69-er

That's the first time I heard anyone say the Holley pan wasn't made well. I assumed, from the lack of complaints, that is was good pan. It is expensive, though.

So what pan would the dealer have that would fit a first gen? Everything I have seen that will "fit" has the sump hanging below the crossmember.

jmoli42572

I had three different hooker plates, stock 1/2" forward and 1.25" forward I believe. The Stock mount might have worked but the engine was almost touching the firewall and the alternator wasn't even close to fitting. I also have hooker headers and the stock and 1/2" forward plates were the only ones that would provide enough clearance for the stock power steering box. I even tried flipping the mounts upside down. The 1.25" forward plates are identical to the car shop/ATS/street and performance mounts that share the one common bolt hole between the motor mount and bracket. The Holley pan hit because it is deeper than the stock and about 3/4" deeper than the Autokraft At the front sump. I used short and wide mounts, if I would have moved the engine more forward the fit got worse and the headers hit the pitman arm. As it is I had to notch the frame to clear the alternator but everything fits great. If i used the stock location motor mount plates I don't think I would have gotten the correct driveshaft angle. I emailed pics to Holley and they took back the oil pan

jmoli42572

Use also have to buy a dip stick and tube which adds to the cost...I believe it takes an ls3 dip stick.

Rucumn

talked to Mark @ S&P yesterday and he said they are a little over a week behind on their new cast pans. They have their own designs for cast pans for a-body, 1st Gen Camaro, 58-63 impala, & I think the last one is for G body. He said they will have measurements & pics on their site soon as soon as the first castings are complete.

I am hoping this pan addresses the inner tie rod interference.

mrvedit

See my post #407 in this thread. Not sure if it was in this thread or elsewhere, but others have also complained about the poor casting quality which is inexcusable for a $400 pan. The lack of the gasket really irked me. (The GM reusable gasket is nicely riveted in for perfect positioning.) When you compare the Holley pan to a GM pan the quality difference is stunning. It looks strong enough and should work well, but is way overpriced. Just my opinion of course.

LS Chevelle

What Hooker plates did you end up using?? 1.25" foward?? What pan did you end up using?? Do you think the Holley pan would've fit if you used taller Moroso mounts?? Hooker 2289 headers??
I am installing a LS in my 70 Chevelle. Just trying to come up with a game plan. That was 24 pages of awesome information!! I have a truck pan, looks like it is going to hang too low though. Really curious on which Hooker adapter plate to use.

NOS327---How did your install finish up?? What plates worked for you??

Thanks for all the info & pics!!

Dave

jmoli42572

I ordered three sets so I could try the motor in different spots. The ones I used were 1/2" forward from the stock location part number 12624. Stock location hooker plates put the motor against the firewall. Even with the 1/2" forward plates it is difficult to plug in the sensors at the back of the block. Hookers 1.25" forward plates are identical to the car shop/s&p/Ats plates where one bolt is shared between the motor mount and adapter plate but with hooker headers the number 7 tube is very close to the pitman arm.

I do have the hooker headers I welded on a normal 3 bolt collector flange I dont like the slip fit collectors they came with. I am not sure if the moroso mount would have helped. You can go on holleys website and get the dimensions for their pan and compare them to the measurements on autokrafts website. The autokraft pan gave me tons of room. You can do like I did and order three different hooker plates and return the ones you don't use. I did have to noth the frame using the low mount alternator but that would have been with all three plates. Sometimes it is just trial and error. If you put the motor too far back you could run into problems with driveshaft angle. The trans could hit the floorboard just behind the bell housing. The more forward the motor goes the more room to adjust for driveline angle. I was able to get the engine and trans at a 3.70 degree down angle.

I was able to save mony by modifying my gas tank for the in tank pump, building my crossmember and cold air intake. I also welded on a fitting to run the steam line from the heads to my aluminum radiator. I just measured and with the 1/2" forward plates the passenger cylinder head to firewall gap is 13/16" with no heater core. With hooker stock plates the gap would be 5/16". With stock location plates I could not get the engine trans back far enough to sit on the motor mounts they would have to be installed separately.

I hope this helps

LS Chevelle

Thank You!

tonyturbo42

iTrader: (1)

Sorry I meant to put El - Camino. I have the complete engine with the pan Its out of a C5 vette. I'm just going to bolt it up and see if this pan works. It looks like it should. Its really low profile.

K11PER

iTrader: (8)

I don't mind notching the cross member (I don't think I have a choice anyways) but is the h3 the best route for an s10 swap?

CameronVic

iTrader: (5)

I have an F-body pan and I bought an autozone pickup. I believe it's hitting the front part of the pan on the inside. Anyone else had this problem? Will I have to buy the chevy specific part number that is listed in the beginning of this thread?

hookemdevils22

iTrader: (12)

The CTSV pan (PN 12605814) has been superseded by PN 12631828 according to one GM parts website.

1961ba427

iTrader: (26)

I just verified that it correct.

Ls3Chevelle72

Even after reading all the stuff about the Holley pan I got it anyways, I personally think for 368.10 free shipping you can't beat it

mmarshall

iTrader: (2)

No but the baffling looks the same as the Autokraft on page 1 of this thread. The big difference is that the 10 qt champ has much larger oil capacity on the 2 front holding areas. The rears are the same as the stock champ or Autokraft. Aviad uses the same baffle setup: http://www.ffcars.com/forums/45-ford...ffr-champ.html

I ran a Champ on my 302 in my XP autocrosser and never had a problem. My Daytona pulls 1.5+ G's on race slicks and peaks around 1.8 G's.

All of Champs sumps and baffles are the same no matter the application.

NOS327

iTrader: (30)

I used the standard location Hooker plates and Energy suspension poly mounts. Had to put one washer between the mount and the adapter plate for the final smidge of tie rod clearance (absolutely gets full lock to lock and does not touch the pan now). Have great firewall clearance, clears k-member by a mile, tons of ground clearance. Tickled pink. No complaints about casting quality or machine finish. My bellhousing bolts lined up perfectly, the starter and bellhousing dust shield provisions were exactly right too. Only gripe was having to buy a gasket, but oh well.. $30 after how ever many thousand bucks doing this swap, boo hoo. I'll be putting the same pan and mounts in my blue chevelle as well!

Ernie W

iTrader: (1)

I quoting the answer to the last time I asked about this for my 1980 Firebird. My plans have changed some. I currently have a LQ4 and a 4L60e trans. Is the CTS-V pan still my best option? How would the GM muscle car pan kit 19212593 work for me, or would I have steering clearance issues in the front?

I also need to get some engine swap mounts, I'm thinking the car shop mounts 0"?

Thanks in advance,
Eric

mrvedit

Do NOT consider the GM muscle car pan kit. It might work with a Chevelle or a truck, but will sit much too low below the frame in your F-body. As I have pointed out, even the CTS-V pan sits a little below the frame, but has great capacity. The F-body pan is the safest. (Not sure, but it might require the 1"-back mounts too.)
The CTS-V will work with 0" or 1"-back mount and has lots of frame clearance and just enough steering clearance.

While I "push" the 0" setback mounts, not everyone agrees. I would recommend having both 0" and 1"-back mounts for your own experimentation. I recently saw mounts that had multiple hole patterns for 0" or 1" back.

If you haven't already, you should join the Nastyz28 forum as there is lots of LSx swapping going on there.

1970

I've read many build threads here on LS1Tech. Every time I read them, it brings up more questions than answers. The decision of the pan affects every aspect of the LS swap. Transmission locations, accessory drives (alt and a/c), header issues, and front suspension to name a few.

I'm ready to start. I purchased a 2004 LM7. I have a 70 Chevelle with the chassis/frame finished.

Here is my pan dilemma:

Can I use the GM Performance 19212593 - GM Performance Parts LS Muscle Car Oil Pan and the Trans Dapt 4592K - Trans Dapt Performance Products Engine Swap Motor Mount Kit together?

I have 1999 Camaro exhaust manifolds and radiator, but no accessory brackets.
I will use the TH350 for the next year (and to speed up this install).

What about: ground clearance. Raise engine needed?, Modify tranny tunnel?

mrvedit

Yes, the correct pan selection is very important. If it were a trivial decision, there wouldn't be 470+ posts in this thread.

Just concentrate on the Chevelle related posts. Look at #477 above from NOS327. Isn't that a Chevelle? While I have knocked the Holley pan, NOS327 is very happy with it because of its excellent fit. If you like what he or another Chevelle swapper has done, just duplicate it.

Looking at #477 and having measured the GM Muscle car and Holley pans, I think the GM pan would sit a bit below your crossmember and be vulnerable to damage.

BTW - My first car as a 18Y old in 1973 was a 1970 Chevelle SS454. Fun car for a teenager.