Toddoky

I'm assuming from memory that there is. If that turns out to not be the case then a weld-on -12 bung can be employed over the existing holes. They are available from the Earl's Plumbing line.

406chvycamaro

iTrader: (7)

Toddoky,

On the Holley site it says to use F Body windage tray GM P/N 12558253. Does this one need to be modified to work?

ryeguy2006a

iTrader: (27)

http://documents.holley.com/199r11351.pdf

Short answer is yes.

406chvycamaro

iTrader: (7)

Thanks ryeguy2006a i appreciate the quick response

rickpaw

Ordered mine this morning, got an email that the unit is being shipped.

Toddoky, when using the race baffle, how much of a trimming is needed to clear the corners? Just slowly trimming the corners until the baffle fits?

Thanks.

Toddoky

That's the anecdotal report I received from the single Holley employee who's used the two together.

rickpaw

Thanks Toddoky.

ryeguy2006a

iTrader: (27)

Received my pan today and very happy with it. I read that some people have reported that there was leftover machine shavings or something, so I was interested to see how mine came. When I opened it up I found that it was extremely clean and well packaged. I was also pleased that the pan also came with the block off plugs for the drain back ports. I figured that I would have to buy those separately so that was a pleasant surprise.

Toddoky

Glad to hear it...enjoy that pan and put it to good use.

old66tiger

Nice improvement. I initially opted for the 302-1 pan in my build because the machining of the 302-2 wasn't as good and the 302-1 was just a better casting in general. I would assume that this has improved and the ability to run a 4" crank is a definite bonus. I just need to see if I can get my pan off without having to pull the engine from the car. That's always a pain

mOtOrHeAd MiKe

iTrader: (8)

Just got my 302-3 pan in the mail. I'll be running a modified windage tray, and building my own pick-up baffles using some doors from Improved Engineering. Also picked up the LS3 dipstick tube assembly per Summit's recommendation.

ryeguy2006a

iTrader: (27)

I would love to see what that looks like. Please post some pictures when you finish that project.

Toddoky

Motorhead Mike, I'm not sure it's been mentioned in any threads that have talked about the New Holley 302-3 pan, but you can use the same race baffle Holley offers for the 302-2 pan in it by trimming the front corners of the baffle assembly. I just thought I'd let you know as an FYI, if you didn't want to invest the time making your own.

mOtOrHeAd MiKe

iTrader: (8)

Built the baffle (keeps about 75% of the oil forward on launch), not worried about braking or hard turns in my application. While I understand the purpose of the centre mount pick-up, one favouring the rear of the pan would suit most applications for a turbo car.

Ported the filter mount, it is machined better than an OEM pan - but required some improvement for better flow.

I definitely find the total fill of 6.1L to be lacking, Holley is trading pan volume for ground clearance. Might be able to get 6.5 to 6.75L using a long filter (that is a K&N HP-2011) without putting the crank in an oil bath. I would not run a high volume pump with this pan.

Modified the supplied drain plug into a magnetic one.

Toddoky

Good work there Motorhead. You're right about the geometry behind the Holley 302-3 oil pan...it was designed to provide the same basic oil capacity as a stock F-body pan while providing fitment and clearance not possible to obtain with the F-body pan.

f6john

Todd, I just ordered a 302-2 pan for my 5.7 ls1 going in a 67 Chevelle but now I’m thinking I should have ordered the 302-3 for my installation. The 302-2 pan is on backorder until the middle of January so I suppose I have a chance to change my order? Would you recommend the change? Thanks for any info you can offer. I ordered the new mid mount system for FEAD if that factors into your response.

Toddoky

The 302-3 pan will give more clearance between the front of the pan sump and the engine crossmember if you are using the Hooker forward-bias engine brackets. If you are using the Hooker rear-bias engine brackets, you won't notice any difference between the two regarding clearances, so the choice would come down to whether you need the stroker capability, or turbo drain-back ports of the 302-3 pan.

rtagg

iTrader: (2)

Todd,

Is there any news on the release date of the hooker engine brackets that you had mocked up with the 302-3 pan on the Fox Mustang with the MM K member?

BTW, I modified the my 302-11 baffle kit to fit my 302-3 pan, and it was a pretty simple trimming job. Thanks for the heads up on that.

Toddoky

Rtagg, I won't be back into the office until after the 1st of the new year, but I'll check up on the status of those components at that time and post up some info on the Hooker Fox body swap thread.

f6john

Well, in my case, the back ordered 302-2 oil pan is arriving tomorrow! So, one less decision I have to make.