Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Twolanerider]

I think we all agree, more oil the better, regardless of the location.

When I had my 392 Hemi built, the builder wanted at least a 9 quart pan.  He used a windage tray, but the pan I had to make.  There aren't a lot of prefab pans for older Hemis out there.  I did the kick out on each side and ended up with about 9.5 quarts total.

In the case of the Baker+1 pan, I can see a major improvement could have been incorporated without much 'extra' casting changes.  All they would have had to do was to cast a few through holes from front to back that would allow for air passage through the oil.  When looking at the pan innards, there is room with very little rework involved to add maybe as many as 3 tubes cast into the pan up off the pan bottom so the oil would circle the air tubes.  This would let air go through the pan and the heat exchanger affect would be tremendous.  I'm thinking 5 to 10 degrees of drop possible.  With the added oil, the oil will stay in the pan longer and transfer better.

But alas, they did not do this.  So even with the extra quart of oil, it's got to be an improvement to the oil cooling the motor a bit.  Is it worth taking off the original and replacing it with a $950.00 pan?  You be the judge.

Here is a copy from the V-Twin forum and his remarks make some sense, but still, for $950 it's going to be a hard sell.

Again looking at the pan innards, the baffles and the chambers they have to keep the different amounts of oil separated and with the not mixing the suction and return areas, this may be an improvement over stock.  This would fall into the "first in, first out" scenario.  I still think that some cooling tubes would make this product a good deal.

This of course is just the mad ramblings of someone that has nothing better to do.  This post and 50¢ will buy you a soda from our machine.

Have a great weekend to all.

    

Grinning now because after I left the desk last night I'd had similar thoughts about air/heat transfer through the pan.  Jerry's mention of greater surface area itself is of course spot on.  I was mostly dismissing that effect with the Baker pan last night because, while there is some difference, it's a pretty small difference.  Everyone accepts that more oil is better--period.  Everyone will likely accept that there's even some small measurable difference in overall cooling effect.  I just suspect that it's very very (very!) small in this case and (to me) just wouldn't be justified against the cost of the pan.  Greater volume positively effecting service intervals also isn't a huge gain for most here as we're not extending service intervals just because of the new pan's installation.

[RayG]

I think what HML and Jerry said is a good start in obtaining info on warranty issues. I'm going to send out a few letters and see what happens. I also think the idea of getting my ride back to the service tech that told me he would cover any warranty issues makes sense. Like many of the members on this site I have found a place that will bend the rules a bit in backing what they do. Having some questionable engine mods done and knowing that they  stand behind there work is where the bike will find its way back if needed. Great Idea!
As far as technical data is concerned I'm certainly not the right person for going down that road. Dan I don't know where the $950.00 for the pan came from but I paid half of that for the pan and the True Track. It was a no brainer for me, my bike develops to much heat, the Baker claims to drop the temp 10 degrees, the stock pan has the feed and return within 2" from each other, the Baker has the feed and return at opposite ends of the pan, that has to have an effect on temp right there. Most oil coolers drop the temp at about the same 10 degrees but different models provide different results. The Baker has a built in a provision that will accept the Alloy Art and the True Track. I was planning on installing a stabilizer kit of some kind or another and when I found out that Ron from True Track was offering the kit at the price I got it for even I figure out that it was the right thing for my application. That's just me, I spent my money on Bitubo's, the AK-20 and the True Track, suspension and handling beat out chrome goodies for me. The addition of the Baker and the Scavenger oil drain kit takes care of cooing and having the cleanest oil that i can install. Nothing against chrome, but I'll throw my money where it is important to me. I wish I could do it all but budget restraints keep me somewhat grounded. I have talked to a few people that put the Baker pan on and they agreed that the temp dropped anywhere from 5 to 15 degrees. But as we all know that is subjective.

Thanks for the input so far

Ray G      

[Twolanerider]

I have talked to a few people that put the Baker pan on and they agreed that the temp dropped anywhere from 5 to 15 degrees. But as we all know that is subjective.

Thanks for the input so far

Ray G      

I have no doubt there are points in the warming curve that the Baker pan would measure cooler.  My suspicion, however, it that any really important amount of difference is just that though; a point in the warming curve rather than differences in a sustained max temp.  The larger volume of oil would take longer to warm up.  So there'd be a point where the smaller pan's volume would be at max temp when the larger pan's volume would not yet be.  If you measure then you've potentially got a far more significant temp difference than you would some several minutes later when both pans have reached max temp.

The whole thing is an interesting topic though.  As much as max temp savings I'd still be interested also in some measured impact on the short hop in town bike that rarely or never gets the larger volume up to full operating temperature.  The larger pan is really a wrong part for that application.  Not an issue for most of us here.  But it would be for some.

[REGGAB]

This is all very interesting stuff, and logically, that which has been written about max temp achievement regardless of volume makes sense.......which begs the question (from my mind anyway):  What's the point?  If no cooling effect is gained during the long haul by using a Baker pan, would it not be better to install and additional oil cooler if one is looking to lower oil temperature?  That brings up another talking point called "Aesthetics."  There are folks who would not want to have another oil cooler bolted to the frame tube with two hoses going to an oil filter adapter.  Some may think it looks like crap............and that viewpoint is understandable.  On the other hand (functionality) it would seem an additional oil cooler would be a more effective, not to mention less expensive, means of reducing oil temperature.  Quid-pro-quo.  Everything is "give and take."  But if the oil pan reaches a point of diminishing returns, I think it would be better to install an additional oil cooler.  It WILL keep the oil........cooler, and in my mind, it looks pretty doggone impressive.

I'm just sayin'.

[Dan_Lockwood]

I think what HML and Jerry said is a good start in obtaining info on warranty issues. I'm going to send out a few letters and see what happens. I also think the idea of getting my ride back to the service tech that told me he would cover any warranty issues makes sense. Like many of the members on this site I have found a place that will bend the rules a bit in backing what they do. Having some questionable engine mods done and knowing that they  stand behind there work is where the bike will find its way back if needed. Great Idea!
As far as technical data is concerned I'm certainly not the right person for going down that road. Dan I don't know where the $950.00 for the pan came from but I paid half of that for the pan and the True Track. It was a no brainer for me, my bike develops to much heat, the Baker claims to drop the temp 10 degrees, the stock pan has the feed and return within 2" from each other, the Baker has the feed and return at opposite ends of the pan, that has to have an effect on temp right there. Most oil coolers drop the temp at about the same 10 degrees but different models provide different results. The Baker has a built in a provision that will accept the Alloy Art and the True Track. I was planning on installing a stabilizer kit of some kind or another and when I found out that Ron from True Track was offering the kit at the price I got it for even I figure out that it was the right thing for my application. That's just me, I spent my money on Bitubo's, the AK-20 and the True Track, suspension and handling beat out chrome goodies for me. The addition of the Baker and the Scavenger oil drain kit takes care of cooing and having the cleanest oil that i can install. Nothing against chrome, but I'll throw my money where it is important to me. I wish I could do it all but budget restraints keep me somewhat grounded. I have talked to a few people that put the Baker pan on and they agreed that the temp dropped anywhere from 5 to 15 degrees. But as we all know that is subjective.

Thanks for the input so far

Ray G      

Ray G, the pricing came from this website.

http://www.denniskirk.com/1/1/1194797-baker-drivetrain-2-piece-plus-one-oil-pan-p140526.html

I was not aware that there are 1 piece Baker pans and 2 piece Baker pans.  As Hoist pointed out, the 1 piece is about half the price.

And I do think the separation of the in/out of the oil at least forces the oil to circulate throughout the pan before being scavenged back into the system.  It's all about tranfer of heat.  The heat of the oil needs to be tranferred to the pan and if it's not there long enough it just gets recycled before it can tranfer its last heat cycle through the motor.  What can help the tranfer of oil heat to the pan, more time for the oil going through the pan.

No one jumped on my tubes through the pan idea, I' disappointed...    

The bottom line is if you have the money and you want one, get it.

As far as warranty goes, if it came to a motor failure the MOCO would definitely push to VOID the warranty if they knew about the aftermarket pan.  But I think they would have to prove that it DID cause the problem to not stand behind the warranty of the motor.

Although as I was just typing I thought, this is like guilty until proved Innocent.  They would probably say, you prove that it didn't and then the cost would be on you and I think at that point the dealer would cut you loose like tree branch caught on a fish hook.  Okay, so I'm not too good on metaphors.

[Dan_Lockwood]

Just to show you that it's not that far fetched, here's a picture of a 4L80E GM cooling transmission pan.

Here's what they say about it.

Derale #14107, 4L80E Transmission Pan Cooler. This pan has turbulator cooling tubes using air flow beneath the vehicle to reduce the transmission fluid temperature from 20° to 50° F. Fluid capacity is increased by 3 quart. This pan has a drain plug and is 4 inches deep. The pan gasket is included. Cost $117.00[/b]

[Twolanerider]

This is all very interesting stuff, and logically, that which has been written about max temp achievement regardless of volume makes sense.......which begs the question (from my mind anyway):  What's the point?  If no cooling effect is gained during the long haul by using a Baker pan, would it not be better to install and additional oil cooler if one is looking to lower oil temperature?  That brings up another talking point called "Aesthetics."  There are folks who would not want to have another oil cooler bolted to the frame tube with two hoses going to an oil filter adapter.  Some may think it looks like crap............and that viewpoint is understandable.  On the other hand (functionality) it would seem an additional oil cooler would be a more effective, not to mention less expensive, means of reducing oil temperature.  Quid-pro-quo.  Everything is "give and take."  But if the oil pan reaches a point of diminishing returns, I think it would be better to install an additional oil cooler.  It WILL keep the oil........cooler, and in my mind, it looks pretty doggone impressive.

I'm just sayin'.

At least intuitively it does seem that a second oil cooler (basically it's own separated sump) out in the air flow somewhere would have a greater cooling effect.  I think it was Charlie who'd mentioned something similar up above also.  And some of those tube mounted coolers actually can look surprisingly bad-ass. 

Given the service intervals we run the problem has never really been oil volume in and of itself.  So to that issue the larger pan is really a solution to a problem that didn't exist anyway.  And, at least as far as intuition and gut supposition suggest to me, the larger volume and slightly larger surface area of the pan don't seem to be a very effective oil cooler either.  Granted; every little bit helps on a hot bagger shrouded behind it's fairing and lowers.  Just hard for me to believe this one pays off.  Still a cool looking pan though .

[Twolanerider]

Just to show you that it's not that far fetched, here's a picture of a 4L80E GM cooling transmission pan.

Actually thought that was a very good idea Dan.  The lack of further mention (at least from me) was agreement.  Had seen that done on other pans and seen that it can make a startling amount of difference.  Especially with that kind of semi-venturi effect we already get with air under the bikes I think that's a far more effective cooling idea than any simple addition of oil volume would ever be.

[Wildrat]

How close to the bottom of the pan are the gears?

[REGGAB]

At least intuitively it does seem that a second oil cooler (basically it's own separated sump) out in the air flow somewhere would have a greater cooling effect.  I think it was Charlie who'd mentioned something similar up above also.  And some of those tube mounted coolers actually can look surprisingly bad-ass. 

Given the service intervals we run the problem has never really been oil volume in and of itself.  So to that issue the larger pan is really a solution to a problem that didn't exist anyway.  And, at least as far as intuition and gut supposition suggest to me, the larger volume and slightly larger surface area of the pan don't seem to be a very effective oil cooler either.  Granted; every little bit helps on a hot bagger shrouded behind it's fairing and lowers.  Just hard for me to believe this one pays off.  Still a cool looking pan though .

hehe     Lowers are off now......and they're staying off for the foreseeable future.   

[jfh]

Just to show you that it's not that far fetched, here's a picture of a 4L80E GM cooling transmission pan.

Here's what they say about it.

Derale #14107, 4L80E Transmission Pan Cooler. This pan has turbulator cooling tubes using air flow beneath the vehicle to reduce the transmission fluid temperature from 20° to 50° F. Fluid capacity is increased by 3 quart. This pan has a drain plug and is 4 inches deep. The pan gasket is included. Cost $117.00[/b]

Dan,

I agree that the tubes are a great idea.  I'm not up to doing the math right now (I'm sure someone else is  ), but the additional cooling surface offered by each of the individual tubes likely significant.

[Hoist!]

Chit, I like having an extra Qt! WTH, ya only live once. Sure won't hurt. Might help. It's only money and I can make more (as stated here by SCRM-R). And I like it! So there!

Hoist!

[Twolanerider]

Chit, I like having an extra Qt! WTH, ya only live once. Sure won't hurt. Might help. It's only money and I can make more (as stated here by SCRM-R). And I like it! So there!

Hoist!

Damn right!!  And you can duct tape some padding to it before installation so you'll have a pillow for that cot .