Oil pan suggestion
07-08-2018, 03:46 PM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oil pan suggestion I am doing an ls3 stroker swap into a 69 Camaro and tryig to decide which oil pan to use. I am looking at the mast or the new holley 302-03. My car sits very low. Let me know which one you would pick and why. I also have an f-body oil pan that i could notch but i think it will hang to low, not sure. So any comments about that would be nice also.
07-08-2018, 06:38 PM
#3
Found this, may be helpful
https://ls1tech.com/forums/conversio...o-ls-swap.html
edit: the fbody pan will need to have pickup tube lengthened as well as the pan notched ( not sure if you were aware of that). It may be cheaper and easier to buy Holley pan and sell the fbody one.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/conversio...o-ls-swap.html
edit: the fbody pan will need to have pickup tube lengthened as well as the pan notched ( not sure if you were aware of that). It may be cheaper and easier to buy Holley pan and sell the fbody one.
Last edited by reedld; 07-08-2018 at 06:47 PM.
07-09-2018, 01:53 PM
#6
Trending Topics
07-09-2018, 10:07 PM
#9
I used the Mast in a different application. Very compact. Note -- the lower two bell housing bolts DO NOT bolt into the pan like they do with the GM factory or Holley pans. Great customer service from Mast. And, the cross section of the pan at the front is one of the thinnest available - allowing the engine to be mounted very low over the cross member or rack.
07-10-2018, 06:31 AM
#11
Having the bell and cast pan bolt together helps reinforce the structural “bottom end” of the engine making everything stiffer. I asked Mast about it - their reply was generally this - “We build LOTS of very high-perf/racing engines around this pan - never a problem.” I’ve not experienced any problems.
To clarify - I went with Mast because it allowed me to mount the engine significantly lower than the Holley 302-1. At that time, they hadn't come out with the 302-3 yet which also allows for an even lower mounting of the engine.
To clarify - I went with Mast because it allowed me to mount the engine significantly lower than the Holley 302-1. At that time, they hadn't come out with the 302-3 yet which also allows for an even lower mounting of the engine.
Last edited by Michael Yount; 07-10-2018 at 06:53 AM.
07-10-2018, 06:56 AM
#13
07-17-2018, 09:21 AM
#16
Restricted User
Holley 302-2 (I use it and love it).
The Holley 302-3 is a similar pan, but is aimed at turbo setups with its built in turbo drain fittings. Not needed for your setup.
The Holley 302-3 is a similar pan, but is aimed at turbo setups with its built in turbo drain fittings. Not needed for your setup.
07-17-2018, 10:35 AM
#18
TECH Senior Member
07-17-2018, 10:44 AM
#19
The 302-3 pan was developed as a fine-tuned version of the 302-2. It will fit any installation that the 302-2 will fit in, but the 302-2 pan cannot be used in certain applications the 302-3 can be used in (i.e. Fox Body Mustang LS swap using Hooker engine brackets on the stock K-member, A-body swaps using the Hooker forward-bias engine mounting brackets, or any 4" stroke application that the 302-2 would be required to be used).
07-17-2018, 10:50 AM
#20
TECH Senior Member
Thank you Toddoky! I SHOULD have said a 4" stroke was ONE reason the 302-3 came out. Too early in the AM, I guess....