does this apply to 96-98 cobras as well? im guessing we all have the same stock pan right?
Hey! That's village idiot to you mister! :lol1:droptopsnake01 said:where is the idiot?
Mach1chuck said:I have never been satisfied with 6 quarts in my Mach 1. The pan obviously is below the counterweights on the 4.6, so there is no danger of windage with 7 quarts,
Mach1chuck said:I have experience with the old Chrysler Hemi engines, and they were known for holding oil up in the heads. Most of the Hemis that failed did so because of the oil staying in the heads, starving the bottom end when the pan was emptied by the oil pump. These heads on the 4.6 DOHC can't drain the oil as fast as it can be pumped up into them, so I apply the same plan to the 4.6 as the old Hemi. On the Mach 1 Registery, this same debate goes on. I believe that I am in the minority there, it seems like most Mach owners are using 6 to 6.5 quarts. For me, a extra quart of oil is cheap insurance against have a engine failure due to loss of oil pressure.
na svt said:Just because the pan can hold 7qts doesn't mean that you should put seven quarts in it.
Windage is not caused by the crank sitting in the oil. Also, there is a chance of windage even with the crank sitting high above the oil as proven by the gains that are provided by a windage tray.
Fact: 4V heads do not hold oil. The oild drain-back holes are very large and do not offer any restrictions
Fact: The oil lubricating the valvetrain is restricted which results in a much smaller amount of oil going to the valvetrain than you think. If I remember right the restrictors diameter is around .090 as compared to the oil drain-back holes which are very large and there are many of them. Furthermore, there is nothing in the heads to prevent the oil reaching the drain-back holes.
You can not compare these heads to hemi heads and use the same logic as the resaon for using more oil.
There is no proof to this perceived problem of the heads holding oil.
SPXTrader said:I think in order to completely solve this mystery, we would need the oil pump's flow rate at a given RPM, and would need somehow to measure the flow of returning oil.
quadcammer said:On top of that, any 4v owner who has checked the oil 5 minutes after driving, and then 30 minutes after driving, knows that the level the second time will be higher.
quadcammer said:As far as the windage situation, obviously there will be oil splashing, and oil coming down from the return holes. however, I have not seen conclusive proof of windage trays increasing power output substantially. Even if you pour in 7 quarts, the crank will not be sloshing through the oil, nor will it aerate anything.
Agreena svt said:As in most engines.
Who here has proof they spun a bearing or burned up a bottom end as a result of the heads holding oil?
Good points but no one argues that low oil levels cause bearing failures...(we all know) low oil levels can be caused by several conditions: windowed blocks, shattered OPG's, oil consumption, heads holding oil(?), and torn pans etc. So how many documented failures were the result of ONLY the heads holding oil, or the pickup being run dry in hard turns?SPXTrader said:I've read many times on this forum that people have lunched a rod bearing due to low oil levels. You've been in these forums enough to have read these same posts. I'll let those that have the rod bearing experience speak for themselves.
Probably the most spot on quote here, run 6 if you like (I do) but 7 wont lead to meltdown if you so choose to run it...;-)quadcammer said:However, I think these pics prove that 7 quarts will NOT harm your motor in anyway. And I think its also important to realize that oil will slosh side to side, back and forth etc, and that extra quart may keep the pick up covered, where 6 quarts may not have.