Topic: drag link hits oil pan corners 69 428SCJ

[7Lscjracer]

The pan is stamped with fomoco in the rectangle and has an 8 12 D3 date code, but then again there are repro pans stamped like originals.
Could be the wrong FE pan with not enough indents to clear, or could be the unknown aftermarket idler arm throwing off geometry?
Looks like if the arm was shorter, the drag link would sit further back in the clearanced area of the pan instead of hitting the corners just forward of the clearances.
This is a Metuchen built customer car at my buddies shop that is getting a going over with lots of issues coming to light.
Has a power steering slave cylinder drop bracket scabbed onto the frame, so must have had headers in the past but now has stock manifolds.
My car has the drop bracket bolted on for Hooker Header clearance, no need to weld them.
I was looking at the oil pan id articles on the 428CJ site but didn't see info on whether or not the pans have a stamped engineering number which would make things easier.
Thanks, any thoughts?

[Bob Gaines]

The pan is stamped with fomoco in the rectangle and has an 8 12 D3 date code, but then again there are repro pans stamped like originals.
Could be the wrong FE pan with not enough indents to clear, or could be the unknown aftermarket idler arm throwing off geometry?
Looks like if the arm was shorter, the drag link would sit further back in the clearanced area of the pan instead of hitting the corners just forward of the clearances.
This is a Metuchen built customer car at my buddies shop that is getting a going over with lots of issues coming to light.
Has a power steering slave cylinder drop bracket scabbed onto the frame, so must have had headers in the past but now has stock manifolds.
My car has the drop bracket bolted on for Hooker Header clearance, no need to weld them.
I was looking at the oil pan id articles on the 428CJ site but didn't see info on whether or not the pans have a stamped engineering number which would make things easier.
Thanks, any thoughts?

Welded drop bracket will become a issue in the future as the weld typically breaks over time . Your bolted in one will many times pull the zert  nuts out which is why many are welded. Keep a eye on it. The leverage is the culprit. A picture of the idler arm is in order to try and help .  Many will fit and function but only one style is meant to be used. If the pan has the clearance dimples on the bottom then it is the correct pan.

[Brian Conway]

The FE oil pan on my car had the same issues with the steering linkage.   Replaced it with an after market FoMoCo C6OZ-6675-A with date stamped 8 22 C2.
  What makes it CJ specific are the indents on either side.   Brian

[7Lscjracer]

Thanks B & B, I’ve asked for a picture of the idler arm and advised them to compare the pan with those pictured on the 428CJ site
I’ll ask the part number of the moog idler arm they brought in and if it’s K8158 67-70 with PS, advise them to install it to eliminate that variable
So oil pans don’t have an engineering number stamped in them?
Anyhow with the correct idler arm installed we’ll know if the pan is the issue
The pitman arm is original
Can’t speak for the customer but my preference would be the later pan and windage tray

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks B & B, I’ve asked for a picture of the idler arm and advised them to compare the pan with those pictured on the 428CJ site
I’ll ask the part number of the moog idler arm they brought in and if it’s K8158 67-70 with PS, advise them to install it to eliminate that variable
So oil pans don’t have an engineering number stamped in them?
Anyhow with the correct idler arm installed we’ll know if the pan is the issue
The pitman arm is original
Can’t speak for the customer but my preference would be the later pan and windage tray

No engineering number stamped into the metal of the pan.If it is a 69 then it is supposed to get a windage tray regardless of if CJ or SCJ. 68's didn't get them.

[7Lscjracer]

No engineering number stamped into the metal of the pan.If it is a 69 then it is supposed to get a windage tray regardless of if CJ or SCJ. 68's didn't get them.

Thanks Bob, good to know, I was getting confused thinking of the 3 C9ZZ pans that only the -B and -D had the baffling suitable for the tray.

[Bob Gaines]

Thanks Bob, good to know, I was getting confused thinking of the 3 C9ZZ pans that only the -B and -D had the baffling suitable for the tray.

The CJ baffling made into the pan is of course a plus but the windage tray works regardless of if you have the CJ baffled pan or not.

[427Fastback]

The indents in the sides do not make it a CJ pan.They make it a Mustang pan (I think Fairlane as well)..As stated.The baffles make it a CJ pan....

[1967FEGT]

Make sure you have the correct idler arm.

[specialed]

The c6oz 67-69 fe cougar mustang Fairlane torino oil pans all had a baffle and weren't cj specific. 69-70 cjs used the windage tray and there were 3 versions of the tray in the size of the cutout area around the oil pickup tube area and this was a running change. The c9zz oil pan had a lowered smaller baffle that was to be used with the 69-70 windage tray but from my research the new c9zz oil pans didn't start showing up till late 69. You can tell by looking at the baffle spot welds location on the pans to ID a c6oz vs c9zz pan after they are installed and painted on the engine since the c9zz pan has spotwelds in the center rear and along the lower sides vs c6oz pan spot welds are only on the sides up higher.  I never heard from anybody thinking the c9zz pan started being used earlier in the SJ or MT plant but I mostly study the 69-70 Dearborn cj cars and  it seems that even thou its a new 69 part its mainly used on a 70 cj .  I havenot got much help documenting on this running change since most cjs have had there original pans changed around over the years and most owners never noticed the baffle change.  You need to find a unmolested cj to document this pan changeover and I have found unmolested  late 69 low mile cjs that never had the new c9zz pan installed from factory.

[RoyceP]

FYI the C6OZ-6675-A pan is not specific to the 428CJ. It is the typical pan used on 390 or 428CJ equipped Mustang / Cougar / Comet / Fairlane / Ranchero from 1966 - 70.


LOL Ed beat me to the punch.....good one Ed.

The FE oil pan on my car had the same issues with the steering linkage.   Replaced it with an after market FoMoCo C6OZ-6675-A with date stamped 8 22 C2.
  What makes it CJ specific are the indents on either side.   Brian

[7Lscjracer]

The issue was resolved by swapping in a repro pan with the indents, replacing the Moog idler arm with one from Napa, and shimming the motor mounts which were compressed with age
Surprising that the Napa arm had the correct geometry, but then again current China Moog is not like the previous USA Moog
Case in point, seen the prices vintage NOS Moog stuff fetches on eBay?