FYI FORD - MustangSteve's Ford Mustang Forum
The Internet's Most Knowledgeable Classic Mustang Information
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT CLASSIC FORD MUSTANGS, YOU HAVE COME TO THE RIGHT PLACE!
MustangSteve has over 30 years of Mustang experience, having owned 30 of them and restored several others. With the help of other Mustangers, this site is dedicated to helping anyone wanting to restore or modify their Mustang.... THERE ARE NO DUMB QUESTIONS!!!!!
Visit MustangSteve's web site to view some of my work and find details for:
FYIFORD Contributors' PICTURES - Power Brake Retrofit Kits for 65-66 Stangs - Classic Mustang FAQ's by MustangSteve - How to wire in a Duraspark Ignition - Mustang Ride Height Pictures and Descriptions - Steel Bushings to fit Granada Spindles to Mustang Tie Rods - Visit my EBAY store MustangSteve Performance - How to Install Granada Disc Brakes MustangSteve's Disc Brake Swap Page - FYIFORD Acronyms for guide to all the acronyms used on this page - FYIFORD Important information and upcoming events

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

2/28/2018 9:18 AM  #51


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

MS wrote:

Every engine I ever built got a HV pump.  NEVER have seen any wear on gears.

Yep. HV Melling and ARP shaft here.
 


Bob. 69 Mach 1, 393W, SMOD Toploader, Armstrong  steering, factory AC.
 

2/28/2018 3:06 PM  #52


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

rpm has it correct with the Melling HV and the ARP shaft! I tend to use the upper RPM range a fair amount so the extra bearing clearance and the better oil flow are nice to have.

 

2/28/2018 3:22 PM  #53


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

6sally6 wrote:

I'm shocked!!!!!!!
MS of all people....using ANYTHING other than a standard volume oil pump!
EVERYTHING I've ever read or "heard" states SBF engines have excellent oiling systems and do not need HV or HP pumps.( I know I just use the std. pressure Mellings.) 
 At the very least....use a heavy duty distrib. shaft.
You do know Mellings has a "better" oil pump than their standard OE replacement oil pump?!
6s6

The shock and awe started the day of the announcement of the Keith Craft engine.  Just think if he had kept that upwardly mild built stock block 351w and t-5.  Probably would have never had problem 1 with either.   And would have what? 20 to 25 thousand more to spend on the F100?    No efi, no trans tunnel mods, no...You know, thinking back this all started with the chickie on the cell phone...it's all HER fault!
 


If multiple things can go wrong, the one that will go wrong will be the one that causes the most damage.
 

2/28/2018 7:51 PM  #54


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

Lots of opinions, but no real data backing anything up.
I have a seven quart pan, an HV pump and an ARP pump shaft, with steel distributor gear and billet cam.  No parts showed any wear, and the timing chain had no indication of stretching after 14,000 miles. The rear main bearing looked brand new when I pulled the cap to replace the rear seal.

So, what if the oil bypasses?  It just falls back to the pan where it came from. It all eventually goes through the filter at some point or another.

I think I will stick to my tried and true methods.


Money you enjoy wasting is NOT wasted money... unless your wife finds out.
     Thread Starter
 

3/01/2018 8:01 AM  #55


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

Amen!

 

3/01/2018 8:17 AM  #56


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

Well, not exactly.  Moving oil for the sake of moving oil has three consequences.  First, you are heating the oil.  Its just like running a monster electric fuel pump when you don't need it.  As oil serves a secondary function to lubrication, namely cooling, artificially heating the oil is putting heat into it and reducing it effectiveness as a cooling medium.  Oil does not reject heat very well, so changing its temperature up or down takes a while.  This additional heating is probably not an issue, unless you're having problems keeping the engine cool, in which case its directly contributing to overheating.

Second, and this is the real cause for concern, in a wet sump engine as oil drains back into the pan through various drains it falls on the crank and rods and gets whipped into what looks like taffy.  What you are seeing is the oil being aerated.  The problem with this is that air doesn't make an acceptable cushion in place of oil, as its compressible.  In any wet sump system this is going to happen, but the degree to which it happens is still important.  A HV pump is moving a lot more oil, and the oil is going up and coming back down more often, which means its hitting the rotating assembly more often, and getting aerated more often.

Third, there is more load placed on the distributor gear and oil pump driveshaft.  Using an ARP shaft likely staves off failures.  The gear, it depends.  I've seen 5.0s shear the roll pin that holds the gear to the shaft (I've also seen this in 300 I6 engines, so I don't want anyone to think I'm drawing a false corollary.  I've seen advice from 5.0 experts who say to increase the size of that pin +1 size to prevent it, so maybe it can happen no matter what, but it does make you think.  The real rub here is that you are just wasting power spinning that pump.  I'd love to see a dyno test to see exactly how much.  I've heard outrageous claims in the 30HP range, but nothing to back that up.  I guarantee it costs something though.

In the end all I can say fro sure is that I've never had an engine failure due to oiling on any SBC, BBC, or SBF I've built and I've always used a standard volume and pressure pump that I've at most personally blueprinted.  In my younger years I just tossed the pump in and also never had any failures.  Now I blueprint them, but I blueprint everything; its just how I do.  What red351 said about shimming the bypass spring is also something I've done from time to time, but only on engines I expected to rev beyond 6,000RPM. 

I can say that I do read a LOT.  I've yet to find the book where a professional engine builder recommends an HV pump in any of the applications mentioned.  A lot of these guys spent months testing various ideas, running engines with windows cut in them, clear oil pans, etc. to see what actually happens in a running engine.  I've also yet to talk to a machine shop that has recommended a HV pump.  In the end, I've built quite a few engines over the years, but I still defer to the guys who've built tens of thousands of them.  Without that reading and those conversations I likely would ascribe to the bigger is better, more insurance philosophy too.  That comes down to the fact that I don't have a dyno room, and can't afford that kind of testing to investigate theories, BUT the guys who make a living at engine building can, do, and have.  Their knowledge and experience is out there.  All I've been doing for 20+ years is heading it. 

 

3/01/2018 8:55 AM  #57


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

Crane seems to agree as well. See item #2.


http://www.cranecams.com/pdf-tech-tips/cam_failure811.pdf

 

3/01/2018 9:09 AM  #58


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

I have read a lot about engine oiling, but my case is all about my own experience. I spent a lot of time on the dyno looking at a lot of things that give extra power and take power away. Every time we opened up bearing clearance we gained measurable power (sometimes an amazing amount). On an 8 cylinder engine that is a lot of additional flow area and usually results in lower oil pressure making the need for the high volume pump. On the other side we never saw that the HV pump used more power than we gained with the larger clearances. An added benefit was that the on track water temp came down. One short block engine I bought came from a race engine builder that always said you don't need a HV pump, but he supplied a HV pump with the engine?

 

3/01/2018 10:09 AM  #59


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

DC wrote:

I have read a lot about engine oiling, but my case is all about my own experience. I spent a lot of time on the dyno looking at a lot of things that give extra power and take power away. Every time we opened up bearing clearance we gained measurable power (sometimes an amazing amount). On an 8 cylinder engine that is a lot of additional flow area and usually results in lower oil pressure making the need for the high volume pump. On the other side we never saw that the HV pump used more power than we gained with the larger clearances. An added benefit was that the on track water temp came down. One short block engine I bought came from a race engine builder that always said you don't need a HV pump, but he supplied a HV pump with the engine?

That's interesting, because years ago an old mechanic and racer I knew used to say that for maximum power they'd build race engines with wide clearances.  "On the edge of blowing up" be used to say. 

I'd be curious though if these engines were mandated to run wet sump systems or not, because if you see the kinds of clearances they run in NASCAR for example you'd say they were too tight for a street engine.  Granted those are dry sump engines with very, very good oil control, but it makes you think.  Especially given the kind of RPM they run and the duration of time they run it. 

I'd also add that engine and even chassis dynos are only going to tell you so much, a point Smokey Yunick was quick to point out when discussing oil control, because once you start G-loading the car the oil does all kinds of stuff you can't see on a dyno.  I do know that over the years with my limited dyno experience there would often be changes made from the dyno setup to get the fastest ET or highest top speed.  Problem is that there's no real way to see that back to back without building identical engines, except for bearing clearances, and running them in the same car on the same track enough times to verify it through ET, lap times, etc., and correcting for changing atmospheric conditions to be truly accurate. 

In the end this is probably one of those things where there are multiple paths to the same outcome, and one is not necessarily better than the other; just different.  Discussing those paths helps everyone learn and grow though, so its always worthwhile.  We are usually at our smartest when we realize we don't know everything, and that continued learning is part of what makes life worth living. 
 

 

3/01/2018 1:23 PM  #60


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

Not surprising.  There are drag racing classes where they are restricted to OEM built crate engines.  To get every last advantage on important runs they drain the oil, put 2 quarts in the pan of 0W oil and run.  By half track the pan is bone dry and all the oil's in the top end.  They go an entire season doing that though.  The oil technology now is insane.  The OEMs just keep going lighter and lighter.  We used to run straight 40W in almost everything, and 50W in heavy duty and racing applications.  Then in the '90s everything went to 5W30, then 5W20 in the modular Fords, and now 0W20 is common in Mitsubishis as well as others.  The oil to pour it looks like brake fluid.  The gerotor oil pumps they use driven right off the crank must be installed dry or they risk locking up on initial start up.  It makes you wonder where it goes from here.  0W10?  0W5?  Ceramic parts, no need for lubrication?  Craziness!  But cool...

 

3/01/2018 1:57 PM  #61


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

All this talk of extra gear wear may be valid, but I have not seen ANY evidence of it.  To me, it equates to telling me not to take that 289 out and install a 427 because it will put more wear on the 9" rear end!  We make our choices and deal with the consequences.
My engine does have wider clearances than other engines I have built.  It runs cool and there is zero wear on any parts in the time it was run before the lifter broke.  The engine was built in 2011, according to the info I stamped into the block along with my name.  Also, I don't think I am giving up any HP that is noticeable.  The freaking speed limit around here is 60 MPH with a Sheriff hiding around every corner.

The next engine I build, I promise to not go HV.  It will probably be closer to a stocker anyway.


Money you enjoy wasting is NOT wasted money... unless your wife finds out.
     Thread Starter
 

3/01/2018 4:42 PM  #62


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

DC wrote:

I have read a lot about engine oiling, but my case is all about my own experience. I spent a lot of time on the dyno looking at a lot of things that give extra power and take power away. Every time we opened up bearing clearance we gained measurable power (sometimes an amazing amount). On an 8 cylinder engine that is a lot of additional flow area and usually results in lower oil pressure making the need for the high volume pump. On the other side we never saw that the HV pump used more power than we gained with the larger clearances. An added benefit was that the on track water temp came down. One short block engine I bought came from a race engine builder that always said you don't need a HV pump, but he supplied a HV pump with the engine?

 Just for reference sake how much are you opening up clearances. When I worked for a rebuilder we always aimed for .002- .0025 clearances on crank and rods unless the customer had a circle track engine or specified something larger like .0035-.004 or it was a tractor. Curious as to what clearances you run on the street and still feel safe.

 

3/01/2018 8:38 PM  #63


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

Fun discussion fer sure!
DC...do you run a cam tunnel?! I've "read(so it must be true!)" so engines have the camshaft inside a tunnel. Granted the top of the cam must be open for the lifters to ride on. Butt the bottom is enclosed to prevent the oil from retuning and splashing(and foaming) on the crankshaft. Naturally its suppose to pick up the HP number. I suppose the oil drains back from the front and rear of the "tunnel". I've heard the same  almost"un-believeable" thing TKO was talking about. By the end of the quarter ALL the oil is in the top of the engine and NONE dragging the crank down with "splash/friction."  Maybe that's why so many of them kill the engine AS SOON AS they cross the streak!?! Then pull the chute.
Also "read/heard" all the reciprocating parts ride on a "tiny/tiny thin"  layer of oil so large clearances on the bearings are NOT beneficial!?!
My simple old nogg'in can't quite wrap-itself around that. Seems bigger clearances would equal less drag! Most "proz" say knot...
Now rings!!!!!......Lotsa thought can go into those to reduce drag (in a race application), of course. Low drag rings and an evacuation system is the hot ticket now. So little drag you can almost spin the crank assembly over with your hand!
Let me grab another  Johnny Walker and a seegar so we can continue this "bench rac'in stuff"!!
6sal6


Get busy Liv'in or get busy Die'n....Host of the 2020 Bash at the Beach/The only Bash that got cancelled  )8
 

3/01/2018 9:57 PM  #64


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

Mains 0.0030"
Rods .0023
 


Money you enjoy wasting is NOT wasted money... unless your wife finds out.
     Thread Starter
 

3/02/2018 8:31 AM  #65


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

The engine is question is an aluminum block though right?  It would only effect the mains, but I've heard they need to be set up looser because the aluminum expands a lot more that cast iron as it heats up. 

On the rods that's about what most of then are anyway.  I've typically measured SBFs in the 0.020-0.022" range using "standard" bearings and crank. 

 

3/02/2018 9:39 AM  #66


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

And I would bet there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Melling pump you are replacing.  Perfect to put back into someones low buck engine! 


If multiple things can go wrong, the one that will go wrong will be the one that causes the most damage.
 

3/03/2018 6:39 AM  #67


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

If by milk you mean bourbon...agreed

 

3/03/2018 6:37 PM  #68


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

Greg B wrote:

And I would bet there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Melling pump you are replacing.  Perfect to put back into someones low buck engine! 

 
I would gladly offer up my old M-83 HV oil pump to anyone that needs it, but I am certain no one but me would be crazy enough to install a high volume oil pump in their engine!


Money you enjoy wasting is NOT wasted money... unless your wife finds out.
     Thread Starter
 

3/03/2018 7:15 PM  #69


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

...........classic POST MS !!!!!!
6sal6


Get busy Liv'in or get busy Die'n....Host of the 2020 Bash at the Beach/The only Bash that got cancelled  )8
 

3/03/2018 7:18 PM  #70


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

MS wrote:

Greg B wrote:

And I would bet there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Melling pump you are replacing.  Perfect to put back into someones low buck engine! 

 
I would gladly offer up my old M-83 HV oil pump to anyone that needs it, but I am certain no one but me would be crazy enough to install a high volume oil pump in their engine!

Hopefully you don't use the 50W again... 

 

3/04/2018 9:06 AM  #71


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

6sally6 wrote:

Fun discussion fer sure!
DC...do you run a cam tunnel?! I've "read(so it must be true!)" so engines have the camshaft inside a tunnel. Granted the top of the cam must be open for the lifters to ride on. Butt the bottom is enclosed to prevent the oil from retuning and splashing(and foaming) on the crankshaft. Naturally its suppose to pick up the HP number. "proz" say knot...
6sal6



​No I don't run a cam tunnel, or have I found a real gain from anything more than a basic windage tray. All those fancy ones work great on the dyno (I use mostly a real engine dyno not chassis) but not so much effect on the track where the G-forces screw everything up. Clearence wise, I try to hit close to .0035. I keep a bunch of those .001 bearing shells around to swap till I get the reading I want on the bore gage.

 

5/18/2018 5:57 PM  #72


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

Steve-
Did you use the 6500-302 lifter or the 6500-302h lifters?

 

5/22/2018 8:51 AM  #73


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

I used the high rpm version of the Ford lifters.


Money you enjoy wasting is NOT wasted money... unless your wife finds out.
     Thread Starter
 

5/22/2018 5:28 PM  #74


Re: 427 Stroker carnage from lifter failure

Thanks, that’s the 302hs.  I just ordered the same ones. Didn’t see many reviews of them out there, but one of the cam companies recommended them to me, so that’s what I went with. If you lose another lifter, please DON’T tell me!

 

Board footera


REMEMBER!!! When posting a question about your Mustang or other Ford on this forum, BE SURE to tell us what it is, what year, engine, etc so we have enough information to go on.