chuckd71

iTrader: (23)

That's cool, but again the geometry option in no way precludes quality control. No enthusiast is going to say "hey, sure glad this pan has burs on it". Your point is taken and I understand you're selling a product but I've already bought one and so don't need convincing. Having just received it from the UPS man I can see why letting burrs go unfixed is something Holley is willing to allow or at least downplay in forums; I paid $3XX for a Chinese-made pan. I guess for some reason I just assumed it would be made here in the states where someone making more than $0.45 an hour would be checking over it. Other than the oil passages it looks fine, some places aren't as smooth as I'd like and look to have some sand clumped in them but overall not bad and nothing that would render it in any way unusable. That said, it doesn't really look or feel like a premium-quality part, but as long as it holds oil it'll be fine I suppose, it'll be under the car anyway.

67Skylark

China made,That sucks I also thought they would be made here for at least the first couple of years until the Chinese copied it and flooded the market with cheap crap knock off ones.

Toddoky

I'm glad to hear you got your pan. I was giving my personal opinion only and not trying to convince anybody to purchase anything that doesn't suit their needs or standards. My COO preference sounds to be much like your own as something being made in the USA is more gratifying to me. Unfortunately, the choices to select from in that regard are slimmer than I prefer, so I have to make what's available work and live with it. The 302-2 pan is cast in China, but the machining is all done here in Bowling Green KY. Everyone will have to figure out on their own whether or not those facts are acceptable to them. I personally don't understand why so many guys buy tools at Harbor Freight, but it really doesn't matter that I don't get it.

ls1nova71

iTrader: (4)

It is kind of sad to think that in the good 'ol US of A, that we can't cast an aluminum oil pan........

Toddoky

You can certainly do it, but the production volumes represented by the automotive aftermarket and the cost of tooling make it expensive to do so. We do not own a foundry, so we have to hire-out the casting part of the process like a lot of other companies do. Those decisions are not mine to make, but I can understand the emotional consumer side of the discussion as well as the business side.

Drag68Bird

I may be wrong, but thanks to multi-national trade agreements, and the wonderful EPA. Aluminum mining and production in the US, has been rendered almost extinct! I remember reading that in the past 25 years we have gone from 20+ Aluminum factories, to Alcoa and 1 or 2 more. Even they now out source most raw materials from foreign countries.

Toddoky

Yeah, there's a lot at play here that doesn't make bringing a low-volume quality piece to the consumer at an attractive price an easy task.

old66tiger

It will be interesting to see where your 64-67 install kits located the height of the engine in relation to the chassis. Optimum DL angles are subjective. Some say that anything less than 3 degrees is OK. Lots of variables.

I used the Hooker Mounts 12611HKR, car shop BOP - Chevy adapters and the 3.1114G mounts. Even with the trans as high as I could go, I had DL angles greater than 3 degrees. I had to go with the driveshaft shop hybrid unit and it is silky smooth.

Toddoky

Hey old66tiger. I will certainly be sharing the outcome in that regard on my 64-67 A-body thread.

A maximum of 3 degrees of operating angle is what is required to keep the U-joints under their designed limit threshold to be able to provide a respectable amount of longevity and minimized vibration.

That threshold however is RPM dependent, which means the faster you spin the shaft, the lower the max angle the U-joints can tolerate before catastrophic failure.

The two most valuable reasons to minimize your U-joint angles in my opinion is to maximize power transfer efficiency (dyno test have been conducted that found an extra 3 to 6 HP at the wheels solely through minimizing U-joint operating angles) and transmission ground clearance.

When the U-joint operation angles are minimized (1 to 2 degrees) on just about any LS swapped muscle car, the transmission pan/case will be further off the ground than one set-up with maximum angles (3 degrees).

I've finished the mock-up phase of the 64-67 cars and can tell you there's nothing keeping a user from achieving angles less than the 3" maximum if they use parts specifically designed to provide that characteristic.