AMC V8 'Police' oil pan variant
Printed From: TheAMCForum.com
Category: The Garage
Forum Name: AMC V8 Engine Repair and Modifications
Forum Description: AMC-made V8 engine mechanical, ignition and fuel from basic repair to high-perf modifications
URL: https://theamcforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=97910
Printed Date: Apr/16/2024 at 11:45am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: AMC V8 'Police' oil pan variant
Posted By: sweatlock
Subject: AMC V8 'Police' oil pan variant
Date Posted: Dec/31/2018 at 9:34pm
  
|
Replies:
Posted By: Greyhounds_AMX
Date Posted: Dec/31/2018 at 11:35pm
|
Wow that's interesting. It looks as if it holds enough oil near the pickup to avoid running dry from a quick sloshing like a hard corner. ------------- 1968 AMX 390 w/T5 |
Posted By: 1970Javelin
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 12:17am
|
Thanks for the pics! This has got me thinking about building a better oil pan using something like this with trap doors for keeping oil in there.
|
Posted By: sweatlock
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 5:43am
|
What's really interesting and why I call it a variant, is that it has a side drain plug like Jeep oil pans. I bought this from a forum member many years ago - I finally got around to cleaning it up, so I thought I'd take some pics before installing it on my engine.
|
Posted By: 1970Javelin
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 6:17am
|
How tall are the walls? Using that pan, I can see why the spec was 6qt so there is always enough oil to get over the walls.
|
Posted By: purple72Gremlin
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 6:40am
| The pan may be a bit better for cornering, but for drag racing its worthless. |
Posted By: 6PakBee
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 9:02am
That is interesting. All the ones I've seen have the center oil drain plug. ------------- Roger Gazur 1969 'B' Scheme SC/Rambler 1970 RWB 4-spd Machine 1970 Sonic Silver auto AMX All project cars. Forum Cockroach |
sweatlock wrote:Posted By: sweatlock
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 10:23am
The 'walls' of the baffle are approx. 3" in height, HOWEVER, the oil doesn't need to get over them - the baffle 'leaks' through to the drain plug. I tried it by filling the pan with water and then removing the drain plug, just to confirm that any oil in the baffle would drain out. There are 5 factory spot welds placed in an arc around the oval cutout of the baffle attaching it to the oil pan - the 'T' shaped cutout has a 'bump' in it creating a channel between the baffle and the pan to allow it to both drain and fill up. It's hard to see in the photos but it's located at the bottom RH corner of the 'T' cutout of the second photo. |
Posted By: sweatlock
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 10:24am
Agreed. It was supposedly intended for cop cars - and maybe Jeeps? Lol Although as delicate as it is being dependent on the contour of the pan and without a skid plate, I doubt it.
|
Posted By: 69 ambassador 390
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 10:56am
|
All stock AMC pans are really 6 Qt. The original design calls for 6 but that was one more than the other big 3 makers cars took for an oil change. The marketing hit that AMC would have taken for the increased maintenance cost as compared to the others was deemed unacceptable. The engines were tested at 5 qts and in most situations, they found it didn't hurt to run a qt. down. AMC could not be found to be more costly to maintain, so all literature said 5 Qts. In high speed driving, this lead to oil starvation. Fill a stock pan with 6 Qts and see. It is still below the baffle. Now take away at least 2 Qts for the top end and galleys and see how much is left. Always run 6 Qts in all AMC V8 G-ll/lll engines. ------------- Steve Brown Algonac, Mi. 69 Ambassador sst 390 84 Grand Wagoneer 69 Cougar XR7 65 Fairlaine 500XL 79 F-350 Super Camper Special |
Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 12:47pm
|
The "designed for 6 quarts, Marketing said 5" ... has so often been repeated that it is now considered as fact in the AMC community. If the design requirement was for 5 quarts to be competitive with other OEMs, why Engineering would ignore that requirement and design it for 6 makes little sense to me. It makes more sense that adverse use / fleet applications uncovered a weakness in getting oil back to the sump quickly or controlling slosh where adding an extra quart was a band-aide solution for those applications at little extra cost. If someone cam post an AMC technical document stating the pan was designed for 6 quart capacity and Marketing said 5, please do so to clarify the myth as fact. TSM and owners manuals state 5 quarts with filter change, but I understand adding an extra quart over stock specs helps in some applications. To me, a better idea is to fit a proper high capacity pan to suit your application - deep sump for drag and wide sump with trap doors and baffles for road-race. Several manufacturers offer pans - Canton, Milodon, Armando, Aviaid. Why band-aide the stock design with an extra quart when you can fit a better after market option? My 2 cents, RD.
|
Posted By: purple72Gremlin
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 1:11pm
|
Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 1:41pm
|
I don't think anyone would be foolish in using the pan for endurance or heavy 8000+ RPM as is. If any thing, the engineers at AMC made their best effort for police environment use. So, adding 1 quart max with that pan should be just fine for track day and street usage. Basically I have done well with my stock 304 engine and standard pan. Believe me I ran that engine hard above 4500k rpm a lot for years on end, and never spun a bearing, but did drop a valve under a blip to decelerate on downshift, which was fixed by head replacement from the wrecking yard. Kept running hard years after until sold. I just don't see running the big money aftermarket pans when a car is not built for competition, just for a fun driver. IMO, the pan should do very well for most track day / daily drover cars, and should not be discounted because many who do race mostly with their cars are trying to compare with, when there is noticeably differences as to warrant use for bigger and better pans. For my build nobody makes a pan proper for fit and clearness, so I have no choice in using my own custom design. Though I would not cut up the aforementioned pan, as it is very unique and can be used for non race builds. ------------- 71 Javelin SST body 390 69 crank, 70 block & heads NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons 78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low 50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension 79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker |
Posted By: sweatlock
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 1:51pm
|
Just wanted to share some photos of an interesting variation (side drain plug) on the factory solution for any spirited driving encountered by a car equipped with the AMC police package. This was what the factory deemed adequate for such driving. Are there better aftermarket options? Well, of course - just like there are headers to replace cast iron exhaust manifolds, Holley carbs or EFI to replace a Carter AFB, an Edelbrock aluminum intake to replace a cast iron manifold, etc. But, all of those factory parts do the job. This is what the factory provided as part of a package and I doubt any police departments changed out the factory oil pan to an aftermarket Milodon, Aviaid, etc. upon receipt of a brand new vehicle.
|
Posted By: 1970Javelin
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 2:16pm
I figured there was some amount of oil that could get in and out of the bottom of the baffle, it just didn't look very significant in the pictures. What I mean is, the oil system can flow a lot of GPM and it doesn't look like the baffle system bottom is going to flow in enough oil, it seems to me that it is going to require oil to come over the walls to keep up. This is total speculation on my part: Lets say that at a constant running state on a highway at 2,500 rpm, the oil system may be trying to flow several GPM. I'm guessing this because I seem to remember 10 GPM capacity cropping up occasionally when talking about the v8 oil system. This amount seems reasonable compared to other oil systems that I've worked with in the past. Also, many oil filters for the v8 are rated for 9 - 11 GPM. Looks to me that just a little bit of revving will quickly empty that baffle box, there is going to need to be enough oil resident in the pan to get over the walls and keep a supply, it makes sense to me why AMC spec'd an extra qt with applications that had this pan. By all means, take what I say with a grain of salt. It is my opinion and I have little documentation to back it up.
|
Posted By: 1970Javelin
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 3:18pm
Ya, thanks again for posting them. It is enlightening to get a peek into some application specific AMC engineering.  Do you know if the pickup had any differences with this pan?
|
Posted By: ccowx
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 4:04pm
|
Couple of thoughts. -Yes, the stock pan does have a small-ish capacity for what it does. The issue really is that at 5 quarts, you lose 1.5+ quarts in all the passages, filter and lifters, leaving you 3.5 quarts in the pan. If you run it at 3500+ for a while, you can easily have another 1.5-2.0 quarts in the valve covers, leaving you with 1.5-2.0 in the pan, maybe less. Probably ok on an Ambassador driven conservatively, but do a sharp corner in your AMX with the oil at that level and see what happens. Now, if you consider what this all looks like if you are just above the "add" mark on the dipstick and you can see the issue. You could be running with little more than 1/2 a quart in the pan! -6 quarts actually is above the windage tray in a stock pan, when not running, but as soon as you start it and the passages all fill, it is below the tray. I have run my car with 6 quarts for years. I did not tend to have an issue, but it did happen now and again that after a long highway run I would get the idiot light if I even braked quickly. I think that the 6 quarts is the cheapest insurance that you will likely ever find for your bottom end, at least in most street driven/restored vehicles. Competition is another matter. Thanks! Chris PS: these photos might be useful. Stock pan, top one with 4 quarts in it, bottom picture has 6. The 4 quarts picture should approximate what the pan is like when running with a total of 6 quarts of oil. Just about even with the windage tray. I treat the "full" mark on the dipstick as the "add" mark and do just fine! PPS: Also consider that when the oil is lower and only in the deeper part of the pan, being a quart low will make a bigger difference in oil depth than when it is spread out over the full length and width.   |
Posted By: ccowx
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 4:40pm
|
Just an extra thought, I have wondered why I have never seen anyone do outside return lines? It is mentioned in PAS and I would think that for a street driven GT style car, that would work well. If you could avoid the oil retention in the valve covers issue and perhaps put a home made baffle system around the pick up, that should be sufficient for a street driven vehicle I would think. 6 quarts in a stock pan should do it, with those mods. Full boogie competition machines are different of course. Thoughts? Chris
|
Posted By: 1970Javelin
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 6:47pm
Great show and tell. 6 qt makes a big difference it seems. Thanks!
|
Posted By: ccowx
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 7:30pm
|
Those pics were posted by someone else on this forum a few years back, so whoever he is, kudos to him! I agree, they do a great job of showing what the oil level actually looks like in the pan. A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say. Chris |
Posted By: 1970Javelin
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 7:45pm
I don't want to be hijacking, and maybe another thread can be started on this - I mentioned earlier that the police pan gave me some ideas for trap doors and baffles. I was thinking that if the police baffle box were rotated 45 degrees and had a little larger foot print, trap doors could be added. Above the trap doors, the walls could be taller and taper inwards to only having an opening big enough to fit the pickup through. Some quick searching and I have found countless examples of similar designs to what I was thinking... mostly. I haven't seen any with the tapered walls I'm picturing in my mind. Anyway, the Aviaid oil pan in this first post is very close to what I'm talking about: http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic7401&OB=DESC.html The removable sump lid is a great idea. A person could easily make a trap door box like that, that would fit a stock pickup in the center. The box would have to be sufficiently large enough to allow the doors to swing open and not hit the pickup. Hinge wire could be bent like this to limit the door opening to make sure it doesn't bang into the pickup or somehow get lodged open:  Picture above was from this article: https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/holding-oil-choosing-right-high-performance-oil-pan/ To get a little more out of things, the back half of the sump could be lopped off below the tray and get replaced with a more square sump. Being that I only use AMC v8's in cars, the sump depth is a concern to me. As much as I appreciate help when I can get it, I would rather not get help opening my oil pan on one of those tall gas-filler manhole covers at a gas station. So, I wouldn't want my sump to be lower than the engine cross member. Having a square sump may add .5 qt capacity, but more importantly, give more room for the baffling system and trap doors. Having a jam nut on the oil pickup tube to the block to keep the pickup located would be a good idea. Edit: I forgot to mention, this trap door and baffle system does seem exotic for a street car, however, with 6 qt of oil in my daily driver 401, I do occasionally get the oil light when making maneuvers that are not all that drastic. I have fine hot/cold pressure otherwise. I do use a Jeep pan, not sure if that changes anything, can't remember what it looked like inside. |
Posted By: BU1
Date Posted: Jan/01/2019 at 9:42pm
|
Could someone post a picture of a real police pan for those of us that have never seen one? ------------- AMO #2726 #1 1968 AMX Rally Green 343 Z code 4spd since 1975 #02642 #2 1968 AMX Rally Green 290 N code 4spd since 2019 #02959 |
Posted By: 69 ambassador 390
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 12:16am
|
The six quart police pan is the exact same stamping and has the exact same capacity of the std five quart. The internal baffle is set at a height that is above the six quart level also. It is less likely that engineering would set the baffles at the six quart level when they intended to run five. Also, marketing did not design the engine, they only came up with the marketing plan after the engine was designed. Seems much more plausible that the urban legend was true than not. It doesn't really matter in the end because you should always run six quarts anyhow. It fits and it prevents oil starvation at highway speeds. ------------- Steve Brown Algonac, Mi. 69 Ambassador sst 390 84 Grand Wagoneer 69 Cougar XR7 65 Fairlaine 500XL 79 F-350 Super Camper Special |
Posted By: 69 ambassador 390
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 12:20am
We have a stack of them at the shop. I'll see if I can get pics. I believe we have a police Jeep pan also. Wagoneers were used by more than a few police and fire depts.
------------- Steve Brown Algonac, Mi. 69 Ambassador sst 390 84 Grand Wagoneer 69 Cougar XR7 65 Fairlaine 500XL 79 F-350 Super Camper Special |
Posted By: FSJunkie
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 1:23am
|
Remember to tilt the oil pan down towards the rear when you fill the pan to visualize the oil fill level. Don't have the pan sitting level. The engines in these cars tilt down towards the rear when they are installed in the vehicle. ------------- 1955 Packard 1966 Marlin 1972 Wagoneer 1973 Ambassador 1977 Hornet 1982 Concord D/L 1984 Eagle Limited |
Posted By: 6PakBee
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 8:00am
 ------------- Roger Gazur 1969 'B' Scheme SC/Rambler 1970 RWB 4-spd Machine 1970 Sonic Silver auto AMX All project cars. Forum Cockroach |
Posted By: White70JavelinSST
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 10:16am
|
Some of you guys must be way crazier than I ever was with the White70. That car with original engine in it after only pulling the heads at 90K to freshen the valve seal surfaces, has 140k miles on it now. I've never put 6 quarts in it. Granted it doesn't run down the highway at 4500 rpm sustained very often or street drag racing, I do corner it pretty heavily cuz I'm a road racer guy, but it has proven itself in longevity. I did run it at WOT for about ten miles once back in the 70s reached about 115 mph tops with the available 304 two barrel power and 3:15 gears. 5 qts in the pan. It only had a oil light then, it never came on. Now it has a mechanical oil pressure gauge that reads 52 psi at 1500 rpm hot and stays at that pressure when revved past 2k rpm, never saw it fall below 52 psi at any engine speed above 1500 rpm. idles 650 rpm with 20 psi hot. What are you guys doing to your cars on the street?? LMBO
------------- 70 Javelin SST, second owner, purchased 1972 |
Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 11:27am
|
Searched through a bunch of AMC sites and didn't find any AMC technical specs for extra oil capacity with Fleet, Police or Taxi use. If there is a special AMC TSM, TSB, something in the SAE papers or other document squirreled away showing 6 quart capacity, please post and share? FWIW, I have an Armando 8 qt. pan and at 8 quarts, the level is lower than 5 in the stock pan ... but I guess with the extra capacity it doesn't need to be overfilled. What is interesting about the Police pan is it doesn't seem to have a windage tray over the sump. Without a tray, crank windage typically blows the oil out of the sump ... or at least it's not very well controlled ... unless it's a very deep pan with oil level far below the crank. Maybe the tub around the pickup helps? Anyone know if they fit a separate windage tray with the Police pan? Thanks,RD
|
Posted By: ccowx
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 11:39am
|
It is not a regular issue unless you are really abusing the car, to be fair. I have had it happen twice in 30 years of ownership, once when I was about 21 and once about 5 years back after a highway run. Bear in mind, I have 4.10 gears, so highway use is not it's forte! 6 quarts is insurance for the guy that revs it a bit high, once in a while. It is not a replacement for a proper oiling system in a race car. Personally I am not a fanatic about keeping it at 6 quarts but I don't let it get below 5. That way, even with some in the valve covers, it still has 2 quarts or so in the pan. It is more of a straight line car, but that does keep it out of trouble, even when I run it in the occasional club autocross event. Chris
|
Posted By: The Anti Chrysler
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 3:12pm
|
I got my first AMC when I was 17, over 30 years ago. I've always ran 6 qts. Never an issue. The extra $1 (1987) to $4 (now) really isn't an issue either. The crankshaft will not hit the oil. Truth be told, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you could get away with 7 qts.
|
Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 4:29pm
|
When I bought my Scrambler it was stock. I noticed the oil light blink a couple times..I installed an oil gauge..Driving down the highway at 60-65(around 3000 rpm with the 3.54 gear) after a few miles I could watch the gauge fluctuate between 40 and 60psi.. And then zero under a wot run through the gears. ------------- SC/Hurst Rambler 11.62 120 100% Street Legal |
Posted By: BassBoat
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 5:59pm
| I have two 1969 AMX's. One did exactly as Hurst 390 described. Cruising at 3500 rpm, accelerate and oil pressure drops to zero. Oddly, did not seem to run out of oil on a quarter mile pass, thankfully. All my oil starvation problems went away when I changed to a Canton Road Race Oil Pan. Second AMX never seemed to have a problem. When I rebuilt the engine if anything the oil pump clearance was sloppy. So no explanation for why they were so different. |
Posted By: sweatlock
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 6:15pm
The 3 photos at the beginning of this thread are of a real AMC factory police pan.
|
Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 6:30pm
I wonder if AMC had made various changes to pump springs, filter design, or just small changes with tolerances. Since I never seen an issue with my post 71 stock engine. I ran 3 miles or more wide open at 140MPH at night without any blips with warning light. Plus heavy a lot In 1st gear getting and going at 50MPH, with my 2.76 gear Mopar rear. If there was any oiling issues I would have spun a bearing or two, in not a good way, but never seen any issues. I expected to have some wear after 4 years, but ended up installing new bearings while I had the pan off. ------------- 71 Javelin SST body 390 69 crank, 70 block & heads NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons 78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low 50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension 79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker |
Posted By: Airdrie AMX
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 7:38pm
|
140mph stock 304 javelin! either that was a long steep downhill or likely your speedo is not acurate. I couldn't get my old 74 javelin with a stock 401 to pull that off. ------------- 72 amx javelin 401 4spd |
Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 7:45pm
HWY 101, I80 and other locations in California, all flat mostly. Cant go thst fast on 17 south of Los Gatos. Gearing, 4bbl offy intake with a 650 CFM holly, and dual exhaust on G60 X 14 tires. I know my speedo was accurate, had RPM max out at 4750 RPM, due to stock valve spring limitations. Also had a Probe GT follow along, as they max out at 137MPH or so... via computer limitation in top gear. Lost my draft, so engine management held his RPM back. The key is lower rear gear, 2.76 give just a wee more speed at less RPM. Also, I had some lightening done, no rear seats, aluminum intake, and a cowl hood. All that saved me about 100+ lbs. ------------- 71 Javelin SST body 390 69 crank, 70 block & heads NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons 78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low 50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension 79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker |
Posted By: one bad rambler
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 8:18pm
|
i still think the pick up is a major problem...to close to the floor...can`t get enough oil in....I have the Milodon on my 64 (Talk about over priced) and a Canton on the Concord...I also have a 10 quart pan that uses the Milodon swing pick up but it`s made for a jeep chassis...the police pan looks like a nightmare for drag racing..i picture all the oil sloshing back going up the rear of the pan and causing all sorts of havoc...and zero oil pressure... -------------  68 AMX 390 4 Speed,68 American,64 American 2 Door Wagon Altered Wheelbase,78 Concord Build 360,727,8.8
|
Posted By: sweatlock
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 9:02pm
|
The police pan is not intended for drag racing. As far as I know, it was not a Group 19 part. The baffle fills from the bottom, so the oil going to the back of the pan is not an issue.  |
Posted By: sweatlock
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 9:04pm
|
Posted By: sweatlock
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 9:12pm
|
Per Larry Mitchell: "There's a thread regarding the internal oil line modification http://www.amx-perience.com/AmericanMotorsForum/showthread.php?t=790" rel="nofollow - here that some of you may find of interest. I posted my reply there but because of the similarities of the topics in these threads I thought it may be helpful to get another perspective. So I asked Larry Mitchell, the former National Director of AMC World Clubs (retired) and owner of AMX Enterprises http://www.amx-enterprises.com/" rel="nofollow - www.amx-enterprises.com for his opinion. He has built numerous AMC engines, raced his '69 AMX in many events over decades including the Silver State Challenge and the Pikes Peak Hill Climb. He replied with the following: An ideal AMC V-8 should hold 20-25 pounds of pressure at hot idle and 60-65 pounds above 3,500 rpms. Please note that when these engines were new in the 1960s/1970s THEY DID! This is on 10W30 oil. Rumors have abound for years about "oiling problems" inherent in an AMC V-8. IT ISN"T TRUE. AMC offered a 5 year, 50,000 mile warranty from 1968 and up and this is a period of time when owners of these cars were bashing them at stoplight drags on every street in America everyday and night of the week. And on weekends, they bashed their AMXs, Javelins, Machines, Scramblers et al at the dragstrips just like everyone else was doing with their Camaros, Cudas, Mach 1s, Challengers, GTOs and the like. AMC engines had no more or less problems with oiling than any of these other brand cars at the time. The only time oiling became a serious problem with ANY of the musclecars of 35 years ago was in SUSTAINED HIGH RPM DRIVING. Like over 100 miles an hour for 2 or more miles at a time. Then, any Ford, Chevy, Mopar or AMC engine would pump the pan dry and before the oil could get back into the pan, the rod bearings starved for oil and the engine seized and broke rods and stuff. Cornering back then on Polyglas belted tires and only a front sway bar caused no problems with loss of oil pressure because the average musclecar back then could not generate enough "Gs" to starve the oil pickup. With modern high performance tires of today and an aftermarket sway bar pack, you CAN easily starve the oil pickup on any of the old musclecars and trash the motor in seconds. Overall, keep in mind all the Los Angeles AMC Police Matadors and the Alabama Highway Patrol 1972 Police Javelins had no special mods to the 401 motors with the exception of a slightly modified "police" oil pan. If all AMC V-8s suffered SERIOUS OILING PROBLEMS back then, don't you think they would have FIXED THE PROBLEMS to stop major financial losses on warranty claims AND don't you think the word on the streets and in car magazines back then would have killed sales of AMXs, Javelins and the like because engines would have failed right and left AND EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE KNOWN IT!? A. If you are not going to drive your AMX or Javelin hard, you only need to make sure the following is done with an engine rebuild: The rod and main bearings MUST be clearanced as close to .001-inch as possible but not less than that figure. The rear main should be .0015. This is what all AMC shop manuals state the clearances are. If bearings are clearanced to "Chevrolet 350 specs" as most shops want to do, the oil pressure in your AMC V-8 will drop like a rock. Chevy engines oil the rods and mains FIRST and in order to pass lots of oil on to the rest of the engine, bearings are clearanced to .0035 to .0045-inch. AMC engines oil the rods and mains LAST and so bearing clearances must be tighter to properly lube and keep general engine oil pressure UP. Also in rebuilding your AMC engine, replace the timing cover with a brand new one, replace the oil pump gears with a new set, do not over tighten the oil pump cover-use stock torque specs and replace the oil pickup tube in the oil pan. This is all you need to do on a stock-to-strong street motor. (note: the oil pickup tube can easily be cracked if overtightened and will suck air causing the oil pressure to drop. This can be very difficult to detect if you're not aware of it. ed) B. If you put on modern high performance tires and especially an aftermarket sway bar package AND you "get on the car" some, run one quart over stock in the oil pan at all times. C. If you are going to set up your AMX or Javelin today with serious modern high performance tires and a sway bar package and run the car damn hard a good part of the time, you will HAVE to have a "Trans-AM" style 8.5 quart "racing" oil pan with external pickup lines and oil pump bypass adapter. D. If you are going to seriously race your AMC car in autcrossing or high-speed road or track events WITH SUSTAINED HIGH RPM DRIVING (above 4,000 rpm for more than 3 minutes), you will need the internal oil line from the front of the oil galley to the rear between #7 and #8 lifters. If you are NOT running SUSTAINED, HIGH RPM DRIVING/RACING, you DO NOT NEED THIS LINE! It is overkill and will drop your total engine oil pressure 5 or more pounds across the board. Are you only getting 10-25 pounds above 3,000 rpms? If so, you have a serious DEFECT in your engine. Or, a faulty gauge. You can only really trust a mechanical gauge properly hooked up where the previous factory electrical pressure sending unit was. And, the gauge must have the line from the motor properly bled to get an accurate reading. The biggest cause of low oil pressure is an IMPROPER REBUILD by a shop full of Chevy lovers!" . |
Posted By: Sonic Silver
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 9:32pm
|
All I know is that I ordered a 70 AMX 360 that I still own. I drove it over 50,000 miles before I pulled it (in perfect shape), and installed a 390 that I later blew up. I then took the original 360 to Herman Lewis for a rebuild because it had been sitting several years. It is still in the car, and total mileage on the car is 63,000 now. I have taken the car to 5,500 rpm many, many times, and did when it was dead stock. I once raced a Maverick on the interstate in the early 70's, and ran wide open with the tach needle bouncing at 5,700 rpm for a good 7-8 miles. The speedo read 128, and that's all it would do. The car was 100% stock then. I have never run more than 5 quarts of oil. I have had a police pan on since the rebuild, but apparently that doesn't help other than cornering. I also have owned a 71 SC/360 Hornet for 28 years, and have never run over 5 quarts. I run it just as hard as the AMX. It is dead stock other than a small cam. Maybe I'm just lucky. |
Posted By: ccowx
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 9:46pm
|
My experience, albeit limited, would indicate that 5 quarts is just fine. That gives 2 quarts in the pan under any reasonable circumstances. Where the problem seems to come in is that if you have 5 as full, you have 4 by the time you are at the add mark. I go with 6 and add one at 5. I have a friend with several hipo AMC that simply keeps topping up his oil to keep it at the full mark and that seems to work fine also. Personally, I feel that 5 is the magic number of quarts for most of us. Below that and you have issues, potentially. Chris PS: I agree that these engines are good for about 6k in bone stock form. I have run mine to 6 with no bad effects, using stock cast pistons. I will say that with the stock cam, there is not point and even the Group 19 cam does not make anything more except noise above 5800 or so rpms.
|
Posted By: one bad rambler
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 9:49pm
|
I agree with everything but i don`t understand the statement "above 4,000 rpm for more than 3 minutes" there is either a loss of oil pressure to the rear bearings above 4,000rpm or not...Were does the 3 minutes come in???? So if i`m reading it right(Not trying to be a smart rump) @ 2min and 59 sec i`m good but when i hit 3 min i will have insufficient oil flow to the rear crank bearings?The only way that makes sense to me is if the oil pan runs low and the oil becomes air rated and the oil line will do nothing.......I think the oil line add`s add`ll oil to lubricate the rear mains and also keep them cool in turn prevents them from running hot and distorting....Can`t tell you how many untouched AMC engines i`ve taken apart and the rear mains fall out due to running hot..(Loss of bearing spread) ------------- 68 AMX 390 4 Speed,68 American,64 American 2 Door Wagon Altered Wheelbase,78 Concord Build 360,727,8.8
|
Posted By: ccowx
Date Posted: Jan/02/2019 at 10:46pm
|
3 minutes seems to be the ballpark time that it takes for the valve covers to fill up with oil at 3000+ rpms, leaving the pan low. Different engines drain back faster or slower, that is just a general rule. I agree with you that the oil line will not do anything if the oil is foaming and low. I had one in my car and took it out a couple of years back, since it did not seem neccessary and it made it hard to use a full pan. I have had a rear main bearing go, just like you say. I think that if any bearing is going to go, it will likely be the rear, but it is not a given that any will fail, contrary to what the fans of the oiling line say. Chris
|
Posted By: 1970Javelin
Date Posted: Jan/03/2019 at 2:10am
As sweatlock quoted Larry Mitchell above (page 4), "...Cornering
back then on Polyglas belted tires and only a front sway bar caused no
problems with loss of oil pressure because the average musclecar back
then could not generate enough "Gs" to starve the oil pickup. With
modern high performance tires of today and an aftermarket sway bar
pack, you CAN easily starve the oil pickup on any of the old musclecars
and trash the motor in seconds." These days, there just is too low of speed limits, too many people around, and too harsh of penalties. I don't do WOT like you're talking about, it rarely even gets more than 1/3 throttle for a few seconds to get on the highway. Where the issue is, I occasionally get the oil light while taking long turns and/or following winding mountain roads. As Larry was quoted talking about, it's easy to get good handling these days. My daily driver has 235 front and 295 rear tires, Addco front and Larry's 'Gymkhana' rear sway bars, polly bushings, my own rear link bars, and quick ratio steering. Cornering is effortless for the driver but not for the oil pickup. Speaking of Larry: When I got the rear sway bar from him, in a humorously typical Larry fashion, the box was for an inflatable mattress, the sway bar half hanging out, the hardware free floating and half gone through an un-taped flap, and the install instructions poorly scribbled on the box. He had great knowledge, great stories, great products, but questionable shipping and logistics skills.
 ..he was quite the guy.. |
Posted By: Steve_P
Date Posted: Jan/03/2019 at 7:41am
|
There is nothing about the design plan was for 6 quarts of oil in the AMC SAE papers- that's an urban legend that I think goes back to the CACI newsletter days. The bearing clearances are wrong in the quote by LM. .0015 is way too tight for the rear main. The bearing clearances were also loosened up by AMC from the 68-70 "tight" spec, which was ~.001-.002 to a more clearance sometime around 72- which coincidentally is when AMC was selling a substantial amount police cars. The new clearance specs are what most use now, ~.002" and ~.003 on the rear main. I have ran a pan dry at 4500-5000 RPM sustained driving and spun a #8 rod bearing. And I know others that also have. If you haven't, consider yourself lucky. With an 8+ quart pan, no more issues. |
Posted By: one bad rambler
Date Posted: Jan/03/2019 at 7:42pm
------------- 68 AMX 390 4 Speed,68 American,64 American 2 Door Wagon Altered Wheelbase,78 Concord Build 360,727,8.8
|
Posted By: Aljav
Date Posted: Jan/03/2019 at 11:08pm
|
AMC oil pumps have no problem pushing enough oil, (possibly too much??) filling valves covers and trying to get oil to drain thru those small drain backs in the heads. Remember for oil to drain back its got to go back thru those holes in the valley above the cam. The cam tunnel is now filled with a cam and lifters. Not exactally lots of room to drain, then its hit moving parts before it goes back in the pan. The oil may be hot and thinned out but its still gotta get back down to the sump. I see nothing wrong with a extra quart. Wish we knew an AMC engineer from the time to let us know exactly their thinking. I personally think the tray they did was pretty good. I was looking at it the other day was impressed on the design, from production stand point, tight fit with the slots on the tray on one side. just my 2 cents for the day, always neat to see interesting factory AMC stuff. They also had special valves seals from my understanding. Retainers with the valves seals attached to the bottom. I have some in my collection of stuff. ------------- 69 AMX 9.86 132 mph 71 JAV/AMX and 69 Javelin, .. NAMDRA member #1106 |
Posted By: Steve_P
Date Posted: Jan/04/2019 at 8:36am
|
There is a mention in the SAE papers for the 390 that they made a modification to the oil pan sump cover plate when the 390 was introduced- IIRC they added the drain slots on the side at that point. Yes, there is no issue with the AMC oil pump gear size- more than big enough, compare to a SBC. Years back someone was selling even taller gears, looking for a solution to a non-existent problem. The problem is insufficient drain back from the heads/valve covers and has been discussed a million times. The simple solution is a bigger capacity pan. |
Posted By: ccowx
Date Posted: Jan/04/2019 at 11:00am
|
As solutions for the issue of drainback, is there any massive difference between a bigger pan vs. drainback lines? Minor advantages and tradeoffs to having more oil, fair enough, but as long as the pickup is always immersed, is there a huge difference? I am thinking in terms of street cars, not race machines of course. Thanks! Chris
|
Posted By: amcenthusiast
Date Posted: Jan/04/2019 at 11:45am
|
I'm currently in the process of writing a book on this topic. It is not possible to sum up all attributes of '66-91 AMV8 oil system design and modification in a few short sentences. Since I have borne responsibility for "AMC V8 Oil System Modifications" pages since '83, not only do I have practical knowledge and experience with this, I've had plenty of time to do research and digest a wide variety of information ranging from popular engine oil system designs, to hydraulic system design, to mechanical design in the field of Thermodynamics, all within the much broader field of the Laws of Physics. There is also need for the text in the book to deliberately avoid public embarrassment of others who have written on this topic for adult moral responsibility having aversion of the mental illness associated therewith. (enjoying public embarrassment of others is a mental illness) So, the book is difficult to write, and needs to avoid such hasty mistakes. Where comparison and contrast is among the keys of exposition, here are a few pictures I made to show four quarts vs. five quarts in a stock '65 Rambler V8 oil pan:  No, the pan won't be level in actual use. Rather, deliberate misalignment to the vehicle chassis' geometric roll axis is demanded by engine installation into any American Motors designed vehicle. The front of the pan will always be 'angled up', which promotes drainage to the rear sump design. Below: Here is a stock '65 Rambler V8 oil pan with four quarts of fluid; Notice the indentation made into the rear wall of the pan for clearance around the backside of the rear main cap mounted oil pump assembly. It is a 'good thing' to have the pump at least partially submerged into the lubrication fluid to promote self-priming and other more technical pumping losses.  Also of interest is the stock anti-slosh baffle plate. This design is not exclusive to Rambler V8 but I have seen a nearly identical anti-slosh plate made into the oil pan of an earlier Buick 'straight eight' oil pan design. It may be clearly demonstrated by sloshing this same amount of water in the oil pan towards the front of the engine (rear sump pan) that the baffle plate is shaped to redirect forward movement of the fluid into a 'wave' that rolls back to spill oil back onto the suction tube area. The plate obviously redirects oil back down onto the oil pump suction tube assembly when the car's driver 'slams on the brakes' to help prevent 'cavitation' (pump sucking air instead of oil) in that situation. Typical? Oh no! Stop; I left the rake in the driveway! hee hee hee...  Above: So I outlined the measured four quarts of water in the pan with a 'Sharpie' felt tip marker. Below: Same pan with another quart added (five)  The added one quart quantity, obviously, does not significantly raise the fluid level. Since the crankshaft and connecting rods do not make contact with the floor of the oil pan, there is no chance of churning air bubbles into the oil as one might tend to imagine. Below: the following picture is given for those who may like to experiment with pans modified for increased capacity. -However much oil it takes to fill up the pan to the 2" level is close to where the 'full' mark will be on your stock dipstick.  As for how much oil is taken up from the pan, to prime the entire operating system -with the engine running, on '66-'91 AMV8s this is a comparatively low quantity to many other conventional-to-the-era V8 engine designs, even lower than the '62-up Buick V8/V6 design for it's use of shaft mounted rocker arm system as opposed to pushrod fed individually mounted 'Pontiac' ('66-'73 AMV8s) or 'Oldsmobile' ('73-'91 AMV8s) bridged type rocker arms. The quantity of oil taken up from the pan can be simulated by filling two similar lengths of 3/8" diameter tubing and five short lengths of 5/16" tubing cut to mimic the lengths of the passageways in the engine. -Not much fluid is taken up into the engine due to the comparatively compact design of the AMV8 oil system -noticeably less than Chevy's new LSV8 oil system, for popular example, whereas that engine employs not three but four long passageways, essentially running the entire length of the engine. This comparatively low quantity of oil increases overall oil system efficiency because the oil pump is required to push a lighter total weight of oil through the passageways. ...oh, hey: if you decide to run 1/2" diameter pushrods in your engine you'll need to consider how much oil it takes to fill those too! This comparatively low volume weight of oil to fill the entire high pressure side of the AMV8 oil system is a remarkable positive design attribute, for reduced parasitic loss through the oil pump and increased overall efficiency of the engine. As stated above, there is more text to be written with regard to oil pans. This comment does not pretend to be a comprehensive properly finished text on the subject! Space and time permitting, I would like to add more commentary which more directly pertains to the design of the anti-slosh baffle as shown in the pictures of the 'Police' oil pan in a future comment. Commentary discussing positive or negative attributes of engines modified to have an internal bypass line in the lifter gallery should be discussed in another chapter of a book in order to touch upon all the various details with any sense of full understanding. ------------- 443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/ |
Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Jan/04/2019 at 11:56am
I have IndySR heads and tapped them for drain lines in the pocket where oil drains (better design than stock). In testing in street use, there wasn't any significant amount of oil draining from them, so I plugged them. The Indy's have slightly bigger drain holes than stock (not partially blocked by the head bolt) and I'm running solid roller lifters that have edge-orifice metering that inherently put less oil up top. Also have an 8 qt. road race pan. Drain hole tapped in head shown circled below:  IMHO, the stock pan is a 4qt. design as anything above the tray isn't useful. System capacity includes pan + filter + whatever is pooling in various places, so add 1 qt. to get 5qt. stock system capacity + maybe 1 qt. more if your driving habits dictate and for some reason you don't want to fit a better pan. To me, the stock pan is ok for a commuter, but for anything driven hard a better pan is a worthwhile upgrade - the stock pan just doesn't have the baffling or capacity for good oil control and adequate supply. It's surprising the cash guys will spend on aftermarket rods, roller rockers, head work, cam, intake, stainless headers, etc. then skimp on the pan. I expect the oil problem is a combination of oil pooling and not draining quickly, frothing due to returning mostly over the rotating parts, pickup a long way from the pump so sensitive to cavitation at high rpms, poor temperature control (no cooler) so loses viscosity at extended high rpm use, and a pan designed for passenger car use - not racing. To me, it just makes sense to fit a better pan if planning hard use particularly if your engine is built for high rpms. A cooler is also a good plan for extended high rpm use. For all out road racing applications, dry sump is likely the plan. Drag is fine with a deep pan. For a car that will see hard cornering and braking, I like the Aviaid or Armando pan with the external pickup - better designed trap doors, baffles and windage tray than most of the other pans for not much more money. Hope this helps,RD |
Posted By: amcenthusiast
Date Posted: Jan/04/2019 at 11:57am
|
Nice pics and comments there Red Devil -good to have that for example of rocker gallery drain back discussion. This particular nuance is ripe to be discussed in depth, perhaps in another chapter of a book. ------------- 443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/ |
Posted By: 6PakBee
Date Posted: Jan/04/2019 at 12:12pm
|
I have three AMC 390's and each of them is going to get a police pan. I am also going to do Rebel Machine's trick of modifying a Mopar SB windage tray to fit. I'm then going to replace the V8 pickup with the 6 cyl pickup to get rid of that big flat V8 pickup configuration. Then I'm going to install a horizontal baffle at the rear of the sump to control oil movement rearward under acceleration. And then I'm done. ------------- Roger Gazur 1969 'B' Scheme SC/Rambler 1970 RWB 4-spd Machine 1970 Sonic Silver auto AMX All project cars. Forum Cockroach |
Posted By: The Anti Chrysler
Date Posted: Jan/04/2019 at 5:21pm
|
I wonder how much these 'police' oil pans sell for when they come up? |
Posted By: 6PakBee
Date Posted: Jan/04/2019 at 10:02pm
Figure $150-$200. ------------- Roger Gazur 1969 'B' Scheme SC/Rambler 1970 RWB 4-spd Machine 1970 Sonic Silver auto AMX All project cars. Forum Cockroach |
Posted By: The Anti Chrysler
Date Posted: Jan/04/2019 at 11:23pm
|
$200? Heck with that. You could weld a Raco octagon box in the bottom of a stock pan and have much the same effect. Or just spend a few more bucks and get a Milodon pan, or a few more bucks and get a Canton pan. Or, do what I've done since 1987. Run six quarts in whatever pan you already own.
|
Posted By: FSJunkie
Date Posted: Jan/05/2019 at 12:13am
|
Very thorough, amcenthusiest, but that oil pan you speak of is for the 1956-1966 Rambler 250, 287, and 327 V8s. I have never heard of anybody running more than 5 quarts in one of them. This thread is about running more than 5 quarts in the later AMC V8's of 290, 343, 390, 304, 360, and 401 cubic inches. Different engine, different oil pan, different lubrication system. ------------- 1955 Packard 1966 Marlin 1972 Wagoneer 1973 Ambassador 1977 Hornet 1982 Concord D/L 1984 Eagle Limited |
Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Jan/05/2019 at 7:55am
|
I would run a stock pan and 6 qts any day before I would run that cop pan with no baffle. ------------- SC/Hurst Rambler 11.62 120 100% Street Legal |
Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Jan/05/2019 at 7:58am
"Civilian" oil pan ------------- SC/Hurst Rambler 11.62 120 100% Street Legal |
Posted By: Trader
Date Posted: Jan/05/2019 at 9:36am
|
It seems fine to baffle a wet sump but I don't see the measurements on crankshaft in oil. A wet sump needs the crankshaft to throw some oil for cylinders and wrist pin lubrication but too much robs HP. If you reads articles on the "Cheby" builds, a windage system can gain up to from 5 to 30 HP on the dyno. But it has to be balanced for some oiling to the the cylinders and wrist pins. The Police pan has no windage baffling and I doubt it would add any HP. It's interesting for discussion, but from what you read, an obsolete design.
|
Posted By: Class Guy
Date Posted: Jan/05/2019 at 12:36pm
|
I seriously doubt that extra hp was goal for the police pan, but rather to keep the engine oiled during the wild gyrations of high speed pursuit on city streets. And it's not such an obsolete design. Considering the restraints of cost, effectiveness and time to get it in production, it would be hard to do better even today. Oil splash on the cylinder walls is done by excess weepage off the oiling to the rods, not from splash off the crankshaft contacting the oil in the pan. Some of the examples shown in the pictures of water in the pan are not really representative of the height of the oil in the pan when the engine is running. If you fill a typical V8 with 5 qts of oil after an oil change, as soon as it starts there is slightly less than 4 qts. in the pan. Depending on many factors including engine speed, another quantity of up to 1.5 qts is suspended in mid-air or trapped in the valve covers, lifter valley and front cover. That means that you are lucky to have 2.5 qts in the pan during hard operation. If adding an extra quart of oil stabilizes oil pressure, it means that the rate the oil is being returned to the pan is likely not fast enough. There are lots of things that can be done to make oil return more efficient, but that would be what makes sense to work on. Some SBC engines built for NHRA Stock Eliminator racing can operate with 4 quarts in the engine without oil starvation, so it is not volume of oil that makes it work. ------------- Addicted to acceleration. Owner and Admin for www.classracerinfo.com |
Posted By: ccowx
Date Posted: Jan/05/2019 at 12:47pm
|
As you and others have pointed out, the oil in the pan is not neccessarily what you see in the pan when running. The key seems to be keeping enough oil in the pan that the pickup does not end up sucking air. This requires enough volume of oil that when the engine is running there will be enough in the pan. If there is more oil being pumped into the valve covers than can drain out, then you need to have enough volume of oil that there is still some left in the pan even if some is still in the top end. Baffles help prevent the oil sloshing away from the pickup under violent maneuvers or braking, which will make the problem of low oil level in the pan even worse. I agree with you that there is not enough attention paid to oil return. I for one don't want to have 1.5-2.0 quarts of oil in the valve covers, regardless of what the oil level is in the pan. Oil return hole enlargement internally does not seem to solve the issue, so to my mind the next step is to have some sort of external retun line or similar. Deep pans and baffles are great and they do help very much when it comes to sloshing, but they are not doing anything for the drain back issue. Chris
|
Posted By: Red Devil
Date Posted: Jan/05/2019 at 1:04pm
|
Read the thread below on "Indy Block Oiling Issues" where pressure loss at high rpm was primarily due to the suction line supplying the pump too small. Different block, pump and engine build, but like stock the pickup is a fair distance from the pump. Chevy pickup is comparatively short and most high-performance Chevy pumps have larger diameter pickups. ... just something else to consider in the discussion. See also my post on previous page on drain back lines. Each build is a bit different. Thanks, RD.
|
Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Jan/05/2019 at 1:29pm
 Drain lines out of the rear of both heads to left side of civilian competition pan------------- SC/Hurst Rambler 11.62 120 100% Street Legal |
Posted By: Trader
Date Posted: Jan/05/2019 at 10:23pm
|
This
is what I was taught:
Lubrication
system
Journal
Bearings Now about large volumes of oil accumulating in the rocker covers. Exactly how does this happen in a well maintained engine? The lifters meter oil and total hole diameter of 16 lifters is approximately 0.130 square inches and delivers oil once per cycle. One drain back hole is approximately 0.800 square inches. Clogging the drain back holes is the only way oil will accumulate in the rocker cover area beyond the normal cavities that already exist in the head casting. Yes there is approximately 1/3 of the total oil volume in motion in the upper engine at high RPM. This is valley, heads, galleries lifters … But it's constantly recirculating. If oil was accumulating in any volume in the rocker cover area, vacuum from the intake valves would draw oil and you would be burning it, quickly. I have to agree with Red Devil, a well designed oil pan is what collects and keeps oil there for pickup in all driving conditions. Just Google images of a modern LS corvette oil pan. They run 4 quarts. |
Posted By: ccowx
Date Posted: Jan/06/2019 at 12:35am
|
It may not be as simple as just the square inches of drainage area vs area coming in. I suspect that the fact that the rockers are lubed under pressure to bring the oil up but they depend on gravity for drainage, against whatever crankcase pressure there is. This may also explain why enlarging the drain holes and all the glyptol in the world don't seem to help much. I do agree that when there is oil in the valve covers it likely does burn it, but the amount of time spent that way is fairly small, so it may not be very noticeable. I am curious, and not meaning to be a smartaleck, but how would an oil pan of whatever sort prevent oil from pooling in the valve covers? Thanks! Chris |
Posted By: one bad rambler
Date Posted: Jan/06/2019 at 1:18am
|
There is a science to making oil pans...A lot goes on at 6 and 7,000 rpm...the purpose of a small oil line to a gauge is to help dampen the reading...So if you see the gauge flutter from aeration or lack of oil it`s already to late...There are plenty of talented guys on this site that know how to correctly build a pan...The rest of us should either buy one done or leave well enough alone...You build a 7-10,000 dollar engine...redo the engine compartment..Suspension exc. then cheap out on the pan...Make`s no sense to me ....but i like to do things once ------------- 68 AMX 390 4 Speed,68 American,64 American 2 Door Wagon Altered Wheelbase,78 Concord Build 360,727,8.8
|
Posted By: Trader
Date Posted: Jan/06/2019 at 8:39am
|
The back of the pan can wedge a large volume of oil in acceleration and forward momentum. The main oil drain back is also at the back of the pan. A good pan design, as far as I've read, will baffle oil in this region by creating weirs (baffles), or channels, to break up this large collection into smaller collections that then feed most oil from the bottom to the next chamber, keeping the oil pickup submerged in oil. Take for example the stock pan posted earlier. Under high RPM and forward momentum, the crankshaft is creating a wall of aerated oil at 56 and 78 right over the hole for pickup and the largest hole for oil to return to the pickup. The oil returns at the back of the engine and any oil that goes to the back of the pan collect there with less chance of going down to the pickup. That is an every day drive oil pan. Hurst's screen breaks up that wall and allows oil/air separation on the one side of the pan allowing oil to flow forward and back.
|
Posted By: Sonic Silver
Date Posted: Jan/06/2019 at 9:54am
|
Posted By: Trader
Date Posted: Jan/06/2019 at 4:40pm
|
My mistake. I was looking at so many oil pans and designs after this thread I got the LS and small block Chebv Canton circle track wet sump pans mixed up. After looking at so many aftermarket goodies they have for Cheby's, your eyes glaze over!
|
Posted By: FSJunkie
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 12:26am
|
You guys have no idea how good you have it. Buick V6's and V8's are far, far, far worse. -No oil pan baffles at all. -Tiny oil pump with low output volume hanging awkwardly off the timing cover and made of Aluminum (sound familliar?). Just take the AMC pump and make it half the capacity. -Weak and poorly lubricated oil pump drive gears that strip unless the oil pump pressure is regulated to 40 PSI maximum. -The oil pump pickup tube is not threaded into the block. It is bolted to it with a gasket that can and does leak so the oil pump sucks air. -Weak main and rod caps. -Undersized fasterners with excessively high torque specs on thin castings. Stripped threads, broken bolts, and cracked castings if you follow OE torque spec. You do not use a torque wrench on Buick engines. -Extremely poor oil return to the pan. Far worse than AMC. -Low oil flow to rocker arms on purpose, which overheats the valve springs. Increasing flow floods the valve covers with oil, starving the pump and causing the engine to burn oil...or explode. Or both. -Poor water jacket design that transfers more heat to the oil rather than to the coolant, so oil temperatures rise greatly as the engine is run harder...thinning out the oil on an engine that already has poor lubrication. I get in trouble when I drive Buicks, because I drive them like I would an AMC then wonder why the Buick explodes after only a few thousand miles. I can build a stock AMC and it'll be fine but I have to beef up and improve a Buick for it to stand up to my driving habits. So 5 quarts or 6 quarts doesn't matter, AMC's are still more durable than Buicks. ------------- 1955 Packard 1966 Marlin 1972 Wagoneer 1973 Ambassador 1977 Hornet 1982 Concord D/L 1984 Eagle Limited |
Posted By: Sonic Silver
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 7:26am
| It's a good thing that I didn't know that about Buicks when I owned them, or I wouldn't have had as much fun. I somehow managed to run the wheels off a 1968 Riviera 430, a 69 GS 400 convertible 4 speed, a 70 GS Stage 1, and 2 other 70 GS 455's without blowing them up. If I had known they would easily self destruct, I would have just putted around. |
Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 8:04am
Ditto with my 65 401. Though, the nail heads mostly had issues with re builders not properly clocking the cam bearings, don't know if that holds for later gen buicks. Though I recall the V6 had oiling issues that plagued it for any serious endurance use, such as Indy. By the time they got a grasp on it, Olds Quad4 and Chevy V6 started to gain over Buick's old design, so it did not pay to go any further with buick V6 program. ------------- 71 Javelin SST body 390 69 crank, 70 block & heads NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons 78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low 50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension 79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker |
Posted By: purple72Gremlin
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 8:55am
|
Posted By: nda racer
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 9:23am
Thank You. I have a Buddy who ran nothing but Buicks back in the 80s. Had a few "Monza's" with 3.8s in em. One with a stick and a alum intake and 4 bbl added he'd matt both pedals, let valve float be the rev limited and dump the clutch. He had a 66 Skylark that came with a V6 he beat on. Pulled it running fine for a 72 350 Buick, which he destroyed the factory 2 spd with, 3 TH350s, a TH400 finally lasted. 3-4 rear ends. He'd neutral slam it all the time, dump it in reverse at 70 etc. The Buick engine never failed. Everything else did. Broke a few driveshafts and broke his console loose off the floor from the driveshaft hammering on it. He was crazy and treated everything like a rental. Anyone familiar with western PA here? This was 1989ish, before computers and cell phones, so we'd go out riding around aimlessly all night, every night........We were North of Portersville Pa at "Eppingers'" restaurant (it's now Last Minit Mart) at about 3am when the ol Buhog started overheating more than usual, ticking and knocking. This engine was an oil burner, and he hadn't checked the oil in awhile. He checked the stick, nothing on it. So we high balled our way back down RT19, then jumped on RT79 to Zelienople to get oil. He ran the Car wide open the whole way there. You can feel free to map it to see how far that is. We get to Uni-mart in town, he buys 2 qts of oil, puts em in, still nothing on the stick, buys two more, 1/2 low. He fires it up, the lifters are chattering. So what's he do, tachs it the F out valve floating it till the lifters quieted down. There was still some slight noise for awhile, but he could tolerate it. He had a violent temper, beat on everything, Cars, people, you name it. He'd buy the cheapest oil, filters and rarely ever change it. I'm no Buick guy, so I have no reason to tell tall tales about em for some sort of biased "passionate love" for a certain brand.... I was a "Mopar or No Car" kind of guy and EVERYTHING but Mopar was complete junk to me back in those days........... but I saw this stuff take some horrendous abuse. I wouldn't have ever believed they could take that if I weren't there myself. I have to give credit where credit is due, is all. The internet says they're glass, but I guess that's for having a 9-10 sec 1/4 mile car that has a 4000lb race weight..... His engines were stock. |
Posted By: 6PakBee
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 9:54am
|
I've watched this Buick discussion unfold with some amusement. One of my friends, a dyed-in-the-wool Ford freak, put it the best I've ever heard it; "All makes have their problems, it just depends what you are willing to put up with." But to Buicks, just for giggles Google the following and see what you get for responses Chevy V8 Oiling System Ford V8 Oiling System Mopar V8 Oiling System AMC V8 Oiling System Buick V8 Oiling System ------------- Roger Gazur 1969 'B' Scheme SC/Rambler 1970 RWB 4-spd Machine 1970 Sonic Silver auto AMX All project cars. Forum Cockroach |
Posted By: nda racer
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 10:07am
|
As far as AMC, the "Civilian" pan is a really nice piece IMO. A nice full baffle. Most brands have a small one around the front edge of the sump, or none at all. The legendary "Hemi Killing" 340 didn't have a baffle, they had to put a windage tray in it, for their special high performance engine, to keep the oil in the sump and not all around the crank. Pretty crazy for AMC's budget they put baffles in all their grocery getters/kids haulers. They went above and beyond on that one, IMO.
|
Posted By: ccowx
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 10:40am
|
AMC tended to be an engineering company morre than a styling one, overall. Most things they did were done just that bit more right, like body and frame rigidity, engine materials and layout, etc. Not that they did not have their faults, but overall a well built car for it's day. And yes, they did absolutely have their bright spots, styling wise! Chris
|
Posted By: nda racer
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 11:01am
|
It was brought up elsewhere about Fords not having baffles in the Pan. But the Boss 302 got a baffle and windage tray. So the AMC "commuter pan" is a factory High Performance pan. One heck of a nice pan for most to just go and pick up some bread and milk.
|
Posted By: White70JavelinSST
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 11:58am
|
Did the SS/AMX cars get a standard "grocery getter" pan? or Were they a special modded pan. What about Rebel Machines? Sc/Rambler 390's ? did they have a special pan? ------------- 70 Javelin SST, second owner, purchased 1972 |
Posted By: nda racer
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 12:36pm
|
"""""I've also heard from owners that bottom end of the car (we know they put on a stock oil pan. Seems crazy that they would pull the pan to replace the pistons, then put the stock pan back on. How much more would it cost to put a deep pan and pick-up in?) JE seems to be the piston company verified by most owners. That is verified with this notice found in a period drag publication Drag"""""" http://www.superstockamx.com/page2.php" rel="nofollow - http://www.superstockamx.com/page2.php
|
Posted By: nda racer
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 12:38pm
|
Posted By: Trader
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 3:07pm
|
The SS/AMX seems to have two camps. Ones stating they had an Aviaid baffled pan (with hinged baffle openings near the oil pick-up) and others stating a Traco Engineering pan (for which there is little information). The Scrambler was recommended for the oil pan NDA shows above (did Hurst supply them?) and the Machine is not listed as having a special oil pan in parts lists. For any kind of track racing the deeper pan would be a clearance issue. It is likely just for drag racing as the baffling as stated is for severe acceleration and deceleration. |
Posted By: FSJunkie
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 5:57pm
|
I meant the early Buick small blocks V6's and V8s. I hate those. They make a lot of power for their weight but that is part of their problem. The big blocks and Nailheads are more durable and less backwardly engineered. Keep in mind that my criteria for a good engine isn't one that makes a lot of power or is lightweight (Buick small block). My criteria for a good engine is a durable engine that I can block the throttle wide open at 4000 RPM and have it withstand that for two or three weeks nonstop, or roughly 60,000 miles if it were driving a car. In the 1960's and 1970's, the standard for American engine durability at maximum load (at the RPM the engine maxes max power) was 200 hours on the dynamometer. The European standard of the same time was 1000 hours. The standard at American Motors was 500 hours. AMC designed their engines specifically to last for 50,000 miles if run flat-out all the time, or 100,000 miles if driven normally, both with only routine maintenance and nothing more. Those are words from the mouths of the AMC engineers themselves. ------------- 1955 Packard 1966 Marlin 1972 Wagoneer 1973 Ambassador 1977 Hornet 1982 Concord D/L 1984 Eagle Limited |
Posted By: purple72Gremlin
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 7:12pm
|
Posted By: jpnjim
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 7:53pm
I like that you have strong opinions about this stuff FS! I also that not everyone always agree's.That's why they make ice cream in more than one flavor, and why you can still buy points distributors and bias ply tires  AMC blocks are strong, unfortunately public opinion is just that, opinion. True, or not, I was always told Buick 350's were the lightest of the corporate 350's, by a lot. They didn't get that light by being beefy. I also understood that 455 Buicks didn't get forged cranks because by time you built enough power to hurt the cast crank, the thin block wouldn't be far behind on the casualty list. That doesn't make them crappy engines, but the horsepower ceiling in terms of block and crank strength on both is probably somewhere less than a 70' 390, or a 401. Personally I really like 455 Buicks, great big bore, with a relatively short stroke in a light weight block, I would have loved AMC to have built a big bore version of our engines. But I'd bet a factory big bore AMC block like that would weigh a lot more than the Buick 455 does. ------------- 71 P-code 4spd Javelin/AMX some Jeeps and some Fords |
Posted By: jpnjim
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 8:05pm
The SS/AMX oil pan conversation reminds me of the great "2-piece crossmember controversy" It was so long ago I honestly don't remember who was pushing that all SS/AMX's had removable center sections on their engine crossmembers from Hurst. (they didn't). ^Anyone else remember that "debate"? ------------- 71 P-code 4spd Javelin/AMX some Jeeps and some Fords |
Posted By: Sonic Silver
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 8:11pm
|
Posted By: Trader
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 8:52pm
|
Back on topic, after reading all this and looking, the 401 I'm currently building I'm thinking: 1)standard pan with the back cut off at the front radius for the pickup (deceleration baffle) 2)the police pan bottom but higher and turned 45° with slots on the back bottoms (acceleration and drainage pick up, cornering flow control - street, albeit enthusiastic at times) 3) Hurst390's wind-age screen, as much as I can get to fit the pan and pick-up (reduce oil aeration and provide oil flow channel below) Not a whole lot of work or cost for a stock oil pan; thoughts on this? |
Posted By: jpnjim
Date Posted: Jan/07/2019 at 8:57pm
There are so many great stories from "way back when", that we really need an "I Remember When" forum here just for old car stories.  ------------- 71 P-code 4spd Javelin/AMX some Jeeps and some Fords |
Posted By: Steve_P
Date Posted: Jan/08/2019 at 7:42am
|
The police oil pan was the only special oil pan for the factory built AMC V8 cars. Besides the police engines, which only had a few unique parts, they all had the same oil pan. An engine was the same whether it was for an AMX or station wagon- same camshaft, same pistons, same oil pan. The Machine engine was an exception with the unique intake and exhaust manifolds but it had the same oil pan. The SS AMX also had a standard pan as delivered. It doesn't make sense, but maybe this is because there wasn't a deep AMC pan commercially available in 1969? Yes, Aviaid was around and could've made up a batch, but those are made to order and not a speed shop item like the Milodon pan. Anyone know when it was introduced? And why did they remove the sump cover plate on the police pan? This makes no sense to me. |
Posted By: nda racer
Date Posted: Jan/08/2019 at 1:01pm
|
Yep, the quote I posted about was from the SS/AMX History page. So yep, Stock pan on the SS. Dunno where all this other stuff is coming from. and the photo is from the same page. That mod they suggest for the SS/AMX. I agree on the Police ban, shoulda did the baffle too. But in reality, what do Police cars do the most. Idle. Idle all day long. The 175 MPH Police Pursuit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! stories are great for people who don't leave the house, and 12 y/o kids, but reality is, that was very rare and highly exaggerated. I "read" the Mopar engineers put a window in a 340 pan, cranked er up and watched what happened. It was pulling the oil out of the sump and wrapping it around the crank like a snake. So not only robbing HP, but sucking the sump dry... So they went with a windage tray. Even the Mopar Performance!!!!!! replacement pans don't have a baffle in em..... IMO for what most of doing, the stock oil pan is more than enough, esp with 6 qts in it. Running 9s at 200 passes a year, I'd look into something else. But a couple of test and tunes a year and mostly doing trips to the ol' DQ for a cruise, that pan is above and beyond what you need.
|
Posted By: The Anti Chrysler
Date Posted: Jan/08/2019 at 10:59pm
|
The stock pan is more than adequate for hauling lawn chairs to the car show. |
Posted By: amcenthusiast
Date Posted: Jan/20/2019 at 8:09pm
|
Finally got around to making a shop drawing, alluded to in my previous post here on this topic. IMO, I would prefer to label the 'Police' oil pan a 'Jeep' oil pan instead because it looks like it was made to cup oil around the pickup tube suction housing in uneven terrain, in a low rpm situation because of the arguably small oil return hole in the 'cup' would plausibly not allow high volume flow to the pickup tube (but blocking it off on three sides instead) IMO, this design would only aggravate what hydraulic system designers caution against. They specify oil suction tube depth to oil level measurements in order to prevent oil-air entrainment caused by vortex formation around the suction tube itself. This otherwise well known phenomena of vortex formation around the oil suction tube is indeed moderated by raising the oil level in the oil sump reservoir. In a high volume system, vortex formation around the suction tube is known to cause oil-air entrainment. Please feel free to do your own research on the Internet; there is a fair amount of discussion on this topic concerning Industrial type systems. -Specified suction tube to depth requirements etc. Unfortunately I don't have an AMC car right now with drop out center section crossmember to test this oil pan design but I do plan to test the concept on my current Rambler V8 engines (but they have a different situation because the high pressure bypass return pipe creates circular oil flow around the pickup housing instead) So I can't say I have tested this design but I feel sure it has merit, if only for it's anti-slosh potential. The 'X' pattern plates could be attached to the underside of a stock AMV8 oil pan baffle plate, and that assembly could be made to 'bolt in' to the stock pan (as a complete assembly) for ease of cleaning the pan? (weld tabs onto the sides of the pan to bolt in the re-modified assembly?) As tested on industrial static hydraulic systems, the anti-vortex pickup tube assembly should work on it's own with no 'X' bracing work done to the stock oil pan because the 'two tier' horizontal plates are proved to disrupt downward vortex/spiral flow to the suction tube entrance. (the vertical '+' plates will still serve to provide some anti-slosh effect -but it's the 'two tier' horizontal plates that are proved to disrupt vortex flow) With no anti-vortex control plates on the suction tube assembly, it does appear that the stock oil bleed hole on top of the suction housing assembly may contribute to pull air bubbles into the oil if a vortex reaches low enough in a high flow/volume situation (plausibly in the higher rpm ranges) -the 'bleed hole' could be brazed shut (you judge/you decide)   Thanks AMC Forum for giving us a space to discuss our favorite vehicles. ------------- 443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/ |
Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jan/20/2019 at 8:28pm
|
AMCenthusiast, I have an idea that makes it a wee simpler. Why not scallop the hole around the parimeter. 3/4" radius half circle or so. Or maybe a star pattern with triangle cuts around the perimeter. The scallops should eliminate vortex as to allow a more even dump, by distributing flow to a wider dispersed pattern. On top of that make a removable cut out section for adding trap door walls and modifications to allow some drain back vents, like they do for race baffles. Since stock pans have a baffle built in, some mods to the existing baffle may be a poor man's trick for better oil control for not so serious (race) environments. ------------- 71 Javelin SST body 390 69 crank, 70 block & heads NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons 78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low 50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension 79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker |
Posted By: Trader
Date Posted: Jan/20/2019 at 8:53pm
|
Like the idea of KISS, If the "X" was produced by a straight cut and the slot "extensions bent down", there would be a baffle that would slow movement out of the sump. A straight cut may let too much oil flow out on deceleration which is the major cause of starvation. A restricted "X" design would solve the major problems, oil momentum starvation, oil flow to sump restriction at sides and oil aeration.
|
Posted By: amcenthusiast
Date Posted: Jan/20/2019 at 11:14pm
|
Thanks for your considerate feedback. I agree with you; partly why I like this idea is because it's a re-simplification; no moving parts & fairly easy to fabricate. Along with 'suction pipe vortex formation', some of the key study words are 'oil-air entrainment'. ------------- 443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/ |
Posted By: amcenthusiast
Date Posted: Jan/21/2019 at 12:47am
|
Note: I'm assuming in the second drawing that we keep the stock 'windage tray' and the 'X' pattern plates are merely added on underneath, inside the sump area. Sorry the second picture makes that point less clear/not really showing how the stock 'windage tray' is retained. ------------- 443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/ |
Posted By: Trader
Date Posted: Jan/25/2019 at 8:06am
|
So my son, research Engineer did a little work for me on a 3D cad program - that I have no clue how to operate, and would cost a motor just for the licence! The X pattern does improve oil return to the sump, but is not optimal for preventing oil to head forward on hard deceleration. A wind-age tray works well for oil aeration problems. That's a given. Interestingly, a 3/4" tube on each side of the original pan, at #4 main, flush with the top and going down approximately 2" works very well for oil return to the sump and equally as well at not letting excessive amounts of oil flow front to back or side to side. Modelling shows the tube at 1g force still being in oil. A simple hole did not prevent excessive oil coming out of the sump on side forces. A larger tube let too much oil move out and a smaller tube did not let enough move down from the side of the pan. Mind you this is a computer model and not real world experience!
|