Oilpan

[HesFord]

What oilpan clear 4,375 stroke?
F250 at first hand.....
Thx
Heikki

[sixty9cobra]

If I am not mistaken with a skirted block like the FE all pans will clear.

[temarey]

all pans fit but some windage trays will not

[jayb]

Heikki, if you use a windage tray just make sure to check the clearance when you assemble the engine.  I've been able to make windage trays work with up to a 4.6" stroke but I've had to cut some slots in them to clear the connecting rod bolts, and you are probably close to having to do that with the 4.375" stroke.  You want to have at least 0.060" (1.5mm) clearance to the rod bolts.  Also, the other guys are correct, any oil pan should fit.

[HarleyJack17]

If it’s a 4x4 you have a limited pan choices. No issues on stroke that I am aware of but definitely fitment issues on chassis, if a 4x4. Not to mention I am not a fan of the pan design for the 4x4. You have to run a lot more oil to keep the system from running dry. Really wish someone would make a repo of the original with the correct pickup tube. Just wanted to throw that info out there just in case.

[Rory428]

I guess it all depends on the application and intended use. I have used almost stock 4x4 rear sump oil pans on the various 390/428/427 FE engines in my 78 Fairmont drag car for many years. I like it better than a front sump pan, as under hard acceleration and big wheelstands, the oil does not run away from the pickup tube, it keeps the screen very well supplied. And the rear sump is deep enough that I don`t lose oil pressure while braking at the finish line, unless I really hit the brakes hard. A front sump may be better if you are driving nosedown a really steep grade for a while, but for anything going upwards or forward, hard to beat a rear sump.

[FElony]

I guess it all depends on the application and intended use. I have used almost stock 4x4 rear sump oil pans on the various 390/428/427 FE engines in my 78 Fairmont drag car for many years. I like it better than a front sump pan, as under hard acceleration and big wheelstands, the oil does not run away from the pickup tube, it keeps the screen very well supplied. And the rear sump is deep enough that I don`t lose oil pressure while braking at the finish line, unless I really hit the brakes hard. A front sump may be better if you are driving nosedown a really steep grade for a while, but for anything going upwards or forward, hard to beat a rear sump.

Warning! Achtung! Thread hijack in 3...2...1... What engine mounts and hedderz did you use in yer Fairmont? Intake/scoop? Traction aydz?

[BigBlueIron]

If it’s a 4x4 you have a limited pan choices. No issues on stroke that I am aware of but definitely fitment issues on chassis, if a 4x4. Not to mention I am not a fan of the pan design for the 4x4. You have to run a lot more oil to keep the system from running dry. Really wish someone would make a repo of the original with the correct pickup tube. Just wanted to throw that info out there just in case.

I would prefer the factory 4x4 pan and pickup over many of the other offerings. What about the design do you not like and why would you need more oil to keep from running dry? The 4x4 pan would allow you to run more oil and still keep away from the crank better than many of factory options.

There is one repo available and has been for quite some time. https://www.jegs.com/i/Milodon/697/30550/10002/-1

I used a 4x4 pan in my 50 F1 and it saved me all kinds of aggravation in fitment plus I was more content being able to use a rear sump. It was a win win for me.

[HarleyJack17]

If you re-read my post I never said I did not like the factory pan and in fact said I wish the exact pan(and pickup) was still made. It works great. My issue is with the Canton 4x4 pan.  Fill it to their capacity and do a dyno run and watch your oil pressure..you won’t like what you see. I looked pretty hard but never came across the pan in your link. All pans for my truck had the two sumps.  Now that I see that I am honestly thinking of replacing my Canton with it, that is how much I dislike the design.. Looking at Jegs now it lists the Miladon pan as FE 4x4 years 78-up. There is the issue, no FE in pickups/Broncos those years...it had been retired but if it’s for an FE it will fit. Just never showed up on my search.
The Miladon pan would work a lot better but I would still favor the factory design if you could get the correct pickup and not have to fab/work one...talking new parts not used. I just want folks to be leery of the two sump design. Others have seen what the same issue and most are not fans due to the amout of oil that has to be ran.

[jayb]

I agree on the poor performance of the Canton rear sump oil pan, I've had a couple of them on the dyno and the oil pressure drops at the end of the run, almost no matter what you do.  I've had nine quarts in one of those things and it still lost pressure.  When I built Jason's SOHC I took his Canton pan and made some extra kickouts on the back to increase the oil capacity.  That helped, but didn't totally eliminate the problem.  Adding an Accusump is almost mandatory with one of those pans.  Funny how just a standard, 8 quart deep sump pan works so much better...

[BigBlueIron]

I didn't see where you specifically mentioned the Canton so I assumed you where referencing the stock 4x4 pan which is what brought the question. I agree about the Canton design.

The Milodon version looks great but I have not run one, I figured if I need one though it will be my choice. No idea why they have it listed the way they do. 76 was the last FE as we all know and it was certainly never offered in a Bronco lol! Sure would have been cool if it was. I can remember looking at it few years ago and don't remember it listed that way. My guess is the marketing boys have the description mixed with another pan.