71 chevelle

iTrader: (13)

Robbie what are you going to do with the truck?Just pm you.

john 67

so far I havent had to massage the tunnel ,but it is TIGHT car should be running in about a month ,I'll let you know. JOHN

supershift67

iTrader: (1)

rob, I am in Iowa. I just built this garage and I have no wiring or anything yet but the chevelle takes priority over the garage. Its been 20 below zero her for a while but its alot warmer now at 24 degrees F.

robbied31

iTrader: (1)

20 below? No thanks!!! You are a better man than I!

I got my engine and trans separated. I have a couple questions......

1] I bought a windage tray with my CTS-V oil pan, is there any reason I shouldn't just use the old truck tray and return the new one?



Also, The LQ4 has over 100,000 miles on it. Is there anything I should be looking for while I have the pan off?



Or is there anything to be learned about the engine with just the pan off?

I also have the valve covers off. I don't know that there is anything to be looking for in particular......




If not, I will be installing the pickup tube, old tray and CTS-V pan to start trial fit into chevelle.

Thanks

Rob

john 67

how bout some pics of the pan?

robbied31

iTrader: (1)

Hi John,
pics of new and old pan......





Rob

robbied31

iTrader: (1)

Wow,
I am starting to think I made the wrong decision on the oil pan. I am about 3" away from getting the oil pan past the frame. depending on angle, my heads are either hitting the firewall or the trans is hitting the tunnel [somewhere]. But all the pics I see of people who "modified" their tunnel seemed to have to cut a lot less than it seems I will have to cut. I am pretty sure I have to take some of the firewall along with the tunnel out just to get the pan past the frame.

Your thoughts? [sounds like Gary Radnich ]





I will keep searching the site to see if I can find pics of where someone took firewall and tunnel, but do you guys have any thoughts of how much to start with?

Thanks

Rob

jomomma

iTrader: (39)

the truck pan wont work?

71 chevelle

iTrader: (13)

Truck pan would sit to low. I am not sure but I believe the LH8 pan(H3) should fit.BRP has this as part of their kit. This is the pan I will be running once I get the correct motor. Also will you be lowing your car more than 1"-2 " as that will limit you of the shelf option and will need to go with a s & P type pan.

robbied31

iTrader: (1)

Engine is in. I had to cut tunnel out of the way and some of the firewall. Will get pics up tomorrow.

Jomomma,
the truck pan very well may work with the modifications I made to the firewall and tunnel. Along with that thought, as high as I need to put the engine to a] keep the pan off the cross member and b] keep the oil pan out of the way for steering clearance, I may put the truck pan back on to see how it fits.

I am very perplexed right now. To make the ctsv pan work with all clearances, I have to put the engine very high and the passenger side head is about 1/2" off the firewall. And I don't know how high is OK. I mean, how high is too high for the engine?

So, I have 4 pictures open on my desktop, the ctsv pan, Hummer pan, F-body pan and the truck pan. Now knowing first hand how the pan/engine interact with the frame/firewall/tunnel, it looks like I picked the wrong pan to start with. looking at all the pics, it looks like I should have started with the LH8 pan, [or the truck pan just to see how it all fits before spending my money].

71 Chevelle,
I think the LH8 is a good way to go [with all my experience now]. I chose the CTSV pan because of all the reading I was doing here. A couple guys used it with there Chevelles with minimal problems. I don't know what i am doing different than the other chevelle guys, but I seem to be having more of an issue than others. I know '68 and later have slightly more room between firewall and cross member, but I didn't think it was going to be this tight.

Isn't the LH8 on national back order? By the Way, if all the dimensions on the Oil pan sticky page are correct, the LH8 is only 3/4" shallower/shorter than the Truck pan.

Rob

supershift67

iTrader: (1)

I may end up using the autokraft even though it cost quite a bit. I was thinking of cutting the bottom of my truck pan also but I think it will only hold 4.5 quarts of oil then. It is still too cold to work outside ,its -11 deg.F. BRRRRR...

john 67

Robbied , by going by my install the steering clearence was my biggest issue , where the inner tie rods pass by the oil pan . i have a s&p modified f body pan i believe , which looks to me to have the most clearence up front. anything else and you will have to raise your engine higher which means you will have to enlarge your tunnel ,my trans is real tight and i might have to hammer it out in a spot or two.also i did not install the engine with the trans on it so i dont know if it would ever come out that way.JOHN

cgslow77

iTrader: (2)

what intake and front acc. setup are you going to use???

pist0lpete

iTrader: (3)

I am a bit perplexed myself as to why you had so much trouble. I used the F-body pan on mine as I had told you before and it was a very tight fit sliding the motor in but once the oil pan is past the crossmember I had sufficient room. Maybe the fact that I am using a 700r4 makes a bigger difference that I thought?

robbied31

iTrader: (1)

I have an F-body intake, rails, throttle body and injectors. I have also have an F-Body acc kit on the way.

John,
I remember reading your thread weeks and weeks ago wondering why you hadn't had the engine placement done yet. now I totally understand! How close is your passenger side head to the firewall? If i set the engine all the way down on the short/wide mounts, the head is 1/2" away from firewall. Maybe that's OK, but at that point I have the steering issue with the oil pan. I didn't want to have to spend a lot of money on a pan, maybe I will have to. Wish I had an LH8 pan to try.

Pistolpete,
I was at a big swap meet in Turlock today and saw a 4L60E there. It was quite a bit smaller than my 4L80E. If I remember correctly, your tranny is even smaller than the 4L60E. As we all know, John67 lowered his body down onto his frame after motor and trans were in. I think just the size of my tranny is the difference in engine installation.

I will have another go at it tomorrow.

thanks for all the input!

Rob

pist0lpete

iTrader: (3)

4L60 and 700r4 should be the same dimensions really the only huge difference is an electronic versus non electronic valve body. However, you are right the 4l80e is significantly larger. Still the relationship between the heads and bellhousing flange is the same no matter what tranny and knowing that I am surprised you are having so little room. My gut/logic tells me the F-body pan should work since you have cut the tunnel but I can't say for certain. Just for reference i would say my pass. side head is less than a 1/2" off the firewall.

jomomma

iTrader: (39)

i would still try the truck pan before getting another one.

robbied31

iTrader: (1)

Jomomma,
The truck pan is taller than the CTSV pan in the front of the pan. Using the truck pan would make me have to raise the engine even farther to clear the steering parts and then it would hang an inch and a half lower than the CTSV pan. The CTSV pan is only hanging below the cross member right now by about a half inch. I am pretty sold on using the CTSV pan, but you never know.

Pist0lpete,
I am glad to hear that your head is so close. I just want to make sure I am not the only one. I have the engine where it works for pan clearance and the head about 1" from the firewall. I started with the short/wide frame mounts and energy suspension motor mounts. I am using the this template as it lines up with the cross member best.....



With the short/wide stands and mounts. The short/wide stand has a dimension of 1" from bottom of stand to the center of the hole. With the engine in a spot where the pan clears and the head is about an inch from the firewall, here is the result with short/wide setup....



So, I swapped the adapter plates from one side to the other. Then using the mounts that were in my chevelle when I bought it switched to the opposite side [which are 1 1/2" from bottom of stand to center of bolt hole] and a 1/2" spacer, the engine sits where everything works.....







I have set the car at ride height [about 1" slant forward axle to axle- a little less than 1/8" per foot measured on the rocker] and the engine at about 4 degrees down to the back. The car looks like it slants more because the garage floor slopes toward the door at about 1-2%. May need to raise some more tunnel between the front seats.....




I don't want to run the stock '67 stands catilevered like in the pic. John67 has a pic of 3 different stands in his build thread. If I could get my hands on the 1 3/4" stands [bottom to center of bolt hole] I would be golden with a 1/4" spacer under them and they would be centered on the cross member.

The other thing I have noticed in all the build threads is that most of you guys have 6 bolt holes on each side of your block to mount the adapter plates to. I believe everyone is using the forward most 4 bolt holes. I only have 4 on each side of my iron block LQ4. It makes me think they may be in a different location than everyone elses because of the adapter plates I needed to make as compared to everyone else.....



Any thoughts anyone?

Thanks

Rob

john 67

the stands are higher but htey are not the right width , i tried every combo . i have them if you want them . ill talk to you tommorow

pist0lpete

iTrader: (3)

I used the Tall and Narrow engine mounts and matching frame stands. I agree on the "cantilever" ones not working I tried it as well. I ended up using a few washers for spacing the engine up a hair but other than that they worked well. As far as the mounting pads being different on your block I doubt it since people often swap iron blocks into 4th gens and C5 vettes without any issues. However, I didn't know they didn't have the rearward bolt holes but I didn't use those anyways.