FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: Bad Byrd on March 08, 2014, 09:35:14 AM
-
So I have a deep sump 8 QT Canton pan on my build, after mocking it up with the stock ride height it is fine, but I dropped the front suspension and the rear suspension 2 1/2" on all 4 corners and now that deep sump pan is too low. So I need to get a T pan. However when reading on the T Pan from Canton, Moroso I dont see one that has a Stroker clearance for a 4.25 stroke......................What you builders use?
-
I've never used a Canton or Moroso T-pan, but I have used the cast aluminum Cobra T-pan, and that one works with stroker crank setups with no modifications.
-
I have heard that about the Cobra T pan................and if I was forced to I might do it, just cant stand the looks of that thing. But if I head down that road I could always machine those fins and Cobra off of it.
Thanx!
-
Actually I would be surprised if the Moroso or Canton pans caused interference either. The extended skirt design of the FE block gets the oil pan out of the way of the reciprocating assembly, for the most part. You could have some interference issues with the windage tray, but probably not with the pan.
-
I am running a windage tray, but all the specs I have red from either Canton or Moroso they says stroker clearance no! I will call Canton on Monday and see what they say! I am sure that it isnt an issue. Just want to make sure before I make that purchase!
-
Barry R has built more long arm FE's than anyone and he is using T pans on a lot of them.
His site has all kinds of pics.
http://fefordtech.com/index.php?board=6.0
Now for my unsolicited inquire about said Canton deep pan.
Email me if want to, well you know.
-
The pan doesnt get anywhere near the crank, I run a Canton T on mine with a 4.25 arm and have done a few. However, the crank CAN hit some windage trays. Unlikely with yours though, its the 4.125 isn't it?
-
The pan doesnt get anywhere near the crank, I run a Canton T on mine with a 4.25 arm and have done a few. However, the crank CAN hit some windage trays. Unlikely with yours though, its the 4.125 isn't it?
Yes it is a 4.125
Always looking for a little more then described..............mainly due to inconsistent fabrication practices on these cheaper pans I have run into in the past! If it was a Neff Pan I would concern myself with it..................but I have gotten some Moroso pans and 1 Canton pan that said it would clear a certain stroke length and it had to be worked over a little bit.
-
Remember, the FE has skirted mains, a little different than the small blocks, 385s, and pre-LS Chebbies where the crank hangs into the pan
Windages trays are certainly closer though, but even then, I haven't heard of the recent stuff hitting
-
Remember, the FE has skirted mains, a little different than the small blocks, 385s, and pre-LS Chebbies where the crank hangs into the pan
Windages trays are certainly closer though, but even then, I haven't heard of the recent stuff hitting
I agree shouldnt be an issue, the windage tray I already have in the engine clears so that portion is good!
-
Canton and Moroso T pans clear any stroke with no problem at all.
Canton screen trays clear for the most part - usually need a little massage around the Moroso pickup screen.
I usually trim some of the reinforcing plate on the Moroso screens for tray clearance.
Milodon trays do not fit. Older Moroso trays did not fit - don't know about the newer ones.
-
Since I've got the ground clearance I was planning on going with a Milodon 31130. Pan details include that it will handle the 4.250" arm I'm going to run without issue and it has a 7 quart capacity. Of greater interest to me is the windage tray conversation, whose is the best piece? Sounds like it's almost a "trim to fit" as you go exercise.
-
Of greater interest to me is the windage tray conversation, whose is the best piece?
Tray styles have been debated by many people....professional and amateur. There doesn't seem to be a consensus with actual data to back it up, that I've seen anyway. In my opinion, valid points can be made for and against both screen and solid trays. I've tried both and have not had issues with either as far as aeration, function etc. The one argument I can agree with for which type to use is that solids would seem to be the best choice for a drag application, in that it will slow oil from reaching the rear of the crank and rear main on a hard launch compared to a screen type. The same argument would seem to hold true for a road racer, but guys successfully run screen types.
-
Of greater interest to me is the windage tray conversation, whose is the best piece?
solids would seem to be the best choice for a drag application, in that it will slow oil from reaching the rear of the crank and rear main on a hard launch compared to a screen type.
Well, this particular black Galaxie isn't gonna have the beans to run wheels up mid-nines, so I think I'll go with the screen type as it seems well suited for my application. Some hard street driving and the occasional run down my local strip are what's in order just to see what I've accomplished when I'm done. Thanks for the input ;D
-
This was a great thread. It helped me with one of my next ???s on here, I was wondering about the T pans now I know which one to buy for myself cause my 54 sits pretty nose low. Thanks guys :)