Hi Guys, many thanks for all the replies.
My simplistic thinking on this is that if it stays wet sump then the efficiency of the system is governed by A. the effectiveness of the pipe in picking up oil and B. the plentiful availability of oil for the pipe to act on so;
Paul, much appreciate the extent of your post, I have already carried out the SBD cam cover mod and will delinately modify the end of the pick up pipe as you suggest at the earliest opportunity. I'll definately give the Apollo some thought too, I suspect this may well help keep more oil available.
Oily, are your baffle thoughts attachments to the sump pan base where the foam currently sits rather than the 'plate' above I described (or both)?
Aves, yes you are of course absolutely right about the shallow nature of the sump pan but here's what passes for my logic. Currently the foam may reasonably deter the oil at its level from slopping about too much but it has a comparatively small 'well' on which the pick up pipe can act and in the event that the oil moves away from the pipe area and the 'well' runs low I can't beleive that the foam allows the oil to refill the
'well' that quickly/easily. Surely if a volume of oil equivalent to the area occupied by the foam and captive by a plate above it is available to the pick up it has more chance of constant good supply than via the small well and volume displaced by the existing foam. The pan is always going to be shallow but creating a greater proportion of it that has more captive oil available to be picked up seems to be to be a reasonable objective. I realise that other baffles to reduce surge under braking may be a good idea too but I see that both SBD and Swindon have produced seemingly similiar mods for wet sumps. I guess it doesn,t necessarily mean they are right and certainly they both seem to operate on deeper sumps, although SBD not much so.
Paul Mc, your experience seems to confound my thinking, do you have any details of the mods you ran?
Thanks for all the input
Regards Gordon