GT500 oil capacity

[TA Coupe]

6 quarts it is.... But for damn sure I won't ask which oil to use 🤣

Please do - I got a fresh batch.....

My cat and I are waiting with bated breath also.

     Roy

[shelbydoug]

What I find ironic about the entire scenario is that the FE engine series was introduced for 1958 production as the 352. It had been seriously raced in many forms since then and all of a sudden for the 1968 model year Ford reacts to an inordinate amount of warranty claims by telling everyone to run more oil?

Like this never happened before 1968? They are all essentially the same block and all use the same production oil pans.

'splain it to me Lucy?"

[98SVT - was 06GT]

What I find ironic about the entire scenario is that the FE engine series was introduced for 1958 production as the 352. It had been seriously raced in many forms since then and all of a sudden for the 1968 model year Ford reacts to an inordinate amount of warranty claims by telling everyone to run more oil?

Those race engines had a lot of extra work and big oil pans. All the build recommendations at the time had how to improve the oil system. And let's face it it was a low reving barge engine when it was introed as the 332 in 1958. Guys making sustained high speed freeway runs pointed out a problem. They could have revised the castings making the drains bigger - restricted upper oiling requiring the use of solid lifters or just added a quart of oil. Guess which one didn't effect Ford's profit margin. Don't forget they made the FE side oiler to alleviate the problem on the 427.

[FL SAAC]

 or just added a quart of oil.
Guess which one didn't effect Ford's profit margin. Don't forget they made the FE side oiler to alleviate the problem on the 427.

That's a BIG 10-4 little buddy

And that once again leads us to this magnificent Ford TSB

[crossboss]

6 quarts with the filter. Every stock CJ I owned was raced on a drag strip or at Willow. Never an issue. Oil used back then was Valvoline 20-50.

[pbf777]

And let's face it it was a low reving barge engine when it was introed as the 332 in 1958.

      In this era of where the frame of thought was "more is better", this undoubtedly seems to have been the intention for most of the American car engineering; large capacity, slow turning engines (remember 332/352 'was' a big engine, then!) to pull the behemoth sleds gaining popularity.     

Don't forget they made the FE side oiler to alleviate the problem on the 427.

      The "side-oiler" execution did nothing to alleviate the oil sump capacity problem!  It was more about rectifying a cost-cutting process from previous engineering which was otherwise fine as long as the intention was to be that as of stated above.   

      Just to provide some relativity to the subject of oil system capacities, while we are debating the issue of six plus or minus quarts being correct for the FE's, if we just review the requirements for another popular in era, good sized chassis and engine capacity, for their market anyhow, and O.K., with performance overtones, how about the fact that if you happened to own a Jaguar MKVII four-door sedan, at oil change a case of 12 qts. won't be enough, it takes 14+!    

      And, I tend to think that in that period of time at least, Jaguar was in the preeminent engine engineering and execution class of manufactures, particularly of that which was delivered to the masses affordably.  But was also, particularly being British, somewhat conservative at the same time with concerns for excessive costing, so I think that if they believed their 3.4L in-line six could have done with less, that's what they would have implemented.    

      Scott.

[98SVT - was 06GT]

Don't forget they made the FE side oiler to alleviate the problem on the 427.

      The "side-oiler" execution did nothing to alleviate the oil sump capacity problem!  It was more about rectifying a cost-cutting process from previous engineering which was otherwise fine as long as the intention was to be that as of stated above.

The center oiler was not a cost cutting process. That engine prioritized cam and upper end oiling that was common with hydraulic lifters when they came into vogue during the 1950s. The SO prioritized the bearings first. The R code Galaxie with 427 SO refill was 5 quarts with filter.

[pbf777]

The "side-oiler" execution did nothing to alleviate the oil sump capacity problem!  It was more about rectifying a cost-cutting process from previous engineering . . . . .

The center oiler was not a cost cutting process. That engine prioritized cam and upper end oiling that was common with hydraulic lifters when they came into vogue during the 1950s.

     With the understanding that particularly with mechanical engineering, in commercial manufacturing scenarios, that the next "new" product is often built off the prior effort, this presenting a more reliable progression of supposed improvement versus just starting with a clean slate and see what happens process.  And then understanding that Ford's "Y-Block" was successful, but that it just didn't present the capacities that would be needed in the future, this created the scenario of Ford Motor Company having to revisit the prior engineering which hadn't "timed-out", just needed expansion, and while they were at it, some cost cutting efforts implemented, one being a simplified oiling system.

     The family resemblance between the Y-Block and the FE seems undeniable, and the FE didn't replace the Y-Block, as they both remained in production side-by-side into the next decade, but yes, the FE got hydraulic lifters; but note that the earlier production 332's and 352's weren't hydraulic lifter equipped engines.  And this appears was not unintentional as in evidence by retention of the in-block and cylinder head oil passage delivery, as of the Y-Block.  This emanating from the camshaft bearings (only now from behind the bearing vs. the face surface)  going to the rocker shafts (though now pressurized), an execution which would be required if without pressurized oil being supplied via hydraulic lifters and pushrod passage to the top end.  And as was proven in the FE obviously and if one examines the Y-Block, it could have been readily modified for hydraulic lifters also. 

      Then years later, "racing" and "high-performance" and the requirements to be competitive began to bring out the limitations in the simpler and hence cheaper to produce "Center/Top-Oiler" system as instituted into the FE, so the engineers again revisited previous in-house executions, namely that which had provided the impetus for the FE, and found the previously utilized oiling system of the Y-Block which was more complicated and costly for production, but apparently superior in some regards, and sazam! we now have the "new" Side-Oiler 427 product!   

      What's old is new again!   

      Scott.
       

[98SVT - was 06GT]

The Y block when introduced was a solid lifter engine. It's well known that their top end lubrication when Ford switched to hydraulic lifters was lacking. Ford eliminated the problem in the FE by changing the oiling priority to the top end. They found when racing they needed to focus on the crankshaft and since those race engines were running solid lifters the top end oil supply was greatly reduced. That meant more oil was staying in the pan and they could live on 5 quarts. The production cost of Side or center oil casting is insignificant. Ford may have been able to fix the CO problem by increasing the internal oil passages and a higher volume pump to assure enough oil to all areas - but that gets back to the root of the problem - all the oil being pumped out of the pan to the top of the engine and it not returning to the pickup fast enough. An extra quart solved the problem with zero engineering, manufacturing changes, recall to modify existing cars, etc. Ford solved the problem with a remarked dipstick and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars on warranty claims.

[pbf777]

It's well known that their top end lubrication when Ford switched to hydraulic lifters was lacking. Ford eliminated the problem in the FE by changing the oiling priority to the top end.

    What is well known of the problem with the lubrication system of the Y-Block is that the oil supply for the top-end was garnered from a recessed groove in the load face of the center cam bearing insert, which was fine until the delivery volume became limited due to the poor quality lubricating oil of the period managed to cake up this channel and also the cam bearings wore to the point of erasing the groove! Ford addressing this shortfall in the FE by utilizing a machined groove in the block casting behind the bearing shell which was part of the revised bottom-end oil delivery path and drawing from two camshaft bearing locations (#2 & #4).  But with the advent of the S.O. block the earlier oil transfer point was reinstated, only the groove was now in the camshaft journal face, rather than the bearing insert as in the Y-Block, and this requiring a unique S.O. camshaft blank.
 
    Then there's the poor choice of not having had the Y-Block's rocker shafts pressurized; rather the oil being pumped up from below just drooled out on to the rocker arm to shaft junctures with some being tossed about, but with the excess just flowing out the ends of the shafts spilling back to the sump. Again this system was very susceptible to clogging with oil breakdown and contaminants this resulting in excessive wear due to oil starvation on the wear surfaces.  Again in the FE Ford addressed this rather simply by pressing cup-plugs in the ends of the shaft, now the only escape for the oil was through the orifices provided for directing lubrication points; which supposedly were to bleed less than the supply capability and hence a pressurized shaft system and oil actually being squirted about along with being tossed.   

    As far as for "priority", that for the "top-end", it's really not that different, really! The major difference in the "Side-Oiler" vs. the "Center-Oiler" is that they just reduced that long torturous trek that the oil had to follow from the pump, particularly that of having to be pumped to the top (lifter valley) and then having to circumnavigate around the camshaft tunnel, this in order to get to the "bottom-end".   

    And this S.O. plumbing works just fine for hydraulic lifters too!   

    Scott. 

   

[pbf777]

They found when racing they needed to focus on the crankshaft and since those race engines were running solid lifters the top end oil supply was greatly reduced. That meant more oil was staying in the pan and they could live on 5 quarts.

      Remember, in their original configuration FE's do not pass oil through the lifters and pushrods to oil the "top-end" and since both the Y-Block and the FE have a (similar) dedicated oil delivery system to the cylinder heads separate from a possible lifter gallery system, the "top-end" oiling pretty much remains a constant, but of course can be intentionally tailored, this whether there are hydraulic or solid lifters present.  Now the presents of hydraulics would of course increase oil system bleed-out rates, but handily a great some of this emanates from the bottom of the lifter bores' I.D. circumference to lifter O.D. clearance, back into the oil pan; perhaps not so "directly" as there is "stuff" in motion but still not so difficult at reasonable engine speeds. 

An extra quart solved the problem with zero engineering, manufacturing changes, recall to modify existing cars, etc. Ford solved the problem with a remarked dipstick and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars on warranty claims.

      I agree completely, except that one probably needs to define "solved the problem" and from what perspective.  No doubt, adding a quart to the pan resolved the problem for "many" or even "most", but with the few(er) still experiencing failures due to the "problem" their numbers just didn't warrant a greater costing re-engineering effort to offset those warranty claims.  Better solution as experienced in a few instances was that Ford just offered 'abbreviated' warranty periods for some of the performance market intended vehicles. Problem solved! 

      Oh, and apparently somebody at Ford back in the day wasn't completely satisfied with "5 quarts" or the simple "add-a-quart" solution" and perhaps this was the additional (limited cost) solution effort for the "few", hence a couple of versions of this product was available directly from Ford Motor Company Parts Dept.    :

 https://www.ebay.com/itm/135936860939?_skw=ford+427+fe+oil+pan&itmmeta=01K1K3MPN8PBZ4WG2YT3QC6JH1&hash=item1fa677e30b%3Ag%3AE5kAAOSwZMloQuD9&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA8FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1c457%2BFCD8JYhHHUdNkHLGNjQwtohZTkdyIvAEpcy%2BFND6Z9FzILIth13jDbmg%2FNKmAEhGuSw0J115EpoKgd3EWS0LyRRX%2BYzGgYZWsd%2FM%2BXkncnxzyAVhDUTxfeCD%2Bo%2FccZ0H6LzjzYPTMOeqZFgGL%2F0VjXgYVW3AejxdDo6hmeJhPSWsSLWOJKHF3fpBHsPNSC%2Fa3WV6xcHrot0IxQw1AbIHN3afO2egCHZXzeyPfluQ4D73q57FwuRIqWXnqK3%2BY4VlfNW50aX3QCFHzxBkjYIPUOBpDU%2F9zviPqAx8l6w%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR-rq0uOMZg&LH_ItemCondition=3000

     Scott.

[Bigfoot]

Six is good. Plus old motors consume ...

[shelbydoug]

Yes, it is not clearly indicated that the total is actually seven quarts.

That is the total number that should be in the system with a stock pan.

If you seriously want to run the car then considering an 8 or 10 quart road race pan would not be overkill at all. That's just the amount in the pan itself without adding on for oil coolers and plumbing to it.

My small blocks in two cars are 12 quarts in the entire system and are not as challenged as the FE's are, but that is an entirely different subject.

Analyzing exactly what created the situation by examining the origins of the FE engine may be historically interesting but you need to deal with the requirement now to run it hard.

That opens a can or worms though in the sense that then you need to consider things like the lifters system, i.e., solids v hydraulic v rollers, etc.

So I understand that you want to keep it simple in fear that not only the engine will explode but also your brain.

6 quarts IN THE PAN is the minimal you should run. Period. End of story.

That is the cheapest solution to destroying beyond repair a very expensive historical artifact.