Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications Duratec Maintenance Spinning bearings, oil drainage trouble, etc...

I've been searching the forums and haven't found a concensus on what are all the repairs/upgrades one really should do to help revent bearings from spinning and oil starvation.

For starters, I have a 1995 Contour SE V6 5 spd w/91,000 miles and haven't been nailed by any classic disasters yet. I will also be acquiring a 1999 Contour SVT w/~ 22,000 miles on it and it has not been nailed by any of the classic disasters either.

I've learned about the waterpump issue and will be taking care of that ASAP. Consider this a "must upgrade".

I've also learned about the DMD and how replacing it will smooth-out engine vibrations, suppress crank whip, and is considered one of the steps necessary to prevent bearings from spinning. Consider this a "must upgrade".

What isn't clear in these forums is whether the new redesigned oil pan is really better than the old one. The new pan has a different baffle set-up but it is also shallower. I've seen the comments on prolonged aggressive right turns causing the oil to ride-up on one side of the pan and cause oil starvation. Should I really go ahead an replace the oil pan on both Contours?

The SVT received an upgrade on the windage tray in 2000. Should I upgrade the windage tray on the 1999 SVT? Should I add/upgrade the windage tray on the 1995 SE? I've not run across any statements concerning the merits of upgrading the windage tray. All I've seen is people acknowledging that there was a change but nothing like "the upgraded windage tray is a must-have over the original".

There have been comments about the cylinder heads not providing adequate oil drainage (fixed after the Contour was discontinued). If I ever was forced or wanted to pull the 2.5L V6 from either car, can 1995-2000 V6's be upgraded just by opening-up the current drainage holes or drilling an extra hole without compromising the cooling system, etc? Obviously, the heads have to be removed if this modification is feasible.

I am aware that adding an oil accumulator is another smart mod to prevent oil starvation. Probably will do this on the SVT but not certain on the SE.

Let's here what you have to say on these points.

I have the time to upgrade the SVT before putting her on the road. The SE will be driven as it gets upgraded so if I get bitten by one of the classic weakpoints, so be it.

Dave Keller

Iv come to find out that its hard to say what is a problem and whats not.....I have over 100,000 miles on my car with No spun bearings....and its been raced in all types of conditons including LAs Vegas weather.......One thing is for sure it does smooth out the RPMs above 4k.



And im almost 90% sure it saves a lot fo people from spun bearings (only 90% because 10% of the people i tlak to, including myself have had no Spun bearing issue and have no DMD, but there cars are 1999 and up like mine is...hummmm...intresting.....

FletchaAutoSports will tell you he never need it. And he is running Underdrive pullies. If i had to make an guess, id say 98 and earlier use the DMD, oil pan combo. On 1999 and above im not so sure you need it.....its a great peace of mind though and im seriously considering it.


Roz

An old email conversation with the master..I asked the same Qs..(read from bottom to top)

Put it this way,over the summer I have done 6 engine swaps/new crank rebuilds due to run rod ends...of those 6 ,one had an underdrive pulley and 38,000 miles when it blew,the rest had put the 'extra' in the pan,NONE failed on a 'long sweeping rt hand etc.....,all were under 60,000miles,one was the result of ....I missed gears and went from 5th to 2nd!!!.....at 70+mph, that one was a 'total siezure'....& busted rods!....catch my point.I see the 'guts' of the problem when the failed engine is torn down....this is not what the average diy or CEG'er ever gets to see...TH

Daniel Nixon <dnixon@hsc.vcu.edu> wrote:
Very interesting info...if I understood correctly...
Sounds like new pan is a bad idea.
Sounds like you feel extra oil is a bad idea too..
You are saying that there is enough oil in the pan ..and that oil froath
is a key problem?

Any way around this short of accusump..would the new windage tray help?




Terence Haines wrote:

> From tests 'I' have done!!!...by fitting 2 x 90 degree unions and clear
> tube from the bottom of the pan to well above the stoc oil level (in the
> block area) I see a lot more than a Qt left in the pan at 5,000+rpm.I
> agree the 2.5 drains have been up graded but a new pan has to match that
> block,the 'weirs' at the timing case end tell me that the chains cause a
> lot of foam in the oil...hence on the 3.0 LS & Jag engines the area at
> the front of the heads where the oil drains down is a alot bigger to
> help the oil dump the air on the way back to the pan & not have more
> added to it by the gears & chains..the fact is the 2.5 timing cover is
> too 'tight' or close to the chains to let the oil get past without being
> wipped up...another point that should be checked is the clearence
> between the pick up & the pan,this should be no more or less than
> 1/4"....the sealed baffle..WITH OIL LEVEL BELOW IT.....lets the thrown
> off oil dump its air as it moves back across the baffle to drain back in
> the lower pat of the pan....the 3/4" downturned lip (which the new pan
> does not have!)...helps prevent the oil washing back up above the
> baffle...FACT on a 0.8 G corner..the oil in the pan can be pushed up a
> VERTICAL baffle....vertical baffles do little to help....Yes feel free
> to throw this info on the CEG..also ,FWIW...my first few years in Ford
> R&D in England (total of 15 as a powertrain dev engineer) was with basic
> engines,I designed lube systems,then went on to performance & economy
> dept doing intake & exhaust manifolds...!! Regards ,HMS Inc still
> lives dispite the CEG!!!..Terry Haines(PS..this is another reason I do
> 3.0 LS conversions WITH LS front timing cover,modded )
>
> Daniel Nixon wrote:
>
> Thanks Terry,
> Can you help me understand..if oil is really getting retained in the
> head (say 1/2 quart)because it needs more return oil galleries, would
> not this mean less oil in pan once car is running?? Then the "extra 1/2
> quart" would be only compensating for what is trapped in the head?? Not
> true??
>
> OK for me to post all this at CEG??
>
> Dan
>
> Terence A Haines wrote:
>
> > With 4 qts in the new pan the oil is only approx 1 inch from the seal
> > line for the gasket...that is also only approx 1 inch from the
> windage
> > tray...but worse WELL over the horiz baffle in the pan...rule of
> thumb
> > for horiz baffles...oil level must be at least 1/2" BELOW any horiz
> > baffle...oil pockup hole must have a turndown lip of least 3/4" (this
> > does not....ALL edges of the horiz baffle must seal against edge
> of pan
> > with no gaps apart from a SMALL hole for dipstick...15 years in Ford
> > powertrain as an R&D engineer tells me this pan will not save your
> > motor...neither will overfill as the excess oil will be wipped up by
> > the crank and aerieated...not good either...!..My 2 cents 'for the
> > site!!1 regards TH
> >

From the threads I've read on this topic, the updated oil pan may not resolve some problems. The only "solution" that seems to be widely accepted is to fill a little past 5.5 quarts, to about 6; but that probably isn't the best solution. You can also install an Accusump oil accumulator from BAT, which may be the best way to go but also very pricey at $350.

Link -- Page 30.