Quote:

Chris I ran that pan for years and NEVER ha d a leak. Also in reply to the no HP gain with the kickout I will call BS as well. We ran mine on the dyno when I first bought one. We made 23 more HP with the side kickout than we did with the milodon dragster style pan. So my experience is quit e a bit different than posted here. We have since moved on to a different pan builder. But I still feel this is one area many Mopar guys are missing the boat.



Totally agree….gotta call BS myself….23HP switching to a kickout pan on a bb mopar….absolute BS! What else did you change prior to that dyno pull?

Switching from a wet sump to a dry sump only yields 25 – 30 hp on average with virtually any brand. (bigger the arm - bigger the gain)

For those who still have an open mind, consider that a kickout is only a reversion devise that prevents the windage from climbing the right side of the block, making the windage even worse, increasing the froth and overcoming the right bank of piston rings….which could also contribute to detonation, but don’t give a kickout pan all of the credit for preventing that. Some of the other posters’ above have it right in that a properly shaped and located scraper will help a noticeable amount…on virtually any brand of engine.

Using a Chrysler bb with a 4.5 arm, std pin diameter and aluminum rods the reciprocating assembly breaches the pan rail about 3 inches. With that as a fairly extreme example, the crank is only pitching the oil from ~185º through ~215 of crankshaft arc allowing the kickout to trap windage……now compare that to a BB gm, the crankshaft axis and the oil pan rail are in the same plane….using a kickout on that design will provide trapping benefit from ~185º to ~255º in crankshaft arc. The bb gm will only see about 3 – 5 hp……so 23hp on a bb Chrysler? Me thinks someone has been vacationing in Colorado


....and for those special individuals, dont compare a kickout pan designed for windage reduction to a kickout pan designed for ground clearance