anyone figured out the BEST pan to use? I'm using the adaptor plates that put the mounts about exactly where the old BBC ones were,so the engine should sit where mine used to be. Heard a cts-v pan, and then that changed.....and ideas???

Mike

 

Mike I'm planning on cutting a notch out of the rear of my cross member to allow room for the F Body pan to fall in with enough room to slide the engine fore & aft as needed. I'm going to use the Dirty Dingo adjustable mounting plates witch may raise the engine up enough to allow for Tie Rod clearance.

Oh yeah this is in a 68 chevelle.

Tony

 

I'd like to find a pan that doesnt require me to cut the frame. Mines an original SS

 

depends on what trans also. I just fit a 4l80e in without modding the trans tunnel(66 chevelle). I had to deal with the motor being farther forward than planned thus causing issues with height, tierod clearance, and pan/cross member clearance. I went with the ctsv and still had to cut the cross memebr up a bit. I am about 1.5 inches off the firewall to tbe back of the head.( 70's may have different firewall locations also)

If i knew what i do now I would have went with the f body pan and have the pan or the crossmemebr modded for better fit.

I would assume the th400/th350 variant would have more room to put the motor backwards and help out. check out the a body sticky for detailed pictures of others.

 

Use the RestroLSx pan which is on the market, the Mast one is suppose to be out. I am using a CTS-V pan on my 71', but I used the Early BRP way of mounting. Did not have to cut the X-Member, but the engine is right up against the Firewall.

 

We used the Autokraft pans in the last two Chevelles we did here and they required no cutting but like most setups they don't have clearance for the inner tierods at full lock.

 

So how do you resolve the tie rod issue? This is seeming like I should just build my original 396!!

 

I used the ctsv pan with no cutting on my 72 chevelle,the motor sits about an inch or so from the wall.

 

I'm going to try to use the CTS-V pan with 1" setback mounts.
For the tie rod issue, most have raised the front of the engine.
I found a set of 307 SBC chevelle frame mounts that are about 1/2" taller and work with tall/narrow engine mounts. Hope that gives enough clearance.
The only issue I've seen with raising the front of the motor is getting the driveline angles corrected. I'm using a Muncie, so I'm hoping I'll have some room to move the trans mount up too.

 

I'm going to try the Hummer H3 pan tomorrow. GM #12614821. Seems to have a better front to sump pan drop distance and should sit only about an inch lower than the frame.

 

An inch is a lot.

 

Let us know how the hummer pan works. Im also doing a 70. Any pics would be greatly appreciated.

 

All I can tell is...with the CTS-V pan, the downward slope before the sump is going to hit the frame. If the hummer pan sits too low, going to have to get the autokraft pan. Its the only other one I see with the standard filter location. The block adapters I got sit my LS1 actually 1" frontward from the stock BBC location, so I need the smaller sump. Whats nice is I get to keep the LS1 factory camaro a/c pump hooked up. Just have to relocate the alt. I have pics, but I don't know how to shrink them.....

 

I'm looking at the thin Autokraft pan and seeing that it's going to hit the stock windage tray on the 02 Camaro LS1. There a tray that sits closer to the crank, or.......what happens if I leave it out??

 

Some use only the back half of the tray , S&p told me I didnt need it with the modified f body pan so I didnt use it at all . if I ever have the motor out at all I will install the back half .Also , I forget who makes it but there is a girdle fitting that allows you to use 2 bolts instead of 1 to bolt in the front of the pickup tube . JOHN

 

http://www.brphotrods.com/mm5/mercha...Category_Code=

 

I am using a Milodon. No cutting or clearance issues. Tie rods miss but not by much. Edelbrock mounts.

Tim

 

This is the biggest problem with our A-body swaps and the knowledge is scattered through so many threads. I will try to do the community a favor with this summary on this topic. If I am inaccurate on anything, let me know.

There are many many oil pan choices, but each has it's problems. The four predominant problems are:

1.) tie rod clearance
2.) ground clearance
3.) crossmember clearance
4.) oil control in the sump area for cornering and braking

In addition to those problems, there are two considerations:

1.) Does it require remote oil filter relocation or stock location
2.) Does it have full transmission mating surface or not.

Which ever pan you decide to use, you have to ask if it has one or more of these 4 problems or one or both of the considerations.

As far as I know, every available pan has at least one of these problems and/or considerations.

As far as pans that bolt in, do not have ground clearance problems, do not require modification to the pan or the chassis and has a stock location oil filter like you desire, there are 3 existing choices and 2 coming out soon.

The 3 existing choices that I am aware of:

• The JZMotorworks/RetroLSX cast pan (Note: this company has sold out to holley and all that is left is old stock)
  
• The AutoKraft sheet steel pan
  
• The Doug Lee sheet metal pan
  

The JZMotorworks pan - Most people report that their tie rods hit the pan unless they raise the motor and it has oil control issues in the sump area.


The AutoKraft Pan - Most people report that their tie rods hit the pan unless they raise the motor and some have reported the the sump area kick out contributes to starter service/access problems when used with some headers.

The Doug Lee pan is one that I just learned about in the new 2011 Car Craft engine swap special edition magazine. I have sent this company a request for specs to see how deep it is in the front. I think I also read that is near $700 which would make it the most expensive option that I am aware of.

The two pans coming are the Holley pan and the Mast pan. The Holley pan apprears to be just as deep in the front as the JZMotorworks pan, but it appears to have a transmission mounting surface. The Mast pan appears to have the best tie rod clearance of any aftermarket pan but does no have a transmission mounting surface.

Clear as mud?

I am currently waiting on the new pan from Mast Motorsports because as near as I can tell, it addresses all of those problems. As for the considerations, it uses the stock oil filter location but does not have a transmission mounting surface which I do not need using an older transmission.

 

I used the Autokraft pan with Edelbrock Adapters and headers on my 71 ls2/TKO-600. No tie rod interference issues. I also used the the Kwik Performance A/C Relocation kit to avoid notching the frame for the compressor (I'm using the Corvette Accessories).

There was a clearance issue with the Edelbrock headers and the oil filter bypass housing. I dimpled one of the header tubes to get some extra clearance. Per the Header installation instructions, the Edelbrock headers were designed to work with the Moroso oil pan, which uses a remote oil filter.

 

Since I'm literally ONLY being held up by waiting on an oil pan, I'd LOVE to be the 1st to try the new Mast pan! Since I'm doing it body off frame, it would be a perfect chance to prove/disprove it.

Mike