does this apply to 96-98 cobras as well? im guessing we all have the same stock pan right?
Oil pan capacity test pics
- Thread starter qwik01cobra
- Start date
- Status
Thank for the info!:thumbsup:
Hey! That's village idiot to you mister! :lol1:droptopsnake01 said:
glad i've been using 7
Would 7 quarts also work for the 5.0 engine?
I would like to know myself if the pan is the same in our sn95 cobra cousins, anyone know?
The 96-98 pan should look the same.
The 5.0 pan is completely different and the same logic can not be applied.
The deep skirt block is where the difference comes in. The windsor motors have probably 50% of the crank outside of the block.
The 5.0 pan is completely different and the same logic can not be applied.
The deep skirt block is where the difference comes in. The windsor motors have probably 50% of the crank outside of the block.
Just because the pan can hold 7qts doesn't mean that you should put seven quarts in it.
Windage is not caused by the crank sitting in the oil. Also, there is a chance of windage even with the crank sitting high above the oil as proven by the gains that are provided by a windage tray.
Fact: 4V heads do not hold enough to cause bearing failure.
Fact: The oil lubricating the valvetrain is restricted which results in a much smaller amount of oil going to the valvetrain than you think. If I remember right the restrictors diameter is around .090 as compared to the oil drain-back holes which are very large and there are many of them. Furthermore, there is nothing in the heads to prevent the oil reaching the drain-back holes.
You can not compare these heads to hemi heads and use the same logic as the resaon for using more oil.
There is no proof to this perceived problem of the heads holding enough oil to cause bottom end failure.
Mach1chuck said:
Windage is not caused by the crank sitting in the oil. Also, there is a chance of windage even with the crank sitting high above the oil as proven by the gains that are provided by a windage tray.
Mach1chuck said:
Fact: 4V heads do not hold enough to cause bearing failure.
Fact: The oil lubricating the valvetrain is restricted which results in a much smaller amount of oil going to the valvetrain than you think. If I remember right the restrictors diameter is around .090 as compared to the oil drain-back holes which are very large and there are many of them. Furthermore, there is nothing in the heads to prevent the oil reaching the drain-back holes.
You can not compare these heads to hemi heads and use the same logic as the resaon for using more oil.
There is no proof to this perceived problem of the heads holding enough oil to cause bottom end failure.
Last edited:
na svt said:
There are 3 13mm drainback holes per head. Thats not what I would call "huge" or "many".
On top of that, any 4v owner who has checked the oil 5 minutes after driving, and then 30 minutes after driving, knows that the level the second time will be higher.
further, not to quote a "so-so" source, but in SHM's book, he stated that with clear plastic valve covers, he noticed a ton of oil in the heads, especially on the passenger side. I don't think SHM would really lie about this, since its not gonna help him sell more products.
As far as the windage situation, obviously there will be oil splashing, and oil coming down from the return holes. however, I have not seen conclusive proof of windage trays increasing power output substantially. Even if you pour in 7 quarts, the crank will not be sloshing through the oil, nor will it aerate anything.
I have to 100% disagree with your post.
In fact, people have been drilling out the return holes even larger to help with oil drainage.
To Quote the SHM Book, page 82:
I made up some valve covers, a timing cover, and an oil pan with plexiglas windows, so I could see the oiling of the 4.6 at high RPM. Using a strobe light to stop the action, I was able to observe the oil in the cylinder heads, timing cover, and oil pan at engine speeds up to 7000rpm. The results were eye-opening to say the least. The amount of oil in the cylinder heads at speed is staggering. The passenger side head in particular, has 2 inches of oil, being whipped up by the camshafts, rockers, and valves into a frothing mass. The timing chain acts as a high speed escalator, pumping oil up to the passenger side head from the pan. This does not occur on the driver's side head, due to the rotation of the crankshaft.
Getting the oil to return more quickly to the pan is another strategy worth looking at. Reaming the oil return holes in the cylinder heads from the as cast (.427 inch) diameter to .562 inch will improve the oil drain back, but you must exercise care
emphasis added...
However sketchy SHM is, you have to acknowledge that he did do a lot of research on the mod motor with John Mihovetz from accufab.
I made up some valve covers, a timing cover, and an oil pan with plexiglas windows, so I could see the oiling of the 4.6 at high RPM. Using a strobe light to stop the action, I was able to observe the oil in the cylinder heads, timing cover, and oil pan at engine speeds up to 7000rpm. The results were eye-opening to say the least. The amount of oil in the cylinder heads at speed is staggering. The passenger side head in particular, has 2 inches of oil, being whipped up by the camshafts, rockers, and valves into a frothing mass. The timing chain acts as a high speed escalator, pumping oil up to the passenger side head from the pan. This does not occur on the driver's side head, due to the rotation of the crankshaft.
Getting the oil to return more quickly to the pan is another strategy worth looking at. Reaming the oil return holes in the cylinder heads from the as cast (.427 inch) diameter to .562 inch will improve the oil drain back, but you must exercise care
emphasis added...
However sketchy SHM is, you have to acknowledge that he did do a lot of research on the mod motor with John Mihovetz from accufab.
na svt, where did you get your facts? For the rest of us ignorant Cobra owners who have either grenaded motors due to low oil or have helped to remedy the situation by running 7 quarts, please state and quote the source of your facts?
Quote: "There is no proof to this perceived problem of the heads holding oil." I will accept this if you can prove without a doubt that they don't. Please provide your source of information. It appears that Quad has provided some independent source of proof that they do.
I think in order to completely solve this mystery, we would need the oil pump's flow rate at a given RPM, and would need somehow to measure the flow of returning oil.
For myself, after seeing the pictures and having read an independent report stating proof that these heads do hold a large amount or oil, and after reading thread after thread of spun rod bearings and their owners running 6 quarts of oil because that's what the manual says, I believe I'll stay with my 7 quart rule, thankyouverymuch.
Quote: "There is no proof to this perceived problem of the heads holding oil." I will accept this if you can prove without a doubt that they don't. Please provide your source of information. It appears that Quad has provided some independent source of proof that they do.
I think in order to completely solve this mystery, we would need the oil pump's flow rate at a given RPM, and would need somehow to measure the flow of returning oil.
For myself, after seeing the pictures and having read an independent report stating proof that these heads do hold a large amount or oil, and after reading thread after thread of spun rod bearings and their owners running 6 quarts of oil because that's what the manual says, I believe I'll stay with my 7 quart rule, thankyouverymuch.
Last edited:
Well, I have some pics to help out the situation
1. Circled in white on the bottom are the "very large" and "many" drain holes. 3 per head
2. Oil must cross over the hump in the casting (albeit easier when titled on the motor to get to the return holes.
3. The indicated areas are places that oil may sit, unable to fully drain.
4. This is a picture of the whole mess. I would hardly say that oil has an unrestricted path to get to drain holes. It must go over humps, around cylinder head bolt holes, around the valves, the spark plug wells, and from all the way from cylinder 4 down to the 3 holes by cylinders 2 and 3.
Now imagine how much oil "2 inches" would be.
1. Circled in white on the bottom are the "very large" and "many" drain holes. 3 per head
2. Oil must cross over the hump in the casting (albeit easier when titled on the motor to get to the return holes.
3. The indicated areas are places that oil may sit, unable to fully drain.
4. This is a picture of the whole mess. I would hardly say that oil has an unrestricted path to get to drain holes. It must go over humps, around cylinder head bolt holes, around the valves, the spark plug wells, and from all the way from cylinder 4 down to the 3 holes by cylinders 2 and 3.
Now imagine how much oil "2 inches" would be.
Last edited:
SPXTrader said:
You would need the flow rate of the oil to the heads, not the oil pumps flow rate.
quadcammer said:
As in most engines.
quadcammer said:
No one said "substantially."
Who here has proof they spun a bearing or burned up a bottom end as a result of the heads holding oil?
Last edited:
I think I was correct the first time. To find out actually how much oil remains in the sump, you need to know the oil pump's flow rate. That would determine at what rate and volume the oil is leaving the sump. If the flow in and out of the sump are equal, then the oil level in the sump would be X minus the flow rate of the pump.
I don't believe that this rate (in and out of the sump) are equal. The rate of flow out of the sump is driven by the oil pump. At 6800 RPM, I don't believe that the volume leaving the sump under pressure would be the same as the gravity driven return.
Fluid dynamics dictates that a liquid under pressure flows faster and at a higher volume thru a controlled pathway than does the same fluid without the added benefit of pressure. I conclude from this that since there is no return pump, ie. a pump on each head to force the oil back into the sump, that the return volume must be lower than the outgoing volume. Hence the need for enough oil to remain in the sump as the cycle is completed. That amount, when the motor isn't running is 6 quarts, per Ford. In reality is that level 6 or 7 quarts? Each can make their own choice as to this amount.
I've read many times on this forum that people have lunched a rod bearing due to low oil levels. You've been in these forums enough to have read these same posts. I'll let those that have the rod bearing experience speak for themselves.
I don't believe that this rate (in and out of the sump) are equal. The rate of flow out of the sump is driven by the oil pump. At 6800 RPM, I don't believe that the volume leaving the sump under pressure would be the same as the gravity driven return.
Fluid dynamics dictates that a liquid under pressure flows faster and at a higher volume thru a controlled pathway than does the same fluid without the added benefit of pressure. I conclude from this that since there is no return pump, ie. a pump on each head to force the oil back into the sump, that the return volume must be lower than the outgoing volume. Hence the need for enough oil to remain in the sump as the cycle is completed. That amount, when the motor isn't running is 6 quarts, per Ford. In reality is that level 6 or 7 quarts? Each can make their own choice as to this amount.
I've read many times on this forum that people have lunched a rod bearing due to low oil levels. You've been in these forums enough to have read these same posts. I'll let those that have the rod bearing experience speak for themselves.
Quadcammer quotes from Hyland's book, but even better, he shows with pictures what I was referring to. As for oil flow to the heads being restricted, there has to be a fair amount of oil flow to service 16 lash adjusters and the two cams that are riding on the aluminum surface of the head.
Even if there is some windage, its better off for your engine to run the extra oil. I'd rather trade the 2 horsepower for extra insurance!
Listen, I personally don't care what amount of oil people want to run. If you think 6 quarts is the answer, feel free to do so.
However, I think these pics prove that 7 quarts will NOT harm your motor in anyway. And I think its also important to realize that oil will slosh side to side, back and forth etc, and that extra quart may keep the pick up covered, where 6 quarts may not have.
I will continue to run 7 as I have for the past 4 years without isse.
However, I think these pics prove that 7 quarts will NOT harm your motor in anyway. And I think its also important to realize that oil will slosh side to side, back and forth etc, and that extra quart may keep the pick up covered, where 6 quarts may not have.
I will continue to run 7 as I have for the past 4 years without isse.
Agreena svt said:
Good points but no one argues that low oil levels cause bearing failures...(we all know) low oil levels can be caused by several conditions: windowed blocks, shattered OPG's, oil consumption, heads holding oil(?), and torn pans etc. So how many documented failures were the result of ONLY the heads holding oil, or the pickup being run dry in hard turns?SPXTrader said:
Probably the most spot on quote here, run 6 if you like (I do) but 7 wont lead to meltdown if you so choose to run it...;-)quadcammer said:
Last edited:
IMO, it's all a bunch of conjecture.....IMO, One issue is the inconsistent quality in the building process at the ford plant....Also take a look at a rod bearing from a 302 push rod motor versus the 4.6 rod bearing, the differance in size is pretty damn telling.....IMO, ford should have went with a block with better bore spacing, and a larger rod bearing surface area....But since the 4.6 was initially designed for a front wheel drive vehicle, there were already design limitations built in to the block....Not to mention the crack-back rod design, crappy TTY rod bolts didnt help the matter much either......DA snake boy!!!!
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
