The Mustang Forum for Track & Racing Enthusiasts

Taking your Mustang to an open track/HPDE event for the first time? Do you race competitively? This forum is for you! Log in to remove most ads.

  • Welcome to the Ford Mustang forum built for owners of the Mustang GT350, BOSS 302, GT500, and all other S550, S197, SN95, Fox Body and older Mustangs set up for open track days, road racing, and/or autocross. Join our forum, interact with others, share your build, and help us strengthen this community!

Ford Racing Oil Pan M-6675-M50BR

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

That was a pan the Capaldi offered as an alternative to what I got. If I remember correctly, it already has the bung for the oil level sensor. I opted for the FRPP pan...again in hopes of having a shot at any future warranty claim on the motor.
 
Yep those are upgrades. ;D

I'm pretty sure it's the cooler but for additional oil cooling on track days which is first: Oil cooler or larger oil pan?
 
I would go with the oil cooler first. It will offer you increased capacity and provide cooling to the oil. Larger pan increases capacity, but does not provide additional cooling. If you have a ton of suspension mods with race tires, you should definitely think about upgrading your pan. I know when Scott's valve spring broke, a loss of oil pressure due to the higher lateral g's was brought up as a concern.
 
Final Post...I don't want to hijack this thread. During development of the 302 and under racing conditions, the stock wiring harness connectors have been known to break internally inside the connector on either the cam or crankshaft sensor's. This will cause an intermittent CEL that will come and go, and is very hard to troubleshoot. It happens on the track, but when you take your car to the dealer they can't duplicate the problem. The company that upgraded my harness is the same one the Ford Racing uses to make all the 302S harnesses.

Back to Scott's oil pan!
 
I would have to see the pans side by side to get a better idea. Like I said I get what is being used and abused on the race cars, been burned before with the Boss by having to buy parts twice trying to save money. I'm not saying the aftermarket pan is bad at all. I just went out and checked the old pan. I assumed the sensor was held in with gaskets on both sides and not threaded in. They did some fancy work on your FR pan. I would need to get the threaded piece and find a good welder to do this right.

To be clear Jon's concern was more bottom end (and other areas) after I ran with them and not the cause of the valve spring failure. It is something he brought up in the past and after the failure made a point of telling me to change pans.

I was unaware of the wiring you have now been able to incorporate into the factory harness. Wish I knew about that before since I have had the problem you mentioned along with others here. Going to check into this also, it never ends.

Curious as to why you think/heard a larger oil pan will not add additional cooling. I know it will provide the same benefits as a larger radiator does to cool the liquid since that has a larger surface area for the cooling air to pass but to some extent the more liquid (oil) in the system should provide some cooling benefit, at least that is the way I always understood it.
 
The larger oil capacity will help in delaying the oil in reaching its maximum temperature, but the oil will still reach that temperature. The oil pan, although exposed to air, is not designed to be an efficient cooling mechanism, especially with this volume of oil that is sitting in the pan. The cooler lowers the volume of oil running through it and maximizes the cooling effect through a radiator designed to cool fluid. I guess as a simple comparison it you boil two pots of water and let one pot sit in the wind, but take the other one and pour it out from one pot to an empty pot over and over again at a two foot height, circulating the water, the one sitting will retain heat much longer than the one being poured from pot to pot. Although a simple comparison I think you can understand why I think the radiator is a better cooling solution. The large capacity oil pan helps with oil retention at the bottom of the pan to ensure that your wet sump remains wet during race conditions.
 
wwilde001 said:
Although a simple comparison I think you can understand why I think the radiator is a better cooling solution.
No doubt about that. I have thought about the point of taking longer to heat up and also for running track days, longer to cool off between rounds. The way I am thinking it is we have an oil cooler built in, not as good as the air cooler, and that along with the larger S radiator and larger capacity pan I should see some addition cooling. I never opted for the extra cooler because my Boss has never overheated at sea level. Now without an AC condenser up there I doubt I will need it unless I start running longer enduro events.

I'm not questioning your thoughts as you know just thinking out loud. The only real way to tell is have oil temps taken the same day with the two different pans, I never had an oil temp gauge so I will not be able to tell.
 
6,361
8,183
Just my 2 cents here. In some way you guys are way ahead of the GS cars..in some ways not so much. You guys do some mods that would be totally illegal in GS, an example is that the GS cars are restricted. So you have a lot of potential for things to go wrong, perhaps even more so than the GS cars. Something to think about, the Roush motors are good for 50 hours until they get rebuilt, they have upgraded valve springs, rod bolts and a square bore. That's only 50 hours and that is on a "restricted" engine, that would be only about 12 track days and you guys have no RPM limits or restrictors. In light of this,I seriously think you (in general you, not necessarily YOU) need to revisit the life cycles on your engines. the argument could be made that the track days are MORE damaging to an engine than actual race days. Take the valve springs for example, two things kill them (OK maybe 3) heat, vibration and cycles, you can take some of the heat out with an oil cooler and bigger pan, but vibration and cycles, you can't do anything about. If I were you I'd do a couple of things, one I'd copy EXACTLY what the GS cars are doing in the oil pan /cooler department, there's plenty of resources like Phoenix and Racer's Edge, among others, but in order to cut down on the cycles.......well ,start limiting the RPMs and concentrate on the car's handling and start figuring in valve springs at least every 50-60 hours. You may also source some "illegal" valve springs, since you have no rules, but other than that I really don't see any way around this problem other than that.
BTW..IMO if I was going to buy outlaw springs, I'd look up Ed Iskendarian, because if he doesn't have them, he can make them.
 
1,482
408
YellowBoss said:
Couple of shots of the FR oil pan (for Andy).

LOL thanks Scott!

Some good discussion on this thread. It'd be nice if someone could do some data logging and see what the curves look like as you add coolers, capacity, etc.
 
Oil cooler will help reduce oil temps.

larger oil pan is designed to eliminate oil starvation/low oil pressure in high G situations.
 
Thanks Rob for the info here. I did find out from someone at Ford Racing that the Roush springs will hold up better at high RPM driving. For now I think I am going to stay with the Ford springs, mainly because I had to get a whole new head, the old head was damaged for a reason other then the valve spring failure. The new head (FR or Ford parts) comes with the valves and springs installed. Don't really feel like pulling the new head apart right now. Plus due to the secondary engine problem it is costing me more then I first thought it would.

As far as the pan goes, guess I was wrong about any benefit for cooling it would add. It was never stated to me that is why I should get it, only because of what Mark stated above. I am not sure why Ford Racing decided not to include the fitting for the oil level sensor, I found out today the S does have the same sensor as the production Boss. For the money paid on this pan it is a shortcoming for sure. Bill was lucky enough to be close to Watson to have his fitted there. Good news is they seem to be helpful and are looking to get the measurements to mount mine.
 
Fat Boss said:
LOL thanks Scott!

Some good discussion on this thread. It'd be nice if someone could do some data logging and see what the curves look like as you add coolers, capacity, etc.

I just got the data logger for my gauges and plan to collect proper data as I do all of these things. I tend to have long turnaround times, but I'll get the info out there as soon as I get it.
 
YellowBoss said:
Thanks Rob for the info here. I did find out from someone at Ford Racing that the Roush springs will hold up better at high RPM driving. For now I think I am going to stay with the Ford springs, mainly because I had to get a whole new head, the old head was damaged for a reason other then the valve spring failure. The new head (FR or Ford parts) comes with the valves and springs installed. Don't really feel like pulling the new head apart right now. Plus due to the secondary engine problem it is costing me more then I first thought it would.

As far as the pan goes, guess I was wrong about any benefit for cooling it would add. It was never stated to me that is why I should get it, only because of what Mark stated above. I am not sure why Ford Racing decided not to include the fitting for the oil level sensor, I found out today the S does have the same sensor as the production Boss. For the money paid on this pan it is a shortcoming for sure. Bill was lucky enough to be close to Watson to have his fitted there. Good news is they seem to be helpful and are looking to get the measurements to mount mine.

You wouldn't happen to have those measurements would you? Also, does it just reuse the stock oil pan gasket?
 
Sean said:
You wouldn't happen to have those measurements would you? Also, does it just reuse the stock oil pan gasket?

Yes, I reused the original oil pan gasket. You can replace it but I was told it is re-usable and I have not had any problems. I got the measurements from John Phillips at Watson. I have a pdf file I can send you if you PM me your email. However it is dark and one measurement is hard to read, I had to call John back to get the correct number and do not remember it now.
 
Make sure you keep an eye on the oil pan clearance with the inside corners (seam) of the K-Member. I found my oil pan front edges were rubbing at this point and had to relieve the inside seams a little to gain the clearance needed. If you have aftermarket or solid motor mounts, this may not be an issue. I have stock motor mounts and found I had the issue after my first track day. If you have the motor pulled, you should be able to do this fairly easy before you find you have an issue.
 
YellowBoss said:
Yes, I reused the original oil pan gasket. You can replace it but I was told it is re-usable and I have not had any problems. I got the measurements from John Phillips at Watson. I have a pdf file I can send you if you PM me your email. However it is dark and one measurement is hard to read, I had to call John back to get the correct number and do not remember it now.
Hi YellowBoss,
Do you have the positioning of the hole for oil level sensor for the FRPP oil pan?
Is it just a hole and the sensor is simply bolted with a nut from the inside and you rely on the O ring in the sensor outer mating surface to have a leak free assembly?
Thank you in advance!!!
 

TMO Supporting Vendors

Top