track style driving such as an AutoX venue.

For safety, reliability and logetivity of the power train components is it therefore legal to install oil pan baffles?

Can I also add an accusump-style setup and still remain legal?

We're talking about non-performance gaining modification. Other reliability modifications are clearly defined (e.g. oil coolers, etc...) and permitted.



By legality I mean in Stock Class.

Thanks,

T.

[Doug Phillips]

I did lose a motor and it cost me big.

During the rebuild I asked all the way up the chain, including the National guys, whoever they were at the time.

It took a couple of months to get a reply and it was no accumulator and no baffled pan unless I went to ESP (it might have even been DMOD).

I asked for a clarification, quoting the section of the rules I have shown below. I was never able to get a reply.

Starting at sentence 4 of paragraph 5 of section 12.5 xiii 2 points SS and SP

"Any alternate water pumps, alternators, cooling and oiling systems (beyond allowable items). The original system (wet sump or dry sump) of engine oiling must be retained. Any oiling system component may be added, modified or substituted."

I do not see that this is open for interpretation.

Seems clear to me and if I was in the same position again I would just make the change of the pan or add an accumulator and declare the 2 points. I do not think that it should be allowed in Stock classes.

[AlienDNA]

I actually had a motor fail on my 97 Camaro a few years ago...

"My motor failed. A spider bit my dingus. My thong underwear got all up in there..." Is there an excuse you haven't used for being slow? :p

[JazzMZ3]

12.5.xiii is a performance gaining rule in spirit, and therefore results in 2 prep points in SS/SP.

Its used in case of substitution of any of the following engine accessory components:

- pulleys
- cam gear
- software/adjustment of cam timing
- water pump substitution (e.g. electric)
- alternators and oiling system like you mentioned.

This is not a rule directed at improving reliability and longevity of the engine. What I'm referring to are modifications that do not impact performance but safety and reliability of the engine. Its in the spirit of 8.10.5. which permits oil coolers, etc to be added even in stock class.

Sorry to hear about your motor. I'm trying to do this research so that hopefully I can prevent that from happening to me as well and resulting in expensive costs thereafter.

I did lose a motor and it cost me big.

During the rebuild I asked all the way up the chain, including the National guys, whoever they were at the time.

It took a couple of months to get a reply and it was no accumulator and no baffled pan unless I went to ESP (it might have even been DMOD).

I asked for a clarification, quoting the section of the rules I have shown below. I was never able to get a reply.

Starting at sentence 4 of paragraph 5 of section 12.5 xiii 2 points SS and SP

"Any alternate water pumps, alternators, cooling and oiling systems (beyond allowable items). The original system (wet sump or dry sump) of engine oiling must be retained. Any oiling system component may be added, modified or substituted."

I do not see that this is open for interpretation.

Seems clear to me and if I was in the same position again I would just make the change of the pan or add an accumulator and declare the 2 points. I do not think that it should be allowed in Stock classes.

[Doug Phillips]

"My motor failed. A spider bit my dingus. My thong underwear got all up in there..." Is there an excuse you haven't used for being slow? :p

:D Damn, I thought I put all that behind me. Thanks for not mentioning my sleeping habits in Picton!

Where have you been. Are you planning to show up somewhere?

[John Powell]

I don't run Autoslalom, but I've been reading this thread with some interest as I don't see how a baffled oil sump is a performance mod. To me it's more of a safety issue as baffled sumps mean fewer instances of oil on the track from rods going through the block, much the same as an oil cooler prevents overheating and breaking down the oil with the same results. Perhaps someone can explain the reasoning here? :confused:

[craig]

I don't run Autoslalom, but I've been reading this thread with some interest as I don't see how a baffled oil sump is a performance mod. To me it's more of a safety issue as baffled sumps mean fewer instances of oil on the track from rods going through the block, much the same as an oil cooler prevents overheating and breaking down the oil with the same results. Perhaps someone can explain the reasoning here? :confused:

If designed to do so, baffles result in less windage losses. Although not as good as a dry sump, it can make a decent difference on some motors. The small-block Chev is the classic example - as described (and dyno'd) in Grumpy Jenkin's book.

The same physics results in a performance advantage for oil accumulators, depending on how the accumulator is used. However, one generally needs to baffle/modify the oil pan to take full advantage of what the accumulator can give. Thus, accumulators are generally not considered an advantage; but baffles and pan modifications are.

In any case, whether it is worth penalizing in autocross is a totally separate question. I vaguely remember this being brought up in SCCA when the Boxster (and associated 911) came out, because the oil system in the then-new motor couldn't handle R-compound grip, and Porsche made a new baffled pan available. However, I can't remember the outcome.

[AlienDNA]

:D Damn, I thought I put all that behind me. Thanks for not mentioning my sleeping habits in Picton!

Where have you been. Are you planning to show up somewhere?

I'm back this year for Regionals and even volunteered for the timing committee again. So, to save time, how many cones shall I put you down for?;)

[AW11_4AGZE]

This sounds like a performance mod to me. People with blown motors tend to be slower than ones with working motors.:rolleyes:

[Burnsey]

I'm also curious about this...what does my after market transmission cooler do to an otherwise completely stock Mazda 6?

[Pete@Marcor]

I don't run Autoslalom, but I've been reading this thread with some interest as I don't see how a baffled oil sump is a performance mod. To me it's more of a safety issue as baffled sumps mean fewer instances of oil on the track from rods going through the block, much the same as an oil cooler prevents overheating and breaking down the oil with the same results. Perhaps someone can explain the reasoning here? :confused:

The other thing to consider is that Stock tries to be Stock. One can replace maintenance items, and sometimes you can use a performance part to replace that maintenance part, like shocks or brake pads.

But, traditionally, the idea is that we have avoided a rules creep, where more and more parts are allowed in Stock. The idea is that if you want to mod your car more aggressively, you would move up to SS or SP.

While a modification does not necessarily increase the speed of a car, it may increase the reliability. Or, it may allow for a higher level of performance for a longer time.

Should an ARP head stud or crank stud be allowed in stock? "It is just a bolt, and does not offer any more performance, right?"

Well, those bolts or studs obviously clamp better, and allow a greater level of performance, or allow the same performance for a longer period. So, in theory, a car can go faster for longer than a car that does not have them.

While I may agree with this particular mod, and know that it is simply for relaibility, we have actually introduced it into the SS level of prep recently.

You would definitely need to email Gary about this. I know that you have, and he and I have started to talk about it.

[Pete@Marcor]

I'm also curious about this...what does my after market transmission cooler do to an otherwise completely stock Mazda 6?

I think it keeps the transmission fluid cooler. :)

Sorry, I could not resist.

As per 8.10 in STOCK:

8.10.5 Installation of vents, catch tanks, and oil coolers on the engine, transmission, or differential is permitted. If no vents or catch tanks are added, OEM systems must be in place

[JazzMZ3]

The other thing to consider is that Stock tries to be Stock. One can replace maintenance items, and sometimes you can use a performance part to replace that maintenance part, like shocks or brake pads.

But, traditionally, the idea is that we have avoided a rules creep, where more and more parts are allowed in Stock. The idea is that if you want to mod your car more aggressively, you would move up to SS or SP.

While a modification does not necessarily increase the speed of a car, it may increase the reliability. Or, it may allow for a higher level of performance for a longer time.

Should an ARP head stud or crank stud be allowed in stock? "It is just a bolt, and does not offer any more performance, right?"

Well, those bolts or studs obviously clamp better, and allow a greater level of performance, or allow the same performance for a longer period. So, in theory, a car can go faster for longer than a car that does not have them.

While I may agree with this particular mod, and know that it is simply for relaibility, we have actually introduced it into the SS level of prep recently.

You would definitely need to email Gary about this. I know that you have, and he and I have started to talk about it.

Pete; Although I risk sounding like a broken record, what you're referring to in terms of SS/SP rules that allow this (12.5.xiii) is a performance enhancing rule geared towards allowing pulleys, cam timing modification and enhancing other engine accessories.

I think your ARP stud analogy is not a good one, factory studs aren't breaking or having increased reliability issues due to the nature of this sport to the same degree as experiencing oil starvation scenarios do.

Having rules in place that permit competitors to compete reliably, limiting the risk of costly repairs is an obligation of CASC-OR. You make those intentions known with 8.10.5, but in my view it should go one step further.

T.

[tanney]

A internal mod is an internal mod, even if it doesn't increase performance, it isn't allowed in stock. Period!

[Doug Phillips]

A internal mod is an internal mod, even if it doesn't increase performance, it isn't allowed in stock. Period!I agree and have no problem with that.

My experience was with the specific paragraph I quoted. I was told I would not be allowed to do this, even claiming the 2 points, and stay in SS where the paragraph is listed to be allowed in SS.

[Pete@Marcor]

Pete; Although I risk sounding like a broken record, what you're referring to in terms of SS/SP rules that allow this (12.5.xiii) is a performance enhancing rule geared towards allowing pulleys, cam timing modification and enhancing other engine accessories.

I think your ARP stud analogy is not a good one, factory studs aren't breaking or having increased reliability issues due to the nature of this sport to the same degree as experiencing oil starvation scenarios do.

Having rules in place that permit competitors to compete reliably, limiting the risk of costly repairs is an obligation of CASC-OR. You make those intentions known with 8.10.5, but in my view it should go one step further.

T.

OBLIGATION? Whoa. I really am trying to be as open minded about this, but being openly aggressive is not the route to take.

As Wes stated, the rules are such that if it is an internal mod, then it is illegal in Stock. That is also why my suggestion was to email Gary.

It is most definitely NOT the responsibility of CASC to provide you a place to run your car with the prep that you want with the mods that you have decided are appropriate.

There are systems in place that allow for the input from the competitors, but expecting the rules makers to allow you to run a mod that you stress is required in Stock, 9 days before the first event is not the way to do it.

This may sound silly, but why not simply run the car 1.5L more full than standard? I have done a bit of research, and a few fairly reputable sources have suggeted this.

Is there a disadvantage? Yes, it is heavier, and could possibly drag on the crank.

Is there an advantage? Yes, it is expressly allowed.

Or, how about an accusump type of product?

My point about the ARP was that they stop head gaskets from prematurely failing. One could shave the head for increased compression, and still be within the legal limit of the head thickness, but you might need the better head studs to keep the head gasket from failing.

[Marsh]

But ARP studs ARE legal in stock...
8.11 Fasteners
Nuts, cap screws, studs, washers, etc., may be replaced by similar items of unrestricted origin

[sjd]

Hi, the engine in my car is known for oil starvation issues during spirited/track style driving such as an AutoX venue.

I assume that by your board name you are talking about a Mazda3 (MZ3) and can't say that I've heard anything about oil starvation during track or autox. I've heard there is a synchro issue during hard track use, but nothing about oil starvation and in the U.S. there are a lot of Mazda3's competing in HS, including at the national level. I'm not saying you're incorrect, I would just like to know more information about your source. :)

[Pete@Marcor]

I assume that by your board name you are talking about a Mazda3 (MZ3) and can't say that I've heard anything about oil starvation during track or autox. I've heard there is a synchro issue during hard track use, but nothing about oil starvation and in the U.S. there are a lot of Mazda3's competing in HS, including at the national level. I'm not saying you're incorrect, I would just like to know more information about your source. :)

More likely a BMW M-Z3. :-)

[Pete@Marcor]

But ARP studs ARE legal in stock...

I would love to have you as my steward when I get protested. :)

An ARP Head Stud conversion is not the same as an OE head bolt, if you ask me.

[JazzMZ3]

OBLIGATION? Whoa. I really am trying to be as open minded about this, but being openly aggressive is not the route to take.

As Wes stated, the rules are such that if it is an internal mod, then it is illegal in Stock. That is also why my suggestion was to email Gary.

It is most definitely NOT the responsibility of CASC to provide you a place to run your car with the prep that you want with the mods that you have decided are appropriate.

There are systems in place that allow for the input from the competitors, but expecting the rules makers to allow you to run a mod that you stress is required in Stock, 9 days before the first event is not the way to do it.

This may sound silly, but why not simply run the car 1.5L more full than standard? I have done a bit of research, and a few fairly reputable sources have suggested this.

Is there a disadvantage? Yes, it is heavier, and could possibly drag on the crank.

Is there an advantage? Yes, it is expressly allowed.

Or, how about an accusump type of product?

My point about the ARP was that they stop head gaskets from prematurely failing. One could shave the head for increased compression, and still be within the legal limit of the head thickness, but you might need the better head studs to keep the head gasket from failing.

Pete;

I'm not being aggressive, merely suggesting a rule-change which I feel is going to help people, including myself, potentially avoid costly repair bills and be turned-off from participating in CASC venues. Especially at the entry-level "stock" classes.

Accusump, I mentioned as well as an alternative. I do realize its only 9 days before the first event and you guys are likely busy with organizing/planning everything. I haven't made any modifications yet to my car, but if I see an opportunity to improve reliability and reduce/eliminate a chance of catastrphic failure then I'm willing to advocate such.

As per your suggestion I did message Gary and he posted on this thread earlier as well.

Anyways, hopefully we can get some clarification on this and looking forward to the first event!

I assume that by your board name you are talking about a Mazda3 (MZ3) and can't say that I've heard anything about oil starvation during track or autox. I've heard there is a synchro issue during hard track use, but nothing about oil starvation and in the U.S. there are a lot of Mazda3's competing in HS, including at the national level. I'm not saying you're incorrect, I would just like to know more information about your source. :)

More likely a BMW M-Z3. :-)

I'll be driving a recently aquired BMW e36 ('97) M3. The roadster doesn't handle as well.

We just had our BMW Trillium club AutoX last weekend and managed to do ok, but I did notice the hydraulic lifters ticking due to oil starvation after most runs.

T.

[sjd]

More likely a BMW M-Z3. :-)

Ah. That explains it. See, the guys I know with Z4 coupes call them Z4-M's and some Mazda3 guys have started using MZ3 instead of M3 for obvious reasons. :D

[Tashko]

But ARP studs ARE legal in stock...


Not when they are an internal engine part they aren't.

[Marsh]

Not when they are an internal engine part they aren't.

Where is that exception printed in the rule book? Fasteners of any type anywhere in or on the car can be replaced with similar item of unrestricted origin. Legally you can replace any stud or bolt ANYWHERE on the car. Nowhere in 8.11 does it say 'except in the engine' The only matter for debate would be does "similar item" mean you can't use titanium and aluminum. Which I interpret as being allowed since competitors have been using aluminum wheel lugs for a few years without complaint from anyone.

[Pete@Marcor]

Pete;

I'm not being aggressive, merely suggesting a rule-change which I feel is going to help people, including myself, potentially avoid costly repair bills and be turned-off from participating in CASC venues. Especially at the entry-level "stock" classes.

Accusump, I mentioned as well as an alternative. I do realize its only 9 days before the first event and you guys are likely busy with organizing/planning everything. I haven't made any modifications yet to my car, but if I see an opportunity to improve reliability and reduce/eliminate a chance of catastrphic failure then I'm willing to advocate such.

As per your suggestion I did message Gary and he posted on this thread earlier as well.

Anyways, hopefully we can get some clarification on this and looking forward to the first event!





I'll be driving a recently aquired BMW e36 ('97) M3. The roadster doesn't handle as well.

We just had our BMW Trillium club AutoX last weekend and managed to do ok, but I did notice the hydraulic lifters ticking due to oil starvation after most runs.

T.

Ok, my apologies for a mis-perception due to the online thing.

It is worth discussing, but traditionally ANY internal engine mods have been very illegal in Stock.

It is worth discussing, but the time crunch is a little hard to deal with.

If you are hearing a ticking, I would suggest that it is probably not oil starvation. Oil starvation is a very quick, and often bad situation where your oil moves away from the pickup, and your oil pressure goes to 0.

I would think that your oil may be thinning out from the hard use that it sees during the run. Then, your ticking is probably the lifters making noise.

I have had it with a couple of cars, mainly VWs with hydraulic lifters. I changed the oil, and the issue went away.

[Marsh]

I would love to have you as my steward when I get protested. :)

An ARP Head Stud conversion is not the same as an OE head bolt, if you ask me.

Why not? It's a stud. The only difference is going to be strength and stiffness. Since you can't change the diameter of the stud (because you'd have to drill and re-tap which is illegal) then those two go hand in hand.

So your argument would be that you can replace a bolt as long as it's not stronger than the bolt it replaces? To put it politely that's more than a little silly. It's blatantly obvious to me that this rules intent is to allow fasteners strength to upgraded. Now if you want to limit that rule to non-engine fasteners only then you need to say so. It doesn't say so. Therefor you're legally allowed to replace any fastener in the engine. BTW I'm surprised we're having having this debate. That rule has always been in the book since the old class system back when I was a rookie and everyone new about it.

[JazzMZ3]

Thanks Pete;

I understand the strictness of internal engine mods being prohibited from "stock". That was one alternative (w/ Baffles in the oil pan).

Accusump-style devices are external though an may be a valid alternative.

Yes, hydraulic lifters are losing oil pressure and thus ticking. Very common with this type of design like you mentioned. For the first event I will just run a quart more of oil as a precaution.

Thanks!

T.

[Marsh]

I have had it with a couple of cars, mainly VWs with hydraulic lifters. I changed the oil, and the issue went away.

Miatas are the same. Sure enough when I reached 5000km the lifters started ticking in my 1.6L.

[Burnsey]

I think it keeps the transmission fluid cooler. :)

Sorry, I could not resist.


LOL...good one Mr. Mills. Caught me lookin' on that one. :p

[Slowpoke]

Where is that exception printed in the rule book? Fasteners of any type anywhere in or on the car can be replaced with similar item of unrestricted origin. Legally you can replace any stud or bolt ANYWHERE on the car. Nowhere in 8.11 does it say 'except in the engine' The only matter for debate would be does "similar item" mean you can't use titanium and aluminum. Which I interpret as being allowed since competitors have been using aluminum wheel lugs for a few years without complaint from anyone.

I think that it's worded correctly.

You can replace a bolt with a bolt.

You can replace a nut with another nut.

You can not replace a head bolt with a head stud and a nut.

[Pete@Marcor]

I think that it's worded correctly.

You can replace a bolt with a bolt.

You can replace a nut with another nut.

You can not replace a head bolt with a head stud and a nut.

BING! BING! BING! This is what I agree with.

Also, one could replace a head bolt with a performance head bolt. My issue is the replacement of the head bolt with the stud and nut.

And Marsh, I totally agree that if there is an exception, it would need to be in the rule book.

Just for the record, if one were to ask my opinion, I would have thought that a head stud conversion would probably have been legal.

However, this has come up pretty recently in the US, and they ruled against a head stud conversion from a head bolt. If I had been asked to guess the outcome, I would have thought that they were going to allow the studs and nuts, but they did not.

[Tashko]

Where is that exception printed in the rule book?

Your copy doesn't have that? :confused:

:p j/k

I thought there was a statement in there but I was wrong.

[Marsh]

OK, not being and engine guy I thought the vast majority of engines were already used head studs rather than bolts.

Anyway, back on the original topic. I have no problem with an Accusump as it's an external system with no performance advantage but it's not specifically allowed in the rule book and I'd be inclined to rule against it in a protest, which is why I suggested contacting Gary on this one.

Baffles could theoretically be used on any engine to run less oil or other wise keep the crank dry etc. etc.

[Tashko]

However, this has come up pretty recently in the US, and they ruled against a head stud conversion from a head bolt. If I had been asked to guess the outcome, I would have thought that they were going to allow the studs and nuts, but they did not.

If they allowed the studs and nuts then they would also have to allow non-oem rad hoses, etc.

...where's Carl? ;) :D

[Pete@Marcor]

If they allowed the studs and nuts then they would also have to allow non-oem rad hoses, etc.

...where's Carl? ;) :D

I even think that was a vaccum hose!

[Pete@Marcor]

OK, not being and engine guy I thought the vast majority of engines were already used head studs rather than bolts.

Anyway, back on the original topic. I have no problem with an Accusump as it's an external system with no performance advantage but it's not specifically allowed in the rule book and I'd be inclined to rule against it in a protest, which is why I suggested contacting Gary on this one.

Baffles could theoretically be used on any engine to run less oil or other wise keep the crank dry etc. etc.

Agreed. We are SO sorry for hi-jacking the thread.

I too suggested contacting Gary.

It is not specifically listed, and that is something that needs to be addressed. But, from a mod point of view, I think that an Accusump is more likely to be allowed, compared to a baffle.

[AlienDNA]

So, does this mean Doug can or cannot wear his anti-spider underwear? From his description of where that G-string goes, it sure sounds like an "internal mod" to me. :eek: