Windage Tray in a 428 COBRA JET oil pan

[6s1640]

Hi all,

I'm putting together a 428 Cobra Jet and have a windage tray for an FE.  Looking at the tray in the pan compared to an oil pan without, I'm not sure it really offers any benefit. The 428 Cobra Jet oil pan does have some internal baffling.  Also the tray looks like it could actually trap more oil above the tray, with no slope to drain oil, defeating the purpose of the tray. I'm thinking of not installing it.  Any thoughts?

Cory

[TLea]

Hi Cory. Since you posted in 68 section I would say its not correct for 68, its 69 up thing

[6s1640]

Hi TLea,

Is the 69 428 Cobra Jet oil pan nearly identical to the 68 oil pan? I'm not worried about correctness.  My question relates to the functionality.  I'm considering this day 2 modification.  Thank you for your input.

Cory

[Coralsnake]

Its not likely to give you any significant performance enhancement unless you are actively racing.

[6s1640]

Hi Coralsnake,

That's kind of what I was thing.  The tray would be better used in my 1966 F100 4X4 with deep rear sump oil pan (see attached images). The issue there is the pan requires modification to clear the longer oil pickup and main cap attachment.   It for even some mild four bying, would keep the oil from sloshing around.

Thank you

Cory

[JohnSlack]

Hi all,

I'm putting together a 428 Cobra Jet and have a windage tray for an FE.  Looking at the tray in the pan compared to an oil pan without, I'm not sure it really offers any benefit. The 428 Cobra Jet oil pan does have some internal baffling.  Also the tray looks like it could actually trap more oil above the tray, with no slope to drain oil, defeating the purpose of the tray. I'm thinking of not installing it.  Any thoughts?

Cory

Cory,
If you look at the scooping effect along the right side of the picture of the windage tray you can see that the scoops are designed to capture the oil and scrape it away from the spinning connecting rods. That oil is drained down the area between the oil pan and the outside of the windage tray where gravity moves the oil towards the sump. Is it a great windage tray by today's standards? Probably not however for your usage it will be fine. It will control oil away from the spinning crankshaft and reduce the windage in your crankcase. Could that be modified to improve your results? Sure, however what is your goal?


John

[6s1640]

Hi John, Coralsnake and TLea,

Thank you for your input.  Most of my experience has been with the small block windage tray.  The two designs are very different, but must work on similar principles.  I now see how the rotating crank and rods will throw the oil to the passenger side and into the slotted holes.  That makes sense now.  My goal was mostly to just ad a period Day 2 performance part to the build.  I have no plans to race, so its probably overkill.

Thank you

Cory

[rockhouse66]

I think the idea of adding the windage tray comes from Ford's recommendation that these engines run an additional quart of oil.  Apparently, Ford thought that the extra oil level could interfere with the crankshaft, thus the windage tray.  I always ran the extra oil and a tray.


I share the concern about drainback, especially since the FE engines have a reputation for retaining a lot of oil in the upper part of the engine.  I drill drainback holes aligned over the main caps (where they are hidden from oil slinging from the rods) to hopefully improve drainback.  Might help and I don't think it hurts.  See picture.

[shelbydoug]

There was an article that was up on Mustangtek.com, that talked about Ford deciding that the 428 in performance usage, such as the 67 GT500, had oil capacity issues associated with an abnormal (at that time) increase in main bearing failures.

I just looked and can't find that article and it would appear that it has been taken down.

What it talks about is adding oil to the pan without changing the outward dimensions or appearance of the oil pan.

Essentially what it says is Ford added two quarts of oil to the system by changing the markings on the dip stick.

That would seem simple enough but what happens but doing that, it created a issue, although apparently somewhat of a minor one, of the crankshaft spinning in oil.

So that resulted in the need to baffle the oil internally in the oil pan.

So even though this is not stated directly the reason for the internal baffeling, deductive reasoning will arrive at that conclusion.

So to answer your question about what the performance difference is of the pan, there is no performance gain, just greater longevity of the 428 engines under the increased higher rpm usages of it in the form of the 428cj and 428scj.

I personally find this interesting since the FE had been in use since the 1958 production year and there was never a mention of oil starvation due to lack of capacity that I know of BUT I doubt that 427's being run in NASCAR were running stock production oil pans and certainly, the "side oiler block" was designed for a reason  and the 427 in the GT40's was not running a stock production oil pan.

[Rickmustang]

The best (Brent, Ross, Barry) don't use them in their builds.

[shelbydoug]

The best (Brent, Ross, Barry) don't use them in their builds.

Personally I think that the reason for that is they consider the Ford solution somewhat of a semi-solution, done to reduce the cost to Ford to fix the problem.

I tend to agree that if you are going to run the car hard or race, that you need to find another solution then Ford's.

That was done to fix a warranty issue with street cars. Not race cars.


I remember the first time that I started to do "track" sessions with my GT350. The recommendations were to add one additional quart of oil even if, or especially if, you were running with the aluminum COBRA t-pan.

We don't see Ford dealing with the small block issue until the '69 Boss 302 with the factory installed windage tray. So there is an acknowledgement at some point from Ford that it had to be looked at.

[Vcode]

The CJ site has some info.
https://www.428cobrajet.org/id-oilpan

[JohnSlack]

Hi John, Coralsnake and TLea,

Thank you for your input.  Most of my experience has been with the small block windage tray.  The two designs are very different, but must work on similar principles.  I now see how the rotating crank and rods will throw the oil to the passenger side and into the slotted holes.  That makes sense now.  My goal was mostly to just ad a period Day 2 performance part to the build.  I have no plans to race, so its probably overkill.

Thank you

Cory

"Most of my experience has been with the small block windage tray."

Cory,

If I can remember I'll get to my storage unit and bring one of my Bud Moore small block windage trays to a WASAAC meeting for you to see.


John

[JohnSlack]

Smokey wrote a great article on windage in "Circle Track" magazine years ago (1980's something) I couldn't find it last night. Anyway windage is not just a horsepower loss, it is a temperature changer, an efficiency robber and oil aerating monster as well that street cars can benefit from. The specialized windage trays that we had developed for the Packard/Rolls Royce Merlin were a highly guarded secret.

Here is some information from Canton;

https://blog.cantonracingproducts.com/blog/windage-how-it-affects-your-motor

[FL SAAC]

I think the idea of adding the windage tray comes from Ford's recommendation that these engines run an additional quart of oil.  Apparently, Ford thought that the extra oil level could interfere with the crankshaft, thus the windage tray.  I always ran the extra oil and a tray.


I share the concern about drainback, especially since the FE engines have a reputation for retaining a lot of oil in the upper part of the engine.  I drill drainback holes aligned over the main caps (where they are hidden from oil slinging from the rods) to hopefully improve drainback.  Might help and I don't think it hurts.  See picture.

+ 1