also, does it matter if the tank is higher or lower then the oil pan?

I'm using one of Rick's tank's in mine. It's mounted where the battery would be and is square outside but round inside. Basically a tank inside a tank. I think mine was the second tank that Rick built. It fit nice, it has threaded holes at all four corners on the bottom for mounting which we basically made brackets that bolted to those then to the inner fender and core support. They said that they talked to a well respected circle track guy when they designed it for the correct baffling/breathing etc. The car was just mocked up so far and is at the paint shop now completely disassembled, so as far as functionality I'm just taking there word that it will work. I'll have that answer in a few months when it's finally finished. :thumbsup:

There has to be more to it than that. After all, the oil pan is square right?

Lets put it this way, after the conversation Jody and I had with Stielow and Tony Roma, we had a new appreciation of the efforts that GM put into the oiling system of the LS7.

There is more than that to it. But basically it "appears" that any squared off shape gave them oil starvation issues under cornering and high speed areas. I would "guess" it's like the vortex or whatever it's called and the way oil flows out of a cylindrical shape, I don't know.

What I do know is GM tried to develop one as it would have been easier to mount in the car, but was not able to. If they and their engineers couldn't make it work then there's some sort of an issue with the shape. We had told Tony Roma (he lead the development of the LS7) we had seen a new bolt-in oil tank for the Camaro, and it was a nicely packaged squared-off tank. He simply said that they could not make that work. When asked if it would work or not he said it would probably be fine as long as you don't turn corners or go high rpms. :D Every aftermarket track car I've personally seen with a dry sump had a cylindrical shaped reservoir. I am not saying a squared tank doesn't exist, just that I have seen quite a few and they were ALL round.

If I was doing one I would follow their lead, if for no other reason than they know a heck of a lot more about this than I do.

Jody

I bet it largely has to do with internal shapes withing the tank. I have seen "squared" tanks before.

So long at the internal baffleing is correct does it really matter what the outside of the tank looks like?

I would agree, except that I'm sure GM could have figured it also. I think the shape is more important than we know, not just being baffled. I think there's some physics involved here too.

I guess technically you could have a circular tank inside a square shape, but I think the circular part is important.

Jody

I'm interested also Tyler in that set-up, didn't see it on the site. I'll call you next week for info.

This is completely a WAG, but I'm guessing that one of the larger issues might have been getting air out of the oil. We built a number of different shapes for a proposed re-engine program for the Coast Guard HH65-A before I got out. Packaging is of course a huge issue on a small aircraft as it is on a car. We found that the internal baffling had more to do with the ultimate performance of the tank than the exterior shape. It was tougher to build an internal system that worked in the square tanks. I have a sneaking suspicion that manufacturing an internal baffle system that worked in a cylindrical tank is more cost effective than doing the same in a square-ish tank. Eventually we did go with a square tank for packaging reasons, but building the baffles was a huge P.I.T.A.

So does anyone have any follow-up on this at all?