Squarebirds, Rocketbirds, and Fifties/Sixties Ford Discussion Forum

Squarebirds, Rocketbirds, and Fifties/Sixties Ford Discussion Forum (http://squarebirds.org/vbulletin/index.php)
-   FE Engines (http://squarebirds.org/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=63)
-   -   Oil & Oil Filters (http://squarebirds.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=17372)

YellowRose 07-27-2014 04:26 PM

Oil & Oil Filters
 
The discussion regarding the use of ZDDP in another thread here got me to thinking about the information that was compiled 7 years ago by Bart Como ~ bcomo, who used to own a 430MEL Squarebird. That information on which brand of oil is preferred by our members for their Tbirds is in the Technical Resource Library in the Oil & Oil Filters section. The thread concerning the discussion regarding which oil filter is the best one to use is not, although there is a different link to it that discusses this. You might want to review the thread where it was discussed regarding which oil filters to use and which to stay away from by checking this link, starting with Post #11. Perhaps it will be helpful to you. Note that the first two links cited in this discussion are no longer available though. The last two are.

http://www.squarebirds.org/vbulletin...?t=3082&page=2

Tac 05-06-2015 04:15 AM

was about to buy a new filter for my 390 fe engine in my 64 T-bird, but the only filter available was the FRAM filter.
Do any of these fit the 390 FE ?

this is copied from the link above :

Recommended filters:

Mobil 1: Synthetic filter element, uses top bi-pass valve. Very high filtration capability. This filter is built like a tank -- it weighs in at 6 Ounces heavier than the MotorCraft on my scale. # M1-301 ($9.99 at AutoZone)

K&N: Synthetic filter element, uses top bi-pass valve. This filter is built very much like the Mobil 1. But, it uses a nut welded to the base instead of serated edges to tighten the filter. That could be good or bad. # HP-3001 ($11.99)

MotorCraft: Paper filter, uses top bi-pass valve. This is a good quality filter, but just doesn't have as fine a filtration capability as either the Mobil 1 or K&N. #FL-1A ($3.99)

simplyconnected 05-06-2015 05:16 PM

Tac, in my opinion none of them are very good. In cold weather oil gets thick and most of it goes through the bypass valve. Race engines use TWO filters.

The REAL filtration comes when you change your oil. All the acids and junk in your oil will be drained out and fresh oil will take over when you change it.

I am old enough to remember when European cars only used a screen or mesh of metal with no filter. When our cars were produced, Americans used NON-detergent oil and they changed the filter every second oil change. Since then, oil has been re-formulated a few times, it contains detergent which keeps your engine very clean and it has no zinc or phosphorus (ZDDP, required for all flat tappet engines). ZDDP is bad for catalytic converters so all the new engines are converting to roller cams. The oil companies simply left classic car owners out in the cold.

Your Ford engine uses a very common oil filter, FL-1A, that is available at all auto parts stores in the states. Many millions of Ford cars, trucks, boats, construction equipment, Edsel and Lincoln ALL used that filter at one time or another.

Change your filter every time you change oil. Use a popular name oil and change it every 3,000 miles. I do not recommend synthetic unless you have a turbo charger or your engine runs extremely hot. Synthetic was made for aircraft engines with turbo chargers. Regular oil lubricates just as well for a lot less money.

If you are using standard DOT-3 brake fluid change it every three years. You don't need to drain it all out which produces air in the lines but take out what you can from the reservoir. I use a turkey baster (your wife has one and our 'dollar stores' sell them). Then fill with fresh, clear, DOT-3 brake fluid. Have someone gently press the brake pedal as you go around opening and closing bleeder valves on the wheel cylinders. Do this on each wheel until the fluid runs clear. - Dave

Wingman65 11-26-2015 10:08 PM

Dave, I could not agree more with this post. In my 35 years of maintaining my vehicles as well as others, I have religiously changed my oil AND filter every 3000 miles and never had an oil related problem. I have had many Ford vehicles that used the FL-1A filter and it always did its job, many times well over 250k miles as long as changed regularly.

The company I work for has a fleet of vehicles, both cars and trucks and we use AMS-OIL full synthetic and change the oil every 15k miles with filter change every 5k, per their recommendation. I must say that it took awhile to get used to that idea, just didn't seem right. Now with our newer family vehicles, the vehicle tells you when to change the oil, and ofcourse it is expensive full synthetic.

Now, 15 years since I last owned a car with flat tappet cam, I have to pay close attention to the oil I use as the EPA has narrowed my choices. After some research, and some insight from these forums, I ordered 6 qts of Quakerstate Defy with 1200 ppm of ZDDP and the benefits of a semi-synthetic for 21 dollars and free pickup at Walmart. Would have paid over 40 dollars for conventional plus additive at parts stores. I intend to use the FL-1A filter and change oil every 3000 miles or 1 year as I always have, cheap peace of mind. Just a side note, the 62-63 shop manuals recommend 6000 miles for oil and filter change.

Tony

simplyconnected 11-27-2015 04:56 AM

Two things come to mind regarding oil... it's temp limit and how fast it can conduct heat.
Did you ever fry chicken? I saw a gourmet chef heat his oil until it was smoking, then he dropped the chicken in. The dinner was fabulous, but how hot was that oil? I would guess it was around 450 degrees F, and the oil was SYNTHETIC (vegetable) oil.

Our engine oil only gets that hot if it is subjected to the exhaust heat (like a turbo charger's bearings) OR if the oil is caught in an area where flow stops, and it sits and bakes.

Our cooling system depends on a wall of iron to transfer heat around the cylinders and heads, and it does an amazing job. But what is happening on the bottom of your engine where there is NO coolant? Each connecting rod squirts a small spritz of oil to the bottom of the neighboring piston on the opposite bank. This is the heart of your cooling because this oil pulls heat off the aluminum piston's bottom AND it supplies lubrication to the bottom oiling rings through slots in the back side of the piston. You can imagine how hot a piston gets. If the piston had no means of cooling, the compression rings would expand and scuff the cylinder walls. This heated oil causes the oil pan to reach 300 degrees F. When the oil pump sends this hot oil back into the block's oil galleries, coolant extracts the heat again through the iron.

Conventional oil cannot take heat much more than 350 degrees F. or it will break down (burn). Pistons get hotter than 350 but the oil spritz is constantly flowing and pulling heat away.

If your engine coolant runs hot, the oil is even hotter. For problems like this I would use synthetic oil because it tolerates high heat (like that cooking oil). I would also install an OIL COOLER to help the cooling system. Remember, we regulate coolant at 180 degrees F, but engine oil gets twice as hot. Cooling the oil relieves your cooling system. We don't monitor oil temps but with an oil cooler you will notice that the gauge needle will easily stay in the 'normal' area. - Dave

elijahbird7 06-11-2016 10:35 AM

I have also been using Quaker State Defy in all of my old cars since they started to produce it. It is available at most of the local Auto Parts dealers in several weights.

pbf777 06-13-2016 02:27 PM

I do not recommend synthetic unless you have a turbo charger or your engine runs extremely hot. Synthetic was made for aircraft engines with turbo chargers.
- Dave[/quote]

This is copy from Ed Newman of AMSOIL, inc.:

"It is believed that the first synthesized hydrocarbons were created by Friedel & Crafts in 1877 using Aluminum TriChrloride as the catalyst. Yet it wasn't until 1929 that the commercial development of synthesized hydrocarbons was undertaken by Standard Oil of Indiana. Not surprisingly there was a lack of demand for the new product and this first marketplace introduction of synthetic lubricants was commercially unsuccessful. (There is probably no relationship between this event and collapse of stock market later that year.)

Eight years later the first PAO, a synthetic product using olefin polymerization, was manufactured. 1937 was also year that the Zurich Aviation Congress became interested in ester based lubricant technology. From 1938 to 1944 thousands of esters were evaluated in Germany with excellent results (pbf: a search for an alternative, due to a lack of natural oil reserves available). In our own country ester basestocks were also being developed by the United States Naval Research Laboratory and introduced into military aviation applications during the 1940's (pbf: "to keep up with the joneses" i.e. Germans; this was the only market to justify the expense).

During this period scientists were well funded, and the new processes of synthetic creation had some great success. But as is so often the case, the existence of a "better mousetrap" does not always result in its commercial survival.

It was the space age that helped create a greater appreciation for the benefits of synthetic lubricants. Jet engines raised the bar on what was required of a lubricant. The high speed, high heat and cold temperature performance requirements of modern jets created a demand for a new kind of lubricant.

Just after the war we saw the first use of diesters by the British in turboprop (pbf: not a "turbo" equipped reciprocating) engines for high temperature performance. And from the late forties to the early seventies various synthetic fluids were developed to meet the demands of new and more efficient high performance engines and machines".

I think being of the belief that synthetics were developed and are only desirable for turbo supercharger applications; that any additional expense for them, in your vehicle, is unnecessary may be a bit naive.

There is much information on the subject available, research for yourself and decide. Scott.

simplyconnected 06-13-2016 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbf777 (Post 101702)
I do not recommend synthetic unless you have a turbo charger or your engine runs extremely hot. Synthetic was made for aircraft engines with turbo chargers.
- Dave

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbf777 (Post 101702)
...Just after the war we saw the first use of diesters by the British in turboprop (pbf: not a "turbo" equipped reciprocating) engines for high temperature performance. And from the late forties to the early seventies various synthetic fluids were developed to meet the demands of new and more efficient high performance engines and machines"...

Thank You Scott, for verifying my quote. Squarebird engines are hardly 'high performance'. They used to be, when we had leaded gas to take advantage of the high compression ratios. Not any more, most Squarebird owners retard their ignition timing to prevent overheating. The fuel burns late and incomplete but it also cools the combustion chamber.

BTW, I have never heard a claim that synthetic oil gives superior lubricity, because it simply doesn't. It was developed for extreme heat and cold. Our classics suffer neither. So, you can spend as much as you want on your motor oil, which is your choice. Otherwise, dinosaur oil with enough ZDDP works just as well at a much lower cost. That is what our engines were designed to use. - Dave

scumdog 06-13-2016 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplyconnected (Post 101704)
Thank You Scott, for verifying my quote. Squarebird engines are hardly 'high performance'. They used to be, when we had leaded gas to take advantage of the high compression ratios. Not any more, most Squarebird owners retard their ignition timing to prevent overheating. The fuel burns late and incomplete but it also cools the combustion chamber.

Dave

Dave, I have found a retarded ignition timing caused the engine to run hotter, once enough to make the headers glow red hot at 2,000rpm.
Are we talking about two different things here?

simplyconnected 06-13-2016 04:04 PM

I think so, Tom. Advancing the spark usually adds much more HP because the fuel burns sooner, to the point where knock and ping become excessive. Ethyl Corp., back in the day, developed high octane fuel that slowed the burn which in effect also retarded the timing. Later, we called this 'premium' fuel. Originally, we pulled up to the pump and told the attendant, "Fill 'er up, Ethyl."

So now, instead of advancing the spark for a sooner burn, most folks retard timing so it burns later. HP goes down and efficiency goes down but because the fuel is only partially burned it actually helps cool the combustion chamber.

Modern cars RAISE their coolant temp and advance spark so the fuel can burn more completely. They don't have heat issues because the heads are aluminum, pistons are hypereutectic alloy and the rings are moly. All of which quench heat far better than the materials of the day. - Dave


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Any submissions to this site and any post on this site becomes property of Squarebirds.org . The webmasters reserve the right to edit and modify any submissions to this site. All material on this is site is copyrighted by the Squarebirds.org. Reproduction by any means other than for personal use is strictly prohibited. Permission to use material on this site can be obtained by contacting the webmasters. Copyright 2002-2016 by Squarebirds.org.