Oil pan level

[tony-muscle]

I was reading a few threads about oil capacity in our cars. Since I am replacing the oil pan gasket and I had my pan out, I decided to take pictures of the pan with 4, 5 and 6 qt. of water on it to give an idea of where the oil sits when full at different capacities. I was surprised how low the oil sits in the pan, but I guess they knew what they were doing when they designed this engine. I am assuming that if you add the typical 5 qt., after running the engine, the oil level will be close to what's shown in my picture with 4 qt. With 4qt the water doesn't make it past the deep sump of the pan or barely past the pickup tray [edited to correct that water is a little above tray].

Also, note that my pan has that extra tray in the rear, which looks like it helps the oil drain back.

PS: in case you wonder, the pan is leveled in both directions. Double checked with a level.

 

[c9zx]

Thanks for posting the pictures. Chuck

 

[EBSTANG]

I was reading a few threads about oil capacity in our cars. Since I am replacing the oil pan gasket and I had my pan out, I decided to take pictures of the pan with 4, 5 and 6 qt. of water on it to give an idea of where the oil sits when full at different capacities. I was surprised how low the oil sits in the pan, but I guess they knew what they were doing when they designed this engine. I am assuming that if you add the typical 5 qt., after running the engine, the oil level will be close to what's shown in my picture with 4 qt. With 4qt the water doesn't make it past the deep sump of the pan or the pickup tray.

Also, note that my pan has that extra tray in the rear, which looks like it helps the oil drain back.

PS: in case you wonder, the pan is leveled in both directions. Double checked with a level.

Tony, I also took these measurements, about a week ago, just because I was curious and had my reconditioned (beadblasted and powder coated) pan sitting in my shop. I am planning on installing a Canton windage tray when I install the pan. I currently have an aftermarket pan and an oil pan leak and will replace that pan with this stock pan.

I did the same measurements but instead of leveling the pan I built a jig to hold it at the actual level it sits at, when on my Mach 1. The existing pan's rear flange is 12 3/4" off the concrete floor of my shop and the front flange is 13 5/8". The pan sits 7/8" off of level, front to rear, rear being lower.



I also took pics, with 4, 4 1/2 & 5 qts of water.

4 Quarts...still only in the front sump portion. (with rearward tilt)



4 1/2 Quarts...just barely starting to spill toward the rear portion of the pan. (with rearward tilt)



5 Quarts...partially into the rear portion of the pan. (with rearward tilt)



I too, was surprised at the levels, although 5 quarts did give 3 1/2" of oil depth at the pick up. My baffle was at 2" of depth.





I was interested what the measurement was, with 5 quarts in the pan, from the top of the oil to the pan flange/block mounting surface...



Also, what was the measurement, with 5 quarts in the pan, to the rear main sealing surface and the front main sealing surface...

Rear main seal...1 3/4" above oil level (5 qts)



Front main seal...2 1/2" above oil level (5 qts)

 

[EBSTANG]

I was reading a few threads about oil capacity in our cars. Since I am replacing the oil pan gasket and I had my pan out, I decided to take pictures of the pan with 4, 5 and 6 qt. of water on it to give an idea of where the oil sits when full at different capacities. I was surprised how low the oil sits in the pan, but I guess they knew what they were doing when they designed this engine. I am assuming that if you add the typical 5 qt., after running the engine, the oil level will be close to what's shown in my picture with 4 qt. With 4qt the water doesn't make it past the deep sump of the pan or the pickup tray.

Also, note that my pan has that extra tray in the rear, which looks like it helps the oil drain back.

PS: in case you wonder, the pan is leveled in both directions. Double checked with a level.

 

[tony-muscle]

I was reading a few threads about oil capacity in our cars. Since I am replacing the oil pan gasket and I had my pan out, I decided to take pictures of the pan with 4, 5 and 6 qt. of water on it to give an idea of where the oil sits when full at different capacities. I was surprised how low the oil sits in the pan, but I guess they knew what they were doing when they designed this engine. I am assuming that if you add the typical 5 qt., after running the engine, the oil level will be close to what's shown in my picture with 4 qt. With 4qt the water doesn't make it past the deep sump of the pan or the pickup tray.

Also, note that my pan has that extra tray in the rear, which looks like it helps the oil drain back.

PS: in case you wonder, the pan is leveled in both directions. Double checked with a level.

Great job on your measurements. You upped me on this one. In your pan it is easier to see the level because you dont have that rear baffle thing. Was that in place in some models and others not to help with oil flowing back? My is an M code.

1971 M-code Mach 1

 

[jbojo]

Interesting post guys. With the slight upward angle it would appear that some of the oil would accumulate at the rear of the pan. By any chance did you measure how much would accumulate there at that angle? Granted with all the stop and go the oil would sloush fwd but I am just curious.

 

[EBSTANG]

Interesting post guys. With the slight upward angle it would appear that some of the oil would accumulate at the rear of the pan. By any chance did you measure how much would accumulate there at that angle? Granted with all the stop and go the oil would sloush fwd but I am just curious.

John, even though the flange of the pan/mounting surface of the block tilts towards the rear, the bottom of the pan, at the rear non-sump area, is tilted forward still, allowing it to drain to the sump area.

I figured someone would wonder about that and I took a pic to show this detail that I will post later. If you look at Tony's 5 qt pic and compare it to my 5 qt pic, it shows the oil level if you were parked on a 10%± grade, facing downhill. Doesn't mean all that much but it is interesting. I don't think I'd park, idle, or rev my engine facing up hill (certainly not on a steep hill) too often, if you could avoid it.

 

[turtle5353]

Good info fellas! I think I will stick with my 6 quart oil changes.

 

[EBSTANG]

I was reading a few threads about oil capacity in our cars. Since I am replacing the oil pan gasket and I had my pan out, I decided to take pictures of the pan with 4, 5 and 6 qt. of water on it to give an idea of where the oil sits when full at different capacities. I was surprised how low the oil sits in the pan, but I guess they knew what they were doing when they designed this engine. I am assuming that if you add the typical 5 qt., after running the engine, the oil level will be close to what's shown in my picture with 4 qt. With 4qt the water doesn't make it past the deep sump of the pan or the pickup tray.

Also, note that my pan has that extra tray in the rear, which looks like it helps the oil drain back.

PS: in case you wonder, the pan is leveled in both directions. Double checked with a level.

Great job on your measurements. You upped me on this one. In your pan it is easier to see the level because you dont have that rear baffle thing. Was that in place in some models and others not to help with oil flowing back? My is an M code.

1971 M-code Mach 1

Thanks Tony, not trying to "up" anyone just thought it was interesting. Your rear baffle actually has a "crank scraper" cut into it by Ford...



This metal flap "scrapes," without touching of course, the oil which is clinging to the crank. This can be bent upward to do a better job of removing oil from the crank. Obviously, one would need to do careful measurements and check to make sure there is no contact with the crank. The baffle does help to allow the oil which drains to the back of the pan and also the oil which gets thrown to the back of the pan during those launches we all love, drain more efficiently to the front sump area. The crank, as it spins causes "windage" and would impede this flow toward the front, especially at higher rpms. So essentially your rear baffle is a Ford factory crank scraper and windage tray in one.

Since mine doesn't have one, I am going to install an aftermarket windage tray made by Canton. Ironically, I believe it was turtle5353 who stated, in another thread, that he has a 408 stroker, with a stock pan, with a Canton windage tray and it all fits.(same set-up as me) I'm hoping he's correct. :chin:

 

[jbojo]

Interesting post guys. With the slight upward angle it would appear that some of the oil would accumulate at the rear of the pan. By any chance did you measure how much would accumulate there at that angle? Granted with all the stop and go the oil would sloush fwd but I am just curious.

John, even though the flange of the pan/mounting surface of the block tilts towards the rear, the bottom of the pan, at the rear non-sump area, is tilted forward still, allowing it to drain to the sump area.

I figured someone would wonder about that and I took a pic to show this detail that I will post later. If you look at Tony's 5 qt pic and compare it to my 5 qt pic, it shows the oil level if you were parked on a 10%± grade, facing downhill. Doesn't mean all that much but it is interesting. I don't think I'd park, idle, or rev my engine facing up hill (certainly not on a steep hill) too often, if you could avoid it.

Looking more closely I see that now, thx.

 

[73pony]

I was reading a few threads about oil capacity in our cars. Since I am replacing the oil pan gasket and I had my pan out, I decided to take pictures of the pan with 4, 5 and 6 qt. of water on it to give an idea of where the oil sits when full at different capacities. I was surprised how low the oil sits in the pan, but I guess they knew what they were doing when they designed this engine. I am assuming that if you add the typical 5 qt., after running the engine, the oil level will be close to what's shown in my picture with 4 qt. With 4qt the water doesn't make it past the deep sump of the pan or the pickup tray.

Also, note that my pan has that extra tray in the rear, which looks like it helps the oil drain back.

PS: in case you wonder, the pan is leveled in both directions. Double checked with a level.

Tony, I also took these measurements, about a week ago, just because I was curious and had my reconditioned (beadblasted and powder coated) pan sitting in my shop. I am planning on installing a Canton windage tray when I install the pan. I currently have an aftermarket pan and an oil pan leak and will replace that pan with this stock pan.

I did the same measurements but instead of leveling the pan I built a jig to hold it at the actual level it sits at, when on my Mach 1. The existing pan's rear flange is 12 3/4" off the concrete floor of my shop and the front flange is 13 5/8". The pan sits 7/8" off of level, front to rear, rear being lower.

I also took pics, with 4, 4 1/2 & 5 qts of water.

4 Quarts...still only in the front sump portion. (with rearward tilt)

4 1/2 Quarts...just barely starting to spill toward the rear portion of the pan. (with rearward tilt)

5 Quarts...partially into the rear portion of the pan. (with rearward tilt)

I too, was surprised at the levels, although 5 quarts did give 3 1/2" of oil depth at the pick up. My baffle was at 2" of depth.

I was interested what the measurement was, with 5 quarts in the pan, from the top of the oil to the pan flange/block mounting surface...

Also, what was the measurement, with 5 quarts in the pan, to the rear main sealing surface and the front main sealing surface...

Rear main seal...1 3/4" above oil level (5 qts)

Front main seal...2 1/2" above oil level (5 qts)

Good info. That is a sweet looking oil pan.

 

[barnett468]

To get the accurate level, the pan needs to be at around a 3 degree angel with the rear being lower than the front.

 

[EBSTANG]

To get the accurate level, the pan needs to be at around a 3 degree angel with the rear being lower than the front.

This is true Barnett, I agree. On my Mach, this correlates to a 1" drop over the length of the pan, from front to back. This was measured directly from the pan flange to the ground at the front and rear of the pan.(the most accurate, because it's actual) My Mach actually has 28" rear tires and 25 3/8" front tires, which would lift the rear of the pan up to some degree.(still nowhere near level) As you drive around in the real world this would continually change, especially if you lived in hilly San Francisco as opposed to flat Florida. I definitely wouldn't park my car upward on a hill in San Francisco overnight and then let it warm up in the morning, in that parking spot. :-/

 

[EBSTANG]

Interesting post guys. With the slight upward angle it would appear that some of the oil would accumulate at the rear of the pan. By any chance did you measure how much would accumulate there at that angle? Granted with all the stop and go the oil would sloush fwd but I am just curious.

John, even though the flange of the pan/mounting surface of the block tilts towards the rear, the bottom of the pan, at the rear non-sump area, is tilted forward still, allowing it to drain to the sump area.

I figured someone would wonder about that and I took a pic to show this detail that I will post later. If you look at Tony's 5 qt pic and compare it to my 5 qt pic, it shows the oil level if you were parked on a 10%± grade, facing downhill. Doesn't mean all that much but it is interesting. I don't think I'd park, idle, or rev my engine facing up hill (certainly not on a steep hill) too often, if you could avoid it.

Looking more closely I see that now, thx.

I see that you see it now but for those who don't...a few pics are worth a few thousand words...

The base of the jig to hold the oil pan is level...



From front to rear, pan drops approximately 1"...



Even though the pan level drops 1", the bottom rear of the pan still pitches forward about 3/16"...

 

[boilermaster]

Would be much more interested in a hot running level under hard acceleration / deceleration conditions.

Boilermaster

 

[tony-muscle]

All this said, its kind of counterintuitive to have the deep sump in the front because during acceleration, when you are revving and need the oil, the oil will move back and increase the risk of starvation.

Edit: I guess that's what the baffle's function is! Kind of trap the oil between the baffle and the backwall of the sump.

1971 M-code Mach 1

 

[EBSTANG]

Would be much more interested in a hot running level under hard acceleration / deceleration conditions.

Boilermaster

I think the levels would fall off.

lollerz

 

[tony-muscle]

This metal flap "scrapes," without touching of course, the oil which is clinging to the crank. This can be bent upward to do a better job of removing oil from the crank. Obviously, one would need to do careful measurements and check to make sure there is no contact with the crank. The baffle does help to allow the oil which drains to the back of the pan and also the oil which gets thrown to the back of the pan during those launches we all love, drain more efficiently to the front sump area. The crank, as it spins causes "windage" and would impede this flow toward the front, especially at higher rpms. So essentially your rear baffle is a Ford factory crank scraper and windage tray in one.

That makes sense. Thank you. Do we know which cars had this factory "windage" tray?

 

[EBSTANG]

All this said, its kind of counterintuitive to have the deep sump in the front because during acceleration, when you are revving and need the oil, the oil will move back and increase the risk of starvation.

Edit: I guess that's what the baffle's function is! Kind of trap the oil between the baffle and the backwall of the sump.

1971 M-code Mach 1

The deep sump in the front is pretty pronounced with a steep grade separating it from the rear. The front baffle is there to prevent sloshing of the oil out of the front sump area. I wouldn't want to do a long uphill race with this front sump design though. I don't really race anyway, so none of this really matters.