Question for the FE know it alls

[SoTxButler]

J

Thanks for sending him an email. He needs to hear from FE owners. I am #3 in his production line schedule. I think he will build me one and I will have to pay the development costs. Chances are you would get the next one quite a lot cheaper. If three or more were interested, I am sure we could get him to build it. I have told him I want one if he will just build it. Will keep you informed.

Russ

[Ronbo]

This discussion got me thinking, didn't some of the older FEs have oil slingers at one time?

Seems like I remember seeing this somewhere...

Obviously, you wouldn't want these on a high RPM motor (not to mention they'd be a little harsh on the windage tray). Just curious.

[CobraBoy]

Competition-spec 427 Cobras had dry sump oil systems, according to a spec sheet that I have seen. I want one on my full-race Hillman Imp and I want one in my Cobra, when the day dawns, too.

Paul

[lovehamr]

Originally Posted by SoTxButler

J

Thanks for sending him an email. He needs to hear from FE owners. I am #3 in his production line schedule. I think he will build me one and I will have to pay the development costs. Chances are you would get the next one quite a lot cheaper. If three or more were interested, I am sure we could get him to build it. I have told him I want one if he will just build it. Will keep you informed.

Russ

Russ, I just emailed him about this as well. Allthough after seeing the 10k number thrown out I have to say that that would be beyond my $$.

Steve

P.S. Just got a reply to my email, here it is;

"Not at the moment. I have a customer who has been begging me to do it. It is in the que and a month or two down the line. I would say if you are interested give me a line back after the first of the year. If you are going to attend the pri show next month look us up and I will have some sample pans to look at.

Bill
_____________________________
Bill Dailey
Dailey Engineering
42095 Zevo Dr. #7
Temecula, CA 92590
Ph. 951-296-2110
Fax 951-296-2111"

Russ, are you the begger? LOL

[xracerbob]

Is there a reason you wouldn't just use the Aviaid system as was used on the originals?

http://www.aviaid.com/pdfs/fe.pdf

[PANAVIA]

So only having built Street FE's in mustangs and 1 friends cobra (ERA) why would you want a Dry Sump System vs the regular pickup>?

is it to assure constant oil in the face of heavy cornering>?

--Steve

[CobraBoy]

Two reasons why I would like ideally to fit a dry sump system to my as yet merely aspirational Cobra are:

1. It is what the genuine Competition-spec 427 Mk. 3 Cobra used, according to a spec sheet that I have seen

2. It ought to provide the best possible oil control under hard cornering and I plan to race the car

So that's authenticity and engine preservation. And I do intend to build myself a nice engine to go into the car too, so want to protect my investment.

I know that wet sump systems can be made to work well too, though. That is what I am running on my Imp racer at present, although I have a dry sump pan in waiting...

Paul

[aviaid]

To set the record straight we did not build the original Cobra systems. They were in-house developments for the few cars they did in 1967.

Our 1st big involvement was with the Shelby FE powered Can-Am cars in 69/71. We only started building the pumps in 1968, first debuting them in the Questor Grand Prix at Riverside that year.

We do build a revision of the original fenderwell tank. Our current steel pan configuration routes hoses under the engine into the pump, eliminating the typical rat's nest of plumbing. Our custom HTD drive sleeve, manufactured for us in 4130 steel with integral guide flanges, drives the pump from behind the damper.

Our standard package fits the pump between the drive and the motor mount with very little modification in an OEM type chassis. This S1 package will develop modest, safe vacuum levels in properly build engines. We supply these on a regular basis to engine builders around the country and in Europe. For more exotic packages engine builders such as Top of the Hill incorporate our S2 pump which can provide vacuum levels in the 20+ inch range.

In all cases we recommend working with engine builders, such as Keith Craft, Roush, Kinnetic, FE Specialties, Huddart, EEI, Knight, etc., for specification and installation of these systems. Depending on requirements and personal preferences in outfitting the systems, the parts should run $3000-$4000 plus hoses. But don't hold me to that.

Regardless these systems do eliminate OPGES (Oil Pressure Gauge Eyeball Strain).

[David Kirkham]

Just my few cents.

The FE generates more power than I (an many other people) can handle at the track. The Aviaid (and Armando) pans have NEVER failed us. Yes, dry sump will give you more power...but I doubt there are many people who could really use it.

I'd save my $$$ and put it into suspension tuning. There is FAR more lap-time to be found in set-up in these cars than there is in a few more ponies from the motor.

David

[82ACAUTOCRAFT]

Dry sump systems are overkill on the street. They are valuable on the track to prevent oil scavenging in sharp corners and during acceleration. They have also being used on some cars for clearance reasons. Most well designed systems require at least two pumps for operation.

Emmanuel

[DMXF]

David - A number of people I've spoken with who have used the Avaid wet sump pans, including racers back in the day like Sam Feinstein, have said their oil pressure will drop to zero in hard cornering on the track with good tires like slicks. Consider that SA spend resources to develop the dry sump on the 427 cars back in the 60's for a good reason, when they didn't do it for the 289 (at least in the Cobra). There were a number of engine failures early on in the big block Cobra development, to the point where SA was delivering some higher profile track cars with a spare engine (like CSX3009). Granted, there are some other weaknesses in the engine that have tended to be rectified in modern builds, like rod bearing width, but nonetheless the dry sump was a primary development that resulted in problems being minimized and therefore would be a benefit to any of these engines that can suffer from intermittent loss of oil pressure.

[82ACAUTOCRAFT]

Take Porsche for example, every 911 had dry sump lubrification until the water cooled 996 in 1999 which was equipped with a wet sump for cost savings reasons. People who tracked their new Porsches started seing a lot of engine failures with these cars. The high end models such as Turbo, GT2 and GT3 still are equipped with dry sump for good reasons. But we are talking about modern cars here which will pull many more Gs on the track than any Cobra could. A well designed pan and pick-up system like Aviaid will be more than sufficient for any Cobra, especially if it's a street car.

Emmanuel

[David Kirkham]

Originally Posted by Dcmgt

David - A number of people I've spoken with who have used the Avaid wet sump pans, including racers back in the day like Sam Feinstein, have said their oil pressure will drop to zero in hard cornering on the track with good tires like slicks. Consider that SA spend resources to develop the dry sump on the 427 cars back in the 60's for a good reason, when they didn't do it for the 289 (at least in the Cobra). There were a number of engine failures early on in the big block Cobra development, to the point where SA was delivering some higher profile track cars with a spare engine (like CSX3009). Granted, there are some other weaknesses in the engine that have tended to be rectified in modern builds, like rod bearing width, but nonetheless the dry sump was a primary development that resulted in problems being minimized and therefore would be a benefit to any of these engines that can suffer from intermittent loss of oil pressure.

Good comment! Certainly worth an answer. Miller Motorsports has 2 of our cars at their track--one with a Ford crate 351 and one with a Keith Craft 427 (stroked to a 482). Both cars have Aviaid pans. The cars are regularly driven (some might say flogged) at rates of speed and cornering I can't begin to acheive and I have a lot of experience (track included) driving these monsters. They have instructors with backgrounds from all levels of racing in their driving school--from former F1 pilots on down. Remember, the driver's don't own their cars and they are always trying to impress customers (and each other) so they don't hold back.

We have never had an oil failure or a failure of the motor for that matter that wasn't our fault. Keith Craft's motor has run for at least 1000 miles on THE TRACK with no mercy--so has the Ford crate motor.

I seriously don't think there are many of us on this site who actually NEED a dry sump on one of these cars. Now, they are undeniably the hottest looking thing on the planet (Pat Buckley's car comes to mind). But unless you are Schumacher, I'd spend my money on suspension tuning.

David

[David Kirkham]

Originally Posted by 82ACAUTOCRAFT

Take Porsche for example, every 911 had dry sump lubrification until the water cooled 996 in 1999 which was equipped with a wet sump for cost savings reasons. People who tracked their new Porsches started seing a lot of engine failures with these cars. The high end models such as Turbo, GT2 and GT3 still are equipped with dry sump for good reasons. But we are talking about modern cars here which will pull many more Gs on the track than any Cobra could. A well designed pan and pick-up system like Aviaid will be more than sufficient for any Cobra, especially if it's a street car.

Emmanuel

Emmanuel,

Don't count Cobras out. When we did our Car and Driver test years ago, they tested an original car on the skid pad a 1.18 g's. That is pretty serious grip. Certainly, modern car handling is extremely good OVERALL--transitions, balance, etc. But, the oil doesn't care about all that regarding oil starvation. Oil only cares about highest g's pulled (and sustained, like a long sweeper) and a properly set up Cobra and throw you out of the car.

David

[Tom Kirkham]

One of the problems is the oil drain back to the pan. The heads trap a lot of oil up in the valve cover when pulling sustained Gs. The oil drain back holes in the heads (E-brock included) need help...

[David Kirkham]

Originally Posted by Tom Kirkham

The oil drain back holes in the heads (E-brock included) need help...

So does my driving!

David

[aviaid]

David, I am sure your driving is fine.

I agree on the need for a dry sump system in most cars. Relative to a good quality wet sump system they are complex, expensive, intrusive and certainly heavier. And the horsepower benefits tend to be over-rated.

The FE is a remarkably frugal engine when it comes to oil usage. Even an aluminum engine should only run 8-9 GPM at temperature. The key in a wet sump is sufficient oil in the sump. The proper amount of oil in the system is not an arbitrary number that fills the pan to the underside of the hard tray, but that is not a bad place to start. The right amount is that which maintains oil pressure, but does not induce the carryover of oil out the breather system. This will tend to be more than the rated pan capacity, maybe 1 or 1.5 qts more. As the engine runs oil circulates through the engine in a continuous flow. The harder the engine is run, the more oil in circulation in the engine. This reduces the amount in the sump. The cylinder heads and the valley tend to pool the most oil, so if drainbacks are limited or restricted, this can have an impact on the efficiency of oil return. Just be glad it's not a Chrysler Hemi.

So overfilling the pan a little for track events raises the effective level in the sump during track time. The key is 'a little'. Baffled vents and proper location of breather outlets is the difference between being able to tell oil in suspension in the engine due to the reciprocating assembly contacting the oil in the sump and splash from lifters, rocker arms and pushrods. And a firewall mounted breather can taking air out from the lifter valley with a drain back to the 5/8" tube in the right front corner of the pan is a good way to insure you don't 'lose' the oil that does come out of the engine.

The most severe test is typically during sustained high rpm operation. Crankcase pressure tends to keep oil from returning to the sump as efficiently as during normal operation. But even short periods of off-throttle breathing of the engine as on most road courses returns oil to the sump very quickly.

[Jac Mac]

Im a little late for this thread, but want to add a couple of thoughts/ideas.
As well as taking the breathers of the valley plate I have found that the rocker covers should have the breather hoses fitted on their respective inboard sides between the pushrod pairs of cyls 1/2 or 3/4 and 5/6 or 7/8.
I have found that these points are the least likely to be covered by any oil surge during cornering etc.
On the Fords with front Dizzy I usually plumb hoses from the 3/4 & 7/8 areas into the catch tank. This catch tank is either fitted with breathers & pcv for wet sump, or in a dry sump referenced back to the Tank & Breathers. In addition to this the catch tank is fitted with a drain back line that fits to the adaptor on the block where the factory oil filter mounted. The adaptor is drilled at this point to match what was the original oil pressure drilling from the standard oil pump which is no longer used. As the front crank counterweight spins in close proximity to this area it creates a low pressure area & draws any oil that may have reached the catch tank back into the pan . Since using this system oil loss from the breathers or overboard has been virtually nil since the catch tank never really gets the chance to have any large amount of oil accumulate.
This system could also be used in a wet sump system with external pump/remote filter setup.