Oil pan choice?
Thread Starter
On The Tree
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 168
Likes: 14
Oil pan choice? Hey guys, trying to figure out what pan to use on my LSX b15 376/LSA build. The mounts I am using will clear an F body pan or Holley Muscle Car pan just fine. I have heard some very bad things about the factory F body pan on hard launches starving the pump (understandable as it has no baffle). The Holley pan has one baffle for the sump, but in order to get trap doors you must purchase a baffle kit seperately that jacks the cost of the pan up to almost $700.
Knowing that I can fit an F body pan, but anything much lower in the sump area may hang below my crossmember, I found this Moroso pan for muscle car swaps. It may be close, the sump is shorter front to back so that should be fine. The front section of the pan is about.6" taller up front but close enough that I may have the room. The sump is 6" deep, only about .5 inches lower than the F body pan so that may work as well. It's a 7 quart pan with baffles but no trap door.
http://www.shopmoroso.com/eb/catalog/navigationPath//1::Moroso%20Performance%20Products/1100001::Oil%20Pans/11003::GM%20LS%20Series/%7B36081%7D::Chevrolet%20LS%20Series.html?entryId= catalog.productgroup.1110000111003&expand=true&men uId=main.menu
I'd order this pan right now and give it a shot but I wanted to see if any of you had experience with this style of pan as far as oil control goes first. Looking for something as simple as possible but (goes without saying) I don't want it to cost me a motor. Not looking to remote mount oil filters and would rather not have to add an accusump. Car spends 90% of it's time on the street , practically daily driven and not looking to add complication if I can avoid it. Better, worse or the same as the Holley pan? Anybody have any good/bad experiences with it?
Knowing that I can fit an F body pan, but anything much lower in the sump area may hang below my crossmember, I found this Moroso pan for muscle car swaps. It may be close, the sump is shorter front to back so that should be fine. The front section of the pan is about.6" taller up front but close enough that I may have the room. The sump is 6" deep, only about .5 inches lower than the F body pan so that may work as well. It's a 7 quart pan with baffles but no trap door.
http://www.shopmoroso.com/eb/catalog/navigationPath//1::Moroso%20Performance%20Products/1100001::Oil%20Pans/11003::GM%20LS%20Series/%7B36081%7D::Chevrolet%20LS%20Series.html?entryId= catalog.productgroup.1110000111003&expand=true&men uId=main.menu
I'd order this pan right now and give it a shot but I wanted to see if any of you had experience with this style of pan as far as oil control goes first. Looking for something as simple as possible but (goes without saying) I don't want it to cost me a motor. Not looking to remote mount oil filters and would rather not have to add an accusump. Car spends 90% of it's time on the street , practically daily driven and not looking to add complication if I can avoid it. Better, worse or the same as the Holley pan? Anybody have any good/bad experiences with it?
I've heard nothing but great reviews on the Moroso pan. Another option would be to get a trap door kit for an f body pan if you already have one. You can get the trap door kits for $200.
http://www.improvedracing.com/oil-pa...ffle-p-30.html
http://www.improvedracing.com/oil-pa...ffle-p-30.html
Last edited by 1964SS; Jul 30, 2018 at 08:55 AM.
Thread Starter
On The Tree
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 168
Likes: 14
Doing a little more research, it looks like I WON'T be able to use any of the moroso pans. the more recent measurements I found on a few sites like Dirty Dingo's oil pan guide show it as having a 7.75 sump. I was told my the engine mount designer that the GM muscle car pan sits 2 1/8th inch lower than the k member, so it looks like I will need something with a shorter than 5.6" sump to fit.
I think I'm torn between the Holley 302-2 pan with baffle kit for around $685 or the Improved Racing 98-02 F body pan kit for $550. I know either will fit fine. They seem to be essentially the same pan design wise, Holley sump capacity listed as 5.7 and F body as 5.5. Baffle kits both look great with trap doors at all corners. Any reason why the Holley pan would be worth the extra 135 bucks?
I think I'm torn between the Holley 302-2 pan with baffle kit for around $685 or the Improved Racing 98-02 F body pan kit for $550. I know either will fit fine. They seem to be essentially the same pan design wise, Holley sump capacity listed as 5.7 and F body as 5.5. Baffle kits both look great with trap doors at all corners. Any reason why the Holley pan would be worth the extra 135 bucks?
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 22,291
Likes: 3,616
From: Central Cal.
Banned
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,540
Likes: 207
You don't specify what vehicle you are using this in, but I can tell you that the Holley 302-2 and 302-3 oil pans offer the same oil capacity as the F-body pan with far more flexibility in fitment. That is due to the sumps of the Holley pans being bumped outward more than the F-body pans so that the sump can be shorted considerably more at the front and still hold the same amount of oil as the F-body pan.
Last edited by user 4737373; Jul 30, 2018 at 09:17 PM.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
On The Tree
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 168
Likes: 14
GAtsma, that's the cost of the pan including only the single sump baffle which doesn't look anywhere near as effective as the Improve Racing baffle. Holley offers an additional baffle kit, but it is pricey. See here:
https://www.jegs.com/i/Holley/510/302-2K2/10002/-1
The baffle alone (pn 510-302-11) is $225.
Toddoky, It's a 96 impala SS with an LS swap, and the manufactuer of the mounts designed them to fit using an F body pan. They also state the Holley 302-2 will fit, so I don't think fitment for either pan will be an issue.
Just concerned about oil control. I know guys love the moroso pans and it seems to fix everyone's oil pressure drop issues, but I can't use the 6" sump. I have heard guys say that the Improve Racing baffle kit didn't fix their oil pressure drop issues, but from what I understand, the old versions pre 2017 weren't designed for drag racing and did not have the additional front to back trap door that the newer versions have. I'd spend more on the Holley pan if there was some good reason to, but the baffle design with the added baffle kit looks very similar to Improved Racing's baffle design.
Of course, some of the guys that stated they had issues with the Improved Racing kit not only may have had the old "road race" version, but were also cutting 1.2 60 foots. This is my daily driver/street car. It will see track use but It'll never see a 60 foot near a 1.2. On spray it'll have about 725RWHP but in a 4200lb car, I will probably never run it on anything other than DOT drag radials and it's more of a road racing/stiff suspension setup. It's not something that's going to cutting amazing 60 foots.
https://www.jegs.com/i/Holley/510/302-2K2/10002/-1
The baffle alone (pn 510-302-11) is $225.
Toddoky, It's a 96 impala SS with an LS swap, and the manufactuer of the mounts designed them to fit using an F body pan. They also state the Holley 302-2 will fit, so I don't think fitment for either pan will be an issue.
Just concerned about oil control. I know guys love the moroso pans and it seems to fix everyone's oil pressure drop issues, but I can't use the 6" sump. I have heard guys say that the Improve Racing baffle kit didn't fix their oil pressure drop issues, but from what I understand, the old versions pre 2017 weren't designed for drag racing and did not have the additional front to back trap door that the newer versions have. I'd spend more on the Holley pan if there was some good reason to, but the baffle design with the added baffle kit looks very similar to Improved Racing's baffle design.
Of course, some of the guys that stated they had issues with the Improved Racing kit not only may have had the old "road race" version, but were also cutting 1.2 60 foots. This is my daily driver/street car. It will see track use but It'll never see a 60 foot near a 1.2. On spray it'll have about 725RWHP but in a 4200lb car, I will probably never run it on anything other than DOT drag radials and it's more of a road racing/stiff suspension setup. It's not something that's going to cutting amazing 60 foots.
Last edited by kris396ss; Jul 31, 2018 at 10:07 AM.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
I would order both, and keep the one that held more fluid by your own measurements.
Non-amazing 60 ft times may still very much warrant the baffles you are considering. You're headed in the right direction.
Non-amazing 60 ft times may still very much warrant the baffles you are considering. You're headed in the right direction.
TECH Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 22,291
Likes: 3,616
From: Central Cal.
GAtsma, that's the cost of the pan including only the single sump baffle which doesn't look anywhere near as effective as the Improve Racing baffle. Holley offers an additional baffle kit, but it is pricey. See here:
https://www.jegs.com/i/Holley/510/302-2K2/10002/-1
The baffle alone (pn 510-302-11) is $225.
https://www.jegs.com/i/Holley/510/302-2K2/10002/-1
The baffle alone (pn 510-302-11) is $225.
Banned
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,540
Likes: 207
The sump of the F-body pan is considerably longer than the sumps of the Holley pans, so the Holley pans will fit anywhere the F-body oil pan will and in many other applications where it won't due to the sump length length of the F-body pan being too long. The other improvement in fitment the Holley pans offer is in the greater radii used along the bottom of the left and right sides of the pan at its front half. Even though the depth of the fronts of the Holley and F-body pans are the same, the greater radii of the Holley pans clear the inner tie rod ends of A/body LS swaps at full steer using the Hooker engine mountings brackets where the F-body pan won't. The F-body oil pan is a good choice where the detailed fitment geometry of the Holley oil pans is not needed to address clearance issues of a specific applications. In applications that do have severe fitment constraints, the Holley oil pans are a godsend.
Thread Starter
On The Tree
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 168
Likes: 14
NP! If I had a nickel for every time I did the same I'd probably just swing a built LT4 into the car haha
Taddoky, I don't think any of those features will be too important to me as I know the stock F body pan fits fine. I wish there was a Moroso pan that more closely matched the stock f body pan, but all the moroso pans add depth to the sump which is the one thing I don't really want. The car is low and long, a 6" sump would hang below the K member and I really don't feel like having to add weight/time to the project by welding up a shield.
I was really hoping someone had some data or even just hear some opinions on the Improved Racing baffle/[an vs the Holly pan/add on baffle, if there is anything that somebody with more experience with me could tell just by looking at the two. or any experience from guys that used one or the other and liked/didn't like it. I think I'm leaning towards the improved racing one. It sounds like the guys way back in the day using the old version only had problems with like 1.2 60 foots, and the new design added a trap door to improve oil control during straight line acceleration. I just don't see any reason right now to justify the added cost of the Holley.
I like JMD's idea of checking and seeing which one holds more though, but I think more than likely it's going to be very close.
Taddoky, I don't think any of those features will be too important to me as I know the stock F body pan fits fine. I wish there was a Moroso pan that more closely matched the stock f body pan, but all the moroso pans add depth to the sump which is the one thing I don't really want. The car is low and long, a 6" sump would hang below the K member and I really don't feel like having to add weight/time to the project by welding up a shield.
I was really hoping someone had some data or even just hear some opinions on the Improved Racing baffle/[an vs the Holly pan/add on baffle, if there is anything that somebody with more experience with me could tell just by looking at the two. or any experience from guys that used one or the other and liked/didn't like it. I think I'm leaning towards the improved racing one. It sounds like the guys way back in the day using the old version only had problems with like 1.2 60 foots, and the new design added a trap door to improve oil control during straight line acceleration. I just don't see any reason right now to justify the added cost of the Holley.
I like JMD's idea of checking and seeing which one holds more though, but I think more than likely it's going to be very close.
Thread Starter
On The Tree
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 168
Likes: 14
Wow, you're kidding me? LOL. That makes it much easier, If they designed both i'll just give them a call and see which they feel is better, and won't have to worry about them just saying theirs because they want me to buy it haha. Thanks for that info
Banned
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,540
Likes: 207
In your application that may make sense, but It’s moot for those applications where an F-body pan won’t fit. Out of curiosity, what mounting components are you planning on using? I’ve not swapped any B-bodies and would like to see what’s available.
Thread Starter
On The Tree
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 168
Likes: 14
I went with pretty much the simplest/easiest combo I could find. Not sure if it's the best, but it just seemed to make sense to me.
KDS-performance engine mount brackets, they place the engine in the factory location so all driveline angles remain the same, original crossmember can be used etc... They also retain the factory "clamshell" style engine mounts,
Manufuacturer recommends using the F body pan or Holley LS swap pan, both apparently fit fine.
Also recommended to use 98-02 F body headers, supposedly only trimming of the two K member braces is requires. I just ordered a set of TSP 1 7/8ths headers, so we'll see how that goes.
The setup allows a truck/2010 camaro spacing factory style Denso 10s17f AC compressor and factory truck bracket to clear the mounts. I have been working on mocking it up and it looks like I will have to notch the K member a bit, but nothing crazy. How much depends on the engine angle, which I won't know until I get my crossmember in the mail. It may not need much at all. The AC bracket just had to be trimmed in a few places to clear the mount.
Only thing I don't like about the mounts is that the passenger side mount retains the offset that the original LT1 mounts have, which means the engine mount is connected to the mounting bracket pretty far forward of the centerline of the 4 LS block engine mount bolts. It would seem that this could put stress on the forward most bolts, I'm just hoping it won't be a problem with an iron block. Never heard of anyone have issues with ripping engine mount bolts out of the block, but not a whole lot of guys running LS swaps in b bodies let alone ones with big power.
Have you looked into the Autokraft pan? It has good oil control features (baffles and trap doors to keep oil around the pickup). I am using it on mine because I like to autocross. I haven't seen any oil pressure loss while on course.
Thread Starter
On The Tree
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 168
Likes: 14
I did get a reply back from Improved Racing
"Kris,
We do supply the baffles that go into the Holley pans and they are rated the same as the F-body baffle in preventing oil slosh-related starvation (1.4 sustained lateral G's). The pans themselves also hold about the same amount of oil, so there won't really be any difference in maintaining pressure if you go with one pan over the other. Most guys choose the Holley pan for their favorable clearance with retro rods, or for the higher quality cast exterior of the pan.
If you do end up saving some money with the F-body pan, you could use that to further improve oil control with our crank scrapers/windage trays: http://www.improvedracing.com/crank-...kit-p-433.html. It'll help you gain a couple horsepower as well.
Also might as well throw in our pickup tube brace while installing everything else: http://www.improvedracing.com/oil-pu...amp-p-642.html
Let us know if you have any other questions,"
I really like the thought/testing they seem to put into their products. It appears there would be no benefit for me to run the Holley pan, so I am honestly about to pull the trigger on the F body pan. Now I just have to decide between that and the Autokraft pan which also looks very nice, price is probably about the same when factoring in the $566 F body pan comes with dipstick tube, stock windage tray and dipstick.