Well said Ron, you lazy reader, lol. That right there is the final consensus for the 4g63 + crankscraper.
That crankscraper isn't close enough to help remove much of anything but the oil that is already coming off the rotating mass. The Porsche scraper, on the other hand, will catch the oil even closer to its rotating mass and actually do some gooe...and those cars are seen on closed courses/autox all the time. A GS-T/GSX is seen more on the 1/4...and a tiny handful on the twisties.

 

basically if you are trying to squeez every single tiny 1/2 bit of hp out of your car and you have the money.... get one, if it helps. great. if not, you only wasted about 80 bucks which is rediculously cheap in the car world. in a 300+ whp car that's about equivelant to the price of a good oil change.

 

i put one in my peon, it went from foaming the oil and dying in 5 - 6 laps to withstanding a 50 lap race... and 50 laps is a long hard run ona dirt oval for a stock engine.
Some motors it works better than othersbecauseofthe general design,but they always help to some extent, be it very little or alot.

 

bam, enough said.

 

There are at least two definitions of knife-edged crank out there. One as below with the leading edge of the counterweight modified and the second with the sides of the counterweights reduced. They both work.

If you look on the Circle Track website there was a good tech writeup last year about this time, I think, on the incremental gains for chisel-edging the crank as well as lipophobic coatings. David Vizard did the research.

 

Forum readers should understand how a crank scraper works at different rpms. "Scraping" oil off the crank is a low to mid rpm function. Think about the centrifugal force working against the simple adhesion of oil to the rotating assembly.

At higher rpms the scraper disrupts the pressure differential that draws oil into the windage cloud and shunts that oil away. There are many theories about optimum placement of scrapers -- the equations, if they existed, would most likely show nodal regions of varying distances from the rotating assembly. This was alluded to on one of the tech forums by an engineer from Ford's SVO unit. It is also the idea behind certain pans with very large kickouts on the side.

If you want to run a close tolerance scraper run the Teflon zero clearance version. Hard to get much closer than zero. That is why I invented it.

The current 6-bolt setup for the 4G63 has three scrapers, not just the two seen in the thread.

Here is the latest feedback from a racer in Malaysia re the dual scrapers (like the upright one in the pic) that fit within thegirdle of the 4G93T -- a scaled version of the 4G63 2nd gen architecture:

"The ride feels good!! lighter throttle response and even better on/off throttle while on the go.. " -- Jack Chooi

 

I think it is interesting that someone who has probably never made one scraper is critiquing designs from someonewho has made more scrapers for more different engines than anyone else. Period.

Before you criticize, take the time to measure the clearances on the windage control scraper louvers from a few dozen different stock engines from different manufacturers. Look at the clearances on the stock crank scraper in a gasket for the SRT4.

Also, people say they want close tolerances and look at the Porsche scraper for comparison. Hmmmm.

I think they should have also caught that the Porsche crank is far more machined on the counterweights than the Mitsubishi.

Anyone that wants more metal (less clearance)in their scraper patterns has only to ask. It is a free of charge modification -- I even offered it explicitly with the Fiat 1800. Just be prepared to spend a lot of time fitting.

We do offer a service where you pre-fit a CNC cut plastic template and send it back to be scanned -- many people take advantage of it.

The 2006 SCCA Production G National Champion was running one of our scrapers -- that was nice to see.

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled program...

 

Thanks for clearing that up KJ. You're right I've never made a crank scraper nor seen many motors. I am however on the customer side of the house and if I or others didn't critique your product or anyone else's, whether it be scraper or paper clip, how would the engineer/producer get constructive criticizm or a critique other than what that group of people want to hear? Folks get kudos all day long, but it's the criticizing critique that makes a better product, wouldn't you agree?
I do think it's great that you signed up to defend your product since I nor anyone else knew that you go outside your premade scrapers...that's a good thing to a customer as I'm sure you knew
I saw that zero tolerance teflon scraper and thought to myself how great that would be for the 4g63?!
Now that I know that the premade isn't the only option, I take back my previous comments....however, it should be clearly stated that the premades are NOT the last option for the 4g63. Many DSM'ers on this site and others as I'm sure you seen (I saw your post on Talk, not too long ago too), do not know this.
I'm not going to argue with you about the effectiveness of a scraper on the 4g63 as Racer has stated that even one with little advantage from design is better than nothing since it does and can break up the energy of a flung oil drop.
Perhaps a windage tray of better than stock design would be a good thing for these motors too Kevin

 

Well taken -- however, I assure you that there are customers who complain about having to do any adjusting at all.

MachV has been after me about that for a couple of years -- I just need to find the time.

 

There will always be asshat customers...they make the rest of us look bad, lol. What can you do though, you can't make everyone happy and there's at least one in 5, right? Lol.



A better than stock tray would be nice to have. Although, there's really nothing wrong with the stock ones, but I bet it can be made better in the aftermarket world.