psi3000

I have a LQ4 block in my 70 chevelle. I just noticed that the Holley GM LS Retrofit oil pan 302-1 (the earlier revision) is actually sitting on the cross member of the frame. I am using ebay motor plates with Energy Suspension Engine mounts. The frame brackets are original TALL (307) brackeets. Is anyone running the 302-1 oil pan in a 68-72 A-body? If so what motor mounts, Engine Plates and Frame brackets are you using to clear the cross member. I have looked around and still need to keep looking, but it seems it is recommended to raise the engine 1 inch. How are you people accomplishing this one inch lift?
Also one side note: After talking to a Holley tech, he informed me the recommended setup for the 68-72 A-Bodies was the NEW 302-2 oil pan with one of the Hooker Frame brackets using the original 2002 Camaro SS motor mounts. I think our Sticky on Oil Pans needs this info in it.

thanks,

G Atsma

The way it works is to use ALL Holley swap parts so every thing is coordinated and fits well. If you were to change over to Holley mounts it should get the pan off the crossmember, and would not cost too much. And it would be done right. Your setup is a mix and match of a lot of different parts, but all Holley parts might not have been available when you first did the swap.

Toddoky

The Hooker A-body engine brackets won't help you with fitment of your 302-1 Holley pan. That pan is not well suited for installation in any A-body due to its height along its front end. The 302-2 pan is more than an inch shallower up front and is what the geometry of the Hooker engine brackets were designed to work around.

psi3000

Thanks for the advice and confirmation on current setups for this pan. I have ordered the 302-2 pan, with the hooker Brackets and the 02 Camaro mounts. However, If I wanted this setup to work, to get it up and running now, just by lifting up the engine 1 inch how could i do this? Put one inch plates under the Frame brackets? How did people do this when the 302-2 pan wasnt available?

Toddoky

They did it with shims as you've mentioned and ended up will non-optimized U-joint working angles and inner tie rod to oil pan clearance issues still in some cases. That is the reason the 302-1 pan was excluded from the development of the Hooker A-body LS swap systems.

Che70velle

iTrader: (6)

Agreed. I run the 302-1 pan in my 70' but I built my own SOLID mounts, and custom transmission crossmember. My oil pan fits well, but I do have a slight bit of inner tie rod contact at full steering lock. The 302-2 pan will eliminate the contact, and allow you to place your engine slightly lower than mine.

GotBoostRacing

iTrader: (1)

I run the 302-1 pan with the dirty dingo adjustable solid mounts. No issues with the cross member, and only a slight hit on the steering on the passenger side when at full lock. I went this route to help clear a larger crank and easy clearance behind the cross member.

bczee

iTrader: (12)

One thing i did to raise the engine when i used a CTS-V pan. I used and modified a combination of mounts. That being i used a combination of Short and Wide stand with the Tall and Narrow mounts.

IIRC i used the Tall and Norrow engine mount with a modified Short and Wide Frame Stand and it gave me some height that was enough to clear the front sump of the CTS-V pan, which is even taller than the F-Body and Holley pan on the front sump.

You do have to modify the frame stand mount to accept the narrow engine mount. I also re-positioned the location of the frame stand on the cross member.

BC

gnx7

iTrader: (28)

I run the AutoKraft pan in my '69 Chevelle setup for its superior baffles. Fits primo.
http://www.autokraft.org/products/

wradcli

I used 1999-2002 f body motor mounts that was suggested and used holley mount plates to the crossmember. It is super tight but no modifications to fit 4L70E trans and pinion angles are good