The engine in my 1987 Mk IV is being replaced with a new crate engine. The existing engine will be removed and not rebuilt due to its age, bad #8 cylinder and the fact that it is not the original engine anyway in the car. The new engine will be a small block 347 c.i., 415 h.p. A definite upgrade to my current engine.
The existing 5.0 has an oil pan with larger rear sump area, notch in the middle and front sump that is shallower. Both the rear and front sump areas have drain plugs. The new crate motor has a different oil pan that has a front sump that is deeper....no rear sump (see image).
The question is, does an oil pan like the one in the image fit in the Mk. IV engine bay or would I need a similar oil pan as described above with two sump areas...larger in rear and smaller in front. Thanks for any feedback.
I think your main frame design is not allowing a front sump pan with trap doors what would be the best option.
On my 331 I'm using a Canton road racing pan with the 2 sumps where the rear one is the biggest.
I allways planned to switch to a front sump version but never had the time to find out of it will fit in front of the frame crossmember. That crossmember was placed in that position because Autokraft used the complete engine out of the Mustang. The Mustang needed this stupid 2 sump design.
Without any modification the dual sump road racing oil pan from Canton will fit if your engine had the split sump as well.
Don't forget to order the correct oil pick up and dip stick for the pan If you want to go this route.
Canton 15-640 is a 6 quart rear pan, the same as you see it in my pictures below.
Check if it clears your stroker rotating assembly.
I have often looked at the silly 'double bubble' sump with its two drains and wondered what would work better. I have concluded that the rather weedy cross member, which spans the engine bay, contributes nothing to the chassis stiffness. It looks to me like a fig leaf to justify the (cheaper?) Fox Body double sump. The alternative would be the double bubble sump with no apparent reason for fitting it, except for the cost saving. Customers would raise their eyebrows and ask why the sump was not simple like the previous Cobra iterations.
So the question is should this probably pointless extra cross member, so close to massive 4" tube crossmembers, simply be cut out ? This would allow the fitment of a 'proper' large capacity, baffled, Aviad style sump, or a simple, pressed steel single drain 289 style sump, or even a decorative cast alloy, finned alloy sump
Barrie
Autokraft built different frames. You can see in the pictures below that there was at least one frame with and one without that big crossmember. I asume that all early frames using a 351 Cleveland, 351W or the FE did not have that crossmember.
Thank you for the response. Sounds like my stock oil pan type and the one you refer to would be the best option due to the chassis crossmember. I think my car has that. I appreciate your thoughts.
Rob
Quote from: westcott on February 12, 2025, 12:29:08I think your main frame design is not allowing a front sump pan with trap doors what would be the best option.
On my 331 I'm using a Canton road racing pan with the 2 sumps where the rear one is the biggest.
I allways planned to switch to a front sump version but never had the time to find out of it will fit in front of the frame crossmember. That crossmember was placed in that position because Autokraft used the complete engine out of the Mustang. The Mustang needed this stupid 2 sump design.
Without any modification the dual sump road racing oil pan from Canton will fit if your engine had the split sump as well.
Don't forget to order the correct oil pick up and dip stick for the pan If you want to go this route.
Canton 15-640 is a 6 quart rear pan, the same as you see it in my pictures below.
Check if it clears your stroker rotating assembly.
Thanks for your input Barrie.
Quote from: B.P.Bird on February 12, 2025, 22:39:03I have often looked at the silly 'double bubble' sump with its two drains and wondered what would work better. I have concluded that the rather weedy cross member, which spans the engine bay, contributes nothing to the chassis stiffness. It looks to me like a fig leaf to justify the (cheaper?) Fox Body double sump. The alternative would be the double bubble sump with no apparent reason for fitting it, except for the cost saving. Customers would raise their eyebrows and ask why the sump was not simple like the previous Cobra iterations.
So the question is should this probably pointless extra cross member, so close to massive 4" tube crossmembers, simply be cut out ? This would allow the fitment of a 'proper' large capacity, baffled, Aviad style sump, or a simple, pressed steel single drain 289 style sump, or even a decorative cast alloy, finned alloy sump
Barrie