|
|
Original Message
|
RE: 428cj pan v.s 390 pan |
By Mike McQuesten - 12/11/2001 4:22:55 PM; IP 63.50.124.205 |
The windage tray is definitley a good idea. I don't know if the internal baffling in your '67 GT 390 pan is much different than the 428 CJ. It may be the same? One thing, Ford did not change the pan or its capacity to handle the additional quart of oil. I think Dave's opinion on the windage tray being added help keep oil from the crank has a lot of merit. And the windage tray does give a few horsepower by keeping that oil off the crank too. BTW, as I was reading the old '69 Muscle Parts book last night while attempting to answer the question regarding a solid cam installed in a hydraulic block, I noticed the windage tray picture and the part # below it. It was a C9Z number thus leading one to believe that the windage tray was introduced sometime in 1969 if not right at the beginning of production for that year.
One thing I'd recommend you consider is the new FE pan that is offered by Ford Motorsports right now. It's looks just like the 428 CJs that I've seen. There are two offered, one is chrome and one is plain for painting. This pan has the necessary dimples to clear the steering rods in uni body cars. |
|
This thread, so far...
|
|
Post A Response
|
|
|
|