Rod Bearing Failures

[veeracer98]

I have built and re-built many Vee motors for myself and for customers. Other than maybe a dropped valve seat, the majority of failures have been rod bearings, mostly #2 almost on a random basis. If caught early, maybe a new rod & a crank grind, if not caught, a complete Kabblamo. I think this has been the experience of most racers.

I think it would help the Vee community as a whole to pool our resources try to reduce this failure mode, therefore I'm asking folks to share their knowledge .

Is there a brand of bearings that works better?

What's the best rod bearing clearance?

I'm trying the Calico coating will it help?

I know a divider in the sump area is mandatory, what's the best design?

Other things to consider?

Running the oil level full when running, is this the best?

Inner or outer groove on the center main, any effect?

[HayesCages]

Of the rod failures we've had in the past it was either a very high RPM downshift, lack of oil or Kamax bolt failure.

Oil level was always ran at the full mark at idle.

One bearing was actually extruded all the way around the crank so each half over-lapped the other. Made it very hard to remove LOL!

[Hardingfv32]

How about a full capacity oil sump per the latest rules?

I like the idea of the extra oil allowing a little more time for air bubbles to escape... improved oil quality.

The new rods are not bothered by over revs. You want a big end that holds its shape and does not go oval. If you are sharp you can run clearances tighter than stock specification with lower viscosity oil. Lower viscosity meanings more power.

Brian

[budawe]

Brian makes a good point about rod concentricity. I review the wear patterns of the bearings very carefully during tear down. I'd suggest doing a search with bearing companies and review their wear pictures. Odd wear patterns usually indicate issues with the big end of the rod. Stock rods are a bit soft and will require resizing occasionally.

Oil supply is critical and a well designed windage tray with an extended pickup are mandatory. The readily available tray is a good starting point but a barrier down the middle is a worth while upgrade. I enlarge the return holes as well.

Make sure the oil galley hole lines up with the center main oil passage and that the outlet/inlet of the oil pump match the case ports.

I check oil with the engine idling, especially if there is a remote cooler or filter.

[veeracer98]

Brian H.

I think the FST rules allow a full size sump but I think they were still suffering from rod bearing failures. They went to the dry sump but I don't know if that addressed. Maybe RGU can chime in?

[budawe]

The FST folks won't like this but you can't increase the torque by over 50% on basically the same bottom end and expect the same reliability. The newer bugs never had the durability of the old low hp stuff.

[rgu]

Dave:

When we first started with building FST motors we had bad oiling which affected the rod bearings first. The problem was worse than a FV engine because the counterweighted crank took up a lot of space in the case and would really fling oil at high rpm’s and the stock rods with stock bolts were totally inadequate. We now recommend only rods that have actual ARP bolts and these have been very good. The current replacement Mahle and Kobelschidt bearings are not to be used. Actual clearance philosophy is less a factor.

Our recommendations for durable parts can be found at:

http://www.formula-first.org/parts_quality.htm

I think many of these can transfer to FV and may indeed be common knowledge.

That said, I have seen drivers who had a blown engine rebuilt for many thousands of dollars. Then they proceeded to bolt the same oil cooler onto the motor (you know the one with the bearing bits inside) only to find they had a two lap motor. Startlingly, most drivers did not know the inside of the dry sump tank really needed to be cleaned really well. This knowledge gap is compounded by the fact that the popular rectangular tanks are not easy to clean. Finally, one team in particular even connected the dry sump oil lines backwards multiple times resulting in an engine that could not leave the paddock.

This is the more reason to help the new drivers and mechanics if you feel strongly that we must do what’s necessary to assure that small cheap formula car racing will exist for the next decade. As an editorial comment, yes, dry sumps work and do indeed allow you to do things to greatly improve engine performance.

[budawe]

RGU, What bearings do you recommend? Other than Mahle and KS and Silverline, what's out there?

[rgu]

Silverline seems to be a nice steel backed bearing that people have used very successfully. Otherwise we have been trying to get the older NOS bearings which are out there in non retail locations. The new Mahle which I'm told are all aluminum backed just haven't gone the distance.

The last engine I built, which was for a sand rail, the Silverlines were available for a line bore 2nd oversize but the thrust cut needed to be made by a machinist. I'm told they are made by a VW OEM in Mexico.

[Dietmar]

Just to expand on the the information, K/S mains are now made by Mahle and both are aluminum backed on the split main.

OEM K/S, Mahle, Metal Leave, Glyco with steel backs are still available as are the Silverline which have been around for 20 years or so.

But the question was rod bearing failure.
#2 rod is the last to get oil and some suggestions have already been made. Start up without proper oiling more than likely is a big issue as is excessive side clearances on the rods.
The quick and dirty method of lightening rods by removing the ribs on the big end weakens the rod quite a bit and any heat will/ deform them requiring resizing.

Personally I only use K/S rod bearings (still German) as the Mahles have been of poor quality the last few years.
Hope this helps
Dietmar
Quixoteracing.com

[Hardingfv32]

1) The main issue with current non-racing bearings is that the manufactures are using softer bearing material to allow debris to imbed into the bearing instead of wearing on the journal. Race bearings do not go this route but then they are not available for our application.

2) Rod side clearance leakage is a myth. Standard side clearance is much greater than normal rod bearing clearance. No way that the side clearance is going to restrict flow if it is greater than the bearing clearance.

3) Absolutely no science that indicates steel backed main bearings offer any benefit. Do you really think a .060" or so steel band is going to strengthen the bearing support area?

Brian

[veeracer98]

I don't see where the center main bearing material has any effect on the #2 rod bearing but, it seems like too much rod side clearance could reduce the pressure at the bearing to journal interface.

[Hardingfv32]

1) It might be possible to get Clevite 77 rod bearings which is a race quality/designed bearing.

2) Say you have a side clearance of .010" and a rod clearance of .002": How can a .010 opening restrict the oil that is coming from a .002 opening? Am I missing something?

3) What type of fixturing are you using to insure the rod caps are aligned in both relevant planes?

Brian

[sracing]

Mostly ALL WRONG The problem with Vee and FST has always been oil distribution. (NOT bad bearings, or lack of steel or anything else. As far as I am concerned bearing failures on FST engines are a NON issue and have been for a couple years.

The existing VW case and oil distribution system for our use is a joke. And we have just been applying band aids to it for years. If you make sure you get (foamless) oil into the system the problem is resolved. The problem is you CANT do that with the FV system. A larger tank and dry sump is required.

Heavy bearing damage occurs AFTER a brake, long turn and then acceleration. At this point oil is everywhere other than where it belongs and it is all foam. The VEE makes it BEST torque at well under 4000 RPM, right where you get back hard on the throttle in many turns. You have just scuffed a bearing. A similar condition occurs with hard brake and downshift.

When assembling an engine it is a pretty easy check to see of the rod is out of round and you certainly don't need a machinist to check it.

Another issue is the ridiculous rod weights allowed in the rules. Some builders in an attempt to use all of their old stock have ground off so much of the metal on the back side of the rod, that I can literally deform it with my hand, let alone a downshift from 6700 RPM with the throttle closed.

The ONLY problem FST has had with blown engines has NOT been oil related (directly). We have found counterfeit ARP rod bolts in some Chinese rods, and some poor quality heads. There were also some poorly designed dry sump tanks in earlier years. The FST website now lists all the "GOOD" aftermarket items and "BLOWN ENGINES" are a non-issue unless you just forgot to put oil in it.

Of course, as Robert says a re-used oil cooler or lines can certainly contribute.

[veeracer98]

Jim,

All true but this is the system we have in F Vee and will probably have to live with for awhile. What I'm trying to identify is why some engines seem to never have a bearing failure while some which seem to be built the same way do have bearing failures.

Brian,

I'm considering the side clearance as a dam to hold pressure in the bearing to journal interface. So a big side clearance would let oil flow out and reduce the pressure at the bearing.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

The ONLY problem FST has had with blown engines has NOT been oil related (directly). We have found counterfeit ARP rod bolts in some Chinese rods, and some poor quality heads. There were also some poorly designed dry sump tanks in earlier years. The FST website now lists all the "GOOD" aftermarket items and "BLOWN ENGINES" are a non-issue unless you just forgot to put oil in it.

Of course, as Robert says a re-used oil cooler or lines can certainly contribute.

Jim,

Just had a #2 rod bearing failure in my FST engine this summer. Fortunately, I saw metal in the oil filter and caught it early. Turns out the crank was also cracked. This is a engine that had 3 races on it after being rebuild by a well known engine builder.

There are no absolutes in racing......

[Hardingfv32]

What I'm trying to identify is why some engines seem to never have a bearing failure ....

1) A very large sump reduces the air entrapment issue mentioned above.

2) Higher viscosity oil will help with bearing issues. Remember that viscosity is directly related to oil temperatures.

Higher viscosity does cost power so you must determine where you want to stand along the power vs reliability scale. FV is probably missing the boat on the dry sump issue. Competitors with budgets to cover blown engines with be more aggressive with their viscosity selection.

3) There is no side clearance dam when you have a .010" hole in the wall. Oil is leaving the bearing based on the .002 bearing clearance. This oil then sees a .010 side clearance that it must travel though. This is 5X bigger... representing absolutely no resistance to the small amount of oil coming from the bearings.

Brian

[sracing]

Jim,

Just had a #2 rod bearing failure in my FST engine this summer. Fortunately, I saw metal in the oil filter and caught it early. Turns out the crank was also cracked. This is a engine that had 3 races on it after being rebuild by a well known engine builder.
There are no absolutes in racing......

A broken crank was either a defective one, or the engine was not balanced correctly.
If it is the engine I am thinking of it was rebuilt by a professional builder that never did a FST engine before and hadn't done any ACVW's in many years. (I could be wrong.)

If so, that same engine did MANY races prior without any bearing/oil problems for a few years...

Yes, there are no absolutes in racing, but I don't think your failure adds any valid data to FST life expectancy..

[sracing]

All true but this is the system we have in F Vee and will probably have to live with for awhile. What I'm trying to identify is why some engines seem to never have a bearing failure while some which seem to be built the same way do have bearing failures.

Understood. I was mostly commenting on other posts re: the FST. We collected lots of oil pressure data via data acquisition. With the current rules, it is unlikely you can cure FV engine failures completely for all the reasons listed.

In the data we saw with FV and FST, there are some tracks where you will probably NEVER have a failure due to the lineup of turns, straights and elevation changes. We have seen the same engine, same driver never drop below 15lbs of OP on some tracks and then see OP drops to 2 or 3 lbs on other tracks. Due to driver downshifts, corner lines, etc. I suspect there are drivers that may never see an issue either. The current FV is running on the hairy edge of oil distribution and any slight change in weather, oil level, track geometry, driver or how you hold your mouth probably play a role. EVERY FV is running with some air bubbles and dropouts. A tiny change in most anything can put you over the edge.

[budawe]

Can anybody say Accusump! If you are suffering from oil starvation that results in rod bearing failures, buy an Accusump. End of problem, end of story. At just over $200, it's cheaper than a dry sump. It likely to be a challenge finding a place for the unit in our vees but it's been a solution for many limited prep classes for decades.

There's little doubt that the oil system in our motors is dated. It's over half a century old! While everyone has different experiences, there's tons of thing one can do to improve the oiling system. I rarely see many of the fixes on engine I take apart.

[problemchild]

Put proper sized tires on the car, spec a long box transmission, and any engine issues would all but disappear. Today's improved machining technology, expertise, and oil would make these engines virtually bulletproof if we used them at appropriate rpm.

Please excuse my insertion of a common sense solution to a self-inflicted problem, that will be disregarded, of course, because it would make the racing better while reducing costs.

[Hardingfv32]

Please excuse my insertion of a common sense solution...

But is it in fact the valid solution?

A properly regulated oil system is going to have the same oil pressure from say 5500 to 7000 rpm. The bearing clearances stay the same no matter what the rpm's.. so one could be said that the oils flowing from the bearings is the same say from 5500 to 7000 rpm. Bearing surface speeds have very little affect on oil flow.

So... reducing the rpm's is not going to solve the oil system's issues.

Brian

[problemchild]

Lowering rpm is a proven process to improve reliability in race engines. Period! The benefits are much more involved than just oil flow across bearing surfaces. I am not interested in playing your games of arguing every little technical point for your amusement.

I provided a logical solution to a problem. Once again, had the leadership of the class written rules to restrict tire size and rpm several decades ago, the class would be much healthier today. Instead, they ran smaller and smaller tires, started running shortboxes at longbox tracks, allowing oversize manifolds, etc. Applying common sense and enlightened leadership is not part of the SCCA process or the direction that will help the class maintain the status quo. There is no need to discuss my comment further.

Now ..... back to arguing about semantics and not solving anything .....

[Hardingfv32]

1) Clearly stated... and within the context of the tread:

"...reducing the rpm's is not going to solve the oil system's issues."

2) On to the philosophy behind the FV's rule set:

FV IS A RESTRICTED RULE SET CLASS. The competitive cars are under constant development. This development is secretive and a slow moving progression thru out the field. It is not unusual to have multiple parties working on the same development unbeknownst to each other. A development slowly spreads throughout the class to the point where it becomes politically very difficult to outlaw.

This is a competition. No one has ever volunteered to outlaw a development before it was introduced into FV that I am aware of. It is the serious competitors that spend the time and money working on new ideas. Thus they are most aware of what is possible. Less competitive types put no energy in developing this knowledge and have no chance of foreseeing the necessary rule changes to control costs. I doubt anyone could have done a better job on the current rule set under these circumstances. It is highly unlikely that anything can be done to change this pattern of operation.

What about for the good of the class? Well I am sorry.. this is a competition. No point of having a class if there is no competition.

So you can whine all you want about cost control but it is not going to happen in FV.

Brian

[problemchild]

1) No one has ever volunteered to outlaw a development before it was introduced into FV that I am aware of...... It is the serious competitors that spend the time and money working on new ideas.

There are hundreds of cases where people tried to and have outlawed potential developments that will increase costs and or improve our raciing. That is the norm. That is the expected. That is the job of SCCA, the various political boards, the adhoc committee, and the FV community as a whole. It is a restricted class so the restrictions need to be updated and effective. Fortunately, 90% of the community has this attitude. Unfortunately, there is a small segment of the community that put their personal benefits ahead of the community, and feel that introducing enhancements from the gray ..... and which will give them temporary advantages before the entire community has to pay to raise the bar, is the way to compete. FV was shaped by the latter approach in the 90s and veered dramatically from its traditional course. The result is what we have now. There just is not enough people willing to throw money at new stuff so people either fade away or just quit. Now, 10 years after your manifold revolution, nothing has changed ..... except the FV community spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to go 3% faster as a group, and the group is half the size! If only you had recognized that the "understanding" between the manifold producers was just that, and pushed for better rules before someone took advantage, where would the class be now?

In this case, for example. If FV went to larger tires, either by asking Hoosier to supply them, or by rule .... I can think of 4 people that would rework their cars for different tires. One is you, who does not do the Runoffs, another is a 20 year old car that has never raced, and the other two are current racers who already spend big money on development. The remaining 99.?% will put on bigger tires, make a few tweeks, and go race. 80% of the class has cars designed to run on bigger tires, and have not re-engineered their cars for the current tires anyway.

You are absolutely right that things won't change, but that is not because reducing rpm won't work or is a bad idea. It is because nobody actually wants to fix the problem. The solution is obvious and would have benefits across the board!

[Hardingfv32]

1) Current engines have been developed to successfully operate in the 6800-7000 rpm range. These kind of rpm's are not about peak HP but increasing the area under the HP curve for a given track configuration. The money has been spent to run these kind of rpm's by most competitors... so why go back? Granted not every engine builder has this down yet as evidenced by this thread but the 2 or 3 main engine builders do. New competitors need to do their research... these are not dune buggy engines.

2) Again I state clearly stated: "outlaw a development before it was introduced into FV". It is simply not logical that someone is going to develop and prove an idea that improves performance... then asks to have it banned or restricted. It has and never will happen. FV participants who would seek such bans or restrictions are by nature not go to be doing such research.

SCCA and the FV Committee will never be up to the task unless they pay someone to do the research. Most people with this kind of knowledge are going to apply it to being more competitive.

People who pick to race in FV and then complain about the cost of development simply did not do their do diligence. From day one this is how the class has functioned.

My manifold development is a clear example of the secrecy of the development process. I doubt that there was ever an informal agreement to control dimensions. If any thing there was normal process of increasing manifold sizes (development) at a slow and discrete pace. How was I as someone new to this field going to have knowledge of anything pertaining to intake manifolds? The really reason that the manifolds were restricted is that the existing manifold manufactures could not duplicate the manifold sizes that I developed. Look at the rule that was developed... It allowed for new enlarged manifolds but not the sizes that I was producing. The old manifold makers all made money when everyone was required (competitively) to purchase the latest spec provided by the new manifold rules.

Brian

[problemchild]

The reason FV is in its current state is because a handful of competitors think they are competing in F1. The above post reflects no empathy or understanding of what the class was to be about and still is supposed to be about.

From the GCR .....

1. Background
A. History and philosophy of the class
Formula Vee was recognized by SCCA in 1963. The class is highly
restricted, originally requiring the use of genuine VW parts “from the
standard Volkswagen 1200 Sedan Series type 1, US model sedan as
imported by VW” in the engine, drivetrain and suspension. Over the
years, the rules have changed slowly to maintain parts availability and
allow a gradual evolution of the class. However, the focus remains
the same: to provide a cost effective, highly competitive class that,
through consistent and tightly controlled component and preparation
rules, emphasizes driver ability rather than technological development
of the car. Today, as throughout its long history, FV is one of the most
highly subscribed classes in SCCA. The goal of these rules is to maintain
both the competitiveness and cost effectiveness of the class.
B. Definition
A formula for single seat, open wheel racing cars based on standard
Volkswagen 1200 series Type 1, U.S. model sedan (imported by VW)
components, and restrictive in specifications so as to emphasize driver ability and preparation rather than design and technology of the car.
Formula Vee is a Restricted Class. Therefore, any allowable modifications,
changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions.
IF IN DOUBT, DON’T.

Limit RPM and bring back engine reliability. Combine bigger tires with a spec tire, and it is a massive win-win for the FV community.

Theoretically, standardizing a longbox transmission would be a good thing, I fully accept that I do not understand the ramifications and feasibility of the change, but it would be something that the SCCA political types (committees) should be exploring. I don't know, but with the current size of the FV community, it may not be as outrageous a concept as it might seem. Converting a transmission R&P would be cheaper than a new intake manifold, and much cheaper than repairing a blown-up engine.

[budawe]

Frankly, I think you're both right. The rule stability is our saving grace but developing our cars, for those who enjoy it, is part of the class as well. What is not part of the philosophy of class is tortured interpretations of the rules. Our rules state that unless it is expressly permitted, modifications are not allowed. That's pretty simple. What bothers me most is rule creep. Rule creep is when engine and car builders out there that rely on getting forgiveness instead of permission for rule violations. Once they have filled the fields with unauthorized mods, the rule makers are want not to exclude a lot of cars and agree with the modification via a rule change.

A perfect example of how rule creep starts is on the other forum. The ad hoc committee has asked about challenged head machining to facilitate new springs. Although there is nothing in the GCR permitting it, some folks seem to think it's legal, and others want to ban the practice. As usual, the opinions are lining up based on whether their own cars have modified heads or not.

Without action from the class, we could end up with a debacle like SM at the 2014 runoffs where one half of the class is preparing on a different set of rule interpretations. Once again, I implore everyone to write a letter and let the CRB know what you think. Without objections or protests, this mod will likely become common practice and we'll all end up paying builders to do it to upgrade our motors.

[Hardingfv32]

Limit RPM and bring back engine reliability.

There is no reliability issue for those who know how to built race engines.

Also the an issue of going slower which is going to be a non-starter with the Major event competitors.

Just like the spec tire subject... go the Regional Supp route if you really think this is the hot setup. I doubt very much that you get very far with the idea.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

What is not part of the philosophy of class is tortured interpretations of the rules. Our rules state that unless it is expressly permitted, modifications are not allowed. That's pretty simple. What bothers me most is rule creep. Rule creep is when engine and car builders out there that rely on getting forgiveness instead of permission for rule violations.

Creative rule interpretation of the FV rules has been with the class for 50 years. The word tortured is used by those that lack creativity when evaluating the a rule set. It is a type of competition they are bad at and thus want restricted.

"...that unless it is expressly permitted, modifications are not allowed." More unenforceable babble as history has proven many times.

Brian

[problemchild]

There is no reliability issue for those who know how to built race engines.

Also the an issue of going slower which is going to be a non-starter with the Major event competitors.

Just like the spec tire subject... go the Regional Supp route if you really think this is the hot setup. I doubt very much that you get very far with the idea.

Brian

There you go. So much for any empathy for the majority of FV racers. Thanks!

[veeracer98]

Guys,

Focus! Focus! Focus!

Please let this thread not be about tires, rules, how the SCCA operates , politics etc.

Let it be how we can improve rod bearing durability within the existing rules!

[Daryl DeArman]

Let it be how we can improve rod bearing durability within the existing rules!

Choose to spin your motor fewer rpms.
Choose to run a higher viscosity oil.
Choose to set up your oiling system to provide more volume at a given rpm.

All those things will cost you performance but at least your rod bearings will last a bit longer.

Of course you could tweak the rules a bit to provide a bit more protection and people will just ask the engine to do more until the next weak link surfaces.

[Hardingfv32]

Let it be how we can improve rod bearing durability within the existing rules!

The fact is that rod bearing failures are not common if the engine is built and maintained properly. Two amateurs involved here... the engine builder and the customer. There is lots of room for error on both parties part. If the engine is treated with the same respect as a dune buggy unit it is going to end up biting you and your customer. You are going to have to take some of the suggestions that have been provided and do some engine development. A lot of things you must figure out for yourself.

Brian

[jpetillo]

As usual, a lot of good points. Daryl is right - the class is not going backwards - I don't know of one of my competitors that wants that. If we gain reliability in one area, we will look for another development area. Every class in SCCA does that. It's human nature, and people are competitive. We all do it in any capacity we can (have time for) within the rules. I don't know anyone who doesn't do their best to better prepare, and then zip their lips.

Also, with all the other classed going faster, and more occasions of FV being mixed with faster classes, we can't move to slow ourselves down. I'd rather risk my engine than risk safety. But, my engines have stayed together - I'm not sure I'm at an undue risk in that area.

Guys, another thing - not agreeing with one another is fine - it is a discussion forum - but let's leave the personal statements out of this thread.


Okay, so, what is the agreed upon answer for not suffering from rod bearing failure within the existing rules? It seems that the list includes, in no particular order,...

- use one of the known engine builders
- run a bigger pan - I have for years - sort of easy to do. We have a supplier up here in the NE that sells one that fits most, if not all, cars.
- run an accusump
- what clearances need to be run?

What else? Has this has been such a widespread problem?

John

[budawe]

Here's a complete discussion:

http://www.agkits.com/bearing-failure-analysis.aspx

[veeracer98]

I don't think the top builders are immune from this problem. I have taken failed motors apart from a top builder with spun #2 bearings and have seen the same failure from one of the other top builders. Admittedly it could have been low oil or overreving. Seems like Harding is the only one to have this problem solved.

[jpetillo]

I agree, the top builders are certainly not immune - no one is. But then not everyone runs a larger sump, which FV allowed several years ago to deal with possible oil starvation. I don't think Brian has claimed to have solved this problem. I think he was telling us what he thought the primary reasons are for failures, and what helps.

I was hoping we could get a prioritized summary of the what we can do within the rule set to minimize the possibility. John

[Hardingfv32]

First I would not say that #2 rod is any more prone to failure than any other bearing. It is hard to say where a bottom end failure started though when it is a catastrophic failure.

I will state that under normal track operation I do not have oil related bearing failures... that is 15w oil operating at 210 degrees with 7000 peak rpm and oil consumption at 1/2 qt per 30 min.

Running out of oil is not normal track operation.

I have found that the end user is the weakest link in the system. Most treat the engine like a dune buggy VW. They have no more knowledge about the FV engine that the engines in their car. So you must build in some idiot proof features. I insist on the use of full capacity sumps AND an Accusump. I also re-enforce the fact that he is dealing with a very expensive race engine that carries no warranty.. get him up on the wheel! You pay good money to a acquire the knowledge that an engine builder has developed.

A race engine is a complex system. Even if a engine builder wanted to (none are going to) describe the process if would fill a book. Simply not going to happen here. It will take a lot of work and data gathering to get on top of the stated issue. You just have to keep making mods and evaluating them... develop your own knowledge base.

Brian

[budawe]

A few simple things for the non engine builders in the class to help prevent rod bearing failures.

Don't start a motor that has sat for any length of time without pulling some oil pressure by cranking the engine before turning on the ignition. If necessary, pull a coil wire to prevent the engine from starting.

Always run synthetic oil. It has stronger film strength and will withstand heat better.

Install a low pressure warning light. The double pole VDO sensor has one and general application switches can be bought at any speed shop supplier. Choose a low pressure, under 10psi, switch and install a big red light on your dash. If the light blinks and you have a full oil measure on your dip stick, talk to your builder.

I recommend checking oil level while the engine is idling and it should be just a bit above full. Any fuller and the engine will puke oil on your competitors.

I hope this post is a bit more focused and will be helpful.