Early Ford V-8 Club Forum

EFV-8 Club Forum / General Ford Discussion / 2 more rookie questions

Reply to Discussion | New Discussion << previous || next >>

Posted By Discussion Topic: 2 more rookie questions -- page: 1 2     kubes40 04-29-2013 @ 5:12 PM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 3396 Joined: Oct 2009 It continues to tickle me that this subject is still being kicked around yet no one with the exception of myself has offered anything but "well, this is what I've been doing" and other such conjecture. I have a lot of respect for a number of the guys that have chimed in here on this issue. Still, I await some PROOF that dictates anything but five quarts. Stroker has made a very good point in regard to the filter not holding a full quart of oil. Heck, not even close to a quart. At least through 1948, Ford did NOT advise the addition of an extra quart when a filter was installed. Perhaps for the very reason Stroker states? I should think so... Also, it is rare to see anyone have the felt dust shield installed on a dipstick. Heck, how many guys even know there should be one? Plus, how many guys have the correct dipstick for their engine? It is nearly a unique experience to find a correct stick on a concourse '39 or '40. Yep, lots of possible variables, lots of opinons, but only one engineering drawing that clearly states FIVE quarts. supereal 04-29-2013 @ 4:35 PM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 6819 Joined: Oct 2009 So far, I've resisted joining the 4-5 quart controversy. Since my old friend Dan (Stroker) has opined, I'll add a comment. All the Ford lube charts say the oil pan capacity is 5 quarts, I'll believe that, with a reservation: if you have a flathead with a slinger-labyrinth rear crank, five quarts will usually oil your garage floor, driveway, and clutch. Some Ford service bulletins recommend altering the dipstick by making a new full mark 5/16" lower than the factory indication.,that would be about a quart, more or less. My oldest Fords always did fine with four, but if you sleep better with five, have at it! Stroker 04-29-2013 @ 3:30 PM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 1460 Joined: Oct 2009 Regarding the perennial 4-quarts, vs 5-quart issue. I have not researched the referenced data, but I have 60 years of experience with flatmotors. The crankcase capacity of a flathead was always expressed to me by my fore-bears as 5 quarts. It didn't make any difference whether a Fram filter can was installed or not. We put 5 quarts in our 35 Ford truck (no filter) we put 5 quarts in our 59A equipped wind machines, and we put 5 quarts in my brothers new 51, our 52-ton-and-a-half, our flathead-powered "duster", plus a 41 and 42 dump trucks which of course all had the referenced filter. The only exception I can recall was our 40 Ford Ton-and-a-half, which had a humongous Fram filter bolted to the upper right corner of the firewall. On that, we added a quart, or 6-quarts total. We often consider that a Fram filter housing will hold a quart. Those early Fram cartridges were made of cotton waste, and I suspect that if you were to fill one you would be lucky to get a pint of oil absorbed before it reached the top of the canister. The empty filter housing might hold a quart, but not with the filter installed. If you consider the design of the various Ford flathead pans, they are quite voluminous above the sump. About the only time that overfilling a pan becomes a problem is if the oil level is so high that it affects the main seals, and much more importantly, if any portion of the crank rotating assembly can reach the level of the oil during operation, which will result in air entrainment which can cause oil pump pressure loss. This won't happen with 5 quarts without an oil filter. So: Four quarts are fine, five quarts are fine, it's no big deal, but if you have a 40 Ford truck with the giant Fram filter, (identified by the circle of about 16 bolts holding the lid on), you might want to add another quart. TomO 04-29-2013 @ 8:30 AM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 7252 Joined: Oct 2009 Alan, would you please copy tommorookian's response and tape it to your monitor. You keep saying that the Imperial quart and gallon are smaller than the US gallon. I agree with Kube, 5 quarts of oil are needed to fill a 32-48 oil pan without a filter. The 49-53 Ford requires 4 quarts and the Mercury rewires 5 quarts without a filter. Many dipsticks do not have the leather seal, which is about 1/8" thick, causing the dipstick to read over fill. The correct quantity of oil is needed to keep the engine lubricated and to allow the oil to cool. Look at your aircleaner element to see if it has a manufacturer's name and number. If it does, any parts house can cross reference it. Unfortunately the size charts that used to be available have been discontinued along with many of the round air cleaner elements, so you may be out of luck. Tom This message was edited by TomO on 4-29-13 @ 8:42 AM tommorookian 04-29-2013 @ 5:16 AM reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 62 Joined: Oct 2009 Wrong ans on the Imperial qt. VS USA 4 Imperials are almost 5 US. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A quart is a unit of measurement for volume. It is a quarter of a gallon or two pints. Because the imperial system and the American system use different gallons their quarts are different too. [change] Different systemsIn the American system there are two different quarts. There is a wet quart and a dry quart. There is only one imperial quart. One U.S. dry quart is a little smaller than one imperial quart. Six U.S. wet pints are about five imperial pints. [change] Guide1 imperial quart = 40 imperial fluid ounces (fl. oz.) = 1.1365225 litres (exactly) ˜ 1137 ml ˜ 1.20 U.S. wet quarts ˜ 1.03 U.S. dry quarts 1 U.S. wet quart = 32 U.S. fl. oz. = 0.946352946 litres (exactly) ˜ 946 ml ˜ 0.83 imperial quarts ˜ 0.86 U.S. dry quarts 1 U.S. dry quart = 1.101220943 litres (exactly) ˜ 1101 ml ˜ 0.97 imperial quarts ˜ 1.16 U.S. wet quarts supereal 04-28-2013 @ 8:43 PM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 6819 Joined: Oct 2009 We take the original filter element to our local NAPA store where they let us sort thru their stock to find one that fits. Maxthedog1 04-28-2013 @ 7:42 PM reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 24 Joined: Nov 2012 I think I need to clarify my original question on the air filter. My 39 Coupe has the dry canister type of "air purifier and silencer" as pictured on page 4-15 of the 38-39 Ford Book. The original filter was presumably the mesh type of arrangement, which was coated in oil. The current filter is a paper type filter, presumably of the same dimensions as the original mesh filter. This is what I would like to replace. Interestingly, my canister differs from what is shown in the Ford book in a couple of respects. The decal, while identical to that pictured on page 4-15, is located on the front of the canister, not on the left side. And on the bottom of the canister, it is stamped with an "A", instead of "AC" or "B". Underneath the "A", in pretty faint stamping, is the number 78-9600. Thanks for any additional input. supereal 04-28-2013 @ 1:43 PM reply profile send p.m. Senior Posts: 6819 Joined: Oct 2009 John: It really doesn't destroy the filter, as the mesh portion can be replaced by uncrimping the top. I'm not a traditionalist, and I wanted to get rid of the constant battle against the oil mess. The larger portion of the unit is, in fact, an air silencer. This remains intact. The new style element has to be, on the face of it, more efficient than the mesh "strainer". When the modern manufacturers return to the oil bath, I'll be convinced it is better. Henry didn't think much of air filters, in any case. The Model A didn't have any, as he theorized that by pointing the carb intake toward the back, the dirt would just fly past and not enter the carb. And that on the dirt and gravel roads of the time! He didn't seem keen on oil filters, either. Thus the large removable panel on the bottom of the oil pan on Ford tractors, and some trucks, so the sludge could be scr*ped out by hand. I'm certainly for saving as many original parts as possible but, as an engine builder, I am concerned about the inside, too. 40guy 04-28-2013 @ 1:13 PM reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 270 Joined: Oct 2009 Kubes40: THANK YOU. FINALLY. I have been stating this position for years. In fact, a year or so ago there was a lengthy discussion on here about that very same subject with varying opinions. oldford2 04-28-2013 @ 1:00 PM reply profile send p.m. Member Posts: 275 Joined: Oct 2009 Bob, The problem with this modification to an original oil bath filter is that it destroys the chance to restore it to original. I have seen no proof that the paper filter works better than an oil bath original. Original oil bath filters are scarce and hard to find so let's try and save a part.. John

<< previous || next >>

PAGE: 1 2

NOTE: YOU MUST BE A REGISTERED USER AND BE LOGGED IN TO POST (and reply to) messages in this forum. If you are a first time user, please click the CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT in the masthead above to register and Log In. After that, all you do is LOG IN to enjoy using this site.

DISCLAIMER: The V-8 Club does no independent testing of any of the opinions, thoughts or suggestions presented in the website on the Forum, in the Tech Tips section, or any section. A reader should consider the website to be a forum wherein differing solutions to a particular set of circumstances may be discussed. Ultimately, the selection of an item for an individual's vehicle must be based upon the independent study of the vehicle owner in consultation with people in the hobby and restoration experts.

EFV-8 Club Forum Home | Back to Home Page | Contact the Webmaster

Copyright © 2009 - EFV-8.org
Powered by < CF FORUM > v.2.1