New Hooker Fox Body Mustang LS Swap System Preview Thread
#21
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Been there.
So how different will the new "302-3" pan be? I'm guessing at the name...
Will it put the transition from the front of the pan to the sump back further than the 302-2? I got the 302-2 to work, but my engine is about 3" behind where the 5.0 would have been, and I cannot weld the motor mount bolts to the mounts, otherwise I can't drop the engine onto the k-member, because the T56 jams into the tunnel or the heads hit the firewall. Not really a big deal putting a wrench on a bolt head.
If a "302-3" can let me keep the engine where it is, or move it down, while simultaneously moving the steering rack upwards for better bump steer / ackerman, then I would probably buy it (eventually).
So how different will the new "302-3" pan be? I'm guessing at the name...
Will it put the transition from the front of the pan to the sump back further than the 302-2? I got the 302-2 to work, but my engine is about 3" behind where the 5.0 would have been, and I cannot weld the motor mount bolts to the mounts, otherwise I can't drop the engine onto the k-member, because the T56 jams into the tunnel or the heads hit the firewall. Not really a big deal putting a wrench on a bolt head.
If a "302-3" can let me keep the engine where it is, or move it down, while simultaneously moving the steering rack upwards for better bump steer / ackerman, then I would probably buy it (eventually).
I don't know if the revised geometry will benefit you or not, as is sounds as though you are using an aftermarket K-member and a different style of engine bracket/mount set-up than what I've devised for this application. You'll probably be able to make a better determination of the value of the revised geometry to you once I post images of the engine mount set-up next week when I get back to the project.
Last edited by Toddoky; 11-11-2016 at 08:44 AM.
#22
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (43)
I'm not sure why your doing all this when theres a bunch of companies already doing this....Theres also a few different companies making conversion headers and trans cross members.....also i would say 99% of the guys switch to manual rack.....also F-body Ls-1 oil pan fits perfect with tubular k-members and is cheaper ($159) then the Holly pan....Theres also companies already making Ls motor mounts so you can use the stock k-member and the same company makes headers to fit......But most guys are going to switch to a tubular k-member because its lighter..
#23
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
I'm not sure why your doing all this when theres a bunch of companies already doing this....Theres also a few different companies making conversion headers and trans cross members.....also i would say 99% of the guys switch to manual rack.....also F-body Ls-1 oil pan fits perfect with tubular k-members and is cheaper ($159) then the Holly pan....Theres also companies already making Ls motor mounts so you can use the stock k-member and the same company makes headers to fit......But most guys are going to switch to a tubular k-member because its lighter..
We also provide header and transmission compatibility with more transmissions (Powerglide, TH350, TH400, 2004R, 4L60-4L70, 4L80, T56, T56 Magnum and TKO in this application) than anyone else and are the only company that developes complete bolt-in exhaust systems as part of our efforts.
In the case of the existing engine mounts that are available to use the stock K-member, they position the crank centerline far higher than the stock 5.0/302 crank centerline location, which equates to non-optimized U-joint working angles and reduced hood clearance...they also offer no headers or transmission crossmember that will allow installation of a 4L80, which has been sought after in the market for a while.
Last edited by Toddoky; 11-12-2016 at 11:01 AM.
The following users liked this post:
kwhizz (01-18-2024)
#26
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
OK guys, I'm back on the Fox Body LS swap project and moving forward. Since I'm loading the engine back into the car again, I thought it would be a good opportunity to give you guys a first-hand look at the engine bracket/mount set-up. Here's the frame brackets mounted to the factory K-member and I'll post a photo of the engine mounts resting in them after I install the engine back into the car.
#30
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
The crankshaft centerline height/inclination angle replicates that of the stock 302/5.0L engine, which took a revision to the Holley 302-2 oil pan to make possible. I will report about hood clearance with various accessory drive set-ups later in the project once I test fit them.
#31
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Good stuff to report on the Fox-body swap project...the revised oil pan design work has been completed and validated on the development vehicle to provided the intended clearance geometry around the PS rack. Along with the rack clearance, the new pan will also provide stroker crank clearance and a boss for a turbo drainback line hole to be drilled/tapped, if needed. Here's a couple of shots of a 3D printed sample of the changed section of the pan installed on the mock-up engine.
#38
#39
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
#40
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
I also had talks with the folks from Laminova at the 2004 PRI show, because I wanted to develop an intake using the Laminova cores. I hope something like this will happen as well.
Andrew