My Shelby FE 427 is finally back home

[Eric S]

Well I suppose assume is synonim for suppose or maybe I try to speak english and not american. Just kidding.

The first engine builder used solid push rods and I am pretty sure did not used the skinny bolts. (Some parts are missing aftger 8 years and 4 machine shops)
I got the right skinny bolts and used them on the last build BUT the machine shop put the shafts up side down.

As for the current combo or "stuff" used :
Crower Cam Shaft
Rhodes Hydraulic Lifters
Solid Push Rods
Ford style Rockers System

SHELBY BLOCKS do not exactly lube the Ford Way :
As for the #5 cam bearing, it has a groove machined in the housing bore to allow the oil to flow to the lifter bores. Our block does not oil through the deck to the heads from the #2 and #4 cam bearing like an original block. Our block oils the deck through the lifter bore oil passage.

Shelby is currently using roller camshafts, Gaterman hydraulic lifters and T&D rocker arms as well as Shelby "own" heads.
I guess I may be going this way and use what those in the know uses, save the heads that they should not sell me and, since I spent a fortune on this engine until now, I would like to save a little bit !

[pbf777]

It was intended as (bad) humor: "ASSUME" = as the idiom goes, "to assume makes an a$$ out of u and me"!

SHELBY BLOCKS DO NOT LUBE THE FORD WAY

This is true, but as the description, which 'is' somewhat poorly worded, is trying to outline, is that these blocks garner the oil supply, which is as presented to the block deck in the same position as the O.E.M. examples, but draws such from the "lifter gallery" rather than from the #2 or #4 camshaft bearing bores.

It explains why Danbury Competition originally built the engine WITHOUT the skinny rockers stand bolts.

The unique "skinny" stand bolt generally found in the position of the oil pathway isn't actually required (now whether the "machine shop" understands this or not, I can't say), as of when Ford introduced the aluminum alloy stands; this as generally (and for example as presented in Dave's photos) these stands present a "squared" vs. a round hole through the stand, this negating much of the requirement for this feature. But, do check and determine if a slightly "longer" bolt wouldn't be prudent.

As for the comment made:

Your rocker arm shafts are pressurized so oil starvation is not an issue.

This 'is' as the engineers intended, but if the area available, that of the leakage, outstrips the orifice area of the supply, then the equivalent pressure cannot be maintained!

But anyway, as for further thoughts: I'd swap the hardware store "bolts" for "studs", as the FE's four bolt rocker-shaft retention feature isn't the best when venturing down the "performance" route.

And then, obviously depending on how aggressive the valve-train setup might be, if those are the O.E.M. die-cast "aluminum" stands, they just aren't the best either; as for example note the apparent chaffing of the aluminum onto the steel shaft as presented in 'your' photo.

Now, some of the "FE Guys" have chosen to "shut-off" the oil routing through the block decks (note the provided threading of the passage orifice at the block deck) and adopt oiling through the pushrods (probably a subliminal "Chevy" influence). I feel that the O.E.M. design "is" more efficient, when set-up properly, this particularly with "solid-lifter" cams, but with the "hydraulics", where the pathway system remains closed, oiling through the lifters, up the pushrods, if it makes you "feel better" works fine. But of course for this, "open-ended" pushrods would be required and rocker-arms designed for this.

Scott.

[simplyconnected]

Ok, how do your shafts get oil pressure, and what lubricates the arms? How is your timing set getting oil?

[Eric S]

Dave

from what I learned, the Ford engine send oil through #2&4 cam bearings, up through the deck & the rocker stands, then into the rocker shafts to the rockers.
On Shelby block it goes through #5 cam bearing to the lifters lines, then either up the hollow push rods to the rockers or to the rockers stands through the deck.
Plugging the deck and using hollow pushrods (and I assume, or, dare I, suppose hollow lifters?) will lube the rockers
OR
using plain push rods and the hole through the deck > Stands > lube the rockers.
I am not sure about how the timing set gets oil at this stage.

Scott
I am glad that you found the message from Shelby was poorly written as it led me to believe at first that no provision was made to oil through the deck (up push rods only)!!
And you're right, the stands are large around the stands to allow for oil to pass through but I thought skiny bolts were still required to allow more oil to get up there...

On a french Forum, I came across a post from a guy that bought a 427 Shelby Block engine that the previous owner get rid of after the lifters failed after 500kms then AGAIN after 500kms.
He blamed the fact that the oil channel leading to #5 cam bearing was 1/4" and then lead to 2 x 3/8" lifter oil channels that he thought would reduce the oil distribution to the lifters and rockers. This makes sense and I may ask Shelby about this concern.
So he designed a different oil network, adding an external (under the intake manifold) tube and drilling through oil channels to improve the situation.

You may want to have a look at his post which is well written, pictured and detailed. You probably can use a translation : https://forum-auto.caradisiac.com/to...7-fe/#comments

He also details the oil distribution for various parts that he had from http://fordfe.info/Forum/Oil.html

[pbf777]

Plugging the deck and using hollow pushrods (and I assume, or, dare I, suppose hollow lifters?) will lube the rockers

Well, the "appropriate" componentry would be needed. "FE" lifters don't generally provide an intention for oiling the "top-end", open-ended pushrods would be required, but then the O.E.M. rocker arms wouldn't provide a "pressurized" oil passage to the rocker to shaft juncture either! And of course, there must be lifter oil galleries present (not all FE's do!) and with a sufficient supply of pressurized oil.

OR: Using plain push rods and the hole through the deck > Stands > lube the rockers.

As I stated previously, I feel this is probably the best option in this instance.

I am not sure about how the timing set gets oil at this stage.

As per the original O.E.M. intention the "timing set" receives "most" of it's lubrication from that which it collides with, as is expressed forward from the #1 main bearing clearance in the lower position, and from the camshaft bearing clearance via a relief provided in the thrust-plate behind the upper cam-gear.

I came across a post from a guy that bought a 427 Shelby Block engine that the previous owner get rid of after the lifters failed after 500kms then AGAIN after 500kms.
He blamed the fact that the oil channel leading to #5 cam bearing was 1/4" and then lead to 2 x 3/8" lifter oil channels that he thought would reduce the oil distribution to the lifters and rockers. This makes sense and I may ask Shelby about this concern.

I can't really comment of the validity of these claims, as I have stated previously: one really needs to be there holding the parts in-hand and making the observations for a truly accurate conclusion; but, I will agree in the sense that I'm not entirely impressed with the oil gallery routing execution. But, as alluded to previously, the question here is: Is the "leakage area" greater than that of the supply capacity? The fact that the dimensional area within the pressurized galleries may change, and this will effect the fluid "velocity", may not actually change the pressure differential at the leakage point(s).

So he designed a different oil network, adding an external (under the intake manifold) tube and drilling through oil channels to improve the situation.

And yes, the practice of "reworking" the oiling systems in the engine blocks isn't new, been practiced "forever", and in all sorts of makes and examples, not just "FE's"!

But these practices (restrictors, buy-passes, reroutings, pluggings, drillings, etc.) are generally in response to a particular shortcoming experienced, with the belief that "all ya' gotta do is . . . . " and the problem is solved; but not always! When venturing down this path be familiarized with what it is your actually doing and the resultant effects with considerations based on your own faculties; not just following someone else's "recipe" that may or may not have actually provided the result touted.

Scott.

[Eric S]

Shelby blocks are modified and have lifter oil galleries. Joe Felciano @ Shelby told me that they improved the block and chose to oil through the rods but kept the option to oil through the deck.
All the engines they build oil through the push rods.
Then I can only imagine that the oiling of the shaft within the rocker has been thought of.
As for the leakage areas, it seems that the regular OEM rocker system is much more hungry with oil than the through push rods system, which leaves more oil available to other parts groups.

As for the french forum and the claim that the oil galleries goes from 1/4" to 3/8", I talked about this with a friend that worked a bit in hydraulics and he told me it's quite normal, it's always the small lines first and then goes larger.
I finished reading all the 6 pages of this french forum and then I am heading to Shelby for their opinion. (what the guy on the forum should have done first in my opinion)
I am more concerned by the fact that his engine had failing lifters after a few hundreds miles/kms and twice when my engine failed at the rockers (further down the same oiling path).
There is obviously something wrong (linked?) in the 2 cases. Whether this is by design (which I doubt as Shelby never modified their block since mine was made back in 2010) or by using wrong parts/tolerances, ...

And NO I won't follow this guy's recipes.

[simplyconnected]

Eric, Squarebirds.org is not a forum for custom engines. Our purpose is to make the Shop Manual clearer for sections that are vague or missing information.
Your engine situation was custom engineered and built to a different standard. You need to contact the people who designed and built it.

This isn't a cop-out because we know very little about your modifications or the materials that were used. Again, we go by the Ford Shop Manuals and the Ford Parts and Accessories Catalogs.

I have used hydraulic roller cams and lifters in Ford engines with great success. I also use modern materials like aluminum heads and intake manifold, hypereutectic alloy pistons with moly rings, true roller timing sets, etc. These are industry standards that modern Ford cars use, not custom components. The idea is to improve the longevity that modern Ford cars enjoy.. I cringe when I hear an owner say, "Overhaul it back to original." Original cars went 80-to-100,000 miles. Modern engines go 250,000 miles or something is wrong.

GM engines have rocker arms with a 'cup' design to hold oil. The pushrod end of the arm has a hole that oil squirts out of from a hollow pushrod, that lubes the semi-sphere pivot and the valve tip. FE engines are completely different although some mechanics try to use their GM training on Ford engine builds. It simply doesn't work. - Dave

[pbf777]

Shelby blocks are modified and have lifter oil galleries. [And] that they improved the block and chose to oil through the rods but kept the option to oil through the deck.
All the engines they build oil through the push rods.
As for the leakage areas, it seems that the regular OEM rocker system is much more hungry with oil than the through push rods system.

All of the "FE" engines as intended to utilize the "hydraulic" lifter originally from the O.E.M. have provisions to provide oil to the lifters, aka. an oil gallery (actually "two"). But Ford never utilized through the pushrod oil delivery for the purpose of providing lubrication for the rocker arm to shaft juncture; rather always up though the block, head casting and rocker stand for this purpose. And again, when "set-up properly", and I feel the reason Ford designed it as such, is that it actually 'is' the more "efficient" process providing greater control and lesser loss along the way.

Oh, and by the way, that long, small diameter drilling from the blocks' deck down to the camshaft bearing bore, this properly engaging the necessary relief as machined in the blocks' bearing bore, or other wise the little dinky hole in the special cam bearings as utilized in the "Side Oiler" blocks, this as executed by Ford, is probably one of the more difficult to execute and potentially presenting the greatest sum of machining failures/rejects in the whole process. So, did Shelby "improve the block" from an O.E.M. design flaw which were leading to in service failures, or rather for the purpose of aiding in their production process?

Then I can only imagine that the oiling of the shaft within the rocker has been thought of.

"Imagine" . . . . is very similar in thought as "suppose" and "assume"! (sorry, bad humor, but I just couldn't resist!) In other words: "I wouldn't bet my life on it!"

Scott.

[pbf777]

In closing, if you review my previous statements, which although are solely based on the photos you provided, vs. the preferred "hands-on" observations, this with considerations in the framework of "oil-starvation" and then with allowing me to perhaps "connect the dots", but of course now with a greater sum of "supposition". . . . .

I stated previously: They are too large and too many, in the way of holes drilled in the shafts; they were mounted up-side-down which positions those holes on the "clearance" side in the relationship (particularly with Hydraulic lifters) of the shaft to rocker juncture; then this clearance relationship has typically been "sloppy" anyway, and this 'is' where the regulation for the leakage sum is "supposed" to be controlled.

Then the fact that it is often practiced in "FE's" to "restrict" the oil delivery volume to the "top-end", and with your Shelby aluminum block provision for this has been provided for with the threading of the oil gallery leading up to the heads, this at the block decks (but there have many other processes practiced). So the next question, which would be directed at the engine builder/assembler might be: "is there a restriction as installed here (or anywhere else)"? As my point is, and in closure (as it seems some might be tiring of this discussion) that if so, then I feel a strong likelihood, that your engines' valvetrain problem is a simple case of the leakage sum out pacing the supply, which often, even if there's plenty of oil being pumped, it's just not getting to everywhere it's needed.

And by the way, if you had the engine running and the valve covers removed, and the sum of oil flying didn't leave a lasting impression on you, . . . . something's wrong!

Suggestion: Considering the sum of the investment to this point in this engine . . . . . Buy a set of:

https://harlandsharp.com/collections/ford-head-specific-shaft-systems/products/fe-ford-v8-bronze-bushed

Scott.

[Eric S]

Scott
thank you for your help on this matter. All makes sense.
In conclusion, even though I guess I will never know what happened when the engine originally failed, I will go with what Shleby recommends in terms of parts.
They build engines with those parts and they seems to be working. As Joe Felciano told me, the problems lies either in parts or assembly, so getting the parts they use will remove one factor from the equation.
So I'll have a set of T&D Rockers, Gaterman lifters, a Crower Camshaft and matching springs and a new set of push rods.
Heads will have to be machined to accept the T&D Rocker system.
A lot of work/$ but I will be within Shelby Specs.

Thank you all for this nice discussion.
big_ford-105.jpg gp1004-800_2.jpg

[pbf777]

"T & D" produces a fine product, but I fell it really is a bit beyond your needs and only creates a greater sum of work for fitment and in costing; hence why I recommended the "Harland Sharp" product.

As for the "matching springs", realize that this is a "supposition" until the proper procedure of measuring to establish this for a fact has been followed!

And. . . . . if we choose to acknowledge that "oil starvation" may have had a hand in your previous failures, how are we addressing this issue? I presume by switching to the "through-pushrod" oiling? If so, thoughts that come to mind of, although you have stated that it is a "Crower Cam" I don't seem to recall if you ever stated whether it was a "hydraulic" or a "mechanical" type; and particularly of the latter, but not excluding the prior, have "restrictions" been applied to this delivery route?

Remember that the FE is probably the engine family with the most in the way of "ideas" in how to address "oil-control" of any!

Scott.

[Eric S]

Well I am already beyond my needs/costs so I decided to stay with what Shelby advises and uses. It's their block and they know what to use to make them "work" so I am done with experimenting.
As far as I know, the Camshaft manufacturer is the one that recommends the springs that will suit his shaft but I would be glad for any advise as how to select springs.
As for adressing oil starvation, if I follow Shelby's route, use their parts, I should be all fine even though the origin of the trouble will remain a mystery.
Set up was and will remain with hydraulic lifters with no restrictions. On new system, I will block the oil channel that goes through the block/head/rocker stands since we'll oil through the pushrods.
Yes I understand (past the suppose stage !) that there is a lot of ways of thought on this and others engine so that's why I prefer to follow one "master" now.