LS1 S14 240sx Swap
03-21-2006, 11:56 AM
#41
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well using the fitting that Derek posted info on, allows you to run a very inexpensive SS line directly from the slave to the master, if you ever need to pull the swap you can just disconnect the line at the master cylinder.
other guys have removed the quick-disconnect fitting completely, both pieces of it, and brazed on a fitting to the hardline sticking out of the slave cylinder, so they can run a SS line with basic fittings on each end.
good news, just scored an R33 crossmember for my S13, of course it will be months before I have money to buy a swap, but I want to get all of the awkward parts first so it comes together quickly once I find a cheap '99 pullout.
other guys have removed the quick-disconnect fitting completely, both pieces of it, and brazed on a fitting to the hardline sticking out of the slave cylinder, so they can run a SS line with basic fittings on each end.
good news, just scored an R33 crossmember for my S13, of course it will be months before I have money to buy a swap, but I want to get all of the awkward parts first so it comes together quickly once I find a cheap '99 pullout.
03-29-2006, 01:55 AM
#42
I just picked up a 1998 S14 Se and a 2003 vette LS1.
I really want to keep the low profile pan. Having the lowest center of gravity possible is at the top of my priority list. It's unfortunate that the steering rack is behind the crossmember on the 240sx. Without my car here, this is just a guesstimate, but I don't think that there is a whole bunch more than 7" from the back of the rack to the firewall verticle!
The other problem is the depths of the pans. Everyone is using the GTO pan which is 6" deep in front. The corvette pan is somewhere between 4.75" and 5.25" deep. So best case scenario, any one using a gto pan is throwing away at least .75" and not having the engine as low as it can go.
Most people aren't going to want to hear this but that leaves four options:
1. dry sump: $$$ and a bad idea on the street.
2. modify the gto pan and the oil pickup so that the sump is no deeper than needed, then maybe even some more mods for clearancing around the steering rack.
3. move the firewall.
4. put in a front suspension from another car that has the steering rack in front.
Maybe it's just because I don't know any better [please some one talk me out of it], but right now I'm leaning towards pulling six inches out of the firewall so that I can keep my gullwing pan, and get that engine as far back and down as possible. Brian's weight distribution should end up better than 55/45, which is probably better than stock. And you never hear anyone complaing about the stock handling, especially after some well thought out mods. So by shoving the engine back even farther than he could (he's trying to sell kits, and kit buyers don't want to be hacking and welding on firewalls and tranny tunnels) Hopefully I can get real close to the magical 50/50. We'll see.
I really want to keep the low profile pan. Having the lowest center of gravity possible is at the top of my priority list. It's unfortunate that the steering rack is behind the crossmember on the 240sx. Without my car here, this is just a guesstimate, but I don't think that there is a whole bunch more than 7" from the back of the rack to the firewall verticle!
The other problem is the depths of the pans. Everyone is using the GTO pan which is 6" deep in front. The corvette pan is somewhere between 4.75" and 5.25" deep. So best case scenario, any one using a gto pan is throwing away at least .75" and not having the engine as low as it can go.
Most people aren't going to want to hear this but that leaves four options:
1. dry sump: $$$ and a bad idea on the street.
2. modify the gto pan and the oil pickup so that the sump is no deeper than needed, then maybe even some more mods for clearancing around the steering rack.
3. move the firewall.
4. put in a front suspension from another car that has the steering rack in front.
Maybe it's just because I don't know any better [please some one talk me out of it], but right now I'm leaning towards pulling six inches out of the firewall so that I can keep my gullwing pan, and get that engine as far back and down as possible. Brian's weight distribution should end up better than 55/45, which is probably better than stock. And you never hear anyone complaing about the stock handling, especially after some well thought out mods. So by shoving the engine back even farther than he could (he's trying to sell kits, and kit buyers don't want to be hacking and welding on firewalls and tranny tunnels) Hopefully I can get real close to the magical 50/50. We'll see.
03-30-2006, 07:22 PM
#43
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Detroit, MI - Camp Pendleton, CA
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you read the thread throughly?
1) Dry sump. Plan on paying another 2k just in your oiling system.
2) The GTO pan clears just fine with the sump in the stock location. Cutting the pan to be shallower and over flling it will cause the oil to slosh and draw in air into the oil. Then your oil pump goes dry and there goes an engine. I understand people mod pans but not to the extent of cutting the drop out.
3) Why would you want to cut the firewall? The pictures clearly show that the engine sits perfectly fine with any mount setup you plan to use as long as its in "that" position.
4) what other suspension fits under a 240 that isn't rear steer? All skylines, S13, S14 and even S15s are all rear steer. Changing it will destroy the geometry of everything and you want it to still handle well? You will not notice a difference of weight dist if its 50/50 or 55/45. Can you tell me what weight dist a car will have by driving it? Tires, suspension and chassis will have more effect on anything than a mere 5% front to rear of weight.
You will not be able to use the vette pan you have. Yes its shorter but the width will hit the crossmember. Dont re-engineer everything to accomodate for a pan, thats your first problem. The gto pan fits fine, clears the sway bar and the ground fine, and the LS1 weights less than the KA. So if anything I would want more front end weight. Right now my car sits 2"s high. If I could I would add another 100lbs to the front. Also, 240s are notorious for understeer so taking weight off the front will make it even worse. Turning the wheel and going straight doesn't sound like a good idea when you have 10k into a swap alone needless to say all the effort you put forth just to get the engine in with your approach. Everything has been laid out, sized, planned, retro-ed, and engineered. I want pic if you cut that firewall or change the suspension
-Alex
1) Dry sump. Plan on paying another 2k just in your oiling system.
2) The GTO pan clears just fine with the sump in the stock location. Cutting the pan to be shallower and over flling it will cause the oil to slosh and draw in air into the oil. Then your oil pump goes dry and there goes an engine. I understand people mod pans but not to the extent of cutting the drop out.
3) Why would you want to cut the firewall? The pictures clearly show that the engine sits perfectly fine with any mount setup you plan to use as long as its in "that" position.
4) what other suspension fits under a 240 that isn't rear steer? All skylines, S13, S14 and even S15s are all rear steer. Changing it will destroy the geometry of everything and you want it to still handle well? You will not notice a difference of weight dist if its 50/50 or 55/45. Can you tell me what weight dist a car will have by driving it? Tires, suspension and chassis will have more effect on anything than a mere 5% front to rear of weight.
You will not be able to use the vette pan you have. Yes its shorter but the width will hit the crossmember. Dont re-engineer everything to accomodate for a pan, thats your first problem. The gto pan fits fine, clears the sway bar and the ground fine, and the LS1 weights less than the KA. So if anything I would want more front end weight. Right now my car sits 2"s high. If I could I would add another 100lbs to the front. Also, 240s are notorious for understeer so taking weight off the front will make it even worse. Turning the wheel and going straight doesn't sound like a good idea when you have 10k into a swap alone needless to say all the effort you put forth just to get the engine in with your approach. Everything has been laid out, sized, planned, retro-ed, and engineered. I want pic if you cut that firewall or change the suspension
-Alex
03-30-2006, 08:44 PM
#44
I guess I was right when I said, "Most people aren't going to want to hear this..."
Alex: It looks like I may have touched a nerve.
That was definitely was not my intention. My intention was to stir up a sharing of knowledge and ideas. I have mad respect and props for the work that you and every one else has done with the GTO pan approach. YOU GUYS ARE THE INNOVATORS. I'm following your work, and studying the photographs that you guys post, to help guide my own project.
I bow down. And appreciate any discourse that you guys are willing to share with me.
That being said: I got conformation yesterday that the corvette pan's depth is indeed 4.75" compared to the GTO's 6.0". I also know that you are correct when you say that it won't clear the cross member/steering rack. There just isn't room between it and the firewall, by a long shot. But I think that you are mistaken when you say, "...the width will hit the cross member." I don't think that the width is a concern.
Regarding the stock suspension: I know that every one always laughs when we keep referring to the sport compact car Silvia project build up, but I believe the following to be true:
Stock S14 Springs are linear @ 120 lbs/in and a little higher on the handling package.
And that Dave Coleman (author/owner of SCC project silvia) got his best handling results with 335 lbs/in springs in front and 270 lbs/in in the rear.
Alex: "Tires, suspension and chassis will have more effect on anything than a mere 5% front to rear of weight."
I couldn't agree more. But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for as much balance as possible in our projects.
Alex: "240s are notorious for understeer so taking weight off the front will make it even worse."
Which could of course be compensated with tires and suspension.
My point being that we are all probably going to tune our suspensions. I highly doubt that you plan on staying with your front end 2" higher than it was before. And I highly doubt that any one who knows what they are talking about would recommend adding weight to the front end to cure that problem (especially on a vehicle that already understeers), over properly set up coil-overs. I personally plan on starting with spring rates some where near what Dave did, possibly even a little softer in front. It all depends on what my corner weights come out to be.
And I realize that, "The gto pan fits fine..." But the LS1 exists merely because people want MORE than fine. And frankly so do I. The whole idea, for me at least, is to build a car that goes so far beyond being just sorta fine, that it's off the F'n scale.
And if that requires slightly modifying the firewall to get the drivetrain 1.25"+ lower while simultaneously improving the cars balance, then so be it.
In response to your (4) specific points:
1) Ya dry sump is way expensive, and probably not a great idea for street cars.
2) Modifying oil pans: I know of more than one person that does this for a living! But you're right, in in-experienced hands it is a HORRIBLE idea. If I was going to do it I was going to consult one of them about laterally extending the GTO pan, and adding trap doors/baffles to help keep the oil at the pick up. This is one mod that I would never do myself, with out consulting the pros.
3) "Why would you want to cut the firewall?": Good God I don't "Want" to, but right now I'm still thinking that it may be worth the effort. I'm at a rare position in my life where I have the time and resources, to do the work. And it's something that I enjoy doing, even if it is a PITA.
4) Of course the weight distribution matters. And ya you can tell where the weight of a car sits. Drive an old Porsche then a Honda, and try and tell me otherwise.
You're right, though, that my 5% shift in weight balance will be subtle. But then again so will the hp increase of porting a throttle body; most enthusiasts who have the time, skill, and tools are going to do it anyway. That's how I'm kind of looking at this. I'm already knee deep in this. Might as well go all the way!
Again thank you for the response, and keep the updates coming.
-=DRU=-
Alex: It looks like I may have touched a nerve.
That was definitely was not my intention. My intention was to stir up a sharing of knowledge and ideas. I have mad respect and props for the work that you and every one else has done with the GTO pan approach. YOU GUYS ARE THE INNOVATORS. I'm following your work, and studying the photographs that you guys post, to help guide my own project.
I bow down. And appreciate any discourse that you guys are willing to share with me.
That being said: I got conformation yesterday that the corvette pan's depth is indeed 4.75" compared to the GTO's 6.0". I also know that you are correct when you say that it won't clear the cross member/steering rack. There just isn't room between it and the firewall, by a long shot. But I think that you are mistaken when you say, "...the width will hit the cross member." I don't think that the width is a concern.
Regarding the stock suspension: I know that every one always laughs when we keep referring to the sport compact car Silvia project build up, but I believe the following to be true:
Stock S14 Springs are linear @ 120 lbs/in and a little higher on the handling package.
And that Dave Coleman (author/owner of SCC project silvia) got his best handling results with 335 lbs/in springs in front and 270 lbs/in in the rear.
Alex: "Tires, suspension and chassis will have more effect on anything than a mere 5% front to rear of weight."
I couldn't agree more. But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for as much balance as possible in our projects.
Alex: "240s are notorious for understeer so taking weight off the front will make it even worse."
Which could of course be compensated with tires and suspension.
My point being that we are all probably going to tune our suspensions. I highly doubt that you plan on staying with your front end 2" higher than it was before. And I highly doubt that any one who knows what they are talking about would recommend adding weight to the front end to cure that problem (especially on a vehicle that already understeers), over properly set up coil-overs. I personally plan on starting with spring rates some where near what Dave did, possibly even a little softer in front. It all depends on what my corner weights come out to be.
And I realize that, "The gto pan fits fine..." But the LS1 exists merely because people want MORE than fine. And frankly so do I. The whole idea, for me at least, is to build a car that goes so far beyond being just sorta fine, that it's off the F'n scale.
And if that requires slightly modifying the firewall to get the drivetrain 1.25"+ lower while simultaneously improving the cars balance, then so be it.
In response to your (4) specific points:
1) Ya dry sump is way expensive, and probably not a great idea for street cars.
2) Modifying oil pans: I know of more than one person that does this for a living! But you're right, in in-experienced hands it is a HORRIBLE idea. If I was going to do it I was going to consult one of them about laterally extending the GTO pan, and adding trap doors/baffles to help keep the oil at the pick up. This is one mod that I would never do myself, with out consulting the pros.
3) "Why would you want to cut the firewall?": Good God I don't "Want" to, but right now I'm still thinking that it may be worth the effort. I'm at a rare position in my life where I have the time and resources, to do the work. And it's something that I enjoy doing, even if it is a PITA.
4) Of course the weight distribution matters. And ya you can tell where the weight of a car sits. Drive an old Porsche then a Honda, and try and tell me otherwise.
You're right, though, that my 5% shift in weight balance will be subtle. But then again so will the hp increase of porting a throttle body; most enthusiasts who have the time, skill, and tools are going to do it anyway. That's how I'm kind of looking at this. I'm already knee deep in this. Might as well go all the way!
Again thank you for the response, and keep the updates coming.
-=DRU=-
03-30-2006, 10:49 PM
#45
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Detroit, MI - Camp Pendleton, CA
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if you got the wrong idea, it was not in a bad tone. I was merely stating fact and in a way, I speak for Ken also, that all of our work has been done in vain. Not saying that there isn't other routes or better methods of work but you will realize what you are getting into when you actually start to put it in. It seems as if you are trying to accomodate for using the vette oil pan. Though at first it seems ideal, the way the crossmember is setup for mounts the wings will sure hit. 3 of us have already used the GTO oil pan with near perfect success. Not saying the vette pan was a bad idea, but it simply will not work. If you would like you try to make it work then we all would love to see pictures. Pictures speak a thousand words. Basically what i am trying to say is, Hinson, Ken and myself have created a method that simply works all around. I just don't see the rationalization to "cut the firewall 7"s..." or 'change suspension from a different car" when a plot has been laid. There is still plenty of room for exploring and expanding the swap, but why create a hassle on yourself and creat more headaches that can haunt you in the long run. It really isn't neccessary to cut the firewall or do any of that just to gain that 5% of weight dist. I just hope you have the neccesary time, budget, equiptment, knowledge and patients to go beyond what we have already explored. Good luck and post pics with any new findings.
-Alex
-Alex
03-30-2006, 11:13 PM
#46
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I'm not mistaken the Corvette oil pan is rear sump?
If so, the oil pan will hit the crossmember guaranteed and the width of the rear wings on the pan WILL be a problem. Have you taken a look at your 240sx crossmember? The mounting points for the steering rack is the limiting factor for the width of the oil pan...the GTO pan barely fits inbetween the two steering rack mounting points.
Please don't offense to this but I think you may need to take a good look at your vehicle and rethink your approach. You are not making a valid comparison between oil pans by comparing the sump depth. To make your oil pan comparison valid you would have to compare the depth of the Corvette oil pan sump to the rear depth of the GTO oil pan at its interference point (which is 2.5"-3" deep on the GTO at the interference point, I can't quite remember, it's been a while since I bolted the pan on)because that is the limiting factor as to how low the engine will sit in the 240sx.
In order to take advantage of that depth you speak about you would have to first cut the firewall enough to set the engine far enough back for the rear wings of the pan to clear the crossmember then you would have to lower the crossmember anywhere between ~2"-2.75" (assuming you want some safety factor between the oil pan and crossmember to allow the engine to torque without hitting the crossmember) to mount the engine at least on the same level as the LS1 & GTO oil pan combo.
Lowering the crossmember would totally screw up your steering geometry. Then your weight distribution arguement would be moot because your car wouldn't handle correctly. All of that work would merely allow your engine to sit at the SAME level as the LS1 +GTO oil pan. Then you would have to lower the crossmember even further to get that 1.25" advantage that you mentioned then you'd run into major ground clearance issues.
If you stopped with only lowering the crossmember 2-2.75" you would have gained zero center of gravity advantage over the LS1 +GTO oil pan, granted you would have slightly better weight distribution.
If you wanted to nitpick you could say that the GTO oil pan would have a lower center of gravity because the sump (and all that oil ) would be lower than the Corvette oil pan (the advantage would be very negligible but your goal is the ideal engine mounting position).
As my engine sits right now I would be extremely wary of trying to lower the engine any further, I don't want to fear every bump in the road, piece of debris and speedbumps.
However, if you're dead set on getting the engine lower and don't mind major oil pan modification (which it sounds like you don't, and I respect your ambitions) I would do the following:
To get any sort of advantage you would be better off with modifying the GTO oil pan by making the sump shorter (to add ground clearance) and adding wings to the GTO sump, to get that lost volume back, to get a similar effect to the Corvette oil pan but flipped around so its still front sump. Then either modify the existing crossmember by notching the area where the oil pan hits to lower the engine further or notch the oil pan where it hits the crossmember and steering rack. The limiting factor as to how low you will be able to get the engine is the steering rack. The oil pan will hit the steering rack. Since you can't notch the steering rack (for obvious reasons) it may be easier to notch the oil pan in that area. Something to think about. Take a look at a picture of a GTO oil pan. The interference point is approximately 3-4" from the rear of the pan. Best of luck with your project...I would be interested in seeing what route you take.
If so, the oil pan will hit the crossmember guaranteed and the width of the rear wings on the pan WILL be a problem. Have you taken a look at your 240sx crossmember? The mounting points for the steering rack is the limiting factor for the width of the oil pan...the GTO pan barely fits inbetween the two steering rack mounting points.
Please don't offense to this but I think you may need to take a good look at your vehicle and rethink your approach. You are not making a valid comparison between oil pans by comparing the sump depth. To make your oil pan comparison valid you would have to compare the depth of the Corvette oil pan sump to the rear depth of the GTO oil pan at its interference point (which is 2.5"-3" deep on the GTO at the interference point, I can't quite remember, it's been a while since I bolted the pan on)because that is the limiting factor as to how low the engine will sit in the 240sx.
In order to take advantage of that depth you speak about you would have to first cut the firewall enough to set the engine far enough back for the rear wings of the pan to clear the crossmember then you would have to lower the crossmember anywhere between ~2"-2.75" (assuming you want some safety factor between the oil pan and crossmember to allow the engine to torque without hitting the crossmember) to mount the engine at least on the same level as the LS1 & GTO oil pan combo.
Lowering the crossmember would totally screw up your steering geometry. Then your weight distribution arguement would be moot because your car wouldn't handle correctly. All of that work would merely allow your engine to sit at the SAME level as the LS1 +GTO oil pan. Then you would have to lower the crossmember even further to get that 1.25" advantage that you mentioned then you'd run into major ground clearance issues.
If you stopped with only lowering the crossmember 2-2.75" you would have gained zero center of gravity advantage over the LS1 +GTO oil pan, granted you would have slightly better weight distribution.
If you wanted to nitpick you could say that the GTO oil pan would have a lower center of gravity because the sump (and all that oil ) would be lower than the Corvette oil pan (the advantage would be very negligible but your goal is the ideal engine mounting position).
As my engine sits right now I would be extremely wary of trying to lower the engine any further, I don't want to fear every bump in the road, piece of debris and speedbumps.
However, if you're dead set on getting the engine lower and don't mind major oil pan modification (which it sounds like you don't, and I respect your ambitions) I would do the following:
To get any sort of advantage you would be better off with modifying the GTO oil pan by making the sump shorter (to add ground clearance) and adding wings to the GTO sump, to get that lost volume back, to get a similar effect to the Corvette oil pan but flipped around so its still front sump. Then either modify the existing crossmember by notching the area where the oil pan hits to lower the engine further or notch the oil pan where it hits the crossmember and steering rack. The limiting factor as to how low you will be able to get the engine is the steering rack. The oil pan will hit the steering rack. Since you can't notch the steering rack (for obvious reasons) it may be easier to notch the oil pan in that area. Something to think about. Take a look at a picture of a GTO oil pan. The interference point is approximately 3-4" from the rear of the pan. Best of luck with your project...I would be interested in seeing what route you take.
03-31-2006, 03:37 AM
#47
A picture is worth a thousand words right?
Http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...ngfirewall.jpg
I would have to take it even further back:
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...d/f2feb4b9.jpg
then maybe use an allen head bolt for the oil drain to clear the middle power steering rack line.
Http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...ngfirewall.jpg
I would have to take it even further back:
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...d/f2feb4b9.jpg
then maybe use an allen head bolt for the oil drain to clear the middle power steering rack line.
Last edited by GIGAPUNK; 04-03-2006 at 11:52 AM.
04-01-2006, 02:33 AM
#48
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Detroit, MI - Camp Pendleton, CA
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And youre sitting on your engine and the trans is in the back seat. How many firewalls have you pushed back? Heater core box needs to be moved, you just made your clearance for headers even worse, and your weight ratio is now 30/70 and you have to make a new tunnel. Wow I hope its worth the oil pan. Have fun! keep us Updated!
04-06-2006, 01:52 PM
#49
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
damn.
this thread went crazy quickly.
whatever anyone wants to do, go for it... but the vette pan sure looks like more work, mainly the firewall relocation, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
I was pretty stoked to see the R33 Skyline crossmember made the mounts super basic to build if using the GTO oilpan on an LS1... and the T56 sits in the right spot with only minimal notches to the front crossmember. that sounds like a fun project, not a project that will take a LONG time and MANY hours to complete. I've seen way too many over-complicated-projects never get finished becasue someone didnt choose a more simple way.
Gigapunk, if you are gonna use the vette oilpan, just relocate the drainplug or weld on a 90 degree fitting so the plug comes out the bottom.
this thread went crazy quickly.
whatever anyone wants to do, go for it... but the vette pan sure looks like more work, mainly the firewall relocation, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
I was pretty stoked to see the R33 Skyline crossmember made the mounts super basic to build if using the GTO oilpan on an LS1... and the T56 sits in the right spot with only minimal notches to the front crossmember. that sounds like a fun project, not a project that will take a LONG time and MANY hours to complete. I've seen way too many over-complicated-projects never get finished becasue someone didnt choose a more simple way.
Gigapunk, if you are gonna use the vette oilpan, just relocate the drainplug or weld on a 90 degree fitting so the plug comes out the bottom.
04-06-2006, 04:19 PM
#51
TECH Resident
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD.
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The oilpan debate is interesting, but you guys missed a potential option:
Build your own. The flange is flat (not like a SBC where you've got the curved main seals front and back) so its pretty easy. Just a sheetmetal box. It doesn't necessarily need to be aluminum. The factory pan is, but that doesn't mean that a well constructed steel pan won't be completely satisfactory for the application.
The factory one is "structural", but what exactly does that mean? One of the things is there are a pair of bolts that mount to the tranny, but they can't be that important. After all, the Powerglide, TH350, and TH400 have all been bolted up to high hp / high tq big blocks for years without those 2 bolts and work just fine. The bottom ends on the LSx motor is pretty stout, I'm not sure how much bracing it receives from the pan.
If you ask me, a sheetmetal pan with a remote oil filter mount would be an easy solution if you are looking for clearance in specific spots. I'll be building one (out of steel) for my 99 Bravada swap (its getting a 6.0l & 4L80E while keeping AWD) to clear the front axle.
'JustDreamin'
Build your own. The flange is flat (not like a SBC where you've got the curved main seals front and back) so its pretty easy. Just a sheetmetal box. It doesn't necessarily need to be aluminum. The factory pan is, but that doesn't mean that a well constructed steel pan won't be completely satisfactory for the application.
The factory one is "structural", but what exactly does that mean? One of the things is there are a pair of bolts that mount to the tranny, but they can't be that important. After all, the Powerglide, TH350, and TH400 have all been bolted up to high hp / high tq big blocks for years without those 2 bolts and work just fine. The bottom ends on the LSx motor is pretty stout, I'm not sure how much bracing it receives from the pan.
If you ask me, a sheetmetal pan with a remote oil filter mount would be an easy solution if you are looking for clearance in specific spots. I'll be building one (out of steel) for my 99 Bravada swap (its getting a 6.0l & 4L80E while keeping AWD) to clear the front axle.
'JustDreamin'
04-06-2006, 06:40 PM
#52
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, is it easier to
A) fab an oilpan from scratch
or is it easier to
B) notch the crossmember to use a GTO pan
I dunno, but I like the easily replaceable GTO pan and the notches on the crossmember look less time consuming that the sheetmetal work I did on my rx7 to fit the widebody out back... the crossmember nothces look pretty small and simple.
A) fab an oilpan from scratch
or is it easier to
B) notch the crossmember to use a GTO pan
I dunno, but I like the easily replaceable GTO pan and the notches on the crossmember look less time consuming that the sheetmetal work I did on my rx7 to fit the widebody out back... the crossmember nothces look pretty small and simple.
04-06-2006, 08:39 PM
#53
TECH Resident
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD.
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, notching the crossmember is definitely easier than building a pan from scratch.
I was trying to point out that there is another option besides trying to run the batwing pan and setting the engine in the dashboard (since most of the other options were quickly ruled out).
But for certain applications, there is no way to notch the crossmember, or no way to notch the crossmember far enough to get the CG that one desires (and still have some structural integrity left). I fall in category 1, no way to not the front axle and not practical to move it.
'JustDreamin'
I was trying to point out that there is another option besides trying to run the batwing pan and setting the engine in the dashboard (since most of the other options were quickly ruled out).
But for certain applications, there is no way to notch the crossmember, or no way to notch the crossmember far enough to get the CG that one desires (and still have some structural integrity left). I fall in category 1, no way to not the front axle and not practical to move it.
'JustDreamin'
04-06-2006, 11:57 PM
#54
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spring / Sealy, TX
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jsut use the gto pan. it works. a ls1 in that car is gonna be so stupid fast you dont need to use the corvette pan to lower the motor another 1/2 inch. quit trying to crazily overenginner it, use a gto pan like everyone else, and have a shitload of fun driving it.
pics/vids of the worlds 1st maggied ls1 s13 very soon. if it gets traction in any gear under 4th i will be dissapointed. fired it up, everythign seems to be workign on the stands/lift. we have some minor tweaking to do to the suspension before road test #1 tomorrow mid day. im really excited.
pics/vids of the worlds 1st maggied ls1 s13 very soon. if it gets traction in any gear under 4th i will be dissapointed. fired it up, everythign seems to be workign on the stands/lift. we have some minor tweaking to do to the suspension before road test #1 tomorrow mid day. im really excited.
04-07-2006, 12:33 AM
#55
Any 2800 pound car with 400 hp is going to be a freaking blast, I don't care where the engine is. And with the 4.08s we have in the rear... getouttahere... But I'm not talking about lowering the engine 1/2", I'm talking about a MINIMUM of 1.25" lower. My most recent estimates are also 8.25" back. I'm not saying that it's going to be simple, or easy, but give me a break. No one can pretend that lowering 500 lbs over 1.25" in a car isn't going to improve the handling.
For those (everyone else it seems) sticking with the GTO pan: here's the difference between the R32 and R33 cross members.
Looks subtle to me, but if header clearance is seriously an issue the R32 may be preferable?
R32:
R33:
owen, thanx for the idea on the drainplug. Has anyone taken apart one of these two piece pans? Can I easily remove the gasket weld on the bottom and reuse the same gasket?
Anyone have any other ideas as to how to create additional clearance at the center powersteering line that comes out the back/center of the steering rack, other than bending it closer to a tight 90 radius?
For those (everyone else it seems) sticking with the GTO pan: here's the difference between the R32 and R33 cross members.
Looks subtle to me, but if header clearance is seriously an issue the R32 may be preferable?
R32:
R33:
owen, thanx for the idea on the drainplug. Has anyone taken apart one of these two piece pans? Can I easily remove the gasket weld on the bottom and reuse the same gasket?
Anyone have any other ideas as to how to create additional clearance at the center powersteering line that comes out the back/center of the steering rack, other than bending it closer to a tight 90 radius?
Last edited by GIGAPUNK; 04-07-2006 at 12:42 AM.
04-07-2006, 12:33 PM
#58
Hey,
I am new here, and I've been following this post for a little while now and decided to join the forum. I just wanted to try and see if I have read everything correctly here.
Are you saying that with a R32/33 cross member, custom motor mounts, a 1/2 beating to the transmission tunnel, a GTO oil pan, some power steering and fuel line modification, a custom exhaust, stock headers, and clutch line modification a LS1 will fit into a S chases?
Also, are there any issues with the motor not getting enough fuel with a Walbro 225? I also have heard people bring up dry sump - does a GTO oil pan remove the need for one? I am still really unclear about the oil (pan and delivery) issues with the swap.
I am seriously thinking about the swap, and I heard that Hinson is making a sub frame/cross member set for the S14, it is expensive and requires custom headers and I cannot get a straight forward answer out of them if the kit is complete and all you need to do the swap or not so I am trying to figure out some cheaper alternatives.
Anyway, awesome thread guys, I hope to get this done this summer!
Stephen
I am new here, and I've been following this post for a little while now and decided to join the forum. I just wanted to try and see if I have read everything correctly here.
Are you saying that with a R32/33 cross member, custom motor mounts, a 1/2 beating to the transmission tunnel, a GTO oil pan, some power steering and fuel line modification, a custom exhaust, stock headers, and clutch line modification a LS1 will fit into a S chases?
Also, are there any issues with the motor not getting enough fuel with a Walbro 225? I also have heard people bring up dry sump - does a GTO oil pan remove the need for one? I am still really unclear about the oil (pan and delivery) issues with the swap.
I am seriously thinking about the swap, and I heard that Hinson is making a sub frame/cross member set for the S14, it is expensive and requires custom headers and I cannot get a straight forward answer out of them if the kit is complete and all you need to do the swap or not so I am trying to figure out some cheaper alternatives.
Anyway, awesome thread guys, I hope to get this done this summer!
Stephen
04-07-2006, 01:58 PM
#59
Hey Stephen,
nice angle in the sig.
In re: to your oil pan issue. There never was/or is a need for dry sump. The LS1s oil pump is known to be one of the few week points of the engine. But even then, I don't really think that's it's as bad as people make out.
Back in the way early days of the LS1, Gm engineers were occasionally having problems with oil starvation at the oil pick up if they stayed in a super high G turn for a really long time (close to a minute I think) w/o changing direction. So they put weird latteral sumps and baffling in the corvette pan. They refined it more over the years and I wouldn't be surprised if the GTO is just as good. Besides when was the last time you were pulling 1.00 G in a single direction for 60 seconds? The stock pans are fine, and the GTO pan fits with only minor clearancing (that may even be optional) of the crossmember.
The only difference between the silvia and skyline crossmembers is the location of the humps for the engine mounts, not the actual location of the bar that ties the suspension pick up points together. So the only thing that you gain with the skyline crossmembers is a little header clearance. If you don't take Hinson's route, you'll be making custom engine mounts already and the stock cross member works fine.
nice angle in the sig.
In re: to your oil pan issue. There never was/or is a need for dry sump. The LS1s oil pump is known to be one of the few week points of the engine. But even then, I don't really think that's it's as bad as people make out.
Back in the way early days of the LS1, Gm engineers were occasionally having problems with oil starvation at the oil pick up if they stayed in a super high G turn for a really long time (close to a minute I think) w/o changing direction. So they put weird latteral sumps and baffling in the corvette pan. They refined it more over the years and I wouldn't be surprised if the GTO is just as good. Besides when was the last time you were pulling 1.00 G in a single direction for 60 seconds? The stock pans are fine, and the GTO pan fits with only minor clearancing (that may even be optional) of the crossmember.
The only difference between the silvia and skyline crossmembers is the location of the humps for the engine mounts, not the actual location of the bar that ties the suspension pick up points together. So the only thing that you gain with the skyline crossmembers is a little header clearance. If you don't take Hinson's route, you'll be making custom engine mounts already and the stock cross member works fine.