Originally posted by "mpbiv"
The way I understand it the 2.2 pans are shallower because there are no balance shafts submersed in the oil. Either way the oil level is going to be the same distance from the crank in either pan
That is correct. But when you take the shafts out, it changes the situation.
so oil sloshing around and hitting the crank should theoretically be the same between both provided we are comparing a 2.5 pan without balance shafts to 2.2 pan both filled to capacity.
Thats where the minor things take control. The shape of the 2.5 pan is very square. Without the shafts in there to break it up, the oil starts sloshing round against the square sides and could cause "waves" back and forth in either direction depending on if you're autoxing or dragging. The shafts are almost a baffle for that. Now, the 2.2 pan has a "nose" on the front of the pan. It makes all the walls non-parallel so when the sloshing oil hits it, it breaks it up instead of bouncing it back in another wave. I hope i'm explaining this good, i just woke up!
The difference (if any) in windage between a 2.2 pan and a 2.5 pan without balance shafts should not make a noticeable difference in performance.
how I explained it above, i believe there is a difference. You are correct in a full baffled pan with a tray would be the ultimate, but getting a T2 pan was easier and cheaper for me and should be all I need. Yes, many run the 2.5 pan with no shafts and have no noticable problems as far as starvation.. but i wonder how much oil is slamming against the crank without them knowing.