GTO LS1 into a 72 Malibu
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 8
From: NW Chicago Burbs
GTO LS1 into a 72 Malibu Im purchasing a 2004 GTO LS1 with T56 takeout and I have a few questions about the differences between the GTO motors and f-body. Here is what I know, please correct me if im wrong.
Slightly different accessory setup
Different T56 ratios starting with a 2.99 first gear
LS6 Clutch???
LS6 intake
Different exhaust manifolds
Different oil pan and pickup???
What else is different. Harness, bellhousing, transmount, throttle body??? This is going into a 1972 Chevelle with a 4 speed.
Anybody know the the stock manifolds will work with the A-body frame.
Is it possible to keep a manual clutch linkage with an LS1?
Who makes the best positioned motor mount plates for A-bodies?
I hope these questions havent been asked, but I could not find them in a search. Thanks.
Slightly different accessory setup
Different T56 ratios starting with a 2.99 first gear
LS6 Clutch???
LS6 intake
Different exhaust manifolds
Different oil pan and pickup???
What else is different. Harness, bellhousing, transmount, throttle body??? This is going into a 1972 Chevelle with a 4 speed.
Anybody know the the stock manifolds will work with the A-body frame.
Is it possible to keep a manual clutch linkage with an LS1?
Who makes the best positioned motor mount plates for A-bodies?
I hope these questions havent been asked, but I could not find them in a search. Thanks.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,148
Likes: 12
From: Downers Grove, IL
The oil pan, pickup, windage tray, and dipstick are different, they are front sump and will not work in your chevelle.
I do not think that you can keep the mechanical clutch linkage with a T56, and it is probably a lot easier to make your clutch pedal operate the clutch master cylinder than to retain the correct geometry with the mechanical linkage.
As far as mounts I have no experience with an A body, but I do remember than Bill G mounted the LS1 in his El Camino with f-body motor side mounts, and he used 80`s chevy pickup motor side mounts turned over and bolted to the frame. https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...highlight=Bill
I do not think that you can keep the mechanical clutch linkage with a T56, and it is probably a lot easier to make your clutch pedal operate the clutch master cylinder than to retain the correct geometry with the mechanical linkage.
As far as mounts I have no experience with an A body, but I do remember than Bill G mounted the LS1 in his El Camino with f-body motor side mounts, and he used 80`s chevy pickup motor side mounts turned over and bolted to the frame. https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...highlight=Bill
Last edited by G-Body; Jun 6, 2006 at 01:31 AM.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 8
From: NW Chicago Burbs
What do you mean by "front sump". By looking at this pic below, coulnt I just machine off the front part and drop it in. I seems that the dimensions are close to the CTS-V pan, may even more room for the x-member.
Any differences in the harness that I should be concerned about?
Any differences in the harness that I should be concerned about?
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,148
Likes: 12
From: Downers Grove, IL
By "front sump" I mean the part of the pan that contains the oil is in the front. It hangs down in front of the crossmember unlike the pan in your A-Body which is a rear sump and hangs down behind the crossmember. In the picture that you posted the part of the pan that is deep and has the oil filter mount goes toward the front of the engine, if you tried to set it in your frame it would come down directly on top of the "K" member. The part to the right of the picture that hangs down goes to the back side of the engine and is where the transmission bolts on.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,148
Likes: 12
From: Downers Grove, IL
The second pic is of a GTO engine/pan. Notice the sump is at the front.
The first thumbnail is of a F-Body pan, it has the sump at the rear.
The first thumbnail is of a F-Body pan, it has the sump at the rear.
Last edited by G-Body; Jun 6, 2006 at 10:30 PM.
Trending Topics
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,148
Likes: 12
From: Downers Grove, IL
Almost all of the LSx pans will bolt on as long as you change the pickup tube, windage tray, and dipstick to the correct ones for the pan. The most common one for an A-body would be a f-body oil pan, I see more and more people using CTS V pans now that they are becoming more available. The truck style pan would also fit, but it will hang down below the crossmember by a couple inches. I would look into the f-body or CTS V pan.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
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
I'm doing this currently in my '71. My setup is from an f-body and the pan is being a pain to fit. If you have to get something different I would reccomend the CTS-V pan as long as your not building a lowrider, because it does hang down lower than the f-body pan. Otherwise you will probably need to cut the f-body pan.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 8
From: NW Chicago Burbs
I talked to BRP today and they said that with their kit, which is higher and more forward than most other adapters, will work with an uncut f-body pan. I might just do the CTS pan becuase it should raise it for a litte more clearance, and Im not slamming my car in the weeds.
I also asked about headers. I prefer long tubes, but he really didnt have an answer of what would work. Has hooker actually realeased their Abody long tubes yet? What are you guys using with what mounts?
I also asked about headers. I prefer long tubes, but he really didnt have an answer of what would work. Has hooker actually realeased their Abody long tubes yet? What are you guys using with what mounts?
Check out my post: https://ls1tech.com/forums/conversions-swaps/510709-71-chevelle-ls1-t56-progress.html
I got the hookers. They are pretty nice, but pricey. I thought the BRP mounts put the motor back further w/ the head about 1/2" from the firewall. This keeps from having to cut the pan. The S&P mounts move the motor further forward requiring a different oil pan, or cutting the f-body pan. I am currently having oil pan to k member problems, but I am solving those tonight and don't mind cutting some things out.
Will post some pics later.
I got the hookers. They are pretty nice, but pricey. I thought the BRP mounts put the motor back further w/ the head about 1/2" from the firewall. This keeps from having to cut the pan. The S&P mounts move the motor further forward requiring a different oil pan, or cutting the f-body pan. I am currently having oil pan to k member problems, but I am solving those tonight and don't mind cutting some things out.
Will post some pics later.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 8
From: NW Chicago Burbs
Stealth, which mounts are you using?
Your right about the brp mounts. The head is about 1/2 from the firewall, but the motor sits higher due to the different frame stands provided in the kit.
Your right about the brp mounts. The head is about 1/2 from the firewall, but the motor sits higher due to the different frame stands provided in the kit.
alocker..
I am gettting closer to getting all in place. I posted some picture of my 71 chevelle with the CTS-V pan in some other threads... I did PM you my Yahoo Picture url of my project a few days ago.
The only 2 con's on the CTS-V pan is that it does sit lower, about 1"+ below the x-member and you have to sit the engine a little higer than you would with a F-Body pan (or mod'd f-body) depending on where you want the engien to sit. This is also due the pan transition from the front area to the lower slump.. the part of the pan that slope down between the two area is more likely to come in to contact with the x-mem and you are forced to mount the engine about 3/8"+ higher that you would a f-body pan. (no biggie).
With the Tall and Narrow (Energy Suspendsion) style of engine mounts, it worked out ok for me. I did try the Standard motor mount also. By trying both styles of mount mount and and combination of the plates that come with the mounts , I was about to move the engine up and down a 1/2" or so to get the engine to sit right. I know if I had made the engine sit lower, I might not have had to cut the trans tunnel as much. But the engine would have come in contact with the firewall.
I am running the factory A/C, and if you are, be very carefull of the box as you drop the engine in, I poked a hole in mine (had to filber glass it back and in doing so.. modified it to give more more, not much, but about 3/8" more.
Also if you are using the OEM Alternator... make sure you leave room around the pulley and the steering box. That is why I narrowed my frame mount and used spacer to jack the engine back and fore to center between these two areas.
I made my plates in the BRP style. I will get some LT header later on down the road.. just trying to get it running 1st, as I have already gone past the orginal buget... (yeah right)
I am gettting closer to getting all in place. I posted some picture of my 71 chevelle with the CTS-V pan in some other threads... I did PM you my Yahoo Picture url of my project a few days ago.
The only 2 con's on the CTS-V pan is that it does sit lower, about 1"+ below the x-member and you have to sit the engine a little higer than you would with a F-Body pan (or mod'd f-body) depending on where you want the engien to sit. This is also due the pan transition from the front area to the lower slump.. the part of the pan that slope down between the two area is more likely to come in to contact with the x-mem and you are forced to mount the engine about 3/8"+ higher that you would a f-body pan. (no biggie).
With the Tall and Narrow (Energy Suspendsion) style of engine mounts, it worked out ok for me. I did try the Standard motor mount also. By trying both styles of mount mount and and combination of the plates that come with the mounts , I was about to move the engine up and down a 1/2" or so to get the engine to sit right. I know if I had made the engine sit lower, I might not have had to cut the trans tunnel as much. But the engine would have come in contact with the firewall.
I am running the factory A/C, and if you are, be very carefull of the box as you drop the engine in, I poked a hole in mine (had to filber glass it back and in doing so.. modified it to give more more, not much, but about 3/8" more.
Also if you are using the OEM Alternator... make sure you leave room around the pulley and the steering box. That is why I narrowed my frame mount and used spacer to jack the engine back and fore to center between these two areas.
I made my plates in the BRP style. I will get some LT header later on down the road.. just trying to get it running 1st, as I have already gone past the orginal buget... (yeah right)
