FE oiling

[allrightmike]

   Question; Is it true that the center oiler plumbing scheme is not sufficient (or marginally adequate) to provide full oil supply at higher RPM? Or is the relatively large diameter and narrow dimensions of the FE rod bearing (surface speed) more responsible for the perceived oiling inadequacy of the system?     

[GTwayne]

The Best way to answer that one is to look what was done to IMPROVE the issue and where.IE Expanding the oil galleys at certain places or one of the
Schemes I saw that totally routed the oil through the center cap cross bolts for resequencing the oil route through the block (Prioritizing).
Good question though.

[blykins]

I would say that’s a false statement.

I believe the biggest issues the early FEs faced were inadequate oil pan designs and inadequate rod designs.  With aftermarket oil pans and modern rods, I have no problem with higher rpm (7000-7500) stuff with factory center oiler blocks.

Remember, the center oiler design is not really much different than a SBC design.

[Katz427]

To "back up" Brent's comment, back in the late 60's early 70's working on a car with center oiler blocks, ( this before dry sump systems were popular) our car had some problems with bearing wear. This was an oval track car. However the real solution, was spending the money on an Aviaid oil pan. That pan solved the bearing problems. I do think back and wonder how some of those engines stayed together with the oil everywhere, but at the oil pickup.

[WConley]

I got the skinny on that years ago from none other than Ray Paquet. 

Ray would race mainly early centeroiler blocks because they typically had less core shift.  The oiling system was no issue for him, even at mind-bending rpm going through the traps.

I'm pretty sure nowadays Ray is running aftermarket blocks, but that's a pretty strong endorsement for the original FE oiling layout.

[67xr7cat]

The side oiler was designed for the Nascar big ovals and for the Lemans.  Ford was looking to win and these engines had to turn 6-7k RPM for hours on end.  Ford also was using cross-drilled crankshafts in the high RPM stuff that really did not help, but was the thinking of that time.  Is part of why they needed such high oil pressure and the S/O setup. 

As mentioned most issues come back to the oil pan.  In around 1970 Ford revised the dipstick on 428cj giving them an extra quart. Just doing that stopped a bunch of engine failures that were happening.

The FE rod journal is a weak link as it is narrow and large in diameter.  Narrow reduces the load bearing area and large journal size raises the surface speed. Keep it oiled well and for most uses it will live. Switching to a BBC journal is an improvement. Believe Ray Paquet runs a BBC rod journal. Have a SS legal 2U crank here which has that modification.

[allrightmike]

  Was the NASCAR inspired special rod & bearing (I believe wider) issued first for the center oiler? Wouldn't seem necessary if in fact the side oiler solved all oiling problems.

[67xr7cat]

  Was the NASCAR inspired special rod & bearing (I believe wider) issued first for the center oiler? Wouldn't seem necessary if in fact the side oiler solved all oiling problems.

Is a question for someone knows the history better than me. What I recall is the side oiler block was developed originally for the SOHC engine which was done in 1963 (the 90 day wonder).  The SOHC was supposed to be Ford's answer to the hemi, but Nascar put restrictions on it that keep Ford from running it.  The wider journals not sure when they started using them, but was a steel cross drilled crank and I'd expect a side oiler block was used. Back then they thought cross drilling the crank was the right thing to do as on the surface looks like you will get more oil to the rod, but oil has mass and the centrifugal force is holding it back, hence why they ran so high an oil pressure.

[cammerfe]

This is a repeat of comment I made on this board previously.

In the spring of 1964, I took my then-new '64 Custom/427 to Milan for a first go. I'd been to Detroit the evening before, but needed new plugs and didn't get a clean pass. On my first trip down the track I was alarmed by having the 'oil' idiot light come on just as I went through the eyes. It went out by the time I got back to the pits. My cousin was with me and he immediately introduced me to an observer. A guy who was connected with DST. Seemed quite knowledgeable. I immediately raised a question about the idiot light. DST guy pointed out that the 427 had two 'senders' in the oil filter mount. One was for low pressure and the other read oil temperature.

He told me that FoMoCo was concerned about deficiencies in the oiling system and had, as a 'band-aid', put the second sender in to alert the owner to a possible problem.

The answer, I was told, was to deepen the sump on the pan and add additional oil. The next day I went to the local 'boneyard' and bought another FE pan. We cut the sump of this additional pan off so as to be able to add depth to the pan that came on the 427. We cut a hole in the 'engine' pan just large enough to fit the pick-up 'bell' through and extended the pick-up 'neck' using a handy piece of electrical thinwall. The remainder of the original pan acted as baffling of a sort. The new sump was attached in such a way as to be about three inches deeper.

I had raised the front of the car so as to make weight transfer more emphatic so there was enough clearance. I then replaced the oil, adding enough to come back to the full line on the dipstick. I then used a total of eight quarts, considering that one was in the filter.

From that point on, I never had an idiot light signal.

I also believe that if the center oiler design was thought entirely adequate, there would never have been the changeover to the side-oiler configuration. Why change it, if it were thought adequate in all respects?

The ultimate answer is a dry sump. Ford used them in the GT40.

KS

[GerryP]

...Why change it, if it were thought adequate in all respects?

The ultimate answer is a dry sump. Ford used them in the GT40.

KS

I read a paper magazine story decades ago citing the purpose of the side oiler was a means of adjusting oil pressure on a pit stop through the external relief.  When I look at the side oiler oil passage diagram, I'm not seeing priority main oiling.  I don't see how it was actually better than the top oiler other than the external relief.  Yes.  If you're doing a serious oiling system, it will be a dry sump.

[67xr7cat]

The oil relief valve in the side oiler is in the back lower left in the bell housing area. Guess may be possible to externally adjust it, but would require a hole in the bell and be hard to get to. Will have to look as the flywheel may be in the way too. Btw the HP C/O has that relief valve too, just is above the cam.

The S/O oils the mains and cam same time.  The  C/O oils the cam then goes on down to the mains. So the S/O is more direct.  Is also easy to add restrictors to the cam bearings on a S/O

[allrightmike]

  Slightly off topic but since cam bearing restriction came up, ironically the Y block engines used a restriction at the cam bearing to meter oil to the rockers. They tended to plug up and the overhead oiler kit was born. External copper tubing through the valve cover and attached to the rocker assy. When I built a 312 for my dad's '57 T-Bird I removed the restriction at the cam bearing and used the tried and true Holley jet under the rocker stand method!! Never plugged up.

[cammerfe]

To add a bit more info to the post above, let me say that Jack Roush enabled many of the early performance guys to take early retirement and go on to a second career working for Roush. Bob Corn is still active there, and is actually a part owner. When I was doing the FE engine work-up at the Prototype Shop, I was able to get the former Ford employees together for a discussion regarding oiling on the FE engine and solicit suggestions on improvement. I ultimately put all the results into the engine we built for the series I was writing.

One of the things we did was to overbore the cam tunnel so as to be able to fit roller bearings to the cam. Ford Performance had these roller bearings available for the 385-series engines. Our purpose was to stop the oil bleed-off at the regular cam bearings. Rollers are more than adequately oiled by splash. The shell of the rollers has no oil hole and by deepening the groove behind the bearing shells, we provided an uninterrupted oil supply to the mains. (To run roller bearings, one must have a steel cam, but I was using a solid roller cam from Comp, so there was no problem.)

The main purpose behind this exercise was to stop the leaks at the cam journals. The reduction of drag from the use of the rollers was simply a welcome by-product.

To complete the change-over, we also used a roller thrust-plate in the front. The 385-series roller thrust plate has the retaining bolt ears is a slightly different position than the FE, but there is room to simply drill and tap one hole without interfering with any of the existing features of the front face of the forward bulkhead.

KS