Ford FE oil pan question...

[Erik Smith]

Would it be possible to flip the oil pan around on a Ford FE engine? I need the extra clearance on the front of the engine. Yes, I know on a model it's possible because there is no oil, but in real terms is this something that is feasible?

I am talking about an engine with the deep well located on the front of the pan.

Thanks!

[Ace-Garageguy]

You can't exactly "flip it around" because it only bolts on one way, but it's routine to modify oil pans and relocate the deep part of the sump for specific applications. There were even several versions of some oil pans available from the factories when, for example, small-block Ford engines were installed in different chassis in new vehicles, and these make 1:1 engine swaps easier if you know what to look for.

The deep part of the sump is typically under the oil pump, which is usually driven from a shaft connected on the other end to the distributor, all of it driven by a gear on the camshaft. The depth of the oil pump is the limiting factor as to how shallow you can go on the pump end. The oil pickup can be located away from the pump, at the end of a tube, so the deepest part of the sump can in fact be located at the other end from the pump. To look scale-correct, just keep enough depth at the original deep-end to account for the presence of a pump.

This is a Ford FE bottom end. The oil pump is at the far right. The tube extending down from it (up in the photo) goes to the pickup in the deepest part of the sump. As you can see, it's a relatively simple matter to redirect the tube to the other end of the engine, and put the deep part of the sump there.

Another way to increase clearance under an engine is to 'dry sump' it. In this case, the oil pan is nearly flat, with enough room for the crankshaft to rotate and that's about it. It no longer uses the factory, cam-driven oil pump, but instead uses external scavenge and pressure pumps (the belt driven assembly at the lower foreground corner of this exotic FE development).

Edited December 15, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[Erik Smith]

This is the kind of info I like. The reason I asked was I knew the pump was located at the front of the FE engine so I wanted to make sure it would be a realistic option to "fabricate" a system to get the oil from the pick up to the pump.

When did dry sump systems originate? My particular build can't have post '62 technology, so that would limit my options.

Thanks a lot for the information.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Erik Smith

[Ace-Garageguy]

I honestly don't know when dry-sumps first appeared on racing cars, but Aviaid is credited with the first widely-available system for the small-block Chevy in 1968. The technology isn't rocket science, and WW2 aircraft engines (the Rolls Royce Merlin, for example) had such systems. It would not be at all difficult for a competent fabricator / machinist to have made a system for racing-car use well prior to 1962. Gilmer belt drives as shown on the racing engine above were becoming available by the mid '50s, and a chain drive would also be an earlier possibility.

If you want to stay with representing an engine with a stock pump, the shallow end of the pan only needs to be about 3 or so scale inches deeper than what would be necessary for the crankshaft to rotate in order to be correct.

Just as an aside, dropping tie-rod centers and heavily modifying crossmembers for pan clearance was and is typical hot-rodding practice.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[Cato]

Not something you'd want in 1:1 practice. To model it incorrectly, you may as well sand the sump off the pan you have. Just close the bottom of the engine. Here's mine on a Sideoiler:">

The pump is right behind the timing chain at #1 main. The Canton pick-up tube runs to the pick-up just out of frame at left. You can't just extend the tube all the way aft-too long and can't brace it to a main bolt. Vibration would crack the tube. Plus the taper of the stock pan couldn't be used-you'd need a full-depth pan all the way. Plus the stock pan has an asymmetrical kick-out at the oil filter boss.

Just modify the chassis and linkage-that's what hot-rodding is about. If it's a Cobra, the front sump will clear the cross member on a CSX and most replicas have no cross members under the engine.

[Erik Smith]

It's on a '48 ford, which, unfortunately, has a crossmember right where the deep part of the pan is located. That crossmember also supports the spring of the front suspension. So, without replacing the whole front end, I thought I would explore options.

Thanks again for the input.

[Cato]

Try the web sites of Fatman Fabrications and Heidts (there are others) -they make tubular custom front members and suspensions for stuff like the '48. If you see an illustration, you should be able to scratch build it and use the FE correctly.

[Ace-Garageguy]

........ You can't just extend the tube all the way aft-too long and can't brace it to a main bolt. Vibration would crack the tube. Plus the taper of the stock pan couldn't be used-you'd need a full-depth pan all the way. Plus the stock pan has an asymmetrical kick-out at the oil filter boss.

When I build a custom pan, I usually start with the stock pan rail, and as much of the sides as I can salvage. The deep part of the sump rarely needs to be relocated all the way to the other end of the engine, to the middle is usually quite sufficient and will still prime, if the clearances in the pump are right. I maintain a drainage taper to the deepest part, no problem, and a full depth pan all the way isn't necessary, so long as there are no 'dead spots'. Ford themselves built center-sump pans. Bracing the pickup is easy enough by drilling / tapping a low-stressed area of the block and fabbing whatever bracketry will do the job.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[Cato]

Bracing the pickup is easy enough by drilling / tapping a low-stressed area of the block and fabbing whatever bracketry will do the job.

Fine for a 2 bolt main block but I wouldn't put another hole in a cross-bolted block like mine.

A center position sump might not clear his '48 cross member anyway. Much better to fix the chassis like in 1:1-you'd have to do custom mounts anyway as well as trans cross member. Tubular parts allow header room also.

I'm no expert but don't the rod shops do front clips from Novas and Camaros on the fat-fender cars??

[diymirage]

see if you can get a engine from one of the old old old kits, like the AMTs and MPC that had the front axle run straight through the engine and put your crossmember through there

[Ace-Garageguy]

Fine for a 2 bolt main block but I wouldn't put another hole in a cross-bolted block like mine.

A center position sump might not clear his '48 cross member anyway. Much better to fix the chassis like in 1:1-you'd have to do custom mounts anyway as well as trans cross member. Tubular parts allow header room also.

I'm no expert but don't the rod shops do front clips from Novas and Camaros on the fat-fender cars??

Another way to hang pickup supports I've used in a pinch is to make a pan-rail copy in 1/8 or 3/16 steel that goes between the pan rail and the block. You just build your pickup brackets on that.

Usually, a combination of slight engine-setback (and firewall-notching as necessary), slight pan-modification, and a slight redesign / notching of the crossmember will get it.

Complete front clips from GM cars are mostly relegated to backyard builders these days, as everything is available aftermarket, much lighter, from suppliers as you mentioned above, or is fabbed in-house. I'm currently building a 1:1 '33 Plymouth on the stock rails, but with a fabricated FatMan front crossmember that hangs tubular suspension, copied from Mustang 2 geometry. And the GM clips and aftermarket crossmembers assume a switch to independent front suspension. Many guys these days are opting to retain the vintage, transverse spring, solid axle front ends.

I may dig out a '48 model, and an FE engine, just to see how tough this actually is.

By the way, I do this (1:1) for a living, and have been in the business for rather a long time. Building a crossmember isn't rocket science either, if you're a competent fabricator and actually grasp the engineering necessities of the problem to be solved.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

see if you can get a engine from one of the old old old kits, like the AMTs and MPC that had the front axle run straight through the engine and put your crossmember through there

I think you may be joking, but if not, the original poster is trying to do his build from a technically-correct perspective that would work in 1:1. Obviously, putting the crossmember through the block really isn't an option.

[Erik Smith]

Again, I appreciate the feedback.

I am trying to retain the Ford front end - the cross member interferes with the oil pan and the oil filter location, which I kind of remedied with a remote oil filter set up. Moving the engine back is an option - which would involve firewall mods and potentially a modified interior floor. It's not a real hard modification, and I guess the oil pan move was a "lazy" way out. I have contemplated putting a '62 T-Bird front end on as well - the rear end was replaced with the leaf spring set up from the bird.

Those aftermarket sites are great - and I would use them for reference. However, this build is supposed to take place in 1962, so some of those options are not viable. I understand there were many VERY capable fabricators then (I have a few '62 car mags, it was a decade before i was born) I would just like to keep it looking period correct.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Erik Smith

[Ace-Garageguy]

Erik, you've really sparked my interest on this. I've got a couple of '48s on the shelf, and a Revell 406 / 427 FE. I'm going to have a look and see exactly what you're up against in a few minutes.

What '48 kit are you starting with and which engine are you using?

[Bartster]

Erik, it's a shame you're stuck in 1962, lol ! I have a '48 woodie that l'm using the FE from AMTs '60 Galaxie in. I used part of the frame & the front susp. from a Ford Nascar kit. I also used the external belt driven oil pump shown in the above picture. It all works well together & allowed me to get it "in the weeds" !

Bart

[Erik Smith]

1962 because it was an entry in this year's Cannonball Run - commemorating 50 year anniversary of American Graffiti. I really like the limitation though as it requires a lot of thought and research.

The kit is Revell's '48 custom. The engine, representing a new for '62 406, is cobbled together from AMT '60 Starliner, '62 T-Bird, and 66' Fairlane. I'll get some pics up in a bit.

[Erik Smith]

So...here is the modified-so-far chassis. I ground the crossmember as much as I could, but it really still doesn't clear and keeps the FE at an unrealistic tilt (front end is high). You can see the transmission crossmember I made.

Here is the 406 with the pan reversed:

And here is where the oil filter location still hits the crossmember:

At this point, I am thinking of scrapping the '48 front end and using the front end of another era correct car.

Hats off to all real world builders - I don't always go into models thinking "would this really work?", but I decided to on this model - and it is one thing after another!

[Ace-Garageguy]

1) Your remote filter location idea will solve one problem, and it's just plumbing. They had high-pressure, flexible plumbing and surplus aircraft fittings in 1962.

2) If you modify the pan to this center-sump profile, it clears the crossmember sufficiently to work in 1:1, leaving the engine at an acceptable angle. Only a TINY amount of shaving is necessary to get it even lower.

3) It fits my mockup AMT '41 chassis (same design as 1948)

4) Snuggles up even better in the Revell chassis, which starts with a deeper recess in the crossmember.....

5) And for a little verification, here are a factory Ford FE pan with a REAR sump....

...and an aftermarket rear-sump FE pan....

In short, again, I design and build stuff like this day-in-day-out in 1:1, I wouldn't steer you wrong, and there's NO reason this wouldn't work for real.

And when you said "and it is one thing after another!", yup, it is. Welcome to real hot-rodding.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[Cato]

Erik-by now you have several options to solve your problem. Replicating the Ford OE center pan is the best as Ace shows.

For the record, here's why you don't want to just turn the pan around as you did.

Here's my Canton road race pan and you can clearly see the flange has the jog on the driver side for the filter boss. The rectangular opening is for the pick-up and the trap doors retain the oil in all attitudes of the race car. Stock street cars have / need none of this and are just open front to rear.

The windage tray is why Ace's solution of an inner flange to bolt bracing to is impractical on a race engine such as mine. The windage tray requires 2 gaskets and the fewer the better. As I said, his solution for an extended pick-up tube (which would require 2 gaskets) is fine for a mild street engine-no tray needed.

">

[Erik Smith]

Great info. I am going to try the mid sump pan vs the set up I have now - thanks for looking into the kits, too, Bill. I will run into some clearance issues on the interior tub and firewall too, but I can cut and modify that easy enough.

Cato - thanks for the pan photo. The kit pan actually has that jog where the filter boss is located (you can see it above the starter in the photo above) - I figured the real engine has a reason for it, part of the reason I originally questioned my thoughts about flipping the pan.

Thanks!