My Shelby FE 427 is finally back home

[Eric S]

Looking at ordering Permatex Ultra Black. 82180 tube is 3.35 oz. Is it enough for my 2 gaskets (8 faces). Should I get 2 tubes?
82080 seems to be a spray. Might be easier to spray a thin coat?

[pbf777]

[QUOTE=Eric S;n265914 Should I get 2 tubes?
[/QUOTE]

One tube should be more than enough; remember . . . . . "sparingly"!

For measure, when bolting components together, you should 'not' be presented with a resultant large bead of silicone squishing out from between the two sealing surfaces, nothing beyond just enough to present the smallest evidence of any excess silicone having migrated out from between the surfaces should be visible upon inspection.

In this case of the oil pan gaskets, particularly there being more than one, I will apply the silicon with my (clean) finger, rubbing it onto the surfaces with no real build, just enough to create the color change to black; this way it acts not only as a sealer of the imperfections, that of which the gasket material might not be capable of addressing, but given the opportunity, it also acts as an adhesive to retain the gasket. But note that if too much is applied and/or the fasteners are overly tightened (were not even to the "torquing" yet") to soon, the silicone will act as a lubricant and cause the gaskets to migrate out of position and even promote their separation under the load created in the act of the fastener torquing.

And this is why I stated that repeated tightening operations will work best, particularly in this instance of multiple surfaces and gaskets; as installing the windage tray, oil pan and two gaskets, this presenting a multitude of sealing surfaces at once, one should just "snug" the gaskets the first time; but even this encompasses multiple trips around the pan bolt perimeter; each time realizing that the fasteners just are not as 'snug' as you had left them the last time you 'snugged' them, all of this, all ending at "wrist-tight" only; this not greater than say 5 ft.lbs. .

Now tomorrow, giving time for the silicone to at least partially set-up and the gaskets an opportunity to accept the load and collapse some, re-snug them, just a little more, but still short of the actual "torque value", going around the pan a couple of times. Then, if possible, wait until the following day and finish the "torquing" effort; but being observant of the gaskets for migration and the oil pan rail for deformation, which if such is observed may alter the original intention of just actually what one might conclude as "tight enough".

Also, as for the fasteners, here I would prefer the use of the "stud & nut" (w/ washer) fastener system, as it provides for better positioning and easier alignment in the multiple items being pierced, and the sealing function about the part of the fastener passing through the stack will not be so corrupted with the later retightenings.

Scott.

[Eric S]

Scott
applying a thin coat would be easier with the 82080 that comes in a spray. I will give it a try for the cork sides of my "project".
The first gasket I did, I experienced the gasket migrating out so I think I learned the lesson !
I should not have problem tightening over several days as usually I work REALLY slow...

Do you think I should be able to install 1 gasket first with the windage tray "compressed" with the oil pan, let it cure and then install the 2nd gasket and oil pan? This would easy the process.

I ordered a new set of ARP bolts so I will use those. Several recommend the use of studs & nuts but too late for me.
Also the engine is not on an engine stand (as I have another engine on my stand and I fear it's not sturdy enough to hold this massive fully assembled engine) and I will have to lift the engine with a forklift and work "from under". Not the easiest and safest...
But in this case it may be easier to work with bolt rather than studs & nuts...

As for the product itself, I see there https://www.permatex.com/gasket-maker-comparsion-chart/ that they do have a new product called OPTIMUM and some recommends RIGHT STUFF.
I know you use ULTRA BLACK but wondering if some new product may bring some advantage over older products...

[pbf777]

Scott

Do you think I should be able to install 1 gasket first with the windage tray "compressed" with the oil pan, let it cure and then install the 2nd gasket and oil pan?

I would assemble all of these in a single fixturing as there would less possible disruption to that as done in steps.

I ordered a new set of ARP bolts so I will use those. Several recommend the use of studs & nuts but too late for me.

Just because one might already posses a set of bolts doesn't mean they can't chose to change direction; after all, something else in the way of fasteners isn't all that expensive, and the other stuff will inevitably be found useful for something else.

Also the engine is not on an engine stand (as I have another engine on my stand and I fear it's not sturdy enough to hold this massive fully assembled engine) and I will have to lift the engine with a forklift and work "from under". Not the easiest and safest...

Now I'm definitely not what one might consider as a "safety guy", and I've certainly done some pretty stupid stuff over the years, but yeah, what your suggesting definitely isn't the "safest" and does border on just plain . . . . . . "not smart".

O.K., now that the speech is over, when I've done this before (did I just say that?) and with some 'really' heavy stuff, I would chain the forks so that if a hydraulic failure were to happen the forks can't move; it's a little more work, and you have to have some 'really' good chain, but it certainly makes for greater comfort when looking up and realizing how much weight is over your head.

I know you use ULTRA BLACK but wondering if some new product may bring some advantage over older products...

This one I leave to you. Probably most any of that that is listed 'would' work, your project really doesn't possess any unique issues that requires a tailored product, so hence my recommendation (which does per the listing seem "ideal"), but this decision if often greatly made based on previous experiences.

Scott.

[Eric S]

Well, ARP do not seem to offer studs for the Ford FE but I found a kit from Summit (Canton Racing). 22$ not big deal. So at least I will have a choice...
As for the fork lift, I will rest the forks on the shop lift, will be more secure. Good to tchat with others, opens up the mind...
Order from Summit ready now. Will have to transit through one of my suppliers in the US so hope to get it in 3-4 weeks....

[pbf777]

I'm sure you have considered the fact that as having the greater thickness in the stacking your presented with, though which is not unheard of, particularly as with that of the FORD FE, but still lets say . . . . . . not so 'typical', that you investigated the required "under-head" fastener length and that the "kit" from Canton does actually provide such?

Also, ARP does sell their product in what they label as "bulk", with specified packaged quantities or even with a phone call to "Tech" you can specify your requirements and they generally prove quite helpful and may be able to provide for your needs even if such might not be listed.

And yeah, their website, well . . . . . it 'sucks', as many of the big corporate websites do, but they're good people if you can get someone to the phone.

Scott.

[Eric S]

I finally received the order from Summit and borrowed an engine stand from a friend.

Since I have an Aluminum block and Stainless stell studs, is there any tip to avoid electrolitic problem between aluminum and stainless??
Should I lock the studs in place or 1/2 turn off?

[pbf777]

First, in this relationship the stainless steel functions as the "cathode" and the aluminum acts as the "anode", and here, the fact the anode is of far greater mass generally aids in the reduction in the concentrated electrical path this reducing the galvanic corrosion effect, "some", that vs. if there were a reversal in the relationship.

Next, a "corrosive electrolyte" (such as water) is needed to complete the circuit and promote the galvanic corrosion process, so the idea is, that even if we can't keep separated the anode from the cathode (the S.S. fastener threaded into the aluminum block) completely, if we manage to seal out (most of) the water then again we have managed to further reduce the galvanic process.

Also of note, is that the higher strength and quality fasteners, from for example ARP as being utilized here, also aid in a reduction in the communication process (this vs. say some simple rolled S.S. plate).

So, . . . . I'd recommend utilizing something like Loctite ("blue") on the threads entering the block, this to act a sealer, along with retention so as the studs function as intended remaining in place with the installation and removal of the nuts.

Scott.

[Eric S]

I stacked everything together and checked for "out of flat". The oil pan is still a bit waving.
How straight it needs to be? The thick cork gasket can take for much of it but I want all the odds on my side.
I used a random flat steel plate for the picture. Not my measuring tool...

I tightened the nuts at 10 IN/Lbs and I was still able to slide a very thin thickness gage (.005") not completely through but to the first rib.
Is it completely useless to try to make it "'better"?

IMG_20250730_160327_879.jpg

[Eric S]

When my engine failed back in ... 2017 ! the rockers on cylinder #8 seized on the shaft.
Engine has been rebuilt over 8 years, ran on a dyno bench and I was checking things since then.
Today I pulled the rocker assy on the left bank (that includes #8) and guess what, it was seized again. Not much but after only 2 hours on the bench.

I am using the regular Ford rocker assembly. I know it's not the best but what is the reason for it seizing after just a couple of hours?

IMG_20251201_105301_681.jpg IMG_20251201_105252_398.jpg IMG_20251201_105324_034.jpg IMG_20251201_105308_162.jpg

[pbf777]

Obviously I wasn't involved in the build of your engine and therefore lack any really factual "hands-on" information, but if I'm allowed to surmise to some degree:

First, and simply, the "galling" is due to the displacement of the lubricant which is intended to separate the metal surfaces in operation, this which results in excessive frictional heat and then micro-welding and if perpetuated progresses to more severe galling and imminent failure! So why is this happening?

Surface textures and surface relationships may be unacceptable. That is that the parent material is piercing the oil film, this leading to specific loading and heat production that would further displace the oil film surface; but looking at the shaft it would seem to have been "O.K." in this regard; so what did, that is before this incident, the rocker arm bore look like?

The next thing that comes to mind would be whether there was sufficient oil delivery to work with in the first place? When it comes to FE's utilizing the O.E.M. style oil delivery system it's very popular to restrict the oil delivery pathway to the upper-valve-train system. But this may lead to further complications by if the builder hasn't made the observation for and/or addressed the often inconsistent and excessive clearances in particularly the rocker-arm to shaft relationships, this causing the now as limited oil volume to prove as insufficient given the stack-up of leakage area present. And hence oil starvation occurs to some, which are most often those furthest from the delivery point; as it would seem with yours, out on the end position.

Also, looks as though someone has made for quite the generous oil supply holes in the shafts under the rocker arms? But then, it seems the galling effect is opposite of these holes; and as generally the greater loading will be on the bottom of the shafts, as the rocker arm is pushed upward, this tends to lead me to believe that the oil supply holes are turn upward as installed, which is wrong, they should be pointing downward. But beyond that, with those "overly generous" supply hole modifications which create other concerns, I'd recommend "tossing" those shafts anyway!

My initial thoughts anyway.

Scott.

[simplyconnected]

Let's see the inside of your rocker arms. Are the oil tracks washed out?
Rocker arms do not need much lubrication. Check out my rocker assembly

https://www.squarebirds.org/simplyconnected/390Build/RockerShafts.htm

Notice that the slots on the bottom oil holes are on an angle. This is OEM. - Dave

[Eric S]

Scott

the parts are/were brand new so the rocker arm bores were expected to be good (before!) and without excessive clearances.
I am using Edelbrock heads so I suppose no restriction is required as heads should be made "right".
You're right, the worst galling occured on cylinder #8 which is on the far-end of the lubrification network.
You're also right when you noticed that the worst galling was opposite as the machine shop put the shafts (both!) upside down.
So the other side (cylinders 1-4) also show some galling but only #8 showing some tight spots (worst condition)

Dave
I have not looked in the rockers yet. Will check it out.
Do you mean the slots are at an angle from the shaft axis? I can barely see this angle on my pictures? Will check that too...
But there is 2 oil holes on each rocker...

Now I am wondering if I should remain with this rockers system, use an "improved" version or change everything and go to roller lifters.
I sent or am about to send messages to Shelby, Edelbrock, Crower, Summit and Brent Lykins (he supplied some parts) and ask for their advice.
I need to know if the camshaft/lifters/rockers/heads combo is correct or not.

IMG_20251203_173921_199.jpg IMG_20251203_115444_156.jpg

[pbf777]

The parts are/were brand new so the rocker arm bores were expected to be good (before!) and without excessive clearances.

Actually, the O.E.M. shaft to rocker arm juncture generally exhibits quite sloppy tolerances, with what are most often of an "excessive" sum of clearance as delivered, and was the practiced solution!

I feel that the "FE" was perhaps "shorted" in this regard as for example the ductile-iron rocker arms on the lowly six cylinder had bronze bushings in place, why the FE didn't, I've sorta decided this must have been a cost-cutting endeavor as perhaps the 'new' FE engine program might have been spiraling out of control at some point, so the bushings were discarded and excessive clearances were adopted to aid in retarding premature failures.

I am using Edelbrock heads so I suppose no restriction is required as heads should be made "right".

"Suppose"? Isn't that something like "assume"?

The pathway as supplied by Edelbrock is probably sufficient; the question might be: If and what, might someone have done if having chosen to attempt to "control" oil- flow to the "top-end"; which 'is' a popular practice?

The machine shop put the shafts (both!) upside down.

Sometimes, simple things get overlooked; but this would sorta present some concern as to the capability of the "machine shop" in regards to this effort?

There is 2 oil holes on each rocker...

Are these O.E.M. shafts? I was sorta thinking not, as in the photos the shaft 'seemed' to present as somewhat greater in wall thickness than O.E.M.? But, that's the problem when not actually there, holding the parts in ones' own hands.

But anyway, the "two holes", nor the dimensions, would be as from Ford; but of course the shafts could have been modified to such. But as I stated previously, I feel this is poorly engineered as executed; and between the area they present and particularly when they're turned up, on the clearance side in the relationship, the oil volume just floods out excessively!

Now I am wondering if I should remain with this rockers system, use an "improved" version or change everything and go to roller lifters.

Before we proceed in exploring this thought, we would be better positioned for a response if we understood:

I need to know if the camshaft/lifters/rockers/heads combo is correct or not.

And what exactly this "stuff" might be?

Scott.

[simplyconnected]

My heads are Edelbrock aluminum as well and I am running a roller cam with Ford stock rocker arms, because they fit under the stock rocker arm covers. Your rocker arm shafts are pressurized so oil starvation is not an issue. You should see oil coming out of each rocker arm, whether the flow is restricted or not.

Confirm that the correct 'slim' bolt is used,.where oil hole comes up the third stand on the right head, and the second stand on the left head. Refer to the first picture in my link. If the installer used 'regular bolts' the oil will be choked off. - Dave