Oil pan

[Skeeter65]

Would it be wise to go ahead and spend the money on a deep sump pan and pickup or use the factory pan on my 445? The pan is original to the motor which came out of a 67 Galaxy and will be going in my 67 Mustang. I’m gathering the rest of the parts I need to get the motor assembled and a pan is on the list of options if needed.

Thanks

[Tunnelwedge]

Depends. I use a Canton T pan.
I have my 68 FB hot rodded a bit. Arning drop, Z Ray crossmember and use small block coils.
It's pretty low. lol
A deep pan would be a no go for me.

[pbf777]

Would it be wise ...................................(to) use the factory pan on my 445?

     No!  I would not consider it wise to use the O.E.M. standard oil pan; that is if you were ever planning on leaving your driveway, in any kind of a hurry anyway!  Though also note there are options other than just a deep pan.   

     Scott.

[Skeeter65]

I’m looking at the Canton T Pan for it. I need to get an oil pump as well but haven’t decided yet due to the oil pan. If going the T Pan would a standard volume pump be ok or should I get the high volume? I’m looking at the ones Precision Oil Pumps has.

[Tunnelwedge]

This really depends on how you are using the car.
Wheel standing drag car? Yes use the deep. Smack that puppy if you can.
Driving like Santa on the back roads, get the T.
You can use the stock oil pan. It is perfectly fine. Put 6 quarts in the pan and 1 in filter. 7 is lots.
Precision Oil Pumps has an excellent selection, you should call and explain your needs and wants.

[Skeeter65]

Thanks Tunnelwedge. Not a Santa Claus driver but not going to be wheel standing either. Mostly street driving with the occasional road course session if I can.

[blykins]

Thanks Tunnelwedge. Not a Santa Claus driver but not going to be wheel standing either. Mostly street driving with the occasional road course session if I can.

Aftermarket pan would be your best option here.   T-sump would be prudent for cornering.  Either an M57B or M57HV pump would work great with that pan. 

[My427stang]

You have the right answer from Brent and TW, but let me share an experiment I did

YEARS ago, like 2004-ish, RJP, one of our forum members, told me that he thought my 1/8 nylon line for my oil pressure gauge was not responsive enough.

At the time, my car was an overcammed, single plane, 433, stock CJ pan with a windage tray, and a close ratio Toploader and a 3.70 / 28 inch tall tires.  Not a lot of launch capability compared to today but ran pretty well.

When he said that, I replaced the line with a 1/4 inch copper tube and appropriate fittings, went out to a stop light and dropped the hammer.  Street driving, not slicks, I saw the oil pressure come up, then wiggle and come down and up again as the oil both pumped up top and slid away from the pickup.  Something I never saw with the 1/8 line

I would not run a stock capacity, minimally baffled pan on any Ford front sump, never mind a hot one.  I run a Canton T now, with 489 inches, 2.87 first gear and 4.11s it launches ridiculously hard compared to the 427 and the gauge never wiggles

[Skeeter65]

Ross, I really appreciate your advice and will keep it in mind when I get to that point. I’ll be putting in an order for a pan and pickup most likely today. I’m not sure I need the road race T pan or just a standard T pan. I may do a road course track day or two in the future but that remains to be seen.

[blykins]

Check out the offerings from Kevko and Milodon.

[Skeeter65]

Will do. Thanks.

[preaction]

Doesn't the Mustang use a pan that has relief's for  tie rod clearance and for the Fairlane this isn't  needed ? IIRC

[Rory428]

Doesn't the Mustang use a pan that has relief's for  tie rod clearance and for the Fairlane this isn't  needed ? IIRC

Pretty sure both my 69 Fairlane Cobras and my 69 & 70 R code Mach 1s all had the relieved oil pans, with a shallow rear section. The PU trucks and 58-64 big cars did not have the recesses and had a deeper rear section. On my 59, I am running a Canton deep sump pan, which has 2 swinging trap doors, 1 each in front and behind the oil pump pickup.  It is advertised as a 7 quart (with filter pan, and the sump has a flat bottom, that is just over 7" deep, and isn`t really that much deeper than a stock pan, and has plenty of ground clearance. That said, if a car is much lower than factory, that could change. As for the T pans, be aware that some headers will not clear those oil pans without modifying.

[cammerfe]

Many years ago, I got an engine that came from EEE and was part of the GT 40 development program. Part of the package was an Aviaid T-type pan. I've always used the features of that pan as my guide as to what is necessary. That included:
1. Sufficient capacity
2. A properly designed and placed pickup. (Sufficient tube size and close enough but not too close to the bottom. Properly supported)
3. Baffles and gates to direct and hold the oil in place for proper circulation.

Take a critical look and keep these things in mind and you won't go far wrong. Modify every thing that interferes with the above. To use the pan on my 1965 Mustang I had to put an oil return in the pan from the Paxton VR 59 blower, modify the under-engine removable crossmember for clearance, and loosen the driver's-side header to be able to properly tighten one of the pan-to-block bolts.

The idea of larger-than-1/8th tubing for the oil gauge, mentioned above, is also right on. But be careful of copper tube. It can work-harden from vibration and crack and dump all your oil in a long stripe on the highway. (Ask me how I know!) I now always use teflon/SS Braid for oil gauges.

KS

[My427stang]

The idea of larger-than-1/8th tubing for the oil gauge, mentioned above, is also right on. But be careful of copper tube. It can work-harden from vibration and crack and dump all your oil in a long stripe on the highway. (Ask me how I know!) I now always use teflon/SS Braid for oil gauges.

KS

You are indeed correct, the car soon after got a modern electric gauge. which is equally sensitive, I don't particularly like long stretches of any tube, even brained line

[Skeeter65]

I’ve already purchased the long tube headers from FPA and this is a manual steering car with a toploader. Not sure what clearance issues I will have but if anyone has advice I’d appreciate it.

[6667fan]

Do those FPAs have the swept back design/Tri-Y design? If so there will probably not be interference from numbers 1 & 5 tubes. Some header sets that have the front two cylinders on each side in front of the crossmember can be problematic with T pans as Rory indicated. ( or it could be 2 & 6 that tuck in back towards pan).

[Tunnelwedge]

I use Hooker small tubes. I also have a manual steer and stock clutch linkage.
I like the fit on my Hookers. Some don't. I can stab that baby in and yank it out with the pipes and trans on.
You should be fine with the FPA. As long as they fit your exhaust ports.
Pretty sure they make different port locations.
I'd say the biggest issue, don't forget to put the washer on the driveshaft.

[FERoadster]

What about the Aviad Cobra style pan? Expensive but large capacity and baffled. The builder of my 427 CO put one on for me.
Would it fit a Mustang?
Richard >>> FERoadster

[Skeeter65]

I spoke with Stan when I placed my order for the headers and let him know my application and he advised the correct set to go with. They are the tri-y style.

[427John]

At some point around 1966 or 1967 I think the slant front pan with the reliefs for the steering came about, I think they were originally for the Mustangs and Fairlanes but were used in a lot of if not all full size Fords too. I've seen a few late 60's full size cars that still used the old pan but don't know for sure if they were the original. The pickups used a pan that appears similar to the old style car pan, I've seen some Fairlanes that didn'f have the relieved pan but again don't know for sure if they were the original pan, so apparently they do work on the shock tower cars but to me they look out of place on them.

[Tunnelwedge]

One issue that may come up Skeeter is the sway bar.
The front sway bar on the Mustang is very close to the front of the Canton.
So close that it will rub the coat of paint on the front of the pan.
I have an Addco FE bar. Just something to watch for.

[GerryP]

The sway bar can be repositioned easily by just drilling the frame rail to where the mount needs to go.

[6667fan]

The sway bar can be repositioned easily by just drilling the frame rail to where the mount needs to go.

Yep, my 67 has multiple sets of sway bar holes. If a big bar does not interfere with pan it might get cozy with a large balancer while the car is up on ramps with engine running.
WTF are those sparks coming from?

[Tunnelwedge]

No you can not just drill holes and move that bar. Not on a 67/68 Mustang.
The link has to sit perpendicular to the lower arm. That point is fixed. If you pull the link
you will pull on the arm. That will toss the alignment.
With my car it's a happy medium. Pretty much everything is not stock so I must make some
compromises here and there.
Not all sway bars are bent the same also.
Even from the same company.
I have 3 Addco #715 FE bars for 67/68 Mustang and they will also fit 66/67 Fairlanes.
They fit nicer in the Fairlane's than they do in the Mustangs. My experience.
And all 3 have a different look. I also cut the links down and shim the mounting blocks to to get the bar more flat "I guess that's how you say it".
It's a big bar in a small space.

[My427stang]

I haven't seen any issues with the correct BB sway bar, I have an aftermarket and a ton of room on mine, and used a factory CJ with the T-pan as well prior to the big bar

As you pointed out, not all bars are the same, my guess is yours may not be the  best fit for a Mustang.  I do agree it should be as straight in each direction if you can, but in use, it's never straight or aligned, the bar ends and lower control arms all travel in different arcs

Also, the sway bar mounting location doesn't affect alignment, in any way The upper arms are fixed, the lower arm is located by the strut bars and the frame mount, the only thing moving the sway bar (assuming you needed to) would potentially side load the sway bar end link itself

[preaction]

Doesn't the Mustang use a pan that has relief's for  tie rod clearance and for the Fairlane this isn't  needed ? IIRC

Pretty sure both my 69 Fairlane Cobras and my 69 & 70 R code Mach 1s all had the relieved oil pans, with a shallow rear section. The PU trucks and 58-64 big cars did not have the recesses and had a deeper rear section. On my 59, I am running a Canton deep sump pan, which has 2 swinging trap doors, 1 each in front and behind the oil pump pickup.  It is advertised as a 7 quart (with filter pan, and the sump has a flat bottom, that is just over 7" deep, and isn`t really that much deeper than a stock pan, and has plenty of ground clearance. That said, if a car is much lower than factory, that could change. As for the T pans, be aware that some headers will not clear those oil pans without modifying.

The OP said the motor and pan were from a 67 Fairlane.

[Tunnelwedge]

Another thing I did was drill holes to lower the upper arms. Arning Drop. That moves the outside of the lower arm up in the arc. And pushes the sway bar link up. That's why I cut the link. The biggest issue is I can only align the car when it's stopped and the arms and sway bar are not moving. If he is going to drill holes in his car to change the steering, I recommend he does the Arning drop first.

[Tunnelwedge]

I was watching NASCAR years ago and they put a camera in the front wheel well for a race. It was a long time ago ok.
Well the next week the camera showed that they moved the spring mount and few other mods.
We think we see something and then in a different view things change.
My experience is from what I see.
I hope Skeeter has as much fun with his Hot Rod Mustang as I have with mine.   

[Skeeter65]

Preaction, you are correct. The motor originally came out of a 67 Galaxie 500 but all I’m using from it is the block and distributor. I’ve had the Mustang since 1989 but back when I bought it the drivetrain was long gone but it is originally an S Code 4 speed car.

[Falcon67]

>Check out the offerings from Kevko and Milodon.

Brent had me contact Kevko for a pan for my dragster project - came is a very reasonable time and it a well built piece.  Not cheap, but a very good part.  I bought their matching pickup, figuring they knew best what worked with their pan. 

[Tunnelwedge]

This what I see under my Hot Rod.
I will admit the rub may have happened at maybe 150 MPH on a public road.
You kids should not try that at home. I'm an untrained dickhead.