Windage Tray in a 428 COBRA JET oil pan

[shelbydoug]

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.

[pbf777]

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.

     
     

[shelbydoug]

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.