I know there are a number of things that were changed over the production but what I'm interested in is the 'oil passage' change. Can anyone explain what they did? or even better provide pictures of the difference? Do they really provide better lubrication?
If you wanted to build a n/a engine in the 200-225HP range, would the 2.3 oil pump conversion still be recommended? or did the change help the system enough that you could get away without going through the extra work?
Sidenote: Does anyone actually know the flow difference between the 2.3 and 2.4 oil pumps?
unsure on block differences, ive often been curious myself and would love to know.
2.3 oil pump swap is recommend for a bone stock engine lol so yes, you should be doing it.
as for flow difference.. the 2.3 pump is larger, look in tim's (transporter) progress thread, hes got some nice detailed pics showing them together. its not only the size difference but the fact its gear to gear driven versus a chain that can slop around...
I would not do the 2.3 oil pump swap. People have made 400whp on a stock oiling system. Use a Melling pump, maybe drill larger passages, crossdrill the crank. Go have fun.
FU Tuning
i did the pump swap... Plus you get the benefit of weight reduction by removing the balance shafts...
No Longer Screaming wrote:I would not do the 2.3 oil pump swap. People have made 400whp on a stock oiling system. Use a Melling pump, maybe drill larger passages, crossdrill the crank. Go have fun.
lol people could make 700 whp with a stock pump, doesnt mean the engine is going to last more than a weak (oops, pun INtended
)
honestly, ive never understood what you have against the swap man...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, September 06, 2011 5:52 PM
-Z Yaaaa- wrote:No Longer Screaming wrote:I would not do the 2.3 oil pump swap. People have made 400whp on a stock oiling system. Use a Melling pump, maybe drill larger passages, crossdrill the crank. Go have fun.
lol people could make 700 whp with a stock pump, doesnt mean the engine is going to last more than a weak (oops, pun INtended )
honestly, ive never understood what you have against the swap man...
Not that I have anything against it, as much as I do not see it being needed.
Always heard talk about pressure drop, and 2.3 has more pressure.
Get the reading from the block and the 2.4 reads close to what a 2.3 reads. No pressure drop either.
Many things can account for pressure drop in the head that are not pump related.
FU Tuning
lol who cares what the pressure reads? that fact remains... LD9s on stock melt down bearings. LD9s on 2.3 pump do not. yes maintenance does play a big role in if things last but wouldnt you rather have the part in there that gives you the benefit of the doubt?
not needed? you added a blower.. bolt ons.. tuning... none of that was "needed" and you still did them....
Who said anything about pressure drop? The problem is cavitation at higher RPMs. I don't know how many times Todd Miller had to explain this, but apparently it wasn't enough. Also, pressure does not tell you the whole story. You can read the same pressure with pockets of air in the oil as you would without. Which do you think would result in better lubrication?
If you can debunk the cavitation theory/myth, John, then I have no problem conceding.
I have no signiture
Ok guys pull back on the reigns a little lol no need to start a debate. This is obviously one of those preference things.
I personally would think that the pump that moves the most oil is always going to be the best option side by side, with all modifying hassles for fitment aside. (which isn't really a hassle if you are starting your build with machine shop work and will have the block there already)
But if you look at the engine itself, everyone always blames the oiling system(which yes is proven to be less than efficient) but maybe the actual problem here with the Main bearing issues on the 2.4 are the bearings themselves and not the oiling system. Since people are getting from the above stated, 400-700 HP on the stock pump. I'd almost gaurentee you that none of them are running stock bearings you know?
So in all honesty, I think the biggest gain from the swap here is the 12-16lbs of rotating mass that its going to lose by eliminating the balance shafts, and I think the pump is even lighter too. I wish I knew how to figure out the power gain just from doing that and changing to the LG0 crank pulley.
my main question was in regards to the oiling system's passages themselves. What was the upgrade? is there more or are they just bigger? Any input?
It is soo funny one of the things people first say is the 2.3 give more pressure. Now your acting as if it does not matter (which to a point it does not)
Oh and Todd Miller is the one that talks about pressure drop on a 2.4 pump. He has many times.
Quote:
If you can debunk the cavitation theory/myth, John, then I have no problem conceding.
How about you prove cavitation in a 2.4 system. I do not feel it can be proved, or denied. No one really knows what is going on inside.
I believe cavitation was used as the excuse for pressure drop.
To the OP there is a post a few down from this one on the 2.3 pump swap, you might want to check it out for your other questions.
Also to be clear I never said anyone got up to 700hp on a stock 2.4 pump, but I did say 400.
FU Tuning
Zack Welsh wrote:So in all honesty, I think the biggest gain from the swap here is the 12-16lbs of rotating mass that its going to lose by eliminating the balance shafts,
6 lbs of rotational mass, 12-16lbs of physical mass
Mystic02VA (GME Chat) wrote:Zack Welsh wrote:So in all honesty, I think the biggest gain from the swap here is the 12-16lbs of rotating mass that its going to lose by eliminating the balance shafts,
6 lbs of rotational mass, 12-16lbs of physical mass
since ive never weighed the balance shafts i can only go by what ive heard... skilz always claimed it was 12 pounds off the rotating mass... and well, there is no way in hell the stock oil pump assembly with the shafts is only 16 pounds lol try more like 30 and you'll be getting warmer. ditching that setup is one hell of a weight reduction in rotating mass AS WELL AS pure vehicle weight, period.
cavitation this and pressure drop that... who cares?! LOL
once again, the sheer amount of builds and facts cannot lie...
stock = burnt up bearings
2.3 pump = safe and sound
here....
Timmy the Transporter wrote:Here you can see the difference in the size of the oil pump. Top is the 2.3 pump that I'll be swapping to, bottom is the 2.4 oil pump.
And the gears side by side
2.3 pump swap > stock LD9 pump
I remember a good 4-5 burnt bearings with 2.3 pumps as well. Yes I'm sure someone will say reall4 -5, but considering the amount of 2.3 pumps to stock pump that is enough for consideration.
Weight savings I agree, not as much as some say, but for sure a savings.
If it is a all out build for most power then I would consider this. For a simple build that most will do. Yeah don't think I would.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:43 AM
FU Tuning
No Longer Screaming wrote:I remember a good 4-5 burnt bearings with 2.4 pumps as well. Yes I'm sure someone will say reall4 -5, but considering the amount of 2.3 pumps to stock pump that is enough for consideration.
Weight savings I agree, not as much as some say, but for sure a savings.
If it is a all out build for most power then I would consider this. For a simple build that most will do. Yeah don't think I would.
Whats the huge deal? If you're building even the mildest of motors, you're going to have the block apart, just do it. Simple piece of mind. Although cost can be one negitive.
Not sure what your trying to say above...... 4-5 burnt bearings with the 2.4 pump, try hundreds. If you ment to say 2.3 pump, where? The one and only I can remember (Tom Smith/WrenchMonky), actually had the wrong sized main bearings...... amazing the system had oil pressure at all! There is no saying that the 'others' you remember had anything to do with the pump itself. Could have been any number of things. I actually built a stock rebuild 2.3 HO and low and behold, spun the number 3 bearing...... still havent found the full reason yet, just started tearing the engine apart, but I do know it had a timing issue.
I believe it was posted before, the relation between one crank rotation vs. pump rotation..... didnt the 2.4 spin twice as fast as the 2.3 or something like that?
SPD RCR Z -
'02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT -
'04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI -
'78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap
This is getting good haha. and The pics really helped(me anyways) with the comparison since I don't have both here to look at.
Id also like a little more explanation on cavitation if you could give it to me. Thats a new term to me :/
Why do you want or not want it? What does having too little or too much actually do?
Wouldn't the balance shafts be considered rotating mass since(from my understanding) they are driven by the crank?
It looks like you'll lose 12-16lbs of rotating mass and gain whatever the new pump drive gear, pump difference, and pan difference in physical weight. Is this right? If not, why?
If they count pistons as rotating mass because they're driven by the crankshaft then why wouldn't the balance shafts driven by the same crankshaft be considered physical and not rotating mass?
Sidenote: Does anyone actually have the balance shaft assembly they've taken out FOR the conversion? I'd appreciate it if you could throw it, even on a bathroom scale to get a poundage idea on what it ways. As well as the 2.3 vs the 2.4 oil pump.
The balance shafts in the 2.4 probably weight 2-3lbs each. Their housing is fairly heavy including the actual pump itself.
There is probably close to 10lbs total savings between the 2 pumps once you factor in the added weight of the windage tray and pickup tube.
"Oil Leak ? What oil Leak ? Oh, Thats Just The Sweat From All The HorsePower!!"
lol the windage tray and pickup are barely any weight at all... and the 2.3 pump is aluminum. there is more than 10 pounds saved i can assure you.
and john... where are these 5 or 6 engines that blew bearings with a 2.3 swap? ive never heard of even one... doesnt mean they arent out there, just would like some examples thats all...
No Longer Screaming wrote:
Quote:
If you can debunk the cavitation theory/myth, John, then I have no problem conceding.
How about you prove cavitation in a 2.4 system. I do not feel it can be proved, or denied. No one really knows what is going on inside.
I have said it before, but 2.3L pump or 2.4L pump...we really need get to the root cause of why it is always the #3 bearing. Maybe I'm off base here, but to me, this seems to be the more pertinent issue, rather than covering up the problem with a stronger pump.
I have no signiture
because i was bored i went outside and weighed a balance shaft assembly i have that came out of my 2000 bottom end. then i split the case open and weighed the actual shafts. this was replaced with a 2.3 oil pump setup.
here is the balance shaft assembly. without the oil pump, drive chain, plastic cover and chain tensioner. weighs in at 20.8 lbs.
this is just the actual shafts,.weigh in at 6 lbs. total. both shafts.
i also weighed a melling oil pump i have for a 2.4. that weighs 2 pounds. so total weight of the balance shaft assembly with the oil pump is 22.8 lbs. i dont have a spare 2.3 pump setup laying around that i can weigh, but i can say that even with the windage tray the whole swap probably weighs no more than 5 pounds. which is around 17 pounds of savings and considering there is almost 0 rotational weight to the 2.3 swap i'd say its at least a 5 pound savings in rotational weight. and you can definately feel it rev up faster.
just for the record. about 6 months ago i had a massive bearing failure in my 2.4 with the 2.3 pump swap. due to a poorly machined out of round crankshaft. engine had 4 brand new from GM rods, "refurbished" crankshaft with all new matching clevite77 main and rod bearings, new rings and a brand new 2.3 oil pump swap. after 350 miles of easy driving the crank completely ate up all 4 rod bearings. even with the engine knocking like a @!#$ i had perfect oil pressure across the board. my point is that any engine failures with the 2.3 swap are most likely not from the pump itself, but from poor installs/ crap parts. not from pump issues. i now have almost 1000 miles on that same engine (cleaned and completely rebuilt again of corse) with no issues.
Whalesac wrote:No Longer Screaming wrote:
Quote:
If you can debunk the cavitation theory/myth, John, then I have no problem conceding.
How about you prove cavitation in a 2.4 system. I do not feel it can be proved, or denied. No one really knows what is going on inside.
I have said it before, but 2.3L pump or 2.4L pump...we really need get to the root cause of why it is always the #3 bearing. Maybe I'm off base here, but to me, this seems to be the more pertinent issue, rather than covering up the problem with a stronger pump.
I do agree with you. I do not think it is the pump, but it has taken the blame. Maybe poor building from the factory?
I do not know every 2.3 that has spun bearings. I do remember reading about them on this site over the years.
We have 2 that have been mentioned by other members than myself in this post alone. So is it so hard to believe a couple more exist?
I will not deny the weight savings.
FU Tuning
LOL john the two that were mentioned had part issues, it wasnt due to the swap
jon d!! hallelujah!! thank you for finally weighing all this ish. i was going to tonight but found out i didnt have a stock setup here at my house, they are all out at my dads so i didnt get to it.
well there you have it. the balance shafts equate to exactly 6 pounds of rotational weight (skilz where'd you get 12 pounds, man? LOL) and the whole setup is we'll say for the sake of ease.. rounding up to 23 pounds. not a bad chunk of weight to delete if you ask me. good work, jon d!
jon d... make a thread about it and KYLE.. yes you...KYLE, sticky that @!#$!!!!!
-Z Yaaaa- wrote:(skilz where'd you get 12 pounds, man? LOL)
Are you talking to yourself? You know full well Jeremy hardly ever comes around here anymore.
I have no signiture
