Hi all,
I'm putting together a 428 Cobra Jet and have a windage tray for an FE. Looking at the tray in the pan compared to an oil pan without, I'm not sure it really offers any benefit. The 428 Cobra Jet oil pan does have some internal baffling. Also the tray looks like it could actually trap more oil above the tray, with no slope to drain oil, defeating the purpose of the tray. I'm thinking of not installing it. Any thoughts?
Cory
Hi Cory. Since you posted in 68 section I would say its not correct for 68, its 69 up thing
Hi TLea,
Is the 69 428 Cobra Jet oil pan nearly identical to the 68 oil pan? I'm not worried about correctness. My question relates to the functionality. I'm considering this day 2 modification. Thank you for your input.
Cory
Its not likely to give you any significant performance enhancement unless you are actively racing.
Hi Coralsnake,
That's kind of what I was thing. The tray would be better used in my 1966 F100 4X4 with deep rear sump oil pan (see attached images). The issue there is the pan requires modification to clear the longer oil pickup and main cap attachment. It for even some mild four bying, would keep the oil from sloshing around.
Thank you
Cory
Quote from: 6s1640 on October 05, 2023, 03:53:26 PM
Hi all,
I'm putting together a 428 Cobra Jet and have a windage tray for an FE. Looking at the tray in the pan compared to an oil pan without, I'm not sure it really offers any benefit. The 428 Cobra Jet oil pan does have some internal baffling. Also the tray looks like it could actually trap more oil above the tray, with no slope to drain oil, defeating the purpose of the tray. I'm thinking of not installing it. Any thoughts?
Cory
Cory,
If you look at the scooping effect along the right side of the picture of the windage tray you can see that the scoops are designed to capture the oil and scrape it away from the spinning connecting rods. That oil is drained down the area between the oil pan and the outside of the windage tray where gravity moves the oil towards the sump. Is it a great windage tray by today's standards? Probably not however for your usage it will be fine. It will control oil away from the spinning crankshaft and reduce the windage in your crankcase. Could that be modified to improve your results? Sure, however what is your goal?
John
Hi John, Coralsnake and TLea,
Thank you for your input. Most of my experience has been with the small block windage tray. The two designs are very different, but must work on similar principles. I now see how the rotating crank and rods will throw the oil to the passenger side and into the slotted holes. That makes sense now. My goal was mostly to just ad a period Day 2 performance part to the build. I have no plans to race, so its probably overkill.
Thank you
Cory
I think the idea of adding the windage tray comes from Ford's recommendation that these engines run an additional quart of oil. Apparently, Ford thought that the extra oil level could interfere with the crankshaft, thus the windage tray. I always ran the extra oil and a tray.
I share the concern about drainback, especially since the FE engines have a reputation for retaining a lot of oil in the upper part of the engine. I drill drainback holes aligned over the main caps (where they are hidden from oil slinging from the rods) to hopefully improve drainback. Might help and I don't think it hurts. See picture.
There was an article that was up on Mustangtek.com, that talked about Ford deciding that the 428 in performance usage, such as the 67 GT500, had oil capacity issues associated with an abnormal (at that time) increase in main bearing failures.
I just looked and can't find that article and it would appear that it has been taken down.
What it talks about is adding oil to the pan without changing the outward dimensions or appearance of the oil pan.
Essentially what it says is Ford added two quarts of oil to the system by changing the markings on the dip stick.
That would seem simple enough but what happens but doing that, it created a issue, although apparently somewhat of a minor one, of the crankshaft spinning in oil.
So that resulted in the need to baffle the oil internally in the oil pan.
So even though this is not stated directly the reason for the internal baffeling, deductive reasoning will arrive at that conclusion.
So to answer your question about what the performance difference is of the pan, there is no performance gain, just greater longevity of the 428 engines under the increased higher rpm usages of it in the form of the 428cj and 428scj.
I personally find this interesting since the FE had been in use since the 1958 production year and there was never a mention of oil starvation due to lack of capacity that I know of BUT I doubt that 427's being run in NASCAR were running stock production oil pans and certainly, the "side oiler block" was designed for a reason and the 427 in the GT40's was not running a stock production oil pan.
The best (Brent, Ross, Barry) don't use them in their builds.
Quote from: Rickmustang on October 07, 2023, 08:44:33 AM
The best (Brent, Ross, Barry) don't use them in their builds.
Personally I think that the reason for that is they consider the Ford solution somewhat of a semi-solution, done to reduce the cost to Ford to fix the problem.
I tend to agree that if you are going to run the car hard or race, that you need to find another solution then Ford's.
That was done to fix a warranty issue with street cars. Not race cars.
I remember the first time that I started to do "track" sessions with my GT350. The recommendations were to add one additional quart of oil even if, or especially if, you were running with the aluminum COBRA t-pan.
We don't see Ford dealing with the small block issue until the '69 Boss 302 with the factory installed windage tray. So there is an acknowledgement at some point from Ford that it had to be looked at.
The CJ site has some info.
https://www.428cobrajet.org/id-oilpan
Quote from: 6s1640 on October 06, 2023, 10:23:31 PM
Hi John, Coralsnake and TLea,
Thank you for your input. Most of my experience has been with the small block windage tray. The two designs are very different, but must work on similar principles. I now see how the rotating crank and rods will throw the oil to the passenger side and into the slotted holes. That makes sense now. My goal was mostly to just ad a period Day 2 performance part to the build. I have no plans to race, so its probably overkill.
Thank you
Cory
"Most of my experience has been with the small block windage tray."Cory,
If I can remember I'll get to my storage unit and bring one of my Bud Moore small block windage trays to a WASAAC meeting for you to see.
John
Smokey wrote a great article on windage in "Circle Track" magazine years ago (1980's something) I couldn't find it last night. Anyway windage is not just a horsepower loss, it is a temperature changer, an efficiency robber and oil aerating monster as well that street cars can benefit from. The specialized windage trays that we had developed for the Packard/Rolls Royce Merlin were a highly guarded secret.
Here is some information from Canton;
https://blog.cantonracingproducts.com/blog/windage-how-it-affects-your-motor
Quote from: rockhouse66 on October 07, 2023, 08:00:03 AM
I think the idea of adding the windage tray comes from Ford's recommendation that these engines run an additional quart of oil. Apparently, Ford thought that the extra oil level could interfere with the crankshaft, thus the windage tray. I always ran the extra oil and a tray.
I share the concern about drainback, especially since the FE engines have a reputation for retaining a lot of oil in the upper part of the engine. I drill drainback holes aligned over the main caps (where they are hidden from oil slinging from the rods) to hopefully improve drainback. Might help and I don't think it hurts. See picture.
+ 1
Everyone presumes that oil quantity buildup in the valve covers is an engineering oversight?
First off, you have to realize that at the Corporate level, engineeering teams do not necessarily stay together or more importantly, do not continue to carry out the same work the previous team did.
Both the FE and the 289 type small blocks with Ford are good examples. Whereas the expected life of a dedicated engineering team at Ford is roughly 3 years, the engine lines go back much further then that.
In addition, at Ford at least, with the possible exception of the small block dual overhead camed Indy engine, I can't think of a real race engine Ford ever started from scratch.
The famous race engines of the '60s like the 289 and 427 were just street engines that had been reinforced so they could be affordable race engines for the time.
When the 351c engine came onto the the scene and was being developed as a race engine by various race teams, one of it's issues was valve spring failure. Now you could point out accurately that the metal technology for valve springs had not yet reached the ability to handle large intake valves like the size of the 351c and 427's for over 7,000 rpm operations.
This is true, but in the case of the 351c, at least, it was pretty much determined that valve springs dependability for continuous use over 7,000rpm like in NASCAR could be increased dramatically by bathing or submerging them in engine oil.
That was done by a build up of 2 or 3 inches of oil being retained in the valve covers, that being done by reducing or limiting the rate at which oil drained back into the oil pan.
So some might feel that is an engineering oversight but others see it as intended for saving springs from overheating and failing.
Look at the design of dedicated racing oil pans. They provide for the additional oil necessary to accomplish this feat without starving the engine for oil.
Quote from: shelbydoug on October 10, 2023, 09:19:09 AM
Everyone presumes that oil quantity buildup in the valve covers is an engineering oversight?
.........., but in the case of the 351c, at least, it was pretty much determined that valve springs dependability for continuous use over 7,000rpm like in NASCAR could be increased dramatically by bathing or submerging them in engine oil.
That was done by a build up of 2 or 3 inches of oil being retained in the valve covers, that being done by reducing or limiting the rate at which oil drained back into the oil pan.
So some might feel that is an engineering oversight but others see it as intended for saving springs from overheating and failing.
Look at the design of dedicated racing oil pans. They provide for the additional oil necessary to accomplish this feat without starving the engine for oil.
Over the decades certain thoughts have gained a following with certain individuals, whether the conclusion was correct or not, but the idea of intentionally "submerging" the valve train under several inches of oil in the top of the head I don't seem to remember that one as having gained mainstream popularity? :-\
Yes, one does want oil washing over the componentry for the purpose of providing lubricity and of coarse the cooling benefits; but after that this wash down oil volume needs to be returned to the pan as expediently as is possible; and anything less than that IS just poor engineering execution. But then the O.E.M. wasn't building a high R.P.M. racing engine, which it is only under these circumstances that the drain-backs as having been provided become a problem. ;)
And yes, most of the "racing oil pans" do provide for greater sums of oil stowage, but not only is this for the considerations of oil which has failed to return to the sump in a timely manor, but also for the fact that at the elevated R.P.M. operation the oil volume cycle rate increases and in order for there to be a good quality (density) of fluid available to be distributed there needs to be a "rest period" for the oil in the reservoir if only to de-foam and to become deaerated, at least to some degree. :)
Scott.
Quote from: pbf777 on October 10, 2023, 11:59:15 AM
Quote from: shelbydoug on October 10, 2023, 09:19:09 AM
Everyone presumes that oil quantity buildup in the valve covers is an engineering oversight?
.........., but in the case of the 351c, at least, it was pretty much determined that valve springs dependability for continuous use over 7,000rpm like in NASCAR could be increased dramatically by bathing or submerging them in engine oil.
That was done by a build up of 2 or 3 inches of oil being retained in the valve covers, that being done by reducing or limiting the rate at which oil drained back into the oil pan.
So some might feel that is an engineering oversight but others see it as intended for saving springs from overheating and failing.
Look at the design of dedicated racing oil pans. They provide for the additional oil necessary to accomplish this feat without starving the engine for oil.
Over the decades certain thoughts have gained a following with certain individuals, whether the conclusion was correct or not, but the idea of intentionally "submerging" the valve train under several inches of oil in the top of the head I don't seem to remember that one as having gained mainstream popularity? :-\
Yes, one does want oil washing over the componentry for the purpose of providing lubricity and of coarse the cooling benefits; but after that this wash down oil volume needs to be returned to the pan as expediently as is possible; and anything less than that IS just poor engineering execution. But then the O.E.M. wasn't building a high R.P.M. racing engine, which it is only under these circumstances that the drain-backs as having been provided become a problem. ;)
And yes, most of the "racing oil pans" do provide for greater sums of oil stowage, but not only is this for the considerations of oil which has failed to return to the sump in a timely manor, but also for the fact that at the elevated R.P.M. operation the oil volume cycle rate increases and in order for there to be a good quality (density) of fluid available to be distributed there needs to be a "rest period" for the oil in the reservoir if only to de-foam and to become deaerated, at least to some degree. :)
Scott.
The discussion of the valve cover oil volume and the valve springs on the 351c comes from one of the Carolina shops, like Bud Moore, but I do not remember specifically.
On that subject I personally have no experience, just passing along what I read in one of the Cleveland forums.
It may have even been a subject of discussion in the Pantera sections? One of the issues the Panteras had with racing failures in Europe at the beginning is that it was the beginning of 351c race development.
The other thing was lack of transparency of sharing of race technology due to being well before the internet, instant communication capabilities, and the distance to Europe. Not to mention the obvious animosity between the two parties, US v Europe.
It isn't something that I just made up.
What I can say that I experienced personally was the difficulty in dealing with both Bud Moore and Holman-Moody. Moore wouldn't sell me a ram box "because I might be the competition and Holman wouldn't even respond to my request for a GT40 air box.
I guess you had to have a Texas accent and call yourself Carroll Shelby to get any cooperation but there seemed to be quite a riff between those teams even when they were working for Ford? So who knows. It's just the way it was.
The tendency of getting into pissing contests still exists today mostly between engine builders. There still is this "why are you listening to that guy? He's just a jerk. " attitude. Whatever.