Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Flow numbers for stock FE heads -- Ian Dobson, 10/23/2002
anyone know where I can find some flow numbers for different stock FE Heads, my Dyno 2000 needs them :)
|
 | which are the better heads -- curt, 10/22/2002
I am restoring a 66 fairlane and it has a transplanted cj block and crank and was wondering which heads of the 2 sets that i have would work better. I have a set of d2teaa heads and a set of c6ae-u heads. Which heads would when restored give me comparable performance to a c6ae-4 or cj head. and what would i have to do to them. does the d2 head have medium or low exhaust to header ports, ect. thanks |
|  | RE: which are the better heads -- Mike McQuesten, 10/24/2002
I'm not positive on the exact procedure for searching a specific item here but I will tell you that back on, 4/26/02, Shoe provided a very detailed explanation(as he has done many times) of the unique features of FE heads. He very specifially mentions that the C6AE-U casting is in the same low-exit exhaust port design with the D2TE.
You mention a C6AE-4? You must mean a C6AE-R. That's the better head in my opinion. They're easy to build into "CJ" style heads and as has been mentioned will slightly out flow CJ heads when built.
Interesting note here on C6AE-U heads. John Saxon just found a set in a bone yard with GT exhaust manifolds still attached. Casting dates on the heads were late '66, like March on one and July on the other. Also one of the manifolds had a C7OE casting #; the other a C6OE casting. We speculate that these were originally installed on a early '67 GT 390 engine.
Anyway Curt, I think you should swap/sell the D2/C6-U heads and find a reasonably easy to find set of C6-R heads for your '66 Fairlane. Your Fairlane would look stock under the hood with a sneaker CJ under those heads. Great way to humble a snooty '66 SS 396 guy. |
|  | Neither are comparable to C6AE-R or CJ. -- Dave Shoe, 10/24/2002
The C6AE-U and D2TE-AA heads are basically identical except the combustion chamber is shaped differently and the D2 heads got an induction-hardening process done to the valve seat area to form carbides in the iron in an effort to harden them cheaply.
Either head will work equivalently. If you think a bit of extra compression might help, go the D2 route. If you want the engine to appear stock to FE-experienced folk, or want to keep compression a hair lower because you're not sure ho the engine will handle pump gas, then go with the earlier head.
I'd probably lok at valve sink as the driving parameter. If one head has more deeply sunk valves, due to miles and many valve jobs, I'd stay away from them unless installing oversized valves to bring the valves back above the surface.
Shoe. |
| 427 flywheel part #?!? -- Josh, 10/22/2002
Anybody know the ford part number for a 1965 and later 427 flywheel (184 teeth, zero balance, 11.5 clutch)? I have been told by one NOS dealer that a 1967-1976 Ford truck 390 flywheel is a direct replacement?!? Another NOS dealer told me that the part number for the 390 trucks is C5AZ-6375-L but that they only have 176 teeth not 184!?! Please help!
Thanks,
Josh |
| | C5AZ-6375-E for 427 from ford dealer -- Josh, 10/22/2002
Still do not know about the 1967-1976 390 truck flywheels?!? |
| I.D. my 390 -- Rommy Castillo, 10/22/2002
I recently aquired a 390 from a 68 Galaxy 500(2-bl,auto,i.e plain390). My question considers all the talk I've heard about F.T. 390's. My block has verticle ribbing along the sides and a fitting & hose which extended from the block but was cut for removal. I recall hearing if block has these features it was a F.T.. Is this true and can anyone help? |
|  | RE: I.D. my 390 -- Pete, 10/22/2002
FT blocks had a threaded hole used for oil drainback for a compressor. The compressor was oil lubed and this was the way to get the oil back to the oil pan It is on the right side of the block, low. |
| | | RE: I.D. my 390 -- Rommy Castillo, 10/26/2002
My block has the hole on the right hand side also. To give a better idea of where it is; its right by the motor mount. But whats the purpose in a passenger car? Did they use that feature and should I continue to use it? |
| | | | RE: I.D. my 390 -- Pete, 10/26/2002
I do not believe that was used in a passenger car It was for a compressor, something not found in a passenger car. If the block is original, I would guess they just used a truck block for some reason. Maybe low on stock etc? |
| | | | | RE: I.D. my 390 -- Todd, 10/26/2002
The FT's also had larger oil pump drives and the end of the distributor shaft was also larger. When used as a passenger car block, Ford installed a bushing in the block to adapt it back down to the standard FE size ditributor shaft. |
| | | | | | RE: Distributor bushing -- Courtney Bolze, 10/27/2002
Tell me more about the bushing for the distributor shaft. I have a 391 FT block , has the verticle ribs on both sides, webed mains, oil drain back hole and thick cylinder walls as viewed through the freeze plug holes. It also has a brass tag riveted to the R/F side above the pan rail with just a number. I think it ia a 69' casting. I think it has an X and C scratched in the mold behind #8, right on top of one another. It did have the bigger oil pump drive shaft, but when I build it into a 428 CJ I want to run a regular distributor. Thanks. |
| | | | | | | The brass tag was put there by a rebuilder. -- Dave Shoe, 10/27/2002
The distributor bushing is still manufactured and is available new at your Ford Truck dealer for about $22.00 on about a one day delivery cycle. Part number C4TZ-12367-A. While not exactly a $22.00 item if made in quantity, it is a well made part.
It was being manufactured before the recent batch of automotive parts manufacturer bankruptcies. Who knows whether the plant that made them is still open today.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | RE: Ream the bushing to finshed size? -- Courtney Bolze, 10/27/2002
The block is .060 4.05, so the tag makes sense, it's not the typical rods, main, bore, etc, tag just a number. Thanks for the info on the bushing, I will order one on monday and reply when I get it. Next Q? Do I just drive it in, or do I need to finish reaming it after installation and drill the oil hole? thanks, CNB. |
| | | | | | | | | I've got one sitting here in the original package. -- Dave Shoe, 10/27/2002
I've never installed one, but I suspect you just orient the notch and hole, tap it in, and go. It's a steel-backed and chamfered bushing, so driving it in should be a cinch with the right tools.
Perhaps an old distributor shaft would be a good tool.
Trial fit a distributor to be sure it does not bind in the block when the intake manifold is installed.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: I've got one sitting here in the original package. -- Todd Bolzer, 10/28/2002
I have always used a bushing driver. If you do use an old shaft and distributor gear, make sure the driving edge is square so it does no damage the end of the bushing.
Todd |
| 390 Oil Pressure Improvement -- Allan, 10/22/2002
I've got a 65 Tbird with a 390 that has the classic low oil pressure at idle problem. I replaced the oil pump with a standard flow pump about two years ago when I changed a rear main seal so I don't suspect that this is just a pump problem. Other than that the engine runs fine. I've been told that oil pressure could be improved by dropping the pan and changing the bottom half of the main bearings. Is this a useful thing to do to help this problem? Is there an easy way to identify the size of the mains with the crank installed? Would changing the rod bearings also help? |
| | Don't do that! -- Royce Peterson, 10/22/2002
Installing half new bearing shells will wipe out any remaining babbit on the old worn upper half. Then they will ruin the crank. Who ever told you that is a source of bad advice.
You should think about saving your money toward a total engine rebuild. Low oil pressure is likely caused by bad cam bearings and / or main bearings. Just replacing the main bearings (all parts) might bring the pressure up a little but you would be only briefly postponing a rebuild.
Royce Peterson |
| | | RE: Don't do that! -- Allan, 10/22/2002
Well I wasn't rushing out to do it. I had just never heard of it before and thought I'd check if it was a credible solution. I'm already rebuilding another 65 390 for the car and intend to put it in when its done. However, this sounded like a cheap and easy way to prolong the existing engine a while longer since I also want to rebuild an extra transmission I have for it and that will take a while to get to. I don't figure on having the new engine/tranny ready until next spring. |
| | | | Oil pressure improvement -- Travis Miller, 10/22/2002
A racing engine has extra clearance and uses a high volume oil pump to make up the clearances on the bearings. A high volume oil pump will aid in filling up the clearances from wear on an older engine. While it is not like a rebuild, the high volume oil pump will buy you some time while the other engine is being prepared.
Note: I am talking about a high volume oil pump. NOT a high pressure oil pump. There is a difference. |
| | | | | RE: Oil pressure improvement -- allan, 10/22/2002
High volume vs high pressure........That's an interesting distinction, and I understand that a high volume pump will provide more oil flow. However, in an engine with worn bearing surfaces, wouldn't a high pressure pump also provide more flow until it hit its max pressure? |
| | | | | RE: Oil pressure improvement -- Ted, 10/22/2002
It does not matter what the oil presure is a idle, in fact the oil pressure is not importain as long as there is some pressure at all times.
It is possable to have 10 lbs of oil pressue at 7000 rpm and not do any damage as there is always oil pressure when the engine is running.
Another thing is that Fords' take a oil pressure reading from the front of the engine not at the pump. |
| | | | | | RE: Oil pressure improvement -- John, 10/22/2002
Well Ted...I think a lot of people would disagree with you because of the way you stated your letter, but essentially you are right. As long as oil is there, nothing will be damaged. Remember though, as the rpm increases, centrifigal forces will bleed oil off the rod bearings, so some additional pressure is needed at the mains to foce more oil to the rods. Now Allen, a high volume pump merely has taller gears (rotors) to put more volume out of the pump. The High Pressure pump merely has a stronger relief spring that allows the oil pressure to build to a higher maximum level before it opens and levels the pressure off. Interestingly, all the high pressure pumps I've seen were also high volume, but this doesn't have to be the case. Also pressure from a pump is only generated from the restriction of oil by the engine, primarily due to beaigns clearances. So, a high volume pump will increase oil pressure throughout the rpm range until the max pressure is achieved which is set by the strentgh of the oil pressure relief spring. Also, the origianl question about half-shelling the bearings is a distorted fact about using slightly different size bearings to achieve a preselcted clearance. I agree with Royce that if you try mixing and matching old and new bearings, a failure will almost certainly occur. Try the high volume pump, a low restriction oil filter and things should be fine until the engine starts to make noise ....then you need a rebuild. |
| | RE: 390 Oil Pressure Improvement -- Rollie H., 10/23/2002
Have you verified that the oil pressure is really low and not an incorrect reading in some way? |
| | | RE: 390 Oil Pressure Improvement -- Allan, 10/23/2002
.....verified oil pressure is really low.....
The guage in the car only has an L and and H for a range reading so it doesn't actually give a pressure reading. At idle it goes below the L.
I screwed another pressure guage into the sending unit hole above the filter and it reads below 10 psi at idle. The pressure comes up to about 35psi max at about 3000rpm which is acceptable but lower than what I would expect. I threw a can of STP in it and the oil pressure immediatly came up to about 60 psi. This tells me that viscosity is helping to close up the tolerances and improve pressure readings. Which leads me to believe that things inside are pretty worn. The STP pressure improvement only worked for about a couple of days, which I don't understand but just tells me that STP is not the answer. I'm going to change it over to 20W 50 oil next and see if that helps. (Now running 10W 30). As I mentioned earlier, my goal is to change to the new engine in the spring so I just want to hold this engine together for a while longer. |
| | | | RE: 390 Oil Pressure Improvement -- John, 10/23/2002
I've gone through this too. STP always works....only for a couple of days. 20W50 should only give you 3 to 5 psi improvement throughout the range. Mind you, getting a difference of 35 psi to 60 psi @ 3000 rpm just by adding STP seems quite incredible, so maybe you'll do OK. |
| | | | | RE: 390 Oil Pressure Improvement -- allan, 10/23/2002
The big increase was right after I added it. It gradually decreased over the next couple of days until I was right back where I started. |
| | | | | | RE: 390 Oil Pressure Improvement -- Davy Gurley, 10/23/2002
Why don't you try some straight 40 weight oil? All multi-vis oil will eventually go to the lowest number as the molecular structure is destroyed by the mechanical contact. Straight viscosity oil doesn't have the molecular strings that multi-vis uses. |
| | | | | | | the problem with single viscosity oil -- John, 10/24/2002
The problem with single high viscosity oil is when you use a high volume oil pump and cold wether. The FE doesn't drain oil back very well from the heads and with cold thick oil, it is possible to have the oil pick-up suck air. This is particularly true if you try to drive the car before it warms up as the lower oil level situation is worsened by the sloshing around. |
| | | | | | | | RE: the problem with single viscosity oil -- Allan, 10/24/2002
I have been under the impression that single viscosity oils don't have as much detergent in them so they tend to leave more deposits in the engine. This old engine was pretty sludged up when I got it. Since I've had it I've cleaned out the pan, valve covers, and timing chain cover, but I'm pretty sure the oil passages in the block are restricted with the same type of sludge I scraped out already. |
| | | | | | | | RE: the problem with single viscosity oil -- Davy Gurley, 10/24/2002
The original question was how to improve the oil pressure. Heavy weight oils will do that. I agree that the oil may not drain back into the pan as rapidly as 10w 30 but if the engine is allowed to warm up before being driven, he should have no problems. I know we probably don't do it as we should, but we all will get better service life out of our engines if we let them warm up before throwing it into gear and drive off. This is why the manufacturers have gone to the thin multi-vis oils. The thin oils move through the engine faster to lubricate and they also enhance fuel economy. There was a good article about this in an issue of 'Mustang Times'. I think it was the april-may issue. |
| | | | | | | | | Engine Wear and Oil Temperature -- John, 10/24/2002
Allan....the sludge is formed from engine wear (metal), and carbon. It is because the oil was hardly ever changed. All motor oil sold today appears to meet well above the min SAE standard. The only oil I know to have less detergent is 2 cycle outboard motor oil (that 50:1 purple stuff)...not useful for your car engine! (but great in chainsaws, whipper-snippers, lawn-mowers, etc.)
Davy, I agree the engine should run for a little while before driving off....just to let the oil fully circulate (about 30 seconds). But most engine wear occurs in a cold engine, during and immediately after, start-up. The best thing to warm up an engine quickly is to impose a load on it...and that means getting the car under way. Obviously, until the oil warms up, one shouldn't "push" things. No "tramping" it until between 5 and 10 miles are driven to allow the oil to come up to temperature. |
| | | | | | | | | | If it were mine, I would replace the lower shells, -- kevin, 10/24/2002
as that will bring up some of the pressure loss. The old timers used to do it all the time, and I have too, although it is not the best way obviously. If you use .001 or .002 under, you could have trouble, but it has been done. If you use std, you will be OK. The upper shells rarely wear much. You can take a ball mic and confirm this for yourself. The lowers, however take a real "beating". The fact that the oil was never changed as much as it should have been, or operated at the proper temperature is evidenced by the buildup in the crankcase, and elsewhere. You have to have an engine running for about 30 minutes to get all the surface areas, and the full amount of oil up to 220 degrees. This is the only way to boil out the condensation that builds up. Remember, for every gallon of gas you burn, a gallon of water is created in the combustion chamber. The main caps (rods too) suck in when they get pounded from lack of lube, or detonation (which causes a lack of lube). This makes the parting line like a scraper, not allowing the oil to get to the lower shell, making it worse. Smokey Yunick showed this to the folks that supplied most of the bearings to Detroit automakers, DAB (Detroit Alumunum and Brass) company and got them to redesign the making of inserts almost fifty years ago. While replacing just the lowers requres you to drop the crank, destoying the seal it has on the rear (might as well do em all at that point), I would change out the #1, 2, and 4, and reconsisder the rear, and the thrust, if you plan on reusing the crank. While you can do it, it seems pointless if you dont get the thrust to match up perfectly. This can cause an abnormal groove in the thrust surface, which could lead to needing it welded up. If the caps are loose in their registers, good luck, as the game is over. I would take a file, and put even more of a bevel on the parting line (just a hair). Ford called for 20 w 20 oil in the 427 when it came out. By using thick oil, you make it harder for the oil control ring to scrape off the excess, and the engine burns more oil, and loads up the combustion chamber with deposits. It's a viscious circle. A good filter is the Wix. Fram is in trouble when it comes to comparisons, and you might get a few pounds more. A quart of Mobil 1 will help keep the oil wedge from totally disappearing. |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: If it were mine, I would replace the lower shells, -- allan, 10/24/2002
Well that's one vote for and one against replacing the lower half of the main bearings. As a point of reference, it was an old retired mechanic that first mentioned to me that the lower half replacement might help the pressure. He's 72 years and probably did this a few times in his career too. But its a new one on me. |
| 427 bore -- ErikB, 10/21/2002
What can an cast iron 427 be safely bored out too. The one I have measures at 4.26 and will probably need to be honed still. |
| | Get a sonic test of cylinder wall thickness -- Royce Peterson, 10/22/2002
An ultrasound thickness test is the only way to know for sure. Stock bore size is 4.233 so yours is 30 over already. Most 427 blocks are at the limit at .030" over. Others will go .050 but that is unusual.
Royce Peterson |
| | | Oversized rings and pistons -- Travis Miller, 10/22/2002
Before you go spending money on sonic testing, check to see if you can get rings and pistons for larger than .030 over on a 427. It will do no good to bore the block .040, .045, or .050 over if you cannot get rings and pistons to fit. |
| | | | That's not a problem. -- Royce Peterson, 10/22/2002
Oversized big block Chevy size blanks are the answer using an FE ford Forging. So Chevy 427 standard rings at 4.250", .030" over at 4.280", .060" over at 4.310" are the typical choices used by most modern builders of 427 Fords. These yield overbores of .017", .047", and .077" respectively. Obviously the .077" oversize is a long shot but once in a blue moon someone gets away with it in a filled race only block. Ford 427 Pistons are typically available in .017, .030 and .047 for this reason and you need only find out the cylinder wall thickness available before boring, keeping these choices in mind. Boring can't acyually happen until the pistons are delivered and each bore can be carefully matched to a piston as sizes can vary from ordered spec.
People have actually used 427 Chev pistons but the valve reliefs are wrong and pin diameter is wrong so no money can be saved unless you are a machinist and the pistons are free. It's best to buy the pistons from Ross, JE, Venolia, Aries, Wiseco or one of the other custom piston companies. There are a lot of good ones with great CNC machines so prices are semi - reasonable.
Royce Peterson
|
| | | | | RE: That's not a problem. -- Tim P., 01/08/2004
Hey R P Do You Know Anything about this drill bit test stuff? Tim P. |
| | | Sonic readings -- Steve M., 01/08/2004
What is the min acceptable wall thickness for a 427 overbore?
thx, Steve
|
| Original 428 CJ Alternator Belt -- Pat, 10/20/2002
Hi, could someone please tell me the part number and discription of an original assembly line alternator belt on a 69 Mustang equiped with 428 CJ. Thanks for your time...Pat |
| | With or without smog or A.C. -- Peter, 10/20/2002
n/m |
| | | | RE: I can tell you......... -- Pat, 10/21/2002
HI, this would be off a no smog no air car with clutch fan. The belt I have is AUTOLITE C9OE-8620-D1 made in USA D 468. All letters are raised. Would this be original belt. Please let me know of any info...thanks...Pat |
| | | | | You've got a power steering belt for a 428cj n/m. -- pop428, 10/21/2002
n/m
|
| | | | | | RE: You've got a power steering belt for a 428cj n/m. -- Pat, 10/21/2002
Hi, thanks, for the info, would these item's be hard to find today? Pat |
| | | | | | | Yes! but not impossible...n/m -- Peter, 10/21/2002
n/m |
| Stock Replacement Cam -- Sean, 10/20/2002
I am looking for a stock replacement cam for my '67 High Country Special mustang. It has the original "S" code 390GT (335hp). I need cam and lifters. Thanks, Sean. |
| | RE: Stock Replacement Cam -- Mike McQuesten, 10/21/2002
You need to check out Crane or Comp. They both are reproducing the GT/CJ/PI cam that carried a part # of C6OZ-6250-B. That's the stock cam for your -S- code '67 390GT Mustang.
BTW, I don't believe FoMoCo was still marketing/advertising the 390GT with 335 horses as it did for the '66 Fairlane 390GT. Not that there was much difference, maybe C7AE heads in place of the C6AE-R & U but for '67 it seems that the advertised horsepower rating dropped to 320. Don't ask me why. Even then in '67 I was asking...what?! |
| | | RE: Stock Replacement Cam -- DaReaper, 10/22/2002
Mike...I've already called Comp and they dont even have the right one, but they told me to pull mine out and send it to them and they can custom grind one. I will call them back with the part #'s you gave me, maybe that will help. About the HP issue, there is still alot of controversy on that issue. A neibur of mine used to be a service tech in the late sixties, early seventies and still has all of the service manuals. The one from '67 lists the HP as 335, with 427 lb-ft torque. Thanks, Sean. |
| | | | RE: Maybe Crane? -- Mike McQuesten, 10/22/2002
I've got a Crane catalog I printed off line around here somewhere. It's late but I'll dig it up in the next day or so. I thought Comp ground a stock replacement shaft for the CJ/GT too. I know that Crane offered a "cheater" C6OZ cam for many years. It was NOT a cam you would want to run in a street FE. But you've got my curiosity going now. I'll check on that and the '67 hp ratings game that was played. |
| | | | | RE: Maybe Crane? -- Mike McQuesten, 10/23/2002
I'm looking right at a '67 Ford publication for the '67 Mustang. It's a dealer brochure. The 390 Thunderbird Special has a rating of 320. I saw this rating in a lot of publications back then. Again though, that doesn't mean it was true or that 335 was true.
I checked my partial Crane catalog and couldn't find the Factory Blueprint cam I still think they offer. Give them a try and good luck. |
| | | | | | RE: Maybe Crane? Yes, Crane does. -- Gerry Proctor, 10/23/2002
I have one sitting in my collection of "cams that didn't get the job done" pile (too wimpy for my needs). It's in their catalog under the muscle car grinds (last I checked anyway). It is an exact duplicate of the street grind. Look it up in their online catalog. |
| | | | | | | cam profile -- Sean, 10/23/2002
Heres the profile.
Duration (advertised):
int. 270
exh. 290
Lift (lobe):
int. .278
exh. .283
Lift (valve):
int. .481
exh. .490
overlap:
.36 deg.
Thanks for all the help guys. Sean. |
| | | | | | | | RE: cam profile -- Mike McQuesten, 10/23/2002
That's it Sean. And Gerry's response about the stock GT/CJ/PI cam being too wimpy is pretty well universally accepted as a common opinion. The C6OZ-B is a performance compromise cam. It idles very nicely. Too nice for some of us. It has a decent power range from idle to 5,400 or so. It was a huge improvement over the standard hydraulic FE cam of 1966. I like them so much that I run one in a 390 in my '68 F100 pickup. That's right, a great all around RV cam. But if I was building a modern FE, I don't think I'd select a C6OZ-B.
A suggestion, if you do run one, consider running adjustable rockers thus providing a little more lift with the 1.76 rocker ratio over the non adjust. 1.73. And with those adjustables you can run anti pump-up hydraulics which might provide a little more power in the mid 5,000 RPM range.
I've said it before and I'll say it again right here.....choosing a cam is a very personal process. You've got to really think out what you want and then coordinate the whole engine package. |
| 1973 406 mercury engine -- andy, 10/20/2002
i found this motor in a 1975 f100. high mercury valve covers,two bolt holes,and a blind on side of block.d3te block(390).4.13 bored 40. someone hed rebuilt it. thing is they put a few rods in backwards! no 3 and 7. ate up journal sides. perfectly good (2ua) 427 crank gone, not to mention some rods. i need parts or find the guy who was in such a rush. any help. |
| | RE: canton racing pans -- John, 10/20/2002
It's probably fine, but is similiar in design to the Branda cast Aluminum Cobra pan I used to use. I was worried about too much oil staying in the heads during cold start-up, so I switched to an Aviaid pan (holds 9 qts plus the filter amount)...same type as used on the original AC Cobra 427. This type of car is light(fast acceleration) and a good oil pan is important to prevent sloshing and air being picked up. In a heavier car the pan you are looking at should be fine as long as you don't go much over the 400HP mark...i.e. no 600HP Nitrous, etc. Have a look at the AVIAID site at:
http://www.aviaid.com/
I'll warn you...they are expensive, but you get a windage tray and lower baffle and oil pick-up with the one I bought. The only problem with them is that the oil drain is on the left lower front of the pan, so a bit of oil remains in the pan unless you jack up the right rear of the car a bit higher then the rest when changing the oil. Oh...and the Aviaid pan has a tube for the dipstick and a larger tube for crankcase vacumn on the left lower "wing", so you'll need an extension tube and will have to block off the original dipstick hole in the block as well as decide wether to use the crankcase vacumn tube or just block it off. The Aviaid pan goes the full length of the engine and is shallow for improved ground clearance. |
| | RE: canton racing pans -- Ted Spendlove, 10/21/2002
Charlie,
We are using a Canton on our open-road racing Galaxie (see www.openroadracing.com).
We were having problems with flucuating oil pressure on long or hi-G curves, even after using all the "shade-tree" tricks that I knew. You know - restricting oil to the heads, overfilling the pan, etc.
The Canton solved the problem. I'd recomend that you get the 820 - road race version, it has better baffeling around the pickup.
Ted Spendlove
63 1/2 Galaxie 427 |
| | RE: canton racing pans -- Mike Drew, 06/28/2003
I have the Road Race version of this pan on my Cobra replica. Works great, even on the track, with racing tires. Zero oil pressure problems.
If you're going to be pulling significant cornering or braking g's, step up to the Road Race version....
Mike |
|