Engine and Transmission Tech

I need an oil dipstick and tube for my 78/79 302 that goes into the timing chain cover not the pan. I say 78/79 because the motor came out of a 79 Mustang but the numbers on the block say 78. Has anybody had this problem and do you have a source? I would prefer stock, not Lokar if possible.

Paul

Paul, I think the older 302's had the dipstick in the T/C, while the later 5.0L had the stick in the pan. There are new T/C's with the hole that can be opened if needed. What T/C do you have? The Fox Mustangs had the stick in the pan.

I had a similar problem in that I had an after market dipstick with no markings. I called ford and they gave me a spec for how far below the block the oil should be. I'm on my phone so can't pull up the info right now, but I think I posted it a few years back. You might be able to do a search and find it. Of course you'd have to drop the pan to mark one.

Thanks guys. Well...Here's the history. When I bought the motor it was setting on the shop floor next to a 1979 Mustang. There was no other car or motor around, the guy was a Texas Ranger and only wanted the automatic transmission, which I didn't, so I made what I thought was a safe assumption that it was a 79. The TC cover had an ear cracked off so, at the time not knowing much about sbf's, I just bought one and installed it. I was lucky I guess, because the oil pan does not have provisions for a dip stick and the TC cover does. In retrospect, maybe I should have gone with a Buick but I liked the idea of a Ford in a British car, still do. The rational should be that if I bought a 79 TC cover from NAPA all I should need is a 79 dipstick but it doesn't seem to be that easy.


Paul

hello paul I needed a dip stick for my ls1 found it on ebay just mention it in case you didn't think of it

Am I missing something here - wouldn't a front cover mounted dipstick require a front sump oil pan (something that doesn't work with the 'B' crossmember)

The front cross-member hasn't been a problem though it has been modified to fit the shape of the front sump, on the other hand, the height of the engine is effected by the steering rack which I haven't lowered because of concerns of inducing more bump steer than a MGB already has. I may reconsider this in the future however.


Paul

Paul,
You may want to revisit the dipstick and oilpan sump location for compatibility.
The 'dual sump' pans (as yours seems to be) are really a rear sump and requires a rear mount dipstick - the small front sump is basically for oilpump drive clearance will not register true sump oil volume when used with a front cover dipstick (which you won't be able to fully insert anyway)
If you want to use a front cover mounted dipstick, you'll need a true front sump oilpan.
The bottom line, here, is that you'll have to use the rear dipstick with the pan that you have.

Thanks Graham, obviously the set up I have isn't right. The pan being a double sump should have a place for a rear dip stick, but doesn't. The front cover isn't the original but if it didn't have the hole that won't work with this pan the motor wouldn't have a dip stick. The pan appears to be the wrong pan but it's the one I took off the motor when I got it. I've got a feeling the motor is going to have to come back out to fix this.


Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2014 04:03PM by pspeaks.

Paul, maybe there's an easy way out of this.
Install your T/C mounted dipstick.
Your going to have to shorten it to get it to insert fully.
Because it's going to hit the bottom of the front sump before it seats all the way.
Your engine holds 5.0 quarts of oil exactly, or 4.4 with out filling the oil filter.
So fill the oil pan with 4.4 quarts of oil and mark your dipstick.
And Voila' you're done.
You could start with 3.4 qt's to get a low level mark, but who lets the level drop to that anyway?
The only caveat is that the car will need to be dead level (which it should be anyway) to get an accurate reading from the front sump.
Cheers
Fred

Dipsticks for pre-1979 Mustang SBF V8s passed through the timing cover into the front sump pan.
In 1979, the Mustang switched to the Fox-body chassis which used a double sump oil pan with a
smaller forward sump and a larger rear sump and two drain plugs. The oil pump is in the front
sump and the oil pick up is in the rear. The 1979 Mustang oil pans had a hole on the driver's
side and the dipstick passes into a rear sump pan. The Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr
fox-bodies got the same pan a year earlier (1978). In 1980, the dipstick location changed again
with a hole drilled into 1980-up blocks. The dipstick passes through the block into the rear
sump, not through the pan itself. Later 5.0L HO's with low tension (metric) oil rings also had
a low oil level sensor screwed into the side of the rear sump.

It's important to figure out what year your engine is. In 1981, Ford changed from a 28.2 oz-in
balance factor to 50 oz-in for the 5.0L/302's. All 221, 289, 351W, 351C and earlier 302's were
balanced to 28.2 oz-in. Later 5.0L/302 cranks were lightened which required additional mass
added to the harmonic balancer and flywheel/flexplate. You must use a harmonic balancer and
flywheel that match your engine's imbalance. Also, in 1985, the mechanical fuel pump boss was
blocked off with a bolt on plate on fuel injected engines. Later, the mechaincal fuel pump
opening was removed altogether.

Dan Jones

Paul, I would want my engine :-) dipstick located where the oil pick-up was. The front sump is only for the oil pump cavity. Most Fox- Body mustangs I've observed had the sensor and oil dipstick in the oil pan. My pan was modified and a portion of the front sump was removed so the pan is basically a rear sump pan. My X-member was also modified and re-in forced so the rack retained the stock location. You only need to clear the pump by 1/4" for adequate room. you probably all ready have the rear pick up and only need to get room to clear the pan. I believe I have a how it was done on my X-member in the HIWD Section. The reduction of the X-member thickness is simple and easy to re in force for additional strength, just need some steel plate and 1/8" angle and viola' its thin!

I think the only issue Paul has is that he has an '80+ double sump pan (which doesn't have a dipstick hole) and a 79 or earlier block which also doesn't have a dip stick hole. Seems one of two options would work...

1. Do as Fred suggested.
2. Get a 79 double hump pan and dipstick.

Neither option requires pulling the motor. I'll admit it seems odd, but it's just measuring the top of the fluid level which is higher than the hump so not sure why having the dip stick in the back where the pickup is really matters. Unless there's a reason I'm not thinking of, option 1 is probably the easiest and no cost option.

One clarification though Fred. There are two filters commonly used on 302's. Both are the same diameter but one is longer than the other. I don't use Fram filters any more but if memory serves the longer one is PH8A and the shorter one is PH8. Which filter yields exactly 5 quarts (and if Paul has tempted the filter, he'll need to account for the remote hose too).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2014 07:37PM by rficalora.

Thanks guys! Here's a better picture of the pan. It has the small front sump so I'm assuming it's a 79 with a drain plug in the front and rear. It also has a larger plug on the side of the rear sump I assume is for a low oil level sensor. he Mustang it came out of was a 79, but as I said earlier, the numbers say it came out of a 78 so it may not have been the original motor for the Mustang. There is no hole in the block and no hole in the pan for a tube. When I tore the motor down it had been together for some time and there was no indications it had ever been opened. I've searched the internet for the engine code (D8VE-6015-A3A) and can't find it. All that said I don't know what to think.

Kelly, the front cross member was cut and reinforced as you suggested.

Yes I have a remote filter and considered the hose volume.

Paul






Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2014 08:48PM by pspeaks.

Hey Rob,
I was using my 1980 ford shop manual.
It lists an oil volume with or without an oil filter.
At .6 quarts I would assume that it's the long filter that they refer to.
They list the non filter change spec @ 4.4 quarts
That means that the double sump pan holds 4.4 quarts when full irrespective of the filter/hose/cooler volume.
As long as Paul drains his oil pan and then refills it with 4.4 quarts ( I'm trying so hard not to say liter's by the way!)
And measures his dipstick level before running the engine he should be good.

Thanks Fred. I wish the Ford guys would have told me that when I called a few years back. Would have saved me dropping the pan to measure distance below the block!

Thanks guys. We aren't in the T-Bucket business anymore, but we still have enough machine shop capability to fabricate a tube and dip stick for a front cover application so I think I'll try that approach.

By the way Dan, I had the machine shop check all the numbers as I was prepping the block and crank and they determined it is a 28oz motor so the balancer and new flywheel (it was an automatic) is 28oz also.

Not pulling the motor and pan is probably good news for the rear end because if I did I'd go ahead and put my aluminum heads and cam on it and couldn't resist a stroker kit just to round off the experience. A guy's gotta do what a guys gotta do!


Paul

On the subject of marking the dipstick, I have a 302 with the dipstick hole near the rear of the block on the drivers side, a remote oil filter, and an after market dipstick. I'm getting close to starting the engine for the first time and my thoughts on marking the dipstick have been;
Put 3.4 quarts plus the volume of the remote hoses in the pan and make a temporary 1 quart low mark on the dipstick.
Add another quart and make temporary full mark.
Fill the filter with oil.
After running the engine check the dipstick. If the actual full level is higher or lower than the temporary dipstick full mark then set the permanent 1 quart low and full marks according to the actual full level.

Will this work?

> they determined it is a 28oz motor so the balancer and new flywheel (it was an automatic) is 28oz also.

Excellent. That is consitent with the engine date.

> I'd go ahead and put my aluminum heads and cam on it and couldn't resist a stroker kit

What heads, cam and stroker kit are you going with? I recently pieced together the parts (BBK SSI EFI intake and 70mm throttle body, AFR 165 heads, E303 HR cam, Cobra 1.7:1 pedestal mount roller rockers and 1 5/8" diameter stainless steel long tube heads) to perk up my 5.0L HO in daily driver 1987 Mustang GT. All the bits are pretty well matched for the 5.0L but then a vendor I know had to make me a deal I couldn't pass up on a 11:1 compression 347 Scat forged stroker kit. Problem is the heads. cam and intake aren't really that well matched for the stroker kit so I need to decide whether they are good enough or whether I should sell them and go bigger on the heads, cam and intake. Decisions, decisions.

Dan Jones

As Curtis suggested, unless something happens to change my plans, once my health issues are taken care of, I'll get it on the road in stock form, or nearly stock form anyway, then do the modifications next winter. I have a set of Flo-Tek aluminum heads, a Comp 268H cam, and was considering a Scat 347 stroker, but the stroker might be a little over-kill for my needs. I definitely won't do the stroker on a brand new motor unless it has to come apart for some other reason. I have no idea as to quality or who actually makes them, but Speedway offers a couple of 347 kits, unfortunately they come with either .030" or .040" over pistons and my block is .060" over.

Paul