This subject came up in another thread, generating a debate on the value of such things. Rather than take that tread even further off topic, I thought a thread on this specific subject might be worthwhile.

I, personally, have not yet stepped up for a deep pan (on any vehicle) but I plan to. My reasons go beyond the debated potential for extra cooling, so please don't grind on me over that.

The following is a list of pros and cons to consider, and I'll add more of other folks comments and considerations if they care to post them.


Potential benefits of a deep pan:

1. Ability to sustain a minor fluid leak long enough to find help.

2. So long as the fluid pickup is also lowered in the pan, the trans pump can pickup fluid on somewhat steeper inclines. This can be important in some off-road situations.

3. In theory, a deeper pan, with it's slightly increased surface area, would be able to provide somewhat increased cooling through convection and radiation.

As it relates to the pan, and ignoring environmental effects for the moment, the two greatest factors controlling convected and radiated heat transfer is surface area and the conductive features of the pan metal and any coating it may have on it.

In the majority of cases it seems that this is the focus of the concerns, even though it's not usually specifically mentioned.

4. And this brings me to my last potentially positive aspect of a deeper pan, and is the inverse of what is frequently claimed to be a negative aspect, and that is the shear quantity of oil in the pan.

So many times I have read comments that all that extra oil means it just takes that much longer to cool the oil off after it gets hot. This just so completely misses the point!

Yes, all that oil is a mass that has to be heated and cooled. But you have to heat the oil before it needs to be cooled! It takes more heat to bring that extra mass to a higher temperature. Without using a half-dozen different analogies or metaphors, just realize that you can do more short-term tasks that heat the transmission oil before it gets so hot!


Potential down sides to a deeper pan (with the implied expense):

1. Less ground clearance.

2. Hmm. I can't think of another. Maybe someone else has some.


Steel versus Aluminum: Aluminum is a better conductor and emitter of heat than steel is, plus it's lighter than steel. One down side I have heard expressed about aluminum is that, if hit, it will fracture and leak much more easily than a steel pan would.

The protective/cosmetic coating on a pan should also be considered as it may have some effect as a thermal insulator. Having a bitchin' aluminum pan but then having it powder coated interferes with the original intent. I am somewhat mystified is to why the commercial aluminum pans aren't anodized, or something along those lines.

The same concerns apply to steel pans.

One pan that does fascinate me a bit is the Derail pan with all the ventilation tubes in it. I've not seen one of the E4OD Derail pans in person, but I question the effectiveness of the diameter of the tubes. They look too small in pictures and, yes, that is subjective but, conceptually, I think it is a great idea. The more surface area you can expose the oil to, the more heat that can be transferred. The more air you can flow past the surface, the more heat that can be transferred. Below a certain point, the diameter of the tube becomes too small to move enough air to be of any real value.

Those are my thoughts. If anybody cares to post their own, it would be great to have them too.

 

One thing that has been brought up in another thread is the temp of the air going around the trans under the high load conditions that exist when trans temp is a concern. Most of the air around the trans first went through the radiator and picked up heat, then went around the engine, then around the exhaust, on the way to going by the transmission. Think how hot the engine compartment is under high load, and all that air exits around the trans. I can easily see the possibility of the air around the trans being hotter than the trans fluid...

 

I think that is a legitimate concern.

On my two trucks (both 460s) the left bank header pipe passes right in front of the trans clutch, and I can only imagine how much more that heats the environment around the pan.

I'm trying to imagine a good way to see what effect that actually has on the oil temp.

 

If I may ask, where's 8600' ? I'm at 8850' in the northern end of Mineral County.

 

I don't have many answers but I do have an aftermarket deep aluminum pan and the trans temp dropped about 10 deg. afterwards... Now my pan was free to me so that may factor into your choice.

I do worry though about a stray rock coming up and breaking the aluminum pan as I do a lot of off road travel. Don't get into many situations where clearance is a concern but I do want a skid plate at some point.

For me it would come down to price... I see not much gain for the price of a pan... I think an upgraded transmission cooler is the best bet. For longetivity I am not sure there is any benefit to more fluid... As long as your current fluid is changed regularly.

 

Upgrade to a larger transmission cooler and be done.

 

You say you don't want us to debate the extra cooling, but it's what you focus on most, so...

1. Sure, I suppose. But I doubt the difference would be very significant most of the time.

2. Maybe I just don't have much experience, but I've never heard of an automatic starving for oil on a hill.

3. That theory assumes that heat transfer is a good thing. As has already been said here, and was said by an expert in the other thread you mentioned, the air around the pan may well be hotter than the trans fluid. If that's the case then increased heat transfer will heat up the trans more rather than cool it more. And yes, in light use or in the winter the air is likely to be cooler than the trans. But who cares about cooling the trans then. It's worst case, hot, heavy loads that you need to be concerned about.

4. I agree, more fluid will heat up slower and cool slower, and the overall effect is almost certainly going to be helpful.


For potential downsides I see:
1. less ground clearance
2. less clearance for driveshafts, exhaust, etc
3. better heat transfer from the hot air
4. higher cost for something with very little benefit and slightly higher drawbacks


For steel vs. aluminum, the dentability of steel vs aluminum being more likely to fracture, the better heat transfer of aluminum when you probably don't want it and the higher cost of aluminum more than offset its lighter weight.

So staying with a stock steel pan is a no-brainer for me.

Edit:
+1. Gives you unquestionably better cooling and the benefits of higher fluid capacity.

 

That is not the point of this thread.

 

Trans engineer here will tell you to save your money and add the cooler.

Check the trans forum for Mark Kovalsky.

 

Please read again. Nowhere did I say that.

I'm not sure what your intent here is but it doesn't seem to be to add to the conversation. I'm perfectly alright with your wanting a stock steel pan, but you seem to be hell-bent on pushing your opinion on other folks. What's it to you if other folks want to discuss something that you're not interested in?

For future reference, please note that I did not offer an opinion is to whether the heat transfer is a good thing or a bad thing. What I said was what would happen, not whether it was good or bad. In the future, should you choose to comment in one of my threads, please first read and make an effort to understand what was written. If you just want to go **** somewhere, do it in your own backyard.

 

Yes, yes. I am aware of all that. But that is not the point of the thread.

 

I liken it more to a want than a need. I have a Mag-Hytec on my 350... don't see how more fluid could be a negative. Maybe not a huge positive, but not a neg.

 

You ain't too good on points. If a trans engineer tells you a deep pan is a waste of money, there ain't no point in discussing the supposed "pros" of a deep pan. There ain't any.

Or are you smarter than a transmission engineer?

 

And, apparently, you don't know what a point is.

The transmission engineer's point has always been that a deep pan is not a worthwhile cooling investment. Obviously it escaped you, but that is a single point, not the extent of them.

Unlike the transmission engineer, I do not make a point of wearing my education and qualifications on my sleeve though it does seem that you respond to such things. But I will give you one pearl of wisdom to consider: it's okay to let other people do your work for you, but don't let them do your thinking for you.

 

Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted what you meant when you said "My reasons go beyond the debated potential for extra cooling, so please don't grind on me over that" in your first post. I guess I can see how I might have taken that farther than you intended, but I don't think it was so much farther that it would indicate that I didn't read or try to understand your post.

Sorry, I guess I still was having trouble understanding your original post. When you said:I guess I thought you wanted to hear other folks comments and potential down sides if someone else had some. I didn't realize that those were rhetorical comments and that you really weren't interested in any opinions that might differ from your own.

I would encourage you to re-read your original post. In it you said:"Increased cooling through convection and radiation" is heat transfer, and it's listed third under "potential benefits of a deep pan". Yes, you have the word "potential" there, but clearly you are positing that a deep pan has the (potential) benefit of increased heat transfer, and if increased heat transfer is a benefit, then you are most definitely suggesting it is a good thing. And all I said in response was that that increased heat transfer might not be a good thing.

Believe me, if I remember who you are when I read another one of your threads I won't choose to comment. I have no interest in scratching though incredibly thin skin.