1zz sump for 2zz conversion

[shnazzle]

If go for increased oil content over 2zz, and maybe lower the pickup and widen it. A moroso or the likes. Not sure what the Elise parts one is like

[Call the midlife!]

If go for increased oil content over 2zz, and maybe lower the pickup and widen it. A moroso or the likes. Not sure what the Elise parts one is like

It doesn't state anything about the pickup but carries an extra litre of oil, had fancy baffles and gates and is Xylan coated... And has pre fitted bosses for temp sensor and return pipes should the mood take me. And a magnetic drain plug included "free"...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tomo70]

I found the Moroso sump lowered temperature on the engine. The Elise and Moroso sump are very similar bigger volume and windages but I have never noticed any power differences

[shnazzle]

No the pickup isn't part of the sump technically so that would be a DIY job. But, you really. Don't need it

[Call the midlife!]

No the pickup isn't part of the sump technically so that would be a DIY job. But, you really. Don't need it

Pickup or Eliseparts sump, bearing in mind they're the same price as one of Angelina Jolie's kids...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dev]

I happen to have both sumps in my workshop.

I measured their dimensions.  They are both 140 mm deep (depending on the exact spot you measure) and they are identical except for the internals.  It's weird that upside down they look absolutely identical but the extra tin-work makes them different to the eye when they are the other way up.

I'm not saying that this cancels Dev's point that Toyota had their reasons for using a differing sump on the 2ZZ.  With the higher RPM of the 2ZZ, the 'windage' factors will be very different.

I was just curious to see if the stampings were, indeed, different.  As far as I can tell, they aren't.

BTW, I run lowered scoop and an extra baffle in my 1ZZs.

There you go!

Interesting that the 1ZZ pan you have appears to be the same as the 2ZZ without the windage section.   

It is possible that there are 2 different 1ZZ stampings. 

I want to share my post on Spyderchat where I derived my information from which is based on the other 1ZZ stamping where it was observed.

A couple of points here. I was in the middle of compiling some research but I will give up some of it here.

1. The white paper is the gold standard and now that people are aware of it, it magically becomes wrong by some. It's rare to have the manufacture call something out by name and often times they will leave it out if its not significant to mention.
Fortunately the person I presented this information to has more then two brain cells not to use the 1ZZ oil pan not because they believed me.
Even if the Toyota design team were to speak frankly on the matter there are still going to be people performing mental gymnastics to keep the 1ZZ pan because it looks right.
It would be idiotic to second guess the manufacture but if anyone wants to call them out the burden of proof it's on them.
Oiling systems are complex. There are many kinds of baffles and the one used by Toyota in the 1ZZ oil pan acts more like a windage tray trying to prevent oil from sloshing up on the crank and trying to keep the oil pickup tube from uncovering. The 2zz has a louvered windage tray on the ladder because that is how they designed the engine to combat windage and keep oil off the crank especially at high RPMs which is bad for the motors high speed operation. Louvered windage trays are precisely made to help fling oil from the windage cloud in an angle back to the pan. If there is an obstacle like the pan walls or some other interference it can cause that energy to be bounced back to the crank instead of being absorbed by the pool of oil in the pan making the situation worse. I believe the 1ZZ pan baffle is that obstacal and that is why they called it out by name why they designed the pan without a baffle for high speed operation to quickly return oil back into the pan. The problem some people have is not being able to visualize the amount of violence that goes on in the pan during it's operation which is best left to the those that understand fluid dynamics and not the ignorant enthusiast that think he knows better.

2. The 1ZZ and 2ZZ pans are entirely different stampings. It's not simply the absence of the windage tray which is welded in, it's a different pan.

This was observed and measured by Jhonson who noticed that:
a. The distance from the pickup tube to the floor of the pan is different.
b. There is a difference in the ribbing on the bottom of the pan.
c. There is a difference in the shallow part of the pan where bays 3 and 4 are.
Jhonson goes on to say that he doesn't know the reason why but there is often a good reason and it bares consideration.



The only reason why Johnson recommends the 1ZZ pan is simply because of what people on this forum were advising others to do before he came into the picture. I'm sure if he is presented with the white paper he would no longer recommend it.

3. The 2ZZ crank scraper will not work with the 1ZZ pan period. This is where Jhonson is wrong because he hasn't tested to confirm it doesn't work. The baffles on the scraper that vector oil back into the main part of the pan interfere with the 1ZZ baffle. So thats that and something I should have emailed Johnson to let him know. Another thing to note is that Johnson provides clay with the pickup tube adjustment kit to make sure there is enough clearance because he is concerned about depth issues because of the pan differences.

As far as the crank scraper goes and the reasons why I purchased it can be debated but I can say that I'm happy with it. It's not going to be as good as a larger sump but I don't require a larger sump. However the crank scarper I believe has a benefit of preventing the aeration of the oil and removing more windage off the crank far more effectively then the stock windage tray. The baffles that direct oil back into the sump rather then pooling up on the opposite side of the engine also help but in all honesty it is probably not needed in a street driven Spyder.  I did feel the crank scraper from my old review to add a little power but that could be a placebo effect./quote]

[Carolyn]

That's very informative, Dev, thanks for sharing it.

One last thing I would add is that one of the 1ZZ parts that is commonly aftermarket (and often replaced) is the sump.  So it's not surprising there'd be variations out there.

[Dev]

That's very informative, Dev, thanks for sharing it.

One last thing I would add is that one of the 1ZZ parts that is commonly aftermarket (and often replaced) is the sump.  So it's not surprising there'd be variations out there.

You are most welcome and happy to share.  One of the big problems on most car forums (not this one) is assuming all things are good or all things are bad without understanding the design goals of the manufacture. This car is more or less  still a street car.

[DropLinked]

There's a lot of confusing, and conflicting information on the various forums about sumps, particularly around the 1ZZ vs 2ZZ sump debate.

There's two different engineering problems at play here which often get confused.

The first problem (the main one most people on here want to solve) is oil surging due to high G cornering.

The second being problems caused by windage - the main issues are; oil frothing up resulting in air being to be picked up and circulated, and oil spashing onto pistons causing more friction resulting in power loss.

The windage plate is bolted to the bottom of the engine block in the 2ZZ, rather than incorporated into the sump like in the 1ZZ. It's likely the 2ZZ needed a different 'windage solution' as the effects are much greater with higher revving engines.

The 1ZZ sump is an elegant little design as it cheaply and easily solves the windage problem, and has the added benefit of helping with oil surging.

It looks like they didn't want to use the 1ZZ sump on the 2ZZ engine as this would result in two windage plates which would slow down the return of oil to the pickup (as alluded to in the white paper).

I'm guessing this is why they also tweaked the pickup position, and increased the oil capacity slightly, to offset against loosing the oil surge benefits of the 1ZZ sump design.

In summary, it doesn't really matter which you go for, both are compromised in some way:

-1ZZ sump has slightly better oil surge protection, at the expense of slightly slower return to the oil pick up.

-2ZZ sump has slightly quicker return to the oil pickup, at the expense of slightly less oil surge protection.

[Dev]

There's a lot of confusing, and conflicting information on the various forums about sumps, particularly around the 1ZZ vs 2ZZ sump debate.

There's two different engineering problems at play here which often get confused.

The first problem (the main one most people on here want to solve) is oil surging due to high G cornering.

The second being problems caused by windage - the main issues are; oil frothing up resulting in air being to be picked up and circulated, and oil spashing onto pistons causing more friction resulting in power loss.

The windage plate is bolted to the bottom of the engine block in the 2ZZ, rather than incorporated into the sump like in the 1ZZ. It's likely the 2ZZ needed a different 'windage solution' as the effects are much greater with higher revving engines.

The 1ZZ sump is an elegant little design as it cheaply and easily solves the windage problem, and has the added benefit of helping with oil surging.

It looks like they didn't want to use the 1ZZ sump on the 2ZZ engine as this would result in two windage plates which would slow down the return of oil to the pickup (as alluded to in the white paper).

I'm guessing this is why they also tweaked the pickup position, and increased the oil capacity slightly, to offset against loosing the oil surge benefits of the 1ZZ sump design.

In summary, it doesn't really matter which you go for, both are compromised in some way:

-1ZZ sump has slightly better oil surge protection, at the expense of slightly slower return to the oil pick up.

-2ZZ sump has slightly quicker return to the oil pickup, at the expense of slightly less oil surge protection.

Exactly. This is what I have been trying to convey.  There have been 3 2zz cars reported on  Spyderchat  that used the 1ZZ sump and had failed engines on the track.  The 1ZZ pan at best doesn't solve anything and at worse is only making things sub optimal.   
On the whole from what I read from one of the publications both the 1ZZ and 2ZZ were made to handle 1G sustained and for some unknown reason its a flaw by some when in actuality the goal has been achieved by engineers. 
For the street it would be very hard to create a problem unless you are running low on oil which a few people have made the mistake.
For any track use you need to upgrade based on the kind of conditions and even an aluminum sump will just raise the bar but may not be enough depending on the track. The end solution will probably be the dry sump but that comes with its own issues in terms of reliability.
An aluminum sump seems like a great idea but they also have some disadvantages.